Talk:Pirot/Archive 1

To PANONIAN
There is one reference (N7) in the text - Kosta V. Kostić, Prilog etnoistoriji Torlaka, II izdanje, Novi Sad, 1995 added by you. Please, quote a concrete page.

Мy another ask is, please, be careful with your sources. The problem is not that they are Serbian (I quoted Serbian sources too), but they are not scientific. For example your source http://www.pirot.org.yu/ is not very relevant when we are discussing the past and when we need of scientific sources. In this publicistic source is said: Пироћанци су тада, сматра Коста Костић, одушевљено дочекали Стефана Немању и немачког цара, дарујући га пиротским ћилимом. (Тhe citizens of Pirot, Kosta Kostich considers, enthusiastically welcomed Stefan Nemanja and German tsar (sic), presenting them a rug from Pirot). Which Kosta Kostich - one from the begining of XX century (when the aim was to reinforce Serbian consciousness among the citizens of Pirot) or another from the end of XX century (Ingeneer, Torlak from Slavinja)? And which of the works of K.K.? If this "exotic" oppinion exists ("enthusiastically welcomed"), is it accepted by the historians and are there some documents from the epoch or this is a legend from XX century? It seems that famous Pirot rugs was made even in XIII century (?!?). Ofcource, there is not a need to do orirginal research, there is only need to be more precisely with our sources. If you need of literature - Serbian or Bilgarian about Pirot I think that I can help you and I hope that you'll help me. I'll be very glad if we discuss the theme from the point of view of the achievement of the historical science, not from the positions of the propaganda - Serbian, Bulgarian or another.

P.S. If we accept that you was right when you insinuate (in the Edit summary) that the theme about Pirot is not Bulgarian (?!), what we can do if I acknowedge that my grandmother is from the region of Pirot? (I am Macedonian, but I have roots from Visok too). Regards, --AKeckarov 19:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding sources, claim that "your" sources are "scientific" does not mean that those "scientists" were not politically motivated and indoctrinated with expansionistic nationalism, i.e. that they not invented some things. Now, point by point:
 * It is not correct that Pirot belonged to the Bulgarian state until the end of Second Bulgarian Empire because my historical atlas show that it belonged to Serbian states during this time: Serbian Empire, Moravian Serbia and Serbian Despotate. And by the way, this atlas is very scientific because its authors are several professors.
 * Claiming that Serbian rule was "temporary" and Bulgarian was not is POV because it glorify Bulgarian rule and dispraise Serbian, and the meaning of the term "temporary" is very wide because, in history, almost everything was temporary - history is a constant change, and the basic fact that Bulgarian rule had its beginning and its end means that it was only temporary rule. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The one of differences between us, I think, is that I know a part of your sources, but obviously you do not know any of my sources and your opinion maybe is only assumption. (Maybe you just know that Bulgarians are "nationalists" or you grow with some historical ideas....)
 * No, I do not have any opinion about Bulgarians or Bulgaria, I just want to have here good articles about Serbian cities (not poluted with nationalistic crap) and I only see your own edits as nationalistic, no matter if you are Bulgarian, Chinese or Argentinian. PANONIAN   (talk)  17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In this matter we have very different oppinions. I think that your edits in this article are nationalistic or you are а victim of nationalistic propaganda. So in article's favour is to discuss only the facts--AKeckarov 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
 * My edits are nationalistic? How so? Did I ever edited any article about any town in Bulgaria (or any other neighbouring country) with intention to prove that this town is "rightfully" Serbian? No, I did not, it is you who done this, mister Keckarov. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think that only way to be nationalistic is to edit article about "foreigner" town? Please, look at your position sidelong. You know that this town is Serbian now - it is true. However, there is a section "History" in this article. Why you can not accept that it is possible to be differences between past and present? Or you can imagine this only to this extent which allows your national education? For me this is nationalism. Your desire to expel (you wrote "Go and write Bulgarian-related articles") the "foreigners" from here is the other manifestation of nationalism. Further down I comment your sources - some of them are nationalistic too. Maybe you are not responsible about this, but you are refering to this legends and sometimes refuse to look at the past of the town from the point of view of the achievement s of the historical science - Bulgarian, Serbian etc....--AKeckarov 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. When you assert that: "It is not correct that Pirot belonged to the Bulgarian state until the end of Second Bulgarian Empire because my historical atlas show that it belonged to Serbian states during this time: Serbian Empire, Moravian Serbia and Serbian Despotate. And by the way, this atlas is very scientific because its authors are several professors." you forgot the foollows:
