Talk:Archbishopric of Ohrid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening heading[edit]

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.

No reference[edit]

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

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

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)

Read this source before vandalizing[edit]

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)


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)

Bulgarian language[edit]

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)

name of article[edit]

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)
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 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. BalkanFever 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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




Bulgarian and other[edit]

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)


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)

Once again...[edit]

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)

Title changes to Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019-1767)[edit]


  1. the church was autonomous, controlled by Constantinople, it was not autonomous church controlled by the Bulgarian church
  1. the church was headed by different ethnicity, not just Bulgarians (ie: Byzantines)
  1. 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)

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)
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)

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]

  1. That statement is simple the title of the article, in fact one of the articles states "Demetrius Chomatianus, Archbishop of Ohrid", not "Demetrius Chomatianus, Bulgarian Archbishop of Ohrid"

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]

  1. Again, the wording used is "Ohrid, the Archbishopric of Bulgaria"

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]

  1. The wording is "Archbishop of Ohrid", no statement saying he is in charge of a "Bulgarian Arch of Ohrid"

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]

  1. same as above

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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. -- (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
!. 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)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

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 OhridArchbishopric of OhridRelisted. 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. (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

...the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.

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). -- (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is also a matter of naturalness and consistency: we have Black Sea (not Turkish Black Sea or Bulgarian Black Sea or Romanian Black Sea or... you get the point). -- (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Also see "Google Book Search" under #Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia. -- (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Archbishopric of Ohrid is currently a redirect to Ohrid Archbishopric, which is a disambiguation page to several entities with the same name. Hence we can't just move this one there, unless you can establish that the Bulgarian one is a clear primary topic. Otherwise you could consider a move to Archbishopric of Ohrid (Bulgaria).  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the obvious and necessary solution is that Archbishopric of Ohrid only refer to this article (in fact, if you go back you can see how that redirect was possibly done to purposefully ambiguate the articles, supporting the prepending of 'Bulgarian' (which, as I've explain, is completely out of place). Furthermore, the other article titles are not ambiguous because they all already adhere to Wikipedia:Article title. -- (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
To summarize:
-- (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Any possible confusion could be avoided with {{two other uses}} as is common practice. -- (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Archbishopric of Ohrid and Ohrid Archbishopric mean basically the same thing in English, so it doesn't make sense to have one as a solid article while the other remains a disambiguation page. The only exception to this *might* be if one or other form were an "official" title for one of the entries while the others were rarely referred to by that title, but since all the article titles are translations from other languages that does not seem to apply here. Hence I stand by my oppose. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The grammar could be an issue only if the title were an invented descriptive statement. 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' is the name by which this historical church is known in scholarly literature (to put a figure on it, 700 times more so than the current title according to Google Books). What more, there is no 'Bulgarian' qualifier in non-English literature either. 'Ohrid Archbishopric' is not an official title for anything and if the disambiguation page seems problematic to you, then there is absolutely no reason to keep it - we can just use {{two other uses}} on each of the articles. None of the titles are translations unique to Wikipedia - 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' is the name most commonly used in academia. -- (talk) 13:09, 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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No. And what happened to the MK church? Isn't it supposed to be autonomous? --Laveol T 16:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No one has strictly kept to the topic of this discussion:

  • there are three entities which have the words 'Ohrid' and 'Archbishopric' in their names
    • none of these entities are referred to with descriptive phrases, but rather with names well-established in English-language literature
  • two of these entities are current, functioning organizations who have adopted English translations of their names which are used in a regular way in literature and by the organizations themselves
  • the third entity, the subject of this article, has a universally accepted designation by which it is referred to in specialist literature as well as in general, namely, 'Archbishopric of Ohrid'.
  • all three entities have sufficiently different names (there is no overlap of word-order, etc.) which are used consistently.

