Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The title is POV

This article really should be renamed to a title which gives the due weight to the Slavic character of these Macedonians. If "Macedonian Slavs" is out of the question, then how about something like Macedonians (Slavs). The current title is biased in favor is those propagandistic websites (and userpages) which like to allude to the existence of only one Macedonian ethnic group which date from antiquity to recent times. Telex 11:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this proposal. Maybe we should cast a vote. After all the article was moved from "Macedonian Slavs" to the present title without a real consensus. Miskin 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If somebody wants to prepare a vote, it's there right; but the article was regularly by a decision taken through a poll, who obviously believed the name was not POV.--Aldux 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Who? The article was moved here unilataraly (without a poll or anything) from Macedonian Slavs (check the previous discussions). If I click on the page move button and move it to Macedonians (Slavs) and then damege the redirects so it can't be moved back, does that mean there's a consensus? Telex 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, the article is completely NPOV, because name other ethnic group that is named Macedonians? Does maybe Kofi Annan refers to other ethnic group as Macedonians :-)? Bomac 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, eat me - the un.org has called you "Macedonian Slavs" (In the 1994 census, Macedonian Slavs made up 66.7 per cent of the population and ethnic Albanians 22.7 per cent [1] - Macedonian Slavs were fleeing ethnic Albanian areas of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia... [2]). I'm not proposing to rename the article to Macedonian Slavs though, but to Macedonians (Slavs) or something siilar, so as to emphasise the fact that you are Macedonians with an ethnic Slavic background so as to avoid misunderstandings. Both names are accurate as you are Macedonians, you are an ethnic group and you are Slavs. Therefore, it's a matter of what is more NPOV. Telex 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? The UN also uses Macedonians. Misunderstandings?!? Wow, this is smt. I didn't heard before :-). How can be misunderstanding, when, actually, there is no other ethnic group called Macedonians today? Let's not overreact. Bomac 15:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting changing the reference - I am merely suggesting changing what is in the brackets. The article's title is Macedonians (X). What sould the X be? Ethnic group or Slavs, they are both accurate and they both can be used neutrally. The reason I'm proposing the change is to avoid confusing the reader into believing that this article has something to do with the ancient Macedonians who were also an ethnic group. Telex 15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is what you are looking for - Ancient Macedonians. They are prehistory now, so no misleadings can occur. The Ancient even indicates that :-). Bomac 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that article does have a disambiguating term, this one has a very weak one. According to the (in)famous guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, we should use the self identifying term + proper disambiguation. I am disagreeing with the current disambiguation and assert that it is insufficient. Proposals are welcome. Telex 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, everything is according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict. So, what's the problem again? Bomac 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The current disambiguating term is too weak. According to the guideline, we need proper disambiguation so as to resolve the ambiguities. I am asserting that the current term is not proper as it fails to resolve the ambiguities. Telex 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm dying of wish to cite me at least one current ethnic group that is called Macedonians. Well? Bomac 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who says it has to be a current ethnic group? That's your POV, I respect it, but it's still your POV. What is this whole dispute about? It's about not misleading the reader that there is some kind of exclusive connection between you and the ancient Macedonians. Do you think the current disambiguating term achieves this - I don't, that's why I started this debate. Telex 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly Bomac, you're using rules and criteria which are irrelevant to wikipedia. Macedonian Slavic POV which implies connection to ancient Macedonians and denies the existence of Greek Macedonians must be prevented. Miskin 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, I'll leave you here for now, but don't start the circulus vitiosus. But you are entering the zone of double standards again. Bomac 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian (Slavs) is reasonable. The ethnic group's name typically is just "Macedonians", then again the country's name typically is "FYR Macedonia", but the respective article is not called as such. Yet the term "Macedonian Slavs" is very widely used, especially in historical accounts. Macedonians (Slavic) is a very good compromise. I repeat that the article was moved to the current name without any consensus. Miskin 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You claim a name that is not yours, Macedonians, and that's the reason this article has to be renamed. This is where the ambiguity is created. If the thief claims the stuff he stole from the rightful owner to be his, then people who don't know what happened would believe it's indeed his. As simple as that. --   Avg    15:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. I feel that name as mine, too, I'm Macedonian. Bomac 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you do, because you were not the one who usurped the name. It was Tito. You were born in a country which was already named Macedonia and everybody was telling you that you are Macedonian. It's absolutely logical and understandable that you feel this way. This though doesn't change the fact that the name was stolen 60 years ago.--   Avg    16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, your POV. BTW, remember Pulevski or Misirkov? Anyway, ,,Macedonians" as a term did existed in one way or another, no matter which suffixes or prefixes it was given. Bomac 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Misirkov say the following:
We are Bulgarian more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. The Serbian not only want to colonize Macedonia with Serbs from other part of Yugoslavia, but they wish to kill our Bulgarian consciousness. They took our right to call ourselves Bulgarians, even Macedonians, they intrude their schools and education, so much false and Jesuit, so much as the study of St. Sava and finally they come to the idea for the special Macedonian nationality, which they discover in South Macedonia. -Krste Petkov Misirkov, 1924
:-) Telex 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but he also said this:
"Yes, Macedonian culture and history are quite separate from Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian culture and history; they have never been the object of an impartial and detailed study. The Greeks, Serbs, and the Bulgarians most unfairly took from Macedonian culture only what they could make use of for the glory of their own national names; ignoring facts of capital importance either because they did not concern them, or because they contradicted their own national aspirations. Unfortunately, the Macedonians themselves are only now beginning to study Macedonian history, having realized, towards the end of last century, that they could no longer trust the historians of Athens, Belgrade or Sofia..." :-) Bomac 16:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Bomac, I think you are lying. Search for that quote on the web, and the only source is Wikipedia itself [3]. Who are you trying to kid? Telex 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As it says in the statement: they have never been the object of an impartial and detailed study and ignoring facts of capital importance and own national... (whatever) :-). Bomac 16:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you like some more quotes (oh you can find them, I can assure you) from On Macedonian problems? :-) Bomac 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... that quote is quite clearly fabricated. What is the source - even a Macedonian nationalistic site will do, but not even they include it!?! Are you sure you didn't make it up for the portal? (I'll be removing it from the portal in due course until sources are cited). Also, there is also a Cyprus problem, does that mean that there is a Cypriot ethnicicy? We need actual evidence - why are you denying me it? Telex 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Every region with it's specific... As we say here in Macedonia (the republic): Every mountain has it's own weight. Here are some more quotes (oh, what will you think of now :-)?) Bomac 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Money talks BS walks, show me the quote you just gave (in English or the original Bulgarian) instead of bluffing, and make sure it's from the original version, not the amended Fyrom version. Thus far, only assertions have been made, and as I've said before, assertions remain claims until they are proven. Telex 16:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, cosmopolitan ;-), maybe Misirkov wanted to say the first part of your sentence, only in other words (ignoring facts of capital importance either because they did not concern them, or because they contradicted their own national aspirations). This is the only version of On Macedonian matters (problems), which BTW was exposed to an act of vandalism by the Bulgarian nationalists. They wanted to destroy it. Oh, there is a Greek version of the book, if you thought of that. :-) Bomac 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting... I asked you to find me that alleged quote (the full text is here). Or is that quote a fragment of Macedonian Slavic nationalist imagination. C'mon, it shouldn't be too hard :-) Telex 17:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan ;-), if you read every single word from that book, you'll find same or similar quotes. On the contrary, it isn't hard finding them, they are in every corner of On Macedonian matters. Bomac 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tedious - either the quote exists or it doesn't. Which one is it? If it exists, show it to me (btw, I have yet to find a quote in that book denying the (extremely likely) possibility of the Macedonian Slavs [sic] being a regional identity of (you guessed it) Bulgarians). Telex 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, you'll find where Misirkov is talking about the Bulgarian propaganda a lot :-). Bomac 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I must say that, "imaginative" quoting is a common practice among Macedonian Slav writers, who publish works such as "biography with elements of fiction", where they push their nationalistic ideas, presenting "quotes" from historical figures that were never uttered. Apparently some younger people like Bomac, read those works of fiction, and do not know what exactly is going on. Yes, yes, it's the "spirit" of the quote, but where is the quote itself? Most likely it is made up by the writer of the fiction book FunkyFly 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are alluding on the fact that Macedonians were calling Bulgarians then, I completely agree with that thesis. Simply, Bulgaria was the closest Slavic free country which Macedonians could rely on. Apparently, it seems that Bulgaria wanted much more than to be a sister-country... That's why Macedonians have never been the object of an impartial and detailed study.
As for the "imaginary" stuff and alike, it is not "our" practice. As you can see, there is nothing imaginary - the book is more than real. :-) Bomac 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The best policy is to deny it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. Come on, be a good nationalist and dont disappoint your government. By the way you havent found sources for the quote of Goce Delchev, a couple of others were already removed for the same reason. FunkyFly 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, this is desperate. I say that I agree with that, and now, according to you, I'm denying it. Whatever you like, your POV :-). Now I have to go, I have to make some some "deliveries" for "my" government. Bye! ;-) Bomac 17:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say my friend, whatever you say. Tell them to ban the enlgish wikipedia like they already did in China, because it seems like it is the place where Macedonian nationalistic dreams are shattered in the face of historical truths, and that is obviously not good for the Republic. FunkyFly 17:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you read it with an agenda (and I read Bulgarian really slowly for obvious reasons), you can prove anything. I can take references from the Old Testament to prove that a Macedonian ethnicity existed. He does not say however that Macedonian Slavs [sic] ≠ Bulgarians. Telex 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No need to quote. Everything is in that link, cosmopolitan ;-) Bomac 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Show it to me then. Give me the Bulgarian text (a literal quote so that I can use Ctrl+F to find it), because at the moment I cannot find it. C'm on, fellow cosmopolitan... Telex 17:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to change the way they are referred to. The article's title should be Macedonians (X) with X being something to resolve any ambiguities as per the relevant guideline. I proposed Macedonians (Slavs), Miskin proposed Macedonians (Slavic), Bomac proposed Macedonians (ethnic group). What do you think should be in the brackets - Macedonians (usurpers), or maybe Macedonians (thieves of Greek and Bulgarian history)? ;-) Telex 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Telex both are excellent recommendations! :-) --   Avg    16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't proposed Macedonians (ethnic group) because the name is like that. Comment on the last part: Good POV of yours you have there :-). Bomac 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are opposing any change and this has the effect of endorsing the current title - Macedonians (ethnic group). Telex 16:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. ;-) Bomac 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me count the... whatever

So, how many ethnic groups are there that self-identify as "Macedonian". There are the Macedonian republicans, there are the Ancient Macedonians, is that it ?

I mean, you could possibly say that the Macedonian Greeks self-identify as "Macedonian", but then are they a distinct ethnic group from the Greeks?

I've adjusted the disambig note at the top to make it easier to find the Ancient Macedonians. This should suffice. There seems to me to be only one ethnic group that self-identify as "Macedonian" today, and that is the Macedonians. Although I think we could stretch to including Macedonians (religious group) in the disambig if requested. - FrancisTyers 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be Macedonian people. - FrancisTyers 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps Macedonians (contemporary ethnic group) and then have Ancient Macedonians at Macedonians (ancient ethnic group) with Macedonians (ethnic group) as a disambig. - FrancisTyers 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
How about Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group) or simply Macedonians (Slavs) or Macedonians (Slavic)? Telex 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Because there is no reason to. "ethnic group" is sufficient disambiguation. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I defer to this comment and want you opinion on whether what you are proposing will suffice. Telex 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I think it will. When I say my favourite Macedonian actress is Labina Mitevska, I am not referring to the Ancient Macedonians. This is contemporary English usage. Ask yourself, in the English speaking world, are the Ancient Macedonians or the current Macedonians more often referred to? - FrancisTyers 18:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Another example, ask yourself "Who are the Macedonians" (with reference to an ethnic group) then ask yourself "Who were the Macedonians" (with reference to an ethnic group). When I do this I get two different answers, do you? - FrancisTyers 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
A better question to ask is, will most people believe that nowadays "Macedonians" and Ancient Macedonians are in a way related, since they have the same name? The answer is that most people DO make this connection. And this is because of the name. FYROMians are not dumb, they know why they keep using this name and why they don't want any disambiguation, it's exactly because their whole nation was built due to this ambiguity.--   Avg    18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all most people don't care. Second of all, everyone knows that the Ancient Macedonians as in the Byzantine Empire and all that crap are linked with Greece, they are Greek. It is just common knowledge, its what you learn at school. No-one in their right mind thinks that Alexander the Great was a Slav. Now, for the current Macedonians, everyone knows they aren't Greeks, a lot of people know they are Slavs. There really isn't any confusion at all. Perhaps a survey could be done of the Anglophone world, but I guarantee that if a person can find Greece and Macedonia on a map — this is my caveat ;) — they know that there is no relationship between the current Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians. Now, my history above may be trite, and it may even be wrong, I don't claim to be an expert. What I do claim to be is a native English speaker who sees no need to disambiguate further because thats just the way it is in English. - FrancisTyers 18:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes you remind me of the ancient Hebrew proverb "You dilute the mosquito and swallow the camel". You dilute the mosquito when you are contradicting Greeks, you swallow the camel when you are speaking with FYROMians. The expressions you use like "Most people don't care", "everyone knows", "common knowledge", "no-one in their right mind" show that you have a huge lack of perspective. Yes I agree with your claims, but I disagree with your assertions. Of course a lot of people know of the issue and most have arrived to believe that Greece opresses these "poor" guys, of course NOT everyone believes anymore that Ancient Macedonia is linked solely with Greece, of course people have doubts nowadays that Alexander the Great was Greek. The continuing propaganda has had its results and things are not that black and white as they were some years ago. If you like, just go out and ask a friend of yours (who is not involved in this issue of course) whether they believe that todays "Macedonians" are related to Ancient Macedonians. --   Avg    19:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point, we still call them Macedonians, just what to put in the brackets? It's now Macedonians (ethnic group), why not Macedonians (Slavs)? Telex 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is disputed (by a minority of scholars) that the Ancient Macedonian language was a form of Greek. It is true that Herodotus claims they spoke the Doric Greek dialect and the Pella katadesmos seems to confirm this, however προπαγάνδα εξ Σκοπίων (propaganda ex Skopion - propaganda from Skopje) seems to indicate otherwise. It is agreed by everyone though (except User:Macedonia and Bomac) that by year zero they spoke Koine Greek (Attic Greek, the dialect of Athens, which was endorsed by Alexander the Great) and the Slavs started coming from the 6th century (ie 500 years later, so all they found in Macedonia were Attic Greek speakers). Here's a diagram of the language of the ancient Macedonians and their descendents:

    |the past--------------------------------[[year zero]]------[[6th century]]----------today|
    |--[[Ancient Macedonian language]]------[[Koine Greek]]-----------------------------------|

Evidently, when the Slavs arrived in Macedonia, there were only Greeks (and other ethnicities, eg Vlachs), no ancient Macedonians, who by that time were assimilated by the Attic Greeks. The Greeks claim that Ancient Mac was a different form of Greek, Skopje claims it was an independent European language. Either way, they ended up speaking Greek. Telex 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you're missing the point. What you just wrote doesn't have anything to do with the question. I'm not particularly concerned what the Greeks, Macedonians or Bulgarians or whoever else has a year to waste arguing about the origins of the name of Negotino has to say. What we are discussing here is the name of the ethnic group called "Macedonians". We need to know what is the most common term in English. Oh, are you arguing that the Macedonians are Greeks? If you are, please clarify. - FrancisTyers 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about your disambiguation note - some people may have a problem with it. Telex 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why they would have a problem with it. In English, the Macedonians you are talking about who may or may not have spoken Greek are called Ancient Macedonians. That is the contemporary English usage. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
You say they were Greek speaking. It is true that they ended up Greek speaking they they may have not been originally. I won't protest, I love it, but User:Macedonia mightn't. Telex 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Common English usage of a name can be very misleading. For example "Asians" in America means Chinese or Japanese, but in Britain it means Indians and Pakistani. Who is "right"? Nobody (or both, depends on the way you see it). This is a bad indicator and this is why disambig pages are made for. After all people refer to ROC citizens as Taiwanese, but I don't see you supporting so heartily the renaming of the article on their country to Taiwan. --   Avg    19:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
My opinion of User:Macedonia is well known and would not be considered charitable. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the point, we agree that the title of this article should be Macedonians (X) and the people referred to as Macedonians. What should the X be? An X is needed according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, which required usage of self identifying name + proper disambiguation (the X). The X currently is "ethnic group". I am proposing renaming it to "Slavs", in other words, to move the article to Macedonians (Slavs). We still call the people Macedonians, it's just the X in the article title that changes. Telex 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for it not to be "ethnic group", or even Macedonian people with the appropriate disambiguation for the Ancient Macedonians. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, see this comment. We want to resolve an ambiguity - the ancient Macedonians were also a people and an ethnic group. We need something that the ancient Macedonian's were not, so as to not imply some exclusive connection between the Slavic Macedonians and the ancient Macedonians. The Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires the ambiguities to be resolved, I am arguing that they are not resolved because the ancient Macedonians were also an ethnic group. We don't want readers to think that the Slavic Macedonians have some kind of exclusive relation with the ancient Macedonians. Telex 18:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines also state that the pages should be at the most common English usage. There is no disambiguation required in the most common English usage — there is only one current Macedonians (ethnic group), the other one is referred to as Ancient Macedonians. I can see what you are getting at that people might be conned by the crazy whackos into thinking that somehow Alexander the Great was a Slav. I'm here to tell you it isn't going to happen. Your concern is misplaced. - FrancisTyers 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Not quite - not as long as the title of this article wouldn't be out of place as title of the article on the ancient Macedonians. "Ethnic group" doesn't help at all - all that disambiguates is from the Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and Aromanians in Macedonia who are not an ethnic group. The guidlines require the most common English usage + disambiguation. The current disambiguation is insufficient. Telex 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No is isn't insufficient. This is the most common English usage. How about we have a poll, in this poll we insist on: native English and a reason for each vote. E.g. "* '''Keep as is''' contemporary English usage, IMDB and many other sites use this." or "* '''Move to suggestion 1''' more disambiguation needed, Greeks call Ancient Macedonians Macedonians." — basically a nice friendly poll of native English speakers to find out the most common name. Of course, it wouldn't have to be binding, no polls are ever binding. Anything else is a waste of time because the Greeks will vote for "Macedonian Slavs" and the Macedonians will vote for "Macedonians (ethnic group)" and it will just be a matter of shear majority "rules", which isn't how we do things on Wiki. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying Macedonian Slavs, have you even read this discussion? I say Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group), or Macedonians (Slavic people) or Macedonians (Slavs) or something like that. As per the guileline, self-identifying common English name + disambiguation. The current disambiguation in the title, what is in brackets, is the disambiguation. Telex 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. What I meant to say was the Greeks will vote to move it to something with Slavic in the title. How about that poll? - FrancisTyers 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, to avoid confusion. Unfortunately, the last such poll was a 50/50 draw. Do you have a problem with Slavic in the title? How about Macedonians (whose name is intended to imply a relation with ancient Macedon). If the article is to remain here, I have no problem with that, as long as the fact that they are unrelated to ancient Macedon is given more (the due) emphasis, because User:Macedonia & Co have recently gone on a deletion spree deleting all such references and inserting sentences like "one of the symbols of the Macedonians is the Vergina Sun which was the symbol of ancient Macedonian Kings like Philip II and Alexander III", for I dare say obvious reasons. Telex 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I imagine the last poll attracted a lot of non-native English speakers, also they weren't required to justify their votes. I can see your point regarding "not related with ancient Macedon" and I think that could certainly be an appropriate thing to have in the disambiguation note at the top. I'll make that change now. - FrancisTyers 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be very interested if you could find an example where an ethnicity with a specific name today does not have any relationship with an older ethnicity with the same name. I tell you, it's gonna be hard. It just doesn't happen because what FYROM did is without precedence. --   Avg    19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't care. Although... "British", the majority of people confuse "English" with "British", and "British" with "Britons". The relationship being that the island is called "Britain". - FrancisTyers 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
A Scotsman will definitely be offended to be called English. FunkyFly 19:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
No shit, would he be offended to be called British by an American though? Answers on a postcard. - FrancisTyers 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Americans rarely refer to Scotsmen as British, when they mean a Scott, they say a Scott. British is more a sign of lack of nformation about the background of the person. FunkyFly 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to make an association with the UK, a better equivalent would be the Scots proclaiming that their country name was not "Scotland" but "Republic of Britain" and that they are the only ethnic British people on the island. They would also claim all of Britain's history as theirs, they would speak about opressed Britons living in England, they would say that the Scottish Gaelic is the only truly British language and so on... --   Avg    19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd have no particular problem with that, with respect to the naming -- same goes for RoM. With respect to the history, it would be funny to see these hypothetical people try -- same goes for the RoM -- seriously laugh-out-loud. Its just sad that I guess they actually teach that in their schools. FYI, it is fair to say that over the years all the Celtic speaking inhabitants of Britain have been oppressed. - FrancisTyers 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Your example is really irrelevant, but, my point remains that the association between nowadays "Macedonians" and Ancient Macedonians remains and will remain as long as there is no direct disambiguation. This is actually common logic, you have shown that you have it, but you have also shown that you only use it selectively. --   Avg    19:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, as an aside, do we have a page like British Isles (terminology) for Macedonia (region)? Might be worthwhile to explain this figurative minefield. - FrancisTyers 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

See Macedonia. Telex 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but that isn't nearly as anally retentive. - FrancisTyers 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Just think, you could have a whole other article to argue about! ;) - FrancisTyers 19:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Breakthrough

The disambiguation note that has been devised by Telex strikes me as an equitable compromise.