 * I have no problem with history of this town, I only have problem with one Bulgarian nationalist that want to twist this history. If Bulgarian nationalists in Wikipedia managed to write propagandist false history in the articles about Republic of Macedonia, there is no reason for believe that same could be done with the articles related to Serbia. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again politics and insults!!! What kind of answer you want. About Serbian chauvinism? When I finish the scientific arguments (like you), I'll think about it. But please do not go too tar.--AKeckarov 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer that I want from you is to recognize that your are wrong and to become constructive editor of Wiikipedia. There is no way that I will let you to write Greater Bulgarian propaganda here. It is better for you to realize that sooner than later. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is your right to think that I am wrong. But, please, look what exactly I am asserting and then try to comment it essence. Your attempt to make a politics here is only a way to escape from discussion with wellknown methods of the propaganda - to accuse the others and to refuse listening their words, stick a label on them.--AKeckarov 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not worry, mister Keckarov, I have large experience here dealing with various nationalists from entire Balkans who spread anti-Serb propaganda in Serbia-related articles, so I know very well what you asserting here. But let tell you like this: if that what you asserting is true, then Pirot would today belong to Bulgaria, not to Serbia, but the basic fact that it belong to Serbia is a proof what is right and what is wrong here. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can not see some logic in your last argument. Is the fact that there are not Illirians (I am not talking about Albanian hypothesis), Dentelets, Celts etc in present Serbia shows that these peoples was never in Serbian lands? Panonian, this is your problem - you are continuously lumping together the past and present. Let discuss the historical facts. I hope that you know very well some basic facts concerning the incorporation of Pirot in Serbia - Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and the participation of Serbia in it (after the fall of Plevna), the Treaty of San Stefano, Congress of Berlin. The fact which probably is not very comprehensible to you is the the collision between the local citizens (who manifestеd Bulgarian consciousness) and Serbian authorities in 1878-1879. The quotation below from a neutral and authoritative author as Felix Kanitz is very indicative. If you want more sources, just say. Regarding the difference between past end present I think that your words in the article: "In 1878, Pirot was incorporated in Serbia, and over time, local Torlakian Slavs adopted Serb national consciousness" show a part of the answer.--AKeckarov 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: Torlakian Slavs of Pirot DID NOT manifestеd Bulgarian consciousness. If some individuals who were indocrinated by Bulgarian propaganda manifested such consciousness that simply DOES NOT APPLY to the majority of population. Torlakian Slavs are not Bulgarians and never in the past were Bulgarians and that is simply end of our discussion. I also explained that term "Bulgarians" used by foreign authors was simply designation for all Slavs, not designation of any kind of national consciousness. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Namely your words are resembling to propaganda. You just have a premeditated thesis and do not want to think about the other options, to discuss arguments and to try to see rational in the words of your opponent. How you can say that the inhabitants of Pirot did not manifestеd Bulgarian consciousness during the Ottoman rule? This fact is recorded by many foreigners and is manifestated by the inhabitants of Pirot themselves. I already pointed here only a part of the facts and arguments, but obviously you do not want to see them. Before 1878 there was some inhabitants of Pirot (especially who lived or educated in Serbia) with Serbian consciousness, maybe there was some inhabitants who had Slavic consciousness (it is not proved about Pirot, this is only supposition), but according to the most of the sources from the epoch (local, foreighner and a big part of Serbian (Stefan Verkovich etc) majority of the inhabitants in this time had a Bulgarian consciousness. After Serbian occupation of this town (during the war from 1877-1878) the inhabitants of Pirot suffered big pressure to proclaim their "Serbian" nationality. They was forced by Serbian authorities to sign documents in this sence, but secretly they prepared a petition tо Russian government that they are Bulgarian. Some of these documents are preserved today, part of them gone in to historiography (Kiril Venev etc). About these doings we have a memoires (an inhabitant of Pirot Simeon Hristov 1894 and others), letters (in the Archives of Marin Drinov in National Libraray in Sofia etc), oppinions of other contemporaries etc.
 * In 1878, 1879 and later a big group of the inhabitants of Pirot moved in Bulgaria. Аmong well known intellectuals between them except these in the article (K.Krastev- famous critic, Spas Vatzov - scientist, M. Krastev - painter) wеre:
 * wellknown lawyers (d-r Petar Zubov, Elisey Manov, a teacher in Pirot before 1878, Spas Trichkov, George Panov, a teacher in Pirot before 1878, L. Vatsov, Nikola Petrov, a teacher in Pirot before 1878, T. Stamenov and many others),
 * economists (K.Kuzev etc),
 * military officers (Krastio Bahchenanov - a hero from Serbo-Bulgarian War, a teacher in Pirot before 1878, general George Manov, general G. Mechkonev, colonel K. Mihaylov, colonel K. Dimitrachev, colonel Profir Hristov, G. Videnov etc),
 * memeber of Bulgarian parliament (Nikola Manov),
 * prominent Bulgarian engineer (A. Bankov),
 * scientific agriculturist (Dragan Nechov),
 * journalists (Ivan Grigorov and others),
 * prominent doctors (E. Manoilov and others) etc.
 * These are only a part of the names of the refugees from Pirot who settled in Bulgaria after 1878. Only intellectuals. There were many merchants, dealers, farmers (who settled in Tsaribrod and in the other places). Ofcource, not every Bulgarian from Pirot moved to Bulgaria in 1878-1879. During the temporaray (15 November-15 December 1885) Bulgarian administration during Serbo-Bulgarian War in 1885 many of them manifested again their Bulgarian consciousness and after Serbian return many of them was under repression by Serbian authorities because of this. Do you need of sources about this or some of the other facts?--AKeckarov 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote "almost to the end of Second Bulgarian Empire".
