![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Name of this article should be just Archbishopric of Ohrid , but i cant move it-- strich3D 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the external links which call the church "Bulgarian Archbishopric" before you vandalize. ForeignerFromTheEast 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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. [1]. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Those are not neutral sources they are re-written from bulgarian books or by bulgarians-- strich3D 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
SIMEON STATE'S MAP [2]
SAMUIL STATE'S MAP [3]
BULGARIA THEME IN SKOPJE AND OHRID [4] [5] [6]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 12:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Yeah, but was it Bulgarian throughout the entire period? Even while it belonged to the Serbian or was directly subjected to Constantinople?
The point is Archbishopric of Ohrid shouldn't redirect here. -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 04:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we rename the article already? It should be clear that the current title is incorrect. -- Hegumen ( talk) 08:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Reasons
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)
Like I stated Laveol, show sources from that time period or neutral sources in which the official name of the church was "Bulgarian Arch. of Ohrid" and not simply "Arch of Ohrid" Mactruth ( talk) 04:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Problems with your sources used:
The Byzantine author Georghis Acropolita calls Demetrius Chomatianus the Archbishop of the Bulgarians. 13th c. Georgii Acropolitae Opera, rec. A. Heisenberg, I-II, Lipsiae 1903; ГИБИ, VIII, p. 158; the original is in Greek [1]
The Byzantine writer Theodore Scutariot calls Ohrid the Archbishopric of Bulgaria. Bibliotheca Graeca medii aevi, ed. Constant. Sathas. vol. VII, Parisiis, 1894, pp. 5427-54610 - Cf. ГИБИ, VШ, pp. 299-300. 13th c.[2]
The Byzantine Emperor, Andronicus II Paleologus, presented the Archbishop of Ohrid with a mantle with an inscription saying that the Archbishop was the spiritual head of the Bulgarian population. (Yordan Ivanov, The Bulgarians in Macedonia), pp. 149-150; the original is in Greek.[3]
The Synodicon of Tsar Boril states that the Archbishops of Ohrid are subordinated to the Turnovo Patriarchate. 14th c. (М. G. Popruzhenko, Synodicon of Tsar Boril, Bulgarian Antiquity), vol. VIII, Sofia, p. 93; the original is in Old Bulgarian [4]
You truely believe "Bulgarian" meant an ethnicity? Just as "Roman" and "Byzantine" did not mean ethnicity, so too didn't "Bulgarian". Sorry, none of your "ancient sources" show the church being called "Bulgarian Arch of Ohrid", in fact why are Moesians discussed in the same page? Mactruth ( talk) 04:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the only sources you have used did not show that the "official name is Bulg. Arch. of Ohrid", and if you actually viewed the books in the google search you would see in most instances "Arch of Ohrid" is used. You claim your reasoning as "its the most common and thats that" ok, show it with sources. Mactruth ( talk) 05:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Archbishopric of Ohrid. There's insufficient discussion below for me to feel comfortable adding the years as a disambiguator -- if someone else wants to propose and discuss it, feel free.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid → Archbishopric of Ohrid — Relisted. The page has been moved back to where it was at the start of the discussion. As the spelling is part of the issue below, that needs to have consensus before changing. Do not move the page until the discussion shows some consensus. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC) As below. 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 07:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Article titles, the article should be renamed to Archbishopric of Ohrid. Google tests (especially on Books) are indeed relevant here as they show recognizability. Please compare "archbishopric of ohrid" (about 762 results) and "bulgarian archbishopric of ohrid" (about 55 results). -- 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 07:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that 'Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid' was coined by a Wikipedian who also vandalized Old Church Slavonic by replaced several instances of 'Macedonian' with 'West Bulgarian'. Several of the Google Books hits for 'Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid' are duplicates of books from "Books, LLC" and "Icon Group International, Inc." which lists their sources as Wikipedia. Other instances are cases of differentiating one church within the then-Bulgaria from other churches outside of the then-Bulgaria (for example, Serbian patriarchate of Pec v. Bulgarian archbishopric of Ohrid) - notice the capitalization. -- 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be the case if their names were interchangeable. 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' is only 'Archbishopric of Ohrid', 'Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric' is only 'Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric', 'Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric' is 'Macedonian Orthodox Church' (former official name) and 'Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric' (current official name). 'Ohrid Archbishopric' is the only term which *could* be used freely in context. -- 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If the title is going to have a qualifier, wouldn't Archbishopric of Ohrid (autonomous) be a better solution on account of 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' (without initial qualifier) being the only name used in literature? I mean to say, the qualifier should be set-off from the title in some way which would also accommodate cleaner link piping. -- 124.148.192.108 ( talk) 11:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No one has strictly kept to the topic of this discussion:
There is no justification for having x Archbishopric of Ohrid because there is no y Archbishopric of Ohrid. -- 124.148.192.108 ( talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
