Talk:Macedonian Struggle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Ottoman Empire (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottoman Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottoman Empire and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Greece (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Bulgaria (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Serbia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Republic of Macedonia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Republic of Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Republic of Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Satev and company[edit]

How to you translate Pavel Satev's groups, βαρκάρηδες, in English? Etz Haim 11:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kapnisma - βαρκάρηδες means men on boat , but right now I have no knowledge about Pavel Satev's groups.I look in some sources and I write to you as soon as I find something

Since you study history and you live in Thessaloniki too, I was told that some stuff about Satev and the anarchist uprising of "βαρκάρηδες" are included in a book written by Yannis Megas. I was also told that Megas does not include the full story with all the details.

The bank building, formerly the Abbot mansion that one of the Abbots lost in gambling, became the Ottoman Bank, and then it was blown up by the anarchists, and only the front facade remained erect! From the facade it was reconstructed. Eventually it became IKA (Social Insurance Foundation) and now it's the music school on Fragon street, above Ladadika. Etz Haim

Central-Southern Macedonia[edit]

Pls, explain what you mean by Central - Ohrid, Prilep, Bitola, Melnik, Radovish, Petrich, Nevrokop had clearly Bulgarian predominance, and many districts in the south were also - f.ex. Kukush (Kilkis), Lerin (Florina) and Demirhisar (I can't remember the Greek name) had clearly an Exarchist majority. If we take the present-day Greek Macedonia as Southern Macedonia (this is my definition), than you would have at least some right in saying this - but not for central Macedonia. VMORO 14:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)~

Meleniko,Florina and Monastiri had Exarchist majority?You must be joking!By the term central macedonia I mean the areas of Florina,Kastoria,Kozani,Kilkis,Monastiri,Ochrida,Doirani,Serres and Drama-clearly Patriarchist areas apart Kilkis (Kukush).North I consider Pirin Macedonia and the areas north of Monastiri. 05:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You cannot calssify Kastoria, Kozani, Serres and Drama as central Macedonia, they were clearly in southern Macedonia. And yes, Lerin, Bitola, Ohrid and Doiran were clearly with Exarchist majority. VMORO 12:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gemidzii - Macedonian idealists[edit]

You can translate Gemidzii (from an archaic name for a large boat) as boatsmen - a clear reference to one of the main targets of the attack, the French vessel 'Guadalquivir'. Pavel Satev went to become one of the ministers of the first Macedonian government in 1944.

To be executed only several years afterwards as a "Bulgarian propagandist". "Way to go", Macedonian "brothers". But please, follow this link to the website of the Ottoman bank to learn more about the terrorist act [1] VMORO 21:08, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia???[edit]

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia


Wikipedia is FACTUAL. The FACT that Macedonia was and is part of Hellenic culture is very clear to the entire educated world. Facts are facts. You can try to twist them to fit into your Communist-era ideology if you like, but the reason Wikipedia says that Macedonia is Greek is because it is. It's not 'bias.' This is an encyclopedia. Facts rule the day. Deal with it. Really, you are lucky Wikipedia tries to be sensitive to your 'identity crisis.' Because someone could write a DEVASTATING article proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that Slav-Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians, as is their language (derived). DNA proves this and could be part of the article. DNA has also been used by neutral third parties to demonstrate almost 98% racial continuity of the Greek peoples (with the ancient); contrary to 19th and early 20th century Nordic ideologies. Since scientific DNA shows a perfect match between Slav-Macedonians and Bulgarians how can you even dream of claiming a link to ancient Hellenized Macedonia? Your DNA doesn't lie! It is not even from the Balkans; it's traced back to where your people came from - Volga Bulgaria. The only support FYROM receives is over the name dispute (because 'some' feel it does not matter what you call yourself). But NOBODY of note tries to claim your people are in any way related to Alexander the Great or his peoples. Your own leaders (and not a few)have said you are in no way related to the ancient Macedonians. But the most obvious hole in your propaganda is the quote from Alexander himself proclaiming himself a proud Greek! Grow up.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I sterbinski 13:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Sterbinski, I read what you had to say, I don't agree with it, but that's just my opinion. Just a few comments. Kemal Ataturk was born in Thessaloniki, not in Bitola as you say. I would really like to see the birth certificate you are talking about. Also, Yugoslavia was not particularly stronger than Greece militarily and in any case thank you for not invading because you were allied with the Soviet Union and we with NATO and therefore you would have precipitated World War III. Another thing I would like to comment on is the story about Mexico. The Mayans disappeared. They became Mexican. The Greek-Macedonians did not, they remained Greek. The Spanish did not try to rename themselves as Mayans, the Slavs however did. Is it true that you and a Bulgarian can have a conversation? It's true because your language is a Bulgarian dialect. Please leave the stories about grandfathers aside. I also have a grandfather from the same period whose experiences differ quite a lot from yours. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a forum so I'll stop here. Kalambaki2 01:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok - so let me get this straight - your grandfather was born 8 years after Delchev was killed and yet your grandfather knew him? When you make stuff up at least try to make it sound plausible. The millions and millions of brave Macedonians fending off the Empire of Evil (i.e. Bulgaria) is just plain silly. The Greek's comment up above is sadly true. And your hate of the evil mongol (I thought that was amusing too) archenemies-of-everything-good-in-this-world Bulgarians is sad, because those same people fought and died so that even the likes of you can be free, and that the Macedonian issue would not fall into obscurity (like it did for Basques or Kurds or...etc.) and that today there is a free Macedonian country.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


AKeckarov, although the search in Google for Silyanov does not provide any links, I will take your word for it that this historian does/did in fact exist. That is not the objection I have. The objection is that the above site is a propaganda site. You can see this from its index page [2]. The banner MACEDONIA, THE TRUTH IS HERE implies that the Bulgarian POV is the correct one and that the "other side" (in this case the Greeks) are lying. If this is not POV then what is? Additionally, your links are in Bulgarian and this is the English Wikipedia. The name of the article is Greek struggle for Macedonia. It talks about what Greek intentions were at a time when the area of Macedonia was in turmoil, as the Ottomans were slowly losing control. The Bulgarian point of view can very easily be expressed by creating an article "Bulgarian struggle for Macedonia" where you can add all the information and links you have. We can then link the two articles so that whoever enters them can see both sides of the story and decide. I believe this is the best solution to our situation. Kalambaki2 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Kalambaki2, Hristo Siljanov (Silyanov, in bulgarian - Христо Силянов) was a Bulgarian historian (his mother was a Greek from Konstantinopole), who wrote in 30-, 40- years of XX century about Macedonia. His book "The Liberation Struggles in Macedonia"(I-1933, II - 1943) is a capital book in these themes in Bulgaria. He used memoirs of the contemporaries and many documents, he used and many greek autours - Stamatis Raptis, P. Delta etc. Wherever published his book it is a significant part of Bulgarian part of historiography. The other question is what are you prove with one banner in KNIGITE.ABV.BG. This banner didn't prove that KNIGITE.ABV.BG is propaganda site. I really didn't undestand whу it necessеrу to create an other article to express Bulgarian point of view? Where is NPOV? Regards, --AKeckarov 14:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about "Bulgarian view on Greek intentions in Macedonia" instead of "Military Greek Propaganda"? In a dispute, propaganda never comes only from one side. I hope you realise. Tell me your opinion on changing the title of the links. Kalambaki2 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a good solution. Ευχαριστο! --AKeckarov 18:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Greek involvement prior to 1903-4[edit]

It is generally considered that Greek military/guerilla involvement began after the Ilinden revolution. However, this is not very precise, at least in my opinion. Prior to 1903 there were the so called Stavraetoi, whose actions actually contributed to the explosion of the 1897 war. Macedonia was a prioroty for the Greek national interests at least since the Saint Stephano treaty. Thus, although this article is about the "Macedonian Struggle", which indeed lasted from 1904 to 1908 i think it might be a good idea to say a few things about greek military, economic and educational involvement prior to 1903-4.--Greece666 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

a) Im not quite sure that greek guerilla bands were composed mostly of locals as is stated in the article. To what i know most of them came from Crete (Sfakia) and Southern Peloponnese (Mani). b)about the Zagorichani massacre: Im not sure whether the name "Bulgarians" is the best description. It might be more neutral to describe them as exarchists or macedonian peasants. c)about Penelope delta and the Mystika toy Valtoy. Well, i think it should be added that the book depicts greek fighters in a far too idealized way and it clearly distorts historical events. its a good literature book, but since it is mentioned in a history article i think it might be better to clarify that it is by no means a history book. d) regarding the consequences of the macedonian struggle. in my point of view the macedonian struggle has very little to do with the final partition of macedonian territories between greece serbia and bulgaria. the partition was a result of the military victories and losses during the balkan wars. also i m not so sure that the area controlled by greeks during the macedonian struggle coincides with the area annexed by greece in 1913.--Greece666 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

name change[edit]

