Talk:Macedonian Blood Wedding

message: No reason for that. Stop disruptive editing and discuss the issue here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just copying what I wrote on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. 
Good afternoon, I am here to report what I suspect to be a case of original research on the article Macedonian Blood Wedding. Please note that I am new to Wikipedia so I am not entirely sure if it would classify as such. It namely has to do with the following edits  and . First of all, all three of the sources cited to support the fact that Macedonian was considered a Bulgarian dialect do not even mention the play in question. In my opinion, that topic is how the Macedonian language was viewed at the time, which is more pertinent to articles like Macedonian language, Macedonian language naming dispute and Political views on the Macedonian language. One of my other concerns with those sources is that they contain super lengthy excerpts which are again completely unrelated to the article. The same applies to sources six and seven which again do not even mention Macedonian Blood Wedding. Secondly, another one of the sources the editor uses to support his claim , namely this one does not seem as the most reliable material to me; it is from a website called promacedonia.org and again, it does not even mention the play nor its author (it is in Bulgarian so someone else who speaks the language can confirm that). So it seems to me that User: Jingiby tries to add a very biased, personal view of the language of the book. I agree that if there are any reliable and academic sources which mention the language used specifically related to the book, they should be mentioned in the article, however this user does not seem to provide them. Thank you very much in advance for considering this entry.   Update: he keeps on adding more and more. DD1997DD (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Hi, Please note that deleting sources is considered vandalism. It wold be better to follow the Wikipedia rules and also  not to delete the information you disagree with. I also disagree with some of the information you have added, but I do not remove it. What you consider to be the original research is the thesis underlying all the topics here related to the Macedonian question. Therefore, I ask you kindly to restore the content you have deleted. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you do not justify any reasons for the relevance of your changes so let's just agree to disagree and wait for a third party to check this at the noticeboard. Until then, I will keep all content that does not mention the play away from the article. Cheers. DD1997DD (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  and , hello can you please discuss the issue too before reverting my edits? DD1997DD (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sometimes a person sleeps. It should be borne in mind that this discussion is seeking consensus and may continue for weeks. No consensus was reached for now. It is also good to consider the personal opinion of the author of the play and his contemporaries, not just the modern point of view. They considered this dialect a Bulgarian. Therefore, I return deleted information, which is obviously relevant and supported by several editors. Jingiby (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since no consensus was reached, please refrain from adding sources that DO NOT EVEN MENTION THE PLAY TO PROPAGATE A BIASED POINT OF VIEW. I kept the relevant sources you added after but will remove all sources I deem original research until a third party discusses the issue. DD1997DD (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have objections against some text-passages, please provide them below and we can drop some of them or even all of them, but just deleting a huge amount of sourced content only because you dislike it, or because you disagree with its presence in this article is disruptive editing. Jingiby (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, here is an explanation of all the things that are wrong with the current status of the article:
*The part where you randomly italicized Macedonian in a quote (where mind you, it wasn't originally italicized) and later use three sources to claim that Chernodrinski himself said that with Macedonian he meant "Bulgarian Macedonian" is not supported by any of the sources you provide atm. Which part of this article mentions what Chernodrinski said? It is a newspaper article that says that he focused on Bulgarian topics in only one sentence which is written by a newspaper reporter. I cannot access source 4 so please provide the excerpt that explicitly says that "Macedonian means Bulgarian Macedonian" in the title and paste it either here or in the article? You can keep this source but IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SAY "MACEDONIAN IN THE TITLE OF THIS DRAMA AND THE CHARACTERS IN IT MEANS MACEDONIAN BULGARIAN"!!! It literally only says "патилата на македонските българи не само не престанах" WHICH IS AGAIN NOT A COMMENT HE MADE ABOUT THIS BOOK IN PARTICULAR BUT ABOUT PAST EVENTS IN HISTORY. And do not forget to mention that that is what Georgi N. Nikolov said was written by Chernodrinksi in the preface of the 1928 edition of the book; all the other content I have added in the article mentions which professor said what and where they said it.
