Talk:Bozhidar Dimitrov

Ten Lies of Macedonism

Now that he is a government minister, it seems more appropriate to restore it as a separate article The Ten Lies of Macedonism. Politis (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

= the weight of the article is not on the person

but on these alleged ten lies, blah, blah.. maybe you should first figure out whether his lies are notable enough to take half of the article about him, or are they here as a pet project of nationalistic editors ? 16:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.7.82 (talk)

The Ten Lies...

...have no place in a biographical article. Besides, his claims already account for much of the Macedonian nationalism article. --WavesSaid (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, whole extracts of books are rather improper. If there was an article on the book itself, this might go down there as a summary of the content. That in mind, I wonder why you continue reverting. Users well familiar with rules around here, such as you, should refrain from such actions. Btw, I hope you will continue pursuing your quest against whole excerpts of books at the articles of other authors as well. It might prove beneficial to the project and show that this is not a single-purpose account. --Laveol ^T 07:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Now I started remembering things, I take that back. There could be no article on the book by a decision by a single admin. --Laveol ^T 07:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How might we go about fixing this? Sure. If you come across such an article, let me know. --WavesSaid (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please respond to my comment at Talk:Bozhidar Dimitrov. I'd rather avoid an edit war. --WavesSaid (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, make a summary and bring it to the talk page before you blank. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? Which policy states that irrelevant summaries of books in biographical articles should be brought to the talk page before being blanked? --WavesSaid (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

To remind you, it was you who suggested a summary of the book. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. I was criticizing your choice of that particular book over his other books. --WavesSaid (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course... I chose that book because it's his first book and it has reached best-seller status in the RoM, but I will respect any consensus that will be reached in the talk page about the book section, however I don't see how the book section harms the article. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's Dimitrov that claims it is a best-seller. --WavesSaid (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Unless there is evidence that the book has received significant attention in secondary sources, it doesn't merit inclusion: and even if it has been discussed, it is probably undue to discuss it in the depth given presently - and it would be necessary to include responses to the book too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The book is subject to numerous publications both in RoM and Bulgaria, e.g. articles in the most popular Skopje newspapers Дневник, Дневник, Утрински весник, Утрински весник, Утрински весник, Утрински весник etc. Apcbg (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

...because they consider it inflammatory. --WavesSaid (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Inflammatory it might well be, and probably so intended by its author, but that’s quite irrelevant here. What matters is that the book has received significant attention in secondary sources (AndyTheGrump's question). A Google search for its Macedonian title "Десетте лаги на македонизмот" and its Bulgarian title "Десетте лъжи на македонизма" returns 43700 and 65700 hits respectively, including a number of reliable sources such as those given above. (Among the ‘non-reliable’ ones is its Macedonian Wiki article.) Apcbg (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A Google search for 12 мита в българската история, another of his books, returns about 104,000 results. And another (Българите и Александър Македонски) returns about 116,000 results. --WavesSaid (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My original suggestion to entirely delete the section won't go down well with the Balkan editors. And given that it has received some criticism in secondary sources, AndyTheGrump's suggestion to include these responses in place of an in-depth summary sounds reasonable. --WavesSaid (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Where is the problem?

^ Modernity and tradition: European and national in Bulgaria, Marko Hajdinjak, Maya Kosseva, Antonina Zhelyazkova, International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations, Sofia, ISBN: 978-954-8872-70-6, p. 15, 2012.

...For example, Bozhidar Dimitrov, the doyen among the nationalistic historians, a long-time director of the National Museum of History and a former minister in the Bulgarian government (who was in charge of the national historical heritage and the Bulgarian diaspora) has a book called Bulgarians – The First Europeans...Most of Dimitrov’s claims are based on selective, manipulative and inconsistent interpretation of history and can be easily challenged, but are noted here because of the exceptional popularity of his works in the country and the authority he enjoys in important intellectual and political circles...

^ Europe and the Historical Legacies in the Balkans, Raymond Detrez, Barbara Segaert, Peter Lang, 2008, ISBN 9052013748, p. 10.

