Talk:Nikola Karev/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pure Macedonian consciousness in 1902-1903 among activists of IMRO and SMAC

Such statement, based on a single unpublished study, contradicts the academic consensus, which sets out quite differently. According to most non-Macedonian experts in this field, there was no pure ethic Macedonian consciousness then. There was a beginnings of such, but not among members of the IMRO (Karev) and Supreme Macedonian-Adrianople Committee (Yankov). It was only among small circle of intellectuals, who resided outside Macedonia. Unpublished research that is cited here cannot be given more weight than a lot of published researches. Even Krste Misirkov, who died in 1926, and was proclaimed Macedonian №1 of the 20th century in North Macedonia, had mixed identity. Because Misirkov expressed conflicting views about the national identity of the Macedonians Slavs at different points in his life, according to the historian Ivo Banac, Misirkov viewed both himself and the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians, and espoused pan-Bulgarian patriotism in a larger Balkan context. 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. Per Loring Danforth the political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the 20th century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity then and continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians. They never seem to have doubted "the predominantly Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia". Per Dimitar Bechev prior to the Balkan Wars, Macedonist ideas were shared and disseminated by a handful of intellectuals and activists such as Krste Misirkov and Dimitrija Cupovski in contrast with the idea of establishing a multinational autonomous entity and, therefore, a supranational and inclusive Macedonian identity propagated by the IMRO. Jingiby (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Jingiby, the identity back then was a work in progress, not something that had concluded into how we understand it today. We ought to be careful with that or else it would easily tilde into POV territory. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing here is sliding into POV territory because it's all adequately sourced and appropriately presented. Jingiby just keeps re-hashing new talkpage sections to re-present his favorite sources that do not relate to the specific interview in question. I'm not sure why we've have like five sections on the same topic. Jingiby, both Ashmedai 119 and I have pointed out to you multiple times that the Marinov source you keep adding is not relevant to the text you are adding it to. It will need to be removed, again.

