Talk:Archbishopric of Ohrid

message: It was not under the tutelage of the Patriarch of Constantinople between 1019 and 1767! Check the facts. It was an independant church under the tutelage of the Emperor of Byzantium.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.171.198 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has no references what so ever to the 'Bulgarian' part claim. Edited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference 

message: Name of this article should be just Archbishopric of Ohrid , but i cant move it--strich3D 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this article should be just Archbishopric of Ohrid  

message: Read the external links which call the church "Bulgarian Archbishopric" before you vandalize. ForeignerFromTheEast 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strich3d

message: Though Basil left the Bulgarian Church its autonomy, the Metropolitans of Achrida were no longer styled Patriarchs, but Archbishops, and after 1025 were chosen from the Greek clergy, instead of the Bulgarian.. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not stop vandalizing you will be blocked again for a long time. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Read this source before vandalizing

message: Sorry, but i'm tired of reading "independent" articles written by people who has never been in macedonia or Ohrid, i live here, in  Macedonia, and i have been in Ohrid and be sure that there is no evidence that Archbishopric of Ohrid was bulgarian church, it was independent church in Macedonia. Im not vanadlizing, im making the article neutral. --strich3D 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a vandal because you erase sourced information and replace it with lies. Anyone can say they are from Ohrid and know whatever you know. You have no neutral sources to prove your point. The source that is linked is written by the Catholic Church body, who know theology and history from primary sources, not Macedonist textbooks. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what do you have to prove this? Anyone can say this, this is argument from ignorance. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:Strich3d 

message: We can see the lies of bulgarian propaganda. How can modern bulgarian language be the official language of Archbishopric of Ohrid ? Official language of Archbishopric of Ohrid  was Church Slavonic not bulgarian or old bulgairan, dont lie. --strich3D 11:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using nonstandard terminology such as "Old Bulgarian" or pipeline links such as "Bulgarian" is just another sneaky attempt at pushing POV. --Hegumen (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian language 

message: I was also under the impression that the most common name was 'Archbishopric of Ohrid'? What does google say? :) Capricornis 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wonder why the word Bulgarian has been appended to the title. --Hegumen (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you decided to move it just like that without any discussion. The reason is that this was the official name of the Archbishopric and it was referred to with this name by all medieval sources (like it or not). And what you're doing with the moves and redirects is something pretty close to vandalism. --Laveol T 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see "Archbishop of the Bulgarians", "Archbishopric of Bulgaria" and "spiritual head of the Bulgarian population", but never "Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid". --Hegumen (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: None of those references show a connection to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Just that it held jurisdiction over "Bulgarians" and "Bulgaria" (whatever those terms may have meant back then). --Hegumen (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean besides Bulgarians and Bulgaria? --Laveol T 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Just as Macedonians and Macedonia had ever changing meanings. The title needs to be changed. --Hegumen (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree here. BalkanFever 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  There are no records that bulgarians and bulgarian mean any different than they do today. You and several other here just point out statements with NO evidence at all. Bulgarian meant the same as today - part of the bulgarian ethnos... Please note that there is one thing that is 100 % SURE IN HISTORY. This is that no event that happened after another can be reason for it. So if you have problems with the comprehension of the above statement I will describe it in s simpler manner for you:
The time line goes like this: - Past -> Present -> Future...
So the fact that the population in Vardar Macedonia has a macedonian ethnic conscience nowadays cannot prove that the population of Vardar Macedonia before 100 years had this conscience.
However if we look the other way around we will see for example that the population of Pirin Macedonia had bulgarian ethnic conscience before 10 centuries, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and up to nowadays.
So see the timeline goes from past to present .. 
The same is with the Archbishopric of Ohrid... 
So unless you point out that it was not a bulgarian one and give references to facts and documents (NOT statements), then you can go elsewhere to tell your fairy tales.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.222.53.208 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

text: nowhere is mentioned Bulgarian. it is known as "ortodox archbishopric of Ohrid" with close ties with Vatican. don't rape the church as well history. and by the way, back then it was Slavs led by Bulgars, not Bulgarians. Bulgaria is a modern state. Macedonian  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.225.177 (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of article 

