Talk:Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Mid This article has been rated as a Mid priority article
WikiProject Republic of Macedonia
Republic of Macedonia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Republic of Macedonia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Republic of Macedonia-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Greek minority in the Republic of Macedonia: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned


[edit] Discussion between Spiros 13 (talk · contribs) and EhJJ (talk · contribs)

"After the war, in a 1951 census conducted by the Yugoslav authorities, that figure was put at 158,000"

This is an UTTERMOST nonsense. I challenge everybody to show me the official Yugoslav data that puts the number of ethnic Greeks in their southern Republic at 158.000, from the 1953 (and not the non-existent 1951 census).Skoplje with vicinity did not had more than 150.000 population, while Monastir/Bitolj did not had no more than 70.000, the others being less than 40.000 (Kumanovo, Tetovo, Prilep, Strumica, Ohrid), again with rural vicinity covering several hundreds square kilometers. This would indirectly brought up to an absurd conclusion that Greeks were either an over 30% population in several towns and their respective areas or a major, more than, say 60% or more of the population in the one or two of the towns (presumably Bitola and Krusevo, perhaps Prilep also).This claim is ridiculous and against all available statistical data published on the internet regarding the 1953 census in SFR Yugoslavia.

All post WW II Yugoslav and later FYROMian cenuses mention no more than one thousand ethnic Greeks in FYROM, period. This is nothing more than a lie, disguised as a non-substantiated opinion, reminiscent of Bulgarian/FYROMian claims of 300.000-1.000.000 strong minority of theirs in Greece.

The bottom line is: the 1953 census doesn't contain such enormous data that would make ethnic Greeks being c. 12% of the population in mid-20th century FYROM.I dare anybody to point to a reference from Yugoslav and successor states (or authoritative bodies like UN etc) about the ethnic circumstances states in that (and several other) censuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.46.165 (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


This contains a long winded discussion between two users. While sprinkled with information, it is mostly an argument. (EhJJ)TALK 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[[THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE THE FIRST COMMENTS BELLOW ARE MINE AND NOT OF SPIROS 13...NTOU7]]

Stop attacking this article..there is no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.16.114 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 April 2008

This article was created three times under different names and the other identical versions were deleted because they were considered inappropriate. With modification, this article could probably stand, but it needs a neutral point of view and references! (EhJJ)TALK 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1)It was created 3times because the username "ehJJ" (no personal attack, just telling the facts) deleted it everytime it appears! 2) This article contains only facts and not opinions, like the one on the upper text of the username "ehJJ". Speaking of neutral point of view, someone should go change that "Republic of Macedonia" wiki-article to "Republic of FYROM" because the name "Republic of ""Macedonia""" IS NOT RECOGNISED by United Nations! Wikipedia, by having FYROM with the name "Republic of Makedonia"is breaking every sense of international law. UN official name for that country is FYROM and Wikipedia has it as Republic of Macedonia without respecting some sensitive cases around that name. Naming FYROM as "Republic of Macedonia" is promoting FYROM(slavic Skopjian) propaganda to steal this national name of Greece. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.49.5 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties may want to refer to the CIA Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mk.html#Govt (EhJJ)TALK 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

-CIA Factbook is NOT an international neither official source. Using CIA factbook as a source shows that you are not compatible with international laws. CIA is a U.S. organisation and its information is just the US point of view, which of course is not neutral. Please, the username EhJJ must stop attacking this article and propagandism.

-UN is the official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.37.133 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, would you stop accusing me of attacking this article? I made some significant improvements as per the Manual of Style as an act of good faith. I merely pointed out that the CIA Fact Book has a succinct although obviously biased paragraph about this naming conflict. Honestly, I don't care at all about who is right and whatnot. I am merely editing per the Wikipedia policies (which, if you haven't already, you should read). Look at the page history before you accuse me of actions done by other users! (EhJJ)TALK 12:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please , stop attacking this article , its only true states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.47.250 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