Your premise about there being ethnic Macedonian consciousness only being present among intellectuals outside Macedonia is, firstly, wrong because for example Georgi Pulevski expressed such a consciousness in the preceding decades to this time in question, and secondly, does not mean we cannot use sources that contradict your premise. We are not presenting Karev as a full ethnic Macedonian in the article based on this source. I'm not sure how you can say it is being given more weight than other sources. --Local hero ^talk 17:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any peer reviewed English language source in the article to confirm your claims on Karev's identity. Only a single fringe unpublished view. As per Pulevski, look at his article: ... his Macedonian self-identification was ambiguous. Pulevski viewed Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon, similar to Herzegovinians and Thracians.[19] He also sometimes described himself as a "Serbian patriot",[19] but he also viewed his ethnic designation as "Bulgarian from the village of Galičnik".[20][21][22] Pulevski's different identifications actually revealed the absence of a clear ethnic identity among part of the local Macedonian population at that time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't made any claims regarding Karev's identity. My claims and yours are beside the point. --Local hero ^talk 18:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119 and Local hero, I offer you a translation of the memoirs of Colonel Yankov which describe his meetings in Athens in December 1902. They categorically contradict the reports in the Greek press, used in the unpublished study and describing him as a man with a purely Macedonian identity: ... We boarded a train for Athens, where there were many Russian sailors. The day the Greek Prince Nicholas, married to a Russian princess, had come from Russia, and there were Russian and Greek flags in the streets. Athens is better than Sofia and Belgrade. Here I was greeted by our Kastorian peoples, they are divided into two parties and each other are spying and fiercely, as is typical of the Bulgarians, are persecuted and hated. I will leave another to describe their blades with the case, as well as the collection of money from a certain Kiselinchev, Chekalarova's partner and worthy like him. Here I was greeted extremely well by my countryman and distant relative Dimitri Kostandi and his son Costa. I went and visited a Greek officer, Lieutenant Colonel Geroyani, a Russian captain, now in Greek service, graduated from school in Russia and fluent in Russian, and his brother, Dr. Teohari Geroyani, who helped me examine the wounded and sick boys who they came after me to Athens. The Macedonian Greeks, originally from Macedonia, agreed to give Macedonia autonomy, but to embrace the Macedonians as the official Greek language and Prince Nicholas as governor-general. Here, in the Hellenistic Society, I met with its Greek Phanariot members from Macedonia and Epirus, who dreamed of conquering all of Macedonia and Constantinople. Their motives are that Alexander, who was Greek, reigned in Macedonia, and Constantine, who died for faith and nationality, reigned in Constantinople… When I told them that Constantinople and Macedonia could not take even Russia, which has 5 million bayonets, how will you take it with 50 thousand troops and armed with old rifles, they got angry and told me whether it would be Hellenic or Turkish Macedonia. I found myself in a fanatical Phanariotes assembly, in which there were several priests. Here, with these fanatics, the presence in such an assembly of Tsar Assen I, who was preparing an uprising in Constantinople for the liberation of Bulgaria, came to my mind. The Greeks have not improved in anything, although they are the reason for the arrival of the Turks in the Balkan Peninsula and they are the reason why the Turks are still holding on to my miserable homeland, which they want to assimilate for themselves, "either our Macedonia or to a Turks, we will not give it to the hated Slavs,” replied the venerable secretary of Hellenism, Mr. Michalopopoulos, a Greek Arnaut from Epirus. The faces of all the listeners became brutal. How could the Slavs take the old Greek land of Macedonia? "We don't give it," everyone shouted. "Good! I answered them, and the Serbs are Slavs, why aren't you angry with them, but only with the Bulgarians? ” "And we won't," they replied...At that time came the chairman of the Hellenic Society, Professor Casasis, a Greek from the islands, tall, with large eyes. Invite me to your committee. He was very restrained. I told him that we were on Mihajlovski's committee and working in Macedonia with all nations. He invited me for coffee at his house. I visited him. Here, too, restrained and serious, he said, "We can only help those who work in Macedonia for Greece. For us, autonomy is just as dangerous as reforms. We Greeks had a vital issue. It was Cretan, but he decided in our favor. We will wait, Macedonia will be Hellenic, and danger comes from you Bulgarians and Russians, but Europe will not give you anything .... At the door when I left his office, several correspondents of the Greek newspapers were waiting for me and wanted to know what I talked to professor, but I refused them. One allowed himself to offer me money, I cursed him and left. The Greek correspondents are everything in Greece, spies, secret police and everything. The press is so free that you can't move anywhere from newspapers. The police take all the information from them. On day 6, the police called me and offered to leave Greece because there was a lot of pressure from Turkey. I accepted and promised them that I would leave with the first steamer... It should be noted here that this person is extremely bad at the IMRO. Here is what he says in his memoirs: It remains for the future historians to say : Who had the right, those of us who hastened the 1902 uprising, or those who squander in Sofia the money earned by the Macedonian people in blood and battle and who lie to the Macedonian people that they work for the freedom of Macedonia, work with all the nations there etc., when they robe Turks there, kidnap American women and Bulgarians, kill Greeks, Grecomans, Turks and Serbomans, and even kill their Bulgarian brothers who demand an account for the money they had robbed. These liars from the IMRO who tell the Bulgarian people that they are an internal organization, and in fact they are here in Sofia a coterie of socialists - anarchists and from here they send bandits to robe money in Macedonia... The conclusion is clear: this man had Bulgarian national identity and regional Macedonian. He regarded the Greek correspondents spies, secret police etc. and even cursed them refusing any contact. Jingiby (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We have to use the quality secondary sources available to us, I don't agree with the proposals to add the quote without any explanations or context,leaving it essentially to the reader to make assumptions. The sources in question are related to the interview as they expand on the terminology and background of what is going on. --SeriousCherno (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is your proposal? Jingiby (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby: What I am proposing Jingiby is that we keep the quote in its original form in the primary source. And then underneath we expand on the context of the meaning of this quote using reliable secondary sources(I know you have added notes but not everyone reads them). We can make it into its own separate paragraph.--SeriousCherno (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Provide below your proposal, please. Jingiby (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby: For example " re-add but on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but did not answer whether he himself was a Greek. Also add "later in the interview Stamatiou describes Karev as a Bulgarinized Macedonian" Followed by 'During this period of time, the label 'Macedonian' was a regional qualitative....'[Sources: Ivan Katardzhiev, Loring Danforth etc]. Explanation of Stamatiou/20th century Greek nationalist view of the matter. " --SeriousCherno (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If you do not understand what I am proposing please tell --SeriousCherno (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It sounds good for me, but maybe this version is better: On Stanatiou ironic question whether he was a direct descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but refused to answer on the question whether he himself was a Greek. In the interview Stamatiou describes Karev as a Bulgarinized Macedonian. During this period of time, the label 'Macedonian' had various meanings, as today. Then putting the footnotes at the end. How about it? Jingiby (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest that the previous sentence be simplified. It seems quite crowded. I propose the following edition: Per Stamatiou, Karev presented himself as a "Bulgarophile", and revealed he was also a "Macedonian". Jingiby (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