@ Zoupan: please stop moving the article. A discussion is in progress. -- 124.148.192.108 ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong on all points. Firstly, we need to reach a consensus before any merge can be made. Secondly, Ochrid is an obsolete spelling. Archbishopric of Ohrid is the name present in literature with around 700 more instances. I agree that the disambiguation page is problematic, which is why I think we should do away with it, use universally accepted naming conventions and avoid any possible confusion with {{two other uses}}. The IP (non-account) edits are all mine. -- 203.59.151.102 ( talk) 07:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Google Books does not determine a word's obsoleteness, only it's frequency. Ochrid is a deprecated spelling and evidence of this is the title of the article Ohrid. Please see this and this. -- 124.169.40.90 ( talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Since this is relisted, I am maintaining my oppose from above, as I am still unconvinced that "Archbishopric of Ohrid" is an acceptable unique title given that the modern orthodox churches can also lay claim to that title (Ohrid Archbishopric and Archbishopric of Ohrid could only be seen as different titles if they were both English; as they are translations, the point is moot). — Amakuru ( talk) 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I would still question the need for disambiguation. A quick search reveals " Ohrid Archbishopric" (which redirects to the disambiguation page) is only used in reference to the subject of this article. The other two entities exclusively use their full trademarked names internally and are referred to as such externally. So now, what is there to disambiguate? We have one historically church, one pretender and one removed church, all with well established names. -- 58.7.246.43 ( talk) 09:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Page 16 of Van Antwerp Fine (1994) has "Bulgarian Archbishop of Ohrid" [lines 6–7]. Page 159 of Angold (2000) has "church of Bulgaria" [lines 6, 8, 9–10], "archbishop of Bulgaria" [lines 11, 15, 21, 23, 27], "Bulgarian church" [lines 18, 29], "the church in Bulgaria" [line 33] and "archbishops of Bulgaria" [line 40]. None of the sources refer to the church as "Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid". Jingiby, your research skills are tragic. You do a GoogleBooks search for Bulgarian this, that and the other without bothering to even read the results returned! -- WavesSaid ( talk) 10:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Fastifex (
talk ·
contribs)
moved the article without discussing.
I noted him.--
Zoupan
21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
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)
–
Veverve claims that there is no primary topic (see
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13]). Then the pages should be moved per
WP:D2D.
BlackBony (
talk) 08:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. // — Relisting.
Spekkios (
talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿) 23:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
05:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Name of this article should be just Archbishopric of Ohrid , but i cant move it-- strich3D 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the external links which call the church "Bulgarian Archbishopric" before you vandalize. ForeignerFromTheEast 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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. [1]. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Those are not neutral sources they are re-written from bulgarian books or by bulgarians-- strich3D 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
SIMEON STATE'S MAP [2]
SAMUIL STATE'S MAP [3]
BULGARIA THEME IN SKOPJE AND OHRID [4] [5] [6]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 12:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Yeah, but was it Bulgarian throughout the entire period? Even while it belonged to the Serbian or was directly subjected to Constantinople?
The point is Archbishopric of Ohrid shouldn't redirect here. -- PaxEquilibrium ( talk) 04:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we rename the article already? It should be clear that the current title is incorrect. -- Hegumen ( talk) 08:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Reasons
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)
Like I stated Laveol, show sources from that time period or neutral sources in which the official name of the church was "Bulgarian Arch. of Ohrid" and not simply "Arch of Ohrid" Mactruth ( talk) 04:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Problems with your sources used:
The Byzantine author Georghis Acropolita calls Demetrius Chomatianus the Archbishop of the Bulgarians. 13th c. Georgii Acropolitae Opera, rec. A. Heisenberg, I-II, Lipsiae 1903; ГИБИ, VIII, p. 158; the original is in Greek [1]
The Byzantine writer Theodore Scutariot calls Ohrid the Archbishopric of Bulgaria. Bibliotheca Graeca medii aevi, ed. Constant. Sathas. vol. VII, Parisiis, 1894, pp. 5427-54610 - Cf. ГИБИ, VШ, pp. 299-300. 13th c.[2]
The Byzantine Emperor, Andronicus II Paleologus, presented the Archbishop of Ohrid with a mantle with an inscription saying that the Archbishop was the spiritual head of the Bulgarian population. (Yordan Ivanov, The Bulgarians in Macedonia), pp. 149-150; the original is in Greek.[3]
The Synodicon of Tsar Boril states that the Archbishops of Ohrid are subordinated to the Turnovo Patriarchate. 14th c. (М. G. Popruzhenko, Synodicon of Tsar Boril, Bulgarian Antiquity), vol. VIII, Sofia, p. 93; the original is in Old Bulgarian [4]
