Talk:Grigor Parlichev

GA Review

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

Nominator: StephenMacky1 (talk · contribs) 11:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'll take a look at this article this week to see whether it meets the good article criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

All right. Thank you. You can let me know if you need help in verification since some sources are non-English. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I've looked over a few of the sources, and I repeatedly found significant discrepancies between the source and the article, as well as a couple examples of close paraphrasing. Each source is going to need to be checked to confirm that it aligns with what it is supposed to cite and that it does it without copying the text over and changing a few words. This is beyond the scope of GAN, so I'm going to close the review. It can be renominated once the issue is addressed. I've also added some notes about the lead that should be reconsidered before renomination. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Lead:

• The lead should be extended to about a paragraph in length. It needs to summarize each section of the body.
• Birth and death dates are typically in parentheses after the name.
• Since he is also known by an entirely separate name (Grigorios Stavridis), that should be bolded in the lead as well so readers can quickly determine whether this article is about the right person.
• File:Grigor Parlichev cropped.jpg has a broken copyright tag.

Sources:

• [7] Sujecka (2015) – The source doesn't say he studied in "a Greek school in Ohrid"; it says he was born in Ohrid, that he wrote/translated Greek, and that he was taught by Miladinov. I don't see where it covers anything in the second use except that he studied Slavonic in Istanbul, so it's unclear why this citation was added to Detrez for both sentences. Third use is good.
• [10] Agoston-Nikolova (2010) – The first use isn't supported at all. In the second use, Part of the literary critics and the public in Athens also challenged the decision is very similar to the jury's decision was contested by a part of the literary critics and the public. I don't see where it supports the language of his Autobiography in its third use, so it's unclear why it's included with the other citations.
• [12] Danforth (1997) – This source only says he opposed the use of Greek, not that he wanted to switch Greek for Bulgarian. I also don't see anything on page 50, so it's unclear why that's in the citation.
• [20] Lindstedt (2012) – This source doesn't describe "the western dialects", only saying that his native dialect is "different from those East Bulgarian dialects", and it doesn't support the name "Common Slavic". He also wanted to enrich the emerging standard language with elements taken from the Russian language essentially copies He also wanted to enrich the Bulgarian standard language with Slavic elements taken from Russian. This source also says that he himself was a teacher and changed his instruction from Greek to Bulgarian, which is not what is conveyed in the article.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2025

It's really simple, Grigor is MACEDONIAN, not bulgarian, that's all, and he is PRLICHEV btw not P A RLICHEV no A in PRLICHEV 92.55.83.205 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grigor Parlichev/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: StephenMacky1 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 15:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Yo @StephenMacky1: I've taken a look, review's below. Ping me when you get a chance to update or if you have any questions - I'm giving 7 days, as per norm. Sincerely, Jishara (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello.

• I removed the part about the "Bulgarian National Revival activist" as he probably was not one yet, but it is a biographical fact that he was taught by Miladinov. It is documented in his Autobiography too. I found another source about the Parlichev Ridge which states: Named after the Bulgarian poet Grigor Parlichev. I fixed the dead links and made some sources more accessible.
• I added more context about his Greek sympathies, his dispute with Orfanidis and his conflict with Nathanael, based on what I could find in the sources. I think I have used up most of the sources that I have access to.
• I have an inquiry about this feedback. What do you mean by the "Macedonian section"? There is more than one section that discusses the Macedonian point-of-view. I also included more information about it in the "Legacy" section. I have been careful not to privilege any point-of-view though.

Let me know if you have any further feedback. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, it looks better. I'll be going through the citations later to check them. Jishara (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Rest of the citations make sense there - it's approved. Jishara (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Follows manual of style. No notable prose, grammar, spelling, or understandability errors.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   There are some problems with OR that doesn't actually follow sources. For example, Source 6 is used to claim that he was taught by a Bulgarian National Revival Activist, but the source just states the guy was an educator and folk tune collector - the activist was the one who published the tunes, not the teacher. Source 26 (the link doesn't work, but I found it again through a search) states that there is a Parlichev Ridge but directly contradicts the claim, stating that there's no records of who it's named for. More positively, no Earwig problems and a reference section exists. However, some of the references have been subject to linkrot and should be replaced with archived versions.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article appears to be missing some major aspects. For example, one of the sources details an entire set of events with the new Bulgarian Archbishop, who transferred him and then expelled him - but there is no mention in the article that there even was a bulgarian archbishop, let alone all of the further details. There's also no mention of Parlichev's sympathies towards Greek, which is also detailed. i'd ask that you add this in, and also go back through to check the sources and find others.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems to take a consistently fairly neutral point of view. However, I'd ask for you to expand out the Macedonian section a bit to be more present, because right now it's a point of major contention per the article and yet the article doesn't mention it much.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No signs of problems here or edit wars of any kind.

