Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising

Archives April 2004 — June 2005 (the old article talk page) August 2005 — July 2007

Capricornis's Update and responses to it

I have deleted references to Bulgarian/Macedonian/Etc. origin of the local population as it is a subject of bitter dispute between the neighboring countries. I will develop this article into a long and detailed history of the uprising without mentioning the ethnicity of the local people, as it is a big loss this important event to remain undocumented on the Wikipedia because of regional squabbles between countries.

-- capricornis —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:41, 23 August 2007

That part which you erased is actually sourced. Mr. Neutron 15:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete my comments! All the statements about the bulgarian flag and the population which took part in the uprising are sourced. If you continue you will be reported. Mr. Neutron 16:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted references to Bulgarian/Macedonian/Etc. origin of the local population as it is a subject of bitter dispute between the neighboring countries. I will develop this article into a long and detailed history of the uprising without mentioning the ethnicity of the local people, as it is a big loss this important event to remain undocumented on the Wikipedia because of regional squabbles between countries.

-- capricornis —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:47, 27 August 2007 Comment moved into sequence DQ 05:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

This is not an article, it is a pitiful blurb that doesn't tell you anything about the event, but mostly tries to spread bulgarian propaganda. Your sources are more relevant to propaganda, than the uprising itself, and hence unnecessary. The new article will not have anything about what ethnic groups were there in 1903, as that is IRRELEVANT to the main event, which is the uprising and the following Turkish repression. Stop undoing this article.

Capricornis 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Comment moved into sequence DQ 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am preparing to delete the complete article. You will be reported if you keep on messing this up. Your sources are irrelevant, as they do not add anything to our understanding of the actual event, but they only serve to prove some goal you have set for yourself. You have been warned.

Capricornis 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you continue erasing sourced information you will be reported as vandal and blocked. Mr. Neutron 18:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not have ANY sourced information on this blurb, which cannot even be called an article. You just bundle a bunch of stuff under the sources headline, but you do not correctly assign superscripts with the ref tag to anything in this article. As it is the article is useless, and will soon be replaced by a better version. Stop meddling with this or YOU will be reported as a vandal and blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornis (talk • contribs) 22:12, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate, if you remove sourced information, you will be reported as vandal. Try adding instead. Mr. Neutron 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have finally finished the article on this. Feel free to add to it, as my quotations are slim, since I've been workignon this for almost 8 hours and am too tired. I believe this makes a much better starting point than the previous blurb. Try not to spread propaganda as this is not a place for it. Publishing xerox copies from the times where 'Bulgarian' is used is fine, explaining why everybody there has always been and is Bulgarian is not. Same goes for the Macedonian side.

Try to make this what it is supposed to be, a tribute to the victims and the people who lost their lives during this event, and not a stage for some petty squabbles.

Capricornis 01:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Comment moved into sequence DQ 05:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have finally finished the article on this. Feel free to add to it, as my quotations are slim, since I've been workignon this for almost 8 hours and am too tired. I believe this makes a much better starting point than the previous blurb. Try not to spread propaganda as this is not a place for it. Publishing xerox copies from the times where 'Bulgarian' is used is fine, explaining why everybody there has always been and is Bulgarian is not. Same goes for the Macedonian side.

Try to make this what it is supposed to be, a tribute to the victims and the people who lost their lives during this event, and not a stage for some petty squabbles.

Capricornis 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that I missed the Adrianopole part of the uprising. Feel free to add it (hopefully at least a paragraph, not just a single sentence), as I am too tired for today. I also just read the above 'talk' page.. Disgusting. People forget that the point here is to pay tribute to the tens of thousands of victims of this uprising, and not use it to prove their own petty arguments.

Capricornis 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The text is copyvio and is removed. Also try to incorporate improvements in the existing article instead of blatantly undoing other people's work. Also read the text under the editing field: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted". Mr. Neutron 02:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Only SOME sentences were from other web sites, and you deleted the whole article. That is a blatant insult and has nothing to do with wikipedia copyright rules. Cease and desist with such practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornis (talk • contribs) 02:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT TOUCH the article. I will change the copyrighted material, which is little. Everything else is valid. And it is a much better article than the pittyful blurb you had.

Capricornis 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is NO copyrighted material right now in the article, except the quotation from the Autonomy newspaper published in 1903. Do not undo the article, or you will be flagged as a vandal and blocked permanently. Your old article barely contained few sentences relevant to the event, which you can copy over. Your sources were mostly irrelevant as they did not relate to the uprising, but the general situation at that time, together with some nationalist propaganda.

Capricornis 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To all the friends of Mr. Neutron

Cease and desist from undoing complete pages! Discuss your issues and point out the disagreements instead!

Capricornis 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Mr. Neutron 19:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you live in North America and are you of age (18+)? Both of which I highly doubt.

Capricornis 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And what if I am? Mr. Neutron 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you should know better.

Capricornis 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I request Mediation on this article. I am of the opinion that my version is better, more complete and more objective than the previous blurb. I propose we take this to the wikipedia mediation council. Who wants to represent the other side?

If there are no takers I will file for a mandatory arbitration.

thank you,

Capricornis 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Comment by User:Capricornis

Users User: Jingiby , User: TodorBozhinov , User: Mr. Neutron have repeatedly destroyed the new, comprehensive and neutral article on this even and replacing it completely with their blurb, which concentrates less on the uprising and more on the 'Bulgarianism' and Bulgarian propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornis (talk • contribs)

Capricornis 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by outside observer Rocksanddirt

On the whole, the article needs references. Inline references. I don't have a comment on the topic content, other than to say that the information from User:Capricornis was written with in line references, and I'm tempted to get into your edit war just to keep it. --Rocksanddirt 22:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

on a slightly separate note....archive some of this talk page, it's long and convoluted. --Rocksanddirt 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. The only references are quotes. The conclusions are unsourced. Not to speak the sources are not reliable. Mr. Neutron 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The conclusions are fully sourced, just read the documents. Your previous sources had nothing about the uprising, but only about the alleged 'Bulgarism' of the population, which is not relevant to this event. Anyway, the whole point is, the new article is a MUCH better starting point than the old one, and instead of reversing it indiscriminately, you and your cronies, there should be a discussion on the problematic parts. The previous blurb was embarrassing for such a big event. I proposed mediation - accept it, let the wikipedia community decide who is right.

Capricornis 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This talk page was a mess, which made it hard to sort out what was going on. By checking on the history, I have been able to go through and sign comments, date comments, and move comments into their proper sequence. I did this as a series of edits, so that you may review the changes I have applied individually. The whole sequence of changes is captured in this diff. Remember folks; new comments go at the bottom of the page, and get signed with ~~~~ —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Why is it that [[1]] and [[2]] are considered credible yet any Macedonian website is "nationalist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.133.204 (talk) 10:12, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

What we want is to find reliable sources. To check what is needed, refer to " reliable sources" and to " verifiabilty". If you have concerns about sources that are being used on the page, it will help a lot if you can spell out what is wrong with them, with reference to the guidelines. I have a horrible feeling that this is going to be really really hard for you guys, on any side of the issue. You see, you have to address the reliability of the source WITHOUT presuming in advance one particular perspective, and simply defining reliability in terms of how accurate it is according to your particular perspective.

You mention two sites, but the second one is not in the article at all. It was not in the article last month either as far as I can tell.

The other site you list is http://www.promacedonia.org/ except that this is not the link either. If that link was used as you have given it, then you might have a case. The site looks a badly POV site. But the link actually used in the page is http://www.promacedonia.org/bugarash/znmt/znmt.html and that looks rather different; it is an article available at the site. Unfortunately, it is not in English. It appears to be an article about flags used in the uprising or around that time. It is certainly given in support of a particular point of view, but that in itself is not a reason for ignoring it. It would be much better, however, to have a source in English. This site is used to give background to the flag in the image.

In short, you need to give a much more tightly focused account of what you think is the problem. Saying that the article gives the wrong point of view is not a valid complaint. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad Sources and Still waiting for a discussion

The current situation is exemplary of the behavior of the bulgarian pack on wikipedia - they quote radical nationalist sites, which are plentiful around the web, and are mostly in bulgarian, thus unverifiable by the wider community. This is english wikipedia, try to quote sources in english so that everybody can understand.

what is wrong with the bulgar article

three major things:
1. it is less than 300 words, which is embarrassing for an event of such importance, and most of the article doesn't even focus on the uprising itself
2. it calls the local population 'Bulgarian', which is disputed by the version from Republic of Macedonia
3. there were no in-line sources, so nobody could check the statements section by section and most of the sources (except one) did have very little to do with the uprising or nothing at all (but were well known bulgarian propaganda sources)

what have i done with the new article

1. i have expanded it to 2000+ word article, with focus on the uprising itself, no other issues
2. I have INTENTIONALLY dropped any references to the ethnicities of the population and leaders, so to be neutral and not take anyone's side
3. I have quoted english sources, relevant to the uprising, one of them being a book by an american scholar

what next

I believe it is self-evident that the new version is way better than the old one, but the bulgar gang's constantly deleted it and rejected all discussions.
the main problem here is the way balkan countries write their histories. I researched all of their histories (albanian, greek, bulgarian, turkish, macedonian, serbian, croation, etc.), and they have very little in common, sometimes being unrecognizible, as every country portrays themselves as a victim and the good guy, while all the others are the bad guys. further, each country indoctrinates its children with these fabrications in elementary and high school (which is probably about the age of the bulgar kids who have been reverting this article), and persuades them than only their version is right and it is a mortal insult for anyone to claim otherwise.
the only way i see to keep this bitterly disputed information in wikipedia and make it available to the world audience is to drop EVERY disputed fact, like ethnicities, statements, etc etc and that's what i've tried to do in the new article. There is information which is not disputed, and that is dates, numbers, names, places, etc. so that should be the only content of the article.

thanks, Capricornis 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Refrain using words like "bulgarian pack", "bulgar", calling us vandals, etc. Also get your facts straight, the current version is about 800 words , well linked, written, neutral and conscise, while yours is mostly essay-like ramblings and copyvios from various sites. Also you cannot unanimously decide to drop any references to ethnicities just because they are disputed by the republic of Macedonia. The international science recognizes the fact that the uprising was organized by Bulgarians, and this is justly sourced and presented. Mr. Neutron 18:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, the whole article currently is exactly 534 words, that is from "Ihe Ilinden..." to "..-Turkish War", do the math, and don't count the references, no cheating now :) Bulgar is what you call someone from bulgaria, why does that offend you, and by using the word 'us' you have admitted that you have been acting as a 'pack' with the others so that one is in place too. As for your evaluation of the article, it is irrelevant, since you have already shown your bias and subjectivity, so no importance can be attached to any evaluation from you. I will leave the evaluation to the wikipedia community and eventually the arbitration board.

cheers, Capricornis 18:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you have deficiencies in English terminology. As for trolling, calling people offensive names, etc, it does nothing to advance your position, and actually works against you. Mr. Neutron 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The day when I am going to take English lessons from bulgarian teenagers has not arrived yet. When you get 800 on you GRE verbal come talk to me. - best Capricornis 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil, you'd better stop judging contributors and judge the content. Mr. Neutron 17:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Neutron; if you can source from English references, it would be much better. Be cautious about what is recognize by "international science". The problem is that the very terms being used change over time. When you say that the uprising was organized by Bulgarians, it is misleading, and fails to recognize the many dimensions involved; ethnicity, shifting boundaries, differing allegiances. The current article as you prefer it is seriously deficient in various respects, I think. It fails to recognize that there are different points of view; and Wikipedia needs to give a neutral account of the major positions. The only leader mentioned is Gotse Delchev, and that article seems to do a better job of covering the issue of his labeling. He sought Macedonian autonomy, which is relevant to this uprising. I think. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved. What you mention is true. Gotse Delchev sought Macedonian autonomy, while he himself identified as Bulgarian. Also his group of revolutionaries generally worked towards autonomy to be followed by a reunification with Bulgaria, modeled after the reunification of 1885. All western sources at the time refer to the population as Bulgarian. The ethnic Macedonians appeared later in the 20th century, with the advent of Vardar banovina and then the Socialist republic of Macedonia as part of Yugoslavia. Also please look at Demographic history of Macedonia, it has plenty of sources. Mr. Neutron 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe at the time all international sources referred to the slavic population of the region as Bulgarian (just as 20 years later all international sources referred to the same population as 'Serbian'), but today there is a large ongoing dispute as to their real identity. The big question is, did 'Bulgarian' at that time mean ethnicity or church, as the population was divided by religion firstly, and only by ethnicity secondly, if at all. Even the original documents from the time and the formation of the Krusevo Republic (of which the current blurb makes no mention, and it is the most important event of the uprising), it is said that the provisional government was formed from representative 'of all three churches, the (Bulgarian) Exarchate, (Greek) Patriarchate and (Roman) Catholic. Hence, the arguments Mr. Neutron is trying to put forward as proven and common knowledge are far from that anywhere in the world, except Bulgaria. The current account does not recognize these different points of view, and is automatically accepting the Bulgarian version as the right one (not to talk about being embarrassingly incomplete). Capricornis 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, get your facts straight. The Krushevo Republic is mentioned. Information is presented from primary sources the way it was assessed at the time. Any other interpretation is either Wikipedia:OR or simply anachronism, and either one will not be tolerated. Mr. Neutron 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening me Mr. Neutrino? :))) Instead of catching and holding on one word that seems wrong to you in the paragraph, try and reply to all the other valid points. Capricornis 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a reminder of policies you seem not to be aware of. Mr. Neutron 17:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackanapes 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Jackanapes 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)=== name of the article ===

Since it was first written, this article has been called "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising". This is very strange. In fact, in by far the most sources it is called "Ilinden Uprising". The addition of "Preobrazhenie" is used sometimes, but much less often. The terms refer respectively to

• "Ilinden", designating the day the uprising began.
• "Preobrazhenie", naming a vilayet that joined the uprising about two weeks later.

