Talk:Nikola Karev/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The disputed sentence.

In this interview, Karev identified him as Bulgarian, and called himself a Macedonian.

Local hero, my secondary source you know: 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. Even those members of the IMRO (United) who had adopted (during 1930s) the idea of Macedonism. maintained the view of political separatism, but in fact, they felt Bulgarians to the end their lives. For more see: "Macedonia, the Lung of Greece: Fighting an Uphill Battle" by Marcus A. Templar (November 7, 2012) pp. 13-14. Hero, may you explain what is incorrect here? Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we invite some of the Greek editors to confirm the content of the interview, which is not in English and we dispute. Do you agree? Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is my second source in Macedonian, a language we both understand:

– Елефтерија Вамбаковска: 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. (in English) Eleftheria Vambakovska: As to the content of the interview, I leave it free for interpretations by scientists and readers. My opinion is that it contains contradictory and illogical claims. The interview actually begins with an illogical claim. Karev asserts he is a Bulgarian ("in his mind and heard"; "Bulgarophron"), 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". Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe @Future Perfect at Sunrise: could help with the Greek, though for the piece I am adding I am sufficiently sure that my knowledge of Greek plus machine translation confirms that Karev states he is a Macedonian. Conversely, I cannot find any place where Karev, or the interviewer, state that Karev identified as Bulgarian. Again, your secondary sources I have no issue with. However, the wording as it stands is a not backed by the primary source. The sentence should simply be "In the interview, Karev identified as a Macedonian. Per Vambakovska, he also identified as a Bulgarian in the interview." --Local hero ^talk 17:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A lurker, I have been following this interesting -but imho unnecessarily complicated- discussion over the past few days. I have now uploaded a translation of Karev's interview in full here, hoping that it helps resolve the dispute. Might I add that voulgarophron actually means "Bulgarian-minded", i.e. Bulgarophile, pro-Bulgarian, that is, in the article's context, someone siding with the pro-Bulgarian party formed amidst slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia. This Greek term can be found translated into English reliable sources as denoting persons "with pro-Bulgarian convictions" or "with [fanatic] Bulgarian leanings/"sentiments"/feelings" or "fanatical supporters of Bulgaria" . Might I also add that a scholar who happens to be an author of a book on the suppression of Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia and a historian with a PhD on the formation of national parties in late Ottoman Macedonia refers to Karev's interview in an unpublished paper, presented at a conferece -- see here, pp. 5-6, n.b. n. 21? Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and input @Ashmedai 119:. Your translation confirms my understanding of this interview. Therefore, to state that Karev identified himself as Bulgarian, as per the interview itself, is incorrect. We should also include the "Voulgarophron" term as provide the translations. Glad you have found the discussion interesting, though I do agree it has been unnecessarily complicated. Interesting find in that paper you've provided as well. --Local hero ^talk 22:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Proclamation of the Hellenic Macedonian Committee from Athens. For our Macedonian brothers. (1905)

The Prediction of Alexander the Great (1905).

Localhero, I don't think the interview confirms your understanding of the interview, as the multiple secondary sources presented show, the meaning of 'Macedonian' is not the same as that of ethnic Macedonian. A possible solution may be to explain the meaning of 'Macedonian' back then per the secondary sources.--SeriousCherno (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In this context is interesting to read the brochure “Proclamation of the Hellenic Macedonian Committee from Athens. For our Macedonian brethren "(in original Προκλαμάτσια να Ελληνομακεντόνσκη Κομιτέτ οτ 'Άτηνα. Α νάσητε μπράτε Μακεντόντσητ.) It is written in local Slavic with Greek letters. The introduction is aimed at forming hatred towards Bulgarianness. The Bulgarians are called "cattle" and "savages" and are said to be of "swine origin". It was later proved that the Macedonian Slavs were in fact Greeks, not Bulgarians, and that their language was not Bulgarian, and that there were even no Bulgarians in Macedonia, but only Slavophone Greeks, etc. At the time, the Greek press claimed that the Slavophones were simply brainwashed Greeks and avoided calling them Bulgarians, using only euphemisms as Voulgarophron, Voulgarophile, etc. We now that even today, any ethnic identity different from Greek, is not accepted there. At the same time, the Hellenic Macedonian Committee published the book The Predictions of Alexander the Great (Πρεσκαζανιε να Γολεμ Αλεζαντρ) also in a local Slavic dialect. The book contains 31 pages and is written on the basis of the so-called Alexander Romance. The preface suggests that the Macedonian Slavs are not Bulgarians, but have lost their original Greek language and culture over the centuries and have become Slavic, but it is time to return to their roots. Macedonian meant then Greek for the Greek public and the Macedonian Slavs were in historical aspect Ancient Macedonians (i.e. Greeks), not related to the Bulgarians. Jingiby (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

