Jump to content

Talk:Yane Sandanski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.126.188.253 (talk) at 16:58, 21 October 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Category

Please stop adding "Macedonian revolutionaries" cat when the person is clearly not ethnic Macedonian. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please grant the independence of California, since the state is clearly not in the USA. iNkubusse? 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this relevant to the article? ForeignerFromTheEast 15:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. The ethnicity of Jane Sandanski is not clear, far from it. You not that. Why do you make statements like this one: "..the person is clearly not.... Jane Sandanski was a Macedonian (not Republic, just Macedonian) revolutionary and his goal was an autonomous Macedonian state, right? You have to understand that he's only considered a Bulgarian or Macedonian revolutionary, there are no facts here. iNkubusse? 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the views of Sandanski himself count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decx (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please bring Mr. Sandanski here, or link us to his user page. BTW, whose puppet is this now? iNkubusse? 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His views can be illustrated by his recorded quotes. You say he was Macedonian as in ethnic Macedonian basing this on the fact that he was seeking an independent Macedonia (or "free Bulgarian Macedonia" in his own words), that does not equate with him being ethnic Macedonian. I'm surprised things as basic as this need explaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decx (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC) ][reply]

His ethnicity is not clear and the article only shows proof that he is considered Bulgarian by the Bulgarians and by some Western authors, but that is no proof for his ethnicity! Not even a newspaper article! We can't be sure that Sandanski really uttered those words! It is absolutely no harm if this article is in that category. He is considered a Macedonian revolutionary and he has to be in that category. After all (I'll say it once again), he fought for an autonomous Macedonia, doesn't this make him a Macedonian revolutionary?! iNkubusse? 23:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not make him. Ethnicity is not related to actions. Also, his ethnicity is disputed only in the Republic of Macedonia. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see though that you admit he is considered Bulgarian by western scholars, too. Cause it is the reliable un-biased secondary sources that we need. If we start adding the official documents and letters, I'm pretty sure the only thing you'd say i s falsification. --Laveol T 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, ethnicity is not related to actions. The interview he "gave" for the Italian newspaper doesn't prove anything (he just may wanted to say that he is a Russian fighting for Germany). Thank you for helping me explain. And no, it's not disputed only in the Republic of Macedonia. His ethnicity is simply not clear! Anyway, like it or not, he is considered an ethnic Macedonian, just as he is considered an ethnic Bulgarian.
Laveol, I would say it's a falsification if it looks like one :P But I'm not saying that no western scholars considered him Bulgarian, of course they did. But there are those who deny it, and those who simply say that his ethnicity can't be strictly defined. It's a very controversial matter and you're trying to solve it very easily, but it doesn't work that way. iNkubusse? 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His ethnicity is not clear and controversial matter only in the Republic of Macedonia. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1° No, it's not.
2° It's not a controversial matter in the Republic of Macedonia. iNkubusse? 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian news sites? No thanks. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! iNkubusse? 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, seriously the text is full of nonsense. What violent clashes with the police? What banned Macedonian orthodox church? And stop with the all orthodox Slavs were considered Bulgarians. --Laveol T 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This question is controversial in Republic of Macedonia. Don't forget the position of Macedonian historians I. Katardzhiev and Z. Todorovski. They assert that all IMRO activists had Bulgarian ethnic self-consciousness:
  • The Bulgariannes of Sandanski is recognized by several Macedonian historians like academician Ivan Katardzhiev, director of the Historical Sciences section in the Department of Social Sciences in the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the director of the Macedonian State archive Ph. D. Zoran Todorovski. Katardzhiev defines all Macedonian revolutionaries from the period before 1930-ies as "Bulgarians" and asserts that separatism of some Macedonian revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was only political phenomenon without ethnic character (an interview for "Forum" magazine, in Macedonian, retrieved on September 6, 2007). Todorovski asserts that "All of them declared themselves as Bulgarians..." and "he considered himself as Bulgarian too" about Sandanski (an interview for www.tribune.eu.com, June 27, 2005, in Macedonian, retrieved on June 26, 2007). - Vulgarian 01:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are only two historians. And you use them two to write stuff like this: ...by a minority of historians in the Republic of Macedonia. I think the terms minority and majority are a bit mixed up here. iNkubusse? 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you've admitted that this question is controversial in Republic of Macedonia. Of course you can give different points of view of other Macedonian historians. Greetings, GriefForTheSouth 14:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
iNkubusse?, don't forget that this contemporary internal Macedonian dispute concerns all IMARO activists before WWII. Gyorche Petrov, Gotse Delchev, Nikola Karev and so on... - GriefForTheSouth 15:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. The Bulgarian POV is supported only by Bulgarophiles, just like the Macedonian POV is supported by the Macedonians in Bulgaria (who, by the way, have no human rights). iNkubusse? 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you again, please refrain from such comments. It is not even on the subject (besides not being true of course). --Laveol T 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try, but I have to comment on your comment: you're right, it's not true, and the many dudes and old men I spoke to in Pirin Macedonia are not true as well... Tito invented them! And the article Yane Sandanski belongs in the category Macedonian revolutionaries because the person is considered an ethnic Macedonian, no matter that it's not proven! Just like he is considered an ethnic Bulgarian! iNkubusse? 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nor removing the cat. We already (or at least we two) agreed - If the others revert you again, I'll add the cat back - let's hope I won't be reverted. I'm sorry, but I don't believe to what you said above (not accusing you of lying - I just don't believe you). --Laveol T 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Laveol, someone here is not as constructive as you, it seems. Anyway, the other talk is way off-topic, I'd prefer your (or my) talk page. iNkubusse? 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but him being an ethnic Macedonian is a fringe theory. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe theories do not include whole countries! Don't be sorry and stop reverting!!! iNkubusse? 22:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying they include whole countries. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, this theory is widely accepted in RoM, except for the two historians you admire. What about the rest of the country?! iNkubusse? 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's have the cat - it's just a simple link right at the bottom of the article and just after "Bulgarian revolutionaries". A reader might get interested in the whole Bul-RoM issue and have his own investigation. --Laveol T 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Laveol, we musn't let the reader know that there is any issue! (see: irony) iNkubusse? 23:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

