Talk:Dame Gruev

Untitled

Ok, but have on mind that the line "/" means "different". Don't think, for e.g. "Bulgarian Macedonian" or smt. like that. Bomac 14:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Boy, provide reliable sources, and discuss the article, before changing it materially. The added by you sources are as follows: two primary, (i.e. unreliable and they do not support your thessis on the ethnic self-identification of Gruev), a tourist handbook - absolutely unreliable reference and one reliable source but on the period of Communist Yugoslavia, which also does not support your thessis. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is obvious that you and your friend Božinov revert out of habit, without checking what even you are reverting. The references are all reliable, except let say the first one, and they should stay there. Second, in all three he is regarded as Macedonian and angelfire does not serve as reference, but the memories where Gruev says 'we the Macedonians...', read a bit and then revert. It is very neutral to state in the article he is Bulgarian and Macedonian, but stating at the end about the Macedonian position is not neutral at all. At the end, do not push the unpopular name of the organization, we know how it is known. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pleace, do not make blind reverts. In generall you know excellently that you are wrong. Read again Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, please. Thank you Jingby (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As it can be seen, Gruev's memories is the primary source since he wrote it. All the rest, Bulgarian and Macedonian are secondary and indirectly state Gruev's ethnicity. What confuses you?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, hold your horses now. First, I will re-insert the image. Second I have a question - why are you, MacedonianBoy, removing the name BMARC from the article when Poulton specifically states that this is how the organisation was initially named and was renamed only later (just like the version you dislike states). --Laveol ^T 09:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is better known under IMRO. Why my references are deleted? Both Macedonian and Bulgarian are not linked directly to Gruev, but he is mentioned among the text. This is really silly.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You ask the wrong person. I am not deleting references, but simply returned the pic from Skopje and tweaked sentences so that they sound precise. From the sources I see in your last edit, Western and Bulgarian scholars consider Gruev to be Bulgarian, while Ivo Banac is of the view he was Macedonian (since it is pretty clear scholars in the Republic of Macedonia share the view, I switched it to Yugoslavia. If there are other sources, we can re-work it again.--Laveol ^T 09:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it was not addressed to you. Yes there are three more, that Bozhinov and Stojanov do not like. I will re-add them.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can only open the New York article here. There are no actual scholars cited in them, are there? At the same time, I am not entirely sure at the purpose of the New York Times ref. He says they differentiated themselves from Bulgarians and Macedonians in Bulgaria. What exactly does this have prove? --Laveol ^T 09:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Differentiation from Bulgarians in ethnic sense, and differentiation from the Macedonians in Bulgaria from organizational point of view. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by this: Sorry, I can only open the New York article here? Can't you open the other links? --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, how do you gather this from the source? It is not what it says. I cannot open blogs or other personal websites where I am. --Laveol ^T 09:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No one source supports your thessis Macedonian Boy. In the only reliable source here from Ivo Banac he says that Gruev is a Macedonian hero. That is right. But that does not mean he was ethnic Macedonian. Banac's opinion is as follows:

The initial success of Serbian propaganda provoked Bulgar resistance. Macedonian students in Salonika and Sofia were determined to "make the liberation of Macedonia the order of the day, before Serbian propaganda succeed[ed] in growing powerful and pulverizing the people." In January 1894 a group of these young men formed the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, which, after intense agitation and propaganda that swelled its clandestine ranks, renamed itself the Bolgarski makedono-odrinski revoljucionni komiteti (BMORK, Bulgar Macedono-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Committee) in 1896, and demanded "full political autonomy of Macedonia and the district of Adrianople [Ottoman Thrace]."... Goce Delchev and the other leaders of the BMORK were aware of Serbian and Greek ambitions in Macedonia. More important, they were aware that neither Belgrade nor Athens could expect to obtain the whole of Macedonia and, unlike Bulgaria, looked forward to and urged partition pf gpss land. Autonomy, then, was the best prophylactic against partition – a prophylactic that would preserve the Bulgarian character of Macedonia's Christian population despite the separation from Bulgaria proper. In the words of an editorial in Pravo (Right), a Sofia newspaper close to the BMORK, the idea of Macedonian autonomy (or separatism) was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian nationhood. Inasmuch as the ideal of San Stefano was unworkable, the autonomous idea was the only alternative to the partition of Macedonia by the Balkan states and the assimilation of its severed parts by Serbs, Greeks, and even Romanians...

