Wrong information about the author and false text of the article[edit]
The user Filip M has written an irrelevant "source" with several flagrant errors. First, the name of the author of the article "The Macedonian question" is not Petar Rachev Slavejkov, but Petko Rachev Slaveikov. Second, there are many gaps in the text which vastly corrupt the proper meaning of the article. Third, the last paragraph is fully falsified:
"We are convinced that the desire of the Macedonists should have other bases as well, and that there is a confusion about the small inequality between the High and the Macedonian Bulgarians in number and development. Perhaps the Macedonists think that the High Bulgarians will always be prevalent in public affairs as more numerous and, more aware, and the Macedonians will remain second-rate citizens. That is exactly what the following words by the Macedonists mean: we have set ourselves apart from the Greeks, should we now become subjected to others? One simple circumstance, i.e., that the High Bulgarians have up to now written in their dialect without paying any attention to the Macedonian one, is considered by the Macedonians to be a sign of the "highness" of the High Bulgarians and of their tendency to command. But the real problem is far from this suggestion; we write in our dialect because it is what we know, and not out of any lack of esteem for the Macedonian one. Once we strengthen language study in our country and understand the need for a general literary language, we shall write with the greatest gratitude in the Macedonian dialect, if we find it good and useful, or we shall take from it what is necessary as supplementation. As far as the fear of the number of the High Bulgarians and their quicker process of awakening is concerned, it is not even worth mentioning, just as the father should not make any difference between his children. If some brothers should have become aware an hour before the others, it does not follow that they should be privileged. Our conclusion is that there is no reason for separation and that we should not separate if we love our people and what is good for them."
Such paragraph doesn't exist in the original article and in the later academic publications such Petko R. Slaveikov, "Sychineniya" ("Works"), volume 7 Publitsistika (Publicism), Pubishing house "Bylgarski pisatel", Sofia, 1981, p. 21-24. —unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
I stand corrected as far as the name of the author. I will move the article under proper name, and you can delete this article. As far as the gaps, I was not aware that there are gaps in the text. I do not have access to the mentioned edition published in Sofia, but I used a re-print from macedonian newspaper. Since both of our sources are secondary, I will leave the last paragraph, but I will mark that its validity needs double-checking. If some of you have access to the bulgarian public library system, it shouldn't be too hard to find the original source: the "Macedonia" newspaper from 18th January 1871 printed in Constaninople. --Filip M02:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked back through the history to the last version you edited. That version had plenty of ... These marks generally signify snipping. It is likely the source you were using was already edited down. WS has a policy of hosting complete texts only for POV reasons and I had just listed this on proposed deletion because of this. However if this was republished in an abridged version that makes things a little different (but we cannot claim it is the 1871 version) If we can get some source that everyone can look at online it would help this get cleared up without deletion. Is it possible that you have a link to an online source, that would be easiest, although I realize that is unlikely. The source that was just added by the anon appears to not be in English and also offline. I imagine yours was non-English as well. Did you personlally translate it? Is there any chance you could scan it and upload it if is not online? Or contact the original translator if it was not yourself? --BirgitteSB02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrigitteSB. I used a translation of this letter that I found here:1. The letter is also mentioned Council for Research into South-Eastern Europe of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts Skopje, Macedonia, 1993 along with a portion of it, and also here: Language: borders, identities and Utopias by Albena Hranova page 225. On 7 July 2006 a user from IP: 85.187.163.40 corrected the text using an independent, bulgarian source. I find all her/his corrections (and few minor additions) non essential for the meaning of the text and generally acceptable, and I accepted all her/his corrections. There is a claim that the last paragraph does not exist in the Bulgarian source, hence I marked the last paragraph as disputed. I would like to ask you not to delete this article, since its contents has been proven by four independent sources (Macedonian and Bulgarian, often opposed on issues covered in the article). I hope that some of our Bulgarian users will have access to the original text, and they can check the existance of the last paragraph, fill the allegedly missing sections, and proof-read the translation. With best regards: --Filip M04:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excerpt from Published 18th January 1871 in the "Macedonia" newspaper in Constaninople As this source is hard to verify in order to complete the text I think we should delete it. A recent editor has commented on the talk page that the snipping was done in a POV manner. This recent editor has provided a new reference of "Petko R. Slaveikov, "Sychineniya" ("Works"), volume 7 Publitsistika (Publicism), Pubishing house "Bylgarski pisatel", Sofia, 1981, "Makedonskiyat vypros" (The Macedonian question), p. 21-24." which appears to not be in English. If someone can translate this and provide us with the full copy, it would be really great. However I think unless that happens very shortly we should deleted this edited version of the text for POV reasons. This is a textbook case of why should aim to only accept complete texts--BirgitteSB 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Text is now complete!--BirgitteSB17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BrigitteSB. I used a translation of this letter that I found here:1. The letter is also mentioned Council for Research into South-Eastern Europe of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts Skopje, Macedonia, 1993 along with a portion of it, and also here: Language: borders, identities and Utopias by Albena Hranova page 225. On 7 July 2006 a user from IP: 85.187.163.40 corrected the text using an independent, bulgarian source. I find all her/his corrections (and few minor additions) non essential for the meaning of the text and generally acceptable, and I accepted all her/his corrections. There is a claim that the last paragraph does not exist in the Bulgarian source, hence I marked the last paragraph as disputed. I would like to ask you not to delete this article, since its contents has been proven by four independent sources (Macedonian and Bulgarian, often opposed on issues covered in the article). I hope that some of our Bulgarian users will have access to the original text, and they can check the existance of the last paragraph, fill the allegedly missing sections, and proof-read the translation. With best regards: --Filip M04:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that source is could be a copyright violation. Since we don't know who the translator was or when the translation was done. I am going to do some reseach tommorrow there should be some more complete info out there. It is however possible that this version of the text may be uacceptable for Wikisource. I am unsure what are the three other sources you mention (perhaps you mean three other editors). It would be great if they could speak up and mention if they are proofreading against an English translation or are just translating from Bulgarian themselves. If someone could do a fresh translation from Bulgarian and relaease it under the GFDL that would clear up all issues. Posting the original Bulgarian at bg:Македонският въпрос would also be a great help even if they do not feel qualified to make a fresh translation. As I said I will also see what I can come up with over the weekend. There is no reason we cannot host this text, but this version is problamatic without more information.--BirgitteSB04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the "recent editor", cited above. The first source given from our dear fellow Filip M :1 is categorically incorrect. It is even more seriously snipped, edited and even openly falsified in some passages for the purposes of the modern macedonian nationalistic propaganda than the variant in his article in Wikisource. An example - in this contemporary version Slaveikov's definition of his "not so serious disputes" with young macedonists as friendly jokes and teases is simply missing. I'm so sorry, bit I couldn't give another, more mild opinion. I suppose that the real source of the Filip M's variant was the popular macedonian nationalistic site 2, which offers the same snipped, edited and falsified version along with the wrong name of the author, written as Petar Rachev Slavejkov: 3. You could see its previous page here 4. I have read the original text in the bulgarian newspaper "Macedonia", which chief editor was Petko Rachev Slaveikov itself, in the bulgarian St. St. Cyril and Methodius National Library, and I can assert that the recent bulgarian academic publication Петко Р. Славейков, "Съчинения", том 7 Публицистика, Издателство "Български писател", София, 1981, "Македонският въпрос", стр. 21-24 (In English: Petko R. Slaveikov, "Sychineniya" - "Works", volume 7 Publitsistika - Publicism, Publishing house "Bylgarski pisatel" - "Bulgarian writer", Sofia, 1981, "Makedonskiyat vypros" - "The Macedonian question", p. 21-24), is absolutely reliable in spite of insignificant modernization of the orthography and to some extent of the language. The detailed corrections were made by me according to this later source. Unfortunately I haven't met reliable and made from neutral translator english translation of the article "The Macedonian quesion" in the internet yet.
