Talk:Nikola Karev/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV Template

I don't understand why the POV template is necessary. Can you provide more detail as to which section is POV, because it is unsourced, original research or some other issue?  /FunkyFly.talk_   14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian or Bulgarian?

FunkyFly, why you needed this? My change wasn't in direction that Karev was Macedonian. I have point out that he is considered both Macedonian and Bulgarian. Why it isn't acceptable for you? By the way, this aticle need to be improved a lot, because it is more an article about the Ilinden uprising than for Karev, so I'll appreciate a lot if you are constructive here. (Zdravko mk 06:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

It's not acceptable, as there is no identification as Macedonian on his behalf that is provided   /FunkyFly.talk_   15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And can you give some proves that he has identified himself as a Bulgarian? Meanwhile, I will put that POV back. And again, I'll ask you to be cooperative, or I can try other ways (Zdravko mk 06:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

For one, he was a member of BMARC. Read point 3 of the statute   /FunkyFly.talk_   14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, TMORO was the name of the organization when Karev has joined it. Secondly, the only members of TMORO wasn't members with ethnic Bulgarian feelings. And stop being so stubborn!!!!!!!!!! (Zdravko mk 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

Wrong, he joined BMARC.   /FunkyFly.talk_   16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Karev was a socialist. The socialists born in Macedonia have joined TMORO only after 1902! So, after the name of the organization was renamed. I don't know how you enjoy being so nationalistic here. If you have nationalist attitudes go somewhere else. This is Wikipedia, not some nationalist garbage (Zdravko mk 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Goce Delchev was a socialist too, yet he joined in 1894. I added the passage that he is considered ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia   /FunkyFly.talk_   18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I have found various claims about the date when he entered the IMRO, the earliest being 1899. As explained in the Goce Delchev's talk page, it almost certain that the name of the organization was already SMARO in 1898, because:

• There is a SMARO constitution dated "1898" in the British Foreign Office documents: PRO. - FO 78/4951. Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S.I.
• In two of his 1898 letters Goce Delchev identifies himself as representative of SMARO, and his respondent, archibishop Menini apparently recognizes him as such.

--FlavrSavr 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As Nikola Karev entered the organization when it's name was SMARO, I don't see a particular reason why we should add that the IMRO was known known as Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees before 1902, because:

• There is no proof that the organization was generally known as BMARC before 1902, or any time before that.
• As far as I know, apart from the famous BMARC constitution, repeated zillion times, from the correspondence of IMRO activists, there is no proof that the operational name of the organization was BMARC.
• The most commonly used name for the organization in English, Macedonian, and Bulgarian is IMRO, despite the fact that the name was given as late as 1920.

I might be wrong, of course, much is speculated about "BMARC" but I'll require sources, to counter my claims. --FlavrSavr 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To Flavrsavr who vandalizes

Let me quote a source for you: Who are the Macedonians? by Hugh Poulton, page 53. He says: this organization [VMRO] repeatedly and confusingly changed its name, often as a balance between pro-Bulgarian and pro-Macedonian autonomists (...). It appears to have been originally called the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Committee (BMORK - the 'O' standing for Odrin or Adrianopole). In 1902 it changed its name to the Secret Macedonian Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Organization (TMORO) while from 1905 it was first known as VMORO and then simply VMRO, where the 'V' stands for 'inner' in Bulgarian. Let me ask you something. Do you have a source that says that this wasn't its original name or the date it was renamed? If not, I advise you to look for something instead of threatening. Also, in that link all he says is that he is a Macedonian. Well even Arben Xhaferi and Kostas Karamanlis are Macedonians. Macedonian can refer to any person from Macedonia whatever their ethnicity.

Thank you for using the talk page. Finally someone to actually cite a source about it. (I'll check into it, though). Of course I have a source about SMARO, I used it in the Goce Delchev's talk page:

Sources that GD was a member of SMARO in 1898

Here are my sources (to be honest, I didn't expect to find such an explicit statement that GD was the leader of SMARO, not BMARC in 1898)

• A letter from Goce Delchev to the Archibishop Menini

11 july 1898

Foreign representation of SMARO Sofia

To His Excellency The Archibishop of Plovdiv Mr. Mennini

... Our SMARO is nowadays labeled a terrorist organisation from many representatives of the Christian states, firstly because of the ignorance of our struggle, and secondly because of the personal interests of their states...

The letter is signed by Gjorgji (Goce) Delchev. There is also a similar letter to the same person (Archibishop Menini, send on 3 July 1898, in which again he is a member of SMARO. I'm too lazy at the moment to translate the SMARO parts of that letter).

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/), 978-980.

--FlavrSavr 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• A letter from Archibishop Menini to the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith

12 july 1898

Plovdiv Holy Archibishopry no. 398 12 july 1898 Plovdiv

To the Holy Congregation for the Propaganda of the Faith Rome

Your Eminency, Enclosed to this letter are the two letters which I have received from the representative of the Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Organisation Gjorgji Delchev related to the given favors to some Macedonian revolutionaries...

As per: Archivio della S. Congregazione de Propaganda Fide - Indice della Ponenza di Luglio 1898, Somm. II, 8, f. 4 - 18 - Разгледи, XIII/), 980-982.

(provided above) There is a SMARO constitution dated "1898" in the British Foreign Office documents: PRO. - FO 78/4951. Turkey (Bulgaria). From Elliot. 1898; УСТАВ НА ТМОРО. S.I. --FlavrSavr 15:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

According to your approach on Goce Delchev, a man who described himself as "Bulgarian", it is original research to infer that that means he was Bulgarian. You say you want a neutral source describing him as such. Now, you want to study his letters, and to draw inferences from them is not original research. In other words, Delchev's letters can be used to prove that the organization was called SMARO before 1902, but not that he declared himself Bulgarian, you want independent sources for the latter only. Smells like double standards to me - typical of Macedonism... --Tēlex 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, see Cigor's neutral sources on what "Bulgarian" could possibly mean (the ones which FF has erased at Macedonism). On the other hand, 12 july 1898 can only mean 12 july 1898. Besides, the widely accepted name for the organization is IMRO (not BMARC, not SMARO). --FlavrSavr 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of a joke I once heard. If GD had said I am a pure Bulgarian, f*ck the Macedonians, it would be interpreted as I am a pure Christian Slav, f*ck the Greek Macedonians, whereas if he said I am a pure Macedonian, f*ck the Bulgarians, that would as a rule be interpreted as I am a pure ethnic Macedonian, f*ck the ethnic Bulgarians. Typical Macedonistic double standards. There could be a million reasons for those letters, including the reason that Constantinople wasn't officially renamed to Istanbul until the 20th century. People referred to it using the new name and intended to officially change it, but never got round to it until a years later. Of course, it would be blasphemy to demand a modern independent source that BMARC wasn't renamed to SMARO until 1902. --Tēlex 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, 12 July 1898 is 12 July 1898. While it is possible that Hugh Poulton's (an Amnesty International researcher) book is valuable, it remains suspicious how he deducted that it changed the name in 1902 despite obvious evidence. Moreover, some logical questions also remain unanswered: how could Pitu Guli become a member of the organization if it was exclusively meant to accept ethnic Bulgarians? How come there are no operative documents of the organization under "BMARC" label? How come, even Tatarchev (arguably, the most pro-Bulgarian element of IMRO), says that the name of the organization in its beginning was "Macedonian Revolutionary Organization"? --FlavrSavr 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't a clue. Take exception to the fact though that Rigas Feraios was also an Aromanian, and he did a lot for Greek independence. If Guli attended a Bulgarian Church, self-identified as Bulgarian, etc, then there is no reason not be believe he was Bulgarian. Aromanians were not an ethnic group per se, but some sided with all sides - Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and even Romanians. I raised this issue at Talk:Pitu Guli. In Greece, no one has ever heard of these names, BMARC, SMARO, IMRO etc. We just refer to them as Bulgarokomitadzides who committed atrocities on the native Greek population of Macedonia, dreaming of what Rugova is dreaming for Kosovo. --Tēlex 16:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex, thanks for your answer. To be honest, I'm also confused about it. I don't deny the possibility that the name of the organization was at some point "BMARC". However, obviously, much is unclear. The point is that Pitu Guli is not an isolated case. There was a considerable amount of ethnic Aromanian rebels in the Ilinden Uprising - almost a half... The most notable I know were Pitu Guli and Dinu Vangeli. In Krushevo, the site of the Ilinden Uprising even today lives possibly the biggest Aromanian community in RoM, and they still proudly identify themselves as "Vlachs" and not as Macedonians/Bulgarians, so there cannot be a word of total assimilation. --FlavrSavr 17:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