 * What you wrote is that it belonged to Bulgaria for whole this time (which imply that it did not belonged to Serbian states). PANONIAN   (talk)  17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat: I wrote "almost to the end of Second Bulgarian Empire". (look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirot&diff=103832165&oldid=103196830). Sorry, but according to my sources (I am ready to discuss them) Pirot belonged to the Serbian states for a several years during to the existing of Second Bulgarian Empire. I do not put unnecessary emotions in this, I just comment a history.--AKeckarov 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let say like this: during this time (13th-14th century), Pirot belonged to both, Serbian and Bulgarian states, so why you want to write that it belonged ONLY to Bulgarian state? The only correct thing that we can write about Bulgarian rule is that it was in PARTS of 13th and 14th centuries, but not in whole of them. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to write only that according to Bulgarian historiography the town was a part of Bulgarian states almost to the end of Second Bulgarian Empire. Not that the town belonged ONLY to Bulgarian state (NB!). I can not stop you to write the version from your (educational) atlas. This is an important point of view.--AKeckarov 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article INCLUDE what your Bulgarian historian say. Why we should use exactly same word as in his book? Please tell me how the statement that town "was under Bulgarian rule in parts of 13th and 14th century" contradict with statement of that historian? PANONIAN   (talk)  11:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, your version do not include that Koledarov shows. Obviously there are two oppinions. Why you so afraid to express one of them. The big difference is that the Bulgarian historiography accepts that Pirot was in Bulgaria when the Ottomans conquered it the first time (1385-1386 - after the fall of Sofia), but I can not see this in your version.--AKeckarov 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there are no two opinions: Koledarov simply speak only about those parts of 13th and 14th century that he like and ommit those that he do not like. If we use all sources that we have (Koledarov and my historical atlas, we can come to only one conclusion - that in some parts of the 13th and 14th century town belonged to Serbian states and in another parts to Bulgarian). What exactly you do not understand here?  PANONIAN   (talk)  13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how you know what exactly asserts Koledarov? Did you ever red his book? Or it is your "logical" conclusion. I already said that Koledarov accepts that there was a Serbian penetration in this region 1214-1216. But according to his book (and historical maps ih it) Pirot was in Bulgarian state almost to the end of Second Bulgarian Empire. (For information - the first fall of Pirot is in 1385-1386, the fall of Tarnovo Bulgaria is 1393). The oppinion of Koledarov is a fact. What exactly YOU do not understand here?--AKeckarov 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what Koledarov asserts because YOU wrote that here, did you? The main problem is that my historical atlas do not agree with Koledarov, and if Serbian and Bulgarian sources do not agree about Serbia-related articles, then by all means WE CANNOT in this case to present that Bulgarian source is right and Serbian source wrong - it is very big POV unacceptable in Wikipedia. Bulgarian source in this case should be presented ONLY AS SECOND OPINION and nothing else. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I am not erasing the Serbian point of view, but you erased many times Bulgarian one or you changed the assertion of the Bulgarian historian. Actually, I am agree with your last edit of this text :)--AKeckarov 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But I do not agree with your last edits. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is your right. But if you erase them, it is good to argue.--AKeckarov 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I quote a reference like Petar Koledarov which are not "politically motivated and indoctrinated with expansionistic nationalism" - if it is possible in the Balkans. Koledarov is a prominent professional historian who uses Serbian sources too.
 * The most important is that I did not erase your edit with your source, but once you just erased mine. Do you think that "your" atlas is correct, but "my" source (from Bulgarian Academy of science) is not? Your atlas which is edition of Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva (Institut for text books)? Is it NPOV? OK! I think that there are two ways to represent NPOV. One is that I do in the begining - to stay two versions without many explanations. The second is to write Bulgarian and Serbian point of view about medieval history of Pirot.
 * Check geographical atlas: you will see that Pirot is in Serbia, therefore if Bulgarian sources speak different about Pirot than Serbian sources then it is obvious that such Bulgarian sources are false - it is clear that there is Greater Bulgarian propaganda which want to "prove" that this town should belong to Bulgaria and therefore such Bulgarian sources cannot be seen as reliable. PANONIAN   (talk)  17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of politics you made here? Are you finished the scientific arguments? It is strange, you qouted doubtful sources, but claim that my sources are false. Do you red them. Or you just know that they are a part from "Greater Bulgarian propaganda"? Panonian, I hope you can understand a difference between the past and present. It is impossible to coincide present borders with historical realities.--AKeckarov 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources that I quoted are not doubtful - those sources include official web site of the municipality and historical altas used in official education system in Serbia, while your sources are written in another country and therefore its bias towards Serbia in Pirot question is very likely. Also, I very well know that "it is impossible to coincide present borders with historical realities", but question is whether you (or your nationalistic FF friend or sockpuppet) know this? PANONIAN   (talk)  21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Аbove and below I tried to analyse а concrete information ("enthusiastically welcomed...") from the official web site of the municipality, to juxtapose it with another Serbian sources, but you refuse to comment it. Try to discuss and check it and you'll assure of doubtfulness of your source. In some extend it refers to Kosta V. Kostich. Regarding to "official education system in Serbia" do you think that the positions of texbooks have a priority over scientific works? (It is old true that namely the historical texbooks in the Balkans habituate to natonalistic feelings. There are so researches on this...). I want to emphasize that I do not contest your educational atlas, but I think that if you want to avoid any doubt maybe you have to point scientific source - one of a prominent Serbian historians (they are so many). Concerning to sockpuppet it is a serious accusation. I can offer to you - write to some of the administrators and if it is proved that ever I and Funkyfly use same IP, I'll refuse to work in Wikipedia.--AKeckarov 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. I wrote not that Serbian rule was temporarly in the Middle Ages as a whole (nevertheless that I think that this is not very far from the true :)), but I put this attribute in the concrete situations:
 * When we are talking about the conquest of Serbian ruler, Stefan Nemanja in 1182-1183. In this case the Serbian rule really was temporary, because in 1190 or 1191 the Byzantian army defeated the Serbian army and return a whole region of the river Nishava and other territories. This is a certain fact from Byzantian history. This is acknowledged in some popular Serbian histories like Tomislav Panayotovich (Pirot kroz vekova, Pirot 1982, p.13) and in many (every which I red) Serbian academical issues.
