Talk:Gotse Delchev/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This article is a parody

Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right. Examples:

• "However, his autonomist ideas of a separate Macedonian (and Adrianopole) political entity, have stimulated the subsequent development of Macedonian nationalism in the minds of some" - in the minds of some, what does that mean?
• "Nevertheless, some researchers doubt, that behind the IMRO idea of autonomy was hidden a reserve plan for eventual incorporation into Bulgaria,[45][46][47] even for Delchev himself" - nice grammar
• "In 1934 the Comintern gave its support to the idea that the Macedonian Slavs constituted a separate nation" - ??????
• "The past was systematically falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians" - very encyclopedic and totally unbiased as well.

I am adding a POV banner to it. All the users who will come up with their "stop vandalizing the neutral version of the article" are probably the "experts" who wrote the aforementioned sentences. DD1997DD (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

POV by 200 sources is an absurd. Jingiby (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your cherry-picking of sources is absurd. DD1997DD (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

lol Balkaners fighting over the nationality of a dead person again. Delchev was not an ethnic Mac. --James Richards (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not the point of this issue. I suggest giving constructive contributions to the topic rather than forum level commentary. Kromid (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@ShockD: Explanation of all the banners I added:

• Neutrality: "Despite such controversial[30][31] Macedonian historical interpretations,[32][33] Delchev had Bulgarian national identity[34][35] and viewed his compatriots as Bulgarians" - this is a very non-neutral statement that is backed by sources that do not primarily discuss Delchev but sources that User:Jingiby uses throughout all articles to invalidate the existence of a Macedonian nationality. Just continue reading the article and you will find throughout numerous instances of how the Macedonian interpretation is represented as wrong and the Bulgarian one as infallible with sources that do not primarily discuss Delchev.
• More biographical information needed on the subject: Most definitely. Just take a look at the During the Cold War section to see an entire section of information that is about political topics and not about Delchev's life.
• This article is written like a personal reflection: Examples (critical/vague/unencyclopedic parts written in bold and Italicized, mind you that this is only from the lede):
  • "Macedonian historians insist that the historical myth of Delechev there is so significant, that it is more important than all the historical artifacts, researches [sic] and documents." - this is also a misrepresentation of what the article says. The article is an interview with 1 professor and it never says that Macedonian historians espouse such a view.
  • "Some modern Macedonian leading historians and politicians have recognized this begrudgingly[37][38] or even openly acknowledged this fact.[39]" - Again, not supported by the sources.
  • "However, his autonomist ideas of a separate Macedonian (and Adrianopole) political entity, have stimulated the subsequent development of Macedonian nationalism in the minds of some".
  • "The Bulgarian ethnic self-identification of Delchev has been recognized as [sic] from leading international researchers of the Macedonian Question,[177] as well as [sic] from part of the Macedonian historical scholarship and political elite, although reluctantly'".
• Grammar, style cohesion, tone or spelling: yes, I highlighted some grammar mistakes by using sic above, again those are just from the lede, there are numerous others throughout the body (examples given only from the early life section):
  • "He also read widely in the town's chitalishte, where he was impressed with revolutionary books, and especially Delchev was imbued with thoughts of the liberation of Bulgaria"
  • "Graduation from a High school was faced with few career prospects and Delchev decided to follow the path of his former school-mate Boris Sarafov, entering the military school in Sofia in 1891."
  • "Through Glavinov and his comrades, he came into contact with a different people, who offered a new forms of social struggle"
  • "In September 1894, only a month before graduation, he was expelled because his political activity as a member of an illegal socialist circle"
• Lead section may be too long: Most definitely. Plus it fails at summarizing the article, it's just biased writing.
• Overlong quotations given in references: take a look at ref 48.
• Sources that contain text that is not in English (i.e. not even translated, but just copy-pasted): 29, 39, 59, 64, 71, 80, 82, 87 etc.

