Talk:Bulgarian Millet

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bulgarian Millet article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bulgaria Mid‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

Original research

Please fix or change bias material on the page, there are no sufficient inline citations, it's written like a personal essay, looks like WP:OR to me.Phill24th (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a contrary. You failed to prove that.Jingiby (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example: "All Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire were subordinated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which was dominated by Greek Phanariotes. The Orthodox Christians were included into the Rum Millet. The belonging to this Orthodox community became more important to the common people than their ethnic origins and the Balkan Orthodox people identified themselves simply as Christians." - who are the Orthodox Christians, what does it mean by that? when did this occur, there is no indication of the time or place. the text looks like it was pulled out from a child's storybook. Phill24th (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop spamming this article. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what spamming is. Is that even a word? But please stop your disruptive editing, or you may be blocked. Phill24th (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable, but while adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. I think you are adding spam-tags only because you did not like this topic. Also templates may be used but editors should not add citation templates in an article, without gaining consensus.Jingiby (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying tags

Please, instead of edit-warring to death, try and justify the tags you are constantly adding to the article. Nothing is self-evident and I really don't know what you mean with most of them. What is in desperate need of copy-editing? Why do you think there is original research in the article when most of it is properly sourced? It does not look like it contains any OR whatsoever. --Laveol ^T 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an example above, please state your consideration so we can reach an agreement. Phill24th (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the need of additional citations tag, I do not see any reasonable need for that since there isn't even a section without references - 17 sources for 17K text is pretty balanced. If somebody needs a source for a concrete statement, there is appropriate template for that which is different. Please, read carefully how to use properly the templates.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that 1-3 sources per one section in balanced. Lots of statements in need of sources. Phill24th (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have added maintenance tags that have nothing to do with the statement above. Are you going to justify them? --Laveol ^T 20:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I really insist on an explanation behind the tags. It's been a few days now, and you have provided none. In fact, your only contribution has been edit-warring over the tags and deleting all messages from your talkpage. If no explanation is provided, I will remove the tags. --Laveol ^T 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three years later I fully agree with Laveol T. Any explanation was given behind the POV tag from Phill24th (talk). In fact, his only contribution here was edit-warring over the added by him unjustified tags and deleting all messages from his talkpage. As result his tags were removed, but meanwhile I was blocked, what probably aimed Phill24th (talk). Jingiby (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]