Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 5

page title

Like, what the ...? The article named "Macedonia (Slav)" talking about an ethnic group? User:RN, could you have picked a sillier and syntactically trivially incorrect name? --Joy [shallot] 22:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL - I thought about "The people known to some as Macedonians and known to some others as Macedonian Slavs", but then that would be a bit verbose :). The point of it was to stop a move war, as you have probably guessed (even though its move locked). Feel free to change it to what you desire, of course :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Macedonian Apes? Or Macedamia nuts? Or even Stuart Mackintosh? REX 22

33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Page title> Macedonians (ethnic group). There is no other current ethnic group that calls itself "Macedonian" or "Macedonians", though there are portions of other, larger ethnic groups that may call themselves such (Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.). Let's move the page already. -Alexander 007 00:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The only proper name for this ethnic group is Macedonians. All other names are only Greek and Bulgarian propaganda against Macedonian people. How would Greeks felt if the article about Greeks had title "Indoeuropeans from Greece", or how would Bulgarians felt if the article about Bulgarians had title "Slavs from Bulgaria" or what ever. If Wikipeadia use any other name than Macedonians for this article then it obviously would be acceptance of Greek and Bulgarian POV. I am not Macedonian but Serb, and this Greek-Bulgarian crusade against Macedonians on Wikipedia looks really pathetic to me. Besides this, ancient Macedonians were not Greeks but Thracians. Greeks have no right to Macedonian name. User:PANONIAN

I agree, according to Wikipedia's naming policy and the available evidence, Macedonians is the name to use. REX 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia (Slav) is not a name for ethnicity, that's for sure. But, if Ryan Norton wants to "satisfy" the Greek propagandators, no one has the right to object... Bomac 16:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bomac, RN is not trying to satisfy Greek nationalists. This is just a temporary solution. I think that the article should be at Macedonians (ethnicity), Macedonians (ethnic group) or Macedonians (nation). All the evidence and the vast majority of sources suggest that Macedonians is the proper name for these people. REX 17:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that Macedonian (nation) is not OK, because there are 1000s of Macedonians that live abroad, but they do not have the Macedonian nationality (for different reasons). The other two are acceptable, but only if someone searches "Macedonian", to be redirected to this page.

You remember the article Macedonia (region)? When someone searches for "Macedonia", he is redirected to "Macedonia (region)" and latter there he is given option to go to "Republic of Macedonia". Macedonian 02:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I would directly ask for the administrators to move the page to "Macedonians", "Macedonians (ethnicity)" or "Macedonians (ethnic group)". Also, all references to this ethnic groups that can be found on the other pages should be instantly changed into "Macedonians" or "Macedonians (ethnic group)".

How can Wikipedia allow few assimilators to change the only name of this ethnic group to something so artificial as "Macedonian Slavs" or "Macedonian (Slav)"?

Also, I have to protest for the all lies given in the text for the Macedonians, where we are clearly represented as artificial ethnic group. WHAT A BU**SHI*!!!

Example: The page says that Tito made many Vlachs or Greeks to turn into Macedonians... What a terrible lie!!! Tito and all those communist crap were pushing us to forget our ethnicities and identify as "Yugoslavs".

Another Example: The page claims that many Macedonians were inprisoned because of pro-Bulgarian ideas... Another lie!!! They were inprisoned because of promoting the idea of separating Macedonia from Yugoslavia and making it independent country (like it happened in 1991st). Those people are free now, most of them still are alive... why they don't show any pro-Bulgarian ideas now, when Tito and Yugoslavia are far past?

Also, the treatment of the Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece is not even mentioned. Is Wikipedia trying to hide all this, just in order to satisfy the Greek and Bulgarian propaganda?

All the pages relating Macedonia are completely addopted to the Greek and Bulgarian POV, no matter they are clearly assimilative and clear propaganda. How many human rights organizations should criticise Greece for Wikipedia finally to stop hiding those facts? (Here I am not talking just about the Macedonians in Greece. I am talking about all other minorities in Greece that share the same problems.)

Should I continue with examples? Macedonian 02:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

REX claims that the numbers haven't changed. What the hell is all that about then? http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=MKJ Revert on your own Miskin 15:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No Miskin, you're wrong. Your link is from the 2000 edition. My link is from the 2005 edition. If you used your brain for a change and read what was at the heading of yours. REX 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone help me to get more information about the Macedonians around the world, including their census number and estimates? The Macedonian diaspora is the most valuable proof that the Macedonian ethnicity/nation is not an artificial product of Tito's wishes, a claim completely supported by this page, despite of its clear pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian nationalistic and assimilative origin (which is not a POV of all the people belonding to these 2 nations).

Many of the Macedonians that live in those countries all around the world were out of Macedonia for generation, some of them for more than a century, far before Tito got important role in the area, but despite that, they still identify themselves as Macedonians. Macedonian 03:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I can help you a little. According to official census in Serbia in 2002, there were 25,847 Macedonians in Serbia, of which 14,062 lived in Central Serbia and 11,785 in Vojvodina. User:PANONIAN

---

I think I can help you little more. I have one interesting book: Pavel Rudjakov, Seoba Srba u Rusiju u 18. veku, Beograd, 1995. The book speaks about Serbs who immigrated to Russia in 1752. The book also contain the list with recorded names and nationality of people who immigrated to Russia in the mentioned year. Many of those people were Serbs, but others belonged to several other nationalities. It is interesting that many of those declared that their nationality is Macedonian. And here are the names of some of these Macedonians: Stepan Andrejev, Sava Makrejev, Ivan Petrov, Fjodor Atepanov, Matvej Tokarev, Kirila Nebrikajev, etc. Present day Macedonians have very similar names. This list is a proof that people who considered themselves Macedonians existed in 1752. User:PANONIAN

Thank you a lot, PANONIAN. This might be very useful.

Even nowdays, in the 21st century the anti-Macedonian propaganda is so powerful that even Wikipedia does not call us by the only name we identify with, "Macedonians". Can you imagine how was that 100-150 years ago? No wonder that many sources from that time calls us Bulgarians, same as Wikipedia in 2005 calls us Macedonian Slavs. What a propaganda... Macedonian 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Disambiguation

Dear Bomac, you reverted the disambiguation paragraph:

In this article, "Macedonian" or, more precisely, "Macedonian Slav", refers to this ethnic group (regardless of place of residence), and not to other groups also called "Macedonian": the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, regardless of ethnicity; the inhabitants of the geographic and historical region of Macedonia, regardless of nationality or ethnicity; or the inhabitants of Greek Macedonia, regardless of ethnicity. This usage is disputed by some of these other groups.

Oh please, the heading [Macedonia (Slav)] of this article tells it what you've written in the disambiguation. So, there is no need of furthermore unnecesarry "cargoing" of this article. Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

characterizing it as "Greek NPOV is not NPOV". I am frankly surprised. I expected to be crucified by the Greek nationalists on this. Surely you acknowledge that "Macedonian" by itself can refer to many different groups of people, including not only the Slavic-speaking ethnic group, but also all citizens of the Republic of Macedonia (some of whom are not ethnically Macedonian) and all residents of a larger geographic area, part of which lies in the Republic of Macedonia, part in Greece. For that matter, historically, it can also refer to the ancient ethnic group (which may or may not be a Greek ethnic group, but is surely not Slavic), to a Bulgarian political party before the Balkan Wars, to an ancient Greek political party/faction led by Aeschines, etc.

Noone in Greece or Bulgaria will say that is "Macedonian" by nationality. In Greece and Bulgaria, Macedonia is only a region. Maybe in the internal (in Greece and Bulgaria) talk some will say that are from this region. So, this Wikipedia article is about ethnicity (Macedonians), and I haven't seen (neither heard) of any ethnicity originating from region. As for the ancient historic group (Macedonians), the heading of that article should be, in this example: Antic Macedonians (Noone says that these antic people were Slavic BTW). And, finally, about that parties you are mentioning, simply, in the heading you should add party - most of the Greek politicians and Wikiusers are extremely good in adding prefixes and suffixes :-) It's really simple.

There is nothing unusual about this—lots of other ethnic/regional/political/national groups have this kind of ambiguity)—and there is nothing in it which either promotes or denies any particular group's claims to the name. It is descriptive of the facts on the ground, that is, NPOV. The only thing which might be unusual is reporting that there is some dispute about the name. Again, the above wording does not say whether this is a stupid dispute or a valid dispute, just that it is a dispute. That seems indisputable, as witness this page. It doesn't even say it is a widespread or important dispute--just a dispute among some of the other groups.

I will mention again, that ethnicity should NOT be mixed with regions, antiquity or parties. Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally, let me recall that the Macedonian hero Goce Delčev called for the "elimination of chauvinist propaganda and nationalist dissentions that divide and weaken the population of Macedonia". --Macrakis 17:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes he called for this, so... ?!? Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am frankly surprised that you are surprised. The sole aim of User:Bomac and his ilk is to appropriate the name, history and heritage of Macedonia for a particular ethnic group that forms a minority of the Macedonian population, to the detriment of the majority.--Theathenae 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you forgot that just some 30-40 years ago the use of the term "Macedonia" was completely banned in Greece? How come sudenly you decided to turn towards promotion of the region Macedonia, when just some years ago you were imprisoning the people who used this term?

Even the todays "Ministry for Macedonia and Trace" was called "Ministry for northern Greece".

How come suddenly you started using the name of Macedonia for streets, universities, libraries and so on?

Or, maybe you realised that you can not hide the existance of a separate Macedonian identity in northern Greece, so you decided that it would be easier to promote their history and culture as yours?

The people are not stupid, Mr. Theathenae. Maybe you can adopt the far history in the way you like it, but you can not hide what happened in the last 100 years. Macedonian 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, you again confirm the fact that your only reason that you're here is only because of making quarrels and non-constructive talk. Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, I can't say that I find most Greeks' behavior in this discussion any better than most Macedonians'.

Bomac, I can't say that I find most Macedonians' behavior in this discussion any better than most Greeks.

A plague on both your houses. I am not a Greek chauvinist (though I am of Greek background), and I am not anti-Macedonian (Slavic ethnic group or Republic of) in any way. I am just trying to find a sensible resolution to this ridiculous and embarrassing wrangling.

I agree, Bomac, that ethnic groups shouldn't be confused with regional identities, etc. And the current article title is silly. A reasonable title would be "Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)". There would be other articles entitled "Macedonians (ancient nation)", etc. Clear, simple, consistent with Wikipedia policy. It is also consistent with Wikipedia policy to clarify any possible confusion about the meaning of the article, and terms used within the article, in a prologue, typically indented and in italics, (:xxx), in all the articles on related subjects. --Macrakis 01:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The title "Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)" can not be acceptable, because our identity and origin are not 100% Slavic (aldough Slavic is dominant). On the other hand, there is clear distinction between Macedonians (or Macedonians (ethniciy)) and Antique Macedonians.

Only the uneducated can claim that we are same as the Antique Macedonians. But, also only the uneducated can deny any connection bewteen us and them.

If you really want to make difference between the modern and Antique Macedonians, we can simply add a introduction to this topic saying that "the modern Macedonians are not continuing of the Antique Macedonians, but also it is possible they to have genetic origin from them, same as many of the other ethnicities populating this area". We should clearly promote the internationally accepted idea that no one can have exclusive rights over the Macedonian name and history. Macedonian 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Why you simply do not write 4 different articles about Macedonians, and make a Macedonians disambiguation page, which can contain all 4:

• Macedonians (disambiguation)
  • Macedonians (ancient people), about ancient Macedonians
  • Macedonians (ethnic group), about modern Macedonians
  • Macedonians (regional affiliation), about all people who live in historic Macedonia region
  • Macedonians (nationality), about all citizens of the Republic of Macedonia.

User:PANONIAN

This is the best idea that I have heared. Also, the idea that I support the most.

But, the problem is that the issue we have with the Greeks and the Bulgarians is much deeper, because they are not prepared to accept a separate Macedonian nation, because that way they would have to recognize the Macedonian minority living in these 2 countries, same as their history and culture. As you can see, all they want is to push their POV that Tito invented the Macedonians, which were previously Bulgarians.

