Talk:Todor Aleksandrov

History cannot be an object of trade

When somebody clearly self-identified his ethnicity during his life, the post-mortem bargaining and “consensuses” about that are a charlatan exercise! --37.157.176.194 (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

New Look

I hope nobody objects to my remake of this article. Todor Aleksandrov's ethnicity is disputed ... and therefore it is unfair to confidently define his ethnicity. I have removed words such as Bulgarian and Macedonian and instead have made a section explaining the current political situation regarding ethnicity ... stolen from the Goce Delchev article. Visually, compare the old article with my newer version. I have also renamed the article to a better spelling of Aleksandrov as well as renaming all links as such. --Daniel Tanevski ^talk 13:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian or Bulgarian

Please compare FunkyFly's edits with mine. I think that this could be a compromise between Macedonians and Bulgarians. Please comment. Is there something which the Bulgarian users object to? --Daniel Tanevski ^talk 03:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

pictures

I've added lots of pictures from commons, hope you arrange them in a well manner --Andersmusician $ 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the Macedonians insist on the presence of the paragraph about the presumable controversial ethnicity.Everyone, who is at least a little bit aware of the activity of Todor Alexandrov knows that he was one of the most fanatical supporters for annexation of Macedonia by Bulgaria.This is a well-known fact and therefore when Bulgarian political activists built a monument of Aleksandrov in Veles, the local authorities opposed and made everything possible to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BG89 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Erasing sourced information

Strich3d, the name of the organization which Todor Alexandrov joined is BMARC, also it is wholly unsourced he declared as "ethnic Macedonian", also your edits are not in line with sources provided. Mr. Neutron 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The current statements seem to be well sources as much as I can tell. One thing missing from the article is stating that he fought for autonomous macedonian state (whatever that meant then), and the picture that strich3d put is quite relevant in that way, and I believe that it can be used in wikipedia under the 'fair use' subsection, though correct me if I am wrong Capricornis 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually put the statement about independent Macedonian state back. Personally I dont see any problem that someone with Bulgarian ethnicity fought for independent Macedonian state. Care to diagree? Scotsmen fighting for independent Canada? ForeignerFromTheEast 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't feel competent enough (yet) to comment on his ethnicity. What is your objection to the picture strich3d put in? Capricornis 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture does not show Alexandrov himself. Read the description on the site. I dont see whats the point in including it here. Not to mention it lacks proper license. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You know very well whats the point of included image

p.s. why ForeignerFromEast is saying different things than Neutron when it is the same person? or you are ill? --strich3D 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the picture srich3d uploaded should be included in this article, as it shows Alexandrov's family and give s more light on the controversy surrounding him and his ethnicity. As for the license, you are expert on that ForeignerFromTheEast, what needs to be done for that image to be used on wikipedia ;) ? Capricornis 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The interview of Aleksandrov for the London newspapper "The Times"

I have a link from the interview of Aleksandrov for the english newspapper "The Times". There Alexandrov reffer to the goals of his battle for "Macedonia to the Macedonians". This is an authentic document, so I propose to include something about this interview into main article. I will no change the article now, please consider my suggestion. Links: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5910/19240104p11ej9.png - for the first part of the interview http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/2896/19240104p12qo2.png - for the second part of the intereview The link of the web page: http://vmro-istorija.blog.com.mk/node/93623 Best regards!

Quote

ako nekoj kaze ne sme makedonci mu rezem ezika, ako nekoj kaze ne sme blgari mu rezem glavata.

Todor Aleksandrov

If someone said we are not Macedonian, I'll cut his tongue off. If someone said we are not Bulgarian, I'll cut his head off.

2008 monument controversy???

that section is ridiculous and brings local squabbles into an encyclopedia..