The conflict was called by the Greeks and recorded by historians as "The Macedonian Struggle". According to wikipedia's naming policy the current name of the article is a POV, hence I'm requesting a move. I thought I should bring this up in Talk, although I don't see how a counter-argument can arouse. I have countless of neutral sources to back this up with, plus the policy on those matters is straight-forward. Miskin 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I only think it'd be better if you added some of your sources below for the record.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The misterious 'locals', Karavangelis, VMRO etc.[edit]

1. According to what Germanos Karavangelis himself says in his own autobiographical book "The Macedonian struggle - Memoirs", the conclusion is that the majority of his men were Greeks brought from outside Macedonia, expecially Cretens from Sfakia and Maniacs from Mani, Peloponese, as member 'Greece666' correctly pointed before me, thanks for that)
So, about what locals are you talking about? I'm not quoting any source from Skopje or Sofia here, if greek Wikipeders do not consider their own Karavangelis as a relevant source, what then?
Also, the "makedonomacho" Karavangelis himself is also not from Macedonia (he's a Lesbian, born in the village of Stipsi) and he has no connection or origin from Macedonia whatsoever. Same with the leutenant of the Greek army Pavlos Melas born in France with origins from Northern Epirus(now Albania) which arrived in Macedonia from Athens.

There were only few persons that were really from Macedonia involved in the Greek struggle for Macedonia on the greek side, just to name a few:
- Kote from the village of Rulja (that Greeks renamed it as Kotas in his honour in the time of the toponym changes in Greece in 1926), a renegade from VMRO who joined the Greek side. Among older people from Republic of Macedonia and refugees from Aegean Macedonia the proverb "Kako Kote od Rulja" ("Like Kote from Rulja") still exists (it is used for traitors and similar kind of people who betray ideals and join the enemy for money just like Kote from Rulja did)
Later he was executed by the Turkish authorities for ordinary criminal activities and his descendants were on high positions in the greek society (officers etc..)
- Vangel (Vangelis Natsis) from the village of Strebreno (renamed as Asprogiya in 1926) whose "popularity" and reputation among the real Macedonian locals can be well illustrated by quoting the following lyrics from an authentic folk song from Aegean Macedonia: "Ozdola ide dzver Vangelj..." ("There comes the beast Vangel")
Of course, needless to say that he was shot by those same locals (check Karavangelis'es book)
- also there was insignificant number of other local chieftains who left the VMRO to join the greek side (mostly irrelevant persons, local chieftains, I mean certainly not of a 'caliber' of Goce Delchev or other important leaders of VMRO)
For example like that one who was skillfully manipulated to join the greek side and leave VMRO as Karavangelis used that man's personal hatred to another VMRO chieftain with whom his wife was cheating him (the source is again Karavangelis himself)

2. It is mentioned in the article that "The guerilla groups were also hunted by the Turkish Army"
The Greek armed gangs were formed to fight the VMRO armed groups "komiti". Not only that the greek gangs didn't fight the Turkish army, but Karavangelis himself speaks in his own book about the fruitfull collaboration he had with the occupator against their common enemy. He personally was offtenly informing the Turkish authorities about where the Komiti's were hidding etc. The photograph The_chieftains_Spyros_and_Adam.jpg of the greek "makedonomachos" (greek "freedom fighters for Macedonia") together with the turkish officers is a well illustration of how friendly these relations were.

3. The greek side presents the conflict between the VMRO against the Greek armed groups as a war for influence of official Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Exarchy vs the greek Patriarchy, which of course is an absolute lie. Most of the VMRO revolutionaries such as Delchev, Karev etc. were influenced by the socialism, anarchism and even communism. Most of them didn't care about the religion or had a neutral attitude towards it, they didn't care about exarchism vs patriarchism etc. and many of them actually confronted the Bulgarian Exarchy (check their biographies, for example Petar Pop Arsov) and they entered an open conflict with the Bulgarian government who sponsored the Vrhovist (Supreme) Comitee in Sofia and it's gangs (a pro-Bulgarian right wing organisation and an enemy to the centralist VMRO against which they fought).
I also strongly recommend the famous book "Confessions of a Macedonian Bandit" by Albert Sonnichsen, the American who joined the VMRO Komiti group and saw action in the Macedonian struggle, incl. the Gianitsa marsh. Among other things, he also mentions the influence of the above mentioned leftist ideologies on the macedonian vmro freedom fighters, their views towards the church as well etc. I wonder why no one mentions this book which can be a good additional reading on the subject)
Also check the memoirs of some of the important VMRO leaders. When the 'Komiti' liberated the town of Vasiliko in Thrace during the Preobrazhensko uprising in Thrace, the revolutionary leader Gerdzikov was visited by a group of greek citizens who asked "What flag should we raise now?", the answer was simple, put anything u like, he didn't care at all (as he was an anarchist).
Similar situations can be found in many books too, but of course the greek side doesn't take these facts into account. Karavangelis himself in his book shows quite a confused and limited knowledge about "who is who" and who fought for what when speaking of the VMRO and things related. He totally confuses the "Centralists" who fought SOLELY for Autonomy of Macedonia (mostly socialists and cosmopolits) and the "Vrhovists" who were fighting the previously mentioned.

4. Offtopic:
QUOTE from a previous commentator:
"in any case thank you for not invading because you were allied with the Soviet Union and we with NATO and therefore you would have precipitated World War III."(end of quote)
I really wonder how are we going to discuss history here, when certain individuals are not informed about some very basic historical facts:
Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM if you prefer) as a former federal part of then Socialist Federative Yugoslavia was NOT an Eastern Bloc country.
We were never a "Moscow sattelite" behind the Iron curtain such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary and the rest of these "new EU countries" or EU countries to be.
Oncontrary after Tito-Stalin split in 1948, Yugoslavia was independent both from the east and the western bloc and a leading founder of the Non-Aligned Movement
Still if choosing between the East and the West, Socialist Yugoslavia was more closer to the West. In 1954 Yugoslavia (who was previously backing the Communists in the Greek Civil war) signed a Balkan Pact for mutual self-defense with Greece and Turkey (both by then members of NATO) for protection against possible Soviet attack, also it received some help form the US because it was sort of "buffer zone" between the West and the Soviet controled world. So HOW THE HELL WE COULD ATTACK YOU?! About what alliance with the Soviets r u talking about?
Btw some trivia related to the subject: Socialist Yugoslavia started to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest(in which only western european countries participated at the time) in 1961, while the "capitalist-NATO" Greece joined in 1974 :) --Vbb-sk-mk 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed - distorted facts; bias; contradictions; adding some more refferences needed etc.[edit]

