Talk:Samuel of Bulgaria

Not an improvement?

Hello @Jingiby: 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)

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)

Macedonists,face these facts

)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)

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)

"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)

Barack Obama - president of the United States of America => all Americans have black skin and came from Africa. Stupid logic - deriving conclusions from one exception, which is even not so sure...

I also want to comment that the man in question was famous as: Car Samoil, not "Samuel of Bulgaria". Stop playing games with names. It is just waste of time. The only fact is that he was born, raised and died IN MACEDONIA. And that he ruled people FROM Macedonia (that is today towns of Ohrid, Skopje, Kostur and Seres, NOT Varna) and with them established safe, strong and prosperous country which lasted 40 years. 77.28.215.231 (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

notes

"Веднага след смърта на император Йоан(976)българите въстанали и били определени да ги управляват четиримата братя: Давид,Мойсей,Арон и Самуил,синове на един от велмощните комитопули у българите... ...Така Самуил станал самовластен господар на цяла България.Той бил войнствен човек,който НИКОГА не знаел ппокой.Пренесъл мощите на свети Ахил...и ги положил В Преспа,където били неговите дворци"

                       Йоан Скилица,"История"11 век.

Бугариja и Македониja нат всичко!!!

Shouldn't note 12 point to II,435-436 instead of 335-336?Baltaci

???

Date of Aron's Death

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)

"In any case, it is certain that Moses was killed in 986 and Aron in 987 or 988." In detail see: Adontz, Nikoghayos. Samuel l'Armenien, Roi des Bulgares. In: Etudes Armeno-Byzantines. Livraria Bertrand. Lisbonne, 1965, Pp. 347-407 (357). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karim Ali (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If the truth is important!!!

About the truth - please look all the languages in Wikipedia,which have an article about Samuil - you will read - Samuil,king of Bulgaria.The only pages that maintain the Serbian theory that Samuil is macedonian king are the Serbian and the Macedonian.So,should we presume that the whole world is in delusion by the "Bulgarian propaganda" or that this theory just lacks proof? According to the Samuil's inscription,found in 2004 Samuil declares himself king of all Bulgarians.There is a theory that he did it in order to secure himself recognition by Rome(?).Well,many Bulgarain rulers proclaimed themselves "Tsar of all Bulgarians and Romeans" in order to gain greater recognition and power worldwide.So SAmuil had to proclaim himself king of all Macedonians and Bulgarians.He did not.As far as Serbian historical and scientific theories are concerned,I want to mention the theory that a Bulgarian nation does not exist.The Bulgars were a small tribe that vanished in the Slavic sea,leaving only its name.So Bulgaria is a name of a historical region,there is no Bulgarian nation(?) therefore and all the Slavs living there can be divided into Shopi,Dobrujanci,Thrakiici,Macedonci,so on. This is Serbian istoriography in the 19 century,used for political aims. The Bulgarain character of Samuel's kingdom is undisputable.He cannot be a leader of Macedonian state,such a priviledge falls to his greater enemy and destructor of his state,BasilII Macedon,who is called Bulgaroctonos,because he conquered Bulgaria,not Macedonia.The theory that Samuel's kingdom was different from Bulgaria,because it was situated in a different georegion is also ridiculous - in those days these lands were Bulgarain territories.But the biggest proof is that Samuel declares himself a king only after the death of the Bulgarian king Roman.He waits 20 years until the real king dies in Tsarigrad's prison.This annuls all the theories about Macedonian uprising.Uprising? Against whom? Probably against the Ucrainians and the Byzantinies who had conquered Eastern Bulgaria?About the lack of titles as boil and ichirguboil these titles appeared to vanish even of the time of king PeterI.Samuil's father Nikola was komitopul (governor)of Sredec,present day Sofia.Will the Bulgarian king assign to this positon a representative of the "macedonian" minority?A man whose sons after that will lead un uprising against the Bulgarian state ( which de-facto ceased to exist before Samuil)Or will he assign it to a dependable man,whose sons will strive after that ot save Bulgaria from Byzantium?Bulgaria was crushed by the invaders from the east - Ucrainians,who united with Byz.No proof about "macedonian uprising" no proof for macedonian nation till the beggining of the 20 century ( The IMRO manifesto of 1924,not signed by its greatest leaders as Todor Alexandrov and Dame Gruev)The character of the lands around the lake Ochrida in those days is shown clearly by the biggest enemies of the Bulgarian statehood.The Byzantines call this area simply Bulgaria.Why do the Croats and the Magyars say that they fought with a Bulgarian king? Why even in the Macedonian history books there is a picture of the soldiers,blinded after the battle of Klyuch and over their heads it is simply written Bougaroi (Bulgarains)

If the truth is important,I think that we can't accept the thesis of this article.It's no evidence that tzar Samuil is succesor of Bulgarian tzars(hans) before.Close to truth is the thesis that Samuil with his brothers led the uprising against bulgarian tzar,and crush the Bulgarian state.Himself afterwards take the crown of bulgar's tzar,but this is an political act,because slaves on Balkans never before haven't the state or crown,and the recognition from the pope is more than necessary for Samuil.So Samuil with this act like to use just benefits of bulgarian crown,like Gothic leadar Odoacer who crush Rome,and like to take the crown of Roman emperor.

But there are diferences on political an military organization of Samuil empire and previously Bulgarian empire(no more bulgarian titles "kavhan" and "boil".Also Samuil conquest the teritories,never before in Bulgarian empire,and makes conection with slavic princedoms of Rashka and Zeta,like no other bulgarian tzar before.Also the capital of empire was a city of Ohrid-about 1000km western from Preslav who was the capital of previously Bulgarian state.The same think with the seat of ortodox church-in Ohrid,not in Preslav. After the death of Samuil and crushing of his empire by Byzantines,it's appear a few uprisings against the Byzantines(for example:those leaded by Petar Delyan,and Constantin Bodin)and all those uprising is on teritory from Nis to Salon,hundreds miles western from Preslav who was the center of previously Bulgarian might.It's no uprising at this time with target to take Preslav from Byzantines,and restore the might and glory of previous Bulgarian empire. So for the glory of truth,I can't say that the acts of Samuil has been for favour of Bulgarians,and for favour of previously bulgarian dinasty.

With respect, Vasil Pandev

Let me guess - you're an ethnic Macedonian. What slaves are you talking about? And moreover what true? Yours? Who told you all these things? Or you just read them in the Internet. I'm glad though you did not try to write this stuff in the article first. --Laveol ^T 10:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out I was wrong - you did put it in the article --Laveol ^T 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This you can find everywere,in every book.I found these data in bulgarian handbook who use foreign students for preparation for Bulgarian high education. The problem is interpretation of facts.If some of that was I write is wrong,then correct me.

"What slaves are you talking about?" I must say that Bulgarians have been nationaly awake in this time.But, in X century in Slaves on Balkans and elsevere no nations,and national feelings(not on that kind like today).They just know that are different from Bulgars(i think on Bulgars-tataric people). And I'm not ethnick Macedonian.

Why are you think that I'm Macedonian?