These brochures mentioned by Jingiby are definitely interesting (irrespective of Karev's interview), but I am not entirely sure that I understand what Jingiby is arguing as far as Karev's self-description is concernced. I mean to say, that what Jingiby describes above is the Greek take on Macedonian-ness, in an attempt to render it tantamount to Greek-ness/Hellenicity. This view is the one held by Stamatiou, as obvious via his questions and their implied criticism of Karev (Stamatiou basically tells Karev "since you call yourself Macedonian, you are Greek" and "if (a) Alexander the Great was Greek, and (b) you consider yourself descended from him, then you are Greek as well"). However, this Greek position is not identical with Karev's position, which is that of a Macedonian self-description, or "Macedonian consiousness" (per Kostopoulos, cited in my previous message), which is not considered by Karev essentially attached to either Bulgaria or Greece. On the contrary, it is clear IMO, that for Karev siding with Greece or Bulgaria is, at least at this present juncture, merely an instrument for attaining the supreme goal of the region's liberation [=autonomous status]. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

My thesis based on the above sources and the discussion to them is that the removed by the article sentence is correct. Karev identified himself in the interview as a Bulgarian and a Macedonian. The Greek nationalist interviewing him described Karev's self-identification in the typical way at the time: as a supporter of the Bulgarian idea. According to the then, and according to today's Greek view, there are no Bulgarians in Macedonia. At the same time, Dragoumis asked him if he is Macedonian, which for him was equivalent to Greek and remained satisfied with the affirmative answer, asking him whether he is successor of Alexander the Great, which would be a sure sign of his Greek origin. As for Karev, at that time there was not a single IMRO Slavic-speaking activist who did not feel Bulgarian. This is supported by sufficiently reliable sources, including for Karev himself. We must also keep in mind the first name of the IMRO was "Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees", initially its membership was restricted only for Bulgarians, their documents all are written only in Bulgarian, etc. However by the Macedonian Bulgarians the term Macedonian was acquiring the significance of a certain political loyalty, that progressively constructed a particular spirit of regional identity promoted by the IMRO then, as the supranational (anti-nationalist) slogans Macedonia for the Macedonians, Autonomy for Macedonia, etc. Though, per Anastasia Karakasidou behind the IMRO idea of autonomy was hidden a reserve plan for eventual incorporation into Bulgaria. Because of that Karev is described as a Macedonian Bulgarian in this article. Jingiby (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

What we've established: Karev identified himself as a Macedonian (and descendant of Alexander the Great) in the interview; and the interviewer stated that Karev admitted to being a "Voulgarophron" in the interview.

There isn't much left to discuss here. "In this interview, Karev identified himself as a Macedonian and a Voulgarophron (Bulgarophile)". Then you can insert your secondary source-backed content after this sentence. The only other thing is I think his claim of being a descendant of Alexander the Great is worth noting as well. --Local hero ^talk 21:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Localhero's vote for placing it, and then adding any explanations of the meanings of the terms underneath with secondary sources. Even though it may not mean ethnic Macedonian, it is still helpful to outline this and explain what he meant of this based on reliable sources. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It will offer good information about the Greek policy that Jingiby is outlining. I also don't object to saying that Karev identified as Macedonian Bulgarian.--MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

At the same time I agree with Jingiby that we should not analyze the quote ourselves as Wikipedia editors but should instead reference what the experts are saying. Non-related to this, it does not make sense to me why the Greek interviewer will mean ethnic Macedonian when they denied the existence of Slavs in the region of Macedonia, therfore it can only be regional term that fits in the Bulgarized Greeks theory that Hellenists at the time had. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is better to first agree on the wording which is the main issue here to avoid any edit warring. But up to the rest of the editor's consensus. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my addition had zero analysis made from the interview, whereas Jingiby's edit to it did. It seems we have consensus for this wording: "In this interview, Karev identified himself as a Macedonian and a Voulgarophron (Bulgarophile)."

I'll also propose the following: "Karev also claimed to be a direct descendant of Alexander the Great". Thoughts on this? --Local hero ^talk 02:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I support adding whatever is correctly in the text (I haven't read the interview) and then with the sourced explanations. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have created an article about the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group whose member Karev was, where it is explained what its members understand under Macedonia/n, backed by reliable sources. Per them every Macedonian should be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, etc., as he is, but on the first place, as a “political slave”. Its political agenda of a separate Macedonian people was based on Marxist class-ideological aspects, with a strong anti-nationalist motivation. Jingiby (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Up to you guys, I am worried that this section will require too much undue weight and will not add much to the article as Macedonian is not an ethnic thing in this case. I withdraw my vote as I don't think a quarter of the article should be dedicated to explaining a few sentences in this interview when they do not add anything knew. Already it says that most Macedonian historians see him as Macedonian. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)--MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, what does that have to do with this specific discussion about this interview? Let's not prolong this topic anymore.