pp. 307-328 in of "The National Question in Yugoslavia. Origins, History, Politics" by Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1984) Jingby (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Macedonian is in ethnic sense if you did not know.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Again - how do you gather this from the text? Banac explicitly says the opposite, as far as I can see. --Laveol ^T 10:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@Laveol, Jingiby: Was Dame Gruev a Bulgarian citizen too? @MacedonianBoy: Are any non-Yugoslav claiming that he was an ethnic Macedonian? Did he ever describe himself as an ethnic Macedonian?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He did both, somewhere he declared himself as Bulgarian, somewhere as Macedonian. That's why the sentence "He is regarded both as Macedonian and Bulgarian" is neutral one.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And how do you explain Gruev's statement that he was Macedonian? It can be read in the memories. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And did he by any chance make a special distinction between himself and Bulgarians? --Laveol ^T 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Kato duh, can you please stop adding irrelevant text? Those who are interested in BG point of view about the Macedonians will see the article Macedonians and stop with your crap. That is not connected with the article at all. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy could you bring forward some quotes? @Laveol was he a Bulgarian citizen?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know. I only work with sources provided here. He did, however, study in the Sofia University, which kinda suggests he most probbaly had Bulgarian citizenship alongside the Ottoman one. --Laveol ^T 10:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a quote in the ref.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And please, Macedonian Boy, stop speculating with the term Macedonian. If you do not know what Macedonian means, then read in Wikipedia, and especially this page: Macedonian. One of the meanings of Macedonian, as you well know, is a Bulgarian. Then, please read the article Macedonians (Bulgarians), and afterwards the article on the ethnic Macedonians, but especially the chapter on their Identities and when it has emerged. As a final, you can check the Macedonian Question. And now, on the self-identification of Gruev. Please, read this citation from the memoirs of the IMARO revolutionary Milan Matov from the book "The idea of the autonomy as a tactic in the programs of the national liberation movements in Macedonia and Thrace, 1893-1941," Proffesor Dimitar Gotsev, Publishing House of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1983:

"A false rumor was launched in Macedonia after the Ilinden Uprising that the Supreme Committee in Sofia wanted incorporation (of Macedonia) into Bulgaria, but the IMRO sought for autonomy. On this occasion in June 1906 I was in Sofia and I took for clarification by Dame Gruev, who replied as follows: "We are Bulgarians and always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgarians. All other formulas are a stage to achieve this goal. It is however still not the moment to resolve our (Macedonian) question, and is not the time now, for strifes and discussions on this issue. "

Thank you. Jingby (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this work of Bulgarian communist historiography that cites directly involved person?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Overcitation

This article has problem with overcitation. There is one assertion which is cited 11 times. It is first sentence of the lede. According to WP:LEDE, it does not usually requires citations. There must be some particular reason for this. What is it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ivo Banac

The text:

• Damyan Yovanov Gruev or Damjan Jovanov Gruev, often known by his short name Dame Gruev,[1] (January 19, 1871, Smilevo, Ottoman Empire – December 10, 1906, Petlec peak near Maleshevo, Ottoman Empire) was Bulgarian revolutionary and insurgent leader in Ottoman Macedonia and Thrace.

Quote from work of Ivo Banac:

• "Goce Delchev and the other leaders of the BMARC were aware of Serbian and Greek ambitions in Macedonia. More important, they were aware that neither Belgrade nor Athens could expect to obtain the whole of Macedonia and, unlike Bulgaria, looked forward to and urged partition of this land. Autonomy, then, was the best prophylactic against partition – a prophylactic that would preserve the Bulgarian character of Macedonia's Christian Slavic population despite the separation from Bulgaria proper"

What is the assertion in the first sentence which is supported by quote from work of Ivo Banac?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversial edits

Please, try discussing what promises to be a controversial edit prior to actually performing it. The recent edits involved a major change to a sentence with 10 (ten!) whole sources. And the new wording went against those sources. Plus, an image was removed without any justification whatsoever. Further, the changes went against what other articles have to say on the matter. Consistency is of the utmost importance for an encyclopaedia, so, make sure, you respect that. Thank you. --Laveol ^T 07:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The same issue continues 3 years later in the same manner and the edits contradict as the sources, as well what other related articles have to say on the same matter. Jingiby (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gruev died in the early 20th century — before the development of the separate Macedonian identity.

