Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising

Article name

I don't want to re-run the old debates over whether "Ilinden" and "Preobrazhenie" were one event or two, or whether there should be one or two articles (probably one), or whether "Preobrazhenie" is conventionally part of the most common name of this event in English (maybe it's not). But one thing should be changed: "Uprising" needs lowercased, it's not a proper name in English. Objections? – Needless to say, the title currently move-warred over by Micoapostolov (talk · contribs), "Ilinden Uprising - Macedonia", is unacceptable, on purely formal grounds if nothing else. The " - Macedonia" addition just makes no sense at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections to a move to lowercase 'uprising' from me. --Laveol ^T 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume the dates here are Gregorian - but it would be nice to say so. Once, in the lead, would be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by 1111tomica

Seriously, what is up with this? It's one of the most unexplainable edits I've ever seen. Certainly not an improvement to the article.

Please explain the motivation behind that edit and the two reverts ([1][2]). Todor→Bozhinov 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well by my opinion the Macedonian template should be first, because the Uprising is on the template and on the Bulgarian I can not see it. Maybe it should be removed. And also if you think that this edits are non-improvements for the article don't undone it ! Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

Ummm, seriously what's up with that? Why are you pushing this? If a dispute cannot be solved you could always rely on the alphabet. And since B is further up than R or M this makes the case. Now the only thing you've done is that you broke 3RR. Try to be calmer next time. --Laveol ^T 10:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So you broke the 3RR also! What we do now? Tomica1111 (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

Nope, I've made only two reverts. You're the only one that did it. --Laveol ^T 10:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you are about to do it! Or you gonna call your B'lgarian friends to do that, and of course once again I am gonna be the bad boy here. Tomica1111 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

IMORO

This article refers to "IMORO", which I assume was a precursor or splinter of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, but I can't find out what it means. Ground Zero | t 20:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've made two reverts as well. You're the one causing trouble now and that's why I suggested you calmed down before doing something stupid. And cut down the lousy accusations, please. --Laveol ^T 10:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

a larger map that you can see details why it is pov?

Jingiby's edit: a larger map that you can see details why it is pov? I didn't change anything in the text. Ggia (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Ggia, but the size and the location of the map by your edit made the layout of the article on my display, to say, strange: [3]. I think, every editor can click on the map to enlarge it. Regards. Jingby (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For example here I added a map in the center in order people to see details.. Here in the greek wiki I added a large map of Veliko Tarnovo Medieval_Tarnovo_map_SVG.svg|thumb|right|400px.. Here in the greek wiki I added a large map of Ani area AniMap.gif|thumb|center|800px. I think that maps should be large enough so a reader can read some details without clicking on it. Also when you export the article to pdf and you print it.. if the map is small nothing is visible. I don't see anything POV having a map in a large size and readers can read details on it (consider the printed versions when you make a pdf book using pdf export feature of the wiki). Ggia (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Friend, if we are going to enlarge all maps on all articles on Wiki, so the readers can look at some details without clicking on them, I think the articles will resemble more atlases. Regs. Jingby (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you try to export this article to PDF and try to read the map (have you ever seen this feature of the wiki book creator)?)? I really I cannot understand why you revert my edit as POV. My other edits that I gave above are also POV in a way? Even in the classic encyclopedias the images of maps sometimes are large in order to read details. Ggia (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not. Jingby (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now it is clear that my edit was not to impose a POV (is it POV to make larger an existing image btw?) but to have a better arrangement of the images, specially if somebody needs to export to a pdf book.. I usually do (as you already seen in my examples) these kind of edits to different articles. Also I make larger the main map [4] for that reason too. Ggia (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but an enormous enlargement will be unacceptable. Do that in admissible format, please. Jingby (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus to retain the current title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising → Ilinden uprising – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising" -wikipedia -Llc = 44 hits (many if not most of them translations of works of authors from Bulgaria) : "Ilinden Uprising" -wikipedia -Llc 4,430 hits. Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That issue was dicussed to death. Check the archives of that talk-page. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Search engine test, but search engines are sophisticated research tools and often have bias and results need to be interpreted. According to Ivo Banac "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics", Cornell University Press, 1984, pp. 307-328, the IMARO movement in 1903 was movement, which embraced both Macedonia and Adrianople Thrace regions and the insurrection in August 1903 had two major centres - the Vilayet of Bitola and the Vilajet of Adrianople. The exclusion of the Preobrazhenie from the title of this article is in conflict with the historical facts and their non-nationalist interpretation. Keep in mind that this is article not only about the present-day ethnic Macedonian myth of Ilinden, but about the historical event, and the difference is between the much later Yugoslav concept (+Ilinden; - Preobrazhenie) and the historical event (+Ilinden; +Preobrazhenie) is more than obvious. However, the first problem before such an interpretation stems also in particular from the combined Macedono-Adrianopolitan character of IMARO. The statutes and directives of the Central Committee as well as the other official documents of the Organization concern not only the Macedonian people but also the Adrianopolitan people, i.e. the Bulgarians and (in theory) other nationalities inhabiting both vilajets. In the specialized literature as the Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, Raymond Detrez, Scarecrow Press, 2006, ISBN 0810849011, the Uprising is called: Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. In the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, it is called: Ilinden (Ilinden-Preobrazhenie) Uprising. According to Hristo Silyanov who was the first historian of the Uprising and in his memoirs described its history, the name of the Uprising is also Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. Jingiby (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Are you able to point to discussion where editors reached consensus for the existing name?
• You misinterpreted Banac who speaks about uprisingS of August 1903 (page 316).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - As previously noted, the issue has been thoroughly discussed on a number of occasions. It never led to anything productive and it does not look like it ever will. --Laveol ^T 14:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Can you please clarify your position. You are opposed to renaming to WP:COMMONNAME because this has already been discussed? Is there any wikipedia policy argument you are able to use to ground your position here?