This article is about the Slavic speaking ethnic group; for the unrelated non Slavic speaking ethnic group in antiquity living in Macedon, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian.

Does anyone disagree? - FrancisTyers 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I elaborate to
This article is about the Slavic speaking ethnic group; for the unrelated non Slavic speaking ethnic group in antiquity living in Macedon, roughly in the present day region of Macedonia in northern Greece, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian.
Telex 19:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great. No problem here. - FrancisTyers 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
And why not change "non-Slavic speaking" with "Greek speaking". Is it that bad?--   Avg    19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
My version did say Greek speaking, personally I wouldn't have a problem with Greek-speaking, but I think Telex has a point too. - FrancisTyers 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Ehm... Telex was joking :-) --   Avg    20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Look what I say above - by year zero, all historians (except User:Macedonia and Bomac) agree that the ancient Macedonians spoke Koine Greek, the dialect of Athens by cultural assimilation, regardless of what they initially spoke. So if they are still regarded as ancient Macedonians at 1 AD, then Greek speaking is accurate. That's how they ended up (contrary to claims by User:Macedonia and Bomac that they were still speaking ancient Macedonian in 500 AD when the Slavs started arriving). Telex 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Because it is unanimously agreed that the ancient Macedonians didn't speak Slavic. While the majority view is that they spoke the Doric Greek dialect some (mostly Macedonian Slav) scholars have proposed that they spoke an independent Indo-European language, probably Illyrian. The fact that there is ample evidence to the contrary (eg their contemporary historians, Herodotus and the Pella katadesmos) doesn't dampen their spirits. Of course, we know that in Skopje, they don't like ancient inscriptions such as the Pella katadesmos and the Bitola inscription

Telex 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

As Macedonian [sic] nationalists claim that they are the descendants of the Ancient Macedonians and Slavs with minor elements of whoever else happened to be around, rather than the descendants of the proto-Bulgars and Slavs with minor elements of whoever else happened to be around (which is the rather bitter truth), then why can't we call them "Macedonian Slavs"? Telex 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Right, I've moved the page back. Would you like to hold a poll on the page name? Please do not move pages without getting consensus. - FrancisTyers 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just that Macedonian Slavs, the original location, was moved to Macedonians (ethnic group) without a poll or any discussion at all, I assumed it was allowed. If such moves are not allowed, then perhaps the article should be moved back to Macedonian Slavs (so as to avoid double standards). Telex 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand this unnecessary move... Who will nowadays mix the current Macedonian ethnic group with the Ancient one? I think that this is absolutely redundant. Bomac 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mixing them up is not the point. The issue, as I'm certain you're well aware, is the possibility of giving the impression of the modern Macedonian ethnic group being the descendants of the ancient original Macedonian ethnic group - the result of that being that the modern Macedonian ethnic group has some right in rem with regards to the Macedonian region, particularly the Blagoevgrad oblast in Bulgaria, the Greek Macedonian peripheries, Albanian Prespa etc. Anyway, as my posts above have been ignored, how about an RFC? We describe our concerns (the dispute) and see what uninvolved people think; a solution we may have not thought of may be found this way. Telex 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
We had a rather heafty disambiguation note at the top of the page, why was it changed? - FrancisTyers 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can have the poll and discussion now. Whoever moved it before was wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right ;) - FrancisTyers 21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've included a poll below, I welcome comments, when it is agreed on the format we can start the voting. I suggest we let the poll run for at least 2-3 weeks. - FrancisTyers 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll

To prevent a move war or whatever, lets have a nice happy survey to see what people think about the page name. I will be listing it at current polls.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, adding a brief rationale. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

The voting is approval voting. Any vote for all options including "Slav*" will be noted as a vote for including Slavs/Slavic in any future name. Any vote for all options excluding "Slav*" will be noted as a vote for not-including Slavs/Slavic in any future name. Each vote should be followed by a rationale, any votes not followed by a rationale will be discounted. The outcome of the vote is non-binding. To prevent obvious nationalistic vote stacking, any option without at least 25% non-partisan votes will be discarded. Opposing votes will be disallowed, as will be votes from users who have registered on or after 1st May 2006 or those posted by anonymous IPs.

Feel free to suggest alternative options in the Discussion section, they will be added to the poll, and any votes as above regarding Slav*/non-Slav* will be duplicated.

The page name should be:

Macedonians (contemporary ethnic group)

Macedonians (ethnic group)

Macedonian nation

Macedonian (nationality)

Macedonian people

Macedonians (Republic of Macedonia)

Macedonian Slavic people

Macedonian Slavs

Macedonians (Slavs)

Macedonian (Slavs)

Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)

Macedonians (Slavic people)

Slavomacedonians

Northern Macedonians (Nordmacedonians)

FYR Macedonians

Discussion

Discussion resulting from the survey goes here.

  • Who is the arbiter over what is nationalistic vote stacking and who is partisan, you (Francis)? Does this mean that I shouldn't even bother voting, as I am a "partisan" in your eyes, so my opinion doesn't count? Telex 21:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Partisan as in belonging to one of the involved parties (Greeks/Macedonians). I will show good faith by voting for all options, or alternatively voting for none. To be honest, this is a watered down version of what I actually wanted to put, but seeing as Wikipedia is not a democracy, 4 Greeks and 1 Macedonian voting for the name of the page is a waste of time, we might as well just add up all the people with native Greek userbox and native Macedonian userbox and go with whichever has a larger number. I would be perfectly happy holding a poll where only native English speakers were allowed to vote, provided they give a rationale, would you? Or are you relying on strength in numbers to change the name of the page, because if you are, it really isn't going to happen. Consensus does not mean majority rule. Your opinion counts, of course, and you should vote but we aren't going to achieve consensus by just going with what the Greeks want. - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm Albanian, and I clearly do have a POV on the issue. I'm certainly partisan. Also, sock checks if needed are on the cards, right? Telex 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, and the usual stuff about suffrage — I'll add that now. Dang, I had you down as an Arvanite :)) - FrancisTyers 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I could be lying to achieve my ends ;-) Telex 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW for eligibility, there should be a minimum edit count for the day before the poll started. We can make exception for known exceptional cases (eg MatriX/Bitola). Telex 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
      • "partysan" is a disambiguation page. Telex 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we can both agree that we wouldn't like to be involved in either of those! — at least not on the "voting" end! :)) btw, its at Rainbow party (sexuality) now :/ - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! I think this is funnier, coz it includes both options in the same page! Hell, you don't even have to say compare this with that! It's in the same page! On the other hand, although I am not actually ready to accept your proposal about partisan votes, I think you should rephrase the text to avoid accusing both peoples for being partisan on the whole! I suggest you do that quickly... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Why I am not ready to agree? Obviously because the poll would turn out to become: Which side has created more seemingly independent WP:SOCKS. I am sure Telex can provide many examples as per which side has the clear advantage on that...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about Bomac's sockpuppets User:FoxyNet and User:High Elf, who suddenly dissapeared once Bomac was told that we're on to him. Look at the userboxes he's picked ;-) Telex 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Not really, because there will be a suffrage (from the 1st March) and there will also be sockchecking, and furthermore, any vote that doesn't cite a rationale will be discounted, along with any option that doesn't has less than 25% non-partisan votes. I would be happy to up the limit to 40 or 50%. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm here since 25 April :-( Telex 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Shall we make it the 1st May then? - FrancisTyers 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I have 1077 edits. Couldn't the edit count be fitted into it - at the last poll it said that only people will more than 100 edits on the week before the poll started could vote or something like that. Telex 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate to base it on edit count no. Edit counts are not good enough indicators of how much someone has added to the project. A suffrage and CheckUsers will be enough I think. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Bomacs socks, feel free to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser them, any you or anyone else suspects. We can close the vote on a date, but leave the final count until all CheckUser results have come in. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Any takes on Republican Macedonians or Macedonian Republicans? FunkyFly 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, add them. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Naaah, that would mean (for some) that these are just Macedonian Greeks that happen to have a Republican political orientation. (Now that I come to think of it, that would be a hell of a combination!)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You mean like Spiro Agnew? FunkyFly 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Can you imagine any American voting FOR in that option of yours with the memories such examples produce? :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You say it like being a republican is bad thing. My opinion is that there are no inherently bad political parties, just bad people. Anyway, the guy is greek and is republican. :) FunkyFly 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it was self-sarcasm. (check my userboxes)... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, are we happy with the current structure/content of the poll? :) Any further suggestions? - FrancisTyers 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Will I be able to participate? Telex 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a nice poll, although you have to admit that "partisan voting" is extremely ambiguous. Everybody is a partisan, since everybody has a POV. --   Avg    23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
And I? Will I be, or shall I use my third-computer-in-internet-cafe-neutral-seeming-socks to do so for me?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The Big Brother is watching you. FunkyFly 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Avg, Telex, Niko, et al. Yes everyone can vote, but the partisan thing means that you won't be able to get the name changed simply because there are more Greeks (or Albanians, Bulgarians or whatever) than Macedonians. This is not going to be a "Ladies and gentlemen, the Soviet Union has been declared an outlaw nation. The bombing starts in five minutes." — democracy in action. Maybe you could try that though — use democracy to vote the Macedonians out of existence. :P If you aren't comfortable with this then by all means we can drop the poll and go to RfC. - FrancisTyers 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't like polls for the exact same reasons as you. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it should not be a democracy. Let's use it only as an indication and then go to RfC. --   Avg    23:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should put the poll on hold, go through an RFC first and get a few more outside suggestions. Someone may propose something we haven't thought of that we all like, or we may reach an "out of court settlement". We may even get a few more options to add to the list. Telex 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. (Ha! This just turned into a poll about whether we're gonna have a poll!) NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, as usual, sock polls involve someone placing a notice at the Village Pump of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias, getting everyone to flock over here and sign their names beneath the specified options. The same thing will be going on over at mkwiki. This is what happened at the last such poll and I think we know how things work here. The smaller national Wikipedias are where the national POV rules are like the co-ordinating camps. The English Wikipedia is more like no man's land, where the endless squabbles take place. I think we all know that User:Bonaparte used to recruit nationalists POV pushing on the Romanian Wikipedia (and the Romanian Wikipedians' noticeboard on enwiki). Telex 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
One point, Francis; May 1 is absolutely too late. Remember that we've just had a vote at Republic of Macedonia, and if we don't want too see all those who mysteriously apperared in the voting, me must choose April 1 as date of start for voters. Also, I feel it's always better to have wikipedians with a minimum of experience for the issue.--Aldux 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say the same thing, but that would exclude Telex from the poll. If he doesn't mind I don't object to that reasoning. Telex, thoughts? - FrancisTyers 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I would agree if this is not going to be based on numbers. I am one of the few non-Greek, yet pro-Greek/Bulgarian users here. If it's going to be more like a discussion, with the votes only showing what the groupthink status is, then OK. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry Telex, but I really feel we must be clear on this issue; a month of experience and the starting date April 1. To many editors have bloommed in April only to vote to simply take the risk to see them voting claiming to be Germans, Russians, Spaniards, ecc.--Aldux 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yawn, OK, but will MatriX (talk · contribs) be able to vote? Telex 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Account opened 11 April so no. - FrancisTyers 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of that poll, what is going to happen when this one is finished? Have a second poll to interpret the results of the first one? FunkyFly 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if the result is something the Macedonian users don't like, then there'll be another poll and another one until a result they do like emerges. Then if the Greeks don't like it, there'll be another one and another one until a Greek one emerges and then back to the Macedonians again and again ad nauseam... We need something everyone's happy with. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. We need a global coverage of opinions ideally. If we can point to a poll where a good spread of users have voted with detailed rationales then it will be a lot harder to overturn than a poll of Balkanians (if you'll excuse the term) just voting yes/no. - FrancisTyers 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
sigh... I'll have to fight the temptation of spamming the WP:ANIs of el and sqwiki - it won't help :-( Telex 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess the situation calms down for another couple of months, then whichever way it goes, someone from either side will bring it up again and then we get to go through the rigmarole again. - FrancisTyers 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(gradually becoming a leftist) So we need more people in this, so we need an rfc, so you agree to Telex's proposal that I turned into a poll above? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm fine with whatever, but here you go — an arbitrary poll for a poll. Voting closes midnight (GMT) Monday (8th May). - FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the poll

  1. FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Bucketsofg✐ 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Greasysteve13 09:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to RfC, then poll

  1. FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  2.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Democracy is king!
  3. --   Avg    00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know/don't care as I'm ineligible to vote :-(

  1. Telex 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're free to talk though, so vote for the rfc thing. NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If there is an RfC, the poll will be delayed and you will be able to vote then:-)--   Avg    00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, but the point of the rfc is to invite people and discuss, so that a single vote won't make a difference... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want votes, I told you, I can spam the Village Pumps of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias. We'll get a few tens of nominal supporters that way. The problem is, it wouldn't help, as Francis is on the lookout for nominal "Balkanian" recruited votes. Telex 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Francis knows better. I could right now have 10 sockpuppets claiming they are Canadian or Japanese, right? They'd refrain from editing any article relevant to Macedonia and would appear only to vote. --   Avg    01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Throw process to the dogs

I'm closing the above "poll for a poll" 20 minutes early. The result is a "resounding?" yes to the RfC for the article/poll. If anyone else wants to set up an RfC, please be my guest, otherwise I'll see what I can do tommorow. - FrancisTyers 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's currently 2:50 AM in Eastern Europe. Everyone there (NikoSilver, MatriX etc) will be fast asleep now. Telex 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll prepare an outline of the facts and the question to ask tomorrow (RFCs can be very rewarding if done properly IMO). We'll ask everyone on the talk page if they agree with the summary and if yes, we'll make the RFC. Telex 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring of the article

I have made major changes to the article: I restructured many parts, inserted new info, especially historical, collected same things from different places in one place and tried to avoid erasing as much as possible. Of course, during such actions errors are possible, so I’m open to discuss and other editors are welcomed to continue with the improvement of this important article. I hope you will accept the new version (I spent much time preparing it). MatriX 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Too arbitrary, too unilateral and your version is too POV. Did you read Aldux's comment at Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive8#Methodology BTW? Telex 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And, did you have time to study the previous version which was worked all day by Telex? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have actually seen what I have done?? If you did, you would notice that I didn't erased (at least not deliberately) nothing made by Telex today. I RESTRUCTURED and INSERTED NEW INFO in the article. Why you had to revert my adds immediately? Couldn't you discuss it firstly here? MatriX 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I was taught by you. You didn't even bother to include ONE of Telex's modifs. Don't you know how to use the "show changes" button yet?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


MatirX, you deleted the term "Greek Macedonians", you amended the highly contentious dab note, you remove the POV-title template when you know we are disputing the neutrality of the title. You add propaganda of the type found on pro-FYROM websites (about the ethnic composition and history of Greek Macedonia) and then add a fact template after it (ie you are accepting it is unsourced, but want it in the article anyway), and you expect everyone to just accept it??? Telex 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
My previous post would continue: "And about deliberately, I am a very fast garbadge recogniser!" But I thought I should omit that and show some WP:AGF. The whole list above proved me wrong... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
(Response to Telex):Why didn't you just correct those "mistakes"? (Returned the POV-title, term Greek Macedonians and old dab note)? About the propaganda, you are wrong, I didn't added nothing more than wasn't present in the article already. Ok, I will propose a compromise, I will revert back my version and try to consider your objections (without the last one about the propaganda, give me a proof that I inserted something new and I will remove it immediately). MatriX 21:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
There are more than those mistakes! Don't revert back to your version. Let's vet your version point by point and add as much as possible. You know that this is a controversial article and that sudden changes terrify people (check the history to see how cautious I've been - I've even been adding html notes to justfiy every possible controversial change even without it being disputed). Telex 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to say that actually you don't make sudden changes... Bomac 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I will propose to stop here and to leave this to someone more neutral (like Aldux or FrancisTyers for example) to settle this down (any suggestions are welcommed).MatriX 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading carefully... Sorry MatriX, but you have written some very questionable claims regarding the Macedonian minorities in other countries (not sure about the rest). I will revert to the last neutral version overseen by Aldux and Francis for now. Feel free to discuss your changes, but I'd suggest you post them one by one...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to make any comment on this at the moment, I think its safe to say that this (at least the poll) will be going to RfC shortly, so I don't think its particularly useful to work on the article while the name is still in dispute. MatriX, try including stuff from reputable historical journals instead of sites like "mymacedonia.net" or whatever it was you were adding. You can probably find some good, citable information from scholar.google.com. - FrancisTyers 22:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
My intention was to make a better structured article (I spent hours on that trying to be as much neutral as I can) and if you cannot see that, then lets return back to the older version. MatriX 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Um... MatriX, in your paragraph Ancient Period, you mention that Kanchov and Weigand claim that the Slavic tribes probably absorbed some indigenous populations that they came upon in the area, but you don't mention the Bulgars, which are explicitly mentioned by the Byzantine chroniclers Theophanes and Nicephorus. In fact, the Bulgars are not even mentioned in the whole of your article. Telex 22:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I think the article does need a little restructuring. MatriX, can you please do that first and them post your proposed changes? I will support both restructuring and verifiable, complete changes -however please do them separately, as it is really confusing to spot all modifications if you stir the article at the same time...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, you are attributing the Ilinden uprising to the Macedonians (or claiming that they took part in it). I'd love to see a non partisan source confirming this. Also you claim that placenames were renamed. That's POV and you know it - as far as the Greeks were concerned, they were always the placenames. What about Edessa, which dates back to Ancient Macedon (they even founded an Edessa in Mesopotamia - see Edessa, Mesopotamia). Is this a "new Greek changed name", whereas Voden was the original? Are you kidding us? Telex 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought this article is about the Macedonians (not for Bulgarians)...as I said, I never inserted new info about "changing the placenames" (however, I said I was opened for corrections, but you reverted mercilesly mu version...) MatriX 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Tell me MatriX, to your knowledge, did the Macedonians initially support or oppose Ivan Mihailov and his occupation team? BTW you do mention renaming places. Telex 22:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, tell me, what is the purpose of the following quote:
Greeks were resettled in the region in two occasions, firstly following the Bulgarian loss of the Second Balkan War when Bulgaria and Greece mutually exchanged their populations (1913) and secondly in 1923 as a result of the population exchange with the new Turkish republic that followed the Greek military defeat in Asia minor.
If the article is exclusively about the Macedonians wouldn't this seem like a redundancy? And why do you use the exonyms Aegean and Pirin Macedonia (the names used by irredentists) and not the self-identifying names (in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conflict). The self-identifying names are Blagoevgrad Province and Macedonia (or Greek Macedonia - disambiguation may sometimes be needed according to the guideline). Telex 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Come on Telex! It was just... restructuring! NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I think MatriX's organization of the page is POV. He presents an extensive version of the "official history" as taught in FYROM and then clumps all dissenting views into a smaller section near the bottom of the page (and he is half an inch close to presenting it as propaganda which must be ignored). Telex 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
About the "Greeks were resettled..." - I only replaced that text (it is not inserted by me). I really wanted to remove all redundant info, but regarding the previous (and present) condition of the article... that was a really hard work. About the naming of the regions, I will again say, I was opened for discussions and corrections, but, don't you think that now this is irrelevant? (my version is not longer in place). I never intended to make a POV article (I know that it will be not allowed regarding the number of editors making edits here every day), however, it seems that my work was useless...MatriX 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not your fault, it's your government's for making you study from textbooks, which do not always correctly present the situation. FunkyFly 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What I do agree from your (MatriX's) version though is how you joined the "origins and identities", "the Balkan Wars" and "Macedonians after the Second World War" into one "History" section. I think we should reintroduce that (I've done it, tell me what you think). Telex 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
If you check most ethnic groups articles, you'll notice that there seems to be a rather irregular pattern (compare the layout of English people with Greeks and then with Turkish people and you'll see what I mean). Each nation is unique and different aspects need individual treatment. Personally, the English layout is my favorite, but I can't think of how to apply it here. Telex 23:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I try to be as moderate as I can and yet I can't think of how any dispute-resolution method could support MatriX's version. His "reconstruction", besides being dominated by POV-pushing, it includes a great deal of historical inaccuracies. For example the following paragraph is false altogether:
"The area where the present Macedonian nation lives is Macedonia, a famous historical region known from ancient times, mostly by Ancient Macedonians."
Ancient Macedon was only a sub-region of the current Greek Macedonia, while the FYROM region was exclusevily inhabited by Paionians, a people of Thraco-Illyrian stock. Then it's somewhere mentioned that Tsar Samuel entered Peloponnese (something which never happened), and similar fallacies. Furthermore almost every historical reference contains inaccuracies, but most importantly, it is alien to the history of Macedonian Slavs. Miskin 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am the one to blame for reverting it...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 08:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

All the disagreement stems from the following:

  1. Question of cultural connection between Ancient Macedon and the present day Republic of Macedonia.
  2. Question of separate culture/nationality during middle ages, as opposed to being part of either the Byzantine empire or the Bulgarian empire
  3. Question of the emergence of the macedonian ethnicity - no earlier than the beginning of the 20th century?