You are Macedonain my friend. It is obvious from your lack of knowledge about history.Calling Bulgars tataric people shows it clearly.Tatars were a mongoloid people,who came to the Balcans in the 13 century (actually inflicting a lot of destruction to the Bulgarians,living here and the Bulgars living on the Volga river)Bulgars were a Sarmatian people,they are depicted as a highly - statured white people,with own alphabet and culture.Second - Bulgarain nation did exist in those days,in difference to all other nations in Europe.And it was nation of the Slavs in Bulgaria.The official language was the Slavic one.Salvs accepted the Bulgars and created a styate with them in Moesia and Macedonia ( Asparuh and Kuber) With the years this state became predominantly slavic

Because You/they are the only once who call Bulgarians Tatars. I see there's no more to discuss with you. --Laveol ^T 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The only territories conquerred during the reign of Samuil which were not previously held by the earliers Emperors were the lands around Saraevo and western Monte Negro. It is natural for a ruler to extend borders as much as he can, even if they were not held by his state before: ) What were the relations with Rashka and Zeta??? The same as during Emperor Simeon or Khan Presian: he conquerred them and forced Prince Ivan Vladimir to become his official - exactly what did Simeon before. Both principalities were included into Bulgaria, these are not relations but conquest. It is natural to find a new capital as the previous one has been conquered... And the choice of Ohrid is close to everyone's mind: it has been a cultural and administrative centre of the western Bulgarian lands since the reign of Boris I, and it is far away from Constantinople, so it was a wise decision to establish his seat there (the second fall of Preslav in 1001 proved that). It is natural for countries to change their capital when needed; the same did Turkey which moved it to Ankara because Instanbul was dangerously close to the border; Russia has also changed the capital and many other states... The explanation for the Patriarch is the same: Silistra was also seized by the Byzantines and the Patrairch Damian fleed westwards where he was accepted by Samuil. Also when Samuil reconquered North-Eastern Bulgaria he executed the nobles who supported the Byzantines as traitors, why he should do that if he is conquiring these lands for a new Empire?! It is natural that the first rebellions would break out around the last political centres of the Bulgarian Empire. Belgrad was never held by any Serb state up to 1040 when the rebellion of Petar II Delyan broke out; it has always been a Bulgarian town, as were the lands around the Morava river and others. And his name was Delyan, why did he chose Petar?! And you know who Petar I was: the example for the "good Emperor" for the Medieval Bulgarians.

There are so many other things but I agree with Laveol: there is no point to discuss that with brainwashed people. It is awful what did the serbs to our nation; if the people of Macedonia tries to thing neutral away from the constant propagande released by their government, I hope that one day they will understand the truth. Regards, --Gligan 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...and I'm not surprised.Maybe some day the bulgarians will prove that the first man on the moon was bulgarian. Every discussion with you people is redundant...i thought here can find people who like to think like scientists and neutral historians,but i found just a few people in the service of megalomanic bulgarian propaganda.

Well, this article is as neutral as it can get. Who are we to say what the ethnicity of Samuil was as scientists from all the world have already determined that for sure. I'm really sorry if you find this offensive. There is not always just one truth - but in this case there is only one. And your 20th century nation does not feature in it. --Laveol ^T 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the ethnicity of Samuil,but about his acts.And that "nation from 20 century" is not fall from the sky in this century.We are here for a long time.

Yup, it took a lot of hard work in the end of XIX and beginning of the XX century to achieve it. If you have any objections to the article, please, state them and back them up with reliable (non Yugo-macedonian) sources. --Laveol ^T 10:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A note to my Macedonian colleague

I think we should talk seriously to square the differences between us. Accusing each other won't help, so I won't use words such as "brainwashed" or "megalomanic". I think there is some logic in your initial statement, but it's still wrong, because you lack the base to prove it. When you state that Samuil and his brothers led an uprising "against the Bulgarian tzar" you give an interpretation of the story which our source, Skylitza, has left us. I underline the word interpretation, because Skylitza's account of this event is too sketchy and doesn't allow any certain conclusions. One thing is certain - at the time of Samuil's emergence there was no tzar in Preslav, because Peter was dead and his sons were hostages in Constantinople. So could it be just a fight for power among aristocratic fractions during an interregnum? This theory has as much base in the sources and is as much unconvincing as the one that you are defending. But let's assume that you are right and Samuil's rise was in fact a secession from Bulgarian rule. How could you explain what happened about ten years later. In 978/979 Roman, the surviving son of Peter, became tzar, recognized by Samuil and Aron. I'm sure you will find an explanation that will suit your point, but I think this fact is a much telling proof of Roman's authority. Two more things: 1. To your question why Ohrid instead of Preslav: In 476 AD when Odoacer deposed the last Western Roman emperor, the latter's seat was Ravenna (not Rome which was sacked about 20 years earlier by the Vandals). 2. There were "kavhans" in the Samuil's state, there were for sure at the time of his heirs in 1015. The leader of the 1072 uprising, Georgi Voiteh, was a descendant of the kavhan family

Regards, Dobrin 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a BULGARIAN Empire

Samuel NEVER said about "Macedonia" or "Macedonians" who were their ENEMIES (Basil II the Bulgaroctonus of the Byzantine Macedonian dynasty)

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) 11:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

map

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)

Yes, there is, but it's just a gradient to make it look better :) Todor→Bozhinov 19:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Failed

I've made some grammar/clarification edits. After those edits, I'm failing it for these issues, sorted by section of the WP:WIAGA:

1. Well written?

(a)Prose and grammar: Yes

• The article is looking a lot better than when I first read it. Due to the other criticisms, give the article a thorough once through copyedit after dealing with the below.
• I've placed some "huh" tags requesting clarification for some sentences or statements that I couldn't figure out by myself.

There's been confusion about these - for the Roman castrated one, say that he was taken captive by the Byzantine patrol; that he was in captivity and then got castrated comes from nowhere.

For the tag about the arm healing - 140 degrees with respect to what? His head? His trunk?--Meowist 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(b)Complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style: Mostly pass

• The last paragraph of Disaster at Kleidon describes his legacy/aftermath and should be improved/grown and placed as a new "Aftermath" or "Legacy" section.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?

• Mostly yes, needs cites in some places. I've tagged the significant ones in the Others section. However, like one poster in the talk pages stated, this article needs more citations, not less. Particularly in sections "Advance of the Byzantines" and "Family".

3. Broad coverage? (a) Addresses major aspects: Yes, except for one "little" detail.

• When was this guy born?! First sentences in Early Life section tell me about his parents and then say that in 970 he was co-ruling with 3 other guys. How old was Samuil then?

That is unknow; we can only guess; he was probably around his 20s by then (970). Analyses of his scull show that we was perhaps around 70 when he died. We don't have any information for his life before 970.--Gligan 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please insert that estimate and source (i.e. the source you used for the grave part) to give the reader some idea of his age at the time --Meowist 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(b) Stays focused on topic:

• This article seems to drift at times into unneccessary details. The reader is required to keep in mind a sizeable list of characters and places (Gavrail Radomir,various cities, Roman,Geva,etc.) in order to follow the story. I've tried to make this easier by putting in explanatory clauses like "Gavril Radomir, Samuil's eldest son and heir,...". But I'm currently at a loss for how to alleviate the overall problem. Compare with the structuring of the text of a GA article like, say, Suleiman the Magnificent, to maybe get some ideas for how to fix this.