1898

Funky, I don't understand your latest edits: don't Bulgarian and Macedonian historians claim that the organization's name was BMARC and SMARO from 1896, respectively? This is nothing about whether their claim is true or not... --FlavrSavr 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Before 1898 it was BMARC, undisputedly.   /FunkyFly.talk_  05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is disputed. Not only it is disputed by Macedonian historians, but it's also disputed by Tatarchev's "Macedonian Revolutionary Organization". Moreover, the 1898 addition makes a false sentence altogether - that is not what Macedonian and Bulgarian historians claim. --FlavrSavr 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Bulldoger, do not remove the references, it is considered vandalism Mr. Neutron 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned Frightner

Please respect the linked references. Mr. Neutron 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant to reinstate Ottoman Empire as place of birth and death. 124.168.105.254 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, please do that then. Mr. Neutron 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Date

Could someone please fix his date of death in the infobox, I'm not familiar with how that particular template works. --AimLook 11:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Akropolis newspaper

Please find a different source. Makedonsko sonce is a radical Macedonist irredentist newspaper, plus the text is hardly readable. Also, dont erase the places of birth and death and the dates. Mr. Neutron 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again with the "radical Macedonianist" (personal attacks deleted) The site did not make up the interview it merely posted what already existed. Frightner 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, a couple of weeks ago one of the leading Brittish newspaper posted an article which claimed that 10% of EU citizens had, let's say, an alternative sexual orientation. Do you know what info was posted in one of the Macedonistic papers the next day? I suppose you don't as you obiously live in Perth and therefore might not be familiar with this. The Heading was "At least 10% of all Bulgarians are gay". Is this actual journalism? They said they've cited the Brittish paper, but had they really? This is just an example. Oh, and since we are on the subject, are you planning to stop vandalizing from anonymous IPs? I'm saying vandalizing since you were reverting my edit although it was more than obvious you were wrong (the Kiustendil case). --Laveol ^T 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure more than 10% of Bulgarians are gay. I mean, there's actually a gay site called "bulGAYria". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.241.11 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're being really funny, Frighner, but you didn't answer my question. You surely seem like the type of guy who'd write such nonsense. --Laveol ^T 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the paper, but who wouldn't write that about the country they hate? I doubt that the article was based on pure journalism, it was an act to humiliate Bulgaria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.241.11 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew you'd admire it --Laveol ^T 16:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a while to cool down the edit war; Frightner, due to his past actions, is not on an equal footing here. If there are more personal attacks on the talk page, tell me, and I'll semi-protect it as well. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the interview published in some book by an American author or something? That could be used a source instead of the link to Makedonsko Sonce. And BTW, some article (I forgot which one) linked to a nationalist Greek website (perhaps even nastier than Makedonsko Sonce) which hosted an article being used as a reference here on Wikipedia. So, I don't see why Makedonsko Sonce should be excluded. --AimLook 13:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

name spelling

I was gonna add the Macedonian spelling of his name, but then I realized that it is the same as the Bulgarian, so it would probably be redundant. Ah, the Balkans, always a fun place :) Hmm, when I think about it the Serbian spelling is exactly the same, which just goes to strengthen my previous statement about the funness of the Balkans :) Capricornis 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Useless and inaccurate informations

Ok,give me one evidence that Nikola KArev was bulgarian.Maybe you can apply some letter which is wriiten by N.Karev,but if you know what was the constelation in Macedonia in the end of 19 centurie and begining of 20,you can understand that any macedonian revolutionary was under pressure of Bulgarian state,and in same time they hope for bulgarian help. But there is irrefutabile document - The Krushevo Manifesto for macedonian uprising in 02.08.1903 against Turks.This manifesto is signed by Nikola Karev themself.I don't see any sentence with reference to bulgarian national feelings of Nikola Karev.Here is a link: http://faq.macedonia.org/history/krusevo.manifesto.html Also this is an article for Nikola Karev,not for Ilinden uprising.Provide more information about his life and acts. And this is for the very first time that i read here that the first name of TMORO was BMARC.Come one, give us an real evidence! I think that everything but accepting the fact that Karev was Macedonian,and fought for free Macedonia is just harsh for Macedonian people,and of course inaccurate.Another link about ethnical feelings of Nikola Karev : http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2000/sonce318/Tekst14.htm.And please change the claiming of top of the page about ethnicity of Nikola Karev.It is more than true that he was Macedoninan revolutionary. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.231.128 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The propaganda source

The "source" which have to prove some evidence that N.Karev had some ethnic Macedonian consciousness really is very controversial:

1. The claim is that there is an interwiew for the Greek newspaper "Akropolis". But actually this "interwiew" is published in one of the most radical today's macedinistic newspapers "Macedonsko sonce" (Macedonian sun), which aim is sincerely propaganda. It is not a scientific, reliable source.
2. The interview is not represented as a whole. I can not see the beginning and understand the circumstances.
3. The supposed assertions by Karev is very strange - he claims that the bulgarian terroristic attempts in Solun (15(28)04.1903)) were inspired by Greeks - because of this one of his Greek opponennts made a conclussion that he really are a "pigheaded Bulgarian".
4. "Karev" said that he is Macedonian; then he confirmed that he is a descendant of Aleksander the Great; after that he declared "The history says thet he (Alexander) was a Greek, but denied that he (Karev) is a Greek, too.

