Talk:Samuel of Bulgaria

message: Hello 
Can you elaborate what did you mean with the comment "not an improvement" and undo the edit?
I don't want to start an edit war, let's just clear the problem here in the talk page.
"Macedonian name and boundaries were revived in the 19th century, after they had disappeared during the five centuries Ottoman rule"
I believe, that this sentence is technically wrong (specifically the second part which I marked in bold) as it states that the Macedonian name and boundaries have disappeared during the five centuries of Ottoman rule, which is technically wrong as the Macedonian name and boundaries ( of a country ) disappeared much earlier and name and boundaries of the geographical region have never disappeared as such. Don't you think that the sentence in this case is a little misleading, stating none of the facts above? 
Also I can't find any citation and information for the sentence, can you point to citation of what is currently written, that the Macedonian boundaries and name specifically disappeared during Ottoman times?
I look forwards to hear out your opinion! All best!
Skradumdum (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a lot of sources at the ent of the sentence in support of this statement. Just check them. Check this new one  please: The ethnic groups inhabiting the former territories of the Ancient Macedonians and the adjacent lands hardly ever called them Macedonia for a period of almost a thousand years before the early 19th century. In the Byzantine period the name Macedonia applied to a part of that is now Thrace, and the territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia was the core of the Byzantine province Bulgaria. Until the late 19th century the Turks did not even know that they were of occupation of a place called Macedonia. The term Macedonia was regularly applied to the territory of the ancient Macedonians only by Western travellers, cartographers and politicians after the Renaissance, and was widely re-adopted for local use first by the Greeks in the early 19th century. Drezov K. (1999) Macedonian identity: an overview of the major claims, p. 55. In: Pettifer J. (eds) The New Macedonian Question. St Antony’s Series. London, Springer, 1999, ISBN 0230535798. Can you provide any reliable source supporting your claims? By the way I have changed slightly the sentence to NPOV. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Not an improvement?

message: )Samuil proclaims himself king of Bulgaria and all the Bulgarians in the Samuilovo borderstone. 2)When Roman,son of king Peter flees from the Byzantine prison he is welcomed by Samuil and crowned in Vidin for king of Bulgaria. 3) After Preslav is plundered by Svetoslav the Bulgarian patriarch Damyan flees to Ohrid. 4) When Bulgarian king Roman is captured again in battle,Samuil does not proclaim himself king and remains Roman's general till Roman's death 10 years later 5) The man who defeats Samuil's army and blinds 14000 soldiers ,Basil the Second Macedon, is called for this cruelty "Bulgaroctonos" (Bulgarian-slayer) 6) After the fall of Samuil's kingdom in 1018,the area around his capital Ohrid is called theme Bulgaria 7) in 1040 Peter Deljan declares himself king of Bulgaria and starts uprising against Byzantines,claiming he is heir to the comitopuli dynasty 8) Samuil's father was governor of Sredec area,one of the biggest and the strongest in those days Bulgaria.He remained loyal to king Peter even when discontent Bulgarian bolyars tried to depose him. 9)All contemporaries describe Samuil's kingdom as Bulgaria and the predominant population there as Bulgarian.This includes Byzantine,Armenian,Arabic sources. 10)On all maps drawn in those years and later in the Middle Ages Samuil's kingdom is depicted as Bulgaria. 11) Bulgarian nation had nothing to do with the proto-bulgars.We have evidence that it was predominantly slavic even in the 9 century,when the Slavic language was accepted as official clergy language in Bulgaria. 12)Bulgarian nation had nothing to do with the protobulgars.It was created by the closely related Slavs in Misia,Thrace,Macedonia. 13) In a mission in 972 the envoys of Samuil say they come from the second Bulgaria,refering to the First Bulgaria,devasted by the Russians and the Greeks.Samuil was king of the second Bulgaria,because he restored the Bulgarian statehood. 14)Samuil's capital moved constantly because of the Byzantine aggression.At first it was probably Sredets,the seat of Samuil's father 15) Samuil is described as a Bulgarian ruler in the first "History of Bulgaria",written by the monk Paisii in 1762,long before we can talk about Bulgarian nationalism and Bulgarian aspirations towards Macedonia.Moreover,he was born in Bansko,Pirin Macedonia. 16)SAmuil always strived to re-conquer the lost Bulgarian capital Preslav and to control it. 17) All world scientists and historians agree that Samuil is Bulgarian king.All authorative encyclopedias state that he is Bulgarian 18)Check Samuil on all languages in Wikipedia that have article about Samuil: they say Samuil king of Bulgaria.The only exceptions are the Serbian and the Macedonian... 19) The theory about Samuil as a king of Slovenes(not of Macedonians) is made by Serbian chauvinists and used for political aims for dissolution of Bulgaria and detaching of some of its territory to Serbia.According to it the Bulgarians are extinct tatar tribe,so we do not rightfully use the name Bulgarians;we are Shopi,Dobruzanci,and so on Slavs.Yes,Samuil was king of Slovenes.Of these slovenes,living in Misia,Thrace and Macedonia, who were called Bulgarians,because they lived in the land of the Bulgars...as nowadays Macedonians have nothing to do with the antic ones and only have the common name due to the geographical area.The population of Bulgaria of Samuil was salvic so the arguement whether Samuil was king of Bulgarian Slavs or Bulgars is of no importance. 20)Even in Macedonian history books there is a picture where over the heads of the blinded soldiers is written simply "Boulgaroi" - Bulgarians  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitosha (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but ethnicity was fluctuant back then. They were all just Slavs. If he was born in Prilep, then he is Macedonian by region Hxseek (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "О неразумни и юроде! Защо се срамуваш да се наречеш българин" - ИСТОРИЯ СЛАВЯНОБОЛГАРСКАЯ, Паисий Хилендарски, 1762
Have in mind that the title of king or emperor of Bulgaria does not have to mean that the bearer of the title is Bulgarian by ethnicity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.28.75 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonists,face these facts