It seems to me that the proper name for this article should be "Ilinden Uprising". This is the more neutral term, and also the one that is more standard. I am sure this will be strongly disputed by some parties to this dispute, but I would like to hear some informed comment as to how the article should be named. Thank you —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Preobrazhenie does not refer to a vilayet, but refers to the original date scheduled for the uprising. Ilinden refers to the early part of the uprising that started in the region of Macedonia around 2nd august. The part of the uprising at Adrianopole started on schedule around preobrazhenie (14th august). You see, this uprising comprised the regions of Macedonia and parts of Thrace. Please refer to IMRO. Also, check out Macedonia (terminology) (featured) and Macedonia (region), as well as WP:MOSMAC for background, since you seem to be interested in the topic. Mr. Neutron 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that; sorry I got the meaning of "Preobrazhenie" wrong. I am still concerned that the use of "Preobrazhenie" is apparently less frequent. Is the name at all contentious? Would there be reason for one group to feel strongly about one name over the other? Frankly, I have very little interest in this at all. I am here mainly to try and see if there is any basis for concern that under the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, there might be a reflection of one POV in the article to the exclusion of others.

For the record, some of the edit comments by Capricornis above indicate that he does not really understand the importance of this policy. For example, he said "Try to make this what it is supposed to be, a tribute to the victims and the people who lost their lives during this event, and not a stage for some petty squabbles." With all due respect to the intent, this is NOT a place for tributes to victims. It's an encyclopedia for information. If there are petty squabbles relevant to this, then this article SHOULD be a stage for those, but expressed neutrally so that an uninformed reader like myself can figure out why the heck there is such angst associated with it.

Also, the removal of all ethnicity information would seem to be improper; but handling it properly will be tricky. It is relevant information, I think, and belongs in the article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, this is a controversial topic, thats why we have the featured article and the manual of style to shed some light in the dark and keep everyone on the same page. I am not saying the current article is perfect; it can sure be sourced in more detail, and so can 90% of all wikipedia articles, and it will happen in time. About Ilinden uprising vs. Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising, think of it as Napoleon vs. Napoleon I of France. Mr. Neutron 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Touche! You are right at the point Duae_Quartunciae as to the name of the article. The general accepted term by the VAST majority of sources is Ilinden Uprising. It is only in Bulgarian nationalist and thereof derived sources that it is called Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising, and with the main intent of pointing out how the uprising went on on both sides of bulgaria and therefore it MUST be bulgarian in character, no? This is such an obvious violation of POV/NPOV policy of wikipedia, that I didn't even bother raising the question until the current problem is resolved. Anyway, the proof is very simple, assuming you live anywhere but Bulgaria: just go into your local library and do a search on 'ilinden' keyword, and see how many hits come with 'Ilinden Uprising" and count how many (if any) come back with 'Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising'. Even better, do the same search on Amazon or Google books, and see the result. The OVERWHELMINGLY most common term for this event is 'Ilinden Uprising'. Now we can dispute which one is more accurate, and double-guess IMRO as to what they intended with the uprising, but that would be original research, no? The world scholarly public has already made its choice. Capricornis 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising is the full name of the uprising. Ilinden uprising is just a shortcut. Mr. Neutron 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And of course, you know better, than all the scholars around the world, yet again? Do the search on google books Mr. Neutrino, and rejoice :)) Capricornis 17:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Mr. Neutron 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am civil. I am only exposing your false claims that your version (or whatever you have been taught in high school) is 'more true' than all the books amazon sells. -best Capricornis 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Then please stop calling other users vandals, names and various qualifiers that might be offensive, comment on content, not on contributor. Mr. Neutron 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The failure of people to assume good faith is our biggest problem. There is far too much effort being spent on insulting and denigrating the other side rather than trying to explain differences clearly and for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the subject. Capricornis; you need to understand this. You are the worst offender in this regard. Your approach from the start has been to over-ride and replace a version you dislike for some reason, and along the way to attack and malign those who worked on the existing article. And yet, your objectives even as explicitly stated by yourself fail to line up with the goals of an encyclopedia. Your version of the article has sprinkled through it phrases that will cause all kinds of problems for the NPOV guidelines.

At this stage I am thinking that you DO have a cause for concern. The way you have pursued it, however, has been destructive and aggressive, and that is going to look very bad in mediation and review. You badly need to settle down, for your own sake.

Back to substance... I don't understand why the name is an issue. What is it about Ilinden-Preobrazhenie vs Ilinden that makes any difference to you guys?

From my perspective, it looks like Ilinden uprising is the most common way it is named by far. The idea that there is a single correct name or title won't wash. The comparison with Napolean 1 is odd; there are many different Napoleons so people apply disambiguation. Theres only one Ilinden uprising.

This is just a label for a historical event. I gather both names are names of different holy days, is that right? And whatever was actually planned, the date when it got started was Ilinden. Google search shows a very clear preference for "Ilinden uprising", but Google search is not a reliable standard.

So I tried a Google scholar search. This was much clearer. There is no mention of "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" at all. None. I did find, however one reference, to "Ilinden-Preobrazenie" (no h) with an article I could not access: D. Kosev, "The Ilinden-Preobrazenie Uprising 1903," Bulgarian Historical Review [6.sub.4] (1978)

Search of Google scholar with "Ilinden Preobrazhenie" are two separate terms (not a phrase) turned up just two articles. Both articles refer to the "Ilinden uprising"; with distinct mention of "Preobrazhenie" in commentary. The phrase "Ilinden uprising", on the other hand, turns up 72 hits.

There is sufficient mention of "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" to justify listing this as another alternative name; but it sure looks to me like the primary scholarly identifier by far is "Ilinden uprising".

This is a minor issue, I would have thought. I'm floating it as a kind of test case. The case for having the shorter, simpler, more common name, seems strong. Without any attempt to denigrate other names, I suspect that people interested in this topic are far more likely to be looking for "Ilinden uprising" and that is the way the page should be named. Is there are problem with that? I am thinking of going ahead with a formal move on the proposal. Is this going to earn me a lot of personal criticisms and presumptions of some kind of bias? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First things first: yes, I admit, my initial motivation for writing this article was reading the article in "American Chronicle" about the horrors that the Turks did after the uprising, and was unpleasantly surprised that nothing of that is mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, the version that I wrote is much more relevant and better starting point than the bulgarian blurb that existed. If I was a little over the top with some of my statements - I apologize, I was acting at the spur of the moment and was gravely disturbed by the bulgarian users here who reverted my (better) article without any discussion, and called my article political propaganda and 'macedonism' while theirs was the 'objective' one??!!

Unlike the high school bulgarian kids here (this is not derogatory statement, it is a fact, look at their profiles, Todor Bozhinov, etc), I have a job and a life to attend to, so I cannot continue with this discussion ad nauseam, and want this solved once and for all, and if the other guy doesn't want to submit himself to voluntary mediation, then i will ask for mandatory arbitration. The truth, and the world scholarly circles are on my side, so if both of us or only me get banned in the process of getting to the truth, then so be it.

The wrongs about the current article begin with the title. That is the title used virtually exclusively by Bulgarian propaganda, and while it is fine to be mentioned in the article, it should definitely not be the main title. The world scholars are clear on this. -thank you Capricornis 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, as to the disruptive character of User: Mr. Neutron see the 3RR page, he has been reported (yet, again) for reverting the Yane Sandanski article, and has already been banned for 24 hours twice before for such behavior. If you look at his contrib section, you can see that he is actively warring and has been warring on many or most articles dealing with Macedonia on Wikipedia, as if he made it his holy grail to champion the Bulgarin cause of the Macedonian question. People like him make Wikipedia less reliable source for everybody, and he should be prevented from waging his agendas on wikipedia simply by the fact that he has better knowledge of the system, he knows how to abuse it, and how to slip through the cracks. -thank you Capricornis 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You are going to have to stop making these insinuations about other editors. Stick to facts. The article ideally should not attempt to find what is true; but to find out what is usage in established sources. The focus is verifiability, not truth, and if there are conflicting perspectives then both need to be given, neutrally and properly sourced, in the article.

Regarding the name, I have seen it referred to in other wikipedia articles as follows:

The Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising (referred to as Ilinden Uprising in the Republic of Macedonia).

Based on a brief look in Google scholar, and also in encyclopedias at the library, I think a better phrasing would be

The Ilinden Uprising (referred to as Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising in Bulgaria).

Or, to avoid inflaming nationalist perspectives, it would be better still as

The Ilinden Uprising (also sometimes referred to as the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising).

I still have no idea why the different names are being preferred by one group rather than the other. If there is a clear reason, then that is probably encyclopedic information as well. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have specified in one of the above articles why the name difference, here it is again: "It is only in Bulgarian nationalist and thereof derived sources that it is called Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising, and with the main intent of pointing out how the uprising went on on both sides of (then) bulgaria and therefore it MUST be bulgarian in character, no?". As your own research has found, the common accepted name in world literature for this event is "Ilinden Uprising". Capricornis 02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you, it is starting to become a bit more clear...

In fact, the main concern of those who want to speak of "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" is valid! They would like to use this name to emphasize the fact that the the uprising did indeed go on on both sides of (then) Bulgaria. Is that right? They are quite correct about this point, are they not? The uprising in 1903 is not simply "Bulgarian"; but it does have a Bulgarian link. I can understand a concern with the simpler name if there was an attempt to portray this uprising as exclusively "Macedonian" in character, in the sense that the modern republic of Macedonia has a unique claim of historical continuity with those who participated in the uprising. But that seems not to be a problem with the article at present.

What I would like to see, I think, is a clear simple account of different perspectives on the uprising, if there are different perspectives, with each account properly sourced and neither account singled out as truth. The WP:NPOV guideline suggests that where there is a dispute in interpretations, those which have significant prominence (which is not about truth) need to be covered in the article. If there is a particular Bulgarian link with participants of the uprising who joined in around about the "Preobrazhenie" holy day (if I have that terminology right now) then that is encyclopedic information to be included in the text of the article.

Be that as it may, the name of the article, I am pretty sure, should be "Ilinden uprising". This is actually the original form when this content was first being developed, and was cut and pasted across to the new name in June 2005, unfortunately without any discussion that I can see, and without a proper move to preserve history of the discussion. Furthermore, the shorter name appears to be the one used in every linked Wikipedia with a different language; except the Bulgarian wikipedia. All the others, (German, Polish, Macedonian, Serbocroatian, and Serbian) use the shorter form. The shorter form seems to be far and away the form used in general scholarly writing, particularly when not politically aligned with the various factions.

Using an unusual name is not justified as a way of preventing the article from becoming too much aligned with a Macedonian perspective. The English wikipedia is much better to use the name in common use in the wider international community, and that is pretty plainly "Ilinden uprising". —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The main place for this article should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilinden_Uprising, and the main name should be "Ilinden Uprising" as that is the prevalent form in all world literature, except Bulgarian. The Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising can be mentioned in the article and that link should forward to Ilinden Uprising, not the other way around. I propose you change it, and do the forwards, as it would take me too much time to read up on how it is done :) (plus I am probably on the bulgarian guys blacklist, so they will spam reverse any change I make :)

As to the Bulgarian link of the uprising, you are correct there too. There are numerous facsimiles of world press articles from that time that qualify the perpetrators as Bulgarian, as the ones right now on the page, which I, by the way, left in my version as well. However, the ethnicity of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman empire is a tricky subject, and it is not easy to draw a straight line. This can be seen from many other articles connected with Macedonia here, where the talk pages seem to be endless (I am sure it makes an interesting reading if you have a lot of spare time, which I unfortunately don't).

