::Haha, Modi, if you are under the impression that I have the archive of the IMARO under my desk and I can conjure forth 500 documents tomorrow, you are under the wrong impression. I don't even live in Bulgaria. How you feel confident to deliver judgements that the opinions of "the 20 historians" are based on "the same 2 letters" is, likewise, a mystery to me. A history book is not written on the basis of "2 letters", I think you are intelligent enough to understand that, as well as what bibliography means. The one who makes the sweeping generalisations is you. There is also a considerable difference in the credibility of the opinion of 20 historians and the opinion of a user in Wikipedia (whether it is you, or me, or someone else). Your proposal that "only original documents by GD should be reviewed" is downright absurd. Certainly such should be welcomed if they are available but articles here are usually written on the basis of other books, or do you question that?:-))) 

 ::I would urge you to take a look at (MacDermott, Mercia. (1978). Freedom or Death - the life of Gotse Delchev. London: Journeyman Press), this is the only biography of Delchev written by non-Bulgarian/Macedonian. + also the memoirs of Hristo Tatarchev (the first chairman of the IMARO and one of the longest members of the organisation) if you manage to find them in English. 

 ::This is my current proposal (on the basis of the proposal of FlavrSavr): "As most of the events and developments in late 19th century Macedonia, the national and ethnic affiliations of Goce Delchev are a contentious issue. He self-professed himself as a Bulgarian, yet he also embraced the idea of a common Macedonian nationality for all different ethnicities in the region. The conflicting elements in his statements and work have resulted in his treatment as a Bulgarian by Bulgarian historians and as a Macedonian Slav by Macedonian ones."