SeriousCherno, Jingiby, this sounds like a good proposal to me too. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yh I think it is a good start, it can be improved later on if needed. --SeriousCherno (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The secondary source you just inserted does *not* discuss this interview. And you do not have consensus for the addition. --Local hero ^talk 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources are for the development of the Macedonian identity and there is consensus 3:1, while Ashmedai hasn't stated a position as he thought this was a replacement to the existing passage. --SeriousCherno (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@SeriousCherno: please familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS which is not "the result of a vote". You don't have consensus for this addition and your addition violates WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are attempting to apply a source about the general topic of Macedonian identity to a specific interview of Nikola Karev. You arrive at a conclusion that is stated by neither source. --Local hero ^talk 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You should stop with the WP: STONEWALLING, there has been a discussion above between multiple editors about adding this and not a simple vote as you keep implying. Furthermore, most of the passage is from the interview that you adamantly wanted to be included so I am not sure why you are removing it.

And yes everyone involved in this discussion knows that the secondary sources in this passage do not discuss the interview. They discuss the meaning of the term 'Macedonian', that is why they are included to give the reader understanding of the context and use. Read up the policies about secondary sources, they are used to add further context to primary sources. --SeriousCherno (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You are yet to state actual reasoning for your reverts, instead, you are misappropriating Wiki policies. You can't just add primary sources without explanation of secondary sources and then remove primary source material that you do not like for some reason. --SeriousCherno (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"Multiple editors"... hmm let's see, it seems to be just you re-inserting the sentences which had not achieved consensus. Silent Resident simply agreed with no rationale, hence I point out to you that consensus is not the result of a vote. Ashmedai 119 and I are opposed to this addition because it is completely irrelevant to this interview.

You giving the reader "context" is attempting to determine, as a Wikipedia editor, what Karev meant when he said "Macedonian." However, your source does not discuss his self-identification in this interview, as you even concede. Since you love to decide what "context" readers need to be given, would you be ok with me inserting, per Petko Slaveykov, that in the 1860s, individuals in Macedonia were referring to themselves as Macedonians, not Bulgarians, and as descendants of Alexander the Great? Or can we finally agree that we cannot assign "context" to a specific interview? --Local hero ^talk 22:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby was the one that proposed this addition so I am not sure why you forgot to count him. Also Silent Resident agreed, and you forgot about his post in this section that says "Yes, I agree, Jingiby, the identity back then was a work in progress, not something that had concluded into how we understand it today. We ought to be careful with that or else it would easily tilde into POV territory". I was involved in the discussion. And then if you read Ashmedai 119's reply he was thinking that we were replacing the passage so you obviously cannot count him as his opinion is not clear on this. So your statement that there is no consensus is false.