I would like to see a version of this article (not the current blurb) written by Mr. Neutron (or the other Bulgarians) and then we can merge it with my version (which cannon be called the 'Macedonian' version, as I omitted the disputed facts completely, without mentioning either side) and arrive to something acceptable to both sides and beneficial to the wikipedia community. (btw 2cents in latin is a very inventive username, intersting blog too :))) Capricornis 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to rush in with a unilateral name change in such a highly charged atmosphere. I do think the change should take place, but it would be reverting a change from two years ago. It can wait a day or two more, for others to comment. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine too. I am actually curious to see what Mr. Neutron has to say about this. Capricornis 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems that Neutron has grown silent in the face of the evidence? Or is that silence a tacit approval? :) Capricornis 19:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Careful. This is a charged situation, and I ask you not to make it worse by sly taunts or digs at colleagues that you will have to work with as the article develops. I have been digging further, and it is getting clearer to me all the time. The name is not quite that easy. This needs a new section in the talk page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with proposed change. The whole discussion above is focused on non-domestic texts and cites predominantly former Yugoslav tradition (Macedonian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian), which is highly unconvincingly because there were official Yugoslav trend of de-Bulgarianization of this event. Note: all domestic documents are written in Bulgarian and by people with Bulgarian national self-consciousness (this fact is recognized even by some Macedonian Historians like Academician Ivan Katardzhiev and the director of the Macedonian state archive Zoran Todorovski). This revolt was understood as composed of several smaller local war theatres by its first historian and participant Hristo Silyanov. In his famous book "The liberating struggles of Macedonia" (recently translated from Bulgarian to Macedonian language and published by Ivan Katardzhiev) he listss the following parts of the uprising (see here):

1. First insurrectional actions in Bitola region;

2. Preobrazhenie uprising in area of Adrianople;

3. Insurrectionary actions in other regions.

Other historical record, translated from Bulgarian to Macedonian: record of proceedings of the Thessalonica Congress in January 1903, when the decision for all-embracing uprising was taken - the revolutionary committee is named Central Macedonian-Adrianopolitan, there were two representatives from Adrianople region, one from Constantinople district and one from Adrianople district, Nikola Petrov and Velko Dumev (see here). Third document - from 1903, translated from Bulgarian to Macedonian: the central commitee of IMRO described in front of international media his goals with the uprising in Macedonia and Adrianople regions together, not separately (see here). Must I proceed with more examples for the historical unity of the two major regions of this uprising - Ilinden uprising in Bitola's district and Preobrazhenie uprising in Adrianople's district? Excuse me, dear Sirs, but Google and Serbian Wikipedia aren't more relevant as sources than all authentic historical documents and researches, written by participants! - Jackanapes 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The overriding principles at wikipedia are neutral point of view and no original research. See especially primary secondary and tertiary sources at the no original research guideline. The article should not be based on primary sources, but on secondary sources. Even in 1903 there were different perspectives and conflicting objectives within the movement; so picking out an account by participants is not an adequate basis. Synthesizing a preferred perspective from primary sources is considered original research. If there is such a synthesis published in reliable sources, then we can certainly use it. But we cannot discard different secondary sources based on spurious concerns about being "non-domestic" or based on personal objections to such things as a putative "de-Bulgarianization"; any more than others can discard sources domestic to Bulgaria based on personal objections to framing the whole insurrection as "Bulgarian".

This notion is going to be very hard for people to grasp, but Wikipedia does not try to judge truth. If there are major different perspectives, both of which have a basis in suitable published secondary sources, then they both need to be included; and in such a way that Wikipedia does not single out one as perfered, but rather indicates where each perspective is found. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly waht I expected from you - abstract arguments, based on procedures, but not on the concrete documentary base or scientific tradition. Note: we are talking about concrete historical event! Please, answer me:

a) was the revolutionary organization, which organized this rebellion, named Macedonian-Adrianopolitan?

b) was there an uprising in the Adrianople region in the same period as the Ilinden uprising in Bitola region?

c) were there structures of the IMRO in the Adrianople region before the summer of 1903?

d) did deputies from Adrianople region participate in the congress in Thessalonica, where the decision for the uprising was taken?

e) are there domestic historical records, which mention the uprising in Adrianople region together with the uprising in the Bitola region?

f) are there historical researches (secondary sources!), written by eyewitnesses, which call this parallel local uprising in Adrianople region "Preobrazhensko"?

If the answers of these qwestions are "yes", I wonder could you dare to erase the word "Preobrazhenie" from the title because of some concepts of the much later ethnic Macedonian tradition? As I already told you, even some contemporary Macedonian historians define the whole IMRO movement as Bulgarian organization (check here, interview with Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, in Macedonian)! Is it impossible for you to believe that prominent scientists from the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts maintain this point of view?! - Jackanapes 00:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong questions. The issue is ... what is the basic way in which this event is mainly designated in secondary sources?

The answer is: "Ilinden uprising". The designation is conventionally taken from the date when it began.

The article can go into more details of background and associated events and timelines and so on. Even listing the two uprising is misleading in a sense, because there were others as well in other communities and on other dates. But the primary name of the article, by well established conventions for neutrality, should be based mainly on what is common usage. Arguments from primary sources that it should be named differently miss the point.

I'm not actually hugely concerned with the title itself. I appreciate reasons for both titles. At this stage, I think that the shorter and simpler name is so much better established in secondary sources that I think it would be better for Wikipedia as well. The more serious concerns is with actually explaining the details of the events. The current article is misleading in the simple details; there is no hint that the Ilinden uprising in the Bitola region was raised and quashed again by the Turks before the subsequent uprising in the Adrianople region. The insistence that IMRO is a Bulgarian organization is highly simplistic, and glosses over the fluid lines of ethnicity and politics both before and after 1903. Within the IMRO there were factions. It incorporated Bulgarian interests, and also move for new independent states not under control of the Bulgarian government.

Trying to phrase this dispute as if it was simply a Bulgarian run revolt against the Turks is absurd. Trying to phrase it as if it was simply a drive for Macedonian independence is absurd. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Naked words. Answer to these concrete qestions! We are talking about concrete historical event with concrete documentary base and concrete researching tradition, which, by the way, is deeply influenced by Hristo Silyanov's book from 1933, which you prefer to ignore as secondary source until now. Enough abstract speculations! - Jackanapes 01:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, a cursory glance at Mr. Neutron's contrib history discovers that he's been asking for help instead of discussing the issue here ;) (just a well intentioned jib, nothing more :)

To Jacknasspe:

1. The sources cited above come from the english language scholarly work body, done mostly by English and American scholars. How are these "former Yugoslav tradition"? And what is "domestic"? Bulgarian?

2. You write : "Note: all domestic documents are written in Bulgarian and by people with Bulgarian national self-consciousness " . Thank you for pointing that out. That virtually guarantees that all your "domestic" documents will be pro-bulgarian.

3. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with your 'famous book.' However I am familiar with English-language books that can be found in any english-language library, on google books or google scholar. Please note that the 'books' and 'scholar' part of google are not the same as its 'search' part, but they search fill texts of books in print and scholarly papers. If you claim that these writings take 'former yugoslav perspective' and accuse them of being nonobjective, then you have bigger fish to fry, and wikipedia is definitely not the place for that.

4. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, and as such does not care about "authentic historical documents and researches, written by participants" but instead relies on already published research by scholars and experts who themselves have evaluated the primary documents and accounts. In this case, this is the english wikipedia, and as such, it relies on English-language documents, researches and body of work, and uses english-language established naming conventions.

- respectfully Capricornis 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To Duae Quartunciae and Capricornis. According to the contemporary Macedonian Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, leading Macedonian researcher of the revolutionary struggle, director of the Hisorical Sciences section in the Department of Social Sciences in Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts: "Сите наши луѓе се именувале како „Бугари“..." (All our people named themselves as "Bulgarians"...); "Нашите луѓе апсолутно ја прифатија и бугарска култура и се запознаа и со политичкиот живот на Бугарија и со нејзиното револуционерно движење, кое го прифатија како искуство." (Our people absolutely accepted Bulgarian culture and acquainted with Bulgarian political life, with Bulgarian revolutionary movement, which they accepted as an example.); "Првото име на македонска ослободителна организација било „Б'лгаро-македоноодрински револуционерни комитети“." (The first name of Macedonian liberating organization was "Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committees.); "Практично, ни левицата ни десницата не ја доведуваа во прашање својата бугарска провениенција." (Practically neither the left wing, nor the right wing disputed their Bulgarian provenance.); Сите тие ветерани останаа само на нивото на политички, а не и на национален сепаратизам. (All these veterans /until 1944 according to Katardzhiev!/ remained only on the level of the political, but not national separatism /from Bulgariannes/.) - Jackanapes 00:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To Capricornis. Bulgarian literary language was the only internal official language of the whole IMRO movement. All statutes, newspapers, magazines, documents, etc. were written on this language. Moreover, many of the IMRO leaders were teachers in the Bulgarian schools of the Bulgarian Exarchate. Even the concept for "Independent Macedonian state", raised by Ivan Mihailov after 1924, was propagated in Bulgarian. Probably because "All our people named themselves "Bulgarians...", as Ivan Katardzhiev says. ;-) - Jackanapes 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To Jacskanasspes: I am not sure you grasp the definition of encyclopedia. No one is here to interview some Bulgarian or Macedonian researchers and get their opinions on articles. An encyclopedia summirizes EXISTING research into short and to the point articles. All of your diatrabe above has less to do with the actual events of this uprising, and more with the alleged bulgarian character of the perpetrators, and hence it is (mostly) irrelevant to this article. Again, this is an english-language wikipedia, and thus english-language sources, preferably from english-speaking countries should be used. You are free to use your bulgarian sources in the bulgarian wikipedia, which is, I am sure, much more to your liking. Capricornis 04:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In the article Wikipedia:Citing sources it is written:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

Read this again: "However, do give references in other languages where appropriate." Therefore usage of non-english language sources is permissible. Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising is a part of the Bulgarian and Macedonian history, the documentary base of IMRO is written predominantly in Bulgarian language, the highest number of researches are published in Bulgarian and Macedonian languages so it is inevitably to cite Bulgarian and Macedonian language historical records, authors and texts in this case. Capricornis, please, respect the real principles of Wikipedia and don't invent your own new rules! - Jackanapes 08:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, foreign language sources are permissible. But keep in mind the need to prefer secondary sources over primary sources (WP:PSTS), and English sources should be available as well. The principle of WP:NPOV is going to apply; where different sources show different perspectives, both will be presented, with neither singled out by wikipedia as true. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Of cource we have to cite all points of view from existing historical records and scientific researches. Keep in mind that Hristo Silyanov's book "Liberating struggles of Macedonia" is secondary source and is treated as qualitative source both by Bulgarian and Macedonian researchers. He describes the uprising on the day of Preobrazhenie in Adrianople Thrace as an integral part of the whole IMRO uprising in 1903. As you see, the so called "Bulgarian point of view" is shared also by several contemporary Macedonian historians (fully or to some extent). Note: this uprising was defined as "Bulgarian" even by some ideologists of Ethnic Macedonian idea, from Krste Misirkov in his brochure "On the Macedonian Matters" in 1903 to some contemporary Macedonian Academicians. I don't see relevant reason for exclusion of the word "Preobrazhenie" from the title in this perspective. (See following words from Misirkov's "On the Macedonian Matters": "И, така револ'уционијо комитет беше чисто македонцка организација по произлез и по состаот му, но тоа беше само работа на једна част од једна од македонцките нацјоналности, врзана по име и по црковно сколијцките работи со бугарцкијо народ и држаа и нивните интереси. Тоја комитет, во сашност македонцки, за надворешчнијот свет и за рисјаните во Македонија не екзархисти, беше комитет бугарцки." - And, therefore, the revolutionary committee was purely Macedonian organization by origin and composition, but this was work of a part of one of Macedonian nationalities, tied by name, church and school deeds to Bulgarian people and state and their interests. This committee, in reality Macedonian, for the outer world and for the non-Exarchist christians in Macedonia was a Bulgarian committee.) -- Jackanapes 09:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not getting the point yet again. There is more than enough english-language sources to be used for this article, there is next to no need to go to sources in other languages. The commonly accepted name for this event in english-language sources is "Ilinden Uprising". Capricornis 16:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to talk about the name of the article first. The article was initially created on 28 April 2004 by Danny under the name Ilinden uprising, but on 21 June 2005 it was redirected to Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising by VMORO (a Bulgarian editor).