inkubisse, you´re crazy!!!!!i´m from petrich,from pirin macdonia.i have lived 5 years in blagoevgrad.there is no such thing like ethnic macedonians in bulgaria!!!open your eyes! we are bulgarians,we say that we com from macedonia as a region.we are not opressed,we can speakour dialect whenever we want,sing our songs, etc. by the way in about every second town or village in the region there are other dialect chracteristics!!!! read some foreign press —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.32.131 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice words. I have nothing to say to you, I believe my eyes an ears. iNkubusse? 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - it sounds like all people from Blagoevgrad province. Some of my colleagues even enjoy calling you Fyromians (or Byuromians in Bulgarian). No, sorry, I believe my eyes and years as well - as obviously does the man who wrote the statement above yours. --Laveol T 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? iNkubusse? 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None :) Just a general thought --Laveol T 17:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It sounds different... Never mind. iNkubusse? 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pravilnik-sandanski.jpg

Image:Pravilnik-sandanski.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


References

very doubtful references. :) :) :) anybody could have written these articles from the "promacedonia.org"-site. is there a prove that he declared himself Bulgarian? if not, the "references" should be not listed.

"published in the "Narodnay volya newspaper in 1909". show it! otherwise that link should be taken out, too.Cukiger (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking. The image is quite visible. --Laveol T 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any images from any "narodna volya newspaper".. not under reference 1 or 2 where it should probably be. these references are so ridiculous. Cukiger (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You call it ridiculous just because you don't like it. Don't you see it's written that it was first published in the newspaper? Or you don't have to read it in order to call it ridiculous? --Laveol T 08:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

name

why isnt his name written in cyrillic? either macedonian or bulgarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.72.93 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just included the Cyrillic versions of his name; I can't see why there wasn't any uptil now. --iNkubusse? 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits

Please, stop vandalizing the article. Jingby (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of the reference

In this reference ("Bulgaria was clearly treated by the Serres activists as a foreign, hostile force and Sandanski condemned what he called the Bulgarian imperialism. According to him, the Macedonians (incl. all ethnicities) had to emancipate themselves as a self-determining people(Siljanov, Ibid. 498).") It doesn't say (incl. all ethnicities), that's added by the wiki editor. It's about Stefan Kemilev, а lawyer from Bulgaria and opponent of Yane Sandanski, who witnessed:

— "Yanе had a theory that the Macedonian question should not be regarded as a part of the Bulgarian national ideals… He clearly stated that those who propagate "Bulgarian national unification" in Macedonia are death-enemies of IMRO, just like the Greek and the Serbian national-chauvinistic agitators. Furthermore, he disseminated the belief that the masses are an independent, distinctive people, and they have to believe in it. They mustn't rely on any of the alien forces." (Хриcтo Силянов: Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, том II (изд. на Илинденската Орг., София, 1943; II фототипно изд. "Наука и Изкуство", София, 1983), с. 498.)

