Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 8

Pontian vs Macedonian

A Google search in the .gr domains reveals that Macedonian Greeks is the term for the Greeks in Greek Macedonia [1] - not to mention the fact Ελληνομακεδόνες gets results as well, so you are not justified in removing it. Also, there is no evidence that they are all (or mostly) Pontian - you have to cite a source (you won't find one because it is impossible - there are only one millian Pontian Greeks in the whole of Greece). However, if you still disagree, I'll request a formal RFC so as to solve this thing. --Latinus 10:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a little question - My knowledge is that after the first world war the region of Macedonia and Thrace in northern Greece accepted not only Pontian Greeks, but also a from Asia Minor and Bulgaria? Are there some figures in English about this? --Komitata 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any figures, but that is about right. Pontian Greeks and Greeks from Anatolia and Bulgaria settled in all parts of Greece including Macedonia. Nea Smirni in is named after Izmir/Smyrni in Turkey because it was a major refugee centre. --Latinus 12:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

According to my knowledge,the greek refugees in the Greek Macedonia settled mostly in the central and eastern part.in western thraki,there were also many refugees from eastern thraki.Thessaly accepted many thousands of greeks from eastern rumelia as well.We should not forget that apart from the greeks from bulgaria and turkey,there were also refugees from modern day RoM,and especially from Bitola.the largest number of immigrants settled in Attica,mainly cause of economic reasons.--Hectorian 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hector, let's have the numbers and the distribution? There must be some source - in Bulgaria such people have their immigrant organisations, which usually keep statistics. --Komitata 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Maybe until we clear the numbers just for Macedonia, we should move the discussion elsewhere? --Komitata 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find such a source,but i am not sure if i will make it...The population tranfer was a large scale event for greece,a state that had been in wars for more than 10 years in the row at that time.i am not sure if detailed statistics of the early years of 1920s exist.do not also forget that the greek refugees did not stuck only with each other.nothing prevented them from mixing with the greek population in greece,so that today there are many people who are at least partly of asia minor greek ancestry(somewhere i had found that up to 40% of the greek population has some degree of ancestry from pontus,cappadokia,ionia,eastern thraki or Constantinoupolis).i cannot see why a detailed statistic is important especially for the Greek Macedonia.we have the ottoman censa predating the population transfer,that clearly show the distribution of the greek population in the region.--Hectorian 14:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Asian Greeks (not only Pontians) did arrive in the region in large number during the population exchange of 1922. However, this does by no means imply that Greeks did not already exist in large numbers (like the Slavic national myth is trying to sell). User:Macedonia, if you continue passing such POV, I'm going to cite a modern, neutral source which states how the entire villet of Monanstiri (Bitola) became Bulgarian, and how did those Bulgarians end up considering themselves "Macedonian". The only reasons I haven't done it so far, is because I'm in no mood to start a content-war and I don't have personal hysterical ethnic feelings on the subject such as yourself. The reason I'm even participating, is the fact that you and your chauvinist compatriots go beyond the limit of patriotism and spread pure lies (in which you believe in). The term "Macedonian Greeks" will stay because it's sourced and used by almost every historical source on the Balkans. End of story. Miskin 14:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is precisely what I am trying to do - to search for data for the actual movement of people, and not implied by some national propaganda, meaning all of them - Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, RoM, Turkish, etc. The direct statistics are maybe incorrect and politically biased, but with help of auxilary indicators - demographic or economic, we can see what really happened there, and this is what we have to do, to discover the truth. --Komitata 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected

This page appears to have suffered far too much reversion today. I've protected it for a bit; please discuss this here, and leave a note on my talk page (or another admins) when you think unprotection would be indicated William M. Connolley 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To the constant reverters

What is your problem? The terms "Macedonian Greeks" and "Greek Macedonians" are in use, they are not a fabrication! This can be demonstrated by a Google test [2]. Also, you should know that this theory of yours about the Pontians is totally unsourced and if you continue reverting to it, I'll either report you for sneaky vandalism or file an RFC for trolling. Take your pick! --Latinus 21:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, perhaps you, or someone else, could explain why the adjective "Macedonian" should appear before the word Greeks. In what way does this aid the reader? Is an uninformed reader likely to assume that those Greeks mentioned in this article are from some other region? That said, the claim that all Greeks in the geographic region are Pontians (which Bomac claims is "pure truth") seems to me to be an extraordinary claim demanding unimpeachable referencing from reliable sources. Let me remind everyone that this article is for the benefit of the uninformed reader. Jkelly 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone else: Jkelly, my view is that the uninformed reader is benefited to be informed that the name "Macedonian" is not monopolised by one ethnicity and that there are some sort of other Macedonians too. If I were using Pro-Greek-POV, I'd say that this article should refer to the Greek Macedonians only. I would also say, that only the Greek Macedonians have the right to use that name. I'm just saying that it can't be monopolised by FYROM people. Nothing more, nothing less. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When Bomac says that the Pontians are the only Greek inhabitants of Greek Macedonia, he is in fact promoting radical Fyrom POV, as that would imply that Greeks are not native to Macedonia, but have been brought from elsewhere. The mere fact that there are only one million Ponitans in Greece (all over the country) doesn't seem a problem to him. When he adds that and refers to is as "pure truth" (in order to disrupt), he is trolling and if he persists, he will end up with an RFC. All I have to do is try to resolve the dispute and hope that he won't co-operate - that will make things much easier as I will have that evidence as well. There is no point in asking him for a source - none exists. --Latinus 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And may I also add, that the milder the PRO-Greek editors are, the more this is taken advantage of, and the article tends to become completely POVish. It makes you really want to become a brainless nationalist, in order to counter-balance and neutralise the article. Personally, I am trying to overcome this and be as objective as possible. Then, we get back to square one. Please, everybody, take a look at my new self-constructed userbox in my userpage... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, in short, WP:COOL. Jkelly 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

<:-) Cool and smilin'. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see what's the problem with Macedonian Greeks. It is true that there are a lot of Pontic Greeks, however, in virtually every map (even before the 20's) there is a predominantly Greek inhabited area in the region of Macedonia (although the region as a Whole is predominately non-Greek, mostly). Let's take for example Chalcidice... Even if there was not even a single Greek back then, there are Macedonian Greeks now - Greeks that live in Macedonia. I don't see the need (that is, how does that aid the reader, as ЈKelly put it) for constantly stressing the fact that there are Greeks in Macedonia, even in this article, but I don't see a problem with the formulation "Macedonian Greeks" in itself? And why is everybody ignoring the Albanians? --FlavrSavr 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there some important, verifiable information about Albanians that belongs in this article? Jkelly 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the constant Slav add-ons - I think they are POV - if you want to distinguish the Macedonians (ethnic group) from the other inhabitants of this region, please use ethnic Macedonians instead of Slav Macedonians. Regards to all. --FlavrSavr 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, we REALLY know why is the need of constantly stressing that there are Greeks in Macedonia even in this article... :-) Bomac 22:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly may that be Bomac? What do you mean? Are we hiding some secret cabal??? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, would you care to explain the Pontic assertion, or are you content with the other editors' responses? Jkelly 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Miskin answered that: to prevent the "ethnic Macedonian" monopolisation of the term (which according to you is "never" your intention). I have no problem with mentioning the Albanians or the Turks - it just got overlooked. Also, Bomac, if you want to troll a website, there are special websites for that purpose. --Latinus 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave the trolling talk out of the discussion. I don't think its all that helpful in progressing towards a solution to the sentence in question. Jkelly 23:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to see what is the problem with this article?i think that the problem is the mentioning of some specific terms.so,i will try to present what i think about these terms(some will say that it is nothing more than the greek POV,but at least i am writing my POV-if it really is-here and not edit it in the article,as the respected northern neighbours do):

• Macedonians:this is a name that can be applied to all the inhabitants of the region.we are talking about present day Macedonians,not the ancient ones.
• Greek Macedonians:there are local greek inhabitants in the Greek Macedonia.why should this term should not be used?it was the 'northern neighbours' that were talking about not monopolising the name.and now,that we decided to search for a mutual accepted solution,they want it for themselves...
• Pontian Greeks: there are many nationalistic claims by all sides in this page and in the achives too.but i really have never heard a more outrageous,unhistorical and ridiculous claim than this one!the numbers do not fit!the pontian greeks number 1mil in greece as a whole.Greek macedonia has more than 2.5 millions!Noone has to be an Einstein to understand it!
• Slavomacedonians:this word is in use.so,it should be mentioned along with the others.afterall it should not be an insulting term for our fellow 'northern neighbours'...it just refers both to their origins and the region they inhabite.--Hectorian 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Macedonian Slavs" is already mentioned and always will be. They are disputing including their translation of the name in an attempt to declare it an exonym (ovelooking the fact that Kiro Gligorov used it). I think we should start discussing "Словенски Македонци" and "Македонци Словени". These are just off the top of my head. I'll have to Google them etc, first. --Latinus 23:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Macedonian, as we said (ie.living in the geographical region of Macedonia), can be: Greek, Slav(or smthng), Bulgarian, Albanian. If you name only one part of the inhabitants with the name that all inhabitants share, then you have a logical error that puzzles the uninformed reader. One, reading this article (and others) falls in the following logical paradox:

M=M+B+G

where M is all inhabitants of the region, but also Slavomacedonians

B is Bulgarian Macedonian and

G is Grecomacedonian.

Wouldn't it be much clearer for the reader to have:

M=S+B+G

where S is Slavomacedonians?

Unless ofcourse the FYROM editors have the audacity to define that B+G=0...

NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I should inform you that I cannot find any positive reference in .mk websites to the Слов related terms I haev mentioned above. --Latinus 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Latinus, let our Northern friends decide how they want to solve the above mathematical problem by providing us the value of S that solves the equation... I am prepared to accept ANYTHING apart from just "Macedonians" (or adjectives like true, ethnic etc...) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another idea, since rules are becoming more popular nowdays, would be to describe the paradox of the whole situation as stated above inside the article. That, I think, would be the best way to solve the situation. For example, we could say:

The Macedonians (Macedonian: Македонци, Greek: Μακεδόνες, Bulgarian:_______) are the inhabitants of the region of Macedonia. However, Macedonians - sometimes referred to as Macedonian Slavs - can also be the name of a South Slavic ethnic group who live in part of the Macedonian region in the southern Balkans of Europe. The latter, have named their language Macedonian language, a South Slavic language, and most of them are part of the autonomous Macedonian Orthodox Church. The geographical region of Macedonia is also shared with other ethnic groups, mainly Macedonian Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians, with the largest single population of Macedonians of Slavic descent inhabiting the Republic of Macedonia (as is the constitutional name of the country).

Something along these lines can be 100% comprehensible for the uninformed reader.

I mean: If both parts here are so sure that this debate is THE most important issue, then this debate should be clearly visible for the uninformed reader! Unless, ofcourse, we want to pretend that there is no debate, no reverts, no content disputes etc NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to repeat myself: If I were using pro-Greek-POV, I would say to exclude everybody else from the article, because this article is about the Grecomacedonians, the only existing Macedonians etc... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES

In my previous edits, I stated that Pontian Greeks would be more accurate for the fact that there are more Pontian Greeks in this part of Macedonia than native Greeks. According to Danforth's book The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, 640,000 Pontian Refugees settled in Macedonia which rose the Greek population from 21 PERCENT TO 70 PERCENT meaning that 49% were Pontian Greeks and 21% were (I assume) native Greeks who inhabited the region before the refugees came. Here is the source, you must have a Google or Gmail account to access it... [3]

--Macedonia 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist fables again - that is anything but a neutral source. Those are Popov's, Radin's and Simovski's estimates and you are welcome to mention them, but you cannot present them as a statement of fact, but must attribute the claim to the original source (i.e. according to Popov, Radin and Simovski the Greek population of Macedonia rose from 12% to 70% due to the influx of immigrants not Pontic immigrants are 100% of the Greeks in Macedonia). We should also mention the Greek side of things that all Macedonians/Bulgarians were repatriated to Bulgaria as part of the 1920s population exchanges under the Treaty of Neuilly, leaving Macedonia clean of Slavs. --Latinus 01:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that ever since the 1920's there were more Greeks of Pontian origin then Greeks who had inhabited the region before their arrival. If you do not want to use the numbers of these historians that is fine with me. As you know, neutral Ottoman sources have stated that there were some 200,000 to 300,000 Greeks in Aegean Macedonia just 10 years earlier. That doesn't come close to the 640,000 Pontian Refugees that came and outnumbered the existing Greek population. Macedonia 01:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia,u have forgetten to mention that after the Treaty of Neuilly greeks from bulgaria and FYROM also settled in the Greek Macedonia.furthermore,the pontians that came in greece were not 640,000.out of the 1.2 mil greek refugees from asia minor,pontians accounted about 350,000.--Hectorian 01:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any source to back up the 350,000 Pontians? Macedonia 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia's figures may be the case, but it is just one opinion (that of the Slav authors above - there is a vast difference between 21 and 70 percent), but it doesn't justify saying ethnic Macedonians share Macedonia with the Pontic Greeks and Bulgarians. The Pontic Greeks are now inhabitants of Macedonia, hence "Macedonian Greeks" and have been so for the last 80 years. If you check the sources from the Google test above, you will see that Greeks (and maybe Bulgarians) view Macedonian as a regional identity, just as someone who is ethnically English can be a Londoner or a Yorkshireman. I should also note that Pontians are not an ethnic group, but a "cultural" group within Greek society, so contrasting them with actual ethnic groups in misleading. If you want to mention Simovski's figures and the Ottoman censi, feel free to, just don't say that all Greeks in Macedonia are Pontians. That's what you were saying before... gross inaccuracy and offensive to the original Greeks living there. I would support saying either "Greeks" or "Macedonian Greeks" - the inclusion of Macedonian is primarily to avoid your monopolisation of the name. If "Greeks" alone is used, then the disambiguation note (currently very short) should be amended accordingly to avoid any potential monopolisation. --Latinus 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I also don't have any problem with just "Greeks", as this would also be more clearer to readers than "Macedonian Greeks". International sources also use "Greeks", where as "Macedonian Greeks" or "Greek Macedonians" are mostly used to describe the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Macedonian people during Hellenistic times. As you said, "Macedonian Greeks" is also used in a regional sense, but the problem is with its use in the article, it is giving the impression of the existence of a third ethnic group that is not Macedonian nor Greek, which may be confusing to readers. Macedonia 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

3 references concerning their extermination during 1910s.they were 700,000 and ended up to be 400,000.there is no way that 640,000 came in greece,cause they were not that many.[4],[5],[6] This was just a quick search that i made.i will try to find more reliable sources if u think that those are not.--Hectorian 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion going on about Macedonian or Pontian Greeks is irrelevant and unnecesary!