And no I don't agree with what you are proposing to add quotes from primary sources without any reliable secondary sources from historians. I will re-add the content directly from the interview, and then submit this for dispute resolution. --SeriousCherno (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby edited the page to revert an anonymous editor but neglected to restore your revision, in addition to not responding to your proposal to add this on his talkpage. That's why I didn't count him. Again, this is not a vote. I hope we can get some good input at dispute resolution. --Local hero ^talk 03:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok I am happy to leave it as it currently is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikola_Karev&oldid=1029639870 . Since only us to want to discuss this for some reason. --SeriousCherno (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look at these changes yet, will do soon. --Local hero ^talk 05:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I made one change to Jingiby's revision that I hope is agreeable. I do, however, disagree with the addition of the Marinov note because it does not describe Stamatiou nor Karev and thus is irrelevant to the text to which it is affixed, similarly to what we are discussing at the dispute resolution. --Local hero ^talk 19:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I made small change to Local hero's last revision that I think is with better wording. I suggest also to remove the note with Tassos Kostopoulos' opinion, who compares Stamatiou's distrust towards Karev's self-presentation with the profession of a "purely Macedonian consciousness" of the Bulgarian Army colonel Anastas Yankov, because it is unpublished study, that contradicts with both: as with Yankov's memoirs, as well as with the opinion of Marinov on the same issue. Jingiby (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to see in this discussion a series of (i trust, unintentional) misunderstandings and misinterpretations introduced by Jingiby and promptly espoused by other users, which I will address in my message.

I begin with the simplest point. To the extent that Jingiby's proposed formulation ("According to Stamatiou"/"Per Stamatiou" instead of "In the interview") in the existing sentence of the article presents Karev's words from his interview (his statements that he is a voulgarophron, a Macedonian and a direct descendant of Alexander the Great), it would be wrong to present them as if this were an opinion among many about what Karev said in the interview, as if there are other opinions about what Karev said and how he presented/described himself. Moreover, removing Karev's statement on being "a direct descendant" of Alexander the Great is not making the sentence "simplified", as Jingiby says, it is making it lacking and does not allow the readers to gain an understanding of Karev's position, as articulated in the interview. Also, Jingiby's proposal to include more sentences on the Greek journalist's approach to the matter of Karev's identity is giving undue emphasis on a point that is beyond the scope of the article, i.e. Greek national discourse about Slavic speakers of Macedonia of the time and their rhetoric to persuade them that they were "truly" Greeks. This, however, is an article about Karev himself, not about what the rhetorical strategies Greek interlocutor could employ to persuade him that, contrary to what he thought and said, he "was" Greek.

However, this section of the talk page was created by Jingiby in order to question whether it is a correct to describe Karev's position in the interview as a display of a "purely Macedonian consciousness." This phrase (not anything about a "pure" [sic] Macedonian consciousness, as if promoting ideas of ethnic/national purity) is found in Kostopoulos's paper, describing the position put forward by Anastas Yankov during his visit to Athens. In the paper's footnote 21, Kostopoulos refers to a number of pieces in the Greek press dealing with Yankov's passage through Athens. Indeed, an interview was published in a Greek newspaper after "a private interview, in which he [=Yankov] answered in Greek, of course with great difficulty, the questions we posed to him". Even though any explicit talk of Yankov's "identity" is absent from the Skrip interview, a similar piece on an interview with Yankov right after his arrival at Athens for the newpaper Empros states that "Last evening we saw the Bulgarian, or rather, as he says, only Macedonian, colonel, Mr. Anast. Yankov", while Yankov himself states in the interview that despite serving in the Bulgarian army "I am not a Bulgarian. I am a Macedonian" Yankov's refusal to answer questions of representatives of the Greek press, according to the passage quoted by Jingiby (copied from a website of unkown scholarly reliability), occured a couple of days later, after Yankov's meeting with Neoklis Kazazis ("At the door when I left his office, [...]"). Indeed, after the second of Yankov's visits to Kazazis, in two consecutive days, the newspaper covering it contains no statement of Yankov's but also adds that "Mr. Kazazis, whom we say after Yankov's departure, told us that he can not, at least for the present time being, to announce what was told between himself and Mr. Yankov" This means that, even if we discount the natural scepticism towards basing a claim on a website of unknown scholarly reliability reproducing a primary source, there is no direct contradiction between the two as far as the events that took place in Athens are concnerned.