Mind you that these observations are just made from a quick glance. One source is from an unreliable website (e.g. 87), the number of sources published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is excessive and not a single Macedonian source is cited. The list goes on and on. This brings us to the conclusion that not only is this article brimming with the issues I mentioned, but there are numerous others not so obvious ones. Therefore, we can safely say that this is a parody and a pathetic one at that. DD1997DD (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these issues @DD1997DD:. No question that the tags you've added are warranted. --Local hero ^talk 22:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Well explained DD1997DD. I support the tags you have added. The issue with so many of these articles is that things which are basically subjective are being treated in such a black and white manner. Kromid (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but wasn't there letters by Delchev himself where he calls himself and his fellow revolutionaries Bulgarian/s? --James Richards (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right, just as there are quotes where he differentiates Macedonians from neighboring peoples including Bulgarians. In any case, there are a whole host of issues pointed out here, so it'd be great if instead of ganging up to remove the tags, editors helped address the concerns. --Local hero ^talk 13:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

What are those quotes that you are talking about, and where are they from? --James Richards (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is insane canvassing going on with this article right now, users who have not made edits in years appeared all of a sudden to revert the banners whose addition I painstakingly elaborated above. DD1997DD (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Lads, can Kromid, Local hero, DD1997DD or anyone else please provide examples of quotes and sources from where Gotse Delchev where he says he is not a Bulgarian or where he differentiates Mac from Bulg. --James Richards (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Lad, that is not the point of the discussion. Please either engage with the comments I gave above or stop distracting other people who are willing to do so. DD1997DD (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So let me get this straight:

• You admit that you reviewed only the lead yet you put maintenance templates all over the place.
• You describe the article as personal reflection yet it has been edited by hundreds of editors (981 to be precise).
• You disapprove of long and elaborate citations of sources. It beats me how this is an issue. My wild guess is that they have been added by necessity over the years.
• You reject sources in languages other than English as irrelevant. At this point I'll have to disappoint you that we have a set of common site-wide standards. You may or may not follow them but you can't make up your own.

To me, calling the work of hundreds of editors a "parody" while doing nothing but complain and put labels over it is disruptive behavior.

Lastly, I'm intrigued by your statement about the "users who have no made edits in years". Who are you referring to and what's your point? You do realize that people can watch articles without actively contributing to them right? I see that you're a new user so now you know. And please cool down, this is the second time I'm asking you. The arrogant attitude towards other participants in the discussion is uncalled for. --ShockD (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@ShockD::

• Not at all. Since there are text and time constraint,s I decided to stick to the lede only and point the obvious problems that exist there. With "not thoroughly reviewing the article" I meant that I haven't had the time to go through sources one by one to see whether what is claimed in this article's text is supported by the source provided. If you want, I can continue analyzing the rest of the body but I am afraid it is no different from the lede.
• The number of editors of an article says nothing about whether it is written as a personal reflection or not. I mentioned all the instances of personal reflections above. Plus, out of those 900, there have been only a handful of major contributors.
• I disapprove of including citations that are long, confusing and not primarily related to the topic. That is the case with the source I pointed above.
• Nowhere did I dismiss sources in English as irrelevant. I just pointed out that they haven't even been translated i.e. they are written completely in Cyrillic and are completely incomprehensible for the average English-speaking user. So author names, journal names, publishers, titles, everything in Bulgarian Cyrillic.

My statement means that they (so User: Ted Masters, PowerBUL, Jelizover) have probably been recruited by another user since they have given no input whatsoever, but just reverted other users' edits without even discussing. This is a blatant case of canvassing. They might also be puppet accounts of other users who try to avoid violating the three revert rule.

And lastly, nowhere was my attitude arrogant, I am just perplexed that I have to point out the brazen bias in this article with such long comments. And I am completely cooled down, don't worry. DD1997DD (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To me, it looks like you're picking arbitrary aspects of the article that you create the perception of being "wrong" and then discredit the whole article citing those made up "issues". A classic example of creating the impression that you care about improving the article but in reality you try to push a certain agenda by crippling the current state of the article. The accusations of sock-puppetry contradict your assurances that you've calmed down. I'm sure that if you ping those people they'll have to something to say. Indeed, it would be useful if more people join the conversation. So far I see neither solid arguments for these maintenance templates nor improvement suggestions of any sort. --ShockD (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

They are not arbitrary aspects. I do care that this article presents an unbiased biography of Delchev without accusing one or the other view and by concisely listing his most important activities of his life. That is far from being the case at the moment and anyone with a basic understanding of neutrality can see that. DD1997DD (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@DD1997DD

"Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right." - DD1997DD

This is the first sentence of your talk ticket, so providing reliable evidence that Delchev did not identify as Bulgarian is key. Can you provide these quotes or not? Because multiple quotes by Delchev exist that show the opposite. --James Richards (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are not able to provide such reliable sources then please just say so we can address the other points of concern that are raised. --James Richards (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are completely off-topic. That was never a point of discussion, please read my comments above and please stick to the discussion relevant at the moment. DD1997DD (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Hey, this article is extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality by pushing a view that Macedonian historiography is false and Bulgarian hiistoriography is right."