P. s. The three gaps in the present variant of the text in Wikisource contain descriptions, explanations and counter-arguments of the two different types of macedonism, which appeared in the 1860's, first pro-greek (ancient macedonistic) and second pro-serbian (pure slavonic) as substances, purposes and usages. Therefore it is more than obviously why these passages were missed in the contemporary macedonian "translation". —unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
(unindent)First off I am not worried about the neutrality of the translation, mainly because if it really could be translated in largely different ways we could always host multiple versions. This issue has been discussed regarding religous texts, and I don't not see why it could not scale to political differences as well. As has been done with Tao te Ching. I am worried about the sinpping a little, but I am now worried about copyright most of all. The academic Bulgarian source cited above could be copyrighted because of the editorial chioces it made in what to snip and possibly the modern language. I am not comfortable with putting that up at WS.org or using it as a basis for translation, until someone more knowledgeable tells me copyright is not an issue. I am asssuming the alterations in modernization are equivalent to the alterations made in the english language used here (please correct me if you think they are more or less drastic alterations) All the other English sources cited in the discussion here are incomplete and of even more dubious copyright status. Best case scenario in my eye is this: Someone finds a copy of the 1871 version in its original language (Bulgarian?) and puts it on WS.org and we have a number of skilled bilingual people who are interested in this issue work out a translation or three. I would also accept a published English translation that is old engough to be certain it is free from copyright corcerns. If such a thing exists (which I doubt) then I would accept it as it was published whether that is snipped or not. Other than that I will work on getting opinions on the copyright of the modern Bulgarian version. I know all that sounds very authorative, but this is of course just my opinion. That said this has morphed into a copyright problem which are taken seriously here and I imagine this will be deleted as such if we cannot clear up that issue particularly. --BirgitteSB11:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original text is not under copyright, since it is older than 1924. Our frind 85.187.163.40 obviouisly has access to it. Can you, please, upload it here (or in bg.wikisource), in its original form, or scan it, or both. Then we can make a new fresh translation and not worry about any potential copyright constraints. I would appreciate if you 85.187.163.40 can translate it in english, since you obviously know both english and bulgarian very well. If you can't, I can make an honest try, since I have a moderate understanding of Bulgarian. Then we can invite the whole vibrant comunity on the bulgarian wikipedia to proofread and correct us. I would appreciate this effort very, very much: --Filip M13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree the orginal is not under copyright. If 85.187.163.40 no longer has access, at least we now know where it could be found. Any tips on which room or collection it was in might be helpful. Perhaps someone from the Bulgarian WP who lives in Sofia could visit w:SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library and trancribe it to the bs.WS themselves. Unfortunately they do not allow the photocoping of periodicals [1] It does not appear to be a very long text to transcribe, especially if they could bring a laptop to the library and type it directly. It seems possible to buy a one-day reading ticket, but the website did not list the cost exactly [2] Maybe there is even a Bulgarian editor who has already registered as a reader there for other reasons, I do not know much about the Bulgarian wikipedian community however. If someone could be convinced to do this, it would be best to manage it soon as the website says the library is closed to readers the entire month of August.--BirgitteSB14:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While we are waiting for the original, I'll compile a reference of all on-line occurances of this text (or portions of it). It may help us find a freeware and trustworty translation, if the original remains unavailable. --Filip M13:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a request for additional information and re-publishing to the two web site where I found the atricle:
Respected,
I came across this article published on your web-page:
www.wikisource.org (Part of the Wikimedia project, open-source repository for books and documents of all kinds).
The article is originally published in 1871, so it is not under copyiright protection. The translation, however, might be.
If you have made the translation, are you willing to grant me a permission to re-publish the article? If not, can you help me to get in contact with the original translator, and get a permission of her/him?
Any additional information regarding this article, other translations in different languages, and the original text, would be greatly appreciated.
BrigitteSB, I finished the translation. I added the missing paragraphs, and I re-translated the text according to original article. --Filip M04:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great Work! I think this is an example of the wiki process at it's best. I will leave this up a few more days to give anyone else a chance to comment. Keep --BirgitteSB17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Bulgarian: Петко Р. Славейков, "Съчинения", том 7 Публицистика, Издателство "Български писател", София, 1981, "Македонският въпрос", стр. 21-24 (in English: Petko R. Slaveikov, "Sychineniya" - "Works", volume 7 Publitsistika - Publicism, Publishing house "Bylgarski pisatel" - "Bulgarian writer", Sofia, 1981, "Makedonskiyat vypros" - "The Macedonian question", p. 21-24).
I moved this from the main page because we now have a full version of the text.
Dear Brigitte, in fact this publication is the source of the Bulgarian text in Wikisource, therefore I am going to send back this reference to the main article. It is both full and reliable.—unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
Please correct me if I am wrong but the above is a source of a historical version of the article not the current one. The current source is a complete transcription and I thought the above source had portions which were remove and noted with ... --BirgitteSB23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source for full Bulgarian publication of the text in Wikisource, which was base for present English translation. Please have a look at the Bulgarian original variant, you'll certainly notice the same publication written as source.—unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
The last paragraph of the text (allegedly falsified)[edit]
We are convinced that the desire of the Macedonists should have other bases as well, and that there is a confusion about the small inequality between the High and the Macedonian Bulgarians in number and development. Perhaps the Macedonists think that the High Bulgarians will always be prevalent in public affairs as more numerous and, more aware, and the Macedonians will remain second-rate citizens. That is exactly what the following words by the Macedonists mean: we have set ourselves apart from the Greeks, should we now become subjected to others? One simple circumstance, i.e., that the High Bulgarians have up to now written in their dialect without paying any attention to the Macedonian one, is considered by the Macedonians to be a sign of the "highness" of the High Bulgarians and of their tendency to command. But the real problem is far from this suggestion; we write in our dialect because it is what we know, and not out of any lack of esteem for the Macedonian one. Once we strengthen language study in our country and understand the need for a general literary language, we shall write with the greatest gratitude in the Macedonian dialect, if we find it good and useful, or we shall take from it what is necessary as supplementation. As far as the fear of the number of the High Bulgarians and their quicker process of awakening is concerned, it is not even worth mentioning, just as the father should not make any difference between his children. If some brothers should have become aware an hour before the others, it does not follow that they should be privileged. Our conclusion is that there is no reason for separation and that we should not separate if we love our people and what is good for them. --Filip M03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Filip M, could you prove that this text is actually part of the article "The Macedonian quesion"? —unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
With great pleasure, my dear unsigned friend. I just received the scan of the article from the Archive of Macedonia. I uploaded the scans on the bulgarian wikipedia too, so I hope some of you will help transcribe it, and then we can translate the FOUR additional paragraphs. ;) --Filip M02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With greatest pleasure, Filip M, I will tell you here and again as I did it in the Bulgarian page about this article, that these "scans" aren't indisputable and trustworthy. The connection between these two pages is still more than questionable because of too low quality of the copies. On the other hand contemporary Macedonian archives are famous for their falsifications and in particular for macedonization of many bulgarian documents. These were the conclusions of bulgarian Wikiusers - the authenticity of last paragraphs is still unproved.—unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