There is not any country called republic of macedonia recognised by UN. Wikipedia is now falling to disripute and its breaking every sense of international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiros 13 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer nor well versed in international law. Could you tell us which law is being broken? (A link to the particular law would be great!) (EhJJ)TALK 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as what you claim to be the truth (and I don't know whether it is or not, but I'm inclined to believe that what you are saying is at least partially true). You really need to find some references. Really, any references published anywhere would be great. It doesn't matter how obvious or true your statements may be. Even a non-controversial country like Canada has had really long debates on Wikipedia about its official name. In the end, the most and best supporting evidence (references) will prevail. There is absolutely no point in continuing editing Wikipedia unless you can provide references; it will most likely result in your edits being reverted and your account being blocked. If you have references, then we have to accept them as long as they are reliable. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Please find some references and post them here. (EhJJ)TALK 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You want reference, see here http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml , there is no country in un recognised as republic of macedonia. I respect international law and I call every country as it is recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiros 13 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That list seems kinda odd. Check out the UN name versus the official name (as listed in Wikipedia) versus the name of the article in Wikipedia:

United Nations [1] WP Official Name WP Article Title
China People's Republic of China People's Republic of China
Cuba Republic of Cuba Cuba
Democratic People's Republic of Korea Democratic People's Republic of Korea North Korea
Mexico United Mexican States Mexico
Not on list Republic of China Republic of China
Thailand Kingdom of Thailand Thailand

China seems to most notable exception. While listed as "China" by the UN, no one considers it the official name of that country. Also, I'd like to point out the following from the UN (emphasis added):

By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.[2]

It doesn't seem to me that this is by any means an official list of country names. That said, there should certainly be mention of its provisional name or conflict over the name. But, by itself, I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is somehow breaking international law by not naming the article as listed by this page on the UN website. (EhJJ)TALK 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


By not recognising UN decisions , you are just breaking intrnational law. Of course when the name dispute is settled, the country of F.Y.R.O.M. will be recognised with its new name. We must respect UN desicions if we want to live in harmony and peace. You deleted the article for the greek minority in Fyrom without letting us first put the references. This is an example of fascism.Spiros 13 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, calling a country by anything other than its official UN name was not an international crime.
Also, I still find it amusing that you accuse me of deleting your pages. I am not an WP:Administrator and thus I do not have the ability to delete pages on Wikipedia. I did not delete your articles. (EhJJ)TALK 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was created three times under different names and the other identical versions were deleted because they were considered inappropriate. With modification, this article could probably stand, but it needs a neutral point of view and references! (EhJJ)TALK 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Spiros 13 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I said at the top of the page. Note that I said "were deleted" and not "were deleted by me" or "I deleted them" or "Mwahahaha! Goodbye articles!!". I was just answering your question, other users deleted your articles. (EhJJ)TALK 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
To be extra clear, here are the logs for the other pages that were deleted: [3] [4] Do you see my name anywhere? They were deleted because they were considered to be attack pages. (EhJJ)TALK 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


You violeted international law by changing the name of the country to a name thats not been recognised form UN and u requested speedy delition. This is called in my country counterfeiting and "gagging" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.5.51 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean this move? [5] I didn't change the name, I changed the case! Bots edited the redirects. (EhJJ)TALK 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I'm going to consider this discussion finished. If you want to discuss the content of the page, feel free to do so. I have no more interest in demonstrating that I have not done the things you, without providing any evidence, accuse me of doing. (EhJJ)TALK 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by Xenovatis