There is a confused acount from problematic source, which can not exercise the functions of the reliable source.--AKeckarov (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I didn't red one of the sections above. There, one Macedonian scientis (who published the interview) admits that this interview is strange and has a lot of contradictions. Karev said that he is confirmed Bulgarian and later he said that he is Macedonian. Ofcource, the propagande newspaper as "Makedonsko sonce", published only second assertion. According me it is a prove that somebody can be Bulgarian (as a ethnic belonging) and Macedonian (as a regional belonging) simultaneously, but it is only assumption. More important is that there is not some evidence that he had Macedonian ethnic consciousness.--AKeckarov (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Links

Please do not make unnecessary changes when direct article names exist. ForeignerFromTheEast 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the well-known talk page for the Ilinden Uprising aticle. They're two separate uprisings, merged into one article, I believe so. iNkubusse^? 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The interview with Nikola Karev

Two articles from a Macedonian newspaper "Utrinski vesnik", published on 22. 07. 2000, archive number 329.

1.

По откривањето на интервјуто на Никола Карев за "Акрополис" во 1903

Одважноста на претседателот на Крушевската Република

Грчкиот новинар разговарал токму со Никола, најпознатиот борец за Македонија од семејството Кареви - сето вклучно во Движењето

Интервјуто на Никола Карев за грчкиот весник Акрополис, објавено на 8 мај 1903 година, е првото, досега познато интервју на член на најтесното раководство на ВМРО пред Илинденското востание. Тоа го предизвикува љубопиството на современите читатели и поради погледите на Карев за борбата на Македонците за ослободување и поради односот на Грците кон Востанието и кон Македонија и Македонците.

Овој исклучителен, слободно ќе може да се нарече, историски документ го откри и го преведе на македонски јазик г-ѓа Елефтерија Вамбаковска, вработена во Институт за национална историја. При вчерашната средба со г-ѓа Вамбаковска во редакцијата на "Утрински весник" најнапред не интересираше начинот на кој таа дошла до интервјуто.

- Пред извесно време од соседна Грција добивме неколку мошне интересни историографски изданија. Меѓу нив е и делото со наслов Та тетрадја ту Илинден, (Атина 2000) подготвена за печат и публикувана од Георгиос Пецивас што претставува еден вид независно издание и претпоставува заобиколување на силно присутната селекција, па и цензура (да ја наречеме), на официјалната грчка историографија. Книгата е поделена на два дела. Во првиот дел е поместен дневникот на првиот секретар на грчкиот конзулат во Битола Јон Драгумис, а во вториот дел Г.Пецивас има поместено цела збирка разни документи кои се однесуваат на Илинденскиот период.

Авторот на "тетратките" Ј. Драгумис е познат националистички борец за голема Грција. Во Битола дошол 1902 година и меѓу првите започнал да организира борба против Внатрешната организација, која, ете, успеала да ги привлече во своите редови речиси сите македонски патријаршисти, со што ги загрозувала грчките "интереси" во Македонија.

Прелистувајќи ја книгата, особено делот Прилози, бев пријатно изненадена кога на стр.553 (документот бр.21) пред мене се појави наслов "Интервју со член на Комитетот". Со љубопитност го барам името на членот на Комитетот, но и на новинарот.

Новинарот, чиј идентитет на крајот е означен со иницијали, ни ја открива личноста со која се сретнал, со следниот краток осврт: Во Битола ја имав среќата и честа да се запознаам со еден бугаризиран Македонец - учител, член на Комитетот кој се вика Карев. Со овој човек случајно се запознав во хот. "Монастирион", односно "Отел Монастир", како што го викаат во Битола. Карев се држеше многу резервирано кон мене се до оној момент кога "Гркот од Крушево, по име Папагудас" не ми го претстави. Потоа се ослободи и откако погледа лево-десно ми призна дека бил "бугарофрон" и член на Комитетот.

Дали елементите што ги дава грчкиот новинар биле доволни за да се тврди со сигурност дека станува збор за Никола Карев?

Уште на почетокот пред мене се поставија повеќе прашања и дилеми: прво, се споменува презимето, но не и името, а Кареви имало повеќе и сите биле во Движението. Но, меѓу нив само еден бил учител и раководител од повисок ранг, тоа бил Никола. Значи, нема сомневање дека тој е Никола Карев.

Второ, и можеби најважно: можно ли било во тие тешки години на конспирација, особено во времето пред Илинден кога во Македонија особено во Битолскиот округ, имало чести и жестоки судири меѓу четите и аскерот (период на т.н. непрокламирано востание) а будноста на турските власти била подигната на многу високо ниво, повторувам, можно ли било во едно такво време, во битолски хотел без разлика што бил сопственост на еден крушевски Влав, Карев да се открие пред еден Грк (и не само пред него), а се знаело дека Грците соработувале со турската власт во борбата против македонското движење?

Трето, на документот стои "Атина четврток 8 мај". По се изгледа тогаш било објавено интервјуто. Кога се водел разговорот не се знае, но сигурно тоа морало да биде неколку дена пред 8 мај, по солунските атентати. Карев само што беше минал во илегала по враќањето од Смилевскиот конгрес.

Четврто, познато е дека раководителите на Македонската организација не контактирале со новинари во земјата и надвор од неа. Исклучок е интервјуто на Јане Сандански и, веројатно, на Д.Груев дадени во друго време и поинакви услови. Дали интервјуто на Н.Карев е единствено дадено од еден раководител на Организацијата пред Илинденското востание, останува допрва да се потврди.

Како ја коментирате содржината на интервјуто. Што значи терминот бугарофрон?

Што се однесува до содржината на интервјуто оставам да суди науката и читателите. Мое мислење е дека тоа содржи контрадикторности и нелогичности. Интервјуто всушност и започнува со една нелогичност. Карев изјавува дека е Бугарин по убедување, а на првото прашање на новинарот: "Дали е Македонец", одговара со "да"!

Самиот новинар го прогласува Карев за Македонец, но бугаризиран, а го започнува интервјуто со прашањето што е (по националност)? Се гледа дека за него поважно било етничкото потекло - дали бил Македонец, што за Грците било синоним за Грк. Инаку, тоа "по убедување" за нив не било важно - убедувањето се стекнувало и било менливо.

Бугарофрон, во буквален превод би значело - човек што мисли на бугарски начин, којшто мисли како што мислат сите Бугари. Денес Грците имаат сличен термин - етникрофрон кој има слично значење, имено - човек што мисли на својата нација, односно Грк кој мисли на Грција. Денес Македонците во Егејска Македонија своите сонародници кои се погрчиле ги нарекуваат - етникофрони.

За нив во 50-те и 60-те години се издаваа и посебни уверенија дека се етникофрони, а заедно со нив се издаваа и уверенија за подобност, наречени - пистопиитикон киноникон фрониматон кои беа потребни дури и за полагање на приемните испити на факултетите.

Како го објаснувањето поврзувањето на територијата Македонија со етничкиот карактер на населението кое живее во неа?

Новинарот, и не само тој, Македонија ја смета за грчка територија и оттука и луѓето кои тука живеат, според нив, мора да се Грци, потомци на Александар Македонски. Затоа и тој толку настојчиво се обидува да го убеди Карев дека Грк. А, ако не е Грк тогаш е "бугарофрон", "бугаризиран Македонец" и тн. Инаку, лесно се воочува дека интервјуто во е "малку дотерано", приспособено за грчките читатели во 1903 година.