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

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

   No errors with the image - they're public domain, relevant, and captioned effectively.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold.

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.

About the close paraphrasing tag

Hey StephenMacky1, I've identified a few issues with this article that you may want to review. I removed two large quotes that were likely in violation of copyright policy, and also found instances of close paraphrasing:

Source	Article text	Source text
CEEOL	In his youth, he had no well-defined sense of national identity and developed a Greek (Rum Millet) identity (in the sense of being an Orthodox Christian), but as an adult, he adopted a Greek and later a Bulgarian national identity.	In his youth he had no well-defined sense of national identity and probably considered himself a “Greek” in the sense of being an Orthodox Christian. As an adult he explicitly identified himself with the Greek and later with the Bulgarian nation.
CALIC	Parlichev had poor knowledge of literary Bulgarian, which appeared to him as a "foreign language". [...] He used a mix of Church Slavonic, Russian and Bulgarian words and forms, as well as elements from his dialect, a mixture he called "common Slavic".	Having no satisfactory command of literary Bulgarian, which must have appeared to him as a “foreign language”, he resorted to translating the Iliad into a self-devised “common Slavic” – a still-born mixture of words and grammatical forms borrowed from Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Russian and the Ohrid dialect.

These are only two I found on a quick search. Given that close paraphrasing was also brought up in the first GAN, I would highly recommend combing through the article and eliminating other instances of this issue. Note that while I came across this article while reviewing a DCWC submission, the comments above are not made in my capacity as DCWC coordinator. Please let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Missed those spot checks before. Probably because I was more focused on adding content. I rewrote the content. It complies better with NPOV now too. Only attributed content where it was necessary. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2026

The article describes Grigor Parlichev as "Bulgarian writer, teacher and translator" citing three sources. I have reviewed all of the sources:

Sampimon (2006) writes: "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 Părličev48, sought to join the Bulgarian cultural world". She clearly identifies Grigor as a "Macedonian intellectual" in contrast to the paragraph above it which describes the brothers Miladinovi. (p. 22)

This citation identifies Grigor as Macedonian intellectual. Hence, its usage is incorrect.

On the other hand, Peter Mackrdige (2009), describing Parlichev's ethnical identiy writes "Stavridis/Prličev was – obviously – a Romios, but was he also a Hellene?" whereas he defines "Romios" as the Byzanthine term for "free people" as opposed to Hellenes being "pagan". (p.13)

This citation identifies Grigor as Romio. Hence, its usage is, also, incorrect.

Lastly, İpek Yosmaoğlu (2014) writes about Prlichev: "The pursuit of knowledge despite all obstacles was a sentiment proudly espoused by the Bulgarian national intelligentsia, such as Grigor Purlichev, or the Miladinov brothers, the pioneers and heroes of Bulgarian education in Macedonia." (p. 82)

This citation is the only one that identifies him as Bulgarian.

Conclusively, 2/3 citations are incorrect. At very best, the ethnical identity is complex and ill-defined. I request this to be changed appropriately.

I am presenting an additional source that adds to the notion that Grigor's ethnical identity is extremely complex and cannot be identified as Bulgarian:

Jolanta Sujecka in her "Profile of Grigor Prličev (Grigorios Stawridis)" writes: "The fact that Prličev’s Autobiography was published without any editorial vetting did not mean that the contemporary elites of the newly restored, young Bulgarian state in any way recognized the potentially distinctive Macedonian separatism"

Conclusively, as Grigor Prlichev's lifetime coincides with the early timeline of the formation of the Macedonian ethnical identity, it is safe to say that his ethnical identity shifts from Bulgarian to Macedonian at best, and is mixed at worst. To quote Jolanta once again "the lack of ideological character in mid 19th century of the lexeme Macedonia / Macedonian treated exclusively as the name of the territory, i. e. in the same way the lexeme functioned in the memory of the inhabitants of the Ottoman empire. This is why the Macedonian intelligentsia who collaborated with Bulgarians could use the term Bulgarian to denote their own identity."

I therefore request his identity to be changed to "Macedonian/Bulgarian" instead of "Bulgarian".