Again I have highlighted what you have said above, you can't just throw around adjectives and expect not to have to back them up with reliable evidence. And no,I am not off topic buddy, one of your points is you questioning the neutrality of this article, since his ethncity is the main point of contention please provide some evidence of Delchev not self-identifying Bulgarian. --James Richards (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, nowhere did I say that the bias of the article lies in whether his ethnicity is listed as Bulgarian or Macedonian. Example of how this article repeatedly claims Macedonian historiography is false and made up: " Despite such controversial[30][31] Macedonian historical interpretations; Opposite to the Macedonian claims, at that time even some Bulgarian IMRO revolutionaries, natives from Bulgaria, espoused to some extent Macedonian identity, The past was systematically falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians. In case you are still unable to see it, the parts of the sentences written in bold support a certain point-of-view and try to convince the reader that Macedonian historiography is false. Nowhere did I say that his ethnicity is the main point of contention. The main point of contention is how this article is presented and how much weight is given to belittle certain views. DD1997DD (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

But if you can't provide any reliable evidence that Delchev wasn't Bulgarian doesn't that mean that Macedonian historiography is 'false and made up'? Since there is reliable evidence of Delchev self-identifying as Bulgarian. "Nowhere did I say that his ethnicity is the main point of contention. The main point of contention is how this article is presented and how much weight is given to belittle certain views." And please stop with the games, the whole point of contention is his nationality, Mac historiography sees him as Mac and Bulg as Bulg.

It's why you should provide evidence to support your views, because reality and POV are not the same thing. If there is evidence that Delchev self-identified as Bulgarian and no evidence that he self-identified as ethnic Macedonian then the only conclusion in this case is that Macedonian historiography is wrong. --James Richards (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Most definitely not. There is no single view in history and there is no single way of interpreting it, regardless of which country you look at. Presenting a topic using your approach of viewing one historiography as made up and another one as right is the definition of bias. Dumbing it down to "X is right, Y is wrong" is "extremely biased, unencyclopedic and tries to distort reality". DD1997DD (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Historical interpretation is about using primary, secondary evidence and critical thinking not just imagining things. I have asked multiple times for reliable evidence to support the Macedonian historiography and no one wants to/can provide it.--James Richards (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

DD1997DD, I sorted out the grammar issues you raised, so is it okay to remove the grammar tag, if any are noticed in the future just correct them no need for a tag. --James Richards (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

My current view is this: If there is only self-published sources by Delchev of him calling himself and fellow partners around him Bulgarians than the Macedonian historiography which seems him as an ethnic Macedonian is wrong. Please if you can provide any contrary reliable sources about this, no need philosophy or crying discrimination. --James Richards (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced of the sincerity of some editors. Rather, they are here to impose some fringe views on their local historiography, which does not enjoy a good reputation in Europe. Attempts to impose such poorly supported views here by giving them undue weight do not correspond to the neutral tone of the encyclopedia. Please, instead of edit-warring, it is better to justify the tags to the article. Nothing is self-evident and I really don't know what is meant with most of them. Jingiby (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Again the issue is not necessary what Delchev identified as, but the nature of the article itself. Much of what is presented here is better of somewhere like Macedonian historiography. Kromid (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide realiable evidence that this wiki page is trying to "distort reality"? as stated by D, and agreed by Kromid and Local_hero. --James Richards (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Again the issue is not necessary what Delchev identified as, but the nature of the article itself. Much of what is presented here is better of somewhere like Macedonian historiography. -Kromid". To me this is starting look like a lazy attempt to cleanse any criticism about Macedonian historiography on the page, I have asked multiple times for reliable evidence to be provided that will show that there are not mistakes in the Macedonian historiography and none of the editors accusing this page of 'distorting reality' or 'The issue with so many of these articles is that things which are basically subjective are being treated in such a black and white manner.' are just complaining but not providing any realiable evidence of what is being distorted or is subjective.

• No reliable vidence provided that Gotse Delchev self-identified as ethnic Mac = Mistake in Macedonian historiography
• No reliable evidence provided that Gotse Delchev fought for a Macedonia for ethnic Macedonians rather than for an autonomous region of all people in the region of Macedonia = Mistake in Macedonian historiography
• Multiple other major holes in Macedonian historiography such as claiming that Alexander the Great, Tsar Samuil and Aristotle are ethnic Macedonians
• Censorship or removal of the word Bulgarian in Macedonian historiography such as in Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki

and Macedonian Blood Wedding.

