Talk:Kresna–Razlog uprising

message: Is this the same as Razlog Uprising? Should it be merged? ForeignerFromTheEast 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work Jingiby and Lantonov, the article is shaping up quite well! I have redirected Razlog Uprising to this article, if you want to add any information from it to the one here refer to the redirect's history. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 19:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I can't believe this:Kresna -Razlog uprising is Bulgarian uprising too?!!LOOOL!!!Come on!Bulgarians haven't upriings against Turks,at all.OK,there is one in april 1876,but this is more Russian war against Turks.You are really poor and sick forgers of Macedonian history,you are all but not a persons who can write encyclopedia,and this who approve this, must know, that with his approval, he help Bulgarians to legalize their genocide toward Macedonian people!I hope you will receive that you deserve!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.222.184.4 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why am I not surprised?
person:       	Dimitar Mecev (Димитър Мечев)
address:      	MisTik-Netcom 
address:      	46  Blagoj Jankov (Благой Янков) Muceto Str. 
address:      	Strumica 
address:      	Macedonia 
phone:       	38934327310
 
fax-no:       	38934327310
Read a little more academic (not Skopje-forged) literature and you will eventually become a believer. Lantonov 06:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't believe 

message: The uprising in that time was known as Macedonian Uprising and that's not vandalism.--Ssschhh (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonian Uprising

message: Can we, please, rename the article into: Macedonian Uprising. It is clear that the Uprising was named: "Macedonian Uprising" by the insurgents. Please refer to the stamp they used: Macedonian Uprising. --GStojanov (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The name of the article

message: Gurther, all primary sources are from Macedonia: Documents and Materials (Sofia, 1978), issued by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the rest are secondary. Macedonia: Documents and Materials  is available on google books on several places for fact checking. The same book is cited by many international researchers in different academic publications as reliable source.Please explain which sources are not reliable and your motivation about. Nothing is self-evident. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingiby, from what i could search through the book, the only letter it analyzed was a letter from Dimitar Pop Gjorgiev to Gjorgjija Pulevski, no mentions of the other letters, which is why the tag is being kept unless further sources are provided Gurther (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gurther,  you do not provide any justification as to which source and why it is not reliable. Jingiby (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingiby, im talking about the book you gave me as a source, from the limited view i could get the only letter it analyzed was the one i already had mentioned, if there are pages of others which prove me wrong feel free to share them. Gurther (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gurther, I don't think you understand what you're talking about at all. In this case, it is not important whether you are convinced of what the cited documents are about, but whether they were published in a reliable source. If they are published in a trusted source, you cannot put such a tag. Jingiby (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingiby, i don't think you understand what im trying to say, if you want those letters as valid they have to be mentioned first in a academic reliable book, so far i could only find the book mentioning one letter (i already mentioned it in the first message) this means that for now that letter is reliable but the rest are not, hence why the tag is added, i will ask you again to provide anything that supports all those letters, because if the book does not then the tag is sticking. Gurther (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gurtner, what you found and what you didn't have nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, so I ask that it be removed. Jingiby (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingiby, since you keep missing my point I'll phrase this in a simple request, if you provide links or photos to the pages which have supported all the letters present in the article i will freely remove the tag. Gurther (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I already explained why - the Marinov source does not back up what the statements actually says, and the other 3 sources don't mention the uprising at all. I also cited a policy backing up my actions. Kluche (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Kluche, you can use a tag if you're disputing a statement and then discuss it, instead of removing it outright. The wording can be sorted out. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: StephenMacky1 I removed it judging your statement and edit here. Regards. Kluche (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Jingiby, this is your third revert, if you do not calm down you will be reported for violating WP:3RR Gurther (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone explain what is going on here? A huge amount of credible primary and secondary sources in the English language, I'm talking dozens of such sources, are being removed along with the text they support. At the same time, a tag is placed for unreliable sources and an edit war is waged. This is a complete madhouse! Jingiby (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gurther, what are the dubious sources that there are probably none left?Jingiby (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingiby, all the letters, the rest of the books are fine. Gurther (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Jingiby, you do realize that you began the edit war? As a matter of fact the only person with three reverts is you, nobody has edit warned other then you. Also a lot of those sources were removed due to the fact they weren't related to the subject. Gurther (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ?!? Jingiby (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingiby, i removed unreliable quotes from a BPOV site the edit was perfectly normal, although your revert on the other hand has so far been unjustified. Gurther (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Jingiby, Marinov's source really doesn't appear to support the statement. It appears to talk about the same documents which Bulgarian historians consider to be forgeries and not about any other documents. at least from what I can see. I recommend removing the statement, but retaining Marinov's source, since it's still useful. If you want to retain the statement, you can add sources which explicitly and directly deem the Macedonian ethnic interpretation of the events to be wrong. The tag about unreliable sources should be removed too, if there are no objections. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello everybody. As far as logical thinking and common sense allow me to make analyses, I will present my position. It is obvious that there was no developed Macedonian national identity at that time and this is confirmed by the sources in the article. It is also clear from them that there are only two documents that support the Macedonian historians' thesis of the existence of such a widely advocated identity. However, these documents are considered to be forgeries by their Bulgarian counterparts, because no such originals have been found, and there are problems in their vocabulary, spelling, etc. From now on, it is clear that the remaining documents from the uprising obviously do not support the Macedonian side's thesis. By the way, about a dozen primary documents supporting the Bulgarian thesis, which were available in an academic source, were deleted. Since they were unjustifiably removed, the tag that was placed because of them should also be removed as mentioned above. Moreover, the editor who posted it confirmed that it is already redundant also above. Now I understand that my way of thinking espoused here is not accepted as authoritative one. So I will add a new source with explicit text, as apparently the other editors insist on having. The text in Bulgarian reads: Цялата документация на Кресненско-Разложкото въстание показва българския характер на въстанието и населението от Македония. (The entire documentation of the Kresna-Razlog uprising reveals the Bulgarian nature of the uprising and the population of Macedonia). Jingiby (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingiby, this stance of yours has lots of issues, for starters the sources who support the theory that the Macedonian identity didn't exist back then dont mention the Macedonian uprising anywhere, because of this those sources fall under WP:SYNTH. Those "dozen" sources weren't proper sources, and came from a BPOV sites, the book you attempted to use to promote the BPOV site doesn't even mention all the letters you've tried to defend, it only mentions one letter (which isn't even cited in the article), honestly i've considered sending an appeal to the reliable sources committe about promacedonia and to see if its even the slightest bit reliable, if they consider the site unreliable then all future usage of the site for citation will be removed Gurther (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

text: You can restore the Macedonia: Documents and Materials source too with all of the relevant page numbers, instead of having excess citations from the same source. I believe the editor above was asking for the page numbers from that source too. At the end of the day, it should be readable. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: StephenMacky1, from what i could access the book, only one letter is ever mentioned, i asked Jingiby yesterday to atleast provide pages for the other letters but so far no response on that matter. Gurther (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources tag