 * A temporary conquest of Serbian ruler Stefan ІІ Nemanja 1214-1216. It concers only to several years. Is there Serbian source who asserts that this (NB! from 1214-1216) conquest was longer? That in the time of Bulgarian tsar Ivan Asen II (1218-1241) Pirot was in Serbia?
 * I already told you that everything in history what have its beginning and end is temporary too and therefore Bulgarian rule was temporary as much as Serbian. What exactly you do not understand here? PANONIAN   (talk)  17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just compared a centuriy with years. But, OK! I am agree. I'll write several years, if you wish.--AKeckarov 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do not use word "temporary" for Serbian administration and use correct years (but those which agree with my historical atlas), then we can agree. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat once again - I wrote "temporary" in two situations, when the Serbian rule was realy very brief and was a part of a war - 1183-1190, 1214-1218(?). To write a concrete years in these cases is very uncertainly, because there are some incertitudеs in the historical sources - 1214 or 1215 or 1216 etc? Maybe in your educational atlas are concrete years (!?), but the historical science can't afford the luxury the point a concrete years everywhere. And please, think again about your words - "correct years". That means that you are correct and I am not.--AKeckarov 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Usage of word "temporary" in any case is POV and my historical atlas have no exact years. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The conquer durring the war (1183-1190) was temporary. However, I said that I do not hold firmly to this word.--AKeckarov 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, everything in history that have its beginning and its end is temporary, but claiming that ONLY SERBIAN rule was temporary one is POV (it is obvious negative attitude towards Serbian rule) and is not acceptable in one article about town in Serbia. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you write in this article that Pirot was temporary in Bulgaria in XX century (actually under Bulgarian administration), I can say nothing, because it is truth - 1915-1918 and 1941-1944 - during the wars. So, not оnly serbian rule was temporary ) and please do not take out the sence from the context of the concrete sentence and the epoch.--AKeckarov 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The cases are not same because article speak about town in Serbia and therefore there is very big difference between periods when town was under Serbian administration and periods when it was under administration of anybody else (no matter if they were Bulgarians, Turks or Klingons). PANONIAN   (talk)  22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I did not understand your point. I tought that in the section "History" we have to describe the past of the town from NPOV - without some political jaundices. Therefore I tought that the Serbian conquere in 12 centuty during the war can be define as temporary. I hold up this oppinion and now, but as I said, if this word irritate you, I will not insist.--AKeckarov 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your presentation of the time of Serbian rule was far from NPOV - your attempt to create negative image about time of Serbian rule is quite obvious here, so please, do not try to trick me - as I said, I have large experience dealing with foreign nationalists here in Wikipedia. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about the natiomalist in yourself? If you chase him away for a little, you could be stop to think about the "tricks" of the "foreigners" and to try to represent NPOV.--AKeckarov 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3. What about "enthusiastically welcomed"? Do you stay behind this? Behind your source (http://www.pirot.org.yu/ )? I would like to qoute above mantioned Serbian author T. Panayotovich, who wrote (p.13-14): "There is informatiоn (податак in Serbian) that Nemanja accompanied German tsar Fridrih Barbarosa from Nish to Sofia, but travellers, who describe cruzades, do not mentioned Pirot". It is true that T. Panayotovich is not historian, but I want to show that the legend of K. Kostich (from the begining of XX century) is rejected in present Serbian literature.
 * 4. I am reading another Kosta Kostić (Prilog etnoistoriji Torlaka, II izdanje, Novi Sad, 1995, page 165) in this moment. So, he do not assert that "Slavic population of Pirot did not had either Serb or Bulgarian national consciousness - in ethnic sense, they simply considered themselves Slavs" in this page. There are some assertions that the inhabitants of village of Slavinja and in the region maybe (можда) have some foggy (магловита) idea that they are Slavs. This author (NB! who is not historian, but is ingeneer) did not assert that "they simply considered themselves Slavs" in this page. You can try with another page or found some relevant historical source.
