Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Untitled

• Previous discussion is available at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4 and Archive 5.
• The renaming poll of June 2005 (now closed) is archived at Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll. (See also Archive 2 for many comments arising from this poll.)

[ personal attacks by 84.164.208.145 (talk · contribs) removed by Izehar on 13:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC) - these comments have not been deleted and can be viewed at the appropriate past version of the page ]

Article titles

Wikipedia is not really concerned with what the "true name" of this people is. Some people call them Macedonians, others call them Skopjians. I can't even keep track. All this fussing and fighting isn't getting us anywhere.

Wikipedia is not going to settle this dispute. We are just going to think up a good title for the article about them. They exist, they can be described, they can be talked about behind their backs! Greeks can call them names - or refuse to "let them" have their "proper" name. There's nothing we can do to stop this.

I suggest that we concentrate our mental efforts on two things:

1. describing the characteristics of "people who have Macedonian ethnicity" - which includes their history, customs, language, geographical distribution, etc. For example, how many of them live in the various countries of the world? Or how many "speakers of the 'Macedonian language'" live in various countries (probably around the same numbers, but how would I know?)?
2. describing the naming dispute over what these people have been called, are called, and ought to be called.

I want to help you guys - all of you - but this is the best I can think of right now, okay? Uncle Ed 17:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

We can not describe the characteristics of these people when having assimilators here, whose only purpose is to deny the Macedonian nation and promote their history and culture as theirs. Please see the posts of VMORO, so you can see what I am talking about.

His claims would (and are) laughted at by any Macedonian that gets here on Wikipedia, but he still keeps promoting that we are insane people who were brainwashed in just 60 years. How come we lost the Bulgarian feeling in just 60 years, but we didn't loose it during the 500 years of Ottoman occupation (during which time the people who accepted the islam were released from any tax)?

How come that there are Macedonians that live in Greece or Bulgaria and that were never under influence of Tito still regard as Macedonians (as ethnicity, not as regionality)? How come there are Macedonians who left the region and moved to USA, Canada or Australia even before 1940th, but regard themselves as Macedonians (again ethnicity, not regionality)? Did maybe John F. Kennedy make them proclaim as such? Macedonian 03:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain any of the following?

1. What is "the Macedonian nation"?

At first, I have to say that we have to make difference between citizenship, nationality and nation. As recognized by most relevant factors in the world, the members of the ethnicity (more-less) described in the article Macedonians (ethnic group) are forming the Macedonian nation. Any relevant factor or source in the world reffers to them as Macedonians, except very few others that use another names. Macedonian^(talk)

1. • Who is denying it?

The official politics of Greece and Bulgaria is all in favor of denial of the Macedonian separate ethnicity, culture, language... including the Macedonian minority in those countries, who are constantly victims of sometimes even brutal assimilation during the last 100 years.

The poor assimilative minority rights in Bulgaria and especially in Greece is fact supported by any relevant human rigths organization in the world, even by the European Court for Human rights.

Also, Greece is trying to get exclusive rights over the name "Macedonia", pushing us in a sencless dispute. And, just for reminder, just some 30 years ago the term "Macedonia" was completely and strictly forbiten in Greece. General Metaxas was even sending people to jail because of using it. Also, even the province of "Macedonia" in Greece got that name somewhere in the 1980s.

On the other hand Bulgaria is trying to represent the Macedonian ethnicity as separated from the Bulgarian. It is clear that we have some little origin that we share, but the both ethnicities were existing pararerly. The only difference was that Bulgaria got its independance from the Ottomans before us, so no one stopped them to grow intoa nation. On the other hand, Macedonia stayed in the hands of the Ottomans many years more, therefore the Macedonian nation was formed little latter, somewhere at the end of the 19th and beggining of the 20th sentury. Anyway, this formation was lasting for centuries, probably starting in the medieval ages.

These people clearly divide the Macedonian history, culture, language etc between Greece and Bulgaria. And, it is clearly of their interest the modern Macedonians to disapear. Because, if not, all the sceletons that they have in their closets will start appearing, one by one, until the world sees the truth about us. Macedonian^(talk)

1. Briefly describe the history of "the Macedonian nation".

Sources mention Macedonians as ethnicity (separate from Greeks, Bulgarians or Serbs) even in the 15th century (I posted some links to lists of those sources few days ago). Anyway, the same people that were listed as Macedonians in the 15th century started to be formed as mixture of Slavic tribes and natives since the 6th century. Anyway, their ethnicity was first mentioned in the 15th century, aldough those people were parts and even leaders of some medieval states and religious movements.

I would like to clearly note that any historian would say that tyhe modern nations were formed not sooner than the 15th century or even latter. Anyway, the history is the most sensitive topic, so it can not be described briefly. It is not my intention to give you the "Macedonian" part of the story, because Greek and Bulgarian users will object it. We should all reach a clear point as concensus, but that can not be based on denials and propaganda as the one present at the locked version of the page. Macedonian^(talk)

1. • Who is promoting their history and culture as theirs?

Since the beggining of the 20th century, the majority of the sources around the world. There are many sources that promote anti-Macedonian propaganda, with a simple reason: Macedonia did not get their independance until 1991st, and before that (from 1945th) it was a part of strict regime where any national feeling could be punished as separatism. But, most of the sources agree that the clear distinctions of a Macedonian ethnicity can be made since the beggining of the 20th century.

As I already mentioned, a separate Macedonian ethnicity was mentioned in many older sources (before the 20th century), but this feeling was most often presured by assimilative actions from ourneighboors, who always outnumber us (because of just 2 million Macedonians around the world compared to 25-30 million Bulgarians and Greeks combined) and push their POV. Same thing that happens on Wikipedia. Macedonian^(talk)

Are you talking about contributors to Wikipedia, i.e., people who have edited the WP article or signed comments on this talk page? Or Greeks in general? Or certain Greek or other politicians, university professors, book authors, etc.?

No, not Greeks in general. During the last 15 years since Macedonian independance, many of them understood that all we want from them is to be our good neighboor. The Greek goverment was always representing us as people who want to occupy half of todays Greece. But, having close contacts, the people saw that there is no need to fear from each other.

Anyway, the general position of an average Greek is clearly against us. Greece will never recognize their mistake, because all the lies and assimilation will be easily seen. So, they would use all the sources to deny the modern Macedonians, despite the fact that many of us acnowledge that we do not have direct origin from the Antique Macedonians (same as the Greeks do not have).

The most of the Wiki Users support that politics with a simple reason... that is what they were tought to in their society. You should see the suprise of the Greek businessman who travel to Republic of Macedonia and have regular chanses to meet Macedonians, when they realise that all they know about us is a fake. Macedonian^(talk)

Points that should be in this article - or in a related article:

• Ottoman occupation
• Tax relief for converts to Islam
• Tito's role in the formation and/or break-up of Yugloslavia
• Migration of "Macedonians"
  • Where they came from, what language they spoke, etc.

Also, several more articles has to be included. Macedonian^(talk)

One big point that we may or may not be able to address - after the above are answered:

• What do you, User:Macedonian, mean when you refer to "Macedonian" people?

I am talking about the modern Macedonians, (more-less) described by the page above. A Macedonian ethnicity, not regionality. In the history there are only 2 ethnicities with this name: Antique Macedonians and modern Macedonians. Between them there is at least 10 centuries difference (probably more). So, we clearly can not talk about the same people, aldough it is a fact that the modern Macedonians have at least a little part of origin from those people (like almost all the south Balkan ethnic groups). Macedonian^(talk)

• • Who else (outside of Wikipedia) feels the same as you?

About 2 million people are a part of the modern Macedonian nation. Also, 90% of the world sources identify us with this term, including most of the relevant institutions and encyclopedias. Macedonian^(talk)

• • And how does that relate to (or contrast with) what other people call these same people?

Only Greeks use another name for us. Even the Bulgarians use the name "Macedonians". Also the United Nations and all its members (except Greece and Cyprus). I agree that there should be distinction bewteen the Antique Macedonians and the modern Macedonians, but our particial origin from those people can not be denied. Also, any ethnic group from south Balkan has a right to feel the same. Many nations feel some origin from the Antique Macedonians, including the Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Albanians and Romanians. It is shame if Wikipedia takes sides on this. The culture, language and beleives of the Antique Macedonians are different from any of the modern ones.

Also, they can not be used as a reason for denying our name. They existed more than 20 centuries ago. Only a uneducated person can think that someone can have direct origin from them on a so multi-cultured area as the Balkan is. Macedonian^(talk)

Remember, Wikipedia cannot "settle" any of these points, but only describe the disputes about them fairly. Uncle Ed 17:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I know. And, that is all I want. Fair game. Macedonian^(talk)

I have a question for you, Uncle Ed. Even if we reach some concensus here, how can I know that when we leave Wikipedia (for various reasons) the article will not simply be changed by any nationalist from any of the sides? I am not planning to leave soon, but what if some nationalistic Macedonian, Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian etc... just appears one day and slowly, little by little changes this page into one that will fit his POV. I am not sure it is worthed to waste so much time, when users that were already banned on some other regional Wikipedia for spreading propaganda can still be a part of this Wikipedia and again, spread propaganda.

All the articles concerning Macedonia are full of anti-Macedonian propaganda. And I am sure that this happens in several other occasions. Outnumbering your opponents is always the most succesful method.

I would like to ask you personaly... have you ever tought that Wikipedia might misinform the people, without knowing it? Who takes responsobility for that? Because many times "no responsibility" is association with anarchy.

I personally know at least of 2 more examples like the ones with the modern Macedonians. And, one of them have no chance to deffend themselves, hence their internet activity which is less than 0.5%. That bothers me a lot, but I can not dedicate any time on those issues. Actually, all my time goes to the "Macedonia" related pages, aldough I have many other interests. But, I simply can not spare more time, because I love my wife and I wouldn't like her to divorce me because of all the time I spent here instead on her.

Spending all this time deffending something that comes natural to any human beeing as basic human right (in the democratic world), something that will be revealed by its own, something that the world can not ignore anymore. Does all this time really worth it? Macedonian^(talk) 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrary page move

I have restored the original nomenclature Macedonian Slavs to the article, as per the official results of the last poll on this talk page. This can only be changed by consensus, and not by arbitrary page moves by individual administrators.--Theathenae 10:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the last pull was drawn. So, neighter side won. And, anyone who check the results of the poll can see that 90% of the users that voted for the "Macedonian Slavs" option are of Greek origin.

Maybe you tought that by outnumbering us you will win the poll, but fortunately there are many neutral people here.

So, please stop changing the facts in your own convinience. The pull did not support any of the options. Macedonian 03:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005

For all the racist hate speech and allegations of heinous human rights abuses directed against Greece by various contributors to this talk page, the reality is rather ruthless. Reporters sans frontières ranks Greece 18^th in its annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, alongside Belgium and Germany and above such countries as Canada, Britain, France, Australia and the United States of America.[1]--Theathenae 16:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to present the press as minorities? Maybe you respect the press, but you clearly do not respect the minorities in Greece (whether they are Albanian, Macedonian, Turkish, Roma etc.).

The European Court for Human rights just issued a case close against Greece in favor of the party of the Macedonian minority in Greece: [[2]]. This is not the first case that Greece loses and it certainly will not be the last one, having on mind that several other similar cases are still on a trial.

Also, here is a link for you, saying what Amnesty International thinks of Greece: [| Amnesty International about Greece].

Also, there are 100s of links concerning the poor human rights of the minorities that live in Greece. Check google and pick any link you want:[| Google search for human rights of the minorities in Greece].

Is it clearer now? Macedonian 03:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Give it up. Your hatred of Greece is counter-productive and will only cause you pain in the long run.--Theathenae 05:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not hate Greece. I hate unjustice.

Actually, I am 1/8 Greek. I am actually hiring a Greek girl here in Skopje and we have wonderful cooperation. I was in Greece just few months ago and I had great time with my potential business partner, a very rich Greek guy. When was the last time you were in Republic of Macedonia? When was the last time you talked face to face with a Macedonian (ethnic group)? Shake his hand, buy him a dinner?

By the way, your last edit is a clear Personal Attack. I should remind you that PAs in Wikipedia are counter-productive and will only cause you pain in the long run. I am not goint to tolerate you, same as the Swedish didn't tolerated you. Macedonian 02:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Look everyone, this revert war has to stop; it's ridiculous. Check this diff. All main points of disagreement can be seen here. They are mostly figures and phrasing. I want us all to look for sources regarding the figures and then analyse them here before reverting anything. The name of the articles should be Macedonians (ethnic group) for now. As Britannica and 10 other encyclopaedias use that name, it cannot be viewed as unacceptable, and givan that that name is the one that Wikipedia's naming policy requires to be used, that one should be used UNTIL a good reason is found that this case is an exception to that rule. I should also point out that a) Greeks officially call these people Macedonian Slavs NOT Skopjans. You will not find any official Greek document using the name Skopjans. They all use the name Slavomakedhones (Macedonian Slavs). Skopjans is just an way of refering to them without using the name Macedonia and is only used unofficially. Also, the poll which Theathenae keeps on talking about was a draw, a consensus needs 60% support. Therefore it only serves as a reference and is not binding. Wikipedia's naming policy (which mandates the name Macedonians) as a consensus and should be used until it has been proven that this case is an exception. Everyone, please try to co-operate. REX 10:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rex is right - about the title of the article, anyway.

I did a little digging, and I've discovered that there is some question about whether the type of group these "Macedonians" are, is a real ethnicity - but that is not the sort of thing which an encyclopedia is supposed to settle.

Article is locked, and I reverted way back to 14 October: not because I like that version, but because it's just a random version before the latest edit war.

We need to describe the naming dispute, not settle it. Get that through your heads! Uncle Ed 01:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Doubting our separate ethnicity is unacceptable. No matter did it formed in 1991st, 1945th, 1918th, 10 or 25 centuries ago. It is important that it is reality now. So, it is even offensive to even talk about it.

I would be glad to join you in the creating a proper form of the article. But, I am not planning to accept any kind of assimilative or denial attempts towards me, my culture, history and language.

If you agree, I will be more than glad to help. Macedonian 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Background of the dispute

Can we talk about Tito and Yugoslavia and the desire to create an "identity" for the FYROM?

Can we address the outrage of Greeks at finding the ancient name Makedonia hijacked by "Slavs"?

Can we describe the aspirations of former Yugoslavians to have national homeland with a name of their own choosing?

And there's the ultimately tough question: what right does a group of people have to declare that they are of a certain nationality or ethnicity and to call themselves by a name which shows their chosen identity?

Don't say that Wikipedia should settle these questions. We can only report what the various major sides SAY about these questions.

Your Mediator, Uncle Ed 01:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

With all my respect, but I do not think that you realise how deep is this issue. Not just for me, as a Macedonia. For all the region as a whole.

As a mediator, your beggining position seems to me quite one sided. FYROM, hijacked, aspirations, a name they choose?

This clearly describes us as the "mistaken side". Is that fair?

I want to ask anyone (not just the mediator or any other single user) here to answer me simply few questions of my own:

1) The same people you are talking about were 500 years under the Ottoman empire. And you all know the methods the Ottomans used on this area. So, how can anyone beleive that Tito managed to "change" the ethnicity of this group for just 35 years (1945th-1980th, when he died), something that the Ottomans didn't managed to do during 500 years?

2) In the communism, the most basic idea was to keep the comunism because that was our only choise. It was the most powerful brain-washing system ever known. How did Tito manage to make us change the nation, when he didn't manage to make us keep the comunism? Was that brain-washing more powerful? Did maybe Tito gave more attention to "changing" our nationality than to the comunism itself?

3) Do you really think that one day we decided to gather and decide about our name? Do you think we choose the name over night? How ridiculous this sounds?

4) If just some 65 years ago we were something else, how come we developed in so self-aware nation? We even risk getting blocked by Greece on our road to EU and NATO. If we were something else than "Macedonians", why would we risk all our future to deffend something that is not ours? Macedonia is quite poor and our only hope is EU and NATO. How come we risk our only hope because of some identity, if that identity is not all we have?

5) Why no one gives attention to the Macedonian minorities in Greece and Bulgaria. Did maybe Tito make them "change" their nationality? Or the Macedonians in USA that live there for generations. Did maybe JFK make them become Macedonians? What about those in Canada, Australia, Sweden etc?

6) Why no one gives attention to the poor (or non-existant) Human rights of the minorities in Greece or Bulgaria? Did you mayeb read what the European Court of Human rights thinks of what they do? And that is now, in the 21st century. Can you imagine what they were doing some 50-100 years ago, when the human rights was not important to anyone who was not concerned?

7) Do you maybe know how does it feel all your famous revolutioners who fighted for Macedonia to be killed by your own neighboor, and latter the same neighboor to claim that they were actually their revolutioners? Then, why did they kill them?

The anti-Macedonian propaganda is lasting for centuries. And it still does. Of course there are some sources supporting those ideas, because the anti-Macedonian propaganda is lead by 2 much more powerful countries than Macedonia is (Bulgaria and Greece, the last was the biggest pet of the Western forces and only NATO member on the Balkan).

Is it more important what some guy who never visited Macedonia wrote, than we, as a living proof? We are here, waving, screaming, jumping... how come you can not see us? Are we so small and meaningless? Are we and the sources that support us less worthed than a pro-Bulgarian page hosted on a free hosting server (www.150m.com)?

If you decide that the Macedonian nation was formed overnight, by Tito, I would like to ask you only one thing... Can you please nominate us for the Guinness Book of Records in the cathegory of "The fasted formation of a self-aware nation"? If you deny and assimilate us, you can at least do this for us, so there can be at least one proof that we ever existed.

I appologise for my arogancy, but I would really want any of you to be a part of this nation to feel how is to constantly be denied and assimilated and everything that you ever had to be grabbed by your neighboors, who actually supposed to be your best friends. It is very easy to "negotiate" about the name, the history, the culture, the language, the origin... but only untill your own are not questioned. Right?

This issue is not about someones wish. It is not about User:Theathenae's, User:Matia.gr's and User:VMORO's happiness. It is about the identity of 2 million people, the only identity they know. Would you dare to try to take it away from us? Macedonian 03:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The identity which is strongly disputed as regards pre-1944 history. As regards quick "nation-forming", you can look at a similar example - the Moldovans who became a separate nation from the Romanians overnight and pretty much at the some point - 1944-1945. According to the latest census only 2% of the population of Moldova declared itself as Romanian despite the fact that there were almost no differences between the dialects of Moldova and Romania (which existed between formal Bulgarian and the western Macedonian dialects formal Macedonian is based on). For the rest, you are only bullshitting again, trying to evoke other editers' pity about "the poor little Macedonians" and "the big bad Bulgarians and Greeks". I can defend my points and I do it, don't think that you can get away with your edits just because of pity for you and your nation, no way, dear. VMORO 22:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I aint no looking for anyones pitty. I just express my frustration from the Wikipedia's vulnerability to nationalists as you are.

As I can see, you (and anyone else) obviously did not answer any of the questions above.

Considering Moldova... I can bet my life that there were also a Moldavian ethnicity before 1945th, but probably after 1945th they finally managed to show that in front of the world. Maybe they also had incredible problems with assimilation from someone else, as we did. I don't know their story, but I clearly know the story of my people. And I am sure that you don't fancy it much.

An ethnicity/nation can not be formed overnight. Maybe that is only your wish, so you can support your nationalist POV. But, in reality it is clear that can not happen just because. Macedonian 22:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Moldovans (in Romanian Moldova and in the Moldova across the river) had a regional identity and strong Moldovan feelings, but they were one people, on both sides of the river, who identified as Romanians beyond their regional identity. After the Russian nation-building, we have two groups of Moldovans: the Moldovans in Romania who maintained their Romanian identity, and the Moldovans across the river in the Republic of Moldova who "discovered" that they were "not Romanians" sometime after the Soviet propaganda took hold. It can happen. Alexander 007 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (the proof is, as I pointed out, that the Moldovans in Romania did not proclaim their separateness from Romanians, nor was any assimilation done to prevent them from proclaiming this if they wanted to. So new "ethnic groups" can be created by outside forces who act on an initially regional impetus. Of course, each case is different. In the case of Macedonian, there was more difference in the language between Macedonian and standard (?) Bulgarian, whereas in Moldovan there is only some regionalisms. But still, it can happen.)

I don't think it can happen over night. If they accepted the Russian (so called) propaganda, it clearly means that they did not oppose it much.

In the Macedonia issue, it is clear that is not the case. The same people were under the Turks for 5 centuries, but did not become muslim (having on mind that the Ottoman empire was proclaiming the islam).

Another fact: In case of the ridiculous claim that the Macedonians were Bulgarians... How come only the Bulgarians in Republic of Macedonia accepted (completely) the Macedonian ethnicity, but the Albanian, Vlachs, Serbs, Roma etc. kept their nationality?

Another fact, the most powerful one: in that time, the Macedonian separate ethnicity was already a proven and accepted fact by the international comunity. That can be found in enormous ammount of document from the period before Tito.

Another, final question: If Macedonians were Bulgarians, would they fight the Bulgarian occupation on the side of the partizans and Tito (a Croatian)? Do you claim that so many people that joined the partizans decided to join their enemy and kill their brother? Tito was not on power in Macedonia until 1945th. Why the Macedonians joined his forces against the Bulgarians, if they were Bulgarians? Sorry, but it does not have any sence. Macedonian^(talk) 00:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the modern "Macedonians" have been in the area for over a thousand years, and that they feel that they are ethnic "Macedonians". However the fact is that they are NOT the direct descendants of the ancient Macedonian people, who were undeniably Greek. If the Greek people had given up the claim to the name Macedonia, or if the Slavic Macedonians had control of all of ancient Macedon(which they have tried to accomplish) then perhaps they could call themselves Mcedonians without any controversey. The problem is the "American" model,namely merely living in an area makes you that ethnicity. However since Greece has 3 peripheries called Macedonia, occupies the majority of ancient Macedonia, and the Greeks are the direct descendants of the ancient Macedonians, having a non-Macedonian Slavic group calling themselves Macedonians, their language Macedonian, and adopting undeniably Greek symbols, whilst only living on the outskirts of what is true Macedonia is obviously going to cause a negative response. There can be no doubt that the "Macedonians" are far more Bugarian than they are Macedonian.

You are wrong in saying that the Greeks are direct descendents of the Ancient Macedonians and the people discussed in this article are not. That is a blatantly racist approach to take - it is not possible to know the ancestry of three million people. Do you deny that a substantial number of Greeks in Macedonia may in fact have wholly Slavonic roots? You can't; in just the same way, you can't deny that there is a reasonable possibility that ethnic Macedonians may have, in some obscure form, descent from the Ancient Macedonians. The fact is that you cannot say who whose ancestors were two and a half thousand years ago. The Greeks in the Greek-controlled part of Macedonia do not identify as Macedonians in an ethnical sense, but only in a regional sense. They identify ethnically and nationally as Greeks. The people discussed in this article however, identify ethnically, nationally and regionally as Macedonians. If they did identify nationally and ethnically as Macedonians, then they would be an ethnic minority. Curiously, Greece claims to have no ethnic minorities. What does that mean? Please note that the word "Macedonia" covers a wide spectrum and is a specific modern name. It does not necessarily imply links to the Ancient Macedonians. The people of the United Kingdom refer to themselves as British - that is what the people who lived there in ancient times called themselves (see Brythonic). The vast majority of people in Britain have in fact Germanic roots, both linguistically and probably via descent. The people of Brittany in France are more closely related, in all senses, to the Ancient Britons. That doesn't stop the all people of the UK calling themselves British. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who knows even little history should know that noone can be a direct descendant of the Antient Macedonians. Not Macedonians, not Greeks, not Bulgarians... no one.

On the other hand, all of them can claim partial connection to those people.

I can tell you that you have wrong sources that the Antique Macedonians were Greeks. Actually, it is a fact that many famous Greeks actually were opposing the idea to accept the Antient Macedonians as a part of them.

The Antient Macedonian state surely used the Greek language as official, but only as try to represent themselves in a more cultural way. It is an undenied fact that in everyday life they actually used a separate language, which was not Greek.

Long story... Might discuss it with you if you register and put signature on your posts.

I also would like to remind you that Greece got its teritories called "Macedonia" just some 20-30 years ago. Before that, the region was called "Northern Greece". This is not my claim. This is a fact that is supported by relevant European historians. Please read what the German historian Christian Foss thinks about this issue. I think that might help you understand the truth. Macedonian^(talk) 01:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Macedonians (Greeks living in Macedonia) do not recognise themelves nationally as Macedonians, because "Macedonian" ceased to be a national identity in the same way that "Athenian" or "Spartan" ceased to be a national identity when Greece was unified under a Macedonian king. The British example doesn't have a clear parallel with Macedonia. The Greeks still regard macedonia as a Greek REGION (not country) . There is undoubtedly Slavic blood in modern Greeks, and Greek blood in modern Slavs, BUT there has continually been a Greek presence/language/culture in Macedonia that regards istelf as Greek nationally and Macedonian regionally. By you own admission the Slavic peoples calling themselves "Macedonians" is a comparatively recent concept. Whether you like it or not, one hundred years ago most Macedonians (Slavic) considered themselves Bulgaraians living in the region of Macedonia, and wanted full unification with Bulgaria. Only after Bulgaria lost three consecutive wars to Greece and Serbia/Yugoslavia did the idea of being "Macedonian" emerge, after Bulgaria had had to give up all claims to the land.

Certainly, this is your personal research, or your source is extreme pro-Bulgarian or pro-Greek or pro-Serbian etc. Bomac 13:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bomac. Or this is written by some 10 year old kid who just started learning history, or by a blind nationalist. In both cases, not good enought for Wikipedia.

I identify myself (nationaly, ethnicaly, regionaly and in every other possible way) as Macedonian. You and your lies inside your posts can not change that.

Concering the Macedonians beeing Bulgarian... you can clearly see what happened during the World War 2 and how the Bulgarian occupators were treated by the Macedonians. That was before Tito, but still 1000s of Macedonians fighted against the Bulgarians with one reason only... they wanted their freedom and independance. Macedonian^(talk) 01:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In the past there was no such nation as "Germany". It consisted of literally hundreds of states, some kingdoms, some duchies, some simply a city. Over the centuries these states fought against each other, allied with each other, and even absorbed each other. Each state was a proper country, and so such names as "Brandenburg", "Saxony", "Hanover" etc defined national groupsm and cultures. It wasn't until 1871 that Gertmany became one country, and even then some regions(eg Austria) weren't invluded. Since 1871 terms like "Hanoverian" and "Bavarian" no longer refer to national identities because they're all just "German" or "Deutsch". However, if a foreign non-German people were to suddenly use the name of say 'Bavaria' as their national identity, and call their non-German language and culture "Bavarian" ALL Germans would take offense to it. This is something of a no-brainer. In exactly the same way, there used to be literally hundreds of separate Greek nations, varying greatly in size, power, culture, and other things. They fought both with and against eaxh other. Today however there is a single Greek state which does not include all the historical Greek lands. However if a foreign non-Greek people were to try and appropriate a regional name that is indisputably Greek(like with Nacedonia) it will understandably anger ALL Greeks. Because Macedonia was one of those hundreds of Greek regional states. What's more today more than 80 per cent of Macedon proper is within the Greek boundaries, and not FYROM's boundaries. So thus FYROM has no legitimate claim to use the name "Macedonia", except to describe its southern regions like Bitola and Ochrid(sp?) in a historical context....... Kurt Stein

Please read Macedonia (region)#Boundaries and definitions before writing here. What was called Macedonia was changing troughout history. Not to mention the argument that ancient Macedonians were not Greek, but that is not very important. --Cigor 13:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It IS EXTEMELY important!! To claim that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek is a grave insult to all Greek peoples. If you don't find it very important maybe YOU should not argue on this page. The region described as "Macedonia" has of course varied widely throughout history, but the question should be: "What region did the ancient(ie original) Macedonians regard as "Macedonia"? It doesn't matter what the Romans, Ottomans, Russians, or whoever thought was Macedonia, what did the actual blood/ethnic Nacedonains refer to as 'Macedonia' ? And the answer is modern Greek Macedonia, and a small part of southern FYROM. What is also very important is your(and many other peoples') continued use of the term "Republic of Macedonia" . While the wikipedia administrators may have bowed to your insistence on this term, the United Nations does not recognize any country with that name. The name "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia" was supposed to be a tempary name until a proper name could be agreed upon(and that does definitely NOT include "Republic of Macedonia") . But FYROM assumed that by just ignoring the problem it would go away. Of course people are angry and are saying things that are POV, because this is a very sensitive issue. Whenever anybody attempts to take anything that rightly and legitimately belongs to somebody else it will create negative feelings and emotions, and bring out the nastiness in people.......John Miller

Being bewildered

I can't really understand why the page was locked after the article was in an altogether satisfavctory shape after the edits if REX??? [[[User:VMORO|VMORO]] 22:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that several version during day or two before the lock were more NPOV. Macedonian 22:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Documents as evidence

1) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 15th-18th century].

Adding: "And there are .... many Christians who perforce serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Esclavoni, Razici, Serbians..." - Bertradon de la Broquier, The 15th century travel-writer

Adding: "...it is very high, and here are to be found many monasteries of Christian monks, of whom some are Greeks, others Macedonians, Vlachs and even Italians, as well other nations, who live the lives of saints" - Angiolelo about Mt. Athos

2) [| Several Russian documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 18th century]. No wonder they were one of the first that recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name.

3) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 19th century].

4) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the first 19 years of the 20th century].

5) [| From La Macédoine et les Macédoniens, by Edmond Bouchié de Belle [E.B.de Belle, published in Paris (Librairie Armand Colin), 1922, completed in 1918]].

6) [| Letters to "Rizospastis" (Journal of the Greek Communist Party), 1932nd-1935th]. So, not all the Greek sources were denying the existance of a Macedonian ethicity.

At the end, here is what the French Consul in Salonica (end of 18th century) Felix de Beaujour tought of Macedonia: "If one regards Macedonia from the point of view of its natural advantages, one comes to the conclusion that there exists no land in Europe where the people have more prospects of prosperity. But if it is viewed from the aspect of its political forms, one comes to the conclusion that all the misfortunes of the barbarian administration have been assembled here in order to paralyze one of the most beautiful regions of the world in all its richness and variety of products".

The Macedonian question is a clear example why many people use the phrase "the asshole of the whole world" to reffer to the Balkan. And, I don't blame them at all... Macedonian 23:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence: There weren't Macedonians due to the 20^th century is ridiculous, that is science fiction. Many of the older population of the Republic of Macedonia says that they were talking Macedonian and were declaring as Macedonians before 20-th century. Bomac 13:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Many of the documents and facts that proove our separate identity are not on internet. The sources given above are more than enough to proove that our identity did not appear in 1945th. But, that is just a few of the sources. Macedonian^(talk) 01:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Tactics and tricks

Hello everyone, I think that you all should know that there has been "movement" on the Greek Wikipedia. I was there editing a few articles and I stumbled onto some rather interesting discussions. Apparently User:Matia.gr also has a Greek identity, el:Χρήστης:Matia.gr and I noticed that people have been "plotting" a coup: el:Συζήτηση χρήστη:Kalogeropoulos#θερμή παράκληση, el:Συζήτηση χρήστη:Matia.gr#Arvanites and of course at the Village Pump. Apparently MATIA thinks that we are in violation of Wikipedia policy by allowing the article to remain at Macedonians (ethnic group) and he asked users from the Greek Wikipedia to "migrate" to the English WP and (quote): "δώσε ένα χεράκι" (i.e. give a hand, help). This concerted attempt to "force" a particular POV onto the English (i.e. the BEST) Wikipedia is unacceptable. Wikipedia should be neutral and we should all observe Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms and all the other policies until it has been proven that this case is an exception. MATIA is always directing us to read his previous contributions to see why we are wrong and he is right. I've just searched them all, there's nothing there. This whole thing was sending us on a wild goose chase to find something in the previous discussions that doesn't exist. REX 14:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

A message from me to MATIA: Wikipedia should be neutral. If you have any sources or any arguments, write there here so that we can examine them, directing us to examine your "previous contributions" is not an argument. I cannot find anything in your previous contributions that justifies naming these people against their will and against the facts. I sincerely hope that you will mend your ways. All I want is to find a reasonably neutral compromise. REX 14:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If the Macedonian users and the administrators on the English Wikipedia could hear what MATIA is saying about them (on the Greek WP, where he unloads his grievences), their ears would burn. REX 15:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA's perspective

On the Greek Wikipedia on Talk:Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, MATIA confidently claims the following:

Οι Κρητικοί ήταν και είναι Έλληνες. Και κυρίως νιώθουν Έλληνες. Οι Σκοπιανοί από το 1940 περίπου βαφτίστηκαν Μακεδόνες κι όλα γίναν μακεδονικά. Μακεδονικό δηνάριο, δημοκρατία μακεδονίας, μόνο τον χαλβά δε μας φάγανε ακόμα. Το νόμισμά τους όπως και τα υπόλοιπα είναι κομμάτι της προπαγάνδας τους.

Ματιά 21:25, 18 Ιουν. 2005 (UTC)

Translation: Cretans were and are Greeks. And they mainly feel Greeks. Skopyans from round about 1940 were baptised (ie started to be called) Macedonians and everything became Macedonian. Macedonian denar, Republic of Macedonia, all they haven't taken yet is our halva. Their currency like everything else is part of their propaganda.
Matia 21:25, 18 June 2005 (UTC)

I must express my shock to this hurtful statement and attempt to strip the Macedonians of their identity. I guess we now know what MATIA's views on the issues are. I hope that MATIA can give a satisfactory explanation for all this. Rex^(talk) 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that Matia.gr should be reported for this organization of POV push. I know that the mediator (User:Ed Poor) is quite bussy in something which is not so ridiculous as this dispute is, but I would like to ask him to express his oppinion on this kind of actions. Are we allowed to do them? If we are allowed, we should know, so we can react respectivly. Thanks in advance. Macedonian^(talk) 01:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If that kind of think is allowed, maybe we could get support from the Macedonian Wikipedia (FlavrSavr is an administrator there) and the Albanian Wikipedia. I'm sure that many people would help us NPOV push against MATIA's dishonest tactics. Let's ask Uncle Ed what he thinks. Rex^(talk) 09:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

where are the admins now?

couldn't help wondering about that. My opinions are already recorded in English Wikipedia. It's very interesting that REX escalated his wiki-stalking, but as I told him before he could have read the poll. And no the poll cannot be interpreted as binary. Alll the comments on the poll should be checked by the Med's. And I don't expect REX to dictate what kind of thinking is allowed. Boolean logic or Circular logic doesn't apply on my comments. +MATIA ☎ 17:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, wiki-stalking, MATIA. It's you who are wiki-stalking. That you look at people's contribs is well-known. If you check, you would notice that I had an account at the Greek Wikipedia before you did. You followed me there! Rex^(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Followed you there: I would laugh but I can't. As for the edits... I have 1797 here and 1468 in greek WP (both are since my registration following you last june and I 've never used any other account). I'll gather all your calumnies, you are boring. +MATIA ☎ 18:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you, +MATIA tell us what the Greek Wikipedia says about the modern Macedonians? I would really like some of the administrators to see what kind of POV push and national-shovinism is happening there. Macedonian^(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If I'm wikistalking you, how do you explain that I had an account at the Greek wikipedia before you did. Can I see into the future and know that you would too? Rex^(talk) 18:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't care much for you personal attacks. Don't you dare dicipline me for PA after you have behaved this way. So I called a poll, so what? I am a man of honour, I have nothing to fear (and nothing to lose). I wanted the article at Arvanitika. You caused a dispute, now a poll shall resolve the dispute with a consensus once and for all. Rex^(talk) 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand WP policies and perhaps I don't either. We'll have them explained to us, but not here. +MATIA ☎ 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, especially the policies on sources, such as UNESCO, which you reject for the mere reason that you disagree with what you say. Where are your sources? All you ever say is that we should check your previous contributions. You have NEVER provided a direct argument. It has always been evasion, hasn't it. Here's your chance. Give me one GOOD reason why what you are saying is correct (anything, just don't say look at you previous contribs). I searched your previous contribs, there's nothing there. Page moves should be done with consensus, not at the whims of you and Theathenae. A suitable consensus will be found. If you want to learn WP policies, read WP:V, WP:Cite sources, WP:NOR, WP:RC etc. Also, about that Biris book, I have read it. Isn't it a hard-back pale green book with a pencil drawing on the cover? If it is, I've read it, nd there's NOTHING there. Rex^(talk) 18:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, +MATIA, please provide some neutral source. Not a nationalistic pro-Greek page such as www.macedonia.com. Macedonian^(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Step by step

Could anybody please explain me what points of the article are the subject of the dispute, specifically? There's no point in general discussions (there are forums for that), we are here to discuss how disputes will be described in the text of the article (not in the real world). I have a proposal - since the naming dispute is more or less resolved on WP, I propose to resolve the other specific disputes step by step, starting with the top of the article. That would be the populations of Macedonians in various countries? After we work out a specific version that would be in accordance with the NPOV policy, we would go and try to solve the other disputes. The logic behind this is that there is no point in trying to solve complex historical debates, without first solving the more tangible disputes. --FlavrSavr 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So, do you agree with this approach? (note: I'm in a busy period, I might not be able to discuss thouroughly until the end of the week) --FlavrSavr 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. The naming dispute is already resolved and that policy shall be in force until a good reason is found why this case should be treated as an exception. All other disputed areas can be seen here. Let's work on them one by one taking into consideration Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:NPOV and of course Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rex^(talk) 21:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, guys. We should identify all the problems and write the article in a NPOV way. An article like this can not be assimilative and saying that the modern Macedonians are product of Tito's imagination, when there are great number of sources for separate Macedonian ethnicity even back to 15th century, when actually the ethnicity took more attention by the historians. There are several issues, but we have to work on them, one by one. Macedonian^(talk) 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course Tito did not create the Macedonians. It is foolish to think that one man can create a whole nation. Bomac 08:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

will we have a second one-night-consensus?

