Talk:Grigor Parlichev/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I don’t see the reason why G.P can’t be Macedonian writer as well. It is true that he wrote that he is Bulgarian, but he also wrote that the Cyrillic alphabet was called “Serbian”. So following similar logic he is also Serbian writer. There is lot of anachronism when dealing with that time. Otherwise he wouldn’t be considered Greek, then Bulgarian writer/poet. One thing is certain, the people he belonged to is now considering themselves as Macedonians, not Bulgarians. I don’t see how can Edward Taylor, Anne Bradstreet, etc be considered as American not English writers even though the formation of American nation came much, much later. Certainly nobody seems to mind that here on WikiPedia. Since G.P was not some Bulgarian immigrant from Varna, but a member of indigenous Christian Slavic people inhabiting Ohrid he can and should be considered as part of both Bulgarian and Macedonian culture.--Cigor 18:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cigor, please do not forget one thing: the people G.P. belonged to is now considering themselves not only as Macedonians. Maybe in Bulgaria there are more Macedonians (who keep their Bulagarian consciuosness, not only in Pirin Macedonia). It is hard to give exact numbers but I am sure you know - even in Varna there are many desandents from Ochrid and many people who keep their memory and pride that they are Macedonians (like group, part of Bulgarians). Let me remind that G.P. very cleary considered itself like Bulgarian (not ethnic Serbian, Greek or Macedonian) and his language like Bulgarian language. Nevertheless I'll not try to change double definition, but I am stiil thinking that present definition could be confused sombody that G.P. had a hesitated consciousness. Therefore I'll delete only Internal link Macedonian - Macedonian (ethic group). Regards, --AKeckarov 16:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

HE WAS FORCED TO USE THE BULGARIC CODIFICATIONS AND FIX IDEAS SO THAT THE PEOPLE CAN HEAR HIS VOICE HE WAS MACEDONIAN REPRESED TO EXPRES OTHER NATIONALITI IN ORDER TO THE POLITICAL CONDITION IN THOOSE TIMES

== Wikipedia is not neutral! this is a great propaganda against the macedonian people and their history! Don't believe anything on wikipedia, pseudo-historians are extinguishing the truth, be aware of it!!! ==

AKeckarov, we can talk endlessly what being Bulgarian meant in mid 19th century in Macedonia. But before we do that, my points about American/English writers are still holding (and it seems the more petty and insignificant nation is, the more of edit wars of this nature), whether or not there was separate Macedonian conscience at the time. Also, your change is actually adding to confusion. There are Macedonian Albanians,Serbs,Turcs etc - but G.P. is very important person in stopping the hellenisation of Macedonian Slavs.--Cigor 21:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, the discussion about the meaning of the term Bulgarian really can be endless if we forget to see what the actvists of Bulgarian Revival in Macedonia like G.P. meant. My opinion is that G.P. was a Bulgarian author and I think that your argument with American/English is a quite formal. But if you want to discuss it, OK:

1. How many of 13 American colonies are in GB now? And are some part in Macedonia in BG? Are today in England peoples who call themselves Americans and are in Bulgaria peoples who consider themselves as Macedonians (in regional sense, like me)?
2. Was these autors an English actvists of some English National Revival? Was they under repressions because they are fought for English language, English national rights etc?

You are right that G.P. is "very important person in stopping the hellenisation of Macedonian Slavs". But the problem is that the Macedonian Slavs is an euphemism for Bulgarians. I do not see a sense to use one euphemism only because somebody in present times changes his national consciousness. I suggested to stay double definition with condition internal link to be with Macedonians not to ethnic group and I am looking to this like compromise with the facts. It you stay your variant it seems like substitute of historical reality. Actually, present look of the article is actually adding to confusion, because G.P. had nothing to do it Macedonian ethnic concsiousness. Please, think about option to explain Macedonistic point of view in separate section, not to substitute the realities in the very begining.--AKeckarov 11:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AKeckarov, Regarding American/English, English National Revival did not exist as they had state pretty much uninterrupted. So this argument is even stronger.

The problem is different, it’s your view that Macedonian Slavs=Bulgarians. There are two parallel things overlapping somewhat. 1. What does being Bulgarian means in 19th century 2. Did Mac. Slavs had some sense of being different than Bulgarians from Bulgaria.

In order to address the first point we have to access the situation in mid 19th century. There was handful literate Slavs and all of them were pro-Greeks. G.P writes “българската азбука само на трима беше известна и се наричаше сърбска;”

Similarly, Kuzman Shapkarev writes that Slavic letters were known only to two persons, Angele Grupche i Hristo Uzunov ”koito, kako terzii, bea otishle zaedno so Dzeladin Bega vo Skadar, i tamu od nekoi Sloveni nauchile da citaat i pishuvaat po slovenski.„

(Blgarski pregled, god II, IX-X, str277). This is year 1861 we are talking about. Some Nenov Monastirskii, writes in „Caregradskom Vestniku” (13/9/1862) with a title Rodoljubiv s'vet

„Molia vi se bratija Makedonci! Vi mi sja chine, che s gordelivo prezrenie gliadate Vashite bratia: Blgare i Trakijci, kato im neudobrevate uchebnite knigi, a tichate s prev'shodna brzina kam Srbizma”...„on zatim kaže da je moguće da, oni, makedonci, misle da im je jezik sličan sa srpskim, ”tova vi e istinno n ne tvrde shoden, ot kolkoto s blgarskiia; ta, poradi taja prichina, ako i da mia obvinite za drzostnia mi s'vet scha vi sia umlcha, kato obvinen, no ako razsdite s zdravo mislenie, mi sia chine che schete odobrite iskrenii mi s'vet, kato vi molia da vi sia uchat detchicata na chistiia dneshen obshc blgarskiia iazik, a ne na srpskiia... Blgarskiia iazik Vi e postara rodnina ot kolkoto srpskiia...„ (Caregradski Vestnik, 1/12/1862)

Никола Попфилипов, teacher says that “бугарскиот јазик е општ балкански јазик” (вестник „Maкедонiя” Цариград, 6. Април, 1868 г.).

In 15 June 1868 edition of newspaper “Macedonia” , the writer is criticizing people of Veles that “”Nii bihme zelali da znaem, a osche poveche sami G-da Veleshani da ni dokazhat Srbi li sa te ili Blgari i ako sa Blgari da ni obadiat, zascho uchat decata si na srećhavane i chitane iz srpskij iazik osche i srpska istoriia. Ako tiah sa gi l'gali che srpsko i blgarsko e vse edno, ili che srpskata istorija e poslavna ot blgarskata, nij sche im kazhem che tiah se vveli v zabluzhdenie... Nischo pounizitelno a nischo poumrazno od tova deto da sia otricha niakoi ot rodt si...” So as you can see the terms Slavic,Bulgarian and Serbian were used interchangeably.