Quite idiotic claim though, having on mind that the Macedonians fighted against the Bulgarian army during the World War 2, starting from the period when no one even heared about Tito. Macedonian 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I see that this disambiguation page already exist. So, since it exist what problem these Greek nationalists have with this article? Greeks have no right to tell to Macedonians how they should call themselves. The name "Macedonian Slavs" exist only in the heads of Greek nationalists. Ethnic Macedonians do not use this name for themselves. User:PANONIAN

---

To conclude: all nations of this World have democratic right to call themselves with the name what they choose. Greeks are the one who do not have right to tell to their neighbours how they should call themselves. One more thing: Greece was the birthplace of democracy, but seems that some modern Greeks do not understand what the word democracy means. This Greek crusade against Macedonians can be compared only with the crusade of Adolf Hitler against Jews. I maybe was little harsh, but it is the only concluision what one neutral observer like me can to have here. User:PANONIAN

---

Name again

Well, the current name of the article is really bad. Even name "Macedonian Slavs" is better than "Macedonia (Slav)". The second name is supposed to describe region of Macedonia, not people. Could the title be changed into "Macedonians (Slavs)" or something like that? User:PANONIAN

---

The title should be changed to "Macedonians (ethnicity)". Macedonian Slavs or anything similar can not be acceptable. Simply, the number of those people is 0, because no one identifies with this term. On the other hand, Macedonians is the identity (ethnicity and nationality) of more than 2 million people. The adding "(ethnicity)" can be added just in order to make distinction, but it shouldn't be used in assimilative purposes. Macedonian 03:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The title should be changed to Macedonians (ethnic group). User:PANONIAN also agrees with Macedonians (ethnic group), as well as some other people. First step is to have Administrators overrule the "poll", which was a fiasco and ended up a tie anyway. -Alexander 007 03:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group) seems fair. I don't see it offensive. Aldough enormous majority of sources calls us simply "Macedonians", the name Macedonians (ethnic group) for the page can be acceptable. We have to have respect towards the Greek POV, aldough I can not see any logic in it. Macedonian 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's probably time to contact administrators who are part of the Arbitration Committee, or even User:Jimbo Wales himself. -Alexander 007 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Macedonian 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want to take it to the arbitration committee, but at any rate I moved it to ethnic group as that seems to be acceptable to most here. Any comments? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the move. In any case, calling the article "Macedonian Slavs" seems to be against Wikipedia's spirit, since many of this ethnic group consider it an insult. I don't know of any other case where we have named an ethnic group's article by an insulting title. And we've seen how most (?) sources term them "Macedonians", so it's not an uncommon term. -Alexander 007 06:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the move as well. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 07:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Total support for the move too. Aldough this is not a perfect solution (because vast majority of the sources reffer to us simply as "Macedonians"), we should have respect towards the Greek POV (aldought I can not understand their possition at the beggining of the 21st century). Macedonian 01:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The qualifier/disambiguation (ethnic group) seems to be the thing to do, because Macedonians should redirect to a disambiguation page as many Wikipedians agree. It is not just a "Greek" POV. -Alexander 007 02:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians actually redirects to a qualifier/disambiguation page where the user can pick which Macedonians he is looking for. In my oppinion, this is far best choise. It simply makes it clear and gives the user directions.

Anyway, this page should be worked on in a way how it clearly will show the choises, where the demography will be the first option. Macedonian 02:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

totallydisputed

I'm sick and tired of a certain group of users who disrespect everything. There was a poll, long discussions and all these are ignored by less than 10 editors. This is absolutely unfair and against the wikipedia (theoritical) spirit.

See also Talk:Macedonia#POV_dispute.3F. +MATIA ☎ 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also sick and tired of beeing denied and beeing called by names that are simply not realistic and offensive for me. How would you like to be called "South European non-Slav"? Can you even imagine how is someone to keep trying to take away your identity? The only identity you have? Macedonian 02:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That poll was a draw. A Wikipedia:Consensus requires at least 60% support. In that poll, no side achieved 60% support, therefore there is no consensus. No Wikipedia:Consensus was arrived at through the long discussions. Again, there is no Wikipedia:Consensus which those editors are disrespecting. You are ignoring Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms. That was arrived at through long discussions and is generally at Wikipedia:Consensus with the majority of Wikipedians and you are disrespecting it. Therefore, your claim that this is absolutely unfair and against the wikipedia (theoretical) spirit, is untrue. It is an attempt to follow the naming conflict policy. Regards, GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with the Wikipedia procedure described at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms, which was arrived at by a consensus which overrules any premature poll that ended in a stalemate. The procedure is clear. -Alexander 007 09:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, what is the problem here? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Reality is the problem? Or maybe WP policies and guidelines, I don't know. I had participated in long discussions in the past about Macedonia related articles. You may check Talk:Macedonia#POV_dispute.3F, Macedonia_(region)#External_links, agreed facts and many other pages were I had tried to help. Or you may file an RFC against me and have a neutral party check my contribs in depth. Or you can take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/REX where I'm already involved and try to prove that I am not an elephant. And if you do these, then you can give a better answer than mine on your question "MATIA, what is the problem here?", I'm afraid I cannot, the same way I cannot parse all these or find more. With my best regards to RN. +MATIA ☎ 11:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The reality is more than clear on this issue. 2 million people identify their nationality and ethnicity (not just regional origin) as "Macedonian". Also, the vast majority of sources, including United Nations, CIA Factbook, 90% of the Encyclopedias etc. etc. etc call us simply as "Macedonians". Except the Greek POV based on unsupported, unreal and unjustified fear of its far, far, far weaker neighboor, can you give me any reason this article not to be called in this way (Macedonian (ethnicity))?

I just want to remind you of something. Do you maybe remember that after the recognition of Republic of Macedonia by the US there was a big celebration in Skopje, where the most dominant element was the enormous Greek and Macedonian flag joined together? Wasn't that clear sign of friendship? Or maybe that was not even mentioned in the medias in Greece?

You should understand that "Macedonian (ethnic group)" is a compromise, which clearly follows the Wikipedia policies and main principles. Macedonian 02:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right: Reality is the problem. People X call themselves Macedonians, and many Greeks and Bulgarians don't accept that self-determination, nor should they accept it if they don't want to. But real world disputes aside, here in Wikipedia, we have policies. Self-determination is granted, per policy, but it is balanced a bit by the disambiguation policy (hence, Macedonians (ethnic group), satisfying both policies). -Alexander 007 11:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

+MATIA is evading the issues and the questions asked (as usual). +MATIA, I hope that you know that your unjustifiable attempts at blocking or stalling the true facts being used, as explicitly stated by the sources as NPOV and the Wikipedia naming policy. Your attitute can potentially be characterised with a absence of good faith if you persist in behaviour which could justifiably be characterised as trolling, by virtue of your above statement. I quote: Some trolls are critical of the project, its policies [you characterised Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as Reality is the problem? Or maybe WP policies and guidelines], its users, its administration, or its goals. Often, this criticism comes in the form of accusations of cabals, ilks, or campaigns, that are typically invested in a particular POV, invested in maligning a specific user [your obsession with REX ], and other similar claims. I hope you know that with your attitude and behaviour people might misinterpret your motives. In my opinion, your views are the problem. You are obsessed with naming this ethnic-group against its will and against the sources we already have. Do you see a problematic pattern here, I do. Regards, GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You (Grandfather and/or REX) seem to have a problem with me... And while this is irrelevant with my active (in the past) participation in discussions about Macedonia related articles, it is highly relevant with your latest trick (nothing to do with Knopfler's song) here. +MATIA ☎ 12:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And finally as long as the agreed facts of Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll are not part of the article, a proper tag should be placed here. The neutral admins should check what would be that tag. +MATIA ☎ 12:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The agreed facts are in Wikipedia:Consensus and are and shall be used, the naming poll is not. 60% of the vote was not obtained by either side, therefore that issue is still open to debate. What you think that this name should be called is of no importance and your accusing me of being a sockpuppet, a totally unjustified and unproven claim, is, to put it mildly, idiotic! The naming poll was a draw and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, that is not a consensus and therefore, not binding on anyone. You should be interested to know that if these people are called Macedonian Slavs in defiance of the consensus reached here, that would warrant the display of the totally disputed notice on the page as opposed to now, where no consensus is being violated. You are just adding that notice out of spite, because you are distressed by the fact that the appropriate and NPOV name is being used because you don't agree with it. The Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms is in consensus for all naming disputes and it was approved by many Wkipedians, the Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll was a draw, it in not in consensus. Ultimately, the name Macedonians (X) can be used without the display of the disputed tag, the Macedonian Slavs, can't. Deal with it! GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, a neutral administrator moved this page to where it is now. You didn't know that, did you? GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that everyone should know that Macedonians (ethnic group) really is the most appropriate name. It is not found offensive by the ethnic group in question (unlike the name Macedonian Slavs, which is as offensive to them as calling the Arvanites of Attica Albanians). I'm sure that MATIA would agree with me that names which are found offensive by the people in question shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. If he applies those rules to the Arvanites only and not to the Macedonians, then that will be double standards. Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, The Harvard Dictionary of Music, Philip's Encyclopedia, The Macmillan Encyclopedia, Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, Penguin Encyclopedia of Places, The Companion to British History, the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia and Ethnologue all call these people Macedonians. Wikipedia's naming policy also directs us to use the name Macedonians. There is no good reason whatsoever to use the name Macedonian Slavs and I applaud the defenders of the right self-determination who managed to finally move this article to Macedonians (ethnic group). My congragulations and gratitude to Bomac who's initiative, guided by the cunning of The Almighty, managed to arrive to such an unexpected twist of fate, where NPOV managed to return to this Wikipedia article and to force out the Pro-Greek Propaganda which imposed the false and offensive name Macedonian Slavs on this article. Wikipedia policies have finally been implemented despite forcible Greek propagandistic pressure who claimed that a consensus had been reached. I is well known that that is a lie, as a consensus requires 60% of the vote and that the poll was a tie. Oh Joy :-) REX 15:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

POV and inaccurate

The article in its present form satisfies only the Macedonian Slav POV. And as long as it doesn't have the agreed facts (check my previous comments here) it is also inaccurate, therefore I reverted the tag removal by GrandfatherJoe. +MATIA ☎ 10:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not satisfy the Macedonians, because their internationally accepted name is "Macedonians". Instead of giving accusations, maybe you should make a survey about how many sources use the name "Macedonians" against the ones that use any other name. You will easily find out that the vast majority of sources, including the most of the other enciclopedias, United Nations, EU, USA, CIA etc, etc, etc use the name "Macedonians".

This newest article satisfies only the reality, which is clear that the identity of these people is "Macedonians", but in order to make difference between modern and antique Macedonians, we used the adding (ethnic group).

Anyway, just to remind you that the search of "Macedonians" on Wikipedia redirects you to the "Macedonian (disambiguation)", where you can clearly select which Macedonians you are looking for. With this, it is obviously that you have no reason to claim that someone can get confused. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote him: "it is against Wikipedia policy to remove this sign" 18 October 2005. +MATIA ☎ 10:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand the POV tag to be here, but totally disputed? And all because of your wish the name of this page to be different, a wish that you can not support with any fact. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does +MATIA feel that he can add a POV tag to articles when he feels like it? I am here and ready to discuss and he is also around, but is unwilling to discuss. Bad Faith! +MATIA, If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please 'share' them with the world. If you wish to ignore Wikipedia's policies and the consensus reached on naming disputes Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms. You are violating a consensus and a RFC will be filed against you if you persist in refusing to co-operate and disrupting Wikipedia. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote him 14:50, 8 September 2005: it's all written, perhaps you should read them again and remove the POV tag. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the Personal Attacks - I'm beggining to enjoy them. +MATIA ☎ 10:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why you don't discuss instead of complaining? I do not see any personal attack against you here. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

+MATIA however many times you accuse me of pa, it will never come true. You are being spiteful and disruptive and it's time for the world to know about it That RFC is being prepared. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

spiteful? disruptive? It's supposed that you are descedant of civilized Macedonians. I think you are not. An you know what? You are not interested about historic truth. Finally wikipedia comes to end as it concerns NPOV. As ethnic groups Greeks, Slavs, Turks, Anglo-Saxons -whatever the hell they are- are capable of changing historic truth so easily there is not NPOV. That's the reason why nobody is taking you serious. Even the big boss of wikipedia admits that you are simple a cultural hole. Now respect national treaties and more or less go read them, read serious history -not this one you are taught in your school as we have been taught in our schools- and then we can talk seriously, if we need to talk at all--Kalogeropoulos 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about the history, we are talking about basic facts that a reality nowdays. Whatever was the history, the truth fact that exist is that these people reffer to themselves and are in more than 90% of the cases reffered to as "Macedonians".

By the way, we can fight forever about the history, but that won't change anything.

If the history is more important to you than the reality and present days (including the future), maybe you should concentrate exacly on those issues, at the history. This issue is about the modern (present day) ethnic group. When we die or suddenly dissapear, I will inform you, so you can edit this page as history. Macedonian 04:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Kalogeropoulos, try to avoid personal remarks such as those I've marked up with HTML strikeout formats. This will help the discussion move along more smoothly, I believe. Uncle Ed 14:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please go on and tell me more about it. +MATIA ☎ 10:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

+MATIA is defying a consensus. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Anyway, It's not important what +MATIA thinks. The consensus is that this ethnic group is to be called Macedonians with the designation (ethnic group). This is how it is in the light of WP policy and this is how it shall remain. I'm feeling so happy that Greek POV is finally quashed :-))) GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that your group let the world know that you are preparing a RFC against me. I'm sure it'll be much better than REX's previous attempt (no-one ever clarified it or gave me a chance to defend myself against invisible as you would say accusations). FYI no-matter if you are a group and I'm on my own you can't keep a good man down. +MATIA ☎

Discuss here, give some facts. Proof that you can be reffered to as a "good man". I think you should understand that no one here has anything against you. But, you should also understand that you can not just ignore the basic principle in the democracy world called "a right for self-identification". Also, you should learn that ignoring and hidding someones identity (which happened to be the only one we have) is completely against any human standards. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Sterbinski refrain from questioning my integrity and my honour. +MATIA ☎ 15:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Mr. Sterbinski did not send a post here for several months. And having on mind that I only posted some 5-6 posts using that nickname, I can not be reffered by that name.