1. The Greek Macedonian struggle was not an officiall greek conflict against the official state of Bulgaria (the state of Bulgaria officially was not an occupator in that time on that territory or anything) so it needs to be changed to something like "greek conflict against VMRO" etc. VMRO of Goce Delchev was fighting for autonomous Macedonia so it's wrong to mention the state of Bulgaria as it was not an organisation created by the Bulgarian state. Things become more complicated having in mind the creation of a rival organisation of VMRO sponsored by the Bulgarian government- The Supreme Comitee (Vrhovisti) which may also have been involved in all that
2. The Greek Macedonian struggle was not an independence struggle against Ottoman Turkish occupation neither, claiming that is an absolute lie. Actually the dedicated greek nationalist Germanos Karavangelis in his own book of memoirs says openly that he collaborated with the Turkish authorities all the time very succesfully mentioning particular situations, ottoman officials such as Rustem Bey etc. That must be changed immediatly too
3. As I explained before, quoting Karavangelis'es own autobiographic book, his men were mostly newcomers from Greece (especially officers from the greek regular army, volunteers from Crete, various criminals that he picked somewhere and an insignificant number of locals of which one can mention only Vangelis Natsas and Kotas Hristos (so much about the "numerous locals" that joined the struggle, history recorded only a few). Dont blame me, he wrote the book.
4. Monastiri is a greek name of Bitola. At that time this city was within the borders of the Ottoman Empire so Manastir is an apropriate name with later explanation that it is a present day Bitola (I mean why should the greek toponym Monastiri be used first?! The city itself was not officially named Monastiri then and it was not part of the greek state. Only local greek speaking population may used this name which is irrelevant)
5. The name of the Revolutionary Organisation that fought for autonomy of Macedonia and Thrace despite the changes has never included the toponym "Adrianopole". instead the name "Odrin" was used for this same city and "Odrinsko" for the surrounding area. Accordingly the organisation's name originaly included "Makedonsko-ODRINSKA Revolucionerna Organizacija". Adrianopole should be deleted
6. Gianitsa (a town that was built by the Turks) in that time was named Yenidje Vardar (Turkish name), while the ethnic Macedonians or u may say Bulgarian population (subject of dispute) called it and still call it Pazar. i will check what was the name of the lake appropriately for that time too. The toponym Gianitsa should be only incl. in brackets to explain the present day name and Enidje Vardar or Yenidje should be added in the first place.
7. It is just arbitrary stated in this article that the Ilinden uprising was just 'unsuccesful' ommiting the important fact that territories were liberated and the Krushevo Republic was formed etc. It is in contradiction with the article about the Ilinden uprising where those facts are included. More apropriate would be to mention that the uprising failed after a short period of initial success.
8. Why there are no photos of the armed groups or individuals etc. who fought against the greek side in this conflict and thus belong to this subject? 9. I would also like to add some books for further reading incl. the greek point of view, the bulgarian etc. 10. Dont blame me for any eventual changes as I have tried to explain everything with appropriate arguments beforehand. --Vbb-sk-mk 05:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is unclear what the sources of some of the claims in the article are. I just tagged a few of them. (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I protest over the latest ridiculuous and biased changes![edit]

I protest over some of the latest changes to my recent additions by the member Aldux :
Previously in the discussion you can see that I twice warned all of you that there r certain parts that must be changed and I gave appropriate explanations and ARGUMENTS why, before I actually made the changes, but no one gave me any good contraarguments to stop me from doing so!
The article itself until my recent changes ALL THE TIME was without ANY cites or sources mentioned! and strangelky no one was complaining about that all the time! But then, after I added my stuff, today I see it already crippled at some places plus a tag placed "this article doesnt cite its source"???!! well excuse me, i was the first who actually added a reference source and some books at all, why didn't you complain before, when there was nothing?! or I suppose previously it was more biased towards trhe greek side so you were satisfied with it? what kind of justice is this?
And you still fanaticaly INSIST on a version that would include: the greek groups fought the Turkish, army WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICILOUS.
I said it once and I will repeat milion times over and over again if needed cause Im sick of ignorant people.
Now explain me please how come the greek groups "fought against the turkish army"??
There's no such thing! Full stop. So stop falsifying the truth!

Also you fanaticaly stick to the nationalist child stories refusing to admitt a 100% fact that only FEW locals were really recruited. This includes Kote Hristov (thats his real name and under that name he was listed in the ottoman documents, u can call him Kotas as much as u like, that won't change anything), vangelis, the chiftain Gele plus lets say 3-4 more. add the fact that all of them had groups of 15-20, so the whole number of recruited locals is ridiculuous and if I was a greek nationalist I wouldnt be too proud.
Karavangelis in his OWN books mentions at some moment the number of his men, for example at one place): "thats how we gathered around 50 people, Greeks, Turks, Albanians, 25 FROM RUSTEM BEY (!), 15 VANGELIS AND 10 CRETENS. Well this is a good illustration of how "bravely these greeks fought against the turks" bbravely fighting side by side with them :) the nunmbers of vangel's group is only for 5 people bigger than the group composed of creten newcomers, not really a sign of a massive local movement or anything.

Also another thing, nothing at all is ever mentioned about the official point of view of Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on these matters!!
When VMRO is in question, all the time all I hear is only "Bulgaria this, Bulgaria that, bla-bla". Only the Greek and the Bulgarian side is heard all the time. There r points of view beyond that too
--Vbb-sk-mk 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Greeks and Turks[edit]

What is the origin of the picture of the supposed Greeks and the supposed Turks officers? The chieftains Spyros and Adam) When was it taken? During, after or before the Greek straggle for Macedonia? Who took the photo? Is it in Macedonia or somewhere else? Are those really Turkish officers? Are those really Greek guerillas? In what occasion and why they were photographed together? This picture needs to be verified! (The picture has only 2 Greek names written on it) (If the picture can not be verified I will request that it should be deleted as it has nothing to do with the article.) (Seleukosa 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

If nobody answers within a certain period of time you have every right to remove the picture. Miskin 15:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User kapnisma has corrected the picture.He said that he have never written that these were Turkish oficers. I asked him to provide me some more information about the picture! (Seleukosa 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

what was wrong with that picture? it was nice. why dont you read the book of the greek national hero yermanos karavaggelis who was sent by greece to macedonia by nikolaos mavrokordatos? karavaggelis was cooperating with the turkish army all the time.they were brothers in arms (the turkish commander Rustem bey was a even a former student in athens, at one occassion he sang the national anthem of greece in honour of karavafggelis).why are you so embarassed of your own history?

Dear anonymous user Would you please gives as the exact page and edition were the above information was published? What you describe can only have 4 explanations! a)Rustem Bey was heavily influenced by Germanos Karavangelis and he became pro-Greek and he supported the Greek cause against his own country! (Which is a great succes of Gerrmanos karavagelis!) b) Rustem Bey was manipulated and tricked by Germanos Karavangelis to support the Greeks, believing he was supporting Ottoman Empire’s interests! (Which is a great succes of Gerrmanos karavangelis!) c) Rustem Bay was a pro-Greek (a Greek-fan!!) and he was fighting along side with the Greeks against Ottoman Empire. That also explain why he sang the Greek national anthem! and finally d) The Ottoman Empire has actually order Rustem Bey and the Ottoman forces to attack the IMRO/VMRO fighters and collaborate with the Greek-Macedonian fighters in order to support the Greek struggle of Macedonia against the interests of the Ottoman Empire.

Seleukosa 09:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gemidzhii and VMRO[edit]

According to my source, since I was the one who started the article, (John Koliopoulos, History of Greece from 1800, Vanias Press, Thessaloniki, 2002 ISBN 960-288-082-1) those people were connected with VMRO. If you have an other opinion, first discuss it here. Kapnisma ? 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


I fail to notice: is this article properly referenced or not? It contains only one properly formated reference, the rest is under "further reading". Im afraid i will have to tag it --Dzole 05:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Scope of this article[edit]

The main problem of this article seems to be its scope: An article about a war or civil war should never be written entirely from the perspective of the one side. Which has been done here, and marked as such even in the choice of title. This was not just a "Greek struggle for...", it was a period of civil war between several sides. So, what do people in the other relevant countries call these events, and above all, what does third-party scholarship call it?

And yes, the references are entirely one-sided and insufficient too, so the warning tag stays. Fut.Perf. 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The scope of this article was the Greek perpective, hence the title Greek Struggle for Macedonia. Excuse me, but what you write doen't make any sence. it was a period of civil war between several sides(?). I mean a civil war happens inside a nation, for example the Greek one in late '40. In this case it was fight between Greeks, Bulgarians and Turks, so what do you mean civil war? Secondary, we Greeks call it Macedonian Struggle, but I chose how Dakin (a Western source) calls it, Greek Struggle of Macedonia. Thirdly, if you mean that we should include as sources various Slavomacedonian sites that talk about genocite against them, our disagreement will be hard. When I wrote this article my sources, as indicated, where three, Koliopoulos (considered the most important modern Greek historian, used by Mazower as source in many of his books), Vakalopoulos (his works on modern Greek history are well known, specially in France) and Dakin. Feel free to contibute with other sources as well but placing warning tags everywhere (not you, in particular), when we disagree in order to cheapen the article's status is not a solution. Kapnisma ? 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with Kapnisma for this article but perhaps we should consider a new article entitled: “pre Balkan war conflict in Ottoman Macedonia” or “Greek – Bulgarian conflict over Macedonia” although the article Macedonia (region) is very detailed about the conflict! But yet we can still create a new one! An incorporate a large part of Macedonia (region) .