The Greeks called all Orthodox Slavs – Bulgars – Serbian academician Petar Dragacevic, at the end of 19th century says that Greeks called him Bulgarian even though he is from Serbia. Pasij Hilendarski confirms that Greeks calls Slavs as Bulgarians: “Но свети Кирил и Методий по-късно били поставени за епископи на славяните в Морава, не сръбската Морава, която тече през Шумадия, но друга Морава, при Окиан-море, което се нарича Балтинско море, при Брандибур. Оттам най-напред са излезли българите, а ония, които са останали там, се наричат славени. Там няколко време Кирил и Методий епископствували и учели тия славени на християнка вяра. И така по-късно поради тоя народ нарекли писмото и книгите словенски. И така, който народ и да чете тия книги, те изобщо се наричат словенски. Но гърците, понеже знаели отначало, казват и досега български книги, а не иначе. Така от целия славянски род най-напред българите получили славянски букви, книги и свето кръщение. “ (Славянобългарска История, Паисий Хилендарски, за славянските учители).

1792 g., Bulgarian priest Spiridon Gabrovski wtires his „ История во кратце о болгарском народе славенском”, where South Slavs are called Bulgarians „Bolgarite gi zavladeale Trakija, Makedonija, Dalmacija, isto taka Beloto More i Rim….Ilirite se narekuvaat Bolgari…Od bolgarite proizlegoa srbite…..a od koga Aleksandar Makedonski ja zede celata ilirska (bolgarska=slovenska) vojska da go bie svetot…od togas bugarite pocnaa da se narekuvaat sloveni i makedonci (Source: - Спиридон Иеросхимонах, История во кратце о болгарском народе славенском)

So we have most of the prerodbenici initial Greeks, trained to despise their Slavic origin (which was called Bulgarian by the Greeks) as uncivilized, then being sent to educate in Russia and returning as Bulgarians. The rest of prerodbenici are influenced by the Rusian educated ones. Now we came to the Russian imperial ambitions for forming great Bulgaria so that they can get access to Mediterranean, I believe you are well informed about this.

To the second point, “Did Mac. Slavs had some sense of being different than Bulgarians from Bulgaria” The secretary of Ezgarhy , Atanas Shopov (Ofejkov), says the following: „Do predi posledniata rusko-turska voina (1878) u Makedonskite blgare pochti otsustvuvashe narodnosto samosznanie i igraeshe glavan rolia verata koiato beshe v shchoto vreme i narodnost za Makedoncite...” (Materiiali za blgarskoto vzrazhdanie v Makedoniia, Sofija, 1885, Per.Sp.XVIII, str 440) The same person: “Predi godini, v samoto nachalo na blgarskoto vzrazhdanie, togavashnii ruskii konzul v Solun ugovarial H Lazarovci, kakto i Robevci v Bitolia, da ne krijat narodnosta si, a da minuvat za Blgare, zaschoto, kato bogati i vlijatelni hora, prostoto naselenie tiah gleda i tiah sledva...” („Materiiali za blgarskoto vzrazhdanie v Makedoniia”, Sofija, 1885,str 441)

And again

Па дури ни денес, во 1885 година кога Европа би побарала македонското население да се определи и да каже на која народност и припаѓа, уверени сме, дека поголем дел од Македонија ќе ни летне од раце, со исклучок на две - три околии од северна Македонија . Сите други Македонци се готови да дадат каков сакаш пишан документ дека тие не се Бугари... (Офейков (Атанас Б. Шопов ), (Македония въ време на хилядагодишнината на св. Методий„, Пловдив, 1885 г., стр. 109-110).

Петко Славејков in newspaper ”Македонија„ writes: ”македонските браќа...од македонистите сме слушнале многупати дека тие не се Бугари, но Македонци, потомци на античките Македонци... се сметаат за посебни од Бугарите...дека се чисти Словени, а Бугарите се Татари и што уште не...(P.R. Slaveykov, „Makedonskij V'pros” (The Macedonian Question ), in „Makedonija” (Istambul), January 18, 1871).

How about this:

Do negovata Svetost Velikit Ptrijarh vo Carigrad, Nie vernite podanici na Negovoto Velicestvo carot Sultan abdul Hamid I od dolgo vreme nemame crkovna sloboda, a od 1872 godina stanavme uste poveke zabludeno stado, zosto dojdovme pod Bugarskata egzarhija, zabludeni od bugarskata propaganda. Taka i nie stanavme sizmatici. Nie, slovenite od Makedonija, od sekoga sme imale svoja crkva, Ohridska arhiepiskopija, koja imase sediste vo nasiot grad. Denes nie bi sakale odnovo da si ja vratime i taka da ziveeme vo sloga so Velikata crkva. Bidejki nam ni e potrebno Vaseto sveto blagovolenie po odnos na nasata slovenska crkva vo Makedonija, poradi toa Ve molime, makar i da sme izlazani od strana na Bugarite, da ni prostite, bidejki ste blag Hristov sluzitel i da ni ja obnovite nasata crkva. Pokraj toa sto Bugarite ne izmamiija i izlagaa, tie ni go otfrlaat i jazikot, ni gi menuvaat i nasite sveti obicai i ja menuvaat i seta nasa lika i prilika. Nie toa ne mozeme veke da go trpime i sakame nasite deca da ne kolnat nas i grobovite na nasite pradedi... Potpisani se 120 Ohrigani (mazi) DA DSIP – Beograd – PPO, F. 7, d. 6, p. br. 962, 1890

Tell me why are this people feeling tricked?

Russian agents were convincing Macedonians „ако останете надвор од Бугарија, вашата земја (Македонија) ќе биде полоша од она што беше порано, но ако се приклучите кон нас и нашата кауза, ќе ги добиете сите добра кои произлегуваат силно кралство, под руска заштита (Edward B. Barker British Museum, London, Dmss Layard Papers, Vol. LXXXIX Addd. 39.019, 186-187).

Bulgarian socialist, Георги Бакалов, writes ”во селата во Македонија, ако сретнеш селанец што говори словенски и припаѓа на православната религија...деветорица од десет од овие луѓе и покрај што се предмет на пропагандите на трите соседни држави, ќе ви одговорат на прашањето што се понационалност, дека се МАКЕДОНЦИ„ (Георги Бакалов, \”Претендентите на Македония\„, стр. 22, Варна 1890 г.).

To summarize, you are using anachronism to push your POV – neither Bulgarian means same as it means today, neither was the Bulgarian character of Macedonian Slavs unquestionable. So I am reverting.--Cigor 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, exactly because English National Revival did not exist there is not problem to define writers like American. And this logic is not workable about our case. But Bulgarian National Revival exists and G.P. was involved in it. Maybe we have to think about other example: Giuseppe Garibaldi who was born in Nice, but in Wikipedia is consider as Italian patriot.

Yes, my view is that for the main periods Macedonian Slavs=Bulgarians (with some reservations about some regions, intelectuals...), but I do not look at this like a problem. Maybe it is a problem for sombedy who do not likes this and probably that problem cames a bigest for somebody, because the man we are discussing - Grigor Parlichev considered Macedonian Slavs as Bulgarians - http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/gp/avtob_10.html (He considered his language as Bulgarian); http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/gp/avtob_12.html (The Bulgarian diligence...dignify as; "Верно е, че горделивий никога не прокопсува, но верно е такожде, че и който презира себе си, е самоубийца. Първия грех, разбира се, е по-опасен; но ние, българе[те] (we are Bulgarians), треба да се пазим повече от втория"; When G.P. was asked which nationality (народност=ethnic belonging) is he answered: Bulgarian)

Exatly the struggle for Bulgarian education (in Slavic alphabet) was one of the purposes of Bulgarin National Revival so thе fact is that there was very little literate people in bulgarian regions (not only in Macedonia) as a whole. I do not understand what is a point of your argument that there was a little literate Slavs in MK and many of them was pro-Greek. It is relevant and for Thrace and even for Misia (North Bulgaria).