If we reach an agreement on those 3 points all the disputes should be settled (except maybe the naming dispute) FunkyFly 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article's content is fine as it is now. The main thing MatriX was after was to reformat the page (and he probably got carried away and added a little POV in the process), although I think the format is fine now, as it is. What MatriX did that I didn't like was that he presented the dubious "official history" as taught in R. Macedonia in the history section and called it "history" and presented all dissenting viewpoints in an "alternative viewpoints" section. We don't have to reach agreement on those three points (it's not possible as sources contradict, it's not for Wikipedia to decide), we just write what sources we have. The article at present doesn't really address those issues and only discusses where and who their ancestors at various periods through time. The actual discussion of history the article currently discusses starts in the 20th century with the Balkan wars and the division of Macedonia, the balance of powers, ABECEDAR etc. I think those three points you mention are a can of worms which should stay closed. Telex 18:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the opposite, that the article is pretty much unreadable (we have same thing mentioned in several places), for example the situation of Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria, or the section about the Macedonians after the World War II. But, what I'm sorry the most is deleting my adds to the newly created history section. As I said, it is possible that some of my adds were not as good as it should be, I hope when I found a little more time I will try to readd improved version of it. MatriX 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right about the population sections. Therefore I've merged them into a single section. Tell me what you think (revert if you think it was better before). Telex 18:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Telex, you hit me with my own words :) . An agreement on those three points will be reached eventually. I have no idea what that agreement will be, just that it will exist and that would be the end of the controversy about the history of the Republic of Macedonia. FunkyFly 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe a mention of the naming conflict is indispensable. If you talk about "Macedonians" you have to prominently mention why it is objectionable.--   Avg    18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We're not scholars to reach in agreements, we're only editors. The "questions" you brought up are completey fictional, i.e. there's not some sort of dispute in the academic society about it as you imply. The position of everybody outside FYROM is clear:

  1. There's no acceptance nor proof of a connection of any sort (despite what your schoolbooks say).
  2. There was no independent Macedonian political entity, only a Byzantine province which happened to be Greek (despite what your schoolbooks say).
  3. The Macedonian ethnicity as I have sourced earlier is a product of the 20th century.

Or maybe you would like a "source" that would verify the above? The article is fine the way it is, there's enough POV-pushing and implications already, but thanks for the offer anyway. Miskin 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WOW, still more nice POV... Gee, I'm glad that people have their POV

Bomac 21:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So Bomac, if that was my POV then how come it's not in the article all this time? Do you think that all other editors here have conspired with the Greeks? Or do you think that you and your compatriots have historical information that we're not aware of? By all means, share it with us, and don't forget to cite your sources. If you are unable to bring valid a counter-argument for at least the first two "questions", then your last edit will be regarded as trolling. Miskin 21:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know, FunkyFly would agree with your (Miskin's) analysis. Telex 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek Macedonians

For the last time, here are some sources for the term Greek Macedonians. We have a Swiss Human Rights Organization [4] and as we know, Switzerland is neutral ;-) It's mentioned in this University of Amsterdam study on the name dispute [5], you can get Kofos's book on the dispute (available online - click the link at the bottom of this page). Even the scholar User:Risto Stefov, in his book: The Little Book of BIG Greek Lies (available online), claims it was an invention (ie even he's admiting it's used) in order to deny the existence of the [ethnic] Macedonians. Telex 22:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a Bulgarian source [6]. Telex 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a Greek source [7] from the National Center for Hellenic Studies and Research (it mentions a publication). Telex 22:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

History section

I need a good reason not to remove a large part of the history section which deals with the history of the region and not of the nation. Miskin 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is enough?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It's part of the history of the genetic non-ethnic-Macedonian identifying ancestors of the present day ethnic Macedonians. I mean ancient history need not be discussed - just say who the ancestors were at the specific periods. See also my minor corrections to the original version. I'm not that bothered - keep it if you want, delete it if you want, I don't mind. As long as inaccuracies aren't presented as facts. Telex 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dab

I’m proposing this short and simple dab. I think the previous dab was pretty much biased. For example, the word contemporary can imply that the Macedonian nation exists only now, that it is a modern nation that has no past, no roots etc, which is simply not true, every nation has been created in some period of the past (sooner or later) and has its roots. Mentioning of Greeks in the dab is also not correct: if someone wants to see what the other meanings of the word Macedonian are, it can freely click on the Macedonian link and see all alternatives (Ancient Greeks, modern Greeks, Bulgarians…). MatriX 11:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Greeks should not be mentioned. However, the ancient Macedonians should not, in order to make clear that the new Macedonians do not have some kind of exclusive relationship with them, which makes them have some exclusive historical right to Greek Macedonia, Korce and Pogradec Districts etc. That's the root of all this mess (the naming dispute). I've tried something - opinions? --Telex 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about the following proposal (I think it is really NPOV):
This article is about the present ethnic Macedonians; for Ancient Macedonians see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian.
MatriX 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing inerently wrong with it, except it doesn't address the concern. It needs to preclude the (souced) fact that the modern Macedonians are not exclusive inheritors of the ancient Macedonians, but are just have the same name. --Telex 12:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Or do you have a (non partisan) source claiming that the present day ethnic Macedonians are inheritors of Ancient Macedon and as such are entitled to Greek Macedonia et al. If they are not, then there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. The problem with your proposal is that it draws an unconfirmed parallel between modern and ancient Macedonians. --Telex 12:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a discussion among many relevant historians about the relation between the modern ethnic Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians (in the last time I prefer not to involve in discussions about this issue). I think that with mentioning of the Ancient Macedonians in the dab we already make a distinction (if the modern Macedonians were the same with the Ancient ones, then I believe we would have no need to mention that in the dab). MatriX 12:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you cite such a discussion or its participants by name? The real controversy is over whether the ancient Macedonians were or were not ethnically Greek. There's no dispute that they weren't ethnically Slavs (unlike the modern Macedonians) and there is no source claiming that they are in some way related (or are more related to them than present day Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs and Turks). --Telex 12:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL!!! Nice one!!! What kind of "discussion" is this? Is it an exchange of opinions between "historians" from Skopje and Bitola? --   Avg    13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the dab is fine the way it is. I don't want to sound obtuse, but there's no serious scholar on the planet who would waste his time on trying to find a connection between modern Slavs of FYROM and ancient Hellenic Macedon, for reasons that are obvious to everybody in the world except the Slavic Macedonians themselves. You need to open your eyes to the truth at some point. Since the article name is 'Macedonians (ethnic group)' instead of 'Macedonians (Slavic)' or something more descriptive, the dab note needs to point out that the other uses of 'Macedonians' are unrelated. Miskin 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur - if MatriX's new dab note is to stay, then we should request mediation anf RFCs on the possibility or renaming the page. Why are you also hiding the fact that you are Slavs and they weren't? --Telex 12:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

MatriX: changing the dab again will only result to rv-wars. The specific phrasing was agreed by many in order to drop the discussion on moving the article to Macedonians (Slav). If you weaken the dab because of your POV, then the question of moving the article will rise again. Miskin 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t claim anything, I just tried to improve the dab. I cannot see what is wrong with the first sentence from my proposal: This article is about the present ethnic Macedonians? (whether we are Slavs or not, the nation exist). Also, I cannot see what is wrong with the second sequence: for the people that lived in antiquity, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian. With the mentioning of the Ancient Macedonians as people that lived in antiquity we are already making distinction (if someone wants to learn more, it can click on the link and read the whole article). However, I have no intention to involve into an edit war about this. MatriX 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, because ancient Macedonians did not live where the Slavs settled or are found today. They lived further south in Greek Macedonia and were incorporated into the Byzantine Greek nation long before the Slavs arrived, who were in fact their enemies. Your edits aim to mislead the leader into believing something which "you" only believe. I don't see how a dab note can be "improved" if we make it more abstract. Miskin 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, didn't we already work this out:

This article is about the Slavic speaking ethnic group; for the unrelated non Slavic speaking ethnic group in antiquity living in Macedon, roughly in the present day region of Macedonia in northern Greece, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian.

Does anyone seriously have a problem with that? - FrancisTyers 12:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should restore what we initially agreed on, which was a re-written version of what you just proposed. It goes "This article is about the modern Slavic ethnic group; for the unrelated ethnic group of ancient Greece, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian." I didn't noticed when it was changed. Miskin 13:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not satisfied with that solution. Why you are so certain that the modern Macedonians have nothing at all with the Ancient ones? As I said, this issue is disputable among many contemporary historians and I see no reason why you are rejecting the idea at all. For example, in the following book: Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation by John Shea [8] in the page 44 you can find the following:

There is an important, but neglected question about what happened to the Ancient Macedonians when the Slavs occupied their lands. As we shall see in the later chapter, it has been argued that this incursion in the south of the Balkan peninsula, in the area that is now Greece, though equally comprehensive, did not lead to the destruction of the local people, but to an extended assimilation process. There is no compelling reason to believe that such assimilation was restricted to the south. In other words, the invaders in Macedonia mixed with the existing peoples, and the descendants of these peoples could reasonably claim a direct connection with the ancient Macedonians.

MatriX 13:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

He says may claim a direct connection with the ancient Macedonians, not do have some exclusive connection with the ancient Macedonians. As long as you are clearly not their exclusive inheritors, there's no point in impliedly asserting a modern vs ancient connection (eg modern vs ancient Japanese). Ethnicity is not based on genes (a common misconception in Skopje), but on culture and language, this is why the modern Macedonians are listed at Slavic peoples. As the author is clearly not endorsing the position, but rather posing a question which he leaves unanswered, I see no reason to infer a relation. We could remove the unrelated, but the Slavic vs non-Slavic stays, right? --Telex 13:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Matrix you are in serious denial. There is NO, NADA, ZILCH connection between you and the Ancient Macedonians, while THERE IS a connection between Ancient Macedonians and Greeks. You and your pals in FYROM have to live with it.--   Avg    13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of this book. If you noticed it's cited by almost every macedonian slavic propagandist website and it doesn't represent mainstream views. In the very same section of the paragraph you quoted, the author also claims that the ancient Macedonians might have spoke Slavic. Unless of course you believe that the latter claim is also a question "examined by many modern scholars", you would agree that this source doesn't qualify as "serious", or at least representative of a scholarly consensus. Furthermore the author never backs up his claims, he just goes "there is a possibility that this might have happened". As the title implies, the author is a sympathiser of the the Macedonian Slavic nation-building, and it contains sections such as "the great racial mixture of Greeks" and similar extreme views which reveal his bias. It's easy to find a source which simply badmouths the Greeks, but that's not the objective of WP:CITE. Miskin 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the dab, I find that Telex's version, This article is about the Slavic ethnic group; for the non-Slavic inhabitants of ancient Macedon, a kingdom roughly corresponding to present-day Greek Macedonia, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian. Is generally OK: and Miskin's "unrelated" is probably better than "non-Slavic". But I find "modern" as simply provocative and not supported by many editors, and for this I will remove it. Also, I have objections to "a kingdom roughly corresponding to present-day Greek Macedonia"; this is a dab, and we should limit ourselves to the essential, or else we'll start adding to the dab things like "founded by Argead dynasty" or "conquered by the Romans".--Aldux 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agreed to remove 'modern', although it's not a lie when you think that the nation was officially established 15 years ago. My initial objection was to your removal of "a kingdom of Ancient Greece", which is a standard terminology for Macedon. I'll restore the previous note by removing 'modern'. Miskin 15:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Another word for modern could be contemporary, but that's an idea ofcourse. Could someone please inform the rest of us, how many of the ~200 nations in UN have been created in the last 15 years? I am not convinced that any of the above versions is better than the dab version I did yesterday, which includes some 2.5 million present day, breathing, walking, speaking, reproducing etc Greek Macedonians. I will revert it to that, and you may discuss further why a quarter of the Greek population, and almost double the Slavic population is not important to disambiguate. Maybe you think that the newly acquired national status, gives the right of superiority over the well sourced Greek Macedonians, or maybe you think that it is the Greek Macedonians or simply Macedonians who should get rid of their 2.500 year old self-identifying name, just because someone claims to be called as such as well. In both cases, you are all wrong, unless I am from Mars...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Aldux's version (just to let everyone know). Ancient Macedonians are mentioned for a reason (the inheritance issues I've outlined above). The Greek Macedonians are not immediately relevant. --Telex 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Belarus, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Timor Leste, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Tajikistan. Theres thirteen. There are probably more in Africa, and also probably more elsewhere, those are the few that pop into the top of my head though. If we stretched back 50-60 years I'd warrant maybe 100 or so. For my €0.02, I agree with Telex, Aldux, and myself, although if there was a page on Greek Macedonians I would be happy to disambig it. Do they have enough of a separate culture etc. from Greeks in general to have their own page? - FrancisTyers 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see they do have their own page. No problem with disambiguating to that too. - FrancisTyers 16:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
As I know, some Greeks are using the term Macedonians in a geographical manner, but never in order to express nationality because they are simply Greeks. MatriX 16:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened now Aldux? Why are you reverting to a version which blatantly aims to hide information? Is there anything in the originally agreed version that would you like to have sourced? Or do you think that it's too much for a dab? Miskin 16:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain the rationale, why Greek Macedonians must not be disambiguated? I am all ears... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the Greek Macedonians are not relevant. Normally, all we need is a "see also the dab page" note, and the only reason I insist on mentioning the ancient Macedonians is to clarify that we're dealing with a generally unrelated to the ancient Macedonians ethnic group, so that the modern Macedonian ethnic group have no exclusive historical right to claim the entire region (which they don't - they are not more related the ancient Macedon than any other ethnic group in the area). --Telex 16:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Greek Macedonians are mentioned and linked to in the introduction. --Telex 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
That latter comment covers me.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets be honest: out of the Balcans, the 99% of the world when hearing the word "Macedonian" think two distinct things, the modern nationality, and even more than that, the ancient inhabitants of Macedonia. For this reason Ancient Macedonians simply must be in a dab to Macedonians (ethnic group). Macedonian Greeks is hardly known out of the region, and, like it or not, the dab is to make life easy mainly for them, the readers without any connection with the region. Also, this article isn't titled Macedonians, but Macedonians (ethnic group); a partenthesis added exactly not to make confusion with the other people in Macedonia. If this wasn't enough, Macedonian Greeks is present immediately in the introduction summary, so that there isn't any confusion.--Aldux 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I said I was covered, please stop shooting! However, I disagree with you Aldux about people's minds when faced with Macedonian. There are many cases our friends from Skopje above can tell you, where they said "I am Macedonian" to someone and got a reply of smthng like "Greece is a lovely country!"  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt that, and even if so it would be swamped by the number of people who say "Oh, wheres that then?". - FrancisTyers 17:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
To your disappointment, there was a documentary of the internationally well-respected reporter Alexis Papachelas on Mega Channel, who interviewed dozens of people in fYRoM (from students to grandpa's) and the exact above content of a dialogue was narrated infront of the camera by quite a few, to demonstrate their resentment that there are some other Macedonians too, who try to steal Great Al from them! You want the tape?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Haha, an interview by a Greek journalist on a Greek TV channel, I'll take it with a large slice of feta. Besides, the only Greek TV worth watching is TV War. Feel free to put it up though, I could use a laugh :)) Oh, and if I had a TV card, and Macedonia actually did stuff to get on the news here I could have loads of footage of English people using the normal name ;) - FrancisTyers 11:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Now I noticed your rsp. It's not his comments. It's the comments of various MacSlavs he asked infront of the camera. You can expect the whole thing to be biased if you want, but you cant't accuse MacSlavs of being biased by Greeks (against themselves?) when they present examples of other people's quotes about their ethnicity.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, I didn't want to indulge in polemics, but simply I had already completed the message before reading Telex and your posts, and since I had written it I posted it all the same, even if it wasn't really needed any more. Ciao!--Aldux 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just keep in mind that there are 2.5 million people up there with a clear regional and national identity, with significant present achievements (many PM's of Greece, actors, singers, artists, businessmen etc) and with a lot of worldwide recognition, who need disambiguation. I am covered with the intro, so no problemo...:-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it as clear as it gets. I will not accept any pampering of FYROM nationals sacrificing NPOV. NPOV does not mean "acceptable by all". NPOV means NEUTRAL. Neutral means objective. Objective means not explicitly or implicitly accepting a falsity. Any connection between Ancient Macedonians and todays "Macedonians" is an insult to history. Not mentioning the link to Greece means implying that these guys have a connection to Ancient Macedonians. They do NOT, Greeks do. This has to be mentioned. --   Avg    18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Eurominority