 * No, there is no word "maybe" in the second paragraph. I say: "i imali su maglovity predtavu da su Sloveni". So, yes, there is word "foggy", but not "maybe", which is used in the third paragraph, but anyway it is clear that they did not considered themselves Bulgarians. PANONIAN   (talk)  17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The text in the second and in the third paragraph have almost identical meaning. In the second paragraph he wrote: "they had a foggy idea that they are Slavs", in the third he wrote: "maybe they had a foggy idea that they are Slavs". In both of cases your source did not asserts that they simply considered "themselves Slavs". And I'll remind again that this author is not historian, his book is not writen from the positions of historical science with relevant historical references etc - in spite of historical themes in it--AKeckarov 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So? We can use word "foggy" in the article, I see no problem with any versions... PANONIAN   (talk)  21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I see a prblem. You wrote in the article that the local people "simply considered themselves Slavs" and rely on concrete source and page. The problem is that this source, in this page do not asserts this. It recognize that this idea was foggy. (and maybe). Is your reling correct?--AKeckarov 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Man, now you lie. The basic meaning of paragraph in that book is that local inhabitants did not considered themselves Serbs or Bulgarians, but Slavs - "foggy" or "simply" that is just irrelevant, if my translation is not good then please translate that sentence by yourself but the result will be the same. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you lie here. It is very true that "the basic meaning of paragraph in that book is that local inhabitants did not considered themselves Serbs or Bulgarians", but is not true that this author here asserts that "simply considered themselves Slavs". How can they considers that they are Slavs if their idea about it is foggy (and maybe)? The point here is not whether ingenner Kostich asserts that they was Bulgarians or Serbians, but whether he assert that they "simply considered themselves Slavs".--AKeckarov 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I told you: translate this better, I am not native speaker of English, so I trabslated the sentence the best I could. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you assert that there is a problem with the translation? My opiinion is that there are a problem with the senсe? Let remember: 1. You wrote that the inhabitants of Pirot "simply considered themselves Slavs". 2. I asked for a source 3. You quoted a book of a doubtfull author (who is not a historian) K.Kostich, but did not point a page. 4. I asked you for a concrete page. 5. You point it. 6. I assert that this author in this page do not says that they "simply considered themselves Slavs". This is not his point. Yes, he asserts (without seriously argumentation) that they had not some national consciousness, but now we are arguing about "Slav" consciousness. If you want to keep this reference, maybe you have to think about other formulation. I think that there are two ways: 1. To add more convention in categorical assertion about Slav consciousness 2. To emphasize the oppinion that they had not natiomal consciousness but without Slav version in this way.--AKeckarov 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it is just your (unproved) opinion that author is doubtfull. Second, when you translate text from one language into another, you have to adjust this text to different characteristics of different languages, and therefore, I just do not see that my usage of word "simply" (which was not originally used by the author) in any way changed the meaning of the sentence that I translated. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First this author is not historian and he do not support his claim with some sources from the epoch. Read his text again and if you have a courage, say that his book (and the concrete text) is a serious historical issue. The second, bigger problem is that there are a difference between your assertion and the assertion of your reference. He just presume some foggy Slavic consciousness between these people, but you are transforming it to e certain fact.--AKeckarov 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you just do not like this book because it does not support Greater Bulgarian nationalism? However, it is your personal problem, but not a problem of Wikipedia. Regarding my translation, I told you to translate this better if you want, but please do not remove references from the text, thank you. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The author of this book is a likeable type of hesitating intellectual from former Yugoslavia. As I know, he is from Bulgarian vilage of Slavinja (officialy acknowledged fact in Serbia), who are tring to explain and to justify the process of assimilation and the change of national consciousness. This book is very interesting if we research some ethnical processes in former Yugoslavia. His book (along with some other pamphlet or issues) is significant about the second half of XX century and the type of its author. However the problem is not whether I like his ideas or not, but the problem is that this issue is not scientific. The author is not specialist (historian) in this matter (when he are commenting the past). Regarding your version of the sentence, I already wrote: change your categorical assertion that the inhabitants of Pirot had some Slavic consciousness or find an other refference. Otherwise somebody could think that you are present your own oppinion as a fact. I already tried to specify a little this sentense and added "Accordind to some authors" but you erased it. Obviously you insist to present your theory about Slavic consciousness as a certain, valid to everybody fact. This is not a translation problem.--AKeckarov 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. Why you just erased my sentence "During the Ottoman rule the travellers describe the inhabitants of Pirot and its region as Bulgarians" If you want a sources, just say. Do you think that it is more correct if we add "most of the travellers"?