Have you ever read anything about this particular document being forged? Is there any documentation of this? You have asked Filip M to support his edits regarding the latter paragraphs. I also was concerned of with the discrepency in that regard. Filip M then obtained these scans which appear to me to be two pages of a continous document. The idea that they are somehow falsified seems very odd to me. I would caution you against such a general assertion that all institutions of a particular polictical group are "famous for their falsifications" of documents. If you have references regarding any particular institution altering or falsifing documents, I would appreciate it if you could provide them for me. I would like to watch out for documents coming from any institution with this sort of reputation. I believe everyone working here at WS on this document is trying to provide an authentic document as an interesting reading and a resource for WP articles. For example the w:Macedonian Question asserts "The Macedonian question became an issue after the Berlin Congress in 1878.", but this document can be cited as a references that the issue had been raised as early as 1871. If FilipM has been decieved in the authenticity of the scans, I believe all contributors (including FilipM) here will be grateful to you for shedding light on this so we may work with the authentic text. However I must insist on seeing some sort evidence that there as been such deception in this particular case. Please take a closer look at these images and be certain that you find them to be false, and explain why you have come to that conclusion. --BirgitteSB01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several ways how we can confirm the authenticity of the scans. The first page is obviously completely in sync with the Bulgarian reprint from 1981. The language and orthography completely corresponds with the ones of that time (Bulgarian langauge undewent through several orthography reforms, so a certain text can fairly precizely be dated based on that criteria). The text on the second page makes a logical continuation of the text on the first page. On the second page there is another article that is dated: January 1871. --Filip M23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Britte made an excellent notion: this text will trigger many edits in the articles concerning the Macedonian Question, because correctly places the inception of the Macedonian National Movement in the early 1860-ties, and confirms that the movement was authochtonous. --Filip M23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a nit pick here. The text does confirm the issue was raised as early as 1871, however the substance of the article only provides an example of the author's position. I would not characterize it as confirmation of anything of a broad nature. It is an interesting snapshot of the larger historical picture, not an answer to modern questions. --BirgitteSB06:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having in mind that the author was an opponent of the movement, which is obvious even from the very article, the information he provides is even more valuable. But I agree that we need to read this article in the historic context. --Filip M11:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must have in our minds that the author wasn't the opponent of the movement because... there wasn't such movement. In fact there wasn't organized ethnic Macedonism before 1878. The context of this historic period is other, dear Filip M, there were differing (progreek - "ancient macedonistic", proserbian - "pure slavic") kinds of marginal Macedonism with disparate essences and purposes on the background of mass Bulgarian struggle for independent Bulgarian Exarchate [[3]]... This "ethnic movement" remained marginal until 1913 and was represented from not more than dozen activists. The retroactive speculation in contemporary macedonistic spirit in your interpretations is more than obvious.
Petko R. Slaveikov wrote: "That is what we thought until a year or two ago, when new conversations with some Macedonians showed us that the problem was not only vain words, but a thought that many would like to put into life." Around 1871 there were different ideas still "out of life", i. e. there wasn't organized movement, but marginal and informal theories and attitudes. Actually the period after 1871 didn't put these attitudes into life - in 1903 Krste Misirkov in his brochure "On the Macedonian matters" still defined the ethnic Macedonism as project for the future, an alien ideology for the Macedonian Slavs.—unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
Dear BirgitteSB, I'm afraid you don't know much about contemporary Republic of Macedonia and its history. First of all, the menanings of the term "Macedonian question" in this article and later in the international diplomatic relations after 1878 were two different things (in the article - the question of Macedonism, but in the diplomacy - the political tensions about the fate of Ottoman Macedonia; the Macedonism wasn't considerable part of the second process because of the lack of... Macedonists).
The lies of present-day Macedonian "scientific" institutions are really famous. You could check Wikipedia for the most notorious examples - Miladinov brothers' "Bulgarian folk songs" was issued in Macedonia with the name "Zbornik" (in English "Collection") and all cases of use of the names Bulgaria and Bulgarian were replaced with Macedonia and Macedonian [[4]]. I could proceed with many other cases of similar falsifications, even some confessed from macedonian academicians like this about an early name of the macedonian revolutionary organization "Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople revolutionary committees", which name is still nearly forbidden in contemporary Republic of Macedonia [[5]]. The case of Archbishopric of Ohrid, which was named Bulgarian for many centuries, but this fact doesn't exist in contemporary Republic of Macedonia and for the unrecognized Macedonian orthodox church [[6]]. The case with macedonization of Bulgarian tsar Samuil and so on and so forth [[7]]...
It is obvious that our dear fellow Filip M as Macedonian patriot tries to defend his own macedonian national feeling and position with unadequate interpretations of the article "The Macedonian question" - he wants to find out that his own contemporary (sic!) form of macedonism was quite old, was organized ("movement") and was autochtonus (although Slaveikov wrote about two disparate models of progreek and proserbian macedonism). I don't want to speak more about his wishes, they are understandable. How is it possible to link present-day mass and official macedonism in Republic of Macedonia with quite different recent past, slightly revealed from some scandalous macedonian historians like academician of Macedonian academy of sciences and arts Ivan Katardziev, who asserted that before 1903 "All of our people named themselves Bulgarians" (for example - his interview in Macedonian [[8]])?
You could check many independent researches of the Macedonian matters. I offer you some: 1. "The Macedoine" by Ivo Banac, Cornell University Press, 1984 [[9]]; 2. "Nationality in the Balkans: The case of the Macedonians" by F. A. K. Yasamee, "Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul" EREN, 1995, pp. 121-132 [[10]]; 3. "The collapse of Yugoslavia and the future of the Macedonian literary language (A late case of Glossotomy?)" by prof. Otto Kronsteiner, Austria [[11]]. 4. "Macedonia - Problems of History and Culture", publication of the Russian academy of sciences, Institute of Slavic researches, Moscow, 1999 (in Russian: "Македония - проблемы истории и культуры", Институт славяноведения, Российская Академия Наук, Москва, 1999) [[12]]. 5. "The Ideals of Ilinden - Uses of Memory and Nationalism in Socialist Macedonia", James Krapfl, Institute on East Central Europe, Columbia University, March, 1996 [[13]]. 6. (Something slightly different in the end :-) as the consequence of all which I have said above) euobserver.com, "Macedonians line up to get Bulgarian citizenship" [[14]].
Finally, I'm afraid that this matter is much complicated and delicate (see article Macedonism in Wikipedia [[15]]) so it wouldn't be wisely to entrust it to any Balkan nationalist... It needs independent, scholarly Balkanistic and archive-based redaction.—unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
(Unindent) We are moving again away from our subject. And our subject is the authenticity of this article. --Filip M11:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No! We are on the spot, Filip M. The subject is the traditional incorrectness and flagrant policy of the official Macedonian archives, which retroactively change and macedonize Bulgarian past for the purposes of the policy of contemporary Republic of Macedonia. So this source isn't independent, relevant and trustworthy and therefore your scans aren't serious base for translation here..—unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
I realize the term "Macedonia" is ambigous and the context has changed greatly over time. I do understand and find it very believable that various publications have been re-issued with a nationalistic slant. However from what you have explained above, I do not think you are saying that there is proof of scans being altered. If I am wrong please correct me and show me where this specific issue is discussed. I do not think you have explained to me why you believe this particular scan is not authentic. I really cannot take your general distrust of the Macedonian nationalistic movement as a serious reason to doubt the images. I have not seen any evidence that these particular images appears to altered or are in any other way false. I do not understand why you believe they are not accurate as I canot recognize a different meaning in the last bit than in the rest of the document. Is it not possible the author of 1981 edition only had a copy of page one and did not realize there was more text? When it comes to making an objective choice between a version of a text transcibed in a 1981 publication and scanned images of the printing from 1871. The only choice is to trust the images unless there is evidence that they are false. I would like to convince you that this is accurate but I do not not know what you would like me to investigate.--BirgitteSB14:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BirgitteSB, the source is discredited, the quallity of the images is very low, and there isn't strong argument that these "scans" are authentic. Until now we haven't INDEPENDENT and reliable proof that the second page really exists. The authenticity of the first page may be accepted as certain because of its correspondence to bulgarian academic publication. But! The lapse of the name Serbia from the "photocopy" is quite indicative for probable promacedonian intervention in the text - these copies came from Macedonian archives, which have traditional proserbian (proyugoslavian) policy. Therefore the only choise is not to trust blindly, but to wait until proper copy will be found.—unsigned comment by85.187.163.40 (talk) .