A further note should be made about a relevant misunderstanding. Jingiby writes as if someone is claiming that Yankov had formed and sincerely held this idea of him not being a Bulgarian, but only/exclusively/purely a Macedonian, that he presented in the Greek press. However, Kostopoulos's paper talks of Yankov's "profession of a purely Macedonian identity". To "profess" means "To make a claim (to be something); to lay claim to (a given quality, feeling etc.), often with connotations of insincerity". That Yankov was not being sincere in these statements rejecting his Bulgarian identity, can be deduced (or not) by placing it in the general context of other sources, primary and secondary. I do not wish to question that, as the choice of the word "profession" with regards to Yankov suggests in the paper, this was not sincerely his position. However, whether the same holds for a different person, Nikola Karev, is a different matter.

In this regard, Jingiby has re added to the article a passage from an article by Tchvadar Marinov] (n.b. a Bulgarian) that makes no reference to Karev, but is (mis)interpreted by Jingiby in order to present it as relevant to Karev. However, another article by the same author, also added to the article on Karev by Jingiby, does refer to Karev, describing him as "a local activist of the Internal organization with a socialist orientation" who led the "Krushevo republic", that "was supposed to have incarnated the principle of supra-national equality". In the previous section of his article, Marinov discusses at some length "the Macedonian socialists led by Vasil Glavinov". Karev was indeed one of these, being a meber of a organization led by Glavinov and now presented in an article on the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group recently created by Jingiby. Per Marinov "the socialists’ emphasis on a separate political agenda of “Macedonian people” was based on class-ideological aspects which bestowed it with “anational” aspects." Marinov quotes the newspaper of Karev's group that "the Macedonian” should by no means be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb or Greek as “he” is, on the first place, a political “slave”", while he informs us that "In some articles of the newspaper (as well as in party documents of the Macedonian socialist group) the term “Macedonian people” [makedonski narod] is contrasted with the “Bulgarian people” [bâlgarski narod]", which, per Marinov "actually asserts the contrast between these two “national” categories". Marinov's conclusions on this group state that "the “a-national” “nihilistic” aspect [of socialists/anarchists] could acquire, in some moments, a distinct national or ethnic meaning" leading to an "an ethnicization of Macedonian identity". This "ethnicization of Macedonian identity" among Slav Macedonian socialists, one of which was Karev, was not tantamount to a steady expression of Macedonian nationalism, but the "ethnicization of Macedonian ideology in general [...] firmly associated with a political agenda opposing in the first place the nation-states’ aspirations, [that] did not claim so much a distinct “core” culture." The position advocated by Karev in the interview with Stamatiou (a) presenting himself not as a Bulgarian, but as "pro-Bulgarian (b) and, more importantly, a Macedonian (c) accompanying this talk of Macedonian-ness with an ethnic component (that is, the putative descent of ancient Macedonians) and (d) stating plans that diverge from those of the Bulgarian nation-state make it fall squarely within the position described by Marinov with regards to the socialists led by Glavinov, among which Karev was one. This means that, if Marinov's scholarly articles are to be used in the notes, they should not be misconstrued to bring them into false contradiction to other scholarly sources, but used to explain Karev's position in the Akropolis in the context of the "ethnicization of Macedonian identity" by Slav Macedonian socialists, which is analytically presented in Marinov's piece. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, The author of the article to which I gave a link and where some of Colonel Yankov's memoirs were published is Tsocho Bilyarski. He is a professional historian and former director of the National State Archives of Bulgaria. I gave a link to this article because the text there can be read freely. Otherwise, in the article about Karev I quoted a book in which the same historian is one of the editors and it is a reliable source but without free access: Yankov, Anastas. 'My Memoirs on the Macedonian-Edirne Question.' In: From Sofia to Kastoria. Memoirs (compiled by Iva Burilkova, Tsocho Bilyarski). ISBN 954-99-83-23-4. Sofia: IK Sineva, 2003, p. 168-173. As for the text of the memoirs, they are quite long and my conclusion reflects them exactly. As to the conclusion of Marinov about the identity of the then Macedonian socialists it is as follows: "It would nevertheless be far-fetched to see in the Macedonian socialism an expression of national ideology... It is difficult to place the local socialist articulation of the national and social question of the late 19th and early 20th centuries entirely under the categories of today's Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism. If Bulgarian historians today condemn the "national-nihilistic" positions of that group, their Macedonian colleagues seem frustrated by the fact that it was not "conscious" enough of Macedonians' distinct ethnic character." in Entangled Histories of the Balkans – Volume Two, Roumen Daskalov, Diana Mishkova, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 9004261915, p. 503. Another paradox per Marinov is that the members of the Macedonian leftist organization, who were militants natives from Bulgaria constructed a program of a “Macedonian state”, which does not presume the idea of a distinct Macedonian national entity, and reveals the fact that even people of “non-Macedonian descent” espoused a strong Macedonian identity and shows a considerable degree of development of a distinct political loyalty, emancipated from the Pan-Bulgarian national project. Jingiby (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, I think you have misunderstood, the passage that Jingiby proposed is in addition to the current text that already says that Karev saw himself as a descendant of Alexander the Great. --SeriousCherno (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Ashmedai 119, we should stay away from POV territory, for example to address some of your points,