 * This sentence is false. In the Middle Ages, term "Bulgarians" was simply used as designation for Slavs in general and did not had ethnic meaning. If somebody described Torlakian and Shopi populations as "Bulgarians", he only meant that they are Slavs, but not Bulgarians in modern meaning of this word. The only relevant thing is whether Torlaks or Shopi considered themselves Bulgarians or not, and the answer is not. PANONIAN   (talk)  17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How you understood that "In the Middle Ages, term "Bulgarians" was simply used as designation for Slavs". First, do you think that the period 16-19 century (when we have travel notes in which Pirot or region is mentioned) is a part of Middle Ages? I allure to discuss many sources from the Middle Ages, but now the question is about the period of Ottoman rule. Don't forget that the European travellers usually describes both peoples (this is their itinerary) - Bulgarians and Serbians. Usually they talk about Serbs (in the East - up to Nish) and about Bulgarians (from Nish). You want to say that first they describes Serbian as Serbian (in ethnic sence), but then they describes Bulgarian as Slavs?!?--AKeckarov 19:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter if some traveler wrote his opinion about ethnic composition of the area, his opinion whether somebody was Serb or Bulgarian is simply not relevant for the subject. The only relevant thing is what inhabitants of the area thought about themselves, and I already told you, not only Torlaks of Pirot, but also Shopi of the whole western Bulgaria did not considered themselves Bulgarians in this time, no matter if somebody described them as such. PANONIAN   (talk)  21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Panonian, your statements are ridiculous... You are being given evidences all along and the only answer you have is to repeat - this is not true.. this is not true. I am sorry but it is obvious that your historic literacy is lacking. 1st - the foreign travellers DID say that these were bulgarian and this was so, no matter whether you just repeat one and the same. 2nd the term bulgarian never meant simply slavic... This is nonsense (also this let me think about the level of intelligence that is needed in order for one to embrace such an idea). The term bulgarian always had an ethnic meaning. How could it mean slav? Why then the serbs were called serbs and the croats were called croat? Why were NOT they called bulgarians? See how ridiculous this is? 3rd - PLease note that there were several major rebellions in this area during the 19th century: In Nish (Nis)- 1833-1835, two rebellions in Pirot - 1835 and in 1838, also there is the so called manchova buna in 1836 and in 1837 is the Varbansko rebellion. Then we come to 1841 and the Major rebellion in Nish (Nis). All these rebellions were characterized as BULGARIAN rebellions both in Ottoman and foreign documents and press (even in the SERBIAN documents). And stop with the nonsense that this is bulgarian propaganda when at that time Bulgaria was not even restored... Also the vast majority of Pirot DID identify themselves as bulgarians... this is pretty visible in the documents in both ours (bulgarian), ottoman and serbian archives. I am sorry to tell you, but when the evidences are speaking, even the gods are listening.Another thing is (if you have ever heard)the so called Carigrad's conference after the April's uprising called to solve the BUlGARIAN (not slav's, but BULGARIAN) question. Then the conference marked the territories with the majority of bulgarian population and PIROT was part of it. So YOU should stop with the propaganda based on NO historical evidences.  http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/NikeBG_History/Historical%20maps/Encyclopaedia%20History%20of%20Bulgaria/27-Bulgarskoprosvetnoitsarkovno-nat.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.0.97 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is not relevant, but maybe is. (Do you want to examine together what is looked in the 60, 70, 80 years of XIX century by specialists on Serbia and Bulgaria like Felix Kanitz, Konstantin Irechek and many others.) Maybe you not like this, but you can just erase without explanations. Conserning on selfconsciousness of the inhabitants of Pirot in XVІІІ and XIX century, we can discuss it here (in another section) a long, long time. For now I'll point only this: 1. "your" article Torlak, section Literature, 2. Темски ръкопис, 3. Кръстьо Кръстев (Do not be anger to me if you did not red some of this in your texbooks :))--AKeckarov 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Opinion of such travelers is not relevant because we know that it is wrong. We know exactly that area was inhabited by Torlakian Slavs who did not considered themselves either Serbs or Bulgarians and therefore any opinion of such travelers who claimed what they believe that Torlaks are something else is wrong - and we have no reason to write in Wikipedia any information for which we know that it is wrong. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * O, who knows this? Look your words: "we know that it is wrong". Are you ever been there? In 17-19 century? Or everything you not like is wrong? Are you claim that during the Ottoman rule there was not the inhabitants of Pirot who had a Bulgarian consciousness. Look this three names of Bulgarian intelectuals from Pirot in the article? Do you want more? And who wrote: "local population was also divided between sympathy for Serbs and sympathy for Bulgarians". Please, specify your version.--AKeckarov 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I understand what you want to do here. You said that some of your ancestors are from Pirot area and it is quite obvious that you want to convince yourself that your ancestors were Bulgarians (I hope you will not commit suicide because of the disappoint when you realize that they were something else). Regarding national consciousness among Torlaks, Shopi and Macedonians, did you ever heard for the words srbomani, bugaromani, grkomani, etc. Those were words used by the locals to describe part of their own people who adopted some of these 3 national consciousnesses knowing that they are neither of those. You very well know what about I speak here, but you pretending that you dont. And answer me this: do you recognize Macedonian nation or you claim that they are Bulgarians too? Be careful with your answer - your entire credibility here depends on it. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be plesure to discuss with you the past of Macedonians (maybe you'll learn something), but this discussion page is not about it. Do you realize that when you wrote "people who adopted some of these 3 national consciousnesses knowing that they are neither of those" you disclose а part of totalitarian thinkikg? If somebody considers his as Bulgarian, how you can say that he is not Bulgarian. Ofcource, I can argue with you - about their culture, language, past etc (the term Shopi includes the aboriginal inhabitants of Sofia, too), but here the question is about the rights. You have right to thing that he is wrong, but you have not a right to dеny his self-determination right. So you have right to think that the inhabitants of  Pirot was not Bulgarians, but you have not a right to deny that in the past a big group of them considered themselves as Bulgarians. So big that most of the foreighners was "misleaded" from them. I want to be more concrete and therefore I'll quote in separete sections some impressions about Pirot from significant travellers and researchers. About your attempt to make some analysis to me - it is interesting, but be careful, because I can return the ball - the Serbian propaganda wants to convince the inhabitants of Pirot (now Serbians) that they are a part from a "pure nation" or at least that they hadn't some Bulgarian "splash" in their history--AKeckarov 12:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding past of Macedonians, I certainly cannot learn anything about that from you because if I would want to learn something about past of Macedonians I will ask only Macedonians about their past and NOBODY ELSE. Second, we speak here whether