Talk:The first Constitution of Macedonia - Kresna 1878

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Real, fake, forgery?[edit]

What are the sources for this 'document'? Where is the original? Please provide details. Politis 15:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The authenticity has been questioned once before, without any actual problems being identified.[1]
"Macedonian Rebel Committee" has a few book hits. I hope you will do some research before claiming it is real, fake or forgery.
There is some history at User talk:Filip M. Maybe you will find some clues there. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the academician Hristo Hristov (1915-1992) - this "Constitution" is a forged document - [2], falsified by Macedonian author Slavco Dimevski. Hristo Hristov made circumstantial analysis of the published document and proved that it is impossible to be written in 1878. The other argument is that nobody can say where is the original of this "document". Slavko Dimevski claim was that he made his microphotograph copy by the original from the archive of the decedent Bulgarian patriarch Kiril, who was historian of this period too. According Dimevski the document had a number - Арх. од. Дело 2341, А. Е. 50, лл. 30—61, but Hristo Hristov answered that the archive of the patriarch Kiril never had such kind of number. Also, in his detailed books on the period patriarch Kiril never mentioned that there was such document.

P.S.One personal addition: I had conversations about this " document" with some historians from Institute for National History in Skopje, RM. They were confused and hadn't a big desire to discuss it in details.--AKeckarov 19:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AKeckarov, I changed the wording of your Note. The wording that you used on this discussion page sounds more objective to me, so I used that as a text for the Note. --GStojanov 01:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this note about a Bulgarian saying that this document is not real? Of course no Bulgarian will agree as they claim Macedonians to be Bulgars! unsigned comment by 81.165.14.38 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008.

The serious accusations of falsification was made not just by a Bulgarian, but by a Bulgarian academician and by other representatives of Bulgarian scientific circles. (The other question is how these accusations were used in the publicistic sphere.) Please, don't forget that nevertheless their nationality the scientists have their ethics. Maybe this is a reason for silence by scientific circles in Republic of Macedonia about the authenticity of the document. There are many professionals in Republic of Macedonia who wouldn't defend this document only because one their compatriot (unfortunately scientists, too) with enormous desire to prove some historical roots of contemporary Macedonian ethnic consciousness claimed that he saw the original of the document in Bulgaria and made a copy 30 years ago. Where were and is the original of this document?--AKeckarov (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Translator[edit]

This document has been translated by unnamed translator for the newspaper "Nova Makedonija" in 1982 and published and released as a public domain translation. Since then it has been re-printed in many editions and web sites. --GStojanov (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Translator has been identified as Filip Korzenski, and he released his translation into public domain. He can be contacted at:books@makedonskosonce.com. --GStojanov (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. We have two options to proceed
  1. Create a user page for the translator, if that is their wish
  2. Look to utilise the soon to be implemented |override_translator = which will show name, but not hyperlink the name

-- billinghurst (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Validity[edit]

There is no original documentation backing these forged texts. St0k0s (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a published work, and if it is published in English and in the public domain, as it is claimed, then it is able to be housed at Wikisource. What changes if it is not a translation of a historical document is the commentary around the work, and the licence that applies. That is an appropriate discussion to have at this page, or if a discussion here fails to come to a suitable conclusion, then it could be raised at WS:S. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The reservations are already addressed with a Note: and a footnote. --GStojanov (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not enough. This forged text is supposedly a translation of a work created before 1923. The work has to be verifiable. It isn't. You can claim that Martians invaded Skopje in 1850 and you're the only one left with a published sacred Martian translation in English. Wikisource is not a place for claims. St0k0s (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It is verifiable. The first page of the Constitution is included in the article. The english translation of the Constitution is published in this book. Here is a scan from the front page: Image:FrontPage_Macedonia_Documents.jpg. --GStojanov (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)