85.30.109.189 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there was a false reference about Deliradev speaking about "Bulgarian population" in Macedonia (See Pavel Deliradev, Razvitieto na federativnata ideya, Makedonska misal, Book 5-6, 1946, pp. 203-208.). In the source there's no such a statement of Deliradev. He even say that all the Macedonians and the Bulgarians should oppose the Bulgarian chauvinist agenda, in the very same source. If needed, I'll find a way to provide the pages. 79.126.169.242 (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's added by an editor, that's why it in braces and it's just a context clarification. Regarding your "quote" from Hristo Silyanov - its misquoted & biased. Can you please show me where on page 498 it writes "national-chauvinistic"? Vandalizing articles & misquoting will not prove your personal view point. --StanProg (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a heads up, 79.126.169.242 is a possible sock of User_talk:Bobi987_Ivanov , who has been blocked for a week due to edit warring. More info here and possibly here Tropcho (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, let's provide the quote as it is, without misinterpretations:

— "Yanе had a theory that the Macedonian question should not be regarded as a part of the Bulgarian national ideals… He clearly stated that those who propagate "Bulgarian national unification" in Macedonia are death-enemies of IMRO, just like the Greek and the Serbian agitators. Furthermore, he disseminated the belief that the masses are an independent, distinctive people, and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces." (Хриcтo Силянов: Освободителнитѣ борби на Македония, том II (изд. на Илинденската Орг., София, 1943; II фототипно изд. "Наука и Изкуство", София, 1983), с. 498.)

79.126.169.242 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the actual quote: "Everyone who is agitating in Macedonia or out of it based on: liberation and unification of the Bulgarians, should be met with hostility by IMRO, just as the Organisation mets the Serbian and Greeks agitations and chetas" and "Yane had theory theory that it's fatal to the Macedonian population and Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of national unification of the Bulgarians and that people of the other stream has sold themselvs to the Bulgarian government". Now could you explain me where exactly you see "Bulgarian national ideals…" in this quote? And "He explained in general that should be worked for awakening consciousness of the masses that they are separate people that are entitled to free life and that we must fight for gaining their freedom without relying on external aid for these who would come to release them will actually come to enslave then". Do you see the huge difference between the original quote and your interpretation which you claim as "quote"? Can you please tell me where did you get your "quotes" from (mine are from the book itself)? --StanProg (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And please, do not call the fake quote provided by you "a misinterpretation" - a quote is either exact or falsified/fake. --StanProg (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you are trying to be objective. It makes me more objective. But, actually, the second citation of yours, (THAT IS ACTUALLY FIRST IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT) says:
"Yane had a theory that it's fatal to the Macedonian population and Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of national unification of the Bulgarians (or, as I'd said, "BULGARIAN NATIONAL UNIFICATION"), and that people of the other stream has sold themselvs to the Bulgarian government".
The 1st citation of yours has only needed some little grammatical corrections, I think -
"Everyone who is agitating in or out of Macedonia upon: liberation and unification of the Bulgarians, should be met with hostility by IMRO, just as the Organization meets the Serbian and the Greek agitations and bands." 85.30.127.197 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, most of all,
"Furthermore, he [Yane Sandanski] was preaching and disseminating the belief among the masses that they are an independent, distinctive people, that they have the right to be free fighting on their own and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces, because those who'd come, wouldn't be liberators, but subduors."
We are close, really close to what Sandanski wanted to say. 85.30.127.197 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, "Yane had a theory that it's fatal to the Macedonian population and Bulgaria itself, the Macedonian question to be treated in sense of Bulgarian national unification... he was preaching and disseminating the belief, among the masses, that they are an independent, distinctive people, that they have the right to be free fighting on their own and they mustn't rely on any of the alien forces, because those who'd come, wouldn't be liberators, but conquerors." 79.126.188.253 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation for vandalism

Someone's accused me for vandalism on this article. Can he or she be more specific? 85.30.127.197 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None has accused you in that. Your talk page is empty as far as I can see. --StanProg (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yane_Sandanski&oldid=630536074"