Talk:Dame Gruev/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Ok, but have on mind that the line "/" means "different". Don't think, for e.g. "Bulgarian Macedonian" or smt. like that. Bomac 14:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

First of all, it is obvious that you and your friend Božinov revert out of habit, without checking what even you are reverting. The references are all reliable, except let say the first one, and they should stay there. Second, in all three he is regarded as Macedonian and angelfire does not serve as reference, but the memories where Gruev says 'we the Macedonians...', read a bit and then revert. It is very neutral to state in the article he is Bulgarian and Macedonian, but stating at the end about the Macedonian position is not neutral at all. At the end, do not push the unpopular name of the organization, we know how it is known. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:36, 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)

As it can be seen, Gruev's memories is the primary source since he wrote it. All the rest, Bulgarian and Macedonian are secondary and indirectly state Gruev's ethnicity. What confuses you?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, hold your horses now. First, I will re-insert the image. Second I have a question - why are you, MacedonianBoy, removing the name BMARC from the article when Poulton specifically states that this is how the organisation was initially named and was renamed only later (just like the version you dislike states). --Laveol ^T 09:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is better known under IMRO. Why my references are deleted? Both Macedonian and Bulgarian are not linked directly to Gruev, but he is mentioned among the text. This is really silly.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You ask the wrong person. I am not deleting references, but simply returned the pic from Skopje and tweaked sentences so that they sound precise. From the sources I see in your last edit, Western and Bulgarian scholars consider Gruev to be Bulgarian, while Ivo Banac is of the view he was Macedonian (since it is pretty clear scholars in the Republic of Macedonia share the view, I switched it to Yugoslavia. If there are other sources, we can re-work it again.--Laveol ^T 09:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it was not addressed to you. Yes there are three more, that Bozhinov and Stojanov do not like. I will re-add them.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only open the New York article here. There are no actual scholars cited in them, are there? At the same time, I am not entirely sure at the purpose of the New York Times ref. He says they differentiated themselves from Bulgarians and Macedonians in Bulgaria. What exactly does this have prove? --Laveol ^T 09:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Differentiation from Bulgarians in ethnic sense, and differentiation from the Macedonians in Bulgaria from organizational point of view. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by this: Sorry, I can only open the New York article here? Can't you open the other links? --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, how do you gather this from the source? It is not what it says. I cannot open blogs or other personal websites where I am. --Laveol ^T 09:49, 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)

Macedonian is in ethnic sense if you did not know.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Again - how do you gather this from the text? Banac explicitly says the opposite, as far as I can see. --Laveol ^T 10:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Laveol, Jingiby: Was Dame Gruev a Bulgarian citizen too? @MacedonianBoy: Are any non-Yugoslav claiming that he was an ethnic Macedonian? Did he ever describe himself as an ethnic Macedonian?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He did both, somewhere he declared himself as Bulgarian, somewhere as Macedonian. That's why the sentence "He is regarded both as Macedonian and Bulgarian" is neutral one.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And how do you explain Gruev's statement that he was Macedonian? It can be read in the memories. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And did he by any chance make a special distinction between himself and Bulgarians? --Laveol ^T 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Kato duh, can you please stop adding irrelevant text? Those who are interested in BG point of view about the Macedonians will see the article Macedonians and stop with your crap. That is not connected with the article at all. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy could you bring forward some quotes? @Laveol was he a Bulgarian citizen?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know. I only work with sources provided here. He did, however, study in the Sofia University, which kinda suggests he most probbaly had Bulgarian citizenship alongside the Ottoman one. --Laveol ^T 10:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a quote in the ref.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:20, 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)

Is this work of Bulgarian communist historiography that cites directly involved person?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Overcitation

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)

Ivo Banac

The text:

• Damyan Yovanov Gruev or Damjan Jovanov Gruev, often known by his short name Dame Gruev,[1] (January 19, 1871, Smilevo, Ottoman Empire – December 10, 1906, Petlec peak near Maleshevo, Ottoman Empire) was Bulgarian revolutionary and insurgent leader in Ottoman Macedonia and Thrace.

Quote from work of Ivo Banac:

• "Goce Delchev and the other leaders of the BMARC 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 of this land. Autonomy, then, was the best prophylactic against partition – a prophylactic that would preserve the Bulgarian character of Macedonia's Christian Slavic population despite the separation from Bulgaria proper"

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)