Talk:PFC Cherno More Varna

message: Отново проява на типичния балкански манталитет в лицето на бургаско-софийските футболни историчари
Поне като си променял хронологията на имената, какво се пъчи там 1914-1919.
Ти нали бургаски фен на ЦСКА, защо там не напишеш с твоята мила дружка , нова история  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtd 87.246.52.249 (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1913 

message: Четете балкански субекти, четете 
http://gong.bg/view_article.php?article_id=373053  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.52.249 (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Гонг.бг

message: http://bnr.bg/sites/radiobulgaria/Sport/Pages/290512_varna.aspx
Ето на бургаски гражданино, дори в националното радио написаха за годините от 1909 до 1914г,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.52.249 (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Националното радио

message: Нека бургаския историчар прочете внимателно.
През 1912 година на 3 март се формира местният клон на Националния Юношески туристически съюз наречен Галата. прочете ли добре 1912 г.В тази година се появяват пререкания с централното ръководство на този съюз заради отчитането на членския внос.Същевременно в края на 1912-октомври месец, дружеството става изключително популярно и многобройно.
На 3 март 1913 при добре посетено учредително събрание се формира Туристическо-Спортно дружество Галата.Месец и половина по-късно името се променя на Река Тича, тоест името е променено през месец май.
ТСД Река Тича е ПЪРВИЯТ ОФИЦИАЛЕН СПОРТЕН И ФУТБОЛЕН КЛУБ В БЪЛГАРИЯ.С учредителен протокол, печат и малко по-късно става първия клуб с приет устав.Съдебната регистрация на клуба, в графата учредяване според учредителния протокол е написано 3.03.1913.
Едно леко отклонение в съдебната регистрация за така наречения най-стар съществуващ клуб пише...1925 година.
От тук нататък би било проява на откровено лицемерие писането на 1945 година като начало на клуба.87.246.52.249 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Уточнения

message: The history of the club founded in 1913 is described in detail. The merger in 1945 is not the founding date and never has been. The centenary celebrations took place in 2013 in attendance of the mayor of Varna and other celebrities.  And here we have the old badge of the club with the founding year 1913, until it was replaced with the 4 stars representing the 4 titles in 1925,1926,1934,1938  Okalinov (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: SC Ticha was founded in 1913 and SC Vladislav Varna was founded in 1916. These city rivals merged in 1945 as Ticha-Vladislav so that's how Cherno More was established. Simple as that. The celebrations concerned Varna long football history, not PFC Cherno More in particular. What you are doing is trying to fabricate and invent a completely new club history not dealing with true events from that time. These four titles have nothing to do with Cherno More. One belongs to SC Ticha and the other three to Vladislav. So what are you trying to prove exactly?--Rebelheartous (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabricating history 

message: ;Official websites
*Official website
*UEFA Profile
*http://chernomorepfc.bg/bg/history-up-to-1945/
*http://chernomorepfc.bg/bg/%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0-100-%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8/
*http://www.uefa.com/search/video/index.html#cherno%20more%20varna
*http://www.uefa.com/search/photos/index.html#cherno%20more%20varna
*http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=75787/domestic/
*http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=bul/news/newsid=2252898.html
*http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2009/clubs/club=75787/matches/index.html
*http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2010/clubs/club=75787/matches/index.html
*http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2016/clubs/club=75787/
*http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/news/newsid=63807.html
*http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/newsid=2042576.html
*http://www.afc-ajax.info/nl/wedstrijd/1966-6-8-Cherno-More-Ajax
*http://www.bfunion.bg/news/4394
* Ст. Янев, П. Герчев, Д. Димитров, В. Свраков, "Футболна Варна", издание "Георги Бакалов", Варна, 1988 г.
* Ст. Янев, Д. Димитров, И. Карабаджаков, В. Димитров, "Шампионът Владислав и купите на Моряците", издателство "Славена", Варна, 2016 г.
* 
;Supporters websites
*Cherno More fansite