Well, when you describe a Medieval ruler, you should describe what happenned in his country during his reign; these thing cannot be written somewhere else; after all this is not an article for the person Samuil but for the ruler Samuil; in fact the characters are not so many, there have to be even more: ) I strongly object against any removal of information from the article.--Gligan 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the article is about Samuil the ruler and what happened under his watch, but the reader is thoroughly inundated with details. What I'm saying is that detail alone and by itself makes for a disorienting read, you must give the details a context. I'll give you examples of where this happens:

• "The major successes in the west raised justifiable fears in Constantinople, and after serious preparations, Basil II launched a campaign in the very centre of the Bulgarian Empire in order to distract Samuil from southern Greece."
• "Between 1006 and 1013, neither side achieved any significant success and there was no change in the balance of power."

There are more examples, but these are the sort of sentences that make everything easier to follow. Also, there are places where detail given has nothing to do with the current section and historical time and belongs elsewhere, ex: the subsequent treason of Ashot and one of Samuil's daughters in mentioned in the Betrothal section and also in Further Byzantine Successes (where it belongs). --Meowist 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

4. Neutral: Yes, well done with the inclusion of the Other Theories section. But, it needs just one or two cites more.

5. Stable: Presumably, if people don't insist on edit warring over bizarre notions of extending national ownership into the Middle Ages.

6. Images ish: Heh. Medieval chroniclers really can't draw...

That about sums it up for now. I'd be glad to discuss these issues and how they could be amended. --Meowist 10:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful comments and the assessment! I hope that with some additional work the current shortcomings of the article can be eliminated and it would achieve GA level. As for the birth date, it is simple: as far as I know, it has not been specified in any contemporary source, so we couldn't possibly know it :) Todor→Bozhinov 15:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Another map

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)

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)

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)

Latest edit by Ireland101

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)

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)

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)

Perusing the references again, however, I think that this one should be removed:

• "1.3. Българските столици в македонските земи. Югозападните български територии". Българите и България (in Bulgarian). Министерство на външните работи, Труд, Сирма. 2005. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

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)

Nomenclature

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>Hupchick, Dennis P (2004). The Balkans: From Constantinople to Communism. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 1-4039-6417-3.</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[7]</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>"An outline of Macedonian history from ancient times to 1991". Macedonian Embassy London. Retrieved 2007-04-28.</ref> This is despite the different location of the geographic area of Macedonia in the Middle Ages and the anachronism.

Authoritative modern encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica<:ref>"Reign of Simeon I". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2007-04-28.</ref> and Encarta<:ref>"Bulgaria: The First Bulgarian Empire". Encarta. Retrieved 2007-04-28.</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>"Bulgaria — Early History". Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth Edition. 2000. Retrieved 2007-04-28.</ref> Older issues such as the Great Soviet Encyclopedia also stated Samuil was Tsar of West Bulgaria.<:ref>"Самуил". Большая Советская Энциклопедия (in Russian). Rubrikon. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)</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)

I have drafted a replacement, which makes, I think, the same points insofar as they are encyclopedic. I agree, as will be seen, on the substance; it is the tone that WP cannot include. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Samuel's empire had its heartlands west and southwest of those of the First Bulgarian Empire; Samuel also spoke Slavic, like the modern Bulgarians, but unlike the Turkic or Iranic language of the Old Bulgars. On these grounds, the White Russian-Yugoslav scholar George Ostrogorsky distinguished strongly between the two Bulgarian Empires."
• Just a comment on that passage. The language which Samuil spoke was exactly the language that Simeon I or Peter I spoke. The Slav element in the Bulgarian language strengthened during the reign of Boris I (852-889). On that basis there can't be any distinction in Samuil's Bulgaria and Peter's Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I will look further; the linguistic distinction does not seem essential. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Commented out, also the image to the right.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The borders of Byzantine Province of Macedonia during the reign of Tsar Samuil

There are three problems with this image.

• The caption needs work in any case: John Tzimisces divided the Macedonian theme into two; so it did not exist in Tsar Samuel's reign.
• Themes were not named for geography; they were named for the military units operating there during the seventh century crisis. The Thracesian theme is in Asia Minor, not in Thrace. So the argument that Macedonia cannot have meant Ochrid is weak.
• In any case, I would read Ostrogorsky as using "Macedonia" in the conventional sense frequent until recently, and prevalent since 1878: the inlands of the Gulf of Salonica, so called as a classical reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Аddition to princess Teodora -Kosara (Kosara)

Hello. Sorry for my interference - I see that only two of Samuel's children are reflected here - Gavril Radomir and Miroslava. In fact, he has four daughters, perhaps the most famous being Theodora-Kosara or just Kosara.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosara She later married Serbian Prince John Vladimir.

Her life is described in more detail in the Dukla Chronicle --Георгиалександров2 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Boris II

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)
  • It is Zlatarski p.596. Unfortunately this is in Bulgarian and I don't know where to find a translation. --Gligan (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • He does not appear to have been translated; but that page reference would be more useful with the year of the edition cited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

---

• Samuil of Bulgaria → Samuel of Bulgaria: English spelling, used in standard sources, from Ostrogorsky to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and Fine's Early Medieval Balkans. —Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

• 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)
• Oppose - the rulers of culturally linked to Bulgaria countries such as Russia and Serbia are written in that manner. I think that if this page is going to be renamed per Using English so should be all pages referring those rulers. Apart from the obvious good reason to clarify the meaning of the Biblical names, it has a major minus in that sense - it would cause a mess with the names of the Bulgarian rulers. Perhaps we should make a wilder discussion whether all rulers from these three countries should be renamed. --Gligan (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please check again; we use Peter I of Russia, and Alexander I of Serbia, not Pyotr and Aleksandar. Stefan Dragutin of Serbia is a violation of our naming conventions (we should not use both country and nickname; it's redundant), but Stefan may be most common English usage (Rebecca West uses it, while defying the Croatian spelling conventions otherwise). In any case, this is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; there is no special Slavic-culture naming exception. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if we should move others, and perhaps we should, we must start somewhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gligan. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't see why we should start somewhere. And even if we were to decide that starting somewhere was a good idea, this is the wrong thing to be doing. Pointless anglicisation is so 1911. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Treadgold wrote in 1997; the ODB is from 2001. Which of these is 1911? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UE guided by sources listed in nom. It is consistent with other similar figures such as Samuel's brother, Moses of Bulgaria. And pointless slavicisation is so 1991. — AjaxSmack 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Asoghik and Nicholas Adontz are using the name "Samuel". Karim Ali 04:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support The fact that Samuel is used within ODB is enough to convince me.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gligan Чарльз - жопа (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gligan, Angus McLellan, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Another reason: 'Samuil' disambiguates this ruler so instead of Samuel of Bulgaria the article can become Samuil II. This is in line with the naming policy for monarchs. --Lantonov (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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)

In spite of the majority: 5 oppose to 4 support, this unfortunate ruler was renamed from Samuil to Samuel, and won't find this article if he googles for his name from heaven. So much for democracy. --Lantonov (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Lantonov: surely he will google bg:Самуил, rather than any Latin alphabet? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Aaron's death

