" 
 :::::#Your explanation was inadequate and furthermore, you've also reverted statements for which you have no explanation at all. 
 :::::#Actually, Jirecek says exactly that. The Shopi being different from other Bulgarians obviously means that they're Bulgarians as well. Also, Jirecek considers their dialect a Bulgarian one. As for their connection with the Thracian tribe, that is irrelevant as Jirecek only talked about their names and in any case, that doesn't invalidate them being Bulgarians - do you imagine that all peoples on the Balkans are descended from a single tribe? And yes, Jirecek mentions their distinctiveness within other Bulgarians - that doesn't  mean that you can falsify the source and use it to claim exactly the opposite of what it does claim. 
 :::::#You did raise it, but that's not the point, so let's drop it. 
 :::::#You think so, but you haven't explained why we should be using a publication with unknown reliability and neutrality. You can't just use random passages from Google Books in this way and that's the consensus in Wikipedia, by the way.  
 :::::#Yes, and you haven't given an explanation of why it is wrong. Instead you're arguing that we should be using original research and dubious sources. 
 :::::#Sometimes one view is the correct one. Why not all Shops are Bulgarians, most probably are and in the past most of them, if not all were considered Bulgarians. In light of this, it is an issue of balance that there are so many Serbian authors to defend the marginal position that all Shops are Serbs. 
 :::::#Sorry, but if you're going to claim that Cvijc is honest and neutral, it would be rather unlikely for you to write any NPOV paragraphs. Cvijc claimed that a considerable part of the people in Western Bulgaria were actually Serbs or mixed with Serbs (something which no census or any observer but a few Serbian nationalists have ever confirmed) while claiming that all Serbs were pure and unmixed. Have you actually seen the map in question? Furthermore, he was not qualified at all to make such maps. He was a specialist in physical geography, not linguistics or ethnography. Otherwise he wouldn't have claimed (presuming he was honest) that the transitional are between Bulgarian and Serbian is located in Western Bulgarian, when it's in Serbia. And his honesty is in question, considering that the map was made while he was working for the Serbian government when it was making territorial demands against Bulgaria.  
 :::::#I was not claiming that Cvijic thought that most Shops were Bulgarians - he obviously didn't - but if it's assumed that his map is correct, then indeed most of the Shopi are Bulgarian. All censuses of the area and all researchers (except a few like Cvijic) have confirmed this. And frankly, if you're going to claim that Western Bulgaria is actually Serbian or mixed Serbian, this discussion is utterly pointless. And no, my problem is not with Cvijic being outdated, it's his obvious lack of neutrality, as I explained above. The maps which showed most of Eastern Serbia as being Bulgarian were not outdated for the period before 1878, when they were made. That this changed due to the region becoming part of Serbia doesn't mean that this also affected those parts that became part of Bulgaria. 
 :::::#This is incorrect to the point of being ridiculous. Just because Bulgaria had expansionist ambitions against Serbia (though they didn't appear before WWI) doesn't meant that Serbia didn't have expansionist intentions against Bulgaria. The Serbia demands for Bulgarian territory after WWI were the third serious attempt by Serbia to expand against Bulgaria since 1878, not to mention all the propaganda in the meantime. And yes, Serbian scholars justified these intentions, including the ""neutral"" Cvijic. And these intentions succeeded and not only for three years like the Bulgarian intentions - last I checked Bosilegrad and Tsaribrod are still Serbian.  
 :::::#I don't want to discard Cvijic - I just don't want him presented as neutral. And I'm curious about how any Bulgarian historians from the same time period could be discarded, what with none of them being included in the article. 
 :::::#I don't see where I've made any ""unjustified accusations, fallacy and misinterpretations"", but yes the discussion is pointless if you're not even able to see that your point of view might be biased.   "