I will not comment any further provocations on this issue. Let's concentrate on the topic, Mr. self-promoted man of honor". Macedonian 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hear that Mr Sterbinski, you're not allowed to question MATIA's integrity and honour. MATIA must be afraid of something, but what? They say that an honest man has nothing to fear, but MATIA seems to be afraid? Is it possible that the honour he is always babbling about doesn't exist. MATIA, you can't just say you have honour, you have to behave accordingly. Deeds mean more than words, remember. You dismissed the idea of mediation, would a man of honour do that? I don't think so. REX 18:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he must be affraid after their sceletons (that they kept in the closet) started appearing one by one. Macedonian 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

update

Reading the discussions, it seems that other users also find the article POV (for different reasons than mine). I've "splitted" the tag into POV and disputed. The second tag is because the agreed facts of the poll are not part of the article. The first tag (POV) is for the reasons I've stated before and for other users, read what they wrote and where they disagree. +MATIA ☎ 15:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users of Bulgarian and Greek origin, pushing their own nationalistic POV. Of course they will appear, because the existance of the Macedonian ethnicity (whatever Slavic or not) is direct treat to their lies they promoted so hard during the last centuries.

So, calling us Macedonians (ethnic group) is POV pushing. I am really interested what would you say for the United Nations, CIA Factbook, EU, USA and every other country except Greece and Cyprus, then 90% of the enciclopedias, Universities etc. etc. etc. that call us simply "Macedonians". Does that make them "extreme POV" pushers?

You can keep the tags as much as you want. I will be more than glad if some reader of the article decides to read (at least parts of) this talk page. It might make him even more curious, so he will read and search sources further and read about all the unjustice and problems you made to us just because we do not accept to lose our identity and dissapear from the face of the earth, so you can freely share our teritory and culture and present it as your own. Macedonian 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, there were no agreed facts of the poll. That poll was a tie, can't you understand that? REX 18:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

An afterthought (and a bit about categories)

I had an idea which is not really a compromise, but might be acceptable to both sides. Coming right after a lengthy introduction.

In our coverage of ethnic groups and nations, we mostly do not go into defining which is which, because it's (a) contentious and (b) not meaningful. Hence the articles Germanic peoples, Latin peoples, Slavic peoples, etc. Our categories mostly follow that (see category:Indo-European peoples, category:Germanic peoples, category:Baltic peoples), but, unfortunately, not the ones dealing with Slavic peoples. We have category:Slavic ethnic groups and category:Slavic nations, which are weirdly connected to other categories, plus the division just makes things harder to find. This article is currently in neither of them. So, what I suggest that we do is that we merge those to categories into category:Slavic peoples and make this article a member of that.

And here comes the final bit: if we want to avoid the ethnic group vs. nation question and just call them a people, this article should theoretically live at Macedonians (people). As this is still quite ambiguous, mostly because of ancient Macedonians, I propose we move this article to Macedonians (Slavic people). This would allow PeopleXians to have themselves refered to as they wish, and it would be clearly disambiguated from any Greek sense of the word "Macedonians". Zocky 10:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It can not be acceptable, because of 3 reasons:

1)The modern Macedonians are mostly Slavic, but they also have another non-Slavic origin from several groups that lived in the area.

2)This is just another version of the old and already refused "Macedonian Slavs". Also, will the Bulgarian also become "Bulgarians (Slavic People)"? (This is because a regular Wikipedia user does not clearly know the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians).

3) I find the name "Macedonians (Slavic people)" offensive because it can also reffer to other Slavic groups that live in the region Macedonia. This can easily be seen (and I see it) as an attempt to loose the separate Macedonian ethnicity of these people (which I am a part of).

The "Macedonian (disambiguation)" page already makes very clear difference and gives clear choise to the user. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (Slavic people) sounds good at first. But we should talk about it and avoid changing it in a night (as has happened the night before). +MATIA ☎ 10:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Zocky's suggestion seems like a needless step backward. I'm not sure what you mean by the "nationality" or "ethnic group" question. The article is about an ethnic group. If I become a citizen of the Republic of Macedonia, I will become a member of the nationality but not the ethnic group. If a member of People X becomes a British citizen, he is still an ethnic Macedonian. I suggest that the article remains at Macedonians (ethnic group). It is already disambiguated from any Greek sense of the word (Greek Macedonians are ethnic Greeks), and disambiguated from the Ancient Macedonians by an adjective. -Alexander 007 10:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the previous discussions. If you become citizen of RoM then you would have RoM citizenship not nationality. +MATIA ☎

Then the example of the British Macedonian is sufficient. -Alexander 007 11:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't trust me, ask someone else to explain the similarities and the differences between nationality, ethnicity and citizenship. +MATIA ☎ 11:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference bewteen the 3 is very weak when translated from English to many languages.Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well excuse me, as a non-Balkanite (thank the Lord), a distinction between a citizen and a national is strange to me. I will leave this debate, with the hope that it doesn't degenerate into another spout of Balkanite mud-slinging. Cheers, -Alexander 007 11:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose Macedonian (disambiguation) to be moved to Macedonians and Macedonia (region) to be moved (as it was before one month) to Macedonia. The Macedonians should be permanently protected and if someone prooves that something should be added there, then it would be temporarily unprotected and edited. And Macedonia should be watched by neutral admins. +MATIA ☎ 11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

These movement completely satisfies the Greek POV and the denial and ignoring of the modern Macedonians. The page Macedonian (disambiguation) is clearly to give the Wikipedia user choises, where he can choose what he is looking for.

Follwing your instructions, MATIA, we will make many users completely confused. A user which is looking for the modern Macedonians and he searches for "Macedonians" will be transfered to the page of the Antique Macedonians. Then, he will think that the Antique Macedonians are the same as modern Macedonians.

Also, searching for "Macedonia" might take the user to the region of Macedonia, even if the user was searching for the Republic of Macedonia. So, he will think that whole region of Macedonia is a part of the Republic of Macedonia.

Not an option that you would like. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that Macedonian (disambiguation) should be moved to Macedonians, that Macedonia should be a disambiguation page and Macedonia (region) should remain as it is. I think that given that most English speaking people (the ones who will be using the English Wikipedia) mostly know the Slavic Macedonian state plainly as Macedonia (see conventional long form on CIA World Factbook). Strictly speaking the page Republic of Macedonia could be moved to something like Macedonia (country). Just in the same way that the Republic of Georgia is at Georgia (country) (the country serves to distinguish from the US state Georgia (U.S. state)). However, given the ambiguities, Republic of Macedonia should suffice for now. As the word Macedonia can refer to many different things and places, Macedonia should be a disambiguation page which directs readers to Macedonia (region), Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia etc. I also believe that this article should remain as it is Macedonians (ethnic group). If we start distinguishing them by adding the tag 'Slavs' everywhere, it could be perceived as a racial slur. I similar phenomenon has been observed amongst Jews, who find that excessive use of the word Jew as a qualifyer is perceived as a racial slur. They are an ethnic group aren't they? There is no other ethnic group which claims the name Macedonians, is there? Therefore, IMO this article should remain as it is. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian (disambiguation) is already moved to Macedonians. That way a Wiki user can always choose what he is looking for. The most neutral choise and according to any of the Wiki policies.

In the example of Georgia, they are both political/govermental terms (state and country). But, in the Macedonia issue, we are talking about region versus country. Anyway, I beleive that the term "Macedonia (country)" is not perfect, but acceptable for most of the people.

Yes, the use of the term Slav for Macedonian was seen as offensive exacly because of the racial context. It gives a feeling that our ethnicity is not accepted and we are seen as some Slavic tribe of 15 centuries ago. Also, it is a fact that the modern Macedonians are not only Slavic. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I also prompt +MATIA to read nationality, citizenship and ethnicity. It will do him the world of good! GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 12:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, as I say above, Wikipedia usually refers to ethnic groups and nationalities as "Peoples", see above examples. I don't see how calling them a Slavic people is an ethnic slur (frankly, as a Slav, I'm mildly disconcerted by the suggestion). Zocky 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This sugestion is very weak and it gets us back at the same place where we started. And, as I partly Slav, I find it unacceptable because of the resons that I already explained. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be an ethnic slur, Grandfatherjoe does have a point. The word "Albanian" is an ethnic slur in Greece and while simply calling someone an Albanian would not be found offensive, but incorporating it into one's form of address would be found offensive. Miskin has often called the Macedonians a "Slavic crowd" and he was using the word 'Slavic' in a derogatory way (it is a racial slur, as Macedonians themselves have said). While no one is denying the fact that they are Slavs, singling this ethnic group out and appending thw word Slav to their name could be interpreted as a racial slur. Personally I can't see anything wrong with 'ethnic group', it is accuate and not misleading and is certainly not found offensive by anyone. A fragile balance has been achieved. Let's not wreck it. REX 13:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's hard not to define this as a strawman argument, so let's call it as the "offensive" card at the deck. But the problems with that card have been analyzed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict, and I have pointed out that the term Macedonian Slavs is used in .mk domains. (and I hope that someone will check the various spellings in .mk domains for example:Македонски Словени, Славомакедонци, Словенски Македонци, Македонци Словени etc, I'm afraid I only speak English and Greek). +MATIA ☎ 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to protest against your try to change the facts. It is truth that "Macedonians Slavs" is sometimes used by the Macedonians, but to reffer to the Slavic tribes that settled Macedonia in the 5th century.

This is actually one of the reasons why the modern Macedonians see the adding "Slav" to their name as offensive and as a try to destroy their identity.

MATIA, I will have to ask you to stop playing dirty. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah MATIA, I see you're not WP:COLD any more, very nice. Have you cleared the calumnies against you, cleared your Criminal record and obtained that "formal apology" yet? However, I believe that your vicious circles have come to an end, given that if you had read the conclusions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict you would know why what you are suggesting is not possible. Also, I find it most interesting that you are so keen on naming the Macedonians against their will, while you displayed such sensitivity when it came to the Arvanites (of which the ones in Epirus and Western Macedonia call themselves Albanians). If I'm not mistaken, you said: YOU CANNOT LABEL PEOPLE THE WAY YOU WANT AGAINST THEIR WILL AND/OR AGAINST THE FACTS. Strange how that that doesn't apply here. The fact that some Arvanites call themselves Albanians doesn't count, but if a few Macedonians acknowledge their Slavic ancestry then a racial slur must be imposed on them. Tut tut! Anyway, in addition to the fact that it is a racial slur, it is misleading, because there are at least two Slavic Macedonian peoples. This ethnic group and the Bulgarians (we mustn’t forget them). Saying ethnic group, though is true as there is only one ethnic group which identifies solely as Macedonians. I fail to see why you are so keen to impose this racial slur on a reluctant population. You know how much they loathe it: you remember that incident when 10% of the population of the Republic of Macedonia sent letters of protest and requesting to be called by the name they use for themselves. The word Slavs denotes their origin. You don’t see articles called Irish (Celtic people) or English (Germanic people). No, it is Irish people and English people. Unless of course you would prefer calling them Macedonian people the best thing to do would be to leave it as it is now Macedonians (ethnic group). It is true, accurate and not found offensive by anyone. REX 14:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I enjoy your Personal Attacks more and more. +MATIA ☎ 14:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And I enjoy your slander and libel. It makes me feel sooo good :-) REX 14:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (i would advise you to stop saying that whoever disagrees with you is making personal attacks. It is totally transparant)

Let me be slightly more formal

Let's say I propose the article to live at Macedonians (Slavic people) as the permanent solution. Let me review the rationale for this solution:

• Macedonians: In line with overwhelming proof and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, it clearly establishes that people X are called "Macedonians", thus satisfying one side of the debate.
• People: In line with Wikipedia convention, it circumvents the question of what "nation", "nationality", "ethnicity", "ethnic group", etc. mean in different countries, cultures and languages, by applying the neutral term "people".
• Slavic: It gives the article about people X a clearly dissambiguated name, even when looking at the alphabetical index of articles. (There is the matter of ancient Macedonians also needing to be listed under "M", that's why we also have the redirect at Macedonians (ancient people)). This should also satisfy the other side of the debate, as it removes any possibility of confusion with anything Greek.
• Stability: It's not enough to convince or overpower the current opposition in the editorship and force a solution that's most close to your heart. If we want to stop wasting our time with this endless discussion, we need a solution which will be less likely to raise complaints and easier to defend from future hotheads. A slight overkill in precision is a small price to pay for the end of this eternal debate.

For now we have one Greek editor saying that Macedonians (Slavic people) is probably acceptable. Some people have suggested that calling Macedonians a Slavic people might be an ethnic slur and we have yet to hear what Macedonian editors think about this. From my experience with Macedonians, I don't expect this to be a problem.

I would like more directly interested editors to voice their opinion, but please take any flaming to some other section. Zocky 15:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is completely unaceptable for me, as a Macedonian editor. I already listed my reasons. I can not understand why someone is keep trying to change our identity. That is against any concept of humanity and democracy.