Regarding Carigradki vestnik (obviously you do not used the sources itself but you used Serbian source since you using a cases (or you are thinking in Serbian):) ) - it proves that there was attempts to establish Serbian schools in Veles (failured) and nothing more. This is valid and about the example with newspaper “Macedonia” (15 June 1868)

Никола Попфилипов - just an example of BG ntionalism.

From where was Peter Dragacevic? Because in ХІХ century not only Greecs called a part of inhabitants of present Serbia Bulgarians.

The example with Pasij Hilendarski do not confirms that Greeks calls all Slavs as Bulgarians. Please read this text again. :)

Do you think that Jeroshimonah Spiridon is a historian in present sense? He is an activist of BG national Revival and he tried to encourage BG national sence like Macedonian Bulgarian Pasij Hilendarski.

"So we have most of the prerodbenici initial Greeks, trained to despise their Slavic origin" - it is valid not only to Macedonia. We can find many such cases in the other parts of BG ethnical territory. What are you proving with Russian imperial ambitions? It is clear as a whole, but did Russia convinced G.P. to be Bulgarian? Do you know about Russion contribution about Antibulgarian cause in MK (especially after 1880)?

About your summary: Please comment that which G.P. itself wrote and then define my POV like anachronism. We have to separate present reality in a part of Macedonia and a reality in the time of G.P. And I can not see the sence to comment endless a few very qeuestionable sources (only 2-3 of them shows that there was a Macedonism in ХІХ c. - like an exception in the majotity of Bulgarians). However if you proceed you have to go in token dispute with Grigor Parlichev. :)Regards, --AKeckarov 13:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the term "Bulgarian," which had earlier been used to refer to all the Slavs of the Ottoman Empire (Friedman 1975:84), or as a virtual synonym for "peasant" without any political significance at all (Wilkinson 1951:149). This goes well with the reports from different travelers during Ottoman rule that finds Bulgarians in Macedonia, but also in Serbia and Bosnia. On the other hand, you have most of the prerodbenici saying that we are different then the other Bulgarians. For example, K. Shapkarev wrote that Mac. Bulgarians are descendant from ancient Macedonian, whereas Bulgarians from Bulgaria came from Volga. He also stated that Macedonians are same as their brothers the Russians. In fact many stated the connection with ancient Macedonians (of which I have no opinion). So here is my case: You can either accept the fact that the term Bulgarian has wider usage than today, or you can accept the fact that there was a sense of difference between Macedonians and Bulgarians. If you accept either of them would result to acceptation of my revert. Non acceptation will show an extreme Bulgarian nationalistic view which is resented in Macedonia.--Cigor 18:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Igor, excuse me, but it is absurd to assert that the term Bulgarian "had earlier been used to refer to all the Slavs of the Ottoman Empire". I did not read these concrete books of Victor Friedman and Wilkinson (you did not goute the titles :)), but I have red Macedonian translation of one of the books of Wilkinson "Kartite i politikata", Skopje 198? and I did not met so categorical assertions. More important fact is that the majority of travelers during Ottoman rule did not called the inhabitants of Bosnia Bulgarians, for example. Ofcourse you can find one or two foreigners but let remember that the history is not written on curious exceptions (Some authors during Ottoman empire states that Macedonians was only inhabitants of the region of Plovdiv (B. De la Brokier), other assert that the ortodox people in Bosnia were Vlahs etc). And the most important fact is that G.P. accepted the term Bulgarian like ethnic term (I pointed you a sources). If you accuse me that my view is an "extreme Bulgarian nationalistic" view, please, accuse first Grigor Parlichev who lived before us.

Ofcource, I am accepting that the term Bulgarian has wider usage than today. It is fact and the case with G.P. prove it. He tought that he was ethnic Bulgarian, but the general oppinion in Republic of Macedonian asserts that he was not. You can write this in article.

The example with one of the activists of Bulgarian Revival in Macedonia Kuzman Shapkarev shows one of the defects of Macedonistic doctrine. In her life and books K.Sh. manifestеd him like Bulgarian but you take one phrase, cut it out context and use for a conclusion you like it. However, it is good that you wrote "Mac. Bulgarians". Thank you!

P.S. And please do not miх Macedonia with Republic of Macedonia. How many people in the other parts of geographiacal region are "recented" that G.P. was and is consider as Bulgarian? Regards, --AKeckarov 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Keckarov, Regarding Wilkinson the book is "A Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia" 1951 . As for Friedman, you can read here, somewhat similar, toward the end of fourth page:[2]. As for K.S, there is nothing to thank me, I never said they weren't calling themselves Bulgarians. It is the context that matters. But anyway, it is obvious that you are ignoring the references provided, and that further references will not change that. You are not interested in understanding the other view, and this is why to nationalist like you, appearing of Macedonian nation looks like alchemy. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and consider that G.P. is considered by all Macedonians (the nation) as their important person in their culture. In this version [3] I insisted on neutral view. The thing that you insist is the name Bulgarians which meant something else in the 8, 10,12, 13, 19 and finally 20 century. I will revert, and after that I'll revert, and revert again.--Cigor 04:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, I am very impressed by your final. How you can accused me that I am not interesting from the other view if you confess that you will "revert, and after that I'll revert, and revert again"? Then you do not seek a NPOV?

Bit in order:

1. I chek last your sources. (the Macedonian issue of Willkinson is from 1992). They proved my thesis - one from sources asserts that there were Bulgarians in Bosnia.... And from there you made a general conclusion!
2. I do not ignore your references. I many times asked you what exatly you want to say with them. That there were exeptions (some of them did proved even that)? OK, Cigor, I was and still I am agree. (There are a list of exeptions in "Историjа на македонскиот народ", т.І-ІІІ, Slavko Dimeski etc.)In other discussion we can proceed the general question about our past. But let talk about G.P. Are you agree that he put ethnic sense in the term Bulgarian? That he expressed a Bulgarian consciousness, not Macedonian, that he was a fighter for Bulgarian education and culture (which somebody "translates" just like Macedonian)?
3. Let presume that there were Macedonian national consciousness amoung our grand-grandfathers in Macedonia in that time, let assume that the the consciousness, language, history of Macedonian Slavs (not only in the present state) never were Bulgarian. OK! But the question in this discussion could be - what about Grigor Parlichev?

If you return you will see that I started my participation in this discussion with one compromise sugestion: Bulgarian/Macedonian, but not Macedonian (ethnic group). I do not like this formulation, because it not reflects the historic reality and transfere some present political and propaganda reality(excuse me) but I know that we have to try to find a formulation - not only in this case. So, today I wiil not revert the article and I'll wait your decision. Regards,--AKeckarov 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Keckarov, I'll try to summarize my references: Little or no national conscience in mid 19th century; general identification with religion and Slavic language; fight against Hellenism as primary goal. Most of them were calling themselves as Bulgarians, yes, but the diference was always emphasized. Like when K.Sapkarev said "Edvam se oslobodivme od Grcite, sega pak Sopie li da staneme?" Political events eventually lead to finalization of Macedonian nation in the 20 th century. Make sure you check that Friedman reference.