(a) I guess if we assume that the Stamatiou interview in question has not been altered for the Greek audience and propaganda purposes. Which althought is not a major point that we should discuss it is important to keep in mind.

(b) As Jingiby pointed much furter above 'voulgarofron' was known to have the meaning as "Bulgarian in heart and mind" (something similar from what I remember reading from this discussion). Furthermore on the Bulgarophiles pages it says "is a term used for Slavic people from the regions of Macedonia and Pomoravlje[3][4][5] who regard themselves as ethnic Bulgarians".

The term is also interesting as during this period of time, there was the Greek propagated idea that the people of the region of Macedonia were all actually ethnic Greeks with some speaking Slavic languages (Bulgarinized/Slavized Macedonians).

(c) It is also interesting as Karev says that Alexander the Great is Greek yet describes himself as a bulgarophile while also having an ethnic/regional Macedonian identity depending on the interpretation. During this period, the left-wing of the VMRO believed in a supranational state of Macedonia inspired by the French ideals of liberalism. They wished that this state will be home to all 'Macedonians' (people of the region) such as Serbs, Greeks, Vlach, Turks, and Bulgarians etc.

Therefore the fact that Karev sees himself as Alexander's descendant is not necessary a hard point that this has to do with an ethnic identity. It can also be interpreted as a regional Macedonian identity such as that of Switzerland that the VMRO leftists at the time were inspired by, they even used the term 'Switzerland of the Balkans' to describe the state of Macedonia that they wanted to create. As you know the Swiss nationality is not generally an ethnic one, it is home to Germans, French, Italians, and Romansh.

(d) Again, the fact that Karev disagreed with the official policy of the Bulgarian government does not mean that he did not identify as a Bulgarian. This ties back to my point (c) that there were many Bulgarian revolutionaries that fought for the creation of a Macedonian republic, you can read more at Macedonia for the Macedonians

Therefore we need to be careful and try to avoid summarizing this topic from a few sentences of a primary source. --SeriousCherno (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to the spirit of what SeriousCherno writes, I do not think that it is within the purview of the encyclopedia's editors to opine on what Karev was or "identified as", but only to examine how to shape the article's text so as to best reflect what reliable sources relay about the matter. I mean to say that I understand that the "ethnic" or national "identity" of Karev (and other IMRO figures) is a point of contention in an ongoing Bulgaro-Macedonian historiographical dispute, and it is natural for editors from both nations to have formed rather solid views on historical matters, but this does not eliminate the obligation to conform with WP policies.

