Talk:Pavel Shatev

Clearing out the nationalist tags

The introduction for this article is a bit confusing. Do we no need to write if Pavel Shatev is Bulgarian and Macedonian in a same time? Why not just write:

Pavel Potsev Shatev (Bulgarian and Macedonian: Павел Поцев Шатев), (1882 - 1951), was a lawyer, anarchist and a member of the left wing of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (IMARO), later becoming an left-wing political activist.[1][2][3][4]

How does this sound to the neutral or Bulgarian editors?

Toci (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As an arguably neutral editor, I'm fine with your proposal. --Local hero ^talk 22:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem? He identified himself as a Bulgarian during his life. There are 3 primary sources (books) written by Shatev himself in differet periods, where he described himself and his compatriot as Bulgarians in ethnic sense. There is also a secondary source: an interview with the Macedonian Academician Katardzhiev. According to him such Macedonian activists as Shatev, who came from IMRO (United) and the Bulgarian Communist Party never managed to get rid of their pro-Bulgarian sentiments and on many issues opposed the Serbian-educated Yugoslav leaders, who held most of the political power. Pavel Shatev went as far as to send a petition to the Bulgarian legation in Belgrade protesting the anti-Bulgarian policies of the Yugoslav leadership, the serbianization of the Macedonian language and the change of the original ethnic identity of the killed during the Ilinden uprising IMRO heroes from Bulgarian to the newly formed one - Macedonian. Katardziev claims they (all former IMRO (United) and BCP members) continued to feel themselves in practice as Bulgarians even in Yugoslavia. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no such statement for "Bulgarian and Macedonian in a same time". It is very well described that he is Bulgarian revolutionary, but in Republic of Macedonia he is considered "ethnic Macedonian" (despite his clear self-identification at that time), so there's no controversy. Your statement "neutral or Bulgarian editors" suggests that the Bulgarian editors are not neutral and I'm pretty sure that NPOV does not have nationality, so please refrain from such suggestions. --StanProg (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian sources and bias

Pavel Shatev, an anarchist by political beliefs, worked for the liberation of Macedonia from Ottoman rule. Shatev and his friends formed the terrorist group "Gemidjii" which carried out several bombings in order to attract the attention of European powers in regards to the deplorable situation in Macedonia. Wikipedia, offering a free-approach to any piece of information, is abused by Bulgarian nationals in order to spin facts relating to Macedonian culture and history to the favor of Bulgaria. Pavel Shatev fought for Macedonia and so did all Macedonian revolutionaries. What you are fighting for is a lost cause. It is not your war. Macedonia is not your country, but you do love it, and you do want it, and Bulgaria did become an aide to fascist Germany in order to annex Macedonia to its territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.103.63 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is very poor. Writing that Pavel Shatev is Bulgarian by refering to "reliable" Bulgarian sources is absurd. Please refer to neutral sources to support your claim, especially for persons that have chosen to live and die for and in Socialistic Republic of Macedonia (Toci (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC))

• Zielonka, Jan; Pravda, Alex (2001). Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 422. ISBN 978-0-19-924409-6. Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighboring nations.

• Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127. During the 20th century, Slavo Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.

• Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236. Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.

• "The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67. Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen.

• The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66. At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... 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.

• Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war. Jingiby (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Dear Jingiby. You copy-pasted the same general literature that shows that says that "all Macedonian villagers defined their identity either as 'Bulgarian,' 'Serbian,' or Greek'". This is a Bulgarian POV. In a spirit of neutrality of Wikipedia I would say that you should also consider the Macedonian POV. The Macedonians even 100 years ago found this differentiation as very entertaining, but also lethal if you were about to declare yourslef as Macedonian. That is why TMRO was a secret revolutionary organization of Macedonians fighting for Macedonia. The left VMRO wing (authonomous) fought the Bulgarians in the First and Second World War. They fought Ivan Mihailov's fashist wing of VMRO too that was representing Bulgarian interests. Pave Shatev was both in the left wing of VMRO and for Macedonia. Please look at the documentary about Pavel Shatev http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND9dR2ZNOUA. He was arrested, stayed in Bulgarian prison and being sentenced to death by the Bulgarian tzar Boris. Later he was pardoned, but stayed in prison. When he was released he returned to Macedonia in 1944 and he was a member of ASNOM. He was also misstreated by the UDBA, the secret service because he advocated and fought for independant Macedonia even under the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. (Toci (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC))