Anyway, I really fail to understand how putting Macedonian is compromise suggestion? That is just disambiguation page with bunch of entries. I can agree with him being stated as Bulgarian 19th century, where would be described all the possible meanings. I think this is the compromise solution. The extreme points would be him being claimed exclusively as Bulgarian or exclusively Macedonian (ethnic group). Regards --Cigor 13:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, I am agree that the national consciousness was not like today, but there was some national conscience and the case with G.P. prove very clear this.

Do you notice that this quotation of K.Sh. is "Shopite", not Bulgarians? There was cases of local confrontation in the field of construction of Bulgraian language etc, but in these intelectuals like K. Shapkarev were very clear consciousness for common belonging to Bulgarian nation. Is in today's R of Macedonia confrontation and diference between the inhabitabts of Skopije and other cities (Ohrid, Bitola)?

Are the reference of V. Friedman is: "in the seventeenth century Evlija Celebija wrote of "Bulgarians" in Belgrade and Sarajevo (Koneski 1968:24)?

The compromize is based on two sure facts:

1. First clear fact is that G.P. had a Bulgarian ethnic consciousness and was a fihter of BG revival (you doggedly deny to comment this and I accept that you are agree)
2. Second fact is that he was from Macedonia. So he was a Macedonian in an regional sense.

Several times I think that I wrote "Bulgarian from Macedonia" and for me it is a perfect formulation, because you did not provide some evidence that he had some Macedonian consciousness. Anyway, If it stay Bulgarian/Macedonian you recieve yours: "Macedonian" on a level of "Bulgarian" (nevertheless that acording the activists of National Revival like G.P. one was an etnic and the second was the regional term). From my side we can say that I recieve something too, because the internal link will not lead to Macedonian (ethnic group), but only to regional term and if somebody wants he/she can to proceed and read everything about Macedonia (ethnic groups, history, region, language) etc. I think that I departing from my these more than you because I realize that not everybody will chek the internal link. So? --AKeckarov 15:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, yes he says "Shopite", not Bulgarians. This goes well to the vague definition of Bulgarians as South Slavs. I see similar thing happening to Montenegrin people, for example this: [4]. Of course long list of edit wars. Here is a person that stated he was a Serb many times. Latter, there comes Montenegrin nation. Naurally if you state he is only Serbian you will insult Montenegrins. On the other hand puting Serb from Montenegro doesn't help either. Because the descendents of him today are different than modern Serbs. There are other examples. Take the Belorussians. In the medieval times they used to call themselves Lithuanians at that time, although they are clearly not (given their Slavic origin). So following your logic, all articles should be about Lithuanians (this how they called themselves). I am sure you'll find some excuses for this. That is fine, no case is the same. But who have the supreme decision to decide which thing is minor exception, which one is not? G.P is obviously shared between Bulg. and Mac. and the article should reflect that. I am not sure what exactly are you saying in your last paragraph. Regards --Cigor 17:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, maybe you are informed that the term "Shopi" not envelop Bulgarians in general. This "vague name" (you are right here) was/is used mainly for a part of Bulgarians, including a part of Macedonians - Kratovo region etc. There is a village in region of Kratovo Shopsko Rudari, for example ([[5]]-№17). The examples which you pointed out are interesting, but I don't know how they are useful to our discussion because of very simple reasons: The present Republic of Macedonia aren't whole Macedonia. Macedonia and Macedonians are not united and the predominant oppinion in one part is not predominant in the others. Moreover you know that there are big debate in the Montenegrin society itself about their etnic belonging, about their language (Serbian or Montenegrin) etc. Except this Petar II Petrović Njegoš was a ruller of Montenegro, there was a Montenegrin state and he defended its interests (we can say the same about G.P.?). About Belorussians - you exaggerate a little. Please, read some literature and you will understand in which concrete period "in the medieval times they used to call themselves Lithuanians". Let be concrete: how many Belorussian historical persons you know from Middle Ages, who wrote in Lithuan language, and consider them as Lithuanians?

As for minor exceptions, I am not claiming to be supreme. In the article about Grigor Parlichev the supreme is Grigor Parlichev, in the article about Igor Chakulev the supreme is Igor Chakulev. But to declare that Grigor Parlichev was etnhic Macedonian only because sombody in Republic of Macedonia likes to think this is incorrect. With your suggestion you make exactly this. If you want to show that G.P. shared between Bulg. and Mac. say this in the article, but please did not substitute historical realities stil in the initial definition.

Are you sure that you didn't understand my words in the last paragraph(the fact is that my English is not very good) or you don't want to understand. Regards, --AKeckarov 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't exaggerate at all. See Grand Duchy of Lithuania. "...Both peoples, the forefathers of modern Lithuanians and modern Belarusians, called themselves Lithuanians in their own tongue (respectively lietuviai in Lithuanian and litviny in Belarusian)...". That sentence has been there for a long time, so I think is trustable. Yes it is debated, but what should be Njegoš be if Montenegrins decide that they are not Serbs? Will that mean Njegoš do not belong to them but to some Serb from Novi Sad? G.P. is the reason why you, me, people of Ohrid and much wider are not considered as Greeks. If you put that G.P. is only Bulgarian, one can conclude that there were some Bulgarians in Ohrid, and then disappeared. Well, maybe some of them moved to Bulgaria like you and other places ( it was traditionally pecalbarski kraj) , but most of them remained and all of them are calling themselves Macedonians, separate nation than Bulgarians, like it or not. You are pushing an anhronism, because as I stated who knows how many time, Bulgarian in mid 19 century have a vague meaning. --Cigor 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favor, try to unburden yourself from all your biases and do the following mental exercise: if you had to consider two version one saying Njegos is Serbian, other saying he is Serbian/Montenegrins. Let say for the sake of argument vast majority of Montenegro are feeling as Montenegrins, but there are many people that immigrated to Serbia and feeling as Serbs. The term Montenegrins was not used in a national sense in 19th century, and Montenegro was just another Serbian state ( like Austria was German state). So things have changed and now we have edit war between some Montenegrin from Cetinje arguing with some Serb from Belgrade that had his grand-grandparents imigrated to Serbia from Cetinje, at the time when the only word for belonging to something else than his tribe was Serbian. Njegos wrote beautiful Epics in their local dialects.

Which would you think would represent NPOV:

• Njegos is Serbian (implying Montenegrins have no cultural heritage)
• Njegos is Serbian/Montenegrins ( implying that Serbian in this ex., can somewhat be treated in the historical context)

It would be really funny if you select the first option. That would put Bulgarian nationalist suporting Serbian nationalist view! Regards --Cigor 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that you exaggerate a little because you had wrote that "in the medieval times they (Belorussians) used to call themselves Lithuanians". I recommended to specify the period - only after 13 century, after the enlargement of medieval Lithuania. Besides this we should not forget Polish influence in some regions in present Belorussia especialy after Union in 1386.