Having said that, with regards to the recent re-addition by Jingiby of the text referring to Yankov's memoirs, thanks are due to Jingiby for clarifying the source basing the claim. I set aside my personal skepticism about the professional integrity of a historian who has served as "State Security agent" (see here), I suppose under the Communist regime. The crux of the matter is this: the passage has been added by Jingiby on account of a contradiction he locates between Kostopoulos's paper, that provides references to Yankov's interviews in Greek newspapers, and the claim that Yankov "refused any contacts with Greek reporters". However, the passage from the memoirs quoted above in the discussion by Jingiby only refers to a single specific incident when Yaknov chose not to speak to Greek journalists, after a meeting with Neoklis Kazazis ("At the door when I left his office, several correspondents of the Greek newspapers were waiting for me and wanted to know what I talked to professor, but I refused them. One allowed himself to offer me money, I cursed him and left."). This quote does not contain a general claim about Yankov's days in Athens, but only about his actions in a precise moment in time, after his departure from Kazazis's office. This is is the reason why, as I had stated in my previous message, I had removed this reference from the note, as no contradiction can be detected between this particular claim and his interviews the previous days. Now, could Jingiby please provide here, in accordance with WP:NONENG, the exact original passage of the memoirs from pages 168-173 that states that Yankov generally avoided contact with Greek journalists during his stay in Athens, that supports the claim he added to the article? Thanks in advance.

A similar problem exists with Jingiby's edit adding the sentence that "Chavdar Marinov espouses aopinion [sic] different from that of Kostopoulos". Marinov and Kostopoulos in the passages from their respective texts refer to distinct issues. Kostopoulos speaks of Yaknov's "profession of a purely Macedonian consciousness" in the Greek press, when he was at Athens, while Marinov deals with the ideological content of the manifesto Yankov issued during the Gorna Dzhumaya revolt. Hence, this constitutes no contradiction, just an adoption of different "identity" positions in different situations (something that Marinov's text naturally affords, taking into account what he calls the "situational" character of the concept of identity). To present the two authors as disagreeing between themselves, when they are referring to different actions and incidents in time constitutes an improper WP:SYNTHESIS that contradicts Wikipedia's policies against original research. For this, if the text is nor removed, at a minimun Jingiby's false editorial comment on a supposed "contradiction" between Kostopoulos and Marinov should be erased from the encyclopedia.

Finally, I feel the need to state, after reading the final remarks of Jingiby's last message that, though it is no harm to cite relevant passage from secondary source, when arguing that Karev was not or, in any case, should not be presented in this article as an exponent of a full-blown Macedonian nationalism, he is preaching to the choir, as neither I nor anyone else of those participating in this discussion, as far as I can tell, seems to promote such a view. However, I should also note that the passage Jingiby quotes from Marinov, and other secondary sources on his interview, equally distance Karev from of what Jingiby and Serious Cherno seem to support, that his ideology was merely a regional variation of Bulgarian nationalism. As a closing note, I would propose, in accordance with SeriousCherno's admonition on relying on secondary sources, to add a note *summarizing* the key points of Marinov's description of what he portrays as the "anational" stance typical of Glavinov's socialists, and its variations, or perhaps find a way to add this short summary to the text. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to answer re SeriousCherno's claim that "Jingiby has pointed out [that] voulgarofron was known to have the meaning as "Bulgarian in heart and mind". I am afraid that this is an interpretation that is totally wrong, as natural, given that Jingiby (please someone correct me if I am wrong) does not speak any form of Greek (ancient, medieval or modern). Jingiby had based his interpretaion of the term on an entry from Wiktionary that presented the meaning of the ancient Greek word. In modern Greek, however, composite words with -φρων as a second composite do not denote someone that is "X in heart and mind", as you claim, but present a person's convictions ("φρονήματα"), in particular his political convictions. Thus, one can be a vasilophron (a supporter of kingship, royalist), an ethnikofron (a supporter of the nation, nationalist) and so on. Were X-fron to mean "an X in heart and mind", then the early Greek kingdom, divided as it were in "agglophrones" (supporters of England, members of the English Party), "gallophrones" (supporters of France/the French Party) or "rossophrones" (supporters of Russia/ members of the Russian Party) (see, e.g., ) would be a nation consisting of three factions considering themselves to be English, French or Russian -- which, of course, is not the case. Besides, this claim on the meaning of voulgarofron as "a Bulgarian in heart and mind" is a claim made with absolutely no basis on secondary literature, whereas all translations of the term in reliable secondary sources cited above refer to supporters of Bulgaria (see nn. 7, 8, 9). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, with all due respect I wasn't at any point in this discussion trying to bring my POV to the discussion or article. I was just adding a bit more context to your attempt above to analyze Karev's ethnicity through a few sentences in an interview. I tried to make this clear by stating "Therefore we need to be careful and try to avoid summarizing this topic from a few sentences of a primary source." I have stated the same thing over and over again in this discussion that we need to use reliable secondary sources rather than our POV. So please don't try to distort my point with false accusations.