Eurominority is not a reliable source. Their secretary is an ethnic Macedonian [9] and they make ludicrous claims about the Pomaks in Greece [10] (that they speak "Macedonian"). On their article on the "Macedonians" in Albania [11], a) they use the Vergina Sun flag (which makes me suspicious, as only Macedonian nationalist organizations use that) and b) they don't even mention the latest census. This is a private organization and a private website - it's about as reliable as my website. --Telex 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly an external source either. --Telex 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that they say that Macedonian in Albanian is "Maqedon" (which is accurate), but the plural is "Maqedonë", not "Maqedones" (which is what they have written). --Telex 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure that Krste Misirkov used the term Macedonian Slavs (македонски словени). Although, I highly doubt that the Macedonian Slavs Misirkov was talking about have anything to do with these Macedonians. --Telex 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah... Something that we don't like, we ignore it or make a ,,version" suitable to our POV... That's the human psychology... There's nothing we can do. We are all the same. Bomac 14:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anybody's interested there are some of Misirkov's writings online at at Misirkov.org--Aldux 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
He does use it. Eg here:
Таа цел се достигнуваше едно со најавување историски и други права и сообразувања, а друго и главно, со инакво поставување на прашањето за народноста на Македонските Словени.
I can't really understand this, but in this area, he seems to be discussing Serbian propaganda and their position on the "question of the nationality of the Macedonian Slavs". --Telex 15:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's OK 'bout the Macedonian Slavs (BTW he uses this term to distinguish Macedonians from Serbs and Bulgarians), but to say that he is not talking 'bout the ancestors of today's Macedonians is absurd... Bomac 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in there I detected the words not Serbs nor Bulgarians, but Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs. I really can't understand it :-/ It's so frustrating. --Telex 15:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But why Telex? I've always wanted to know why do R. Macedonia's neighbours simply don't want to accept the existence of the Macedonians? Bomac 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't understand what he's saying - I don't understand Macedonian. --Telex 15:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Accept the ethnicity "Macedonians" without any qualifier? That is like putting our fingers into our own eyes and pulling them out. It is utterly unacceptable that a Slavic tribe can claim to be the unique ethnic Macedonians. Accept first yourselves that you are NOT the only Macedonians as you claim, put a Slavo- prefix before your name and then we can discuss again (my POV is you are not AT ALL Macedonians, but that's another story). --   Avg    18:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

?!? And the frustration thing? Bomac 15:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, not being able to understand something is frustrating - it's worse than a Latin exam I had a few years ago when I couldn't understand a word of a text I was supposed to translate. Can't Mirirkov's works be found in English anywhere? --Telex 15:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... (is this joke or smt.?) Still, there is English version below the Macedonian one, Telex. Bomac 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Where, it would be much appreciated if you could link to the English version of [12]. --Telex 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Piece of cake, it's right here. Bomac 15:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll use this info to devise new and more bizzare ways of denying the Macedonians (http://www.macedoniainfo.com/ will help me) ;-) --Telex 15:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the human psychology, nothing can do noone... ;-) Bomac 15:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That didn't even make sense. Miskin 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Map

User:Macedonia, leave the map. It's inaccurate anyway, because Bulgaria does recognize the Macedonian ethnicity within Bulgaria. --Telex 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying everything else is good? Macedonia 21:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Speaking the "Macedonian language" doesn't mean that there are Macedonians. There are "Macedonians" who cannot speak the language, but self-identify as Macedonians and this makes them Macedonians. There are also people who speak "Macedonian" (they call it "Slavic" though) and claim to be other ethnicities, mostly Bulgarians and Greeks. You'll need to find a source confirming the areas where they are alleged to originate/live. --Telex 21:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Change name: Macedonians (ethnic group), to Slav Macedonians

Well, please consider it. The terms is occasionally confused with the Greek Macedonians. We say that, Peloponnesians emigrated to the US, Cretans to South Africa, Macedonians to Germany. We never have (or had) to say Greek Peloponnesians, or Greek Macedonians... But we have to point out that up to WWII, that it was the Bulgarians or Serbs that emigrated to those countries. The Slavs are a great civilisation and I cannot see why a small minority of people (a few of them Makedonci) are so racist against half the European population - and get away with it. Politis 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the sound of this - after all, Krste Misirkov used the terms македонски словени (Macedonian Slavs) and македонци (Macedonians) interchangeably. Although, it probably is true that the people Misirkov was talking about are totally unrelated to the people in FYROM who today call themselves "Macedonians", they seem to think they are. Why not? --Telex 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
They simply won't stop appropriating everything Macedonian. It is appalling (and an inherent flaw) that Wikipedia allows a historical monstrosity of such proportions to take place. By the way, what happened with the RfC? We abandoned the poll provided that we get an RfC. This was over two weeks ago. If nothing happens, perhaps it's time for that poll after all. --   Avg    05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to conduct the poll. - FrancisTyers 08:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Telex was perhaps stalling so he could vote the next time round ;) - FrancisTyers 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I must admit I had the same suspects ;-)))) As for the problem of socks or new editors coming out from nowhere, may I propose to put a limit of 100 edits before June for partecipating? This would let all dedicated editors free to vote, and guarantee against socks and mass levies from the Greek and Macedonian wikipedias. Opinions?--Aldux 11:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking something similar, this comment, I could right now have 10 sockpuppets claiming they are Canadian or Japanese, right? They'd refrain from editing any article relevant to Macedonia and would appear only to vote. by Avg would suggest that it might be a good idea to limit the people registered before 1st May to those who have actively taken a part in this discussion so far, viz. Telex, Matrix. I really can't see a reason why this isn't reasonable. - FrancisTyers 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I won't be happy. We've already had a poll (at a point where the article name was still Macedonian Slavs), it turned out to be a disaster of ethnically motivated voting. We've already had a RfC (the request). See the dates. We have a perfectly clear Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, for these matters, and I really don't have the time nor the nerve to go over it again. (Yup, I know your reply for this...) --FlavrSavr 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
FlavrSavr, have you read the guideline? It says that the self-identifying name is used together with "proper disambiguation". I'm challenging the "properness" of the present disambiguation "(ethnic group)" and think it should be more like "(Slavic)". The present one implies that the Macedonian Slavs have some kind of exclusive right to Macedonia (region), as I'm sure you're well aware. Not to menion that the Aromanians are also an ethnic group and can be called "Macedonians". --Telex 11:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please read the discussion and the provided sources, and then comment. Believe it or not, this, hm, argument was used over and over again. There are zillion reasons why your suggested "proper" disambiguation, isn't proper, one of them being that Macedonians (Slavic), is definitely not the self-identyfing name for the ethnic group, as evidenced by their fierce resistance of this term. I've provided you with a link before - [13], you chose to ignore it. I'd really like to assume good faith from you, but I think that considering your expressed views, the only proper disambiguation would be Macedonians (Tito), Macedonians (fake), Macedonians (evil), Macedonians (dumb). --FlavrSavr 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
More like Macedonians (Bulgaro-skopian imposters). :)) - FrancisTyers 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hell, we should legalize weed, adopt Rastafarian culture and buldoze the borders. That's what I say ;).  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Am I detecting a straw man argument, FlavrSavr? Of course, thinking about it rationally, the existence of the Macedonians (ethnic group) is a vital ingredient to the creation of United Macedonia, is that not so? On the other hand, the truth sometimes hurts - I highly doubt that you are suggesting that we should remove the Macedonian Slavs (as per Krste Misirkov) from the article on the Slavic peoples and blank out the part of this article which states that that the Macedonian Slavs (as per Krste Misirkov) are primarily the descendants of Slavic tribes, solely on the basis that certain elements within this ethnic group claim/feel/wish that they are not Slavs, but the descendents and inheritors of the Ancient Macedonians. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica [14]: Macedonia's Greek ethnic composition was overturned by the invasion of Slavic peoples into the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD. In other words, what the Slavs found when they arrived in Macedonia were not Ancient Macedonians, but Greeks. In other words, the impression that the "ethnic Macedonians" have some kind of exclusive relation to the Ancient Macedonians, which gives them the unalienable right to Aegean Macedonia, Mala Prespa, Pirin Macedonia and Pohor Pchinski, is quite misleading don't you think, as well as a blatant inaccuracy? I am aware that you dislike the term Slav, which explains the purge you conducted at mkwiki to that term. The guideline requires the self-identifying name together with proper disambiguation. It does not regulate what that disambiguation must be, nor that it must be something accepted by a group of which some elements are in denial of mainstream scientific consensus. I understand you opposing it, as it is presently easier to confuse the uninformed reader, but please try to think neutrally. --Telex 18:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia and throughout the world are declaring themselves simple as Macedonians - the only proper self-describing name for them is Macedonian without any additions. We have many modern nations with Slavic origin like Russians, Serbs, Croatians and we are almost always using the terms Russian, Serb, Croatian for a person belonging to those nations (I rarely hear something like Russian Slav, Serb Slav, Croatian Slav...). MatriX 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, at some point at the RfC, we had agreed that the best term for this ethnic group is Macedonian Dark Elves, but, for some reasons, Britannica refers to them as "Macedonians". For Kalimdor! --FlavrSavr 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
(to MatriX)Indeed, but under the guideline, we must use the self-identifying name (Macedonians) together with something to resolve the ambiguity. The effect of this, is that the title should have the form Macedonians (X). We are not denying that they call themselves Macedonians – we are disambiguating. The extent of the disambiguation depends on what is to be disambiguated and the. I think the title Macedonians (Slavic) sounds appropriate. We are using the self-identifying name with appropriate disambiguation according to the relevant guideline, and I have yet to see a good reason why this should not be used. (to FlavrSavr) Britannica does not call you "Macedonians" - it calls you "people calling themselves Macedonians". There's a difference. --Telex 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
No, unfortunately it refers to them as Macedonians. Telex, why don't you read the RfC, I've already explained why Macedonians (Slavic) is also ambigious. --FlavrSavr 19:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Gee whiz, that article must be the most comprehensive one about the Macedonian people.  /FunkyFly.talk_   19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Impressive, FlavrSavr, but take a closer look. It refers to the people as "ethnic Macedonians" (vs Albanians) and here calls the people "calling themselves Macedonians" and says that they are descendents of "Slavic tribes" (blasphemy). In the Trajkovski article, Macedonian merely refers to geography - a politician of the Republic of Macedonia (or Macedonia). I'm still waiting for you to answer my other points. --Telex 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, is that what ethnic in ethnic Macedonians stands for? Plus, there's an article called Macedonians, unfortunately, it requires a membership to view it. As for Macedonians (Slavic), I'm not intending to explain it to you again, as I've discussed it million times before. See the RfC, (point 1). You have a full list of encyclopedias, international organizations, and other references that use "Macedonians". I really spend days on this, as well on other discussions elaborating the very same issue and it's not my problem if you are too lazy to browse past discussions. Alternatively, you can address to BBC's directive on the use of the term "Slav". Now, if you excuse me, I really have a life to live. --FlavrSavr 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Do I sense a little hostility - I suppose it's due to the fact that your ethnicity has numerous names which have both infiltrated the United Nations [15]. --Telex 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Get a real perspective on how the UN refer to this ethnic group Macedonians vs Macedonian Slavs. Also, keep in mind that 2 of the remarkable 6 documents are actually excerpts from ITC trials, 2 of them use "ethnic Macedonians" more frequently, and 1 is written from a person of Greek ethnicity. Bye. --FlavrSavr 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
In other words, contrary to your claims, it is acceptable to use "Macedonian Slavs" (Misirkov got away with it, as did mkwiki until recently [16]. ) --Telex 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
FlavSavr and co. it is a simple fact that Greek Macedonians call themselves Macedonians. Accept it. There isn't only you in this world.--   Avg    19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Have I ever claimed the contrary? --FlavrSavr 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You are evading the issue. No one proposed moving this article to Macedonian Slavs, just to change what is in the parenthesis. No good reason has yet been given. --Telex 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
When you claim that there's no need for disambiguation, you implicitly deny everyone else's right to be called Macedonians--   Avg    19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't have a problem if some Greek is calling himself a Macedonian, I hope some day we will see the opposite.MatriX 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Macedonians (Greek)? I hope you remember that source I cited to you the other day at the CFD. I have yet to receive your sources proving that the "Macedonian" ethnicity is not a product of the 20th century. --Telex 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I take you're in favour of renaming this article then?--   Avg    20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Every existing nation in the world has been created in some period in the past, the same applies for the Macedonian nation, Greek nation and others. I'm of course in favour of naming the nation with its real name (not by some name imposed by desire of others, especially if that name is not accepted at all by the nation we are talking about). MatriX 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, well, to let you know, your nation was created in the 20th century.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course Funky, you always know better then us. Unfortunately, my grand father doesn't say the same as you. As FlavrSavr, I'm outta here also... MatriX 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Funky, if you had said that in Skopje, you would have been lynched. For obvious reasons - see complex, psychological repression and then denial. --Telex 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I forgot your grandfather spoke with Goce Delchev too.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
That reminds me of one case, Bulgarian toursits in Ohrid were arrested because they said that they are Bulgarian, rather than, appropriately, Macedonians. Then go figure why there's no option in the census for people to declare Bulgarian.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It would give people dangerous ideas maybe, and then another 60,000 "Macedonians" would decide they were Bulgarian (like they did once that infamous law was lifted - although to this day, it remains an unwritten law)? --Telex 20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Telex, my friend, I hate to break this to you but, the figure has grown already.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous of wikipedia to refer to FYROM as "Macedonia", since the UN has recognize it as FYROM. No country has the right to monopolize a name of a region that belongs to more than one countries. There is Slavic Macedonia, Greek Macedonia and even Bulgarian Macedonia. They do have the right of having as part of their name the term "Macedonia" but they do not have the right to monopolize it. Historically, they have never been self-identified as "Macedonians" before the 19nth century. They only did so in order to stress their separation from neighbour nations as Albanians, Bulgarians and Grecomacedonians. Let me give you an example. If Portugal was separated in two countries like former Yugoslavia did, would the northern of it have the right to be called "Galicia"? No, because there already would exist a region of a neighbour country with that name. So, dear citizens of FYROM and dear editors of wikipedia, change this country's name on this site. My suggestions are: either refer to it as FYROM and to its citizens as FYR Macedonians or refer to it as Slavomacedonia and Slavomacedonians. This is the fairest choice, although you could also use Northern Macedonia and Northern Macedonians. These sollutions would be fair to both sides Greek Macedonian and Slavomacedonian and they would also be justified in historical, political and other terms. You always care about FYROM's right to self-identification, what about the right of 2,5 millions of Greek Macedonians to identify themselves as Macedonians as they have so for thousands of years and they did not just "remember" they were "Macedonians" during the last few decades like the Slavomacedonians did. (Dionysios 10:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Poll

So is there interest in taking a poll? - FrancisTyers 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We were going to get the RFC first (and wait for me and my non-Balkanian looking sockpuppets to mature enough to vote). --Telex 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I myself will never mature!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hutchinson

Telex, are you certain about Hutchinson? Apparently the edit was introduced through info. gave be User:REX, an Albanian editor, who claiming to be citing the text, reported this (or more exactly, reported by User:Macedonian, who thanked REX for the quote):

"People of Macedonian culture from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the surrounding area, especially Greece, Albania, and Bulgaria. Macedonian, a Slavic language belonging to the Indo-European family, has 1-1.5 million speakers. The Macedonians are predominantly members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and write with a Cyrillic script. They are known for their folk arts. The Macedonian language and ethnic identification have been subject to repression, especially in Bulgaria and Greece. Although the number of Macedonian speakers in Greece is estimated at 100,000-200,000 (1994), they are denied official recognition. [Then it had a picture of Macedonians in their traditional dress] (©Helicon Publishing Ltd, printed from the Hutchinson Educational Encyclopedia, 2000)"

I don't know what to say; may it be that we are speaking of different editions of the encyclopedia?--Aldux 12:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. I see more differences than just the numbers. I am looking at the book now, that Although the number of Macedonian speakers in Greece is estimated at 100,000-200,000 (1994), they are denied official recognition. is not written, and it does not say The Macedonians are predominantly members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it says The Macedonians are predominantly members of the Greek Orthodox Church. --Telex 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK.--Aldux 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of ethnic Macedonians

Main article: Prlichev & Miladinov brothers

The picture of the ethnic Macedonians should be updated. The least that should be done is the removal of Miladinov and Parlichev. There are no sources they described themselves as Macedonian, and on the contrary, were describing themselves as Bulgarian.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree - I'm sure Kiro Gligorov could be included. Of course, we would have to find a PD or GFDL image of him. I think the Macedonian users would know more about who represents them better than I do, so they may think of someone else. --Telex 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Metodi Chentov, Kiro Gligorov, Blaze Koneski are good candidates.   /FunkyFly.talk_   22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there any pictures of them? --Telex 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Kiro Gligorov image is a copyvio. It was obtained from this page, which clearly says Copyright © 1996-1998, All Rights Reserved at the bottom. Not to mention that the image was uploaded by an administrator. it seems that mkwiki will never cease to amaze me... --Telex 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Found a decent picture of Gligorov in a government document [20] See page 16. Blaze Koneski - page 66.   /FunkyFly.talk_   19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It is common in people articles to insert at least a modern figure, and Gligorov is clearly the most important; he should take the place of Miladinov.--Aldux 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of non-uprisingness, we can add Koneski or Simon Trpceski, a famous Macedonian pianist. Too many politicians is not good according to me. Bomac 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're adding soccer players, it's better to add Goran Pandev instead of Marek Jankulovski. Marek plays for the Czech Republic national football team, and he's partly ethnic Macedonian. --FlavrSavr 12:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The Lithuanians have sportsmen. We'll have to find a usable image of Pandev though. --Telex 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:BorisTrajkovski2.jpg Image:Branko Crvenkovski 1998.jpg Jkelly 20:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag

We can't keep the tag forever; or we pass through a RfC, or a poll, or we remove it. Keeping it there for weeks or months does not seem to me to be an acceptale solution.--Aldux 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria

The issue seems complex. I cannot find a single source that says that Bulgaria recognizes the Macedonian Slavs as a distinct ethnicity. If they recorded them in the census, this does not mean that they recognize them as a separate ethnicity - they are merely reporting what people said. The UK has made it clear that they do not recognize the Jedi as a religious group, yet published the census results on the topic - see Jedi Census Phenomenon. --Tēlex 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving this chance, they implicitely recognize their existence; differently from what they do, for example, with the Pomaks; you won't see a separate Pomak voice, simply once saying you're an ethic Bulgarian you can say your religion. So I don't find leaving a separate ethnicity voice for them so innocent, but it seems a deliberate political decision acted by the government.--Aldux 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
See it this way. There are sources saying that they do not recognize a seperate Macedonian ethnicity. Are there any sources saying they do? --Tēlex 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, they have clearly stated that they do not recognize them as a separate ethnic group to the Bulgarians. They may have recognized them as something else. --Tēlex 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I've removed the reference for now. --Tēlex 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Bulgaria does not recognize Macedonian ethnicity, because it was invented by Tito and the Jugoslav Communist Parti. Their current leaders continue spreading lies and violating greek and bulgarian history. Every action against Bulgaria or Greece in FYROM is a try to prevent FYROM from entering international organizations such as EU and NATO, because then the truth about macedonians' origins and history stolen from Greece and Bulgaria would be revealed and their leaders wouldn't have a nation to rule. As everybody knows without history there could be no nation and without nation a country cannot exist. I'm sorry if I sound too extreme, but this is the truth that should be told and everybody out of FYROM knows it. --86.216.207.238 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am a Greek, however I most strongly disagree! First I disagree that they have no history, as the ethnic group emerged some time in the end of the 19th century, and it has a lot of things to be proud of. Second, I disagree because even if it didn't, there can be nations without history. ALL nations have emerged at some point in history, and one of the freshest is eg. the Americans (officialized in 1776), who are very proud regarding the relatively short history they have (not to mention how successful their nation is -regardless if some would prefer to think otherwise). NikoSilver 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures again