I have copyedited this section; but I find its moralizing both non-neutral (just because it's moralizing) and weird. Aaron is condemned for wanting sole power; so Samuel executes him and his family, and ascends to sole power as a result, unremarked upon. If we are going to be judgmental, why are we using a double standard? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I amended Aaron's "kin" to his family, since kin would in English certainly include Samuel himself, Aaron's brother. Is this intended to mean his wife's family? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It was Aron who plotted against Samuil and the later had to defend himself. Above all in the course of the negotiations between Aron and Basil II, Aron agreed that he would accept the suzerainty of the Byzantine Emperor which was treason. Samuil did nothing of the two. --Gligan (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This may show a deep misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. I apologize to any to whom what follows is as obvious as it is unorginal:

We do not voice the judgment of posterity; we are not qualified to do so. We are a tertiary source; we collect what actually happened, as secondary sources tell us it was; those who wish to don judicial robes are welcome to use those facts. In particular, we do not judge the tenth century by the standards of the nation-states of the nineteenth; every age is immediate to God. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the tag. Aron is not judged. Here we can find only a description of his death because he was plotting with the enemy which is high treason. Nowhere is written that he was evil or something of the sort. --Gligan (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration of "ъ"

I saw your comment on the FA candidate page but as it was deleted I will answer here. As there is no common rule for transliteration of Bulgarian Cyrillic (there are several versions) both "a" and "u" (as well as sometimes "â") can be used. In my opinion the usage of "a" is more common and I use it (it is used in most Bulgarian-related topic in the English Wikipedia such as Tarnovo, Nessebar and so on). --Gligan (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. My comment has also disappeared, so let me express deep appreciation for the grunt work you have done. This is not mere arbitrary policy:

The principal use to the reader of a Latin transliteration would be searching library catalogs on-line, for which we need the same system the catalogs use. Please check a few, if you don't mind, and see which they do use. This is a low priority, but it is more important that our readers be able to find Zlatarski's book than that they pronounce it almost correctly. (But having his name in Roman script is more than half the battle, and our readers do now.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

done. I've included your comments. That should do. WorldCat appears to divide about evenly between a and u. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The transliteration of "ъ" is ă in the scientific system of transliteration of cyrillic. The vowel has no transliteration in the so-called "Streamlined System for the Romanization of Bulgarian" advocated by user Apcbg, which is for that reason incoherent: first, this dilettantish system transliterated "u" (!), and afterwards, it was changed into "a"... I never understood why the English Wiki has not make the choice of the scientific system (which is also the system of the UN). Wiki is a scientific project, after all... --Hubertgui (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-FA comments

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)
  • I am not sure whether these are reliable sources
    • http://www.jambol.hit.bg/jambol/samuil.htm
      • Nor have I. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This does not look like a reliable site. Doesnt give sources. --Lantonov (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • http://www.promacedonia.org/vz1b/vz1b_prit_15.html
      • This is a convenience link to Zlatarski's history, which is well-known and appears to have a high reputation. It may, however, be responsible for the adjectives mentioned above; it was written immediately after the Balkan Wars. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

• • • http://www.litclub.com/library/bg/dalchev/kumrod.htm
    • http://liternet.bg/publish/vazov/lirika/gusla/opylchencite.htm
      • These two are convenience links to the poems cited, which are self-sourcing for their own existence. A skeptical reader can always search for a dead-tree version. (Whether they are notable is another question.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

In addition my comments above and at FAC:

• I cannot agree too strongly with what Karanacs says about adjectives. This is what WP:NPOV is most intended to prevent.
• Please read and use the works of Fine, Treadgold, and Lang to be found in the references; also Runciman, of course. Some of them may be available on Google Books. All of the first three have learned from Zlatarski; they have also learned from the eighty years of scholarship since.
  • and (as a much less important point) the only reason to cite sources last name first is to alphabetize them. Since we're not, why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not appear to have been worked on seriously since the FAC closed. Please don't make more of non-promotion than it deserves; FA moves much faster than it used to, and all that means is that it's not promotable at that instant. It's not a permanent rejection.

I hope the objections will be resolved; I'm perfectly happy to help with English books if necessary when I have more time, and it should then be renominated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Consistency in spelling

I hit "random article" and came here. I have started some work on making spelling of names consistent, but I would like to direct a question to the primary writers here: Why 'Samuel' instead of 'Samuil'? 'Aaron' instead of 'Aron'? I note that in almost all of the linked articles (the ones for the other brothers and Cometopuli dynasty, 'Samuil' and 'Aron' spellings are used much more consistently. Ideally, all of these articles should match up with one consistent spelling. Risker (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. It should be Samuil. There was a discussion on this matter and we did not reach a conclusion (the supports for Samuil were even with one more I think) but still someone redirected the page to Samuel, which I do not approve and do not consider as fair. In the Internet you will find much more matches to Samuil than to Samuel.

I am grateful for your corrections : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gligan (talk • contribs)

Please go argue with the closing admin, Philip Baird Shearer; we are in fact being consistent with Wikipedia practice elsewhere, and with English usage here. If other articles are inconsistent, we can either leave them alone, or change them; but there's no rush. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuel's identity

Paul Stephenson summarises the whole issue well.

..much debate has centred rather unfortunately on Samuel's ethnicity, and thus whether his empire was Macedonian or Bulgarian. ..his exact ethnicity, place of birth and his chosen residence (in today's Republic of Macedonia) were less important than the existence of a precedent. Symeon, his son Peter, and his grandson Boris had all been recognised by the Byzantine Emperor to have a right to use the imperial style and .. offered Byzantine imperial brides. Through the 10th century, this title (ie Emperor of Bulgarians) had become engrained in the public consciousness of both Slavs and Byzantines as the title held by the by the most powerful ruler among peoples in the northern Balkans. It is only expected that Samuel would seek that title to give legitimacy to his broad geographical powers. The practice of claiming the title emperor of the Bulgarians, therefore, had no ethnic significance. Page 61. Byzantium's Balkan Frontier.

Ie it was chiefly a political label. Just like Byzantine Emperor. There was no "Byzantine" ethnicity. The average peasant in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, or whetever had no notion of "ethnicity". Their loyalty only extended toward the local church, village and family clan. Nationalism created ethnicity in the 19th century. So when people (like the host of Bulgarian editors on Wiki) anachronistically apply their understanding of ethnicity to terms used in the 10th/ 11th century in order to deny the history of another country, it results is a gross pervesion of history. No offence, but educate yourselves and stop being petty, squabbling Balkaners. Hxseek (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hxseek, the theory you just presented about nations is almost word by word the Marksist view on the question of nations. I don`t know... I am always a bit sceptic towards Marksist-Leninists.

As for what you said about ethnicity... I think you just decided that since you read Marks' opinion on nations you could just contribute to it by throwing the word ethnicity in as well. Well guess what, you cannot! I shall refer you the advice in the last sentence of your opinion. Do follow it before embarrassing yourself.