The example with Njegoš is very interesting. Many historians do not like your question "IF", but I'll turn round your question: If the present Montenegrins decide that they are/were Martians, do would you offer to difine that Njegoš was a Martian writer and politician? With the argument that the other is anachronism?

The refugees of Macedonia (not only econimic emigrants) are one part of Macedonians in Bulgaria. I'll remind you that the part of the region Macedonia is in Bulgaria too (and not only in BG). Are there some part of Montenegro in Serbia?

Maybe you do not like, but there was a Bulgarians in Ohrid. Today they remain very little ( like Vladimir Pankov, L.Kurtelov and others which attempt to registrate BG organizations was ruffianly frustrate by the authorities) but we are talking about the BG consciousness in the past. The case with G.P. prove this consciousness and not only it. You can read about one of Keckarov family in: bg:Антон Кецкаров (1865-1945), about the historians Ivan Snegarov (1883-1971) (bg:Иван Снегаров, macedonian WIkipedia:mk:Иван Снегаров) and G. Balaschev (1869-1936) (bg:Георги Баласчев), about the writer Evtim Sprostranov (bg:Евтим Спространов)(1868-1931), about bg. generals Kliment Boyajiev (1861-1933)(bg:Климент Бояджиев) and Krstyo Zlatarev (1864-1925)(bg:Кръстьо Златарев). For them the term Bulgarian has not vague meaning. The more important is that the citizens of Ohrid as a whole, in ХІХ c. consider them as Bulgarians in etnical sense - distinct from Greeks, Serbians, Vlahs etc. Their municipality was Bulgarian. Do you want from me to point references about continuos bulgarian presence in Ohrid? (It'll be hard work because I am not talking about one or two exceptions).

But let return to the main question: if somebody claim that Grigor Parlichev was Ethnic Macedonian he/she have to prove this. As I understand you have only two arguments: 1. The present citizens of Ohrid are ethnic Macedonians. 2. The term Bulgarian had a vague sense. Your arguments do not concern G.P. himself but some circumstances, the first of which is from present politiacal reality. Excuse me, Cigor but it likes to attempt to argument your present consciousness on the Grigor Parlichev's back. Are there something exept politics? Do you have some argument about G.P.? Regards,--AKeckarov 19:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you met in BG Wiki who was one of the teachers of that Anton Keckarov, who lived in 19 c.(1865-1945)? --AKeckarov 19:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Keckarov, my main point is #2 :The term Bulgarian had a vague sense. Hence it can't be applied in the restricted sense unless there are many explanations. Just like the term Ruthenians was applied to many people of different ethnic groups at different times.

You are avoiding my qiestion regarding Njegos. This is important because we have very similar debate. Please tell me your unbias answer, from your heart and mind. Regarding Martians: If majority of Montenegro population decide to be called Martians, if there is clear connection with the past, then yes, Nejgos can be considered Martian writer, among others. Why not? If you change you name , you are still the same person, with certain, cultural background. You still have the same parents, talk the same language etc. Regards,--Cigor 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Chakulev, It is necessery to repeat again: according to G.P. himself the term Bulgarian was ethnical. According to the other persons which i pointed it was the same. What vague you find in the links about G.P. I pointed you? Yes, I avoided to answer you about Njegos in your way because I assert that the case is not the same and I marked of some diferences. Let say that I ask you about Immanuel Kant (he was a German and nobody claims that he is a Russian philosopher). I am sure that you will answer that the case is not same and you'll right. Maybe if you change your name there isn't problems, but if you change the name of other persons, for me this is inadmissible. My oppinion that if you want to be correct, you have to reflect the historic realities (this is the article about historic person) and then to describe lateral political realities from our time.

P.S. Please, do not stick a label on me. I do not call you nationalist. I hope you realize that this is not a court in which you have to defend Macedonian national dignity (I'll not comment the Law of Macedonian National Dignity). I preffer to discuss about this article. Regards, --AKeckarov 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keckarov, there is very little difference between Slav, Serb and Bulgarian at that time. Please try to understand. People were changing ethnic "concience" multiple time in Macedonia at that time. One thing was certain, that is not being Greek. The people you listed Bulgarians from Ohrid do not change a single thing. Of course you will have them as having strong Bulgarian conscience. I am from Ohrid and I have family both in Bulgaria and Serbia, and they are feeling subsequently as Bulgarians and Serbs. I'll name just a few famous "Serbs" from Ohrid. This shows people from Ohrid are talented people ;). Kosta Abrashevic, poet; Temko Popovic, politician; Vladimir Kanjuh, scientist, medicine; Ksenofon Sahovic, scientist, doctor and mason; Vladan Djordjevic academician, prime minister...

So where do this "Serbs" come from, Keckarov? There are very little Bulgarians or Serbs today in Ohrid. I apologize for calling you nationalist, if that offended you. Regards --Cigor 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, maybe there was very little difference between Slavs, Serbs and Bulgarians in these times, but the important is that G.P. and his adherents made it clearly. G.P. tried to wrote Allslavs grammar, but he did it like representative of Bulgarian part of Slavs. Please note, that the names you pointed out are the names of people who was born in Ohrid but grow up in Serbia or a people which parents was settled to Serbia. Cigor, I realized that you can try to find proserb (progreek) Ohridians and therefore I pointed out only people who grown up in Ohrid (or in Macedonia) and are indicative of this town in the relevant epoch (the other lateral, reason was to find an article in Wikipedia). If you want to compare the place of the Ohridians in Serbian and BG social-political life you can start with reading of two sources:

1. The first is "The Macedonians in social-polotical life in Bulgaria" (1918). The author of this book is....the son of Grigor Rarlichev - Kiril Parlichev;
2. The second is here - http://knigite.abv.bg/ks/index.html (in Bulgarian)

So, compare this with your informatian and then answer the question: what was the place of Serbian consciousness on the background of Bulgarian presence? Where was the place of one presence and where was the place of the other? And where was the place of Grigor Parlichev? Regards, --AKeckarov 13:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Naturally, you will consider every reference of mine of an exception of one kind or other, nothing surprising.

To answer your question about Serbian/Bulgarian conscience: The answer is actually complicated. If you look at the sources 14-18 century you’ll find many travelers calling the Macedonian Slavs as Bulgarian. However there are almost no sources where people from Macedonia declare themselves as Bulgarian. Unlike this, there many sources where individuals declare themselves as Serbian. Why is this, Keckarov? There are references where people are considered as Macedonian, like the Macedonian regiment in Russia.

I took the liberty looking at other stuff by Kiril Parlichev, have a look at this: [6]. It is very notable that for some reason, the Bulgarian are very dominant in the cities, but not in the villages. One way to explain is the Serbian propaganda was stronger in the villages, but also it can be explained by stronger Bulgarian propaganda in the cities. This is connected with what I was talking about week national conscience, but mainly identification with religion and Slavic language.