There is no justification for having x Archbishopric of Ohrid because there is no y Archbishopric of Ohrid. -- (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This last comment is very good. In fact, if you search Google with the current name, you will get no relevant sites. This title is born on Wikipedia by the Bulgarian users and that's it. Very bad name and useless in same time.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It was made-up by the same user who also invented terms such as 'Western Bulgarian recension' (in the OCS article) to replace 'Macedonian recension' because he perceived it to be legitimizing a non-Bulgarian POV - then he deceitfully cited sources which didn't reference its use. What's even funnier is that he then had to invent 'Eastern Bulgarian recension' to provide some kind of equivalence and consistency in his completely fabricated nomenclature. You'll also notice that the article is still a complete mess and the Bulgarian users are more concerned with ensuring the relationship OCS→Bulgarian is drawn closer, and OCS→Macedonian drawn further apart: in an article about an extinct medieval language, they insert extraneous details about the political status of a modern language. -- (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how these things are not seen by the larger community. It is one thing to claim that "this thing is related to this", but totally different to come up with new terminology, seen only on EN Wiki. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Just have a look at the talk page. Their aversion to word 'Macedonia', even when not referring to the Republic of Macedonia or Macedonians (ethnic group) is clear. Their personal views on the existence of an ethnic group has lead them to vandalize several articles. I'm still not certain of the full extent. One can also see arbitrary insertions of the word 'Bulgarian' which create completely superfluous phrases. Basically, there is a campaign to overstate everything remotely Bulgarian, and understate or censor anything remotely Macedonian (as I've already pointed out, even things which are unrelated to the ethnicity). -- (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
At the end of the day, it only undermines the status of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. They think that they are glorifying their own country and educating the world about an inglorious neighboring country, but nobody outside the Balkans really cares. -- (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As you said, no one cares about national "convincing" except on the Balkans . However, I have seen similar stupidity, just like this title. On Wikipedia the world "learned" that there are Bulgarian Macedonians, Greek Macedonians, separate history about the Greek Macedonia, separate history about Bulgarian Macedonia and even there is a separate Slavic language in Greece, but however, I do not care about it too much, but it is nonsense, right? However, this church is known as Archbishopric of Ohrid and it is the most common name and the original name of the church, until it was "officially" renamed on Wikipedia :) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@Zoupan: please stop moving the article. A discussion is in progress. -- (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the correct name is simply Archbishopric of Ochrid, thorougly explained (I oppose of the prefix "Bulgarian" as the religious see was clearly under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, Bulgarian church was abolished until its restoration in 1235), however, due to a disambiguation page with three nearly identical titles; I moved the article to Constantinopolan Archbishopric of Ochrid. And also, Bishopric of Ochrid could be an article (with the Bulgarian-prefix). Lastly, I suggest unregistered users register themselves when discussing on the talk page ;) --Zoupan (talk) 00:09, 11 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. -- (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

False, Ochrid has 5,280 hits on Goggle Books, while Ohrid has 3,810 - the majority of the latter are so called "mass-productions" (webster etc). Ochrid is the correct spelling of the historical Archbishopric in english, derived from the Greek Ochrida (Οχρίδα, Ωχρίδα) and Achrida (Αχρίδα). The 'Serbian Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric' is one, the 'Macedonian Orthodox Church' entirely another. Archbishopric of Ochrid (historical/Ecumenical/Constantinopolitan) are other varieties. --Zoupan (talk) 11:47, 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. -- (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This church is known as 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' by a substantially greater number. There is no possible argument to justify having any other title. Archaic spellings of one word from the name and other nonsense are beside the point. -- (talk) 16:09, 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)

Your only argument seems to be the possibility of confusion. That is not the case as each of the articles you refer to have well-established names (two of which are functioning organizations which have adopted English translations of their names and are known as such). You are also claiming 'Archbishopric of Ohrid' is a translation, but I already have provided proof otherwise. If you read the article, you'd see why prepending 'Bulgarian' is inaccurate and unrepresentative. -- (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: It seems it's established the proper name of that thing is simply "Archbishopric of Ohrid". Everything else is merely added for disambiguation. On the other hand, I agree with Amakuru that the plain Archbishopric of Ohrid ought to remain a disambiguation page. So, the best approach seems to me to be one that uses the standard format of disambiguators in brackets. And the most obvious disambiguator to my mind is simply the time frame. After all, the various entities involved all claim to be essentially reincarnations of the same institution, so the first and foremost thing they differ in is simply the time, whereas nationality, in the understanding of these churches themselves, is not a defining criterion of what they are. So, wouldn't Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019–1767) be the most natural choice? Fut.Perf. 08:11, 19 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. -- (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, it would be most sensible to rename to Fut.Perf.'s suggestion of Archbishopric of Ohrid (1019–1767). -- (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Bulgarian' Archbishopric of Ohrid[edit]

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)

At the moment Kostov (2010), which is barely WP:RELIABLE, is the only source that uses "Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid". Its inclusion in the lead is WP:UNDUE given that his (Kostov) wording is exceptional with respect to all other sources. --WavesSaid (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed move[edit]

Fastifex (talk · contribs) moved the article without discussing. I noted him.--Zoupan 21:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
I've warned him and requested rev. und. move since he refuses to.--Zoupan 10:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)