message: Aron was killed after the battle at the Trajan's Gates in which he took part on August 17, 986. Check: 1. the Bitola Inscription; 2.Zlatarski, Vol. I, part 1; 3. Pirivatrich 
When exactly David and Moses were killed is unknown. For David there is a terminus post quem - 976, according to Skylitza, and a terminus ante quem - 992/993, given by the inscription from German. Dobrin 13:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Aron's Death 

message: Is there a change of color from West to East or it's just my LCD screen? If yes, what does it mean?Baltaci 17:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is, but it's just a gradient to make it look better :) Todor→Bozhinov 19:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: map

message: I found this map on the German Wikipedia. We might be able to squeeze it somewhere - what do you think? --Laveol T 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this map is well-sourced but I don't find it very helpful mainly for two reasons. First, it says "about year 1000". This period is very fateful for Samuil, Bulgaria, and Byzantium, and the imprecision of the date means much. We do not know if this is for the period before 1018, or after that, that is, if Bulgaria is the state ruled by Samuil, or the Byzantine thema Bulgaria, decreed by Basil II in 1018. Second, the scale is very small, and if this have to illustrate the activity of Samuil (battles, towns, etc.), it cannot do this. In short, I think we have to look for another map. Lantonov (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the map it should be the tzarsdome of Bulgaria, not the thema... You can see all the themas are marked as such (Thema of Macedonia, Thema of Longobardy and so on). However still I have some doubts. YOu can also take a look at the names of the geographical locations -> such as Skopia, Castoria and so on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.0.97 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Another map

message: I'm going to remove this sentence - don't get me wrong I appreciate such a mention, but it is hardly encyclopedic - look at all the other sources for Samuil's rain - they're all from all established historians and the RoM government just does not fit in there. The article should stay clear and informative as it is not some stub or start class one and only reliable (reliable in this particular case means a reliable historian as this is a historical issue) sources should be accepted. And again I have nothing against the statement itself or the ROM government site, but you should look up a reliable source for this (a mention in a history book with a further analysis if possible. --Laveol T 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying and I think it would only be fair to remove the Bulgarian sources to the article as well as I am sure they are equally reliable. Because it is biased to only remove Macedonian sources. Ireland101 (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove sources written by reliable historians with hundreds of publications on the topic. I am going to revert your edit. Do not do this again. Lantonov (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perusing the references again, however, I think that this one should be removed: 
* 
It is from the Bulgarian government web site, and seems to be a chapter of a book. This should go here only as a full citation of the book, with the author(s) and ISBN number. Lantonov (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edit by Ireland101