I must disagree. I have seen no evidence that the any archive has ever been accussed of altering a scan much less proved to have done so. Also you have given me no specific accounts of this particular archive providing false information. I find the scan of the second page to be reliable proof that it exists. To be fair I could not completely trust a new edition or a html transcription coming from the archives without the scan or another source to back it up. But in this case I believe it is up to you to prove the image is false. The quality of the scan has no bearing on this. It is not uncommon at all to have scans which are "low-quality" by the standards of cutting-edge technology. Many archives began digitizing their collections as soon as the technology was affordable and either have not upgraded their equipment or do not wish to re-scan what they have already done when they still have a large amount of material that has never been digitized. I do not understand how you can accept the the first page and not the second or even why you dislike the second page. Please tell me what steps you are taking to prove that this is false.--BirgitteSB15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear BirgitteSB, you could disagree as long as you wish, but the facts are undisputable. I offered you some independent academic publications about the falsifications of the Archive of Macedonia, but you prefer not to read them. So, check these concrete falsifications from the same (state!) archive: 1. [[16]] The explanation uses term "Macedonian - Tetovo dialect", but in fact in the text it is written "Bulgarian language from Lower Moesia". 2. [[17]] Funny and silly - is this really document from 1830?! 3. [[18]] The most disgusting example for forgery - the first word from the title "Народни песни" (In English "Folk songs" or "Popular songs") is simply removed, because in the original it is BULGARIAN and the authentic title of the Miladinovs' book is "Bulgarian folk songs"!
I am sorry I somehow missed this comment in all the new info since before my vacation. I must admit I am a liitle confused the "independent academic publications about the falsifications of the Archive of Macedonia". In the links you showed my above were describing the history of the movement of Macedonian nationalism and also some Wikipedia articles which did not necessarily talk about falsification of documents (although one did mention changing a title in re-printings). I did not read the treatisies entirely so maybe there was mention of falsifications later on. Although I did just search them for "archive" to try and find some mention of these falsications and I came up with nothing. I really do not want to read entire treastises on the history of the movement; as interesting as this all is my to do list is huge.
Regarding what you show above. The last example you show is altered or at the least an incomplete scan with clear editorial choice in what was left out. The first one I think you are disputing their description of the document rather than saying the scan is altered. The second I believe is a transcription of 1830 document (hence all the footnotes), I am not sure what you are disputing besides the date (the url lists it as 1911). Please correct me if I misunderstand what you are showing me. I do not mean to imply the Macedonian Archive has my full confidence in all they produce by any means. However I believe it is quite resonable to be confident that neither of scans we have been provided in this instance are gross fabrications. My opinion on how I would like to procede are outlined below. Everyone's goal here is see an accurate text on Wikisource, I do realize your assesment as to the accuracy of the scan is lowerer than what I believe the general consensus is. My best advice to you is to work to obtain access to a different copy of this newspaper to satisfy yourself as to what was originally printed. If you are correct and this is forged it will be discovered, and it can be easily corrected here. But despite the history of Bulgarian being commonly changed to Macedonian after the fact by the nationalist movement, I think this document in particular has a very low likelihood of being a forgery.--BirgitteSB19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) BirgitteSB, it has been more than 10 days and we haven't heard anything from the unsigned user that put the disputed remarks on this article. I don't see any valid reason to keep them, since he didn't provide any reasons why he thinks the scans are not authentic. --Filip M23:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filip M, the authenticity of your "photocopy" was disputed in Bulgarian Wikisource and you know it, but... obviously you prefer to forget this matter! Look: [[19]]! Read again my words: "The lapse of the name Serbia from the "photocopy" is quite indicative for probable promacedonian intervention in the text - these copies came from Macedonian archives, which have traditional proserbian (proyugoslavian) policy." Read again the words of the other unsigned user: "However, the reliability of this scan is put in question by the obvious forgery of the last line of the first page. I am led to believe that the word "North" (Sever) was photocopied and superimposed on the original "Serbs". As it stands, the expression "Greeks from South, North from North" is meaningless. Also, given the political climate in Yugoslav Macedonia, it is clear why Serbs would have been "masked" in this way. So, in my view, it is the first, rather than the second page that should raise eyebrows."
Obvious forgery! My logic - this photocopy came from discredited Archive of Macedonia, notorious for its forgeries. It is most likely that the last sentence of the first page was falsified. So, how could we be sure about the authenticity of the second page without another, reliable and independent source? Filip M, please, be honest at last!
P. s. By the way, the Macedonian translation of this text shows us that even this document isn't suitable for the modern Macedonism in Republic of Macedonia: [[20]]! There are still 7 large gaps, and of course the missing parts contain Slaveikov's arguments against macedonism and information about medieval history of the Bulgarians in Macedonia and the dominant influence of the Bulgarian idea in Macedonia during 19th century...
(unindent) I'm sorry, but this article looks absolutely authentic to me. The language is authentic, the font is authentic, on the Bulgarian wikisource it is published without any reservations. The sentence in question is an obvious mistake in typesetting. I completely agree with your reading. I'm sure that Slaveykov meant to write: Serbs from the north.
(unindent)I have been on vacation and am happy to see this issue is still being disscused. I would like list some points that are my view of the current standing here. In case anyone has missed this so far I have no understanding of any Slavic languages so this is based on what others have said. (BTW I would really appreciate it if 160.39.58.183 would translate his/her comments for me)
Veracity of Second Page: I have seen no large problems brought up with the scans regarding things like type language used, fonts used, format, etc. The two pages also seem to be consistant with one another. Although in a perfect world someone could obtain a copy of the document from the Cyril and Methodius National Library in Sophia and everyone would be 100% satified, I believe we must accept that these scans are an accurate representation of what was printed in 1871 until there is evidence to the contrary. I believe their is no need for the disclaimer currently shown about the second page.
North of NorthMy crop of the error I looked this closely and the second instance clearly shows curvature from being close to the binding and also has an ink splotch not found on the first instance which is quite flat. I did not look through the entire paper for any other instances on "North" that could have been used for copying. It is not a good enough scan to tell with any certainty that it was an error in typesetting, but there is neither anything about it that appears to be a paste job. In any event I believe there is consensus "Serbs" was what was intended and the English translation should simply show "Serbs of North" as the translators choice of interpretaion without any need for disclaimers or footnotes regarding the error. (After all people can read this talk page for more information than they ever imagined about this text)
English Translation I really would like to see a fresh translation as the current English is a mosaic of different translators (some of whom have not offcially released their work under the GFDL) with different parts done at different times. Currently many Bulgarian/English bilinguals are reading this page. It would great to see this translated as a whole text at The Macedonian question/Fresh translation. Translators can continue to collaborate their until they feel it is the best work and then replace the main text at this location. If everyone would give an explicit GFDL release statement on this page as well, then I could not think of how we could go about this in a more correct fashion regarding licensing.
Wikisource is a Wiki Nothing here is set in stone. If no one can dispute my assessment after a few days and the disclaimers come down, this does not mean the decision is final. Next month we may have a new information, or simply better explained disputaions of the current information and a new consensus. Do not see this as an adversarial process were someone has won/lost a decision. Any consensus reached here is on the information as it has been presented so far. This is always up for re-evalution. I said before a scan from the archives of Bulgaria or even if it can be found in Constantinople would be the best solution. I encourage everyone to speak with their contacts about how this might be obtained (A scan of the whole newspaper would supply even more material for bs.WS) But the fact that wiki's are a work in progress should not prevent us from presenting what material we do have right now. Nor should it require us to show the current disclaimers when there is a reasonable amount of edvidence of the existance of the second page.