Category:Football clubs in Bulgaria
 
Category:Association football clubs established in 1913
Category:1913 establishments in Bulgaria
Okalinov (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The case is unique because the merger in 1945 was imposed by a political party having ultimate power at that time; it was not the result of voluntary agreement between the clubs, insolvency, bankruptcy, etc.  Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for a club to claim its foundation date to be the one of its predecessors, for example Hamburger SV, SC Freiburg and TSG 1899 Hoffenheim. Certainly, there are counterexamples as well, when a new club is formed after the merger. As far as I know, there is no law or regulation governing such transformations and each country has its own specific practices; furthermore, it seems reasonable to say that each club has its own right to decide whether to become successor of its predecessor(s). This case can be narrowed down to reliability of sources. In my opinion the sources of the 1913 camp have more weight, because they are official publications by an official, independent institution, governing Bulgarian football at that time.  They were written by many different authors and published for a period of several decades.  Looking at other Wikipedia articles, a citation from the club's official website or an article written by the club's historian is sufficient for determining the foundation date. Here we have confirmation from an official organization.
====Rebuttals====
* CSKA Sofia was founded in 1948 by the merger of two clubs, yet they do not claim the history of these clubs.  Cherno More should be treated in the same manner.
: It does not follow. From its foundation in 1948 until the privatization in the 1990's CSKA was the club of the People's Army, and there was no People's Army before the People's Republic of Bulgaria.  Maybe the founders of CSKA wanted to cut all connections to pre-1945 Bulgaria, particularly those leading to the Bulgarian Army during the Kingdom of Bulgaria. In any case, the details of the mergers of CSKA and Cherno More are rather different and analogy is not applicable.
* 1913 camp's main sources are WP:SELFPUB.
: Assuming for the sake of the argument that retro-football.bg is Okalinov's site, that would be a correct statement if the citations were text written by the site's authors/administrators.  However, the sources provided are scanned printed publications and Okalinov was not an editor (probably, he wasn't born when some of these editions were published). They are available in public libraries/archives and may not be available online at all.  As far as Wikipedia is concerned, sources must be cited correctly; there is no requirement that the sources should be online.
* BFF publications are not recognized by the BFU because BFU is a separate organization.
: I beg to differ.  According to the BFU website (translation mine): "BFU is successor of the Bulgarian Football Federation (BFF) (1962-1985)."  The term "successor" (Bulgarian: "правоприемник") means exactly this; the successor accepts all assets and liabilities of its predecessor and there is complete connection between the two entities. The very same thing happened between Ticha/Vladislav and Cherno More.  Furthermore, BFU lists Cherno More as successor of both Ticha and Vladislav in their list of champions, which only confirms the facts as previously published in the BFF editions.
* BFU is not authoritative for clubs' history.
: That is probably so.  But a website with short texts for various Bulgarian clubs (bgclubs.eu) is not authoritative either. It seems to me that a local football federation (member association of UEFA) is the closest possible authority when it comes to clubs' history. When Red Bull purchased and rebranded FC Salzburg in 2005, the new club management claimed that it was a completely new club with no history.  However, they were forced by the Austrian Football Association to withdraw that claim and the club's history was subsequently restored. The local football association determines whether a given club is successor of another club, because usually that is done by transferring the membership to the new club/entity.
* 1913 camp's claim is based on original research.
: The citations from the sources directly relate to Cherno More and/or its predecessors, the fact that Cherno More is successor of both these clubs and therefore the content of the article cannot be considered original research.  It is true that none of the BFF editions is especially made for Cherno More, but the reader is pointed to the page where the relevant information can be found. Some of the arguments (like the celebrations for the 100th anniversary or Ivan Mokanov's honorary diploma) can be considered original research with a stretch of imagination, if they were the only sources. However, the article's content is not based on them.
* Reliability of bgclubs.eu
: It is true that this website is widely used as source in Wikipedia, that is a fact.  However, it is full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies  and cannot be considered as reliable or authoritative source of information. (If necessary, I will present at least 5 examples of inaccurate information.) There are no details how the information on clubs' history is gathered and there is no evidence for any of the historical facts presented.  I further question the reliability of this source because the same company has published a printed yearbook in 2004, presenting Cherno More as successor of Ticha and Vladislav with four league titles won.
* Reliability of Soccerway
: Soccerway is considered as reliable source for Wikipedia, WP:FOOTY in particular.  It is worth mentioning that for Bulgarian football statistics Soccerway's primary source is the Bulgarian football statistics website bulgarian-football.com, and for other details (club's badge, stadium, contacts, history) the primary source is bgclubs.eu.  bulgarian-football.com and bgclubs.eu are under the same umbrella, same ownership and mostly the same editor team, so it is not surprising that both bgclubs.eu and soccerway.com claim that Cherno More is founded in 1945.  Finally, Soccerway is considered as reliable for football statistics, but as far as I know it has never been regarded as authoritative for clubs' history and foundation dates in particular.  It is also inconsistent: claims that Cherno More is founded in 1945, but the trophies include one title from 1937/38, albeit in grey colour.
* It is paradoxical that Cherno More were champions and runners-up simultaneously.
: There is no paradox.  At that time, Cherno More's predecessors were independent clubs and participated in the same championship.  In fact this is quite common for clubs that were independent and subsequently merged later. For example, in 1938–39 Gauliga Ostmark, SK Admira Wien were champions and SC Wacker were runners-up. The article of the present club FC Admira Wacker Mödling correctly lists all honours, properly marked as won by the respective predecessor clubs. Yavorescu (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Yavorescu