message: The following paragraphs are not what Wikipedia does. We do not exist to refute arguments, however frivolous; we exist to describe them. If claims are held by a vanishingly small contingent, we ignore them, as we would do here if Ostrogorsky were not one of the scholars involved. (I will check what he actually said; this is unintelligible.)
:In addition to the internationally established treatment of facts regarding Samuil's life and rule,<:ref></ref> there also exists a minority theory. Initially it was popularized by political reasons in Kingdom of Serbia and then further developed in Yugoslavia by D. Anastasijević, G. Ostrogorrsky and others. In his book History of the Byzantine State<:ref>The history of the Byzantine State (selected chapters) by George Ostrogorsky — Medieval Greek images</ref> Ostrogorsky wrote that all contemporaries and the people of Samuil's state believed it was a Bulgarian empire, but because of its different,  westernmore placing it was another state. Anastasijević claimed that the state Samuil ruled was in fact a separate Slavic Empire.<:ref>Анастасиевић, Д. Н. Хипотеза о Западноj Бугарскоj, Гласник Скопског научног друштва, кн. III, Скопље, 1928.</ref> It was founded as a result of an anti-Bulgarian rebellion of the Comitopuli, as opposed to a continuation of the Bulgarian state. Today this theory is only popular in the Republic of Macedonia, also to a lesser extent in Serbia (with modern scholars such as S. Pirivatrić rejecting it).<:ref>Пириватрић, Самуилова држава: обим и карактер.</ref> In Republic of Macedonia it is often changed to refer to a "Macedonian Slavic" or even only "Macedonian" Empire.<:ref></ref> This is despite the different location of the geographic area of Macedonia in the Middle Ages and the anachronism.Macedonia – A Surprising Country, Anamaria G. Dutceac – Segesten, Department of Government and Politics,
University of Maryland at College Park, April 27, 2002. 
:Authoritative modern encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica<:ref></ref> and Encarta<:ref></ref> both consider Samuil a Bulgarian ruler, and the Columbia Encyclopedia clearly states that it was the Bulgarian Empire that crumbled under Byzantine attacks in 1018.<:ref></ref> Older issues such as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia also stated Samuil was Tsar of West Bulgaria.<:ref></ref>
 
We do not go on about "authoritative encyclopedias"; we do not claim political motivation without an explicit source. If Ostrogorsky were still alive, this would be a WP:BLP violation. (And the only reason to cite the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is to quote it as an illustration of some assertion, sourced to some secondary source, of an official Soviet view; it is not a reliable source.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature

message: The present text is less than clear. Treadgold and Ostrogorsky agree than the Byzantines were allied with Svyatoslav against the Bulgarians; and then turned on the Russians, capturing Boris II in the process. This does not leave much room for an alliance between Boris and John for the Cometopuli to rebel against. 
*What is the source for the Isker? It doesn't seem to be Ostrogorsky. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boris II

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
There is no clear consensus for the move. But the guidelines suggest use English, and those suggesting a move point to reliable sources. The argument against moving is not that it is against common usage or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), but that "I think that if this page is going to be renamed per Using English so should be all pages referring those rulers." This is not a justification based on Wikipeida policy or guidelines, as each page ought to be considered on its merrits. If some of those who had opposed had put forward other arguments instead of "per Giligan" I would have considered those arguments as well, but the only other one put forward is Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias but is a project and not a naming policy or guideline and anyway it does not apply to using English names for articles.
So on balance of the arguments presented I have decided to move this page to :Samuel of Bulgaria --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AjaxSmack made a good point. But I suspect if there is a slightly disrespect for certain ethnics: I have no strong opinion in this issue, but it would be not totally balanced, if some Greek names are simply transliterated and some Bulgarian names are not. And I am not so much troubled with Samuil, either, so prefer to stay neutral. --Aphaia (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Lantonov: surely he will google bg:Самуил, rather than any Latin alphabet? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, he might want to know what his Roman enemies say about him :). Anyway, it was just a group opinion. No strong prejudice either way. --Lantonov (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: *Support as nom. Using English names would significantly clarify the article. This is one of four brothers, named David, Moses, Aaron, Samuel. It would help if the ordinary reader could see that use of Old Testament names, without having to struggle through multiple transliterations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: A chuckle for AjaxSmack. 
One reason I cite the ODB is that it takes an extreme anti-anglicization position, resulting in such forms as Doukas for English Ducas; we have followed them, possibly to excess. It only anglicizes in such cases as  Constantine or here, where not doing so would be extremely artificial. Therefore English sources are not divided here; the two camps agree.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AjaxSmack made a good point. But I suspect if there is a slightly disrespect for certain ethnics: I have no strong opinion in this issue, but it would be not totally balanced, if some Greek names are simply transliterated and some Bulgarian names are not. And I am not so much troubled with Samuil, either, so prefer to stay neutral. --Aphaia (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Lantonov: surely he will google bg:Самуил, rather than any Latin alphabet? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, he might want to know what his Roman enemies say about him :). Anyway, it was just a group opinion. No strong prejudice either way. --Lantonov (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I just noticed that the FA had been closed.  While all of my initial comments were addressed, there are more that should be addressed before the next FA nomination.
**I've done an initial copyedit to improve the flow and tighten the prose, but there are still some POV-ish areas. Part of this is due to an overuse of adjectives - Samuil and those on his side are always given adjectives like "brave", "loyal", etc, which those on the opposing side tend to have more negative descriptions.
**I've added two citation needed tags and see two more in the article.  
**This is out of date: "His mortal remains are currently kept in a secret location in Greece, but according to a recent agreement, they may be returned to Bulgaria and buried in the SS. Forty Martyrs Church in Veliko Tarnovo by April 2007, where they shall rest along with the remains of two other emperors, Kaloyan and Michael Shishman"
**There's also a dubious tag on the information about his appearance
**There is another in the first section. To not give undue weight to one theory over another, it might be wise to move the information in family section about his brothers and parentage to the first section.  You can present both sides there.
**This is not a reliable source: http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6537/ThemesintheByzantineEmpireunderBasilII.jpg
***The book from which it is scanned would be, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not look like a reliable site. Doesnt give sources. --Lantonov (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The site is a large collection of books in humanities, all of them scanned from officially published paper books and articles. --Lantonov (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: These sites are official web sites for Bulgarian literature, with a status of a publishing company. They publish electronic versions of books and give own ISBN numbers, so they are as reliable as any officially registered publisher. The poets and poems are Bulgarian classics, taught in schools. The Vazov poem consistently comes in the first 3 places in popularity in all top-tens for Bulgarian poetry. As for Zlatarski, he never uses adjectives if he can avoid them. He avoids emotionally colored citations, too, because he is a representative of the "objectivism school" in historiography.  --Lantonov (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much. I will contact you before I renominate the article (which will happen when I find time). --Gligan (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched the text with "brave" and "loyal". Found 1 with "brave": Despite the desperate resistance and the personal bravery of Gavril Radomir, the Byzantines overwhelmed the Bulgarian army and captured around 14,000 soldiers,[125] according to some sources even 15,000[126]. The reference [125] is from Gyuzelev, Short history of Bulgaria. Removed and the personal bravery of Gavril Radomir. Found 1 with "loyal" in a footnote. It is a citation from Annals by Yahya of Antioch: Samuel "Roman's loyal military chief". Because it is a citation, I left it as it is. --Lantonov (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-FA comments

