Talk:Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Bulgaria
Bulgaria Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

It was not under the tutelage of the Patriarch of Constantinople between 1019 and 1767! Check the facts. It was an independent church under the tutelage of the Emperor of Byzantium.

Contents

[edit] No reference

This article has no references what so ever to the 'Bulgarian' part claim. Edited.

[edit] Name of this article should be just Archbishopric of Ohrid

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

[edit] Strich3d

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

[edit] Read this source before vandalizing

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)

If you do not stop vandalizing you will be blocked again for a long time. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Strich3d

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)

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)

Those are not neutral sources they are re-written from bulgarian books or by bulgarians--strich3D 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And what do you have to prove this? Anyone can say this, this is argument from ignorance. ForeignerFromTheEast 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian language

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)

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)

[edit] name of article

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)

I also wonder why the word Bulgarian has been appended to the title. --Hegumen (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You mean besides Bulgarians and Bulgaria? --Laveol T 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just as Macedonians and Macedonia had ever changing meanings. The title needs to be changed. --Hegumen (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree here. BalkanFever 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a BULGARIAN Empire and BULGARIA Thema in Skopje and Ohrid

SIMEON STATE'S MAP [2]

SAMUIL STATE'S MAP[3]

BULGARIA THEME IN SKOPJE AND OHRID [4] [5] [6]

[edit] Bulgarian and other

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)

It is heavily sourced as such, isn't it? --Laveol T 01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently not as "Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid" - see above. BalkanFever 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

[edit] Rename

Can we rename the article already? It should be clear that the current title is incorrect. --Hegumen (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. --Laveol T 09:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Once again...

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)

??? 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)
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)
Sure you do... 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)