Seleukosa 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) :Couple points: first, I'm not going to go into the semantics whether it was a war or a civil war or whatever else (arguably it was a civil war between citizens of the Ottoman Empire, right? but anyway, it doesn't really matter.) Second, no, I'd definitely not mean "balancing" the perspectives by material from nationalist junk sites of whatever party; this is in fact one good thing about this article that it is sourced from actual books, I must commend you for that. But still, the only work that is actually used to source the details is Karavangelis, and that's not only clearly biased but also a primary rather than a secondary source. Finally, I do maintain that an article specifically geared towards the Greek perspective is not a good idea. We should have a general historical article that treats the whole period as part of the history of Macedonia, neutrally, under whatever title. My question to those who know the literature better than I do remains: what is a common neutral term for this complex of events? I mean, there surely must be one? What do Bulgarian authors call the events? (after edit conflict, to Seleukosa: no, we shouldn't have yet another separate article, we should have one article under a title like the one you suggest, and merge this one into it. Or move this one there and expand it accordingly, which is the same.) Fut.Perf. 15:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And you're right, the history section of the main Macedonia article is extremely detailed already. It could easily be factored out from there into a subarticle, to be merged with this one. Fut.Perf. 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many Bulgarian books about these events which I will not list here because this article is clearly written to promote the Greek POV - Bulgarians are bandits while Greeks are freedom-fighters. There are a few non-Balkan books but the world didn't seem to be interested much in this region. I listed one of those books, the most "authoritative", so to say, by the general consul of Austro-Hungary in Macedonia. The Bulgarian and international name for part of these events is Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising. Massacres of Bulgarian villagers in Zagorichani, Mokrene, and many other places by Greek andartes are most often called in Bulgaria "Greek attrocities". The general term in Bulgaria for these events 1878-1913 is "pog/ə/rchvane" (Grecization, Hellenization) of Bulgarians in Macedonia. --Lantonov (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I never used Karavangelis as a source, just look the edit history. At one point, some Slavomacedonian users appeared claiming genocites, ethnic cleanings, etc, etc and used as source, apart from the usual websites, some books of theirs that use quotes from Karavangelis book out of context and ill translated in order to present the Greek Macedonians that participated in the Struggle as criminals or traitors of their race, etc, etc. It was them who added this source. When I and other users asked them to tell us where exactly Karavangelis quotes what they claim (because it happens to possess that book), ofcourse they disappeared. That is the history of Karavangelis book being used as a source. About the article itself, a think it is balanced, avoiding tentions and presents a part of Greek History. 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

About Karavangelis, who is a direct participant in the events on the Greek side, here is one from many quotes from his book, to learn about his methods:
p. 342 in the edition that I have:
The commander of the Greek-Turkish border was my friend Hussein Husni Pasha. He came to Kostur with troops to attack the uprising. But Bulgarians were masters of the situation so he waited one month in Kostur to receive enough reinforcement. After he gathered 10 to 15 thousand troops he went out to attack them. He climbed a hill to orient himself. The Bulgarians saw him and climbed down to fight him. They attacked. But his troops were strong. Only manly Albanians. He scattered them immediately, burned the villages around and defeated the uprising. From there he went to Koreshtata. He burned its villages and came back victorious. Hussein Husni Pasha by my request and indication did not burn the mixed villages, neither the Greek villages, but only the purely Bulgarian villages Posdivishcha, B/ə/mbaki, Vishani, Drenoveni, B/ə/lgarska Blatsa and some other 25 villages altogether.
So let's compare books. Do you find this in yours? --Lantonov (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as having this article goes, it makes sense IMO for Wikipedia to have articles describing summaries of the role of a particular country in a particular conflict, when there are enough sources that there exists a coherent view of that side's role and perspective. There should also be a main article describing the conflict itself, so I agree on that. For example, we have a main article on World War II, but also an article specifically summarizing the war from the U.S. perspective, Military history of the United States during World War II. --Delirium (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


The article was changed back to "Greek struggle for Macedonia."

Struggle for Macedonia includes the Turks, IMRO, Cetniks, Albanians and the West. Appropriately if the main title excluded "Greek", then the article should not focus on just the Greek campaigns.

Thus, the main article main should include "Greek" so the reader will comprehend it is the Greek view/campaign towards the situation, and not the only view/campaign. Mactruth (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Only the Greeks called it consistently 'Makedonikos Agon' or 'Struggle for Macedonia', therefore it must be kept as Macedonian Stuggle. The other struggles in the region had different names. But I will wait in case there were, also, other struggles consistently called what can be translated as 'Macedonian Struggle' (by the Ottoman Turks, IMRO, Cetniks, Albanians and the West, etc...). If no evidence is provided then the article will need to be titled 'Macedonian Struggle'. Politis (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The I have doubts as to the accuracy of the new title. It wasn't just the Greeks "struggling" by themselves, it was Greeks against Bulgarians.--Ptolion (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the old title wasn't really any better in this regard, since "Macedonian Struggle" is an appellation used almost exclusively by us Greeks, and on its own covers only the areas where Greek units operated. It does not cover the entirety of the warfare in Ottoman Macedonia at the time, nor the events before 1904... By definition, any title with "Macedonian Struggle" will present the Greek side's view. Hence, adding the "Greek" in front of it is not a bad move. As a title, it is certainly used in scholarship [3], even by Greek authors, when they write for English-language audiences... Constantine 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Also these [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and at least some 400 books more.--Factuarius (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Since Mactruth[14][15] never answered on Politis, Ptolion and Cplakidas' points for a month now, I moved the article's name back to the original one. But since Kostja agree with him[16] as his rv indicates, I would preferred of him to take part in the discussion here before rv. But anyway. To me: either the article is about the Greek struggle for Macedonia as per title, and thus is not POV per se, or is about the Macedonian struggle in general, and having POV issues, must have a POV tag until the POV issues been solved (in which case Kostja has to explain which parts he believe is needed to be corrected). To have a title clearly indicating as theme a Greek POV over the events and below a POV tag makes no sense; is POV in relate to what? To the Greek point of view as per title? It is obvious that we cannot have both. We must choose either the one or the other. --Factuarius (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better to have one comprehensive article on the Struggle for Macedonia between Serbia, Bulgaria, Greek and Turkey.--Mladifilozof (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Macedonian Struggle Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Greek Struggle for MacedoniaThe Macedonian Struggle — The page should be moved from the current "Greek Struggle for Macedonia" to what virtually the entire literature calls it: "The Macedonian Struggle." As even a cursory literature search reveals, "Macedonian Struggle" is used by virtually the entire literature [17] (by authors of all nationalities, moreover), in contrast to "Greek Struggle for Macedonia", which is very rarely used [18]. Not only that, but "Greek struggle for Macedonia is really weird and illogical. Who were the Greeks struggling against? Themselves? No one in particular? Since most of the struggle was between Greek and Bulgarian guerrillas, by that logic we could just as easily have called it the "Bulgarian Struggle for Macedonia". Time to correct this oddity and use the designation used by everyone else. Athenean (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - Most of the references on Google to the term "Greek Struggle for Macedonia" are to a single book with that specific name. Most other sources seem to use the term "Macedonian Struggle" to describe the conflict. On the other hand, this article appears to be presenting the Greek perspective of the struggle. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that; perhaps an alternative approach would be to create a separate article entitled "Macedonian Struggle" which deals with the wider conflict? Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As I said above, the term "Macedonian Struggle" is exclusively used by the Greeks for their own operations. "Greek Struggle for Macedonia" is here a sort of disambiguation, because theoretically, "Macedonian Struggle" on its own could mean any number of things. I have no problem with leaving the page at "Greek Struggle for Macedonia", which is both descriptive and incorporates the historiographic term, but I would also support a move to plain The Macedonian Struggle, if there are no POV objections. Constantine 16:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I don't see the point in pre-emptive disambiguation - if there are no other "Macedonian Struggle"s on Wikipedia there is no need to disambiguate. I don't really see the need for "The" in the title either - I believe that would contradict WP:DEFINITE. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. How about "Struggle for Macedonia"? "The Macedonian Struggle" makes me think of Alexander arguing with Philip or Aristotle. Kauffner (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment if there is to be a move, it would better be to "Macedonian Struggle", since that is the proper historiographical term. If we are to paraphrase it for clarity it might as well remain where it is. Constantine 19:30, 28 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