To conclude I really dislike broken dissucions if anyone would like to dispute my points just list the number and you comments. If you concur please give everyone who disagrees a chance to present their arguments before commenting.--BirgitteSB18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the translation. As there has been no responses to my proposal to remove the disclaimers, I have now done so. Thank you to everyone for their contributions to the investigation of this document's authenticity. I would be very pleased to have a fresh translation if anyone is still interested.--BirgitteSB19:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Case closed! My source (a close relative) in Bulgaria went to the town library and checked the original (which they fortunately had) against the scan from the Wiki page. They coincide completely. The second page does exist and the there does appear to be a typesetting error on the last line of the first page. So much for Tatar negations and propaganda! Long live the Macedonian people, proud descendants of Alexander the Great!(160.39.58.18314:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I am Bulgarian with some Macedonian ancestry and have been interested in those issues for a while. I would like to offer my views on this disputed article. First of all, it is not clear to me what is so contentious in the nature of the second page (relative to the first) to make its authenticity a subject of contention. Its content is very much in the same spirit as that of the first page. It is not impossible that the editor of the 1981 collection simply omitted it. I find it hard to believe that this was nationalistically motivated since the first page is no less discrediting of the view that no Macedonism existed at the time and yet it was included. Could it have been an oversight? Obviously the omitted part was on a different page so it may have been overlooked.
Conversely, it is also not entirely impossible that the second page is an elaborate fake concocted by overzealous historians in Skopje. I find that hard to believe because it adds nothing conceptually new to the first page and also because it would be technologically challenging to produce this sort of concoction. However, the reliability of this scan is put in question by the obvious forgery of the last line of the first page. I am led to believe that the word "North" (Sever) was photocopied and superimposed on the original "Serbs". As it stands, the expression "Greeks from South, North from North" is meaningless. Also, given the political climate in Yugoslav Macedonia, it is clear why Serbs would have been "masked" in this way. So, in my view, it is the first, rather than the second page that should raise eyebrows.
Having said all that, I believe the article to be authentic (with the original "Serbs" and including the second page) and very interesting. I draw the following conclusions from it:
1. In 1871 there was a group of people who espoused Macedonistic ideas. I wish Slavejkov would have identified them because it is interesting to see whether they belonged to the group of leading Bulgarian intellectuals and educators in Macedonia or were less well known marginal figures. It would also help answer the question of whether they were encouraged by foreign propaganda.
2. The ideas imputed by Slavejkov to these "Macedonists" are very much in line with the claims of contemporary primitive Macedonian nationalism: today's Macedonians are direct descendands of the ancient ones and somehow also pure Slavs whereas Bulgarians from the North are Tartars. Which makes it clear that the authors of these ideas were somewhat educated people with some knowledge of ancient history and not peasants.
3. These ideas were first articulated 10 years prior to the article's publication but were not taken seriously. Then later, two years prior to the article's publication, Slavejkov finds out that the Macedonists mean what they say in earnest.
4. The real cause of the Macedonists' discontents with the "Upper" Bulgarians seems to be not so much the latter's newly discovered alien racial and ethnic character but their dominance in linguistic and literary affairs. We know that educators like Parteniy Zografski and Kuzman Shapkarev tried to teach Bulgarian according to the local dialects in Macedonia and complained about the dominance of the eastern dialects. However, everywhere in their writings they call their language Bulgarian. Could it be that some of their colleagues were more radical in their complaints? Could it be that in 1871 the Serbs (alarmed by the advance of the Bulgarian national movement) were already utilising this discontent to promote ethnic separatism? We can only guess.
What is clear to me is that in the early stages of the Bulgarian revival, when all literary figures leaned towards Church Slavonic forms in their language, there was practically no issue of dialectical differences in textbooks and education. These differences only appear when the "New Bulgarian" school, which favoured the vernacular instead of Church Slavonic and happened to be based on the Eastern dialects, gained preponderance in the third quarter of the 19th century. This must have led to the frictions which opened the way to (Serbian-inspired and funded) Macedonistic propaganda, which we find as early as Pulevski's publications in the 1870's and later in the activities of Novakovich, which ultimately produced Misirkov and the St. Petersburg circle. It may well be though, that the Serbs found already fertile ground within some disgruntled intellectuals who resented the dominance of Upper Bulgarians.
It is also interesting to see when the geographical name Macedonia began to gain currency among the population in the 19th century. Ioakim Kurchovski and Kiril Pejchinovich do not use it and call their homelahd in contemporary Northern Macedonia "Lower Moesia". They also refer to their language as Bulgarian. Even Hadjikonstantinov - Djinot seems to use this term a lot up until the 1850's. On the other hand, Macedonia as a term must have been well known to classically educated natives, even in the 18th century, although I doubt it was used by the general population. Shapkarev reports that inhabitants of Western Macedonia used to call themselves Bulgarians and those to the East of them - "Shops". The famous four-language dictionary of the late 18th century (considered as the first text in the modern Macedonian language) refers to the Ohrid dialect as "Bulgarian". Somehow, however, the name Macedonia for the region must have become widespread by the end of the 1860's. This is my unsubstantiated view but I would be interested to find out how it came into mass use.
I agree with your assesment about the authenticity of this article, expacially that on the Bulgarian wikisource it is not disputed. As far as the sentence: North from the North, I think it is a typesetting mistake. The sentence makes no sense as it is now. Serbs form the North is most probably what the original sentence was. My understanding of the article is practically identical with yours. As far as some further details about the scope of the movement and the people involved in it, there are two other letters written by Slaveykov that are very informative: 12.
Since you are genuinely interested in this subject, I invite you on the macedonian wikipedia: www.mk.wikipedia.org where you may be able to find some more info, and even more, create or edit some articles. With best regards. --Filip M21:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Благодаря за поканата, но не вярвам редакциите и коментарите ми на македонската Уикипедия да бъдат добре приети. Въпросите са прекалено деликатни и неминуемо ще засегнат по-чувствителните македонци (каквито май повечето са). Относно писмата, интересни са, но няма да е зле да сложим фотокопия на страницата. Според мене е трудно да се разглеждат извън контекста си (Унията, борбата за влaст и епископски места в Екзархията и т.н.) и да се вземат като доказателство за македонската етническа идентичност на населението. Някои от споменатите исторически лица са иначе неизвестни, а други би следвало да се разглеждат цялостно. Но със сигурност писмата свидетелстват за началото на нещо ново. Поздрави! (160.39.58.18315:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for the invitation but I doubt my edits or comments on the Macedonian Wikipedia will be taken well. The issues are too delicate and will inevitably arouse the Macedonians who are more sensitive (which most seem to be). Regarding the letters, they are interesting, but it would not be bad to put photocopies on the web page. I think it is difficult to look at them outside of the context (the Union, the struggle for power and bishoprics within the Exarchate, etc.) and to regard them as proof about the Macedonian ethnic identity of the population. Some of the historical figures mentioned are otherwise unknown and the rest must be looked at completely. But it is certain that the letters are evidence for the beginnings of something novel. Regards!(160.39.58.18305:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
To clarify, I do not dispute or doubt that the letters talk about the beginnings of Macedonism and that Macedonists existed although:
(1) Slavko Dimevski, who published them cut out the paragraph where this Macedonism was presented to Slavejkov as a desire to gain primacy within the "Macedonian Bulgarian [church] hierarchy". The referenced article by the two Bulgarian historians (Cočo Biljarski – Ilija Paskov, "Pisma na Petko Račev Slaveikov po unijata v Makedonija prez 1874 g.“, Vekove, Hoe III, 1, Sofija, 1989, 68) I think published the original "unedited" text. I have not read it but have ordered it. So my point is that the text on Wikisource here and here is the one selectively edited by Dimevski and that is a fact. The Kresna Uprising proclamation (which I saw Filip M has also posted in English here has also very likely been "creatively" edited by Mr. Dimevski. I spoke with a Bulgarian friend of mine who is a historian. Not the nationalistic kind, he got his PhD in the West and the nationalists cannot stand his views on the Macedonian nation. So he says that document does not exist at the moment - it is a complete mystery. He believes that it is not impossible some Bulgarian historians destroyed it, although, given Dimevski's proven record with Slavejkov's letters, it may be that he chose to be creative here as well. Plus the document was conveniently "discovered" by Dimeski in the Bulgarian archives on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Kresna uprising. On the other hand, the uprising was a mess and it is a fact that a guy who at one point had come out as a Macedonist was in it (Pulevski, who later declares himself as a Bulgarian - I doubt he minded the contradiction that much). So maybe both things happened - the document existed and was not pleasant to the Bulgarians but Dimevski ceretainly went overboard with the whole Alexander the Great stuff. Anyway, that document simply does not exist as of now and it might have never existed. My friend (and others) checked. By the way, I am having someone check the original "Makedonija" newspaper in Bulgaria for me. If it turns out that the second page is a fake (which I highly, highly doubt), I will try to get a scan. Same for the "North" expression.