It is being talked about ethnic groups: "shared with other ethnic groups, mainly ***** Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians". Now Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians are ethnic groups. "Macedonian Greeks" or "Pontian Greeks" are not ethnic groups. The Macedonian or Pontian is simply an adjective (describing the ethnic group - Greeks) That way the sentance is false. It should simply be "Greeks". Come now, this is so obvious. Must we fight even over obvious things that should be clear to anyone no matter how bias they are? --Realek 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Realek's meaning, if not the entirety of its expression. Jkelly 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree both with the expression and the content of Jkelly, it's kinda dissappointing, for all others, I would think... The myth of Pontian-Greek population majority in Macedonia must be discussed and resolved once for all. If not here, then maybe in Talk:Macedonia (region) or Talk:Macedonia (Greece).  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not here that we have to treat the question. I also agree with Realek: we should put apart the Macedonian/Pontian dispute, as it has no place here. The Macedonian Greeks don't exist as a separate ethnicity, and this is a fact; Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians do. For this I support simply writing: (shared with other ethnic groups, mainly Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians). This is how I see it. --Aldux 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Logical paradox

I agree that the discussion about Macedonian or Pontian Greeks is meaningless,for reasons that already have been mentioned.I would not mind participating in a discussion somewhere else about the myth of Pontian-Greek population majority in Macedonia,since some users seem not to understand that the numbers simply do not much.However,since the name Macedonian applies also to the whole region and not only RoM,the usage of a sentence like: The majority of Macedonians today inhabit parts of the geographical region of Macedonia,shared with other ethnic groups, mainly Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians,could be seen as if the people of RoM are the the natives and legitimate people of the region.--Hectorian 23:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I am pasting my previous comment here again. This time, I'd really want answers:

...Furthermore, Macedonian, as we said (ie.living in the geographical region of Macedonia), can be: Greek, Slav(or smthng), Bulgarian, Albanian. If you name only one part of the inhabitants with the name that all inhabitants share, then you have a logical error that puzzles the uninformed reader. One, reading this article (and others) falls in the following logical paradox:

M=M+B+G

where M is all inhabitants of the region, but also Slavomacedonians

B is Bulgarian Macedonian and

G is Grecomacedonian.

Wouldn't it be much clearer for the reader to have:

M=S+B+G

where S is Slavomacedonians?

Unless ofcourse the FYROM editors have the audacity to define that B+G=0...

 NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well no because when it comes to ethnic groups you only have Macedonians. And trying to rename them (no matter the pretext) is extremely offensive. Take my word for it. --Realek 23:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting logical paradox.and it is indeed a paradox!Macedonians (with the geographical meaning of the term) can be Greeks,Albanians or Slavs(living in FYROM and Bulgaria).if we are going to mention one group by this name,we seem to forget the rights the other groups have in the region and the term itself.since the terms Macedonia and Macedonians for the slavic people of FYROM is still disputed,we have,i think,2 choices:

1.to mention each group accompanied by an adjective: Greek Macedonians,Slavomacedonians,etc

2.to mention groups without containing the term 'Macedonian'--Hectorian 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet again the confusion (Ethnic group VS. a part of an ethnic group) --Realek 23:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

if the 2nd choice (if possible) could be used,such a confusion would not exist.but if this option is not accepted,the adjectives will have to remain in the other people.--Hectorian 00:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no requirement to discuss ethic groups. We're discussing people. We are discussing whether to specify the regional specifics. --Latinus 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic group = People(in the context discussed here) --Realek 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Says who - you? Nope, Macedonian Greeks makes perfect sense. We could have it (Macedonian) Greeks if you like. --Latinus 00:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus you dont change the substance, you just change the link. Hectorian why did you even start this using the same things that you already said? Was my case with the Macedonian/Pontian Greeks so strong that instead of talking about it, it was better to "go up" and dont get much attention? I can repeat things I said also ;) --Realek 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See Straw man. --Latinus 00:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is you who should already read it instead of always repeating it! --Realek

Realek,i am saying this,cause don't seem willing to understand:I have provided 3 links above concerning their population at about the time of their transfer.follow them and u will see that they were not many,so the things u said cannot be true.no need to repeat them:)--Hectorian 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point of the whole discussion. It is being talked about ethnic groups in that particular sentance. So we should name the ethnic groups. As I said - Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians are ethnic groups. "Macedonian Greeks" or "Pontian Greeks" are not ethnic groups. The Macedonian or Pontian is simply an adjective (describing the ethnic group - Greeks) That way the sentance is false. It should simply be "Greeks" --Realek 00:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said we're talking about ethnic groups? What made you believe that? The Macedonian is vital so as to prevent monopolisation of the name. However, I'm prepared to bargain: we leave out the "Macedonian" from Greeks and instead (so as to avoid monopolisation) change the disambiguation note. Currently it is:

For other meanings, see Macedonian (disambiguation).

I think it'd be a good idea to change it to

This article is about the Slavic-speaking ethnic group. For the unrelated Ancient Macedonian civilisation see Macedon - for other meanings, see Macedonian

This is a better disambiguation note. --Latinus 00:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably then are not familiar with the statements of some your fellow Macedonian editors, who insist that everyone living in the macedonian geographical region is Macedonian, which has nothing to do with ethnicity. I think Macedonian Greeks is a good construct, as it encompasses both meanings. FunkyFly 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said we're talking about ethnic groups? Its the text that says we are talking about ethnic groups: shared with other ethnic groups, mainly ***** Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians --Realek 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote that? Originally, it said "shared with Macedonian Greeks and Bulgarians" [7]. You really shouldn't change things without discussing them first. It is against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Latinus 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It didn't "originaly" say that - it had many versions! You shouldnt pick just the one you like. And please dont lecture me on the spirit of Wikipedia. --Realek 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It did originally - it always did, until you started... --Latinus 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus - Always is a long time --Realek 01:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - "Macedonian Greeks" it is. Apparently, there are also Macedonian Bulgarians [8] and Macedonian Albanians [9]. --Latinus 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus - Always is a long time --Realek 01:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And they are not ethnic groups. Greeks are, Albanians are... But Macedonian Greeks and Macedonian Albaninas are not. Im really dissapointed not even the obvious gets accepted here. --Realek 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

They are existing groups - therefore they can be mentioned... --Latinus 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But no ethnic groups. I know you understand that - this is really sad. --Realek 00:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and Straw man. --Latinus 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think I made a personal attack you should report me. About your Straw man remark - please stop repeating it, it doesnt contribute at all, it just degrades the discussion. --Realek

I only report people for 3RR violations. --Latinus 01:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think I made a personal attack you should really report me. --Realek 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course we could clarify: shared with Macedonian Greeks (Greeks native to the Greek region of Macedonia) and Bulgarians... --Latinus 00:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we shouldnt endlessly butcher the Macedonians article until it loses its meaning. And stick to the point please. --Realek 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes we should - to avoid you stripping northern Greeks of their identity. --Latinus 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is striping them of anything. We should simply include only ethnic groups. Funny you brought up the "stripping of identity" issue. I was under the impresion that it was actually Greece that is trying to strip my people of our identity. --Realek 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Greeks and Bulgarians are trying to regain that which was stolen from us by the Macedonian Slavs. --Latinus 01:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,maybe it is obvious for u to use the term 'Macedonians' only for your people,but it is used by other people too,who also do not call u 'Macedonians',but 'Slavomacedonians' (in the best case).Noone should monopolise the name.it would either be used to describe all or it won't be used at all.--Hectorian 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian editors should note that not all people living in the Macedonia region are Slavs. FunkyFly 01:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

FunkyFly, I can also draw whatever I like and put it here as "evidence" --Realek 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeez man, I'm trying to illustrate a point. Dont put words in my mouth. FunkyFly 01:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But you miss the point with your "point". Those are not ethnic groups --Realek 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,doesn't this image show exactly what we are discussing about?!--Hectorian 01:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to fight the urge to say see straw man - he's not presenting it as evidence, but is using it as a visual demonstration. The point here is that you're monopolising the name and that should be remedied. In fact, I think we should say "Macedonian Bulgarians" as well - the Macedonian Institute in Sofia uses that term quite a lot. What do you guys think (especially the Bulgarian users here)? There are many people native to Macedonia with a specific culture that are not Macedonian Slavs. --Latinus 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny the monopolisation issue is brought ;) Who was it that tries to monopolies even the name of the whole region? --Realek 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A Canadian who pretends to be a Macedonian Slav of course [10]. --Latinus 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a big problem. But a whole country trying to impose a name on a neighbouring country and people and so on is a real problem. --Realek 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Not really a big problem. Just occupy the entire region, no big deal :))) FunkyFly 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The real problem begun when i very new country and people tried to claim an unrelated to them ancient civilisation and made claims to the neighbouring,already existing,countries.--Hectorian 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem - economic blockades and vetos are our right and privilege. We'll even give the European Commission an opportunity to be creative when thinking up a new name for your country, nationality and language, Probably something like: Republic of Fyrom. --Latinus 01:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just adding the Official Bulgarian view on the subject. --Komitata 01:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the Bulgarian view and the Greek views coincide. They also may coincide with the truth of the matter. --Latinus 01:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus out of curiosity - will you be creative in thinking up a new names for our name as people, our language and so on, or does it concern only the name of the country? --Realek 01:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats a question for the European Union to figure. FunkyFly 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C): I'd like to point out the following:

1. Both views (drawings above), Slavomacedonian and Greek/Bulgarian MUST appear with equal strength in the article, so that the article is NPOV. The reader can and must be able to choose.
2. Regardless of which of the two is used, the Logical Paradox REMAINS. In both cases, we have some "Macedonians" who at the same time can be:
   1. An ethnic group of mainly Slav origin (plus Albanian 20% or something, plus others)
   2. A location descriptive adjective (Greek-POV also extends this to history etc) of other peoples (mainly Greeks and Bulgarians) living in the area.

The uninformed reader has to be presented with this logical paradox, in order to be able to understand the distinction between "Macedonian Slavs" and "Macedonian All" (including Slavs, Greek, Bulgarian). A relevant notice has to be evident in the beginning of the article, so that the reader is not confused. Furthermore, within the article, there must be clear distinction whenever the word "Macedonian" is used, that it refers to the ethnic group, rather than the regional name. My proposal is that we use the names "Macedonian (Slavs)" or "Slavomacedonians".  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 10:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any logical paradox here. A logical paradox or simply paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition, such as the liar's paradox. What we have here is a case of polysemy that can lead to the logical fallacy of equivocation, like Do women need to worry about man-eating sharks? This is a common problem in rhetorics that can be avoided by careful wording, so let us not get too excited. Andreas 14:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Andreas, your definition that it "is a case of polysemy that can lead to the logical fallacy of equivocation" is more than correct. The example, however, is out of this discussion. A real example that would reflect the logical fallacy of this polysemy would be:

• True: Slavomacedonians are part of a greater set, called Macedonians.
• But also: Grecomacedonians and Bulgaromacedonians are parts of Macedonians.

Therefore: Slavomacedonians, Grecomacedonians and Bulgaromacedonians are all parts of Macedonians. (also true).

Notice, now, what happens when you rename Slavomacedonians to Macedonians:

• Test: Macedonians are part of a greater set called Macedonians. (??)
• But also: Grecomacedonians and Bulgaromacedonians are parts of Macedonians. (true)

Therefore: Macedonians, Grecomacedonians and Bulgaromacedonians are all parts of Macedonians. (??)

And also: Grecomacedonians and Bulgaromacedonians are all parts of Macedonians (the latter referring to the slav ones). (??)

Logically, and mathematically speaking, A (partial) subset, cannot be homonymous to one of it's supersets. Carefull wording, as you suggested, cannot solve the above logical problems, unless you define a different name for the subset or for the superset. The second choice is unnegotiably rejected by both Greeks and Bulgarians (and nobody can object, including FYROM editors). If we do not add a limiting sentence or word (i.e. of Slavic origin -or- simply Slav, North, Vardar etc) in every occurence of the word "Macedonians", then the uninformed reader is very likely to confuse them with the superset of Macedonian Regioners, for who, unavoidably, within the article, will be many references.