Hello, I cannot agree with this. If that was correct, then why would the medieval tsars/emperors have insignias like : "Tsar of bulgarians and greeks" - This is Tsar Ioan Asen ІІ's. So, you see that it specifies ethnoses (please note that this does not imply "clean race" or some other ARYAN bullshit. We, bulgarians are pretty familiar with the fact during the centuries the bulgarian ethnos combined with others and took the best of these many others). Also when a foreign land was taken (not populated with bulgarians) it was mentioned in the chronicles, as for example serbian, albanian and greek land (see, even the fact that it was part of the Bulgarian empire, these lands were considered as greek, serbian and albanian due to the fact that such was its population. ).. So, it is visible that the tsars made difference between the populations that were inhabiting that land... Or perhaps you imply that this is true for all but for the bulgarians? What you are saying is simply not true...The fact is that during the Samuil's time bulgarian was a term as much ethnic as is nowadays. They were ethnic bulgarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.0.97 (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attacks, now you might want to join our drive to prove Alexander the Great was an ethnic Macedonian. Todor→Bozhinov 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not directed to anyone. We're all guilty of it at some point. As for your second point, this is not the place for discussion Hxseek (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, think about it: I'm the only other person who contributes to this discussion, and your imperative tone implies that you're not giving orders or advice to yourself. That said, your comments seem to be directed at me and nobody else. It's not like I'm not used to this, but it was totally uncalled for. Now, Peterson is kind enough to point out that Samuel was, in short, just another ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire. Neither of us is qualified to compare the meaning of "Byzantine" and "Bulgarian" in the Middle Ages or the medieval level of loyalty to a state as compared to modern times. What I can say on that, though, is that "Byzantine" is a later term introduced by historiographers, while "Bulgarian" was in active use during the Middle Ages. That renders the names practically incomparable.

No offence, but calling the First Bulgarian Empire under Samuel anything else than "Bulgarian" is a much grosser perversion than not having profound knowledge on the debatable topic that is the evolution of ethnic and national consciousness. And still, a certain group of people do it. Night, Todor→Bozhinov 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No it was not directed at you. Rather, I had noted the amount of debating and reverting that must have taken place in an article like this (I had not previously had much to do with it). You can debate on the poetic qualities of my charge all you want. I'm sorry if you took offence. Nobody is denying that the Empire was actively called Bulgarian. I am merely giving an insight to the average reader (who might not have knowledge of he intricacies of identity) that, overall, Bulgarian was an ethonym for the predominantly Slavic political rulers on Byzantine's northern border. Moreover, clearly Macedonia was an important part of this empire, a sort of centre centre of gravity after Preslav and Pliska. So there was a duality in the empire, although it was not an oppositional relationship but symbiotic. This led to a regional consciouness in Macedonia. Linguistically and culturally modern Macedonians are (or were) closest to Bulgarians (although Ifind them closer to southern Serbs, or vice versa), but doesn;t matter cause it's a continuum. Yet, Macedonian identity must have been sufficiently developed for them to wish a seperate nation. What I object to is the Bulgarian claims that Macedonians have always been Bulgarians, and out of greed for their own power, or stupidity causing to somehow "forget" they are Bulgarian. My granmother was born in 1918 in Macedonia, before Titos apparent 'creating' a Macedonian identity. She never felt any other identity apart from Macedonia, not Serb, not Bulgarian. In fact, she recalls that Bulgarians were occupiers who suppressed the Macedonian language. 1' source. It's a similar case with the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, should Germany deny the identity of Belgium, Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland just because there (predominantly Germanic) nations were once part of HRE, but chose to go their own way whilst Germany kept the same ethonym ? Of course not, becuase back then "German" was a loose term, a political category. Regional identities were far more important. In many parts of Europe, they still are ! (Eg southern France) I have nothing against Bulgaria. In fact, it would probably be better if we were together, but I just want history told in the correct light Hxseek (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no such thing at all as a "Byzantine" national identity in medieval times because there was no such thing as a "Byzantine Empire," either. A "Byzantine" would have been a person who lived in a city on the Bosporus between 667BC and 330AD. A person who lived there in the 11th century would have called himself a Rhomaioi, a citizen of the Roman Empire. As for the subject of the Macedonians, I have seen nothing that suggests that there was a distinct Macedonian identity, apart from that of Bulgarian, earlier than the late Ottoman period, and certainly not as far back as the time of Basil II. There is now, but trying to make that distinction apply in 1000 is like trying to classify the various peoples of Kievan Rus' into modern Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. You can't do it. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some points of my view. It was unposible that your granmother was born in 1918 in Macedonia and was a Macedonian. She was born in Vardar Banovina or in Northern Greece, but not in Bulgaria. Most probably in Greece. Did I guess? This people (Macedonian emigrants in Australia at that time) did not have ethnic Macedonian identity. Many of them, especially the inteligentsia were Bulgarians. The rest were people with local identity. Check here, please: The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, James Jupp,Cambridge University Press,2001, ISBN 0521807891, Any ethnic Macedonians were recorded in Australia at the first half of 20th century. But who knows? Maybe your grandmother was the first! By the way, Macedonia at the time of Samuil was in Thrace, see: Macedonia (theme). The Macedonian peasants described from you Hxseek are only fiction. Check also Theme of Bulgaria. Regards! Jingby (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did i 'describe' any Macedonians in Samuel's time ? The Theme of Macedonia which you speak of was not based in geographic Macedonia because the Byzantines did not have it ! Then, because they already had a 'Macedonian' theme, when geographic Macedonia was finally captured, they called it Bulgaria because it was the last Bulgarian territory left. My comments are merely meant to highlight that Bulgarian was not strict definition back then like it is now. And my grandmother di not migrate to Australia , she always lived there, and knew who she was, and who she wasn't Hxseek (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't yow write ... My granmother was born in 1918 in Macedonia...? Maybe I did not understand you. 14:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. We all know what and where Macedonia is. Furthermore, everyone in Australia knows who "Macedonians" are (whether they are Anglos, Greek or Bulgarian-Australians). Hxseek (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"...whether his empire was Macedonian or Bulgarian..." Well, let's see here. He called himself the Tsar of Bulgaria, and everyone except Basil II seems to have recognized him as such. He didn't call himself the "Tsar of Macedonia," and neither did anyone else call him that. He ruled over, among other regions, all of what we now call Bulgaria. When Basil II conquered his empire, four years after Samuil had died, he called a large chunk of it the Theme of Bulgaria. That sure sounds like a Bulgarian empire to me. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Phh. You totally missed the point.

Macedonia and Bulgaria, for a considerable portion of the medieval era, had a relationship whereby Ohrid and Preslav were two seperate but symbiotic foci a common empire. This led to the development of a largely common religious, cultural and linguistic identity. Yet, there must have existed significant regionalism given that at the late 19th century there already existed thoughts of a separate Macedonian nation. Notwithstanding, the common history of earlier times applies to both countries, and the envisioning of Samuel as also being a Macedonian hero does not amount to usurpation of 'Bulgarian' history, or other such ridiculous charges. Hxseek (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Moesia and Macedonia (then Kutmichevitsa), both were parts of Bulgaria. Jingby (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hxseek, I agree that in Middle Ages "Bulgarian" was more political term than ethnic one and it referred to all Bulgars, Slavs, Vlachs, Avars, Cumans, etc. inhabiting the Bulgarian empire. And that the ethnic meaning of this term originated from the political one. But this is not a reason to create a new ethnos by transforming the geographical term "Macedonian" into ethnic. At least this is a huge source of controversies - for example what are the people living in Pirin and Aegean Macedonia? Ethnic Macedonians who have Bulgarian and Greek self-consciousness? Well, this problem can be solved if we divide Balkan population into Moesians, Thracians, Thessalians, Macedonians, etc. Not to mention the historic controversies. Samuel was a Bulgarian ruler in the political sense but you can't call him "Macedonian" at least because this term referred to something else at that time. Basil II was Macedonian, not Samuil, but he has no relation with modern Macedonians except that he slaughtered their Bulgarian ancestors. I respect everyone's right of self-determination and since you don't have Bulgarian self-consciousness you are not Bulgarian. But this is not a reason to change history. As you said the term "ethnos" is a modern one so there were no ethnic Macedonians in Middle ages. And Samuil was Bulgarian because he ruled Bulgaria, not Macedonia. I don't mind if in history books is written "Macedonian ethnos was formed in the first half of the 20th century and was recognized for the first time in 1945. Before that the Slavs living in Macedonia were considered Bulgarians." By the way my grand-grandmother was born in Macedonia in 1898 and considered herself Bulgarian. As to the reference with Germany and Austria they are separate states but speak one language. There is no Austrian language like Macedonian.Scheludko (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The following should be noted. 1. The late Middle Ages, when the kings called themselves emperors of "Bulgarians and Greeks" differs from the Early Middle Ages, when there is a perception of ethnicity.