2.

Разговорот на грчкиот новинар со Никола Карев

Јас сум Македонец!

Комитетот не е бугарски. И Грција да сакаше да ни помогне ќе ја прифатевме со целото срце

- Македонец ли си? Го прашувам.

- Да.

- И следователно Грк.

- За ова не знам, ми одговори, јас сум Македонец.

- Директен наследник на Александар Велики? Му велам иронично.

- Да.

- И Александар Македонски што беше, ве молам?

- Не знам, но историјата вели дека бил Грк.

- Тогаш и ти, како негов наследник, си Грк.

- Не, ми одговори.

- Значи, тогаш го прашувам пак, зошто кога веќе сте Грк сакате да се ослободите преку (со помош) на Бугарија?

- Која Бугарија, мислиш на Комитетот?

- Да.

- Ти одговарам дека Комитетот не е бугарски и, второ, изгледа дека сме наклонети кон Бугарија затоа што само таа се покажува расположена да ни помогне. И Грција, ако го правеше истото, ќе ја прифатевме со целото наше срце.

- Бугарската заштита ја гледате само површински, Бугарија не сака да ве ослободи од турското ропство, туку да ве (потчини) пороби.

- Хм! Ако Бугарија мисли да не претвори во нејзина провинција си направила лоша пресметка. Инаку, нас не не интересира што мисли Бугарија туку обрнуваме внимание само на следново: ВСи ја постигнуваме ли целта'? Си ја добиваме ли нашата слобода? Не не интересира дали ќе не ослободи Грција или Бугарија. Единствено што може да добие секоја една од нив е само наша благодарност.

- Добро, ако се ослободите, што сакате да бидете, автономија?

- Да, како што е во Швајцарија, во која три различни племиња живеат во крајна хармонија и љубов.

- Да, но, знаете дека на таков начин вршите услуга на интересите на Панславистичката Етерија, чиј огранок е и Комитетот?

- Каква услуга вршиме?

- Како што се изјасни погоре Македонија е грчка земја, а ако секоја грчка земја бара да биде автономна тогаш доаѓа до ослабнување на Грција, а тоа го бара Панславистичката Етерија.

- Зошто го бара?

- За еден ден да не пороби и нас и вас и затоа сака да не најде слаби за да го постигне тоа полесно.

Карев за момент изгледаше замислен. Јас побрзав да го прекинам молчењето.

- Зошто не сакате да се обедините со Грција?

- Затоа што ако не земе Мора (Грција) ќе стане една голема држава и следователно монархија. Во таков случај ќе произлезат многу зла - прво монархијата и тоа што произлегува од неа, а второ, Грција ќе не натера да војуваме со Бугарија нешто што (ние) не го сакаме.

- Вие што сакате?

Ми ја покажа капата:

- Сакаме република.

- Демократија и пријателство со Бугарија?

- Не само со Бугарија, туку со секој што ќе ни помогне да се ослободиме.

- Со Бугарија сакате да се обедините?

- Не!. Не!.

- И ова ви го проповеда (учи) Комитетот?

- Да.

- Тогаш овој Комитет кој толку многу се грижи за вашата независност зошто не бара заштита од Грција која има повеќе должности да ве ослободи, туку клоните кон варварите?

- Да ви одговорам веднаш. Ние личиме на човек кој паднал во морето и се наоѓа во опасност, секој момент да се удави. Е, не ми велите, ве молам, овој човек за да се спаси ќе се фати ли за се што ќе најде во тој момент пред себе, дури и за змија? Во таква положба сме ние, дури и Турчин да ни пружи рака за спас ќе ја грабниме со благодарност.

- Но, грчките првенци, свештеници и учители зошто ги убивате кога немате ништо посебно против никој?

- Ова се лаги. Комитетот не убива само Грци, туку и Бугари и Срби и Турци и секого кој предава.

- Ова се изговори за гревовите, уништивте многу грчки патриоти затоа што не даваа пари за вашиот Комитет.

- Овие работи ги измислувате вие Грците како и другите.

- Кои други?

- Ете, тие во Солун, поставивте вие луѓе да го направат тоа што го направија за да го оцрните Комитетот (станува збор за Солунските атентати, б.м.).

Не можев да се воздржам и страшно се насмеав што предизвика љубопитност кај сопственикот Таску Квата, кој ми се приближи.

- Што ти вели? Ме праша.

- Тоа и тоа.

- Хм! Ама како ќе се види дека е Бугарин дебелоглавец, ако не беше Бугарин не ќе кажуваше такви зборови, особено сега кога и ѕидовите имаат уши.

- Да, да ова што ви го велам јас повтори Карев - едно дрво кое ја проби земјата и изникна, зошто да не го вадат сите за да порасне?

- Да.

- Да, но знаете со што го вади Бугарија. Со отров на омраза кон грцизмот.

- Како и да е ова вадење (полевање), не освежува и не натера да ги завртиме гранките кон онаа страна кон која, признаваме дека ништо не не поврзува и да бегаме од вас со кои немаме иста крв и иста историја; ова е на некој начин протест против грчкото интересирање (за нас).

- Ова што го велиш е резултат на бугарското вадење, зашто Грција никогаш не престанала да ве поддржува и со писменоста и со оружје.

И пак Карев не ми одговори.

- И сега, по последните настани што мислите да правите? - Го прашав. (се мисли на т.н. Горноџумајско востание од есента 1902 б.м.)

- Ништо друго освен да ја продолжиме борбата.

- Да, но зар не знаете дека зад таа борба се крие борба подла и нечесна?

- Тоа нас не не интересира, доволно е да си ја постигнеме нашата цел.

- Значи и со убиства?

- Штом се вршат за доброто на еден народ.

- Имате право какви учители имавте такви лекции научивте...

Карев пак не ми одговори, само стана и полека тргна кон неговата соба, додека зад него сите гости на хотелот на разни начини ги коментираа неговите зборови.

С. Т. Стам.

(Акрополис, бр.7608, Библиотека - Стар Парламент)

