 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Why insist on this form?
The word derives only from Byzantine Greek, and the second vowel is an η. The rest of the word is Latinized; the only reason for the unique use of i is the interaction produced by transliterating first into Cyrillic and thence into the Roman alphabet. The standard authorities use e, from Ostrogorsky to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the last members of the family now live in Melnik. Politis (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Why the Armenian connection?
editThere's no need for an Armenian connection to everything in history. An actual link to the source would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.154.139 (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
POV dispute
editLook what you are writing in this article is disregarding respected historians. It is not yours can not claim why somebody came to some conclusion. And White Russian is a cocktail. The empire was is both as West Bulgarian and Macedonian and the parenthesis explain it well.
Svrznik (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please, state clearly your point of view, suppored by soruces. Vandalizing and edit-warring is not the way. You can't just force your point of view. Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanProg (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are sources which you keep deleting and reverting! There are two sources cited: one from Ostrogorsky, and one from Obolensky! Svrznik (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The vast majority of English language sources treats the empire as a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire. A big name in Byzantology such as Ostrogorski is nevertheless a fringe view since he is only one scholar of so many. And he is the one behind the Western Bulgarian Empire. Why should we include fringe views in the article lead? A separate section on this would be much better. --Laveol T 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Whether is a fringe theory or alternative theory is subject of a debete. However, the tone of the sentences and the paragraph is that you are trying to discredit something even before you write it.
- The article now reads:
- Cometopuli had its heartlands around Ohrid, west and southwest of this earlier cultural center of the First Bulgarian Empire. Thus, some old Yugoslav historians... - so you can not make any assumptions why some historians think something. This way you are trying to discredit something, even before you write it. And again you insist on the formulation White Russian which is even insultive in the English language. And ok, you dont need to mention it in the first paragraph, I will put it in the second one.... Svrznik (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you stop with the insinuations on White Russian? There is an article on the White movement in Russia. If you actually do not know anything about it, read some. I've made some other corrections to the article and I think this section should be moved to a separate paragraph. --Laveol T 10:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The vast majority of English language sources treats the empire as a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire. A big name in Byzantology such as Ostrogorski is nevertheless a fringe view since he is only one scholar of so many. And he is the one behind the Western Bulgarian Empire. Why should we include fringe views in the article lead? A separate section on this would be much better. --Laveol T 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are sources which you keep deleting and reverting! There are two sources cited: one from Ostrogorsky, and one from Obolensky! Svrznik (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)