• Theory in Macedonian historiography that there was a continuity of ethnic Macedonians for thousands of years which is simply not historically accurate.
• Political influence in Macedonian historiography, figures such as Delchev himself, Karev, Gruev were only rehabilitated in Macedonian historiography after 1945 with figures such as Todor Aleksandrov and Ivan Mihajlov only being rehabilitated recently in Macedonian historiography since Macedonian independence.

This isn't North Korea, if there is reason and evidence for the Macedonian historiography to be criticized as wrong or innacurate or explaining the evolution of this historiography then there is no need to have this information removed as it is a key part of the article and why Delchev is such a point of contention. Provide evidence not empty statements. --James Richards (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Also per Wiki style guide "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

But keep in mind

"The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It refers to an easily learned and easily applied procedure or standard, based on practical experience rather than theory." --James Richards (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Remaining three tags:

• This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. - Wrong tag makes not sense if you look up definiton of this tag.
• This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. - Elaboration and reliable evidence needed.
• This section may stray from the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. - Elaboration and reliable evidence needed, not sure how this one strays off topics.

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

--James Richards (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Guys please per Wikipedia policy

"Don't tag an article if you can easily and confidently fix the problem. Your goal is an improved article, not a tagged article."

The intro has been shortened to four paragraphs are recommended by Wiki policy and if you see any spelling or grammar mistakes in the article just fix them. --James Richards (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is under deliberate WP:TAGBOMBING, but its current tag is describing personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay. It redirects to WP:NOTFORUM. The section WP:NOTFORUM in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explains that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thoughts, but this article has ca. 200 sources and there are no original thoughts in it. Jingiby (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I personally still view that the nature of the article is like an argumentative essay (which theoretically can be accompanied by an unbounded number of sources and still hold such classification). The length of the lead on the other hand and whether it is too long is not so obvious. I think DD1997DD did bring up an valid argument that the length of the lead compared to the rest of the article is pretty large, as it is stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section,

The lead has no heading; its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs and The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article

currently there are 4 paragraphs, however,

Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article. Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article, but do not hint at startling facts without describing them.

So I think it is still an open ended question of whether the lead is too long. Kromid (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The style guide recommendes that for 'More than 30,000 characters' 'Three or four paragraphs' are enough, I don't really see the big issue with the paragraphs if I am honest. They have already been reduced from 5 to 4.

I don't think you really understand what an 'argumentative essay' is, you can read up the policies on the tag that is on the page. --James Richards (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This tag doesn't make sense, I vote to remove it. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You "voted" and then just removed it... If the tag doesn't make sense to you, please read the policy articles it links to so it makes more sense. --Local hero ^talk 21:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

How can it be a personal essay when it has hundreds of sources? --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It's referring to the writing style from the editors. I'll ping @DD1997DD: who originally added the tag. --Local hero ^talk 03:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You can write something about the earth being flat using more than a hundred sources and it would still not be true. This article is written like a personal essay because the arguments presented are an oversimplification of a complex issue and the sources used are cherry-picked. The editors who are major contributors to the article seem to only be interested in pushing their political views and unfortunately no one is able to rectify that because there is a lot of canvassing going on. DD1997DD (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As Katerina Kolozova has claimed recently to deprive Delchev of the Macedonian national myth, to relativize him as the father of the Macedonian nation, would be a serious blow to the cultural sensitivity of the average ethnic Macedonian. That, of course, would not be a good neighborly relationship. Myth and historical facts, we have already said, are not one and the same thing - therefore, if Bulgaria does not want to unravel the national story of the ethnic Macedonians about what it is, it should not negotiate for Delchev's identity at all. The facts about how he identified himself ethnically are completely irrelevant. Though he undoubtedly identified himself as Bulgarian. However Wikipedia is not a place only for national myths, but mostly for historical facts. Jingiby (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps StoryanStoyanov80 should also review the policy WP:CANVASING since I got a random call to a page I've never edited to the best of my knowledge. And I have to say- I agree with the tag- this absolutely reads like a school essay instead of an encyclopedia article. Words like "Most prominant" and "important" in the lead, outside of quotes influence the reader right off the bat. The style of writing is overly verbose and convoluted. There are more than enough references- in fact, I see evidince of WP:REFBOMBING on several sentences with 4 or more citations on a single statement. Sorry StoryanStoryanov80- I think you are wrong. Thanks for asking. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I did ask for an unbiased opinion, I never told you how to vote. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ask for unbiased opinions in an wp:rfc or on the talk page of a related wiki project. Not by canvassing individuals . Nightenbelle (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Гоце Делчев was a macedonian fighting for Macedonia. 92.53.50.170 (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

Goce Delcev was a Macedonian revolutioner fighting against the Turks and died in Banitsa, AEGEAN Macedonia Macedonianphalanges (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotse Delchev ethnicity / nationality

In a letter to Nikola Maleshevski, Gotse Delchev self-identifies as Bulgarian
"Действително жалко е, но що можемъ да правимъ, когато си сме българи и всички страдаме отъ една обща болѣсть!"
English
"It is really a pity, but what can we do when we are all Bulgarians and we all suffer from a common disease!"