All sources from #1 to #3 are books written by Shatev himself. Two are in Bulgarian language and one translated in Macedonian. In all from them, on cited pages he identified himself as Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, he does not name himself as Bulgarian. His book is not a reference that supports that. It is a mainstream Bulgarian literature of its time. He would not be able to publish a book (he was a lawyer, political scientist and analyst and needed to publish books) where he mentions that there are Macedonians who fight for independant Macedonia. He discusses states, nations and nationalities. He mentions only indirectly souvernty of Macedonia (as background for the Macedonian nation). He mentions Bulgarians in a context of minorities and Bulgarian language (the language that was taught in schools in Ottoman Emprire). The Macedonians used "our" (Macedonian) language and Bulgarian language. If they spoke and write Bulgarian it did not meant that they were Bulgarian. I write in English, but I am Macedonian, because today it is not dangerous anymore to declare yourself as Macedonian. But then it was. It was a secret to be Macedonian. It was a secret Macedonian organization. Pavel Shatev was Macedonian and fought for Macedonian interests in the Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Bulgaria and even in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

When you find an internationally published article in prominent historical scientific journal or book saying that Pavel Shatev was declared as a Bulgarian I will cancel the neutrality tag. Please do not remove it by refering to the presented sources. They are superficial and show Bulgarian POV. Please do not refer to daily magazines or researchers in Republic of Macedonia or Bulgaria (they all serve someones interests). I can also add references from Macedonian magazines saying that Pavel Shatev is Macedonian. Are those reliable? The English Wikipedia must refer to English or scientific sources. If there are no sources the article should be neutral. Not mentioning what he was, but what he did. He was part of an anarchist group. Member of ASNOM. If you remove what he was and write what he did, I will also remove the neutrality tag (Toci (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC))

Actually, there seems to be enough evidence of Shatev's ethnic self-identification in his own writings (letters and books). You cannot require or demand (as you seem to be doing) English-language scholarly sources on him when there seem to be none. The only mentions of him are actually citations of his 1936 title. If you so wish, we could add a sentence going like "Due to the lack of English-language literature on Shatev, Macedonian trivial publications regard him as an ethnic Macedonian". However, there is no way we could disregard his own view and stance on the matter. --Laveol ^T 14:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Laveol, there is such text included into this article in the lede: "In Republic of Macedonian he is regarded as an ethnic Macedonian" or the like. However, you obviously didn't read the opinion of the best Macedonian historian expert of the IMRO-issue, the Academician Ivan Katardzhiev, who in an interview confirms that left-wing IMRO revolutionaries, including Shatev, considered themselves to be Bulgarians and continued to identify themselves de facto as Bulgarians even in Communist Yugoslavia:

ФОРУМ: Неодамна, во едно интервју, висока функционерка на ВМРО-ДПМНЕ, зборувајќи за тезата дека левицата во Македонија секогаш била ориентирана кон Белград, а десницата кон Софија, ми го посочи примерот на Димитар Влахов - левичар од ВМРО (Обединета), кој се декларирал како Бугарин.