I noticed you were participant of discussions you mentioned. I also noticed you are not very active on wikipedia. Has anybody invited you to this discussion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Gees, I already answered you, I do not need an invitation to comment. As for arguments, they were aplenty back at the time neutral editors were still willing to delve into the issue. What about the fact that the uprising was in fact a single event, prepared in tight cooperation and a single aim. What about the fact that scholars describing both event use the title Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. Mind you, there are a number of ways to spell Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. Splitting it is a wrong move and would mean splitting the April Uprising in four different articles, for one. --Laveol ^T 11:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Again Invincible ignorance fallacy. I never said you are not free to comment here. I simply asked if anybody invited you to this discussion. Will you please be so kind to answer my question. No arguments grounded in wikipedia policies which would contradict nominator's rationale?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose — per Jingiby and Laveol. Apcbg (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what are arguments grounded in wikipedia policies for your opposition?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally, article titles on Wikipedia have to be based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) in many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. Above were provided two reliable sources for that title and they are new, neutral, specialized, academic publications. Now you can check a 2005 Cambridge University Press, specialized publication by an expert of the history of the Balkans as R.J. Crampton, who called that event on p. 128. Ilinden-Preobrazhenie. More an new academic encyclopedia specialized especially in uprisings called Encyclopedia of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency by Spencer C. Tucker issued by ABC-CLIO in 2013, also calls it with combined name. Check on p. 262. That is all. Jingiby (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So Ilinden uprising term is used by "some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice", while Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising is used in "new, neutral, specialized, academic publications"? What proof you offered for this exceptional claim? Two cherry picked sources, the first does not even mention term IUP (ti actually uses term "Ilinden rising" on index page 282) and the second is encyclopedia. What about numerous works published by Oxford UP and Cambridge UP that use "Ilinden uprising" term? Honesty is expected in all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. I expect you to either present proof for your exceptional claim or to apologize and strike out your comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose — Per Macedonian historian Ph.D. Zoran Todorovski. In a speech at the launch of a Collection with documents about Todor Alexandrov called "Everything about Macedonia" held in hotel "Holiday Inn" in Skopje in 2006, he claims: we should not only pay attention to the term "Bulgarian" in the first name of IMRO, but also to the constant "Adrianopolitan" ingredient in the name of the organization, that was lost even after the First World War and the political separation on several parts of Macedonia and Southern Thrace. According to him it is known that the first name of a revolutionary organization was Bulgarian Macedonian- Adrianople revolutionary Committees, but this fact is perfidiously hidden from the historycal textbooks for primary and secondary education in the Republic of Macedonia. Finally he maintains that the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was actually Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising raised with the greatest intensity in the Bitola and Odrin vilayets of the then then Ottoman Empire. Jingiby (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You based your opposition based on statement of one author (Todorovski)? Are there other authors that support the opposite position? Is this author famous for his controversial statements about all activists, cultural or intellectual, and all revolutionaries at the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century unconditionally publicly declared their Bulgarian nationality? Is it the real reason for your recent attack to Rafael Moshe Kamhi article? Is it the reason for you to ask new page tag removed? So that you would be able to nominate for deletion the article about Jew member of VMRO? Because he does not fit into Todoroski assertion that all members of VMRO were Bulgarians (сите дејци на ВМРО се искажувале како Бугари)? The quote of Todorovski does not even mention "Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising" (can you please present a quote that confirm that "the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was actually Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising"? Honesty is expected in all processes of Wikipedia, including content discussion, the dispute process and all other functions of the community. I expect you to either provide arguments based on wikipedia policies for your opposition to this renaming or to apologize and strike out your comment.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I expect you to stop that endless comments per WP:FORUM. Lets give the possibility to other editors to say something. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you please present a quote that confirm that "the Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was actually Ilinden - Preobrazhenie Uprising"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's clearly the most commonly used name for the event. Further, of the 17 other languages in which this article is available, only the Bulgarian, Portugues, and Slovak versions are not simply 'Ilinden Uprising'. I'm aware we're concerned about English here, but still noteworthy. --Local hero ^talk 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The most common name for the event is Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising since it encompasses both regions - using only Ilinden is ignoring half of the uprising and thus is incorrect. I support also the comments from Jingiby and Laveol.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I noticed that you are another relatively inactive editor who suddenly appeared to comment here. Has anybody invited you to this discussion? Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Алиса Селезньова (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • On the contrary - I am relatively active, depending on the relevance. :-) I didn't realize I need an invitation or some kind of activity threshold to participate in the discussion.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Same Invincible ignorance fallacy like in Laveol case. This really raises additional concerns. I never said you need an invitation to comment here. I even presented a note with explanation that I am concerned you have been canvassed to this discussion. Will you please be so kind to answer my question?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting? Not at all - you don't have any evidence different from your point of view and you assumed that I have an invitation (which by the way is absolutely irrelevant and canvassing is a slightly different thing) thus implying I need one and I am not active "enough" simply for making me feel unwelcome. At least this is how I got it - classic argumentum ad hominem. Your concerns are baseless and unrealistic - I am obviously involved in the subject and my level of activity is irrelevant and subjective.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you used exactly the same fallacy as Laveol when you replied that you don't need an invitation to discuss here. It is also interesting that both of you had low level of activity prior this !voting. It is also interesting that both of you refuse to reply to one simple question and to answer if anybody invited you to this discussion. My comment about your activity is not argumentum ad hominem. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus at Talk:Ilinden–Preobrazhenie_Uprising#Requested_move Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising

Discussion closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

Wikipedia:Consensus says: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

Will you please be so kind to clarify in your closing statement what wikipedia policy was basis for the consensus you determined?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to read the edit notice which appears on this page, particular the second unindented bullet point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Link provided.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Try again. There is no discussion at that link. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

done.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not just paste the link to the discussion in your message, in plain view, from the outset?

WP:AT. Since WP:AT is the policy basis on which all move discussions are assessed, I saw no need to spell that out explicitly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific and explain what arguments are presented during this discussion in connection with WP:AT?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, I can, but on this occasion I won't. I believe that the discussion is short enough and brief enough to be quite clear. The arguments against renaming were clearly founded in policy, and based on evidence. I understand that you view the evidence differently, but the fact remains that the discussion was open for 18 days and in that time nobody supported your view.

This does not mean that the consensus interpretation is "correct" or that yours is "incorrect". What it means is that a consensus has formed in favour of one option, and the closer's job is not to cast a supervote.

That's all I think it is useful to say, and this discussion is now closed. You are of course free to open a move review. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Your statement that nobody supported my view is illustration how carefully you evaluated arguments presented in the discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm no one... That statement does make me question how deeply you read the discussion, BHG. And you clearly didn't notice that all of the opposition was from the same type of individual, the Bulgarian POV supporter. Antidiskriminator even addressed all of their basicly identical arguments. --Local hero ^talk 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note on Antidiskriminator's comment above (the one claiming that googling "Ilinden uprising" produces 4,430 hits, compared to only 44 for "Ilinden Preobrazhenie" uprising): if one actually pages through to the last page of the search results (as Wikipedia:Search_engine_test recommends), one finds that there are not 4,430 hits, as initially reported by Antidiskriminator, but 134 hits (see here: "Ilinden Uprising" -wikipedia -Llc). So the difference is nowhere near as overwhelming as it might have seemed initially. If one conducts a regular web search, not a book search, one finds 364 search results for "Ilinden uprising" "Ilinden uprising -wikipedia vs. 404 for "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising" "Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising" -wikipedia, which also suggests that the two names are at least as equally popular at present. Also Wikipedia:Search_engine_test warns about interpreting search engine tests, as there can be all kinds of different reasons for the frequency of use of certain terms. Tropcho (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Local hero before hurling such grave accusations, perhaps it's good to read about assuming good faith. Tropcho (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally, perhaps it's good to add: I think that the present title ('Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising') is more appropriate, because it emphasizes the connection between the events in Macedonia and those in Thrace, which helps shed light on the bigger picture, i.e. the historical context of the uprising. Tropcho (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Which grave accusations? That the closing admin didn't thoroughly examine the discussion? Or that all of the users against the move have the same mentality and background with regards to Macedonia-related topics? I stand behind both of them; I'm quite familiar with the editing style of the dissenting editors, way past the phase of assuming good faith.