*The part where you say "Until the end of the Second World War the Macedonian dialects were widely considered to be part of the Bulgarian diasystem" includes three sources which never mention the book. They provide a very specific point of view that does not belong to this article. I agree, they are reliable and they can be used in articles such as Political views on the Macedonian language and Macedonian language naming dispute. Here, they just serve to prove an assumption YOU are making to sell a story YOU are trying to sell. I read reference 20 - that one is an academic source which focuses specifically on the Bulgarian language AND it mentions the play so I added that one to mention that from a Bulgarian point of view Macedonian was considered a dialect. 
* In reference 14 you mention he was Orthodox Bulgarian but the source you provide says "по вера православен, по народност българин". I do not see Bulgarian Orthodox mentioned? Also how is his nationality relevant to this article and not to the main article?
* "its uniqueness is still a matter of political controversy in Bulgaria" - how is the current-day Bulgarian view on the Macedonian language something relevant to this book in particular?  
*"His works were usually written in standard Bulgarian except for this drama, on the cover of which the author pointed himself that it was written in Macedonian dialect (Македонски говор)" - I cannot access the source for this, so would you mind sending the original text where you read it either here or put it in the source? 
In general, your way of editing is very biased. You try to make connections yourself instead of pointing out specifically WHO said WHAT and WHERE they said it. It makes an enormous difference when you specify that a Bulgarian linguist said that his work focuses on Bulgarian topics than to just use that as a source to support that he indeed worked on Bulgarian topics. DD1997DD (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Литературна мисъл, том 14, Институт за литература, Българска академия на науките, София, 1970, стр. 140. (Literary Thought, Volume 14, Institute of Literature, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1970, p. 140.) Jingiby (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excerpt please? And address the other points please? DD1997DD (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Even today, in 2020, the academic community in Bulgaria denies the existence of separate Macedonian language, though it was codified in 1945. I cannot begin now here to describe who, when, how and where between 1900 and 2020 expressed the opinion that Chernodrinski wrote in Bulgarian, etc. By the way in 1900 it was neither  standardized Macedonian language, nor people with clear Macedonian self-identification. Even Misirkov published his ideas afterwards. There is general  academic consensus in Bulgaria on the issue, but this article is not about it. Jingiby (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot begin now here to describe who, when, how and where between 1900 and 2020 expressed the opinion that Chernodrinski wrote in Bulgarian, etc. I am afraid it doesn't have to with being able to or not but being obligated to do so if you want to contribute to making this article trustworthy. And I would kindly ask you to stop discussing history and politics and address the aforementioned points. 18:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, can you please discuss before reverting my edits  and declaring them vandalism? And also please address the issues I brought up before in this discussion? DD1997DD (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I think you must discuss your edits before deleting a lot of sources and backed by them content. You simply deny several obvious facts: at the time when this book was written there were neither ethnic Macedonians, nor Macedonian nation, or Macedonian state, Macedonian language, etc. The author had Bulgarian national identity, he was Bulgarian orthodox, Bulgarian subject and wrote exclusively in Bulgarian with the only exception: this play that he wrote as in Bulgarian as well in Macedonian dialect, per himself, not language. His literary subjects were Macedonian Bulgarians, not ethnic Macedonians, etc.  Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, point out a source that says that "subjects in the book Macedonian Blood Wedding were Macedonian Bulgarians" please? Otherwise, it's just a conclusion you come up with your own knowledge and that's not how Wikipedia works? DD1997DD (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Example: Войдан Попгеоргиев е един от първите автори на драми със сюжет живота на българите в Македония. In English: Voidan Popgeorgiev is one of the first authors of dramas with a plot the life of Bulgarians in Macedonia. For more see: Леков Дочо, История на литературата и на възприемателя през Българското възраждане. Втори том, Унив. изд. Св. Климент Охридски, София, 2004, ISBN 954071978X, стр. 375. Lekov Docho, History of Literature and the Perceptor during the Bulgarian National Revival. Volume Two, Univ. ed. St. Kliment Ohridski, Sofia, 2004, ISBN 954071978X, p. 375. Jingiby (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That does not specifically refer to this book, but to the author's literary work. Please try to find a source that explicitly says that about this book.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by DD1997DD (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another example: Редовно се играят пиесите на известния български драматург Войдан Чрнодрински "Македонска кървава сватба", „Бурите на Вардар", „Духът на свободата" и др. Последните пресъздават тежкото положение на българите в Македония. In English: The plays of the famous Bulgarian playwright Voydan Crnodrinski as "Macedonian Bloody Wedding", "The Storms of Vardar", "The Spirit of Freedom" and others are regularly played. The latter animate the heavy plight of the Bulgarians in Macedonia. For more see: Димитър Гоцев, Младежките национално-освободителни организации на македонските българи 1919-1941. Издателство на Българската Академия на Науките, София, 1988, стр. 228. Dimitar Gotsev, The Youth National Liberation Organizations of the Macedonian Bulgarians 1919-1941. Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1988, p. 228. Jingiby (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then focus on adding relevant sources like that one which specifically talk about the play, and not others which don't even mention it. DD1997DD (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Translate or transcribe?Jingiby (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Both. E.g. ref 2's authors are written in Cyrillic. You can also maybe include a trans-title parameter to references, but I will leave that up to you. I usually translate articles in Macedonian I use. DD1997DD (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of sourced content. 

message: Source listed now under # 1 is a Student's thesis written by the graduate from the University of Zagreb, Faculty of philosophy, Department of South Slavistics. Her name is Tihana Peša. Please check Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. I seriously doubt that a student's thesis is such a source. Jingiby (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties." The thesis was supervised by professor D-r Borislav Pavlovski, an expert in South Slavic languages at one of the most renowned Croatian universities. DD1997DD (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student's thesis as reliable source. 

message: Why should the author's nationality and religion (completely irrelevant to the book) be mentioned with 4 sources ? DD1997DD (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because some editors dislike this and delete obvious facts. Jingiby (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  A postcard written in Bulgarian language and issued in Bulgaria during the first half of the 20th century is obviously Bulgarian, not Macedonian. Macedonian was codified in 1945-1950 period. A Bulgarian character (per its author) and Orthodox girl from Macedonia (per its author) is a Bulgarian Orthodox (as its author). Macedonian Church was established in 1958.Jingiby (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is your personal interpretation and that is your way of pushing your nationalist proapganda. Stop reverting before we reach a consensus. DD1997DD (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That are facts. Jingiby (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Those*. Facts that don't belong to this article. DD1997DD (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The postcard is written in pre-1948 Bulgarian orthography. The Slavs in Ottoman Macedonia were either Greek or Bulgarian Orthodox. In case they were Greek Orthodox, they felt themselves Greeks or Serbs. If they felt as Bulgarian, as this character is described by the author, they were adherents either of the Bulgarian Orthodox or of the Bulgarian Uniate Church. This girl was from Orthodox faith. Jingiby (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your personal, biased and inexpert interprertation of history. That is not what Wikipedia stands for. On Wikipedia, we need information that is cited and supported by sources - something I provided and you tried to change. Now please stop repeating the same story as a parrot and stop vandalizing articles on Wikipedia. Thank you. DD1997DD (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are kidding probably. Jingiby (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author nationality 

message: ,  This play has obviously two editions - the original one, released in Bulgaria and a North Macedonian one, released in what is today North Macedonia for the first time in 1953, after the death of the author in 1951. The differences between the two editions are illustrated with a table at the bottom, with references to the texts of both editions, and an additional reliable source was added. The cited text in the "Play" section is from the North Macedonian adaptation - adaptation done in the People's Republic of Macedonia for local use. I think that in the Plot section, the description should be based on the original, not on the North Macedonian adaptation, and the 2nd one should be mentioned at the bottom of the plot, illustrating the differences between the two. This way both editions will be properly described. Any opinions on that? --StanProg (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This will be fair. Jingiby (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. I really don't understand this tendency you two have to label all the characters with a certain nationality, instead of focusing on more important aspects. As we all know, history can be interpreted from many different perspectives and that is the job of historians - they are the ones to decide whether the word "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" the author used has the same connotation as today. As Wikipedians, we should try to provide a version of the article that does not get bogged down in irrelevant details and that focuses on the literary details/elements of the book. The section on linguistic and nationality dispute covers everything you listed in your comment really well and there is no need to reiterate the same thing throughout the sections of the article. Instead, we could just keep the plot as it is now without specifying any national belonging of the characters and that would be the most unbiased version. DD1997DD (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not labeling. This is how they are described by the author of the play in the play itself. Let's stick to the play text. There's no interpretation in my proposal, on the contrary - it's about following the play text and describing the characters as they were written by the author, not in the North Macedonian adaptation, released for the first time in 1953, after the death of the author in 1951. The table below very well illustrates that there are an original version and an adaptation made in the People's Republic of Macedonia for local use. The plot is about the North Macedonian adaptation, not about the original, as we can clearly see. The plot should be based on the original, not on the adaptation after all the article is about the play, not about its adaptation outside Bulgaria. What is unbiased to call the term Macedonian villagers, when the term Macedonian is not used even a single time in the original? My proposal is to add the information about the North Macedonian adaptation, after the plot according to the original, if it's needed. If it's not needed, we can leave the information about the adaptation and its analysis in the corresponding section. --StanProg (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot must be based on the original, not on politically motivated pseudo-nationalist forgery. Jingiby (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As it currently stands, the plot is about villagers who lived in the Ottoman-occupied territory of Macedonia and not a single character's national identity is mentioned. To reiterate, historical texts change meaning when interpreted from a modern perspective and it is the job of historians to do that and come up with "the truth". While Bulgarian historiograhy decides to literally stick to the author's words "Bulgarian" and interpret its meaning from a current-day perspective, Macedonian historiography decides to interpret what the word actually meant - there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches and we need to acknowledge that. In the meantime, we should try to avoid any of the two sides being represented in the plot section and report an unbiased and an unpolitical version. Again, I think that at the moment, everything you described in your comment is well explained in the dispute section. DD1997DD (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonia was never occupied by the Ottomans. By the Ottoman conquest there was any area popular under that name on the Balkans. Also a rule which lasted a half Millennium is not an occupation. Bulgarian researchers stick to the author's perspective and interpret his time from a then-day perspective, while Macedonian historians decide to interpret it from modern North Macedonian perspective, which means to put modern ethnic distinctions on to the past, when they were unavailable. Jingiby (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's clear what you're trying to say with your comment, it's filled with mistakes. Anyway, the point is that we should avoid pinpointing nationalities to avoid contentious claims of either side. DD1997DD (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "and not a single character's national identity is mentioned..." does not correspond to the actual text of the play and this can be clearly be seen from the table below. We have a clear, 100% identification made by the author as Bulgarians, just like we have Turks and Serbians in that play. "historical texts change meaning" - this is not a historical text, this is a play, a work of art, and there can be even Native Americans in a play about the Balkans as it's the author's decision. "Macedonian historiography decides to interpret..." - how the historiography is related to a work of art? This is meaningless. If there were Martians in that play, how will the "Macedonian historiography" interpret them? My advice is to keep to the play, not to present interpretations in one country or another. If the play is adapted in some way in a specific country, this can be indicated, but not with undue weight. --StanProg (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia defends policies against modifications that encourage censorship. Yugoslav Communist nationalist censorship policy has no place here. Jingiby (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hahahah, pathetic. DD1997DD (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original (Bulgarian) and North Macedonian edition/adaptation