message: SIMEON STATE'S MAP 
SAMUIL STATE'S MAP
BULGARIA THEME IN SKOPJE AND OHRID 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a BULGARIAN Empire and BULGARIA Thema in Skopje and Ohrid 

message: Why is the title of the article Bulgarian? That can't be said for all of the time from 1019 to 1767.
Also, I think it's POV that Archbishopric of Ohrid redirects to here. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is heavily sourced as such, isn't it? --Laveol T 01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not as "Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid" - see above. BalkanFever 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at them? It is Bulgarian archbishopric or Archbishopric of Bulgarians which is not like being the same thing now, is it? --Laveol T 10:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tova na kakov ezik beshe? Could you please say that in proper English please? Who are you, Valentina Hasan? BalkanFever 10:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yup, that's right - the current Archbishopric is not Bulgarian. I see you have already fixed it. --Laveol T 10:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian and other 

message: Can we rename the article already? It should be clear that the current title is incorrect. --Hegumen (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. --Laveol T 09:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The references you have provided do not support keeping the current title, only that it was a church for "Bulgarians" (whatever that may have meant). But that's not what I'm talking about, my problem is with the word Bulgarian being appended to the title (something which you won't see even on the BG wiki). --Hegumen (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cause on BG wiki it is pretty clear its Bulgarian. Why put Bulgarian for something you know it's Bulgarian. The church was referred to as Bulgarian and that's it. --Laveol T 12:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, at least we agree on that point. But the name of the church was never "Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid" nor it is referred to as such by Western scholars, and placing the word "Bulgarian" in the title is just to support your POV. Slipping a little word into every article won't change history or people's perception. Sorry. :) --Hegumen (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to add that as it is now, the article is both very misleading and wreaks of POV. Pushing your current position won't help you at all, Laveol. --Hegumen (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: For the third time, I'm proposing the article be renamed. There have yet to be presented any valid reasons why the current title should be kept as it is. It's nonstandard and used to further someone's POV. --Hegumen (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? You have provided no reason for the move. All contemporary sources list this period of the churche's existence as the Bulgarian archbishopric of Ohrid. Besides we do have to disambugate it from the latter Macedonian one, don't we? --Laveol T 10:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do need to disambiguate one from the other. But we don't need to invent new names! --Hegumen (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure you do... 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't - that was the name used. You don't like - fine, but why should an encyclopedia care? --Laveol T 11:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In international scholarship the most common and standard name is Archbishopric of Ohrid. For now, I don't care whether or not the article presents it as a Bulgarian church. My problem is with the title. --Hegumen (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary - for the frame whcih the article is representing the most common usage is the Bulgarian archbishopric of Ohrid. --Laveol T 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again... 