If you make the following google search: "ilinden-preobrazhenie uprising" -"ilinden uprising" (try this:[3]), you will get 723 results. So, there are 723 internet pages mentioning the uprising by suffixing it with Preobrazhenie (most of them are Bulgarian sites).

On the contrary, if you google search this:"ilinden uprising" -"ilinden-preobrazhenie uprising" ([4]), you would get 10,800 results! The difference is enormous.

In addition, all online encyclopaedias also use the Ilinden uprising naming: see for example the encyclopaedia Britannica:[5] or High Beam Encyclopedia [6],[7].

If someone provides me with an evidence that the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising is used more than Ilinden uprising, I'll support the current naming of the article, otherwise I (or other editor) would return the initial naming of the article.

In addition, I completely support the Capricornis initiative to rewrite the article in an objective and balanced manner. MatriX 19:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Google isn't relevant as statistics in this case. It is logical that the most used variant in English will be "Ilinden uprising" because it contains both Macedonian and Bulgarian tradition, while "Preobrazhenie" is excluded from contemporary Macedonian tradition. Still more, Bulgarians and Macedonians quarrel and propagandize mainly about Ilinden, but not about Preobrazhenie because there isn't possibility to think of Thracian part of the uprising as ethnic Macedonian and it isn't part of the contemporary ethnic Macedonian political mythology. Finally, Ilinden day has status of official holiday in Republic of Macedonia and it is mentioned in many media because of this. The consequences are obvious. You have to seek what the majority of scientific tradition says instead. Nevertheless, I do think that in this case the statistics isn't proper way to find reasonable solution because later politically motivated interpretations differ significantly from the documentary base - there is open conflict between these two types of information (especially in the case of "ethnic Macedonian perspective"), and if we want to be closer to the authentic historical situation, we have to use mainly primary sources (regardless of what Wikipedia principles say, because we have specific historical problem). See for example Ivo Banac, contemporary Croatian Historian, "The Macedoine" pp. 307-328 in "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics", Cornell University Press, 1984 (check here):

Goce Delchev, the tolerant, wise, and forgiving theoretician of the Internal Organization, himself a former Bulgarian military cadet, was so firmly committed to the idea of an autonomous Macedonia that (in 1902) he took the step of changing the statute and rules of the BMORK and, in a departure from its Bulgarocentric character, renamed it the Tajna makedono-odrinska revoljucionna organizacija (TMORO, Secret Macedono-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Organization). The TMORO was to be an insurgent organization, open to all Macedonians regardless of nationality, who wished to participate in the movement for Macedonian autonomy. Delchev called for the "elimination of chauvinist propaganda and nationalist dissentions that divide and weaken the population of Macedonia and the Adrianople area in its struggle against the common [Ottoman] foe." The TMORO guerrilla units (chetas) started recruiting "Graecomanes," Vlachs, and others.

But the cost attending the ill-timed call to arms became apparent only with the uprisings of August 1903, which commenced in southwestern Macedonia (the vilayet of Bitola) and the region of Strandza (Thrace) on the feast days of Prophet Elijah (Ilinden, August 2, N.S.) and the Lord's Transfiguration (August 19, N.S.) respectively. Contrary to the expectations of the revolutionary leaders, the European powers failed to intervene on behalf of Christian insurgents. Both uprisings were drowned in blood, the Turkish soldiers and Albanian irregulars having burned some 150 villages round Bitola.

The failure of the Ilinden uprising effectively quelled the Macedonian insurrectionist organization for a long period, during which Bulgar initiatives in general gave way to the rise of Serbian and Greek insurgency.

According to Banac the IMRO movement in 1903 was ethnic Bulgarian movement with trend to change itself into supranational organization, which embraced both Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace regions and the insurrection in August 1903 had two major parts - Vilayet of Bitola and Strandzha's Thrace. The exclusion of the Preobrazhenie uprising from this article is in conflict with the historical facts and their non-nationalist interpretation. Note - this is article not only about the present-day ethnic Macedonian myth of Ilinden, but chiefly about the historical event, and the difference between the much later etnic Macedonian concept (+Ilinden -Preobrazhenie) and the historical event (+Ilinden +Preobrazhenie) is more than obvious. - Jackanapes 20:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First, Google is relevant because it represents what naming of the event is used most widely on the web. The Google search confirms without any doubts that the Ilinden uprising is the overwhelmingly used naming of the event, so why should WP be different regarding this issue? Are you saying that the Britannica encyclopaedia is not a relevant source? MatriX 21:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica encyclopaedia is an encyclopaedia, not specialized academic research about this topic and can't be treat as ultimate source. Google is relevant about what is "most widely on the web", but this means "most widely among non-historians and non-experts" also. Its results contain numerous irrelevant nationalist forums, personal blogs, information without connection with history dedicated to present-day official celebrations, etc. Excuse me, but this isn't article only about modern profane perception of this event. We are talking principally about history, documents and academic studies. - Jackanapes 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is one of the most renowned world encyclopaedias, the world's most comprehensive reference product. Its articles are commonly considered accurate, reliable, and well-written. However, almost every other reliable source I met uses the Ilinden uprising naming. For example, in the book of the Hugh Poulton, Who are the Macedonians, the uprising is named simply with Ilinden uprising:[8] (page 56). Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation: [[9]] uses the same naming convention. I really don't know why you oppose the obvious fact that this event is overwhelmingly named simply as Ilinden uprising? MatriX 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, all we know what Encyclopaedia Britannica is and what isn't. The point is that it can't be treated as ultimate source for such specialized and contradictory topic. Hugh Poulton is focused on the Macedonian part of the conflict and its consequencs, therefore his naming choice is logical. The text of Keith Brown has similar context and connotations. Let's talk about this uprising as a whole historical process. Did it embrace Adrianople Thrace? If the answer is "yes"... - Jackanapes 22:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Both usages can be found in the literature. Both uses are older than the modern Macedonian republic. There are reasons for treating them together, and reasons for considering them separately. There are modern political influences that give pressure for emphasizing over the other. But fundamentally, the question of the title of the page really ought to be about normal identification of the topic for English readers. The historical details and associations will be spelled out in the content.

The factions within IMRO, divided between a drive for an independent Macedonian state and for union with the Bulgarian state, are older even that the 1903 insurrections. Quite apart from the title, the current article gives no clues that the uprising at Ilinden had been raised, had its initial brief success, declared a republic, made approaches to the "greater powers", and been crushed by the Ottoman Turks, all about a week before the subsequent uprising on Preobrazhenie got started, over towards the East in Trace. The uprisings were certainly related; but I think there were also some factional differences within the insurgents in the two regions. A literature search using historical abstracts shows a solid standing for refering to a "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising"; but also simply an "Ilinden uprising". The former seems solidly preferred by Bulgarian journals; and the latter by Yugoslavian journals. The citation list I used gives titles I cannot read, but I can identify "Preobrazhenie" when it occurs. A brief translation to English is given in the citation list, and often just omits the word "Preobrazhenie" even if it occurs in the title. This search, of "ABC-Clio" returned 54 articles matching "ilinden" and "uprising".

In the returned citations, there were 35 references listed as Bulgarian, 18 as Yugoslavian, and 1 as French.

• 6 of the Bulgarian references refered to Ilinden in isolation, and 29 in combination with "Preobrazhenie"
• All 18 references listed as Yugoslavian refer to Ilinden in isolation.
• The French reference refers to Ilinden in isolation

This is a comment on titles, not content of the articles. I did not read 54 articles. Many of these references predate the formation of the modern state of Macedonia. The author of the French reference is "Danco Zografski", so basically ALL of the articles returned in this search are Balkan of some kind.

At this stage I don't have strong feelings about the title. I'm more concerned the content of the article setting out some of this background, and the reasons for different perspectives, for the benefit of a reader totally new to the topic. That needs to be done using the neutral point of view. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but which faction in 1903 supported "an independent Macedonian state"? Please, be more precise, give some concrete sources. AFAIK such concept didn't exist at that time and didn't have status of official policy of any IMRO faction. The common goal was regional autonomy within the state borders of the Ottoman empire, based on the Treaty of Berlin, clause 23. Do you mean only the so called "Krushevo Republic"? It has symbolic character to a great extent and embraced only the town of Krushevo, but not the whole Bitola region. Its ideological program "Kruševo Manifesto" in reality is a quotation from a dramatic work called "Ilinden" written by Bulgarian writer Nikola Kirov Maiski (born in Krushevo), published in 1923. Its trust-worthiness is at least unclear question. Note - even this document doesn't contain program for an independent state, but ends with the words "Hurrah! For an autonomous Macedonia!" In the same time the members of the general staff of Bitola's revolutionary region Dame Gruev and Boris Sarafov sent a letter to the Bulgarian government with demand for direct Bulgarian military intervention, see here (translated from Bulgarian to Macedinian). The concept for independent Macedonian state emerged more than two decades after Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising and was supported by Ivan Mihailov's faction, famous for its extreme Bulgarian nationalism. - Jackanapes 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

P. s. There are indications that in the spring of 1903 there were discussions of plans and expectations not only of provocation of pressure of the Great powers upon Ottoman empire through bloody insurrection, but also for Bulgarian military intervention. According to Peyo Yavorov's biography "Gotse Delchev", Delchev opposed to a premature uprising with the words "обаче лошо бихме отплатили на България за многобройните нейни жертви подир нас, ако искаме да я вкараме боса в огъня." ("however, we should badly repay to Bulgaria its numerous sacrifices for us if we want to push it barefooted into the fire", see here in Bulgarian). Does this sound like an idea for "independent Macedonian state"? - Jackanapes 02:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any credible doubt that there was a strong faction within IMRO that wanted political autonomy. The trick is sorting through conflicting modern claims. The Balkan political situation was particularly confused because for hundreds of years it had been run by the Ottomans, and as the Ottoman empire crumbled the rising nations of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia all had designs on the Macedonian region, and sought to pursue their particular interests by all means available. Caught in the middle was a local population, that realistically at that point had little hope for real autonomy.

The ideal for Wikipedia is secondary sources; not primary. Using primary sources tends to be original research, marshalling arguments for a large conclusion not explicit in the primary sources but derived as an implication. Where possible, Wikipedia should cite secondary sources that make that style of historical argument themselves. We then cite the secondary source and attribute the particular claim to them. That'e the ideal. There will be several different perspectives obtained in this way, and the neutral point of view means that conflicting views that have substantial support are both given, cited, and no judgement made between them.

I am very new to this whole topic. I'm at a library, with access to on-line databases (hence the literature search cited above). A good secondary reference I have found is the following. Jelavich, C.; Jelavich, B. (1977), "The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920", University of Washington Press, ISBN 0-295-95444-2. It is volume 8 of the 11 volume series A History of East Central Europe.

It refers to the Ilinden Uprising on pages 211-212.

Although most of the societies were for cultural and propaganda purposes and did not participate in outrages, some did. The best known of the extremist organizations were both Bulgarian. The International Macedonian Revolutionary Oragnization, or IMRO, appeared in 1893. Its purpose was to overthrow Ottoman rule and establish an autonomous Macedonian state; hence its motto was Macedonia for the Macedonians. Its sympathies were nevertheless Bulgarian. Its rival was the Macedonian Supreme Committee, known both as the Supremists and the External Organization. It was located in Sofia and its membership came chiefly from refugees from Macedonia. It enjoyed the support, although not openly, of the Bulgarian government. Whereas IMRO initially devoted its energies to the preparation of a carelly planned uprising to be carried out in the future, the Supremists did not hesitate to send raiding parties into Macedonia to terrorize villages or even to assassinate Turks with the hope that reprisals would force the population to revolt. [...] Notwithstanding the intentions of the great powers, the Bulgars, Greeks, and Serbs intensified rather than curtained their activities. The height of these endeavors was reached in August, 1903, when IMRO precipitated the Ilinden Uprising. Its goal was to seize the vilayet of Monastir as the prelude to complete liberation of Macedonia from Ottoman control. It was another of the scores of ill-conceived and poorly prepared revolts that had plagued the Balkans in the nineteenth century. The Ottoman forces responded with unusual vigor. It is estimated that about nine thousand homes were destroyed.