message: * CSKA Sofia was founded in 1948 by the merger of two clubs, yet they do not claim the history of these clubs.  Cherno More should be treated in the same manner.
: It does not follow. From its foundation in 1948 until the privatization in the 1990's CSKA was the club of the People's Army, and there was no People's Army before the People's Republic of Bulgaria.  Maybe the founders of CSKA wanted to cut all connections to pre-1945 Bulgaria, particularly those leading to the Bulgarian Army during the Kingdom of Bulgaria. In any case, the details of the mergers of CSKA and Cherno More are rather different and analogy is not applicable.
* 1913 camp's main sources are WP:SELFPUB.
: Assuming for the sake of the argument that retro-football.bg is Okalinov's site, that would be a correct statement if the citations were text written by the site's authors/administrators.  However, the sources provided are scanned printed publications and Okalinov was not an editor (probably, he wasn't born when some of these editions were published). They are available in public libraries/archives and may not be available online at all.  As far as Wikipedia is concerned, sources must be cited correctly; there is no requirement that the sources should be online.
* BFF publications are not recognized by the BFU because BFU is a separate organization.
: I beg to differ.  According to the BFU website (translation mine): "BFU is successor of the Bulgarian Football Federation (BFF) (1962-1985)."  The term "successor" (Bulgarian: "правоприемник") means exactly this; the successor accepts all assets and liabilities of its predecessor and there is complete connection between the two entities. The very same thing happened between Ticha/Vladislav and Cherno More.  Furthermore, BFU lists Cherno More as successor of both Ticha and Vladislav in their list of champions, which only confirms the facts as previously published in the BFF editions.
* BFU is not authoritative for clubs' history.
: That is probably so.  But a website with short texts for various Bulgarian clubs (bgclubs.eu) is not authoritative either. It seems to me that a local football federation (member association of UEFA) is the closest possible authority when it comes to clubs' history. When Red Bull purchased and rebranded FC Salzburg in 2005, the new club management claimed that it was a completely new club with no history.  However, they were forced by the Austrian Football Association to withdraw that claim and the club's history was subsequently restored. The local football association determines whether a given club is successor of another club, because usually that is done by transferring the membership to the new club/entity.
* 1913 camp's claim is based on original research.
: The citations from the sources directly relate to Cherno More and/or its predecessors, the fact that Cherno More is successor of both these clubs and therefore the content of the article cannot be considered original research.  It is true that none of the BFF editions is especially made for Cherno More, but the reader is pointed to the page where the relevant information can be found. Some of the arguments (like the celebrations for the 100th anniversary or Ivan Mokanov's honorary diploma) can be considered original research with a stretch of imagination, if they were the only sources. However, the article's content is not based on them.
* Reliability of bgclubs.eu
: It is true that this website is widely used as source in Wikipedia, that is a fact.  However, it is full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies  and cannot be considered as reliable or authoritative source of information. (If necessary, I will present at least 5 examples of inaccurate information.) There are no details how the information on clubs' history is gathered and there is no evidence for any of the historical facts presented.  I further question the reliability of this source because the same company has published a printed yearbook in 2004, presenting Cherno More as successor of Ticha and Vladislav with four league titles won.
* Reliability of Soccerway
: Soccerway is considered as reliable source for Wikipedia, WP:FOOTY in particular.  It is worth mentioning that for Bulgarian football statistics Soccerway's primary source is the Bulgarian football statistics website bulgarian-football.com, and for other details (club's badge, stadium, contacts, history) the primary source is bgclubs.eu.  bulgarian-football.com and bgclubs.eu are under the same umbrella, same ownership and mostly the same editor team, so it is not surprising that both bgclubs.eu and soccerway.com claim that Cherno More is founded in 1945.  Finally, Soccerway is considered as reliable for football statistics, but as far as I know it has never been regarded as authoritative for clubs' history and foundation dates in particular.  It is also inconsistent: claims that Cherno More is founded in 1945, but the trophies include one title from 1937/38, albeit in grey colour.
* It is paradoxical that Cherno More were champions and runners-up simultaneously.
: There is no paradox.  At that time, Cherno More's predecessors were independent clubs and participated in the same championship.  In fact this is quite common for clubs that were independent and subsequently merged later. For example, in 1938–39 Gauliga Ostmark, SK Admira Wien were champions and SC Wacker were runners-up. The article of the present club FC Admira Wacker Mödling correctly lists all honours, properly marked as won by the respective predecessor clubs. Yavorescu (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Rebuttals