КАТАРЏИЕВ: Да, тоа е точно. И не само Димитар Влахов. Павел Шатев, Панко Брашнаров, Ризо Ризов и др. Меѓутоа, овде тезата е погрешно поставена. Не е работата во тоа дали левицата се определуваше за Србија, а десницата за Бугарија. Тука се мешаат поимите. Практично, ни левицата ни десницата не ја доведуваа во прашање својата бугарска провениенција. Тоа ќе го доведе дури и Димитар Влахов во 1948 година на седница на Политбирото, кога говореше за постоењето на македонска нација, да рече дека во 1931-32 година (then IMRO (United) issued for the first time the idea of separate Macedonian nation) е направена грешка.Сите тие ветерани останаа само на нивото на политички, а не и на национален сепаратизам... Така, во текот на НОБ, кога дојде времето за поврзување, постоеше огромен јаз во свеста на Македонецот од трите дела на земјата. Сите велеа дека се Македонци, ама сите на тој поим му даваа поинаква содржина. Кои доаѓаа од Бугарија, тие сметаа дека треба да дојдат на чело и да ја водат Македонија, особено ветераните како Шатев и Влахов. Тие, практично, се чувствуваа како Бугари. ВМРО (Об.) не мрдна од обичниот политички македонски сепаратизам.

Rough translation of Katradzhievs answer: And not only Dimitar Vlahov, Pavel Shatev, Panko Brasnarov, Rizo Rizov etc. (considered themselves to be Bulgarians) . But this thesis is incorrectly set here. It is not about whether the left IMRO wing opted for Serbia, and the rightt to Bulgaria... Practically, neither the left wing nor the right were questioning their Bulgarian provenance. This will bring even Dimitar Vlahov on the 1948 session of the Politburo, when speaking of the existence of the Macedonian nation, to say that in the year 1931-32 (then left wing of IMRO issued for the first time the idea of ​​separate Macedonian nation) is made a mistake. All this veterans (IMRO left wing) remained only at the level of political, not of national separatism... Thus, during the Second World War, there was a huge gap in the consciousness of the Macedonians from the three parts of the region. All said that they are Macedonians, but all of them understood that idea in different way. That coming from Bulgaria, they thought that they should come to the forefront and lead Macedonia, especially veterans like Shatev and Vlahov . They practically felt themselves as Bulgarians. The left wing of IMRO didn't move from the ordinary political Macedonian separatism (i.e. it didn't developed national separatism).

Академик Катарџиев, Иван. Верувам во националниот имунитет на македонецот, интервjу за списание „Форум“, 22 jули 2000, броj 329. Jingiby (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

In Mark Mazower's book Salonica, City of Ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews 1430–1950 page 248 there is the title BULGARIANS AND MACEDONIANS. to be "Bulgarian" initially meant to support the Exarchgate : it was a linguistic-religious rather a natinonal category. In page 249 about the boatmen : Most of IMRO youthfull members were not much bothered about the old disputes over dead sacred languages whose motto was "Neither God nor Master"-and the devout supporters of the Bulgarian Exarchate a gulf emerged.. One from the 2 survivors was Pavel Shatev minister of Justice of... Yugoslavia! Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, read the article Bulgarian Millet. Jingiby (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is very good article. But, IMHO a Bulgarian POV, the article lacks North Macedonian POV. I hope EN:WP present all the views. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

From 18 sources only 1 is Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To the IP sock

Please do not erase sourced information! ForeignerFromTheEast 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourced?!?!? You count promacedonia.com as a source?--79.125.183.142 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It itself is not a source, but has links to other sources. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not modify this article significantly, without any discussion and reliable sources! Thank you. Jingby (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not understand the last edit. In the source after the ethnic identification as Macedonian Shatev described himself clearly as Bulgarian. Jingby (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added several reliable sources. Jingby (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Anarchist?