PS. Nobody is getting excited.

 NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course a (partial) subset, can be homonymous to one of it's supersets, it is called pars pro toto. We are not dealing with scientific nomenclature here. If some Greek nationalists object to the use of the word in the sense of this article, their opinion would be prescriptive, because the name is used in this sense, depending on the context. So, either put a caveat such as In this article, the word "Macedonian" is used in a strict sense denoting the ethnic group, or reword the article so this is made clear. I know, hard to achieve in the current atmosphere, but if you want to work for Wikipedia, you have to meet the chalenge. Andreas 16:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean metonymy. But metonymy is used only as an example of the original, is not intended to replace the original, and it highly depends on the context of the rest of the article. For example, when you have an article about the American Civil War, you use North Americans and South Americans in a different way than you would do "officially", because there is no mention of Canada, or Brazil, or Argentina in the article. On the other hand, I would definitely agree with your proposed caveat, but I doubt there will not be any encounters of the words "Macedonians" (meaning as per caveat Slav) and "Macedonians" (meaning others, ie Greeks-Bulgarians) in the same sentence or paragraph. If you feel that careful wording can solve these problems, then I declare incompetent of rewording it, and fully challenge you to place the caveat and change all disambiguous paragraphs accordingly.

PS The scientific nomenclature was not started by me. Also, please be aware that the Greek-nationalistic position on the issue would be "there is no Macedonia other than the Greek Macedonia", so a nationalist editor would request to rename the article to "Skopians (ethnic group)" and have no reference to the term "Macedonian" for this ethnic group, even with a limiting word or sentence next to it.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 17:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PS2 The tone of this comment is not intended to be ironic or sarcastic. However, this :-), which was undeliberately omitted, usually helps and shows the comment is well-intended.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 17:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to irritate anybody, but some facts must be made clear: and these are that first, in my country and in the world the Slavic inhabitants of the RoM are habitually called simply Macedonians; while Greeks and Albanians from the region are called simply Greeks and Albanians. We must keep in mind that this encyclopedia is for all the world, and not simply for the Balkans. Well, this is how I see it. --Aldux 14:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

U are right Aldux,it is not an encyclopedia only for the Balkans and i am aware how people in other countries usually refer to them.but if we do not mention the origin of the people in their name (e.g. Slavomacedonians) in order to avoid nationalistic claims to the whole area and history,we have to make it clear,somehow else,that they have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians and that all Macedonians are not slavs.i am sure that in Italy and the rest of the world,they are considered a slavic ethnic group and not the inheritors of Alexander the Great.this is what i want to be made clear.--Hectorian 15:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, I know my opinion may sound biased, however, please understand that it is not extreme (see PS1 above). Why should either side in this (Greek and FYROM) have its way 100%? The Greek-POV is NO Macedonia at all, the FYROM-POV is Macedonia ONLY, why can't we accept a middle solution (e.g. Slavomacedonia or Vardar Macedonia or North Macedonia or New Macedonia), that would also help disambiguate things?

It may be irrelevant, but please think the following fictional scenario: In 1945 Tito imposed to the Republic of Slovenia the name "Friuli-Venezia Giulia" or simply the neighbouring province name "Veneto". How would you feel now that Slovenia as a separate republic would be called Veneto? I mean, all standards are similar with our case: 1.The Venetians had a great civilization that conquerred the area with trade. 2.Slovenians live close to Venice, and arrived at about the same time to have claims over the name. 3.Slovenia is a republic of ex-yugoslavia too... Please tell us your opinion.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 17:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver, on your first point about the compromise - you simplify it too much. If it was that easy there would be a mathematical formula for solving all the conflicts. Anyway, using your rationalle Greece could demand whatever it wishes and Macedonia should agree to meet Greece halfway. It simply doesn't work that way.

On your second point - Your analogy is falacious. Tito didn't impose the name Macedonia (nor the identity of the people, nor the language...) That is just impossible (not to mention that according to you it happened overnight). Arguing that it took place is quite frankly ridiculous. Let me put it this way: If it's that easy how come Greece has failed in the last 15 years??? It is very offending to me that you suggest my granfathers and grandmothers could be simply fooled about things like that. It is also very offending to try to invent and impose names to my people, language and country. --Realek 01:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't simplify it. It is too simple by itself. Your theory about extreme initial positions in order to reach a compromise half-way, works BOTH WAYS. Your personal position is in the one extreme. Mine is NOT in the other extreme. My friends in Skopje, tell me that they are well aware that their history came much later from what we call Ancient Macedonians, they don't doubt that this history is at the very least highly connected with Greece (or in fact Greek), and, they would seek for a mutually acceptable de jure solution that would include the name Macedonia but it would NOT monopolise it. I'm not the one refusing your regional Macedonian Identity. You are the one refusing to accept the Greek one by taking the name for all by yourself.

I agree that the second point is exagerrated, but don't put words in my mouth. I think that your language is close to Bulgarian, and I think that under different political circumstances it would have been regarded as a Bulgarian dialect (and it was regarded as such in the past). I am not supporting that such a thing should happen, and I respect your separate national identity. My opinion is that "language" is what we choose to DEFINE as a language, and I accept your definition of having a separate language (I do have objections regarding the name of the language, though).

I will not comment on "failed" and on "ridiculous". I will only say that there are other people's grandmothers here that were "fooled" the other way round (see the "our ntopia" talk of User:Makedonas here).

The "invention" of these names belongs entirely to your people and I am just re-mentioning them. See: this.

Finally, this "offending" excuse of yours has gone much further from what your fellow countrymen think, and there is big difference between "offensive" and "seriously examined". You must understand that your extreme personal POV does not represent the entirety of your people.

Conclusion: You are a separate respectable nation. You have a separate recognised language. You have history of your own. Please don't claim ours. Don't claim Thessaloniki (like here), don't try to support that your language has anything to do with this one, don't try to support that you are in any way connected, even remotely, to this guy. Prove so, by separating your undisputed autonomus ethnic identity from Greece and the Greek Macedonia, using a widely accepted disambiguating addition to your name.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 15:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To Miskin: really, there wasn't any need for such a long awnser (if it was indeed an awnser to me). I didn't want to suggest there was an academic dispute concerning the question Macedonians/Pontians. It's a fact universally accepted by scholarship that before 1913 there was a large Greek community in Macedonia (43% of the total population of Greek Macedonia, more exactly) and that after the exchange a vast number of Anatolian Greeks strengthened this community (bringing it to the 89% of the total pop. of Greek Macedonia in the 1920s). As for the Monastir vilayet, keep in mind that most of it was in today Greece, and only a minority of it in the RoM, so we can't use these numbers to know the numers of Greeks in Vardar Macedonia. To Hectorian: I understand the questions you pose. Certainly it must be clear that their is no historical continuity between today Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians, and while it is probable that the Slavic tribes which started arriving in the 6th century mixed with the population living in Macedonia (Greeks, latinized people, Illyrians) they certainly didn't mix with the Ancient Macedonians, who if they really did exist as a separate people, had by then been hellenized by many centuries, and on this there is a clear historical consensus. As for Macedonian claims, the most reasonable editors have simply said they live in a land rich of history: which is true, as Pelagonia is in the RoM and ancient Macedon expanded its borders through its history. Nobody doubts that Greeks have a right to call themselves Macedonians, and the truth and strength of their regional identity; but that's what it is, a regional identity, and there is no Greek Macedonian ethnicity distict from the Greek nation. For this I feel, like JKelly, that we should write simply "(shared with other ethnic groups, mainly Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians)". It's in the history sections that we should find the most indicated places to clear these doubts. But let me remember that bearing a name that represents part of a region doesn't mean in itself that they want to conquer the remaining region; after all, Austria doesn't feel itself menaced by Germany, or Belgium by the Netherlands, or China by Mongolia. To NikoSilver: I can only say that for now the main article is called Republic of Macedonia, and till it is called so we should use it as point of reference; but if the article shall be called Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia, we should use that as point of reference in all article. Other names will always be problematic: for example, Slavomacedonia will be refused by Albanians, and North Macedonia can be said to implicate expansionist dreams far more than simply RoM. As for your example, the problem is that everything is the same except the people ;-) We Italians don't have a much stronger regional than national identity, so I think we would find more than else amusing; also I have difficulties immagining a country of 57 milion people caring much of the opinions of one of two ;-) Really, without joking, I must confess I have difficulties understanding why the Greeks take the question so much to heart; after all, their a much richer and bigger country than the RoM, whose governments, it is good remembering, has never claimed Greek Macedonia as an irredent territory, to be freed from "Greek occupation". These are my POV. --Aldux 21:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aldux, my POV is well presented in my response to Realek, right above your comment (datestamp:15:45, 24 March 2006).

PS We are only 11 million. You are 57 million, and nobody disputes your historical continuity (like here). And, Rome is still your capital (don't take this the wrong way, this does not mean that I am claiming ...Istanbul/Constantinople). Probably, if there weren't so much POV around, I'd feel the security to express a much broader sense of humor too...

PS2 Your comment about Albanians in Slavomacedonia, does not belong in this talk, because the ethnic group here, refers only to the Slavs. Also, for the other talk, I'd like your comment on the "New Macedonia" proposal too.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We must comply to the principles of Wikipedia

We must comply to the principles of Wikipedia and have the both POV equally represented in the article. --Komitata 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources on my latest edits and the 'Greek Macedonians'

The nature of the dispute is simple. The Slavic crowd refuses to accept the term 'Greek Macedonians' (or Macedonian Greeks) because they want to have a monopoly on the name. Furthermore they insist that the "Greek Macedonians" were in fact Asiatic Greeks who arrived in the region with the great population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923. The Greek crowd insists that there was in fact a large number Greeks native to the region, and that the term "Greek Macedonians" is in fact in use by historians and ethnologists even today. If the Slavs are right, then the term "Asian Greeks" will be coined and we'll say that Greeks settled in the region in 1923. However, if the Greeks are right, then the term "Greek Macedonians" will be coined, and each time disambiguation requires it, "Macedonian Slavs" accordingly. This question can't be too difficult to answer. If we know so much about people who lived 3000 years ago, I'm sure we can find the truth on people who lived 100 years ago. All we need to do, is to consult the right sources. I'm willing to contribute with what I have available at the moment. I'll begin by quoting from a modern (2000), neutral source on Balkan history, written by a British scholar named Misha Glenny. The title of the book is The Balkans (1804-1999): Nationalism, War and the Great Powers.Miskin 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Macedonia, 1881 (p. 155):
From July thousands, of Albanian and Turkish soldiers and basi-bozoks streamed into western and northern Macedonia to flee the expansion of Serbia and Montenegro. Whole villages were plundered and put to the torch. Peasants, whether Greeks, Albanians, Turks or Slavs, were expelled from their homes to join a nomadic army seeking shelter in the small armed raiding groups... The Greeks of the region were now caught between the cruelty of the Ottoman Empire's dissipating authority and Slav bands. Some months before the Berlin congress, the Greek government had begun to encourage the Greeks of Macedonia to organize their own guerilla groups, the 'andarte'...
(p. 156-157)
At the time of the congress of Berlin, the region [Macedonia] was an extraordinary pot-pourri of cultures, faiths and traditions. The four largest populations were Slavs, Greeks, Albanians and Turks, although Macedonia's main port, Salonika (Thessaloniki), was dominated by 50,000 Sephardic Jews and their language, Ladino... Urban Slavs, Jews and Greeks dominated trade in the region, and the last developed impressive cultural and educational institutions. In many parts of central and western Macedonia, a Slav, a Greek, a Vlach, a Turkish and an Albanian village would exist side by side in docile harmony. Quite simply, Macedonia was Europe's most enduring and complex multicultural region...
The Bulgarian elite assumed that these Slavs [of Macedonia] were Bulgarian. This was not unreasonable. The language they spoke was the same, albeit with great dialectal variation, as the population of the Bulgarian Principality and Eastern Rumelia. The Slavs in Macedonia had also gravitated towards the Bulgarian Church after its establishment in 1870. Yet, at the same time, the Slavs of Macedonia, referred to themselves as Macedonians. This was not necessarily a denial of their Bulgarian identity. It is merely that they shared with many other inhabitants a sense of belonging to Macedonia. Greeks from the region would call themselves both Greeks and Macedonians.
(p. 158)
The question of the origins of the modern Macedonians, who feel themselves categorically to be a Slav people distinct from Serbs or Bulgars, provokes more intellectual fanaticism than any other in the Southern Balkans. One scholar, let us say from Skopje, will assume that this nation has existed for over a thousand years; the next, perhaps a well-meaning westener, will claim the Macedonians first developed a separate identity from Bulgaria about one hundred years ago; a third, for the sake of argument a Serb, will swear that the Macedonians only emerged as a nation at the end of the Second World War; and a fourth, probably a Greek or Bulgarian, will maintain doggedly that they do not exist and have never done so...
Scholars and politicians from Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia itself, not to mention their respective apologists from outside the region, regularly work on assumptions about Macedonia and 'the Macedonians' which are irreconcilable. This suggests that nationalism and national identity in the region are built on fragile foundations... In contested regions like Macedonia, national identity or identities do not remain stable. They change over a few generations; they mutate during the course of a war; they are reinvented following the break-up of a large empire or state; and they emerge anew during the construction of the states. Balkan nationalism evokes such ferocious passion because, paradoxically, it is so labile.
Thessaloniki, late 19th century (p. 180-181):
Towards the harbour between St Dimitri Street and Zade Yol, the broadest boulevard (the Roman Via Egnatia, which dissected the heart of the town), the luxurious calm of the upper town gave way to the noise of Greek artisans whose front rooms runctioned as small workshops or modest trading outlets. Only the Greeks offered serious economic competition to the Jews, and until the end of the nineteenth century, tradition divided their respective spheres of activity with some precision. Most of the pharmacies were Greek-owned, while much of the wholesale food trade with the Macedonian hinterland was in the hands of Jewish middlemen... The Greeks of Salonika were in close touch with merchants, priests, intellectuals and government agents from the Greek kingdom, but in general showed no desire to sacrifice the economic dynamism offerred by Salonika in exchange for a future in a weak kingdom. The Slavs, Salonika's smallest community, found themselves generally excluded from the boom. Living in the crowded north-western corner of the city, most were first-generation arrivals from the Macedonian hinterland. Conditions in the countryside they had escaped stood in marked contrast to the city's dynamism.
Macedonia, 1903 (p. 187):
The Macedonian struggle, as the Greeks named it in the first decade of the 20th century, not only goaded the governments of Serbia, Greece and above all Bulgaria into interfering in the wider region...
Just as VMORO was preparing to destabilize Bulgaria, so did the Etairia become a virtual state within the Greek state. The Etairia included many Greek Macedonians in its ranks, but the main focus of its aspirations was Crete.
The Ilinden uprising: Macedonia, 1903 (p. 200):
In August 1902, Colonel Anastasas Iankoff, the chief agent of the EO ouside Bulgaria, suddenly appeared with a hundred armed men in his home village of Zagoritsani in western Macedonia, not far from the largerly Greek town of Kastoria..
Slavicisation of Greek villages (p. 199):
Conversions of whole villages were common. Sometimes they took place at the end of a gun barrel, sometimes there were compelling economic reasons, as H.N. Brailsford discovered at the time:

"I was talking to a wealthy peasant who came in from a neighbouring village to Monastir market. He spoke Greek well, but herdly like a native. 'Is your village Greek', I asked him, 'or Bulgarian?' 'Well,' he replied, 'it is Bulgarian now, but four years ago it was Greek'. The answer seemed to him entirely natural and commonplace. 'How,' I asked in some bewilderment, 'did that miracle come about?' 'Why', said he, 'we are all poor men, but we want to have our own school and a priest who will look after us properly. We used to have a Greek teacher. We paid him 5 pounds a year and his bread, while the Greek consul paid him another 5 punds; but we had no priest of our own. We shared a priest with several other villages, but he was very unpunctual and remiss. We went to the Greek Bishop to complain, but he refused to do anything for us. The Bulgarians heard of this and they came and made us an offer. They said they would give us a priest who would live in the village and a teacher to whom we need pay nothing. Well, sirs, our is a poor village, and so of course we became Bulgarians.' (Bralsford, op. cit., p. 102)

---

Miskin 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, behold the official Turkish census of Hilmi Pasha (1904):

• Vilaeti of Thessaloniki Greeks: 373,227 Bulgars: 207,317

• Vilaeti of Monastiri Greeks: 261,283 Bulgars: 178,412

• Santzaki of Scopje Greeks: 13,452 Bulgars: 172,735

I'll let the readers draw their own conlusions. Miskin 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What can one say... there is only one conclusion... About 40 years later came Tito and used his super-powers to instantly turn them into Macedonians (the new ethnicity he invented for them) He also imposed some other stuff on them.

Seriously though, don't you think that the collective memory of a whole ethnic group (about who they are) is more important proof than the census of Hilmi Pasha (not to mention it is from 1904 - a time of great turmoil and propaganda wars). Were they actually allowed to exspress their nationality? Even today - are the Macedonians allowed to exspress their nationality in Greece for that matter --Realek 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

About the collective memory - it is not an argument, because the collective memory of the Bulgaromacedonians is clearly Bulgarian (My Grandmother being from Kukush/Kilkis). She remembered with awe the terror when they put "Macedonian " in her passport against her will, and you people just know nothing of the communist terror that was used to create the macedonian nation . here are the sources,[11] [12] but you obviously cannot accept them. In RoM the process that has finished in the other former communist countries about the demystifying of the communist rule has not even begun..Try to understand why were those people killed and tortured and then come and write here. The B-Macedonians in Bulgaria are more than two million and noone can deny us our right of self determination--Komitata 03:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You completely miss the point - nobody is denying the existance of Bulgarians in the Macedonia region. But it is you who are negating the Macedonian people. Anyway - terror simply can't create an ethnic group. The same way Bulgarian fascist's terror 1941-1945 failed to persuade Macedonians that they are Bulgarians. But if you really belive what you say, than you must be ashamed of your people - on how easy so many "Bulgarians" gave away their identity. Are you??? --Realek 03:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting development - suddenly we have a Bulgarian minority in Macedonia. What numbers, what cities - how do they differ from the Macedonians, since they have the same religion and went to the same Exarchate schools, (the only close analogy is the Montenegrians and Serbs)? How many of them are in Skopje? I am not ashamed - I feel quite proud that more than 20 000 people chose death and more than 100 000 chose concentration camps after 1945 instead of changing their nationality. If FYROM was the dream of all those people, why did they protest and why were they killed, if all they wanted was free Macedonia? How come suddenly there are so many people (over 60 000) waiting in line for Bulgarian passports? You just know nothing about Macedonia after 1945. --Komitata 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Those 60 000 (the males) heard that the bulgarian army is still drafting :))) FunkyFly 14:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually they were disappointed.:-) Nowadays its very difficult to get into the Army and for people with double citizenship - impossible. --Komitata 16:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

De-communisation is just one issue, others are freedom of press, speech and expression, right of self-determination, high level endorsement of pseudo-scientific approach to history... FunkyFly 03:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop making unsourced claims Realek. Read wikipedia policies and guidelines, articles are not built on original research. Komitata is making another good point here, and I think his views and sources should be included in the article. Miskin 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, the only way I can source a proof of my nationality is to express it. So here you are: I'm a Macedonian! Jeez, when will you get it already, that you can't impose that. Even if he wanted to impose it, Tito couldn't do it in 1945. The same way Greece can't impose whatever they are trying to impose today. You can't change my nationality by blockades and threats of veto. --Realek 20:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that I find your "source" unreliable - some of the reasons I have already mentioned then. --Realek 20:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian Vardar Province?

A few years ago, Sofia announced that due to its inevitable EU membership, many citizens of the ROM were declaring themselves as Bulgarians in order to receive a (future) EU passport. By the way, has there ever been a province called Bulgarian Vardar province or a Bulgarian Vardar dialect? - Politis 15:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe that the region was called "Vardar province", when it was part of San Stefano Bulgaria of 1878, from 1915 to 1918 in WW1 or from 1941 to 1944 in WW2. It was called Macedonia district. FunkyFly 15:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What you "believe" is of no interest to us as long as you can't source it. I've done my part to demonstrate that terms such as "Greek Macedonians" exist and are in use by scholars, so any further reverts of this content would be regarded as vandalism. Miskin 16:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, stabbed in the heart. Got up on the wrong foot this morning, didn't we? :)) FunkyFly 17:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No offence funkyfly, I just talk like that. Miskin 18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I might be missing a point. What will be deleted? The official Bulgarian view is that there are three historical regions in which Bulgarians live - that is why there are three lions in the coat of arms. The three regions are Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia. The central lion is Macedonia which the two other lions support. --Komitata 16:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonian territories were divided into two administrative districts during 1941-1944 Skopje and Bitola. To obtain citizenship now one has to declare Bulgarian national feeling (in written form). Some other things that help the process, but do not grant it - All the citizens at the time were given Bulgarian citizenship, so those from the former Bulgarian districts can claim citizenship because they (or their parents) have never lost it actually. Another way is to prove that somebody from the family served in the Bulgarian army (one corp was recruited from Macedonia - at least 30 000 people I think so it's a lot of people) or was a Bulgarian civil servant, teacher, doctor, etc. For those in the former Italian/Albanian zone it is more difficult, because they have clearly to declare their Bulgarian consciousness and do not have the other helping options. --Komitata 16:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is so meaningles. The words to describe the attitudes of some guys here have not been invented yet. Since I can't even make a small impression on some - that I know my nationality better than them, how could I expect to make progress on the "smaller" things. So from now on I'll evade this and simmilar discussions as much as I can. I'll leave you guys to expose the ridiculous things that you are claiming. Nobody can do it better than you! --Realek 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My friend, you are so self-centered. Noone is questioning your nationality. In fact, I can tell you that you are the pinnacle of the present day macedonian civilization. However, you blame others exactly for your own faults. Aren't you defining nationality of every citizen of RoM from your own stand point? FunkyFly 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the FYROM region was the heart of the Bulgarian Empires during the middle ages and that all Slavs in the region were identified by external sources as Bulgarians until 1945. I don't understand why such documented, factual information remains hidden just because Slavomacedonian chauvinist editors can't face reality. Miskin 18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And as I have sourced above: "In contested regions like Macedonia, national identity or identities do not remain stable. They change over a few generations; they mutate during the course of a war; they are reinvented following the break-up of a large empire or state; and they emerge anew during the construction of the states. Balkan nationalism evokes such ferocious passion because, paradoxically, it is so labile." Miskin 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I agree entirely with your above quote, which is why I don't understand your previous statement. It is clear that ethnic/national identity changes quite a bit over time. Many Vlachs became Greek. Many Greeks became 'Turks' (i.e. Muslims). Some Slav-speaking people in the region of Macedonia came to identify as "Greek", some as "Bulgarian", some as (Slav) "Macedonians". As Danforth points out in his book (referenced in the article), sometimes within a family, one brother identifies as Greek, the other as Macedonian. The label "Bulgarian" was certainly applied to a far larger area in the past than just the current state of Bulgaria, and no doubt some of the people who currently identify as Macedonian would have been considered Bulgarian in the past, but so what? And it really is not so simple as saying that the Macedonian nationality was created in 1945. Have you read Danforth or other more-or-less neutral external observers? --Macrakis 00:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're off topic Macrakis. The author of this paragraph is not talking about the assimilations of some minority groups by larger populations (which corresponds to your examples). He's talking about the creation of entire national identities on ethnically contested regions, and he's referring to the phenomenon of the Macedonian Slavs. Read the entire section as I have posted it above. Miskin 09:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Hello folks. Just checking my notes, I see this has been prot for a week. Errm... any consensus? Want to try it unprotected for a bit? William M. Connolley 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise against it - there is nothing like consensus here, as you can see above. It's a shame, sourced terminology is being reverted for POV reasons... --Latinus 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if it's unlocked a furious revert war will immediately explode. This said, I don't think that speaking for another week will make any difference; I don't remember of much compromises ever reached on this talk page. --Aldux 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how we might improve the consensus-building process? Jkelly 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the dispute is over whether the term "Greek Macedonians" should be used to refer to the Greek Macedonians. While it is a sourced term and is in use by academics as has been demonstrated above, there is a strong refusal to including it. The Greek insistence to including this term is primarily to prevent the much feared monopolisation of the name "Macedonia" by Fyrom, whose editors oppose using the term for reasons I have difficulty understanding. I have already said that I'd agree to removing the term "Greek Macedonians" (other Greek users haven't) if the disambiguation note were to be expanded so as to avoid the monopolisation. This proposal was ignored. --Latinus 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, could you explain better your proposal? Could you clear me the "disambiguation note" of which you are speaking, and how you propose to expand it?--Aldux 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for once, declare that I'm willing to edit-war for the sake of NPOV. There are no arguments against the sourced information. Miskin 09:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "Greek Macedonians" is only a pretext. User:Macedonia, as his personal page verifies, is by all possible means trying to imply that Greek Macedonia is an occupied territory, and that Greeks have never existed there. This is why he's insisting on replacing "Pontic Greek" (who came as immigrants from Pontus). In my previous edits I proved that this is POV. It took my awhile to copy down all that text, I'm not going to let it go unnotced. Miskin 09:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia is region, correct? A region that was divided among neighboring countries in 1913. Greece occupies southern part of the Macedonian region, that is a fact, no POV there. Bulgaria occupies North Eastern Macedonia, fact too. However, Northern Macedonia was freed by its Serbian (Yugoslavian) occupation in 1991. Now, if this part of Macedonia is the only independent or autonomous part of the whole Macedonian region today, why can it not keep its original name Macedonia? Greek users in Wikipedia are so concerned about the monopolisation of name when ironically Greece officialy states that only its northern province can have the name Macedonia and no one else. How can this be fair when we know that Greece occupies half of the Macedonian region, with the Republic of Macedonia and Southwestern Bulgaria making up the other half of the territory? The Republic of Macedonia has never complained to Greece about renaming their province because there is nothing to complain about, southern Macedonia is in northern Greece, and thats a fact. Now before I get into the Greek Macedonian thing again, I first want to hear from Miskin what exactly a Macedonian Greek is...

-A Greek whose native or ancestors were natives of Macedonia?

-Any Greek living in Macedonia today?

-A distinctive ethnic group different from other Greeks in Greece?

Macedonia 19:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC) - NOTE that I have been very busy and I might not have time to reply back at the moment.