How nice that you all agree, again. Almost as nice as this. +MATIA ☎ 18:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

When REX contacted me, he only asked me to vote on the issue. On the other hand, there are clear contributions of yours at the Greek Wikipedia where you are calling the users there against the Macedonians. Not to vote or tell their oppinion. You are calling them to attack the Macedonian position. Macedonian^(talk) 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

User:"Macedonian"

The above user's melodramatic pap about "human rights" all rings rather hollow when one considers his purely chauvinistic attempt to extinguish any reference to the Bulgarian and Greek minorities in the Republic of Skopje: [3], [4]. He even disputes the fact that 51% of geographical Macedonia belongs to Greece[5]. Selective denial of the mere existence of ethnic minorities in his country, thinly-veiled irredentism against a neighbouring country, and an obsession with using a disputed ethnonym and national flag to identify himself. Who is the nationalist here?--Theathenae 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I only revert Theathenae's nationalistic edits that he has no sources about. That is just another of his nationalistic POVs. And this is also another of his tacktics of moving our attention away from the real problem and wasting time here. As you probably know, User:Theathenae was already banned from the Swedish Wikipedia for using this kind of tacktics for pushing his nationalistic POV.

This claim of User:Theathenae is his answer to the realistic poor (or even non-existant) human rights of the minorities in Greece, including the Macedonian minority. There is no human rights organization that support Theathenae's nationalistic claims. On the other side, every major human rights organization in the world which is present in the region has given harsh critics towards Greece for its poor (or non-existant) human rights given to the minorities.

Republic of Macedonia, the country where I live in, has an open field for nationality where you can put ANYTHING you want. In the last census we even had "a can" written as nationality. Also, my Mexican wife is also registered as Mexican, no matter she is the only one in the country. Theathenae clearly knows that since 2001st, Macedonia has one of the best laws in whole Europe on this issue, providing all the rights to the nationalities.

I am a co-worker of a Greek girl here in Republic of Macedonia. Her whole family (Cilimingas) is Greek and they are all registered as a Greeks. I would be glad to ask her for her comment. I am sure she will be glad to comment on this nonsence by User:Theathenae, because she alone is extremely sick of these kind of nationalistic claims.

For any case, here is a link where you can clearly see that the national censuses since 1953rd lists even the nationalities with less than 100 "members": [| Ethnic structure of the population of Republic of Macedonia]. Even the Ruthenian with 11 people are in this table.

But, anyway, as I said, User:Theathenae would use any method he can to turn the attention away from the issue and keep hidding all the sceletons in the closets, when concerning the issue between Macedonia and Greece.

This is not the first time he uses these methods.

I already asked some administrators to check his edits and see his methods here on Wikipedia. Won't anyone ask an arbitration for this guy for this kind of tactics? Sweedish Wikipedia already gave him life-time ban. And I don't think it was because he was an "angel".

He shouldn't be allowed to make us waste time on this senceless and ridiculous claims, instead on reall issue.

Concerning the 51%, that is also ridiculous. The region of Macedonia does not have strict borders, neighter bordering regions from all sides, so there is no base to calculate with percents. The number of 51% shows alone that this claim was only added for giving the reader false impresion that Greece has control over the region. Macedonian^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What about you Theathenae. I have given you sources stating the number of Macedonians in Greece nad you pretend they don't exist! This is stupid! You are the nationalist. I am merely a moderate person who wants to see NPOV on Wikipedia. You are the nationalist. Anyone can verify that from your contributions. POV pushing! You Swedish ID sv:User:Arvanítis has been BANNED for that kind of thing. Rex^(talk) 16:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I disputed your preposterous claim that there are 180,180 Greek citizens who identify ethnically as "Macedonians". The real number is closer to 2,955, the precise number of votes received by the Rainbow Party at the last European Parliament elections in the 13 Macedonian prefectures of Greece. As for Arvanítis, he wasn't banned last time I checked. He made a contribution as recently as today, in fact. ;)--Theathenae 16:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How do you know how many Macedonians (ethnic group) live in Greece when Greece denies any existance of minorities in Greece and does not include ethnicities in the census? Are you trying to hide all the reports of various human rights organizations who harshly criticise Greece? Are you trying to hide that even now in the 21st century there are often and violent represions against anyone who declares as Macedonian? If that is happening now, can you imagine what was happening in the past, some 100 years ago, when the humman rights were not so important issue?

Or, do you maybe Theathenae want to hide the final decisions of the European Court for human rights against Greece and in favor of the Macedonian minority in Greece?

Should I remind you to these posts, where we can clearly see how Greece acts towards the Macedonians that live there: [[6]], [[7]], [[8]].

I will insisnt the issue of human rights in Greece to be considered, always offering relevant sources. And, I will be glad if you can find one (neutral please, not a Greek nationalistic POV push), instead of imagining them. Macedonian^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, how did he make a contribution? Via sockpuppetry (ie User:Thrakiotis). Very dishonest, tut tut! Ethnologue is a reliable source, you figures emerge from original research and therefore cannot be used. Am I not saying it right or something? Rex^(talk) 16:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

English is clearly not your native language. User:Thrakiotis happens to be a good friend of mine who was outraged when informed of your Albanian chauvinism on Arvanites, but has neither the time nor the propensity to get actively involved. I am chatting to him on MSN as we speak... ;)--Theathenae 16:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

And I am talking to Pres. Bush now (who happened to be afriend of mine), on ICQ. He promised he will ask CIA to check your claim. :)))) Macedonian^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha ha ha ha! Don't make me laugh! OK, User:Rexhep Bojaxhiu is a good friend of mine, too :-) Rex^(talk) 16:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Look, Theathenae, all jokes aside now. Can't we come up with a compromise to solve all these issues? i'm sure that I can convince Bomac, FlavrSavr etc to consent to the Greek figures. Big Deal! I'll consent if you stop POV pushing and try to find a neutral compromise like Uncle Ed keep telling us. Rex^(talk) 16:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no reason to lie. He happened to be online when we were in the midst of our usual edit war, but I am not User:Thrakiotis and User:Thrakiotis is not I. I am not even Thracian; I'm a proud Maniot. Sockpuppetry is a rather immature practice - you really should reconsider your approach.--Theathenae 16:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If the sockpuppetry is a rather immature practice, why you keep using it? Why you keep using all the dishonest methids, just to take the attention away from the real issues? Macedonian^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If there is anything more pitiful than Greeks insisting "Macedonians were Greek", it is Slavs insisting "Macedonians are Slavs". Why isn't there even a disambiguation notice? Just divide the turf, make all unspecified "Macedonian" articles simple disambiguation pages, and then talk about Macedonian Slavs, Macedonian Greeks, and Ancient Macedonians and stop haggling, this is a disgrace. If we can specify Ancient Macedonian language, why shouldn't we specify Slavic Macedonian language and make Macedonian language a disambiguation page? That's the only NPOV way, cope with it. dab 83.79.181.171 22:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

We can not specify those pages, because there is no "Macedonian Slavs" in the world. The term "Macedonians" is used by more than 95% of the relevant sources around the world for discribing this group.

There is also NO "Slavic Macedonian Language". There can only be "Macedonian language" whose origin is dominantly Slavic. But the official name of the language, supported again by more than 95% of the relevant sources is "Macedonian language". Macedonian^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Because no one calls it Slavic Macedonian language. Britannica in fact, calls it Macedonian language and the poeple Macedonians. Rex^(talk) 22:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Go to Macedonian language and search for Slavic. +MATIA ☎ 23:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But does Britannica dispute that it is Slavic? I don't think so. 'Slavic' is an adjective, by calling it Slavic Macedonian language, we are still calling it "Macedonian language" (not South-West Bulgarian or something), with added information for disambiguation. The simple fact is that there are two languages that are called "Macedonian". Wikipedia pracitice in these cases is disambiguation, either by more descriptive titles, or by adding terms in brackets. We could have Macedonian language (Slavic), that would be unproblematic. We could also have Macedonians (Slavic). Just don't go about talking about NPOV and human rights (not you, I mean Sterbinski, what the hell does this have to do with anything) and avoid to recognize that there are simply other things known by the same name, which calls for disambiguation. You are free to use the word, but that doesn't mean you own it. 83.79.181.171 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That is why you have the disambiguation page. To pick up the term that you are looking for. And, Yes, Slavic is an adjective, but putted together it seems that the name of the language is "Slavic Macedonian Language". And, as you can see on the Macedonian language page, the Slavic origin of the language is clearly shown.

You can not change the names of the articles just because you do not like it. There is a world outside your own dorm, a world which also has rights.

Also, "Macedonians (Slavic)" is completely wrong, hence the modern Macedonians have origin from several other ethnicities that lived in the region through the history. Same as any Balkan ethnic group. Macedonian^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? How would YOU (anonimous) feel if the name of your language has some prefixes or suffixes in it? On the other hand, there are many variants of the Greek language (for example), but nobody adds some stupid unnecessary addings. Other, say the language as his speakers want to - Macedonian language. Bomac 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You didn't have that problem when you supported REX labeling Arvanites as Albanians, or did you? +MATIA ☎ 23:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

REX does not label them as Albanians. It only shows the origin of the language, as supported by any relevant source on the world. Again, if your nationalistic mind does not like it, that is not mine or Wikipedia's problem. Wikipedia is trying to give real information. Not someone's wishes and nationalistic POVs. Macedonian^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course +MATIA is a nationalist. That you can CLEARLY see from his user page. Bomac 16:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He wans't labeling Arvanites as Albanians, he was implementing the SOURCES on the disputed status of Arvanitic which ic called an Albanian dialect by UNESCO, Ethnologue, Britannica, Encarta, The University of Ohio etx but Matia doesn't believe them. Are they all wrong? Rex^(talk) 23:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

I'm stating in public the changes I'll be making to this article for the sake of wikipedia's last traces of neutrality.

• Restore the article's first paragraph which states the difference between modern Macedonian Slavic and the unrelated ancient Macedonian civilization.
• Remove the ludicrous reference on the "origin" section on how some "Macedonian historians" (whatever that means) believe that Macedonian Slavs are not really the descendants of the Slavs but of the ancient Macedonians and the related disgraceful edits.

If we leave the Makedonski Slavic editors have it their way, then we might as well add in the Ancient Macedonian Language article that it might have been a Slavic language. As from now, any unjustified reverts to my edits will be regarded as an act of edit war. Regards. Miskin 12:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course I will revert that kind of edits. All you want to do with this edits is to erase any possible connection bewteen the Antient and modern Macedonians (ethnic group).

Firstable, you can not add a paragraph denying the relation between the 2, because only a fool can claim that there is no relation at all. It is about time you and all your fellow nationalist to wake up from your dream and realise that not only Greece can be connected to the Antient Macedonians. Maybe now most of the teritory of that Greece is in Greece, but it is a fact that some 100 years ago that teritory was populated mostly by Slavic people (no matter were they Bulgarian or Macedonian).

Anyway... you are talking about the Antient Macedonians, who lived 25 centuries ago. For you to see how long is that, just rty to count year by year. Than, try to figure our... each of those years has 365 days. Do you know how many things changed and how much mixing between the people happened since then? Do you know how much the demographic profile of the region changed since then?

I agree that the article should say that the biggest part of our origin is Slavic (like it always said), but a part of that origin is from several other ethnicities (including the Antique Macedonians) that lived here before the Slavic arived. Same as the Bulgars are a part of the Bulgarian now, no matter the Bulgarians are mostly Slavic.

Also, it is unacceptable you to erase the part saying that the some historians connects us closer to the Antique Macedonians. To be honest, I really do not care are they right or not (as I said before, I am not very happy that there is a possibility a part of my origin to be of a senceless crazy killer like Alexander the Great was) But, it is a fact that those historians can not be ignored, because they are reality (same as your claim that the Antique Macedonians are Greeks, no matter most of the world denies it and no matter there are at least 20 centuries difference between those people and the formation of the modern Greek identity). Macedonian^(talk) 04:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I support Miskin in this case. The differences between Ancient Macedonians and the modern ethnic group must be quite clear in order to avoid confusion if we want the article to remain where it is. Rex^(talk) 13:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Talking about the difference, YES it should be clear. But, the possibility of they to be connected can not be ignored.

Also, this is only acceptable if the difference between the modern Greeks and the Antique Macedonians is as clear as the one between the modern Macedonians and the Antique Macedonians. Macedonian^(talk) 04:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me, I am not Macedonian, nor Greek. Rex^(talk) 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

And as an old Japanese proverb says: "If you throw a stone at a stray dog, it will never take food from you again"... Miskin 08:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an old Greek proverb which says: "όποιος μπλέκεται με τα άχυρα τον τρώνε οι κότες". In other words, "keep out of things that don't concern you". Rex^(talk) 08:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

180,180

Ethologue mentions 180,180 Macedonian language speakers in Greece (1986 census). This noumber here is used as a synonymous to "Macedonians"!! That's not right since only a handfull of slavic speakers in Greece would claim an not-greek ethnicity.
Apart from the above, the 180,180 as an estimation of Slavic speakers in Greece is totaly imaginary in my opinion. What "1986 census" is that? Who did it? I guess they might just have sumed up the total population of vilages that used to have slavic speakers 50 years ago. Anyway, this number seems just redicilous to anyone having even the smalest personal experience with Greece. Anyone interested in seeing why I say that may have a look in my comment in [[9]].--Mik2 12:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The first time it was discussed and analysed and the "n-1"th time. +MATIA ☎ 13:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, it is simple. Greece does not recognize minorities within its borders. Also, there are inormous ammount of data all around the web, including every major human rights organization who claims there is significant Macedonian (or Slav, as you say) minority in northern Greece. I know this is truth, because I use Macedonian more than English any time I go in Florina (Lerin). Maybe Mik2 should try to travel a little through those regions.

I am avare that through the period of endless assimilation that was happening there, many of those people started proclaiming themselves as Greek. But, it is a fact that the national feeling can not just be lost like that.

So, which Greek census we can use, when Greece is ignoring and assimilating the Macedonians for more than 100 years?

No wonder the Macedonians in Greece supported the communist party during the civil war there. They were the only power in Greece in the last 100 years who was recognizing their existance. Macedonian^(talk) 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Don't worry about my traveling experiences Macedonian:) Actualy I have traveled to Florina more than 50 times and I have spent there more than two years of my life. That's because I am partialy from there.
  

It's true that you can use alot of slavic in Florina. But estimations of 100.000-200.000 speakers sound redicilus to anyone living in Greece and having a personal experience from Makedonia.

you say "But, it is a fact that the national feeling can not just be lost like that.". It's questionable if a "macedonian national feeling" ever existed between slavs of Makedonia, even in FYROM teritories. Almost all of them would identify themselfs as Bulgarians or Greeks 100 years ago. No matter what you are told in FYROM schools, that's a fact, face with it.

"So, which Greek census we can use, when Greece is ignoring and assimilating the Macedonians for more than 100 years?" It's true that Greece had done alot to get rid of minority languages, including the slavomacedonian language. One of the sad outcomes of the greek politicy in this subject is that we don't have any Greek census. But that doesn't mean we can use an imaginary census.--Mik2 21:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, this new edit of yous seems more NPOV and I can tell you that I have better oppinion of you now.

I personaly beleive that an estimate of 100.000-200.000 is realistic for people Macedonian (ethnic group) origin. I am not so sure how much of them speak the Macedonian language, because they were not allowed to speak it for more than 50 years (as you know, because as you said, you lived in Florina). So, many of the new generations know the language much less.

The question of the Macedonians identify as Bulgarians some 100 years ago is very questionable. I tried to explain it several times before. Maybe you can look through my posts, because it is quite boring to keep repeating the same things. Anyway, I hope you are aware that a completely self-aware nation can not be grown over night. An average lifetime is about 75 years. Also, I think you know that the family is the one who raises you to be a part of some religion or nationality (I am sure if you were born in Indian Hindu family, you would probably that, an Indian Hindu). So, think about it how ridiculous is to claim that just 100 years ago we were Bulgarians. If you are in my scin now, you would know how senceless that seems to me (as a ethnic Macedonian).

Also, I have to say that our history books dedicate very little time to these area of the history. Out national Macedonian feeling can not be lost just because someone else says that we are Bulgarians.

All I learned about this issue is from international sources and archives (at least the ones available on-line).

I would like to ask you to check this out and see that there are even documents that mention separate Macedonian ethnicity even back in 15th century. Also, that link will show you even Greek sources from the 1930s that recognize the separate Macedonian ethnicity, much before Tito even appeared. Just a reminder that all the Macedonian supported the Greek communist party during the Greek civil war with one reason only: the other option was denying the existance of the separate Macedonian ethnicity, same as the Greek goverment does today, in the 21st century.

So, the next time when you go to Florina, ask some of those people and talk to them as friend. If they trust you (having on mind the represions they still experience), they will tell you what they feel as their ethnicity. Macedonian^(talk) 05:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To clear some thinks: The slavs of Greek Makedonia traditionaly use the word "Makedonski" to describe themselfs and their language. But they don't use the word like you in FYROM use it. "Makedonski" for the vast majority of them means "someone living in Macedonia" or "the language used by us the Makedonski". Anyone leaving in north Greece may also use that word saying "I am Macedonian", not only slavic speakers. In other words, by saying "I am Makedonski" they don't mean "I belong to the Macedonian nation", but they mean "I live in Macedonia". No dought, they do live in Macedonia.

Have in mind that a nation is not something like the race or the colour of your skin, that exists de facto. Nation is a politic and social term. A nation exists only and only if some people believe they belong to it (if and only if there is a national consiousness). When it comes to the slavs of Macedonia, even thouth they did use the word "Makedonski" to describe themselfs, they didn't have the fealing of being a nation. (see the paragraph i wrote before). Therefore a "Macedonian" nation didn't exist before the begining of the 20th century.

Some people indeed used to describe the slavs of Macedonia as different from Bulgarians (I don't know their reasons for that, maybe slightly different language, mayby different lovation, maybe politics). But since only a very few slavs of macedonia identified themselfs as different from Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs a nation didn't exist.

The above is ofcourse not restricted to Slavomacedonians. All nations do not exist, before some people start believeing that the belong to a specific nation. After all, nation as an idea is a product of 18th and 19th centuries. Taking that into account, one may say that no nation existed before that period, including Greek, German and Chinese.--Mik2 19:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on, you know by yourself that no modern Greek ever says that he is "Macedonian". Also, a suprise for you: we, the Macedonians (ethnic group) actually use the word "Makedonski", which is the only refference to this term on our Macedonian language. There is no other name for this.

Also, we do not need your view of the politics if it is based on denials. It is enought of that bullshit here. Wikipedia is a free enciclopedia and you can not expect it to follow your own POV which is based on denial of the Macedonian nation, so you can have exclusive rights over the name "Macedonia". That won't happen, deal with it.

Maybe you should read what nation means.

Another thing... why you only talk about the past? You live in a time when the Macedonians are recognized internationaly by any relevant source as separate nation.

And, by that name: "Macedonians". The past is much diffferent than the one you want to present here, but I am not going to waste my time on that now. Lets talk about reality, about the present. A present where the modern "Macedonian" nation is reality. Macedonian^(talk) 08:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse there is a nation now that call itself "Macedonian". Wheather or not it is the right name for it, that nation had been formed, and exists. I guess you didn't understand what I wrote.

Anyway, talking about the present the 180180 estimation is out of this world and should be removed. Maybe some people can listen their heart beat when listening to such estimations, but it causes a laughter to anyone that have any personal experience with Greece. It should be revomed for the good of Wikipedia.--Mik2 20:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, dear. Ethnologue says that there are 180,180 speakers of "Slavic" in Greece. Therefore, as per Wikipedia policy, what has been published by a reputable publisher shall be used in the article regardless whether Mik (which means "friend" in Arvanitic) believes it or not. Rex^(talk) 20:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any information about that cencus? By whom it was done, what methods were used, and who is considered a "Macedonian language speaker" in it? And remember they sey "cansus", not "estimation". Since greek governement doesn't ask questions about minority languages in census, who had the money and time to perform a "census"? Did a group of researchers go around all northern Greece and asked every single person what language he/she speaks? I am not amnesiac and I don't remember anyone asking neither me, nor my grandparents living in Florina region. I have no idea on how Ethologue (that surely is a reputable publisher) found that number. It's realy surprising.
Mik=friend in Arvanitika? Funny:) Actualy I am not Arvanitis and Mik comes from my first name.--Mik2 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Mik2, the simplest solution to this is Greece to allow a free census and stop the represions against the Macedonians (ethnic group). Even then, after years and years of represion, we can not expect every Macedonian to register as such. But, it is a start. A start that can make us get over this issue once for all times. Instead of living like brothers, we keep frustrating each other and fear each other. Not a good thing and I am sure you know that.

All the problems and arguements we have between us are only in our heads. In real life, nothing of that is valid. When we both (Macedonians and Greeks) free our minds, we might find a solution and finally start living as real neighboors. Macedonian^(talk) 05:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like too to see a census about national consiousness in Greece. But untill it is done one we realy cannot estimate a number of people in Greece that proclaim a non-greek identity. (100.000-200.000! ha!!)--Mik2 08:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Greeks afraid to do that. They are scared about it because they want their country to be ethnically clear, which is impossible nowadays. Bomac 12:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Greeks? You mean the state I suppose. All Balcan countries, including Greece, are afraid of possible diferent ethinisities in their borders. Greece is afraid mainly the possible existance of some people that speak slavic and do not cosnider themselfs greeks. I am 95% sure that they can't be more that 5000. On the other hand there is no matter about Arvanites and Aromanians. You may search all greece and you won't find nowadays more than 500 people that speak those languages and not consider themselfs as greeks. Other countries are afraid minorities too. FYROM in it's censuses consider Aromanians as different ethinicisty from Greeks, even though 99% of the masculine population and more than the haalf of female population spoke Greek too 50-100 years ago, and almost all of them cosnidered themselfs as greeks. This is done deliberetaly to avoid admiting the existance of a greek minority in it's borders. It's the last thing FYROM would want. Same does Albania with Aromanians, although the subject is more complicated there.

Anyway, you people from former "communist" democracies are looking for an identity. It's totaly understood why you are so eager to descover suffering minorities in Greece. I hope it will fade away with the years, for your sake too. Untill then you should be more carefull when reafrering to those subjects. Possibly most of your information is not by non-neutral sources and most of you don't have any personal experience. Nationalists from various countries made Wikipedia's articles about the balkans realy a mess. Like it or not, Greece is today the country of the Balcans with the most stable and developed sense of identity. And this sence is constant not only among those who speak Greek and only Greek. It is also so among Arvanites, Aromanians, Slavomacedonians and Roma. Making Greece look like a country with the biggest minority problem, is such exists, is toataly unfair. Expecialy when propaganda is done by people in FYROM (UCK is still present there isn't it?) and from Albanians, whose country has been oppresing greeks of northern Epirous (or Southern Albania if you like) for decades. Not to mention Bulgarian natinalists that keep draming. Nationalists may ofcourse continue to edit articles in the way the like, and I think that that's what they will do, making themselfs and all other Balcanians something to laugh at. Their national feeling may get stronger when discovering all their "brothers" that "suffer" in Greece, but if they care a litle bit about reality they should start thinking.

PS. Some refear to NGO's or other sources and consider them always neutral. Why? Do or don't people like George Soros pay some bills of Helsinki watch? Do those sources or encylcopedias have a NPOV policy? In some USA states it is taught in scools that Darwin was wrong and human is made by god as the bible says. Those people have their encyclopedias too. Do we have to cosnider those encyclopedias reliable?--Mik2 18:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mik, a short comment. Are you even aware how ridiculous this post looks like? You obviously have no knowledge about the region. I invite you to visit Republic o Macedonia, you will be suprised when you realise that all that you learned in your school has no base in real lie. Propaganda claims can not change the reality. Macedonian^(talk) 15:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you stop insulting people? It's common knowledge that Greece and every other continental European country has ethnic minorities. Just because you don't believe or don't want to believe or believe but don't want other people to believe that there are ethnic minrities in Greece that doesn't mean that we can't be right. Why don't you find some sources to prove your claim that Greece is 100% Greek speaking and that Britannica is lying? Until you do, you will be simply trolling the article. The international human rights organisations estimates on the number of Vorioipirote Greeks in Albania are used on Greeks though. So we can use the Helsinki watch's estimates when estimating the number of Greeks in other countries but we can't use their estimates on how many ethnic Macedonians there are in Greece? These blatant double standards have got to stop. Rex^(talk) 18:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In many countries north of Greece, there was socialism (not communism). By the way Macedonia (in that time part of Yugoslavia) was in the so called "untied countries" (nor the west, nor the east). Greece took the place to enter the EU Yugoslavia supposed to have. So, don't make Greece as one of the "most reasonable and advanced countries in the Balkan region". And, there is a big number of macedonians and other minorities in Greece, no matter how much you want to hide taht fact. Bomac 19:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Saying that Greece is advanced is a bit POV. If Greece were advanced would se have been convicted by the European Court of Human Rights for petty Human Rights violations? Greece is one of the countries that have shown minimal degrees of development since joining the EU. They wasted all that aid that they were given; they didn't use it wisely like the Republic of Ireland did and developed a Celtic Tiger economy that Greece is still struggling to match. Advanced, HA! Rex^(talk) 19:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I forgot that nationalists don't understand other colors than black and white. Also I can see a complex of inferiority here. Anyway, I am too old and too tired to go on discussing about the 200.000 Macedonians in Greece, 400.000 Chinese in Cyprus and and 5.000.000 Klingons in Sweden. As long as some people are so eager to make Wikipedia unreliable let them do it. It seems so important for them. I am out of these discusions--Mik2 22:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Too old and tired to opose sources and acts? Even i you are 20 yearl old hiper active kid, it will be very diicult or you because o one simple act... you are missing relevant sources. Macedonian^(talk) 15:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Στο καλό και να μη μας γράφεις... Rex^(talk) 22:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another treatment without wikiquette. +MATIA ☎ 15:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Content moved from Macedonia (region)

I've moved the following content out of Macedonia (region) and will integrate it into this article when it's been unprotected. I'll remove it from the talk page when I'm done. -- ChrisO 14:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

They consider themselves to be a distinct ethnic group, a claim controversial as many Bulgarians and Greeks believe that they are merely a subset of another people, usually the Bulgarians. They call themselves Macedonians but this term is vehemently opposed by Greeks when used to describe the Slav majority of Republic of Macedonia or a Slavic minority in northern Greece. Greece argues that this usage is inaccurate as Macedonia is in fact inhabited by a number of different peoples, none of whom has a historically exclusive claim to the term with the exception of the native Macedonians who have inhabited the region since the days of ancient Macedonia. (The question of whether the ancient Macedonians were in fact Greek is controversial, as many ancient Greeks - especially political enemies of Macedonian Kings, such as Demosthenes- regarded the Macedonians as non-Greek barbarians. On the other hand Macedonian kings regarded themselves as Greek. All inscriptions in ancient tombs and relics are in Greek related Ancient Macedonian language or in plain ancient Greek language. By 5th century BC Macedonians participated in the Olympic games adding another factor as to how they were regarded, since only Greeks were permitted to participate in the Panhellenic Games at Olympia; see the article on Macedon for more information.) The term is often used by Slavs of the region to mean the Christian Slav inhabitants of both the Republic of Macedonia and of northern Greece. Muslim Bulgarians are called Pomaks.

This text is a complete POV push and anti-Macedonian. It needs to be worked on really a lot. And, BTW, this text is a try to make difference between the modern Macedonians and the Antique Macedonians, a try that turned into a serious POV pusher.

Please check this link and you will see that a there are documents that mention separate Macedonian ethnicity even in the 15th century.

Again, I willnot ever (same as any Macedonian in the world) accept this kind of POV push. If there were anti-Macedonian assimilation attempts and denials some 100 years ago, that can not be allowed in the 21st century. Macedonian^(talk) 04:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Modern and ancient Macedonian culture / ethnicity

I don't think Wikipedia should endorse the point of view (Wikipedia:POV) that the modern "Macedonians (ethnic group)" are completely unrelated to the ancient Makedonians.

It would be better to leave this as an unsettled question.

Say, rather, that Group A claims to see a relationship and that Group B denies the existence of such a relationship. That's good for the intro.

Somewhere in the body of the article, we should explain WHY some people do or do accept the idea that modern and ancient "Macedonians" are related:

• evidence they give which hints at / proves there is a relationship
• evidence showing that the relationship was invented by politician C or party D

Remember, the Wikipedia:NPOV policy recommends against trying to use Wikipedia to settle controversies. As encyclopedia contributors, we should be trying to describe the controversy, not settle it. Uncle Ed 21:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV says to state the facts. Some facts were pre-agreed before the big poll - they are still out of the article. What is the majority and what is the minority view in the scientific community? What do those people feel about it? (they stated their opinion in the poll and later in various talk pages). Will all the WP rules be broken and bented in this issue? All that needs to be done is to find a good disambiguation term. Various have been proposed, but all have been rejected in favor of Macedonians plain vanilla. Have they been self-identifying as Macedonians plain vanilla since 1992, write it in WP as the rules say. Have they used other terms before? Can any of them be used as a disambiguation? Why all other Macedonians are Macedonians-something? If the terms slav-slavic is offensive why do their historians and their politicians use it? Can something like that be used as a disambig? Well I don't know because they never answered such questions because they wanted to be named plain-vanilla-Macedonians. And after the one night consensus they got it. +MATIA ☎ 21:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence for separate Macedonian ethnicity can be found since the 15th century (link towards some of the sources). This is a thing that has to be a part of the text. It is enought of the anti-Macedonians nationalistic claims that Tito was the one who "invented" us.

Also, note that there are no sources before the 20th century that denies a separate Macedonian ethincity. These sources appeared when the assimilation politics from Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria took more power, at the beggining of the 20th century. And all because of teritories.

All censuses made in that time include the Macedonians as part of Bulgarians, Serbs or Greeks. If you take all sources together, it seems like one person can be Greek, Serb and Bulgarian in the same time. All in favor of satisfying some nationalistic claims from those countries towards the teritory of Macedonia. Macedonian^(talk) 08:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, that one night consensus you keep on talking about qualifies as a personal attack. You're implying that it was not an honourable move, but a sneaky and dishonest one. As far as I can see Wikipedia:Naming conflict applies until a good reason is found why this case should be treated as an exception. Got any good reasons? Rex^(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a thought, why don't you make a proposal on where it should be and justify it with sources etc... Who knows, it may even be accepted. Any thoughts you have, please bring them. Rex^(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, was Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/September_2005#Template:Macedonian_naming_dispute a one night consensus? That is how pages are moved (see WP:RM). Rex^(talk) 21:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best thing to do first, would be to review all possible titles and make a list of pros and cons for each one. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

So, the title of the article is disputed, again? --FlavrSavr 00:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think GrandfatherJoe is talking about the titles inside the text of the Macedonians (ethnic group) page. Not about the title of the page itself.

Othervise, that would be a direct support of the denials towards these people. Macedonian^(talk) 08:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping that we would make progress, and start solving the other disputes, step by step, according to their complexity. Ancient history is probably the worst place to start. We should solve the more simple disputes, like the populations of ethnic Macedonians in various countries. These can be easily backed with sources, and do not require complex interpretations. So is anybody, except Macedonian and REX (who have stated their support before), interested in this approach? --FlavrSavr 01:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I am in (as you said). Just I want to know one thing: After long hours of dealing and comparing sources... how will we know that one day some Greek or Macedonian nationalist won't come and destroy everything we worked on? Macedonian^(talk) 08:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Coup d'état

According to WP:RM, so helpfully linked to by User:REX: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged. In that sense, the overnight page move from Macedonian Slavs was indeed a "sneaky and dishonest" coup d'état, as the last recorded support for such a move was well below the 60% required.--Theathenae 12:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to have another poll? Also, I you look at Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll, you would see that "Macedonians" got more actual votes. Was there a consensus to keep it at Macedonian Slavs. If there was, do point it out. As I have said before, in such circumstances, Wikipedia:Naming conflict applies until you find a goot reason why this case should be treates as an exception. Why should it be an exception, Theathenae? Macedonian Slavs never got 60% support. Au contraire there has always been more support for Macedonians and at last Wikipedia policy has been implemented. Oh Joy :-) Rex^(talk) 13:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right, User:REX. Macedonian Slavs never got 60% support but neither did the move here, which is why it should have stayed where it was, according to Wikipedia policy. I remind you that Wikipedia:Naming conflict is a guideline published by User:ChrisO, not official Wikipedia policy.--Theathenae 13:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Which policy is that? Which policy says that it should stay where it was? If you want to know policy, read WP:V. There was no consensus for Macedonian Slavs and Macedonians plain was and is more in favour. This all comes down to sources: more sources call these people Macedonians than Macedonian Slavs and Macedonian Slavs is offensive. Or does the offensive become policy only in selective cases (Arvanites)? Again, countless reasons have been put forward why they should be called Macedonians and you couldn't give a single reason why they should be called Macedonian Slavs. Wikipedia:Naming conflict applies until a good reason is found why this case should be treated as an exception. That policy/guideline applies until a clear consensus is formed. Rex^(talk) 13:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

REX can you explain why the Macedonian Slav (sic) politicians and the Macedonian Slav (sic) historians (search with google the .mk domain) use that offensive term - I can't. Would you like to see editors from RoM to propose a wiki-name that won't break the disambiguation? Even Arvanites and Albanians self-identified as Macedonians around 1600, of course they weren't Mac.Slavs or Mac.Greeks. I would love to see those editors to find a name, at least for disambiguation purposes in texts were more than one Macedonian-something-people exist. +MATIA ☎ 14:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Matia, the term "Macedonian Slavs" that is used by the Macedonians (ethnic group) reffers to the Slavic tribes that settled Macedonia and that latter mixed with the other people living in the area, which finaly resulted in a separate Macedonian nation. So, when this term is used, it is about people that setled here 15 centuries ago.