OK - I've made this image, and it's in the article now. I know you're thinking it's a bit politicized, but it's the best we've come up with so far (see above). It's quite clearly a PD image, so we can do what we like with it. Feel free to update it if you can think of anyone more suitable and have found a PD or GFDL image of him or her (note that the source must be given). I've been thinking that perhaps we could do what has been done at Belarusians, if there is something distinctive about the ethnic Macedonians (a traditional costume maybe) and there was a PD or GFDL image of it, then we could use that.--Tēlex 23:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Telex. Jkelly 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Antidote, please read #Pictures of ethnic Macedonians if you can. --Tēlex 10:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
While I perfectly understand the concers regarding Prlicev, Vojdan Chernodrinski seems an acceptable candidate, as I feel we need to remove the two presidents; while Gligorov would be OK in my mind, as first president, putting the others would be like putting Prodi and Berlusconi in the images for Italian people; not a great solution.--Aldux 13:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that about Vojdan Chernodrinski, but I thought that it would be seen as my POV, so... thanks Aldux. Two presidents are A LOT, as if this country has only presidents ;-) Bomac 14:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is Vojdan Chernodrinski's birthdate. How do we find a PD or GFDL image of him. Personally, I believe those presidents have no place in the caption, but there are no other PD images (we can find at least). --Tēlex 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well wouldn't all images of him before 1922 be PD? And reproduction of a PD image does not create a new copyright. Certainly, we would have to make sure it is before 1922.--Aldux 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The author has to have died 70 or more years ago for it to be PD. --Tēlex 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That's in the EU; but in USA the terminal date is 1922, and I believe en:wiki is operating under the American copyright laws.--Aldux 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. Do what you like (as long as you're sure you know what you're doing, and specify it, in case someone deletes the image). --Tēlex 15:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed Prlicev and added Blaze Koneski and Vojdan Chernodrinksi because both seem to be "OK-ed" by this convo and the convo above. Antidote 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians in Greece

Telex has made resorting of regions with significant populations with Macedonians, and Greece is now last. He is using this [21] to back this up. Several questions:

  1. Since when does Greece recognize Macedonian minority?
  2. I don't know Greek, but using some online translation, the link is a list of number of holders citizenships in Greece (there is also from Africa, Asia, America, Oceania etc). So according to this logic, if there are 50,000 holders of German citizenship in Republic of Macedonia, this implies 50,000 Germans in Macedonia?
  3. I searched number 1494 in the pdf file and could not find it

--Cigor 17:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use citizenship holders to determine the number of Macedonians in Italy, then why not in Greece also? Also, of course you didn't find 1494 in the document. It is broken down into urban areas, "agricultural" areas, and "undefined" areas (you have to add them up). According to official Greek sources, there is no Macedonian minority (i.e. if only indigenous people count, then the number of Macedonians in Greece is 0). Furthermore, if we are going to base the table on guesswork by unofficial sources, then maybe I should add the Greek minority (from 20,000 - 200,000 depending on source) in the Republic of Macedonia which doesn't show up in your official statistics to the article on Greeks. Alternative theories on the ethnic composition (including the 1 million theory) are discussed at length in the main text - see Macedonians (ethnic group)#Greece. --Tēlex 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was wrong, I miscounted (i.e. overcounted!). Anyway, I found an English version of the statistics [22], and it clearly says that 962 holders of citizenship of the FYR Macedonia were recorded in the 2001 census. My bad (I'll correct it now). --Tēlex 18:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to these indigenous people and Greek citizens [23], the number is not zero. According to many human rights organizations, the number is not zero. What on Earth has citizenship has to do with anything? If that was the method to determine the number of Macedonians in Italy (or anywhere else), than that should be revised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cigor (talk • contribs) .
It's a question of undue weight. The latest Bulgarian census recorded 5,071 Bulgarians (and this is stated in the infobox), whereas similar organizations such as the one you're mentioning place the figure at 200,000. Need I remind you of the minimal support the Rainbow party attained (after taking into consideration that they campaign for all minority groups, linguistic, religious, sexual, ethnic, etc... etc... read their manifesto). It is true that certain private organizations have made different claims which it should be noted have remained unproven and are denied by the Greek government. On the other hand, the presence of Radko within the Republic of Macedonia, and the fact that Bulgarians have been recorded in past censi in the area raise questions as to why no Bulgarians are listed as being within the Republic of Macedonia at the article on Bulgarians. As far as I can see, the best thing to do is to go by what's official (and if its not official, not denied). Any other figure in the infobox will be contradicting the Greek government's explicit statements that there is no indigenous fully fledged Macedonian minority, and I think that the existence of a separate (and rather large) section to list all alternative opinions on the matter should balance that out. What do you have in mind? --Tēlex 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Bulgarians in RoM have always been presented in census results. Previously you said their number is zero, now you are saying they are marginal, minimal support, etc... I have in mind that third of Macedonian population in Republic of Macedonia has their ancestors from what is now Greek territory. One speculation could be ,all Slavs (with separate Macedonian conscience) moved to RoM. But we can't know that as the minority is not recognized, and whoever raise voice is harrased there as agent of Skopje or homosexual, whatever. Therefore, the number should stay there as NOT KNOWN. Maybe is only very small number like you hope, maybe not. You can put a note of explanation, but again, # of Macedonian passport holders have nothing to do with this. What's more, maybe most of RoM citizens in Greece are Albanian or Serbian? I guess the number will converge to zero, another "overcounting”"...--Cigor 22:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting this for Albania and Bulgaria as well; in general, all countries part of the Macedonian irredenta. Personally, I don't have a problem with this - we could give the official and then a "see below" or "disputed" tag, redirecting to the full sections. What I do oppose is dubious claims of a one million Macedonian minority. The existence of a minority does not depend on human rights reports or state recognition - it's existence is continuous and apparent, such as the Greek minority in Albania, the Albanian minority in R. Macedonia, the Turkish minority in Greece and the Kurdish minority in Turkey. A real ethnic minority cannot exist solely on paper, which is what seems to be case with this Macedonian minority. When they do a demonstration in front of the city's town hall like the Greeks of Albania or the Turks in Greece have done, that would be evidence. Even evidence of Vlachs in Greece is is continuous and apparent (despite the fact that their representative organization has said that they do not want any form of official recognition) - no one can pretend that the annual Vlach adamoma doesn't take place. Mere assertions of a political party (and their influincees) with minimal electoral support (probably the party members' families) are not proof of an ethnic minority, so their hopes of the Greek state ever recognizing a Macedonian minority will remain unfulfilled until there is solid proof from the people of the region. Greece has no problem in recognizing a minority and providing education in her citizen's mother tongue like they demand. Here is a list from the Greek Ministry of Educations of the 234 state-sponsored minority schools (μειονοτικά σχολεία) for the Turkish minority in Thrace (click on the arrow to select periphery), where members of the minority can study in Turkish the whole of their education (right up to the age of 18). Greece would do that for any other minority, and has signed international treaties confirming this. To do so for a hoax minority whose very existence has yet to be demonstrated is not on the cards I'm afraid. Mere allegations are not enough - when will this "minority" show itself, why does it hide? --Tēlex 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, not Albania; only countries that do not recognize Macedonians, that would be Greece and Bulgaria. And how convenient that you mention the only recognized minority in Greece are Turks, I wonder is it because Turkey is 6 times bigger than Greece (in population). I mean what should one done to be recognized in Greece – I guess anything short of uprising doesn’t count for Telex. Tell me Telex, how many people were denied Greek citizenship because they are Macedonian (refuges from Greek Civil war)? It is not healthy to hate that much Telex, you know. --Cigor 04:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Tell me something; how can refugees be an ethnic minority? If they're outside Greece (and not granted residence permits), then they're certainly not an ethnic minority within Greece. What I would like to know is why no Macedonians were ever recorded in any Greek censi. Until 1951, Greek censi have collected data on mother tongue, and Albanians (Arvanites), Vlachs (Aromanians), and Turks etc were recorded, but no Macedonians. As a matter of fact, no census on earth ever made a finding of Macedonians before 1945. If those refugees were Macedonian, they failed to show up in the 1928 census when they were certainly in Greece. Either there was a world-sponsored conspiracy in pretending there are no Macedonians then (there is no evidence other than loaded questions to support this), or there were no Macedonians. If those refugees have been assimilated into the Macedonian national(ist) project and today declare as Macedonians, this is no concern of Greece. Furthermore, there is no evidence emanating from Greece of any significant Macedonian minority (certainly not in the numbers claimed) in Greece. Finally, when Turkey restores citizenship to the Greeks of the Istanbul Pogrom (something they are not obliged to do), then you can expect Greece to do the same thing. --Tēlex 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there some special reason for sorting them by neighbors first? You may want to see how the issue has been handled at Greeks (where USA is before Cyprus, Italy, Albania and Turkey) and Romanians (where they put the USA before Moldova). I think that giving preferential treatment to Albania, Greece, Bulgaria etc seems to have irredentist connotations. Are there any other articles on ethnic groups which follow this practice? --Tēlex 13:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Cigor I find it odd that you're not disputing the Albanian census. That census found only 782 Vlachs in Albania!?! Something weird is going on (although that doesn't stop us presenting their statistics on the Greek minority at Greeks without questioning them despite the fact that human rights organizations have claimed almost five times as much as the official statistics - their views are not even mentioned). As there is a section on Albania questioning the official statistics, and we don't seem to have a problem ignoring what's official, I think Albania should also receive this preferential treatment. After all; the more the merrier. --Tēlex 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, the statistics on the Switzerland, Austria and France are based on citizenship. --Tēlex 13:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On Albania: it is not perfect there, but at least they fully recognize Macedonian minority, the language and so on. I don't know what number of Vlachs in Albania is reasonable. As for Macedonians in Greece, I told you already several time, it is all in speculation space. Before WWI, there was majority of Macedonian Slavs there. After that, after several wars, things changed, but nobody knows the true extent. And I think if the number was truly marginal, say 3,000 the Greek government would recognize all possible rights and save her many hassles.
On sorting/listing the countries: Usually first the country is specified, then the other countries where the ethnicity is indigenous, then other. Furthermore because of the Bulgarian and Greek policy these countries may be on the top pf the list even based on number. Alternatively, we could try alphabetical sorting?--Cigor 14:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Alphabetical sorting is done at Bulgarians, I can live with that. So what we're agreeing on (if I've understood correctly) is have only a "see below" note in the infobox note for Greece and Bulgaria, and alphabetical order for the whole table. BTW that claim that there were a majority of Macedonian Slavs in Aegean Macedonia before WWII is an unproven POV. The 1928 census which asked a question on mother tongue indicated otherwise, as did all Ottoman censi before it (e.g. the 1911 census). Aegean Macedonia has a population of 2,625,681. There is a community speaking what is known as the Slavic language (Greece) (spoken by 41,017 people in the 1951 census), which Macedonians claim is Macedonian, and Bulgarian claim is Bulgarian. The the vast majority of the people themselves (according to the Greek Helsinki Monitor at least) define themselves as bilingual (Slavophone) Greeks, and only minorities claim Macedonian or Bulgarian national identities. There is a Macedonian organization (Vinozhito) and a Bulgarian organization (BHRM) which both enjoy minimal public support. However many they are, the Macedonians are not likely to be more than 41,017, and I think the Greek Helsinki Monitor's estimate is reasonable (10,000 - 30,000), although it does not explain Vinizhito's electoral performance. --Tēlex 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Regard France, you're right but I'm certain that Austria is based on language (I myself removed the citizenship number, 13,000) and from the PDF it would appear also Switzerland.--Aldux 13:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to have the citizenship concerns in the infobox - no other article's on ethnicity do, even Romanians, and Romania has the largest ethnic minority in Europe. --Tēlex 14:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, even if I will insert a marker do keep a distinction between ethnicity/language and citizenship. As for your accord with Politis, I'm afraid in such a sensitive article what counts are accords with non-Greek editors, particularly if the editor in question is Politis, whom, I'm afraid, it is difficult to give for certain that he has no axe to grind against the Macs., especially if one tries to silence you through what others could read as intimidations.--Aldux 14:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Aldux, if you can support your comments above, then please explain yourself; I, for one, will find such an explanation helpful in trying to present my factual evidence in a more acceptable manner and avoid misunderstandings. If you fail to explain your comments, it will have to be noted that, despite your strong points, you are also prone to expressing ethnic prejudices against contributors. I await your reasoned comments. (ps. There actually was a disagreement with Telex because he had reverted all my edits, but rather than exchange accusations, we held a dialogue and found reasonable ground for agreement. Do you, Aldux, prefer unpleasant exchanges?) Politis 15:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The only awnser I can give you is this: read the messages you write on the talks. Also, if you write things like "tread carefully", don't expect some editors not to "misinterpret" you. As for having an axe to grind, every single editor has an axe to grind on something; but passions in this area are particularly sensitive. I've already been accused of being a Belgian (!), a Rotarian (!), a Greek, a Macedonian; accuse me of what you prefer, only explain me why I should have prejudices against a country and a people I adore, and have been many times, and all this for a country like Macedonia.--Aldux 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Axe to grind against an entire people? Was that a slip of the tongue? I suggest you go over my contributions on the Macedonian issue and re-evaluate. In my opinion, axes to grind get in the way of the truth and the truth is far more interesting. Politis 15:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, IMO it's POV to put Bulgarian official representations in the table, but not the Greek ones. Greece claims that there is no Macedonian minority - the effect of this is that Greece should be treated like Italy and Germany. Bulgaria claims that 5,071 inhabitants of Bulgaria self-identify as Macedonian. I think it's POV to include only the Bulgarian official representation with the see below note but not the Greek ones (that Macedonian minority-wise, Greece is in the same class as Italy, i.e. there is no Macedonian minority, and should be treated as such). --Tēlex 15:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that if we do this, than we shouldn't even put the numbers for the Turks in Greece in Turkish people, as there aren't officially Turks in Greece; but everybody knows there are. Should we simply put the number of people with Turkish passport (who may even be Kurds) living in Turkey, ignoring the minority? These are my sort of problems.--Aldux 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
As for Bulgaria, I simply don't understand; there's an ethnic census giving x number, why should it be more problematic than the Serbian or Canadian census?--Aldux 16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference Aldux. Unlike the Macedonian case, the Greek government does not deny the existence of a Turkish minority in Greece; it merely avoids using the name "Turk" and designates them as "Muslims" or the "religious minority" in official documents and laws (to avoid seperatist tendencies). Can you find an official government statement saying that there are no Turks in Greece - hell, Turkish schoolbooks (with Turkish propaganda) are imported from Turkey for use in the minority schools in a language called Turkish! Also, Greece has not denied the existence of Vlachs, Arvanites or Slavophone Greeks (they even have encouraged them - although they view them as a linguistic minority only, which is what they are), and used to be counted in censi up until 1951. The Macedonian case is unique, as there are official statements denying the existence of such an ethnic minority. As for Bulgaria, Cigor believes that as Bulgaria doesn't fully recognize the Macedonian people and language, their statistics are unreliable. --Tēlex 16:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Telex, both entries for Bulgaria and Greece should have only links to their corresponding subsections. There we can state government standing, number of passport holders (if that is relevant at all), estimates from various organization, cenzus results etc. Same with Bulgaria. Whatever number is in the list it will upset somebody. Also, in the interest of NPOV the list should be alphabetically. I don't want to sound petty but it is obvious that there are editors that want to see countries like Greece at opposite ends of the list. Alphabetic. sorting resolves this, IMHO. --Cigor 16:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

To Aldux: see it this way - at present the Italian government officially recognizes the Griko-speaking minority in Italy. There is no census data on the topic, so on Greeks we use the first source we find. If the Italian government tomorrow decided that there is no Griko-speaking minority (or Greek minority at all) in Italy (and was as strong about it as the Greek government is about it), we would remove the Italy section from the infobox on Greeks completely as there is no significant number of Greek passport holders in Italy according to official statistics.

To Cigor: OK we agreed on something at last :) Hopefully the Greek government will conduct a self-determination census one day so we will know what to have infobox. There have been indications that it may happen once the naming dispute is resolved. However, I have a feeling that people in Skopje will accuse the census of minimizing the number of Macedonians if it does not show an absolute majority of ethnic Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia. People never change... --Tēlex 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that a reasonable consensus has been met :-) BTW, I'm not certain there is no census on the topic; Italy does a linguistic census among Italian citizens, even if I expect to classify Griko-speakers simply as Greek-speakers.
And to Politis: I'm sorry I've been harsh, but I'm only human, and this hot, among other things, is getting me mad!

--Aldux 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To Filip

I don't know how much you're aware about the issue, Filip, but that dab note is the result of a compromise achieved above: in return to maintain the article's present title and neutrality and not rename it to something else, e.g. Macedonians (Slavs) - a strong dab note is needed in order to not mislead the reader into believing that there is some parallel between Macedonian Slavs (modern Macedonians) and the Ancient Macedonians. Such theories appear nowhere in mainstream scholarship, as everyone except www.maknews.com is perfectly aware. The dab note is as accurate as it can be - the Argead Dynasty of Ancient Macedon were declaring as Greeks, and as such Ancient Macedon is classified as part of Ancient Greece. Furthermore, the question on whether the Ancient Macedonians were not ethnically Greek applies to the peasants, not to the aristocracy and kings, who were universally recognized as Greeks, and even participated in exclusively Greek-only affairs, e.g. the Olympic Games (then they were not international then like they are now - only native speakers of the Greek language were allowed to participate). --Tēlex 12:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To Telex,

I understand your desire to present the Modern Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians as two different nations. I don't even object it. But it needs to be done in a respectful way, without insulting the native Macedonians, and without introducing untrue or unproven or problematic statements.

There are several problems with the dab note as you wrote it:

1. The word Slav, due to excessive abuse by the Greek nationalists, now has a pejorative conotation, and Macedonians are insulted if you call them Slavs.

You can, though, use the same formulation that is used for Bulgarians, Serbs and other South Slavic peoples:

This article is about the south Slavic people that live predominantly in the region of Macedonia.

2. To claim that modern Macedonians are unrelated to the ancient Macedonians, you need a proof. Recently scientists conducted a genetic research on the mitohondrial DNA of the modern Northern Italians, and compared them with bone DNA of the Etruscans. They decided that they are completely unrelated. Do we have a similar proof for the Modern and Ancient Macedonians? We don't. So we better ommit the word "unrelated". The fact that there are two articles, one for the modern, and one for the ancient Macedonians, implies that, without us introducing an unproven statement.

3. Ancient Greece was not a country. It didn't have defined borders. It was a fluid cultural/political union of ethnically similar tribes/city states. So to say that Ancient Macedonians were in Ancient Greece does not make any sense. I understand your need to identify them with the Hellenistic culture, but you need to use a statement that is correct. Something like:

for the people with the same name that inhabited the region of Macedonia before and during the Hellenistic period, see Ancient Macedonians.

(I don't agree completely with these claims, but I accept that the mainstream historians present the facts in this fashion). --Filip M 02:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Greece is a period in history in a certain place of which ancient Macedon is definitely a part; yes you do need to prove that there is some relation to ancient Macedon; and there is no proof that ancient Macedonians existed (and had not been assimilated) during the Hellenistic period. Finally, you are violating the long-standing compromise. How about the following:
This article is about the Slavic-speaking ethnic group also known as Macedonian Slavs; for the people whose leaders at least self-identified as Greeks and have not been proven to be connected in any way with the modern Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian.
It's about as accurate as you can get. --Tēlex 07:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The observations and willingness for entering into a dialogue by [User: Filip M] are welcome even though they reveal his definitely incomplete / limited knowledge of history.