@MacedonianGuy97: the difference is that this interview is Karev's own words, not the words of a Macedonian historian. And I definitely agree that we should not spend much of the article on it - I've proposed just one or two sentences. As MacedonianGuy97 stated, we should add the sentences as per the interview, and then add the secondary source-backed content, which Jingiby had already added in notes. So, I can make the necessary changes and we can consider this discussion resolved. --Local hero ^talk 03:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI I have also uploaded a transcrpition of the original Greek of the interview here at the Greek wikisource. It can be checked by anyone who reads Greek. With regards to Local hero's proposal, I think the relevant passage of the article could be worded as follows:

On the eve of the Ilinden uprising, in May 1903, he was interviewed in Bitola by the correspondent of the Greek daily "Akropolis" Stamatis Stamatiou. Karev presented himself as a voulgarophron (someone with pro-Bulgarian convictions) and displayed a Macedonian consciousness, describing himself as a Macedonian and claiming to be a "direct descendant of Alexander the Great". When asked what the revolutionaries wanted for Macedonia, Karev explained their plans to create in Macedonia a republic in the model of Switzerland, providing autonomy and democracy for its different "races" and that they would accept anyone's help in order to attain this goal.

No reference to Dragoumis should be included, because it has no basis on primary or -am I missing something?- on reliable secondary sources -- actually, I am wondering why and on what basis this edit was made to the article.

I also note that in the text of the new article that Jingiby created on the Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group there is only one mention of Karev and the source the article's readers are referred to does not present Karev as the Group's member. But, in any case, this does not seem to have any bearing on how to word the bit on Karev's interview.

Nonetheless, I do not have a problem with Karev being described as a "Macedonian Bulgarian" at the beginning of the article. "Bulgarian" at that time and place could mean (i) from an (ethno)linguistic point of view any of the slavic speakers in Ottoman Macedonia, (ii) from a political point of view, those siding with the Exarchist/pro-Bulgaria party formed among members of that ethnolinguistic community or (iii) someone with a Bulgarian national consciousness/ideology. Karev seems to check definition (ii), so he does belong in the spectrum of Macedonian Bulgarians, that, as has been noted by Jingiby, "had complex identity fluctuating between Macedonian regionalism and Bulgarian patriotism". It seems that at the moment of his Akropolis interview, Karev's Macedonian regionalism had at least begun to acquire an ethnic dimension, clearly referring to his putative descent from ancient Macedonians, while his siding with Bulgaria was viewed as purely instrumental, but, as per Jingiby, these were fluctuating positions in a time of rapid change and violence. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, what about both secondary sources on the interview, which contradicts with your opinion. That all above is your personal evaluation? I have the impression that the whole article concentrates on a single primary source adapted for the then Greek audience. This breaches a lot of Wikipedia historical guidelines. I totally disagree with such an action. Jingiby (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby , could you please state which two reliable secondary sources dealing with the interview you think should be taken into consideration in deciding on the wording of the sentences I stated in my previous message? And, once more, could you please explain the basis on which you made this edit? Thanks. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, may I ask you to read carefully the article itself and the cited sources in it, together with the provided below citations. I don't think you've just done it yet. Please, check how dozens primary and secondary sources confirm directly and indirectly Karev's Bulgarian identity. May I ask you too, to read the Wikipedia rules I have mentioned above, which I will repeat again, because I think it is possible that you did not do that:

• In academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light.
• Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself.
• Refer to reliable secondary sources that interpret material found in a primary source.
• Do not base a large passage on a primary source.

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

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

Both secondary sources you are asking me are cited in the article itself and at the moment are cited alsoin that discussion above here. Your second question is not clear to me for now. Wold you explain it more accurate, please. I definitely believe that the return of the disputed sentence could be done solely on the basis of its analysis made on secondary sources. Any personal interpretations are undesirable. Jingiby (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, PS.By the way, the unpublished source you have promoted does not mention Karev anywhere. This source is a fringe theory and contradicts a number of published academic ones, around which the prevailing opinion of historians today is formed. That is, at the beginning of the 20th century, Macedonian national identity was promoted by several small circles of intellectuals outside the region of Macedonia. At that time, neither the IMRO, nor the Bulgarian Social Democratic Party, nor any of their activists promoted such an identity. That is regognized even by Macedonian researchers. At least not one is known till now. Karev will obviously be the first here by such one original research. The Macedonian identity promoted by IMRO and BSDP was a supranational and included all nationalities living in the region. This is the opinion of the leading researchers in published academic works cited in the article. Jingiby (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, the reason I am asking "which two reliable secondary sources dealing with the interview" should be taken into consideration is that in the article's present form the reader of the relevant passage ("On the eve of the Ilinden uprising he was interviewed for "Akropolis" by the Greek council in Bitola, the nationalist Ion Dragoumis.[15][16] When asked what the revolutionaries wanted for Macedonia,[17] Karev explained their plans about creation of Macedonian Republic, providing autonomy and democracy for its different races.[18]") is referred, in reverse order, (a) to pages 163-164 of Michalopoulos's Oxford dissertation (where no pronouncement is made on Karev's self-desription), (b) to Karev's interview itself, i.e. the primary source, and (c) -bizarelly- to an article of Michalis Kaliakatsos on Ion Dragoumis along with (d) pages corresponding to appendix 21 of Petsivas's edition of Dragoumis's diaries, where the text of Karev's interview is reproduced. As far as (c) and (d) are concerned, I asked you in my previous message if you could please explain "on what basis this edit was made to the article" with which you added them. Do you have access to Petsivas's book that you added as a reference? I happen to hold it in my hands and it makes absolutely no claim that Dragoumis was somehow involved in the interview. Again, could you please explain on what basis you made this edit? It seems that the claim you inserted in the article is a false statement with no primary or secondary basis and has to be removed from the article.