MAJORITY of Torlaks, Shopi and Macedonians had national consciousness in the 19th century and that have nothing to do with human rights of the 21th century. The basic point of my previous post was that is if small part of those populations considered themselves Bulgarians, Serbs, or Greeks that DOES NOT MEAN that all of them had this opinion. One more important thing: the modern national consciousness in the Balkans developed only in the 18th and 19th century and mostly after certain areas became parts of new national states, therefore claim that Torlakian Slavs had Bulgarian national consciousness before they were included into Serbian state is ridiculous (it was Bulgarian state that created national consciouness among modern Bulgarians and such consciousness simply could not be developed in the majority of them without intervention from the state). PANONIAN   (talk)  22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * O, you did not understood me. I am not discussing here about the consciousness of the Torlaks. It is a bigger theme. I am discussing ONLY the past of the inhabitants of Pirot. Do yo think that only the people of the 21th century have right of selfdetermination? And the people of 21 century have right to describe their forefathers as they like? You assume that the modern national consciousness in the Balkans developed only in the 18th and 19th century. I can agree with you. Let try to find some evidences about the consciousness of the people in Pirot in these centuries. Here and in the article I point some of them (Тhey are from the time before establishingt of modern Bulgarian state in 1878). Do you know more? But please, do not forget that the discussion is about the inhabitants of Pirot.--AKeckarov 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The inhabitants of Pirot are part of Torlakian population and there is no difference between their past and past of the rest of Torlaks. Also, it is not me who assume that national consciousness in the Balkans developed in the 18th and 19th century - it is historical fact. Also, I will repeat again - if some individuals in Pirot adopted Buklgarian consciousness (and I do not dispute that they did), it is still fact that majority of inhabitants did not adopted such consciousness - it was Bulgarian church that propagated Bulgarian national consciousness among Torlakian Slavs, so the truth about Torlakian Slavs of Pirot is not that they were Bulgarians in the past but that Bulgarians tried to bulgarize them and failed. Why you cannot accept this simple historical fact?  PANONIAN   (talk)  23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not agree that there is no difference between Torlaks. There are a big differences in their historical development in XIX century. Look and compare the lands and the people that was incorporated in Serbia in 1833, the lands and the people that was incorporated in Serbia in 1878, the lands and the people that was incorporated in Bulgaria in 1878, the lands and the people tha was incorporeted in Serbia in 1920 etc. There are differences between traditions, historical conditions. The conditions in the town of Pirot is not the same as a conditions in some vilage. We have a good example for a town culture in Pirot. Еven we accept that there was not differences (?!) all the same we have to remember that this article is about Pirot and we have to find and present concrete facts about Pirot. Not nationalistic declarations. Regarding to Bulgarian church, please note that it was established only 8 years before incorporating of Pirot by Serbia. Above you can see many names of prominent intellectuals from Pirot who esceped in Bulgaria. Please note that among them was Bulgarian teachers. They was born in Pirot, so if you state that "Bulgarians tried to bulgarize them", you have to recognize that these Bulgarians (who defend their Bulgarian belonging) are local Biulgarians, from the town itself.


 * 6. Why you just erase "The inhabitants of Pirot region "along with the inhabitants on North Western Bulgaria", with the help from Serbia, started in 1836 "unsuccessful" rebellion". Do you contest that in present Nortwest Bulgaria (neighbouring to Pirot district) in the same time was a rebelion/uprising, which is connected with rebelion in Pirot and with the istigations/help from Serbia. OK, there are Serbian historical documents which treated the riots in Rirot and Berkovica region as a simultaneos events - look in "Пирот и срез Нишавски", Грађа, књ. І, Пирот 1981, с. 52-53 (Pirot and district of Pirot, Colection of documents). Maybe the problem is a mentioning of the word "Bulgaria"? Regards, --AKeckarov 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thaks that you did not erase this again, but only modify. I am agree with your version.--AKeckarov 12:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Felix Philipp Kanitz (XIX century)
F.Kanitz is a traveller and researcher who have a big rеputatian in present Serbia. His book "Србија, земља и становништво од римског доба до краја XIX века" (in two volume) (Das Konigreich Serbien und das Serbenvolk von der Romerzeit bis dur Gegenwart, 1904) is popular in scientific circles not only in Serbia. Here some words of Kanitz about Pirot:
 * 1) "In this time (1872 - note by AK) they (the inhabitants of Pirot - note by AK) did not presume that six years later the often damn Turkish rule in their town will be finnished, and at least they did not presume that they will be include in Serbia, because they always feel that they are Bulgarians. ("Србија, земља и становништво од римског доба до краја XIX века", Друга књига, Београд 1986, p. 215)
 * 2) And today (in the end of XIX century - note by AK) among the older generation there are many fondness to Bulgarians, that it led him to collision with Serbian government. Some hesitation can be noticed among the youngs..." ("Србија, земља и становништво од римског доба до краја XIX века", Друга књига, Београд 1986, c. 218; Serbia - its land and inhabitants, Belgrade 1986, p. 218)

Melhior Bezolt (1584)
Melhior Bezolt was one of the participants of the Austrian delegation to the Ottoman government, leded by Baron von Lichtenstein und Nickolsburg. In this delegation was included Johan Leovenklau, known as an author of one of the first histories of the Ottoman Empire that uses tha Ottoman documents too. The Diary of Melhior Bezolt is published by Johan Leovenklau.

Thе delegation startеd its route from Austrian Empire, passed over Serbia (and Bezolt described it), then it entered in Bulgaria. M. Bezolt describes a village of Kurucheshme, near to Pirot (westwards), present day Klisura:

“In this village, as usually in Bulgarian villages, the inhabitants are most Christians or only Christians….The Turks prefer to live in the little towns and the market-places and leave more insignificant places to Bulgarian Christians, who, if they have opportunity, are engaged in vine-growing…. Bulgarian Christians are poor people, who satisfy with a little. The Bulgarian men are dressed almost like Tukish. However the women are dressed in a different manner. ….The Bulgarian women have some buckles, tab and other strange objects ….(Немски и австрийски пътеписи за Балканите, София 1979, с. 440- German and Austrian travel notes about Balkans, Sofia 1979, p.440)

Answer...