  • First, if anyone wants to eliminate the term Ancient Greece, they should better write a book on the subject because they are going against over 700 years of Western scholasticism.
  • Second, the term Hellenistic covers the period after Alexander the Great. The Greek-speaking Macedonians existed before that historical period.
  • Thirdly, I am not aware of Greeks ever abusing the term 'Slav'. It is a fact that the Greek language (like other languages) has a number of derogatory terms derived from ethnicities, but none of them include the term 'Slav'. Also, the Greeks know very well that some of their closest allies are, so to speak, archetypal Slavs, the Russians, Ukrainians and Serbs and since the 1960s, we can include the Bulgarians. If some 'Slavs' of ROM/FYROM find the term 'insulting', it probably means that they do not consider themselves to be Slavs (ergo, they do not consider themselves to be Bulgarians or Serbs).
  • Finally, the appelation FYROM was not 'imposed' on ROM. It was negotiated between Athens and Skopje, in 1995, who immediately went on to become the closest of trading partners, engaging in a number of joint security opperations and Greece contributing generously during the inter-communal conflict in 2000. Thank you for your patience. Politis 12:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Just wish to add that the word Slav has never ,to my knowledge, been used in a derogatory manner by Greeks. On the other hand there are other words defining almost all of Greece's neibourging nations (Turk, Bulgarian,Albanian, Skopjan) that in Greek have a negative meaning. I think that Greeks do realize that the word Slav describes a vast variety of very different people.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Furhtemore in a recent visit to ...(how to say it here, bummer)....... "Upper Macedonia"... it is true i did sense that this term (Slav) is beeing used as a part of the "political question". This of course a debate not closely related to reality. Nevertheless if there would be such a time when people started feeling that the word Slav is derogative and unfitting, this would be a very a unfortunate turn of events indeed. By cutting of the people from their cultural legacy (if that is even possible) nothing good can be achieved. And lets face it. The Modern Macedonians of the region are above anything else, of slavish linquistic, cultural and ethnic backround. I dont really consider that as something worth debating about. Furthemore i dont see how it is possible for the people of "Macedonia" to become in the future oblivius of this fact. Certainly not because of those nasty Greeks and their name-calling. If i was of Slav heritage i would be bloody proud about it not insulted. Anyway i dont consider people naive, i do undestand that this is part of another agenda but i suggest we leave politics and false pretences of the discussion. (Haas K. D. 02:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC))


Telex... "those people that their leaders at least self-identified as Greeks"??? This sounds ridiculous, and more important sounds quite inaccurate. It is higly unlikely that the Macedonians spoke anything else than a form of Greek and there are certainly no solid evidence supporting such a suggestion. Furthemore despite the isolation of the Makedonians from other Greek tribes, the scientific evidence supporting the fact that the Makedonians were in fact Greeks are overwhelming. In any case if someone feels important to make mitohondrial DNA test in order to feel complete as human being, no problem there. I am pretty sure that ethnic origins in the Balcans are so mixed up that after some extensive testing all will be considerd brothers and all problems will be solved. (now thats a sollution!!!) But dont go to far to please overgrown egos... (Haas K. D. 02:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

They are Slav Macedonians or Slavomacedonians

The new government is headed by the nationalist VMRO DPMNE. In its electoral manifesto if promised that: "The Republic of Macedonia will nurture and develop relations with Russia and other Slavic countries". Without a shadow of a doubt, it identifies itself as a Slavic nation. If anyone finds the term 'Slav' insulting, even in this context, please contact the new government in Skopje rather than edit it out here. Politis 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please give me a good reason

Not to include "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" [24] and "Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective" [25]. I mean, to me they sound crazy (and probably to you too), but the papers were both published in the same reputable (as far as I can tell) journal Tissue Antigens [26].

Anyway, User:Vlatkoto asked me to include one of them, and I don't feel comfortable including it without discussion, I checked to see if the paper was retracted (and it doesn't seem to have been), indeed they have published another paper. I'm going to get my flatmate to look over it, but in the mean time, criticise away! Try and keep the criticism to science, e.g. if there are papers which refute it I'd love to see them. - FrancisTyers · 09:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The history section is clearly the introduction is clearly written from (what seems like an extremist) Macedonian point of view, but that doesn't really matter when we're talking about the science. I'd be interested in criticism of the conclusion and the paper in general. What aren't they telling us :) - FrancisTyers · 09:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise kindly pointed me towards this.

The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute. We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.

It can be included, but I think it would be against the Macedonians interests to be relying on what is clearly considered to be bad science to further their historiographical agenda. - FrancisTyers · 10:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at two people on the reserach team: a M. Blagoevska and a V. Zdravkovska. They were from a "Tissue Typing laboratory. Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. FYROM". I rest my case. --Tēlex 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
That is a warning sign, but not in any way conclusive (after all, this is science and not history). The evidence above is conclusive. - FrancisTyers · 10:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm hardly suprised that they reached that conclusion ;-) --Tēlex 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha, aha, aha. There is also no reason to not be included. It must be mentioned, put that in the article and the one reading it will judge for it. You have no right to disclacify such studies. Who are you?--Vlatko 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We can include it, but please read what I said, "It can be included, but I think it would be against the Macedonians interests to be relying on what is clearly considered to be bad science to further their historiographical agenda." — now, do you really want to include it? - FrancisTyers · 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vlatko, please remember we are using UTC here, not Macedonian time (EET?), it is confusing to see me replying to you when you have written your post in the future. - FrancisTyers · 11:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I must say, controversy there is. Hardly to be taken as relevant according to this newspaper, just becouse of a newspaper. Why do we relay on this Nature journal sources? (Sorry for the time, I realised that time ago, but... :-) )--Vlatko 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Nature is not a newspaper, it is a scientific journal — if you don't understand the difference, I suggest you read the articles. I don't see the point in continuing this any longer. You either can't or won't understand both the original paper and the refutation. Next time you bring me something published on an extremist site, research it yourself first to prevent me from wasting my time. - FrancisTyers · 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand something though. How is it relevant to this article? If it's going to be about Greeks, then it's irrelevant here. It only says that the specimens of Macedonian Slavs belonged to the "older" Mediterranean substratum (whatever that means). It says nothing else about them. To Vlatko: that research does not say that the Macedonian Slavs have any connection whatsoever to the Ancient Macedonians, only the propagandistic abstract on Macedonian Slav nationalist sites say that, and it's a mystery to me how they came up with that. --Tēlex 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Slav speaking communities exist [...] in Bulgaria

What a surprise! (Don't Bulgarians speak a slavic language?) Perhaps the opening paragraph needs a bit more work.   Andreas   (T) 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anything would be lost by reverting that edit. Jkelly 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Quite true, quite true... Bulgarians do speak Slav. Propably should start editing the text with more time at my hands. But perhaps you could do it for me...

Problem is that as it is the second part of opening phrase does seem to make sense.

"The Macedonians today live in the Republic of Macedonia; there are minority communities in Greek Macedonia with their own dialect and history but where the overwhelming majority consists of Greeks (who are also known as Macedonians in the region), as well as in Albania and Bulgaria."

So what kind of minority communities exist in Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania??? Are their ethnic, linquistic, cultural, religious, large , small, selfaware? Does the overwhelming majority of the community members consist of people who define themselves as Greeks? Or do they consider themselves something else in contradiction to Greeks. And what does the poet mean by saying "as well as in Albania and Bulgaria". Do all these apply there also? I am sure the Greeks would be more than happy to hear that! Greek majority everywhere.

And what about is this different history... Saying something like that should require some serious refferences to back you up!!!! This is erroneus and pure speculation . I can prove it just by quoting the rest of the article in several passages. Same goes of course for other lines in the text.

Am i not entitle to change this passage? May i ask the reason? Does it seem perfect perhaps?

As you see there is no truth in absolutes.

(Haas K. D. 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Some considerations

Bad English?? Come on, this is a cheapshot :) ... Not the case i am afraid.

'"there are minority communities in Greek Macedonia with their own dialect and history but where the overwhelming majority consists of Greeks (who are also known as Macedonians in the region), as well as in Albania and Bulgaria"

Talking of bad english... This phrase does seem to make sense. Am i not entitle to change it? Seems not.

(In any case between you and me there is no seperate history and if you beleive so please make some reffereces to you sources).

The lack of refferences is quite evident in the whole of the text. I do not see why i should provide bibliography for altering (in good faith) passages that state important but in a way unaccurate facts and do not have any reffences to back them up. In any case, i will do so if anyone asks me for it but i wont lose my time when it seems that certain people are quite satisfied with their wotk and do not accept comments and corrections.(but if this is the case they should not write here, really)

As for the ancient period paragraph. It is quite misleading since it does not refer to ancient times at all. Propably should exclude all the passage from text. It is indeed a controversial article and a very amusing one to follow up, from its creation to the seemingly result. Is like drafting a treaty between hostal tribes. The fact that large parts of the outcome derive from original contributions with very clear, highly nationalistic positions for the one (mostly) and the other side is absolutely charming.

Considering all that, i think that i propably could lower my expectations but of course not abandon them. This article has flaws and can be improved. The fact that is controversial should not be considered a problem. There is no thing like status quo ante in wiki as far as i know. In any case my alterations reffer to comonly accepted facts undisputed by all sides. I will sincerely continue keeping you company in your efforts. Thanks in advance Haas

ps: i am not a freak nationalist. The choice of words should be more carefull. You are lowering the level here Bomac (and may i add: an impresseive page, wow! I wonder if you can tell the same thing for yourself...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haas K. D. (talk • contribs)

As mentioned directly above, I, not Bomac, reverted your last edit because it not only failed to clarify what is a problematic sentence, it also introduced misleading new confusions. The article does need a lot of work; I'm sure no one here thinks that it is perfect the way that it is. Please take the time for discussion -- the article isn't going to get to perfection in one day. Jkelly 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Licorice farming?

I suspect that someone is just having some fun with the article, and this addition should be cut, not just tagged with {{citation needed}}. Jkelly 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging from his/her contributions, this is probably a prankster to be blocked (nice try, though). In fact, in the article licorice there is a reference to Macedonia and to the licorice historian [Alvin Hosenfeld], but this guy seems to have never existed and, therefore, we are probably dealing with a wiki hoax. Politis 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm not as wiki fluent as you gentlemen, and can't tag my response with fancy links and the like. You're actually not dealing with a wiki hoax. I'm not closely familiar with Hosenfeld, but as I already discussed briefly with Politis earlier today, Igor Janev has recently completed a substantial body of work on 17th Century Macedonian agricultural patterns which has put some new information into English for the first time. The work (in translation, the name comes to roughly "Arid Farmland--Development of Agriculture in the Aegean) points to Hosenfeld several times, and is regarded as authoritative. I've simply been updating pages in accordance with that work. (For the record, it goes far beyond licorice, I just find the licorice information more interesting than Janev's discussions of bulgar farming, &c.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.193.132.253 (talk • contribs)

"See also" section

I've removed the Kuber and Bulgars. The "see also" section should be about themes generally related to the ethnic group, and not about groups who might have inhabited the wider region of Macedonia. Moreover, AFAIK, no serious neutral source attributes a greater Bulgar influence in the ethnogenesis of the modern Macedonian nation. IMO, it makes more sense to include the Turks and the Romans, and even Greeks into the ethnogenesis (permanent settlements, cultural influence, etc.). Kuber is a fringe personality whose influence is greatly exaggerated in contemporary Bulgaria, while being largely ignored by other historians. He's also mentioned by Ivan Mikulchic, the prominent archeologist from the Republic of Macedonia, who also claims that there were no Slavs on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia in that period (no archeological evidence, to be precise), and this, AFAIK, is contrary to the belief of 99,99% of the historians in the world. In his retirement days, he's busy creating a mosaic of Alexander the Great, however [27]. OK, even if I'm totally wrong about all this, one thing is for sure - Kuber and Bulgars do not belong to the See also list. --FlavrSavr 01:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Greeks also known as Macedonians

I admit that Greeks are also known as Macedonians, however, the references in the English language that call modern Greek Macedonians "Macedonians" are scarce. [28] I believe that constant overstressing that "Greeks are also known as Macedonians" is undue weight. --FlavrSavr 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on, guys! It's clear that moder Greek Macedonians are sometimes called Macedonians. Let's take a news outlet, for example CNN - [29] - no references to the modern Greek Macedonians as Macedonians: what a surprise! I mean, I have nothing against calling yourselves whatever you want, but to stress that Greek Macedonians are referred to as Macedonians without stressing "sometimes" is simply POV. --FlavrSavr 16:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

People of Tuscany are called Tuscanians and Italians interchangebly. People of Bavaria are Bavarians and Germans in the same way. People of Greek Macedonia are called Macedonians and Greeks all the time. They are called Macedonians in a sub-ethnic group or regional meaning, in the same way that Cretans are called like that. what? could someone expect that each time we refer to Cretans we should call them just "Greeks"? --Hectorian 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure Hectorian, but the regional affiliation is used incomparably less frequently than the ethnic affiliation and this has to be mentioned in the article somehow. You can see an overall 106 Google hits for "Tuscanians". Similarly, when "Macedonian" is used in the contemporary English language, the probability that this word would refer to a contemprorary Greek inhabitant of Macedonia is very low. Prove me wrong, please. --FlavrSavr 17:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is of the term been used sub-ethnically/regionally or been used without dispute? noone disputes the usage by the Greek Macedonians of the term 'Macedonians'. u can as well search for 'Scots' or 'Scottish' in Google, instead of 'Tuscanians'. u will see that the Scots can be referred as British as well. so, since it seems to me that u are trying to add the word 'sometimes' for the Greeks Macedonians for "wellknown" reasons, then u will have to add the word 'sometimes' to the Slav Macedonians as well. In fact, most google hits using the word 'Macedonians' refer to the ancient ones, and thus, the people of RoM are 'sometimes' called like that. Not to mention that the Greek Macedonians have been called simply as 'Macedonians' for far longest time than the people of RoM, who were known as Bulgarians... --Hectorian 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You're evading the issue using "wellknown" (sic) cliches. Please cite a source that would suggest general usage of the word "Macedonians" referring to the contemporary Greek inhabitants of Macedonia, so that you can justify the sentence "Greeks are also referred as Macedonians". I'd be happy to present you thousands of news articles and documents of international organizations where "Macedonians" is used to desribe the majority ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia. Take CNN for start. --FlavrSavr 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I will present BBC and CNN quoting the modern people of RoM as "Macedonian Slavs". so, i guess they are 'sometimes' called simply "Macedonians", right? If the word 'sometimes' will be added for the Greek Macedonians, it will be also added for the Slavs of the Republic of Macedonia. Fair and simple enough... --Hectorian 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Sometimes" can ...sometimes be a weasel word. I suggest we remove it from both, since it is implied by the verb 'referred to'. No logical Earthling will assume 'always referred to', so 'sometimes' is redundant.
    • In a general sense, Flavr, Macedonians (Slav) are 'sometimes' referred to as "Macedonians", no matter how high the frequency (?) may be (because they are also called other things).
    • And, Hector, Macedonians (Greek) are also 'sometimes referred to as "Macedonians", because they are also called other things too. "Sometimes" is therefore ...always redundant.
  • Now if you want, you could change the verb altogether from 'referred to' to 'self-identify as' which doesn't need 'sometimes' or 'always' or 'seldomly' or 'frequently', because it speaks for itself. Sometimes you just have to avoid unnecessary fights over trivial issues. Neither Greeks, nor their northern friends will ever manage to prove to each other exclusivity of use of that term for their own stock. None of us will manage to disprove or convince the other side either. :-) :NikoSilver: 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think all this can be summed up by Matthew Nimetz's statement that:

"As yet another example, the Republika Makedonija-Skopje must recognize that there is an administrative province in Greece with the name "Greek Macedonia" (and not Macedonia of the Aegean or Aegean Macedonia under Greece) and that those who live in Greek Macedonia commonly define themselves as Greek Macedonians in the Greek regional and cultural sense of the name, and that such names have to be used and respected."

FlavrSavr, you ask that everyone must respect the self-identification of the Macedonians (ethnic group) as "Macedonians" and not use formerly acceptable terms such as "Slavs" etc on the basis that it is the "self-identifying" name, however I detect double standards here. That the Greek Macedonians call themselves "Macedonians" has been confirmed by independent sources (e.g. the Australian People Encyclopedia), and can be seen in the numerous websites of [Greek] Macedonian associations (at home and in the diaspora) which bask in their "Macedonianess". I'm going into this in so much detail, as I'm concerned that this relatively trivial and unnoticeable alteration you are proposing may lead to something more significant (e.g. removing the fact that Greeks from Macedonia call themselves "Macedonians" completely from the article). The fact that you are going into this so persistently makes you look as if you feel threatened by the existence of the terminology "[Greek] Macedonians". --Telex 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

To NikoSilver: i did not support mentioning the word 'sometimes' in both, but not mentioning in none of the two groups. but if it will be mentioned for the Greeks Macedonians, is has to be mentioned for the Slav Macedonians as well. Telex clearly described what i meant above when saying 'wellknown reasons'... --Hectorian 20:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Have I ever denied that Greek Macedonians call themselves Macedonians? All I wanted to say was that the term "Macedonians" is used considerably more frequently to refer to Macedonians (ethnic group) than to Greek Macedonians. I really don't mind that Greek Macedonians call themselves Macedonians. Niko's idea is excellent. To avoid the realm of 'sometimes' and 'always' which are indeed hardly measurable, it would be a better idea to stick to the "self-identification" part. --FlavrSavr 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue and Joshua Project

I have removed the estimates of Ethnologue and the Joshua Project for Greece [30], as unlike the Greek Helsinki Monitor, they do not state where they got these estimates. Specifically, I don't think that the Joshua Project qualifies as a reliable source, as they only get their estimates by readers sent to [31], and this is very unaccountable. I normally think that Ethnoloue's data is reliable, but in this case, they base their figures on a census which never took place, so it is probably an error. --Telex 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Races And Religions Of Macedonia - National Geographic Magazine, November 1912

I'm new to Wikipedia, I have tried to add an external link, but someone removed it without explanations. That’s why I want to ask:

Will you consider the source The Races And Religions Of Macedonia - National Geographic Magazine, November 1912 as verifiable in order to include it in the external links?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.2.213 (talk • contribs)

Welcome! Of course you can include this reference, it seems to be a quite valuable one. I would suggest that you first give a brief summary of the points you find relevant to the topic here at the discussion page. You can also go ahead and edit the artricle and create a link to the reference at the place in the article where the reference is relevant. If you do not know how to do this, just add the URL between the square brackets, somebody will take care to change this to comply with Wikipedia standards.
I would also like to invite you to sign your contributions to the discussion (not those to the article). You can do this by adding fort tildes to your contlribution, like this: ~~~~. This will add your user name and the date automatically to the edit. But before you do this, you are encouraged create an account and register as a user. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
  • The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you.
  • The ability to start new pages.
  • The ability to rename pages.
  • The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
  • The ability to upload images.
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
  • The eligibility to eventually become an administrator.
  • Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.
  • If you are editing from different computers or if your service provider assigns variable IP addresses, it will still be possible to know which contributions are yours.
We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.   Andreas   (T) 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting reference. Of course, like other sources of that period, it will probably approach things from a different point of view than modern scholars. The very word 'race' in the title is of course quite different from how we'd think about things today. That said, I'm sure it is valuable testimony. --Macrakis 17:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Kith and kin

How can brothers belong to different ethnic groups? --Vladko 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

They called themselves Slavophones and Slavomacedonians

A native of Greek Macedonia, former exile and local historian, Pavlos Koufis, says in Laografika Florinas kai Kastorias (Folklore of Florina and Kastoria), that,

“[During its Panhellenic Meeting in September 1942, the KKE mentioned that it recognises the equality of the ethnic minorities in Greece] the KKE recognised that the Slavophone population was ethnic minority of Slavomacedonians]. This was a term, which the inhabitants of the region accepted with relief. [Because] Slavomacedonians = Slavs+Macedoninas. The first section of the term determined their origin and classified them in the great family of the Slav peoples.” Politis 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia in 600 AD

To all Macedonist users here on Wikipedia and worldwide [32]. Please understand once and for all that in the seventh century, when the Slavs settled in the central Balkans, they came into contact with a hellenized population. Britannica tells us Macedonia had a Greek ethnic composition then. Ancient Macedonians in the sixth and seventh century did not exist; how could the Slavs come into contact with them?--Tekleni 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, sixth and seventh century is putting it far too late and is too generous. The Ancient Macedonian language probably died out in BC times (i.e. hundreds of years before the Slavs appeared).--Tekleni 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Telexkleni (I really don't know why are you metamorphosing so frequently ;-)), I'm not talking about whether there were or weren't Ancient Macedonians then, I'm talking about what Kanchov and Weigand said in their articles. In the Britannca external link they are not mentioned, which means that the link is not apropriate to the claim it sources. Clear enough sweety? So, please, if anybody has the articles of these historians, show them here! Regards, Bomac 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some actual quotes. If we don't know what Kanchov and Weigand said, then they should be removed from the article until we find out.--Tekleni 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

NAME

How come we've never considered moving Macedonians (ethnic group) to Macedonians (Slavic) or something? The current title rules out non-Slavic Macedonian nationals such as the coutry's 35% Albanian population. I think Macedonian Slavic editors must accept that the vast majority of histrians (who don't call them Bulgarians) call them "Macedonian Slavs". It's only since FYROM's independence from Yugoslavia that the term "Macedonians" was introduced in the english-speaking world to refer to the entire nation (albeit not ethnic group). Therefore any usage of "ethnic Macedonians" or plain "Macedonians" before 1991 is simply anachronistic. Is anyone in favour of the more neutral disambiguation Macedonians (Slavic)? Miskin 13:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"More neutral" is your pov, and I doubt it would find much among non-Greek editors. As for the 35% of Albanians, this number has been disproved by the internationally monitored 2002 census.--Aldux 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is my point of view, in the same way that Macedonians (ethnic group) is your pov of neutrality. So does a minimum of 20% ethnic Albanians make their presence less important? Don't forget that the Albanian language is an official language of the country. If "Macedonian Slavs" is my pov the how come the Macedonian Albanians are using it [33][34] then? Maybe they do it in order to disambiguate between the Macedonian nationals of Albanian ethnicity from the Slavs? This is exactly what I was proposing too. Claiming that word "Slav" is an ethnic slur - now that's a POV which can be refuted by a simple dictionary search. Miskin 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that in international media, when you're not speaking of ancient Macedonia, you intend one specific thing referring to Macedonians, alias the Slavomacedonians. This may seem unjust to Greeks, but I don't believe we're here to start a war against the mainstream.--Aldux 16:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with anything? Is the mainstream that they are not Slavs - the article still calls them "Macedonians", only disambiguates using "(Slavic)" instead of "(ethnic group)".--Tekleni 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Let's examine the problem: unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot have more than one article with the same name (unlike, e.g. Britannica, who has four different articles with the same title: Macedonia, Macedonia, Macedonia and Macedonia). That is why we have to use disambiguation. Let's examine the mainstream:

  • It's an unfortunate fact that since the breakup of communist Yugoslavia, the term Macedonian Slavs has been gradually giving way to "Macedonians". Undoubtedly, "Macedonians" is most common for this group at the very least as of today. However, due to the technical restrictions of Wikipedia, we are required to use disambiguation as there are more than one other articles on Wikipedia claiming that title. At present, the disambiguation is "(ethnic group)" - Macedonians (ethnic group).