There is also a reference to Karev's interview in the very first of the article's reference, which was also added to the article by Jingiby. However, this text (available to all interested readers here) is not a scholarly source, as (i) its author is not a historian or an expert in historical studies, or someone who conducts and publishes scientific research on topics relevant to late-Ottoman Macedonia, he is "a former U.S. Army Cryptologic Linguist (Language Analyst), Signal Intelligence and All-Source Intelligence Analyst" who has a "career as a U.S. Intelligence Officer" (see here) and (ii) the text was not published in a scholarly context, but by a Greek (political) association dealing with Macedonian matters (see here for its publication in 2012) -- the author of the text, Marcus Templar, is "a former President of the Macedonian Society of Greater Chicago, and an advisor to the Pan-Macedonian Association of the USA Committees of National Issues and Strategic Planning" (see here). So, per WP:RS, it should be removed from the encyclopedia altogether.

Templar's piece of political propaganda, that Jingiby added to the article, is not the same (from the pov of Wikipedia's policies) with Kostopoulos's conference talk, that I propose being used as a reference in the presentation of Karev's interview. First, its author (Kostopoulos) is a historian, who holds a PhD on the formation of national parties in late Ottoman Macedonia and has scientific publications on the IMRO (see here and here). Second, it was not publised as a piece of political propaganda, but it is a paper presented at a scientific conference. As per WP:RSSELF, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Finally, it is not a fringe view, as its author is definitely not the only one to notice that during this period some Slavic speakers of Ottoman Macedonia had been developping an idea of belonging to a particular grouping, distinct from Bulgarians, [add: I forgot to add that it is, of course, not true that Kostopoulos's conference paper "does not mention Karev anywhere", as the reference to the interview is made in note 21 by way of comparison ("cf.") between Yankov's interviews in the Greek press and Karev's interview in the Greek daily Akropolis, as Yankov's "profession of a“purely Macedonian” consciousness was taken at face value by the most slavophobe newspapers, in sharp contrast to their distrust towards same set of arguments, when it was advanced by more radical IMRO activists of a lesser social status", i.e. Karev, whose interview to Akropolis is, I repeat myself, cited in n. 21 ("Cf. Σ.Γ.Σταμ[ατίου], «Από τα Βιτώλια. Συνέντευξις με έν μέλος του Κομιτάτου», Ακρόπολις, 8.5.1903, p.1") alongside Yankov's presentation in the Greek press.]