(2) It is hard to make the connection (that Ristovski seems to like to make) between some unclear comments in the letters regarding Popgeorgiev-Berovski, for example, and some putative Macedonian ethnic identification of the latter. Or Natanail Ohridiski for that matter. We must look at the complete picture. Natanail did become the Metropolitan of Ohrid after the plebiscite after all. One only needs to read his works to find out what his identity was. Dimitar Popgeorgiev led a band of volunteers from Macedonia in the Serbo-Bulgarian war in 1885. Presenting the Razlovci and Kresna uprisings as some purely (moreover ethnically) Macedonian affairs is a bit of a stretch.
(3) Having said the above, it is clear that there was a small (but growing?) Macedonistic circle but I doubt Shapkarev and others of his stature were completely in line with or fully knew of that extreme form of separatism.
(4) Moreover, I doubt the general population knew much of a Macedonian self-identification and those were ideas that started to circulate within a very small group. But then again, Bulgarian nationalism started in the same way. The difference I think is that there existed some sort of a Bulgarian self-appellation (whatever it meant), even in the more heavily hellenized Macedonia. It had a more solid historical base not in the sense of the continuity of some Bulgarian nation but in the following sense: It is easier to argue (for obvious reasons) that the people who were calling themselves "bugari", "bogari", "bolgari" or "b'lgari" were descendants of the medieval Bulgarian empires of Simeon, Samuil, Assen and Shishman than to argue that people who probably had not heard the name "Macedonia" until recently were descended from the Macedonians of Alexander the Great. Now, the idea that they are pure Slavs seems a tad more plausible, although given the Balkans' demographic history, "pure" is a laughable term.
Disclaimer: The above should not be construed as a negation of Macedonian national identity or an offence of Macedonian national honour. :-) I mean really, I do not think that the Macedonian nation or language is artificial, that it was created by Stalin or that modern Macedonians are brainwashed. And I fully support the right of those who feel ethnically (or in whatever other way) Macedonian in Bulgaria to free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to eat kebapche, drink rakija and sing songs.
The text is incomplete on the Macedonian wikipedia since I'm still waiting for a better translation in english. Someone promissed that he/she will work on it. If not, I'll try to do it myself and I will most certainly translate the entire text in Macedonain. --Filip M13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need a better translation in English? I am sure the Bulgarian is not that difficult to understand - it is a bit archaic but save for the old orthography is not so much different from contemporary Bulgarian. If you have difficulty with specific words and expressions, I would be happy to clarify. As for the authenticity of the whole thing, regardless of which page, I think we should leave the disputed comment. It may well have been a typesetting error but we also must find out why the hell the Bulgarian edition of 1981 would have cut the supposedly authentic article. The solution is for someone to get their hands on the original issue of "Македония" аnd photocpoy at least some relevent passages to resolve the issue. Would the other unsigned Bulgarian user volunteer to go to the National Librtary and do that? With all due respect, it is not very constructive to keep doubting the article's authenticity yet not care to produce any evidence. I am still not clear as to which "Archive of Macedonia" the photocopy was supplied by - the official state archive or the propagandistic website. But even if it is the second one, the claim of forgery in this particular instrances must be substantiated, even if there may have been other cases of forgery.(160.39.58.18315:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
If Bulgarians dismiss any document the RoM people produce as forgery before really proving it is one, they invite back the same response and the historical documents and facts lose all significance. Which legitimises the most outlandish and luntatic claims on the other side of Osogovo since they no longer have to take the facts into account. Bulgarians have far more to gain if they promoted a dialogue based on respect for the historical sources.(160.39.58.18315:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The issues are complex and the historical facts cannot fit in any strictly nationalistic interpretation. That most Slav-speaking Macedonians (end everybody else) called their language Bulgarian in the 19th century seems to me a fact. That later the Bulgarian literary language strayed sufficiently away from the Western Macedonian dialects seems also a fact to me. Just as it is hard to dispute the Bulgarian national character of the revival in Macedonia and its main figures, it is hard to dispute the fact that Macedonism as a theory of the ethnicity of Macedonian Slavs appeared already in the 1860's. It is a different story of what caused it, how well it was accepted or even known to most people, etc. (160.39.58.18315:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The only possible reason that comes to my mind why the bulgarian edition from the 1981 would ommit the second page is the promisse that Slaveikov makes in the text: "Once we strengthen language study in our country and understand the need for a general literary language, we shall write with the greatest gratitude in the Macedonian dialect, if we find it good and useful, or we shall take from it what is necessary as supplementation." Slaveikov himself was in the best possition to fulfill this promisse, since one year after Bulgaria was liberated, he was elected as a minister for education. But he completely failed to do that. Bulgarian standard langauge was created exclusively based on the eastern dialect Trnovo dialect. So, the macedonian language was either not studied, or it was not found good and useful.
The copy of the article was obtained from the Archive of Macedonia, via a friend of mine. I challenged him, re-sending him the comments from our unsigned frined that the article was allegedly forged, and he sent me the photocopies. It is not taken from the soros site. I don't see it is published on that site at all.
I accept your offer to help. I'll start translating, and I'll ask for help regarding several passages that I wasn't able to comprehend.
"Па тоа е се познато", како би кажал дедо Блаже! :-) (or "This is all well known," as grandpa Blaze would have said - for your benefit, BirgitteSB) I mean, we have read those things many times before. Please see some of my comments above. I agree with him on some points but his general conclusion is that this Macedonism was an expression of an existing intrinsic (or at least latent but nonetheless genuine) Macedonian national consciousness but I just don't see it this way. He always explicitly or implicitly assumes the existence of an intrinsic ethnic (if not genetic?) difference between Macedonians and Bulgarians from time immemorial. I would argue that the differences (in identity and politics, not in language) only started to develop around that time (1870's) but did not become really expressed in a widespread separate ethnicity until the 1920's and even 1930's, the existence of Macedonistic ideas since the 1860's notwithstanding.
Regarding that passage from Slavejkov, I doubt it would be the reason for the seond page's exclusion. I know Bulgarian nationalism well and there is nothing in the passage that would prompt any fervent nationalist to censor those words, even if what you say were completely true. A shame because of an unfulfilled promise? You are reading waaay too much into this! I can see where you are coming from but I disagree.