Greetings, GriefForTheSouth 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this to do with the article. The mere fact that it has mentioning of the whole naming controversy between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia a lot of years before it started says enough. --Laveol ^T 21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Three things at least. First, Karev defined himself in front of the Greek journalist who questioned him as "Бугарофрон", which means "човек што мисли на бугарски начин, којшто мисли како што мислат сите Бугари." Second, the word "Macedonian" was used by both of them, the Greek journalist and Karev, in regional meaning only: "Македонец ли си? Го прашувам. / Да. / И следователно Грк." Third, the contemporary Macedonian researcher г-ѓа Елефтерија Вамбаковска, who works in the Macedonian Institute for National History, defines the terms used by the Greek journalist about Karev as controversial (from contemporary ethnic Macedonian point of view) because Karev isn't represented as ethnic Macedonian. - GriefForTheSouth 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't see it that way. I thought it was some reference to a problem not-existing at the time. Besides from being from a nationalistic paper. --Laveol ^T 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact the historical interview from 1903 contains two different concepts concerning the meaning of the term "Macedonian". Karev's point of view: he is "Macedonian" and "Bugarofron" (according to E. Vambakovska this word means "person who thinks in Bulgarian way, who thinks as all other Bulgarians think") at the same time. The Greek journalist's point of view: "Karev is Macedonian, therefore he is Greek". The ethnic Macedonian concept is absent. - GriefForTheSouth 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And just what is your proof that Macedonian is used in reagional meaning only? iNkubusse^? 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point, you have to show it is or it isnt. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't. iNkubusse^? 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And how are you showing it? All it says is that the inhabitants of the region of Macedonia are not all Greeks, whatever other ethnicity they might be. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he said "(Are you a Macedonian?) Yes. - (and consequently Greek?) No. ", that doesn't have to mean regionally. For example, if you ask me if I'm a Macedonian, I'd tell you "yes, and not Greek" (and I wouldn't mean it regionally). The Greek interviewer asked him if he was an ethnic Macedonian (and because, according to the Greeks, Macedonians are part of the Greek nation, also a Greek). Why on earth would the interviewer ask an inhabitant of Macedonia if he was a Macedonian in regional sense? By the way, Karev also said that the committee wasn't Bulgarian - was it Greek maybe? iNkubusse^? 00:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Totally wrong. The Greek interviewer interpreted "Macedonian" in the regional sense, as historically (Ancient) Macedonians have been equivalent with Greeks. And Karev basically responds he is not Greek. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see as an outsider unless there was a prefix infront of Macedonian (greek-macedonian, bulgarian-macedonian, albanian-macedonian ect..) we must take it as writen and not assume what else it could have meant. If the Greek jurnalist asked him if he was Macedonian or Greek and he said Macedonian that means ethnic Macedonian. Ireland101 00:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Too strong of an assertion with too little of historical basis. "we must take it as writen and not assume what else it could have meant" - Macedonian can mean a whole bunch of things, refer to this disambiguation page. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% Foreigner Macedonian can mean many things such as greek-macedonian, albanian-macedonian, bulgarian-macedonian or Macedonian. So unless it states Greek-Macedonian we should not assume this as it may mean something else. We need to read it as written which is Macedonian. Macedonian is what ethnic Macedonians refered to themselves back then and today, for example there is no record of ethnic Macedonians such as Chupovski or Cento refering to themselves as "ethnic Macedonians" they just referred to themselves as "Macedonian" simmularly as to how ethnic Germans refer to themselves as "German" and how ethnic French refer to themselves as "French".Ireland101 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, totally wrong. Macedonian can mean various things, as seen by the disambiguation page. It can be used by anyone (including by ethnic Macedonians and others) to describe a person from the region of Macedonia. German and French analogy does not hold because unlike Macedonian those terms are not regionally defined. I fail to see how Cento or Chupovski are relevant to Karev. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys trying to say that you know what the interviewer and Karev really meant? You're right, Foreigner, we mustn't assume, but he didn't say he was Bulgarian, did he? Karev simply said "Macedonian", and he said that he didn't know whether the Macedonians were Greeks, but that he was Macedonian, and that he was a direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians! And you still say that he meant it regionally? A direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians - regionally? =)) We really shouldn't tell what he meant, but one thing is certain: he said he was Macedonian, a direct descendant of the Ancient Macedonians! (Edit conflict sucks.. Twice!) iNkubusse^? 00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you're shifting the problem to what the Ancient Macedonians are. Are they Slav or Greeks? Either way the point is you cannot use this interview to prove anything about his ethnicity other than it is not Greek. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand Macedonians are not Slavs but rather an ethnic group.Ireland101 01:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean ethnic Macedonians, they are of the South Slavic family, so yes. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the Macedonians that I have ever spoken to tell me that they are Macedonian and just that they never mention Slavs. They do however say that they are the people of Alexander the Great.Ireland101 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Foreigner, you're shifting my point to something else. We don't care what the Ancient Macedonians were, but we do care about how Karev felt about the Ancient Macedonians. He wasn't really into history and he had no idea what the Ancient Macedonians were, but he sure thought of himslef as an ethnic Macedonian, a descendant of the Ancient Macedonians. My point is that he didn't consider him an ethnic Bulgarian, but an ethnic Macedonian (again, a descendant of the Ancient Macedonians!); and that he didn't mean it regionally, since he mentions the Ancient Macedonians (which is, of course, a term that describes ethnicity). iNkubusse^? 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, I don't know for sure whether we are Slavs or Greeks or Ancient Macedonians, or if the Ancient Macedonians were Slavs or the Martians invaded Saturn, but I know for sure that I speak a Slavic language and that it's racist to speak of a pure Slavic nation (as the Greeks refer to Macedonians). iNkubusse^? 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to touch this one. The bottom line, vague interpretations, in the lack of any other evidence cannot support a claim that the person is ethnic Macedonian. You can twist it all you want, who meant what, who felt which way about whatever. Its a waste of time. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Foreigner, here's the bottom line:

1° You can't set bottom lines whenever you want;

2° Vague interpretations are ALL the articles about the Macedonian/Bulgarian revolutionaries from the Ilinden period;

3° The terms Bulgarian and Macedonian can both be interpreted in various ways: Bulgarian could mean an Orthodox Slav in those days and Macedonian could be used regionally - but still, you only take the latter term as such, only because you it suits your views;

4° The article still says that he was a Bulgarian revolutionary, based on the name of the organisation (?!).

This is really not right. iNkubusse^? 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going by the facts. You're going by interpretations. Read the statute of BMARC at IMRO. ForeignerFromTheEast 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're interpreting the facts just like you want. I have read the statues, what should I do next? Karev simply states that he's a Macedonian, and he doesn't mean it regionally, that's a fact. And here's your interpretation: he meant it regionally. As Ireland said before, do we always have to say ethnic German, ethnic French in order to be precise? Besides, what about the letter from Karev to Delchev? iNkubusse^? 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are basically arguing in circles. This discussion is over for me. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. iNkubusse^? 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the interview

We seem to have focused too much on the first few lines of the dialog. As GriefForTheSouth says, he Karev describes himself as "Bugarofon", a person who things like a Bulgarian, like every other Bulgarian. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that he doesn't give a description of the term 'bugarofron', it's interpreted later. iNkubusse^? 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by a Macedonian scholar. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And since when do you take Macedonian scholars as normal people? I thought they were all delirious. iNkubusse^? 20:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The more I read your disputes the more trivial this whole thing seems to me. He said Bugarofon not Bulgarian therefore he did not say he is BulgarianIreland101 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Inkubusse, so do you agree or disagree with the assessment of the Macedonian Scholar? ForeignerFromTheEast 21:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on which one, but my opinion really doesn't matter. iNkubusse^? 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Elefteria Bambakovska. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Letter

Letter from Nikola Karev to Goce Delčev:

1902

Dear G(oce)

... In Kruševo and Bitola the night blockades appear almost every day, and a lot of affairs throw people in jail. We shouldn't wait anymore, Goce. It is time for us to stand up and fight. We shouldn't wait for freedom from Greeks, neither from Bulgarians, but we Macedonians should fight for our Macedonia, ... As I am concerned, nobody can take away my courage and my patriotism. I am proud to report to you, that all our men are prepared to fight, with guns in their hands.