I would just like to remind you that adding "Slavic" will just explain (a part) of the origin of these people. But, it won't be the present reality.

I really do not see any problem with the current name Macedonians (ethnic group). It is not offensive and it satisfies the Greek need to make a difference bewteen the modern and antique Macedonians. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of hearing this group referred to as "people X" although it reminds me of Racer X, the enigmatic older brother of Speed Racer in the Japanese anime classic. Uncle Ed 15:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been off from this discussion for a while. I agree with the move. It is a descriptive title, not prescriptive. Macedonians call themselves Macedonians, and they are an ethnic group. The prescriptive way of dealing with this matter is naming this ethnic group with a name that some editors decided that Wikipedia should use, such as Macedonian Slavs, Slavic Macedonians, Slavomacedonians, etc. and therefore taking a prescriptive approach to this problem. This is explained at Wikipedia:Naming conflict. --FlavrSavr 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the current Zocky's proposal, before stating my opinon, I have a question: Does this solution implies that we will use Slav Macedonians, Slavic Macedonians, Macedonians Slavs or similar solution in texts? --FlavrSavr 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the article would be called "Macedonians" (the rest is dissambiguation), I think that it's obvious that the name "Macedonians" should be used and dissambiguated where needed. Zocky 15:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

REX's comments

In that case, Macedonians (ethnic group) is OK, because we are emhpasising the fact that the ethnic-group is being discussed, but the Slavic element in them will be (and is now) discissed in the history section. REX 16:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Slavic refers to the ancestry of these people and carries a slightly racist meaning. It is possible that many Macedonians (ethnic group) are not Slavs and imposing such a label in them may seem like one is trying to assert the "ethnic purity" of this ethnic group. Macedonians have been saying that they finds being called a Slavs (that incident with the thousands of letters saying callme by my name etc) a racial slur and I must say that I agree with him. I mean no one says English Germanic people, or Irish Celtic people, or Spanish Visigoth people. Macedonians (ethnic group) is perfect, because unlike Macedonians Slavic people (which is not according to WP policy which just uses people), it is not misleading as there are at least two people who would qualify to be called that way (the Macedonian Bulgarians). Macedonians (ethnic group) is perfect as it signifies the ethnicity, something which the Greek Macedonians and the Bulgarian Macedonians lack (therefore it shouldn't annoy them and they cannot cause confusion with them. REX 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you that Wikipedia policy requires that these people be called Macedonian people and not Macedonians (Slavic people). Therefore calling them Macedonians (ethnic group) is a massive concession and attempt to compromise. It is perfect, there is no other ethnic group which uses that name. It is not open to misinterpritation. REX 15:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

REX, please consider staying out of this issue for a while. Since (a) you have no direct stake in the matter, being neither ethnically Macedonian nor Greek, and (b) your style of discussion is one-sided and inflamatory, Greek editors will inevitably read your comments as coming from an anti-Greek POV. At this moment, your contributions to the debate are not likely to help the position you claim to support. Thank you. Zocky 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Zocky, having on mind what you just said, I might think that you are supporting the anti-Macedonian POV. Please do not misunderstand me, but your proposition is offensive for me and most of the modern Macedonians, same as the "Macedonian Slavs" was.

The reality is that we are a separate ethnic group and your proposition might be seen as a try to deny that.

To be honest, if this was written by MATIA, I would feel very offended. But, having on mind your neutrality, I know that you only wanted to help. Thanks for that.

Anyway, I would like to ask all Wikipedians to use the same standards as used towards the other ethnicities/nations. If the page for English people is moved to "English (Germanic people)", then you can use the same principle with the Macedonians.

NOTE: The example with "English" is not ment to be offensive towards anyone. I just gave a meaningless example. I appologise for any hard feelings that I might have caused with this. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Title of the page

I note that somebody moved this page to Macedonians (ethnic group) and I'd like to ask how my fellow contributors feel about this.

Does it succeed or fail, in conveying the idea that Wikipedia is taking no sides in the controversy over what the "real, true name" of this group is?

I ask this from the vantange point of knowing very little about this group. Frankly, I've been careful to learn as little about them as possible, while concentrating purely on the linguistic and administrative aspect of the dispute.

Is it fair or accurate to say that this group of people are an ethnic group?

Has Wikipedia also taken into account the objections of Greeks (or Greece itself) to the use of Macedonians to describe this group? Note that I myself am not taking sides, or at least I am trying not to. It looks to me like Greeks prefer / insist that Macedonia should be used only to mean the sector of Greece which Greeks call "Macedonia": some sort of province or county within its borders, I guess. Likewise with Macedonian (adj.) and Macedonians.

My hope is that readers of Wikipedia, as well as its volunteer contributors, will agree to allow Wikipedia to avoid taking sides in this dispute. I'm trying to get the articles to convey the current state of the real-world dispute, which of course remains unresolved despite recent developments. Uncle Ed 14:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This move is prescriptive, POV, it takes a side, and was made in a night by a small group of editors. And they call it consensus, while everyone else was sleeping. You may check my previous comments here and on other related articles. +MATIA ☎ 14:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you expect Wikipedia to change the name of the whole ethnic group? What is the use of having "Macedonian Slavs" page when no one identifies with that name?

Also, if a user wants to find data for the modern Macedonians, it will be a nightmare till he reaches his goal. It even seems that the previous version of the name was intentionally made misleading in order to hide the identity of these people. Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with this, it was a very good thing to do.
• it succeeds in conveying the idea that Wikipedia is taking no sides in the controversy over what the "real, true name" of this group is.
• They are an ethnic group.
• yes it has, that is why it is called Macedonians (ethnic group) and not plain Macedonians or Macedonian people which is proper Wikipedia policy.
• I agree totally with that last bit of Ed's. REX 14:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't knew that agreeing (I agree with this, it was a very good thing to do) with yourself counts. +MATIA ☎ 14:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK ALARM! I really am anjoying this abuse directed at me by MATIA :-( REX 14:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (I was agreeing with Uncle Ed and you know it)

MATIA, anyone who reads the disscussion that took place before this even can see how unconstructive you were.

Not to mention that, despite your unjustified fears, you could not give us any reason why to keep the old name of the page. Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

Please review the policy pages on personal remarks and attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). I suggest that we all avoid saying things like:

• Agreeing with yourself
• Enjoying this abuse
• You know it

I'm not deleting, merely "marking up" with HTML strikeout. Uncle Ed 14:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in such heated disputes where there is a clash of POVs it is inevitable that people will make personal attacks. MATIA, Bomac, I, everyone has made at some point a personal attack. I for one an willing to try and quit (yet another indication of my good faith). I am pleased with the articles as it is now. If we apply the MATIA principle, it appears even more perfect as it is not labelling people against their will. I'm sure that MATIA agrees with me :-)))))) REX 15:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a man of honour. What I wanted for Arvanites is the same with what I wish for that article. And some of the facts, are the agreed facts of the poll. +MATIA ☎ 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Lie: you want to name these people against their will. Also, that Poll was a tie, there are no agreed facts. REX 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Soy un hombre muy honrado: Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Naming. +MATIA ☎ 00:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Then start acting like one... Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, you do realise that to say that you are a man of honour, you will have had to behaved like one. Have you? Nah! REX 11:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan's comments

MATIA - I read your comments before but I am asking what would be acceptable to you NOW. Also, people - Long, protracted arguments are getting us nowhere here. Policy isn't really getting us anywhere here either, so lets forget about that for a moment. MATIA doesn't like the current state - so then what would be acceptable to MATIA and others? Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)? Let's try to keep our responses, to say, no longer then 20 words or so, lest we be arguing forever :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Zocky's proposal is better than the current state. Thanks for your patience. +MATIA ☎ 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand why MATIA doesn't like Macedonians (ethnic group). What is wrong with the current state? At least it's not a racial slur. REX 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Is anybody who is ethnic Macedonian offended by being called a Slav? Zocky 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Very offended ethnic Macedonian here. The proposal "Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)" has no difference to the previous one "Macedonian Slavs" and it is complete racial slur, anyone neutral can see that, especially when no similar topic is used for any other ethnic group. Also, it is very inaccurate.

Another fact: the modern Macedonians are in fact mostly Slavs, but they also have other, non-SLavic origin. A fact that is confirmed by everyone.

I can continue forever, But I already spent my 20 (even more) words... Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Zocky's answer to some concerns

OK, let me first point out some things:

• Macedonians (Slavic people) is very different from Macedonian Slavs, as it clearly establishes that the title of the article and thus the proper name of the people is "Macedonians", which fully grants the central demand of your side. The rest is disambiguation.
• The fact that Macedonians also have other-than-Slavic ancestors does not stop them from being one of the Slavic peoples. In fact, Macedonian editors have fought for Macedonians to be listed at Slavic peoples.
• English people are listed at category:Germanic peoples. Nobody seems to mind.

Currently there seems finally to exist the momentum for calling this page Macedonians (something), which in view of the overwhelming evidence was to be expected. We now have to decide what that (something) will be. I think that we should chose a name that will be accurate and non-controversial, so that we don't have to revisit this debate on regular basis.

"ethnic group" and "nation" are bad choices, as they're ambiguous and often controversial terms. The convention is to use "people". Macedonians (people) would make me entirely happy. But, if we use any of these without further disambiguation, we're bound to have another round of this nonsense the next time some Greek editor says "(Ancient Macedonians|Modern Greek Macedonians) are also an (ethnic group|nation|people)", and they'll actually have a good case. I'm getting tired of this debate. I was hoping to do some work on the article, but while we're having the age-long edit war about the name, it's hardly worth it.

So, if we decide to go with further disambiguation in order to preclude future edit wars, how do we go about it? In the whole somewhat silly paradigm of ethnicity/race, Macedonians are one of the Slavic peoples, which in turn are a kind of Indo-European peoples. "Slavic people" just seems like the logical choice. Other ideas for further disambiguation just seem worse to me: Macedonians (people of RoM)? Macedonians (not Macedonian Slavs)? Macedonians (non-Greek people)? Macedonians (modern people)? Yuck.

The only statement that Macedonians (Slavic people) makes is "Macedonians are one of the Slavic peoples". This has been a part of our agreed facts, which both sides have used in their arguments, for months. It can hardly be construed as an ethnic slur without implying an insult to all Slavic peoples.

I will drop the proposal and humbly admit being wrong if anybody provides evidence

1. that the correct name for this people is anything else than "Macedonians", or
2. that the ancient Macedonians were neither an ethnic group, nor a nation nor a people, or
3. that a typical modern Macedonian is insulted by the statement "Macedonians are one of the Slavic peoples"

Zocky11:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The English are listen in Germanic people, but their name is not changed and their article is called "English people". And, in my oppinion this is because of makin difference between adjective "English" and "English" as identifier to whole nation/ethnicity.

Anyway, "Macedonian (Slavic people)" sounds very racial. We are mostly Slavs, no one argues with that. Our culture is dominantly Slavic, same as our language. That is why we would preffer beeing listed in Slavic peoples. But, our origin is not only Slavic. We should make a difference here.

The proposal to use something else inside "()" than nation or ethnic group/ethnicity seems offensive by its own, because of one and only reason:

The Macedonians see any try to change their name or the name of the country as a try to deny their identity, as a try to hide it and ignore it.

Think about it. If you were on our place, you would feel the same. In this exacly moment while I am writting this, probably someone is already changing the text inside "Macedonians (ethnic group)" in another form, where it can be understood that the modern Macedonians are an artificial product of Tito's politics.

Just to remind you that justsome 5 days ago, any text concerning Tito and the modern Macedonians was giving the reader a feeling that the Macedonians are artificial nation which has no right to a separate identity, because they are artificial product of a communistic politics of a dictator.

Again... how would you feel in my shoes?

You mentioned that you need a fact showing that the antient Macedonians were not ethnic group or nation. Here is a fact:

The modern ethnic groups/nations were formed at least 15 centuries latter. This can be confirmed by any relevant historian.

So, no people from that time can be identified with some ethnicity/nationality in a modern sence of these 2 words. Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Macedonians (Slavic decendants)?

We share origin from more groups, where the Slavic is dominant. But, still not the only one. Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, first of all I feel the need to explain what exactly is derogatory about the Slav add-on in general. Of course that Slav, in itself is not a slur, but we do find it offensive when used as an ethnic identifier. There is a difference. The Macedonian language is a Slavic language, and that is a fact. However, the use of "Slav" as an ethnic denominator for a modern nation is unnaceptable. I'll add several reasons for that: 1. We do not use Russians (Slavic people), for the Russians, although the Rus' were probably a Scandidavian tribe. Russians will probably get offended if we try to label them Slavic Russians, and say that they are not real Russians, but merely Slav Russians. 2. We do not use Egyptians (Arabic people) for the modern Egyptians, do we? They drastically differ from the Ancient Egyptians, but no one makes the confusion. Also, we do not use Palestinians (Arabic people). The point is that the ethnic substratum of every modern nation or ethnic group cannot be reduced to Slavic, Latin, etc., because they are a mixture of several ethnicities. The Slavic invasion in the 6th century (remember, that was 14 centuries ago) drastically changed the ethnic composition of this region (including Greece), but the ancient inhabitants didn't dissappear just like that.