Seriously, this is not a good support of your position. It actually is one more reason against the term "Macedonians Slavs" beeing used for the moder Macedonians. Macedonian^(talk) 08:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why the Arvanites of Epirus and Western Macedonia call themselves Shqiptar if it is so offensive. Does the offensive card only apply in selective cases? We can name the Macedonians against their will, but not the Arvanites. Double standards? Everyone should be treated equally, and I'm sure that if you searched in the .mk domains for "Macedonian Slavs" and then for "Macedonians", the overwhelming majority of results would be for "Macedonians". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). In English, these people are more commonly known as Macedonians (how else whould you explain the fact that the vast majority of encyclopaedias and sources refer to them in this way). Again, Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Also, i cannot see any reason not to apply Wikipedia:Naming conflict. I have said, that as far as I am concerned, those guidelines apply until you find a good reason for this case to be treated as an exception. Rex^(talk) 15:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kollias explained that, would you like a photo of the book? I'll send it to your talk page. Again personal attacks REX? I did with Arvanites the same thing I proposed to FlavSavr and others to do here. Are or aren't you behind the move in one night? +MATIA ☎ 15:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Lie! Kollias didn't explain anything. Stop making personal attacks, it wasn't a move in one night, it had been debated on this talk page for weeks (check if you like). It's you own fault if you couldn't be bothered to participate. Why don't you tell me what you would change about the article and why? I really want to know... Rex^(talk) 16:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Matia, when mediation was asked, everyone of the Greek side withdraw. So, now you have no reason to complain. If non of the other side wanted to cooperate, it is clear that they do not have how to deffend their possition in front of a cometee. Macedonian^(talk) 08:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A Yahoo! search for "Macedonians", but excluding the words Greece and Bulgaria gives 362,000 results [10], whereas a search for Macedonian Slavs gives 15,900 results [11]. Therefore, as "Macedonians" is the most common name, in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), "Macedonians" shall be used until MATIA and/or Theathenae can give a valid reason why "Macedonian Slavs" should be used. Rex^(talk) 17:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires the name "Macedonians" to be used. Rex^(talk) 17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the vas majority of editors on this talk page think that the name "Macedonians" should be used. Rex^(talk) 17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA and Theathenae have given no good reason to leave it at "Macedonian Slavs". Give us a valid reason, if you can ^{*gleeful smirk*}. Rex^(talk) 17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae might have missed the comments I posted to Ed's talk page on this question, so I'll repost them here so that they will be more visible:

Obviously I can't speak for Ed, but I agree with his action for three main reasons. First, the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy did not exist at the time of the naming poll. With a change (or rather, a creation) of a guiding policy the poll results are effectively invalidated, as the participants were operating without any clear guidelines. Second, the issue of whether or not we follow the WP:NPOV policy is not a matter for debate or polls; it's one of Wikipedia's most fundamental policies. The naming conflict policy is merely NPOV applied to disputed names.

Third, and I'm sorry to have to say this, it was clear that many editors on both sides of the dispute - including yourself - were not interested in following the NPOV policy. The comments made in the poll and the continuing dispute since then have made that very clear. I concluded, and I'm sure Ed did too, that there was little chance of obtaining consensus from two groups of rival nationalists. If this solution was imposed, it was only because neither side wanted to compromise or follow Wikipedia's rules. That's not a situation that administrators can tolerate indefinitely. Ed and I aren't partisans in the Greek-Macedonian conflict, but we do have a responsibility to defend and where necessary enforce Wikipedia's basic policies. -- ChrisO 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was a matter of policy for me as well, not being a member of any of the ethnicities involved or even residing anywhere near the countries involved. By the way, I don't know why REX has become the scapegoat here, when these three links clearly show who was responsible: [12], [13], [14]. Alexander 007 18:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

To ChrisO: if we analyse all the comments on the poll, the renaming of this page (I've mentioned before that I don't know which name should be used, please see this) and the ongoing content-disputes on Macedonia*disambiguation pages show that we have a problem. This problem isn't yet solved. When our friend FlavSavr was disappointed by the results of the big poll (yes there was no consensus for anything, that's why I said this shouldn't be interpreted in binary: yes and no) I told him back in August that he should go for RFC and RFMed. And then I, among with others, was accused as a greek far right extremist who don't want Med. How could any greek answer at that time (early October) what he/she thinks about Med when he was already accused as an extremist? Let me point out that calling all the people who had expressed their opinion in the poll (by both sides) as nationalists doesn't solve the problem and in my opinion yes, you and the other admins are neutral. +MATIA ☎ 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that very few of the administrators know the basics of the dispute. It is clear dispute: "present identity" versus "far history and teritory nowdays belonding to Greece which will obviously stay Greek forever". Also, the big part of the dispute is based on unjustified fear. And yes, nationalism too. From all sides. Macedonian^(talk) 08:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a load of bull! Theathenae, Miskin, MATIA and Chronographos all rejected the idea of mediation after FlavrSavr, I and literally everyone else was begging them to accept:

• Theathenae is rejecting the idea of mediation on the grounds of a lie. It is true that Macedonians are widely known as Skopyani in Greece, but officially, they are known as Macedonian Slavs. All Greek official documents call them Macedonian Slavs. Skopyani is just a way of referring to them without using the name Macedonia and is only used unofficially.
• Miskin is rejecting the idea of mediation for the reason that he is too mighty for something like that speaking on equal terms to an underage Albanian like myself is a horrifying prospect.
• MATIA is tactfully rejecting a premature Med. What I don't understand is how is it premature. The RFC was made a month earlier!
• Chronographos is rejecting it for a reason that I haven't understood yet.

What I can't understand is why did all the Greeks try to get out of mediation. If one was of good faith and wanted to get this dispute over with, they would have accepted. The fact that they rejected the idea of mediation has prolonged this dispute and wasted everyone's time. Rex^(talk) 19:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Check all my comments on FlavSavr's talk page and then remove the personal attacks from your comment here. Take care. And premature is related to my english level (i'm not a native or an advanced speaker). +MATIA ☎ 20:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Matia, it is a fact that all of the Greek side refused mediation. Whatever the reason, that is not a constructive way to solve a dispute. Macedonian^(talk) 08:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not really a personal attack, it's an inference that you no longer support the idea of mediation (if you ever did support it). OK, new start; imagine that I am going to request mediation tomorrow, would you support it, or would you oppose it like Miskin, Theathenae and Chronographos did? Rex^(talk) 20:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When I have written premature Med I was trying to use the same characterization that someone (Zocky? I don't remember if it was this or another admin) had used for the big (June-July) poll. +MATIA ☎ 21:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So you weren't objecting to mediation? I notice that you have cunningly avoided answering my question above. If I were to request mediation, would you support it? Rex^(talk) 23:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, Chronographos did accept mediation later on. He has some house reparations to do, but he said he'd be available in mid-November. Matia, you're not being correct when you say that I was dissapointed by the results of the poll, I was dissapointed by the poll itself, right from the beginning. To remind everybody: Wikipedia:Naming conflict is a consensually adopted policy. --FlavrSavr 14:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We all have things to do in our private lives, don't we? As you can see, I am posting my edits at the middle of the night. If you want something, you will find a way how to do it.

And, of course Miskin will not care much. His national identity was never into question. Mine was. Macedonian^(talk) 08:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Changing the subject, this article has been protected now for nearly two weeks, which is much longer than is normally allowed. Can anyone tell me if it would be OK to unprotect it now, or is this still being sorted out?

PS someone should really archive some of this talk page, its rather long to say the least. G-Man 22:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You might as well unprotect it, as there's no realistic prospect of the participants in this dispute agreeing on a compromise... -- ChrisO 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK done it, I think your above comment could apply to anything to do with the Balkans. G-Man 22:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Damn. This offends me, but I give you a complete support on this matter. No wonder many people reffer to this area as the asshole of the world. We completely deserve that "nickname". Macedonian^(talk) 08:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the above points, could anyone please explain what specific disputes are we discussing about? The Dispute cannot be solved unless we specify what is the disputed content. Is it the naming dispute? Is it the number of Macedonians in various countries? Is it a certain point in their history? Unless we specify that we would always get stuck in general forum-like discussion with no realistic prospect of the participants in this dispute agreeing on a compromise.... --FlavrSavr 23:06, 12 November 2005 --FlavrSavr 23:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I also wonder what we need to discuss about? Which precise moments? Macedonian^(talk) 08:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See also:Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#What_may_talk_pages_be_used_for.3F., and could we please stop engaging in cheap mud throwing, again? (UTC) --FlavrSavr 23:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, some time ago, I've proposed a step-by-step method, for this matter. I get a feeling that the naming dispute isn't solved? Fine, let's work it out, because that's by far the most important an by far the most banal dispute. Now I believe that we have a specific Wikipedia policy dealing this matter, namely the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy, under which, it is clear that we should use "Macedonians" for this ethnic group? --FlavrSavr 23:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You suggested on my talk page that I could supervise a step-by-step discussion of the issues. I think that's a useful idea - Ed Poor did something similar on Terri Schiavo some time ago. I'd certainly be interested in doing it. However, now isn't really a good time for me - my PC is going in for servicing in a few days' time and I won't have much Internet time while it's away. We could probably get the ball rolling at the start of next month.

In the meantime, I'd strongly suggest that people avoid edit and revert wars on this and related articles. It isn't helping anyone, and people on both sides of the dispute are going to earn bans if they keep communicating by reverting rather than using talk pages... -- ChrisO 00:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad if you (ChrisO) supervise this. Until now, you have been quite neutral and it seems that you know enought about the topic. I am just sorry for all the time you would have to spend. I hope that it will at least result into a solution.

Also, I think we should discuss how to protect the page from future nationalistic edicts from both sides. I do not want to spend days and days of editing and my work to be destroyed by some nationalist newbie (I repeat, from any of the sides). Macedonian^(talk) 08:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that on the two most contentious issues - the names "Macedonians" and "Republic of Macedonia" - we are probably going to have to get a binding ruling from the Arbitration Committee with an agreed set of enforcement actions. We will probably also need to have something like the big red box at the top of Talk:Gdańsk. -- ChrisO 19:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I wish this could happen. It is enought with double standards.

If the Arbitration Committee is neutral, it is completely OK for me for them to include. The problem is that they should not ignore the Wikipedia policies and make exceptions just because of a claim from one or 2 nations against the 3rd nation. Especially when there is more than 100 years of similar propaganda against this nation, a propaganda launched by these 2 sides.

I just want to put a note for you, Chris. If this is happening now on Wikipedia (and everywhere else), now in the 21st century, and we (Macedonians) still can not release ourselves from all the propagandas against us, despite the fact that the separate Macedonian nation is not denied by any relevant source around the world...

Could you imagine what was happening to my ancestors, a village people occupied by the harsh Ottoman rule and denied by propaganda from 3 sides, all of whom wanted the Macedonian teritory.

Chris, I do not want to get your pitty with this. I just want you (and anyone else) to think a little on this issue. Why is Macedonia and the Macedonians so big problem for the Greeks and Bulgarians? Because their sceletons that they keep in the closets will show up? Serbia already passed that nationalistic propaganda more than 50 years ago and left it behind, in the past. The truth about their propaganda came out, but that also stayed in the past.

Why now, 50 years latter the other 2 keep doing the same as 100 or 150 years ago? Macedonian^(talk) 05:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that we need a fair (describing not prescribing) naming policy, equilavent to others that already exist. +MATIA ☎ 19:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia:Naming conflict will be taken into consideration. Naming these people against their will cannot be allowed, and any neutral person can clearly see that. Rex^(talk) 19:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree to accept another name as soon as the Greeks agree to change their name. Is so much nicer to be on that side MATIA. No one is denying your identity. All you do is talk about history. I am talking about present identity. Macedonian^(talk) 05:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased with the article as it is. Evidently MATIA, Theathenae & co. have a problem with certain aspects of the article. What are they? Focus on issues please, what would you change in the article. Create a duplicate article if you like and we'll go through it point by point. Rex^(talk) 00:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate article... that might help, as well. --FlavrSavr 02:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This discussion would move a bit forward if claims of affinity ("potential" or otherwise) to Ancient Macedonia are dropped. --Simos 18:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of the Macedonians are aware that we are not direct descendants of the Antique Macedonians. Same as the Greeks are not. But,both of us have at least partial origin from them. To be honest, I beleive that several other nations have some origin from these Antique people too.

But non of us can claim direct origin. Therefore, Wikipedia is completely right to make clear distinction between. But, a (potential) partial origin can not be denied, not even one neutral historian ever denied that. Macedonian^(talk) 05:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't have to endorse or reject such claims, but Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does require that we mention the existence of those claims. -- ChrisO 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia NPOV. That is what I am talking about. I am not very happy reading on Wikipedia that Bulgarians claim that we are brainwashed brothers of theirs. But, that claims exist and they should be ignored (as far as the text is not offensive and assimilative). Macedonian^(talk) 05:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that we're making a mountain out of a molehill. Theathenae & co. haven't even told us what their problem is, despite regular requests for them to do so. It looks like they're never going to/ Perhaps they have no grievences and are just trying to cause trouble, oops, doesn't that sound like trolling? Rex^(talk) 18:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some OK guys from the other side that, despite their nationalistic aproach, realise that the situation is quite different than they tought so before. But the one that you mentioned... in my oppinion he should be banned here for life. Maybe it would be safest for the whole world if he is also banned to leave his flat. I never have read so much nationalistic ignorance like the one this guy promotes. This is not a personal attack... just my oppinion. Macedonian^(talk) 05:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please tell us what you are disputing!!! Rex^(talk) 18:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

REX ask clarifications for our NPA parole. I don't think you should continue your statements about companies and greek nationalism (Talk:Epirus and Talk:Çamë#Disgrace).

ChrisO, I try to treat everything as pseudoscience (get dates and facts and then analyse majority and minority view). +MATIA ☎ 19:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, you can not expect the history of the beggining of the 20th century to be neutral on this issue. The history was written by winners, I am sure you are aware of that. Just compare the situation the Macedonians were in during that period with the situation Greece and Bulgaria was in during that time. Look at all the support they got from the west on this issue, just in order to keep a good position against the Ottomans. Macedonian^(talk) 05:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

a) where are the personal attacks? Is criticising articles a personal attack? b) the NPA parole in sot in force yet, and c) why aren't you helping us reach a compromise? We are discussing here trying to solve this dispute and you are not co-operating. No wonder you rejected the idea of mediation. Rex^(talk) 19:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the "vandalist" of this article. I want to remind you that before me there was anorther vandalism, which changed the article from Macedonian Slavs into Macedonian ethnic group. The reason i "vandalized" was a reaction of your vandalism. You cannot call for macedonian ethnicity while there are the macedonian greeks and macedonian bulgarians. I don't find a reason to be more Macedonians than the others. I remind you that wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not a place for your people to make propaganda. Greeks don't accept for macedonian ethnicity. I think the previous article was fair. It was refering for Macedonians which you claim that is your ethnicity and it was in parenthesis Slavs. I think the article name must cover all the sides. Just see what even Wikipedia suggests...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Overlapping_names

unsigned by 195.14.132.242 (talk); post left at 23:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear "vandal". You should also understand that Wikipedia's neutrality is not based on what one nations feels like. Check the internet, check any relevant source. They all reffer to these people as Macedonians.

Talking about the Macedonian Greeks and Macedonian Bulgarians... that is a pure lie. Non of those people register themselves as something different than Greek or Bulgarian.

Should I remind you that just some 20 years ago the term "Macedonian" was completely forbiten to be used in Greece? People were sent to jainl because of that.

The "Macedonian Greeks" and "Macedonian Bulgarians" appeared in last few years, just in order to deffent your POV pushing on this issue. Not even one source mentions this thing. Why you claim something that you have no sources of?

Just to remind you... we are talking about nationality/ethnicity. No matter of anything, the nationality/ethnicity of the "Macedonian Greeks" and "Macedonian Bulgarians" will never be something different than Greek or Bulgarian. Macedonian^(talk) 05:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Any potential ambiguities have been solved by naming the article Macedonians (ethnic group) and not "Macedonians" plain. How many ethnic groups do you know which call themselves Macedonians. In fact, I prefered Ethnic-Macedonians to be used at all times, but everyone prefered Macedonians (ethnic group). Rex^(talk) 23:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic-Macedonians hides the real naming of these people and gives an impresion of re-naming. The parenteses "()" clearly show that Wikipedia is not trying to rename these people.

There is no Macedonian ethnic group but a slav macedonia ethnic group. I know only Macedonians who are residents of the Macedonian region. And even if I assume you are right, we have a disagreement. The poll decided to remain as Slavs. I REALLY PROMISE, I SWEAR, I WILL KEEP DOING WHAT I HAVE DONE IN PREVIOUS WEEKS IF YOU DON'T AGREE TO CHANGE THE ARTICLE, SORRY!!!!!! And something more; the solutions to the potential ambiguities, were solved by the Slav Macedonians between them and not with Greeks, because you think that you are alone in this Encyclopedia unsigned by 195.14.132.242 (talk); post left at 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, the poll was a tie - there was no consensus. I want to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. We cannot call them Macedonian Slavs or Slav Macedonians because quite simply they don't identify as such. They identify as Macedonians, therefore according to the rule in Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms, the article title must contain the word "Macedonians". There is a wide range of choices:

• "Macedonians"
• Macedonians (ethnic group)
• Macedonians (ethnicity)
• Ethnic-Macedonians
• ...

Why don't you propose something. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ and this will produce your ID and the date/time. I encourage you to open an account, as it then will be easier to know who you are because now you are only a number to me. Rex^(talk) 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That is the reason why Wikipedia is so weak on this issue. Anyone can edit it. Even if we stay here for months and finaly reach an agreevement, someone else like this guy can come here (regardless of his nationality) and destroy everything we worked on. Macedonian^(talk) 05:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Macedonian (your ancestors became macedonians the last 100 years!!!) and Rex the Albanian. The greeks don't need your permission to be called Macedonians because they were Macedonians for thousand years, while your ancestors were in Central Asia.When Alexander the Great Greek Macedonian, did this big empire, your ancestors were uneducated and far from Europe. In Greek anyone could be called Macedonian, like anyone can be called Cretean,Rhodean, Pelloponesian, Athenian, e.t.c.. The stupid problem with that name is because persons like you, who are too nationalists, can not recognize that Macedonia is home of all its residents and anyone from there can be called Macedonian. Greek Macedonians were much earlier than you as Macedonians. As about the names that Wikipedia has for self identifying, well yes but you prefer to say only few words from those rules, and those who are good for you. Wikipedia, yes it says for self identifying, so yes there is the article Republic of Macedonian, eventhough it is FYROM. Yes, you will be described as Macedonians, but there is something more about that rule. You will be self identifying as Macedonians but there is the rule which I showed you that will be- as it was- in parenthesis to say that it is for Slavs.This will refer that by macedonian ethnicity it will refer to the slavic side. As for violations; you began first by changing the article. I am really very curious to listen with which you have agreed to be written right that and you made this isolations. with who??? The Slav Macedonians between you??? and what a choice to be fair for isolation!!!! Macedonian (ethnic group) or Ethnic Macedonian!!!! Really you are the bests for making agreements!!! Well I have just told you my warnings. I chose first to discuss it with you but really don't make me to not have any other choice to begin as i did few days ago. Because that will continue for a long. So let's find something that we both agree

Do you really think that i I became Macedonian just some 50-100 years ago, I wouldn't know about it? Or maybe that is what they teached you at your primary school?

Maybe this will get as a shock to you, but here is a link of a lists o documents that proof the existance of a separate Macedonian nation back to 15th century. Strangely, but some o those documents are Greek. It is pitty that your history book is the only source or your posts. Macedonian^(talk) 15:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have said, about eight times; Britannica, The CIA World Factbook, The Columbia Encyclopedia, The Harvard Dictionary of Music, Philip's Encyclopedia, The Macmillan Encyclopedia, Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, Penguin Encyclopedia of Places, The Companion to British History, The Hutchinson Encyclopaedia and Ethnologue call these people "Macedonians". If you search The Council of Europe's website, The European Union's website and even the United Nation's website you will find that even they have called them "Macedonians". Therefore, given that all these reliable sources and the people in question themselves can recommend the use of the name "Macedonians", who are you to say otherwise? Please tell us what changes you want to make to the article and why. Otherwise you will simply be trolling the article and as for your threat, reverting without discussion will get you blocked - I have seen it happen. Ther title must contain the name "Macedonians" acording to Wikipedia policy as I have already explained to you. Please find sources. Also, please sign your name at the end of your post with four tildes ~~~~ as this will produce your name and the date-time. When you have come up with an acceptable and neutral proposal, please inform us. Rex^(talk) 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said before your refering those sides that you like. You have now remembered about United Nations and European Union! When the Greeks were telling you about what name does UN and EU recognize your country, you were rejecting the name FYR Macedonia. Now you remembered UN and EU to say that you must be called Macedonians. As about wikipedia policy, you have just edited the part of wikipedia rules that you like; I mean the half rule. As I said, yes, your people will be called Macedonians mainly because of Wikipedia's rule, but on the other hand this article with name macedonians, according to wikipedia, will refer in parenthesis that it is for slavs. As about reverting without discussion, I remind you that you r the first one that reverted the article when it had the name Macedonian (Slav). And that without discussion. Sorry if I am wrong you had discussed it with other Slavic Macedonians. Because according to you Wikipedia is for Slav Macedonians! User talk:KRBN

Not only the EU and UN are sources that call the Macedonians under their natural and historical name. 90% of the reliable sources in the world do this. I repeat, 90%.

Concerning the UN and EU... I am sure you know why they call the country FYR Macedonia. If Greece was not a powerful member of them both, no other country in the world would ever support this injustice. Actually, here is what the former United Nations special envoy to Macedonia Henry Sokalski thinks: link. Macedonian^(talk) 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No. of Macedonians in Greece

Unknown... Yeah... In today's time of high technologies and Space travels, the Greeks can't count down the number of Macedonians in their own country. Bomac 15:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Can't even fix a cup of tea... :-)

They can, they are just choosing not to. That way they pretend that Greece is an ethnically homogenous society with no ethnic minorities, only one minority of Muslim Greeks. Talk about living in denial... Rex^(talk) 15:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not just about the Macedonians in Greece. What about the enormous Albanian population? What about the Roma?

Should I start with 1000s of reports of any relevant human rights organization that criticised Greece for its treatment of minorities:

Should I mention the European court for human rights and their judgement against Greece for represion against the members of Rainbow, the Macedonian party in Greece?

Why is the world playing blind on these issue?

Greece would never get in European Union without those powerful sponsors. The human rights is important issue anywhere in the world. But, not Greece. Macedonian^(talk) 05:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

^^ the albanian population is for the vast part illegal and therefore should not be counted. and how exaclty is Greece repressing the rainbow party by allowing it to compete in elections rather than smothering it as is the case with the Greek minority in FYROM and Albania

Ilegal... that is how much you know about the region. It is a fact that the Albanians lived in the region of Macedonia since ever. But, if you live in Greece, it is understandable why you don't know this fact. Greece actually never acnowledged any other nation... they actually beleive they are the only ones living inside their borders. Science fiction story...

Concerning the repressions towards the Rainbow party... even the European Court for Human rights confirmed it with its judgement. Macedonian^(talk) 00:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

== 1944 secretary of state assertion that the yugoslav post ww2 proposal of a "Macedonian " Fatherland, conscience and ethnicity had no political or historical reality ==

this has been added

This document sent out by the Secretary of State in 1944 contends that before Tito and Yugoslav partisan claims were put forward to do with a Macedonian fatherland, there existed no political or historical reality before hand which constituted a "Macedonian" fatherland, conscience or ethnicity

U.S STATE DEPARTMENT Foreign Relations Vol. VIII Washington D.C. Circular Airgram (868.014/26 Dec. 1944)

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers*

The following is for your information and general guidance, but not for any positive action at this time.

The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. "This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece".

The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of "Macedonian Forces" against Greece.

The Department would appreciate any information pertinent to this subject which may come to your attention.

Secretary of State

We all have already seen this 1 million times. Is this the only source you have?

Also, I already said how and why is this motivated... starting from the anti-communist feeling, ending with the great Greek loby in USA.

BTW, should I remind you the present official possitions of USA about Macedonia?

Here is something for you to educate yourself. Maybe it will come as a shock for you, but there are sources confirming existance of a Macedonian ethnicity far before the 20th century. Macedonian^(talk) 00:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

paragraphs that disappeared

I've restored some, there was also a section named "Origin of the name" that disappeared too, check this. +MATIA ☎ 02:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In my oppinion, this paragraph was set up here only for spreading anti-Macedonian ideas. Actually, the paragraph did not include anything that was not already said. It simply does not deserve to see the daylight. Pure propaganda. Macedonian^(talk) 00:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the last edits by 203.63.57.218 (talk · contribs) - see here for the changes. Perhaps few of that editor's lines could be usable, so I leave this note. +MATIA ☎ 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Populations of ethnic Macedonians by country

• Slovenia 3.972 (2002, Makedonci) ([15])
• Austria 13.696 (2001, Mazedonien) ([16])
• United States 42.812 (2002 estimate)([17])
• Canada 31.265 (2001)([[18]])
• Australia 81.899 (2001)([19])
• Croatia 4.270 (2001)([20])
• Germany 61.000 (2001, Mazedonier)([21])
• Albania 10.000 (Mazedonier)([22])
• Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.595 (1991, Mazedonier)([23])
• Serbia and Montenegro 25.847 (2002, Mazedonier)([24])
• New Zealand 456 (2001)([25])
• Switzerland 6.415 (2000, Macédonien)([26])
• France 2.300 (2003 est Macédonienne)([27])

--FlavrSavr 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC) I've gathered most of the links representing the ethnic structure of a given country from the Serbs article. I guess if nobody disputes them there, nobody would dispute their relevance here, but I'll leave them in the discussion page, if they are any complaints about their relevance. Also, I would be grateful if someone provides a link to ethnic Macedonian populations in other countries (eg. UK, Sweden etc)--FlavrSavr 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I also propose to use the see below note for the number of Macedonians in Albania, Bulgaria, and and perhaps for Serbia and Montenegro. This would be done, because:

• The official number of ethnic Macedonians in Albania at this moment, (as it is in Greece) is unknown. The latest census didn't have a separate graph for ethnic affiliation. This has caused several protests from the Greek and other minorities (including Macedonian) in Albania. This has to be mentioned in the text, as well as the information that estimates of Macedonians in Albania, vary from 5000 to 30000, which is a significant difference.
• The official number of ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria at this moment, is 5.071. This figure should remain in the infobox, with the see below note. It would be explained that official number of Macedonians changed dramatically in the course of the 20th century, and several other topics related to the Macedonians in Bulgaria (the both POVs, of course). --FlavrSavr 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So, what is your comment on this, brave Wikipedians? :) --FlavrSavr 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for serb repression in 1930s?

Well? --estavisti 13:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are aware that this was happening. Of course, it was not strong as the Bulgarian and Greek represion against the Macedonians, but it was still reality.

Anyway, the important thing is that is left far back in the past. Dispete the kinky past, nowdays the Macedonians and the Serbs are extremely close and support each other. I personally have several Serbian friends that I love as my brothers and sisters. I would give my life for some of them.

Definitly, this is an example that should be followed by any other Balkan nations that have problems and disputes.

I would be glad to discuss this issue on my talk. If interested, please write to me. Macedonian^(talk) 00:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Other ethnic minorities in Serbian Macedonia were also persecuted during the inter-war period, with thousands being arrested." I'll erase this. Where is the source for that? My gradfather lived in Macedonia until 1948 and he told me it was not true. C'mon. Zikicam 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bulgarian repression in Macedonia (1914-1918, 1941-1945)

I warn the people reverting my entries not to do this if they have no clear purpose. For example, once again I had to post the entry of Bulgarization in Pirin Macedonia, because there are just 2 assimilation processes left: the Serbization and the Hellenization. What about the Bulgarization? Without it, one can get the impression that only the Bulgarians DID NOT assimilate the Macedonians, and it was quite the opposite! Actually, the Bulgarization process of Macedonians and Serbs from Eastern Serbia and what is now Bulgaria (Vidin, Kjustendil etc), especially during the Bulgarian occupations in the I and II World wars were among the storngest in the history of Balkans. As a person of Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Aromanian origins, I have a clear right to say that. I will continue with posting the Bulgarization article until the malicious people stop reverting it, OK? Also, I would like to explain the surname endings once again. Zikicam 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Surname endings change

I put the new chapter about surname changes. I pleed people not to revert it, and to proove the difference. My family LIVED there actually. I urge this Aldux guy not to revert my entries. You are an Italian, man, you don't know what was happening then and there. Zikicam 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Look Zikicam, I'm not saying you're lying; it may even be true, but what counts is 1) no unsourced statements 2)no Mac-Bulg-Greek nationalistic sources, including Krste Misirkov. I have nothing against Macedonians, quite the contrary, but you must understand this article is not only for Macedonians, but for all those who read wikipedia, even if Japanese. It also in your interest to adeguately source your edits, because that way nationalists from neighbouring countries will not be able to oppose reasonable arguments.

And a technical note: you should leave your messages at the end of the talk page. Cheers Aldux 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of new edits

Miskin brought this article back to my attention. My latest edits are based on two considerations: 1) the presence of Thracian, Illyrian, ancient Macedonian genes etc. in any degree in modern Macedonians cannot yet be proven, though it is very likely. 2) Many historians do believe that the ancient Macedonians were Hellenized by the time the Slavs came, and if they are right that means there were Greeks and Slavs mixing, not ancient (no longer ancient in Byzantine times) Macedonians mixing with Slavs. The burden seems to be on the opposing party to bring references that argue for a late survival of the Ancient Macedonian language. Otherwise, WP will give more prominence to the idea that the Slavs mixed with Greeks, not ancient Macedonians (who would no longer be ancient in Byzantine times). Alexander 007 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole notion of "Greek genes", "Slavic genes", "Ancient Macedonian genes", etc. is very problematic. There has been linguistic, cultural, and genetic mixing in this area for a long time, and linguistic, cultural, and genetic identity -- and political power -- rarely align neatly. This is as true for the Greeks as the ancient Macedonians, the modern Macedonians or for that matter the Koreans, the Welsh, or the Egyptians. What's more, much of this kind of discussion is motivated by some peculiar notion that modern legitimacy derives from ancient roots, which again is as peculiar a notion for the Macedonians or the Greeks as for the Israelis or the Sinhalese. --Macrakis 17:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a confusing conflation of language groups, self-identification, descent and political boundaries going on in this constellation of articles. Jkelly 17:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Genes have no ethnicity. But genes from members of one ethnic group pass to members of other ethnic groups, directly or indirectly, in varied amounts. There are no such things as ancient Macedonian genes. But there are such things as genes that passed from ancient Macedonians to other peoples, which is what is intended here. Feel free to find resolution in the opening paragraph, but Miskin's deletion seems extreme. Alexander 007 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Come on people, let the other people (Macedonians) breathe...

I mean, good god people! The Macedonians exist after all nowadays. HELLO!!! Anybody??? Cheers from Bomac 18:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Weasel and POV

Will you please stop playing with words and cite some sources. Trying to find a balance between POVs is not going to help - find reliable sources, forget your agendas PLEASE. Izehar (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is possible... Many historians... Yes. Rather vague. Go ahead and find some references. Or better yet Izehar, why don't you rewrite the damn thing. Alexander 007 19:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not my job to write this article, I know nothing about Macedonia - what I do know is that more and more weasel phrases have been appearing in an attempt to "compromise". Suddenly genetics came onto the scene - why? If it's true, OK. You must have some sources; quote then and leave it at that. Izehar (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Suddenly genetics? What are you talking about? What do you think that ancestry implies, which was a word in the article for months now? Spiritual ancestry? Blood? Ancestry implies genes. I did not introduce genetics, it was introduced when the word ancestry was introduced. Alexander 007 19:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry means kinship and descent - genes (in this context at least) are relevant to the realm of pseudoscience only. Izehar (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it's getting a bit racist now, don't you? Ancient Macedonian genes, where did that come from? Genes control specific characteristics of an organism (height, metabolism etc). What does that have to do with their ancestry? Izehar (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph cut here for citation

Per WP:CITE I am cutting the disputed paragraph to this Talk page for verification. References, and re-wording, are both needed.

"...but it is possible that the genetic make-up of a Macedonian includes some genes from autochthonous groups such as the Thracians, Illyrians, Paionians, and Ancient Macedonians, though there is no way at present to verify this. If present, the transmission of genes from the ancient Macedonians could have happened via the descendants of Hellenized ancient Macedonians, many historians believing that the ancient Macedonians were completely Hellenized by the time of the Slavic arrival."