Having said that, I can see no reliable secondary source dealing with Karev's Akropolis interview that would suggest a significantly different wording from the one proposed above. If there is one that I happen not to have noticed, I would be grateful for it to be pointed it out. Regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well it looks like there is consensus on adding it, I think the right way forward is to add it and then if there are any disputes about the secondary sources then to just discuss them here. For Macedonian, I propose we link 'Macedonians (Greeks)'as based on the sources the interviewer does not mean Macedonian in the modern ethnic sense. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure I think it should be added and then explain the meanings based on reliable secondary sources while avoiding any original research. --SeriousCherno (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion started off as to discuss the section but so many different sources and topics are now discussed that it has turned into a mess. As MacedonianGuy97 said, someone should re-add teh quote and then editors can further expand it, if anyone disagrees with something they can remove it and make a new section on the talk. --SeriousCherno (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To the first question about the report and whether and why Dragoumis was added as a reporter. When I wanted to add the source, the discussion suddenly heated up and I gave up so, as not to look like an editorial war. Otherwise, the source is the Macedonian language and I took it from page 76. University "St. Cyril and Methodius ”- Skopje Faculty of Philosophy Institute of History. 70 YEARS INSTITUTE OF HISTORY 70 YEARS MACEDONIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 13 AND 14 DECEMBER 2016. 2017, UDC: 323.1: 316.347 (497.7) ”187- / 192- (093.2). The article is called: Before the Comintern by Dalibor Jovanovski from the Faculty of Philosophy, Skopje. The text is: Интервјуто, како што забележавме, било направено од извесен С. Г. Стам, кој се претставил како новинар на Акрополис. Најверојатно ова интервју било направено од страна на тогашниот заменик конзул на Кралството Грција во Битола, Јон Драгумис. Тој бил активен во работата на грчката пропаганда на теренот. Ова интервју може да го најдеме во книгата објавена од Пецивас која содржи документи и спомени на Јон Драгумис. In English: The interview, as we noted, was done by a certain S. G. Stam, who introduced himself as a journalist from Acropolis. This interview was probably conducted by the then Deputy Consul of the Kingdom of Greece in Bitola, Jon Dragumis. He was active in the work of Greek propaganda on the ground. This interview can be found in the book published by Pecivas which contains documents and memoirs of Jon Dragumis. I will answer the questions consistently because it really looks like a forum. Jingiby (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As for the second question on Marcus Templar publication, it should be borne in mind that I call it a secondary source, but I do not accept it as a completely reliable one. Therefore, I use it quite carefully and only insofar as it refers to other secondary sources. That is, it is practically a tertiary source. I use it because it analyzes another secondary sources that you missed. Probably because there are in Macedonian, but one of them it has been translated in this article. It is quite detailed and, in my opinion, reliable enough. In practice, this is the only reliable secondary source that deals in great detail with Karev's interview. It is the interview with Mrs. Eleftheria Vambakovska working in the Institute of National History in Skopje, who found and published in Macedonian Karev's interview at first. It is from the Macedonian newspaper "Utrinski vesnik", published on 22. 07. 2000, Archive number 329. Утрински Весник, сите права задржани, Сабота, July 22, 2000 Архивски Број 329. This lady is quite reserved and, although with certain reservations, which Templar explains, declares the interview to be quite controversial and adapted for the Greek audience. From the second conclusion, I ьяякпе that not everything said by Karev was explained correct by the interviewer. Per Vambakovska it contains contradictory and illogical claims. Per her the interview actually begins with an illogical claim. Karev asserts he is a Bulgarian-minded ("Bulgarophron"), 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, etc. Templar claims that Vambakovska 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 and adds: 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 was regarded as the country's most important expert on the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and the Macedonian history under Yugoslavia. He was also director of the Institute for National History. Academician Ivan Katardziev had other views on Macedonian identity and name, which he presented at the International Scientific Meeting 100 Years "On Macedonian Affairs" by Misirkov "in 2003: According to him, Macedonian consciousness began to develop only after the First World War, mostly in Serbia and Greece, because Bulgarian propaganda was prevented there. That is why Macedonian consciousness developed. Otherwise, we can talk about Macedonian intelligence only after 1945, and that thanks to the existence of the state entity - PR Macedonia within Yugoslavia. The Macedonian intelligentsia developed first on the basis of repression, so that that Macedonian consciousness could also develop ... National separatism presupposes a nation built with national consciousness and hence - separation. Thus, on the basis of the already formed Bulgarian nation in Macedonia, a separation was made. Macedonian nation was created after the Second World War for political reason. On the other hand According to Katardzhiev all Macedonian revolutionaries from the period until the early 1930s declared themselves as "Bulgarians" and he asserts that the political separatism of some Macedonian left-wing revolutionaties toward official Bulgarian policy was yet only political phenomenon without ethnic character. This will bring even Dimitar Vlahov on the session of the Politburo of the Macedonian communist party in 1948, when speaking of the existence of the Macedonian nation, to say that in 1932 (when left wing of IMRO issued for the first time the idea of separate Macedonian nation) a mistake was made. Katardzhiev claimed even that all the left-wing veterans from IMRO (United) remained only at the level of political, not of national separatism. Thus, they practically continued to feel themselves as Bulgarians, even in Communist Yugoslavia after WWII. For more see: Академик Катарџиев, Иван. Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот, интервју за списание "Форум", 22 jули 2000, број 329.Jingiby (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Based on what Jingiby laid out I will like to retract my vote for including this in the article, as it is a primary source that may not be accurate. --SeriousCherno (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Ashmedai 119:, I think your paragraph is the ideal treatment of this topic for the article. Jingiby, most of you last comment is simply bringing up secondary sources that cover the general topic of Slavs in Macedonia in this period as being of Bulgarian national consciousness, and you seek to apply these sources anywhere possible. In this discussion, however, we are narrowly focused on this interview and what Karev himself expressed in it. As Ashmedai 119 stated, no secondary source has been presented that allows us to use different wording than Ashmedai has proposed. --Local hero ^talk 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Jingiby for providing the source supporting his Dragoumis edit. I don't know the scholarly standing of Jovanovski, or the publication of this piece, but -please correct me if I am wrong- it seems that the idea that Dragoumis conducted the interview is a possibility that he puts forward on account of his -understandable- ignorance of the existence of S.(tamatis) G.(eorgiou) Stam.(atiou) and his inability to attribute the signature to the real person ("Неколку месеци пред почетокот на востанието Карев дал едно интервју за овој весник на извесен новинар кој се потпишал како С. Г. Стам." "Интервјуто, како што забележавме, било направено од извесен С. Г. Стам, кој се претставил како новинар на Акрополис."). Regardless, it is merely a hypothesis, promulgated without any supporting evidence and that has not been accepted -as far as I know- from any other scholar, so I think it would be better to describe it as such, i.e. a hypothesis made by Jovanovski, not a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice, and relegate it to a footnote. A propos, I am wondering whether it would be possible for someone with a better grasp of the slavic Macedonian language than me to translate into English a sentence from p. 75 of Jovanovski's piece, that Jingiby proposes to be used in the article? Jovanovski writes "Во интервјуто Карев нагласил дека е Македонец, а не Бугаринидека целта на борбата е добивање на автономија на Македонија, нагласувајќи дека Бугарија си прави лоши сметки доколку мисли дека може да ја претвори Македонија во нејзина провинција." Thanks in advance for the translation. Do you think this should be used in the article?