...Bozidar Dimitrov, a historian who is highly controversial among professionals but enjoys an immense popularity because of his glorifying interpretation of Bulgaria's past,...

^ Bulgaria and Europe: Shifting Identities, Stefanos Katsikas, Anthem Press, 2011, ISBN 0857284193, p. 170.

...The timeline as well as the ridiculousness of these achievements are clear exaggerations and resonate tellingly with a statement by Professor Bojidar Dimitrov, former head of the Bulgarian National Museum of History. A prolific author, he has published numerous popular history books with revealing titles such as Bulgarians, the First Europeans and The Seven Ancient Civilizations in Bulgaria....

^ De Palerme À Penang, François Ruegg, Andrea Boscoboinik, Christian Giordano, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3643800622, p. 184.

...The historian Božidar Dimitrov is well known for his nationalist and populist views; in the petition he is labeled 'pseudo historian' and 'professional manipulator and some historian even call him Chalga historian.... Jingiby (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If we are to keep the CONTROVERSY as a part of the article, we cannot paint it with the broad strokes of revisionism of history. I urge you to verify each of the statements of B.D. in Wikipedia and see for yourselves that Samuil was Bulgarian. Kyril and Methodiy and their disciples as well, and so forth. The controversy is that political circles are coining falsifications of history and he is calling them on their s..t. If you cannot reflect this here, please remove the controversy, or edit the articles of Wikipedia and make corrections of the "fallacies" that BD has only cited, not coined. In case you agree with the previous claims that BD's statements can and shoud be challenged, please change the following Wiki articles as well to reflect the correct position (that is NOT that of BD)

• Macedonians (ethnic group),
• Bulgarians, who are "Tatars" :)
• medieval figures like Saints Cyril and Methodius were ethnic Macedonians.
• Samuel of Bulgaria

Please, go ahead and start changing these and many other articles that are OBVIOUSLY wrong if we were to agree with the libellous speculations with "inconsistent historical interpretation" that "can be challenged." Go AHEAD and start changing them, or leave the TRUE controversy for what it is - falsifiers of history are seated in Beograd and Skopje. Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I hope that Jingiby has translated the content of the File:SMARO.jpg and the other illustrative material on his IMARO article, into Macedonian for the Macedonians who come across his article to read. Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the info on the Macedonian issue to the section about the book "The ten lies of Macedonism", because the "Controversy section" is dedicated on the folse writings of Dimitrov about Bulgarian history. Jingiby (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"false writings of Dimitrov about Bulgarian history" would seem an extreme POV to me, quite inappropriate for Wikipedia. More so that I cannot recall any particular position of Dimitrov's on issues of Bulgarian history to have been proven false by other historians. Labeling like "chalga historian" is rather an ad hominem than a valid historical argument; could you please give any examples of Dimitrov having actually been proved wrong? Apcbg (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No such phrase :"false writings of Dimitrov about Bulgarian history" exists in this article. However, there is no need to prove it, despite it is obvious. The provided neutral academic sources describe a nationalist historian, whose works are manipulative and extremly controversial. Examples are given as follows: "Bulgarians, the first Europeans" and "The Seven Ancient Civilizations in Bulgaria". The quality and the number of provided sources confirms that such qualifications are sufficient in itself and they don't need any comments more. All of them (the sources) are given above. If there is any academic, unbiased source describing Dimitrov as neutral expert and good specialist, known for his objectivity and very respective among the scientific circles in Europe, please provide them. Jingiby (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am stunned with the level of rigidity that has nothing to do with academia! If you are to stand behind such three lousy sources (And they are quite lousy!!) then I am not sure what you are doing editing other people's thoughts. I believe what makes BD most controversial is not his work cited by yourself, taken quite out of context and NOT in a scientific journal, but rather in periodicals, and therfore, without the pretence for great scientific value. What makes him quite controvercial is his adamant and firm opposition to the ongoing and scrupleless theft of Bulgarian history. The others are just flairs, that make him funny, not controversial!!! I am not starting a duel on the pages of Wiki (Де го това времееее!) but i believe you owe the readers more about what makes BD controversial, and what currently stands there (in the article) is quite unilateral and "pornographic!" Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)