However, linguistically, Macedonians are a Slavic people, and because we need to somehow dissambiguate between them and the ancient Macedonians, I personally find the Macedonians (Slavic people) proposal acceptable, with the following two important conditions:

1. No unjustified Slavic Macedonians, Slav Macedonians terms within texts. I already explained why that is offensive and inappropriate. These terms would be used only when there is really a need for dissambiguation (perhaps a better term is Slavic speaking Macedonians, instead of Slavic Macedonians. Because the I guess that the Greek editors will try to push Slav(ic) as much as they can, I leave it to the administration to intervene if such attemtps are made, because The name of the people is Macedonians, and the name of the language is Macedonian.
2. Before the opening paragraph we could add this: This article is about the modern Slavic speaking people that identify themselves and are generally identified as Macedonians. The historical, cultural and ethnic continuity between the Ancient Macedonians and this modern ethnic group is controversial. For the Ancient Macedonians, see Macedon. For the other meanings of this term, see Macedonians. This is a neutral statement with the sole purpose to explain that the Slavic add-on is used only to dissambiguate, and not to imply that the modern Macedonians have absolutely nothing in common with the Ancient Macedonians. They might have, or might have not, and we should let the reader to decide on that matter.

I also have another proposal to avoid the constant Slavic/non-Slavic tweaks, and that is to move the article to Macedonian (modern ethnic group) or Macedonians (modern people). The "modern" prefix is to make the necessary distinction between the ancient Macedonians and the modern ones, which might be or might not be their descendants. I think that the proposal is the best one, although I find the Macedonians (Slavic people) acceptable, as well. (with the two conditions fulfilled) And one more thing: I hope one of these proposals would finally end this dispute, and if there's a consensus on this matter, I do not intend to go to further Mediations or similar. I need to hear everybody's opinion about this matter, although, I won't be able to thouroughly discuss the comments these days, due to college obligations. Regards to all, and let's finally end this dispute. --FlavrSavr 13:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand this right, your concern is with the somewhat exceptional disambiguation, rather than with the statement that "Macedonians are a Slavic people". (Note that our articles on Russians, Slovenians, Czechs, etc. include similar statements - they are no more true there than here in the literal/genetic sense and no less true in the language/hystorical/cultural sense.) I can understand that, but I thought a lot about this and simply don't see a different option with any hopes of being a stable solution for some time. I don't like the sound of "modern people" (plus modern is a new ambiguous term), but the real problem is that sooner or later somebody will say "modern people living in the (Greek|Bulgarian|whole) region of Macedonia are no less Macedonians (modern people) than people X."

Another thought: many people would say that our current naming of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, China, People's republic of China and Republic of China leaves much to be desired, but it turns out that although not many people really like it, most people find it acceptable, the issue is stalled (not necessarily resolved) and people actually get some work done on the articles. That would be a change for the better in this case. Zocky 14:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I can bet my life that, if allowed once, certain users will push the adding "Slavic" far behind any limit. We already experienced that while using "Macedonian Slavs", when any chance was used just in order to deny our identity.

Also, I can not understand... when more than 90% of sources (no matter which cathegory you choose) use the term "Macedonians", why Wikipedia does not follow that practice?

I have respect towards the Greek POV and its supporters, that is why I accept the "Macedonians (ethnic group)". Or, even "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)" can be acceptable (but only if the Macedonians of the slayer Alexander The Great are called "Antique Macedonians", which will really make a difference and make this much clearer). But, you can not expect me to accept any namings for my identity just to satisfy someones fears. It is simply not fair. Ans also, it is my basic human right to identify with any nation I want and pick up a name for it (as a member of that nation).

Can someone "neutral" just tell me one thing... will he, in any conditions accept a change in the name of his own nation/identity? Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, I have nothing against the statement Macedonians are a Slavic people, and therefore I do not oppose your proposal. Linguistically, there is no doubt about that, and there is nothing wrong in the statement that they have a rich Slavic cultural heritage. However, I can not accept unjustified adding of Slavic Macedonians, Macedonian Slav and similar terms within texts, instead of plain Macedonians, or ethnic Macedonians (as the Greek Helsinki Watch refers to them). What I asked from you (or the administration as a whole) was to stop such labels within texts - there is no difference between Macedonian Slav and Slavic Macedonian, and it's common use within texts is something I cannot accept, although Slavic Macedonians or better Slavic speaking Macedonians, can be used in some cases, when disambiguation is really needed. I didn't understand your view about this? Are you implying that we should commonly use "Slavic Macedonians" or plain "Macedonians", within texts? --FlavrSavr 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And I slight remark - if you say that Macedonians (modern people) "modern people living in the (Greek|Bulgarian|whole) region of Macedonia are no less Macedonians (modern people) than people X", you must also consider that there will be folks who'd say that "Slavic peoples (namely the Bulgarians) living in the region of Macedonia are no less Macedonians (Slavic people) than people X". Man, this issue is really a Gordian knot :-)... --FlavrSavr 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, you are seeking for a stable solution for this, and so am I, but your proposal won't end edit wars - within texts, somebody (read: the Greek editors) will always add "Slav" to everything that has plain "Macedonian" in it, and somebody else (read: the Macedonian, Albanian, and Bulgarian editors) will always revert that. Either way you turn, a greater involvement of the neutral admins on this matter is an objective need. --FlavrSavr 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean acceptable on the title of this article. We'll burn other bridges when we get to them, let's first see what people think about the title.

OK, so that is one Macedonian editor who says acceptable and one Greek editor who says more acceptable than something else, which means at least somewhat acceptable. That's more than we had for any other proposal :)

So, other ethnic Macedonian and Greek editors, do you find the title Macedonians (Slavic people) acceptable (not necessarily good, right or fine)? Zocky 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, not at all. For the reasons that I already stated several times before.

You got another proposal... "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)". Why is this less acceptable than the racial "Macedonians (Slavic people)" (at least I see it that way)?

If the Greek side is really seeking to make difference bewteen us and the Antique Macedonians, and the other people of the region of Macedonia are seeking for the same difference, then "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)" should be 100% acceptable for them. It makes very, very clear difference bewteen us and any of those groups (no matter antique or modern). It is a fact that no ther ethnic group is called "Macedonians".

I will repeat that more than 90% of the sources of any category use the name "Macedonians" to reffer to us. You can not ask me to keep changing my name (or maybe the whole identity) just because someone does not like it.

The Macedonian name for a Greek is Grk (which is not offensive at all, same as the Spanish call then Griego). Will MATIA or anyone else accept they to change their identity to Grk (or Griego) just because I have some objections to the term "Greek"?

I will say again. This what is done to our name and identity is really not fair. I hope you will be in this possition for just one hour, in order to see how it feels... Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A little remark, again: acceptable, IF (I said what) :-). Also, a friendly remark - there are other involved parties in the dispute, it is not necesarilly a Macedonian-Greek consensus. So, I'm leaving the discussion for a while, obligations. Regards to all. --FlavrSavr 14:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A sardonic comment on names

Consider a mythical land called Sardonia, known for their sarcastic comments about their neighbors. The modern English word sardonic is named for them.

Two millienia later, this ancient region no longer has any political integrity - we might even say the original people lacked personal integrity (but that would be your opinion, buster! ;-)

By 1963, the Yossarians had left Mimsy, which allowed Souse and Floom to combine into the Republic of Flimsy, which had the most Sardonic population. But a province of neighboring Mylandia was called Sardonia by the Mylandistas. Everybody clear with the scenario?

Then the Flimsies decided to call their country "Sardonia" (formally: Republic of Sardonia) and all hell broke loose. The king of Mylandia said, "This is my land! You can't say that your country or anyone in it is Sardonic!!" Uncle Ed 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is perfect example for my question...

Why would Mylandistas or the Flimsies or anyone else have exclusive rights over the name "Sardonia"?

We only want to keep our identity, so we can survive as a ethnicity/nation. As I can see, in the example that you mentioned above, no ones identity is "Sardonian". So, there are no "Sardonians".

In the real world, the Macedonian nation is internationaly recognized and far, far, far most of the sources use the name "Macedonians" to reffer to them.

It would be the same if Great Britain asks for Ireland to change its name and the name of its nationality.

Just, in the case of Macedonia, there is only one country using the name "Macedonia". All rest reffers to region.

Same as Scandinavia is a region. And, even if Norway changes its name to "Scandinavia", Sweden will never object, because they have something called "democracy". Something that obviously many people here forgot. Macedonian 05:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad my silly example sparked a response like this. I need some time to think over what you've written. I also need to read the commet below about the "real reason". I'm confident that we can all come to a stable, mutually satisfying agreement. Uncle Ed 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The real reason behind this issue

In order to understand the posible real reason behind all this issue of the naming of Macedonia, please read the text taken from [|Rainbow Pary Website], the party of the Macedonian minority in Greece:

---

2005 October 21 European Court of Human Rights Rules Against Greece and Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Greece and Bulgaria for the way they treat their Macedonian minorities and violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

Also you might find these following links useful:

[| The whole text of the article, on Greek], [| The full text of the final decision of the court in the case against Greece], [| The full text of the final decision of the court in the case against Bulgaria].

Here, you can see very clearly just couple of examples of the treatment of the Macedonian minority in Greece and Bulgaria. If these represions and assimilation attempts are happening now, in the 21st century, can someone imagine what was happening there some 50 or 100 (or more) years ago, when the Human rights on the Balkan were not important issue.

Also, here are 2 links of google search where you can find enormous ammount links full of information concerning the treatment of the Macedonian minorities in Greece and Bulgaria: | The Human rights of the Macedonians in Greece, | The Human rights of the Macedonians in Bulgaria.

Also, some interesting information about the treatment that Macedonians were receiving in the region can be found here: [|The Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia, which is nowdays a part of Greece], [|The Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia, which is nowdays a part of Bulgaria]. The last 2 links are from a web site which is clearly supporting the Macedonian side of the story about both history and culture, but the facts about the treatment of the Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria are supported by any major Human Righst organizations in the world.

It is more than clear that if the world was so concirned about the human rights some 50 years ago, Greece would never become a EU country. Macedonian 06:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like the issue goes deeper than "what is the right name for this group" but involves intentions and policies of assimilation and cultural destruction. Like, "You have no right to exist" followed by "You do not exist". I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm probably not.

Yes, that is the problem. Do you think that this talk page (same as the talk page of the region of Macedonia) can be so enormously huge just because of a simple naming issue? There are many factors hidden in here. One of them is the fact that more than 10.000 Macedonian refugees from Greece are preparing a law suit in front of the European courts against Greece where they are asking back for their lands that Greece took away from them after they were expelled from their homes.

I will not try to fill your (or anyone elses) mind with something that someone might characterise as Macedonian POV. That is why I left you links from www.google.com, so anyone of you can choose any link he wants and read it. They all agree on the same concerning the treatment of the Macedonian minority in Greece or Bulgaria. Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In America, the right of peoples to keep their cultural roots is based on their paying allegiance to national unity. Their loyalty to America is their guarantee that their cultural heritage will be respected. I guess it's different in Europe, and that's probably why Europeans came here to start a new nation - but maybe that's my excessive patriotism talking. I don't know if this is helping!

Do we have an article on Greek attitudes toward ethnic Macedonians? Or is there a section of an article I can read? Uncle Ed 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no section because of one simple reason... it will be endlessly vandalised, erased and ignored. Actually, Wikipedia might be the only relevant source in the world that do not mention anything on this topic. And, I am not talking just about the treatment of the Macedonian minority in these 2 countries. I am talking about any minority that live there. Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[[1]] (check posts of Sterbinski and answers by admins and users). +MATIA ☎ 17:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to add that I am partly connected with the nickname of I_sterbinski (as I say on my user page), but only less than 5% of the edist made by this links are mine. Who used it after me is information that I can not talk about. And, I am not planning to involve in those comments, even if I agree/dissagree 100% with them.

I am not planning to hide that I posted couple of comments with the nickname of I_sterbinski. If I wanted to hide it, I would very easily. Instead, that was the first thing that I put on my User page after registering (you can check my history). Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be taking arguments from blatantly nationalist websites as evidence now?One just has to read this juicy tidbit to get an idea of the quality of information presented there:

"This is a non-issue. Before the Greek propaganda changed, you could not say the "M" word to a Greek. They vehemently denied the existence of such a land, people, or language. Now they claim that the land is Greek, but there are still no ethnic Macedonian people or language, that it is simply "Slavic" or "Bulgarian".

In Greece, the government tried to eliminate any trace of Macedonia. Since the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, however, a concerted programme was implemented in order to prove the "Greekness of Macedonia". Institutions such as the "University of Macedonia" opened in Solun (Greek name-Thessaloniki), the "Museum of Macedonia" and a news agency called the "Macedonian Press Agency".