I'm writing this because Dikaiosyni has removed the word bulgarian from the article. Why is that? Either explanation should be given, or the article should be reverted. Svetoslav80 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Svetoslav80, thank you for discussing this at the talk page. This quote by Delchev is usually misattributed by the Bulgarian historiography, as later on, he also speaks of a Greek disease, which was causing splintering and divisions like the Bulgarian one he referred to earlier.

For reference:

" Пъкъ имаме заето и нѣщо отъ гръцкитѣ болѣсти, а именно - колко глави, толкозъ капитани."

In this letter, Goce was pointing out that a number of Macedonian revolutionaries were turning to pro-Bulgarian sentiments, which caused divisions within IMRO. Similarly, a smaller amount of Macedonian revolutionaries were turning to pro-Greek sentiments, which also caused divisions within IMRO.

As you can see in his other letters, he places an emphasis on the Macedonian people, his actions clearly indicate that he was not pro-Bulgarian, like other IMRO revolutionaries may have been:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Conversation_between_Gotse_Delchev_and_General_Danail_Nikolayev

Here you can see Nikola Karev saying to Goce:

". We shouldn't wait anymore, Gotse. It is time for us to stand up and fight. We shouldn't wait for freedom from the Greeks, neither from the Bulgarians, but we Macedonians should fight for our Macedonia."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_from_Nikola_Karev_to_Gotse_Delchev

Edit: Furthermore, I would like to add the Macedonian translation of Goce's letter to Evrem Karanov, where Goce speaks of a Macedonian народ, Македонецот and Македонки. From the language he uses in this letter, we can clearly see that he isn't referring to a regional identity, but that of an ethnic one, saying that the Macedonian people need an internal uprising (that is, the realization of their ethnic identity which was still very fluid at the time due to the 500 years of Ottoman rule which undermined it, as he says himself).

https://mk.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B5_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%B4%D0%BE_%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC_%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikaiosyni (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"This quote by Delchev is usually misattributed by the Bulgarian historiography, as later on, he also speaks of a Greek disease, which was causing splintering and divisions like the Bulgarian one he referred to earlier." - Dikaiosyni

There is no misinterpretation of the letter in the sense you say. Delchev first says "The separations and divisions should not frighten us at all. It is really a pity, but what can we do when we are Bulgarians", i.e. Delchev identifies himself and at least Maleshevski as Bulgarians first, and then goes on to say that there is a "disease" that has led Bulgarians to fall "under the ugly scepter of the Turkish sultans." Later in the letter, he mentions "we also took something from the Greek diseases", as "we" means the Bulgarians. Идеологист (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Best, Dikaiosyni (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dikaiosyni. To claim that Goce Delchev was not a Macedonian is simply not true. Even Bulgarian science recognizes that quite clearly. In 1946 the president of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Todor Pavlov named Goce: "The greatest revolutionary of Macedonia, and the very leader of the Macedonian National Liberation Movement". GStojanov (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the prevailing academic consensus per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). Here is not a forum. Jingiby (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The prevailing academic consensus is that Goce Delchev was Macedonian. Even Bulgarian historians agree on that. What Bulgarian historians are arguing is the ethnicity of Goce. But ethnicity of the Macedonians in the 19th century was a highly politicized subject and we have plenty of Wikipedia articles documenting that. So we better stick to what the academics agree on: Goce Delchev was a prominent revolutionary from Macedonia. GStojanov (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. I have made some small corrections/clarifications and have added some citations from reliable sources to clarify some disputed issues. Jingiby (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep the first sentence in the lead as neutral as possible and dropping his nationality from it is a step towards that direction. After all, it is not required, especially for figures with fluid identities. Kromid (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise as: "He was an important Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary (komitadji), active in the Ottoman ruled Macedonia and Adrianople regions at the turn of the 20th century.", shell fit better. Jingiby (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I could support it, but I don't know about having the internal link there. The term Macedonian Bulgarian is better left to be ambiguous, especially in the context of Delchev whom had a complex identity. Kromid (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Nearly all Macedonian Bulgarians had complex identity fluctuating between Macedonian regionalism and Bulgarian patriotism. Especially during the wars in the first half of the 20th century it turned often into Bulgarian nationalism and even to Great Bulgarian chauvinism. After Bulgaria lost all these wars it changed usually to Macedonian Autonomism and even to Macedonian Separatism. If in theory Bulgaria had won during the Second World War, it is doubtful whether the Macedonian nation would be developed. Conversely, if Tito had not quarrel with Stalin, it is not clear whether it would not have developed in Bulgaria. Even today people as the former premier of NM Ljubcho Georgievski, have at some degree fluctuating Macedono-Bulgarian identity. By the way that is mentioned in the article Macedonian Bulgarians: However one basic distinction between the political agendas of local intelligentsias was clear. The Macedonian Greeks and Serbs followed, in general, the directives coming from their respective centers of national agitation, while by the Bulgarians the term Macedonian was acquiring the significance of a certain political loyalty, that progressively constructed a particular spirit of regional identity.