Just write Greeks not Macedonian or Pontic,on other hand it is better to disambiguate the Macedonians and the Macedonian Greeks.Here evry nation involved is with an ? over its indoctrination.Vlatko 11:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it would be a monopolisation of the name and I (and I assume many other users) oppose it. I invite to you come up with a different remedy so as to avoid monopolisations. BTW, User Macedonia, the answer to your question are options one and two. As far as Greece is concerned, Fyrom is merely a region outside Macedonia which was originally called Vardarska Banovina and was renamed to "Macedonia" by Tito in to use it as a spring board to annex the Greek region (which contains all the juicy history which is absent in Vardarska Banovina and has the momuments and archaeological evidence to prove it). If Fyrom wants to complain about the Greek region's name and say that Alexander's birth place is not in Macedonia, go ahead - we'll see what the outcome it ;-) --Latinus 20:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was divided into 9 banovinas and the City of Belgrade. Banovinas were named after rivers except the Littoral Banovina. Andreas 21:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask for a source - I'm asking whether Fyrom is where original Macedon was and if there is any archaeological evidence to prove it. Or any other evidence to suggest that Fyrom was ever called "Macedonia" prior to the 1940s. --Latinus 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we have to repeat things again and again? All this is discussed in Macedonia (region)#Boundaries and definitions Andreas 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the Roman Province - did it contain all Fyrom though (this may be a straw man argument as I honestly don't know). Still though, it was not part of the original Ancient kingdom (except maybe the Bitola district), so User:Macedonia's suggestion that Fyrom object to the name of the Greek region is baseless, as Greece's region is almost exclusively original Macedon. --Latinus 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, just out of curiosity - are you aware that the region in greece you are talking about was not called Macedonia but Northern Greece just 15 years ago. How did in 1991, all this Macedonian stuff, suddenly started to bother Greeks so much??? --Realek 02:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You claim that too often. Do you have a source? Cause my father (66) was taught about Macedonia in elementary school (1946-1952)... NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 01:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

i guess,Nikosilver,we'll have to say this more than a million times....Northern Greece is composed by Macedonia and Western Thrace.this is how it was called 50 or 15 years ago,and this is how it is called today.but we are talking about 2 greek regions.the greeks have always called the Greek Macedonia simply Macedonia.--Hectorian 01:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Be patient Hector, I thought our friend was about to present a decent source. Oh, and 15 years ago, I was finishing college, so how come I was taught about Macedonia in the elementary school too? Realek, you better start not believing and reproducing everything you read in nationalistic sites. Evil people around here will think you are one of them and won't take you seriously... NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 02:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver, why do you belive what they thought you at school? You tell me not to belive that myself. Not only that but you told me not to belive the things I heard from my great-grandmother because she was tricked into beliving that she's not Bulgarian but a member of this non-existant Macedonian ethnic group.

And I rather belive other sources than the greek ones who claim for example that there are no minorities in greece. That being said I dont expect to find a source on a site that you would aprove. BTW are you disputing even the renaming of airports, squres and similar things. The question still remains - How did in 1991, all this Macedonian stuff, suddenly started to bother Greeks so much??? --Realek 02:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to avoid the main conversation. You said: "are you aware that the region in greece you are talking about was not called Macedonia but Northern Greece just 15 years ago." I am saying that this is one of the lies you've been told. Can you support your arguement without deviating to other things? Answer me this, and we go on to everything else you want.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 10:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes NikoSilver, let's put aside everything that you dont want to talk about and stick to the one thing that you'd like. I already gave you an answer but probably you weren't reading carefully. So here it is again: I dont expect to find a source on a site that you would aprove. But the sites that you aprove are not very reliable. For example a lot of them claim that I'm Bulgarian, despite it's pretty clear to me that I'm a Macedonian ;) --Realek 14:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Northern Greece was ever called "Macedonia", but a newspaper sure was back in the 1940s ;-) So the name can't have been "prohibited" by Metaxas --Latinus 14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If I understand well, the whole discussion is whether the term "Greek Macedonians" should be removed or not. But why should this term be removed? Realek identifies himself as a "Macedonian". It's his right! I must respect it! But there are millions of residents in Greece who identify themselves as Greek-Macedonians. Why isn't their right respected?! Why is there such a fiercful attempt the terms "Macedonians" and "Macedonia" to be monopolised by one side? It's absurd! And it is an offence against all these millions of Greek-Macedonians, whose the national self-determination is not respected.--Yannismarou 21:35, 26th of March 2006 (UTC)

ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ

The name ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ has been in use in Greece at least since 1911 when the newspaper with the same name was first published. Andreas 15:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the name has been in use. I just find it interesting that its "usage" grew fast starting 1991. --Realek 15:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, certainly, before that Macedonia was not "monopolizing" the name :-) Bomac 17:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That Macedonia contains the heritage of original Macedon, including Alexander's capital Pella. What right does Vardarska Banovina (which contains the heritage of Dardania, Ancient Kosoco ;-)) have to monopolise it? --Latinus 17:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Many maps show that R. Macedonia was always part of the region Macedonia. I think that Greece makes this whole mess with Macedonia 'caus of unclear conscience. I mean, what else could it be? They simply "throw away" everything Slavic from the region, just to proove the "Greek character" of it. Isn't that an unstable conscience? The Greek politicians know the best... ;-) Bomac 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence, please... --Latinus 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole situation is evidence, for instance. And the changing of the Slavic names of villages and towns into Greek... How come every single town and village in Makedonia has a Slavic name? That's not a case in Thesally... Bomac 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's silly, every village in Fyrom has a Greek name. You know that Fyrom was full of Greeks back in 1911 - the Ottoman census verifies it. Not to mention that those names you speak of are the Bulgarian names of the places... --Latinus 18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

They are Slavic names, they sound like that up to Russia and the Kola peninsula. ;-) Bomac 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite, the Slavs, came in the 7th century (i.e. long after Alexy) and left in the 1910s under the Treaty of Neuilly. Everyone who lives there are Greeks. The current Slav minority came as economic immigrants in the 1990s. There is no native Slav minority - the cities were not "renamed", quite the reverse, Monastiri was renamed to Bitola etc... Why should Greeks use foreign names from a region outside of Macedonia (Vardar Banovina) when they don't use the Greek names. Tut tut... --Latinus 18:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And tell me, which is the reason Greeks "allowed" the Greek names to be replaced with Slavic ones? Sure, they were very hospitable... ;-) Bomac 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac,why are u saying the half truth?RoM was part of the Roman division of Macedonia(which contained albania,thessaly,and maybe as north as Dunabe).face it:u have nothing to do with Alexander's and Phillip's Kingdom.and also,it is FYROM that did not allow the expression of the bulgarian identity.and i wonder how good are your politicians when someone asks them about the greeks of Monastiri;-)--Hectorian 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please... These stories are not "hi-stories" :-) C'mon, Alex had it's kingdom up to India... Simply, these stories look like to me like fairytales which support the Greek doctrine of "ethnic purity". They simply don't hold ground. Bomac 18:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont accuse Greek of racism and doctrines of "ethnic purity" it's a personal attack. --Latinus 18:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anyone. You just have to admit that this doctrine exists. Bomac 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

the kingdom of Alexander was the modern greek macedonia.his empire extended (briefly) as far as india.such 'greek fairytales' maybe should make u think that u have no more reason to claim the ancient macedonians,than the indians,syrians or egyptians have;-)--Hectorian 18:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as Greeks, Macedonians have the right to consider themselves descendents of A.Macedonians. And I don't believe in fairytales, I don't remember I've mentioned that. Again, here we meet the Greek doctrine... Geez... Bomac 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Really?i thought that your ex president said that u are slavs...and i know that u are speaking a slavic language...and that your ancestors came in the region in the 6th-7th cent.do u have any proof that u are the descendants of ancient macedonians?if not,do not believe in your governments fairytales...--Hectorian 18:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not limiting myself to a statement which is good for my ear. Yes, Macedonians are Slavs (gee, get it already :-)), but have certain heritage from the people they've came upon. Bomac 18:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What people did they come upon? Ancient Macedonians didn't exist in the 7th century. Also, didn't "Greeks" come upon them, what about Albanians and Turks?? Why does Fyrom get two bites of the cherry? --Latinus 18:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The consequences of the doctrine... Geez, reminds me of a dictatorship. ;-) Bomac 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Attribute racist tendencies to me or any other Greek user again and I'll report you ASAP. --Latinus 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

oh yes,talking about the greek doctrine.tell me about the skopjian doctrine?who are u?the slaviced descendants of a.macedonians?is there any proof for that?--Hectorian 18:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The proof is the words of Kiro Gligorov ;-) Somehow, only Slavs mixed with the Ancient Macedonians, the Greeks and Albanians were segregated and never mixed them ;-) I wonder how many scientists support that theory - oops, I forgot, no scientists say that Fyrom has links with Ancient Macedon - this is just Bomac's POV which Gligorov happens to disagree with ;-) --Latinus 18:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what I've said is: Macedonians have the right to consider themselves as descendants of A. Mac's, just as Greeks can.

The proof is all around you, but as a result of the doctrine, you can't (or should I say don't) want to accept it. And why should we talk only 'bout slavicased descendants? What about Ancient-Macedonised Slavs? I mean, one of the things Slavs kept from the Ancient Mac's is the name Macedonians, wheter you like it or not. Bomac 18:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how Tito managed to convice them. --Latinus 18:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What can a doctrine do... Bomac 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What communist terror can do... --Latinus 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The Greek doctrine is the same as communism, even worse... Bomac 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiro Gligorov appears to disagree with you and Tito... --Latinus 19:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

and Kiro's sister who happens to be an ethnic bulgarian,btw...--Hectorian 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, that's Greek propaganda ;-) --Latinus 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to listen to me, or you'll... : You are ethnically PURE!!!... Bomac 19:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Who claims that - I am certainly not: my mother's English and my father's Greek. I'm anything but ethnically pure. --Latinus 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Evangelos Kofos will certainly disagree with you... How could you let him down?... Bomac 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiro Gligorov will certainly disagree with you... How could you let him down?... --Latinus 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac,pls tell me:how can a mother give birth to one 'Macedonian' and one Bulgarian,by the same husband?i am just curious;-)--Hectorian 19:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

These cases are rare, the more frequent are the ones with a Greek and a Cypriot mother. Bomac 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

or better:

These cases are rare, the more frequent are the ones described in My big fat Greek wedding... ;-) Bomac 19:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

lol...i have never heard of a greek-cypriot saying that he is not greek.so,that's what u are?the 'macedonians' are for the bulgarians exactly what the greek-cypriots are for the greeks?I knew it!;-)--Hectorian 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My Big Fat Greek Wedding - I love it, although it didn't had much success... ;-) Bomac 19:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how Greeks are defined in RoM, but bulgaro-tatarians include Macedonians (Slavs) disagreeing with the official historical doctrine of the Republic. FunkyFly 19:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, if you read the Danforth book (in the bibliography), you will see that a mother can not only give birth (same father) to one Macedonian and one Bulgarian, but to one Macedonian and one Greek. Ethnic identity is not biological. --Macrakis 19:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course - a French mother and a German father can give birth to a Russian child if it is brought up by Russians. --Latinus 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrakis,i know what u mean.but what does this have to do with the discussion?we are talking whether our northern neighbours have to do anything with the ancient macedonians.--Hectorian 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please just read a few of the books by scholars in the bibliography: Danforth, Karakasidou, Mackridge/Yannakakis, et al. --Macrakis 19:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please just read a few of the scripts of the ancient writers: Herodotus,Strabo,etc --Hectorian 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked (but perhaps more careful reading will help me here) Herodotus and Strabo had nothing to say about the modern Greeks or the modern Slavs. --Macrakis 20:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Picking up a thread from Bomac: this ethnic group calls itself and is commonly known as Macedonian (Macedonski, etc.) nowadays, but as far as I know there is no indication/evidence that the ethnonym was passed on directly from whatever Macedonians there were when the Slavic peoples arrived in the Byzantine period. If I move to Hawaii and call myself a Hawaiian, then I guess I'm a Hawaiian and I'll get mad if you deny that. Alexander 007 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a discredited fringe theory - even Kiro Gligorov said that they are not related to Ancient Macedon and no sane historians say they do. --Latinus 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have ADD lately and I can't bother to read the discussions here in detail. But reading over some of the stuff in this section, I have no idea what content in the article is being disputed. It just seems like Usenet here. Alexander 007 20:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, all this nationalist bickering totally unrelated to the article must seem so pathetic to the outsider... --Latinus 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic it may well be. I think everyone here should stay more focused on the quality of the article's content and on proper editing behavior. There is still such a thing as IRC. Alexander 007 20:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C): Despite WP:NPA and WP:AGF, Talk page guidelines says to refrain from editing content of other users from talk pages. I will re-iclude the reverted comment of User:62.162.210.230 to demonstrate the profound depth of pseudo-scientific thought of certain nationalist users:

Makedonija is Macedonian slavic name, but the name Macedonia have roots from ancient Macedonian language (Ancient Macedonian weren't greek)! Some thing about today greek fuckin and gypsy nation who love to lie! Antropologicaly the today's greek nation have roots from north-african paleo-antropogenetic group, and Macedonians are mixed balkan (ancient macedonian) and eastern europe (slavic) paleo-antropogenetic! Fuck you greece, LONG LIVE MACEDONIA AND MACEDONIANS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.210.230 (talk • contribs)