The line "it is possible... but there is no way at present to verify this" appearing unreferenced in an article is troublesome. Jkelly 19:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying the same thing

I don't know why it suddenly came to your attention now, but saying that "it is likely that their ancestry includes elements of autochthonic groups such as the etc." was saying the exact same thing all along. Also unreferenced. Physical descent (ancestry) is reckoned by genes, physical kinship with ancient peoples---again, by genes. Not keratin or calcium content. Alexander 007 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe by using genetic terminology (which is not pseudoscience), you guys can finally realize what the previous claims implied. They weren't talking about spiritual ancestry. Alexander 007 19:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Genes just sounds more specific, like you're trying to make a point. Unless you're suggesting that the modern Macedonians inherited their mysterious ability to jump from tree to tree from the Ancient Macedonians via the relevant gene, it just sounds silly, and no reasonable source would ever use that word in this context. It is an inappropriate word. If you're going to discuss the prevalence of Chron's disease amongst Ashkenazim, then fine. You can say that they are the descendents of these people. Genes are relevant to what they inherited from their ancestors, not their ancestry itself. Izehar (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not totally true. Ancestry is often established by gene-comparison, as is kinship. For example, if we find ancient Macedonian mummies with sufficient genetic material intact and compare it to modern populations, this is accepted science for comparing kinship and descent. Something similar to this was done in England and English populations not too long ago, and they found great continuity between the ancient English sample and modern populations in a region of England. So, I conclude that I'm not too far off. Alexander 007 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, I think you're talking about PCR - nevertheless, in the absence of a source, such claims could be rendered POV. Especially considering the DIY phrasing ...genetic make-up of a Macedonian includes some genes from... Are you suggesting that every Macedonian has inherited a gene from a specific group people? Even the English test you mention (which showed discontinuity with the Ancient Britons - apparently, in some areas, English people have strong ethnic links with the Norwegians). Also, you cannot inherit genes. Your genes are formed from DNA which is half from your mother and half from your father, and different circumstances make them express themselves (see Gene expression). In other words, when you say you have your father's eyes; that is inaccurate. Your eye colour is controlled by a group of genes, which are cut-and-pasted randomly from all your ancestors (according to Gregor Mendel). Therefore, saying "some" genes is inaccurate. You could say inherited DNA, but that's about it. Every person's genes are unique (except twins and clones). You cannot inherit genes. Izehar (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the phrase that Alexander007 tried to change? Do you find it POV too? +MATIA ☎ 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this to know whether it's POV or not. I know that saying "inherit genes" is wrong. Izehar (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I may have (or may not have, I'm not convinced) used the word gene in a wrong way. Then substitue DNA or alleles or whatever in their place. But when people claim physical ancestry, they claim a physical link---DNA, then. mtDNA especially is used in these contexts. When I wrote "a Macedonian" I intended "a random Macedonian individual" chosen. Alexander 007 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, are you sure you can't inherit genes? I may be misreading the article gene, but it seems to affirm that genes can be inherited. Alexander 007 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In some circumstances, genes can be inherited (see a famous example: Y-chromosomal Aaron). This can prove patrilineal descent, as chromosomes contain DNA. However, as Chromosomes are mixed during fertilisation, they are not used in determining ancestral links, due to the question of what is whose. Izehar (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So why did you say, "You cannot inherit genes"? Alexander 007 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

An innoccent mistake, you can't inherit a phenotype, and some genes are lost during reproduction. You may have inherited a gene from yout mother, but that does not mean that it will be passed to your children. It may be lost. Genes are not used to determine ancestry outside those limited cases (pure patrilineal or matrilineal descent). ...genetic make-up of a Macedonian includes some genes from... is wrong though. Unless, you are trying to prove that Branko Crvenkovski is a patrilineal descendent of Alexander the Great (which in theory could be done), genes cannot be used to that effect. Mutation is a significant problem in this area. From generation to generation genes change, that is called evolution. Even your Y chromosome is not identical to your father's. Izehar (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Izahar is just stating the obvious here. What's sad with wikipedia is that the chauvinist editors who are caught red-handed semi-vandalising articles, is something that just goes unpunished. Miskin 19:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not into "punishment" around here and "semi-vandalism" (by which you mean POV editing) isn't something that's caught by the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy - and rightly so. -- ChrisO 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, read this:[28]. Even National Geographic makes use of such formulations as "modern populations on the island of Malta" having "genes from the Phoenicians", though more specifically they mean DNA. No pseudo-science to say that so-and-so a people have genes from such-and-such an ancient people. It's an accepted manner of speaking in these fields. Of course, nothing on this subject should be added without credible sources in this article. Alexander 007 04:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Phoenician genes/DNA probably survived among the Maltese because of the relative genetic isolation on the island. Phoenician genes are barely found among the modern populations of the Levant, where one may have expected them. Alexander 007 06:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

How to handle it

Look, no one here appears to be a geneticist. In absence of references, we can only treat the ancestry claims as claims. Not unlikely claims, considering that other studies usually find great genetc (or whatever) variation, and indications of older substratums, or whatever. In the case of ancient Macedonian claims, we have to consider the general historical view that the ancient Macedonians were Hellenized before the Slavic invasion, and any ancient Macedonian physical element in modern Macedonians according to this view would be via Byzantine Greeks. Alexander 007 21:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Anything that is unreferenced does not belong on Wikipedia. See WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR. Jkelly 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have not reverted you or Izehar. Alexander 007 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

Genes are just a fancy way of saying ancestors here. And it seems certain that many people currently identified as Macedonian (Slavic-speaking) have some ancestors who would have been identified as Macedonian (different meaning, of course) in the 5c BC. And there are many people currently identified as Albanians and Vlachs and Bulgarians and Greeks and Turks and Serbs who have some ancient Macedonian ancestors. And I'll admit that the Welsh and Danish have fewer ancient Macedonian ancestors, and the Japanese even fewer. So what? --Macrakis 21:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. To me it's also So what?. But it's not "so what" to the Macedonian (ethnic group)/Macedonian Slavs. It is their claims we are addressing here. Alexander 007 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Their

There may have been errors in my recent edits, but let me underscore the pseudoscience in the earlier version, namely:

"...but it is likely that their ancestry includes an element of autochthonic groups such as the Thracians, Illyrians, Paionians, Ancient Macedonians..."

The problem with considering any ethnic group as one unit when considering ancestry is illustrated by these quotes (Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 9th Ed., Jurmaine, Kilgore, Trevathan, Nelson, 2003, pgs. 397-398):

"The results were surprising. Only 6.3 percent of the total genetic variation was explained by differences among major populations (Lewontin's seven geographical units). In other words, close to 94 percent of human genetic diversity occurs within these very large groups. The larger population subdivisions within the geographical clusters (e.g., within the category Caucasians: Arabs, Basques, Welsh) account for another 8.3 percent. Thus geographical and local "races" together account for just 15 percent of all human genetic variation, leaving the remaining 85 percent unaccounted for. The vast majority of genetic differences among human beings is explicable in terms of differences from one village to another, one family to another, and, to a very significant degree, one person to another---even within the same family."

"These latest data dramatize even further the results obtained by Lewontin, leading one geneticist to conclude, "These results indicate that individual variation in DNA profiles overwhelm any interpopulational differences, no matter how the populations are racially or ethnically classified" (Cummings, 1994, p. 500). And while not quite as overwhelming, all the genetically based studies cited here support Lewontin's initial results, strongly indicating that the great majority of human variation does occur within human populations---not between them."

--It is pseudoscience to speak of "their ancestry", so my revision changed an erroneous generalization to a consideration of the ancestry of a random individual Macedonian (ethnic group) member:[29]. Now, I acknowledge that I may have misused the term gene, and in absence of references neither my version nor the previous version (which was both pseudo-scientific and unsourced) is acceptable. What annoyed me here extremely is the way Izehar focused on my edits, but ignored the blatant and more extreme (IMO) pseudoscience in the previous version. I suppose the use of the terms "gene" and "genetic" got him riled up. Alexander 007 06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

New edit

I made some new edits and added the "fact" template after two different sentences. I don't expect these edits to be unchallenged, but they seem reasonable. Alexander 007 07:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the way the Albanians article is laid out in a number of areas. It includes discussions of ethnic origins in a ==History== section, which is what I recommend for this article as well, rather than summarizing a complex, controversial issue in an opening paragraph. The Albanians article just has the bare contemporary facts in the opening paragraph, as these articles should. Alexander 007 09:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits

Basically, I've made some edits I've announced some week ago, and nobody seem to object them. I've changed the ethnic Macedonian population in other countries from 10,000 to Unknown, since nobody gave reasons, nor cited sources for that estimate. The previous number of 100,000 Macedonians was also arbitrary. --FlavrSavr 10:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added more info in the Major Populations. I explained the need for this above. I propose the "Major Populations" and the "The situation today" sections to be merged, since they seem to elaborate similar topics. What do you think? --FlavrSavr 10:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not plan to engage the historical disputes, not until the more tangible disputes are resolved. I've noticed some activities concerning the opening paragraph. Alexander 007 is right to say that the ethnic origins shouldn't have a detailed description in the opening paragraph. Also, I am a bit worried that nobody seem to care about the claim that Later groups such as the Bulgars, Kumans, Pecheneg and other Turkic tribes also mixed with the Slavonic-speakers in the region., that is laid there without any sources. Now, the reason for my concerns is not my opposition to that claim, but the fact than nobody seemed to dispute it, in times when the Ancient Macedonian ancestry was vigorously denied. How come? I haven't seen any sources that would support significant Bulgar, Kuman or Pecheneg influence in the Macedonians' ethnic complexity . --FlavrSavr 10:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Are your people related to Greek people? Would you write it in the article? +MATIA ☎ 12:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are! In fact, the Macedonian salad is the perfect example of the absurdity of striving for a national purity, which, in recent history turned some people into some quite unvegetarian behaviour. --FlavrSavr 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. +MATIA ☎ 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Slavophones in Greece

Can someone justify why the article implies that Slavophones in Greece are ALL ethnic Macedonians who are treated by the Greek government, people and dogs like trash? I mean how more ignorant POV do I need to chase out of this article? The Slavs that were expelled during WW2 were viewed as BULGARIANS who were being punished for their siding with the Nazis, and their massacres against the Greco-Jewish population of Thessaloniki, I think that's a tiny detail that needs to be mentioned every time someone wants to bring up Greek policies in the region. Furthermore Metaxas was a fascist and not a representative of the Greek people, so his actions should not be abstractly referred to as the actions of the "Greeks". Thirdly, Slavophones not all Slavophones today are recognised by neither themselves nor by others as "Macedonians", and any claims on the opposite are just unsourced POV. Slavophone Greeks do however have the status of "Greek citizens" in the same way that "French Arabs" have a French nationality and are only recognised as such. They are therefore equal by law, stop trying to lie about this on the article. Miskin 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just face it that THERE ARE MACEDONIANS IN GREECE. I myself am one. Its propagandists like you who ignite the spark in situations causing ethnic conflicts. Im not even going to try to prove to you that Macedonians in Greece exist, just search the web, books, where ever, there are plenty of international, neutral, reliable, non-Macedonian sources that prove there are Macedonians in Greece (although an effective one is a publication from the Human Rights Watch [30]) Its a fact that Macedonians in Greece exist, you can't change it. I also feel that judging by your POV, you may only be cosidering Greek-point-of-view sources in your research. Have you ever tried any non-Greek sources? Britannica? Human Rights Watch? Reality? Only Greeks stubbornly consider the Macedonians in Greece as Slavophone Greeks, despite what the international community thinks. I advise you to accept the truth. Accept that "Slavophone Greeks" is a racist term used by Greeks to refer to the Macedonians, who to this day suffer the lack of basic human rights and decades of racism and discrimination by Greeks. And yet Greece, continually tries to deny the the existence of Macedonians, forbidding them to express their culture, language, views, and most importantly, their IDENTITY. -

Makedon45

Of course there are Slavophones in Greece who recognize themselves as "Macedonian Slavs". They also vote every four years in the elections of their own political party (all five of them). Miskin 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

To quote Britannica as you requested: Two-thirds of the population are Slavic Macedonians, and about one-fifth are ethnic Albanians. Britannica recognizes only a "Slavic Macedonian" ethnic group. The Macedonian natioanality applies to both Slavs and Albanians within the Republic. Let me guess, is that more Greek POV? Those dirty Greeks, I bet they're hairy and they smell bad too. Miskin 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, it's the damnedest thing, Britannica also says something like that: "In deference to Greece, which has an area traditionally known as Macedonia, the country adopted as its formal title The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and normalized relations with Greece in 1995."[31] Shame on those dirty Greeks, poking their noses on every public paper. Wouldn't you like to burn them all one day? You know just like this one German guy tried to do with Jews. Miskin 15:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

user: Makedon45, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for beginning to use Talk pages to discuss editing the article. Jkelly 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow Party (Ουράνιο Τόξο) tried the elections, and that's a proof of free expression at Greece. The numbers of the "Macedonian Slavs" in Greece have been discussed before, however I must remind this news report. +MATIA ☎ 13:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC) +MATIA ☎ 13:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Remind yourself why Rainbow Party was creatd in the firstplace. If there was really free expression in Greece, there would be no Rainbow Party and the HRW would never have got involved with the Macedonians of Greece. Makedon45

So if you are a Slavophone in Greece let's speak in Greek then. Oh I know, you don't want to be rude to the rest of wikipedians. That's just sad. Don't you ever change my edits (such as the title of this section) again. Miskin 15:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A proposal on merging

I would like to propose a change in the structure of the article. I think that we should merge the "Major Populations of Macedonians by country" and "The situation today" section. This section could be after or before the history section. We will then have subsections regarding the various countries, which would start with the speculated numbers of Macedonians there, which would be followed with a brief explanation on the human rights issues regarding Macedonians in that particular country. --FlavrSavr 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, please do not erase the numbers that Macedonian communities claim. Somebody erased my remark that "Macedonian communities in Albania claim numbers as high as 150,000". What these communities claim is relevant, regardless whether is true or not - Wikipedia is not here to determine the "objective truth" - it is here to describe the disputes the NPOV way. That means that we should state only the facts - "The government of country X/the offical census counts X Macedonians, Macedonian communties claim Y Macedonians, neutrals say the number of Macedonians is Z". If you think that I've somehow made up their claim, here is a link. Personally I believe the number of 150,000 Macedonians in Albania is a bit far fetched, but that won't change the fact that they claim so. --FlavrSavr 16:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'm against. While you're absolutely right that we're not here to determinate the truth, a problem which should be left to scholars, I believe we have a sort of duty to our readers and coeditors to at least try not to furnish misleading information and try to represent the mainstream scholarship. To do an example, this is the reason we don't write in the article Alexander the Great that he is Albanian, even if a respectable number of Albanians seem to think it. I hope you understand my position. Bye :-) Aldux 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we won't furnish false information in that way. We are attributing the view by saying that the Macedonian community claims 150,000. It is a fact that they do claim that, and I believe that is a relevant info to add - as we are actually talking about them. That is not to say that there are actually 150,000 Macedonians in Albania, only that the Macedonian community believes that the number of Macedonians is much higher. In the absence of credible official data from the Albanian government, I don't see a particular reason why we shouldn't put their claim, there. I've already stated that I actually don't believe that the number of Macedonians is that high. I think that the other editors should reconsider my proposal, as well, and I'll leave it to them to decide whether we should put that number in the article, or not. --FlavrSavr 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As for Alexander the Great... I really don't know why all Balkan people are so obsessed with him, I think we should be more focused on the future, and on putting an end to our present economic, political and cultural impotence. That is not to say that the past is not important, but we shouldn't be obsessed with it. --FlavrSavr 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, what about the merging proposal? :) --FlavrSavr 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the two sections are related very much, but I also think that the "Major Populations of Macedonians by country" section is nice and I'm not sure about the merging. +MATIA ☎ 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Can you two please stop this ridiculous edit war? You're cluttering up Recent Changes. Bomac, if you revert one more time, you'll have violated be really close to violating the 3RR. Miskin, you're nearly there as well. Abusive edit summaries don't help either. The differences aren't that many anyway. Can't you discuss it here according to policy? Izehar (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, that "disputed sentence" by Miskin clearly states "modern macedonians". I think is so irrelevant to write Slavic here. I mean, in the ethno-box there is a part where clearly is stated that Macedonians are connected to other Slavic peoples and the South Slavs. Plus, everyone who will search this article, will certainly search something about the Macedonians (as an ethnicity). Noone will get confused here with the Greek, Bulgarian or even Marsian Macedonians. So, I don't know what's Miskin's problem. I insist "Slavs" not to be mentioned there (for a hundred times). Regards, Bomac 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't say "regards", you so blatantly copied that from me. Anyway as I demonstrated above, Britannica writes "Slavic Macedonians", politicians from FYROM have occasionally referred to their nation as "Slavic", and at the end of the day it is "Slavic". I don't buy the myth of FYROM being the only place in the world where "Slavic" is used as a racial slur. For those and the rest of the obvious reasons, Slavic should be pointed out. The reason you didn't want to mention it in the first place was to fool the historically ignorant readers into thinking that "ancient Hellenic" has a remote connection to "Modern Slavic" one. And that wouldn't be a nice thing to do. Miskin 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, you are really flattering to yourself. Regards is a expression I always use. I don't know about you, but malaka didn't looked so regarding to me. REGARDS, Miskin from Bomac the Macedonian :-)

Can't you merge both versions or something? Like say:

This article is about the Modern Macedonian Slavic-speaking ethnic group...

If both versions are accurate, then this should also be accurate. Izehar (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why "Slavic" should not be there if it is accurate and assists in disabmiguation. However, if the fact that they are Slavs is already well-explained somewhere else, then it may be unnecessary to mention it again in the notice. Remember, it is a disambiguation notice - its purpose is to resolve any ambiguities. The reader should know who he/she is reading about at the start, not start by thinking he is reading about the Greeks and the sees Slavs and thinks "Oops, wrong page". Izehar (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I insist to be like in all other similar articles. And, as I said, some users claim that in this way someone will "get confused" with other Macedonians (in a regional sense). Here, in this paragraph ("modern macedonians") there is nothing "confusing", plus the disambiguation link stays one way or another. Cheers, Bomac 17:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC).

And the readers are not blind to see the huge heading of the article in front of their eyes: Macedonians (ethnic group). Bomac 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would really like to understand how Bomac and other editors from RoM see it (for the time being I try to). From past discussions one would guess that Slavic speaking is ok. One week before Bomac changed the related table entry to "Slavs". As for modern, what are the rest Macedonians (those unrelated to RoM)? talk to +MATIA 17:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But, dear MATIA, that's the paragraph mentioned before. As for the "modernity", it is only in sense to avoid saying things zillion times and other Macedonians are modern Macedonians in a regional sense, but they are modern Greeks or Bulgarians in a ethnicity sense. Is this OK :-) Cheers, Bomac 17:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see what Bomac is getting at - he's trying to disambiguate the "RoM Macedonians" from Greeks and Bulgarians based on ethnicity. He is saying the Macedonian ethnic group as opposed to the ethnically Greek or ethnically Bulgarian Macedonians. That's fair enough - however, Miskin seems to think that it's not disambiguated far enough, that there are still some ambiguities. Let's ask them what they are and resolve them in an neutral fashion. Izehar (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost. Except of course that Bomac and the rest of the crew don't realize that there's ethnically Greek or Bulgarian Macedonian apart from just Slavic. They just recognize what Big Brother says. The only reason he didn't want "Slavic" to be there, was what I explained above: To confuse the ignorant reader (who comes here to be educated) into thinking that "ancient Macedonian" was also "ethnic Macedonian". In order to achieve this of course, the word Slavic should be swept under the rug. Talking about propaganda in wikipedia... I tell ya, I could write a book. Miskin 15:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And you will be the main character in it. Bomac 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the understanding, Izehar :-) Cheers, Bomac 17:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

For me, the current situation of the paragraph is "disambigual" quite enough. Bomac 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought both Bomac and Miskin had a point - the key points being that the Macedonian ethnic group is (a) modern (hence a disambig from the ancient Macedonians) and (b) Slavic-speaking (hence a disambig from the non-Slavic (geographical) Macedonians). So I've combined these. :-) -- ChrisO 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. talk to +MATIA 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In that sentence, there is only Slavic speaking. There is no macedonian. It looks like someone is hiding that term or doesn't want to be there. Bomac 22:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

While that Slavic additions sometimes really annoy me, I can't see nothing particularly wrong with the current version of the disambiguation. Of course, a more accurate version would be Macedonian speaking Macedonians, but that sounds odd. --FlavrSavr 01:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was really trying not to point out that the article name looks to me like Macedonians Macedonians, but I couldn't help it when I read your last phrase. talk to +MATIA 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr said: While that Slavic additions sometimes really annoy me... So now it "sometimes really annoys you" right? That's interesting, because I could swear that I have see you constantly propagating on how the term "Slav" is a racial slur. Actually I don't even have to swear, all I have to do is browse the history of this discussion a little bit. But anyway, I suppose now it became "sometimes really annoying". Well, what can you do, times change, people change, hell even the names of nations change, isn't that right? Miskin 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Population of Macedonians

Why is everyone trying to deny the actual numbers of Macedonians? People like user: Antidote is always changing the total population to 1.6 million, when the list in the article adds upto 1,701,512 (you can even add it yourself). The only concern with 1,701,512 is that it does not include any Macedonians in Greece. Greece is one of the few countries besides th RoM that has a significant Macedonian population. Independent researches state that there are 200,000 people of Macedonian decsent in northern Greece. So the number adds to 1,901,512, but lets just say 1.9 million. Then there are neutral estimates of Macedonians in bulgaria and albania not included in the total, at about 30,000 in albania and 25,000 in bulgaria, so the total adds up to some 1,950,000 Macedonians. Lastly, there are no Macedonians included from the "Rest of the World" heading that is mentioned in the article, only because it is "unknown". This is unfair for many reasons and there should at least be an estimated number noted. To back this up, even though some 31,000 Canadians declared themselves as Macedoninas in canada, community spokesmen and local officials estimate that there are actually 100,000 - 150,000 Canadians of Macedonian descent in Canada [32]. So the total will add upto some 2.1 million Macedonians. But for the sake of you Greeks and propagandic nationalists who are stubournly trying to ignore facts and put the lowest number of Macedonians as possible, I was puting in the article "1.6 - 2 million Macedonians (est)" just to try to be nice. So lets just leave it at that and end this dispute since there is nothing to be disputed about. - Makedon45

I was switching it to 1.6 by accident, since I thought thats what the numbers added up to. I'm getting rid of your range for the reason that not all these Macedonians abroad are ethnic Macedonians (the title of this page). The Macedonian diaspora includes Albanian Macedonians, Aromanian Macedonians, Turkish Macedonians, Roma Macedonians, etc.. etc.. etc.. I know that the Greek Macedonians are missing but that's at most an extra 200,000 and that is why 1.7 is an estimate. The same thing is done on the Estonians and Slovenians page for the same reasons.

Also, Makedon45, I wish to start improving the list of Macedonians, and would need some expert help. If and when you are willing, give me a chime. Antidote

UCLA Language Materials Project: Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia, formerly the Yugoslavian Socialist Republic of Macedonia; it has a total of 2 million speakers including 1.4 million in Macedonia and about 200,000 in Greece. There are also speakers in Yugoslavia ( Republic of Serbia), Albania, and Bulgaria. Outside of Europe there are speakers in the USA, Canada, and Australia. Numbers of speakers are not available for Bulgaria or Albania because of those countries' language policies. Total speakers may number 2.5 million (Friedman 1985). --FlavrSavr 20:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation needed

This is a message from Miskin to User:Makedon45: An meneis ontos stin Ellada apodeikse to mou milontas apokleisteika romaiika. YS: Malaka. I know what Ellada means, and what Malaka means. Will someone be kind enough to translate it into English? --FlavrSavr 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Makedon35, after all he's a Slavophone from Greece. Miskin 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea, Miskin, try to act a little bit nicer. Antidote

Let me clarify something. I am not a Slavophone. A Slavophone is an ethnic Greek who speaks a Slavic language. I am not an ethnic Greek. I was not born in Greece. I was born and living in Canada. My parents are MACEDONIANS and were born in the Greek part of Macedonia. They speak broken Greek for the reason that Macedonian is mostly spoken in the Northern Greek districts. So I consider myself a Macedonian, with ancestry who came from Aegean Macedonia (or modern Greece). So no Miskin, I do not speak Greek. I speak English and Macedonian. I do however, only know one phrase roughly in Greek : Δεν μιλώ τα ελληνικά, και δεν θέλω να μάθω πώς να μιλήσω τα ελληνικά. Μιλώ Μακεδόνικά και αγγλικά μόνο. - Makedon45

I don't see how that gives you the right to pretend that you're an opressed ethnic Macedonian Slav from Greece like you implied earlier. There used to be ethnic Greeks living in Monastir, did you forget about that? They were also forced out of their houses, but of course Big Brother doesn't talk about it. Those were different times that cannot be judged with our meta-modern criteria. Haven't you ever thought that it's been a long time since your parents left Macedonia (the real one)? 2,000,000 Greeks were forced out of Asia Minor in 1922, do you know of anything that can match this number? Yet you don't see Greek people bitching all over the internet about it. Maybe it's time to forget about the past and think of the present. There's almost no Slavophone minority left in Greek Macedonia as there's no Greek minority left in Bulgaria and FYROM, it's done, it's over, deal with it, stop hating and get on with your life. Miskin 03:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

HA! Yet you don't see Greek people bitching all over the internet about it. Please, I couldn't have laughed any harder.

• "The truth about Macedonia"
• "An online review of Macedonian affairs, history and culture"
• "Pan-Macedonian Network"
• "Macedonia, The Historical Profile of Northern Greece"
• "Macedonia On The Web"
• and was it not the Greeks who plublished a whole page in the New York Times saying that Macedonia been Greek for 4000 years.

Secondly, Im sorry if you got the impression that I was an opressed ethnic Macedonian in Greece, but I do consider myself a Macedonian with many relatives who are "opressed" Macedonians in Greece.

Thirdly, you have to be blind not notice the large number of Macedonians in Florina, Edessa, Kastoria, Kozani, and so on. I mean, I know in the past that Macedonians were the majority and things have changed now, but how can you say there are absolutny no Macedonians left in Greece today? I visit northern Greece almost every year and from personal experiances, Macedonians are very visible in Western Macedonia. I've been able to get around speaking in Macedonian and English and not Greek. It was last year when I even heard for the first time Macedonian music broadcasted live on the radio in Florina and Nauosa. I also heard Macedonian music being played in clubs and bars in Edessa. Macedonian village festivals are always being held in Edessa, and what really shocked me, was when I heard the Macedonian song "Go away Greeks, we don't want you" being played at a weddding in Ptolemeida back in 2003. And yet with all this, Greece is still denying the existence of Macedonians, just like how you are. Now how can you say theres no Macedonians left in Greece, you are either being really stubourn or you are very stupid. - Makedon45

I was talking about the destruction of Smyrna and the Greek migration from Asia Minor, irrelevant to the sites you posted. Anyway those sites wouldn't exist in the first place if FYROM didn't try to steal Greek and Bulgarian history. Macedonian Slavs were never a majority in Greek Macedonia, simply because they didn't exist. All demographies state them as "Bulgarians", but they were never a majority anyway, that's just the Big Brother talking again. All Macedonian Slavs on the internet come up with the same story "my parents were evicted by the smelly Greeks and I go back to visit the billions of Slavophones every month blah blah blah". If there's so many of them, how come none of the Greeks have ever seen any? I mean I know they're all a bunch of liars and thieves to you, who would never admit beeing with Mac Slavs in order to be able to torture them eternally, but they can't be all of them like that, right? There must have been at least one Greek that wouldn't be so evil to admit it, but strangely I haven't met anybody yet, nor know anyone that has. Unless of course you believe that they're all as evil as your grandparents described them. Miskin 12:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What's with the "go away greeks" thing? Weren't the Slavs invanders in the region? You can keep FYROM, that's not really part of Macedonia anyway, it's the Ottomans who chose to include it as such. Greek Macedonia on the other hand has always been inhabited by Greeks, and no-one has to right to have land claims on that region. It's always been a Greek land, wake up the smell the roses. If there's someone that needs to go away would be the 5 remain whiny Slavophones. Miskin 12:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, your claims are becoming unbelieveable. You are going to fascinate every single scientist with your propy-thesis. Ah, till where can the human brain go and be manipulated! Sadly! Bomac 15:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Slavs were invaders in the region. But that was 1500 YEARS AGO! And what's ironic is when a Greek in Macedonia who was just yesturday deported from Turkey, Ukraine, or Russia, say that the Slavs were invaders and Greeks (like themselvs) were always in Macedonia. Macedonia has never been a Greek land until the Balkan wars. The only place that was originally Greek, was south of Thessalie, mostly around Sparta and those broken rocks in Athens which Greece cherishes so much as their "rich history". And now that Greece got hold of a land like Macedonia, they are holding it tight with both hands. Now that RoM has declared independence in 1991, they are holding it tighter. Although the RoM has never made land claims on Greece, has a population of only 2 million people, and has almost no army, Greece is still worried about Greek Macedonia because they know that Macedonia is not really theirs, they know what they did in the past was wrong, they know there are alot of angry Macedonians who are from northern Greece who might want to seperate, and they know that one day the truth will come out. If Macedonia was really Greek, Greece would not have any thing to worry about because people aren't that stupid and they would already know it was Greek, and strict measures would be placed down on the RoM. But its not Greek, and thats why some 150 nations around the world have recognized the RoM as "Macedonia" including the United States, Russia, and China. Thats why last week, the RoM got official candidate status for the EU. And that's why, even today, you can still see Greek propagnada efforts posing that Macedonia was "Greek", you can take a bus in Salonika and notice that on the bus ticket, for no apparent reason, randomly says: "Macedonia is Greek!". Open your eyes, smell the air, put it together, and it all makes sense. -Makedon45 15:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What's ironic is a person who claims to be from a "alpha", doesn't even know the basic history of it. What is today called Greek Macedonia had always been predominantly Greek in population. This is verified by the Ottoman demographic census on the area which is summarised below:

Ethnic 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

And of course you can guess where does the word "Bulgars" refer to. The region was repopulated by Greeks from Asia Minor for the second time, which explains why there's are hardly any Slavophones/Bulgarians left. Anyway the rest of you edit causes me nothing but pity. Although I'm relatively familiar with your country's social situation, it always amazes me to find out how brainwashed some people are. No comments, I think you helped me make a point to all the readers of this page.

Why are you only naming municipalities with significant Greek populations, but not the WHOLE REGION in general? Here are the REAL numbers from Ottoman sources on the whole region of Greek Macedonia in the early 1900's (before the arrival of Pontic Greek refugees).

• 326,426 Slavs (mostly Macedonians)
• 40,921 Muslim Slavs
• 289,973 Turks
• 4,240 Christian Turks
• 2,112 Circassians
• 240,019 Christian Greeks
• 13,753 Muslim Greeks
• 5584 Muslim Albanians
• 3,291 Christain Albanians
• 45,457 Christain Vlachs
• 3,500 Muslim Vlachs
• 29,803 Roma Gypsies
• 8,100 others.

Because in your edit summary, you were insolent enough to refer to this region as occupied territory. That is only the Macedonia (Greece) region which Greeks regard as the real Macedonia. Most of FYROM was known in antiquity as Paionia. It was basically the Ottoman administration that expanded it as north as Skopje. The demography I provided was data from Aegean Macedonia that you people shamelessly call "occupied". The data didn't include the Muslim and Jewish populations in the region, I was meant to compare Greek vs Slavic. Now what is that trash you present me with? You can't be expecting me to take 12 abstract lines as a credible source. Miskin 18:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Macedonia, but your numbers are wrong and are not those ot the Ottoman census; also you should have noted that somebody important is missing from your list (BTW, a vilayet is not a municipality) Aldux 18:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Im sorry Miskin, your right as always, but mabey this information corresponds better with your intelligence and preferences, mabey I should have put this instead of that "trash" I presented to you above:

• 326,426 pure greeks
• 40,921 Muslim greeks
• 289,973 greeks
• 4,240 greeks
• 2,112 greeks
• 240,019 Christian greeks
• 13,753 Muslim greeks
• 5584 greeks
• 3,291 greeks
• 45,457 pure greeks
• 3,500 greeks
• 29,803 greek Gypsies
• 8,100 others (all greeks)

About the Paionia part, Paionia was considered an independent Macedonian tribe, or the northern fringes of Macedon. Nevertheless, it was inhabited by ancient Macedonians, and it was also part of ancient Macedon in Alexander's empire in 334 BC. - Macedonia

Ok, that's your opinion which I respect, but back in the real world, Paionia was nothing but a barbaric tribe, definitely not Macedonian. In 334 BC Northern India was also part of Alexander's Empire too. But it wasn't Macedonia... So sorry. Miskin 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! Barbaric! Just like how all ancient Greeks regarded all Anceient Macedonians including Alexander the Great! Like non-Greek Barbarians! Macedonia

Maybe you should try out a real history book for a change. It will explain more than you imagine. Miskin

And mabey you should try out a real history book writen by an American or German instead of pro Greek writers for a change. It will explain more then what Greeks imagine. Macedonia

Requesting sources

This is something I should have done a long time ago. All my efforts of talking sense into the MacSlav editors failed, for the simple reason that I was dealing with extremists who had no desire of contributing seriously. In that respect, I'm forced to proceed with the editing of this article by quoting the protocols of WP:POLICY. For every single edit that I make, I'll keep linking to a section of the WP:POLICY. For example my latest edits are based on WP:V. Every time unverified information is added, I'll be removing it until it gets verified. Adding back unverified information while it has been questioned, violates WP:POLICY and according to WP:Vandalism it is considered as Official policy vandalism. Miskin 03:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Wikipedia:Vandalism defines Official policy vandalism as deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism.

I can't see how that is relevant here. There is no indication at Wikipedia:Vandalism that adding back unverified information while it has been questioned constitutes any kind of vandalism. It may not be polite, but it's not vandalism. Zocky 10:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Once the accuracy of an edit has been officially question, the act of adding it back is a violation of official policy. Miskin 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In that respect, I demand from User:Aldux to provide sources for the following edits:

• Those that stayed in northwestern Greece were regarded as a potentially disloyal "Slavophone Greeks" - Please prove to me that around 1913 Greece regarded its Slavic minority as "Slavophone Greeks" rather than plain Bulgarians.
• "Those that inhabited northeastern Greece were forcibly exchanged with Greeks from Bulgaria and Serbia." - Please prove to me that such a factual population exchange was in fact forcibly instigated by Greece (as implied).
• "as part of a government-sponsored process called "Hellenization" - prove that this type of project has ever existed officially under that name (as implied).

Hey, this was already confirmed by everyone including Greek users in the Macedonia (Greece) article already, Its been in the Greek Macedonia article for months now and was approved by administrators and users with reliable sourced references. why are you making it sound like a POV? why are you always deleting it from the Macedonian ethnic group article? Do it again and ill report you for vandalism.

"Following the 1913 Treatry of Bucharest, the original Macedonian place names that existed in Aegean Macedonia were gradually changed to Greek names, as well as the surnames of all Macedonians, according to the 1927 Greek Government Legislative Edict. The Greek Government Gazette declared that "there are not any non-Greek people in Greece". This was part of a process called "Hellenization" whereby all the names of Macedonian villages, towns, regions, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc. were changed, together with the surnames of ethnic Macedonians, into Greek-sounding names. For example, the village of "Lerigovo", on the Chalcidice peninsula, was later renamed to "Arnaía" by Greek officials in 1927. Although many modern Greeks will argue that the Greek name was its original name before the Slav invasion of the 6th century AD, it is certain that many villages and towns, like this one, had never existed in Ancient times but were originally established by the Slavs and other invaders." (talk) Macedonia

You don't really know what "sourcing" means, do you? Please don't revert again until you have really done so. In the meantime, I would advise you to have a look at WP:RULES, WP:V, WP:CITE.

By the way, I never said that Slavic names places were never changed for Greek ones. However:

1. there's no remote hint that those names where in fact "Macedonian Slavic" (and not Bulgarian or Serbian for instance).
2. Slavic placenames still exist.
3. No Greek would argue about changes in placenames - that's a straightforward lie.
4. Greeks have officially every right to perform changes in placenames, especially after the Greco-Turkish population exchange of 1922 that repopulated the region.
5. I never denied the existence of people who have Greek names and claim to be Macedonian Slavic (in Rainbow for example). However that does not prove anything about "Greek government changing forcefully all Macedonian Slavic names into Greek ones" or similar extremist declarations.

Miskin 02:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Even today, the Greek government denies their existence as a national minority. Prove that such a national minority has pre-existed prior to the Balkan Wars, in order to justify your criticism on the Greek government as NPOV.