You basically offered nothing new here. The whole point is that term "Bulgarians" in the past was simply designation for all Slavs, hence usage of the term simply means that described population was of Slavic origin, and does not mean that it had Bulgarian national consciousness. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you really red a quotation of F. Kanitz? Maybe you want say that in 1878-1879 when was a collision between Bulgarian population of Pirot and Serbian government, actually the Bulgarians consider themselves as Slavs? And I wiil repeat - do you asserting that travellers like Melhior Bezolt describe Serbian as Serbian (in ethnic sence), but then they describes Bulgarian as Slavs?!--AKeckarov 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, who knows who was a source for this author, who paid him to write what he wrote, etc... However, it is simply not possible that inhabitants of Pirot had Bulgarian consciousness - if they had it in that time, they would still had it today like inhabitants of Dimitrovgrad. I certainly do not believe that you can explain (assuming that your theory is correct) why today inhabitants of Dimitrovgrad have Bulgarian consciousness and inhabitants of Pirot not.  PANONIAN   (talk)  23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you just can not believe that your own nationalistic notions have lapses. There are more authors. I pointed Kanitz because he is very famous among the sceintifists in Serbia. I quoted in refefernce In the article an other authority in Serbia - Konstantin Josef Jireček, but you just erased (vandalized) it.
 * Regarding the exemple with Dimitrovgrad there is an explanation - assimilation. Pirot was in Serbia since 1878. (Except a temporary ) Bulgarian administratiom during the wars Pirot never was in modern Bulgarian state, but Dimitrovgrad was until 1920.) Except time the other reason for slower asimilation in the region of Dimitrovgrad is that the local inhabitants was recognized as Bulgarians (Bulgarian minority) in Second Yugoslavia. However in the municipality in Dimitrovgrad the changing og ethnical belonging is presented too. According to last census (2002) only 49,6% of the local peoples declare theit Bulgarian consciousness.--AKeckarov 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Keckarov...
First, the text on this page is too long, so I will give you answers here. Second: I already answered some of your questions that you raising over and over and I am not parrot to repeat my answers again and again to somebody who simply cannot learn. If you cannot understand how complicated was problem of national consciousness in the 18th and 19th century, then I cannot help you. You just want to push your POV that inhabitants of Pirot were Bulgarians in the past and you simply do not care for thruth and facts. I tried to make compromise and stop this stupid revert war, but I see that this only encouraged you to push more POV and I can assure you that I will not allow that. No matter what we will present in this article, it will be presented without Greater Bulgarian nationalistic POV, so my advice to you is that you should stop edit Serbia-related articles because person with such bad-faith attitude towards the subject is certainly not welcome to edit Wikipedia. PANONIAN  (talk)  23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Panonian, I do not want to push without reservation my point of view that inhabitants of Pirot were Bulgarians in the past. I began to explain here this significant point of view, because you from the very beginning define it as a nationalistic POV. Аs regards national belonging of the inhabitants of Pirot in the article, I think that it is neutral:


 * 1) to mention that there were authors (actually most of the authors until 1878) who consider the ihhabitants of Pirot as Bulgarians.
 * 2) to make reference to the importance of Pirot about Bulgarian national ravival.
 * My oppinion is that the assertions that the term "Bulgarian" in this epoch and region was not ethnic are ridiculous (If we look at the concrete contexts we'll see that this is true) and they аrе way of excuse non-Serbian belonging of these people until to 1878, but I can not stop you to push this POV. But, please, do not erase the other POV. Please try to to find some compromise conformity with NPOV. I an sory about manners of our discussion, but maybe sometime, in the other place we will have the opportynity to discuss the problems of the Torlaks as a whole. There are many things in your oppinion which I share, but there are some differences, which I am ready to explain in the relevant place. Regards, --AKeckarov 15:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalance
According to all authors between 1840-72 the delineation between Bulgarians and Serbs is undisputed and ran northwest of Nis. Neutral point of view is that the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail. Controversies regarding aspects of the minority view may be clearly identified and explained. Balancing and balance is a neutrality, assigning weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.--87.116.75.127 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Serbian ruler S. Nemanja passed through Pirot and was enthusiastically welcomed by its citizens.
I have some doubts about the sentence from the title of the section. First I'll repeat my consideration from dicussion above: Second, I want to say that I tried to find some similar information in the historical sources (Mediaeval chronicles etc), but I did not found. I am afraid that I could not find something if it is not exist. Please help me to solve this in historical correctness favour. From one side we have a source - one site. From the other - we have the other source who deny it. Moreover а confirmation of the assertion that Stefan Nemanja was in Pirot and was enthusiastically welcomed by its citizens can not be found in real historical sources.--AKeckarov 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The source http://www.pirot.org.yu/ is not very relevant when we are discussing the past and when we need of scientific sources. In this publicistic source is said: Пироћанци су тада, сматра Коста Костић, одушевљено дочекали Стефана Немању и немачког цара, дарујући га пиротским ћилимом. (Тhe citizens of Pirot, Kosta Kostich considers, enthusiastically welcomed Stefan Nemanja and German tsar (sic), presenting them a rug from Pirot). Which Kosta Kostich - one from the begining of XX century or another from the end of XX century? If this "exotic" oppinion exists ("enthusiastically welcomed"), is it accepted by the historians and are there some documents from the epoch or this is a legend from XX century? It seems that famous Pirot rugs was made even in XII century (?!?
 * 2) I would like to qoute above mantioned Serbian author T. Panayotovich, who wrote (p.13-14): "There is informatiоn (податак in Serbian) that Nemanja accompanied German tsar Fridrih Barbarosa from Nish to Sofia, but travellers, who describe cruzades, do not mentioned Pirot". It is true that T. Panayotovich is not historian, but I want to show that the legend of K. Kostich (from the begining of XX century) is rejected in present Serbian literature.