You are free to comment.  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I find his comment to be in a very bad taste and I condem it! But at the same time I hope you will understand that you are constantly doing something very similar (without using the F word). --Realek 15:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet another ad hominem argument... --Latinus 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No Latinus, yet another unrelated and irational argument by you. --Realek 15:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:AGF - it's something you failed to do in the case of that anon (Reaper7), as you demonstrated on Talk:Republic of Macedonia. You also violated WP:BITE and I must say have yet to refute his arguments ;-) --Latinus 15:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how you preach things that you have no respect for! But I only have limited apetite for this kind of discussion. Say what you want. I withdraw from this discussion. --Realek 15:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

More PA? I guess I'll just have to live with it :-( --Latinus 15:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion going on about Macedonian or Pontian Greeks is irrelevant and unnecesary! BIS

The page was locked when edit warring occured on this issue. I proposed this solution but i feel it wasn't given enough attention (purposely or not - I will not get into that). So now I repost what was said then and hope we will continue with a meaningfull discussion. --Realek 22:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is being talked about ethnic groups: "shared with other ethnic groups, mainly ***** Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians". Now Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians are ethnic groups. "Macedonian Greeks" or "Pontian Greeks" are not ethnic groups. The Macedonian or Pontian is simply an adjective (describing the ethnic group - Greeks) That way the sentance is false. It should simply be "Greeks". Come now, this is so obvious. Must we fight even over obvious things that should be clear to anyone no matter how bias they are? --Realek 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Realek's meaning, if not the entirety of its expression. Jkelly 23:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree both with the expression and the content of Jkelly, it's kinda dissappointing, for all others, I would think... The myth of Pontian-Greek population majority in Macedonia must be discussed and resolved once for all. If not here, then maybe in Talk:Macedonia (region) or Talk:Macedonia (Greece).  NikoSilver  ^(T)@(C) 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not here that we have to treat the question. I also agree with Realek: we should put apart the Macedonian/Pontian dispute, as it has no place here. The Macedonian Greeks don't exist as a separate ethnicity, and this is a fact; Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians do. For this I support simply writing: (shared with other ethnic groups, mainly Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians). This is how I see it. --Aldux 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Now Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians are ethnic groups. "Macedonian Greeks" or "Pontian Greeks" are not ethnic groups. "
You said it yourself, it's only "now" that this is valid. In the early 20th century Macedonian Greeks and Pontian Greeks were not part of the Greek Kingdom, hence it's necessary to disambiguate. Furthermore everyone agrees in wikipedia that "Macedonians" and "Macedonia" are terms which cannot be monopolised by any ethnic group. Your persistence on hiding terms such as "Greek Macedonians" is blatantly an attempt of monopoly on the name. As I've proved above, the Greeks of Macedonia called themselves both 'Greeks' and 'Macedonians', and 'Greek Macedonians' is in use by historians. This is sourced, therefore it stays, simple as that (see WP:CITE. Every argument you've brought up so far is nothing but POV. Miskin 00:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me Miskin. I didn't say "now" to point out that i'm talking about the present. I'm not sure how do you call that kind of word, but native english speakers surely understood in wich context I have used it. You can ignore the "now". The sentance might as well be: Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians are ethnic groups. Nevermind that. My point still stands - Pontian/Macedonian greeks are not (nor they have been) separate ethnic groups, regardless of weather they'we been a part of the greek kingdom. --Realek 12:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On certain context "Macedonian Greeks" should be used. Before a centure "Macedonians (ethnic group)" didn't exist. Macedonians (aka Greeks, like we say Cretans or Pontioi) did exist, so those Macedonians should be disambiguated as Macedonian Greeks. talk to +MATIA 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians did exist century ago, Matia, no matter how they were called, they were often prefixed with "Macedonian this or that". Bomac 11:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point, didn't the Greeks? Greeks have been in Macedonia (region) long before the Slavs came (regardless if that includes the Ancient Macedonians) and have been called Macedonian Greeks as demonstrated above. Why can't their self-identifying name be used? --LionKing 11:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Латинец, the self-identifying name is Greeks. Macedonians is the self-identifying name of the Mac. Slavs. They were also called "Macedonian this or that", as "demonstrated" above. Bomac 11:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but that remains your POV. The Australian People (an encyclopedia on the origins of Australians) lists Greek Macedonian separately from Greeks and has an article devoted to them. You lot initially thought that there was no such thing as native Greeks in Macedonia (it's part of your propaganda), but the sources I pasted a while ago reveal a strong community, majority in urban places. You're obviously still refusing to admit it, but wikipedia couldn't care less. You have no non-nationalist arguments against it. So don't even try this Bomac, you're waisting your time. Greek Macedonians have always existed, you should stop denying it, better deal with and make our editing lives easiers. The term is in use, sourced, and staying. Miskin 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are creating yourself an imaginary propaganda. I've never said that there weren't native Greeks in Makedonia, I was only trying to state that there are sources which confirm that the term "Macedonians" was used (in one way or another) to describe the Slavic peoples in Macedonia long before (Matia's statement) - a century. Bomac 12:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really, today Greeks call themselves Έλληνες/Hellenes (Greeks), but this is recent. Greeks in the Ottoman Empire used different names, see Names of the Greeks and did not call themselves Greeks. Whether today's Macedonians (ethnic group) were called Macedonian Bulgarians or something similar back then still does not mean that the Greeks in Macedonia didn't call themselves Macedonians (or Macedonian Greeks). --LionKing 12:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Латинец, "Greek" is the germanic, romanic, slavic name of Hellenes. That's OK, but, as you know, Greeks are Greeks, Macedonians are Macedonians. Bomac 12:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"You are creating yourself an imaginary propaganda. I've never said that there weren't native Greeks in Makedonia"
Maybe not you, but User:Macedonia and various Mac. Slav editors already have. This is how 'Pontic Greeks' were introduced in the article in the first place, in order to imply that no Greeks had existed beforehand. It's such propagandist implications that "Greek Macedonians" will displace. But your attitude reveals that you don't want them displaced. Miskin 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"I was only trying to state that there are sources which confirm that the term "Macedonians" was used (in one way or another) to describe the Slavic peoples in Macedonia"
My sources (provided above) say that all inhabitants of Macedonia used to identify themselves as "Macedonians", without denying their Greek or Bulgarian ethnicity. It's no more 100 years that Macedonian Slavs have broken off Bulgarians to regard themselves as a separate ethnic group. It's not me who says that, read my citations above. Macedonian Greeks have been recognised as such for at least 2000 years. Miskin 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the second part of your statement, caus it's a similar case like the Greeks - they weren't always calling themselves Greeks, but it's totally another issue. Bomac 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a common misconception which stems from an erroneous translation. Greeks didn't always call themselves "Hellenes", which for a long time meant 'pagan', you're right about that. "Greek" (<graeci) however, is a different term. They have been continuously called "Greeks" by the rest of the world since the days of the Roman Republic, that's over 2000 years ago. Miskin 14:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You are off the topic again. It's pretty simple. It's being talked about ethnic groups in that problematic sentance. Neither macedonian nor pontic greeks are an ethnic group. The sentance is fallacious that way. It should simply be greeks - it's so obvious! --Realek 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's your POV, it's so obvious. I've already explained why the term needs to be mentioned, and I've already cited its widespread scholarly use. I'm not going to compromise with a biased POV. Besides User:Macedonia's personal page says it all. Miskin 16:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose a solution to this question

The solution is - we add two sections in the article - Reasons why the Macedonians call themselves Macedonians and they cite in brief all their arguments and their POV, and then we add Reasons why other people think its not correct to use Macedonian as national name - and we add our POV. This is the Wikipedia way! --Komitata 13:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, we could include a section "origin of the name". Miskin 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Let the reader decide.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. For all the reasons described above. Miskin 13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Unacceptable!. Why should we put all kind of sections in the article just to satisfy nationalistic sentiments. Some users have butchered this article more than enough. There is no reason that this article should be so much different than other articles about ethnic groups. We really shouldn't burden the article with POVs from every negator of the existance of the Macedonians as a separate ethnic group. There are much more important things to be included than all possible nationalistic theories that are proposed. --Realek 16:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

They won't be POVs, everyone will be required to provide a source. What's wrong, are you scared that we might reveal to the public what scholars think? Miskin 16:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are all kinds of scholars. Those scholars who think that an ethnic group can be crated overnight are nothing short of crazy or at least nationalists annd not serious. But my objection in general is that this article shouldn't be so much different than other articles about ethnic groups - just to satisfy irational nationalistic sentiments. This article has been burdened and distorted too much already. Enough! --Realek 16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that WP:CITE has got it all wrong then. Miskin 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are all kinds of sources. But if you don't want to be discriminating toward sources, you should start editing the Greeks article. Include there the most extreme Turkish sources. You can also include most extreme Macedonian sources and so on. Do that and only then I will belive your intetnions are not hypocritical. --Realek 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So the credibility of the sources is the question? First, we are talking about this article and second we can start building the article line by line and using predominantly RoM sources. Tell me how do you define a credible source? --Komitata 19:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is subjective. But every reasonable person would reject "sources" that claim for example: that an ethnic group can be invented and overnight imposed on the unsuspecting Bulgarians in Macedonia. --Realek 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we leave this question for the finish. How about starting with these disputed issues:

• Mutual intelligibility between Bulgarian and Macedonian
• Closeness between the two peoples
• Bulgaromacedonian language - literary tradition
• Discontinuation of tradition between Ancient Macedonians and the Slavic Population
• Totalitarian (Fascist, Rasist, Communist) laws in Balkan countries about self determination of Macedonians
• The ethnic character of Slavophones in Greece - Bulgarian/Macedonian/Local?

--Komitata 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if credibility is your problem, then how about excluding Greek and Slavic sources? Miskin 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-credible sources are not defined by nationality Miskin. --Realek 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From what Realtek says it appears that he doesn't trust possibly biased sources, which is perfectly normal. The objective then will be to build the article based on neutral, non-Greek and non-Slavic sources. I don't see why a British or American historian would try to lie on the existence of the Macedonian Slavs. If someone thinks they were created overnight, he must have a reason for it. Using logical arguments in order to compile articles (as you're doing now) falls under original research, which is forbidden in wikipedia. Miskin 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone thinks they were created overnight, he must have a reason for it - Brilliant! How can we find a solution for complicated stuff when even this nonsence has supporters here? --Realek 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, acually I do not claim it was overnight. I claim that it took some years and severe terror, and I have my sources. But this is just one of the questions - the genesis, and the remaining are - mutual intelligibility with Bulgarian, closeness, bulgaromacedonian language, discontinuation of heritage between ancient and modern macedonians. These are questions NOT CONNECTED to the genesis of modern day macedonians and must be discussed one by one. --Komitata 21:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What were the methods used to erase the memory of theese "Bulgarians", so that nobody remembers this "svere terror" and their "true Bulgarian nationality". Why dont you turn that around - there was severe terror applied on Macedonians but it mostly came from Greece and Bulgaria. --Realek 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the methods. OK we are talking seriously now - provide your sources about terror in Bulgaria and Greece and we will provide our sources about terror in Macedonia. The article and the encyclopedia will benefit from our contributions. --Komitata 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the users don't understand Macedonian language so let me explain what Komitata's source is about. It's about Yugoslav communist terror against Macedonians, mostly for wanting their separate state in 1945. Not once "brain-washing" is mentioned. Not once "nationality-changing" is mentioned. Not once "ethnic group creation" is mentioned. Not once Bulgaria or Bulgarians are mentioned. Not once Greece or Greeks are mentioned. So user Komitata, what is your point again??? --Realek 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked about THE METHODS of the communist terror. I am giving you an article on the METHODS. Can't you remember your own questions? --Komitata 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

NO, I asked: What were the methods used to erase the memory of theese "Bulgarians", so that nobody remembers this "svere terror" and their "true Bulgarian nationality"; It is after all just few rows above, everybody can see my comment. --Realek 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to answer to this young man. Here is a source in English --Komitata 18:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I can use sources from the Republic of Macedonia also, i.e. his sources. I wouldn't mind Western nonbiased sources, but I don't know too many of them. And then, Realec, is not our only problem, so that we could allow censorship because of him (knowingly censoring our sources). Our aim is to write an article that would contain all relevant POV, and that it wouldn't be vandalised. Tomorrow someone will come, will notice the missing sources or opinions and the fight will start again. We must write a proper article. I think that this goal is reachable. --Komitata 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You all have left a poll behind. Would Realek and other editors mind casting a vote? I mean if we reach five users, we'll have a... "concensus", as it is defined in the Talk:Republic of Macedonia by users of a certain ethnicity...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your poll is properly formated. So I dont think we have a poll. Anyway I'm sure you know where my vote would go. --Realek 21:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point... Read carefully.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed mine but nevermind. --Realek 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please both explain what is in the link that Komitata provided?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a rich international, modern (i.e. since 1989), scholarly literature in English on the modern Macedonian question, by authors from various countries (including countries in the region) -- there are seven books listed in the bibliography already, and there are many more books and papers that you can find easily using Google Scholar. There is no reason to resort to sources which are likely partisan, such as government agencies of the countries in question; or both partisan and unreliable, such as local newspapers; or partisan, unreliable, and idiosyncratic, such as various Web sites promoting one agenda or another (regardless of where they are located). These studies do not only try to discover any objective reality that might exist, but also report on perceptions by the various sides in the dispute. Why are they being ignored by the editors of this article? --Macrakis 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How is one supposed to know that they are partisan if he can't read Bulgarian? In any case, you've obviously read these 7 refs. To which of the following are you referring?

