Talk:Macedonian-Adrianople Social Democratic Group

Source falsification

In its original form, as created on June 6th by user:Jingiby, the article's penultimate paragraph contained a passage, which, in turn, included the following sencence: "Per Political Liberty, every Macedonian should be regarded as a Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, etc., as he is, but on the first place, as a “political slave”". The paragraph's reader was referred via a note at the end of the paragraph to consult p. 140 from the Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia. I happened to check the relevant page of this book, I found that it only contained material that was related to the last sentence of the paragraph. I thus placed the relevant template aking for a source, and Jingiby subsequently provided a reference to Tchavdar Marinov and Alexander Vezenkov, "Communism and Nationalism in the Balkans: Marriage of Convenience or Mutual Attraction?", in: Roumen Daskalov and Diana Mishkova (eds), Entangled Histories of the Balkans, 2 (Brill, 2013), ISBN 9004261915, p. 503. Jingiby also provided a citation from p. 503 relating to part of the passage, but not the sentence I quoted above. I provide here the relevant passage from page 503:

"The programmatic documents and publications of the Macedonian socialists harshly criticized “Bulgarian chauvinism” and territorial ambitions in Macedonia. Sometimes they even claimed that the Macedonians should not be considered Bulgarians, Serbs or Greeks, as they were, above all, oppressed “slaves.” [n. 45: For instance, Politicheska svoboda [=Political Liberty (my translation)], April 19, 1899]".

Jingiby's text was not only lacking a source, as required per WP:V, but contains a claim that is the *exact opposite* of what is stated in the source he subsequently added. At a minimum, the text has to be modified to conform with what the source actually says, but I must confess I find this a very troubling incident and probably at least the rest of the article should be checked to make sure that is does not contain similar falsifications of source material. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, obviously, this is my fault. Since not the whole text is fully accessible from my IP position, when I retrieved it, I obviously didn't see every word. Now that I think about it, the text doesn't even make clear sense in my version. It's good that you noticed this crack. Greetings. It has happened to me before, although rarely in such circumstances. By the way, I never quote the text that I reproduce verbatim due to the danger of infringing copyright, so it is possible that I did not look after things when rewriting. I have no idea. I'm really sorry, but this is not a forgery. Jingiby (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Good find @Ashmedai 119:, many thanks. Indeed, it is apparent that these edits must be looked at closely.

Jingiby, I noticed you insert the phrase "post-WWII Macedonian historiography" on this article, as you do on several others. First, I ask if this interpretation of yours is backed by sources (i.e. that the cited source is identified as a "post-WWII Macedonian historiographic" source, or is this your own analysis). Conversely, I do not see you describe Bulgarian historian opinions as "Bulgarian historiography". Finally, should we note that, in addition to Macedonian opinions on the identifications of the group members, at least a couple members like Blagoev and Karev did claim to be Macedonians at some point? --Local hero ^talk 04:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard phrase that I put on all articles related to the Bulgarian-Macedonian historiographical contradictions for neutrality. Macedonian historiography in its scientific form was developed after the Second World War and this is indisputable. As far as there are cases of revolutionaries who were included in Macedonian historiography only in the 21st century as Aleksandrov for example, this is hardly a problem. Here, however, you are specifically right about the incidental identification of Blagoev during the First World War. For Karev, I am honestly not convinced that he had a Macedonian consciousness, based on a lot of secondary sources. However this Socialist group was disbanded during the Balkan Wars and the case of Blagoev is subsequent. Jingiby (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, what is your basis for describing the cited source as "post-WWII Macedonian historiography"? It really seems like your own analysis. --Local hero ^talk 17:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What?Jingiby (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I figured, it's your own phrase. I'll adjust the wording. --Local hero ^talk 18:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Per Ulf Brunnbauer this is fact: In contrast to the historiographies of socialist Bulgaria and Romania as well as the other Yugoslav Republics, Macedonian historiography did not experience a period after the Communist take-over during which “class” replaced the “nation” as the main subject of the historical master narration. From its very beginning in the late 1940s, Macedonian historiography has had and continues to have an explicitly national perspective. See: Serving the Nation: Historiography in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) after Socialism. Jingiby (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)