But does it really make sence to have one page called Macedonian struggle and another called Macedonian Struggle where the first one redirects to the second by way of Greek Struggle for Macedonia?? Regards! (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

General improvement needed[edit]

The Struggle for Macedonia wasn't just a conflict between guerrillas. It was a systematic effort by Greece (military, political, cultural, economic) to prepare Macedonia for its eventual union with Greece. The international context was the terminal decline of the Ottoman Empire. All Greek objectives were linked to the realization of the Megali Idea. Yet, many Bulgarian users, displaying a ludicrous nationalist narcissism constantly edit the article, adding useless details about the internal workings of the IMRO, and try to magnify Bulgarian role in the events. As a result, they distort the historical reality. The people who planned and executed the Macedonian Struggle (Karavangelis, Katehakis, Kalapothakis, Souliotis, Dragoumis) couldn't care less about what every IMRO committee of peasant farmers thought. The Macedonian Struggle included diplomatic actions outside Macedonia. And inside Macedonia, there was conflict with Turks, Albanians and Serbs, apart from Bulgarians. Furthermore, much needs to be written about the rebellion of the Exarchate from the Patriarchate, and its eventual secession, with generous Turkish support.AngBent (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Try to magnify Bulgarian role in the events"?! All those people you listed started the Macedonian struggle in order to counter the increasingly more influential IMRO and Bulgarian Exarchate. The eventual union with Greece was accomplished by the Greek armies, with the generous assistance of the Bulgarians. And of course the rebellion of the Exarchate are completely irrelevant when concerning the events in Macedonia at the beginning of the 20th century. Kostja (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebellion of the Exarchate couldn't be more relevant. It was the people of the Exarchate who destroyed the high culture of the Orthodox Church with their crude ethnic nationalism, thus creating conflict out of nowhere. And if you study the period's history, you will see that Greek activity went far beyond a guerrilla conflict with the IMRO. It included financial support for schools and cultural foundations, extensive diplomacy to secure British support, constant bribery of Turkish officials and efforts (mostly successful) to influence ethnographers and geographers. Read the books of the serious historians of Modern Greece (Mark Mazower, Richard Clogg, John Koliopoulos etc) So if you just reduce the whole efforts of Greece to "a conflict between guerrillas" you seriously distort historical reality. I really can't understand your disagreements. If you want to write about the internal workings of IMRO, then do so on the IMRO article. And read a book about Greek history, you will see that the Greek objective was Constantinople, not Bulgaria.AngBent (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Thank you for revealing your real opinions on the matter. I see little point in further discussions with you, so I will only say that the only part of your additions that is referenced and should stay in the article is the Greek nationalist claim that the andartes were protectors of the Greek population, which should be however in its proper context - and you need to supply page numbers for those books. By the way, speaking of crude nationalism, what do you call this (published before the start of the struggle for an autocephalus Bulgarian church)?
And perhaps you should read a bit more about the history of the Constantinople Patriarchate and how it came to acquire the Bulgarian church. I think you will be surprised. Kostja (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do you disagree with the lead section's assertion that the Macedonian Struggle was a series of military, political, cultural and economic efforts, and not just a guerrilla campaign? You continue to distort reality. I will simply repeat that reducing the Macedonian struggle to a conflict of guerrillas is ludicrous. You dispute my sources, yet in your edits you usually provide unverifiable, obscure Slavic references. I urge you to read books on this issue, not just the propaganda of the Bulgarian communist regime. And you say that Moscopolites was a crude nationalist? If the Slavic peasants had followed his advice, they could escape from their poverty and ignorance, and partake in Greek culture. Is that crude nationalism? Moscopolites wanted an Orthodox community, not a fragmentation into competing nationalists. And please stop your edit warring, because I don't like to start and internet fight with you, but I will if you continue your removal of referenced edits. AngBent (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Your version of the lead is just the Greek point of view, and furthermore is not supported by verifiable references. You are free to write about the cultural and economic side of the Greek efforts, as long you provide sources but that's not what you have been doing. My references are actually completely verifiable as they contain web links or at least a detailed localization of the quote - and again, hypocritically you accuse me of giving links in "Slavic", while giving a book in Greek as reference.
Your suggestions for me to read books on the issues are absurd, in light of the fact that you seem to have read only Greek propaganda books from the 19th century. It may surprise you, but education in Bulgarian is possible and has been since the 9th century. And calling other languages "barbaric" is crude nationalism, though perhaps not for those who think Greek culture is the only one worth belonging to. Kostja (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does this polarization lead to guys ? An edit war with sterile argumentation contained in the edit summaries. For instance, AngBent, you are saying that you restore referenced info, but at the same time you are replacing or removing referenced text as well, which proves to be controversial and needs consensus. I happen to agree with your general conclusion but, and as much as i am pro freedom of expression, i have to warn you that the way you elaborate your position can be received as a patronizing manner by the Bulgarian editors you are referring to, which triggers a defensive response that assumes good faith only at a minimum, technical, level. The article needs balancing, primarily by adding things, not by removing. Maybe you should consider enriching it first, and then discuss which aspects you find to have been given undue weight and should be trimmed.

Kostja {this has little to do with the content dispute but may ease tensions}, i don't know exactly what you mean by "crude nationalism" but you are basing your judgment in an anachronistic mistake, the word "barbarian" in Moscopolites' work should be placed in its proper context, which is closer to the ancient Greek and Byzantine use of the term, it did not lack negative connotations but is was quite different from the so very offensive meaning of today, that it took from the West. Although i'm not sure what AngBent meant with his assertion that "Slavic peasants could have escaped poverty and ignorance", this can be easily construed as a Catch22 statement, Wealth=>Education=>Appropriation of the Greek culture, we can't really assert this relationship was widely reversible. Anyway, we can say Moscopolites favored a special brand of cultural nationalism that had little to do with politics and even less with the ethnic hatreds and mayhem in the end of the Ottoman era in Macedonia. That was more or less the case with Rigas Feraios for instance, politically he promoted the concept of "Balkan Federalism", but it's safe to assume he hoped that the Greek sociocultural element would prevail.--IpProtected (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IpProtected, your efforts to ease tensions is appreciated, but I would like to point to out that AngBent's position is also effected by anachronism. It's one thing to plead for union among Orthodox Christians in the 18th century and quite a different thing to support the ugly aspects of this movement for union (which usually left no provision for those who were unwilling to assimilate into Greek culture) but it's quite another thing to support them today. Or for that matter, during the Macedonian struggle, when the Bulgarians already had their own church and their own schools, to use the same old arguments about the "primitive Slavic peasants", as the Makedonomachi did. I'm sorry to say that at times AngBent arguments seem to be taken straight from Greek propaganda books dating from the 19th century.
As for AngBent's edits, I have been unable to verify many of his sources - including Dakin and Gerolymatos, while the Καραβαγγέλης reference doesn't even mention the book from which the source was taken. I have included the sources I could verify in their proper context - comparing them with opposing views and placing them outside of the lead, where they hardly belong. Kostja (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostja continues to undo and distort my edits and to unabashedly promote a ridiculously pro-Bulgarian view of the events. In his previous edit, he said "according to Bulgarian and Western authors...while according to Greek". Just this should be enough to demonstrate his lack of knowledge about European history in general. According to our friend Kostja, Greece isn't a Western country. Now, if Greece isn't Western, then what country is? If he continues his edit warring, I will seek dispute resolution and report him to the administrators