2. Second, John Vladislav, Samuel's nephew, made it very clear that he would feel "a Bulgarian by birth and a Bulgarian autocrat" in his inscription. And that his father and uncle - Samuel - are also Bulgarians.

3. Samuel refused to officially take power before the death of the Bulgarian king Roman 997. Until then he was the general, even after 991, when Roman was captured. In addition, his son has a nickname - Roman. This shows continuity.

4When fleeing the Byzantine rule, the Bulgarian patriarch went to ... Ohrid. Again continuity.

5. Until 1945, the population of these lands did not distinguish between being Bulgarian and being Macedonian. For them, Macedonia is an integral part of Bulgaria. That this is not the case today does not mean the opposite. In fact, it is significant that today's Macedonia was then called the region of Bulgaria. And that Emperor Basil II, who blinded 15 soldiers of Samuel, remains known as Basil the Bulgarian Slayer. Note - these are Greek sources! 6.Новини Карти Още Инструменти

Около 3 830 000 резултата (0,36 секунди) Български Английски

Vprochem moyat pradyado sŭshto e rod vŭv Voden, v t.nar. Egeĭska Makedoniya prez 20-ge doni na minaliya vek, no se schita za ...bŭlgarin. Kakto i golyama chast ot naselenieto na tezi zemi - pone do kraya na Vtorata svetovna voĭna. tova dokazvat italianski, frenski i red drugi iztochnitsi, kakto i Karnegievata anketa. Spored tyakh preobladavoshtotnto naselenie v dneshna Severna Makedoniya e bŭlgarsko, ima turtsi i gŭrtsi,no nikŭde ne se spomenava za makedontsi ili makedonski ezik.

By the way, my great-grandfather is also a family in Voden, in the so-called Aegean Macedonia in the 1920s, but is considered ... Bulgarian. Like much of the population of these lands - at least until the end of World War II. this is evidenced by Italian, French and a number of other sources, as well as the Carnegie Inquiry. According to them, the predominant population in today's Northern Macedonia is Bulgarian, there are Turks and Greeks, but nowhere is there any mention of Macedonians or the Macedonian language.

Today's Macedonian theses deny all sources from that time.--Георгиалександров2 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Article is Heavily biased on Bulgarian POV

This article is heavily biased and poisoned with the Bulgarain POV.

There are several renowned historians (Ostrogorsky, Obolensky...) that distinguish Samuil from the First Bulgarian Empire. The short nomenclature paragraph at the bottom is not enough to address this issue.

Also the rule of Roman I is highly disputed, and Bulgarian historians are using it to find a link between Peter and Samuil.

Anyway I will not start an edit war immediately, but I plan to do some rewriting. Please lets discuss the issue here, so we don't start reverting each other. Svrznik (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I like your use of "poisoned" when referring to the perceived Bulgarian POV :) I think it is pretty clear to anyone that the international scholarly consensus is that Samuel was little else but a Bulgarian emperor. Obolensky is also of this opinion, I don't know where in his works you have read anything else. Ostrogorsky, of course, was a Yugoslav byzantinist, and his work, while greatly appreciated, is politically tainted in his research of Samuel, and does not merit more than a mentioning.

Please don't undertake any controversial edits to this article without first acquiring consensus. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 11:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Obolensky writes: "After Peter's death, the separatist movement led by the Comitopuli which resulted in the creation of an independent empire of Western Bulgaria, also originated in Macedonia."

Dimitry Obolensky, "The Bogomils: A study in Balkan Neo-Manicheism", Cambridge University Press 1948. Pages 151-152.

You can find it here:http://books.google.com/books?id=01lYi1pW7W4C&lpg=PP1&ots=QTgmnqmw3G&dq=The%20Bogomils%3A%20A%20study%20in%20Balkan%20Neo-Manicheism&pg=PA152#v=onepage&q=Samuel&f=false

Ostrogorsky was Russian, he studied in Germany and lived in Yugoslavia in the second part of his life. He was respected in the hole world, his Hisotry of The Byzntine State is The Bible of modern Byzantine Studies. It was also originally published in 1940, before the creation of independent Macedonia. Svrznik (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Svrznik, you want "to discuss the issue here, so we don't start reverting each other", but you already moved the article. Please, get it back as it was originally and then we can discuss your opinion on the matters. --StanProg (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For now there is no other Tzar Samuil and no point to disambiguate the title. And not all historians agree that he was emperor of Bulgaria, so having Bulgaria in the title pushes a POV. Svrznik (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For now we have "major view point" and "some historians don't agree". Try something simple "Samuel of Bulgaria" ([8] About 71,400 results), "Tzar Samuil" ([9] About 6,950 results - most of them Bulgarian). Which is the widely accepted name? --StanProg (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you ever heard of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)? I feel like I'm repeating myself, but *do not* introduce any controversial edits without having the consensus behind you. And you don't.

P.S. I fail to see how Obolensky, who clearly identifies Samuel as a Bulgarian emperor, justifies the ridiculous and undiscussed article move. Ostrogorsky served Yugoslav political interests in his publications, his opinion makes no difference to me whatsoever. — Toдor Boжinov — 13:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What do yo fail to see in that sentence: "After Peter's death, the separatist movement led by the Comitopuli which resulted in the creation of an independent empire of Western Bulgaria, also originated in Macedonia. So after the death of a Bulgarian Emperor there was a separatist movement, that created an independent Bulgarian Empire, that originated in Macedonia. Svrznik (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming I am illiterate. The sentence does not bear any arguments which support your move, to rephrase my post above.

Here's another sentence. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453, p. 131. "Although there is no evidence that he considered himself as anything more than emperor of the Bulgarians, his act was regarded in Byzantium as a rebellion." I can quote him all day, but the point is, throughout the book Obolensky calls the state Samuel ruled "Bulgaria" and considers it a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire, perfectly in line with the opinion of international scholarship. Yes, it was a separatist movement that resulted in Samuel eventually becoming emperor, yes, the empire was based in western Bulgaria and the modern region of Macedonia; I fail to see how this makes Samuel non-Bulgarian.