N(ikola)

“Сами ние да се бориме за наша Македонија”, (Необјавено писмо на Никола Карев до Гоце Делчев) – Nova Makedonija (Skopje) year XXIV no. 7744 (5 May 1968) p. 8.

Ok so this letter has some sort of a source - could you, please, specify if this is some sort of a nationalist newspaper or something? It needs heavy sourcing. --Laveol ^T 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Letter from Karev to Delchev, "Сами ние да се бориме за наша Македонија", Нова Македонија (Skopje) year XXIV no. 7744 (5 May 1968) p. 8.

Here is the note for the letter. --Laveol ^T 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Macedonian"

Mr.Karev has referred to himself as "Macedonian" in a number of articles that I have seen here. He has never referred to himself as a "revolutionary from Macedonia". Weather some of you think Macedonian meant Bulgarian or Albanian or French or Dutch is irrelevant. What is important is his act of self determination and that is what should be respected in the article. Ireland101 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I do not care which of the old editors you are, just try to ease a little bit. Start by looking at what I proposed at Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board and, please, try to really discuss and work with the others. --Laveol ^T 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Laveol I am having trouble understanding you. You are the one that who has been deleting all of my changes and has been posting defamatory remarks on my user page. I have consistently been posting on talk pages and have tried to work things out. Unlike yourself I do not have enough time to watch this site twenty four hours a day so I think you are the one that should "ease" a little. I have also had enough of you attacking me and claiming that I am some "old editor". I propose that we have the head Wikipedia office verify weather this is true or not. If this is true I get banned, if it is not you get banned. I think this is only fair as you seem sure that this is the case and spare no effort to defame my reputation every chance you have. I have seen your notice board and it can be usefull in cases where there is no declaration of self determination. This is not the case in this article as he clearly states he is "Macedonian"Ireland101 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I've said something wrong or accused you of something that you have not done. It strikes me though that nooone that is innocent for something would say if asked something (not related to the subject) that he has never done this and that and that he is completely innocent for things he has not been accused for yet. --Laveol ^T 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is one supposed to say if they are falsely accused of something? Are they supposed to agree or disagree? Ireland101 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you weren't accused of anything. --Laveol ^T 22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This[[1]] is not an accusation? Ireland101 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...Новинарот, чиј идентитет на крајот е означен со иницијали, ни ја открива личноста со која се сретнал, со следниот краток осврт: Во Битола ја имав среќата и честа да се запознаам со еден бугаризиран Македонец - учител, член на Комитетот кој се вика Карев. Со овој човек случајно се запознав во хот. "Монастирион", односно "Отел Монастир", како што го викаат во Битола. Карев се држеше многу резервирано кон мене се до оној момент кога "Гркот од Крушево, по име Папагудас" не ми го претстави. Потоа се ослободи и откако погледа лево-десно ми призна дека бил "бугарофрон" и член на Комитетот...Jingby 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please translate that into English for transparency. Ireland101 12:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Како ја коментирате содржината на интервјуто. Што значи терминот бугарофрон?

Што се однесува до содржината на интервјуто оставам да суди науката и читателите. Мое мислење е дека тоа содржи контрадикторности и нелогичности. Интервјуто всушност и започнува со една нелогичност. Карев изјавува дека е Бугарин по убедување, а на првото прашање на новинарот: "Дали е Македонец", одговара со "да"! Jingby 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop writing in an unknown language as this is an English website and we cannot understand what you are saying. The fact that you continue to do this leads to the assumption that you might be conspiring in secret so that no one can understand you.Ireland101 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

When I edited the page I added link to the source. Not sure why Jingiby and Flix11 were undoing the changes even though I provided evidence of the source. "Cryptic Canadian" was OK with my edit after providing the evidence. Please make the changes and protect the page. 50.4.174.33 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. If other editors are reverting your edits, the proper course of action is to discuss it with them on the talk page to try to achieve a consensus. If you don't understand why they're undoing them, again, ask on the talk page. The page was protected apparently because of your disruption. Edit requests should only be for non-controversial changes or ones for which a consensus has already been reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian sources about Karev.

Nikola Kirov was cousin of Karev. His writings, which are among the most known primary sources on the rebellion, mention Bulgarians, Vlachs (Aromanians), and Greeks (sic: Grecomans), who participated in the events in Krushevo. Although post-World War II Yugoslav Communist historians objected to Kirov's classification of Krusevo's Slavic population as Bulgarian, they quickly adopted everything else in his narrative of the events in 1903 as definitive. However, during the Informbiro period, the name of insurgents leader Nikola Karev was scrapped from the Macedonian anthem, as he and his brothers were suspected of being bulgarophile elements. Some modern Macedonian historians such as Blaže Ristovski have recognized, that the entity, nowadays a symbol of the Macedonian statehood, was composed of people who identified themselves as "Greeks", "Vlachs" (Aromanians), and "Bulgarians".

I don't believe you've addressed the Greek source that @Darpos: is trying to add. --Local hero ^talk 21:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Let us take a look at the current page, clearly mentions Karev was interviewed by a Greek journalist, the exact one in question, the sources also confirm this, none of the sources dispute the authenticity of the interview, so by using them and mentioning them in the article, the article recognizes the authenticity of the interview. So, the next logical step, would be to see the interview for yourself, and use the information you find in the interview accordingly. Greece is a country in EU, so it is easy to assume its parliamentary archives have no been tampered with, and when we take a look at that interview, we see, that, by that time, at the eve of the Ilinden uprising, Karev sees himself only as a Macedonian, and sees the committee, as not being in service of Bulgaria, in fact, just as the current article proves, Karev wanted to help create an independent Macedonian republic free from Bulgaria, which aligns both with Krste Misirkov's book as a historical source and his comments in the exact interview in greece's parliamentary archives. So in this case, how can we justify not clarifying the dispute, and staying simply on the side of neutrality, not Macedonism, simply neutrality.

Archives from Greece showing the newspaper issue from May 8th 1903: https://srv-web1.parliament.gr/display_doc.asp?item=47395&seg=67871

From user:Darpos

I'm fine with the addition, it is presented neutrally and simply describes what is stated in the newspaper. I don't see any non-POV reasons to exclude it. --Local hero ^talk 01:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please check: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. Some people masquerading as scholars actually present fringe views outside of the accepted practice, and these should not be used. To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

1. Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
2. "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
3. Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.

See also Wikipedia:AGE MATTERS and WP:PRIMARY.

1. Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, .
2. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
3. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Check also the the analysis of the historian Eleftheria Vambakovska who published the primary source you have cited, which analysis is a reliable secondary source. It is cited in the article as follows:

1. As to the content of the interview, I leave it free for interpretations by scientists and readers. In my opinion it contains contradictory and illogical claims. The interview actually begins with an illogical claim. Karev asserts he is a Bulgarian by conviction ("Bulgarophronos"), and on the first question of the reporter: "Are you a Macedonian", he answers with "yes"! The reporter declared Karev was a Macedonian, but Bulgarized one. The interview begins with a question "are you a Macedonian"? that means Karev's ethnic origin was more important for the interviewer – whether he is a "Macedonian", which to the Greeks was a synonymous of a "Greek". Otherwise, to the Greeks "(Bulgarian) by conviction" was not so important – the conviction is acquirable and it can by changed. "Bulgarophronos", literally translated would mean – a man who thinks like a Bulgarian, a man who thinks like all other Bulgarians.