The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804-1920, C. & B. Jelavich, 1977, pp 211-212

Another secondary source I consulted was Schevill, F. (1971), The History of the Balkan Peninsula, Harcourt, Brace & Co, ISBN 0-405-027743-5 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help) (reprinted from a 1922 edition). This gives no name to the uprising, but describes it on page 435. It speaks in terms of the region, still under Turkish control, and being destined to fall not to its disunited inhabitants but to such neighboring states as were prepared to advance some sort of a moral claim to the land and would, at the same time, prove themselves strong enough the make the claim respected. This account speaks of an uprising in the Vardar valley fermented by the Macedonian committee, and puts this as part of the Bulgarian efforts to tip the balance in their direction. In deliberately plunging Macedonia into anarchy the Bulgar propaganda was chiefly moved by the desire to produce a strong reverberation in Europan public opinion. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The expression of Jelavich "The International Macedonian Revolutionary Oragnization, or IMRO, appeared in 1893. Its purpose was to overthrow Ottoman rule and establish an autonomous Macedonian state" is incorrect. In principle the states are independent units, the autonomy is a characteristic of non-independent structures. Still more, it was already said, until 1903 the idea for "independent Macedonian state" wasn't raised and supported by any IMARO faction. Dear Duae Quartunciae, your quotation of a secondary source is correct, but the secondary source in itself is in contradiction with the primary historical base. The word "state" distorts the historical situation. Jackanapes 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See the goals of IMARO according to some of its founders:

Ivan Hadzhinikolov in his memoirs underlines the five basic principles of the MRO's foundation:

1. The revolutionary organization should be established within Macedonia and should act there, so that the Greeks and Serbs couldn't label it as a tool of the Bulgarian government.
2. Its founders should be locals and living in Macedonia.
3. The political motto of the organization should be the autonomy of Macedonia.
4. The organization should be secret and independent, without any links with the governments of the liberated neighborly states, and
5. From the Macedonian emigration in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian society, only moral and material help for the struggle of the Macedonian revolutionaries should be required.

According to Dr. Hristo Tatarchev:

We talked a long time about the goal of this organization and at last we fixed it on autonomy of Macedonia with the priority of the Bulgarian element. We couldn't accept the position for "direct joining to Bulgaria" because we saw that it would meet big difficulties by reason of confrontation of the Great powers and the aspirations of the neighbouring small countries and Turkey. It passed through our thoughts that one autonomous Macedonia could easier unite with Bulgaria subsequently and if the worst comes to the worst, that it could play a role as a unificating link of a federation of Balkan people. The region of Adrianople, as far as I remember, didn't take part in our program, and I think the idea to add it to the autonomous Macedonia came later.

In Dame Gruev's memoirs, the MRO's goals are stated as follows:

We grouped together and jointly worked out a statute. It was based on the same principles: demand for the implementation of the Berlin Treaty. The statute was worked out after the model of the Bulgarian revolutionary organisation before the Liberation. Our motto was "Implementation of the resolutions of the Berlin Treaty". We established a "Central Committee" with branches, membership fees, etc. Swearing in for each member was also envisaged. In the regulations there was nothing concerning the Serbian propaganda but we intended to counteract it by enlightening the people.

Note - the autonomy means "Implementation of the resolutions of the Berlin Treaty", but not "aytonomous state out of Ottoman borders". This was very important because the rebels tried to present their demands not as violation of the international order, but as implementation of a legitimate treaty, outraged by the Ottoman plolicy. The tactics of IMARO was ambiguous, it had one face for the outer world and another in inner circles. Hristo Tatarchev explained organization's goals as "autonomous Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace" (equal to "implementation of the Treaty of Berlin") -> easier final unification with Bulgaria -> "if the worst comes to the worst - a federation of Balkan people". - Jackanapes 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To jasckanpass: "It is logical that the most used variant in English will be "Ilinden uprising" because it contains both Macedonian and Bulgarian tradition, while "Preobrazhenie" is excluded from contemporary Macedonian tradition" - Can you do math? 10,800 - 750 = 10,050 where ONLY "Ilinden Uprising" is used with absolutely no mention of 'preobrazhenie'.

You seem to like using a lot of words and saying nothing with them. Cant you put into your head that wikipedia is not a place to correct historic "lies" and "injustices" done to the "great bulgarian nation"? Wikipedia is not a place for original research and arguing with established author's in the English-language sphere? If you keep rejecting all the ENGLISH-speaking authors who don't agree with the Bulgarian standpoint, than there is no purpose in continuing this further. Your rejection of Britannica as unreliable is at best ridiculous. Have you forgotten that wikipedia is an encyclopedia as well, and it strives to be at least as good as Britannica. Capricornis 02:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

yet another call for mediation

So, Mr. Neutrino, if you are so sure about your position why don't you accept my call for mediation, we will go to the Wikipedia mediation board, present our arguments, and let them decide? Capricornis 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it, if you use my username properly. Mr. Neutron 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you voluntarily accept the mediation and let the Wikipedia Mediation board decide who is right here. Capricornis 18:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly happenning right now. Mr. Neutron 18:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. This is RFC, mediation is a formal process with binding results. If you agree, I will enter yours and my usernames in the request for mediation bulleting board. Capricornis 18:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how other options have been exhausted. You cannot simply push your version of the article and expect the mediation board to approve it. I advise you instead to work towards improving the current article. Mr. Neutron 18:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You obstinately refuse to discuss the new article and give nationalistic Bulgarian sources and refuse to accept the english-language, third-party sources to be found on amazon, google books, and any normal library outside of Bulgaria. I don't see this going anywhere without a formal mediation. Capricornis 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply saying the version of the article you push is not an improvement of the current one, for reasons already mentioned above - NPOV, copyvios, style, etc Mr. Neutron

And I am saying that you are wrong, that you are pushing nationalist agenda and propaganda, and that the old version is POV and embarrassingly incomplete. So how do we agree without impartial mediation? Capricornis 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Article history

What a mess! There is another older article, called "Ilinden uprising". It now redirects here. The original article history is here: [10].

That talk page of "Ilinden uprising" is still available. See Talk:Ilinden_uprising. There is no mention on the talk page of any move or rename or redirect. The last entry on the talk page was 15:39, 29 April 2005.

This article here, on Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising was created by Vladko (talk · contribs) at 08:58, 2 May 2005, but as a very brief article. At that time, the article then at "Ilinden uprising" was substantially similar to what we had here at the start of August 2007.

On 21 June 2005, VMORO (talk · contribs) copied across all the material from the "Ilinden uprising" page to the "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising" article, replacing the few sentences by Vladko. He then made the old "Ilinden uprising" a redirect.

Unfortunately, this was not properly discussed or even discussed at all that I can see. It has installed a title that is less in line with Wikipedia principles, and has fragmented the history of the article. It may have been a good faith attempt to manage the disputes, however. I am recording this here for the sake of tracking the history of the article better. The actual content was largely developed in the "Ilinden uprising" and that is where people need to go for history of much of the text. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As advised by User:Rocksanddirt, I have archived discussions up to July 2007. Some of that discussion may be useful, but it is old history now. Just for fun, I have made two archives; the first transcludes from the other page the discussions prior to June 2005. Wikitext is fun. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the cut-n-paste move, see my note below. (Just saw this section here now, thanks for researching this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates and locations for uprisings at Ilinden and Preobrazhenie

One of the major defects with the article at present is that there is very little of the dates and major events. Correct me if I am wrong here, anyone.

• August 2 or 3 (Ilinden). An uprising occurs, in the Bitola vilayet. Soon, the Kruševo Republic is declared.
• August 12 or 13. Turkish forces overrun Kruševo, and crush the "republic"
• August 19. (Preobrazhenie). An uprising occurs, in the Adrianople vilayet.
• September 7. (I think) final defeat of the uprising around Adrianople.
• September 22nd?. Bulgarian government formally protests Turkish actions in putting down the insurrections.
• October some time (2nd?). Surviving leaders meet in Sofia, and call off the insurections.

A map would be great, but it seems that the Ilinden uprising was inland, in what is now in the South the Republic of Macedonia, near the border with Greece; and the Preobrazhenie uprising is near what is now Turkey, near the border with Greece and Bulgaria. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The current article gives none of the dates. With this information, however, I can see much more clearly what is going on. There are two uprisings involved. They are related to each other, but distinct in geography and in time. The organization of the uprisings is related, but the IMRO/SMARO/many-other-arrangements-of-letters group had internal divisions at the time. (It's the Baklans after all.) I don't know anything about whether differences of opinion within the group correspond to different factions in the two uprisings.

In relation to current political perspectives... the Macedonians prefer to ignore the Preobrazhenie uprising, or treat it as distinct. They focus upon the uprising at Ilinden. Geographically it is (mostly?) within their current borders. It marked the Kruševo republic, which is of considerable significance in its own right for history in the Baklans.

Bulgarians prefer to emphasize both uprisings as part of a single movement, which also downplays any attempt to make it uniquely associated with one modern state or independence movement, and is better suited to seeing it as general rebellion against the Ottoman Turks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent, by the way, for speaking of the "Preobrazhenie uprising". The major leader was (apparently) Mikhail Gerdzhikov, who does not even get a mention here.

As a neutral observer who is finding out all this stuff for the first time, it seems to me that the current article is badly deficient with basic historical details. It also seems that there is a motive for having these details obscure. I am not saying that the article is deliberately obscure, and I'm going to urge in the strongest terms that we don't malign motives here. But I think it likely that some details of times and places are de-emphsized in some of the sources people have been using; and that there is not a lot of motive for adding them in.

On the other hand... the replacement form by Capricornis was just as bad, if not worse. There was good encyclopedic information of dates and events and places that should be included; but the second uprising of Preobrazhenie over towards the East was omitted entirely. Also, Capricornis's writing was impossibly passionate for an encyclopedia. I think there was a problem with earlier text being taken wholesale from some other source, and this probably is the root of the unencyclopedic tone of the proposed changes. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Some changes I would like to see in the article.

• I would like it renamed to Ilinden uprising.
• I would like dates and major events given neutrally and clearly.
• I would like a map.
• I would like to see the account written with cold hearted lack of passion. Certainly no mention of genocide. Evocative words like brutal, atrocity, and genocide should be avoided. A plain description of the numbers of deaths and mention of rapes and mutilation is enough. This is probably easy; as it does not pertain to the dispute between Bulgarians and Macedonians. But some days ago I tried to extract some good information from Capricornis' proposal and gave up as it was too much work to get around the unencyclopedic tone.
• I would like the Preobrazhenie uprising made into a distinct section, with its own dates and locations and people listed clearly and neutrally. A distinct article is also a possibility.
• I would like to see a section specifically on the Kruševo republic, which is an important aspect of the uprising, and also the focus of a redirect. Krushevo Republic
• I would like the "Strandzha Republic" sourced, or removed. It seems to have been substantially less formalized, and less significant historically.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Turkish recapture of Kruševo should be seen as the end. The organizers were still active, and it was not until October 2 (according to a Macedonian source I found) that a council decision was made to stop the activities of the uprising and place weapons in storage for possible use at another time.