As far as Templar's piece is concerned, I am sorry but it is just not true that "it is practically a tertiary source". Per WP:TERTIARY, "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources", i.e. scholarly sources themselves, not unreliable pieces of political propaganda that happen to mention secondary sources.

I thus agree with Local hero's observation re Jingiby's remarks and conclude that we should move forward with modifying the relevant passage as suggested above by the undersigned, but at the same time consider using Jovanovski's source (if there are no questions to be answered about its reliability), as described in the first paragraph of my comment. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, I've added the text. We can add Jovanovski's hypothesis if we determine it is reliable here.

The translation you requested would be as follows: In the interview, Karev stressed that he is a Macedonian and not a Bulgarian, that the goal of the battle is to achieve autonomy for Macedonia, emphasising that Bulgaria is miscalculating if it thinks it can make Macedonia its own province. --Local hero ^talk 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not add more from the peace of Jovanovski because it obviously differs from the text in the interview in some aspects, as for example: "Karev stressed that he is a Macedonian not a Bulgarian", etc. It turns out that his statement about the reporter is also wrong. Jingiby (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

References

Refinement of the disputed sentence.

I will try to bring additional clarity with the footnote. The text needs to be clarified a little more. It is not acceptable to advertise only the opinion of a single historian. The reporter's opinion and the context of the interview are missing but are very important. From the very beginning, I warned that the interview is extremely contradictory and everywhere the context must be conveyed exactly as it is explained below. This part from the interview below is extremely controversial:

-Are you a Macedonian? I ask him.

-Yes.

-And, consequently, a Greek.

-This I do not know, he replies, I am Macedonian.

-A direct descendant of Alexander the Great? I tell him ironically.

-Yes.

-And Alexander the Great, what was he, I pray you?

-I don't know, but history says he was Greek.

-Then, being his descendant, you are Greek as well.

-He did not reply.

I suggest that the sentence describing it in the article be removed from the text: Per Stamatiou Karev was a Bulgarianized Macedonian but on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective. This part of the interview related to Alexander the Great completely confuses the readers of the article. This sentence is enough: Karev presented himself as a voulgarophron[15] (i.e. Bulgarophile).[16] He revealed he was also a Macedonian.[17] The note at the end of the sentence explains the rest from the story. Also, as Vambakovska claims, the interview is adapted for the Greek audience and it is not certain exactly how the conversation was conducted. In my opinion, for example, it is absurd for Karev to use the term Voulgarophron for himself. This is a pure adaptation of the reporter for the Greek readers. Jingiby (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

On that occasion I have found a very interesting passage in an academic publication concerning the issue which sharply contradicts to the opinion of Kostopoulos: In 1902, in a manifesto issued during the so-called Gorna Dzhumaya Uprising (a series of attacks organized by bands of the Supreme Committee), the Bulgarian colonel Anastas Yankov, a native of Zagoričani (today Vasileiada, Greece) reffered to Alexander the Great as well as to medieval Slavic figures from Macedonia. These were obviously already part of a repertoire of a specific “local Macedonian” patriotism. The latter was described at the beginning of the twentieth century by foreign observers such as Henry Noel Brailsford and Allen Upward. They likewise noted the legend that Alexander and Aristotle were “Bulgarians.” Obviously, by the late Ottoman period, the ancient glory of the region was exploited for self-legitimation by groups with different loyalties—Greek as well as Bulgarian. It was also generating a new identity that, during that period, was still not necessarily exclusive vis-à-vis Greek or Bulgarian national belonging. This explains in a completely different light Karev's behavior in relation to Alexander the Great. This confirms my opinion that this part of the article should be dropped, because it is part from local not from national identity. For more see: Famous Macedonia, the Land of Alexander: Macedonian Identity at the Crossroads of Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Nationalism, In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume One, Author: Tchavdar Marinov, Pages: 273–330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250765_007.Jingiby (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Now the theory promoted by Tassos Kostopoulos in his unpublished study, that the Colonel of the Bulgarian Army Yankov (i.e. Karev) had a purely Macedonian consciousness turns out not to seem so at all, and according to Tchavdar Marinov's published study, it was a local identity. In the same year 1902, and during the same trip which is quoted by Kostopoulos Yankov wrote from Macedonia to the Bulgarian prince Ferdinand as follows: My walking in these places is a triumph for the Bulgarian population. I travel in Bulgarian military uniform. Almost all of the honest non-commissioned officers in Bulgaria are uniformly dressed and decorated with orders. The people here are so enthusiastic that one of my orders is enough to ignite Macedonia and the flame to cover the entire Balkan Peninsula. Cited by Елдъров, Светлозар. Генерал Иван Цончев. Биография на два живота. София, Военно издателство, 2003. ISBN 954-509-272-6. с. 104. Jingiby (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You suggested the change to the sentence and immediately implemented the suggestion without awaiting feedback. To make this talk section easier to read for others, I will note that Jingiby's second and third paragraphs in this section are entirely irrelevant to the discussion of this interview. The sentence was perfectly fine as-is. We are not "advertising the opinion of a single historian", we are simply presenting the interview and Karev's claim. You have presented nothing that suggests the text agreed upon by Ashmedai 119 and I is incorrect. I will be restoring the text. The interviewer may have asked the question ironically, but there is no evidence that Karev's response was ironic. --Local hero ^talk 19:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Local hero it is not clear to me while an important part of the interview was deleted from the article. I do not see anywhere in the interview what you claim that Karev said, and what you added now. Your addition does not match the text of the interview. Would you explain your action? Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Which important part was deleted? You realize you redundantly added "Bulgarized Macedonian" - we already state that he was identified as "Bulgarophron". The wording as it is now, as agreed upon above, matches the interview. --Local hero ^talk 19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources explain what Bulgarophron means as someone that feels as a Bulgarian. Adding the exact quote without further context from the secondary sources available can be construed as misleading.