[1] Jolanta Sujecka, Profile of Grigor Prlicev (Grigorios Stawridis), 2015, Colloqiua Humanistica, Institute of Slavic Studies Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw Sergejdeblue (talk) 21:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. This is a contentious issue that's been discussed extensively before (see the talk page archive), so a consensus will be required for any change to his nationality. Day Creature (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Citations regarding the ethnicity of Grigor Prlichev

The article describes Grigor Parlichev as Bulgarian citing three sources. I have reviewed the sources:

Sampimon (2006) writes: "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 Părličev48, sought to join the Bulgarian cultural world". She clearly identifies Grigor as a "Macedonian intellectual" in contrast to the paragraph above it which describes the brothers Miladinovi. (p. 22)

This citation identifies Grigor as Macedonian intellectual. Hence, its usage is incorrect.

On the other hand, Peter Mackrdige (2009), describing Parlichev's ethnical identiy writes "Stavridis/Prličev was – obviously – a Romios, but was he also a Hellene?" whereas he defines "Romios" as the Byzanthine term for "free people" as opposed to Hellenes being "pagan". (p.13)

This citation is identifies Grigor as Romios. Hence, its usage is also, incorrect.

Lastly, İpek Yosmaoğlu (2014) writes about Prlichev: "The pursuit of knowledge despite all obstacles was a sentiment proudly espoused by the Bulgarian national intelligentsia, such as Grigor Purlichev, or the Miladinov brothers, the pioneers and heroes of Bulgarian education in Macedonia." (p. 82)

This citation is the only one that identifies him as Bulgarian.

Conclusively, 2/3 citations are incorrect. At very best, the ethnical identity is complex and ill-defined. I request this to be changed appropriately.

I am presenting an additional source that adds to the notion that Grigor's ethnical identity is extremely compex and cannot be identified as Bulgarian:

Jolanta Sujecka in her "Profile of Grigor Prličev (Grigorios Stawridis)" writes: "The fact that Prličev’s Autobiography was published without any editorial vetting did not mean that the contemporary elites of the newly restored, young Bulgarian state in any way recognized the potentially distinctive Macedonian separatism"

Conclusively, as Grigor Prlichev's lifetime coincides with the early timeline of the formation of the Macedonian ethnical identity, it is safe to say that his ethnical identity shifts from Bulgarian to Macedonian at best, and is mixed at worst. To quote Jolanta once again "the lack of ideological character in mid 19th century of the lexeme Macedonia / Macedonian treated exclusively as the name of the territory, i. e. in the same way the lexeme functioned in the memory of the inhabitants of the Ottoman empire. This is why the Macedonian intelligentsia who collaborated with Bulgarians could use the term Bulgarian to denote their own identity."

I therefore request his identity to be changed to "Macedonian/Bulgarian" instead of "Bulgarian".

[1] Jolanta Sujecka, Profile of Grigor Prlicev (Grigorios Stawridis), 2015, Colloqiua Humanistica, Institute of Slavic Studies Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw Sergejdeblue (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

All of this is explained and well sourced in the "Identification and views" section. Parlichev was part of the Rum millet.[18][19] In the 1860s, after identifying as Greek, he began identifying as Bulgarian.[9] In the last decade of his life, he adhered to a form of vague local Macedonian patriotism, though continued to identify himself as a Bulgarian. Thus, in the context of discussions about the existence of the Macedonian nation, his national identity became disputed between Bulgarian and Macedonian (literary) historians.[13] However, he never identified himself as an ethnic Macedonian.[20], etc. Jingiby (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Late reply. I noticed this just now due to the reply. You are selectively quoting the sources.

Sampinon's source states this in page 89: Later in his life, Părličev identified himself as Bulgarian, as reflected in his autobiography, which was written in Bulgarian. The quote you cited from Mackridge's source is not verifiable. On page 189, he wrote: In 1860 he won the Greek national poetry prize as 'a pro-Greek Bulgarian' under the name Grigorios Stavridis, sparking off a controversy that culminated in the discontinuation of the Rallis competition. A few years later, however, Parlichev espoused the Bulgarian national cause and proceeded to teach Bulgarian at Ohrid and to agitate for the introduction of Church Slavonic in the churches there, in an ultimately successful attempt to reverse the process of Hellenization that he had been previously involved in. There are also multiple other sources cited here that support a Bulgarian national identity, such as Detrez's sources and Entangled Histories of the Balkans. Detrez even directly disputed the claim that he ever identified as an ethnic Macedonian. It would be a false equivalency and undue to use your proposed wording in the lead. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)