Whether the two uprisings were closely related or not, they were not the same event and I think they ought to be split into two articles. I did not see any proof above that 'Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising' is the preferred title in English. Searching on Google books, I also found 134 results for 'Ilinden Uprising' and 44 for the current title. --Local hero ^talk 22:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Krste Misirkov's view - is it noteworthy?

My edit from yesterdaywas reverted on the grounds that Misirkov switched sides and is therefore unreliable. I am aware that Misirkov has expressed contradicting views on various questions regarding Macedonia during his lifetime. However, I think that his view is noteworthy for the following reason: in the Republic of Macedonia he is still widely regarded as one of the most prominent Macedonian nationalists and defenders of the Macedonian identity; furthermore, On the Macedonian Matters, a book which is held in relatively high esteem in the Republic of Macedonia, is one of the works in which Misirkov has most eagerly defended the idea of the establishment of a new Macedonian Slavic ethnic identity distinct from the Macedonian Bulgarian identity; in spite of this, in this work Misirkov clearly expresses the view that the rising was the work of those Macedonians who considered themselves Bulgarian; thus Misirkov is an outstanding example of a highly regarded Macedonian nationalist who considers the uprising to be Bulgarian. Also, I am not aware of any writings of his where he expresses the opposing view on that precise question (i.e. claiming that the rising was not the work of Bulgarians). I believe this makes his view noteworthy. Tropcho (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Misirkov's view is noteworthy too, more so that it is not just a passing remark but part of his substantial analysis of IMRO and the Uprising elaborated in the book mentioned above. Apcbg (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian peasants?

"The rebellion in the region of Macedonia affected most of the central and southwestern parts of the Monastir Vilayet receiving the support mainly of the local Bulgarian peasants..." - I think it should be written Macedonian pesants

The Ilinden Uprising studied as a part of ”the Macedonian national-revolutionary ideals,” that had begun about 30 years before, as the author says – Dino Kyosev, “Ilindenskoto vaastanie,” BAN, Sofia, 1953, pg. 3.;

”The Macedonian Uprising on the day of Ilinden has been the most powerful manifestation of the Macedonian strength in the struggle for political and national freedom.” – Ilinden-Krushevo, 1928, Sofia, pg. 4, preface by Naum Tomalevski;

In this article ("The New York Times," August 16, 1903), the Bulgarian Prime-minister Racho Petrov states that the Ilinden Insurrection, that had just happened that summer in Western Macedonia, “was entirely a national Macedonian movement, organized by the Macedonian Internal Committee (meaning IMRO)”. (see the 4th passage)

If someone has another sources that claim otherwise, show them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.30.109.189 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Tomalevski says:

”The Macedonian Uprising on the day of Ilinden has been the most powerful manifestation of the Macedonian strength in the struggle for political and national freedom of the Macedonians.” (Ilinden-Krushevo, 1928, Sofia, pg. 4) 79.126.169.242 (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very well said "mainly Bulgarian peasants", because Turks, Albanians and other nationalities did not support the rebellion. Dino Kyosev is not a reliable source regading 1953, since as a member of te Bulgarian Comunist Party he strictly followed the comunist propaganda from that time. "Macedonian" is used as a geohraphical term and is related to the region of Macedonia. No such information about Racho Petrov is found on the provided screenshot, as well as no information about the article is presented. You're trying to push a minority view point, recognized only by historians from the Republic of Macedonia and using the strictly geographical term "Macedonia" in the context of the country created decades afer that. --StanProg (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but why lying about the Bulgarian Prime-minister Racho Petrov?? In this article ("The New York Times," August 16, 1903) (the forth passage), Racho Petrov states that the Ilinden Insurrection, that had just happened that summer in Western Macedonia, “was entirely a national Macedonian movement, organized by the Macedonian Internal Committee (meaning IMRO)”. (see the 4th passage) 79.126.169.242 (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

By "passage," I meant PARAGRAPH. Sorry. See the 4th paragraph here. 79.126.169.242 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

These recent edits by 79.126.169.242 and 85.30.109.189 seem to come from a sock of User_talk:Bobi987_Ivanov , who has been blocked for a week due to edit warring. More info here. I discussed why his usage of primary sources such as newspaper excerpts similar to the one about Racho Petrov quoted here is not appropriate on his talk page. In short, the Bulgarian revolutionaries from IMORO and the Bulgarian government made a propaganda effort to convince the Balkan countries and Europe that the revolutionary movement in Macedonia had nothing to do with Bulgaria or Bulgarian interests. Tropcho (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)