Now, let's examine the mainstream of the disambiguation:

  • Macedonians (Slavic) - uses the mainstream way of referring to the group with a mainstream disambiguation. No sane historian or scholar could possible doubt the Slavic ethnic character of this group.
  • Macedonians (ethnic group) - uses the mainstream way of referring to the group with a slightly less mainstream disambiguation. Several academics from Bulgaria and Greece (and maybe also Serbia) don't consider this group an ethnic group, but a subgroup of another ethnic group.

The question ultimately boils down to what is the most adequate form of disambiguation. Claiming that Macedonians (Slavic) is not mainstream because Macedonian Slavs is not mainstream, is a straw man argument. No one proposed moving it to Macedonian Slavs. What's being proposed is replacing a mainstream disambiguation term with a more mainstream disambiguation term.--Tekleni 17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, whenever there is a need for disambiguation, I haven't ever seen in the relative literature any other form of disambiguation, except some form of "Slav"+"Macedonians" or vice versa. "Ethnic" and the like, I haven't ever encountered. Your point is valid, and I'd like to hear what other considerations/criteria may exist. •NikoSilver• 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And at the end of the day, what's worse to have? A good disambiguation which bothers some Macedonian slav editors, or a bad disambiguation which promotes the usage of anachronistic terms? If one thing is factual here is that the "ethnic Macedonian" is NOT in wide use within anglophone historical records, and only came in use in a political context after 1991. The name "Macedonians" which is in wide use today in the English-speaking world, refers to the "Macedonian nationals", and therefore it should stay as it is. Nevertheless, scholarly sources and encyclopedias still do not favour "Macedonians" nor "ethnic Macedonians" but Slav Macedonians when they refer to the ethnic group. I'm not saying to change the name of the article to "Slav Macedonians", only its disambiguation from (ethnic group) to (Slav). The name will remain the same. Miskin 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just did some preliminary searches and it seems "ethnic Macedonian" is quite widely used. We should go with the most common name. - Francis Tyers · 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose a move. The current disambiguation is more than adequate. - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise solution: Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group). Politis 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. For the sake of consistency, Macedonians (Slavic), in line with Macedonians (Greek). The Slavs and the Greeks may refrain from using disambiguating terms when referring to themselves, but we need them here. …·ΚέκρωΨ·… 15:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, some people want Macedonians (Slavic) and others Macedonians (ethnic group). The latter name misleads the reader that they are the same people as the Macedonian Greeks of Alexander the gt. So my compromise hits the middle lane. Otherwise we can also have Macedonians (Western Bulgarians) but that may raise some questions. Politis 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I support moving the page. Adhering to the KISS principle, Macedonians (Slavs) is a lot more simpler, concise and easier to enter into the address bar than Macedonians (ethnic group).--Euthymios 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You can use ethnic Macedonians, it's even easier. - Francis Tyers · 16:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually we had this discussion a million times before. The current title is a compromise. The title should really be Macedonian people, but that points to a disambiguation page (as is right and proper). We could have it at Skopian people, but no-one uses that outside of some Greeks. Macedonians (ethnic group) is a entirely reasonable and unambiguous, as the Macedonians in Macedonia are a regional group (it would be ok to have Macedonians (regional group) pointing to Macedonians (Greek), and the Macedonians have their appropriate disambiguation. - Francis Tyers · 16:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, just swallow your pride and accept this eminently reasonable compromise :)) - Francis Tyers · 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

'Skopian people' is unacceptable, unless we mean the inhabitants of the capital. As for 'Macedonian people', it refers to all ethnicities (as in, British people, American people, etc...). So we are left with, Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group). Politis 16:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
English people, Greek people etc. I agree we are left with Macedonians (ethnic group). - Francis Tyers · 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
But the "Macedonians" are not merely an ethnic group: they are also a nation, so the disambiguating term is imprecise. Personally, I have always preferred Skopjan over Skopian, as it follows the native (rather than the Greek) spelling Скопјан(ц)и more closely and looks more authentic. By the way, hilarious site, FT. Cheers.…·ΚέκρωΨ·… 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:) -- its good to lighten the mood sometimes ;) - Francis Tyers · 17:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, Macedonians can mean many things. It can refer to anyone born in Macedonia (region), and it can refer to anyone holding the citizenship of FYROM. Ethnic Greeks exist in both categories and Slavomacedonians/"ethnic Macedonians"/Western Bulgarians/Skopjans also exist in both categories. Macedonians (Greek) form the majority in Macedonia (region) and Macedonians (ethnic group) form the majority in FYROM. Why are the "Macedonians (ethnic group)" considered more "Macedonian" than the more numerous Macedonians (Greek) that they should be entitled to the article Macedonian people and not the Macedonians (Greek)? Why not move Macedonians (Greek) to Macedonian people?--Euthymios 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what you are doing, Francis, that I don't like. You are drawing a hierarchy of "Macedonianness" with the "Macedonians (ethnic group)" being more "Macedonian" than every other ethnic group in the region. If anyone should be monopolizing the term Macedonian, it should be the majority Greeks (who also have been living in the area for longer).--Euthymios 16:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. - Francis Tyers · 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And invented and used the name first, but that's not the issue here. The problem isn't with their geographical identification as Macedonians, which stems from the objective reality of their presence in Macedonia — it's with the political act of the name being reserved for a specific ethnonational group to the exclusion and at the expense of all the other groups inhabiting the region.…·ΚέκρωΨ·… 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. - Francis Tyers · 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There is logic and respect in 'Macedonian (Slavs)', after all, the people are southern Slavs (yougo Slav) and recognised themselves as such in Yugoslavia. By the way, Britain and America refer to 'federated' regions; England and Greece to countries.
As for a 'Macedonian hierarchy' in the terminology, the way I currently perceive it is: if the Slav Macedonians of Rom/Fyrom end up on top of that hierarchy, then that spells problems for the discipline of history (and for Greece, though that is an insignificant issue). Promoters of that hierarchy seem to have the upper hand in Wikipedia as, for instance, in new Wikipedia articles by FT (please, I do not infer any intentionality of purpose). Politis 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll take some time to reply to you as you have actually presented an argument which is understandable. The history of the region is another matter, and you will note that broadly speaking I take the Greek position on the history of Macedonia prior to the advent of modern nationalism. I couldn't care less for the claims to the Ancient Macedonians, and neither could the Macedonians I've met either. My consistency is that I will call the Macedonians , Macedonians, and I'll certainly call the ethnic Macedonians Macedonians! I don't have a problem with disambiguation because I am able to use context to distinguish between the two. The suggestion of hierarchy is ridiculous quite frankly. The Macedonians are no less or more important than the Macedonians. I wonder, did they care about the name before the naming dispute? For every action, there is an... - Francis Tyers · 17:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned, I am not interested in what Greece thinks, if it is concerned, then it can do something about it other than insist on 'Fyrom'. But I am concerned about (and interested in) the retroactive usage of the term Macedonia, because it is so limited that we could fit in a small volume. The retroactive use, re-writes history along mostly nationalist criteria.
It reminds me how the Nazis highjacked German history and tried to re-write it, claiming the entire Gothic middle ages and beyond (even to the Spartans) - of course FyRom is a democracy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politis (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 November 2006
Before I invoke Godwin's law, I think we largely agree. Godwin's law now invoked. - Francis Tyers · 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

"bg:Македонци#Преобладаващ възглед в Република Македония"

This does not work as an interwiki. Stop reverting. If you feel that strongly, make a new article on the Bulgaropaedia and point the interwiki at that. - Francis Tyers · 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Friedman again

Remeber this? According to the chart, there aren't "recofnized Bulgarian dialects". BTW, since when dialects are "recognized"?

Summary of the history of Macedonian language according to Victor Friedman [35]
Period Summary
1794-1840 The period of the first published texts employing Macedonian dialects. Main figures: Hadzi Daniil of Moskopole, Joakim Krckovski, and Kiril Pejcinovic. Main event: the awakening of a Macedonian Slavic national consciousness.The opposition Turk/giaour is superceded by Greek/Slav, and Slavs struggle for a literary language of their own.
1840-1870 The period of the first textbooks. Main figures: Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov,Jordan Hadzi Konstantinov-Dzinot, Kuzman Šapkarev. Main event: the anti-Phanariot struggle. Most intellectuals favor a common Macedo-Bulgarian literary language based to a large extent on Macedonian.
1870-1913 The period of the first grammars and nationalist publications. Main figures: Gjorgi Pulevski, Krste Misirkov, Dimitrija Čupovski, Petar Pop Arsov, and other members of the VMRO. Main events: the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate, the Ilinden rebellion, and the partition of Macedonia. Macedonian nationalism is opposed to Bulgarian and Serbian interests.
1913-1944 The recognition of Macedonian literature in Serbia and Yugoslavia leading to the crystallization and ultimate establishment of the Macedonian literary language.

--Bomac 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Speculation - he doesn't say what you are saying.--Euthymios 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the dates - the periods are same, no Bulgar stuff. Bomac 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Friedman writes, "The recognition of Macedonian literature in Serbia and Yugoslavia leading to the crystallization and ultimate establishment of the Macedonian literary language". Just where do you or Friedman find (found) quotes mentioning recognition of a "Macedonian literature" (Slavic, not Greek) in the 1930? Also, this is the third time I request politely (as usual) by saying please answer my querries? Thank you. I am a little disappointed to note that Francis, though currently engaged in Macedonian related wiki edits, is turning a blind eye to this particular situation. Politis 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove that there was Macedonian in the 1930's, but trying to prove that the dialects were Macedonian, and not Bulgarian. There was a literature on the Macedonian dialect (ofcurse, because there wasn't a codificated lng. yet), that's why it's "Macedonian literature". Clear enough? Bomac 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think 'clear' has gone for a long walk :-( Since there was no Macedonian language but uncodified dialects, the Bulgarians and the rest of the world have a right, if not a duty, to call them Bulgarian dialects or South Slavic dialects, or even South Slavic dialects of Serbian Macedonian. Politis 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


"When the great war comes, Macedonia will become Greek or Bulgarian, according to who wins. If it is taken by the Bulgarians, they will take the population Slavs. If we take it, we will make all of them Greeks". Harilaos Trikoupis, Greek Prime Minister, 1882-95

"The most explosive and perennial issue, however, was that of the land in conjunction with refugee settlement. Slavo-Macedonian natives reacted strongly and often violently to the massive settlement of Greek refugees and to their occupation of fields they had themselves coveted or even cultivated in the past. Slavo-Macedonian peasants would massively declare themselves Bulgarians, or even Serbs, in the futile hope that their villages and lands would thus be spared the refugee invasion." George Th. Mavrogordatos. Department of Political Science, University of Athens, 1983

"Those you call Bulgarophones, I will simply call them Macedonians" Professor R. A. Reiss, commissioned by the Greek government to study ethnologically in the new territories in 1915.

Stop reverting legitimate clarification

Thank you Bomac. I think I agree with you, since when dialects are recognised? In this spirit, there was no Macedonian language in the 1930s, just dialects, so let us keep the updates I proposed.
Also, Francis and Boman, please justify the following by locating the UCLA web page (I tried and cannot find anything relevant) The article reads: The Serbian National Theatre in Skopje even performed some of the plays written in the local dialects, which are now classical drama pieces (UCLA Language Material Sources, [36]).
No questions have been answered (just Francis allerting Bomac to avoid 3reverts ban ;-) ?). So please, I repeat again, answer my querries or stop reverting, namely:
(cur) (last) 14:55, 22 November 2006 Politis (Talk | contribs) (→The Balkan Wars - 1/ UCLA source offers nothing. 2/There was no Mac. lang. in 1930s, pls provide period references, not retroactive appelations.)
(cur) (last) 15:41, 22 November 2006 Politis (Talk | contribs) (→The Balkan Wars - Please respond to justified querries before rvt!) Politis 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there wasn't Macedonian language in the 1930s, and the dialects were Macedonian. Bomac 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bull.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, you are a great guy, but what are you saying? You seem to agree, in your arguments, that we cannot mention a 'Macedonian' language in the text prior to the 1940s, but your reverts do the exact opposite :-? Politis 17:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Spare me of politeness(Politis). My reverts were as a result of your edits, in which you called the Macedonian dialects Bulgarian, which is a POV-ish statement. Bomac 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, whatever, LOL. But again we agree, neither of us would call thos dialects simply 'Bulgarian' (even though that was the convention at the time). I did not write 'Bulgarian', but Bulgarian dialects. Even Friedman as you and Francis qutoed, agrees with me. Politis 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Eutheropgopth^WTelex (you used to choose such easy to spell names) I like what you did there. Props. I readded Politis' bit about name reversions though, as I think he has a valid point. Whoever added the Trudgill bit can you give me a citation please. I've probably read it somewhere before but I can't recall. - Francis Tyers · 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Slavophones"

Could we avoid the word "Slavophones", it's a neologism. In English, they are called Slav speakers or Slavic speakers or Slavonic speakers etc.--Euthymios 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

No problem with the above; just to point out that the Slav Macedonians of Greece were happy to be recognised as Slavophones and Slavomacedonians in the 1940s (see Koufis). Politis 18:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What about so called Slavophone Albanians? Apart from the Torbesh who apparently idenitfy as Macedonians and Slavs, but are only Moslem, I can find very little source information on these (or any) other Slavophone Albanians. This is one and the same group, it should reflect this in the article, in the Albanian section, not misguide the reader into believing that the Torbesh do not identify with the FYROMians, and that there is also another Slavonic speaking Albanian group who also does not identify with the FYROMian ethnicity.

Re names

Thanks for the correction Hectorian, for some reason I thought the passage also included personal names, that is why I included Zografov/Zografos: during the wars and depending which armed bands dominated particular areas, Slavs would Hellenise their personal names and Greeks Slavicise theirs. Politis 18:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Zografos

Are you sure it wouldn't be Zografov > Zografou (i.e. Slavic genitive case to Greek genitive case)?--Euthymios 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, why don't we discuss the naming policy in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia with the artificial -ski endings appended to the traditonal Bulgarian -ov/-ev. For example, compare the Bulgarian declaring Gruev with the "Macedonian" declaring Gruevski.--Euthymios 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous... I do not know who added the 'Zografos-Zografov' thing (or maybe i do know), but the lack of knowledge for the Greek language is obvious! as if the Greeks forced the people to "hellenize" their names... No mention of the possibility of these people voluntarily re-hellenizing their surnames. I still wait to see what 'zografov' means in the 'Skopjian dialect' of Bulgarian... BTW, -ov, as Euthymios correctly said, is a Bulgarian ending... So, even in that case, it would be a Bulgarian changing a surname in greek. to verify what i am talking about, the greek word is ζωγράφος, zografos, means 'painter' and comes from the ancient greek words ζήω-ω (to live, i am alive) + γράφω (to write)-also compare the borrowings in english: graphics, graphs, ideograph, etc... So, ... i guess i will start inserting stuff about voluntarily re-hellenization of these people, if BS of forced hellenization will be re-added... Hectorian 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Politis added it. - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, please explain what just happened there. I went all sarcastic with Hectorian for removing the part about Zografov etc. but I figured Politis knew what he was writing. Kindly clarify! - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I admit i was sacrastic and i apologise if it was offensive to u. i think Politis meant 're-hellenization' of their surnames. but in the current status, the paragraph wants to refer to a possible "Macedonian" minority. so, simply that surname is irrelevant. unless we add more, and start talking about how these people returned to their roots... It would be interesting enough, though i doubt if such edits will manage to stay here. Hectorian 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was how I understood it. First they were Greek, then they because slavified, then they were re-hellenised. Did you not get that impression from that sentence? If so, please feel free to re-word it. - Francis Tyers · 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I could write that some people re-hellenized their surnames, and add examples (not limitted to Zografos), but i bet they will be reverted, the first time a "Macedonian" sees the changes, and will lead to revert-wars. and to give u an example, not only in the Greek Macedonia, but the process of de-hellenizing greek surnames even inside FYROM, here are 2 surnames, the first two from the List of Macedonians (ethnic group): Gorge Atanasoski, Athanasios Αθανάσιος from αθανασία (means 'immortality'), Steve Stavro, from σταυρός (means 'cross')... So, i guess they would never accept noting the greek origin or some thousands of their surnames... On the contrary, they try to do the opposite. btw, i would be grateful if someone was in the position to provide and alternative theory (though it is not possible:)...). Regards Hectorian 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
They should cherish their cosmopolitan origins. Actually, I bet many of them are dead chuffed that they have names of Greek origin. :) - Francis Tyers · 08:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is bed time, guys, or time to surf Youtube :-). The whole thing started with my not reading properly a particular paragraph. Sorry. Politis 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How about we change the example surname to Salatov? Then we can have Salatov/Salatovski/Choriatiki. NikoSilver 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

EXPLAIN THIS

Have a read of this article from the Time archives: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796967,00.html

Warms the cockles of your heart d'unt-it, "Old Balkan differences will never again appear in the Balkans." - Francis Tyers · 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

BALKAN DIFFERENCES

"Old Balkan differences will never again appear......" They never disappeared in the first place. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3372117.stm

The probable number of total Etnic Macedonian population

All regions with significant Ethnic Macedonian population, listed in this article, give us roughly about 1,650,000 Ethnic Macedonians. In previous edition of this article the probable number of Ethnic Macedoniasn was calculated up to 2,000,000, which looks incredibly. I can't see any chance to find more than 250,000 in other countries with smaller communities of Ethnic Macedonias, so I suppose that the more probable number of total Ethnic Macedonian population is around 1,700,000. Best regards, Jackanapes 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The exact sum total of the significant Ethnic Macedonian communities, listed in the article, is 1,634,479. There are 365,521 missing Ethnic Macedonians up to the presumed total number of 2,000,000. Obviously they have to live in states with smaller or insignificant Ethnic Macedonian communities. Where do they live in fact? I'm afraid that the total number of Ethnic Macedonian population larger than 1,700,000 is unrealistic. If I'm wrong, such data have to be sourced with independent and objective sources at least. Best regards, Jackanapes 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As always Macedonia is a battleground

Even on Wiki the regional powers have to dictate and impose their own bullshit on who the Macedonians are. More sommersalts than a circus acrobat. Just keep nodding and assuring yourself, it will go away.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.250.74 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 February 2007.