AngBent (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

You're the one who refuses to compromise and continues distorting the article. I have actually inserted your sources, but I have taken the trouble to check them out and they don't say what you claim they are saying, therefore I've placed them in their proper context, contrasting with the Greek source which presumably does say that.
In light of your misuse of sources I want to see some actual quotes from the sources I couldn't verify - Dakin, Gerolymatos, Vakalopoulos and Καραβαγγέλης - before I'll agree to their inclusion in the article.
And will you stop with your hypocritical accusations of censorship and POV wrting? What about your removal of the reference about the help the Ottomans gave to the Greek guerrillas? And how about your total removal of the Bulgarian point of view, including the Bulgarian name of the conflict? Kostja (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Greek armed propaganda in Macedonia"?[edit]

In the lead someone has written "Bulgarian ... Greek armed propaganda in Macedonia". Is this a term used in mainstream Bulgarian historiography to describe the Greek-Bulgarian clashes in Macedonia? If not, then it should be removed from the lead. The Bulgarian interpretation of the events can be elaborated on elsewhere in the article.--Ptolion (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is used in Bulgarian historiography. See here, for example. It's true that the more broad term "Greek propaganda" is more widespread ([19]), but when speaking of the actions of the Greek guerrillas, "armed propaganda" is the established term. Kostja (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There was an improvement, but there are still problems[edit]

I am very glad that the lead section finally describes the Macedonian Struggle as a multidimensional military-political-cultural-economic series of events, and not just a conflict of guerrillas. There are still problems however. First of all, excessive attention is given to the IMRO nomenclature. Secondly, the Macedonian Struggle was only a part of the Megali Idea project, and this should be referred to in the article. And finally, it is egregious to say that the Ottomans supported the Makedonomachoi. Just look at Pavlos Melas. Who killed him? And of course Greece was a wealthier and more important country than Bulgaria, so the theory of Ottoman support seems flimsy at best, and only one reference is provided...

AngBent (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

The background about the IMRO is as important as the background of the Greek guerrillas. I'm not against including the part about the Megali idea.
As for your suggestion that "it is egregious to say that the Ottomans supported the Makedonomachoi", I only wrote that the Turks often ignored their activities, not that they always helped them. Your comment about the wealth and importance of Greece are incorrect; at that time Bulgaria was quite bigger than Greece and had a stronger army. More importantly, the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire had just staged a large rebellion in Macedonia, while the local Greek leadership was inclined to support the Ottomans as long as they were targeting the Bulgarian guerrillas. Kostja (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not accurate[edit]

This is one sided history and therefore not accurate!!! I am sad that good materials of wikipedia in many fields are shaded by such unilateral (or in this case bilateral) view on the topic. if there is no concensus, there should be more points of view, not just the greek one. and especially to translate the name speaking about macedonia from english to greek and bulgarian, but not to macedonian, it is so obvious that it is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You certainly seem frustrated by the way the article is written. That's ok. However, rather than simply stating that it is one-sided, why not choose part of it that you think needs to be balanced and edit that section? With many articles there are different viewpoints and Wikipedia strives to be balanced and neutral. If you find a place that is not neutral, please edit that section to make it more appropriate. On contentious edits where there are strong feelings, you might want to use the article's talk page to present your concerns and then work with other editors on building a consensus. You should also consider creating an account.  :) Wikipelli Talk 15:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

possible fabrication[edit]

Reverted this rather tendentious edit [20]. There is no page 1110 in Ion Dragoumis' book, or anywhere near that number of pages for that matter. Possible fabrication. Athenean (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


Does someone have any information on where this village is located and what is its current name? Or simply its Greek name? There doesn't seem to be information on Strentza besides the picture, so I was wondering if perhaps the name hasn't been changed. Kostja (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

POV problems[edit]