   * "In August 1988 Greece renamed "Northern Greece" as "Macedonia". Only since this renaming have Greek claims to Macedonian heritage gained widespread publicity." 5

   * "...Greece did not refer to any part of its current territory as Macedonia until 1988, when Papandreou's government officially adopted the name Macedonia to replace that of Northern Greece. This point added weight to the notion that the dispute with Macedonia was a manufactured one." 6"

In short, it is claimed that a whole region and its inhabitants were renamed in one fell swoop, overnight and without any resistance.They also claim that this was in some magical way kept hidden from the rest of the world.I think people travelling to, or conducting some sort of business with this "North Greece" region must have been thoroughly surprised when it disappeared overnight. In fact, "North Greece" was the name of the administratorial division of Greece that contained the regions of Macedonia and Thrace.It was not called Macedonia because it was not equal to the province of Macedonia, but in fact quite larger.It had its own ministry that was in fact called "Ministry of Northern Greece".The administratorial division of North Greece has since been renamed to "Macedonia and Thrace", partly because of the naming dispute, in order to reflect just what "North Greece" is made of(This is probably where this silly claim originated).The region of Macedonia had never been renamed to anything, nor its existance denied.Someone trying to claim that a land that had been so influential in world history in ancient times as well as in the 20th century (Macedonian question, Balkan wars) had suddenly disappeared in 1913 would have to be extremely stupid.--Jsone 18:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

At the same beggining, let me remind you all that first I posted google search links, so anyone can choose the page/link/sorce he wants. They all say the same about the poor treatment of the nationalities in Greece and Bulgaria.

Also, let me remind you that I stated that the last 2 links are from a web site that supports the Macedonian POV. I clearly said: "The last 2 links are from a web site which is clearly supporting the Macedonian side of the story...". Didn't I?

Also, I said that the facts about the treatment of the minorities in these regions are supported by any neutral source (did you Jsone maybe spent some time to read what the European Courts think about these issues?).

Strangely, but even neutral historians from EU members (therefore Greek partners) support the facts that you posted here and that are taken from the web page you mentioned. I already posted here, so please follow the link: [| The facts supported by the German historian Christian Foss]. Also, there you can find links to Deuche Welle, where his oppinion was published.

At the end, I just want to say to Uncle Ed and all other users... I hope that the previous comment of Jsone explains how this isses are treated and why Wikipedia does not have any text about the treatment of minorities in Greece and Bulgaria (aldough I have to say that there is some slight possitive changes in Bulgaria because of the EU presure, but the changes in Greece are even more negative). Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes you have posted google search links.Unfortunately the first 5 pages (as much as i bothered to read) are littered with websites propagandizing the idea of a "United Macedonia",a nationalist pipe dream concerning the annexation of Bulgarian and Greek territories to finally "liberate" an arbitrarily defined version of Macedonia.Funnily enough, links to these sites were posted underneath the heading "The real reason behind this issue".Oh, sweetest irony...

The decision of the European Court of rights you posted relates to Greek police being unable or unwilling to protect the offices of the Macedonian minority party in Greece from an attack by an angered mob.I agree that this behavior was wrong, but it is a huge stretch from being evidence of massive persecution of said minority.I have read reports by human rights oragnizations about the treatment of said minority in Greece.The only issue that comes up in a substantial amount is the fact that they are denied to publicaly call themselves or any sort of unions they create "Macedonian".We should note that terms like Slavo-Macedonian or other compound terms are not banned.This ban is a product of the naming issue and not its origin, as people have implied here.

Christian Foss, in his article (or speech, whatever it is), only says what I have already mentioned above:That several institutions in the Greek Region of Macedonia have been renamed to "macedonian" in recent years(a huge distance from what the nationalist websites claim).That's not a secret to anyone.Again, these renamings are a product of the naming issue and not its origin.Inhabitants of Macedonia (the Greek region), felt the need to emphasize what they considered their identity to be, faced with FYROM's claim.No credible person or organization has ever repeated the idiotic claim that the region itself was renamed, or that its existance was denied.No one could possibly pull of the en masse renaming of a region, its institutions and brainwashing of its entire populace in a tiny amount of time and hope to keep it a secret, like these websites claim happened.The fact that residents of the region thought of themselves as Macedonians (Note, "Macedonians" as a regional identifier, not national) is recorded in an enormous amount of books,maps,school manuals, even songs an poems.I will return with examples later.--Jsone 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jsone...

Is "Human Rights Watch" a source that you think promotes pro-Macedonian positions?

A reminder for you... the search of google was simple, using the following combination: +"human rights" +Greece +Macedonians. It is normal that some Macedonian sites are found, because they include this subject. But, this search gives links to any major human rights organization you can think of. This is due to a simple fact... there is no bigger international human rights organization that did not criticise Greece for their poor treatment of the minorities.

Concerning the issue of "United Macedonia"... anywhere in the world you can find some nationalists with some crazy ideas. During the last century you did pretty good job in cleaning the Aegean Macedonia from the Macedonian minority, a process that is still lasting (as the human rights organizations clearly confirm, same as the European Courts).. So, nowdays the populations of that teritory is predominantly Greek.

Having this fact on mind, together with the fact that Greece is much much much bigger power than Republic of Macedonia, I would like to ask you...

Do you really beleive that the world will swallow your lie that you make all these problems to us because of the imaginary teritorial claims from Macedonia towards Greece?

You do this with a simple reason... to hide the sceletons from your closet. But, I have news for you, my dear. The closet got too small to keep all the sceletons inside, so it is slowly breaking apart and leaving those scelerons outside, so everyone can see them.

And, just a reminder for you... the European Court clearly says that those people who trashed the offices of the Rainbow party were asked to protest by the goverment officials. That is why Greece is beeing punished.

You should not forget that the European Court for human rights clearly recognizes the existance of a Macedonian minority in Greece, something that Greece denies.

Also, I should mention another process that is lasting against Greece... it is because Greece denies to register a cultural center of the Macedonian minority. Another basic human right of any individual in the world.

Jsone, my dear... do you maybe want us to start talking about all the killings and inprisoning general Metaxas did to anyone who even used the Macedonian language in their own homes?

In that case the sceletons that you keep in your closet will start flying from everywhere...

Concerning Mr. Foss... the interview clearly shows what he thinks of. What you say is clear changing of the clear facts.

Mr. Foss clearly says that the Greeks were forbitting the use of the name "Macedonia" until recently. It also said that they changed this when they actually realised that they can not hide it from the world, so they decided to start promoting the name "Macedonia" as Greek identifier.

You should stop trying to change the facts. Mr. Foss was actually one of the main promotors of the Macedonian problem in Germany. That action resulted in a recomendation from the German parlaiment to the German goverment to recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name. A thing that might happen quite soon, having on mind that Angela Merkel's party was the main supporter of the recomendation.

Just to remind you, Germany will not be the first of your EU partners who did this. As I said, it is hard to keep so many sceletons in only one closet... they slowly come out in front of the face of the public.

Also, I would like to state these link: [| Intro from the Human Rights Wach Paper called: Denying Ethnic Identity: The Macedonians of Greece.] and [| A "Macedonian Tribune article called "Tsarknias Speaks Out].

I also would be happy to link you to the following site: [| The Greek Helsinki cometee's reports on the issue of the "Macedonians in Greece"], where you have more than 50 links/stories related to the topics. Or, maybe the Greek Helsinki Cometee is not a reliable source for you?

So, Mr. Jsone... lets see how realistic and neutral you are... Please give me an answer on only 2 questions:

1)Is there a Macedonian minority in Greece?

2)Did Greece try to hide and ignore this minority through the history, sometimes even using force?

Before you answer, please do not forget that there are 1000s of sources about this issue. So, let's see... Macedonian 03:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing - but by whom?

• Why is the link consistently erased? The article is written by Lyubcho Georgievski, who was a prime minister of RoM for nearly four years, not by a Bulgarian/Greek jingoist. Who is POV pushing, CDwhatever?
• About the "strongly nationalistic character of the Macedonian freedom movement in the 1940s:
  • The Yugoslav Communist Party and the Macedonian Question by Palmer and King extensively deals with the early 1940s, the Bulgarian "occupation" and the "freedom movement" of Vukmanovic-Tempo, based entirely on original documents, correspondence and manifestoes of the Yugoslav Communist Party, the Macedonian Communist Party, the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Soviet Communist Party. According to it:
    • After Bulgaria started administering Vardar Macedonia in 1941, the Macedonian CP (led by Shatorov) placed itself voluntarily under the supervision of the Bulgarian CP. There was extensive correspondence between the Yugoslav and the Macedonian CPs, in which Tito urged the MCP to "start armed struggle against the Bulgarian fascist occupiers". To all such demands the MCP responded that "the MCP will fight the monarchist and fascist dictatorship of Bulgaria, but never the Bulgarian troops" and that "Vardar Macedonia is now part of Bulgaria, thus the MCP will not take any more orders from the YCP, the MCP is now under the direct supervision of the BCP and that's the way it will be."
    • As both the breakaway MCP and the VMRO of Ivan Mihaylov supported a union of Macedonia with Bulgaria, there was NOT ANY WHATSOEVER armed resistance and NONE WHATSOEVER FREEDOM STRUGGLE in Vardar Macedonia until the end of 1943. There were under ten activists of the MCP who remained faithful to the YCP, among them Lazar Kolishevski, and they were engaged in propaganda war, not in actions.
    • The "armed struggle movement" in Macedonia was organised by a Montenegrin (!!!!), Svetozar Vukmanovic-Tempo under the direct orders of Tito in the end of 1943, initially in the Italian-occupied zone and as late as 1944 in the Bulgarian-occupied zone. This movement never had more than a 1000 activists, even at its height.
• The text was unjustly pro-Macedonian (in view of the real events which are scarcely glorious for the Macedonians), and it was made extremely POV-Macedonian due to the last edit. I understand that if something is hammered in people's heads for 60 years, they can't even imagine it can be any other way, BUT IT IS. I would advise anyone who blames me for POV-pushing to prepare himself at least a little bit before spitting some crap into the article. VMORO 21:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1)Lyubcho Georgievski was the same idiot that proposed a division of Macedonia bewteen the Albanians and the Macedonians during the short crisis we had, and right after that he pulled this proposition back. Same happened to this article. He latter denied any connection to it, saying that his words were completely twisted. But what can you expect from a schizophreniac. (By the way, this is not an insult for him. It is a well known fact by anyone in Macedonia that Mr. Georgievski has schizophrenia and he travels in Paris every 2-3 months for treatments)

And, yeah... I almost forgot. The same Mr. Georgievski was the one who promoted the idea his party (which at first was strongly right and even nationalistic oriented) to held their 2nd congress in Solun, Thesalonikki (this was back in 1991st and 1992nd), and in that way showing teritorial claims towards our south neighboor. Exacly those words he said are probably the biggest reason for all the problems we (Macedonia and Greece) have now. In my oppinion, he is the biggest scum in the world. (I have to note that I am not politically active and have no simphaties towards any political party in Macedonia.)

2)The society of Macedonian freedom fighters does not think that way as you do VMORO. And, they were the ones that holded the guns at their hands and fighted for the freedom from the Bulgarian occupier.

How ridicilous are your claims can be seen from a simple fact: Tempo arrived in Macedonia almost a year after the fights against the Bulgarian occupator started.

Another fact... wasn't the same Bulgarian Comminist Party the one that was trying to make Bulgaria a part of Yugoslavia at the late 1940s and beggining 1950s?

Another fact... no one administrated the Macedonian freedom fighters from abroad until Tempo arrived in Macedonia. It is truth that Shatorov made some connections to the Bulgarian communist party, but that was in order to get freedom for nowdays Republic of Macedonia (which was under Serbian occupation at that time).

The same Shatorov that you mentioned was one of the most important figures for the independance fight (that is why he "accidentaly" fall in a trap and got killed). His most important phrase that the people remember him by was "One occupator left (the Serbs), another came (the Bulgarian fasists)", which clearly says what he tought of Macedonia beeing a part of Bulgaria.

Another lie is that there was no resistance till 1943rd. The resistance started at 11th of October 1941st in 2 towns in same time, Prilep and Kumanovo. Also, my grandfather was a partizan since March 1942nd. My father keeps his medal of honors saying this date.

VMORO, I do not know what lies your primary school history books have, but you are talking about a period of just 60 years ago. More than 3000 partizans from Macedonia are still alive. They know much more than you and your assimilation attempts.

Seeing what all you try to do now, in the 21st century (read what the European Court means of the Bulgarian assimilation attempts at the beggining of the 21st century), I can just imagine the torture and assimilation that was done over the Macedonians some 100 or 200 years ago.

Why you just do not deal with it... Macedonians are separate nation, with their own identity, culture and language. That is reality, and no matter of the past, the present will not change just because you do not like it.

VMORO, I would recomend you this link: [[2]]. There you can learn something and use it in your life.