I'm removing all disputed information until credible sources have been presented for each and every one of them. Miskin 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection regarding Those that inhabited northeastern Greece were forcibly exchanged with Greeks from Bulgaria and Serbia. "Forcibly" only means that the population exchange was done, as in the Greece-Turkey case, without asking the opinion of the local populations in both countries, and in both countries imposing the will of the government over that of the people. Or do you think that everybody was all too happy to leave his farm and village, to migrate to a future uncertain at best? Aldux 18:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

That's honestly the least that concerns me. The article hides tiny wheeny detail, that literally all sources at the time refer to the Slavic population of Macedonia as "Bulgarians". The second Balkan war was instigated by Bulgaria's attack on Greece and Serbia, in order to expand its Macedonian territory. I think that detail justifies the behaviour of the Greeks on a minority that was regarded at the time as "Bulgarian". If this is left out, it is implied that Greeks were discriminated MacSlavs just because they're evil, racist bastards (MacSlav POV). Same goes for the rest of the edits I pointed out. And I don't understand why you keep removing the {{NPOV}} tag. Miskin 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What I'm simply trying to point out by changing "Slavophone Greeks" to "Bulgarians", is the fact that Greeks regarded the Slavic population of the region as "Bulgarian" and that the term "Macedonian" at the time didn't have an ethnic nature. The Greek government restricted the rights of the Slavs in those regions because they were the cause of the Second Balkan War. Not only the Ottomans, but also Bulgarians and literally every demographic source available describes them as "Bulgarians", and not as "Macedonians" nor "Macedonian Slavs". Another evidence from a neutral source would be the "Instituto Geografico de Argostini" of Rome (1905), which records:

• In the vilaet of Monastir: 447 Greek schools with 27,106 students, 242 Bulgarian schools with 8,767 Bulgarian students, and 37 Serbian schools with 1,142 students.
• In the vilaet of Thessaloniki: 521 Greek schools with 32,534 students, 319 Bulgarian schools with 9,544 Bulgarian students, and 21 Serbian schools with 532 students.

Miskin 03:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

genetics

not to pour oil in the fire or anything (hoho), but has this been discussed? I was very amused reading it, it sounds like a very elaborate joke played on the Greeks. I really love the graphics, too. Needless to say, the paper turned out to be worthless [33] [34], but it is really a nice episode to illustrate how (a) this battle is really fought on all fronts, and (b) you will find some marker to prove anything you want, in genetics :) dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah this hoax has been previously discussed and discovered in Talk:Macedonia (region). Obviously someone tried to pass it as some sort of factual evidence that needs to be added in the article, and obviously he was made a fool out of himself. Miskin 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

of course, it would have been Sterbinski (or his team) :o)) I actually think this is quite good, possibly even better than the Albano-Phoenician inscription hoax. dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have temporarily protected this page to deal with the mind-boggling edit warring that has been taking place here. Please discuss your changes on the talk pages rather than reverting; uncivil edit summaries aren't that productive either. I urge you to consider Mediation or another form of dispute resolution. If you have reached agreement or want the page unprotecting, please post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or ask me on my talk page. Thanks. Izehar 12:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, although I've took some rest, but it seems this article is still in trouble. I cannot understand why Miskin repeatedly reverts the fact that the Greek government sponsored a Hellenization policy. There is a specific reference for that. So to quote the Human Rights report: The government changed place names and personal names from Macedonian to Greek, ordered religious services to be performed in Greek, and altered religious icons. Also: During the years between World Wars I and II, Greece followed a policy of assimilating the Macedonian minority and Hellenizing the Macedonian region in northern Greece. And again: Decree No.332 of 1926 ordered the Slavic names of towns, villages, mountains and rivers changed to Greek names. See Appendix A for a list of place names changed according to Decree 332. Law No. 87 of 1936 ordered Macedonians to change their names to Greek names. We can attribute the view to the Helsinki Watch, however, there is absolutely no excuse for deleting the source. Also, the addition "....the Greek population that has historically inhabited the northern-most region of the Greek peninsula, also known as Macedonia (Greece)" can be included, but it most be noted that the Greeks use "Macedonian" as a regional identifier, as well to add the fact that it is unknown whether the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, or not. --FlavrSavr 15:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad this page got protected. Have a look at the comments I've made above. I said that I never denied that some changes in names did take place, nobody denies that, it's not a secret. To claim (as User:Macedonia did) that Greeks deny it, is a straight-forward lie. However this name-change did not fall under some official assimilation program that was known as "Hellenization" like the article says, part of it came naturally via the population exchange that resettled Greeks in the region. Anyway I never completely removed the references on changes of toponyms, so what you just quoted is already covered in the article. The sources were required on different edits that I have analysed on the previous section. It's not so much what the article says, it is the "how" it says it. It was written by Macedonian Slav nationals, it's normal for its content to be biased. One thing that I don't agree with the quotation that you provided, is the use of "from Macedonian to Greek". There's no proof that those Slavic names were "Macedonian Slavic" and not Serbian or Bulgarian. That's completely POV. I provided two neutral sources above, a) the Ottoman census and b) the Italian education watch, both of which verify the fact that a "Macedonian nationality" did not exist at the time. It's important to point out at this point that this whole story was viewed from its contemporaries as a Greek-Bulgarian conflict, as nobody was aware of a "Macedonian Slavic nation". User:Macedonia was insisting on linking to .mk sites, with the naive belief that it would qualify in wikipedia as "credible source". Then he would insist on adding an utterly unsourced and POV example of a name change, first regarding Florina's name (POV), and then a Slavic-to-Greek conversion of a family name (that he probably invented himself). I've been reverting his edits mercilessly, only after I verified with admins that if falls under "official policy vandalism". He's been doing the same in other articles, that are still under his unsourced version. Ironically enough, he reported me in the AdminBoard under the fallacy that "I would blindly revert all edits from all users" on that article. He didn't only hide information but he also lied about my intentions. I urged him many times to read WP:RULES and WP:POV before making edits, but he obviously ignored me. Miskin 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Miskin repetedly took out Hellenization, and the examples that I gave. After claiming it was an "unsourced POV" , I added in 3 sourced links, one was from the Human Rights Watch, done by independent researchers who have visited Greek Macedonia and done a report on it. The other two were Macedonian websites, but I chose them only because they had sourced, reliable references on their page with none or neutral POVs. Despite all these sources which he repetedly ignored and deleted, he was accusing me of vandalism and not knowing what sourcing was. Even FlavrSavr above noted that there was no excuse to take out Hellenization because it was fully sourced. Secondly, although he left in the article that "A number of Macedonian Slavic and Turkish place names and Slavic personal surnames were renamed during this period" - that is what Hellenization is, so I don't know why you would take out "Hellenization" but keep "A number of Macedonian Slavic and Turkish place names and Slavic personal surnames were renamed during this period." Then, to back up this sentence, I gave an example of a town named Lerin, that was renamed during Hellenization to Florina. According to the Florina article, the former name of the town was Macedonian: "Lerin". So there was no excuss to take that out either. The family name that I provided was the same name example used above in the Serbanization part. I just showed how an average Macedonian sounding name that was changed to a Greek sounding name, this is not a POV, this is commen sense. Miskin has even had a long history of other edit reverting wars with other users as well that went beyond the 3RR. Just have a look at the history of these articles: Macedonian Orthodox Church and Manakis brothers. On top of this, he is always insulting the Macedonian people as a whole in his talk. Anyway, I am glad that the article was protected, and that Miskin was blocked from reverting any more. Hopefully, he learned his lesson and will stop this nonsense unless he wants to get blocked again. Macedonia

First of all, what do you mean when you say "hopefully he learned his lesson"? Last time I checked you were also blocked as much as I did, so did all your compatriots who were edit-warring with me on other articles. Nobody favoured you over me nor the other way around, and if that's what you think you're having delusions. Miskin 16:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a look on your personal page and I find it rather disturbed. I don't really expect to change on your opinion, so eventually I'm gonna have to seek mediation. I saw your personal page and it's rather disturbed, it looks like the rants of a fanatic. Although I have explained my few edits many times so far, I will do it one last time for the sake of good will. You must finally realize that you don't own that article, and you don't have the right to be saying whatever you want.

• I have removed the following paragraph: "(e.g. Lerin becoming Florina, Atanasoski becoming Atanopoulos). This was a government sponsered process known as "Hellenization".[35] [36][37]." Because it contains seriously biased POV. The name "Atanopoulos" doesn't even exist, it was invented by the author of this article, and as for Lerin becoming Florina, you need to show evidence that it was changed as such. The link that you provided (hrw.org) verifies that changes in toponyms took place, which is something that I never denied, what I denied were your silly examples, generalizations, and anachronistic use of the term "Macedonian".
• I removed the following sentence: Ethnic Greeks and other ethnic groups residing in Greek Macedonia also refer to themselves as Macedonians but mostly in a strictly regional sense., because it's written it shouts that it was written by a Macedonian Slav who wants to monopolise "Macedonian". What missing is the bold, underlined marking over "Ethnic" or "other ethnic groups" or "strictly". That's ridiculous. The Greeks have had a region named "Macedonia" for thousands of years, and the term "Macedonian" was used in a regional sense such as "Cretan". That is a F A C T, and no matter how it pisses you off, it has to be mentioned because it's true. If for no good reason, simply because it justifies the psychology of the Greeks for not recignizing a "Macedonian" ethnic group that has no record of official existence prior to 1948 (prove me wrong if you can by citing sources). If we leave this out then we're saying half of the story, which is what MacSlav nationalists want. For that very reason, I have replaced the above with "The term "Macedonians" is already in use by the Greeks to refer to the Greek population that has historically inhabited the northern-most region of the Greek peninsula, also known as Macedonia (Greece)." This only describes what the Greeks think now and thought back then, when they regarded that Slavic population as Bulgarian. I'm sourcing everything I just said from Britannica: "In deference to Greece, which has an area traditionally known as Macedonia, the country adopted as its formal title The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and normalized relations with Greece in 1995."[38]Miskin 16:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, you arguments are getting out of controll. I've seen that sentence from Britannica a million times already, and I agree with it 100% for the fact that Macedonia has been traditionally a Greek land for some 90 years now, and yes, the country did have to adopt a temporary title "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to normalize relations with Greece in the dispute of '95, so I dont know where you're going with this. Secondly, no one has proof to what the ancient Macedonians were, there are many references though making them an independent people or a people related to the Ancient Greeks, so its not upto you or wikipedia to decide what they were. So I don't see why Greeks would call themselves "Macedonians because is already in use by the Greeks to refer to the Greek population that has historically inhabited Macedonia" This is a 100% Greek POV. It is a fact though, that today Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians, and other ethnic groups might call themselves "Macedonians" only because they inhabit the region that is called Macedonia, I don't have a problem with that. But you claiming that Macedonia and its inhabitats was historically Greek for thousands of years is not a fact, its the same Greek propaganda such as Greek nationalists claiming that Instandbul in Turkey, Southern Albania, Sicily, Northern Egypt and other non Greek lands were.

• Obviously the name Atanasoski is made up, I said already I used it from the Serbanization part of the article and that I wanted to show an example of a typical Macedonian sounding name changed to a typical Greek sounding name, just like in the Serbanization part. I don't see how you can have fault with that.

• The Macedonian ethnic group did exist before "1948" , and it was mostly mentioned by international observers starting in the 19th century (Im not going to source that, its almost everywhere), although, there are some historical texts dating back to the 15th century proving the existence of Macedonians. So here are some " record of official existence prior to 1948 " that you wanted [39] [40]. The Macedonian ethnic group wasn't created in the 1940's, it was officially recognized in the Yugoslav state in the 1940's.

• And about the Hellenization part, The link that you provided (hrw.org) verifies that changes in toponyms took place, which is something that I never denied, what I denied were your silly examples, generalizations, and anachronistic use of the term "Macedonian".

So why are you changing the story now, before you wanted me to prove that a government sponsered process called Hellenization took place, and I did (Slavic names being changed to Greek names, which you verified above), then you wanted souces, which I provided (hrw.org), and now you're telling me that all this time you were denying the use of the term "Macedonian" in my examples? The source I gave that was from the Human Rights Watch states: During the years between World Wars I and II, Greece followed a policy of assimilating the Macedonian minority and Hellenizing the Macedonian region in northern Greece. The government changed place names and personal names from Macedonian to Greek, ordered religious services to be performed in Greek, and altered religious icons. So if you have a problem with this, don't tell me and don't go changing the article, tell the Human Rights Watch what ever you want and tell them to change their article first. Macedonia

I think the reason of our dispute is you poor knowledge of the situation. As you said you've lived all your life in Canada, so I don't see how can you draw conclusions on how Greek peoples view each other. The fact that more than one ethnic groups inhabit Macedonia doesn't mean they they all use it as a self-describe term. Albania has some 1% or 2% of the Macedonian region and Buglaria has 10%, so how would you expect them to give importance to it. In Albanian administration it's not even called Macedonia. Greece however, not only has some good 50%, but it also has the ancient part of the reason. Thessaloniki is called the co-capital, and Macedonia (Greece) is the largest province of the state. The term "Macedonian" is used as a self-descriptive term by both "Greek Macedonians" and by other Greeks. That's the reason that a new "Macedonian nation" can't be recognised, because the name is already in use. If the Macedonian Slavs had wanted to officially identify themselves as "Macedonian Slavs", nobody would have been against it. It's the unfair monopoly of the term "Macedonian" that FYROM politicians try to achieve, and it's the same type of monopoly you're trying to pass in wikipedia. For crying out loud, you don't even want to mention that Greeks use it the way I just described. You don't even want to think about it, but FYROM will be forced to think about it after their candidature in EU and NATO is vetoed. And honestly, find someone else to speak about ancient Macedonia, because with me you're out of your league. The debate on ancient Macedonian ethnicity ends in the 4th century BD. Macedonians have been ethnic Greek ever since, despite their prior cutlrure, so deal with it and go on with your life.

• You just admitted that The name "Anatanasoski is made up", thank you very much, now even more people owe me an apology. The fault is that you're coming up with a fictional example, for a possible fictional scenario. In other words you're turning the article into Sci&Fi (which is pretty much it anyway). Save your personal examples for your friends and family, but please keep them out of public view.
• You just linked to websites ([41], [42]) that have been listed earlier in this page, and they mean nothing. Take a look at the hoax that User:Dbachmann posted earlier, and tell me honestly, do you really regard this as neutral and credible? Even if we assume that it's 100% credible, it doesn't prove what you're trying to push in the article. In the fomer paper, we only see references of a region called "Macedonia", and the people who live there "Macedonians" That fits very well to the disambiguation pages that we already have (see Macedonia, Macedonians). It doesn't prove nor imply the existence of a separate "Macedonian Slavic" nation. I've seen POV-pushing which tried to present the medieval Bulgarian Empire as a "Macedonian Empire", and I keep asking myself, if you're really so sure about the historical existence of your people, then how come your state and your scholars feed you with such lies? I provided you with 2 credible sources already which are contemporary to the time of the argument. There's not a reference to a Macedonian people, only to a Bulgarian one. If you want to find out why, then see "Macedonian" (disambiguation page). I have much more sources which demostrate the demography of the era, not a single one mentions "Macedonians" as an ethnic group. Where were those "Macedonian Slavs" of yours when Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia were fighting the Ottoman Empire and dividing your land?? Please answer me that.
• So why are you changing the story now, before you wanted me to prove that a government sponsered process called Hellenization took place, and I did (Slavic names being changed to Greek names, which you verified above) - This comment simply proves that you haven't been reading my edits. I haven't changed anything, I've pointed this out 3 times already, and one of them was right above your last edit. I never denied changes in placenames, and I didn't take it out of the article, I denied that those names were in fact "Macedonian" as opposed to Bulgarian or just Slavic. I wanted sourcing for the name changes from the Slavic Macedonian language to Greek, like your edits in the article implied. I provided proof that those names were regarded Bulgarian at the time. You brought up sources on the fact that changes in toponyms did take place, something which I never removed in the first place.
• "and now you're telling me that all this time you were denying the use of the term "Macedonian" in my examples?" - I've been saying it all along, it's you who never cared to understand what my argument was about and preferred to blindly revert me instead. Miskin 20:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, check my latest compromise edits. You have no valid reason to deny them, except your illusion of owning this article. Miskin 21:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, I am tired of arguing back to your senseless unsupported arguments. I have found that you are very sensitive about the family name although it makes no difference if it was made up or not. Now, isnt it true that Slavic names were changed to Greek names. yes. Isn't true that Lerin was that Slavic name of Florina? yes. So what more perfect examples of Hellenizing Greek Macedonia are there? Although you refused the name Atanasoski, I found a real name from the same HRW publication:

Georgos Natsulis, thirty-nine, a worker in the fur business in Kastoria, told the mission:

"My family's name was originally Nachev; they were forced to change it in the 1920s to a Greek name. Two years ago I tried to change it back. I went to the nomarch's office to do it; I was told that it was a "foreign-sounding" name, and that I could not change it. I didn't appeal the decision. In theory it is possible to appeal such a thing, but I know from talking with others that there is no way I could win."

Therefore, there is absolutney no excuse to not use this as an example of hellenization. I still dont know why you'r deleting Florina - Lerin, since it is confirmed that Florina was known as the Slavic name Lerin in the Florina article. As for the Ancient Macedonian claim, the article is not claiming that today's Macedonians are related to ancient Macedonians, it states a fact that the Macedonian government says its people are related to the Ancient Macedonians. I am therefore putting it back in the article.

BTW, the fact that I live in Canada makes no difference to my understanding of my ancestreral land Macedonia. The only difference is that I see the situation from a neutral point-of-view, where as you see everything in a Greek-point-of-view from your home in Greece. Macedonia

The only difference is that you don't have a clue of what's happening in neither FYROM nor Greece. You believe the propaganda sites you read on the net, and believe in national myths. Anyway if you have real examples on name changes, then refrain from using made-up ones. Why did you change Macedonia (Greece) to Greek Macedonia? Would you like me to go around changing Republic of Macedonia to FYROM? Change it back the way it was on your own. You have still to prove that Lerin was in official use over Florina. All official records I have refer to the villaet of Monastir and never to the villaet of Bitola, so in order to be fair, we have to point out that MacSlavs or Bulgarians (your call) changed Greek toponyms into Slavic. What do you think? Miskin 01:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Take my advice and stop wasting your time by reverting the phrase "ancient Macedonians" in the article. Nobody's ignorant enough to ever fall for that hoax. Leave the edits made by Alexander_007, it's the best case scenario that can be arranged for you. Miskin 01:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, if you are certain that today's Macedonians are not descendents of the ancient Macedonians, you will not be bothered with that - is it written there or not. And please, stop seeing the things black and white and stop thinking that everyone (except you) spreads propaganda here, 'caus you too blindly (as I've said black and white) believe in your countries romantic nationalistic myths. Bomac 10:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many things that would normally not bother me. For example I don't really expect anyone of basic education to link FYROM with "Macedonia", and I don't think that this article gets many visitors in the first place. The reason I'm still editing, is because I'm unable to just sit and watch Balkan lies and national myths to be unsupervised. Most editors and admins don't care because this article is of no importance, so I suppose if it weren't for people like me, MacSlav nationalist would claim that they are the Aryan race, and nobody would care enough to remove it. Miskin 20:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Then, I shall give you my suggestion: don't edit this article anymore. Is it enough for you not to edit this article if I say that you are always right (and the Greek history science)? Cheers, Bomac 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the page - page protection gets in the way of non edit warriors, so the 3RR violators have been blocked instead. Izehar 19:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

A few issues I have is that the article states "often referred to as Macedonian Slavs". Where? Only on Wikipedia by pseudo-Athenian propagandists. Most (if not all) public media groups outside Greece refer to the Macedonians, as just that – Macedonians, the same applying to the naming dispute. I don't object to having the term "Macedonian Slavs" on the page, I simply object to the use of the word 'often', can this be changed to a similar word of lesser degree? My second concern is the statement “The Macedonians are primarily the descendants of the Slavic tribes …” I understand that there is a notice calling on citation, but until proper citation is provided can this be edited slightly to something like … “In some circles, it is thought that the Macedonians are …” and furthermore, I ask that the general Macedonian view be represented; that is, that the current Macedonians are descendants of the ancient Macedonians and that the Slav tribes assimilated with these people. --Daniel tanevski 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason for page move

English people, Irish people, French people, Dutch people, Turkish people, Kurdish people, Tibetan people, Chechen people... Have I made my point across? I mean, "Macedonians" and "Macedonian people" are interchangeable, just like Germans and German people. What's the point of having "(ethnic group)" in the title when you can just say "Macedonian people"? --Khoikhoi 07:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of controversy about the page name here. After a lot of time and discussion people more of less settled on Macedonians (ethnic group) or whatever the last name was (well, more people could live with that then the other options). I'd reccommend you move it back, as it may start up another move war here. Also, PLEASE use WP:RM for controversial moves. The answer to your question is the whole debate of this version versus the other macedonian people as it were and if they really are a people, or something like that. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 07:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The words "ethnic group" and "people" are the same thing... Also, "Macedonians" = "Macedonian people". I don't seee what the big deal is. --Khoikhoi 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

They're not the same. Ethnic group is more specific, disambiguates and doesn't cross over into the whole tension of regional identities in the area (Macedonian Greeks, Macedonian Bulgarians). Try moving the article Ethnic group to People. Alexander 007 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan: Wikipedia:Requested moves. Alexander 007 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

Macedonians (ethnic group) → Macedonian people. Ok, English people, Irish people, French people, Dutch people, Turkish people, Kurdish people, Tibetan people, Chechen people... Have I made my point across? I mean, "Macedonians" and "Macedonian people" are interchangeable, just like Germans and German people. What's the point of having "(ethnic group)" in the title when you can just say "Macedonian people"? --Khoikhoi 08:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support:

• Support - I believe that the article should be "Macedonians" or "Macedonian people" ... and naturally, that Macedonians not direct to Macedonia (disambiguation). --Daniel tanevski 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support Although this might be much ado about nothing. The distinctions are somewhat slim, but I think Macedonian people works just fine. Also, consistency at wikipedia would be good. Tombseye 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Yes, I agree this article to be a standard one, just like all others (English people etc., as mentioned before). Bomac 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - There is no reason why Macedonians should not be labelled as people, Macedonian people makes more sense then Macedonians (ethnic group). Macedonia

• Strong Support I think that humiliating titles for nationalities is wrong. In fact, Britannica calls the people "Macedonians" and the language Macedonian. Guess what, the Columbia Encyclopedia calls them "Macedonians" well, as does the CIA World Factbook. It can't be that wrong to call them by the name they use for themselves. Using this humiliating form just to appease Greek nationalists in the face of self-determination makes me feel sick. If those neutral sources can call them "Macedonians", then so can Wikipedia. If you search Yahoo! for "Macedonian Slavs", you get 11,700 sites [43], whereas if you search for "Macedonians", but exclude the words: Greece, Greek, Bulgaria, Bulgarian Ancient and Alexander, you get 225,000 [44] that's more than twice as many. Anyway, we have Naming conventions that require the self-identifying name to be used. Greek nationalism does not override our naming conventions. If we can say French people, then we can say Macedonian people. Rex^(talk) 12:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. LuiKhuntek 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Oppose - If I recall recent history it's not correct to say: "Macedonians" and "Macedonian people" are interchangeable, just like Germans and German people: there has been a conflict between Greece and the state of Macedonia over the name "Macedonia", whether or not it should exclusively apply to the separate state or to the Greek region. "Macedonians" is not unambiguous whether it implies only the people of the Macedonian state, only the people of the Greek province, or "ethnic" Macedonians (that live in both countries) - so the bracketed qualifier "(ethnic group)" seems on its place to me. --Francis Schonken 09:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The official UN name is FYROM, and the name of the ethnic group is generally disambiguated as "Macedonian Slavic", even in Britannica articles. This article should move back to Macedonian Slavs, not to an even more inaccurrate name. Miskin 15:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I feel that it's preferable to maintain the current disambiguation. "Macedonian people" is much too vague - it covers anyone who lives in Macedonia (Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Vlachs etc...). However, "Macedonians (ethnic group)" makes it clear that the article's subject is the ethnic group of that name. Note that in the other examples cited by Khoikhoi there's no confusion between the ethnic group and a geographical region as there is between Macedonians (ethnic and geographical)/Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia. -- ChrisO 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - more or less per User:ChrisO. Jkelly 18:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - It can generate confusion between those that have a Macedonian national identity and those that have a Macedonian regional identity Aldux 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose- Bonaparte talk 21:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose---Macedonians (ethnic group) is the choice in this situation. It's very specific, and it is the least problematic solution for Wikipedia. It's simply not the same situation as English people or German people here. Alexander 007 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/Abstain:

• Abstain - I really don't know. I doubt there will be a great confusion if it redirects to "Macedonian people" (it would also be consistent with other similar articles), but on the other hand, I don't know what's wrong with the current disambiguation. "Ethnic" is a relatively new word/concept in the Balkans, so the folks here tend to associate it (I guess) with the recent wars, and has a somewhat negative reputation. The word, in itself, is OK, however. --FlavrSavr 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral - I see no major problem with either of the titles/terms. Clearly, a "people" constitute a people (or nation) if they deem themselves to be a distinct collectivity of persons, and are identified as such by other peoples. If there is a need in this case to emphasize the distinction between peoplehood and citizenship or between similarly named peoples (past or present), then perhaps the title merits added considerations to disambiguate. //Big Adamsky 14:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

How long is this poll going to last - when does it close? The usual is five days, but sometimes they are left running for a week. Izehar 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

We should set a time-limit ASAP. No more than a week seems like a good choice. Alexander 007 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, as usual, only accounts with enough edits should have their votes counted. Alexander 007 23:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian regional identity... Those people are Bulgarian Macedonians and Greek Macedonians. Ethnicity is a higher level of identity organisation. So, I don't think Macedonians should be marked with any prefixes or suffixes, due to before-mentioned fact and the fact that Greek/Bulgarian Macedonians are Greeks/Bulgarians. In the end, why don't we make articles about Bulgarian Macedonians and Greek Macedonians, so there would be no confusions. Cheers, Bomac 18:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this is complicated and no single answer will suffice it seems. I only supported the idea of Macedonian people as I wanted the same format to be applied so that all of the ethnic groups would be referred in the same manner. Ultimately though, perhaps Macedonian Slavic people would work better then? Or Bulgarian Macedonians as they are pretty much the same group, BUT it seems that they are not behaving as such lately. That way it would be clear that there are two types of Macedonians. It seems strange, but are there even plans for Greek Macedonians page? Perhaps if there were two pages, as Bomac seems to suggest, there would be disambiguation page that would allow readers to choose one and realize that the two are somewhat distinct? Tombseye 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Possibly the ancient Macedonians"