But thank you for clearing up the voulgarofron point. --SeriousCherno (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also Ashmedai 119, you said "However, I should also note that the passage Jingiby quotes from Marinov, and other secondary sources on his interview, equally distance Karev from of what Jingiby and Serious Cherno seem to support, that his ideology was merely a regional variation of Bulgarian nationalism".

This is another slight inaccuracy, for example Jingiby has quoted " "It would nevertheless be far-fetched to see in the Macedonian socialism an expression of national ideology... It is difficult to place the local socialist articulation of the national and social question of the late 19th and early 20th centuries entirely under the categories of today's Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalism. If Bulgarian historians today condemn the "national-nihilistic" positions of that group, their Macedonian colleagues seem frustrated by the fact that it was not "conscious" enough of Macedonians' distinct ethnic character." And I have pointed out the aim of some Bulgarian revolutionaries for a socialist Macedonian republic, so it is a bit inaccurate to say that I (can't talk about Jingiby) support the thesis that Macedonian was just a regional identity and not a national one.

This topic is also kind of raised right underneath "When asked what the revolutionaries wanted for Macedonia, Karev explained their plans to create a republic in the model of Switzerland, providing autonomy and democracy for its different "races",[17] that Bulgaria's expectations to annex the region were miscalculated[18] and that they would accept anyone's help in order to attain their goal.[15]" But if you want to add the note then add it (if anyone disagrees they can revert it) or propose it for discussion.

It is also good to point out that nationality and ethnicity is not exactly the same thing, for example you can be German and Swiss German. --SeriousCherno (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, SeriousCherno. I could formulate here, in the talk page, a proposal for a short note on the key points of the outlook of Glavinov's group per Marinov's article, though I am afraid the article is becoming overload with lengthy notes on matters not directly related to its subject matter. However, I think there is another matter that ought to be answered first and that is why I am restating the request I made in my previous comment: could Jingiby please provide here, in accordance with WP:NONENG, the exact original passage of the memoirs from pages 168-173 that states that Yankov generally avoided contact with Greek journalists during his stay in Athens, that supports the claim he added to the article? Thanks in advance. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The passage is as follows: На вратата ме чакаха няколко кореспонденти на гръцки вестници и искаха да узнаят какво съм говорил с професора, но аз им отказах. Един си позволи да ми предлага пари, аз го изругах и заминах. Гръцките кореспонденти са всичко в Гърция: шпиони, тайна полиция и всичко. Печатът е толкова свободен, щото не можеш от вестници никъде да мръднеш. Полицията, всички сведения зема от тях. And its rough translation: Several Greek newspapers' correspondents were waiting for me at the door and wanted to know what I have said to the professor, but I refused. One allowed himself to offer me money, I cursed him and left. The Greek correspondents are everything in Greece: spies, secret police and everything. The press is so free that you can't move anywhere from newspapers. The police takes all the information from them.Jingiby (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Jingiby. I see that you this is the same passage that you had already quoted before, highlighted with bold letters. As I said above, no contradiction exists between this passage --which presents Yankov's refusal to talk to members of the Greek press at a specific point in time, after his meeting with Kazazis-- and his interviews with Greek journalists, published a couple of days earlier. In other words, this passage from Yankov's memoirs does not support the claim made in the text you re-added to the article's note and it should be removed. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119 I do not agree with you, because in the memoirs of Yankov there is no sign of another meeting with reporters in Greece. Jingiby (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Here for example is the opinion of Germanos Karavangelis on Yankov, as it is written in his memoirs translated in Bulgarian on p. 344: The Bulgarian committee was divided into two parts. The Centralists, led by Sarafov, who aimed at the unification of Macedonia with Bulgaria, and the Supremachist led by Mihaylovski and Colonel Yankov from Zagorichane, who demanded Macedonia's autonomy as a first step towards its unification (with Bulgaria), as it happened with Eastern Rumelia. Jingiby (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References