Here is what the text says:

". Трябва да престанем да гледаме на Македония като на Малка България, трябва да престанем да се държим като Матушка Рус към своите по-малки славянски събратя. Има македонски българи, има български македонци, но има и македонски македонци. И преди да викнем, че царят е гол, нека да огледаме собствените си срамотии - нашите деца, за разлика от македонските, не знаят и не пеят не само нашите македонски песни, но не знаят и не пеят нито добруджанските, нито родопските, нито тракийските, нито мизийските, нито шопските такива. "

English translation (thanks to the VKokielov for his help and translation on English from Bulgarian):

"We have to stop looking at Macedonia as if it were Little Bulgaria; we have to stop acting like Mother Russia to her little Slavic brothers. There are Macedonian Bulgarians, there are Bulgarian Macedonians, but there are also Macedonian Macedonians. And before we scream that the king is naked, let us gaze at our own navels [i.e. see our own shame] - our children, as opposed to the Macedonian, don't know and don't sing not only our Macedonian songs, but don't know and don't sing Dobrudzan, Rodopian, Trakijan, Mizijan, or Shopian songs."

Think about it, VMORO. Macedonian 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Order...Order!  ;)

I think we need to get ourselves in order here.

VMRO, Macedonian...can you cite any sources? It's the best defense. You know the trouble with any article on this question from a historian aligned one way or another with Macedonia or Bulgaria: there will be an opinion. Can you cite disinterested sources? --VKokielov 06:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that there are many sources, but most of them are heavily influenced by the big powers and their possitions during the cold war. Conserning Macedonia, both sides had one "member" which was very interested in denial of the Macedonian nation (Bulgaria in the Russian side and Greece in thge US side). Also, I should mention that during the world war, Yugoslavia (whose member was Macedonia) was neutral keeping it self away from the cold war.

So, for the reason that I just mentioned and for several other reasons (including the tries of Greece and Bulgaria to deny the existance of the Macedonian ethnicity), there are many sources concerning this period.

What I rely on about 3000 partizans who took part in the Macedonian resistance and that are still alive. They clearly say what they were fighting for and who were they fighting for.

One of them is Mr. Atanas Prokopiev Zabaznoski, half Russian half Macedonian partizan. At age of 16, he was the one who supplied the partizans with fireguns he stole from the Bulgarian occupator. The same guns were used in the first attack of the partizans over the Bulgarian occupator at 11th of October 1941st year, which actually was the start of the armed ressistance.

For the ones that know some Macedonian, you can read his interview at [| The daily newspaper Dnevnik], given at the same date of the start of the ressistance, but 64 years after. You can very clearly see what a real partizan thinks, not just some assimilative Wiki user (do you maybe recognize yourself in these words, VMORO?). Macedonian 02:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Our ruler, and the first that is mentioned as a Serbian King is King Bodin of Doclea. According to his annals, in 1072 he helped the uprising of Slavs in Macedonia. His annals seperate this people from Bulgarians, and from that point onwards, he and his descendents call the people there excplicitly Macedonians. HolyRomanEmperor 13:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bulgarians held heavy influence over the Macedonian people only for two short periods of time - during the First and the Second Bulgarian Tsarinate (Empire). Tsar Samuilo is, as far as we know, a Macedonian Slav, not a Bulgarian. HolyRomanEmperor 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Serb Empire of Tsar Stefan Dušan recognized three constitutional peoples - Serbs, Albanians and Greeks. Then he recognized also the Bulgarians as a constitutional minority (living in today's western Bulgaria) HolyRomanEmperor 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians' ancestors were then concidered Serbs, they contibuted greatly to the Serbian littarature, and, although most of them were working the fields, many worked as Stefan's courtiers. We today learn these Serbian national songs, but we make no doubts that they were written in old-Macedonian, and that Macedonians wrote them! HolyRomanEmperor 13:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians' ancestors were then concidered Serbs, they contibuted greatly to the Serbian littarature, and, although most of them were working the fields, many worked as Stefan's courtiers. HolyRomanEmperor 13:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

We today learn these Serbian national songs, but we make no doubts that they were written in some old-Macedonian, and that Macedonians wrote them! HolyRomanEmperor 13:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Although how the Macedonian people got ther name is a bit sporadic, their autochtonous civilization isn't. The foreigners used Macedonian traditionally for Bulgarians. The Serbian Princes and Kings fought against this, especially Prince Mihailo Obrenović. This can be seen in the support given to the Илинденски устанак of 1903. HolyRomanEmperor 13:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

after the Bulgarians became the bad guys in the First World War, the Serbs (especially Jovan Cvijic) saw this as an excellent opportunity to assimilate the Macedonian people. Because of the present situation, this was aproved by the international community. HolyRomanEmperor 14:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

After the wars were over (Balkan Wars and WWI) the Serbs were victories and most successful (together with Macedonians) and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes issued the Serbo-Croatian as the only language that should be used. The official population census of 1921 mentions Macedonians as others and as a minority, since most declared themselves as Serbs (because of the recent facts) HolyRomanEmperor 14:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The people of the Military Frontier declared themselves as Kraishniks (Frontiersmen) and of Slavonia as Slavonians. Both of the entities were majorily Serb-populated, but the mention of Serbs is in the minority. the Austro-Hungarian historian Karl von Czoernig conducted an official population census and concidered themselves as Serbs :) even though they didn't declare themselves that way. HolyRomanEmperor 14:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Montenegrins declared themselves as Serbs since the first census of 1909. After WWII the they all became Montenegrin; and the number is constantly fading in favor of Serbs until the present. Nevertheless, they are internationally represented as Montenegrins, no matter of their historical background or origin. HolyRomanEmperor 14:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(Ethnic group) or (Modern ethnic group)?

Should we move this article to Macedonians (Modern ethnic group)? A problem I see is that modern may be interpreted in different ways. To some people, modern is everything from the 19th century, and up. But I think we can disambiguate some more without bringing the word Slav into the issue. I want to get this article settled on a name already, but it has to be a name with as little systemic conflict as possible. Given that in history we have two ethnic groups calling themselves Macedonians, we have a systemic conflict (we are dealing with two different ethnic groups, at least as different as ancient Latins and modern Italians). -Alexander 007 05:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree that no one can claim a direct connection to some antique ethnicity/group. And that is valid for everyone, not just for the Macedonians (ethnic group). All we or anyone else can claim is some genetic origin, even maybe just a little bit of cultural identifiers. Nothing else. Macedonian 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexander 007, in one of your edits I found in history you wrote:" I noticed that the Egyptian case has totally avoided the issue by redirecting Ancient Egyptians to Ancient Egypt and Egyptians to Egypt, but we can't do that here. I'm looking for parallel cases in Wikipedia."

Why we can not use the same model? If it worked for them, why it wouldn't work for us? "Antique Macedonians" for Antique Macedonia and "Macedonians" (or even "Macedonians (ethnic group)") for the Macedonians that live in present time?

The systemic conflict that you mentioned can be elliminated with the search "Macedonians" redirecting to Macedonian (disambiguation), the way it actually is now. That way the user can clearly shoose what is he looking for.

Macedonian 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the article Egyptian, a modern Egyptian is merely a "citizen of Egypt", so the ethnic group issue is not there, as it is here. I'm still looking for a better parallel. It is not a solid parallel, otherwise we would just redirect Macedonians (ethnic group) to Republic of Macedonia, as Egyptians redirects to Egypt (at least, for now it does; this may also change in the future). -Alexander 007 06:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand now. I agree. But, this is not good example. During my visit to Egypt this summer, it was obvious to me that those people there acnowledge their Arab ethnicity.

Anyway, in this case, the only ethnicity that the modern Macedonians know for themselves is the Macedonian one. That can not be questionable, having on mind that the whole world completely accepts this as a fact. Macedonian 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Conflict?

If these facts are agreed upon:

A. The Ancient Macedonians

They called themselves Macedonians--->Yes

They were called Macedonians by other groups--->Yes

They are refered to simply as Macedonians in many sources--->Yes

They were an ethnic group--->Yes*

Then Macedonians (ethnic group) or Macedonians (ethnicity) may refer to them unless it is an anachronism.

B. The modern Macedonians

They call themselves Macedonians--->Yes

They are referred to as simply Macedonians in many sources--->Yes

They are an ethnic group--->Yes

Then Macedonians (ethnic group) or Macedonians (ethnicity) may refer to them.

Systemic conflict: A and B (except for some sources which can be described as nationalist) are not considered to be the same ethnic group, primarily because they speak different languages (yes, consensus of references) and they have different cultures (yes, even if the modern Macedonians have elements of the old culture, it is not the same). So we need to disambiguate more unless we have an anachronism. -Alexander 007 06:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note: the issue is not whether the ancient Macedonians were an ethnic group unto themselves, the issue is whether we can even apply that term to any ancient group (don't remember if this is the practice). Whether they were an ethnic group or not, Wikipedia would have to leave open the (very strong) possibility that they were, so Macedonians (ethnic group) could apply to the ancient Macedonians. So that fact doesn't even need to be agreed upon. -Alexander 007 08:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should make a clear difference between the modern Macedonians and the Antique Macedonians. According to me, and following -Alexander 007's conclutions, I think we have 3 options:

Option 1) We can call the page about the modern Macedonians "Macedonians (ethnic group)" (leave it as it is).

Option 2) We can call the page about the modern Macedonians "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)"

Option 3) The page to be moved to "Macedonians (nationality)". The Antique Macedonians can not ever be a nationality, so there is a clear difference between the 2.

In all of this cases, I strongly beleive that the page for the Antique Macedonians should be reffered to as "Antique Macedonians".

I want to identify the problems that might happen in Option 2):

As Alexander 007 already said, the term "modern" can be understood as something that is not older than 100 years. That might be seen as direct support to the Bulgarian and Greek claims that the Macedonian nation was artificially made by Tito (which is clear nonsence). I personally do not see it threatening, but I am sure that many ethnic Macedonians that read it will see it threatening, so we might be pushed back again at this point. So, option 2 in my eyes is a posibility, but quite risky one.

Now, let's identify the problems that might happen in Option 3): These days, almost no one (for example, a regular user of Wikipedia) can make a difference between between nationality and citizenship. Therefore, the other minorities that have the citizenship of Republic of Macedonia can also be confused with the term "Macedonians (nationality)". Quite tricky.

On the other hand, I want to sumarise the present situation (Option 1) without the term Antique for the "other" Macedonians). When a regular user of Wikipedia searches for the term "Macedonians" or "Macedonian", he is redirected to the Macedonian (disambiguation) page. There, he can clearly choose from all the options, so there is no chanse to mix between Antique Macedonians and the Macedonians.

So, I do not see any posibility of mixing between the two.

Macedonian 03:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

For now, Macedonians (ethnic group) satisfies me, but this will have to be decided by more people, because of course it doesn't depend on any one person, you or me. It is the right of others to seek more disambiguation if it is reasonable, but me personally I do not find it a big problem. The page will be titled Macedonians, with a disambiguation of some kind, but the best disambiguation will be debated for awhile. -Alexander 007 03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I must note that the problems with the wiki-name Macedonians ethnic group were discussed long ago (some months maybe) but I cannot provide a diff right now. +MATIA ☎ 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If it was already discussed, I am curious to know...

How did you and anyone else included decided to change the naming of a whole ethnic group, despite the fact that the whole world knows them and recognises them as "Macedonians"? Seems like someone managed to push his POV then...

And, a question for all. Does anyone here (except the Greek users) feel that he is given a right to change the name of some ethnic group and support a name that is not used almost at all when reffering to this ethnic group?

And, why Macedonians are the only problem. Why we don't discuss the name of the modern Greeks, who obviously have origin, but are not the same people as the antique Greeks? There is no neutral historian in the world who would even dare to say that the Antique and the modern Greeks are the same people... Macedonian 02:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The real reason behind this issue 2

Just another link to a part of the truth about the poor (or more precisly non existant) humman rights that Greece provides to its minorities. The article is called "Forgotten Discrimination in the European Union".

[|Source: Reality Macedonia], which during the ethnic conflict in Republic of Macedonia in 2001st was voted by the world journalists for the most reliable and neutral source.

The same story at another | Source: MakNews.

Macedonian 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More news... the former United Nations special envoy to Macedonia Henry Sokalski today said that "The international community should apologize to Macedonia for being admitted to the United Nations under the name, unappreciated by its citizens."

He also said that "For being forced to accept another name in order to join the United Nations Macedonia should be compensated".

The whole text can be found at the following link: [| Source:MIA, Macedonian Information Agency].

Macedonian 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

New moments in the naming dispute

Greek MP calls on Government to recognize Macedonia's name

Athens, 20:04

The deputy of the ruling New Democracy Nikos Georgiadis called the Greek Government to put an end to the name dispute, which poses as rift between Skopje and Athens since 1991, and to accept the name Macedonia, which, as he put it, is used by all countries in the world.

We should acknowledge that we lost that battle. The more we opposing, the more we risk losing, said Georgiadis in his article published in "Kathimerini".

According to the MP, the diplomatic battle Greece is conducting has pushed the country into isolation.

The moment has come for the ruling power to say "one big 'Yes' and to demonstrate realism and courage", Georgakis said. I would prefer a different name, but we cannot change it now. The sooner we accept it, the greater benefit we shell gain, he stated, adding that Athens has lost a great deal in the 15-year long dispute.

Sources: | MakFax, the independant news agency which also can be found here | MakFax link No.2, or you can reffer to this one | Source: Reality Macedonia. Macedonian 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Kathimerini
Please find the source.

