Talk:Yane Sandanski

Removed sentence

Hello Jingiby. I think the sentence sufficiently explained why the idea of the politician was wrong so I do not see what is undue here, plus it is reliably sourced. The Cold War era was controversial but that does not mean it cannot be covered. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but even for me is not clearly understandable. Jingiby (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the source, everything about Poptomov from the cited page: Poptomov is of the opinion that the IMRO and the Ilinden Uprising purported to ‘political autonomy of Macedonia’, and surprisingly not to national independence, while the BCP suffered in the struggle for self-determination for the Macedonian people. Referring to the central figures of the IMRO, Deltsev and Santanski, Poptomov says that they were ‘sons of the Macedonian narod’, whereas they held the progressive and liberation ideas of Bulgaria and spoke and wrote only in Bulgarian. He considers the Macedonian population of Pirin to be very close and bound to the Bulgarian nation. I think the second part of the sentence about the progressive and liberation ideas is an observation from Sygkelos. Having access to Poptomov's 1948 source could have given more context but I do not think it hurts to have more context about what Bulgaria and Yugoslavia did in this period. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

What I find on the subject is a book under the title "A Cry in the Dream". Materials about Vladimir Poptomov's resistance against Macedonianization in the Pirin region (1944-1949). It was collected by the historian Veselin Angelov. See here. Sandanski and Delchev are mentioned several times. Jingiby (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

All right. I could not find an excerpt from the 1948 source Talk about the Macedonian Ilinden Uprising in 1903 on the occasion of its 45 Anniversary (Доклад за Македонското Илинденско Въстание в 1903 г. по случай 45–годишнината му) though, which is the one cited in Sygkelos' book. I understand better now how it might be undue though so I will not mind if the sentence gets retracted. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, check Macdermott's book on Sandanski. On p. 42 is clearly explained the case with his activity as a Radoslavov's party member. Jingiby (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

She does not confirm it because she wrote: The indications are that, at this stage, he must have been an active supporter of the Radoslavov Liberal Party, which, following the fall of the Stoïlov Government in January 1899, became the leading force in a new coalition Government. Anyway her book is from 1988 so I do not expect everything to be up to date. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Jingiby, I think I am inclined to agree with the removal of the parties that Sandanski supported from the lead, including the detail about his position in the Dupnitsa prison. Not everything belongs in the lead. I think we can follow the rule of three here. If three sources can be provided about each of those details, then they can stay, but otherwise they are already mentioned in the body. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, as long as the article contains two other, much more recent sources in Bulgarian that confirm the information about his party activism in the Liberal Party, I see no problem with this info. See: Тюлеков, Д. (2001) Обречено родолюбие. ВМРО в Пиринско 1919-1934 г., Унив. изд. “Неофит Рилски”, Благоевград, ISBN 9548187566, стр. 11 and Деметра Андонова, интервю с д-р Георги Георгиев: Яне Сандански заслужава паметен знак в Дупница, но обществото ни не е готово за този дебат. 18.05.2019 г. Kamerton. Otherwise, this man was rather a controversial person and often changed his membership in different parties and organizations. This is his characteristic trait and I see no reason to remove it. Jingiby (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

User:19999o, see the discussion above. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

19999o, why do you keep changing the romanization of people's names? For your information, it is not even the correct Macedonian romanization, at least as used by academics. I see no reason to change it. The romanization should be consistent throughout the article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I have seen Goce and Gjorche being used in sources, even the Bulgarian author Chris Kostov has used Goce in Contested Ethnic Identity on p. 95. Also I have seen in Balkan Identities Nation and Memory on p. 238, Terrorism: A History, etc. Gjorche has been used by the Bulgarian historian Plamen Tzvetkov in A History of the Balkans A Regional Overview from a Bulgarian Perspective · Volume 2 on p. 82. as well I have seen in Balkan Inferno Betrayal, War and Intervention, 1990-2005 on p. 456, Macedonia: A Voyage through History Volume 2, etc. I think it is a fine consensus between Macedonian and Bulgarian romanization. 19999o (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not disputing that they are used by sources. I just think it is unnecessary to mix between romanizations and cause an inconsistency. Even sources are a mixed ball when it comes to romanization. That is why I prefer sources like Entangled Histories of the Balkans, which have several international contributors and established romanization principles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Well in Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume One on p. 419, Tchavdar Marinov does explain this, so the most NPOV way would be to put both of the romanization at first, and let the editors choose randomly which one they will use as Marinov suggests. For example on p. 300 he uses Goce Delčev/Gotse Delchev and on p. 304: Gjorče/Gyorche Petrov. 19999o (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

That's how he applies romanization in Macedonian and Bulgarian. We already insert both romanizations in the lead, especially in the first sentence for translations. Anyway MOS:ROMANISATION states: Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. So, it is not something that editors choose randomly, plus I think that would make matters complicated. If a subject was discussed in an article exclusively in the context of one country, I guess it would make sense to apply the romanization from that country only there, and I think that is already a practice here. Otherwise, we do not use both romanizations in the body, as done by Marinov. StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

References