An interesting source I found useful is The 1903 risings in Macedonia and Thrace, which is a translated extract of "National Liberation and Libertarian Federalism" (Natsionalnoto osvobozhdeniye i bezvlastniyat federalizum) by Georgi Khadzhiev, published by ARTIZDAT-5 in Sofia in 1992. Khadzhiev is an anarchist, and gives considerable detail from the perspective (as far as I can tell) of someone opposed to any nationalist agenda. The author is also known as "Khadzhieff". The translation is by "Will Firth", and is also to be found at [11]. Firth lives in Berlin, and is a fellow Australian! This makes his writings totally trustworthy. (Kidding!) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best if you wrote a 'test' version of the article and post it here so we can discuss it? I mean, you already have more information about it than me, which is impressive, as I am sure when you got involved with this few days ago was the first time you ever heard about this event :) I admit my article concentrates too much on the atrocities of the Turks, as that was what motivated me to write a new version. I would have a big problem however if the extent of the killings, rapes, torture and mutilations goes unmentioned. Firth's article provides quite a few numbers. As for map, I have not been able to find anything on the web except this: http://www.cybermacedonia.com/vostkrus.jpg and the quality is wanting. One thing I am not sure about though is how, if ever, is the current version of the article going to get changed to a more complete and objective version if the bolgarians here believe that anything but their version is a personal insult? I am pretty sure the new version will get just as spam reversed as mine, nomatter how objective it is. And wikipedia offers next to no means for dealing with such abusive users. Capricornis 04:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my call for someone to write a new version of this article (as mine is too 'emotional') and post it here so we can discuss it, otherwise we are just talking generalities and things irrelevant to this event. I only got involved initially to correct the current crappy excuse for an article, anyway. How about you Jackanpass? Or Mr. Neutron (oh, wait, he got banned, sorry :) It seems that you know (your) history very well Jackanpass, so why don't you write this article with dates, names, battles, numbers, etc? Maybe if Duae Q. writes a version too, we can merge the two and come up with a wikipedia worthy article. Just, jackanapass, please don't use the word 'Bulgarian' way too many times :) Capricornis 02:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but why dont you improve the current article? You have not listed a single thing about what's wrong with it and how it cannot be improved at all. Mr. Neutron 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you are still here. How's that 'checkuser' filed against you feeling? :) Capricornis 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. Mr. Neutron 17:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the <<sockpuppeteer>> and checkuser tags that were on your user page and you so graciously deleted, which you are not supposed to. Just like you delete anything on your Talk page that you don't like. Do you really think people are so lazy that they won't check your history? And yes, I really learned a lot about bending wikipedia rules just by following your contrib history. Anyway, don't you ever sleep? Do you have a life besides wikipedia? You are always on! Are you a real person or a cyborg or automaton of some kind :))) Capricornis 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Those tags were placed by a vandal named User:Amacos who subsequently got banned for his actions. On a side note, the article talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing contributions of users, so please adhere to that. Mr. Neutron 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Capricornis, I have told you this before. You are absolutely wrong about bending rules and talk pages. The remarks you are making are ignorant of basic facts of Wikipedia conventions, and fermenting trouble for no good reason. It is explicitly permitted to remove warnings from your own user talk page, and I would most likely do the same thing. The idea of a warning is to warn someone. If they see it, then you've achieved all that is required. Anyone can place warnings on anyone else's page, and in many cases it is a very good idea to get rid of them. Most certainly it is permitted; there is no bending of rules in the slightest to delete them. Please just STOP trying to provoke people. And Mr Neuton; thanks for making a mild response. That helps. I'm not planning to say more on this, but I felt it worth having a neutral third party underline the point. This is a contentious area, and people should take extra special care not to just make it worse by snide insinuations. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah, yeah, yeah, I am the bad guy again :) Bah, we should change wikipedia rules then, and remove undo for the talk and user pages, then the talk pages would be much more entertaining read than the articles themselves! Capricornis 05:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Extended addition by Duae Quartunciae

I did not have time for this, but I have gone ahead with an extended addition, giving dates and places. I have attempted to give some feel for what are the points under dispute. I have used printed sources from a University library; in particular books by Barabara Jelavich (1923-1995), a very well regarded historian with Balkan expertise, from University of Indiana. For dates and places I used a translation of a work by anarchist Georgi Khadzhiev. He probably has an agenda of his own; but for dates he was very useful. I've produced a map I made for myself as I was sorting out place names, and uploaded it to the commons.

The original text is still there almost unchanged. What is changed...

• The mention of the uprising in Macedonia being two weeks ahead of schedule is removed. In fact, it was the uprising in Thrace that was two weeks behind schedule, according to decisions made in the lead up. Khadzhiev gives quite a deal of focus to the uprisings in Thrace, including details of negotiations on dates.
• I've added a sentence on the length of time Krushevo was held by the rebels, and cited it; removing a citation request tag.
• I've removed a phrase saying thet the uprising in Thrace was organised by Bulgarian peasants. It was organized by Bulgarians, but not the local peasants. In fact, the Thrace leadership had a tendency to be intellectuals. Much of the activity in Thrace was diversionary military actions by militia as part of a larger strategy linked to the Ilinden uprising; not a popular movement by the locals.
• I've rephrased and cited paragraphs on the Muzstag program and the break up of the region after the Balkan wars of 1912/1913. Changes here are comparatively minor.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually like the new article a lot! But, of course, I have few peeves here:

1. In the beginning it says "local Bulgarian peasants, Grecomans and Vlach population of the region." I disagree with qualifying the 'Bulgarian' identification, as it is contested today. I would rather see "the local population" without the identifiers. What is Grecomans anyway?? (also official greek standing today is that the vlachs in macedonia feel greek :)

2. I think it is imperative to remove the picture with the flag! that picture is tkaen from a nationalistic bulgarian article who does not cite its source or at all where it was scanned from!

3. The atrocities of the Ottoman army has not been given enough weight here. I believe this deserve a special section, an d mention the rapes, the kinds of mutilation and torture that the regular army AND the paramilitary (bashi-bozuk) used.

that's it! Capricornis 05:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, also: the article should mention that "Ilinden" (August 2nd) is the biggest national holiday in republic of macedonia, because of the ilinden uprising and also ASNOM. This is easy to check, just google it Capricornis 05:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree only with point three. The first two points are blatant insinuations. Mr. Neutron 05:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you don't agree with point 2. So far you have shown yourself as a very fervent protector of properly referenced sources and objectivity in wikipedia, how come you would allow an unsourced image to stay there? How do you know the writer of the article did not draw it himself? Or can you give me the name of the book/paper from which it was scanned? Capricornis 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a well known image and it appears in many publications. A simple google search proves it. Also, learn to read the references under the image itself. Mr. Neutron 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Do any of those publications say where they got the image?

2. How many of those publications are in english?

3. How many of those publications are written by non-bulgarians?

-best regards Capricornis 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how any of those questions are relevant. The sources are trustworthy, one is the Bulgarian National Radio, it has English version too. Mr. Neutron 05:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

you are wrong. you are assuming an 'argument by authority' which is a falsity in logic. all material needs to be properly sourced and the origin stated for anyone to check. you cannot arbitrarily pronounce some sources as 'trustworthy'. Say who ? You and the people who think like you? Capricornis 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All the material is indeed sourced and the sources are indeed trustworthy. Following your logic no source is good, so dont get ridiculous. Mr. Neutron 05:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The identification of Bulgarian peasants is not really controversial, I think. The dispute on this point is pretty thin, I think we can safely omit it as not really needed under the principle of undue weight. The Bulgars were one of the various ethic groups involved beyond any credible question. The only basis for rejecting this identification I can imagine would be to try and identify a distinct Macedonian ethnicity; but even in that case the existence of Bulgars is not something to seriously dispute, surely.

Yes, the flag is a bit of an issue; it shows one aspect of the insurrections. But an important one. It's probably a legitimate image. As I was researching this, I had a quick scout around; because it seems to me that the reality is that there IS no one banner. Different groups and areas put up different banners and flags as appropriate for their own propaganda purposes. And there is no real doubt that the insurrections were encouraged from Bulgaria and intended to further Bulgarian interests. Bulgaria itself was still comparatively new to independence from the Turks, and had fairly recently incorporated Eastern Rumelia within its borders. As the Ottoman empire waned Bulgaria certainly was seeking to extend its own territory, and do the same for Macedonia. Calling it "liberation" is a nice propaganda ploy, but not without basis. This was still 1903; when it was still very much normal expectations for powers to push and extend borders and control, without the rather more modern notion of peoples in a given place winning or losing independence. It was the Supremist faction of IMRO, who wanted to Bulgaria to annex the region, who were the driving force for setting the date of insurrection. All in all, there's nothing remotely surprising about a banner with Bulgaria and Macedonia being waved around in these uprisings.

The mutilations need to be much better sourced before I would be comfortable with them. At best, I'd like to see a brief mention but not as a matter of fact, so much as a "claimed by" section. I consider it a secondary issue. The problem with this approach is that IMRO itself was not exactly a bunch of lily white freedom fighters. If we try to bring in that dimension, beyond what I have given already about reprisals, as a whole new section, then we run into all sorts of trouble. I really think this aspect should not be too dominant in the article.

The mention of the holiday is a good idea.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the holiday at the end of the article Capricornis 05:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Duae_Quartunciae, please call Bulgarians by their name Bulgars are an ethnic group no longer present. Mr. Neutron 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Quite right. My apologies. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Though the close relatives in Tatarstan would tend to disagree :) Capricornis 19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you are insinuating. Mr. Neutron 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

you are the one who's ridiculous proclaiming some sources as 'trustworthy'. I believe only in sources who clearly state where they got their information/images from, and yours DON'T Capricornis 05:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please adhere to constructive discussion. Throwing around accusations like that is pointless. Mr. Neutron 05:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"I believe only in sources who clearly state where they got their information/images from, and yours DON'T" <--- How much more constructive can I be? Can you read english? Your sources DO NOT state where they got the image of the flag from! Capricornis 05:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See straw man. The flag is kept in the Bulgarian National Museum of History, thats where they got it from. Mr. Neutron 05:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep getting impressed by your knowledge of wikipedia. Obviously you spend a lot of time here :) Anyway, can you explain how is this strawman, because i haven't constructed any weak argument and then attributed it to you? And since wikipedia readers cannot go to the bulgarian national museum of history to check your claim, and the image itself is not of the flag but of someone holding the flag, which means someone drew that image, either attribute it to the author, or the flag should be removed. Not to talk about original research and primary sources. -cheers Capricornis 06:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Mr. Neutron 06:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, you got left without arguments again? :) which part exactly is nonsense? Capricornis 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about drawing flags is nonsense. The flag is in the museum and that is a fact, and it is a pretty naive thing to deny it. Mr. Neutron 06:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am still waiting on an explanation on why my argument was 'straw man'. If you are going to throw around jargon, and weasel in accusations, you better explain its relevance Capricornis 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

well maybe it should be you who will tell the average american, canadian, british or australian reader that if they want to check your sources they should go to a museum in sofia, otherwise tough luck? Anyway, if you so fervently choose to be unreasonable I will submit this to the wikipedia arbitration committee and let them decide. Capricornis 06:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've pointed out valid sources and you are not convinced by any of them? Its your problem. Mr. Neutron 06:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And they are valid only because you call them trustworthy? Since I haven't seen any other argument about their validity, and they themselves definitely do not cite where THEY got the image with the flag Capricornis 06:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know how to say this in another way, the flag is kept in the Military History museum in Sofia. Mr. Neutron 07:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Speaking for myself, I'll quite happy to use images from a museum in Sophia. I've used images from museums in Iraq for writing about Neanderthals. Insisting I can only use images from museums in some limited set of countries seems a very odd principle to apply. I would like some indication, however, that this is actually where the image is from. There seem to be TWO images. There's the one here at wikipedia, which is a kind of orange color and the tunic is white. And then there is a red image at Bulgarian radio.[12] Both images turn up in several places on the web. Which one is at the museum? Is there any way to tell? The bnr website does not seem to indicate... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The site of the Bulgarian National Radio says "photos by aba.government.bg", so the Bulgarian government has photographed them. About the image, I think the BNR image is clearer and less noisy than the current one and it will be a good idea to update it. The one on promacedonia.com is actually even better to be honest. They are all pictures of the same flag from the museum, probably made by different people with different photographic skills etc, but they depict the same object. Mr. Neutron 07:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just put up a comment at the image talk page, thinking that I was putting it here. Ah well. Yes, the redder image seems better, but with the current inquisition over images you are going to have to pay careful attention to the policy. The rationale recently added to the current image, for example, is not going to be adequate because it does not deal with the image at all; only with the artifact portrayed in the image. I've been involved in the recent image wars and its all rather a pain.