Also in the article are a lot of other secondary sources based on other primary sources claiming Karev had Bulgarian identity. For example:

1. Yet the identity problem was glaring, Karev reportedly addressed an assembly of 60 Bulgarian, Greek and Vlach inhabitants, to establish his “temporary government” but he referred to those assembled “brother Bulgarians”. The revolutionaries flew Bulgarian flags, killed five Greek Patriarchists, accused to be Ottoman spies, and subsequently attacked the local Muslims (Turks and Albanians). For more see: Michael Palairet, Macedonia: A Voyage through History (Vol. 2), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, ISBN 1443888494, p. 149.

Also:

1. The phenomenon noted by Mise Karev, that Nikola carried Bulgarian baggage at some points in Yugoslav history, is confirmed by others in the town. They do not, however, necessarily link the origin of this version of Nikola Karev's career to a policy of disinformation by Kolisevski and his associates. Some people recall their grandparents’ unshakable conviction that in 1903 Karev addressed himself to his "brother Bulgarians" as recorded in the account given by Nicolaos Ballas... Karev's own close links to Sofia — he spent extended periods there before and after the Uprising — gave further grist to the rumor mill that associated him closely with pro-Bulgarian forces. For more see: Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation, Princeton University Press, 2018, ISBN 0691188432, p. 152.

Also keep in mind that after 1944 the name of Nikola Karev was present in the anthem of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia: "Today over Macedonia", but was deleted in 1953 without explanation by the communist leadership led by Lazar Kolishevski, ostensibly as Nikola and his brothers Petar and Georgi were considered to be "Bulgarophiles". For more see: Последното интервју на Мише Карев: Колишевски и Страхил Гигов сакале да ги прогласат Гоце, Даме и Никола за Бугари! 02.08.2018 Денешен весник. Jingiby (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the national anthem has to do with this discussion. Indeed the edits do not attempt to base the entire article on the newspaper, rather it is more or less a single addition of the actual words or a paraphrase of them. --Local hero ^talk 04:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, as user:Local hero said, the primary source is used to keep neutrality, during a major bilateral dispute mind you, a dispute means "a disagreement or argument", a dispute would not exist if a subject was not controversial. The edits specifically do not evaluate or interpret the words in the newspaper, but rather simply says what Karev says in the interview. (2nd and 3rd columns). Now yes, it can be even more direct and clear of course, and if that is needed to consider the edit, I am willing to rewrite the things I added in my edit. It also should be noted, as it seems, many of the sources in articles related to the region of Macedonia are not exactly scholarly or reliable, I've heard critiques that nationalist blog posts were being used, though I cannot confirm nor deny this, and one of the sources used mentions things that were not mentioned in the interview at all (despite analyzing the interview). Furthermore, we could clarify there was a rise of people self-identifying as purely Macedonia, and cite On Macedonian Matters which was written in 1903, it was written by a self-identified Macedonian-Bulgarian scholar and was published not to long after the Ilinden uprising, and has a lot of useful information that often gets overlooked, this can be considered a secondary source aswell.

Chapter from the book about the rise of seperatism and the Macedonian self-identification: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_Macedonian_Matters#National_separatism_-_the_soil_on_which_it_has_grown_and_will_continue_to_grow_in_the_future --Darpos (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of a Macedonia secondary source on that issue: "Misirkov was completely right in his fundamental critique of the Ilinden Uprising and its leaders. His suggestions proved to be completely correct in recent practice. For example, in the liberated Krushevo a city administration was formed consisting of Bulgarians, Vlachs and Greeks, so in the preserved written documents there are no Macedonians ... "Blaze Ristovski," Century of the Macedonian consciousness ", Skopje, Culture, 2001, p. 458. Jingiby (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

So why can we not state that in this interview Karev described himself as a Macedonian and a descendant of Alexander the Great? --Local hero ^talk 03:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

There are two secondary sources for the interview with a good interpretation of what it was. By the way, in the interview, Karev at first says that he is a Bulgarian. As for being a descendant of Alexander the Great, I don't think that matter. I prefer to stick to Wikipedia guidelines as follows:

1. In academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light.
2. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself;
3. Refer to reliable secondary sources that interpret material found in a primary source.
4. Do not base a large passage on such one. Jingiby (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We won't base a large passage on this source - just a sentence or two. We won't synthesize/analyze the text - just present it as it stated. We will keep your secondary sources that interpret this source. Great, I'll make the addition soon. --Local hero ^talk 05:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Local hero, do not forget this part from the interview: In Bitola I had the good fortune and honor to meet a Bulgarized Macedonian, a teacher, and a member of the Committee called Karev. I met this man by chance in the hotel "Monastirion", ie. "Hotel Monastir", as it is called in Bitola. Karev was very reserved towards me until the moment when the Greek from Krushevo, named Papagoudas did not introduce him to me. Then he released himself and after looking left and right he admitted to me that he was a "Bulgarophile" and a member of the Committee. Do not forget also secondary sources, please. Above I have opposed not accidentally on the addition of the text about Alexander the Great. This addition will cause a serious expansion explaining the irony of the Greek interviewer, who regarded a Macedonians only as Greeks, the role of the Greek propaganda on the adaptation of the designation Macedonian, the fact Macedonian Bulgarians regarded him a Slav, etc. Please, keep in mind that the idea of establishing a multinational autonomous entity and, therefore, a supranational and inclusive Macedonian identity propagated by the IMRO, was an umbrella identity, not ethnic identity. Jingiby (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The sentence I added was about his own words in this article. So, if he described himself as a Bulgarophile, I'll make the adjustment to the sentence. Regarding the Alexander the Great comment, it does seem that the interviewer asked it ironically but it does not state that Karev's answer was ironic. I won't re-add for now but I do find it a notable piece of the interview. --Local hero ^talk 04:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Per secondary source. Please, do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself. Thank you. By the way Karev is described by the Greek as "Voulgarophron". Check the meaning of phron on Wiktionary. It means heard and mind. That means he was a Bulgarian in his heard and in his mind, i.e. as secondary source confirms: he was simply Bulgarian. Per "Macedonia, the Lung of Greece: Fighting an Uphill Battle" by Marcus A. Templar (November 7, 2012) pp. 13-14: In his interview with the Greek newspaper Akropolis, Nikola Karev identified his ethnicity as Bulgarian, but then he said that he was a Macedonian. Mrs. Elefterija Vambakovska of the Institute of National History of the FYROM thought that such a statement is illogical since in her opinion Karev could not have two ethnicities. But Karev had not declared two ethnicities. He identified himself as a Bulgarian who lived in Macedonia... Mrs. Vambakovska feels the way she does because she and her compatriots have been educated that the “Macedonian” ethnicity existed at the time of the Ilinden Revolt, something that Prof. Ivan Katardzhiev refutes... Ivan Katardzhiev, an expert on IMRO, has stated that "Skopje can not question the Bulgarian national consciousness of the members of the organization," etc. By the way, why don't you indicate who the interview was taken from. This was the Greek consul in Bitola, Ion Dragoumis. He was a Greek extreme nationalist and Bulgarophobe. Dragoumis was a blade of Greek propaganda in Macedonia, which claimed that Bulgarians did not live in Macedonia, but only Slavicized Greeks, heirs of Alexander the Great. Jingiby (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have not synthesized anything. I am only trying to present what is stated in this interview by Karev which is that he identified himself as a Macedonian and a descendant of Alexander the Great. Putting that on this article is not a synthesis. The sentence I have added only attempts to illustrate what is said in the article. We can write: "In this interview, the Greek interviewer identified Karev as a Bulgarian, while Karev identified himself as a Macedonian and a descendant of Alexander the Great." No synthesis here. I'm not sure why this simple addition makes you so nervous, we're only presenting the source as it is and we are not basing more than a couple sentences on the source. --Local hero ^talk 14:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The primary and two secondary sources confirm Karev self-identified in the interview as Bulgarian, and was identified by the counsel as such. Regarding your proposal, provide the secondary source from which you took this info, please. Jingiby (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I've been quite clear, I am taking this info solely from the primary source that without any synthesis. Not sure why I have to keep repeating that. The sentence I had added to the article makes it very clear that this is from the interview. Apologies that I may have missed it, but can you tell me where in the primary source Karev called himself a Bulgarian? --Local hero ^talk 02:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A newspaper clipping old ca. 120 years, written in an outdated variant of the Greek language that is unknown to the audience here, cannot be a basic source of important information. The text is written within a context which differs significantly from today's perspective, with a specific terminology unused today, that may cause interpretations of the text in a very controversial way. The interpretations of this source in the forums in North Macedonia are tragicomic. As far as I can see, you are trying to pass such a forum thesis here, which has nothing to do with the complex circumstances described above and the dozens of secondary sources cited in this article. Refer to secondary sources that interpret material found in such a primary source per Wikipedia guidelines of reliability in historical context. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