As per sources such incident occurred. Please, revert your edis, they resemble vandalism or provide your sources. Jingby (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Bulgarian hysteria in Macedonia

2 March 2008 | 13:47 |

Again a monument of eminent Bulgarian connected with VMRO and Macedonian liberation movement was destroyed. The monument of Todor Alexandrov is put up in the yard of the house of Dragi Kargov in Veles by the demand of the Initiative Committee for commemoration of Todor Alexandrov’s deed. Last night at about 4am the monument was destroyed and splashed with black paint. Regardless of that the monument was partly restored and will be unveiled again on Sunday.

Security measures at inauguration of Todor Alexandrov monument

2 March 2008 | 13:32 | FOCUS News Agency

Veles. The initiative committee for commemoration of Todor Alexandrov’s deeds called upon Macedonian Ministry of Interior to undertake extra security measures at the time of the unveiling of the monument of Todor Alexandrov in the town of Veles, the committee told FOCUS News Agency. The monument will be dedicated to an anniversary of Todor Alexandriov on March 4.

Mayor of Veles threatens to destroy again the monument

2 March 2008 | 14:18 | FOCUS News Agency

Veles. Mayor of Veles threatened that tomorrow the whole monument of Todor Alexandrov will be destroyed, journalist and member of the initiative committee of commemoration of Todor Alexandrov’s deed Viktor Kanzurov told FOCUS News Agency. The reason for Mayor’s threat is that the monument has been illegally put up, non the less that it was situated in the yard of private property.

There were previous violations of monument of Todor Alexandrov

2 March 2008 | 15:28 | FOCUS News Agency

Veles. There was another violation of the monument of Todor Alexandrov in Veles on Thursday, February 28, Dragi Karo,v who put up the monument in the yard of his own house, said for FOCUS News Agency. He restored the monument on the next day, Friday. “For 15 days I’ve been fighting against the Serbian communist bandits, against the Serbian janissary state security. They’ve been sending me orders to take the monument away. They put it off I put it back up. That’s been going for several days. I’ve been guarding it all night but in the moment I fell asleep state security sent people who splashed the monument with black paint and took it down. I put it back up, painted it and it is like brand new now,’ Dragi Karov said. He declared that he had been told that the Mayor of Vesel and state security tomorrow, Monday, with a police cordon from Skopje would take the monument down by force. He pointed out that this was against the law since private property was untouchable. He added that Todor Alexandrov and Vanche Mihailov were the most prominent heroes of the independence of Macedonia. He announced that for 17 years the Bulgarians had been put under constant terror in Macedonia and that’s why people feared to come at the official unveiling of the monument. No one would dare admitting that he was a Bulgarian according to him.

Things will come to court if the monument is taken down again: IMRO leader

2 March 2008 | 15:44 | FOCUS News Agency

Veles. If the monument of Todor Alexandrov in Veles, that was unveiled today, was taken down again things would come to court, Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization leader Krasimir Karakachanov who is presently in Veles said for FOCUS News Agency. The Mayor of Veles had declared that the monument had to be taken down. Spokesperson of Social Democratic Union of Macedonia had made an appeal that no such acts of Bulgarians should be allowed. All Macedonian media had been talking about that, and it had also been mentioned that there were some Macedonian citizens kidnapped and robbed in Bulgaria. According to Mr Karakachanov this was classical pattern for creation of negative attitudes.

Sources in English about the incident were added. Jingby (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No discussion is held nor sources are provided from User:46.217.20.224. Jingby (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of the term Bulgarian in this article and its substitution with the term Macedonian is POV

Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th, up until the early 20th century. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later. However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed. According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed. After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness. With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population. In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation.

References and notes

Jingby (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Todor Aleksandrov. 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/20111015174126/http://www.fasopo.org/reasopo/n25/art_tm.pdf to http://www.fasopo.org/reasopo/n25/art_tm.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Todor Aleksandrov. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.todoralexandrov.org/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20040715154659/http://todoralexandrov.hit.bg/gallery/grob2.html to http://todoralexandrov.hit.bg/gallery/grob2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Letter to Karamfilov.