User:JohnMC has made a change. It looks like a sock puppet to me, as this is his first contribution. My guess is he is either moderate Bulgarian or Macedonian (even though his name is ‘John’), because, frankly I don’t know who else would have the nerve to read the convoluted Mac. history and try to summarize our discussion. I pasted this talk page in MS Word, there are 13 pages!! It is step toward some compromise, even though it says G.P. is Bulgarian (as if that is accepted in the whole world, UN resolutions are made, and a large body of world renowned scientist agreed upon it). Wrong, G.P. is considered as Bulgarian in Bulgaria, and Macedonian in RoM, and the rest of the world couldn’t care less.--Cigor 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, I am not considering your references like exception because I do not like yor oppinion, but because I am asserting that in the past the Bulgarian consciousness was predominant among the Slav people in Macedonia. In the concrete siuation we are talking about the town of Ohrid in ХІХ c. and I doubted how indicative are your examples (Serbian historical persons with origin from Ohrid), nothing more. Some of the persons you pointed out even wasn't born in Macedonia.

I want to be clear, I am agree that the national consciousness was not very strong (like today), especially in the villages, but when there was some consciousness it was mostly Bulgarian. This process came clearest in the epoch of Bulgarian national revival and G.Prlichev was one of these men who fighted for BG revival. In their endevours the Bulgarians in Macedonia wasn't in worse situation then these from Thrace. (One of the differences is that there aren't Thrace state today and Thrace national ideology to raise the exceptions in a rule). It is thruth that the BG National Revival came mostly from the cities, from the monastiries, from dealers, not from semifeudal province and if there was some Bulgarian propaganda until 1870 (and after that to a not inconsiderable degree) the "propagаndists" was mainly the Macedonians themselves.

I can not undersand why do you think that there are almost no sources where people from Macedonia declare themselves as Bulgarian, but there are many sources where individuals declare themselves as Serbian. I can not comment this, because i do not know which epoch you allude to, and the nature of your considerations. If you are talking about the epoch of G.P. I am ready to argue. I do not refuse to comment the other epochs, but let find for them the relevant discussion pages.

Тhanks, about the reminding of an other book of Kiril Pyrlichev. It concerns about the begining of XX century. This book shows that with exception of some regions (Kumanovo for example) the Serbian propaganda wasn't dominant. In the other villages the BG presence still was strongest. And when we are talking about the son of G.P. I recomend you one presentation of this person from Macedonian magazine Makedonsko Delo -[7]. The position of G.P.'s son verifies my assertion about his father, but I am not looking at this like an most important argument - for me the important are follows:

1. How considered himself Grigor Parlichev;
2. How considered as G.Prlichev the represemtatives of the other nations - for example Greeks, Russians, Turcs etc (It is not necessery UN resolutions fot this)
3. For which cause G.P. fighted - Bulgarian, Macedonian (if we accept the meaning of this term in your way), Serbian, Greek, Turkish .....

P.S. Maybe you are right and the real name of John is Jovan or Ivan. (from MC?) Regards, --AKeckarov 17:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Any reason for reverting me or you are just doing it as usual ???

Why do you prefer Parlicev to Prlicev. Is it just to do the opposite of what a Macedonian editor is doing ??? --Realek 20:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he is a bulgarian author, and it is more appropriate to have his bulgarian name in the article. Plus you know exactly why I am reverting you, it is not only the name, but a whole bunch of other unsupported stuff. FunkyFly 20:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Romanization of Bulgarian. Telex 20:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But he was a Macedonian and the only reason he didn't write in Macedonian language was that there was no standardised Macedonian language at that time. But you'll keep reverting everything from Macedonian editors - that's for sure. Real constructive and mature attitude... --Realek 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read his autobiography? I guess not. FunkyFly 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You guess, but I'm sure you haven't. You seem to ignore everything that doesn't support your views. --Realek 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Except explicitly referring to himself as bulgarian maybe? FunkyFly 22:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem awfuly uninformed about the circumstances in those times or you willingly ignore them. Read more on the subject or leave behing anti-Macedonian sentiments and then we can discuss it. --Realek 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes yes, but did he or did he not (Parlichev) refer to himself as bulgarian? Or do you basically demonstrate that you have not read his autobiography. FunkyFly 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

One sentance drawn out of context doesn't mean you have red it. Anyway - you should read some books on the Ottoman Empire and some of the confusions you have will be cleared to you. --Realek 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We, the bulgarians does not sound convinincing to you? Interesting, so we have all reasons to trust your self-determination as Macedonian, which we do, but when it comes to other people things are subject to confusions and all kinds of other conspiracies? Anyway, the bottom line is you do not have sources to back your statements, so bulgarian it stays. FunkyFly 22:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had your way I'd call myself Bulgarian or Greek even today. Fortunately things are not going your way. Sure - if you put a gun to somebody head or have other means to dictate his actions it doesn't mean you killed the truth. And I could beat your "theories" any time but you will ignore any facts from Macedonians and revert every edit from Macedonian editors, so I will waste no time in prooving you obvious things. Fortunately, like I said - things are not going your way and in future we will see the continuing trend of greek anti-Macedonian actions have less and less effect. --Realek 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence suggests something rather amazing and unthinkable, so much as to prevent me from comenting on it. Even after all the bla bla bla in the world you still have not shown sources to prove your point. FunkyFly 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Face it - you don't accept any sources that you don't like. --Realek 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Neither can you, see what Britannica tells us about ancient Macedonian and then cite your sources saying it wasn't a Greek dialect (you won't of course). Telex 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I do not accept nonexisting sources :) FunkyFly 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? How can someone keep insistent that Parlichev was "Macedonian" when the guy himself states numerious times through out legit historical sources that his BULGARIAN. JeeSuS, its like talking to walls. BONK 23:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See Macedonism, point 6.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not neutral! this is a great propaganda against the macedonian people and their history! Don't believe anything on wikipedia, pseudo-historians are extinguishing the truth, be aware of it!!!

Homeric Contro-verses (Sing, o muse)

Did somebody noticed that removeing references is vandalism??? The source in Bulgarian can be maded by me and posted on web page,real neutral source maybe??--Makedonij (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Says someone who removes sources. Sorry, newspaper publications and a nationalistic site don't make it. --Laveol ^T 13:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You also removed books!! And how abouth that bulgarian nationalistic page that is a source!? --Makedonij (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed it. --Laveol ^T 13:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way what did these sources point out to in your version? They were in the end of the sentence, but most of the info in them was not relevant to it in your version? Also how do you expect me to believe that a kid's book has Parlichev's autobiography in it? --Laveol ^T 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But you say this as a source here] about Bulgarians in Albania, and in same article this source.--Makedonij (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They are sources for current events not for someone who died some time ago. And in the first case the Focus agency just cites the Bulgarian MFA and in the second - the Bulgarian Parliament. What are you saying - that the Turkish paper in an article with no author (probably an ethnic Macedonian one) cites Parlichev himself? Or maybe some reliable second-hand source? Are you really claiming that cause there's no such thing in the article. --Laveol ^T 13:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That article is Turkish and poit of it is showing him as MACEDONIAN.