So you admit that your addition to the sentence "In this interview, Karev identified him as Bulgarian" is not found in the primary source? Then we need to adjust the wording because now it is becoming close to synthesis/personal interpretation. It should state "In this interview, Karev identified himself as a Macedonia. Per secondary sources, Karev identified himself as a Bulgarian in another part of the interview."

Also, please don't distract from the discussion by attacking me as pushing a "forum thesis". Don't get so worked up when someone challenges your agenda on here. --Local hero ^talk 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

On a contrary, I insist Karev clearly self-identified in this interview as Bulgarian. And my view is supported as by the primary, as well by secondary sources. Jingiby (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I asked you to point out this Bulgarian self-identification in the primary interview source, I can't seem to find it. --Local hero ^talk 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Karev was very reserved towards me until the moment when the Greek from Krushevo, named Papagoudas did not introduce him to me. Then he released himself and after looking left and right he admitted to me that he was a "Bulgarophron" and a member of the Committee. Jingiby (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Bulgarophron" is different from Bulgarian. Therefore, the term in the sentence in question must be changed from Bulgarian to "Bulgarophron" / Bulgarophile. --Local hero ^talk 14:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Since this is not a forum, I do not understand Greek, and you have not presented any reliable primary or secondary English source supporting your thesis, I suspend this communication for now. Jingiby (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, then neither of us can determine that he calls himself a Bulgarian in the interview. So I'll correct the article accordingly. --Local hero ^talk 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I am waiting a sources, not a comments. Thank you very much. Jingiby (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No. *You* are the one claiming he called himself a Bulgarian. Therefore, it is *you* who must provide the place within this interview in which he did that. *You* have failed to show this. If you continue to insist on including *your own personal synthesis*, I will have to seek third-party support.

I have provided the source and place where Karev called himself a Macedonian. That's it. Jingiby, you've been banned before. Please do not resort to your problematic editing ways. --Local hero ^talk 15:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Where is this source, but translated by an authorized expert in English to discus its content? I disagree with your unsourced claims. Jingiby (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Would you really like me to start requesting translations by an authorized expert for all of your Bulgarian sources? That would probably require undoing all of your work on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOENG, it is perfectly fine to use a Greek source.

I have made *zero* unsourced claims. I have added to the article that Karev identified as a Macedonian - the interview states this. *You* have added that Karev identified as a Bulgarian which the interview does *not* state. Please revert yourself. --Local hero ^talk 16:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

May I see the whole interview translated in English, please and to verify your claim. Here is English language Wikipedia, I think. Thanks in advance. By the way, what I have added is based on a presented English-language secondary source, which confirms his Bulgarian self-identification in the interview. As far as I understand Greek, this is exactly the case. You have not provided any English source, but you insist that you are right and I am not. How to verify these claims? Jingiby (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Ethnicity and self-consciousness

Laveol, I see it's sourced, but there's another source where he states that he's not a Bulgarian. I'm trying to find a neutral solution, please don't make it harder. We cannot say for sure that he considered himself a Bulgarian, especially not since we know the fact that he was the president of the Republic. The sources that prove his Bulgarian self-determination are just as weak as the ones that prove his Macedonian self-determination. iNkubusse^? 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I said, please see the talk page, but nobody answered. You just revert the article, and you do it very well planed, so that only I receive a 3RR breaking notice. 2 rv's by Laveol, 2 by ForeignerFromTheEast, and 2 by Decx. I have no other choice but to use the talk page, but still, nothing. You're making troubles about a goddamn category, for Pete's sake! iNkubusse^? 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop insinuating. It is not just the category. The person is considered an ethnic Macedonian only in the Republic of Macedonia. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you only once. The fact is sourced with a Western secondary source. I have not reverted you on articles where the ethnicity is not sourced, but you're not even remotely right here. --Laveol ^T 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not. That's not true. Even if it was, he is still considered Macedonian by a whole state and a set of historians.

I'm sorry Laveol, you're right, it was only once. But either way, he gave an interview for that Greek newspaper where he states that he is not Bulgarian, and tell me what's more reliable, an interview from himself or a Western author? But we shouldn't even discuss about this, he is considered an ethnic Macedonian too and the category is relevant. I really, really can't see why you mind the category. iNkubusse^? 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The interview is not from a reliable source. Provide a reliable publication, not some latin-alphabet poor rendition. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually i don't mind the category - I reverted you, cause you changed the article against the source given. As you see I have made no reverts on the other articles in discussion. --Laveol ^T 00:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry again then :) But what about the interview? iNkubusse^? 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked the source [[2]] no where does it state that Karev stated that he is a Bulgarian. Ireland101 00:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have been very resourceful but as per my personal opinion Nikola Karev is not the best character to dispute one's nationality or ethnicity. In order to get the required neutral solution we should take into conideration the historical context before everything else. I think it is obvious that Karev was a politician and a leader. Being an Ottoman subject he undertook social and political actions of cultural emancipation and separatism. Bear in mind the fact that Karev was a socialist, whose nationalist feelings are usually supressed or surpassed by internationalism. Best regards, Litev (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)