Aldux, the ancient Macedonians are an indigenious population. You have a source (Kanchov, Weigand), that claim that it is possible that they have mixed with the Slavs. What I find totally irresposible is the continuous removal of any connection between the modern and the ancient Macedonians - so the Slavs could have mixed with Vlachs, Trachians, and the Illyrians, but with the ancient Macedonians - no way! Someone could have added Japanese there, and nobody would complain, but to say that it is possible for the modern Macedonians to have anything in common with the ancient Macedonians - that is a sin! --FlavrSavr 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would be good thing to add the Greeks, as well. --FlavrSavr 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The removal is legitmate and has been explained. It does not in any way logically follow that if some Thracians were still around, there were still un-Hellenized Macedonians around. Find good references: simple as that. Alexander 007 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "ancient Macedonians and/or Greeks"? As far as I know, nobody provided a definite proof that the ancient Macedonians were totally subsumed within the Greek ethnicity, although it is indisputable that they have adopted a great deal of Greek culture. And why is nobody requiring a good reference for Thracians? --FlavrSavr 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thracians are referenced by (Kanchov, Weigand). I don't have at the moment references on how completely Macedonians were absorbed by the time the Slavic tribes came. However, on the basis of what numerous editors have testified and what is surely the case (the consensus among historians; consensus=most agree), the burden here is to get a specific usable reference (e.g., from a historian, not an unsourced tourist page folks) that Macedonians were still an ethnicity when the Slavic tribes came into Macedonia. Alexander 007 23:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they have had a strong Macedonian ethnic identity in the 6th century AD - there were strong waves of Hellenization and later on, Romanization. Same applies for the Thracians and Illyrians, though. Do Kanchov and Weigand specifically mention Thracians, Vlach and Illyrians? :-)--FlavrSavr 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a little more than "a wave" of Hellenization, I think most historians would agree. More like a tsunami. By the 5th Century AD, the consensus (=most historians, or the more authoritative historians) is (as far as I've determined; others have stated this also) that the Macedonians were long Hellenized. The Macedonian identity among them was secondary (probably regional identity), they probably spoke no XMK, and they were Byzantine Greeks. It's doubtful you could even refer to them as "a regional unit" in that time, but that's very possible; I would have to see the references. Both sides need more references here, but the ancient Macedonian claim needs a specific legitimate reference. I have not read Kanchov or Weigand. Alexander 007 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to only mention "indigenious population" - I also believe that most of the indigenious inhabitants of the Balkans didn't have a separate ethnic identity in the 6 century AD - even the Greeks considered themselves to be a sort of "Eastern Romans" or something like that. --FlavrSavr 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, that might be okay. The most I have found for the claims of the Macedonians (ethnic group) is a quote from The Search for Alexander, 1980, that Macedonians were often contestants in Roman chariot races in various arenas as late as the 3rd or 4th century AD, and if that's correct there was at least a regional Macedonian identity at that time. That book by the way was originally written in Greek in 1979 or so and the essays in it were under the auspices of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Science.Alexander 007 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As a final note, I recommend that everybody here calms down a bit regarding the Ancient Macedonians: they're not going anywhere. If evidence and legitimate references exist for any of the various modern Macedonian claims, it will be included in the article in the main sections (otherwise, they will have to be relegated to a section describing modern unsubstantiated claims or else completely removed). I'll go find that Search for Alexander book again myself and also look for its sources. Alexander 007 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, my beef was more about the extra treatment of ancient Macedonians, who, IMHO, should deserve a similar treatment as the Thracians. Nobody seemed to matter about the latter. I have adressed this problem earlier. I'll restore the original formulation by Kanchov and Weigand, until we discover to what indigenous populations they were actually referring. --FlavrSavr 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello guys. I usually try to be as academic as possible and I fixed up some aspects of the Greek people page even as some people (or just one guy probably) thought I was doing a Greek nationalist job which was not my intent so I'm not anti-Greek here! I think Rex raises a good point. Most encyclopedias and reference books I've read do just say Macedonians so Macedonian people in accordance with how wikipedia works would be logical. The reality is that most people outside the Balkans probably will never take the time to learn the differences or even care. It seems to come down to bragging rights and claims to the name. As far as I know, most Macedonians don't claim to be Alexander's descendents or Greeks. This debate is going on with the Azerbaijanis too. Apparently, since the name is new they have no history etc. These are just names ultimately used by living people. I sympathize with the Greeks quite a bit. I pretty much think Turkey was wrong in Cyprus, although the Greeks probably could have been more accomodating to their Turkish minority, but I also believe the Macedonians who live in Macedonia have a right to an identity and don't deserve to have to pass some litmus test to use a name. Romania is not Roman, but the language is Latin and the Italians aren't telling them to stop calling themselves Romanians even though they aren't really of Roman ancestry. I'm trying to be objective here and just say that Macedonian people is fair and consistent and can include a caption at the top that explains that these aren't the Macedonians of ancient Greece etc. after some reader comes upon a disambiguation page that relates the ethnic Slavic Macedonians of Macedonia or something to that effect. That's a pretty fair compromise I think. Tombseye 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, okay, but aren't you the same guy who said that Macedonians (ethnic group) can well be moved to Bulgarian Macedonians (see above)? And as long as you brought it up: Romans was a matter of citizenship in the Roman Empire, and Romanians descend (yes, I know that the more exact way to say this is to consider individual lineages rather than that of an entire ethnic group, but this is for the sake of expedience) in a sizable part from such citizens, as well as (no historian that I know of challenges this) in part from direct Roman colonists as well as indigenous groups, Slavs, Cumans, etc. etc., and the name Romania developed naturally from such old traditional concepts as Ţara Romaneasca or Ţara Rumanesca (see Etymology of Romania), Romaneasca and Rumaneasca deriving from Latin Romanus, Roman (that's why "Italians are not complaining"). Being Academic is a good idea. I'm not upset, just a bit irritated by the murkiness of your statements; nor am I really that against "Macedonian people" for this article or anything. It's just the philosophy: "If you're going to do the math, do the math right". Alexander 007 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes I was feeling out possible compromises rather than just taking a side for the sake of taking a side. Reasons are important here. Why can't they just be called Macedonians especially since that's what every other reference book does? Until Rex pointed it out, I hadn't thought of it even though it's rather obvious. As for the Romania usage, it's ultimately derived from the Roman Empire, started and based in Italy, and the analogy is not murky at all as it is the same situation here. The use of a name that one group does not want confused with another that they claim as 'theirs'. In the case of Italy I imagine they just don't really care, but that's really besides the point. Also, 'Roman' colonists doesn't mean Italians and people seem to claim a lot of things all over the world that turn out to not be true. Romans were in Britain, Tunisia, Portugal, Armenia so having colonists who were 'Roman' doesn't really mean anything as a Roman citizen could have come from Gaul or Mauretania or Sarmatian troops in Britain. All of that aside, as you seem to be hung up on the analogy rather than the intitial point of the Macedonians usage, why should Macedonians be treated differently? If reference books, the CIA factbook, and everyone else use the term Macedonians why can't wikipedia just refer to them as such? This does now appear to be catering to Greek indignation of the use of the name rather than just confusion since there seems to be extreme sensitivity to convey that these aren't Macedonian Greeks. And for the record, I am changing my position somewhat due to some convincing arguments as I initially was leaning towards Macedonian people to create some uniformity, but now think it's absurd to have to emphasize the obvious, that they are an ethnic group when that's done at the disambiguation page and if we just put Macedonian people it would come to the page where you can AGAIN explain that these aren't the Macedonian Greeks, but the people of a country called Macedonia. Not sure what math has to do with this, but okay. Tombseye 04:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Italian claims on the Romans are via the concept of the "peninsula". If could use the same criterion for the Greeks to claim heritage from Macedon, then we'd have to change FYROM's name to Vardar right away. Things are complicated because we're using the loose criterion of "Greekness" in order to define the ethnicity of the Macedonians (the real ones). There was no concept of "ethnic Italian" in Antiquity (Italic is a completely different thing), so any nation that relates to the Romans, doesn't mean that it claims Italian ethnicity. The case of the "Romanians" was a bad example. As Decius said, the term "Roman" lost its ethnic identification very early in history, probably before Dacians were Latinized. Everyone would call themselves Romans or successors of the Roman Empire, including Germans, Greeks, Russians and Turks. At the end of the day, the Romanians speak a "Romance language", which proves that they have a cultural heritage from the Romans, and therefore a real reason to call themselves as such. Miskin 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What criteria for Greekness? Language is usually what most academics use. The other 'claims' are just that claims. The Kalash claim to be the descendents of Greeks, but that doesn't mean they are now does it? Matter of opinion as to whether my example was good or bad depending upon CONTEXT and name usage and not an exact analogy. I agree though that Roman lost its exclusive Italic application after losing its city definition sure. Ultimately, the Macedonians aren't going to be considered Greeks because they do not speak Greek. Academics don't simply assign people to become another people based upon claims that they are descendents of some group. Tombseye 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tomby:I know what Roman colonists includes (the distinction I made above was between later citizens of the Roman Empire, who could be simply Romanized indigenous peoples who were Romanized by the colonists; vis-a-vis direct Roman colonists, but not necessarily Italic colonists). I'm not interested in debating your position at this particular moment, but I am going to continue with your (unintentional) misrepresentations. You seem to be "hung up" on the concept that Romans means citizens of the city of ancient Rome or current Rome, not just the empire, and that some may say that only the descendants of the citizens of ancient Rome should be called "Romanians". Well, guess what: Romanians didn't decide to suddenly call themselves Romanians. The Romanized inhabitants of the Balkans lost their specific ethnic identities (Thracians, Illyrians, Dacians, or whatever) and began using ethnonyms derived from Romanus (=Roman). Your example is weak. Bulgarians and Greeks, remember, claim these people only began calling themselves Macedonians in the past hundred years or less; if that's true, ain't no way that "it is the same situation" as the Romanian situation; by the way, more Romanians are interested in claiming Dacian descent rather than Italic; the name Romanian/Rumanian was simply passed down because the Balkan inhabitants were Romanized; Romanians are not "wanna be Italics". However many Macedonians do seem to wanna-be Ancient Macedonians. Nothing really wrong with that until it becomes ingrained national mythology, and we know what national mythology can lead to. As far as the name of the article goes, I prefer Macedonians (ethnic group) (not to curb any national mythology, but because it seems to work fine) and would like User:Jimbo Wales to possibly weigh in on this problem and how Wikipedia should handle it. Alexander 007 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think ChrisO summed up the argument for keeping it at Macedonians (ethnic group) well when he voted oppose. Alexander 007 06:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson, but I'm well aware of the background of Romania/Moldova etc. and you know full well what the point was here. People can claim whatever they want, but the simple fact is that there are a Macedonian people and they have a country. Period. Well maybe the Romanians are part 'Roman' and maybe they're not and maybe the Macedonians are part-Greek and maybe they're not. Really a matter of opinion as verifying these things is difficult and historians don't always agree. Romanian opinions actually vary so I'm not sure where you got your concensus from. Some I've met, including an ex-roommate, believe they are part Roman from Italy, others not so much, but again the point is still the Macedonians. Are we catering to Greek nationalism or just presenting an article about a people who happen to be called Macedonians TODAY? In fact, if for example they examined say the DNA of someone they believe to be an ancient Macedonian and it matched say a Slavic Macedonian then what? None of us know for sure that they aren't part Greco-Macedonian and that's not really the point. We're not here to take sides as the point has been made clear through the disambiguation page already and on the Macedonian people page as well. The UN, most of the governments on earth, reference books (some which I looked at during this debate) all call it Macedonia and the people Macedonians. Not ethnic Macedonians or whatever else. There is sometimes a reference that these are Slavic speaking Macedonians not to be confused with the ancient Greek speakers during the descriptive part, but other than that they just talk about them. And so after the disambiguation page and the section that states that these are Macedonian Slavs it's still 'vague'? Come on. If people don't get it at that point, perhaps they should work on their reading and comprehension skills. What are we really talking about here? I have no problem with Jimbo Wales or whatever adminstrator weighing in, but this does seem to be just a way to kick the Macedonians around and 'put them in their place' as non-Macedonian Greeks more than a way to formulate clarity. Tombseye 08:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Kick the Macedonian Slavs around? Just because the Macedonian Slav politicians have brainwashed their people (since they days of communism) that they have exclusive rights to anything derived from "Macedonia", it doesn't mean that everybody else objects to that needs to shut up because he's "kicking around the poor Macedonian Slavs". That the most irrational logic I've ever heard. In a carricature, it's like saying "we shouldn't be kicking around the poor nazis for claiming to be an Aryan race". Let's just agree to it. Please, let's keep the discussion to a serious level. Miskin 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the local name of the former province that is now a country. Period. Notice that this argument is not being waged in any reference books? It's nationalism pure and simple. They are noted as Macedonian Slavs at least 3 times. Just how much do they need to be set apart here? And where is it that we are supporting an exclusive use of Macedonia for Macedonian Slavs? I merely said that this article should be treated like all the others FOLLOWING a clearly marked disambiguation page. Everything else seems to be set these people apart further still. Comparing the Nazis to the Macedonians? That your idea of being serious? Tombseye 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome for the history lesson, and now here's my next lesson: many (I'd say most) Macedonians believe that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek (very possible; I kinda agree, but it's just one possibility: see Macedon and Ancient Macedonian language); not only that, many Macedonians believe that the ancient Macedonians were a Slavic people, and the modern people are their direct descendants. Romanians would be a good parallel example if Romanians called themselves Dacians as an ethnic group, claimed they spoke the same language as Dacians, and claimed direct descent; and to make it better, if they currently lived north of most of the territory known as Dacia, and if Dacia/Dacian was also claimed by a people to the south of these northerly "Dacian" people; and to make it even better, if to the northeast of these "Dacians" (Romanians), there was a country full of people who still called themselves Romanians, and who claim (with much historical evidence) that the "Dacians" only began calling themselves "Dacians" in the past 60 years or so, and before that they were known as Romanians and were the same people as the rest of the Romanians, with only regional differences. Then I would be applauding your skill at finding parallel examples. With that said, there are good arguments for either name for the article:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Macedonian people. There are of course Macedonians who don't make all those claims, and simply reserve the right to call themselves Macedonians and claim some ancient Macedonian heritage, which few people I think would have a problem with. Alexander 007 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard that theory that the Macedonians were not Greek, however most indications are that the Slavs had not arrived in the Balkans by that time period, so even if they weren't say a type of Greeks, they most likely weren't Slavs either. I have trouble with people 'claiming' historical tribes as their own anyway as people change, intermingle, move around etc. Many Romanian historians are increasingly turning to a Dacian background for the people just as a rediscovery of partial Celtic origins has sprung up in England, the Hittites in Turkey, Phoenicians in Lebanon etc. Also, the Dacians, themselves a branch of Thracians, may not even be the earliest inhabitants, but a progression of people afterwards had no doubt changed things for the region. Alright, look, forget my Romanian example anyway. It was meant to discuss the GENERAL claims upon names and not to be an exact analogy. Lastly, I don't think I agree that people should have exclusive rights to claiming names or ancient people. Since we've just go through talking about how the Macedonians may not have been Greeks it stands to reason that exclusive rights should not be a factor here. We're not here to cater to any one group. The disambiguation page clarifies the various Macedonian usages. The page for Macedonians then clarifies their Slavic language. How much more does the point need to be made? Bottom-line. Tombseye 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, just 'cause you keep sticking to your comparison, there is no dispute among historians AFAIK that there is some Roman ancestry in the Romanian stock: whether Romanized indigenous peoples who, by the fact that they lived in the Roman Empire and spoke a Latin language, and due to some other facts of the time, were thus Romans (if the Hungarians are right and Romanians come from Roman provinces south of the Danube in the Balkans, this is a certainty, by the way); if the Romanization occured in Dacia, then stock from Roman colonists is also certain, though the amount of Italic stock is unknown, nor does it change the fact that the peoples' ethnonym was long ago derived from Romanus, older identifications having vanished; nor does the ethnonym involve a claim of Italic descent, any more than Greeks calling themselves "Romioi" means they claim they are Italian. I'm going on about this because your example really is unsatisfactory (it's not quite, as you say, "maybe Romanians are part Roman, and maybe they're not", unless you mean "part Italic", which is irrelevant). The Macedonian situation is pretty different, nor do you seem to have had much of a clue about the Macedonian situation up until yesterday and today. Be as academic as possible, if you can. Really, only an imbecile can believe that Romanians have absolutely no Roman (not talking about Italic here) stock, and I would like you to find one reputable historian who even believes this. If a person has no idea what they're talking about when they make comparisons, why do they even bother to make comparisons. This is not even an issue of ethnic claims, these are accepted historical facts, and basic facts for someone seeking to pontificate in this field (to quote: "Romanians, even they though they aren't really of Roman ancestry", interesting Original research there; in actuality, even an Italic element is admitted by quite a many historians, though Italic stock is not the issue nor the criterion for Roman; see Roman Empire). Alexander 007 09:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. I meant most Romanians are probably not of Roman origin. It was not meant as an absolute. Surely you knew that I was not saying there was NO Roman settlement as I just got through saying that it could MEAN anyone from the Roman Empire. You're really going off on a tangent there AFTER I explained the usage and wanted to move on. Dude, latching on to some comments doesn't really change my original intent at all. Fine, the example isn't the best when deconstructed, but my intent was not to draw an exact analogy, just something that came to mind right off the bat. Keep in mind though, that what is irrelevant to you may not be irrelevant to others. I don't care if Macedonians are Greeks or descendents of Alexander, but I don't think this name has to become some exclusive property based largely upon nationalism. Your opinion of my analogy or what I know and don't know really doesn't make any difference BECAUSE I explained its original intent while you decided to tell me what I already knew about Romania and the Romans. Congrats on explaining things for yourself. Now moving on to the usage of Macedonian people... Tombseye 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For myself? Sure buddie. I don't want to make a personal attack, but on many, many points you barely knew what you were talking about; and yes, you got schooled son. Alexander 007 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol. I spent like two minutes responding to you quoting from other articles because frankly you really couldn't face the issue head-on and had to resort to tangential arguments about exact analogies. Hey think what you like sport, but telling me what you just read off of other articles without an iota of original thought behind it is hardly going to school me. Whatever boosts that self-esteem though for ya kid. Tombseye 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "original thought" was best left undiscussed. I have nothing to prove to you, Tomb boy. Wikipedia is about Academic information. For the rest, see The Finger. You had the faintest clue what you were talking about, and yet you attempted to pontificate. I already knew all that stuff I discussed, I provided the links for others to read.Alexander 007 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooo, Alex is angry at me. See, when someone says they aren't going for a personal attack they usually turn out to be, well, someone like you. Good thing you don't have to prove anything to me 'cause you sure didn't 'prove' jack. Tombseye 04:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Well, most readers will see your incompetence exposed on numerous points, whether you see it or not. You didn't prove jack shit. Alexander 007 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lol. This must be part of the no personal attacks routine. Man, do you always do what you say you aren't really doing or are you just not really aware of it? That's a rhetorical question by the way so feel free to not answer it. Tombseye 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did not want to take it to personal attacks (I don't prefer to engage in personal attacks and such), but it was extremely difficult not to. Have a peachy day. Alexander 007 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm... This is getting nowhere. (also, Alex, are you the artist formerly known as Decius? :)) --FlavrSavr 11:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oui. And as once stated on zee talk page of my friend Decius, Decius was le pseudonyme of a man named Alexandre. Alexander 007 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bien. I was wondering where have you dissapeared, et voila - here you are with a brand new identity. I knew that your name was Alexander, but I wasn't 100% sure. --FlavrSavr 22:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Flavrsavr said: "Aldux, the ancient Macedonians are an indigenious population. You have a source (Kanchov, Weigand), that claim that it is possible that they have mixed with the Slavs." I could put a bet that those two scholars never said "Slavs mixed with ancient Macedonians", like you constantly imply. Those scholars must have said that the Slavic peoples that invaded the Balkans mixed the indegenious population, which is pretty much stating the obvious. Like Decius said, what is yet to be proved is that ancient Macedonians did exist at the time, and they did live in region of Vardar. Let me remind you that ancient Macedon was initially much smaller than Greek Macedonia. Philip expansion integrated Northern lands (Southern FYROM), which was called Upper Macedonia and was inhabited by Thraco-Illyrians. The proper FYROM region was inhabited by Paeonians and Dardanians. Even if we take into consideration the "assimilatioon" theory, one will never prove that assimilation with actual "Ancient Macedonians" ever took place. It is most likely that those populations that assimilated with Slavs in FYROM, were Hellenized Thraco-Illyrians. According to Livy's quotation of a 3rd c. BC Macedonian embassador to Aetolia ("The Aetolians, the Acarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day."), the Macedonians had been fully Hellenized well into the Hellenistic age (assuming that they were ones a non-Greek people). Furthermore, I think it's irrational to try and determine a modern nationality by ludicrous theories on assimilations, which will never be proved nor disproved anyway. In my opinion there's no single Mediterranean nation that hasn't assimilated with Greeks at some point in its history, that wouldn't give Greeks the right to claim everybody's history or heritage, nor the other way around. Same thing goes for the Romans. It would obviously be much more rational if the Iranians or the Pakistanis claimed assimilation from the ancient Macedonian soldiers, as there are historical records would verify it. If we decided to use the "possible assimilation" logic to define the ethnicity of every nation on the planet, then we'd have to change every single ethnic article in wikipedia. Miskin 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Genetic testing revealed that most of the Kalash and Pashtuns who claim Macedonian ancestry in fact do not show any genetic markers to corroborate, although the Kalash did show small markers that could either mean they are part Macedonian or have some other general European ancestry that remains unclear. Similarly, genetic tests with Macedonians cluster them with other Mediterranean populations so it's not beybond a reasonable doubt that Macedonians have some Greek ancestry of indeterminate origin. Historical records often discuss conquests by a small group or tribe OR some major events, while the masses are left unrepresented. You can see this with the American Revolution in which a large proportion of 'Americans' favored remaining a part of Britain. The usage of Macedonia from a geographic perspective is perfectly valid AND since no one can agree as to who are the real Macedonians, we can just go by their language and still classify them as Slavs which is already the case. This doesn't in any way alter the situation as cultural assimilation can take many forms and exclusive name usage is rather pointless. Tombseye 18:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye what are you talking about? The specimen used by the Oxford University as representative of Alexander's armies was from modern Greeks[45]. They didn't even consider the "Macedonian" part of the "Macedonian ethnic group" as a literal term, which proves the opposite of what you thought. What you suggest your opinion and I respect it, but it's still a POV. A large number of assumptions, "there have been examples of this and that", that's just not good enough to make a solid point, nor to monopolize a name which culturally belongs to another ethnic group. Nobody regards the "Macedonian Slavs" as a representative Macedonian nation except themselves. If that's what you believe then you are as much delusional as they are. In German there's even a different word for "Greek/ancient Macedonian" and "Slavic Mazedonien". Nobody told the Slavs not to use the term "Macedonian", they were told not to monopolise it. Greed is an important sin. They want to monopolise it, hence they risk their recognition under international organisations. Anyway, by the way you compare the British and the Americans, I see you have no good understanding of the situation. You probably don't even know of Tito's linguistic and political reforms on the region, nor about the American government's official rejection of the existence of a "Macedonian nation" during the 40's. Which doesn't surprise me. Miskin 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mishkin, for the sake of exact usage, yes you are correct it was a Greek, but since most of the original 'Greeks' who were part of the initial invasion force were Macedonians, I was using it in that context, but indeed I apologize if there was some misunderstanding as that was not my intent. Yes, I read that study also and some other studies that were done that cluster the Pashtuns with Iranian peoples who are generally similar to Mediterranean populations especially via the Y-chromosome and the genetic studies have been inconclusive, but do show that there was Greek settlement in Afghanistan in the form of Bactria, but nothing really major and these sporadic Greek genes probably also show up in Slavic neighbors. What many genetic tests have shown is that there is an autochthonous origins for many people which somewhat downplays the notion of invasions drastically altering populations. Thus, the Greeks of today are in the majority the Greeks of ancient times, etc. All of that aside, I'm not supporting any monopolization of the name Macedonian. I believe that you are assuming that I am arguing on points that I'm really not. I've also studied the various assessments made of Macedonian and Balkan backgrounds in general, both historical records, anthropological and genetic views, and other points so I think we actually agree more than you realize. Also, I would make one point here and that is that there was a 'Romanization' of elites that usually left out the masses. The Byzantines in fact thought themselves Roman and Greek at the same time and in this regard and a good example of who was more 'Roman' comes from the encounter with the Crusaders as related by Anna Comnena when the Crusaders, with disdain, called the Byzantines 'Greeks' and the Greeks called them Germans as both were claiming to represent some 'Roman' entity. That's the thing with names and usage. The Macedonians of today may not be the Macedonians of the past, but using the name in a geographic sense and for their country is really up to them. They call themselves Macedonians. The disambiguation page splinters off the different meanings and leaves the reader with the solid conceptual realization that the term Macedonian has different meanings. Thus, Macedonian people would not be confusing at all, especially with an Italicized reminder at the top explaining that these are Slavic-speaking Macedonians as opposed to the ancient Macedonians. If written in this fashion it is neutral and doesn't promote any relationship other than name usage. Tombseye 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Flavrsavr said: there were strong waves of Hellenization and later on, Romanization. There was never a "Romanization" in that part of the Empire. In fact during Roman occupation Hellenization in the East continued at the same rate as before. According to the Jireček Line, Macedon and Paeonia (FYROM) were well into those Hellenized territories. It's delusional to be speaking of a Latinization. Either that or you're just scared to say "Greek". Miskin 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

According to sources I checked (such as Orbitus Latinus), the Jirecek Line extends into the northernmost parts of what is now the Republic of Macedonia; south of that, the evidence leads scholars to include the region of Macedonia in the sphere of Hellenization. By the way, I know of no proof (though such proof may exist and I may be mistaken) that Vlachs were a pre-Slavic population of Macedonia. Vlachs in English usage refers to speakers of languages that descend from Proto-Romanian, not just to any Vulgar Latin or early Balkan Romance speakers. Vlachs much more likely came from lands north of the Roman province of Macedonia. If there were early Romance speakers in the province, no reason to suppose they spoke a Proto-Romanian dialect (Vulgar Latin in the Balkans developed into the Dalmatian language as well as the Eastern Romance languages, for example). IMO and in the opinion of many historians, Slavs invaded Macedonia before the Vlachs. I would be curious to see how many historians claim that Vlachs were in Macedonia before Slavs. The occasional Vlach or group of Vlachs may have went down into Macedonia for whatever reason before the Slavic invasion, but as a sizable mass, the Slavs were probably there before Vlachs.Alexander 007 06:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not moved per lack of consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 20:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Origins and identities

The question of whether the Macedonians constitute a distinct ethnic group is controversial, as many scholars believe that they are merely a subset of another people, usually the Bulgarians. Linguistically and culturally, there is not a great distinction between Macedonians and Bulgarians, but due to political and historic circumstances, the Macedonians have come to consider themselves a separate people from the Bulgarians.

This is what the NPOV policy calls "undue weight". There is no general controversy whether the Macedonians constitute a distinct ethnic group - you can check every serious modern international source (even those who refer to them as "Macedonian Slavs" regard them as a separate ethnic group). The NPOV way of putting this is: In Bulgaria, and to some extent in Greece, the question of whether the Macedonians constitute a distinct ethnic group is controversial . This is called attributing the view.--FlavrSavr 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree with that assessment myself. I think there is already undue emphasis being placed on avoiding confusion that these aren't the exact same Macedonians of Alexander's time. Calling the article Macedonian people neither add to any confusion after the disambiguation page AND a caption explaining its usage and nor will it cater to Greek nationalism to set them apart etc. Tombseye 18:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it's emphasised enough. If there's a nationalist crowd of people, that would be the Slavic one not the Greek. The majority of the Greek crowd that's editing here, is reacting to the extremities of the MacSlav propaganda. Have a look at User:Macedonia's page to get the hint. Basically if we let User:Bomac and User:Macedonia to have their way with the article, they would probably state that Macedonian Slavs are the actual reincarnation of the ancient Macedonians. Have a look at the vandalism that goes on in Macedonian Orthodox Church. They just keep trying to make us believe that the "BULGARIAN Patriarchate of Orchid", is in fact the modern Macedonian Orthodox Church (not recognized by any christian body). Have a look at the contributions of the pre-mentioned users. All you can see is edit-warring, nationalist edits, edit-warring, POV-pushing and some edit-warring. So don't talk about "kicking around poor MacSlavs" and having "already empasised" enough. I find it hard to believe that you're the most unbiased editor yourself. Miskin 20:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange that you would accuse me of being biased when you claim that the Slavs are biased and not the Greeks. Perhaps both are a bit. Here's the thing, you are talking about other matters that, due to their ambiguity, are not verifiable and not things I support at any rate due to a lack of evidence. Thus, if there is propaganda of an extreme variety (such that I have actually seen from Macedonians as well as Greeks, Turks, Kurds, Russians, Americans etc.) that should be dealt with. I only want the people to be treated the same as everyone else. If there are points that are deemed unverifiable, then fine contest those points. You are going far beyond my initial point of contention, just treating the Macedonians as a people regardless of their origins and not tagging this with an over-emphasis upon them not being Greek etc. As for kicking around the Macedonians comment, again if you look at the context I meant that in terms of turning this into a way to say that they have no claims to anything other than being aliens or something. Nationalism does work both ways and I see your points, some of which I will grant are valid. I'm not claiming to be unbiased, but I do claim to be trying. Can you say the same given your measure of how the Slavs are more biased than the Greeks? Perhaps you don't know that I was accused of taking the side of the Greeks when I did some editing on the Greek people page or that I was siding with the Azeris over the Persians on the Azeri history page. Now why would I want to align myself with so many disparate groups if I was trying to promote some biased agenda exactly? You don't think it's emphasized enough so that speaks volumes here. Usually the disambiguation page is enough for most articles. Tombseye 20:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Greeks were not biased. Of course Greeks are biased, since after all they're concerned by this topic, but being biased or concerned doesn't make you wrong. Greeks are often hysterical, often exaggerating, but they never make up things nor spread propaganda like the Macedonians Slav do. You ask me to demostrate how the Slavs are more biased than the Greeks. What do you think of the following facts (which I can source individually if demanded):

• the Slavs want to monopolise the name 'Macedonia', the Greek want to share it - disambiguate.
• the Slavs want to persuade the world that 'Macedonians' and 'Macedonian' has never had a connection with Greeks.
• the newly formed Republic of Macedonia published currency with the White Tower of Thessaloniki, and promoted land-claims in Northern Greece.

The list can go on, but I think the final point is sufficient. The state of FYROM since the days of communism has been promoting national myths, propaganda and hatred against the Greek nation. It's typical for a poor and undevelopped country to search and find someone else who's responsible for all their misfortunes. I think that this is fairly blatant by the edits of most MacSlav editors here (Flavrsavr excluded). Afew days ago somebody in Talk:Republic of Macedonia (I think it was User:Bomac) was trying to convince me that Greece is in the EU because of the supposedly "stolen" land of Aegean Macedonia. His theory was that those lands were too fertile and gave Greeks the chance to develop rapidly their economy after WW2. Hence it should have been FYROM in the place of Greece now. I've heard this before and it's certain that you can find it on the internet somewhere. It wasn't told at random, it's an actual part of the ex-communist propaganda. I don't think I need to elaborate any further. Miskin 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the second sentence is clear - creating a special relationship between the Macedonians and Bulgarians. I'll give a similar example, just to illustrate how shallow the sentence sounds: Linguistically and culturally, there is not a great distinction between Slovak and Czechs, but due to political and historic circumstances, the Slovaks have come to consider themselves a separate people from the Czechs. --FlavrSavr 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Isn't the list of contemporary peoples who might claim that other peoples have split off from a parent group (and are thus not a "legitimate" people in their own right) almost endless? Peoplehood is a dynamic concept based primarily on a current collective identity and sense of belonging/community that includes certain myths/narratives of (a) common origin(s) ("stock") and, hopefully, a belief in a common destiny/future. (See also Cultural appropriation and Language shift). //Big Adamsky 17:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are all valid points. When I edited the Spanish people page and the Sinhalese people page in both cases this universal human trait of claiming what is perceived as nationalist mythology reared its head. One guy claiming that the Spaniards were predominantly a Germanic people, derived from Visigoths and Vandals, and others saying that the Sinhalese were mainly Aryans, a linguistic term at any rate. I'm not saying that Macedonian Slavs are or aren't partially descended from the ancient Macedonians, but whether they are or not shouldn't be used against them to further denote what some view as their questionable nationality. It's all subjective and nationalities can take the form or religion (Hui who are Muslim Han Chinese and thus not considered real Hans) or be based upon geographic origin (Sephardic vs. Ashkenazi Jews) etc. And the claims of Greekness can't really be given 100% credence simply due to the Macedonian language being Slavic, but doesn't rule out cultural assimilation as took place all over the world. Only in exception events has population replacement taken place as with Central Asia and the Turkic-Mongols and of course much of the Americas by European colonization. Tombseye 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"One guy claiming that the Spaniards were predominantly a Germanic people, derived from Visigoths and Vandals"

I don't see where's the national myth in that. This is actually a historically attested fact, Alaric's armies sacked Rome and settled in Spain. How the Spaniards have never claimed to be Visigoths nor Germans, hence that makes a huge difference on the nature of their assumptions. This is a mere cultural subject, which at an extremist level could take nationalistic overtones, but it would never have the same political significance such as the case of the MacSlav propaganda. The problem with the MacSlav claims is that they are insulting on the Greeks, who have long been connected to the history of the Macedonian region. If the Greeks had somehow been lost in history, I'm sure that nobody would raise more than an eyebrow in the site of a Slavic nation that calls itself "Macedonian", in the same way that nobody raises an eyebrow on an Arab nation that calls itself Egyptian (with a much better reason).

• "And the claims of Greekness can't really be given 100% credence simply due to the Macedonian language being Slavic, but doesn't rule out cultural assimilation as took place all over the world." - You said it yourself: Cultural assimilation. There are no traces of cultural assimilation that would Support Slavic Macedonian claims, not a single one. Why would you ask from us to show sympathy for something as scientifically ludicrous? Modern nationalism was originally defined by the etho-linguistic elements of peoples or peninsulas. MacSlavs currently possess 40% of the Macedonian region, none of which includes the ancient Kingdom of Macedon, hence the game of a peninsula is lost. There are not cultural links between them and the Macedonians (who were already assimilated by the Greeks), therefore I don't even know what you're talking about. MacSlavs are not using cultural assimilation as an argument, they're using racial assimilation. This is a mere 3rd degree hypothesis, which is probably valid for most mediterranean and middle eastern nations that came into contact with the Greco-Macedonian armies. I really can't see how some people are even willing to question the validity of something as ludicrous. I really don't understand how most macSlavs fall for this propaganda anyway. All countries have a dose of nationalist propagandas, but in most countries I'm familiar with, the majority tends to mock it. So far I have not encountered a single Macedonian Slav that doesn't go over the same old arguments again and again, the ones that are posted in websites, published in FYROM schoolbooks etc. The most moderate and due all the respect "civilised" person I've met is Flavrsarv. I still disagree with 99% of what he says. Miskin 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, what are you talking about regarding the Spaniards? They are largely a Mediterranean people descended from a fusion Iberians-Basques-Celts while the other groups appear to have contributed somewhat less. Genetic testing has shown their affinities and it's not with Germanic peoples for the most part, but there is some input from Germanic tribes. Think about how many Visigoths there were and the population of Spain which was considerably bigger. It's like saying the French are all Franks. That's absurd. You're making the mistake of equating invasions and settlement withtout considering the number of natives who generally outnumber invaders in most scenarios around the world.

I'm not supporting the other points regarding Macedonian nationalism actually. I just got through saying that and you're still arguing with me as if I'm here to defend extremist views. Also, speaking in absolutes doesn't help here. Due to being neighbors there is usually SOME interaction, but that's really besides the point here. I'm backing the view that mostly they are descended from Slavic invaders who merged with some other groups in the region. I'm not saying they can lay any exclusive claim to anything let alone the Macedonian Greeks. So to be clear, all I'm saying is call it Macedonian people or Macedonians, while allowing the disambiguation page to clarify as to the different meanings and applications of Macedonian including geographic, historical, linguistic, etc. Okay? Tombseye 23:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Try to parallell this debate with comparable situations elsewhere. Naturally, I too am aware that this is not just about names and emblems - but when you think about it, many states and peoples are named after states and peoples that no longer exist as separate identifiable entities; often, successor states of ancient empires, direct descendants and cultural heirs are primarily found elsewhere or nowhere at all. Compare the etymologies of these these contemporary ethnonyms and group labels derived from place names: Hawaiians, Ghanaians, Syrians, Bulgarians, the French, Latvians and Egyptians. (See also Country name etymologies). //Big Adamsky 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of factors that seem to span the globe really. Just with the articles I've edited, there is a lot of ultranationalist intent. Guy I know from Ghana has a lot of problems with many of the local countries. The Azeris page is already getting editors who are pushing either the Iranic or Turkic exclusive origin even thought I put up genetic studies that link them to other Caucasus peoples moreso than either of the other groups. Tombseye 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

---

It might not be much fun - but I think that it is preferable that we stick to the disputed content. Now, I've copy-pasted a couple of sentences, that, IMO, need to be changed. Now, that's a specific dispute, involving the relationship between Macedonians and Bulgarians, and not about the relationship between modern and ancient Macedonians. We shouldn't attempt to resolve general real world problems, nor to discover what are their "true" origins - mostly we are here to discuss what is to be included in the text. So, again, all of you, please see the disputed sentenced above and put some comments about them, or if you are willing to discuss another subject please open a new section. So far, my first proposal seems to be accepted, but I'm not sure about the second one? --FlavrSavr 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for diverging from the main topic of your original thread here, Flave. My comments, as you can see, were not really meant to resolve any dispute, but more as points to ponder. Whether "fun" or not, I think it would be healthy to draw inspiration from similar disputes on WP titles and content, for reasons of conformity and comparability. And so, the discussion is not entirely irrelevant or out of place. //Big Adamsky 16:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, now - no need for bitterness. :) I didn't intend to berate anyone, I just wanted to point out that the discussion had become too dispersed to have any implications on the text. Honestly, I couldn't agree more on your understanding of the dynamics of a nation, however, I didn't understand what's your opinion on the Macedonians-Bulgarians ethnic relationship? The sentence, IMO, constitutes a false statement in many ways - it implies that Macedonians are actually Bulgarians, that due to the historical contigency, have become a separate nation. ("How dare they?") Not only it is a obsolete sentence (I've given an example with the Czechs and Slovaks, I can give a several more), but there is no evidence that Macedonians actually were Bulgarians at a given point in history - the foreign observers mostly regarded them as a somewhat hybrid populations, and thus they were labeled "Bulgarians", but also "Southern Serbs" (very often), "Slavophone Greeks" (rarely). Moreover, there is absolutely no source that could confirm that Macedonians have "cultural" similarities with Bulgarians - culture, especially modern culture is a too broad concept to give such statements. Linguistically, the Macedonian language is similar with Bulgarian, but also to Serbian. Personally, I understand Serbian much better than Bulgarian. --FlavrSavr 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely the Macedonians and Bulgarians can be considered offshoots of an earlier Slavonic group that is more closely related than say the aforementioned Serbs. I do agree that it would be incorrect usage to say Macedonians are an offshoot of the Bulgarians as modern populations as they exist tend to diverge anyway and the Bulgarians aren't the same people they once were anyway. Big Adamsky's point on acculturation is possibly applicable as I discovered while editing the Azeris page (after Khoikhoi told me of its problems) that genetic tests have revealed the Azeris to be closer to their Caucasian neighbors than to Central Asian Turks which does point to language adoption and cultural shift rather than population replacement. The same results came up when I worked on the Sinhalese page, again after Khoikhoi asked me to (he does get around), and also found that the Sinhalese seem to be largely indigenous. More widespread DNA evaluations may shed light on just what sort of relationship Macedonians have with Greeks and other Slavic neighbors in addition to the historical record which often relates events that impact the ruling elites rather than the masses. Name usage, as long as it is not 'monopolized' and used to make claims that are, at best, somewhat difficult to ascertain shouldn't be a big problem and that's why I backed the idea of Macedonian people after the disambiguation page. Tombseye 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Credible Sources

Bomac you asked me to explain to you what credible sources mean. Very well then. First of all have a look at WP:NOR. You don't have the right to claim "Pavlos Melas said Newly conquered territories, hence the Greeks admit that they have conquered Macedonian territory". You have to cite Mr X's credible, neutral, and unbiased publications which have assumed so. Right now what you're doing is not only POV-pushing, but an official promotion of Macedonian Slavic land claims towards Greece. Most people (including FYROM politicians) say that MacSlavs have no land-claims, they just want to be called "Macedonians" etc, etc. Well, you're the live example, the undisputed evidence, of why the land-claims are actually true. Not only in the government circles, but also in the culture, MacSlavs are brought up to believe in those things. You're justifying my participation in those ethnic debates that I so much abhor. Miskin 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But MELAS said so. It's not my problem he did that. Unbelievable - territorial-claims by editing the article? Miskin, don't make me laugh. Bomac 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if Delta states that Pavlos Melas described macedonia as New conquered territories, although it is a fact that Delta states in her novel that Pavlos Melas refered to the slavonic language spoken by locals as Macedonian, Makedoniki, or Makedonikiti Dialektos. So there was no reason to take that part out Miskin. - Macedonia

I've read the "Secrets of the Swamp", and although I don't remember in detail, I'm sure as hell that it didn't have any implications on a "Macedonian nation". The Greeks were never aware of a Macedonian nation before 1991, neither were Bulgarians and apparently nor was anybody except the post-Tito Yugoslavians. Even if the book said something like that, your claim would fall under original research. Like 99% of your edits, you're trying to push another a nationalist misinterpretation into the article. Just have a look at your personal page, what on earth is that thing? Wake up and smell the roses, what do you think you're doing in wikipedia? It's never gonna work. Miskin 20:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

He described it as newly-conquered territory, because that's what it was. It was conquered. The question is from whom? Athens and central Greece was also conquered territory some decades earlier. That doesn't mean that they weren't considered Greek territories. They were all conquered territories from the Ottoman Empire, which was the official holder of the land. Your nationalist interpretation was straight-away "conquered from the Slavs!". Those are the results of a 60-year old nationalist propaganda, thank you for the demonstration. Melas was himself a Macedonian, a Greek one of course. He had no reason to regard his motherland as a foreign region. The "conquest" of (Greek) Macedonia from the Turks was in fact liberation to him. That's right, there have always been Greeks in Macedonia (Greece), stop hiding behind your fingers. As the data reveals, they've been the majority of the population, even in the vilaet of Monastir (Bitola). That is something which needs to be pointed out in the article. Miskin 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely, if there really was a "Macedonian nation" in the early 20th century, would we really be in need of such references (Delta's novel etc) in order to be aware of it? It's not that we're talking about a lost trible from 500 BC where scholars would point out "Herodotus mentions blah, blah, blah", we're talking about something recent. Why are there always so many "coincidental" confusions between Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs? Why does the POV history of the "Macedonian Slavs", always coincide with Bulgarian (e.g. First Bulgarian Empire -> some Macedonian Empire, Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid -> Macedonian Orthodox Church, Bulgarian language ~ Macedonian language (practically a dialect of the former). Don't you see too many coincidences there? Repeated coincidence, is not a coincidence. Who are you trying to convince of the "Macedonian nation"'s long existence, us, or yourselves? Miskin 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I don't know where you're getting at, I simply said its a fact that Pavlos Melas called the Slavonic language spoken by locals in Macedonia as Macedonian. So here is the source, Mr X's credible, neutral, and unbiased publications that you said you wanted above. [46] Its a book published by Routledge (UK), called Dialogos: Hellenic Studies Review, written by David Ricks and Michael Trapp. Page 48 viewed on Google book search. This chapter is about Macedonia and Macedonians mentioned in Delta's novel "Secrets of the swamp". I will tell you what it says. There are other occasiones too where Delta uses the term Makedonitiki dialektos to refer to the Slav language spoken in the region. We may recall that both Pavlos Melas, in at least one of his letters to his wife, and Dragoumis call this language Makedoniki: indeed, Dragoumis who also claims it is a mixture, argues that "Macedonian" is the correct term for this language, which the Bulgarians, he says, misleadingly call "Bulgarian" So there is the source you wanted, no "Macedonian Slav" POVs or anything like that, there is no excuss to take it out, so I am putting back in the article the language part and not the conquerred territory part. - Macedonia

Check the link you posted a little bit better. It doesn't mention a Macedonian ethnicity, it exclusively mentions "Greeks and Bulgarians" of Macedonia. It also refers to the so-called "Macedonistiki" as a Greco-Slavic language spoken by the ethnic Bulgarians of Macedonia. If you really want to use that source, then you need to explicitely mention that it applies to Bulgarians, and that no 'Macedonian Slavic' ethnicity is mentioned at the time. You'd also need to add this in the Macedonian language, and point out that several scholars classify it as a Greek-Slavic language. If you don't do this, then you'll be using double standards. Until you do this, you don't have the right to isolate those quotes and put them here according to the interpretation you have chosen to give. Furthermore, this source would only satisfy one part of the section I've been removing, therefore you still don't have a reason to promote your nationalist propaganda and land-claims. Miskin 23:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Existence of Macedonians Throughout the Ages

The article states ... Medieval sources traditionally describe them as Bulgarians

Here are numerous quotes which not only establish a Macedonian nation, but also distinguish these Macedonians as different people to the Bulgarians and Greeks. These were taken from the book “Evidence of the Existence of Macedonians Throughout the Ages” by Risto Stefov.

