Talk:Boatmen of Thessaloniki

message: The neutrality of this article is very poor. The attribute Bulgarian is subtly attached to anarchist group over several edits where the source is blog that discusses "Bulgarian Macedo-Adrianopolitan Revolutionary Terrorism". IMRO stands for Internal Macedonian (Adrianopolitan) Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) and has no Bulgarian adjective. It has a reason why it has no Bulgarian adjective and that is because it is Macedonian. Please refer to neutral sources to support your claims (Toci (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  All included in this article. References, sources, primary, secondary, in Bulgarian language, in English, in Greek etc. Check them one by one if you wаnt. Bellow are also two Macedonian sources:
* Академик Иван Катарџиев, "Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот", интервjу, "Форум": "форум – Дали навистина Делчев се изјаснувал како Бугарин и зошто? Катарџиев – Ваквите прашања стојат. Сите наши луѓе се именувале како „Бугари“..."; also (in Macedonian; in English: "Academician Ivan Katardzhiev. I believe in Macedonian national immunity", July 22, 2000,issue 329, "Forum" magazine, interview: "Forum – Whether Gotse Delchev really identified himself as Bulgarian and why? Katardzhiev – Such questions exist. All our people named themselves as "Bulgarians"...")
*"Уште робуваме на старите поделби", Разговор со д-р Зоран Тодоровски, (in Macedonian; in English: "We are still in servitude to the old divisions", interview with PhD Zoran Todorovski, published on , 27. 06. 2005. Трибуна: Дел од јавноста и некои Ваши колеги историчари Ве обвинуваат дека промовирате зборник за човек (Тодор Александров) кој се чувствувал како Бугарин. Кој наш револуционерен деец од ВМРО му противречел на Александров по тоа прашање? Тодоровски - Речиси никој. Уште робуваме на поделбата на леви и десни. Во етничка, во национална смисла сите биле со исти сознанија, со иста свест. In English: Tribune: Part of the public and some from your fellow historians accuse you for promotining a collection for man (Todor Alexandrov) who felt himself as Bulgarian. Are there some of our IMRO revolutionary activist who opposed him on that issue? Todorovski - Almost none.  We are still in servitude to the old divisions of left and right. Ethnically, in a national sense, they all were  with the same sentiments, with the same (Bulgarian) consciousness.  Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgarian sources and bias

message: I propose this article to be merged into Thessaloniki bombings of 1903. The both articles are about the same events in Salonica. Jingby (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, sorry m-r Arachinovo, but you must've missed the organization bit. Organizations have their leaders since they are organized. On theory Communists shouldn't have a leader as well ;) --Laveol T 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the so-called bulgarian high-school link in the article...leads to a potentially bias wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Men%27s_High_School_of_Thessaloniki
where all the sources cited are bulgarian.
in absence of neutral sources,it is best to call the high-school by its real name.
"Ss. Cyril and Methodius".
just because a bulgarian reverts the correct name of the school to the bulgarian-bias wikipedia "bulgarian high-school" does not mean that he will change history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goce.chekorov (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Acording to an external link added to this article, which consists from materials from the Archives from the Salonica Branch of Ottoman Bank, in April 1903 the Bulgarian comitadjis whose aim was to arouse the attention and the intervention of European opinion, multiplied their attacks. The development of these events led to the realisation of this aim and the Ottoman powers were obliged to accept certain reforms under pressure from the Great Powers. The explosion on 15 April aboard the Guadalquivir, a French vessel anchored in the port of Salonica, is only an episode in the incidents which followed. Half an hour later, the railway station was blown up. In the evening of 29 April, the main gas pipe was destroyed and the entire city was immediately plunged into darkness. Keep in mind that in April 1903 neither Macedonian nation, nor Macedonian language existed. Check the added into the articl sources and stop nonsenses. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

text: The school is mentioned by the name used in its Wikipedia article. The full name ("Sts. Cyril and Methodius Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki") is mentioned there. Nothing wrong with that. There's no reason to assume it's a "potentially biased" article either. And before you start accusing me of Bulgarian-bias too, I don't give a toss about Bulgaria or Macedonia, I care about the quality of the articles on WP. If anybody here appears to be biased, it's you. Please find proper sources for your changes before you make them again. Also, your edits were breaking wiki links, please be a little more careful. Thanks, Yintan  20:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to assume (as you do) that these sources are biased or fake simply because they are Bulgarian. If you can indeed find verifiable, third party sources that say the school has a different name, or is Greek, then it's another story but for now there's nothing to support your claims. WP wants sources. See als WP:NOTTRUTH. One quick quote from there: "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." Thanks, Yintan  20:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "bulgarian" high school in thessaloniki 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Boatmen of Thessaloniki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714223745/http://www.obarsiv.com/english/as-salonica-branch.html to http://www.obarsiv.com/english/as-salonica-branch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: citation 11. Do you think its quite accurate or not? i fear that it isn't. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This can not go on. Why do you start discussions based solely on "fears"?Cinadon36 (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

text: What I have spotted is WP:CLOP.Cinadon36 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentences are the same, the next are not. So its not  WP:CLOP for sure. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is CLOP since the first sentence is the same. I 'll fix it. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: please check 2

message: Hi . I have noticed that you removed the phrase "the negationist " as unsourced, but one can read at ref number 11 of current version: "This open acknowledgment of the Macedonian national identity led to the creation of a revisionist historiography whose goal has been to affirm the existence of the Macedonian nation through the history. Macedonian historiography is revising a considerable part of ancient, medieval, and modern histories of the Balkans." Hence the word "denialist" is sourced. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you cite says "revisionist", you say "denialist", the lede said "negationist". Those are not necessarily interchangable terms. Anyway, discussion or evaluation of Macedonian historiography is undue for the lede in this article. --T*U (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your quick respond T*U. Maybe we could change the word from "denialist" to "revisionist" Cinadon36 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Already answered: "discussion or evaluation of Macedonian historiography is undue for the lede in this article" --T*U (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you T*U. It was obvious a mistake, but it was solved now. Thank you. Just to mention that Greek and Bulgarian nations were built during 19century, but Greek and Bulgarian (state) historiography try to affirm the existence of their nation through the history. The big difference with (North)Macedonians is that they are a newer nation about some 100 years from Greeks and Bulgarians.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Please, read the leading sentences from the article Historical negationism: "Historical negationism or denialism is an illegitimate distortion of the historical record. It is often imprecisely or intentionally incorrectly referred to as historical revisionism, but that term also denotes a legitimate academic pursuit of re-interpretation of the historical record and questioning the accepted views."Jingiby (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jingiby, worth noting that the sentence you are referring to is well sourced. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: the [[negationist]]