Gruev was killed in 1906. At that time Macedonian identity had spread only among a hansome of intellectuals outside the Ottoman Macedonia. Gruev did not express ethnic Macedonian sentiments and self-identified as Bulgarian:

• In the memoirs of the IMRO revolutionary Milan Matov in June 1906 when he was in Sofia, Matov met with Dame Gruev, who told him: "We are Bulgarians and we always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgarian nation. All other formulas are a stage to achieve this goal." For more see: "The idea of the autonomy as a tactic in the programs of the national liberation movements in Macedonia and Thrace, 1893-1941" Prof. Dimitar Gotsev, Publishing House of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1983, (Bg.), "Milan Matov "The Comitadji Stories", Skopje, 2002, pp. 260-261.(Mk.), Матов, Милан. Баш комитата разказва, живот за Македония, Културно-благотворителна фондация „Братя Миладинови“ - София, 2002, стр. 266 (Bg.)
• According to Loring Danforth, who is a professor of anthropology and holds Ph.D. from Princeton University, at the turn of the 20th. century the political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia seem not to have heard the calls for a separate Macedonian identity. They simply continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians, including those who advocated an independent Macedonia and opposed the idea of a Greater Bulgaria. They also never seem to have doubted "the predominantly Bulgarian character of the population of Macedonia... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians.". See: Danforth, Loring, The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world. Princeton University Press, 1997, p. 64-65. ISBN 0691043566.
• Per Dimitar Bechev, who is Professor in European Studies at the University of Sofia and a visiting scholar at the Harvard University, the term Macedonian was in the early 20th century an umbrella term, covering Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs, Jews, etc. At the same time the IMRO activists saw the future autonomous Macedonia as a multinational polity, and did not pursue the self-determination of Macedonian Slavs as a separate ethnicity from Bulgarian. See the introduction of the Historical Dictionary of Macedonia, Historical Dictionaries of Europe, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956.
• According to Ulf Brunnbauer — director of the Institute for East and Southeast European Studies at the University of Regensburg, during the 20th century, the Slav Macedonian national feelings has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland, but saw themselves as Bulgarians. Neverttheless, by the middle of the 20th. century, Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive and Macedonian regionalism had become Macedonian nationalism. For more see Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127. Jingiby (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You might be right about Gruev's self identification, but it would be necessary to present much more reliable source than Matov's memoirs.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Encyclopaedia Britannica online is enough reliable. In its article IMRO it states: "IMRO was founded in 1893 in Thessaloníki; its early leaders included Damyan Gruev, Gotsé Delchev, and Yane Sandanski, men who had a Macedonian regional identity and a Bulgarian national identity." However there is a good primary source. Here is аn excerpt from the appeal sent to the Bulgarian government by the Ilinden uprising's leaders (General Staff) in the Bitola area. The General Staff consisted from Gruev, Boris Sarafov and Atanas Lozanchev: "Considering the critical and terrible situation that the Bulgarian population of the Bitola Vilayet found itself in and following the ravages and cruelties done by the Turkish troops and irregulars,... considering the fact that everything Bulgarian runs the risk of perishing and disappearing without a trace because of violence, hunger, and the upcoming misery, the Head Quarters finds it to be its obligation to draw the attention of the respected Bulgarian government to the pernicious consequences vis-a-vis the Bulgarian nation, in case the latter does not fulfill its duty towards its brethren of race here in an imposing fashion which is necessary by virtue of the present ordeal for the common Bulgarian Fatherland... Being in command of our people's movement, we appeal to you on behalf of the enslaved Bulgarian to help him in the most effective way - by waging war. We believe that the response of the people in free Bulgaria will be the same... No Bulgarian school is opened, neither will it be opened... Nobody thinks of education when he is outlawed by the state because he bears the name Bulgarian... Waiting for your patriotic intervention, we are pleased to inform you that we have in our disposition the armed forces we have spared by now..." This appeal was written by Gruev himself (Безсмъртният Даме Груев (17.XII.1871 - 23.XII.1906). Проф. д-р Веселин Трайков. сп. Македонски преглед, година XIX, 1996, кн. 4, изд. Македонския научен институт, стр. 20-21). The whole text in English and the scanned original can be seen in collection "Macedonia, documents and materials", Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of history, Bulgarian language institute, Sofia 1978, Document #72, Letter No. 534. More how the letter was written and send to the government see: Mercia MacDermott, Freedom or Death, The Life of Gotsé Delchev, Journeyman Press, London & West Nyack, 1978, p. 379. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You now presented tertiary source (EB) and another primary source (the appeal sent to the Bulgarian government by the Ilinden uprising's leaders). Having in mind their difficult situation, I would not be surprised if they wrote an appeal to Japanese government claiming that Japanese people of Macedonia are endangered. You might be right about Gruev's self identification, but it would be necessary to present reliable secondary sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have provided one by Mercia MacDermott, Freedom or Death, The Life of Gotsé Delchev, Journeyman Press. It is a secondary source. She has described Gruev in Macedono-Bulgarian ethno-regional context on pp. 95-105, 107, 118-119, 126, 134-135, 137, 143, 160-161, 176, 180-182, 230, 235, 264-265, 320, 346, 348-349, 353, 366-370, 379, 382. She states also in general: "Up until about one hundred years ago, the Slav population of Macedonia was universally considered to be Bulgarian. Since then, however, a number of different theories have been advanced, theories which are mutually exclusive but which have as their common denominator a desire to convince the Macedonian Slavs and the world at large that they are not Bulgarian, but something else. Since, however, contemporary sources make it unequivocally clear that, during the period covered by this book, the Slavs of Macedonia both regarded themselves as Bulgarian and were regarded as such by the world at large, the term 'Macedonian' is here used not only in the general geographical sense, but also to describe that section of the Bulgarian people which traditionally inhabited Macedonia, forming the largest ethnic community there, and which created the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization in order to free the territory from Ottoman domination." Jingiby (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Jingiby. This is an article about Gruev and this discussion is about your position that in 1906 Gruev has selfidentified as Bulgarian and died as Bulgarian. Please don't continue to present sources and quotes that do not directly confirm your position about Gruev. No doubt you know that Gruev is extremely important for Macedoinan ethnicity building and your position that he was actually not Macedonian but Bulgarian is exemptional claim that requires exemptional sources. Work of Mercia MacDermott, the chairwoman of the London-based English–Bulgarian Association who was an honorary citizen of Karlovo and Blagoevgrad and bearer of a number of Bulgarian state decorations surely can not be considered as exemtional in this case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Really. Check all about 20 primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the article and on talk again. All confirm he was a Bulgarian, including Britannica. As you know, Macedonian identity is as a whole post-WWII construct, but it already searches its roots in Ancient Greek mythology and even in the Bible. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I really and most sincerely don't understand you. You initiated this discussion with statement that in 1906 Gruev has selfidentified as Bulgarian and died as Bulgarian. Now you say that it is me who should check 20 sources used in the article to prove that your claim is correct. Why do you expect me to prove your position? If all sources including 20 sources used in the article explicitly and directly say that in 1906 Gruev has selfidentified as Bulgarian and died as Bulgarian, why did you initiate this discussion at all? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. Jingiby (talk)

Check all about 20 primary, secondary and tertiary sources in the article and on talk again. All confirm he was a Bulgarian, including Britannica. Incorrect. Let me remind you that it was you who added cited assertion about Gruev's Macedonian ethnicity with this edit (diff). This assertion is still in the article. Whatever was your intention with initiating this discussion, continuing with it does not make any sense at all. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)