If someone can check out the promacedonia site[13] and give a translation for the text linked to the image, I'd be greatful. I actually put the text at Image talk:Ohrid Banner1.jpg. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The caption reads - "Banner of the insurgents from Ohrid, 1903, National Museum of Military History, Sofia". Mr. Neutron 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I still maintain that the picture is not properly proven and sourced, and I will request arbitration on it, for the time being I request that the qualification "The Bulgarian flag and the name Makedonia is shown." be removed from the caption as it clearly interprets the contents. Capricornis 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont be ridiculous. It is a direct observation not interpretation. Mr. Neutron 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave the reader from making that observation, shall we? Capricornis 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont see the harm to spell it out. It is done all throughout wikipedia. Mr. Neutron 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

the harm is there by including the picture at all, but with the 'explanation' in the citation becomes even better candidate for POV Capricornis 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Didnt we go though this before? The picture stays as it is significant for the article content. It is sourced and it can be easily verified. Mr. Neutron 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is important that the names on the flag be spelled out, since they are not in English in the image. This is not a matter of "interpretation" or POV. It is a straight translation for the benefit of English readers. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

About the flag description in Bulgarian that needs translations, I'm on to it. Mr. Neutron 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Image caption needs updating

Image:Ilinden-and-preobrazhenie-uprising.PNG needs to be updated. Lets stick with "Republic of Macedonia", which is as a matter of fact the name of article in wikipedia, as Macedonia is a disambiguation page. Mr. Neutron 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The level of your anti-macedoniasm seems to be limitless. Macedonia is a short form for Republic of Macedonia in the CIA world factbook (www.cia.gov) and pretty much most countries in the world, including your beloved Bulgaria Capricornis 17:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The current name is a result of a major consensus in Wikipedia and you cannot simply change it. Mr. Neutron 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The name "Macedonia" is not formally the full name of the nation; but it is a legitimate short form in a context like this where there is no ambiguity. I prefer the short form in the image, not for any political reasons but just because it fits so much better. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

True but see Macedonia naming dispute. Mr. Neutron 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading the Macedonia naming dispute, one can see that some greeks have much more common sense than the bulgarians here. The short name 'Macedonia' is used on CNN, New York Times, Time Magazine and most major english-language publications Capricornis 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget about the name of the article

as proven in the 'name of the article' section above, 'Ilinden Uprising' is by far most common version of the name of this event in english, and it should be the main title and section in the english wikipedia. 'Ilinden-Preobrazhenie' can be given as an alternate name (with a qualification that is used virtually only in Bulgaria) and a redirect to the main page. Capricornis 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Ilinden-Preobrazhenie is more correct. Mr. Neutron 17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide english-language sources and statistics for your blanket claims. We are not here to decide which is more correct, but what is in more general use in the english-speaking world. thank you Capricornis 17:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Correctness is not based on statistics. Mr. Neutron 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you did not understand what I said: we are NOT here to judge what is the more correct version, but to present the information as it is most widely used in english-language sources, which is 'Ilinden Uprising' Capricornis 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And I say again correctness is not necessarily based on wide usage. Mr. Neutron 18:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you should get yourself familiarized with the principles of wikipedia, which is not here to establish correctness, but general consensus Capricornis 18:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you should, because that is exactly what you are missing. Mr. Neutron 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So am I to understand that you claim that wikipedia's mission is to establish 'correctness' and not to merely present the consensus, as that's how it sounds to me? Capricornis 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm with Capricornis on this one. Wikipedia policy goes by "what's most common in English". There is no "correctness" at stake either way. A name of an historical event is just that, a name, and as such arbitrary; it's defined by what the most common usage is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So User: Mr. Neutron will you change the title or should I do it? Capricornis 20:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this is highly controversial and you cannot do it unanimously without consensus. Mr. Neutron 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, having raised the matter here, there should be consensus on such a change. Don't whatever you do make a unilateral change and kick off a move war. Correctness here is not an issue. It has no birth certificate for singling out one name. There is nothing "incorrect" about either name. The content of the article now gives enough background to sort out why either name might be used. The normal convention in Wikipedia would be to use the name which is most usual for English readers and most common in the available sources. It is also the original name for the article, and was changed long ago without any notice, discussion or objection. But at this point, with such strong feelings on the matter, it should only be changed with a solid consensus. That's another normal convention in Wikipedia.

I don't really care a bit about the title. There's already a redirect, so it makes no difference for finding the article. There's already a clear indication in the text of the article of the names that are used. There's already explanation sufficient to sort out what the names mean. I'm not going to make a change for the sake of some dubious political point, and I've already far exceeded the amount of time I want to spend on this so I'm not going to the work of setting up any formal process. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the controversy is: the consensus in the english language sphere is 'Ilinden Uprising'. The Preobrazhenie part is used mostly in Bulgaria, and mostly for Bulgarian political purposes. I propose formal mediation. User: Mr. Neutron has 24 hours to accept or deny, otherwise I am filing for ruling of the arbitration board on this issue. -cheers Capricornis 00:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I now see this article was originally at Ilinden uprising and was actually moved here by first creating a POV fork ([14], followed by a copy-and paste move of the original contents into the fork ([15]).

Please wait while I'm fixing this, I'm going to merge the page histories. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:RFChist Capricornis 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To Jackanapes: refrain from making changes to the article wihtout discussing them here first

you will save a lot of people a lot of work reverting your changes Capricornis 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the rule is be bold. He makes a good-faith change to the article, you don't like it, it's your responsibility to initiate a discussion, stating exactly what you object to and why. Let me not find anybody reverting good-faith substantial new work without first seriously discussing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

just keeping track of the changes became a burden, let alone researching and quoting sources. anyway, he hasn't added anything that outrageous (yet) Capricornis 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting google books results

Since some people have been speculating about the meaning of the fact that "Ilinden uprising" brings much more hits (about 277) vs just 3 for "ilinden-preobrazhenie uprising" (one non Bulgarian author).

Observations

1. First of all if you scroll the pages, you only eventually get about 135 hits [16].
2. "ilinden-preobrazhenie" is not the only way to talk about both parts of the uprising. Some people use "Ilinden and Preobrazhenie" or "Ilinden in Macedonia and Preobrazhenie in Thrace" which are pretty much the same meaning. That brings a couple of more results, again one non Bulgarian. So this way we get about seven references to the Ilinden Preobrazhenie uprising. Now try searching for "Ilindensko" on google books. The top six results are about the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising.
3. Lets go back to "Ilinden uprising", which brings 277 (or 135 really). Try "Ilinden uprising" -Preobrazhenie and you find the result still at 277 (or 135 really). "Ilinden uprising" -Adrianopole brings 276 (134). "Ilinden uprising" -Thrace brings 255 (127). The Adrianople part is hardly mentioned in this case. On the contrary, authors talking about "Ilinden Preobrazhenie Uprising" seem to mention both Macedonia and Thrace.
4. Finally, let us use [17] "Ilinden Preobrazhenie uprising" in Cyrillic which brings about 50 hits. The books are not only Bulgarian but also Russian ones, as much as nationality of authors can be deduced. The situation with a Russian query is a bit more complicated because the Russian language uses various cases, but some authors also use Preobrazhenie there. Interestingly [18] "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising" in Macedonian also brings three hits, so ethnic Macedonian authors use it as well. "Ilinden uprising" in Cyrillic is still more common but not by a large margin (about factor of 2).

Analysis

1. Not true that only Bulgarian authors use "Ilinden Preobrazhenie". It seems to be used by historians from other countries too, including the Republic of Macedonia.
2. There are some issues in terms of spelling the names, which greatly affect the results, and can skew them one way or another.
3. Looks like the Macedonian part of the uprising is talked about a lot more frequently at the expense of the Thrace part, which skews the results. The Macedonian part can certainly be given due weight, and be made larger, and even branched off into a separate article if necessary, as long it as talks only about the Macedonian part of the entire uprising and references are made for the entire picture, including Thrace.
4. Authors which talk about both uprisings as a whole (which the current article strives to do, and as far as I can tell there is agreement that it should do) tend to use Ilinden Preobrazhenie.
5. "Preobrazhenie" means "transfiguration" in English and some sources also use it this way, often in combination with "Ilinden".
6. Per Wikipedia:Search engine test search engine results need to be interpreted, and popularity is no guarantee for neutrality.

Mr. Neutron 05:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

What you fail to mention, or fail to see, is that wikipedia is not here to 'interpret' anything, but to present the most common form, and that is 'ilinden uprising' by far. And yes, you can add the part about the library of congress that you deleted, it proves my point nicely. Capricornis 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well well, werent you citing some google books results before? I guess its not that simple is it. You are totally wrong about the goal of Wikipedia, it does not present things which are common, but things which are correct, and juding that requires some analysis. This is just an opinion and everyone can agree/disagree. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Search engine test for further info. Mr. Neutron 05:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the library of congress, there are books with "Ilinden Preobrazhenie" titles and variations as well, albeit I had something else in mind - namely, those are only titles searched in, not the entire text. Mr. Neutron 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have pretty much come around on this matter of naming. I'm still not strongly for or against a particular name, as long as the content of the article give the background. But basically, Mr Neutron is correct that both names are used outside Bulgaria. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to just leave Bulgaria out of the equation.

The sources I have been using give a fair bit of useful background, but most of them only give a page or two on the matter; relating to IMRO and the "Macedonian question". Some sources mention the trouble of 1903 without naming it, as a seed for the involvement of outside powers with (eg) the Murzsteg agreement in late 1903. In this case, it is certainly the case that all the uprisings were part of this. All the sources I used attribute these uprisings to Bulgarian influence. In particular, the factions that urged the summer of 1903 as the date for uprising were the Supremecists, who want to provoke circumstances in which Bulgaria would annex the region. Indeed, the treaty of San Stefano in March 1878 had done exactly that; though it was overturned a few months later with the Treaty of Berlin.

The Bulgarian predominance in events is undoubted. It was not really a local Macedonian independence movement. The committee that organized the Ilinden uprising was Bulgarian, and they also organized the Thrace uprising at the same time. The Thrace uprising was delayed by the local organizers, who needed some additional time. The Macedonian uprising was also delayed, but not by as much. Original plans were for uprising to being ten days before Ilinden, I think; but as planning proceeded and dates firmed up there was some additional time required.

Now of course, common usage has particular weight here, even more than "facts", since the uprising does not have a birth certificate. The facts should be spelt out the article content; the name should be given by convention. But you can't discount Bulgarian historians. Part of the problem is that the uprising does not actually have a lot of notice in western sources. It's more a footnote to a more wide ranging treatment. For a thorough examination of the uprisings in detail, some kind of local sources will be needed; and Bulgarian historians have as much standing as anyone. And you can't say that "Ilinden uprising" is the only name used in the West, as Mr Neutron has shown. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to object to only considering "Western sources" truly neutral. There is a lot of Russian literature on the matter. Mr. Neutron 06:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mr Neutron's point that "authors which talk about both uprisings as a whole, [...] tend to use Ilinden Preobrazhenie" is taken. If true, it is a strong argument. But I'd suggest at this point we should check it against reliable non-web publications. What's the usage in history books? And I mean works with a scope such as "history of the Balkans" or "History of the Ottoman Empire", not with a specific national focus on either Macedonia or Bulgaria. What is the usage in general-purpose encyclopedias such as Britannica? Do they have an article on the "Ilinden Uprising", and if yes do they include the Preobrazhenie part? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think britannica has such article, although it mentions "Ilinden uprising". I came across "Ilinden transfiguration" uprising as well. [19]. Preobrazhenie (bulgarian)=transfiguration, yet more format issues to be aware of during a search. Mr. Neutron 06:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, as I mention in the analysis section, it all boils down to the fact that the Macedonian part has undoubtedly gotten a lot more attention than the Thrace part for whatever reasons, and people talk about the Trace part less often, and some people even skip it altogether and talk about only about the Macedonia part. It does not mean however, in my opinion, that the Thrace part should be discounted. It is a matter of giving due weight to the more popular Macedonian part, but still acknowledge the significance of the Thrace part in terms of common preparation, organization, etc. Mr. Neutron 06:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica mentions the phrase 'Ilinden Uprising' in three different articles (search on britannica.com), there is no mention of 'preobrazhenie' in any form. There is not article dedicated to the uprising however.

I would like to see the exact searches that User: Mr. Neutron has used to get his numbers, altogether with keywords etc. since I don't have the time to experiment myself. From what I could see by running the searches on google books, scholar, search and amazon, the version 'Ilnden Uprising' without any additions outnumbers any other version by at least 10:1, if not 100:1 or 1000:1. Also the library search of many libraries in US and Canada will return a great number of results more for 'Ilinden Uprising' as a sole phrase, than in any other combination.