I cannot understand why the letter to Karamfilov should be censored down to one sentence for which no secondary source is presented, and text based on a secondary source for the same letter is arbitrarily removed. I do not agree with such practices.Jingiby (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

My main issue is that we are talking about an excerpt of the letter, not the whole letter, hence why I removed that part. Also, I think that the description of the letter would be too long. I have no intention of edit-waring, and I believe that a compromise can be reached. Best regards. Kluche (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I have warned you that trying to focus the comment on one sentence of the letter and omit the quintessence was absolutely incorrect and resembled original research. Here is the view of the Macedonian researcher about the quintessence of the same letter: Во адресираното за Владимир Карамфилов писмо од 6 јули 1919 год., Т. Александров објаснил: „Внатре[шната] М.-О. Р. Орга[низација] никогаш во својот устав не го употребувала поимот ’самостојна (автономна)‘ Македонија, како што ти пишуваш. Во нејзиниот устав беше поставена цел: автономија на Македонија, и тоа како етапа. Таа цел така ја сфатиле не само основачите на Орг[анизацијата], но практично и сите другари и следбеници, од целата македон[ска] интелигенција и од целото макед[онско] организ[ирано] население“. Со други зборови, за Тодор Александров борбата за автономија на Македонија била само етапа во борбата за припојување на Македонија кон Бугарија. Rough translation: In the letter addressed to Vladimir Karamfilov dated July 6, 1919, T. Alexandrov explained: "The internal organization never used the term 'independent' Macedonia in its constitution, as you write. In its constitution, a goal was set: the autonomy of Macedonia, and that as a stage. This goal was understood not only by the founders of the Organization, but practically by all comrades and followers, from the entire Macedonian intelligentsia and the entire Macedonian organized population." In other words, for Todor Aleksandrov, the struggle for the autonomy of Macedonia was only a stage in the struggle for the annexation of Macedonia to Bulgaria. For more see: Ленина Жила, Виенска „стапица“. Историја на преговорите меѓу СССР и ВМРО на Тодор Александров. Институт за национална историjа, Скопиjе, 2014, стр. 275. Jingiby (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's original research - the first source is verefied by the second source - a reputable site used in many similar articles. Here's the entire excerpt of the letter, including the text on the sidelines: 5. Не е вярно, че емиграцията от автономистите искала автономия, а не присъединение. Тъкмо противното е вярно, защото сички схващат, че автономията носи неизвестни и нови борби. От това се плашат и чужденците, което личи от мн[огото] статии във вестн[иците] им. Сички възприемаме автономията или по-право създаване независима Македония като по-малко зло пред невъзможността да се обединим сега. Само теснякът болшевик Х[аджи]димов, анархистът-лентяй Герджиков, шмекерът- велзевул Георче и изменниците и в миналото, и сега на бълг[арския] народ санданисти говорят и агитират, че трябва да се иска автономия на Македония, защото тя е отделна икономич[еска] и географическа единица с отделен „македонски народ”, със своя история от столетия и за да не плащали дълговете на България, а някои от тях се заканват така: „Ако по чудо бъде дадена цяла Македония на България, ние ще се борим с оръжие в ръка, за да не позволим това обединение.”

6. Бълг[арското] население в Макед[ония] е още по-единодушно за обединен[ието] с България, ако може да стане то. По това има трогателни сцени в цяла Македония...

7. Бълг[арската] емиграция в Америка, Швейцария и др. също така е единодушна.

8. С мафията Георче - Х[аджи]димов - Герджиков са само 2 братства от по 50-60 чл[ена] в София и в 7-8 града в България по 20-80 души най-много, и то повече бившите санданисти - младотурски оръдия и неосведомени лица. Те секи ден губят почва под краката.