On a sidenote, we could say that standard Bulgarian reflects for the most part the dialects in the Central Balkan region (Turnovo being one of them but also those of the little towns north and south of the Balkan mountain like Gabrovo, Tryavna, Elena, Kotel, Sopot, Karlovo, Kalofer, etc.) but it also has quite a few Western features including some exclusively Macedonian. See this for more details.
Alright, boys and girls, enough from me for a couple of days at least. I do have a job and a life after all.
(unindent) I'm encouraged that you might find a more complete text of Slaveikov's letters. That's how we started with the Macedonian question too. Please keep searching, and I'll search for a scan of the Kresna Uprising Constitution. I'm pretty sure I've seen the front page (the one that talks about the Alexander the Great). Your views on the Macedonian issue are not far at all from mine. I don't think that Macedonians and Buglarians were separated since the era of "amebas". I believe that the modern nations are a product of the 19 century, and so are the modern Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian and other south slavic nations. This article is so interesting, because it is a testimony of the earlies stage of the split. Could it have been differently? Sure. We could have been one nation. All south slavs, or at least the eastern, orthodox part. But now we aren't and that is what it is.
If you come to write on the Macedonian wikipedia, I'll work with u, and I'll help u present your articles. Your macedonian is quite solid, and your views are moderate, so I think you can create some pretty nice articles there. --Filip M03:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it! I knew I have it somewhere, and I found both the first page and the stamp of the uprising: Kresna Macedonian Uprising in 1878. It is a shame if the Bulgarian historians have destroyed the document, but I'm quite sure a full copy exists in Macedonia.
On the language issue: as it is now, the Bulgarian langauge sounds like a foreign language for Macedonians. Unschooled are unable to either read it or understand it beyond the basic vocabulary (which is common for all slavic languages anyway). We can understand simple phrases, but even a newspaper article is full of words, phrases and idioms that are very strange for a native macedonian speaker. The spoken language sounds even stranger, because the inflection is completely different. Bulgarian is a melodiouis language in a sense that you change the pitch of the voice while talking (much like Serbs), and we don't. That sounds to us like if you talk and sing in one. In the high school the tenth grade all students in Macedonia are required to take comparative slavistic for a whole year, where they learn about Bulgarian (in addition to all other slavic languages), the alphabet, the characteristics, etc, and so after that age students are more equiped to read and understand it.
What was behind the Macedonian resistance toward the neo-Trnovo-Bulgarian standard that was imposed in the mid 19 cenutry? Macedonians are the forefront of the Slavic see of nations, and they are directly confronted with the Greek and Albanian. The danger of Hellenization was the biggest in the Southern Macedonia. Macedonians were aware that if the education/standard langauge is not close enough and understandable to the Macedonians from southern Macedonia, we are going to lose them. They already used Greek as a second langauge (language of education) and to win them over, the new-Trnovo-Bulgarian was a repellent, rather then a vehicle. Hence the opposition, and hence that new-Trnovo-Bulgarian standard was never accepted in Macedonia, and remained the stumbling block until the mid 1870-ties. After that it became clear that our possitions and interests are different, in some aspects even opposed. So, the separation was inevitable.
About the Macedonain national consciousness and the definition of our nation: it is still grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted, much like Slaveikov misiterprets it in this article. We are not a "pure" or "historic" nation. We don't think we are direct of pure descendant of anyone or anything. Nor did we think that we have historic or ethnic righs that are derived from our ancestry or our genetics. We are simply the native population of the region of Macedonia, and that is what defines us. We believe that Macedonia is a well defined geo-economic region, and the natives have well defined and well expressed interests to create one nation. Our relation with the ancient Macedonians is not different from your Bulgarian relation with the ancient Tracians, or the French relation with the ancient Galls. We are their descendants in a sense, but that is not an exclusive relation, and we don't claim any purity or exclusivity whatsoever. We are also descendants of the Slavs, and the slavic heritage is very important part of our ethnogenesys. Our langauge now is almost purely slavic in its vocabulary. It is far less slavic in its syntax and phonetics. We resisted (in many cases even violently) our inclusion in either Serbian, or Bulgarian or Greek nation, because that caused the butchering of our homeland, its division in three parts. As divided as it is now, it is not any more a viable geo-economic unit. From being the central Balkan state, the crosroads of the Balkans, it is now turned into three poor and neglected provinces in three different states, that created borders among us, walls higher than the Berlin wall, they disrupted our trade, our economy and the flow of people and ideas. The common methaphore that we use is: "Our motherland Macedonia is cut in three peaces. It is on a death bed and everyone is waiting her to die. It is only us that can save her." --Filip M14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your comments point by point:
1) The way a language sounds I purely subjective but most people in Bulgaria have the exactly opposite impression. Bulgarian is not spoken at all with a changing pitch of voice, whereas Serbian is and modern Macedonian (especially with a more "Northern" pronunciation) resembles the way Serbian sounds a lot more. PArticularly the long vowels, etc. Plus a lot of young people from Skopje speak a type of slang which is very Serbian in origin and sound. On the other hand, I find that a lot of Macedonian scholars (esp. from the older generations - Ristovski, Katardjiev, etc.) speak Macedonian with a heavy Bulgarian accent - putting the stress in the wrong place, etc. But in any case, I really do not see how Bulgarian is spoken with mellodious change of the pitch of voice.
If you really believe that what is common between Macedonian and Bulgarian is common to all Slavic languages, you are deluding yourself only. Clearly there are many differences (mostly lexical) between the standard langiuages today - but they are mostly recent. All the new vocabulary to describe new phenomena and terminology developed separately in the last 60 years. That is why a Bulgarian newspaper article may sound strange to Macedonians and vice versa. But this is mostly due to the new "high-level" vocabulary. Bulgarians have no trouble understanding simple peasant speech from Macedonia and I assume vice versa. The dialectical bases of the two languages are not all that far.
Finally, the modern Macedonian language is heavily Serbified in many respects, in many cases intentionally. This Serbian influence has recently started to wane and get replaced by English, etc. but it is still very strong and most of will never go away. Very good examples of it are cited here. It is notable that a lot of the Serbian features were introduced not just to substitute for literary Bulgarian analogues, which were lacking in Macedonian dialects but also to substitute or change the meaning of native Macedonian words and phrases that are not used in Eastern Bulgarian. Also, a lot of the "Bulgarian" words and forms that were purged and replaced with Serbian ones, got into Bulgarian from Church Slavonic and not from the Central Balkan dialects. And Old Church Slavonic is ironically claimed to be Old Macedonian!
2) It is news to me that Macedonians were repelled by the Turnovo-based standard language. Some certainly expressed dissatisfaction with it but in the end it was very widely adopted in Macedonia by 1912. All documents of the VMORO (no matter which faction) are written in it, Macedonians (including revolutionary leaders) studied and taught in that language in their schools, etc. Sure, there was Misirkov, but he remained largely forgotten until 1945 and even he changed his mind many times. While modern Macedonian nationalists may want to view separation as inevitable, this is a myth. Separation happened as a result of a particular sequence of political events. Had history taken a different course from 1878 onwards, nobody would have even remembered about separation. What Bulgarian nationalists fail to understand is that this separation was not "articficial" or "forced" upon every Macedonian. It happened naturally, but a unification would have been just as natural under different historical circumstances.
3) If you really believe what you say in your last paragraph, then you have my admirations. Macedonia was actually originally a geoeconomic concept around which a nation-building project was formed in the late 19th and carried out in the second half of the 20th century. I think it is correct on many counts except for I do not remember when (until allegedly in the 1940's) Macedonians resisted violently (or non-violently for that matter) their inclusion in the Bulgarian state. As for the Slavic vocabulary - I think it is getting anglicised and latinised by the day. When I read Macedonian newspapers I am absolutely dismayed by the unquestioned introduction of Western words.