The section that Jingiby is talking about that you removed is "but on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but did not answer whether he himself was a Greek."--SeriousCherno (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Primary source policy, the meaning and authenticity of the primary source interview should be left to the secondary sources which are reliable that have analyzed it. As the literal meaning can be misleading in a contemporary period as the sources currently raised show. --SeriousCherno (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The text links the term Bulgarophron, which redirects to Bulgarophile. Not sure why this could be construed as misleading. If you look at the text I originally added to the article (as crafted by Ashmedai 119 here on the talk), it had even further description of the term, but this was something Jingiby removed.

Jingiby's secondary Marinov source doesn't even mention Karev, much less this interview. The question about Alexander the Great was asked ironically and Karev answered that he is indeed his direct descendant. Not sure how the current text misrepresents the interview at all. --Local hero ^talk 04:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the sentence as is now: In the interview, Karev presented himself as a voulgarofron,[15] i.e. someone with pro-Bulgarian convictions,[16] and replied he was a Macedonian, claiming to be a "direct descendant of Alexander the Great" doesn't exactly reflect the meanings in the interview and leaves open room for misconceptions. Because the sentence is failing to reflect precisely on the interview and at same time it failes to take in account that the modern readers may give different meanings to terms depending on their political background. To remedy for this, the interview should be covered more in detail. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

My deleted variant was much more accurate per the interview itself: According to Stamatiou Karev was a Bulgarianized Macedonian and on his ironic question whether he was a descendant of Alexander the Great, Karev answered positively, confirming Alexander was a Greek from historical perspective, but did not answer whether he himself was a Greek.Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that your very first stated that Karev identified simply as a Bulgarian, which is entirely not supported by the source. It's clear that your edits must carefully examined.

The English of your sentence is not good. "According to Stamtiou" is not preferable to "In the interview" and the two actually have different meanings. Also, you added redundancy with your sentence as we already present the "voulgarofron" identification the preceding sentence - why would we have it again in the following sentence? --Local hero ^talk 18:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Stamatiou claims that Karev revealed to him that he was a Bulgarophile. Separately, Stamatiou defines him as a Bulgarianized Macedonian. These are different parts of the interview. Jingiby (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Apart from that, a third participant described in the report, namely the owner of the hotel, claims that Karev is a fat-headed Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Local hero, by the way, the assertion in an unpublished source, namely that a senior officer of the Bulgarian Army had a purely Macedonian consciousness in December 1902, contradicts his entire biography. The claim that Karev had such an ethnic consciousness too, is based also on this source and the story on that officer. At the same time, a published source categorically refutes such ideas and claims that this officer did not have such pure Macedonian consciousness at the same time, but was Bulgarian with regional Macedonian identity. And you claim that the second source is irrelevant and should be removed. I strongly disagree. In addition, the unpublished source contradicts a whole bunch of others but published ones, which categorically deny such a Macedonian consciousness at the time and among these Bulgarian Army circles. Jingiby (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Source precision

After this recent indicent, I got up to checking some of the article's references and I would like to ask a question about the very first reference of the article, in its current form, which was added to the article's lead by Jingiby last October. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems like a reference to a petition preserved in an archive collection. In the excerpt of the petition quoted in the footnote, Karev is described as a "бивш български учител" ("a former Bulgarian teacher").