And my point was no nationality,i didn't pushing like you, i only show reference to inform peoples who are interested in this articles how they can deside what was he!!!And if that is POV pushing then every body can see that you and your friend administrator are the bigest POV pushers.--Makedonij (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He self-identified as Bulgarian. Laveol had the courtesy to mention the 'status' he enjoys in RoM. The "turkish daily news" site mentions him as a Macedonian poet. Obviously he is important in the Macedonian literary tradition (you've read the article, eh?); he still can be a Bulgarian. Stop making a fuss. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And where can i see that?? In a Bulgarian Pov Pushing source from internet???--Makedonij (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Read his autobiography. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sory but i can't read Bulgarian,end how can English man read it?? I insert the same book in references transladet in to Macedonian Language,but it was vandalised by previus editor and you and i'm traeing not to be POV pusher like you guies.--Makedonij (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reinsert it, then. Are you sure it didn't 'translate' all mentions of "Bulgarian" to "Macedonian" btw? lol 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well i can't, i'm traieing not to engage in editwar, if i do it Laveol will reverted and then you,and then bouth of you will say to Moreshi, "Look Moreshi Makedonij is POV pusher" LOL! But neutrality is ??? here.--Makedonij (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I promise -I- won't revert the addition of his autobiography in Macedonian. Do you at least accept that he was Bulgarian despite his importance in the McDonian literary tradition? Just to finish this off. :D 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You promise, but Laveol does not.For me he, (Prlicev) was Macedonian and i didn't push in, to reverte his nationality, no nationality should be fine, that fore references were there,to see bouth point of view.--Makedonij (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what the problem is. Both views are represented - his and the view in RoM. I've left the ref that looks at least a little real as a reference to the view in RoM. I'll not remove this children's book that you insert as a reference if you stop removing his self-identification. I do find it amusing though, that you want to convince me his autobiography was published in a book called "Kids' joy" or something like that.--Laveol ^T 15:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all Detska Radost ("Kids' joy") is a name of hause which publish it, maybe from yours view it should be called "Aspurah printing" so it can be real??

And second, when you show some real sources then nationality should be mention.First, I will ask you to place back all of references, and then to show bouth views with no mantion of his nationality!--Makedonij (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no way. Since he openly self-identified as Bulgarian, this is what the article should say. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Macedonia-related_articles)#Macedonian.2FBulgarian_ethnicity_controversy for the guidelines set by the Wikipedia community on this issue. --Laveol ^T 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea you should read it! Where is that statemant?? I dont understand Bulgarian remember? LOL, that is why i insert more references and you should put them back or you are a vandal,what you have proven so far.LOL --Makedonij (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I seriously suggest you stop calling me a vandal. This is more of a content dispute and you're acting weird at the least. Stop for a second, read ecerything on the talkpage, read the guidelines, and then comeback. Calling other editors vandals without a reason might get you blocked in the worst case, so drop it. That's more an advice than a warning, but I really think you should cut it out now. --Laveol ^T 17:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

About that statemant...? Where is it ?--Makedonij (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which statement? Do you mean the guideline:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Macedonia-related_articles)#Macedonian.2FBulgarian_ethnicity_controversy--Laveol ^T 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

NO,where can i see, his (GLIGOR's) statemant,from non bulgarian author who can confirme that + put the refernces,all of them on the page!!--Makedonij (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Untrusted

Laveol, about your last references ?? That is what your book is talking about,and i already state the same that nationality is disputed! you didn't even have an ISBN.Remove nationality and insert all references so readers could make their own opinion!!Mersy--Makedonij (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You should also read this one, and see who is pushing POV.--Makedonij (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it says he self-identified as Bulgarian. End. --Laveol ^T 18:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WHERE ??? I must be blind! Show me where or remove it!!! POV pusher!--Makedonij (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I already told you to stop ranting and calling me names. It clearly states: "though apparently continuing to perceive himself as a Bulgarian". And it says what it says. Are you denying his right of self-identification? --Laveol ^T 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Put the references back, and stop craying,then i wount nameing you!--Makedonij (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it. The hypocrisy! :) One shouldn't be ashamed that his literary tradition includes people who self-identified differently than he. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually kinda sad that people like him (I mean Parlichev; let's make sure) actually divide the Balkaknights instead of uniting them. Of course, that's entirely the Balkaknights' fault. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverting to Macedonian ethnicity without references is pure vandalism. Jingby (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add one thing to this whole discussion:

Grigor Prlicev was my great-great-greatgrandfather and I am not Bulgarian, but Macedonian. For generations long we lived in Ohrid and we called ourself Macedonian, even if we were taken by the Bulgarian, the Ottaman, the Greek, the Serbs or any other nationality. So this whole article is wrong, because I know my great-great-greatgrandfather wasn't Bulgarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.166.2 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And now you live in the Netherlands? --Laveol ^T 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

He, I can't help it that my mother fell in love with a Dutch guy. But the Prlicevi family, along with Robevci and Paumcevi (which are related) can still be found in Macedonia and Ohrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.166.2 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well his great-grandson Kiril Parlichev, grandson of his son Kiril Parlichev is a Bulgarian writer. The undeniable fact is, that Grigor Parlichev has identified himself as of Bulgarian origin on various ocasions, as proven by the cited sources in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.65.197 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of the term Bulgarian and its substitution with the term Macedonian is nationalistic POV

Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th, up until the early 20th century. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later. However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed. According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed. After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness. With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population. In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grigor Parlichev. 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/20170828230426/http://www.spinnet.eu/wiki-instructions/index.php/1H_slv05_(Bible_or_world_classics_translations_:_Macedonian) to http://www.spinnet.eu/wiki-instructions/index.php/1H_slv05_(Bible_or_world_classics_translations_:_Macedonian)

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for the tag

State reasons why the tag should be there or it will be removed. --Laveol ^T 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are little realist you can notice some phenomena called Bulgarian propaganda here!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cite reasons, not just rants. If you don't give a single good reason, I'll remove the tag again. And there's no need for an MK name. He has never self-identified as an Ethnic Macedonian. --Laveol ^T 21:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, who are you to delete a tag? You are some kind of God here? There is too much propaganda understand that. If you delete that tag I will count that as vandalism. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary - if you have no reason for the tag then you should not put it. So far you've given absolutely no valid reasons for it. Are you planning to give me a reason? --Laveol ^T 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No matter he was bulgarian or macedonian, he was born and he died on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia. Macedonian name must be there. And the neutrality must be balanced. --Raso mk (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Laveol pls stop pushing your POV

The language that he used is Ohrid dialect and as you know very very very well it is part of Macedonian language. So he was Macedonian right?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. He self-identified as a Bulgarian and by a matter of fact considered his dialect, a dialect of Bulgarian. Have read some of his works by the way? From your comments I assume you have not. You have not read anything about him from a neutral sourcve as well. So why are you editing the article?--Laveol ^T 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

YES, I have read a lot. English and Macedonian (I do not understand BG and I cannot tell you what so called BG inteligence says about him). BTW have YOU ever read something about him instead of that so called BG literature?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I have two requests to you both (since by some consequenceone appears to aid the other just in the right time/no off-wiki co-ordination of course): Please, work on the way you use indents - just look how messy the comments are when you place a random number of indents. Two: Please, state one valid reason for the tag: no rants, no this is Bulgarian propaganda, no ridiculous comments, no such stuff. Give me one valid reason - the source is not real, the article has this and this mistaken and I have reliable sources to back up my claims. In case you don't plan on contributing to the article, stop with the whatever you're trying to prove. I've already told you: This is not some kind of a forum, you either say what you have straight away, or don't comment on an article. --Laveol ^T 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That about forum is related to you. You are on Wikipedia with your BG holy task to work against everything that is related to Macedonia. Have you ever made an article by the way?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