I don't think I will tolerate any further misleading edits. Your actions certainly do not contribute to the discussion. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will start by adding info in the introductory paragraph about the Commitopuli. The article did not mention Sviatoslav and the events that preceded the deposition of Boris. I have reorganized this section and added some info, so please don't revert.

I also plan to add a section where the nature and origin of Samuil's empire is discussed more thoroughly. I also plan to analyze the historical dispute over it. My general opinion is that Samuil was a medieval opportunist that took advantage of the wars at that time and took the title Tzar of Bulgaria, and my general tone on this article will be in that direction. Svrznik (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, stick to the wikipedia rules. Do not remove sourced information. You're not just "adding information", you're removing a soruced one, and adding yours. Again, please, do not vandalize. --StanProg (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as the capital is concerned, no source mentiones that the capital was moved from Skopje to Ohrid. The first citation never mentions Skopje, and the second one is a broken link. Skopje was not a capital at that time

As for the paragraph you think I have vandalized... See now that the second sentence ("Although the ceremony in 971"..) of the Comitopuli section, repeats later in the text. I have just reorganized that part, so it follows some logical and chronological order. Now you have the section starting with "After the fall of Preslav", but you don't explain how, why and to whom did Preslav fall. All the information that is in that paragraph is included later in the text in a certain order. Svrznik (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The second citation is "Retrieved 2008-05-23.". That's the purpose the sources to be "retreived" - if they dissapear, this confirms them. You have vandalized a whole paragraph with sources, and that's a fact. The paragraph is an intro to "The rise of the Cometopuli" section - no need to follow "a certain order". "but you don't explain how, why and to whom did Preslav fall" - "How it fall" is subject of another article, "to whom" - see the picure at the left of the paragraph and you'll understand. --StanProg (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean retrieved... where can I find the sources that are retrieved? Come on anybody that knows a bit on the subject can clearly tell you that the capital was never in Skopje. That is just some mistake. The first source does not say anything like that. I mean this is not a POV dispute, it is just a simple mistake, I don't know why you insist on it....

And for the introductory paragraph. All the info of that paragraph are repeated in the text... There are eve whole sentences repeating. And there are some assumptions that are not cited. Please read the whole section and you will see that the first paragraph is out of order. And I think it puzzles the ordinary reader when he reads stuff that are not well presented. In this way you assume that everybody that reads the article knows the background of the events. And the caption beneath the image is not a proper place to add info that is not included in the text

Anyway so far I have not even touched on the POV subject of the article, but still you keep reverting Svrznik (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I do see that some of the paragraphs need some attention, but in no means should any insinuations be inserted anywhere else but the Nomenclature section. Look, Roman moved the capital to Skopie in 980 and then Samuel moved it to Ohrid. That's why the capital was moved from Skopie to Ohrid. I do note that some background info is needed and I'll try expanding it later today. --Laveol ^T 10:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a source that is not written by a Bulgarian author about the regency of Boris and the capital in Skopje...? Svrznik (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You added the sentence for the "regency", shouldn't you add a soruce as well? ([10]). With a risk to repeat myself for 3rd time - there's already a non-Bulgarian source for that. --StanProg (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No I did not add that sentence, I am the one that is trying to remove it.

And about the source for the capital, can I see it? Reference number 4 takes you here, and says nothing about the capital being in Skopje. And by the way this cite has a political agenda (the title of the page is: The falsification of the history of Macedonia) and does not cite any references. See here what is it about: http://www.cc.ece.ntua.gr/~conster/.

The other reference number 11 leads you here which is broken link. It says that it was retrieved some years ago, but how can we see it? Svrznik (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel of Bulgaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: four found and fixed.[11] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: six found and tagged, no archived versions at Internet Archive/ Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is not well written.

   Some examples:

   and co-ruled with him, as Roman bestowed upon him the command of the army and the effective royal authority.

   But from 1001, he was forced mainly to defend the Empire against the superior Byzantine armies.

   Similar comments were made even in Constantinople, - "even" is a WP:weasel word

   However after Maria's death in 963, the truce had been shaken and Peter I sent his sons Boris and Roman in Constantinopole, as honorary hostages, to honor the new terms of the peace treaty.

   As the main effort of Basil II were concentrated against the rebel Skleros

   Above are just a few examples of the poor prose which is to be found throughout the article, please get it copy-edited. This should have been done before nomination. Article clearly fails criteria #1a.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   6 dead links found and tagged.

   Confusing mixture of footnotes and citations.

   What makes ref #4[12] a reliable source?

   ref #6 Britannica is not a RS

   Author/Publisher details missing from many print citations.

   Outstanding citation needed and clarification needed tags.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Appears to be thorough and broad

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Samuel is among the most renowned Bulgarian rulers. Who said this?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images tagged and captioned but perhaps too many are used and the text is awkardly sandwiched by some of them.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think this is a straightforward fail. There are a large number of issues which cannot be resolved in a week, and the article is a long way from meeting the criteria. Get it copy-edites and take it to peer review. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article

I twice reverted edits that changed all mentions of "Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian" to "Macedonia" and "Macedonian", respectively, and deleted a lot of sources.[13][14] 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Samuel of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Samuel of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Old Bulgarian more accurate than OCS

@Kromid:

"bit of a stretch to swap "OCS" with "Old Bulgarian" using that source" I don't see any issues with the source used but I will add a few below. It is an indisputable fact that in 893 AD the official language of the First Bulgarian Empire was made to be Old Bulgarian by the council of Preslav, after all how do you think the illiterate populance of Thrace, Moesia and Macedonia fostered a Bulgarian ethnic identity it is by the creation of a Bulgarian Church and a language called Bulgarian.

Radoev, Ivanov Alexander (2019). THE CROATIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Was, Is, And Shall Be. Zagreb, Croatia: Croatian Archbishop Alexander. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-359-99545-5. Then from 837 to 842, the entire geographical area of Macedonia was annexed to the Bulgarian Empire, and obviously Ohrid, where an Archbishop was established, which was a part of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. When five disciples of the Holy Brothers came to the Bulgarian fortress in Belgrade in 866, the Serbian tribes (then Bulgarian vassals) had not yet accepted Christianity.... According to the law of 893, in the Bulgarian Empire everyone was Bulgarian, and the Bulgarian language was mandatory in the liturgy (with Cyrillic or Glagolitic script).

(1992) New Bulgaria, IJ Print Limited, Bulgaria, pg 16 "1100 ANNIVERSARY SINCE THE CONVOCATION OF THE PRESLAV COUNCIL IN BULGARIA (893), WHICH ERECTED THE OLD-BULGARIAN LANGUAGE INTO AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE STATE INSTITUTIONS AND THE RELIGIOUS LITURGY".

Henning, Joachim (2007), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium Vol 2. Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans,ISBN: 978-3-11-018358-0, pg 613 "It is common knowledge in Bulgarian historiography that in 893 the capital of the Bulgarian Empire was moved from Pliska to Preslav. As an explanation it is argued that the new capital Preslav seems to reflect the new look of a modern Christian Kingdom with its churches, monasteries, and monuments to the Old Bulgarian language, while Pliska on the other hand with its palaces and pagan sanctuaries seems to represent the old face face of a Protobulgarian capital."