• Both POV's mentioned in the article or not (with reliable sources)?
• The specific link?
• The relation or not to Bulgarians?

 NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So it's decided, we're adding a section on the origins of Macedonian (slavic) nationalism. Miskin 10:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian Human Rights Movement International - 2006 Annual Report - The Macedonian Minority in Greece

Introduction

Greece vigorously denies the existence of any ethnic minorities on its territory and attempts to suppress any voices that advocate human rights. Simply raising the issue of the Macedonian minority in Greece causes Greek citizens and politicians alike to react in outrage. The majority of Greek society supports its government's non-recognition and discrimination of its large Macedonian minority. Following are several examples of Greece’s constant abuse of the Macedonian minority’s rights.

Freedom of Expression and the Media

On August 14, 2005, the Greek daily newspaper “Makedonia” censored an article on the Macedonian language in Greece entitled “A Short Note on a Banned Language”. Writer Thanasis Triaridis discussed Greece’s refusal to recognize its national minorities and called for the lifting of the ban on the Macedonian language. Greek Helsinki Monitor condemned the censorship and considered it a ”…violation of freedom of expression, symptomatic of the prevailing intolerance towards national minorities in Greece, and especially the Macedonian minority. Such an attitude is incompatible with the "state of law" that is supposed to prevail in Greece, and was denounced in 2004 and 2005 by a number of international organisations, which urged Greece to recognize its minorities and respect their freedom of expression and association.” 1

On June 2, 2005, Greek authorities refused to issue accreditation to three Macedonian journalists working for television station A1 (based in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia) who wanted to travel to northern Greece to meet with members of the region's Macedonian minority. Reporters Without Borders stated,

“A refusal by the authorities of a European Union member country to grant accreditation to foreign journalists without any official explanation and without legal grounds constitutes an obstruction to the free movement of journalists and a press freedom violation. This behaviour by the Greek authorities could set a dangerous precedent and could encourage other countries to screen visa and accreditation requests from foreign journalists according to the subjects they want to cover," 2

On March 27, 2005, the 2nd channel of Greek State Television (NET) aired the previously banned documentary entitled “Taxidevontas stin Ellada” (Traveling in Greece). The initial broadcast of the video (dedicated to Florina/Lerin region) was scheduled for March 20, 2005 but was postponed because, according to the presenter, the inhabitants of a Florina/Lerin village stated on camera that the Greek state banned the use of their Macedonian mother tongue.

After EBLUL’s official protest for the ban of the broadcast and in cooperation with Greek Helsinki Monitor the issue was brought to the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) in Geneva. After the virulent criticism from the members of the Committee, Greece’s representative claimed that the documentary was not broadcast due to “technical reasons” only and promised it would be aired on the 27th of March, as it eventually happened. 3

On Friday, 4 June 2004, police entered the premises of the private radio station Makedonikos Ichos (Macedonian Sound) in Naoussa (Negush), ceased transmission and arrested the owner, Aris Vottaris. The official explanation was that this radio station had no licence for local or regional transmission. Vottaris was released after a few hours, but charges were pressed against him because of illegal transmission and lack of documents. Vottaris often transmitted traditional songs and dances in the Macedonian language, as well as using the Macedonian language on air.

Just thought that some users here might want to have a look at this, its just a series of events that took place in Greece last year concerning the Macedonian Minority, this annual report was just issued a few days ago (the whole report can be seen here [13]) - Macedonia 02:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL - that document is from on organization called "Macedonian Human Rights Movement International", so I hope you won't object if I dismiss that document as giving a selective and biased interpretation of events. This "Macedonian" minority, which consists of less than 2,000 people (as demonstrated in the latest elections) receives as much recognition and benefits as the Greek minority in Skopje (numbers are about the same) and as you will see for yourself, when/if FYROM joins the EU. Human Rights conditions will be placed under tight scrutiny and fully fledged minorities will be created out of thin air and their numbers based on "estimates" dating back a few decades before WWI. The mere fact that this report claims that Greece vigorously denies the existence of any minorities is a blatant lie, obviously overlooking the fact that the ethnic Turks in Western Thrace receive more than the Aromanians in FYROM do, in terms of education in their mother tongue, state sponsored interpreters everywhere, state sponsored mosques, a percentage of university places is always reserved for members of this minority and Turkish speakers are always counted in the census (including the level of knowledge). As the Greek state said in the Bletsas case [14] every other non Greek speaking, but native, inhabitants are not minorities, but isolated individuals (see the difference with the Greeks of Albania). Greece (and I don't think any county would) recognize and promote a minority language spoken (presumably not fluently, how could they with no education) by approximately one person every ten square kilometers. Unfortunately, it is too late, the precious "Macedonian" minority has been assimilated (just like the Greeks in Skopje), although if FYROM is willing to fork over some cash, which will be added to the taxes paid by the members of this minority, might add up to be enough to run a school. The basic idea is why should a language with no more native speakers (in this particular region) be taught in schools on the Greek taxpayer's money. This minority is too small to run anything on its own - it's absurd to claim that Greece has banned a language. While I doubt it would ever be recognized as the Macedonian" language, it would be registered as the "Slavomacedonian" language of something similar. Finally, I would dearly love to see some Greek document banning this language; I am really interested to see how it was referred to. In a few years (if not already), assimilation will be complete (as all native speakers will have been born before the Civil War, they will be at least over 60 years old) and all native speakers will not live forever. This will ultimately result in a political party promoting the existence of a "Macedonian" minority, without a "Macedonian" minority ;-) --LionKing 09:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The number of Macedonians in Greece (or any minority in any country) is not determined by elections. It is determined by an census. So when Greece accepts that there are minorities on its territory, and starts counting them, and that census data doesn't get disputed by international observers, then and only then we can talk about the real number of Macedonians in Greece (left after the continuous ethnic cleansing in 20th century). This being said, there is no need to comment on the rest of the nonsence you posted. --Realek 11:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks. I know the truth sometimes hurts, but deal with it ;-) --LionKing 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no persoal attack whatsoever. But like I told you already - if you think you have grounds for reporting me, please do! --Realek 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a personal attack and you will be reported if you do it again. I see you have been warned before. LionKing 11:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you just said "census data doesn't get disputed by international observers" - doesn't that conflict with [15] "Greek census data is disputet internationaly" (no source was cited for this claim BTW). I guess I exposed your double standards and proved that you make things up as you go along ;-) --LionKing 11:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You exposed nothing (except your inconsistancy and sensationalism about nothing). Read again: I'm talking about a hypothetical census in Greece in the future that doesn't get disputed. After all it is just few rows up for my words to get distorted this way. The current situation is that Greece doesn't recognize minorities and doesn't count them in the census. I don't need a source to dispute that kind of census. And my point still stands: the number of Macedonians in Greece (or any minority in any country) is not determined by elections. It is determined by an census. --Realek 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a "hypothetical census" ;-) you changed your tune! Again, you falsely claim that Greece recongises no minorities, the ethnic Turks of Thrace would appear to disagree with you. Greece is recognising the "Macedonian" minority as much as FYROM is recognising its Greek minority. Not to mention that yes, you do need a source when you claim that Greece census is disputed internationally. I can tell you right now, no one doubts the validity of Greek census and no one has even implied that any data contained theirin in falsified. I notice that you tend to rely on your own opinion rather than sources - well done ;-) I remind you that in the absence of census data, there is no evidence to support the existance of a "Macedonian" minority. With the same rule, I can claim that 50% of FYROM are Greeks and say that until they are recognised and counted in a hypothetical census, we can't know the exact number. --LionKing 11:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't changed anything! It was clear I was talking about a hypotetical future census in Greece. At this moment an undisputed census in Greece is a fantasy. But be assured, under international pressure Greece will have to do it. Like I said - it is just few rows up for my words to get distorted this way! And concerning the Turks of Thrace - Greece is obliged to recognize them under the treaty of Neully. --Realek 16:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No sources? Therefore this is just your POV. I challenge you to link me to a specific quote confirming your claims. Following your logic, I can say, FYROM census is disputed internationally, in fact I'll say it now. FYROM's census is disputed internationally, but under international pressure FYROM will have to fix this and who knows how many thousands of Greeks will turn up ;-) LionKing 16:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Realek, remember: the Rainbow (political party) (Macedonian Slavs) FLUNKED with some 2,000 votes or so in Greek Macedonia. I can think of two options: (1)The others you claim, are not Slavs, (2)They don't want to be Slavs. I don't know which case you prefer... (while trying to find the correct link for the party, I came to this: Rainbow party. I couldn't help myself laughing...)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha! ^___^ Seriously... Lol. - FrancisTyers 12:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Niko, evidently, everyone else in Greek Macedonia, do not want what the... "Rainbow Party" have to offer [16] and instead prefer to vote for Nea Dhimokratia, PASOK or even the far right nationalist LAOS. All the Slavs who didn't want a Rainbow Party (!) are are deemed by FYROM as "Grkomanite", people of Slavic ancestry, who now proudly declare themselves as Greeks and want to have nothing to do with FYROM, nor want what the "Rainbow Party" has to offer. FYROM of course tries to claim that they all are a minority with violated rights. As Greek citizens, they have the rights specified by law [17] and apparently only 2,000 are supporting those who complain. I guess the vast majority are happy. --LionKing 12:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is so heart-breaking. I so feel for your enslaved "Macedonian" brothers in Greece. It would be a serious case of human rights violations, if it wasn't a complete work of fiction from your talented novelists-historians. There have been elections, there have been censuses, everything imaginable, this "minority" simply fails to appear anywhere (expect some 1000-2000 people who hardly constitute a minority whatsoever).Where are these hundreds of thousands of oppressed people waiting for liberty? They don't exist. Oh I forgot, it's a conspiracy of the Greek state to silence them.--Avg 12:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! The Greek state sent them to the second link!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think this talk page has been used as a message board long enough. User:Macedonia started it! --LionKing 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, too, why they are not eager to embrace the ideas of this party.. Maybe because they have other view on the question of their nationality. Maybe they are a little more North-Eastern oriented (I am afraid to say the B-word :))--Komitata 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's simply coz they don't exist Komitata. No B's, no S's, only G's!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they do exist in some form. The question is about their number and etnic character. I am not willing to argue, because this is just a matter of citing sources, not of an endless discussion. We have to show the prevalent opinions of the three sides - show our sources and move forward. We have an encyclopedia to make. We have to focus on resolving not on conflict. Its a matter of a hundred words, actually.--Komitata 15:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You've hit the nail right on the head, Komitata ;-) There is an organization based in Edessa, calling itself "Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia", which claims that a separate Macedonian ethnicity does not exist, but there is a native Bulgarian minority in Greek Macedonia, the remnants of the 1920s population exchanges. This organization's leader, Nikolas Stoidis has claimed numbers as high as 50,000 (dubious, without edication, they will be assimilated by now). I'm inclined to believe that this version of events is closer to the truth, as it is a fact that these "Macedonian" organizations make up things. I read one claiming that the Pomaks in Western Thrace speak Macedonian, while everyone knows that they speak Bulgarian and every encyclopedic source describes it as such. So, there is one example of FYROM claiming a minority that's not theirs, perhaps this mysterious, but silent, "Macedonian" minority is in fact a Bulgarian one - who knows??? Outside the sphere of Tito's propaganda, the Slavophones in Greece were probably not a susceptible to it as the ones in Vardar Macedonia, despite what is sometimes claimed. Not to mention that there is no evidence of such a minority before the 1990s. Greece has been a member of the EU since the 1970s, so a Rainbow party could have claimed a right to operate. It did not though ;-) I can't think of another reasonable explanation... LionKing 15:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Macedonian Slavs in Greece are not a poor, opressed and tortured minority as the FYROM Slavs think. On the contrary they're enjoying the privileges of an EU country, so they must be very happy - all five of them. Miskin 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Macedonians (Μακεδόνες) are the majority in Greek Macedonia

The Greek PM, Costas Karamanlis, is a Macedonian, so are many Greek MPs and Ministers. In Greece there is a Slav Macedonian (Slavophone) minority. And yes, it was refused some of its cultural rights by Athens and it should be able to express itself like all Greek citizens. I fully support that. But their culture and specific linguistic idiom is also pushed aside by Skopje; it imposes uniform criteria regarding the Greek Macedonian (Slav) identity and fails to take into consideration important variations.