I hope you're not one of those people who say that this article is inaccurate because it says they are a Slavic ethnic group.--Domitius 15:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Innacuracies? In order to have innacuracies, first you need to have accuracies. Accurate is definetly not a word to describe this article. This article is a wish-list of what the common Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian nationalist dream would like these people to be. It would be nice if it was actually about the people its talking about, and for them, not a place for their hertiage to be (YET AGAIN) stolen, falsified, appropriated and finally but most commonly, denied. I hear and read many voices here, except the one that matters - the voice of the people the article is actually about. As a source Wikipedia is as good as a children's supermarket encyclopedia. The duplicity is appaling, the hypocrisy is disgusting and the information is tainted and misleading.

Just look at the bullshit you've written below in the next topic. How dare you Mr Demitius deny, label or dismiss the identity and culture of any individual ? In this case a group of people numbering close to 2 million ! Whomever they might f*cking think they are, what gives you the right to label and gag a whole nation Mr Demitius? Democracy is a Greek concept, yes? Wikipedia is based on this similar concept? Well it applies to all, Mr Demitius, not just Greeks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.250.192 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 February 2007.

You don't get the problem, do you? No one is happy with this article, we keep getting Greek users, Bulgarian users, Serb users and FYROM users coming and complaining about something. You have to admit that the evidence of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity prior to the Comintern is rather slim, mostly academic theories which only found support (and minimal support in that) in educated circles (whether in Macedonia, Sofia Belgrade or Saint Petersburg). The illiterate masses weren't affected by it at all. In fact, there was no talk of a Macedonian ethnicity, language or nation before the 1870s, and any such talk then was found in Serbian propagandistic schoolbooks (presumably as a reaction to the escalation of Bulgarian influence in Macedonia after the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate). I have serious doubts that everything started with Tito, but it would be foolish to underestimate his role in the development of the Macedonian identity. Back to the point though, what exactly is your problem with this article? That it doesn't say that the contemporary ethnic Macedonians are the pure descendents of Alexander the Great, Tsar Samoil, Prince Marko, Scanderbeg etc? Why don't you point out a specific inaccuracy?--Domitius 11:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As for my comment in the section below this, do you seriously believe that those politically based (Vinozhito - OMO Ilinden PIRIN) minorities and their couple of thousand supporters could have developed without external (ideological and financial) influence?--Domitius 11:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Who's gagging whom? I assure you it's not the Greeks doing the gagging, otherwise we wouldn't have an article entitled "Macedonians (ethnic group)" at all. And how dare you deny, label, or dismiss the identity and culture of the 2.5 million Macedonians who do not share your ethnic affiliation? It seems your idea of democracy is to impose your views on everybody else. "I hear and read many voices here, except the one that matters - the voice of the people the article is actually about." Your mistake lies in that very assumption: that your nationalism is any more valid or credible than anybody else's. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"I hear and read many voices here, except the one that matters - the voice of the people the article is actually about." Your mistake lies in that very assumption: that your nationalism is any more valid or credible than anybody else's. Who is this particular page about dude? COME ON! I'm not writing this on the page about the Oromo of Ethiopia. From what I undestand, this page is about these particular people, whatever you want to call them.

I'm pleased you pointed this out - "I assure you it's not the Greeks doing the gagging, otherwise we wouldn't have an article entitled "Macedonians (ethnic group)" at all." a denial which aggresively pursued to this day in Greece, but is not reflected in this article. "Slavophone" ? "Dopia" ? Whatever you want to call them bud, they are not Greeks. You know this. The Greek state knows this. How's about they get the freedom to speak their own language and learn it, they can think they're f*cking eskimo for all I care. They love being Greeks anyway.

How about in the article, the bit about the Rainbow party representing a "purported" population within Greece's borders? The Greek census info on the side bar of the page shows a population of 4000+. Thats not "purported". That's what the census says. This isn't a f*cking editorial! "In my opinion the earth is star shaped... so in Wikipedia..."

"or dismiss the identity and culture of the 2.5 million Macedonians who do not share your ethnic affiliation?" I never said they cannot be called, or are not Macedonians, nor did I say (or believe) that the modern Macedonians are descendants of Alexander the Greek. But are they Greeks or Macedonians. I'm confused. They are Greeks living in the territory called Macedonia? What? But yes that's right, it comes back to the same Greek continuity myth. The myth of the 'Magala Idea', of the uniting language, the heritage, the lineage... the territory. The non-existance of anyone within its borders who is not Greek. And even then, every Macedonians I've met speaks and understands the very different, "Bulgarian" dialect they speak in "FYROM". They can't explain why, but as I leave, I'm not allowed to forget - THEY'RE GREEK!

But why the insults? They know the "ethnic" Macedonians will get offended to being called FYROM or Bulgarian? Is that the whole point to these pages, to this argument?

My conclusion must be that these ethnic Macedonians are phantom people living in a land (Macedonia) which has every population under the sun, except for them. I am told, you can be Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, Vlach, Roma, Turk, even Slovak, what you CANNOT be is Macedonian. I mean you are all those and a Macedonian, but never a Macedonian alone. They are all natives, I am told, except those who identify themselves as being natives, and not belonging to a neighbouring population. They do not exist. They don't know what they are. But luckily I know - They're confused peasants, victims of political ideology and the fantastical political concoction of a slightly deranged (but very much loved) megalomaniac. Those poor faux-Macedonians.

Every person has the right to self identification and determination. Every nation. Nobody has the right to take this away. Suppresing it is some mindf*cked form of imperialism and coloniastion dude! Families and people have been destroyed by this man.

The truth is liberating, take a deep breath and open your eyes, we have to live together, now and tomorrow. We do not need to fight.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.167.167 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 February 2007.

Let me see if I can get this straight. Only the self-identification of the people in FYROM should be respected. The self-identification of the Dopia-speaking/Slavophone Greeks as Greeks should not be respected because you say "[w]hatever you want to call them bud, they are not Greeks", but by the same token I am not allowed to say that the Slav population of FYROM are in fact brainwashed Bulgarians. To see how the Slavophone Greeks feel see this program [37] which was aired on national television in Greece (ET3). It's in Dopia and Greek, so naturally if you're from FYROM you won't understand a word, but luckily it has English subtitles in the interesting parts.--Domitius 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"But are they Greeks or Macedonians. I'm confused." That's where the problem lies. We believe that they are Greeks precisely because they are Macedonians, whereas you believe the two to be mutually exclusive. You can hardly claim autochthony when the Macedonians have demonstrably lived in Macedonia the longest. That is the crux of the Greek argument: what makes you more "natively" Macedonian than the Greeks who have lived there at least twice as long as any Slavic-speaking population? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Because Tito tells me so.--Domitius 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)



What's the point? This is how it always ends. There is no claim to exclusiveness. Its an attempt to include a population which has been under siege, though war and propaganda. A population which deserves some recognition. I'm not talking about Greeks here, whatever they may speak.

The video just proves it. I can't believe someone actually thinks this proves the opposite. In the video posted, they speak a dialect alright, but its a mix of "slavophone" and Greek. In the beginning. Then they just go on in Greek. The dude in the coat (a journalist?) doesn't know the "Dopia" does he? Nope. They speak to him in Greek, and then begin to talk about their own language, throwing in a few idiom words here and there.

The lady uses an example, "Sho praish, odam" as an example - “What are you doing, going” "Što pravish, odam" in Skopian or FYROMian, whichever is preferred, "Šo praiš, odam" Bitolski idiom slang from FYROM

She explains one difference to the FYROMians, they count in Turkish, the FYROMians don’t. She then counts in FYROMian (not Dopian) as an example. “Eden, dva, tri etc.” Nice one, she speaks FYROMian fluently, no Greek border-crossing, duty free shop accent.

So this language, very different from Greek is almost identical to FYROMian. The woman says in her village the population is half-half. Half Dopiani, half “others”? These people consider themselves different from the “others”. Who are the others… the Greeks perhaps? So what the f*ck are they? Slavophone Greco-Slavo-Bulgaro Greek Macedonians ? I guess they are then. They do say not that half speak Dopian, that half are Dopian. Are what? Dopian, locals, yeah. So I guess not ethnically Greek? Confusing?

The video proves my point, not just about these people, but also about self-identification! In their own eyes they are Greek. In my eyes they are Greek too man! They've been there for a long time. They are Macedonians right? Yes and they’re Greek.

(For a while there, they were called “Old-Bulgarians” by the Greeks. They hated that, the most)

So I ask you again, what of the FYROMians. Phantoms. Brainwashed Bulgarians then, brainwashed by Serbs or Tito (whichever). But I I guess they’re just like the Dopiani in the video then, Brainwashed Bulgarians, brainwashed by the Greek state. No, no wait, they're not Bulgarians - THEY’RE GREEKS! Yeah, they say so, everyone says so – I know! No problem there.

The problem still is, a person from FYROM, Bulgaria, even Serbia, as the Greeks in the video say, can understand them quite well, while a Greek cannot (?). Puzzling. And nobody is denying that they are, indeed, Macedonians. Greek Macedonians. Well, it seems, these Greek Macedonians, while sharing culture and identity with the Greeks, share a language, with the idioms of the FYROMians. For example (as they say) in Gevegeli(a).

So I ask again, who are these phantoms, what are they?

But wait, it seems all a FYROMian needs to do to be recognized as a Macedonian is: 1. Step over the border to Greece 2. Learn Greek, 3. Not speak their mother language (in public affairs anyway), 4. Change their name to something Greek

Before that, they weren’t Macedonian, even though they: 1. Lived in a territory, then nation claiming to be called/part of Macedonia 2. A territory directly north of the “real” Macedonia 3. Shared a language with “true” Macedonians. 4. Were 700km from Athens, the capital of the mighty Greek Kingdom.


As for Tito, he was an opportunist, he hardly created the notion, he fanned it well, he used it, he needed it, the “ethnic identity” of the Macedonians as a precursor, a catalyst for the taking of Northern Greece. It existed, thus the failed attempt to exploit it. Tito’s creation was Yugoslavia. That’s why it just collapsed. They’re were Yugoslavs, sure! But long before it went to shit there was Slovenes, Bosnians, Croats, Serbs and … ahem… Macedonians. Just like afterwards there was Slovenes, Bosnians, Croats, Serbs etc.

I can list you countless Greek laws passed on the issues and dealing with the territories annexed by Greece. Why the use of the term “new territories” in Greek military papers post 1913, “territories not yet incorporated into the Kingdom of Greece”. In 1917 the Kingdom passed Law 1051, look it up. In 1920 Greek Ministry of Internal Affairs published the “Advice on the Change of the Names of Municipalities and Villages” in Aegean Macedonia. The primer ABECEDAR was printed in Athens, 1925. It was published by Greeks. Why not? But was then pulled, some nationalists realized the grave circumstances this might have on the “new territories”. Why? They’ve always been Greek right ? The Macedonians I mean ? Right ? The Macedonian territory as well ? Right ? Why would these Greeks want to break away now, they just ‘rejoined’ the Kingdom since so long in exile !? It makes no sense. Tito wasn’t around then either (he was out shagging some German chick in Vienna or Moscow I think).

Man this article is about Macedonians right, not Helleno-Greeks or Latino-Italians, Slavo-Russians etc. These particular “Macedonians”. Slavs that have been a part of this region for a long time – a big part of Macedonia, this point is not argued at all. A fact. Just like Greeks, right. Before nationalism swept Europe (mid-late 1800's), they were whatever the ruler of the day said they were - “Who cares,” the peasants would say “as long as I keep my land”. Just the same on the Greek side. The Slavic claim to the name is as legitimate as anybody and any Greek who lives there today. I care little for dead men, dead languages and their dead kingdoms. You can argue with some moron from Bitola about Afghan Macedonians and ancient shields all you want, you can argue about the use of the term to describe one six, ten places - whatever, but people’s identity is not up for discussion. For the good of the majority of these normal, decent human beings, these particular Macedonians, give them the dignity to be able to say who they are without needing to get into a debate with anybody on whether they have ever existed or do so at all, just like I have.

Read books people, the internet is a poor resource.

Nobody denies them the different identity they wish. In fact, Greece endorses a different state from those of Bulgaria and Serbia there. These people were indeed called Macedonians like you say, but in the regional sense (like everybody elese in Macedonian region, Greeks, Bulgarians and them included). The problem according to the Greeks arises from the fact that they chose to use the name of the broader region for themselves only. I imagine that since "they were called as the occasional ruler wished the were called", then they just didn't have a specific name for themselves as a nation (only regionally like everybody else). Personally, I'd have no problem calling them plain Macedonians either (despite the apparent confusion that this creates), if it weren't for things like this and that and the "we descend from those" bits.
As for the video, first we have to put things in order. Let's speak about size: Greek Helsinki Monitor (which heavily criticizes Greece) assumes there are 100,000 speakers of Slavic languages in Macedonia, Greece, based on the last census 60 years ago that asked for language where there were about 40,000 speakers (logical estimate IMO). It also says that 10-30,000 probably self-identify as ethnic Macedonians, making a very wild claim based on the results of the pro-Mk Rainbow Party for the whole of Greece which was 7,000 votes -wrongfully IMO because it disregards the fact that the party only acquired 2,900 votes in Macedonia, Greece (the rest were in e.g. Crete). However, let's assume GHM is right and there are 10-30,000 ethnic Macedonian identifying Slavic language speakers.
Note here that the total population in Macedonia, Greece is +2.6 million, so we'd be talking about a 1% "minority" in the region and 0.3% in Greece at best.
The video obviously refers to the other 70-90,000 Slavic language speakers who self-identify as Greeks (Greek Slavophones at best). Isn't it rational that among them there will be those who speak a language closer to the country northwest? And isn't it logical that "the guy in the suit" intended to pick specifically them (to illustrate the exact point that the alleged "minority" by the RoM/FYROM self-id's as Greeks no matter how close their language is to the particular spectrum of the (quite narrow) dialect continuum between Bulgarian and (Slavo-)Macedonian?
Moreover, keep in mind, that Greeks do call the rest 2.5 million Greeks up there simply "Macedonians", and when we want to disambiguate, we call them Macedonian Greeks. So, we have the following confusion here:
Now suppose the Greek govt had no issue with the name, and decided to conduct a proper census so as to find out how many, where, etc. What should they ask in the "etnicity" and "nationality" fields in order not to offend anyone? (I mean neither of the above three groups).
Greco-Macedonian has come to mean here any of the above three! I wonder, do the ethnic Macedonians want to be confused with all the other Macedonians? Is it convenient to them? How are they supposed to identify their minorities in their neighboring Macedonias? The only reply I get when I pose that question to an ethnic Macedonian who doesn't agree in dabbing his name is "but there are no other Macedonians, we are the only ones!" (which is total bull of course). So confusion is IMO the means in order to blow minorities out of proportion. They may well claim it's 100,000 in Greece, or even 2.5 million (heh! the're all forcefully Hellenized!) They can also claim another c.250,000 Macedonians (regionally) Bulgarians (consciously) of Blagoevgrad. (Who btw are oppressed by not self-identifying with their rightful regional name in order not to be confused that they do so ethnically, because they don't want to be "Macedonians" in the ethnical sense!)
So what would you say if we tried to respect all those people's rights? How would you feel if you had a guy in your class with the exact name, surname and middle name? And even if you personally wouldn't care, don't you understand that some may care? Don't these other people deserve a right to non-ambiguous self-identification? If it were in my hands, I'd propose for the non-insulting and adequately dabbing New Macedonians (and I don't give a damn what the Greek nationalists will say about "no Macedonia in the title"). And I'd further be one of those who wouldn't give a damn about the whole confusion and about the offensive-non-dab, and would sacrifice the name alltogether too, if I believed that it actually helps stability. But it doesn't. It only expands the dab problem historically, and adds irredentist aspirations in practice. NikoSilver 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Macedonians in Bulgaria

You'll excuse my ignorance, but what is the history of the Macedonians in Bulgaria? Are they recent migrants, or a long-standing group that identifies as Macedonian? Thanks.--Pharos 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They are the result of a spillover of propaganda from the time of Tito in neighboring Yugoslavia. Organizations claiming to represent them claim their number to be 250,000, yet the ethnicity census (of an EU candidate at the time) and the electoral performance of the aforementioned organizations indicate a figure of 3,000 - 5,000 (undoubtedly including some recent immigrants). Hope this helps.--Domitius 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture again

In the light of recently discovered diary of Krste Misirkov, where he describes himself as "Macedonian Bulgarian", his image as an ethnic Macedonian begins to look inappropriate. Consider a replacement.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Frightner.   /FunkyFly.talk_  07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bomac

I must say you've got some nerve. I suppose the parties OMO Ilinden Pirin and Rainbow in Greece and Bulgaria are "not" phantoms - may I add the same wherever they are mentioned?--Domitius 23:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Syrmians?

Are we sure such a people exist? A google search for them finds mostly Wikipedia forks and forums.--Domitius 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put "Syrmians" in the caption because the section mentions them. Bomac 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but is there evidence of them having settled in Macedonia (or of them having existed at all). Who added that? Look at this [38]; there must be some source out there. Have you heard of anything?--Domitius 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this Macedonian site: Ова протобугарско племе, под водство на Кубер, а како потчинето на аварскиот каган во Панониjа, околу 680 г. се одметнало од Аварите и тргнало кон Солун. Кубер ги повел со себе и Сермесиjаните (Syrmians), (околу 70.000 на броj), во нивната стара татковина. Сермесиjаните биле Ромеи, жители на балканските провинции што Аварите ги заробиле еден век порано и ги населиле во Западна Панониjа, да работат за нив. На Кубер му била доверена управата врз нив.

It says that Kuber was leading the Syrmians from Panonia to their old fatherland and that they were Romanikka (or Romeioi, whatever = Greeks). Bomac 14:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete bull. Those were bulgars he was leading.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, did Bozho told you that? Do you have relevant sources? Yes, there was army of Bulgars with him, but he also brought Syrmians. Bomac 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In this site there is a refference to this statement: J. Verner 1986, 1-71, Т.1-32. It is clear that Syrmians were not Bulgaro-Kutrigurs, but Romans (Romeioi) which were brought as slaves in Panonia by the Avars. Bomac 16:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely fringe.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have counter-source which prooves the "fringeness"? Bomac 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The book you quote does not even have a title.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My point was that this is not a pro-mac source. Bomac 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So? It is still a highly dubious one.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you one more time: HOW SO? Contra-sources? Contra-arguments? Bomac 16:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How so? Kuber's lead of bulgars is well documented fact. Now here you drop some mutually contradicting fringe sources, with no real references and expect me to counter them?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha... weasel excuse. Bomac 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently stirring some discussion is the best you can achieve here.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a Bulgarian source about the Syrmians: Сермесиани, на гръцки Sermesianos, е произведено от името на града Срем, на гръцки Sermion покрай Sirmion (дн. Сремска Митровица) в Югославия. „Чудесата” съобщават още, че пленените от аварите населения от Балканския полуостров на византийската империя „те завлекоха цялото това население в отвъдната земя към Панония .до р. Дунав. Главен град на тази провинция беше някога така нареченият Сирмиум. И тъй, там, споменатият хаган настани целия пленен народ, вече като подвластен нему. Именно оттогава те се смесиха с българи, авари и с останалите племена, родиха им се деца от това смешение и станаха извънредно голям народ.” Bomac 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It contradicts the first one, since Kuber is no longer leading the supposed people. Also it is not clear what it references   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What is a Syrmian? I'm asking this question in all honesty; I have never heard of such a group. Is there any English source for the existence of these people? Jkelly 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources I've quoted, Syrmians were Greeks which were captured as slaves by the Avars and transported in Panonia (see Syrmia, their name is derived from there). According to the sources, they were brought back to their homeland by Kuber. Bomac 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Are we sure that is their actual English name? Perhaps it's written differently (which would explain the Google results).--Domitius 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)