You truely believe "Bulgarian" meant an ethnicity? Just as "Roman" and "Byzantine" did not mean ethnicity, so too didn't "Bulgarian". Sorry, none of your "ancient sources" show the church being called "Bulgarian Arch of Ohrid", in fact why are Moesians discussed in the same page? Mactruth ( talk) 04:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the only sources you have used did not show that the "official name is Bulg. Arch. of Ohrid", and if you actually viewed the books in the google search you would see in most instances "Arch of Ohrid" is used. You claim your reasoning as "its the most common and thats that" ok, show it with sources. Mactruth ( talk) 05:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Archbishopric of Ohrid. There's insufficient discussion below for me to feel comfortable adding the years as a disambiguator -- if someone else wants to propose and discuss it, feel free.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid → Archbishopric of Ohrid — Relisted. The page has been moved back to where it was at the start of the discussion. As the spelling is part of the issue below, that needs to have consensus before changing. Do not move the page until the discussion shows some consensus. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC) As below. 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 07:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Article titles, the article should be renamed to Archbishopric of Ohrid. Google tests (especially on Books) are indeed relevant here as they show recognizability. Please compare "archbishopric of ohrid" (about 762 results) and "bulgarian archbishopric of ohrid" (about 55 results). -- 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 07:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that 'Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid' was coined by a Wikipedian who also vandalized Old Church Slavonic by replaced several instances of 'Macedonian' with 'West Bulgarian'. Several of the Google Books hits for 'Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid' are duplicates of books from "Books, LLC" and "Icon Group International, Inc." which lists their sources as Wikipedia. Other instances are cases of differentiating one church within the then-Bulgaria from other churches outside of the then-Bulgaria (for example, Serbian patriarchate of Pec v. Bulgarian archbishopric of Ohrid) - notice the capitalization. -- 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be the case if their names were interchangeable. 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' is only 'Archbishopric of Ohrid', 'Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric' is only 'Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric', 'Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric' is 'Macedonian Orthodox Church' (former official name) and 'Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric' (current official name). 'Ohrid Archbishopric' is the only term which *could* be used freely in context. -- 124.150.52.156 ( talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If the title is going to have a qualifier, wouldn't Archbishopric of Ohrid (autonomous) be a better solution on account of 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' (without initial qualifier) being the only name used in literature? I mean to say, the qualifier should be set-off from the title in some way which would also accommodate cleaner link piping. -- 124.148.192.108 ( talk) 11:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No one has strictly kept to the topic of this discussion:
There is no justification for having x Archbishopric of Ohrid because there is no y Archbishopric of Ohrid. -- 124.148.192.108 ( talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
@ Zoupan: please stop moving the article. A discussion is in progress. -- 124.148.192.108 ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong on all points. Firstly, we need to reach a consensus before any merge can be made. Secondly, Ochrid is an obsolete spelling. Archbishopric of Ohrid is the name present in literature with around 700 more instances. I agree that the disambiguation page is problematic, which is why I think we should do away with it, use universally accepted naming conventions and avoid any possible confusion with {{two other uses}}. The IP (non-account) edits are all mine. -- 203.59.151.102 ( talk) 07:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Google Books does not determine a word's obsoleteness, only it's frequency. Ochrid is a deprecated spelling and evidence of this is the title of the article Ohrid. Please see this and this. -- 124.169.40.90 ( talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Since this is relisted, I am maintaining my oppose from above, as I am still unconvinced that "Archbishopric of Ohrid" is an acceptable unique title given that the modern orthodox churches can also lay claim to that title (Ohrid Archbishopric and Archbishopric of Ohrid could only be seen as different titles if they were both English; as they are translations, the point is moot). — Amakuru ( talk) 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I would still question the need for disambiguation. A quick search reveals " Ohrid Archbishopric" (which redirects to the disambiguation page) is only used in reference to the subject of this article. The other two entities exclusively use their full trademarked names internally and are referred to as such externally. So now, what is there to disambiguate? We have one historically church, one pretender and one removed church, all with well established names. -- 58.7.246.43 ( talk) 09:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Page 16 of Van Antwerp Fine (1994) has "Bulgarian Archbishop of Ohrid" [lines 6–7]. Page 159 of Angold (2000) has "church of Bulgaria" [lines 6, 8, 9–10], "archbishop of Bulgaria" [lines 11, 15, 21, 23, 27], "Bulgarian church" [lines 18, 29], "the church in Bulgaria" [line 33] and "archbishops of Bulgaria" [line 40]. None of the sources refer to the church as "Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid". Jingiby, your research skills are tragic. You do a GoogleBooks search for Bulgarian this, that and the other without bothering to even read the results returned! -- WavesSaid ( talk) 10:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Fastifex (
talk ·
contribs)
moved the article without discussing.
I noted him.--
Zoupan
21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
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)
–
Veverve claims that there is no primary topic (see
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13]). Then the pages should be moved per
WP:D2D.
BlackBony (
talk) 08:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. // — Relisting.
Spekkios (
talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿) 23:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
05:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
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)