Re. these reverts: [6]: Yes, of course Apogevmatini is a reliable source - but the source doesn't mention schools. It simply doesn't support what you are claiming. And the other thing: An attack against a foreign embassy is still not an attack against the local minority. The reporters who were injured were presumably attacked because they were identified as foreigners, not because they were identified as some among those 400 local Greeks. Or they were simply accidentally hit by those bottles - in fact, the newspaper report doesn't even say people in the street were individually targeted by the violence, just that people were throwing things at the building. The claim that "any Greeks identified in the streets were assaulted and beaten" seems to be a fabrication, it's nowhwere in the source cited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I suggest we reach a consensus and make agreed upon edits afterwards. I will refrain from editing in the meantime.
  • The Apogevmatini article states: The Greek children from FYROM and UKraine are learning Greek intensively and...this reveals the substantial work taking place in their home countries". Agreed schools are not mentioned explicitly but learning is. If you feel using the word schools is misleading please ammend to schooling/learning facilities/institutes etc. A rose by any other name etc
  • "Local media reported that some Greek journalists were injured as the group" Bottom line if you were Greek you were marked for special treatment, I doubt they checked passports to ensure native Greeks were spared. Nonetheless if you feel the current phrasing is misleading I invite you to reprhase it in a more NPOV. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
About the schooling: those could be evening classes, private study at home, or whatever. I mean, how many Greek-speaking pupils can there possible be, with 400 Greeks in the whole country? Whatever they are doing there, who organises it? Who does the teaching? How much of it? Fact is, we know nothing at all.
About the incident: The source does not say that anybody was beaten at all. It says people were injured. For all we know, they could have been simply bystanders accidentally caught in the crossfire. The only thing that the source actually says the protesters did was throwing things at the building. If people had been beaten, don't you think the newspaper would have explicitly reported that? And even if they were, this article is not about Greek-Macedonian relations, it's about the minority in the RoM. There is no indication at all that the event was in any way related to the existence of the minority. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Like I said change it to schooling then. But there is no reason to ommit the refrence.
  • This is whitewashing. The victims themselves narrated the assaults on their persons in Greek television. The article explicitly mentions Greeks injured. As for relevance I think attacks on Greeks would by Slavs in Skopjie would probably classify as such in an article discussing the Greek minority there. That said please provide what you would consider a NPOV re-write of that passage. I am open to anohter more neutral formulation, eg excluding any Greeks identified as such were targeted etcXenovatis (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If the injured journalists told of being individually attacked (rather than accidentally hit by flying bottles or whatever), then by all means find us a source where they say that. The source you brought doesn't. And if there is a significant amount of schooling, in whatever form, then by all means find us a source describing it. The source you brought doesn't. You want a proposal for a rewrite? Sorry, but I have nothing to work on. By the way, in late 2007 there were repeated arson attacks in Athens against property of Turkish diplomatic personel. Would you agree to cite those news reports in the article on the Muslim minority of Thrace, as evidence of anti-minority violence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Source saying they were attacked: "ούτε σε επιμέρους θλιβερά κρούσματα, όπως ο χθεσινός προπηλακισμός Ελλήνων δημοσιογράφων στα Σκόπια" transl: "the assault on Greek journalists yesterday in Skopje" From Eleutherotypia, a large circulation, mainstream, left-wing daily.
  • Not sure what you mean by significant schooling, which policy or guideline says is must be significant as opposed to true, it is a relevant fact and bears mention in relation to its significance, a small referenced phrase is adequate and that is precisely what I included in the text.
  • If foreigners were attacked on the street for being foreign then yes I would say that this would be indicative of a certain atmosphere that needed to be mentioned. Similarly if Americans were assaulted during the many protests on the US embassy. Your problem is that these events did not materialize.
  • I am sure we can resolve this speedily and amicably. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I still maintain the embassy incident is irrelevant. It has nothing apparent to do with the local minority as opposed to the foreign policy issue (just like diplomats' cars in Athens have little to do with the life of the local communities in Komotini), and being a single, one-off incident it does little in the way of documenting a significant pattern of harassment or intimidation, which is what this was originally supposed to be about. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Unless it has significance beyond the day-to-day news business, it just doesn't belong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. What about schooling then. The reference is sourced and in proportion to its actual significance.Xenovatis (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. If there is schooling we should of course report that, no doubt. My only gripe is, we have too little information right now. On the basis of that one report, the only thing we can say is: some kids in the RoM get some instruction in Greek. From whom, how, where, under what conditions? It's just a little thin if you come to think of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"Some educational activity among minority members" is fine with me, for now. Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree but the whole subject itself is so thinly attested. To begin with the MFA of Greece makes no mention of a Greek community there, as it does for almost all other countries. This is strange to say the least. Then of those 400 I don't know how many are recent arrivals (post 1990), how many ethnic Greek political refugees from the civil war and how many descendants of native Greeks (in 1912 Monastiri/Bitola had a higher percentage of Greeks than Thessalonica). Of course the figures talking about 10s or 100s of thousands of Greeks today are fictitious. BTW you also removed another source, Joshua project, stating 600 but I don't consider them particularly reliable so I won't object.Xenovatis (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In the mean-time I just emailed the person labelled as the creator of the photographs in the blog asking them to verify, eponymously, the providence and subject of these pictures as well as for their permission to use them here.Xenovatis (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)