This add [21] by User:Kostja is highly problematic both in substance and in style. Using a primary source from 1906 (100+ years old), and copying verbatim the colorful unencyclopedic language that sources form that time use (..."upon the peaceful population."). This is POV-pushing of a high order. Now, the "Official Greek Involvement" section has a sentence about how atrocities were committed by both sides (unsourced, but fair enough), then a sentence about one of the most "notable" massacres of Bulgarians by Greeks ("notable" according to whom?), then the sentence about the evil Andartes inflicting massacres upon the "peaceful [Bulgarian] population". In other words, not even a semblance of neutrality. I don't see why select instances of massacres need to be mentioned. We should just leave it at "atrocities" were committed by both sides. If we 'have' to mention specific instances of massacres, it should be done in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. Not sentence after sentence about how "the Greeks massacred the peaceful Bulgarian population". Athenean (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I also invite User:Kostja to explain (preferably without reverting) how this [22] is "out of context". Richard Clogg is a modern, scholarly source (in contrast to the 1906 sources used by Kostja), and the Balkans War were part of the aftermath of the Macedonian Struggle. The sourced material is very pertinent and relevant to the article. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First, primary sources are permitted as long as they are only used to support a simple statement of fact and not an interpretation, which is how this source is used here. Incidentally, the exact text has not been reproduced - Brailsford accuses the Greeks of "resorting to wholesale massacre" which would probably be even more objectionable. As it stands now, the source is simply used to support the statement that the Greek caused non-combatant deaths. Perhaps "civilian population" would be better, but that has an association with wars and not the kind of conflict this was.
Regarding the notability of the Zagorichani massacre, it being included in papers submitted to the British parliament obviously singles it out from similar events, but using "significant" would be also acceptable.
I disagree with the proposal to remove information of all specific war crimes. This information provides important historical information on the period - for example, the events in Zagorichani and other such villages are often directly linked to the 1906 anti-Greek riots in Bulgaria, so if we are going to mention the riots, we need to mention the events that preceded them. Also, due to the Greeks being stronger than the Bulgarians, they had logically more opportunity to commit massacres. Just having a bland statement like: "They both committed war crimes" would distort this by presenting them as equal. In any case, the solution to a one sided view is to represent the other side, not to censor the article. Also, the article has had for a long a picture of Greek victims of the Bulgarians (leaving aside the reliability of the source it's based on), and as they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
Regarding Clogg, regardless of what exactly he meant by "paving the way", using it in the article, especially in the lead is likely to mislead readers into thinking that Greek successes in this conflict contributed to the Greek conquest of Macedonia during the Balkan war. The connection between the two events requires more attention than a throwaway sentence. Kostja (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your advise about not reverting would sound a bit more honest if you didn't revert yourself without even seeing my objections. Kostja (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources are best avoided, and should be used extremely carefully, if at all, and especially not for pushing a "we are victims" national POV. It's interesting that you think Brailsford's wording is "even more objectionable", meaning you are aware that the wording you used is objectionable, i.e. you did so intently. The claims about the "significance" of the Zaogrichani massacre, and it being a source for the anti-Greek pogrom are OR unless they can be sourced. So is "the Greeks were stronger, they had logically more opportunity to commit massacres". This is deep, deep into OR and ethno-nationalist POV-pushing territory. As far as Clogg goes, he is a thoroughly reliable, scholarly source. If he says that the Greek success in the Macedonian Struggle paved the way for the Greek victory in the Balkan Wars, I believe him. Unless you can provide sources of similar quality to the contrary, you are once again deep into OR territory. And it's "advice", not "advise". Athenean (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that I thought that Brailsford's wording is objectionable, I meant that this phrase would probably lead to an even stronger reaction. I don't consider Brailsford objectionable and you haven't really explained why you find him objectionable. I've already explained why the Zagorichani massacre was significant. As for the Greeks being able to commit more massacres, that follows obviously from their stronger forces and seems to be supported by the sources.
Clogg doesn't actually make an assertion like that. His statement is very vague and can be misinterpreted (as you're doing here), so it shouldn't be included in the article.
And there's no need to score cheap points like the remark about advise. Kostja (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Meaning you fully knew that his phrasing would draw a reaction, but went ahead with it anyway. If you don't see what's wrong with using a source from 1906 with the title "Macedonia; its races and their future", maybe you should not be editing this area. Brailsford's language is archaic and unfit for a 20th century encyclopedia ("upon the peaceful population"). Anyway, I will replace him with an instance of a Bulgarian massacre against Greeks when I have time, and that way the section will have at least a semblance of balance. Regarding your explanations, they are WP:OR and speculation (" As for the Greeks being able to commit more massacres, that follows obviously from their stronger forces and seems to be supported by the sources."). Supported by which sources? According to whom, you? This is pure speculation and OR. Unless you can source it, it is worthless. Clogg is crystal clear [23]. Some scholars consider the Balkan Wars to be a continuation of the Macedonian Struggle [24]. There is no risk of "misinterpretation", except by people with a poor comprehension of English. Athenean (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no point in this discussion if you ignore what I said and twist my words. I don't care what your's (or anyone else's) reaction to my edits is but I was trying to prevent the article from being imbalanced. Obviously, it's not the phrasing that is being considered objectionable, so perhaps I should have used the book's language. Then at least the accusation of reproducing the citation verbatim would be correct.
Regarding primary sources, they are permitted, as long as they support a unambiguous factual statement, which they do here. I've added a disclaimer that the information is according to Brailsford.
If you're going to replace information about Bulgarian victims with those about Greek victims, I'm afraid this dispute will not be solved soon, as this would be a serious violation of NPOV policy. You might instead try to find some information about the Strentza picture, which relies on a quite dubious source.
If Clogg is so important, I'm not against him being included (but with his opinion being placed in the proper context). However, I still don't think he belongs in the lead. Kostja (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh come on, like you didn't know that writing about "massacres of the peaceful Bulgarian population" was not going to be controversial. Using sources from 1906 to push an ethno-nationalist POV is tendentious editing par excellence. You don't care what anyone else's reaction is? You'd better start. This is supposed to be a collaborative project. I can't accept a source from 1906 about "Macedonia's races". One sentence about Bulgarian victims, one sentence about Greek victims. The current version is too much of a Bulgarian victimological POV-piece. Athenean (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"Peaceful population" means non-combatant. What's objectionable about it exactly? And regarding your reactions, when they amount to stubborn declarations like the one above, they are really not relevant. The source does not violate the criteria for using primary sources, so there is no grounds for removing it.
Also, why did you remove my edits with which attempted to reach a compromise? I hope it's not so that another user can revert me again and claim that I refuse to compromise. In any case, I would ask you to revert yourself. Kostja (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
What attempts at compromise? You want a compromise, stick to modern sources, not stuff from 1906. I'm tired of repeating myself. Athenean (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As I am. The source is permitted. Kostja (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Im against the use of 190x sources on the subject. Nevertheless, if they should be part of the article they must be fully references and of academic nature. Moreover, Encyclopedia Americana shouldn't be used, as a tertiary and outdated material. I've also to note that the outdated material in general is selectively choosen in order to show the pro-Bulgarian perspective, while a more neutral approach is ignored (Encyclopedia Brittanica of that time for example).Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Stuff like "Hazell's annual" from 1908; The Annual register of world events: a review of the year, Volume 148; 1907; p.334 and The Encyclopedia Americana: a library of universal knowledge, Volume 27; 1920 are out of the question. There is a world of modern sources on the Macedonian Struggle out there, there is simply no reason or need to rely on such sources. Primary sources are often wrong about events, and the full picture of why something happened only emerges years later. That is the reason secondary sources should be used instead of primary sources. Athenean (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
As I explained above, the usage of primary sources is not prohibited, as long as they are used to support a factual statement and not an interpretation, which is what they are used for here.
Usage of tertiary source is also not forbidden (see for example, the frequent usage of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica).
Regarding the "world of modern sources" few modern sources actually give detailed information about this conflict; most confine themselves to a broad outline. Most of the existing sources seem to be partial to one of the sides, like the book by Douglas Dakin.
@Alexikoua: Regarding my usage of the book by Teodora Dragostinova, while she does give a more generalized explanation, she also mention specific events which triggered anti-Greek violence. In fact, my citations contained specific links about exactly such events. She mentions, for example that "Trouble for the Greeks started" when Bulgarian authorities discovered weapons destined for Macedonia and pro-Greek propaganda in "Greek homes and diplomatic buildings" and that the more severe anti-Greek riots were preceded by "New Greek massacres" in Macedonia. So I don't see on what ground you have reverted my edits. Also, WP:POINT is something quite different from what you are accusing me of, you must have confused this with something else.
And I think that this discussion would be more productive if we desisted from bad faith accusation like the ones in your last post. Kostja (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you serious? We should stick to stuff like "Hazell's Annual" and the "Annual register of world events" because there are so few modern sources on the Macedonian Struggle? The 1911 Britannica is highly deprecated btw, just because it's used in badly sourced articles, doesn't mean we should use it here. You won't find the 1911 Britannica in GAs and FAs, that's for sure. Ditto for the Encyclopedia Americana from 1920. Athenean (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia does permit the usage of Encyclopedia Britannica with care and as I pointed out tertiary sources are not automatically unreliable, if they are used to accompany primary and secondary sources (as they are used here). Kostja (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
@Kostja: Agree with your statement above. However, this doesn't justify this version [[25]]. Either we give a generalized view on how the events in Macedonia were linked with the anti-Greek movement in Bulgaria, or a more detailed paragraph is needed that includes all the specific aspects, including the massacres in Macedonia, which are mentioned one section above in the article.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If you wanted a more detailed paragraph, why remove the detailed background of the anti-Greek riots? In any case, I've now inserted all three quotations. Kostja (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Cornell University Press does not publish Bulgarian POV or biased info. Peer reviewed books are reliable and neutral sources. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bad the same cannot be said of some Wikipedia editors, who use her work in an attempt to justify pogroms by their fellow countrymen. Athenean (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Athenean, do you actually have a serious argument or are you just going to resort to personal attacks? Kostja (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I am no party to the discussion or the accompanied edits, could I just point out to the pointlessness of this comment, Athenean. It popped up on my watchlist a couple of hours ago and I decided to check it up later. It is completely out of place here and contributes nothing to a discussion that seems to be going somewhere. Please, refrain from commenting on editors and stick to content like the others (try to) do. --Laveol T 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a serious issue here and Athenean pointed very well. Hopefully Kostja, needs to explain why in everything supported by Dakin, we should add that 'according to Dakin happened this and this', but this shouldn't happen with Dragishtinova.Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

AngBent, please, do not delete reliable information about the Bulgarian part of the Macedonian struggle from the article. Your edits appear to be unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. If you believe the information you deleted was not correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


The user which insist on this edit [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] has been kindly requested to explain why such a rewordind is necessary. To be precise:

  • why its necessary to include the phrase "according to a Greek report" if an author is Greek, while this shouldn't be added in Bulgarian authors since we use plenty of Bulgarian authors as refs here.
  • the part about the "Bulgarian Komitadjis, that pursued a campaign of extermination of Greek and Serbian teachers and clergy", is moved at the end of the paragraph, while chonologically this started before that start of the Macedonian Struggle (from imro creation).