9th century AD - The anonymous Hungarian chronicler writes "Cives Bulgarom et Macedonum" clearly differentiating the Bulgarians and the Macedonians.

Excuse me, but this is very strange for me. What is this anonymous Hungarian chronicler from 9th century AD? Do you know where was the Hungarians in 9 century AD(except after 895, i.e. in the end of 9 century itself). Please, quote the sources right and then we will see what it prove (if it proves something). Regards, --AKeckarov 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of the 13th century AD (from the records of the Synod of the Ohrid Archbishopric) - In 1891, Cardinal J. Pitra published a collection of documents (155 in number) which refer to the Ohrid Archbishopric during the time of Archbishop Demetrius Homatian (1216-1235). It is established from these records that in this period in Macedonia, the majority of the population consisted of Macedonians.

The second national population element in importance and numbers with in the borders of the Epirus despocy in that period were the Macedonians, of whom there is frequent mention in the records of the archbishopric (over 50 times). For example, "... the Macedonians formed the basic majority of the population". (D. Angelov)

15th century AD (from the work “Voyage Across the Sea” by Bertrandon de la Brocuiere) - "I remember the great subordination under which the Turk holds the emperor in Constantinople and all the Greeks, Macedonians and Bulgarians ... to serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Esclavinians, Rasians and Serbians ..."

The above quote from the 1400s distinctly mentions the Macedonians and Bulgarians are two separate people.

I am very grateful for the quotation of Bertrandonde la Brocuiere the above. I spent some time to verify this sourse, but it was useful for me, because I found one more confirmation for my personal oppinion for Macedonistic (non Macedonian, because I am Macedonian too) theory. So, under the term "Macedonia" Bertrand de la Brocuiere didn't ment some part ot the present region of Macedonia (Vardar, Pirin or Aegean). Like many other authors he was influenced from some medieval ideas for Macedonia (the other authors was influenced from earliest antique's ideas for Balkan geography) and he clearly defined Macedonia in present day Thrace, in Maritsa valley. He wrote that the capital of Macedonia was Filipopolis (Plovdiv) in present Bulgaria. And when he talk about Macedonians he didn't ment the inhabitants of present Macedonia.

Please, let do not forget thet the border between propaganda and science is very thin. Regards,--AKeckarov 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

April 26th, 1690 (from the "Letter of Protection From the Emperor Leopold I to the Macedonian People") - "This is to inform you that the two Macedonians, Marko Kraida born in Kosana and Dimitri Georgi Popovic, born in Macedonian Salonika, have told us that the Macedonian people ... and way the above-mentioned Macedonian people ... not to attack the Macedonian people ..."

1846 - A note by teacher Gjorgija Makedonski about his origins.

“May everybody know when the peasants of my native village of Radibus, Krivorechka Palanka, hired me as a teacher in our village school as well as at Rankovce and Krivi Kamen, for 1800 groschen a year. I was born of my father, priest Dimitrija, and mother Varskija as the seventh of twelve children, five boys and seven girls. I learnt the Slav alphabet from my father Makedonski, who calls himself so because we are Macedonians, and not Greeks, and his father was called Josif, a priest, and his grandfather, Stoiman, a priest. I also took the surname of Makedonski, and not that of my father or grandfather, so that it may be known that we are Slavs from Macedonia. On the day of the Great Holy Mother of God, 1846.”

Another interesting quote, from Allen Upward (1907-1908) ...

"I asked him what language they spoke, and my Greek interpreter carelessly rendered the answer Bulgare. The man himself had said Makedonski.

--Daniel Tanevski ^talk 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wake up and smell the roses Tanevski, all those medieval and pre-20th century references to "Macedonians" are actually referring to the Macedonian Greeks. What you quoted ironically proves the opposite of what you and the other nationalists want to believe. That the "Macedonians" prior to the 20th century BC, were not the Slavs. Miskin 05:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Macedonian Greeks (but when the pigs will fly!). There were no Greeks who were describing as Macedonians then (honestly, I don't believe the even exist now). And from which "neutral sources" did you read that, o Miskin, o neutral sourced man? Bomac 10:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So I guess you've never heard of Basil the Macedonian of Constantinople. What about the Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantine Empire? And what about Pavlos Melas anyway? Oh, I know, they were all Slavs not Greek. There's some homework for you to do. Miskin 12:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Basil the Macedonian was not Greek. He was a Byzantine ruler. I really don't know why do you think that the Byzantine empire was Greek empire. Pavlos Melas was certainly not a Slav, even more a Macedonian (caus' he was anti-Slav), but he was simply, Greek. But, admit it, there are no Greeks who describe themselves as "Macedonians" (something like Makedonas) nowadays. It is a totally strange name for them to be identified with. That's what I've thought. Bomac 13:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, why was the British Empire in fact an empire of the English? Byzantium was referred to the West as "Empire of the Greeks" or "Greece", read the article Byzantine Empire to get a clue. Byzantine == Greek, see Names of the Greeks. Check the definition of "Romaic" in a dictionary. Miskin 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wake up and smell the roses Tanevski, all those medieval and pre-20th century references to "Macedonians" are actually referring to the Macedonian Greeks."

An excerpt from Voyage Across the Sea by Bertrandon de la Brocuiere;

"... to serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians ..."

If this pre-20th century reference to Macedonians is really about the "Macedonian Greeks" why would it mention Greeks and Macedonians, unless they were considered a separate people?

So, in your humble opinion, does that isolated quote utterly cover all Macedonian Slav claims? Miskin 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article on Basil the Macedonian says that his parents were Armenian peasants who migrated to the Hellenic region of Macedonia.

--Daniel Tanevski ^talk 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's no news to me. The point is that he was a Greek "national", so were his descendants who were also crowned as "Macedonian". What's most important is that he was not a Slav, therefore the term "Macedonian" was not restricted to any Slavic people, who were at the time the main enemies of the Byzantines. How can "Macedonian" be linked to the Slavs, since the enemies of the Slavs were called Macedonians, and since the Vardar Valley (FYROM) was part of the First Bulgarian Empire at the time. You "Macedonian Slav" national hero, Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria, was defeated by Basil II of the Macedonian dynasty, who was later named into 'Bulgaroktonos' i.e. the "Bulgar-slayer". What more proof do you want in order to accept that Macedonian Slavs were part of the Bulgarian nation before the 20th century BC, and that "Macedonians" was a term which was reserved primarily for ethnic Greeks? A time-machine maybe? Miskin 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, first - Bulgars was the common name for all south Slavs in that period. Constantin Bodin was a Serb who took the title "Bulgarian tzar", just like Tzar Samuil (if he really did that), which doesn't makes him a Bulgarian, but a Slavic tzar or something.

Second - Basil II was called Bulgar-Slayer caus' he was from that-time Byzantinum thema Macedonia. If he was called Macedon-Slayer, he would have been a slayer for his own people.

Third - How can you claim that Macedonians were Bulgarians before the 20-th century, when Greece created the "Abecedar", a pure-Macedonian book (I can tell you that on the picture in the article there are Macedonian sentences) which was confiscated by Bulgaria and Serbia caus' of their fear for threatening their political and territorial interests in Macedonia? Certainly Tito did not pushed this book to be printed. Bomac 17:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are the four persons?

Who are the four macedonians on top? Does wikipedia have articles about them? If they are notable to represent all macedonians, articles must be. I would suggest to describe them in the image page. Mukadderat 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you reffering to my post? If so, which "Macedonians on top" are you interested in? I could provide you with some external links. Daniel Tanevski ^talk 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. I am speaking about the four portraits on the top of the article, who are supposed to represent Macedonians. I see all four portraits are in one image. Please describe these people in the image description page. Mukadderat 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --FlavrSavr 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the people on the pictures' nationalities are disputed, while some have explicitly emphasized on their Bulgarian origin, such as the Miladinov Brothers. I'd suggest that you use portraits of contemporary people, who are universally regarded as Macedonians (which haven't stated another nationality), such as your president or prime minister, some other important, influential or just popular figure and so on. These portraits now will only intensify any disputes. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 10:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To Aldux

OK, it's the end of the page now :) OK, no unsorced information. But why did you revert my SURNAME ENDINGS CHANGES? It's the complete history of everyone's families - I call everyone from Macedonia to cover up the story. My grandfather changed his surname 4 times in his life - twice to Serbian and twice to Bulgarian forms. Do you want me to scan some documents from my family, if there's any? I urge everyone to do the same thing, if they have some Bulgarian occupation documents to post it as pictures. I hope it will be sourced then, OK? I do not know how to source those things. The second thing: how do you permit only the Serbization and Hellenization policies to be present here? Why is Bulgarization process, which was the most fierce and bloody of all, omitted and three times reverted? A Japanese, for instance, could think that only the Bulgarians did NOT assimilate the Macedonians, maybe because the Macedonians were INDEED Bulgarians? It confuses me. Also, "Medieval sources traditionally describe them as Bulgarians, a definition which survived well into the period of Ottoman rule as attested by the Ottoman archives and by descriptions of historians and travellers, for example Evliya Celebi and his Book of Travels." Well, we in Serbia where I live have all the possible sources that prove that Emperor Dusan, for instance, called himself "The Emperor of Serbs, Albanians and Greeks". Bulgarians were never mentioned in his title, while all of Macedonia was under his rule. It is impossible that the fact were opposite to Krste Misirkov statements - Macedonians were Serbs at that time. How came Emperor Dusan forget the largest national group in his Empire, if all the Macedonians were Bulgarians? Strange. I don't know how anything except Evliya Celebi's quotation can be proved. I suggest to drop it, because they were not uniformly considered Bulgarians. Should I quote it from somewhere? Saluti cordiali! Zikicam 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zikicam :-) Let's start from "Surname endings changes since 1913 in the ex-Turkish Empire": it shows proofs of being a very serious and conscientious work. Only it would be better if you used as examples names of people you are certain exist, and citing bothfirst and second name: while speaking of name transformations in Greek Macedonia, add example of true people, like "Vasil Natchev became Vasilios Natsulis", if you have been informed of such person whose name has had such modification. And adding to the article an image or two of documents of name changes from Bulgarian or Serbian Macedonia would be nice.

As for the second point, the Bulgarization process: the point is that the Hellenization policies are well known, and (generally) adequately sourced; the Serbian one is not so adequately sourced, but I didn't feel like removing it because it was already there when I started monitoring, and didn't feel like removing it; also, I had heard on my own of much unrest in the territory and of the repressions of the Serbs against all other ethnic groups. Instead the simple existence of a bulgarization process is rarely spoken of, making it all the more necessary strongly sourcing statements on the argument.

As regards Stefan Dusan, I believe his full title was "Tsar and autocrat of Serbs, Romans (Greeks), Bulgarians and Albanians", when brief only "Emperor of Serbs and Romans". So, you see, he did not forget the Bulgarians. The point is that among scholarship there is a general consensus that in the Middle Ages Macedonians and Bulgarians were one people; you may not like this, or find it false, but the fact is that this is the position assumed by all medieval history handbooks. If you want me to cite a name, I'll just remember Ostrogorsky. Aldux 18:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

" a general consensus that in the Middle Ages Macedonians and Bulgarians were one people" - this statement is simply not true. Which medieval history handbooks? Where does Ostrogorsky says this? The truth of the matter, there are much more Serbian references than Bulgarian in Macedonia in 14-18 century. Have a look here: [47]

Regarding Dushan, in Dushan's Law Code, Tsar Stephan Dushan was titled as "the honorable and reverent Macedonian Tsar Stephan, ruler of Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Dalmatia, Albania, Hungaro-Wallachia , etc... This is typical for someone that claim Tsar status - Emperor.

My point is that it is not as simple as Bulgarians like to be. Macedonians are product of various mixes, having been periphery of different countries.--Cigor 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit of sloppiness ;-) really I only meant that here is a consensus that there was not a separate Macedonian people in the Middle Ages. When speaking of Ostrogorsky (Hist. of the Byz. Empire) and my other sources who consider Bulgarian Tsar Samuel's empire Bulgarian, and never refer to a distinct Macedonian people. As for Stefan Dusan's title there's something wrong here: I know for certain (via Ostrogorsky) that his diplomatic title was "basileus (Emperor) of Romans and Serbs". Now the title of Emperor in the Middle Ages could only come from a connection with the Roman Empire, because this was the sole source of supreme legitimacy. The version you give of his title was only present in some versions of the law code, and I ask myself if it is a correct English translation, and if "Macedonian" isn't really "Roman". The source that give the transcript are nationist, so can harldly be trusted. Aldux 22:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ciao, Aldux! Let me quote them, just in case.

1) Around 950,Byzantine Emperor Constantin Porphyrogenitos stated that city of "Ta Serbia" situated north-western from Thesaloniki,has it's name from its Serbian founders (around early 7th century A.D.) and in 10th century that same city is mentioned as "Srpchishte" in the manuscript by the Byzantine author John Zonara.

Constantin Porphyrogenitos "De Administrando Imperio" cap.32, pp.152 ed.Bonn "Starine" 14,1882 pp.16

2) In the year 680 in Bythinia, city of Gordoservon is mentioned whose name is derived from the Serbs resettled in Asia Minor by Byzantine Emperor Constance II from the areas around river Vardar (FYROM) . Isidor,the Episcop of Gordoservon is mentioned in 680/681 and the fact that this town was Episcopal Center gives ground to the thesis that it had large Serbian population. Around year 1200 this city is mentioned as Servochoria (Serbian Habitation) .

Constantin Porfyrogenitus "De Administrando Imperio" Erdeljanovich.J. "O naseljavanju Slovena u Maloj Aziji i Siriji od VII do X veka" Glasnik geografskog drushtva vol. VI 1921 pp.189 Lequen,M. "Oriens Christianus" I, 1740, pp.659-660 Micotky,J."Otiorum Chroate", Vol. I ,Budapest, 1806, pp.89-112 Niederle,L. "Slovanske starozhitnosti" Dilu II,Svazek pp.389-399; pp. 444-446 Ostrogorski,G."Bizantisko-Juzhnoslovenski odnosi",Enciklopedija Jugoslavije 1,Zagreb 1955,pp. 591-599 Ramsay,W.M. "The Historical Geography Of Asia Minor", London, 1890, pp.183, pp.210

3) Around 1229/1230 Bulgarian Emperor John Asen II wrote an inscription in Trnovo:"I have took the land from Adrianopolis to Drach,Greek,Albanian and also Serbian".Since Serbian states were situated far north from the line outlined in this commemorative text,it is not unlikely that "Serbian" means an ethnically Serbian enclave,situated much more southerly than political borders of Serbia.

Daskalov,H.S. "Otkritija v drevnei stolicji Bolgarskoi,Ternovo"Moskva, 1859 pp.18-19 Dujchev,I. "Car Ivan Asen II" Sofija, 1941 pp.23-24 Makushev,V "Bolgarija v' koncjah XII i v pervoi polovini XIII veka" ,1872 pp.56-57

4) In the Law of Serbian Emperor Stephan Dushan (Dushanov Zakonik) issued 1349-1354 in Skoplje and Seress following peoples are mentioned in Serbia:Serbs,Greeks,Albanians (Arbanasi) (art.77,82) , Aromanians (Vlasi) (art.32,77,82) , Saxons (Sasi) (art.123) .

Novakovich,S. "Zakonik Stefana Dushana Cara Srpskog 1349-1354" Beograd 1898

5) Despot Ugljesha in the 1366 letter written and confirmed in Skoplje stated that he is the master of Serbian land,Greece and Pomorje.

Novakovich,S. "Zakonski spomenici Srpskih drzhava srednjeg veka", 1912, pp.509

6) Patriarch of Constantinople mentioned master of Serbia,Ugljesha in a letter from 1371. Ugljesha's state was around Lower Struma.

Mikloshich,F & Muller,J. "Acta et diplomata" I, 1860, pp.571

7) The place of 1371 battle at Marica,when Kings Vukashin and Ugljesha, leading armies from their provinces in Old Serbia ,clashed with the Turks, was named "Sirf-Sindughi"-"Serbian defeat".

Jorga,N. "Geschiste des Osmanischen Reiches" Vol.I, cap IV,pp241

8) In the second half of 14th century, monk Isaiah said that Ugljesha has risen Serbian and Greek army (Srbskija i Grchskiija voiska) and his brother Vukashin,and with that army they confronted the invading Turks.

Novakovich,S. "Srbi i Turci XIV i XV veka , 1893,pp.184, Mikloshich ,F. "S.Joannis Chrystostomi homilia in ramos palmarum", 1845, pp.71 Mikloshich,F. "Chrestomatia Paleoslovenica", 1861, pp 41

9) In 1395 Mihael Paleologos and his wife Helena established estate to Helena's father,Master of Serbia,Konstantin Dejanovich.Konstantin's state was around river Struma.

Mikloshich,F. & Joseph,M. "Acta et dipolomata",1862, pp.260

10) A 1401 remark from government of Venice says about the envoy of "Konstatntin,master of Serbia,which is around our Drach area" (Constantini domini Servie teritorii,quod est circa teritorium nostrum Durachii) .

Ljubich,S. "Listine" 4,1874, pp.437

11) Sometimes in the beginning of 15th century Bulgarian chronicles are written,where remark that Turkish Sultan Murat had went to conquer either Bulgars or Ugljesha.Ugljesha and King Vukashin gathered a great Serbian army (Sobra sja mnozhestvo voisk Serbskih) .

Bogdan,J. "Archiv fur Slavische philologie" 13, 1891,pp.481; pp.493

12) Dimitar,writer from Kratovo in 1446 said that he begin to translate "Law" for the Archbishoprics of Ohrid from Greek language into Serbian (v ezhe sastaviti mi pisaniem srbskoga ezika sochinenie, rekshe knigu imenuemu zakonik) under order of Ohrid Archbishop Dorotej,who visited him in Kratovo,because Congregational Church in Ohrid did not had that book in Serbian language (po eziku srbskom) but only in Greek.

Kachanovski,V. "Starine" 12,1880 ,pp.255

13) Remains of John Rilski are transferred from Trnovo in the Monastery of Rila.That was described by Vladislav Gramatik,in 1469,who also mentioned Serbian soldiers (Srbskiie voje) in the 1371 Marica battle.

Novakovich,S, "Glasnik Srpskog uchenog drushtva" 22,1867,pp.287

14) Sometime at the end of 15th century Hungarian historian Bonfini wrote about "Macedonia,which is now called Serbia" ("Macedoniam quam Serbua nunc appelant") .

Ant.Bonfini "Rerum Hungarii Indec." II lib IX,Viennae, 1774 pp.248a

15) In the year 1515 Gjuragj Kratovian was burnt.In his biography stands:...From the Serbian root and guided by Holy Spirit you have left fatherland and relatives in Kratovo and moved to the Sardakian City (Ot korene srpskago i douhom svetim vodimi ostavil jesi otachastvo i srodniki izhe v' Kratovja, prishel jesi k' Gradou Sardaskomu) .

Novakovich.S. "Glasnik Srpskog uchenog drushtva" 21,1867, pp.154

16) Stephan Gerlach wrote in 1574 that relative of Mehmed Pasha "Became Archbishop in Bulgaria,and his seat is ten days away from Adrianopolis in the city of Ohrid,on the border between Epirus and Serbia" (Zu eineim Erz-bischopff in der Bulgarey gemacht worden,hat seinen Sitz zehn Tagreiss von Adrianopol,in der Stadt Ochrida,in der Grantzen Epiri und Servien) .

Gerlach,S. "Tage-Buch",Frankfurt,1674, pp.64a

17) Jakov Soranzzo from Venice arrives in Skoplje,in the province of Serbia, in the year 1575.

Matkovich.P."Rad. Jugosl. Akad." 124,1895, pp.131

18) In Kraljevo (Romania) ,priest John has written in 1580 that he is a Serb from Kratovo (Srbin od mjasta Kratova) .

Stojanovich,Lj."Stari Srpski zapisi i natpisi" I,1902 ,pp.752

19) ) Martin Crusius in his book mentions"Vscopia, or Scopia, a great and populous City of Turkey in the K. of Servia".

Crusius, M. "Turcogreciae libri octo", 1584, pp.5

20) In the year 1584 Alexander Komulovich mentioned that in Serbia (Servia) ,Skoplje is principal city (Scopia principale citta) and that it is situated in the middle of the province (nel mezzo della provincia) .

Fermendzhin,E. "Acta Bosniae" "Monum. Slav. Mer. XXIII 1892 pp.39

21) In 17th Century,Hadji Kalpha,a Turkish geographer recorded that mountains of the Castoria district are peopled by Serbs and Aromanians.He also mentions that on the bank of the lake between Seres,Thesaloniki and Siderocaps there is a village inhabited by Greeks,Serbs and Aromanians.

"Rumeli und Bosna,Geographisch beschrieben von Mustapha Ben Abdalaih Hadschi Chalfa aus dem turkischen ubersetzt von J. von Hammer" Wien 1812 pp.80; pp.97

22) Mitropolit Jeremiah from the City of "Pelagon" (Bitolj) went to Russia in 1603 saying that he arrived from Serbian land.

Archive of the Russian Ministry For Foreign Affairs, Year 7112,Dec.19

23) In the October of 1605 delegation of monks went in Russia and among them was Diakon Avksentij from the Serbian land, Nicholas Monastery in Strumica (Serbskoi zemli nikolskoga monastira chto na Strumicja,Diakon Avksentii) .

"Snoshenia Rossii po djelam cerkovnim" ,I,1858

24) In 1609,in the archive of Vatican,catholic church in Skoplje Serbia is mentioned (La chiesa di Scopia in Servia) .

Horvat,K. "Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini" XXI,1909

25) Mitropolit Sergius said in Russia that he was appointed as Mitropolit in Greven by Archbishop of Ohrid,Nectarij of Serbian land (Posvjashchen on na mitropoliju grevenskuju arhiepiskop ohridskim ,Nektariem serbskoi zemli) .

"Snoshenia Rossii po djelam cerkovnim" II, 1860 pp.29

26) Comment by Dominican Nicolo Longi from Dubrovnik states that "it is useful to send 3-4 Serbian priest in Serbia, because in Nish, Kragujevac, Jagodina, Crna Gora (Skopska Crna Gora-I.M) and Kratovo Serbian is spoken"

Acta. S. Congr. Vol.3. Fol.24 A D Congr. diie 20 decembris 1622

27) A part of Matija Masarek's report based on a visit throughout the Serbian dioceze in 1623-1624 ,reflecting the ethnicity of Kratovo.

"Cratovo, dove saranno 40 fouchi di Catolici....habitata da Turchi di qualita, Serviani , et 160 anime piu Catoliche"

Visite e Colllegi, Vo.1 f66r-82r

28) Congregation approves purchase of a house in Skoplje ( " della Casa in Scopie " ) in which four or five young Serbs ("4, o 5 giovani Servian") are to be trained and send into the Illyrian College in Loretto ( " Collego Illirico di Loreto " )

Roma, 25 marzo 1628

Lettere, vol. 7, f.36v-37r

29) Archbishop Bianki of Bar divided Serbia into upper and lower.In the area of Upper, he sorted Prokuplje, Novo Brdo, Trepcha, Janjevo, Skopska Crna Gora, Skoplje and Kratovo,places where "all Catholics are of Serbian speech".In Lower Serbia's domain Prizren, Guri and Shegec were included by him.

"Arch. S. Congr. Visitte.Vol 16. Fol. 239.

30) Archbishop Bianki mentiones an epidemic of plague in Serbia and the newly appeared disease in Skoplje, Janjevo and Novo Brdo.

"Va p doi mesi cheo mi trovo in Servia visitando queste vile contorno Prisren che e Servia Inferiore, che la Servia Superore questa esta passat e stata gran mortalita della pesta, e che p alcuni mesie stata cessata.Hora di novo si trovano loughli infetati Scopia,Jagnevo, e Montenevo"...

....Prisren, il di 29 ottobre...

...Giorgio Bjanchi, Arciv d' Antivari et Primate di Servia.

SOCG, Vol 60f. 176r-177v.

31) Archbishop of Ohrid Avram in 1634 arrived in Russia with escort.When asked,they said they were Greeks from the Serbian land of Ohrid (Grechane Serpskie zemli iz Ahridona Goroda) .

Archive of the Russian Ministry Of Foreign Affairs, Year 7142,No 8

32) Addressing the Russian Emperor Mihail in 1641, Mitropolit of Skoplje said that he is from Serbian land (Serbskie zemli Semion mitropolit) .

Dimitrijevich.S. "Spom. Srp. Kralj. Akad." 38, 1908 pp.60a, pp 60b

33) In 1644 a Serb,Dimitrije Nikolajev (Serbjanin' Dmitrei Nikolaev) from Kastoria, arrived in Russia.

Archive of the Russian Ministry For Foreign Affairs,Year 7156

34) Petar Bogdani had wrote in 1650 a letter of recommendation for his relative Andria Bogdani from Albania ,saying about him that he is recommended for Archbishopric of Ohrid in Serbia (Proposto per L'Archivescovato d' Ochrida su in confini della Servia) .

Fermendzhin,E. "Starine" 25,1892, pp.172

35) in 1651 Mitropolit of Kratovo wrote to Russian Emperor "My forefathers and ancestors are lords of the Serbian land of Kratovo".

Dimitrijevich,S. "Glasnik Srpske kraljevske akademije", 58,1900.

36) 1652 In the documents of Russian Imperial House,it is recorded that Serbian Mitropolit Mihailo (Serbskii Mitropolit Mihailo) had dinner with the Russian Emperor.He is the same person from reference above.

"Filologicheskaja nabljudenija A.H. Vostokova".1865, pp.184

37) 1653 Jeromonah Damaskin,wrote a letter to his cousin,mitropolit Mihailo of Kratovo,in which there is a statement about mercy of the Russian Emperor towards our Serbian language (Jeziku nashemu Srbskom) .

Stanojevich,Lj "Stari Srpski zapisi i natpisi", I,1902.No 1547,No 1562

38) Catholic missionaries in Serbia (Servia) are mentioned and among them mr.Stefan Kratovian (In Cratovo d.Stefano da Cratovo) .

Fermendzhin,E. "Starine" 25,1892, pp.194

39) In an inscription from 1659 stands:"Mihail Mitropit, visitor of Holy God's Grave in the Holy Jerusalem, from the Serbian land city of Kratovo" (Mihail Mitropolit,poklonik bozhia groba svetago Ierusalima ot Srbskie zemli grada Kratova) .

"Chtenija v imperatorskom' obshtesvja istorii i drevnosti Rossiiskih pri Moskovskom univerziteta" Moskva 1896 II 5th part pp.4a

40) In 1665 Archbishop Petar of Sophia wrote that:"Now in this Kingdom of Serbia there is one Metropolitan church,that of Skoplje"(Al presente si trovano in cotesto regno di Servia una chiesa Metropolitana,cioe,Scopia) ,than saying that Pope Urban VIII in his declaration on foundation of "del collegio Illyrico" says that there are three Biscopates in Serbia :those of Skoplje,Justinijana called Prizren ,and Nish (Che sono del regno di Servia tre vescovati:cioe Scupi,ovvero Scopia,Justiniana detta Prisren,et anche Nissa) .

Fermendzhin,E. "Starine" 25 ,pp18

41) Peter Heylin,English geographer writes under the word "Servia": Principal towns hereof : 1.Nissa 2.Vidina (by the Turks called Kiratow) 3.Cratova........9.Scopi,by Ptolemy called Scupi.

Heylin,P. "Cosmographie in four books" London,1666

42) In 1666 Mitropolit Ananije of Cratovo wrote to Russian Emperor, mentioning "Mihailo,Mitropolit of Serbs" (Mihaila Mitropolita Srbian) .

Dimitrijevich,S. "Spomenica Srpske kraljevske akademije",38,1900 pp.64b

43) 1667 Emperor Leopold gave some privileges to the Greeks (Graeci) and Serbs (Rasciani) who emigrated toward Northern Hungary and most of them arrived from Macedonia (Praesertim autem ex Macedonia adventum) .

Vitkovich,G "Glasnik Srpskog uchenog drushtva",67,1887,pp.128;pp.131

44) It is stated in the "Report about Serbian or Skopje's Diocese" ( Relazione della diocesi di Servia o Skopia ) about "Main places in Serbia : Prizren , Skoplje...." (" Li loughi principali della Servia: Prisren, Scopia ....")

Fermendzhin E., "Starine" 25, 1892. pp. 195-196

45) 1676 Secretary of the society "De Propaganda Fide" wrote a report to Pope Inocentius about Catholic Church in Bosnia and neighboring countries, in which Biscop of Skoplje,Andrea Bogdani in Serbia (Servia) is mentioned.

Horvat,K. "Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine" XXI,1909,pp.393

46) Around 1680 Urban Cerri mentioned in his report to Pope Inocentius XI archbiscop of Skoplje in Serbia.

Theiner,A." Vetera. Monum. Slav. Mer. Histor. Ill." II, 1875,pp 213

47) Archbishop of Skoplje writes about Serbia and says that Skoplje is capital city in Serbia (Scopia....metropolli di Servia) .Further,He mentions that Orthodox houses in Skoplje are Greek and Serbian (Case Greche e Serviane) .

Theiner,A. ibidem, pp. 220

48) Canonical Visit by Archbishop of Skoplje Peter Bogdani in 1680 indicated that inhabitans of Skoplje are "Greeks, Serbs, Jews, Armenians". "Scritture orig. rif. nelle. congr. gen. vol. 482 ad congr. die 5 maii 1681 Nro 24"

49) In 1685 Catholic Archbishop of Skoplje Petar Bogdani wrote to Cardinal Cibo saying that Turks had thrown him into exile from entire Serbia (da tutta la Servia) .

Horvat,K. "Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini" XXI, 1909, pp. 403

50) Mitropolit Jevtimije from Serbian land of Skoplje (Serbskija zemli goroda Skopija) arrived in Russia in 1687 where he delivered a request in which he says that he is Mitropolit of Serbian land of Skoplje (Mitropolit Serbskije zemli Skopskie Crkve) .

Dimitrijevich,S. "Glasnik Srpske Kraljevske Akademije" 60, 1901 pp.154

51) In 1690 Catholic Bishop of Cotor, Marin Drago,reports that "Skoplje is inhabited with Turks, Serbs of Greek Rite and Catholics",

"Scritture riferite nei congressi - Servia.Vol. I, Fol. 120"

52) Austrian Emperor Leopold proclaimed Jovan Monastirlija from Bitolj a Vojvoda (Military chieftain) of the Serbian nation in Austria in 1691.

Trifunoski,F.J. "Makedoniziranje Juzhne Srbije" Beograd 1995 pp.24

53) Bratan Ivanov,a Serb from Macedonian land arrived in Russia (Makedonskie zemli Serbin' Bratan' Ivanov) in the year 1704. Archive of the Russian Ministry For Foreign Affairs,Year 1704 Kapterev,N.A. "Harakter otnoshenii Rossii k Pravoslavnomu Vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletija" 1914 pp.348

54) Dimitrije Petrov from Kichevo arrived in Russia to collect funds for building church dedicated to St. Demetrius in Kichevo.He declared himself as coming from the Serbian land of Kichevo (Serbskie zemli goroda Karacheva) .The arrival is recorded as being by the: "(From) Serbian land (from) Ohrid's Eparchy (of the) Krachevite city Serb Dmitrei Petrov": "Serbskie zemli Arhidonskija Eparhi Krachevskogo goroda Serbjanin Dmitrei Petrov".

Archive of the Russian Ministry For Foreign Affairs,Year 1706, No. 7

55) Archbishop of Bar, Vichentije Zmajevich mentiones that "main places in Serbia are: Belgrade, Smederevo, Nish, Skoplje, Prokuplje, Novo Brdo, Prishtina, Trepcha, Prizren and Pech, and forts Kachanik, Tetovo, Janjevo, Vuchitrn, Mitrovica, Djakovica and Novi Pazar" "Scritture riferite nei congressi - Albania. Vol. V, Fol. 175"

56) In 1723 Gerard Cornelius von Driesch,secretary of the Austrian delegation heading for Constantinople, mentioned that in Pirot there are "Greeks and Serbs in those lands" (Grichen oder Raitzen dieses landes) .He also mentioned place named Grobblian located eastern of Sofia saying that the greater part of its inhabitants are Serbs (Raitzen) .

Cornelius,G.V.D. "Historische nachricht von der Rom. Kayser.Gross-Botschaft nacht Konstantinopol" Nurnberg 1723 pp.84; pp.102

57) The Urgent Congregation of Roman Catholic Church in 1742 issued an report which states that "Serbs of Greek Rite" are peopling Croatia,Slavonia,Hungary,Serbia,Thrace,Macedonia,Albania and Montenegro.

Archivum Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide."Congregazioni Particolari"Vol.106.Fol.1

58) In the year 1744 Russian Empress Elisabeth addressed the "Noble and honest lords of Serbian lands in Macedonia,Skandaria,Montenegro and Primorje of Montenegrin people,to the governors , dukes, princess and captains as well as their spiritual and secular masters".

Milutinovich,S."Istorija Crne Gore",1835

59) In a 1756 letter main cities in Serbia (La Servie) are mentioned, and among them Skoplje ,where Serbian Archbishop reside; Cratovo,by which province is named (Scopia, ou reside Archeveque Rascien; Cratovo, qui donne son nom au Gouvernement) .

"Le Voyager francois, ou la connoissance de l' ancien et du noveau monde mis au jour par M. l' Abbe Delaporte", tome XXIII, Paris,1777

60) Catholic Archbishop of Skoplje Matija Masarek, an Albanian, reported that the city as inhabited with "Grece, scismatici Serviani, Ebrei et Armeni" in a report written c.1770.

In 1790 he mentioned in his report that Turks are suspicious of Greeks and Serbs of Skoplje because they have sent letters to Russia.

"Scritture rif. nei congressi - Servia. Vol. III", marzo 1790

61) A group of French staff officers in 1807,with the permission of the Turks, traveled around Macedonia compiling a statistical survey of the population. Apart from Greeks,Turks,Albanians and Aromanians they found only Serbs.

Slijepchevich, Dj. "The Macedonian Question",The American Institute For Balkan Affairs, Chicago,1958

62) Correspondence by the Czech philologist Dobrovski to a Slovenian colleague B. Kopitar between 1809-1810 contains this opinion by Dobrovski: "I have little regard for geographical names.Dubrovnikers, Macedonians, Bosnians are nevertheless Serbs" : "Die geographischen Benennungen kummern mich wenig. Ragusiner, Macedonier, Bosnien sind doch Serben". Jagich, V. "Briefwechsel zwischen Dobrowsky und Kopitar" Berlin, 1885 pp.34

63) A statement by Joseph Muller, Austrian, Medical officer in Turkish Army in early 19th century, who worked in Albania about Slavs in neighboring countries that were visited by him.Dr. Muller was a fluent speaker of the Serbian language. "Together with Slavic community of Spiz on Triplex confinium and smaller communities in Skadar,Podgorica and Spuzh,Serbian tribes live in eastern mountains Altin-Ili in Dibr-Sipre in the area of Struga as well as in eastern coast of the Ohrid Lake, further in the valleys of Rezna and Prespa in the city of Monastir and its northeastern surrounding, in the valley Srebrnica,and by name on communities of Optorosh,Shrbica,Mahmusha,Mrtvuca,along the left, eastern coast of White Drim in communities of Kremovik, Mirozhizh, Cuprevo, Grebnik, Zlokuche."