• The hard nationalistic line in some Skopje circles cannot blind us to the fact that the majority of (Slav) Macedonians in RoM/FYROM make great neighbours. Our friendship and ties are enduring. All constructive dialogue with Makedonci friends is welcome. Efharisto and blagodaram- Politis 16:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is really funny, have a look at what User:Macedonia says in his userpage:
"Aegean Macedonia has an estimated population of 2,400,000 with Greek speaking inhabitants making up the majority; Macedonians account for about 20 percent of the population, forming a majority in the districts of Florina, Kastoria, Pella, Kozani, Imathia, Kilkis and Serres; there are also other smaller groups including Turks, Vlachs, and Gypsies at around 2 percent each. Pirin Macedonia has a population of 355,000 made up entirely of Macedonians with smaller groups of Bulgarians and Turks."
I think those claims demostrates why Macedonian Slavic editors are always required to present credible sources before making edits. The greatest part of them is simply biased. Miskin 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been asking Realek for a credible source confirming his claim that the Greek census is disputed internationally again and again and he still hasn't cited one (of course he can't, none exist). Most of the time, it's just wishful thinking. --LionKing 17:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've answered you several times, but there's no reason I shouldn't do it again - the Greek census is disputed at least for the fact that it doesn't count the minorities. And because of the ridiculous Greek claim that 98% of the populatin of Greece are Greeks (don't drag those 2% thracian Turks into this again, because Greece is forced to recognize them under the treaty of Neully) --Realek 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering, have these editors ever visited Greece and especially (Greek) Macedonia? It is the easiest of things to find out for themselves that Slavic minorities are nowhere to be seen. Except suppresing them, can the Greek state also hide them? --Avg 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Avg, there are definitely Slavic-speaking people in Northern Greece, most of them bilingual. There is good ethnographic work (cited in the article) by Karakasidou, Danforth, and others. Most of them probably are loyal Greek citizens; whether they consider themselves 'ethnic Greeks', 'ethnic Macedonians', or something else is harder to determine for ideological and political reasons; similarly, it is hard to determine how many there are. (see Roudometof, Danforth, et al.). As for "suppression", yes, the Greek state has actively suppressed them in various ways, including trying to imprison people for talking about linguistic minorities. See [18] -- Bletsas was convicted by the court of first instance and sentenced to jail for distributing flyers about minority languages (the language of the prosecutor and the judge is quite shocking); fortunately, the conviction was overturned on appeal. --Macrakis 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Balkans is not Scandinavia Macrakis. Unless you think that the United States would ever recognise a self-proclaimed "Californian" or "Texan" ethnic group within their territory, the term "suppression" becomes subjective. As it is seen in my sources (pasted above), the villaet of Monastiri was until the early 20th c. predominantly Greek. Unless something magical happened, I don't know how it's Macedonian Slavic nationalist today without any prior suppression. Miskin 18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not about whether a government 'recognizes' some group; it is about the right of people to call themselves what they want, and to express their cultural identity. The European Convention on Human Rights (to which Greece is a signatory) protects both the freedom of expression and the freedom of association. As for Monastiri, I don't see your point. Of course there were many Greeks in Monastiri vilayet. So what? And what's this about Scandinavia? Are you saying that Greece can't implement full European human rights? --Macrakis 18:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They had numerous times the chance to show their strength with "Ouranio Toxo". Best they did was around 2000 votes in Florina and 6000 pan-hellenically (that is including OAKKE voters, which might be even half of it). Nobody oppressed their right to vote. We are a free country and we have free elections. It is simple. "They" don't feel that "they" have anything in common with what Ouranio Toxo claims, because "they" don't exist. We're talking about 2000 people here. Now about the trial cases you mention, well it happens that some of these distinguished gentlemen were actively propagandising the secession from Greece!--Avg 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have given a link to the trial transcript. There is no accusation of secessionism there (although there was apparently an agent provocateur who tried to approach Bletsas). The document that Bletsas was distributing was published by the European Union for Lesser-Used Languages, an NGO with representatives from most European countries. As for Ouranio Toxo, there are lots of reasons for not voting for a particular political party; you can't measure how many people in Scotland consider themselves Scottish by counting votes for the Scottish National Party. --Macrakis 21:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• The page of User:Macedonia reads as if it was written by an American academic or researcher with no direct connection to the region; perhaps someone with an interest in anthropology. He/she is probably fishing for reactions and has an understanding of the language.
• Danforth (mentioned above) is not a sound source; he uses the Macedonian question to exhaurcise his own ghosts and his work (I cannot speak of the person) reads as the 'Jerry Springer of anthropology' (no, he not user:macedonia). As usual, greetings to our genuine Makedonce friends. Politis 18:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Now you're stooping to ad hominem attacks on Danforth, a named-chair professor at a respected college, a long-time researcher on Greek ethnography with three books published by Princeton University Press? Can you cite any sources for these accusations? Perhaps negative reviews in scholarly journals? --Macrakis 18:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia is a Macedonian Canadian. He recently revamped his user page with a Britannica at his side. If he's an American academic, I'm an American Ninja (am I?)... Alexander 007 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I too have to disagree here. I've been clashing with him almost since I first entered in wikipedia, when he used the name Makedon45, and one thing cannot be put in doubt, the earnestness of his sentiments and idiosincracies. There is simply no doubt that he is Macedonian.--Aldux 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I just said that his work "reads as if...". So, after all he is north American and of Makedonce origine. Hello user:Macedonia, good to meet you my friend. - Politis 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Idea to solve this dispute

I think this has gotten really tedious and a solution like the one in the Gdansk/Danzig dispute is needed (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote). Just off the top of my head, I think the best thing to do is to use what is relevant. In other words, I think that the designation Republic of Macedonia should be used when the entity the article is most relevant to recognises or describes it as such and the designation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia be used when the entity the article is most relevant to recognises or describes it as such. The same with the terms Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs and Macedonian language/Macedonian Slavic language. Where there is no clearly identifiable recognised name, the self-identifying name should prevail. The same rule should operate in the reverse direction as well, with regards to the usage of the terms Greek/Aegean Macedonia and Greek Macedonians/Greeks. For example, the European Union has explicitly recognised the ROM/FYROM as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but has made no representations regarding the people and language. Therefore in European Union related articles, the country to be referred to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but the people and language as Macedonian as the EU does not use the other names. In Greece related articles, the country to be referred to as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the people and language as Macedonian Slavic as proper Greek publications and sources refer to them as such and the term(s) Greek Macedonia(n) to be used as well. On the other hand, at the article Macedonians (ethnic group), the country should be referred to as the Republic of Macedonia and the people and language as Macedonian, but Greek Macedonia to be referred to as Aegean Macedonia and Greek Macedonians as Greeks. Perhaps it would be a good idea to fit the alternative names in brackets the first time they are mentioned, eg at the article Greek Macedonia would first mention Macedonian Slavs (Macedonians) and then subsequently refer to them as Macedonian Slavs, but at Macedonians (ethnic group), the term would be Greeks (Macedonian Greeks) and then subsequently as Greeks. This is just brainstorming, but I think it could work. I also think it would be a good idea to include the alternative names in the first paragraphs of the articles in question - for example Macedonians (ethnic group) states that an alternative name is Macedonian Slavs and Greek Macedonia states that alternative names include Aegean Macedonia. Of course this would require mentioning the name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the first paragraph of the Republic of Macedonia article, and that does not seem to be a popular option amongst our ethnic Macedonian friends... Such a compromise would require a lot of negotiations. --LionKing 18:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My oppinions:

• Is "slavophone Macedonians" acceptable in the Greek related articles to you?
• I dissagree with you on the usage of Macedonian Slavs, since there is no dobt about the name of the ethnic group whatsoewer. Unlike the name of the country where some might claim that there are grounds for an alternative name - here the situation is clear. The ethnic group is reffered to as Macedonians almost without exeption (excluding Greeks)
• I dissagree with you on the usage of Macedonian Greeks if you want to present them as an ethnic group - they simply are not. They are a part of an ethnic group - Greeks.

--Realek 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Slavophone Macedonians" seems OK to me, it's just that "Macedonian Slavs" is a legitimate term, eg Britannica and Encarta use it, so it can be used in encyclopedias. We'll see, we'll have to see what everyone else thinks. "Macedonian Greeks" is a regional designation for Greeks from Macedonia and is in use by sources. No one is trying to claim they are sepetate from Greeks - it can be wikified like Macedonian Greeks if you want. In the context where it will be used (ie not in Republic of Macedonia related articles) you won't even notice it, it'll be used in articles like Macedonia (Greece). Anyway, all this is still subject to negotiations, names do not determine the NPOV as long as the facts are presented fairly, some NPOV encyclopedias refer to you exclusively as Macedonian Slavs (Encarta), whereas some refer to you exclusively as Macedonians (Columbia). It's a question of compromise and what the editors can agree on. --LionKing 20:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

FRAUD!!! LionKing why do you give a source that is talking about the 9th century using the name Macedonian Slavs for the Slavic tribes that setteled the region of Macedonia?!? Surely you can make the difference betveen those undiferentieted Slavic tribes and the Macedonian ethnic group today. --Realek 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? I quote: Macedonian Slavs constitute almost 67 per cent of the FYROM’s population. Ethnic Albanians are the largest minority in the republic, making up about 23 per cent of the population, according to the 1994 census. Not to mention the fact that you seem to be of the opinion that the Macedonian Slav nation dates back to ancient times and not a recent construction ;-) --LionKing 22:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempted FRAUD again!!! You know wery well i was talking about the other source you gave - Britannica [19] (the same link LionKing provided). I guess this speaks volumes about your credibility! --Realek 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good basis for future compromise (amen), although there may be a few modifications needed. Can you please elaborate to make it more concise (and shorter)?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Consolidated proposal

Macedonia naming dispute

General rule: the self-identifying names are used in all contexts with the exception of articles primarily relating to an entity recognizing it as something else.

Self-identifying names:

• Country: Republic of Macedonia
• People: Macedonians
• Language: Macedonian

Exonyms:

• Country: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (never FYROM except in a descriptive sense)
• People: to be determined
• Language: Macedonian Slavic

Notes: The self-identifying names may be tweaked to avoid repetitions or for other stylic reasons. For example, the name Republic of Macedonia may need only be mentioned once and afterwards as Macedonia plain, or the Macedonian people or language may need to be disambiguated from the Ancient Macedonians in certain contexts (e.g. disambiguation notes) by adding Slavic, modern or ethnic.

Contexts where the exonyms are used:

• Only, the specifically recognized names are used (i.e. just because the EU recognizes a former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, that does not mean that they recognize the language as Macedonian Slavic).
• In practice, the language and people exonyms are only going to be used in Greece related articles.
• The state exonym may be used in EU, UN, NATO and states who have recognized the country as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia related articles.

Greek specific self-identifying names:

• Region: Greek Macedonia
• People: Macedonian Greeks (regional sense)
• Language: Macedonian Greek / Macedonian dialect of Greek

Exonyms:

• Region: Aegean Macedonia
• People: Greeks (this is not really the case, as they are both self-identifying names, but see below)
• Language: Greek (see below)

Notes:

• The term Macedonian Greeks should be presented to show that the term exists to denote a regional cultural characteristics and is not a separate ethnic group, therefore should be used when Macedonian Greeks need to be distinguished from other Greeks or when their regional characteristics or indigenous status to Macedonia need emphasizing.
• The terms referring to the Macedonian dialect of the Greek language are not in dispute and are only mentioned in the disambiguation page and in the list of Greek dialects articles.
• The self-identifying names are always to be used with the exception of Republic of Macedonia related articles.

IMPORTANT NOTE: the exonyms must be mentioned in the first paragraphs of the articles in question, e.g. Aegean Macedonia should be mentioned in the first paragraph of Macedonia (Greece) and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should be mentioned at the first paragraph of Republic of Macedonia in order to avoid confusion with the redirects. If someone follows the redirect Aegean Macedonia and ends up at Macedonia (Greece) and does not see the alternative name, he may get confused.

Personal opinion: in the article Republic of Macedonia, the naming dispute need only be discussed at the politics section and the alternative name be mentioned at the first paragraph. A separate naming dispute section is not required.

LionKing 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Please leave comments here

Actually the term widely used by all sorts of scholars is "Greek Macedonians". That's the term that should be used in the article to describe the region's native Greeks. Miskin 21:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. The problem I see, is which category does the article Macedonia (region) fall into? We could either only use exonyms (for eveyone) or only use self identifying names (for everyone) -- take your pick? --LionKing 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It all comes down to a choice for our ethnic Macedonian friends:

• Either we use Macedonian Slavs to refer to them in the Greek related articles as do the:
  • University of New York
  • Pittsburgh University
• Or we expand the usage of the reference Greek Macedonians in the Greece related articles to the wide extent as used by the following institutions and not in the limited circumstances I describe above:
  • University of Washington
  • University of Ferris

You cannot have everything. --LionKing 22:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

unprotected

As an experiment, I've unprotected the page. If it descends into chaos, ask me (or another admin...) to reprotect William M. Connolley 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

ethnic map

I am not proposing to change anything, just making an observation. The map by Panonian is a good idea but it does not corespond to what I know (ok, you say it reflects the sensus). There are concentrated Serbian populations around Lake Doiran and Helleno Vlachs in Bitola, and the Turks in the Derbar region, as far as I know, are in fact Albanians and Macedonian Slav muslims who declared themselves Turks in order to avoid Albanian interference. The best thing about the map, though, is that you have based it on the sensus (perhaps you also give a link for the census), well done for that, we need to rely on published facts not on estimations. Politis 15:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Methodology

Hello guys :-) I wanted only to invite everybody, especially new editors, to always remember that when editing such an article as this caution is necessary much more than in a usual article; revert-wars appear to be the natural condition of this article. For this every single statement must be backed by solid independent sources. And coming to the sources, what do you think of this [20]? The texts seem good, all from eminent scholars.--Aldux 16:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vergina Sun copyright status

Aldux, your removal of the fact that the symbol is copyrighted reeks of double standards - everything in that section is covered at that article, why was just the sentence about the copyright removed? Telex 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Avg's edit smacks of a provocation, and if there's a thing this article doesn't need, it's provocations. Also, it is hardly relevant: Greece claim to the symbol is something that transcends completely the WIPO. This is a question of cultural, not legal rights. --Aldux 20:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Without this edit, it is not apparent to the reader that Greece has a legal right onto this symbol. Legality does not "smack of a provocation". DENIAL of legality "smacks of a provocation".--   Avg    15:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)