9. В Македония ние по-добре знаем що иска бълг[арското] население от секи друг, защото връзките ни с там са големи. Що се отнася до борбата с Георчевци в Македония, от която Вие тъй много се плашите, тя е не лесна или почти няма да има такава борба, защото, ако, не дай Боже, Македония остане под робство, сички „борци-автономисти” сега ще се скрият в миши дупки, както направиха (1906-1918 год.) и знае се кой ще продължи борбата, а ако се получи свобода, независимост на Македония, населението вътре познава добре своите безкористни и смели водители, научи през борбите и злоупотребителите и малодушните, та първите години поне няма по никой начин да се излъже.

Сърд[ечни] поздрави Т. Александров

P. S. Като искате споразумение с „Георчевци”, губите време напразно - биете вода в хаван, защото това е абсолютно невъзможно: те са непримирими по много причини, които не мога да ти изброя. Чети бюлетините им и ще узнаеш непримиримостта, а истинските причини ще ти кажа при случай.

Същият

P. S. Добре е по-скоро да избере братството Ви 2 делегата за събора на братствата тук - може да си изберете ти и Благов напр[имер] и да идвате на 1 неделен ден тук, когато има заседание съборът, за да изучавате направо положението тук, „различията” и новините и да държите в течение и чл[еновете] на братството.

Същият.”

I mainly oppose your explination due to cluttering the whole textbox. I have no problem in making your explination a note.

Best regards. Kluche (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Please keep Wikipedia's basic principles such as neutrality, rejection of original research, reaching consensus on talk and the use of reliable secondary sources. Above proposal is far away of them. Jingiby (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The first source I linked (and the source of the letter) is by Bilyarski - who is already mentioned in another source in the article. The second source is from a reputable, commonly-used site, which I've seen many editors (including yourself) use.

The synopsis I gave is not original research - it's the same words (even tamer) used in the letter, especially the second half of the sentence. Again, I'm willing to translate the entire excerpt of the letter (from the reputable source).

The current discussion is aiming to reach a consensus, so I fail to see how I'm violating said principle. Kluche (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you then present a secondary source that describes the letter the way you do, and emphasizes that sentence? That is, you should support your claim that a small part of the letter is the most important with a reliable source. Otherwise, this is your personal opinion, with which I and the secondary sources presented by me do not agree. If you cannot find such a source supporting exclusively your POV, use the presented ones and what they say. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat again - that part is in the letter, confirmed by both of my sources. And again - I'm fine with having an entire translation of the excerpt of the letter. Your secondary source talks about the letter as a whole, not the excerpt I have presented. The part which I've written does not need to be emphasized, but should be included as it is in the excerpt of the letter.

I suggest that a note should be added with the full translation of the excerpt from Bulgarian, and the short description being along the lines of "An excerpt of a letter written by Todor Aleksandrov to Vladimir Karamfilov, dated July 6 1919, where he confirms his views on the Macedonian Question. There, he wrote about the program of IMRO and its goals and tactical plans, emphasizing that the autonomy of Macedonia was understood only as a stage in the organization's struggle for the unification of the Bulgarian people. Aleksandrov also states that "the narrow-minded Bolshevik Hadždimov, the anarchist-lazy Gerdzhikov, the snitch-beelzebub Gjorče" were agitating for "an autonomous Macedonia as a separate economic and geographic unit with a separate Macedonian people with a history spanning hundreds of years."

The text in quotation marks is a direct translation from the letter.

Also you could add your secondary source at the end of the text.

I fail to see how the solution I mentioned above breaks any Wikipedia rules and principles. Kluche (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, after the text will be translated and available to the readers, I suggest that we do not quote it, but paraphrase the second part as well, as you suggest for the first part of the description. I offer you the following edit: "Aleksandrov also accused Hadzhdimov, Gerdzhikov and Petrov they were agitating for another kind of autonomous Macedonia, i.e. as a distinct political entity with a separate people and its own history." I have written the names of the revolutionaries, as they are in the titles of the articles about them, that is standard. Jingiby (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, this seems as a reasonable compromise. I'll get to translating the text as soon as possible. Kluche (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)