.Yes, he made!!! Bulgarian in Macedonia. Laveols POV--Raso mk (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, no reason for the tag - I'm removing it. You did nothing, but rant and discuss my contribs. Since you're unwilling to listen to constructive remarks and stay on topic, there's no reason to continue this. You've turned it into a mockery. --Laveol ^T 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020

Please delete reference No. 1 since it is either a dead url or a fake url. Please delete reference no. 2. since it only lists 3 pages this reference refers two which are ambiguous to the claim that Gligor Prlichev is Bulgarian. Either provide quotes from Reference no. 2 or delete it completely as malicious. Finally remove from text body, Gligor Prlichev is a Bulgarian writer and translator, from the first sentence, since both Reference no. 1 and no. 2 seem malicious and misleading. He was neither born in Bulgaria, nor did he die in Bulgaria. This is a highly contencious issue between Macedonian and Bulgarian Historiographies and Wikipedia in English should refrain from taking sides. He also wrote in Macedonian and Greek thus the claim that he is Bulgarian writer and translator is false. There is an ongoing dispute between both countries about characters from their common history. Otherwise review both references and provide credible sources for your claim. 89.205.81.73 (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Neither 1 or 2 are "malicious" just because you can't access them. It is up to you to provide sources showing that he is Macedonian. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

Please delete reference No. 1 since it is irrelevant. If you wish to keep source No.1 then quote p. 189-190, "It is probable that, if Parlichev had been born a generation earlier, he would have remained an active propagandizer of Greek culture rather than simply retaining an emotional attachment to Ancient Greek poetry; yet if he had been born two generations later, he might have become a Macedonian nationalist. Today Bulgarians consider Parlichev to be a Bulgarian and Macedonians consider him to be a Macedonian, while some Greeks still consider him to be a Greek poet." which is the main argument of the author about Prlichev. See here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b3d/52535bc699eebdb5d5307799fc2f74a2b8d4.pdf?_ga=2.266054159.1429400818.1608153622-233438156.1608153622

Thus DELETE "Bulgarian writer and translator" from the article since it constitutes bias.

Remove Reference no. 2 as it is false. No mentions About Grigor Prlichev on pp. 61; 89; 124 as in the footnote. The only mention of Prlichev is on pp. 22-23. See here https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/3799027/42086_Sampimon.pdf and make a simple search or read carefully.

Remove reference no. 3 since it is biased as it is published by Bulgarian Academy of Sciences which is the main proliferator of false history.

All 3 References noseem malicious and misleading. He was neither born in Bulgaria, nor did he die in Bulgaria. This is a highly contentious issue between Macedonian and Bulgarian Historiographies and Wikipedia in English should refrain from bias. He also wrote in Macedonian and Greek thus the claim that he is Bulgarian writer and translator is false. There is an ongoing dispute between Macedonia and Bulgaria about characters from their common history. 89.205.81.73 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

In Reference #1 at page 189 it's clearly stated: "In 1860 he won the Greek national poetry prize as ‘a pro-Greek Bulgarian’ under the name Grigorios Stavridis". Regarding adding the "It is probable that...", it's irrelevant (if he was born 22 centuries ago, he would have been a Roman, and if he was born a woman, she whould have not written anything...). Can you show us what exactly is written on pages 61; 89; 124 from source #2? Source #3 quotes his autobiography and covers the claim "Although he thought of himself as a Bulgarian". These changes should not be applied. --StanProg (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The correct pages in ref. 2 which identify Parlichev as bulgarian are 23 and 83. At least in the pdf version which was provided above. 212.39.89.52 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Reference #1 'a pro-Greek Bulgarian' is clearly the author's interpretation how the Greeks treated him at the time, and should not receive more credence than the conclusion of the author, which is given in the next paragraph. This is how the author concludes the chapter on Parlichev and this is how sane readers, read what he is trying to convey. Here is the quote: It is probable that, if Parlichev had been born a generation earlier, he would have remained an active propagandizer of Greek culture rather than simply retaining an emotional attachment to Ancient Greek poetry; yet if he had been born two generations later, he might have become a Macedonian nationalist. Today Bulgarians consider Parlichev to be a Bulgarian and Macedonians consider him to be a Macedonian, while some Greeks still consider him to be a Greek poet." which is the main argument of the author about Prlichev. See here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b3d/52535bc699eebdb5d5307799fc2f74a2b8d4.pdf?_ga=2.266054159.1429400818.1608153622-233438156.1608153622

As for the bogus quotes Reference No. 2 from Becoming Bulgarian: the articulation of Bulgarian identity in the nineteenth century in its international context: an intellectual history, Janette Sampimon, Pegasus, 2006, ISBN 9061433118, pp. 61; 89; 124. I already provided the link in my previous post. Here it is again https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/3799027/42086_Sampimon.pdf Scroll down to the listed pages and see for yourself. It is bogus. The only mention of Parlichev in this reference is on p. 23 and it is the following: A separate Macedonian public sphere was only created from the 1860s onwards and especially after a Bulgarian state had been formed (an autonomous princedom in 1878, and an independent state in 1908) and the Macedonian territories remained in the Ottoman Empire. Even then, while some Macedonian intellectuals dedicated themselves to the development of a Macedonian identity, others, like Grigor Părličev, sought to join the Bulgarian cultural world.

This request for edit to semi-protected edit should be approved and changes should go ahead to remove bias. Links to footnotes no. 1 and 2 should be updated as provided here. 89.205.81.73 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP, please stop spamming around. There is a separate section about the identification of Parlichev, confirming you are pushing here simply a biased POV. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Jingiby (talk) please stop falsifying ethic-Macedonian historiography, as evident from your activity and talk page. The issue of identification is not my point, but the issue of using 2 bogus references (which seem fictitious) to base a false claim that Grigor Prlichev is Bulgarian. (89.205.81.73 (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC))

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is obviously a contested topic (as I can see from previous requests, and the following section) so it would require consensus amongst the concerned editors before one of them implements it. Also, note about policy: Wikipedia is based on neutral and reliable sources, not your own opinion of what is "non-sense" and what is not. Especially in the case of ethnicities/nationalities (see MOS:ETHNICITY, we should be cautious and not go ahead with WP:OR and WP:PAs such as engaged in by the IP a.k.a. Dim0ski. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please list or advise how to identify "concerned editors" for me to go ahead and obtain a consensus and ask them to implement it. Please clarify how consensus is usually obtained. The editors who have protected this page seem to have a Bulgarian national bias. It seems to me that arbitration might be more appropriate. 89.205.81.73 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Bulgarian writter? Nonsense.

The poet wrote in Macedonian language and you history-denying Bulgarians will claim him as Bulgarian? Born in Macedonia, died in Macedonia. Dim0ski (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

North Macedonia is an independent state since 1991 and Macedonian was codified in 1945. Jingiby (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bulgarian was codified in 1878. Prlichev could not have written in Bulgarian since this was a newly codified language and quite a different norm from his Ohrid tongue, which he used in his writing until his death in 1893. Read your history. 89.205.81.73 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)