Talk:Dimitar Vlahov

Untitled

Dimitar Vlahov "Memoirs" (autobiography), (Second edition) Slovo ISBN 9989-103-22-4. The author declares Macedonian ethnicity.

From the same book: "Кога зборувам за македонскиот народ ги имам предвид на прво место македонските Славjани. Под името македонски народ по тоа време мекедонските деjатели го разбираа целото население на Македниjа, т.е. зборот Македонци имаше поскоро географски карактер ...Кога револуционерната организациjа беше основана и почна да работи, jа започнува своjата работа наjнапред среде оние Македонци кои се викаа Бугари.."

Translation: "When I talk about the Macedonian people, I mean the Macedonian Slavs. The Macedonian people at the time meant the population of Macedonia - the name Macedonians had geographical connotation. When the revolutionary organization was established and started functioning, the first people to start working were those Macedonians who called themselves Bulgarians".

The author clearly says Macedonian is a geographical term and the Slav population is Buglarian. Mr. Neutron 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence clearly says that Macedonian at the time was a geographical term only, and that the Slav population were callED Bulgarians. The author in Bulgaria is considered as an ideologist of macedonism and he was a part of the titoist government in post wwii republic of macedonia. The book is actually full of criticism towards the Bulgarian policy. If you own the book, checking it will not be a problem for you.Ugzdaveam 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

There are many claims made in this articles. Sources need to be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander the great1 (talk • contribs)

Stop trolling this article! Mr. Neutron 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The only one that is trolling is yourself as you want to make up imaginary statements, post them and provide no sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander the great1 (talk • contribs)

Please do sign your username on the page discussion. Mr. Neutron 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Change your name to Ivanthegreat skopian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.49.162 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, http://macedonian.atspace.com/knigi/gv.htm check out this page, this is a book about him written by his son! I think it is more than clear he considered himself a Macedonian, but since I know you (Bulgarians) won't allow that to be written on the main article, I think that the most NPV decision would be "...he was a revolutionary from Macedonia. Bulgarians consider him Bulgarian while Macedonians consider him Macedonian..." or something like that. In any case, "a Bulgarian revolutionary" is more than unacceptable. For Pete's sake people, he was a statesman in Republic of Macedonia, he was not some ancient hero!

Stefan Dechev

Stefan Dechev has the same opinion as Katardzhiev regarding Vlahov. Jingiby (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, Dechev doesn't share the same views as Katardzhiev, Katardzhiev very well clarified that the reason that these pro-Bulgarian sentiments stuck was due to the Balkan wars and the divide of Macedonia, which according to him caused a gap in the Macedonian consciousness, which resulted in them accepting foreign philosophy, since IMRO-U members were mostly in Sofia they accepted Bulgarian philosophy. Gurther (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Dechev has different opinion. Jingiby (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, then how about we keep the source but state "according to Bulgarian historian Stefan Dechev Vlahov continued to see himself as a Bulgarian" Gurther (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. His opinion is based on Katardzhiev's interview.Jingiby (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, why are you removing the neutrality tag? The dispute hasn't ended yet. Gurther (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Another non-issue that became an issue unfortunately. We had a consensus for removing the citation to Katardžiev's interview, as well as his opinion because it was only based on a primary source (with the absence of those other secondary sources). Since there are secondary sources which interpret his interview, they can be used. I'd like to also note that it's marked as an opinion, and not an indisputable fact (this is per WP:RSOPINION). Our interpretations of primary sources here do not matter, only those of secondary sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Gurther, it seems to me too presumptuous to forbid one researcher from quoting the opinion of another with whom he agrees, to delete the opinion of both, and to challenge the neutrality of three sources claiming the same thing and without any clear reasons. This is disruptive editing. Also, you are waging an edit war and will be reported if you continue.Jingiby (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, you've been editing for 16 years, and still do not understand how WP:3RR works, ive done two reverts, youve done three, your ignorance is displayed infront of everyone and frankly its embarrasing, the reason the tag is added is due to the fact of how bias the sources are, by taking an opinion of Katardziev out of context and attempting and mixing it to justify some sort of fringe view, this type of behaviour is not supported on wikipedia and such actions like yours indicate a clean WP:NOTHERE, continue to mush and only support your agenda and you will be reported. Gurther (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The next revert and you will be reported. Jingiby (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Jingiby, in order for a report to happen a user needs to do 4 reverts instead of 3 per WP:3RR if you look at the page history, you will notice how ive done two reverts, here and here, thus if you do report me, the only thing you will probably be meet with is a decline. so i advise laying down the blatant and false accusations. Gurther (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)