As for the exactness and correctness of the titles, which seems to be User: Mr. Neutron's (hey I write your name right now, even with a link to your page! ;) main concern, wouldn't the most correct way be 'Ilinden-Krstovden-Preobrazhenie' uprising? Capricornis 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and what does that mean? The Macedonian part of the uprising is talked about more often at the expense of the Trace part. Read the analysis. Also pay attention there quite a lot more ways to spell "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" (translations, cases etc), than "Ilinden". Also, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Search engine test. About reference encyclopedias, Encarta for example does not have any article mention of the uprising at all. Mr. Neutron 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You say "The Macedonian part of the uprising is talked about more often at the expense of the Trace part." Is this another attempt to correct 'historical injustices"? If other encyclopedias do that, maybe wikipedia should too? And you still haven't posted links to the results you use in your 'analysis' above Capricornis 20:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Look more carefully in the Observations section. Encyclopedias pay little attention to the uprising at all, so your comment is groundless. Mr. Neutron 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Search engines tests

Mr. Neutron mentioned several times during this discussion the Wikipedia:Search engine test. I went to this page and, at the beginning of the page is said that this engine is helpful in identifying sources, establishing notability, checking facts, and discussing what names to use for different things (including articles). I read the suggestions about which search engines should be used during the tests. I did two kind of searches on each of the chosen search engines. The first one was using the following expression: ilinden preobrazhenie uprising -"ilinden uprising" (give me the articles containing all combinations of the three words:ilinden, preobrazhenie and uprising, but without the following phrase: “ilinden uprising”). So, this search was in favor of the current name of the article. The second search was: ilinden uprising –preobrazhenie (give me the articles containing the words ilinden and uprising, but without the word preobrazhenie – note that this search would exclude even the articles that use the naming Ilinden uprising and mention the word Preobrazhenie in other place). So, the second search was in favor of the previous name of the article:Ilinden uprising. Here are the results:

Search engine	Results of the first search	Results of the second search
General search engines Google	789 [20]	17,000 [21]
General search engines Yahoo	1,040 [22]	14,100 [23]
Professional research indexes Google Scholar	1 [24]	110 [25]
Books and historical literature Google Books	7 [26]	355 [27]
Books and historical literature Amazon.com	0 [28]	41 [29]
Other online encyclopaedias Britannica	0 (search for preobrazhenie) [30]	3 (search for ilinden uprising) [31]
Highbeam]	0 (search for preobrazhenie) [32]	6 (search for ilinden uprising) [33]

According to the tests, the article name should be without any doubts returned to Ilinden uprising. The Preobrazhenie uprising can be mentioned in a separate section of the article or, maybe better, a new article should be created for that uprising as well. MatriX 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the analysis section before. There are many ways to spell Preobrazhenie which bias the results. Also very important, most of first column results only talk about the uprising in Macedonia and will not talk about Thrace at all, hence the difference. Your search is particularly flawed because you dont use any quotes. The default query in google is an AND query, means that all terms must be present in the document for a result to be returned. The more terms you supply, the less (and more specific) results you get. Hence three terms (ilinden preobrazhenie uprising) will always return less results than just two terms (ilinden uprising). Mr. Neutron 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to find how much articles use the simpler naming of the event - Ilinden uprising (without mentioning of Preobrazhenie) and how much are using the current name of the article, that is why the word "Preobrazhenie" had to be removed from the second search. It is obvious that the Ilinden uprising is enormously more used than the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising on all relevant search engines. You said there are many ways to spell Preobrazhenie which bias the results. I tried to make a Google search for two of them: Preobrazenie uprising and Transfiguration uprising, Google found 29 articles with the second search [34] and 22 results with the first search: [35], so those spellings are insignificant.MatriX 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"The idea was to find how much articles use the simpler naming of the event..." that is not what you are achieving with your search queries though, as I previously explained. Mr. Neutron 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on the title, and have not decided which way I would vote if it came to that.

However, the suggestion for a separate article is certainly the wrong thing to do. I came totally fresh to this subject a week ago, and since then my major sources of information have been secondary English sources some of which don't name the uprising at all. But they do give a lot of useful background and I think I have a reasonable picture of what is involved.

The uprisings across Ottoman held territory in Macedonia and Thrace were tightly linked. They were not a simple local uprising with a view to independence of Macedonia; but a deliberate tactic of disruption with a view to promoting Bulgarian claims across the whole region. Though there were factions within IMRO who wanted autonomy, by 1903 the Supremecist faction wanting a simple incorporation within Bulgaria was the major influence in the organization, and it was this Supremecist faction that pushed for the Ilinden uprising. The uprising in Trace was delayed by a couple of weeks as local militia needed a bit more time to prepare, but the whole uprising was one integrated strategic operation. Making a separate article is wholly unwarranted. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My point, which I mentioned as a possibility in the analysis is following: Retain the current article as a "parent" article named "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie" uprising. Duly expand the "Macedonia" section, as there is no doubt more material for it. If it becomes large enough, branch it into its own article. It is done all throughout other articles in wikipedia and works well. I dont see a problem as long as the "child" article references the parent article and its main scope is the Macedonia uprising. What I am referring here to is this policy, from a purely technical perspective. Mr. Neutron 21:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Neutron said my search is particularly flawed because I'm not using quotes. Here are search with quotes though: "ilinden uprising" -"ilinden-preobrazhenie uprising" 11,200 results:[36], "ilinden-preobrazhenie uprising" -"ilinden uprising": 779 results:[37]. It is more than obvious which name is far more used. We are speaking here about two different uprisings. The Ilinden uprising has much, much more importance in all relevant literature, it can be seen in all searches I did, so it deserves a separate article on Wikipedia. The Preobrazhenie uprising can have its own article or be included as a subsection of the Ilinden uprising article. We can even keep the current article that would have just a links to the two separate uprising events. In addition, the current name is pretty much difficult for searching. If we create separate articles, we can include a link on top of the both articles to the current article as well. MatriX 21:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat myself for the Nth time, read my analysis before and refraing from using a general google search. Your search queries need to be carefully interpreted per Wikipedia:Search engine test, and contain various biases which are documented and explained. Also read the top of the page - neutrality is preferred to common use. Mr. Neutron 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your observations and analysis are biased in many ways. For example, you are saying: Now try searching for "Ilindensko" on google books. The top six results out of 89 are about the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising. Ok, the top six results are about the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising, but if you search “ilindensko preobrazhensko” you would get only 6 results! Btw, your search returns many results not related to the uprising at all. Or, you saying: "ilinden-preobrazhenie" is not the only way to talk about both parts of the uprising. Some people use "Ilinden and Preobrazhenie" or "Ilinden in Macedonia and Preobrazhenie in Thrace" which are pretty much the same meaning. That is why I did the following search: ilinden preobrazhenie uprising -"ilinden uprising", so my search includes both of your terms. My searches are balanced, non-biased and without any intention to make a wrong impression. MatriX 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Mr.Neutron, if you are so sure of your claim, which many people here find it manipulative, why don't you accept formal mediation on this? I am willing to represent the other side. You present your arguments, I will mine, and we will let the impartial wikipedia mediators decide. Capricornis 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you seem to be missing the main point, and I repeat: Authors which talk about both uprisings as a whole (which the current article strives to do, and as far as I can tell there is agreement that it should do) tend to use Ilinden Preobrazhenie. Also, please comment on the analysis, as so far there are no real refutations of it. Mr. Neutron 00:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that you have to provide an analysis is the biggest refutation. The most common name in english literature is 'Ilinden Uprising', which can be checked in any library in an english-speaking country. Now you can analyze and re-analyze as much as you want, but that won't change the simple fact. Capricornis 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Search engine test - On Wikipedia neutrality trumps popularity, also Search engines are sophisticated research tools, but often have bias and results need to be interpreted. Mr. Neutron 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the page, thank you. One thing you forgot to mention is that the guidelines are open to interpretation and the one above is purely your interpretation. Again, I ask for the Nth time, if you are so sure, why are you so scared of FORMAL and BINDING mediation? Capricornis 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And those are pretty hard to interpret the wrong way because they spell it so clearly. I am simply acting according to policy and pointing out important facts. Mr. Neutron 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So why not let policy MAKERS decide on your actions? Mediation? Rings a bell? Capricornis 00:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I dont think it is necessary at this point, seems like good progress is made towards a resolution. Mr. Neutron 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, too bad the word 'INAT' is untranslatable into English Capricornis 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(edited by Mr. Neutron 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)) To Capricornis - please, avoid racist language in the future. - Jackanapes 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To Jackanapass: the language was actually slightly 'nationalist' (although more meant as a pun, lubricate your sense of humor ;), not racist, as Macedonians and Bulgarians are of the same race - i.e. Caucasians. -cheers Capricornis 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then, in the spirit of good collaboration, please take this comment back: [38]. Mr. Neutron 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet again you honor me by tracking all of my contribs :) But yes, you are right, those words were unnecessary and offensive for no reason, let alone that they do not apply to bulgarians today... I must say that my perception and approach to wikipedia have changed greatly since I got involved. -cheers Capricornis 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Mr. Neutron 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

Copied from one of my responses above: Retain the current article as a "parent" article named "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising". Duly expand the "Macedonia" section, as there is no doubt more material for it. If it becomes large enough, branch it into its own article. It is done all throughout other articles in wikipedia and works well. I dont see a problem as long as the "child" article references the parent article and its main scope is the Macedonia uprising. What I am referring here to is this policy, from a purely technical perspective. Mr. Neutron 00:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current article needs expansion, especially with the main battles of the uprising, and mostly the battle of 'Meckin Kamen' and Pitu Guli, which I have mentioned in my article and you so gallantly deleted. As to splitting it into two, I cannot immediately see how will that serve the greater-bulgarian interests, so that should be ok too, just that the 'preobrazhenie' part right now is so small it doesn't warrant it's own article. Capricornis 00:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They are about the same size as a matter of fact. Mr. Neutron 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They are the same size now, but when all the extra information gets added the Ilinden part should be bigger as more things happened there Capricornis 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It will likely be, and it will still reference the entire uprising in its integrity. Mr. Neutron 00:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are enough historical documentation and researches about Preobrazhenie uprising as well, don't bother about the future size of such separate subarticle, for example Hristo Silyanov's "Reminiscences of Strandzha" and Memoirs of Mihail Gerdzhikov. I agree with the proposal about creation of new subdivisions where needed. (edited by Mr. Neutron 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)) Jackanapes 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've pruned back the historical aftermath a bit. There was starting to be a tendency to add in peripheral matters, apparently focused on underlining the claims of one perspective at the expense of another. Reminder, folks. Part of the workings of the official policy on neutral point of view and no original research is that wikipedia does not make a strong claim for truth of one perspective based on primary sources. Instead, wikipedia refers to the claims of secondary sources, in proportion to their weight or notability.

This is really hard for some people to deal with. If subject matter becomes disputed, the way it gets handled according to policy is that every claim should be cited to an authority that makes the argument for the claim... NOT the primary sources which can be used to defend the claim directly. The latter method is original research. By far the best way to work this, in my view, is for people to relax a bit, and NOT make a concerted effort to put in lots of primary sources to defend their particular view of what is true. You don't need to resolve the whole "Macedonian question" in this article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent editing, Duae Quartunciae. I don't have any objection. Greetings, Jackanapes 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

flag picture

This picture is still not properly sourced. The last claim was that the flag is kept in the history museum in sofia, but the image on this web page is not a picture of a flag, but a drawing. Can somebody explain if this drawing is kept in the museum as well, what is it drawn on, what book, from where, etc?

Also it would be useful to see an actual picture of that flag kept in the museum. If it is so famous I am sure there are actual pictures, not drawings, of it somewhere on the web or in print? Or maybe some of the sofia-based wikipedians here can snap a picture next time they pass by the museum?

-thank you Capricornis 04:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a drawing. It is still the flag, just zoomed in the middle where the text, flag and figures are. Mr. Neutron 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the museum is situated in the foots of the Vitosha mountain and it's really not that close to the center of the city at all. --Laveol ^T 09:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Capricornis, I'm not sure if you've understood yet. We are talking about a flag₁ with another flag₂ painted on it. Flag₁ is a unique contemporary historical object kept at that museum. Flag₂ is a generic Bulgarian flag with a motto written on it. What you're seeing is (supposedly) a partial photograph of the actual fabric of Flag₁, showing the part that contains the painting of Flag₂. Cf. the full photograph of the same object here [39] (though it's in very different colour, probably owing to reflection effects of the fabric). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge image of this flag stretched on two pages in "История на България", Том 7, Издателство на Българската академия на науките, София, 1991, стр. 476-477 ("History of Bulgaria", Volume 7, Publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1991, pp. 476-477). According to this book the banner is kept in The National Museum of Military History in Sofia, not in The National Museum of History. The inscription on the left is "Македония" ("Macedonia" in Bulgarian), on the right "II^ий окрѫгъ VI^та околия" ("II region VI district" in Bulgarian).- Jackanapes 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A flag that consists of a picture of a guy waving a flag? Wow, now that's original :) However, to show that I am not an irrational nitpicker who tries to find minuscule and semantic issues with other people's arguments (hint, hint, you know who you are :) , I am prepared to take your word for it -cheers, Capricornis 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dropping the sarcasm would be even better. And why should you take his word when he just cited you the book and did more than enough to help you understand. What you cannot take from Jackanapes is that he is always punctual to the last detail. --Laveol ^T 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Its actually a woman. There is also a standing lion and the Bulgarian flag, in tone with the contemporary Bulgarian coat of arms. Mr. Neutron 19:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure where you see sarcasam Laveol. It was just a good-humored pun. For the record, I have much greater respect for Jackanapes who puts a lot of original work and research into wikipedia, than you and users like you who mostly nitpick about other people's writing and criticize (as opposed to critique) without giving any original contribution of their own Capricornis 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)