message: In attempt to break up with the "bourgeoisie past" , all clubs were subjected to mergers by the new government in 1945. Only after the end of the Stalinist era and with the creation of the Bulgarian Union of Gymnastics and Sport (bulg. БСФС) bridges were rebuild and all clubs could claim their descendancy from the pre-War sports establishments. Mergers on Soviet inspired principles were made up until 1969 with not a single one of them resulting in a new foundation date. This includes all Bulgarian teams without exception. There is no reason why exception should be made only in this particlar case. Okalinov (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: A discussion is taking place at WP:ANI. Slasher405 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Okalinov

message: Why is the article still at 1945? As I see everyone except one editor support 1913, there are also more sources. Linhart (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Linhart, what do you suggest?  If I revert it, that would be a start of an edit war (or rather, a continuation of the old one).  I was hoping for directions from an administrator, but my request at WP:ANI remained unanswered. Yavorescu (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Linhart, The problem is that we have a very determined user who wants single handedly to change the history of the club. He is evading the discussion because he knows he can't win but keeps on revering the page as he likes, using all possible loopholes in the procedures. So far, it seems difficult to get the attention of an administrator but hopefully it will happen sooner or later. Okalinov (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't do anything really, I didn't know the situation is like this. If there will be some discussion or vote or something, i will support the 1913 camp. Linhart (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Hi guys, I was mentioned in a DRN about this article. I went through the discussion here as well as (unfortunately) the one in Bulgarian and fail to see a constructive approach by one side in particular. It looks as though only on side is acting constructively and coming up with actual proposals, sources, etc. As this is the case, I really do not see any weight to the other side's stance. Not discussing or assuming the inflammatory approach used over at BG wiki is not a way to build an encycploaedia and it should not be allowed to obstruct said building. As was also mentioned in the DRN I see no reason why the page should not be reverted to the stance that is heavily backed up by sources and that a single user opposes without even entering in discussion. As there is no way to force someone to participate in a discussion, we might just have to restore the version agreed upon by all but one user and hopefully get this one user into a discussion. I wish I could come up with something more constructive, but it seems as though you are running out of options. Unfortunately, I really do not have the time to get involved in an RFC. I have also additional reasons not to get involved with such users (I received a lot of very real off-wiki threats the last time I did). --Laveol T 11:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Laveol, thank you for taking the time to get familiar with our case.  That's a lot of reading (some of it unpleasant), so I appreciate that.  I understand your reasons why you want to remain uninvolved and I certainly won't insist.  The only reason why I prefer a neutral and experienced editor to file the RFC is because I believe it would be better worded and as unbiased as possible.  Do you think RFC would help and it's worth filing one?  Reverting seems like an aggressive "last resort" option that could be avoided if the RFC is successful. Yavorescu (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC is always a good option, I just have the (bad) feeling it might not be enough to avoid an edit war. We already have a case of edit warring against what seems a vast consensus among editors.--Laveol T 10:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment