Talk:Fascism in Bulgaria

Western researchers claiming fascism in Bulgaria was fully developed in a classical type.

I cannot find a single verifiable credible source from the last 30 years that claims such a thing. The source purporting to contain such a conclusion cannot be verified. On the contrary, there are several cited sources that speak to the fact that Western researchers do not hold such an opinion, and that there is a scientific consensus on the matter rejecting such an interpretation. The cited pages from the book Battling Over the Balkans are 193-196. However this is chapter 3 called Irregular Violence: Bandits, Guerillas, and Militias (pp. 149-208) by James Frusetta and Stefan Papaioannou. The title is not related directly to Bulgaria, moreover Frusetta's opinion differs in other articles cited here where it can be checked. There is also no way to verify the cited in article sentence and its context. It may discuss the view of Marxist Bulgarian historiography for example. Please, provide a way to check the cited source. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

On what basis are you describing the sources I've presented as "alternate views" and even as "Marxist historiography"? This is your own personal interpretation.

A single source I can not verify and any other found by me, or provided by other editor, supporting it, moreover all verifiable sources confirm this opinion was supported by communist regimes. Jingiby (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why you can't verify the Battling Over the Balkans source, as I've provided the link and all pages (193 through 196, "Fascism in Bulgaria") are visible. This entire section discusses Bulgaria.

On my display is an inscription: No preview available. Jingiby (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the sources you have presented, can you point out where the term "scientific consensus" is explicitly stated? I may have missed it, thanks. --Local hero ^talk 14:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Direct citation from reliable source: Currently, a consensus has been reached between Bulgarian and international experts who have recognized that Bulgaria's agrarian social structure as well as her monarchic rule were the major barriers towards the infiltration of fascist practices and establishment of fascism in the country.Jingiby (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove "scientific" then since that word is your own invention. Thanks for also clarifying that "Marxist historiography" is your own description of the source. I can see all pages in Google books for Battling, in addition I've provided the relevant quotation so I'm not sure what your issue is. --Local hero ^talk 16:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Local hero, I have checked the source now and it doesn't support your agenda. I have removed "false" since that word is missing in the source. Jingiby (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"false" is not in the source because I paraphrased it from "this is not true" (please see WP:Close paraphrasing), so I'll be adding that back so we stay aligned to the source.

The bigger issue here is why you are single-handedly determining which views are labelled "alternative". How big fascism was in Bulgaria is contentious and debated, and that's why we're also presenting views that fascism was widespread, aspiring to create an Aryan manhood, promoting anti-Semitism, etc. --Local hero ^talk 03:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, once there is a consensus among researchers and someone has a different opinion, it is an alternative view. It is about a single Bulgarian historian - Poppetrov, who puts forward this thesis. Jingiby (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

As well as Vassil Girginov and Peter Bankov. --Local hero ^talk 05:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Many researchers in Bulgaria have dealt with this issue. In any case, if we have a consensus in scientific circles on a certain problem, there are always different opinions outside it, that are considered alternative to the main one. Jingiby (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Images

In an article about fascism in Bulgaria, three of the four images in the article are from Macedonia. Of course, each one includes a lengthy caption intended to advance Bulgarian POV points which aren't really related to the article. --Local hero ^talk 05:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed one. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Two out of three doesn't seem much better. I'm not sure what the Ohrid one in particular adds to the topic of Bulgarian fascism. --Local hero ^talk 13:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The photograph from Ohrid is among the few photographs showing the interaction of the Bulgarian army with both other allied Axis armies in the occupied territories in Yugoslavia. These are the armies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, both of them fascist armies. I suppose you don't like the enthusiasm of the "occupied population", but this is the situation on the photo. Jingiby (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Almost half of the text of this article is devoted to Macedonian "interpretation" of fascism in Bulgaria and then the Bulgarian view of that interpretation. In addition three of four images were from Macedonia, each with long POV captions (now two of three images after I pointed out the lunacy). Your obsession with delegitimizing ethnic Macedonians is of course apparent on every page you touch, but on an article that is focused on Bulgaria such as Bulgarian fascism, the intent becomes even more apparent.

Here's an image of Filov and Mussolini in 1941 - I would say this is a far better choice for the article. --Local hero ^talk 19:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)