Nicolova, Ruselina (2017) Bulgarian Grammar, Frank & Timme, Sofia, ISBN: 978-3-7329-0224-8, pg 25, "Bulgarian is the oldest Slavic literary language. It was proclaimed the official language of the Bulgarian state and the Bulgarian Church at the Council of Preslav in the year 893 A.D, thus becoming the medium of scholarship and culture in the 9th c."

Crampton, R.J. (2005). "The Reign of Simeon the Great (893–927)". A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge University Press. pp. 16,( https://archive.org/details/concisehistorybu00cram/page/n39/mode/2up )

It is not logical to infer that all Slavs spoke Old Church Slavonic (which is not even an actual language but instead an artificially created writing system) that was adapted to various Slavic languages and dialects used by the liturgy and it is still used today in most Orthodox Churches. Later on it was adopted by the rest of the populance. If that was the case different Slavic languages and ethnic identities would not have developed. Instead there were/still are different recensions of Old Church Slavonic

Let alone the fact that there are currently three periods of the Slavic Bulgarian language after the Bulgar language.

Old Bulgarian - From the 9th to 11th centuries

Middle Bulgarian - From 12th to 17th centuries

Modern Bulgarian - From 17th century onwards

Furthermore there are no issues, with adding Old Bulgarian as for example on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

So it is fairly clear from the sources you posted there is support toward a dominate "Bulgarian Language" at the time. Though, I am still not 100% on using "Old Bulgarian" instead of "Old Church Slavonic" especially because there is some degree of ambiguity surrounding it with the Bulgar language which was probably still around at that stage, and not to mention OCS is a more well known term which can typically have a broader meaning. Anyway, I am open to other opinions on this. Kromid (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

"Though, I am still not 100% on using "Old Bulgarian" instead of "Old Church Slavonic" especially because there is some degree of ambiguity surrounding it with the Bulgar language which was probably still around at that stage". Maybe you should add some sources to support your thesis, I don't think it is true since Asparuhs Bulgar's were already in modern day Bulgaria in 680 and a separate Bulgar horde of Kubrat were in what is present-day North Macedonia between 680 and 690, trying to take Thessaloniki multiple times and failing. The First Bulgarian Empire was set up in 681, Christinization happened in Bulgaria in 886 AD after an order by King Boris I of Bulgaria and in 893 at the Council of Preslav, Old Bulgarian or Bulgarian as it was called at the time was made the official language of the country and all subjects were declared as Bulgarians.

Fine, John (1983) The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, Michigan, pg 129 "After Boris' reign, the sources no longer distinguish between Bulgars and Slavs. Instead they refer to Bulgarians. This name, despite its origins, came to signify the ethnically mixed population of Bulgaria among whom the Slavic language triumphed. The Bulgar languaged died out and modern Bulgarian retains less than a dozen words from it."

Fine, John (1983) The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, Michigan, pg 127 "Until this time, the Greek priests in Bulgaria had been Greeks preaching in Greeks and using Greek texts. How many of them knew Slavic is not known. Methodiu's mission had been in Moravia.The papacy had briefly supported his use of Slavonic there, and had made him bishop of Sirmium. But after Ratislav was overthrown in 870, Methodius was arrested. The Moravian state entered a period of close relations with the Franks, which led to a ban upon the Slavonic liturgy. Pope John VIII (872-882) procured Methodius's release from prison, but he supported the ban upon the Slavonic liturgy in Moravia. The papacy was to maintain this position from then on.

Methodius tried to ingore the orders; but soon, in April, 885, he died and his disciples were then expelled from Moravia. This signalled the end of the Slavonic liturgy in central Europe.

In 886 some of the Slavonic liturgists expelled from Moravia arrived in Bulgaria, where they were welcome by Boris. They began to preach in Bulgaria; further they brought with them religious texts in Slavonic and began to translate other texts. Thus the work ::of the Slavonic mission was saved and Bulgaria acquired church services and a literature in the vernacular (for Old Church Slavonic, the language of the mission, was based on Bulgaro-Macedonian Slavic).

Over the following years more Slavonic liturgists came to Bulgaria from Byznatium where many of them had been trained as missionaries at the Patriachal School. Thus two groups of clerics, one Slavic-speaking, the other Greek-speaking, both from Byzantium, were active in Bulgaria.

At first many of the Slavonic priests were sent into regions which were heavily Slavic, in particular to Macedonia. Zlatarski has observed that by the conquest of Macedonia Persian and/or Boris had united in one state almost all of the Bulgaro-Macedonian Slavs. But though these tribes were all inside Bulgaria's borders, they were not yet sufficiently united to guarantee the permenance of the state. Still lacking were both a strong state organization and a common culture to bind them together with each other and the Bulgarian state. Surely their loyalties and sense of identity were chiefly to tribe or region rather than to any state. Thus there was a Bulgarian state but as yet there were many people in it who did not have a sense of being Bulgarian. The Slavonic mission was to be a major means of making these Slavs -- and other Slavs within the Bulgarian state as well -- into Bulgarians

"

This page above summarizes the point I am trying to make pretty good, althought OCS wasn't created in Bulgaria it was popularized in The First Bulgarian Empire for political reasons and called Bulgarian in order to reduce the influence of the Byzantium Empire in Bulgaria by replacing the Greek language with a language called Bulgarian in the Church and the official state matters. This point is further reinforced by the fact that in 893, the same year that what they called Bulgarian was made the official language, all Greek clergy were expelled from the country.

I am not arguing about the similarities between Old Bulgarian and other recensions but the point I am making is that Old Bulgarian was the official and dominant language by the time Tsar Samuel started his reign in in 997 AD, with Old Bulgarian being made official in the country in 893 AD, this means that Old Bulgarian had been the official language of the country for 104 years when he became Tsar of Bulgaria and 65 years before Samuel was even born in 958 AD. After all language is important when you are trying to build an identity. A good modern example of this is Serbo-Croatian which broke off into Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin after the breakup of Yugoslavia, although they are literally all the same language they still have different names to bolster a sense of national identity. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

OK sure, you can deem me neutral to your suggestion. However, keep note that translations in the lead are actually flexible and are not necessarily bound to the historic language related to the topic and one can argue for using a more mainstream name/language even if less related. Anyway I suggest waiting for the opinion of other editors. Kromid (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I am not convinced whether this dispute makes sense. Jingiby (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

During 9-10 century, was the last phase of the Common Slavic period (c. 500–1000). Despite the first dialectal differences appeared then, the entire Slavic-speaking area continued to function as a single language, with sound changes tending to spread throughout the entire area. In the second half of the 9th century, the Slavic dialect spoken north of Thessaloniki, became the basis for the first written Slavic language - Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic was still reasonably close, and the mutual intelligibility between Old Church Slavonic and other Slavic dialects of those days. At this time this language was not called neither Bulgarian nor Macedonian, but simply Slavic. In Great Moravia and Pannonia the early South Slavic dialect used for the Bible translations was clearly understandable to the local population which spoke an early West Slavic dialect. By around 1000, the Common Slavic area had broken up into separate East Slavic, West Slavic and South Slavic languages. The Bulgarian language was first mentioned as separate by the Greek clergy in the Ohrid Archbishopric during the 11th century in today North Macedonia.Jingiby (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC) --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2021

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)

---

Samuel of Bulgaria → Samuil 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)

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

• 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)
• 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)

• Oppose "Samuil" is not an English name. Dimadick (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.