These petitions are also discused in the main body of the article, in the first paragraph of the section titled "After Ilinden". The reference found in the end of this paragraph was also added with an edit of Jingiby's in July 2018, immediately followed by an edit providing a link to a website, which quotes the text of these petitions. However, when checking the website Jingiby had linked to for the text of the petition referred to in lead's reference, I found out that Karev is presented as "бивш учител" ("former teacher") not a "former *Bulgarian* teacher".

Could Jingiby please explain this inconsistency? Thanks in advance. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I just checked and there is the difference that Ashmedai 119 highlighted, at the same it doesn't make any difference as in the letters on this website it says "In addition, we consider it unnecessary to report the following data regarding our personalities: Tome Niklev, 48 years old, former Kojabashi of the Bulgarian neighborhood. Nikola Karev, 28, a former teacher in the city.

With respect:

Tome Niklev, Nikola Karev"

And in another letter to the Ottomans: "Wishing to return to their homes, they want to know if the amnesty in The Turkish-Bulgarian agreement refers to the persons from their category and whether there will be no obstacles for their return and residence in Krushevo." Both written from Karev and the mayor.

I also found another secondary source from a Bulgarian that personally knew Karev (if I remember correctly), in this source it says that "Karev wanted to visit Bulgaria as he wanted to visit his homeland" (not exact quoting just paraphrasing). I have sent the links to Jingiby so he can check them out, you can find them on his talkpage (they are in Bulgarian).

Ashmedai 119, maybe you should report Jingiby to the administrators on the Admin noticeboard if you believe that he is falsifying quotes. There you can discuss. Otherwise, I don't see the point of this section, unless you are craving for a confrontation.... --SeriousCherno (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If possible Ashmedai 119, could you please not edit this article section so that other editors have an opportunity to discuss or provide another source if required. --SeriousCherno (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I appearently have overdid it when rewriting the text. There is one "Bulgarian" in more. I have corrected it. However, let me point out that this is not fundamentally wrong, as he was Bulgarian teacher. By the way, I am one of the few editors who often give quotes in addition to the source at the footnote. There are dozens of such cases in this article. Apparently I have to double-check every case a few times to avoid such mistakes. Regards Jingiby (talk)

Not sure why you're accusing Ashemdai 119 of trying to start "a confrontation". The user has not attacked anyone. You tell the user to not edit the article so other editors have an opportunity to discuss it and then you state that starting a talkpage section is inappropriate too? So, don't edit and also don't bring things up on the talkpage? Good logic there.

Unfortunately, these "errors" by Jingiby seem to not be so rare lately. --Local hero ^talk 04:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby has over 40,000 edits, and he adds many more sources than all three of us put together. I didn't tell Ashmedai 119 not to edit the article, I said that specific article section in order for Jingiby and others to get involved in the discussion. Not sure where I told him not to make any more sections?!

I am struggling with your logic here, what is the point of Ashmedai 119 of adding this section here asking Jingiby to explain himself to him. Whatever Jingiby replies, nothing will come out of it. This is why I mentioned the admin board as the correct place. If you look at Ashmedai 119's edit history, this is not the first time that he has directly or indirectly referenced that an editor he is disagreeing with is falsifying sources or being purposely misleading(1 (2) (3)).

Everyone just needs to be a bit more polite and assume good faith. If you think there is a big issue about something then report it on the admin noticeboard.

In my opinion Local hero, this is an obvious attempt of you to try and remove an editor that you disagree with for a non-existent issue. From the very start of this discussion you have used terms to Jingiby such as " Don't get so worked up when someone challenges your agenda on here" and "That's it. Jingiby, you've been banned before. Please do not resort to your problematic editing ways.". And many days before this you said "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." From the very start of this discussion you have failed to assume good faith and have been behaving in what is, in my opinion, a confrontational way.

And to clarify my logic again, as you can see nothing will come out of this particular discussion because it is not the right place for it. --SeriousCherno (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My comments are fully justified given Jingiby's opposition at first to including this interview in the article at all, inserting without basis into the article that Karev identified himself as a Bulgarian, trying to keep out parts of the interview such as where Karev claimed descent from Alexander the Great, inserting "Bulgarian" into a quote where it doesn't exist in the source, etc. At what point can I stop assuming good faith? Yes, Jingiby had an extensive block record prior to being outright banned for a period. Given recent identified "errors", I only stated his edits need to be looked at carefully. I've made zero attempts to "remove" him, though I will point out your timeline is off on the comments of mine you've copied and they are also taken out of context. --Local hero ^talk 02:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks cant be justified. And okay, lets not get too hang up on technicalities. All of the three quotes were posted on June 4th, with the "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." one being posted a bit later on the same day. Regardless it is 10 days before this section was made on the 14th. Also the issue was not people trying to falsify the quote, it was about whether to insert it as it is in the primary source or based on the secondary sourced intrepreation. There is no point to this discussion here, this is my last reply in this particular section. --SeriousCherno (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)