message: Reasons
# the church was autonomous, controlled by Constantinople, it was not autonomous church controlled by the Bulgarian church
# the church was headed by different ethnicity, not just Bulgarians (ie: Byzantines)
# the official language of ALL Slavic churches during the 1000s was Church Slavonic, the use of the ethnic language in church is a recent phenomena
A church controlled by Constantinople, headed by different ethnicities, and used Church Slavonic language is heavily POV edited to turn it into a Bulgarian church. Please add much more sources per statement. Mactruth (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one thing - this was the official name of the church. This is how it was referred to by all sides (both Byzantines and Bulgarians). This is the consensus on the page name. And one more thing - prior to performing a move you should wait until a response. In this case you just posted a comment and moved it prior to receiving any feedback or any comments from other users. --Laveol T 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Mind you - any further moves performed without even thinking of getting any consensus on this, will be considered rather disruptive. Thank you. --Laveol T 19:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I do not believe it meant ethnicity. This is the name used in the sources, no?! What exactly is the diff between Ohrid, the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid. We're not trying to promote the view that the church was ethnically Bulgarian or Greek, but to be correct and to use the most significant name. What you're trying to do, on the other hand, is simply to erase the word "Bulgarian", which is not ok. If you have a problem with the word, you have a whole wiki on your hands. Thank you. --Laveol T 10:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, you have stated above that "it was the official name of the church", when the sources you have used do not reflect that. The sources reflect that it was "Arch of Ohrid", church of Bulgarians (though you yourself admit that Bulgarian did not mean ethnicity, just as Roman and Byzantine did not). So, is it a coincidence that you are trying to twist the official name of the church to include "Bulgarian", even though the sources do not reflect this and you yourself identify as a Bulgarian today? Does this not cause conflict of interest towards the material? Mactruth (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  Indeed, a google search of "Bulgarian Archbishop of Ohrid" will show 12 600 hits, while "Arch. of Ohrid results in 15 900 hits, making Arch of Ohrid the more common name known today. Doing a google book search of "Arch of Ohrid" shows 691 hits, while the same for "Bulgarian Arch of Ohrid" shows 631 hits. Most of the books state "Archbishop of Ohrid" as the name of the church, maybe you should read a few of them. Mactruth (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And now you're gonna tell me google has a way of determining which hits are representing the current Archbishopric and the former one? The current title is the most common name used to refer to that particular church. And that's it. The fact that you don't like one of the words i quite irrelevant. And I ask you again: what is the difference between Ohrid, the Archbishopric of Bulgaria and Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid? Do you really find a diff? That'd be funny. Oh, and I can't notice you continue playing with the ethnicity card: nobody is trying to twist the word as an ethnic denominator. It just happens to be the church of the country called Bulgaria and of the Byzantine province with the same name. --Laveol T 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I think Laveol should be reported for vandalism. I assumed good faith with the Church Slavonic language article, but after seeing this it's clear what he's up to. --124.169.205.21 (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  how do we go about reporting? I have shown him evidence that he has not rebutted, only stating his opinion, which is POV. Mactruth (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: !. This is not vandalism. On the other hand, you should be reported if you continue with the false accusations. Thank you. --Laveol T 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title changes to Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019-1767)  

message: moved the article without discussing. I noted him.--Zoupan 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this should be at "Archbishopric of Ohrid", or at the least, per the WP:RM discussion above, at Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019–1767). As I have noted in Fastifex's page, viewing the world through the exclusive scope of the Roman Curia, with its universalist mentality and tendency to ignore the presence of far more significant non-RC sees in some areas, is guaranteed to bring up WP:POV problems. Constantine   ✍  08:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've warned him and requested rev. und. move since he refuses to.--Zoupan 10:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages after six weeks, per the discussion below. The discussion was opened by a sock that has subsequently been blocked. There was no strong support for any particular new name for the article, and one of the !votes listed as a "weak support" below says that "the 'historical' archbishopric is by far the primary topic", which under our article titling policy would logically be read as opposition to the moves. If necessary, any editor in good standing can initiate a new move request at any time to determine whether there is a stronger consensus for Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019–1767) or another title.  Dekimasuよ! 01:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only talking about those specific redirects. Still, I will evaluate whether your RM makes navigating easier or not for the reader, but later. Veverve (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Veverve that is not normal when the terms 'Archbishopric of Ochrid' etc redirect to a DAB page, but 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' is an article about a specific historical archbishopric and the redirect is on Archbishopric of Ohrid (disambiguation). Or both to the DAB or both to the article. BlackBony (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

text: *Weak support per above. Veverve (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 June 2022 

message: Hi, IP. Deleting 10 academic sources published by University Presses publishers and replacing them with one dissertation, and that focused in a time far from the period of existence of the archdiocese itself, is unacceptable. The dissertation itself, according to Wikipedia's criteria, is not always a reliable source of information and should be used with caution: Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part a primary sources. In this case, it is obvious that it contradicts many other publications of a higher degree of credibility. Use reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This makes your agenda  a fringe view. Please, provide at least 10 more reliable sources supporting your opinion before changing the stabile version. Also keeps in mind that the name Macedonia for modern region was largely forgotten as a geographical denomination through the Byzantine and Ottoman eras but was revived only by Greek nationalist movements from the early 19th century onwards. For the Balkan Christians in Byzantine times the name 'Macedonia' covered the territories, centered around Adrianople (Edrine) in present-day Turkey. The Archbishopric of Ohrid never was called Macedonian during its existence. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single dissertation