Despite Delchev was killed before these wars above, we have a similar example with him. As Bulgaria and Romania were brought to the brink of war at the turn of the 20th century, Delchev was preparing to organize a detachment which, in a possible war to support the Bulgarian army in Northern Dobruja, where compact Bulgarian population was available. On this occasion, Kosta Tsipushev has claimed that at that time Delchev said to him: "Be ready, tell all our comrades to prepare. We will form a great cheta under my leadership and we will go to fight with our army for our enslaved brothers to the north. For a while, we will turn our backs on Macedonia." Jingiby (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

For now I will go with your proposal (with the internal link included) as temporary solution. However, I would propose tuning the lead of Macedonian Bulgarians to include the points you just mentioned, especially on the topic of identity fluctuating between Macedonian regionalism and Bulgarian patriotism, since these are key aspects of the article. I would also like to hear the opinion of other editors on this matter. Kromid (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that case is for a distinct article, something as: Macedonian-Bulgarian Linguistic and National Separation. The case encompasses also the linguistic separation. Jingiby (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We already have plenty of articles addressing the Macedonian Bulgarian Linguistic and National Separation. And most of them are in bad shape. If we have ideas and energy, let us try to fix them and not create new ones. I do not support the designation Macedonian Bulgarian. It is best if we just present Goce as a revolutionary from Macedonia in the leading paragraph. There are plenty of places in the next paragraphs where his ethnicity is addressed, and incorrectly in my opinion. GStojanov (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022

I wish to edit certain grammar mistakes on this page that I have found. SinkWiki (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. 💜  melecie  talk - 08:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

It is a historically known fact that Гоце Делчев is a Macedonian, there is no such thing as a 'macedonian bulgarian', and he cannot be what he gave his life to protect his people's interests from as seen from his deeds and recorded documents of his writing. Fighting for an independent state of Macedonia for the slavic people known as Macedonians. 46.217.216.208 (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello. I'll clarify my recent edits here (see 1, 2 3), to ensure that there is no misunderstanding and since a good amount of information was removed. So most of the information that was removed was irrelevant, unrelated or in news style. I'd like to clarify that I do plan to expand the sub-section “Post-communism” however I had to trim a good amount of irrelevant information first. Most of the information on Wikipedia is supposed to be relevant, preferably long-term and encyclopedic. Routine or trivial information (ex. details of progress of historical commission or opinions of historical commission's members; see WP:BALASP) will clutter the section and make the readability worse. It also doesn't look encyclopedic. As time passes and things change, even information that was relevant before could become irrelevant. The section can be expanded with information that is relevant, like for example - the common view of Macedonian historians about Delchev (which doesn't entail listing opinions separately), common view of Bulgarian historians, view of international scholars, all significant opinions and etc, which have to be within due weight. Two sub-sections should be enough to cover the controversy. We should include only the relevant details, not every possible detail there could be. The part about joint celebration attempts appears to be poorly sourced, because none of the sources mention IMRO, Delchev or even joint celebrations of historical figures, so the information isn't directly supported by the sources. Unless the information is covered by the Transitions Online source, which I have no access to, but I've retained it since it's still a valid source. One of the sources is dead, which I attempted to fix and find an alternative source. I'd like to think that the article has potential to be improved. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore I'd like to add two things - WP:NOTEVERYTHING and the fact that the historical commision has not yet gotten to an agreement on jointly celebrating Delčev, here's one source from 2020, and another one from 2022. Kluche (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Jingiby (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, firstly, the use of "some new attempts" with sources from 2006 is absolutly unaccaptable. Secondly the two sources used i.e Vesti and Sega. The first one does not support the statement while the second one is an opinion article by a tabloid. And thirdly, WP:NOTEVERYTHING for the Novinite statement, it alleges of other such situations, and has strong nationalist undertones, which lead me to question the reliability of the source. Copy-pasting sections from a Wikipedia guideline is not all that constructive. Kluche (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think, I have corrected this text to be more neutral. Isn't it? Jingiby (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, my proposition is the following: "Some attempts were made for joint celebration of the IMRO revolutionaries, such as Delchev, between North Macedonia and Bulgaria, but they have failed." + the removal of the Sega.bg source, as it is not RS. Furthermore a substitution of the Novinite source would be greatly appretiated, as it too in my opinion, is not completly RS. Kluche (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Per this source, which directly supports the information, I propose the following: “Some attempts were made for the joint celebration of Delchev between North Macedonia and Bulgaria.” The “...but failed” part is redundant, since it’s obvious from the information that follows that these attempts weren’t successful. StephenMacky1 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds great, I have no objections. Kluche (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. However for shure the Bulgarian Ambassador and his company were attacked by Macedonian nationalists, when they attempted to lay wreaths at the grave of Gotse Delchev on May 4, 2012. Check it here too. Jingiby (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can reach a compromise

We need to accept that Goce is important both for us Macedonians and for Bulgarians. I propose we make a compromise and in the first paragraph we change "important Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary" into "important Macedonian and Bulgarian revolutionary". As it is now it reads awkward. GStojanov (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Historical myths are not a compromise. They have nothing to do with historical reality. Jingiby (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what myths are you talking about? Is Goce important for both Macedonians and Bulgarians? I think we can clearly agree on that. Then let's phrase it like that in the article. GStojanov (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A little above is the previous discussion with your participation on the same issue, which did not lead to anything, and your stances were arguably completely refuted. If you have new scientific sources from reputable publications and prominent researchers supporting your opinion, with which the participants here are not familiar, I kindly ask you to present them, if there is nothing new, I still remind you that this is not a forum. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This sentence is not about Goce's ethnicity. It is about his revolutionary activity that is important primarily for Macedonia and Macedonians, but I can admit it can be important for Bulgarians too. There are plenty of other places in this article where his ethnicity is discussed (incorrectly in my opinion). I do not challenge that at this point. I am just trying to rephrase an awkward expression into a more meaningful one. GStojanov (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I see there is nothing new. Jingiby (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So Jingiby was Taras Shevchenko Russian or Ukrainian? GStojanov (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Mr. GStojanov, as far as I can see the Macedonian version of this article (which is marked as a featured one!) does not mention at all that he is Bulgarian. Perhaps first you could work on persuading our fellow Macedonians to fix it there? Compare this to other historical figures, who are marked exactly the way you suggest, e.g. Venko Markovski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Вени Марковски (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, people, I think I have a better solution for a compromise. I agree the present version sounds awkward at best. How about we change it to "Gotse Delchev was a Bulgarian revolutionary, celebrated as a national hero in both Bulgaria and North Macedonia." We had a similar arrangement back in the day that was supposed to cover most revolutionaries from the period, taking into account if they had clearly self-determined as Bulgarians or not. This way we avoid the phrase Macedonian Bulgarian which sounds awkward for native speakers, we acknowledge his clear self-determination, and take into account the fact that he is viewed as a national hero in both countries. What do you think? --Laveol ^T 07:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How about "Gotse Delchev was a Macedonian revolutionary, celebrated as a national hero in both Macedonia and Bulgaria." We already address his self determination later in the article way too many times, and it is grotesque to emphasize it that much, when it is clear that national identities were fluent at best at the end of the 19th century. He did not fight for Bulgaria. He fought for Independent Macedonia for the Macedonians.GStojanov (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Georgi Delchev was a Macedonian revolutionary only insofar that the term Macedonian during the time he was alive, meant a person born in the region of Macedonia. Not an an ethnicity. The ethnicities of Macedonians at that time were Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Vlach, Albanian, Turkish. And, as Delchev considered himself a Bulgarian, the designation "Macedonian Bulgarian" is correct - an ethnically Bulgarian person from the region of Macedonia. Since the term "Macedonian" in 2022 means the modern Macedonian ethnicity, it can't be used to designate Delchev, who had a Bulgarian ethnic self-identification. TzCher (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with TzCher. Best, Apcbg (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't mind reworking this aritlce into a NPOV version where he is labeled as a Macedonian and Bulgarian hero, rather then the phrase Macedono Bulgar, although sadly i think not a lot would agree on such a idea Gurther (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I support my initial proposal with a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica to change in the first paragraph: "important Macedonian Bulgarian revolutionary" into "important Macedonian and Bulgarian revolutionary". This is exactly the same way Encyclopedia Britannica covers this topic: "Gotsé Delchev, whose nom de guerre was Ahil (Achilles), is regarded by both Macedonians and Bulgarians as a national hero. GStojanov (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

As you can see in literally the next sentence in your own (non-primary or secondary) source, Delchev's ethnic self-identification was Bulgarian:

"He seems to have identified himself as a Bulgarian and to have regarded the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians."

Thank you for proving our point. TzCher (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not talking about the next sentence. I am also not talking about how he self identified. I am trying to reach a compromise to correct an awkward phrase with a minimal change.GStojanov (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The sentence you're trying to "correct" refers to his self-identification. Essentially, what you'd like to do is erase the sentence about his ethnic identity and replace it with an ambiguous sentence with a possessive adjective referring to modern nationalities, which would arguably be understood by the readers as an ethnic identification he held in the past. This is simply unacceptable. Secondly, what's even more puzzling is that you claim that your sentence is somehow less awkward, while in reailty it's far more awkward, especially considering similar terms like Italian-American, for example, have seen widespread use. I don't see how you expect to reach a consensus for the deletion of the self-identification of a historical person from the lead of their article. TzCher (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. Apcbg (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Italian American means Italian by ethnicity and American by citizenship. The awkward phrase Macedonian Bulgarian for an average English speaker will mean Macedonian by ethnicity and Bulgarian by citizenship. Do you consider this to be accurate?GStojanov (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Then let's put it back to simply Bulgarian, per Laveol. Jingiby (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I used Italian-American as an example that similar "awkward" terms are widely accepted. They don't need to be analogous in meaning. Whoever doesn't immediately understand what "Macedonian Bulgarian" means can simply click the link to the article about Macedonian Bulgarians, exactly as the encyclopedia is intended to function. But since you insist on changing it, there's only one available term to change it into and that is simply "Bulgarian". Delchev was not Macedonian by either ethnicity (because he self-identified as Bulgarian) or by nationality (because the Macedonian nationality didn't exist at the time). He was Macedonian in a regional sense. The term "Macedonian Bulgarian" as signifying a person who comes from the region of Macedonia was agreed upon as a compromise because Delchev is a very important figure to modern Macedonians. If you insist on changing it, I think consensus to revert it back to "Bulgarian" can be agreed upon very quickly. TzCher (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph should contain only simple and non controversial facts. There is plenty of times in this article his self determination is asserted. Here we need to acknowledge only the obvious: he is an important hero for both Macedonians and Bulgarians.GStojanov (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant if there is no serious evidence to support it, and there is none. As you know your original researches have no value either. You have been warned about this many times and you should stop using Wikipedia as a forum. Jingiby (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I am citing you Encyclopedia Britannica and you accuse me of original research? I just want to use the same phrase (or similar to avoid plagiarism) as Encyclopedia Britannica uses. GStojanov (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is not in particular about Gotse Delchev and has no strength to change the initial paragraph. Gotse is indeed both preised by people in North Macedonia and Bulgaria, but he was firstly Macedonian bulgarian. --Протогер (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Small proposal

This is more of a idea and if you guys agree we can change it, what if we raise the WikiProject:North Macedonia importance from mid level to high level (or somewhere similar)? this is mostly because he is one of (if not the most) known Macedonian from the IMRO and hes even known to a certain level outside the balkans. I wanna hear the editors of this wikis opinion on this discussion since i didn't wanna raise it without reaching an agreement. Gurther (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t foresee anyone taking issue with that. Please consider joining WikiProject MKD while you’re at it. --Local hero ^talk 00:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Local hero, sorry if i may sound stupid but how exactly do i join wikiprojects? from what i read it means to simply edit articles related to it (which i have been doing for awhile). Gurther (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, you simply add your username to the WikiProject's participant list. --Local hero ^talk 20:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Gurther (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You have my support, but you should raise this discussion on the WikiProject's talk page too. If there are no objections, the importance level can be raised. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1 sorry but are you talking about this WikiProject talk page? Is this the correct one or not? if it is not then please clarify in which talk page i should mention it (and if you can link it aswell) thank you. Gurther (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the clarifications. Gurther (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)