My responses:
1) Macedonian language has developed strictly on the foundation of the spoken dialects from Macedonia. Everything that existed in the spoken langauge was taked directly from it. As far as the new lexic, they tried to use or construct words from the spoken langauge too. Example: The macedonian word for "wave" is "bran", a word taken from the Ohrid dialect. It is different from both the serbian "val", or Bulgarian "valna" or Croat "talas". The examples on the web page you cited are mostly general slavic words. Soobrakaj, for example is present in all South and West Slavic langauges. I'm not sure about the Russian. Of course, some words came through Serbian, some other thrugh Polish (which was very influential in Macedonia, in addition to Russian) and we only adapted them to the macedonian phonetics, but that is normal, having all the circumstances in mind.
Why many Macedonians (including Katardziev who is born in Pirin Macedonia) do not always accentuate properly? Well it looks like we are very relaxed about our language. Everyone uses its own dialect wherever possible. The dialects are close enought so we can communicate witout too much of a trouble. Even in the Pariament some representatives tried using their own dialect, and Albanians objected. It was hard for them to follow so many different dialects (there are a total of 27 different dialects in the whole Macedonian region).
2) The common standard langauge as an issue was never resolved, and it was far bigger and more important than bulgaian nationalist are willing to admit. The schools in Macedonia, even when they were financed by the Exarchate, didn't switch to the new-Eastern Bulgarian dialect. They kept printing separate schoolbooks. A total of 16 schoolbooks were printed only between 1860 and 1875 in the Macedonian language, as a replacement for the similar schoolbooks that already existed on the eastern neo-Bulgarian language. That was the core of the problem because Macedonians looked at the neo-Bulgarian dialect (expecially at the way how it was imposed) as a clear sign of arrogance on the Bulgarian side, much like the Greek arrogance toward them. One of the reasons for not including Macedonia in the San-Stefano Bulgaria were the petitions that many Macedonians signed against that kind of inclusion. So, some people in Macedonia were so much against creating one nation with Bulgarians that they even prefered to remain under Turkish rule.
3) I do believe that all modern nations are 19 century creations. The "historic ties" were merely myths to keep the people attracted to the idea. The real reason for the nationalism was the economy and resources. About the violent and non-violent resistance, unfortunately there are so many sad examples, where Macedonians were turned against Macedonians, just because they supported a different idea (Bulgarophile against Grkomani and vice versa). Many, many Macedonian revolutionaries were killed, either by the opposite party, or by paid killers. --Filip M15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make some remarks on the quality of the translation. Although not a proffesional translator myself I pretend to have some knowledge in English. My neutrality also might be questioned as I do not hide being a Bulgarian from Bulgaria.
First sentence should read: "At last Macedonian question came forth and came up in the press." (ordering of words expressing importance in the sentence; "has bring to light" is grammatically incorrect in English)
In the original "at last" in the second sentence is italicized to stress on it once more.
Third: "We heard of it even about ten years ago from some [people] from Macedonia." ("още" is to express much longer period [than year or two], so "even" might do).
Fourth: "Initially/In the beginning we have taken the words of these yound patriots as a joke and a threat in the heath of our not so serious dissensions." (it is somewhat diminutive)
Fifth: "That is what we thought ... a thought that many ... into life" should be read "So we thought ... a thought which many ... in the life"
There is a lot more of such subtle differences but for sure there is one rather significant one:
last sentence of part one should be rather different: "... our Bulgarians from Macedonia will be unable to protect themselves from external encroachments and from enemy possessions of Greeks ..."
first sentence of part two should read as "Then? — Then if not Bulgarians, nothing."
We have not had much experience with conflicting translations here before, but I am optomistic we can come up with a consensus translation without any problems. This text has been improved greatly in the past weeks which is a tribute to all the contributors. I do think it would be a best practice to make a fresh translation. I have carefully looked through the history and feel a fresh translation would clear up any lingering copyright concerns from the areas that are still intact from the earliest english version which was a likely violation. I realize that this may be a sensitive area. After all great collaboration that has been put into this text I am sure we can continue working together through a fresh translation. I would suggest that someone put their best effort at translation at The Macedonian question/Fresh translation. Best practice would be to avoid looking at the current translation while doing the intial work. However examing any other 19th century Bulgarian documents for comtemperary language usage would be a good idea. My advice is to remember that this document has a strong POV which no longer exists. The translation should not aim to be neutral regarding today's disagreements, but should rather aim to discover what the 19th century POV was regarding this issue from a man such as the author. I imagine his views from 1871 would not completely agree with any modern opinions and may contain aspects which all modern views disagree with. Once a fresh translation is put up let us try to get as many people to proofread it from the original Bulgarian as possible. I would ask proofreaders to be bold and make minor changes but to list any contraversial or semantic changes in bullet form on this page and to sign off that they have proofread the text on this page. Please be aware by taking part in this collaboration you are releasing your translation under the GFDL. I am completely confident we can make this our first "Wikisource translation" to become a featured text.--BirgitteSB14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem for me, I would try to do my best translating it. It can easily be done (at least for me) right from the original, as the text is quite close to modern Bulgarian. I've done the sentences above that way so they can lay out the foundation for the fresh translation :-)
I'll try to find the closest match in English in order to preserve as much as possible from the original meaning. Then it would be nice if a native English-speaker reads it to make the necessary style corrections, and finaly some other editors knowing Bulgarian to proof-read the result in order to verify whether the translated text is still matching the author's intended meaning. -- Goldie ± (talk)15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, Bggoldie. I have some dificulties to understand certain words and phrases, and I'm sure you can do a better job in translating them. Note: The previous translation is not under copyright. I contacted the publisher, and he released the translation under GFDL. That is why I basically proof-read it with the bulgarian text, and added the missing paragraphs. But making a fresh translation is also a good idea. And, as BrigitteSB pointed out, we need to translate what Slaveikov wrote, what his POV was on this subject. Regardless of what we thing about it now. --Filip M16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translation in Macedonian (help appreciated)[edit]
I translated the article in Macedonian. There are several words and phrases that I don't quite understand. They are delimited in brackets like this: [?phrase?]. Any help is appreciated. --Filip M15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent translation, by the way. После како да не кажеш дека си чист бугарин-татарин кога го знаеш бугарскиот (татарскиот) како майчин язик? :-) Just kidding! I tried to translate the difficult words and phrases and left my comments in the "discussion" field. Up to you to change them in the main text. Mostly Russian words that are no longer used in Bulgarian but were popular among the преродбеници of the time, who got their education in Russia or via Russian literature and thought vernacular substitutes to be too crude. I think one marked difference between standard Macedonian and Bulgarian today is the fact that the latter still retains some of those Russian words that crept in at the time. Macedonian, on the other hand, was built up directly from the dialects and then borrowed the rest from Serbian (lately Latin and English) rather than Russian.(160.39.58.18303:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for the compliments. I needed to hear something like that today ( lol ). I tried to incorporate your suggestions as close as possible. Please re-read the whole text and suggest further changes wherever you see them fit. I can also see that your english is very good. If you want to try to make a fresh translation in English, I'm here to proofread it for you. If not, I'll try to make one, and you can proofread and correct. Now I think I have a full understanding of the whole text. --Filip M17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works fine. Getting the meaning right, which is what you have done, is more important than using the literal translation. I only gave long explanations and plenty of suggestions for substitutes in order to help clarify the meaning and context. I can take a crack at an English translation but not very soon because of time constraints. (149.77.24.8918:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
While waiting for a better translataion, I re-read the text and fixed few obvious mistakes and/or portions that did not make sense in English. --Filip M18:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