This is the English edition of Kathimerini. It is not the same to the Greek one. I tried to look for the article at the Greek Kathimerini, but I do not understand Greek.

Anyway, this news is one of the top 5 in every single newspaper in Macedonia (except the sport ones). It is published on MakFax too, a agency that is considered as completely independant. The news is also a part of all 3 newspapers owned by "Media Print Macedonia", a German owned publisher with biggest rating in the country. If this information is not truth, then I am sure that Mr. Georgiadis would soon deny it.

By the way, a journalist text with very similar ideas appeared in the Greek newspaper "To Vima" just some week before this statement by Mr. Nikos Georgiadis. Macedonian 02:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nikos Georgiadis = "Νίκος Γεωργιάδης"
Skopje = "Σκόπια"
Macedonia = "Μακεδονία

Let's check the Greek edition of Kathimerini:
All 3 key words. No results.
The first 2 keywords. No results.
The first and the 3rd keyword. No results.

Conclution: Either your sources lie or they made a mistake (all of them!!??) about which newspaper wrote this.
Anonymous, 7:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not uderstand Greek, but here is a link searching Kathimerini just for the name of the guy: [[3]].

Also, the same news was also presented at BBC on Macedonian and Deuche Welle on Macedonian.

Anyway, the information about the articles in the Greek newspapers are sent to Macedonian news agencies by several journalist that live in Greece and that are in fact of Greek ethnicity and nationality.

I don't know did they make a mistake of the newspaper, but I know that the news was still not officially denied. And as I said was confirmed by BBC and Deuche Welle. Macedonian 02:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Here are more news on this issue (Source: [| MakFaks, Independent News Agency]):

The Greek MP persistent - Athens cannot give name to Macedonia

Athens, 18:58

The Greek MP Nikos Georgiadis reiterated again his stance that Greece cannot impose a different name to Macedonia.

Georgiadis said Athens couldn't decide on the name of a neighboring country, regardless of how much Greece dislikes the existing one.

"There is no country in the world, which does not addresses our neighboring country as Macedonia, there is no international document nor map, in which the country is noted as Macedonia. Nobody but us, the Greeks, calls it Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", said Georgiadis for the National Radio Alpha.

We cannot expect that through the foreign policy and the stubborn citing of the 1995 Agreement we will manage to persuade the whole world the we are right, and all those who use the name Macedonia are wrong, said the MP of New Democracy Georgiadis.

Macedonian 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

response and a message to REX

Kathimerini had a nice article with comments on Nicholas Burns' agenda for the Balkans, before two weeks (probably Sunday edition). Do look it up.
response to REX: You seem to believe that calling me names is the same thing as me expressing my opinion, but WP:RPA cannot apply on your changes that you choose to repeat today. Don't vandalize my comments. +MATIA ☎ 08:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to report it to WP:VIP? +MATIA ☎ 10:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

response to MATIA: If you can blank out all comments which you feel are personal attacks, but we can't do the same to your offensive personal remarks and attacks, you are sadly mistaken. If you can vandalise my comments, then I can vandalise yours. If you restore your comments, please restore mine, [User:Macedonian]]'s and whoever else's you may have vandalised. Regards, REX 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your action. I'll leave my comments "marked" because most of what you claim to be personal attacks, describes exactly the problem of this article move in one night. And I'm afraid it involves me and the Arb. case I'm involved. +MATIA ☎ 12:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What is that Arb. case about? Anyone can link? I have an idea what is this about, but I am not sure. Macedonian 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, either all PA has to be marked, or none at all. I fail to see why only my and Macedonian's PA has to be marked. Are your words too holy or something, whereas Macedonian and I are too low down the food chain? Personally, I think that marking PA is a waste of time, but if you think that you can mark the offensive parts or my posts, then by God I can mark the offensive parts of yours. I certain that if I had said that move in one night bit to you, you would have reacted in indignation, calling it a personal attack and started telling us about your "honour". REX 12:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, as far as I know, you are the one who first started marking so called PA [reminder from the history]. If you can do it, why someone else wouldn't?

In my oppinion, non of you guys should mark PA on this page. If anyone feels like there are PA against him, he can complain to the Notice boards. Not here!!!

In my oppinion, no one of us included in this topic are "virgins", when concerning PAs. So, is senceless if we start crossing half of the things that we wrote here. Macedonian 02:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add something interesting on the Egyptians: see Kosovar Egyptians HolyRomanEmperor 16:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is also an ethnic group in Macedonia using this name. Actualy, the same things written on Egyptians (Kosovo) are worthed for the Macedonian egyptians. Macedonian 02:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing by Macedonian

• Whether you like Lyubcho Georgievski or not, he has been one of the most prominent politicians in RoM since the independence, prime minister for four years and leader of the biggest political party in RoM for more than 10 years. He is not no one in RoM and his opinion deserves mention. Erasing something just because you don't like it VIOLATES THE POLICIES OF WIKIPEDIA AND IS CALLED POV-PUSHING. Keep your personal likings to yourself.
• The BCP wanted to form a cofederation with Yugoslavia where Bulgaria and Yugoslavia would have equal status, Tito wanted to incorporate Bulgaria into Yugoslavia as a republic, just like RoM or Serbia, that's the reason why the union did not work - sources: Building the Party, Building the Nation by Troebst and Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question by Palmer and King.
• Your claims about "100,000 partisans" and that "the armed struggle had started long before Tempo" are laughable. Macedonian, the two books quoted by me are the GREATEST NEUTRAL (i.e. not Yugoslav or Bulgarian) RESEARCH WORKS ON THE DEVELOPMENTS IN MAC DURING AND AFTER WWII, BASED ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND NOT SERVING A POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL AND ETHNIC PURPOSE. Your problem is that you are acquainted only with the PROPAGANDA version of your history which is CORRUPTED, FALSE AND INDEFENSIBLE.
  • • So when P & K publish a letter of Shatorov to Tito in which he says that he WILL NOT OBEY THE YUGOSLAV COMMUNIST PARTY BUT ONLY THE BULGARIAN C. PARTY and that THE BULGARIAN TROOPS ARE NOT OCCUPIERS and you claim that he only had "some contact with the Bulgarian communists, I'll surely believe P & K, and not you.
    • And when P & K quote correspondence and documents PROVING that there were only A HANDFUL OF FAITHFUL TO THE YCP BEFORE 1943 AND THAT THERE WAS PRACTICALLY NO RESISTANCE TO THE BULGARIAN ADMINISTRATION BEFORE 1943 and you claim that "there was", I'll sure believe them and not you.
    • And when P & K show correspondence and documents PROVING that it was A MONTENEGRIN, TEMPO who had TO COME FROM YUGOSLAVIA AND ORGANISE A LIMITED FORM OF RESISTANCE, and you claim that the resistance was Macedonian-born and NOT Yugoslav inspired, I'll believe them and not you.
• You are not quoting facts or sources, only your own ideas of the history which are binding neither for me, nor for anyone else here. Admit your defeat and stop pushing POV - or provide non-Macedonian sources. And, please, stop the epistolar attempts on my talk page, if you have smth to say, say it here, you are only clogging my talk page with whining and boasting.
• To Kokielov - the sources which I have quoted are the most possible neutral ones which exist. If you can, read Palmer and King and let's discuss it here - they at least publish the translated version of practically all correspondence between the YCP, MCP and BCP, as well as all documents relating to the matter in question.
• As for the completely inadequeate comments by the Roman Emperor - Konstantin Bodin proclaimed himself Tsar of the Bulgarians, not Tsar of the Macedonian Slavs. 3 centuries later, when Dushan conguered central and southern Macedonia, he said that he has conquered a part of the Bulgarian Tsardom. He proclaimed himself Tsar of Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians (Arvanites), not Tsar of Serbs, Greeks, Macedonian Slavs and Albanians (Arvanites) - the only Bulgarian territory he ruled was part of the Kyustendil region but he ruled the whole of Macedonia.
• I think I have answered to all who has asked me questions or have made comments, have a good evening you all VMORO 17:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not about do I like Mr. Georgievski. I even voted once for the bitch, before he revealed his truth face. And I didn't stop liking him because of ethic reasons... I started hating him because he is 30 and something year old person who owns houses in Miami, has several lands, houses, palaces etc... he was even numbered between the Balkans 50 richest man. And the only position he was on during his life was a leader of a party (who he left latter) and a prime minister. Do you get it now?

BTW, VMRO-DPMNE is one of the 2 biggest parties and was biggest just during some 5 years. Now, Mr. Georgievski has another party, which is the 5th according to the overal rating.

Also, Mr. VMORO... do you think that we should mention everything that we want which supports our ideas (like you do)? Are you aware how many things are not mentioned?

Why we don't mention the European Courts resolutions agains Bulgaria and Greece, when concerning the political parties of the Macedonian minority in those countries?

Why we don't mention not even 1 of the 1000s reports of the poor (read: non existant) human rights in Bulgaria and Greece, confirmed by any bigger human rights organization that is present on the Balkany?

Why we don't mention the number of Macedonian refugees from Greece after the Greek Civil War?

Why we don't mention the fact that more revolutioners from the beggining of 20th century (that the Macedonians regards as their) got killed by Bulgarians, than by the Ottomans?

Why we don't mention the killings that Vancho Mihailov did over people in Bulgaria who were regarding themselves as Macedonians? Why we don't mention that he actually got support from the Bulgarian goverment in doing this?

Why we don't mention the people who left the region Macedonia before 1945th, but their families regard themselves as Macedonians (by ethnicity, not by regionality)? How come they regard themselves that way, when they never lived in a country that Tito was president of? How come the Macedonians (again by ethnicity, not by regionality) in Bulgaria and Greece regard themselves that way when they too never were influenced by Tito?

Why we don't mention the stupidities of several Bulgarian politicians that are parlaimentary members in Bulgaria who say that all Macedonians see themselves as Bulgarians, when the whole world knows this is non-sence?

Why we don't mention Mr. Stanishev's partly Macedonian ethnicity (again, not regionality) that he never denies (aldough it is clear he regards himself as Bulgarian)?

Do you know how many "Why"s I can put here?

Concerning the POV pushing, you VMORO can get a master degree on this issue. When you decide to include all the assimilation bullshit the Bulgarians and Greeks have done (and still are doing) to the Macedonians, I will be glad to allow you to put one statement of a schizophreniac, that he latter denied (which I personally beleive he did because of the presure from the public). Also, as a powerful figure, he managed to hide that he ever said that, so almost no one in Macedonia is aware of this statement (I learned from you that it even exists).

Concerning Shatorov... I personaly have seen an original letter (on an exposition in Podgorica, Montenegro) of his with the famous sentance "One occupator left, another came".

How ridicolous your statements and sources are is the fact that the first fights in Macedonia against the Bulgarian occupator started on 11th of October 1941st and the first rebelion units are formed just some 15-20 days after. Actually, just several days ago the union of the fighters in the WW2 celebrated 64 years of the formation first anti-faschistical units in Macedonia.

Maybe if you read something neutralm, you will see that Tempo actually arived in Macedonia in 1943rd, a year and a half after the first fights.

Maybe I should mention something interesting... Shatorov is seen as a traitor from the Macedonians. These days there is some polemics was he a traitor, or his ideas were for independant Macedonia, but if what you say is truth about him (a idea denied by many Macedonian fighters from that time that are still alive), then he is nothing but a traitor for the Macedonians.

I would need you to explain why would anyone fight agains their own people? My grandfather was a partizan for 4 years, he even has a medal which clearly says "active 1941-1945th". If I was Bulgarian, wouldn't he or my father told me that I am Bulgarian? He told me I am part Russian, because his grand-father was Russian. He told me I am a part Greek, because his Grand-Mother was Greek. But, he never mention anything about Bulgarians. On the other hand, he always was proud of his Macedonian nationality. I can still ask him, even wake him up now, in the middle of the night if you want. But, that won't change the fact that all you say is bullshit.

Limited resistance my a**. The Macedonian union of freedom fighters in the WW2 counts more than 100.000 people, of whom 3000 are still alive. 80% of those people are of Macedonian ethnicity.

If you are trying to proclaim all this lies just 60 years after you claim they happened, I can clearly understand what all my ancestors had to resist in order to protect their Macedonian ethnicity from the constand Bulgarian and latter Greek denials and brutal assimilation attempts.

As an ending I have to say... do you really think that people here will beleive you that a completely self aware and patriotic nation can be formed just for some 60 years of time? If your claims are truth, this might be a new world record of "The fasted formation of an ethicity EVER". Who are you kidding...

Tito is dead since 1980th. Now is 2005th, 1/4 of a century after. We also are out of Yugoslavia for 15 years, but we still regard ourselves as Macedonians (and again, ethnicity, not regionality) and that won't change. Get over it. Macedonian 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

user:VMORO, please read what I had said carefully before making such statements; the thing that you said has nothing to do with what I said. Konstantin Bodin was a Serbian ruler, not a Bulgarian Emperor. Stefan Dushan proclaimed himself Tsar of all Serbs, Albanians and Greeks; later including the Bulgarian title. But what are you trying to say with that anyway? HolyRomanEmperor 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)