Disruption doesn't only mean removal of sourced content but unxeplained rewording in order to promote a personal pov.Alexikoua (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand there is an unexplained obsession in adding outdated and poorly cited sources [[30]], /9who wrote this?) obviuosly product of snippet abuse via google books.Alexikoua (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked the 'entire' book [[31]]. It appears that the author is anonymous and styles himself as "Historicus" (no real name anywhere to be seen) and the work as pure propaganda of that era. A small sample of the language he uses: "The Greek bishop of Castoria sent his bravoes to guide the Turkish troops to massacre the Bulgarian villages. There is a photograph in existence showing the bishop, surrounded by Turkish officers,in the act of blessing the Turkish cannon that were to batter Bulgarian villages to dust." Perhaps this is the part that the recent addition is based on, although the edit mentioned that this happened in general not just by one bishop's bravoes (?).Alexikoua (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I think that's a new low. Removed. Athenean (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest everybody just stopped edit-warring and started discussing. For a start, why don't you all avoid using terms like moreover and on the other hand. They both come with an unnecessary emphasis on information that is supposed to be neutral. And could someone, please, explain what is the essential difference between the two revision you are arguing over. I just see the same text moved around, along with weasel words added and removed. Is that all? --Laveol T 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The dispute revolves around the insertion of material from an extremely unreliable source from 1917 (read Alexikoua's post above). Athenean (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Judging by its popularity it might be a useful source [32]. In the mean time, most of the sources here have been acquired via google books and the links to them are quite visible. Like this one. Should all of them be removed. From my point of view it looks like one editor is trying to push one such source into the article and another is trying to push a similar source. And both remove the other's source as well. Is that what its all about? --Laveol T 21:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
A 1917 propaganda piece by an anonymous "author" going by the name "Historicus" is definitely not a reliable source. "Popularity" is not what determines whether a source can be considered reliable. The criteria for reliable sourcing are clearly spelled out in WP:RS. If you think it's a reliable source because of it's "popularity", feel free to obtain a second opinion at WP:RSN, but don't be surprised if the result is negative. Athenean (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The other source you mention (not that it has anything to do with the discussion on the 1917 source), on the other hand, clearly does meet the criteria for WP:RS. Athenean (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I am sorry but this seems to be your own criteria on the topic. You could see what a scholar thinks here. The source does not look worse than most other on this particular page. The fact that sourcing is poor is out of the question. --Laveol T 22:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The inclusion of bad source can not be justified with argument "The source does not look worse than most other on this particular page." It is impossible to solve the problem of bad sources by adding more bad sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Then we are back to point A - remove them :). Now seriously, the source does not look bad. Look at the link I've provided. We could always go with "A Bulgarian diplomat suggests..." etc. The edit war was pointless that way or the other and was just a case of I-want-to-keep-my-POV-and-remove-yours instead of the usual (or possibly the needed) constructive dialogue. This reminds me that Kostja is yet to join in to the discussion part of the equation. --Laveol T 23:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The specific book, focused on WWI, is an endless propaganda of that time (1917), describing how Bulgarian supperiority should be achieved in the Balkans and why for example Serbs are traitors since they fight against their Slavic brothers. A quick look at the full version and the wording the author uses makes this quite clear.Alexikoua (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the link presented by Laveol confirms this work is focused on the WWI (listed within "bibliography of the war" section) which was after the period which is topic of this article.
It is impossible to resolve all issues at once. It has to be done case by case. This discussion is about attempt to insert assertions supported by source written By Bulgarian diplomat, presenting Bulgarian side of case. Although it was characterized as moderate and candid it is source which is not neutral and which is focused on the events out of scope of this article. I am sure there are better, reliable and neutral sources which present Bulgarian side of case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think there'd be neutral Bulgarian writings on the topic. Is there a full version of the text btw? I can't seem to locate it. Umm, by the title it seems to be a "Historic Presentation of the Background of the Balkan Problem, One of the Basic Issues of the World War (1917)" meaning it seeks the roots of problems between Balkan states which eventually result in what became WWI. In that sense, it should be dealing precisely with that topic. Anyway, I do not have a preference one way or the other. I just wanted to point out that there are two sides waging an edit-war and both were doing the same. And it did not seem constructive at all; unlike the present discussion (at least I hope so). --Laveol T 00:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
One side did not discuss.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's objectivity?![edit]

Hi, I am Srdjan Todorov, Bulgarian who live in Serbia and I post there section about Serbian action in Macedonia, which was deleted. Why Wikipedia censor everything about Serbs and Serbian history? (don't remember, I am Bulgarian, which is Serbian opponent in Macedonian struggle) Why you do not write just one sentence about Chetniks and a lot of Serbian voivodas (Popović, Babunski, Sokolović, Trifunović-Birčanin, Trbić, Mihailović, Pećanac etc.) This is not objectivity and I hope that some of Wikipedia's admins will see this section and will make out this theme. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srdjantodorov93 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


Since the article was moved to "Macedonian Struggle", it should serve as the main article for all armed "propaganda" or operations in Macedonia during this time (including Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Aromanian and Albanian). For convenience, there should be Greek operations in the Macedonian Struggle, etc, which the Bulgarian term "Гръцка въоръжена пропаганда в Македония" (Greek armed propaganda in Macedonia) refer to (which is used wrongfully in the intro).--Zoupan 22:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
There is already an article about Bulgarian activities (IMRO). This article descibes the Greek activities, although a brief mention to the other ones will be nice. Maybe a move of the title will be better.Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the name Greek struggle for Macedonia will be more appropriative. Jingiby (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there somebody who agrees with a move to a new, more neutral title: Greek participation in the Macedonian Struggle?Jingiby (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I am still inclined to believe that this article is the main article for all armed "propaganda" or operations in Macedonia during this time (including Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Aromanian and Albanian), like Zoupan explained. Creation of individual articles under this umbrella article is a matter of the WP:SIZESPLIT.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK, "Macedonian Struggle" is a Greek term and employed from a Greek POV for these events. Thus, the article title matches its current content, which focuses on precisely the Greek perspective of this issue. Unless I am mistaken in my first assumption, a broader article should be at something like the "Macedonian Question", or another descriptive title. Constantine 13:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly what I know about the terminology used from Serbian POV presented in many sources (link to GBS - 7 Cyrillic hits for "Borba za Makedoniju" and (2 Latin hits.. and articles cover activities of all Balkan countries that struggled for Macedonia. Still, I might be wrong here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, nine sources are not "many", especially when compared to hundreds of titles in the Greek bibliography for "Μακεδονικός Αγώνας". Perhaps more importantly, if you search the term "Macedonian Struggle" in GBooks, it will be always from or about the Greek part of the conflict, esp. the 1904-08 period, whereas as we know the Bulgarians at least had been active long before that. Constantine 13:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are completely right. Although nine sources are not "many", I don't think I ever saw Serbian source which refer to the Macedonian Struggle as something unrelated to the participation of Serbia in it. But, as you said, it is more important what English language sources say. I will try to find how they define this struggle within reasonable period of time.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I performed short investigation of sources using GBS which I presented here. Based on it I concluded that:

  1. The subject of this article is much broader than only Greece vs. Bulgaria 1904—8 conflict. The Macedonian Struggle is indeed a term which in Greece refers only to struggle between Greece and Bulgaria in period between 1904 and 1908. Plenty of English language sources directly support participation of two additional main participants - Serbia and Ottoman Empire. Also, many English language sources use this term in broader context as something which culminated with Balkan wars in 1912—3.
  2. There were several groups of participants in this conflict:
    1. countries that directly participated with their armed forces, either regular or irregular (OE, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia)
    2. countries that indirectly participated by making influence to other countries or to the population (Romania, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia)
    3. Population of the region allied on the basis on their affiliation to certain country, ethnicity or religion:
      1. irregulars
      2. male civilians who were all armed at the time, many of them participating in the conflict one way or another

Any thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudos on the research, but I very much differ on the interpretation: in the vast majority of these sources, the perspective is Greek, and hence a "Greek" terminology has been used. For instance, Todorova (2004), "...a new verbal 'Macedonian Struggle' was waged between Greece and the newly independent former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." concerns indeed Greece vs. FYROM, but is written from the Greek perspective. Brenda L. Marder (1979) writes on Greece and from a Greek perspective on events, so does Michael Llewellyn Smith (1998), Robert Shannan Peckham (18 August 2001), Institute for Balkan Studies, 1964, Het Spinhuis. 2001. p. 57, etc. Indeed, the term is sometimes used for the broader conflict, and chronologically we can discuss the beginning and end (Dakin's study begins in 1897 and ends in 1913, for instance, covering both the immediate background and the immediate aftermath), but what I wrote above still holds: the term is primarily used by and associated with Greece and its view/experience of these events. I have yet to see it appear on sources discussing events from a Bulgarian/Serb/Ottoman POV, or any combination of the other "players" which does not involve Greece or where the writer can be assumed to be writing uninfluenced by the Greek terminology. Constantine 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply here. Thanks for your explanation. I agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The term “Macedonian Struggle” has been used in Greece since the time of armed conflict in Macedonia. It is not a term devised later. In fact, during March 1906 to April 1908, period during which the Macedonian Struggle took place, an eight-paged leaflet written by Stamatis Raptis entitled Macedonian Struggle” was distributed inside “Embros” newspaper. These leaflets were put together and published as a book in 1909 under the same title. As such, the term “Macedonian Struggle” has been in use for more than a century and has been consolidated in greek and international bibliography. Possible replacement would create confusion. In addition, the proposed term “greek armed propaganda” does not describe the series of social, political, cultural and military conflicts between Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia in the beginning of the 20th Century.Vlas2000 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)