@Asilvering, where do you see his affiliation with anarchism? Appears to be indirect, if there's a connection. czar 04:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

He was a member of Boatmen of Thessaloniki. -- asilvering (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

At least, so our article on them says: [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I found some sources but it's in passing mention: [2][3] And our Bulgarian article doesn't mention him as being an anarchist. czar 04:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

He'd be the only member of the Boatmen that isn't in WP:@, which seems a strange omission. That second one even explicitly describes him as an anarchist. I don't know if it's WP:CATDEF levels of "commonly defined as", but then, he's not currently in any Category:Anarchists subcats either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

All good points! Each of these articles could use more robust sourcing. czar 05:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, this actually calls him an anarchist in the title, so it looks like we maybe do have WP:CATDEF levels of "commonly defined as" after all: [4]. -- asilvering (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Dispute

@Gurther @Jingiby None of your recent edits appear to be improvements. I'd recommend self-reverts. This article isn't about IMRO (United) and the Macedonian identity. It's about Pavel Shatev. I don't understand the insistince of using Katardžiev especially when you already have other secondary sources about Shatev's identity and who even support the content directly. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No problems. I suggest that the same should happen with the article about Dimitar Vlahov so that I do not have to make the same additions and clarifications there.Jingiby (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure. It can apply for all articles where it is currently in. If you want to add interpretations about IMRO (United), you can do so in that article. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, i have no clue what Jingiby has been doing, i only tried to clarify the source that was already cited, it seems to me that Jingby is just inserting bland and unrelated info just to support his previously established agenda. Stuff like the Macedonian nation here sparks with BPOV and nothing more, stuff like this is childish and i expected much better. Gurther (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

StephenMacky1, since i noticed how u removed the forum interview can we agree upon removing all the times the Forum interview has been cited for former IMROU members identity post-WW2 since its unreliable and taken out of context? Gurther (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. You can remove it from any other IMROU members' articles. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, the source is completely credible and has even been cited by other researchers in their publications and on many articles here. The idea of StephenMacky1 above was to not repeat this information on every article about IMRO United activists, but to move this issue to the article about the organization itself. Jingiby (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, you've purposefully taken the source out of context to suit some kind of agenda, if StephenMacky1 didn't want it removed i think he could have clarified. Gurther (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, this is your personal opinion. That is not my interpretation. Katardziev is quoted in exactly this sense, for example, by the Bulgarian historian Stefan Dechev: As the historian Ivan Katardziev pointed out many years ago, even the veterans of the left-wing VMRO (ob.) in the second half of the 1940s "remained only at the level of political, and not of national separatism.” In this sense, we can say that today's definition of Macedonian national identity necessarily goes through Yugoslav socialization and overt anti-Bulgarianism, and this certainly also goes through a historical narrative from Yugoslav times, which seriously ignores historical facts. Not by chance, speaking of personalities like Dimitar Vlahov or Pavel Shatev, Katardziev adds: "They practically felt like Bulgarians. VMRO (Ob.) did not budge from the usual political Macedonian separatism." Jingiby (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, it isn't my opinion, i advise reading the actual full interview before assuming, Katardziev mentions how this was an effect of Bulgarian philosophy and propaganda over the IMROU members, he even points out how the Macedonian conciousness was damaged during the Balkan wars thus leading to a lot of revolutionaries unaware of what to call themselves, Stefan Dechev seems to have also cherry picked which sections he finds most useful just like you have with Katardziev, one thing that is bewildering to me is that often times you love and even try to find as many Macedonian historians who show even the slightest support to the Bulgarian views, yet when it comes to citing books from Macedonia about the Macedonian views, you instantly deflect them or claim they are unreliable for some outlandish reasons, such as claiming that all Macedonian books made during SR Macedonia are unreliable, which is bold and just plain out wrong. Gurther (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly your POV. Jingiby (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, no Jingby this isn't POV its called reading the entire interview, as a matter of fact i've noticed how a lot of Macedonian interviews are taken out of context to fit some kind of narrative, even the letter from Goce Delcev to Malesevski in 1896 has been taken out of context, not to mention the fact you attempt to remove any tags (without any good reason) on articles and even often times warn people on false reasons, like how you warned me for "edit warring" despite me doing only 2 reverts which followed the guidelines, now yes its true that we all have our own biases but i would never stoop to such a low level as faking warn reasons for no apperent reason. Even your behaviour for the last few days has been extremely defensive and refusing (or barely allowing) any changes on a lot of these articles, i honestly have no clue why you are doing this. Gurther (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)