message: I twice reverted edits that changed all mentions of "Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian" to "Macedonia" and "Macedonian", respectively, and deleted a lot of sources. I'm not going to revert again because of 3RR, but the edits seemed to be fairly obviously problematic. Even if there is something to the editor's Macedonia concern (and I have no idea about that at all), it's pretty clear that merely changing all mentions of "Bulgaria" to "Macedonia" introduces inaccuracies all over the place. I hope that the editors making those changes will consider discussing them here before making such sweeping changes to the article again. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Samuel of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080205121624/http://www.jambol.hit.bg:80/jambol/samuil.htm to http://www.jambol.hit.bg/jambol/samuil.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080417213716/http://www.bartleby.com:80/67/441.html to http://www.bartleby.com/67/441.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090525122132/http://www.vmro-rousse.hit.bg:80/Pl_Pavlov.html to http://www.vmro-rousse.hit.bg/Pl_Pavlov.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705125504/http://www.litclub.com/library/bg/dalchev/kumrod.htm to http://www.litclub.com/library/bg/dalchev/kumrod.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Samuel of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090525122132/http://www.vmro-rousse.hit.bg:80/Pl_Pavlov.html to http://www.vmro-rousse.hit.bg/Pl_Pavlov.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How could he be Orthodox if he lived prior to 1054 schism? He was just Christian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.239.199 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Samuel of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221032619/https://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/English/PageData/samuel.htm to http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/English/PageData/samuel.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019161316/http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6537/ThemesintheByzantineEmpireunderBasilII.jpg to http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6537/ThemesintheByzantineEmpireunderBasilII.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/95387
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808112418/https://www.bnr.bg/RadioBulgaria/Emission_Bulgarian/Theme_IstoriaIReligia/Material/samuil_reconstrukica.htm to http://www.bnr.bg/RadioBulgaria/Emission_Bulgarian/Theme_IstoriaIReligia/Material/samuil_reconstrukica.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.government.bg/history_of_Bulgaria/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Samuel of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418141238/http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/lpd1.html to http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/lpd1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Samuel of Bulgaria →  – There are no sources in Bulgarian that list his name spelled with an "e" instead of an "i". His name is still used today and people named after him use "i" in their passports too. Samuel is a needless westernisation of the real name of Tsar Samuil. Samuil should be the main page and Samuel should redirect to Samuil. Dyils (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Comments copied from WP:RM/TR are below. Polyamorph (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: * A brief look at the sources suggests that in English (per WP:UE), "Samuel" is the correct spelling. For example, it is the spelling used by Britannica BilledMammal (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. If he is commonly called Samuel in English we don't use the Slavonic spelling. Samuil is just the Slavonic equivalent of Samuel, and the names of pre-modern people are commonly "translated" into English when possible.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 December 2021