Joseph Muller, “Albanien,Rumelien und die Osterreichisch-Montenegrinische Grenze”,Prague,1844

64) "The Serbian pastoral tribes are separated from the Bulgarian agrarian population of Macedonia by the Greeks, who inhabit the central and coastal regions of this great land". Cyprian Robert, "Les Slaves de Turque" Paris, 1844, Vol. II pp.234

65) "Serbian branch includes, with the exception of Serbian Principate, Montenegro, Bosnia, also many other enclaves in Albania and Macedonia" Cyprian Robert, "Die Slaven der Turkei" Stuttgart, vol.II pp. 278

66) Edmund Spencer's comment about ethnicity of peoples in the region of Macedonia, visited by him in the mid-19th century: "The inhabitants are for the most part composed of Rayahs, a mixed race of Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians, who, it cannot be doubted, would join to the man their brethren in faith of Serbia and Upper Moesia.It must therefore be evident that the great danger to be apprehended to the rule of the Osmanli in these provinces, is the successful inroad of the Serbian nationality into Macedonia; with this people they have the tradition of right, and their former greatness, aided by the powerful ties of race and creed" Edmund Spencer, "Travels in European Turkey", vol. II , London, 1851, pp. 30

67) "Serbian tribes are by language and according to origin in possession of the greatest part of western part of European Turkey.At east they are distributed up to Nishava and Struma, Strumion of the Ancients, which goes in the Gulf of Orpheus.From southern to the northern border of Greek language, they inhabit Bosnia, Herzegovina, Old Macedonia.Montenegrins and Dalmatians, although not subjected by the Turks, are of Serbian tribe"

Ruestow, W "Der Krieg in der Tuerkey 1875-1876", Zurich, 1876

68) From 1880 to 1881 the Serbian Brsjaci Revolt (Brsjachka Buna) was fought in the areas of Demir-Hisar,Porech and Kichevo.The leaders of this uprising were local Chetniks:Ilija Delija,Rista Kostadinovich,Micko Krstich and Andjelko Tanasovich.

Veselinovich,V.M. "Brsjachka Buna" Beograd 1905

69) A 1854 request of the inhabitants of village Selce near Debar to HRM King Alexander Karadjordjevich. 22 Oktovra Arsenije Janovich,Gavril Janovich,Damjan Markovich, Vasil Milich, Tane Ninovich, Trifun Grujovich, Stanisha Nikolich, Cvetko Damjanovich, Despot Potnikovich, Gligorije Naumovich i Filip Aleksich proshenijem od 21 t.m. mole Knjaza da bi se obshtini ninoi Selachkoi u Albaniji za Crkvu shtogod knjiga pravitelstvom srpskim za sirotinske crkve u Turskoj nabavljeni podarilo. Djambazovski, K. et al. "Arhivska Gragja za istorijata na Makedonskiot narod" Beograd 1979 vol I, book 2, pp. 235

70) On the basis of the Priviligies by Rudolph II many thousands Serbian familes emigrated from Bosnia and Macedonia under the Dukes Vukovich and Pjasonich.

Czoernig, von Carl "Ethnographie der oesterrichischem Monarchie", Wien, 1885, Vol II pp.169

71) "It is understandable that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such as a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime.

This circumstance was widely exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open Serbian schools and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed.

In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself Bulgarian........during the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Bulgars have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Hence, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra.

If it is desired to designate these Slavs correctly, than they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular among them that for example male children are sometimes christened "Srbin" [Serb]*. the Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevich is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia."

Alexander von Heksch "Die Donau von ihrem Ursprung bis an die Mundung",Leipzig,1885,pp.63

• On the subject of appearance of the male name "Srbin" (a Serb) ,see:

"Licno ime Srbin u krajevima danasnje BJRM ("male name Srbin in the areas of todays FYROM") ",pp.41-44 in: Jovan F. Trifunoski "Makedoniziranje Juzne Srbije", Beograd, 1995

72) In 1886 Russian publicist I.S. Jastrebov published his book "Obichai i pesni tureckih serbov v Prizren,Ipek,Morava,i Dibra" ("Customs and songs of the Turkish Serbs in Prizren,Pech,Morava and Debar) in which the following reference to the important Serb custom of "Slava" is found: "Slava is celebrated by Serbs not only in Serbia,in Austria,Hungary,Bosnia,Montenegro,Kosovo,Morava and area of Prizren,but also in the areas of Skopje,Veles,Prilep,Bitola and Ohrid,including also Debar and the area of Tetovo.All inhabitants in the mentioned area who speak with the Slavo-Serbian dialect keep that custom holy."

Jastrebov,I.S. "Obichai i Pesni tureckih serbov v Prizren,Ipek,Morava i Dibra",1886,pp.1-2

73) "Divided by faith on three parts, divided out of political destiny, under various jurisdictions, Serbian race has the missfortune to be dispersed over various provinces, names of which hinther its unity.Serbia, Old Serbia, (in today's Turkish vilayets of Kosovo and Sandjak) , Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, with Dubrovnik, southern parts of Hungary (Bachka, Srem, Baranja) , Slavonia, Croatia"

Dozon,A. "L' Europee Serbe, chants popularies heroiques (Serbie, Bosnie et Herzegovine, Croatie, Dalmatie, Montenegro", Paris, 1888, pp.15-16

74) An observation by the Austro-Hungarian Field Marshal Anton Tuma von Waldkampf: "In Macedonia Serbs are living, partly in the great plain of Bitolj,partly in Vardar plain and are particularly compact in the valley of Tetovo"

Anton Tuma von Waldkampf "Griechland,Makedonien und Sudalbanien",Leipzig, 1897 pp-214-215

75) A conclusion by the linguist Petar Draganov about the songs of "Macedonian Slavs":"It is a strikingly obvious that within the circle of Cars,Kings,dukes,heroes and other individuals of these songs one can find only persons and significant events from the medieval,new and latest Serbian history".

P.Draganov "Makedonsko-Slavjanskii Sbornik" pp.VIII (n.d.)

76) "Serbs are in the south of Dalmatia, in the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, at the south of the Kingdom of Hungary,in Macedonia"

Henry, Rene "Questions d' Autriche-Hongrie et Question d' Orient" Paris, 1905, pp.207

77) Remark of Dr. Karl Oestreich about Skoplje: "The city's population consist of all possible elements-some of whom have come out in favor of the Bulgarian Exarchate and call themselves 'Bulgars'-and Albanians or Mohammedanized Serbs. Although it is situated south of Sar-planina, Skoplje is the chief city of Old Serbia.....the rural population, although it is Serbian in origin, has for the most parts given its support to the Exarchate, since a Bulgarian bishop is for them more acceptable than a Greek bishop of the Ecumenical Church to which they formerly belonged. This is how the rural population around Skoplje has today come to be mostly Bulgarian; the same is true of the purely Serbian Tetovo".

Karl Oestreich "Makedonien" Geographische Zeitschrift, Vol.X, No.1, 1904,pp 198-199

78) Referring to the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Macedonia,Karl Oestreich noted: "A considerable part of the rural population, although it then felt to be Serbian, seized the first opportunity of obtaining Slavic priests and so declared itself to be Bulgarian ......Whoever joined the Bulgarian Exarchate was registered in the Turkish population records as "bulgari-milet" and to the world as large was a Bulgar".

Karl Oestreich "Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien",Geographische Zeitschrift,Vol. XI, No.1,1905,pp.291

Let the readers decide. The source might be a nationalist, but the references are not. It is more likely that it was like Misirkov said: Samuil's Empire was Macedonian Slavic kingdom, then Macedonians embrace the name Serbs, then forgot about it under the Turkish pressure, so they considered themselves merely Christians or Slavic Macedonians, and then the 1848 came, and the moder nationalist consciousness rose up, and here we are. It's not only Misirkov, these are not only the nationalists, it is quite obvious that the uniformness of "Bulgarian self-identification of Macedonians until 1878" is simply not true. Why believing other sources that claim the Bulgarian origins of Macedonia? The Turks or the Greeks were objective????? About the Vanevski family, these are my relatives. I'll try to produce some documents, but it's hard. I hope that someone will help me - I call everyone from the area to help me. Saluti! Zikicam 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question.....at the bottom of the article you have the section "SITUATION TODAY".....it clearly states that Bulgaria recognizes the Macedonians as a seperate ethnic group...as do the Serbian and Albanian governments....my question is why do you choose to refer to us as Bulgarians or why do you take the observations of ignorant foreigners and talk about them like theyre fact....these are the facts.....these nations......most nations(excluding Greece) recognize us for what we are.....why has WIKIPEDIA taken sides?Personal points of view shouldnt mattter......Wikipedia has become a puppet for these propagandists...good job.

In the section labelled "Origins and identities" somebody wrote......

"The geographical region of Macedonia, which is divided between Bulgaria, Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, has been inhabited by a variety of other peoples including Albanians, Bulgarians, Jews, Turks, Serbs, Roma, Greeks and Vlachs."

Isnt this true for most of the Balkans?Thats different ethnicities have migrated over a variety of territories?Isnt it true for most of Europe for that matter?For the world even.What is the point in singling out Macedonia to show that a variety of people have crossed its borders in the past?I think we all know the reason.Why dont you go into detail about the extent of Slavonic settlement in Greece even to the Pelopenese?

"The Macedonians had little or no political and national identity of their own until the 20th century."

The 20th century?That is the 1900's if im correct.This is quite funny because a political and national identity was formed before the turn of the previous century...some would argue that it was formed millenia ago...others would say centuries ago...you have chosen to limit our history to a handful of decades.

"Medieval sources traditionally describe them as Bulgarians, a definition which survived well into the period of Ottoman rule as attested by the Ottoman archives and by descriptions of historians and travellers, for example Evliya Celebi and his Book of Travels.

These are the ignorant foreigners i was speaing of.

"In the late 19th century and the beginning of 20th century, there were lot of clashes of Serbophile Chetniks (originating from Macedonia) and Bulgarophile Komitas all over the Slavic-speaking Macedonia, which shows the lack of their proper national feeling."

Very nice oversimplification of the situation:)

"During the Turkish rule, the Macedonians had little or no political and national identity of their own until the 20th century."

And again wikipedia feels the need to tell us that Macedonians had not political or national identity until the 20th cenurty...thanks.

"19th century ethnographers and travellers were generally united in identifying them as Bulgarians until the period between 1878 and 1912 when the rival propaganda machines of Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria succeeded in effectively splitting the Slavophone population of Macedonia into three distinct parties, a pro-Serbian, pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian one"

AHHHHH but there was no PRO MACEDONIAN FACTION to be sure.

"The key events in the formation of a distinctive "Macedonian" identity thus came during the first half of the 20th century in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 and especially following the Second World War."

I knew this was all leading somewhere.....you guys leave out a very imporant part......its a crucial cog in the propaganda....that is....the fact that TITO created this false Macedonian nation...he gave the people their orders.....they saluted and conformed....because they have such a long history of conformity:))))He was even able to convince "Macedonians" whod been living in North America and Australia before the turn of the century that they were neither Bulgars,Serbs or Greeks but they were Macedonians and the followed him like sheep....right?WHERE IS CENTO WHEN YOU NEED HIM!

O, there are very little evidences about nonbulgarian belonging of Macedonian Slavs in the past. Less than 80. I have two considerations: 1. They do not prove that the Macedonian Slavs were Macedonian like ethnic group. They only put a guestion on their Bulgarian past. 2. Only in the book of Yordan Ivanov "Bulgarians in Macedonia" (Sofia 1917, 1986) are included 240 documents that shows the Bulgarian belonging of Macedonians. Only in one book! Please do not force ne to translate entire book. Let do not forget how many historical persons present Maceonian ideology "devides" with Bulgarians and how many (how little) with Serbians, Greeks, Albanians. Why it is so difficult between Bulgarians and Macedonians? --JSimin 17:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

JSimin, it is very doubtful that all those 240 references are about medieval time. I suspect most of them are about 19 century. Even the ones before, are mostly from travelers like Evliya Celebi, who found Bulgarians in Belgrade and Sarajevo.Why don't you scan the references so we can compare, if is not a trouble. Thanks! --Cigor 18:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

JSimin,If Macedonians are Bulgarians who does the political party OMO-ILINDEN represent?You say there is little evidence of a "nonbulgarian belonging of Macedonian Slavs in the past." Well in 1689 there was a rebellion in Northern Macedonia by a man who we today only know as "Karpos"...the Austrian King Leopold I urged the MACEDONIAN PEOPLE TO FIGHT....i wont do this work for you...you can find these sources yourself....anyways....after this failed rebellion and the Austrian withdrawl...certain MACEDONIANS fled and ended up in Russia....where they were incorporated into the Russian military....holding the title of "The MACEDONIAN regiment"....now if these were Bulgarians...wouldnt it have been named the "BULGARIAN REGIMENT" or was it just a way to say that these were Bulgarians from Macedonia so they called it "The Macedonian regiment"?:)

I suggest WIKIPEDIA present a peoples history and views the way those people themselves would like to be seen and have their views expressed....obviously there will be conflicting information on the other pages because every nation or people has its own take on things.....leave it up the reader to decide to look at both angles and decide for themselves instead of force feeding them this bullshit....please and thank you.

24.57.117.176, Thank you about qualifing of my words like bullshit. Thus you save my trouble to embark in theorethical themes.

1. How many people represent OMO-Ilinden if we accept that it represents all of those who declared them as Macedonians in Bulgaria in the last census?

1. As for Karposh we know something for him which is not in accordance with narrowly mаcedonistic interpretаtion: The hronists Rashid and Defterdar inform that ab initial he was a leader of "hajduts" in Dospat planina, in Rhodpi mauntain - i.e. in the border of geographical regions of Macedonia amd Thrace. According Turkish hronist Siljahdar there was riots in Sofia and Plovdiv (before 24.09.1689) and after them many of these rebelions joined to Austrian forces: "Among these most eminent abuse men was damn unbeliever Karposh". Karposh was mortolosbashi (chief of christian auxiliary forces) in the region between Sofia and Kjustendil (Kjustendil, Sirishtnik and Radomir) in present Bulgaria.

SIMIN that fact that OMO-ILINDEN exists is proof to me that not all the Macedonians in Bulgaria have been brainwashed.

In regards to Karpos..he was a MINER from the KRATOVO region....he was called "THE KING OF KUMANOVO" by the Austrian king...not the king of Kyustendil or the King of Sofia......but Kumanovo and he was mutilated on the stone bridge in Skopje...if they wanted to send a message to the Bulgarians....wouldnt they have killed him in Plovdiv or Sofia?Why kill him in Skopje?And you still havent answered y question as to why MACEDONIAN REGIMENT was formed in RUSSIA....if these men were free....which is wht they were....wouldnt they have chosen to call themselves "THE BULGARIAN REGIMENT"?What is the point in being named"THE MACEDONIAN REGIMENT"?If theyre all Bulgarians?Im sure youll find some more ways to get around the question......another question i have is the colony of MAcedonians in St.Petersburg.......why dont they call themselves Bulgarians?They were known as the Macedonian Colony......on their flag they had the sun in the bottom corner and Bukefal in the top.....this is before the turn of the 20th century......so why would these people choose to refer to themselves as MAcedonians?Place Macedonian symbols on their flag?WHat for?BEcause theyre Bulgarians?Is that how a Bulgarian expresses love for his nation?By calling him or herself a MAcedonian?What about when the Bulgarian government(back in the the day) recognized the Macedonians living within Bulgaria....claiming that there were oer 100,000 Macedonians living there.....and then why did they go back and say there are no Macedonians....only Bulgarians living in Macedonia?How can you stand there and tell me all this stuff in the face of all that evidence?YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED THEM AND THE REVERSED ITS POSITION....why?First.....why even bother recognizing us as a seperate ethnicity and seocnd why did they take it back?

FInally id like to say that today BULGARIA DOES RECOGNIZE US AS A SEPERATE ETHNIC GROUP....it doesnt matter what you think....the Bulgarian government has spoken for all 10 million of you....and even if they deny rights to the people in OMO....they will never be able to deny those people living in the ROM......neither them or the Greeks nor the Serbs...will be able to make us change our names again...or listen to priest we dont understand...or fight for nations we have no allegiance to..never again. Adios.

Cigor, chronological period of the documents included in the book of Yordan Ivanov is the same like the above mentoned 78 documents - from 10 to 19 century. From mediaeval period (until 1686 if you petmit to use this questionable year) in this book are 60 documents. In your references there are less documents from this period. Do not forget that I am talking only about one book. As for Evliya Chelebi Ivanov comment him and supposed notice that E. Chelebi inform about Bulgarians in Novi Pazar among with Serbians. Ivanov supposed that there was some Bulgarian dealers in this town. I had to opportunity to see your writings about Evlija Chelebi in other discussion and therefore I'll comment this source: Evlija Chelebi really notice Bulgarians in Belgrade and Bosnia, but he met there not only Bulgarians. Bulgarians are in the list of the other groups. He met and Serbs in Bulgarian territories too. One of the instances is Bulgarian town Samokov. From other sources we know that there was Serbian migrations in this region. Why we can not accept that there was Bulgarian presence in Serbian regions? There was migrations in Ottoman period right up to Bosnia. Even in ХІХ c. there was Bulgarian colonies in Shumadia. Like Evlija Chelebi L. Batalaka wrote that there was many Bulgarians in Belgrade - Баталака, Л.А. "Историја српског устанка", т.І, Београд 1888, 56-58. (In this moment I can scan the book of Jordan Ivanov, but I'll try to do further. Meantime you can ask me about this book or something else). --JSimin 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, JSimin, I totally support your attitude towards the Bulgarians in Serbia and Bosnia, it was quite normal that the Bulgarians were moving to Serbia and vice versa during the Turkish rule. Personally, I know that there are many Serbs in Samokov region, proving that there are many people with the surname Vukadinov (from Serbian name Vukadin, with the vocalised U, not Bulgarian form V'lkadinov). I know it because my uncle in Sofia has the surname Vukadinov. There were lot of Bulgarians that migrated together with Serbs from Kjustendil to Vojvodina. Novi Sad, Vojvodina's capital, was called Mlada Loza in 1748, in Bulgarian. Why don't Bulgarians try to remembre their Serbianized people in Vojvodina, but kept insisting on the non-existent Bulgarian majority in Macedonia? Strange.

There were Bulgarians in Macedonia too, of course, but I claim that they were minority there, not majority. OK, they were assimilated after Balkan Wars, first Serbianized, then Macedonized. But is it not true that the Serbs in Kjustendil, Vidin (was predominantly Serbian until 19th cenutry, even Milos Obrenovic and Karadjordje took it once in their Serbian Uprising and kept planning how to liberate it?) were Bulgarized? How many there are Serbs in Bulgaria? There are 5.000 Macedonians, but how many Vlach or Serbs? None. All assimilated. How many Bulgarians in Serbia? Two municiplaities! All of them! Bosilegrad and Dimirovgrad (ex-Caribrod). Why did not the Serbs assimilated them into the Serbian nation, if they intended to assimilate the 100% of "Bulgarians" in Macedonia? Their surnames have not been changed ever since! In Macedonia, all the surnames were changed in 1912. It coul mean only one thing - the Serbs assimilated only what they considered their nation, not the foreigners (except Vlachs).

My point is exactly as Krste Misirkov said,

1. the Ancient Macedonians were half-barbaric people very close to the Ancient Greeks (like Russians and Poles or Ukrainians, for instance), belonging to the Hellenic family

2. They were swallowed by the more advanced and sophisticated Greek culture, adopting it, thus becoming the real Greeks in a very short period of time, during Philip's and Alexander's rule.

3. Therefore, Alexander the Great was Greek (of very similar, Ancient Macedonian origin), like Gogol' was Russian (of Ukrainian origin), or my grandfather a Bulgarian etc... Assimilated by the close and admired advanced culture. It is not useful for us to claim that Ancient Macedonians were not Hellenic, but Thracians.

4. The Slavs came and conquered the vast area of Byzantine Empire and today's Macedonia and Greece, from Skopje to Athens. They could not call themselves Macedonians, because their area was much bigger than just Macedonia (Slavic territories included Dardania, Epiros, Thessalia, Thrace etc.). They were simply Slavs divided into some tribes (Brsjaci, Strumjani etc.)

5. When the Greeks re-conquered their previous terriories, they assimilated the Slavs by culture. The Slavs were prevalent only in today's all of Macedonia (Aegean, Vardar and Pirin). 6. At the same time, Bulgarians formed the Empire that covered the area of Slavic settlements all over Balkans, including the major part of today's Serbia, but it does not make Serbs Bulgarians...

7. It is not useful to call Bulgarian names, as many Macedonians do, including my young relatives from Skopje. The sentences like "they are Tatars or Asians" or "they are Gypsy-like people whose language is a perverted version of Macedonian, the oldest and the most beautiful Slavic language" are not correct, it offends me presonally. The Slavs had the predominant genetic role in forming of Bulgarian nation. They are pure Slavs, as Macedonians or Serbs or Croats. Besides, the genentic structures showed that Serbs and Croats, for instance, have some 40% of Illyrian/Thracian blood (National Geographic Hrvatska, page XVI, October 2004, Zagreb). Bulgarians are not less Slavs than Serbs or Macedonians.

8. The "fact" that Samuil was a Bulgarian king I heard first from the Lonely Planet Guide last summer when I was in Bulgaria! The Bulgarians, according to my history book (Serbian), conquered Macedonia, but after the fall of the eastern part, Macedonian Slavs used the opportunity to split from the Bulgarian (than predominanlty Asiatic) aristocracy and made their own kingdom, Samuil's Empire. This was a liberation of Western Slavs from the Bulgarian state, not the "moving of the capital" westwards. Then Macedonian Slavs united under the Macedonian regional name, because the tribal differences were forgotten.

9. Later on, the Serbs came and gave the Macedonians feel of dignity. Since the Macedonian Slavs were a part of Serbian army, they were proud of their new state and position in it, and started to call themselves Serbs amongst each other. It is no wonder, because we in Yugoslavia were satisfied with our country and proud of it, so we started to forget our separate identities, feeling ourselves a part of a bigger and mightier identity, Yugoslavs. 8 out of 30 pupils in my Grammar School declared themselves Yugoslavs - all were Slavs that felt they are part of something bigger, not Serbs, Croats, Macedonians or Slovenes, but Yugoslavs. And they were proud of it.

10. When Serbian Empire fell, Macedonians once again formed their half-independent kingdom, under the rule of Prince Marko (King Marko) Mrnjavcevic, of Serbian dynasty from Herzegovina. The Serbian heroes became Macedonian heroes too, with Krale Marko (Prince Marko) the greatest hero of all. I can support the theory of Misirkov that Macedonians were proud to be Serbs, by quoting such national heroic poems in Macedonian schoolbooks like "The Building of Scutari" - which was clearly Serbian myth, and never under any influence of Macedonia or Macedonian kings or regional rulers!

11. What the Greeks or the Turks thought of Macedonian identity, is not relevant, and not worth quoting it. They sticked to their first impressions from the Bulgarian Empire. For example, the majority of people called Czechoslovakians just Czechs, or Britons just English! How many times we have heard that there's a "Russian Front" in WWII? Or the Russian missiles? In fact they were Soviet (14 more republics apart from Russia). But the people uneasily give up their old names. Clear enough?

12. The Macedonians forgot the name Serbs, because it was forbidden to use, because of the Serb resistance. Once again, the Macedonians fell under the common name Risjani (Christians), Rajani (Villeins), or tribal names (Brsjaci etc.). Some of them called themselves Macedonians, in the sense of the regional identity among Slavs. It was once again the seed of the new name for the Slavs in Macedonia.

13. The propaganda of 3 powers was mighty. Please, do not speak of the Hellenization as a assimilation policy, it was a policy that most of the Aromanians, for example, suppoprted, although they spoke Roman-derived language. For instance, Sterija's main hero "Kir Janja", Aromanian in Vojvodina, kept saying "We Greeks..." or "The old Greek wisdom says...", while speaking the broken Macedonian dialect from Krusevo, Bitola, Voden or who knows where...! Many Macedonians wilfully accepted the Hellenism. The Miladinovs were Grekomans first, before they converted to the promoters of Slavic localisms!

14. The idea of a separate Macedonian nation was thus growing side by side with the idea of riviving Dusan's Serbian Empire (mainly in Vardar Macedonia), Greekophilia (Aegean Macedonia prevalently) or the reviving of the Bulgarian Empire (supported by Turks by forming of the Exarchate, or Russia, by forming of San Stefano Greater Bulgaria). But, those 3 ideas were strongly supported by the 3 neighbouring states, adn Macedonian autonomist and autochtonous idea had no basic state or financial help! Even the Russian believed the Bulgarian propaganda and supported Bulgarian PoV. But the Macedonians were very poor, many of them "pechalbars" derived from the "sorrow and painful work abroad" ("pecal" means "pain" in Slavic!). They obbeyed any propaganda because of their poverty. It is their fault they have been assimilated. Because they were submissive and passive, unfortunately. It brought Macedonians only pain, but every man personally was not that affected. The head on the shoulders was what mattered, and the slice of bread a day. Do not underestimate the poverty from 1900. Many Italians and Greeks and Dalmatians went to America, Argentina, Australia. Irish? Germans? Many! Why not obbeying to the very similar nation? It is easy to discuss with the full stomach, nowadays, about the patriotism and ideas. Try to go back in your mind... You'll see.

15. The Bulgarians in Macedonia? Only immigrants. Not autochtonous.

16. The idea after WWII was to "De-Serbianize" Macedonia, not to "De-Bulgarize" it.

15. When the Bulgarians and Serbs came to Macedonia in 1912, the people of Macedonia was dominantly happy because they were liberated from the 600 years of terrible Turkish and Islamic rule "zulum", and the liberators spoke almost the same language, were Orthodox Christians! What more is there to be happy? In Greece, they were happy, but not that much. The language of the Christian liberators was different, and it promised many problems in the future.

17. The Communist Party declared what they declared. It only brought back to light the old idea of "regional identity being stronger that the Serbianity (ol Bulgarity)" - why learning the Serbian cases, and trying to sound "fancy" and "aristocratic"? When you can speak your own proper dialect which is now (surprise!) official! The people are the creatures of opportunity, that's it. No big ideas.

18. But the idea is the following - there was always a local Macedonian Slav identity. Would they be Bulgarians if the Bulgarian empire lasted until now? Probably, but the most of today's Serbs would too. Would they be Serbs if the Serbian Mediaeval Empire survived until now? Probably. Together with many Bulgarians. Would they be Serbs if there was no Tito? Maybe, probably. With some rebels, like in Bulgaria. But not more than 5.000 of them, like in Bulgaria. People get assimilated now and then. But they were always Macedonians, like the Dalmatian Croats will always be Dalmatians, and Croats - ...well, depending on the historic circumstances. But one thing is certain for me, although I am partly Bulgarian - if Macedonians were something else during their history, they were Serbs in the Middle Ages, and they were Serbs only as a part of a bigger identity, like I was Yugoslav once upon a time. When Serbia fell, the Macedonians remained what they have always been - Macedonians. When Yugoslavia fell, we are not Yugoslav any longer....

That's my point - trying to be as objective as possible, being the Serbian citizen from Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbian and Aromanian origin.... Zikicam 20:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Slavic macedonians in Greece

Copying and summarizing info from this, same, page (section: The situation today), I added the following sentence in the section Major Populations of Macedonians by country:

"A real and recent number, which can allow readers to estimate an order of magnitude, is the people voting for a slavic macedonian political party in 2004: 6,176 (See details below)."

This sentence was reverted by user:Aldux, without any justification.

I believe that it is necessary since if the info "The Hutchinson Educational Encyclopedia estimates the number of the Macedonian speakers living in Greece between 100,000-200,000 (1994)" were accurate, one would expect many more voters.

Attention: No opinion is presented, just data. Therefore, I will revert.--FocalPoint 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'll have to revert. Your POV is absurd: if we accepted it, in Scotland (just to make an example) only those who vote for the Scottish National Party could be considered Scots, while all the other (3/4 of the population) are really English or God only knows what. And the same argument can be made for nearly all ethnic or regional parties. Aldux 21:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is reasonable and so is mine. I did not claim there are 6,176 macedonian slavs. I wrote order of magnitude and I quote from the relevant entry: "For example, an order of magnitude estimate for a variable between about 3 billion and 30 billion (such as the human population of the Earth) is 10 billion". Within this definition, the 1/4 of Scottish voters indicate the order of magnitude of the Scots.

what can you people say about the claims i heard expressed on both the press and by personal acount to me by GREEKS who live in territories of the Greek Province of Macedonia who are claimed by the Invented by Tito Pseudo Nation and quasi state of Skopje which calls it self Macedonia, that they were offered bribes (on some acounts up to 1000 €) in order for them to vote for this Rainbow party. The party who is owned by a Greek opurtunist bussinessman who has a factory in Skopje who is supported by funds of money from the Skopje Government. Reefus2 17:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless these are real data of Greek citizens, eligible to vote, who strongly feel macedonian slavs. I have rephrased to remove any possible trace of POV. I trust readers to judge and I trust you to either respect this presentation of facts or insist if you believe that this sentence distorts the truth.--FocalPoint 23:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Although many think that Macedonians in Greece only vote for the Rainbow Party, you are wrong. A vast mjority of Macedonians in Greece tend to vote for the leading Political parties like Nia Demokratia and PASOK, for the reason that these parties have offered many more benefits in financial and agricultural terms. - Macedonia

To Aldux (contd)

Hi, JSimin I didn’t realize that you answered until now. Talk pages related to Macedonia tends to expand at malign cancer speed, so it’s hard to keep track. Regarding the references what I tried to say is there is very little (close to none) original sources 14-18 century where somebody is being declared as Bulgarian. Like, I, (name here) X from the city Y (from Macedonia) did this and that. Unlike Serbian sources. Almost all references are indirect i.e. traveler reports, slave market reports etc. This is what I was talking about.

Zikicam, you pointed several times that there are Bulgarians and Serbia and that is some kind of proof of tolerance in Serbia. I don’t think so. There is no tolerance in Balkan!! At least not in 19/20 century to be sure. What you are referring is the people from Western Outlands that were part of Bulgaria from 1878-1919. The national division between the Serbs and Bulgarians was political. In the territories that were permanently given to the Serb state, there was no (or very little) Bulgarian self-consciousness, as well as the territories which entered permanently in the borders of Bulgarian 1878 there is no (or very little) Serb self-consciousness, no matter that the people from both sides of the Serb-Bulgarian border without any doubt belong to the same ethnic entity. Mixed self-consciousness exists only in the territories which until 1919 represent the Bulgarian territory and later entered within Serbia. In the same way the division between the Macedonian and the two neighboring Slavic nations was made on a political and geographic basis. This is why I think tagging many people from Macedonia in the 19th century as Bulgarians is anachronism. Regards --Cigor 17:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's true. The division is political. But I must say that for instance in Pirot, where part of my family comes from, people feel a bit of Bulgarian spirit, after the Vuk Karadzic's reforms that neglected the Serbian Eastern (Prizren-Timok) dialects. Therefore, I sometimes feel Serbian, but also close to Bulgarian. Do you know what I mean? People did not oppose the Bulgarian identity there that much. Also, in Vidin area, there was a bit of Serbian feeling before 1878. I talked to the Vidinians in Sofia, and they told me so. Look, the whole Serbian area that belonged to the Exarchate, and the whole Bulgarian area as marked by Belic, was desputable. Of course, tje whole of Macedonia too. I met a man in Belgrade who told me that his grandfather was a Serb Macedonian refugee from Dhrama, Eastern Greece! In Kavala, also Aegean Macedonia, I met a man who told me he could speak Serbian, because he is of Serbian origins. Of course, he spoke the pure Macedonian. What am I trying to say? The identity is deeply a decision of a person, connected with the education and breed. noboby can tell these people they were Macedonians or Bulgarians. Nobody can persuade some Macedonians from Kostur living in Sofia they are not Bulgarians, 100%. The Solunians are 100% Greek now. The Skopians are Macedonians, and the Pirotians and Vranians Serbs. No further story about it. I do not understand the Bulgarian attempts to prove their point, but let them be. Zikicam 23:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Strong resistance" during WW2?

How can one claim that there was "strong resistance" on the part of the indigenous population in Vardar Macedonia during WW2? It's well known that the couple of "Macedonian" partisan "Brigades" came from the North... --85.187.180.19 03:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Matter would solve itself

One way or another Reefus2 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia's additions

User Macedonia is inserting the following text into the article:

It should be noted that language and ethnicity are not coterminous, and only a small minority of Slav-speakers in Greece proclaim a (non-Greek) "Macedonian" identity due to the ongoing discrimination and harrasment that Macedonians face from the Greek government.

He is backing it up with the following source [48]. I don't understand something though - at no place in there does it say that restrictions and harrasment by the Greek authorities are the cause of the fact that the vast majority of "Slavophones" identify as Greeks. If there is such a section, please copy it here. I personally cannot find a reason for the Greek self identification of vast majority of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece in that document. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is problematic. Using the number of votes for what I understand to be a single-issue ethnic party to determine the number of people identifying as belonging to that ethnicity is dodgy, and unless someone has suggested that this is meaningful, is also original research. Even worse is to say that because of "harrasment and discrimination" from the Greek government outlined in an old report that current identity politics and voting should be dismissed -- this is purely speculative and wouldn't cut it in an Opinion Editorial, much less here. Please don't fuss over trying to find the right wording for WP:NPOV. Instead, WP:CITE facts. If there aren't any, say only that and resist the temptation to speculate about it. Jkelly 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Easier said than done... :-( --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all with JKelly. This POV of using a parties vote to estabilish Macedonian ethnicity is absurd: if we accepted it, in Scotland (just to make an example) only those who vote for the Scottish National Party could be considered Scots, while all the other (3/4 of the population) are really English or God only knows what. And the same argument can be made for nearly all ethnic or regional parties. And remember that all the numers of the party are already given in the sub-paragraph on the Macedonians in Greece today. For this I'll remove the piece, only leaving "It should be noted that language and ethnicity are not coterminous", which makes sense. Aldux 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, that's not what I'm getting at. I am requesting User:Macedonia's source that harassment and discrimination by the Greek state is the cause of the majority of the ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece self-identifying as Greek. You dig? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

---

pg 27 In spite of this avowal (it lists the human rights of a Greek citizen above), as well as the international human rights laws forbidding discrimination, the Greek government has discriminated against and failed to protect the rights of its Macedonian minority.

pg 18 The Greek government's denial of the existence of the Macedonian minority violates international human rights agreements to which the government of Greece is a party.

pg 58 Harassment of the Macedonian minority has led to a widespread climate of fear. A large number of people interviewed by the mission stated specifically that they did not want their names used, for fear of losing jobs or suffering from the kind of harassment experienced by human rights activists--being followed, threatened and harassed.

pg 58 Most people here are afraid to express themselves openly, to say that they are Macedonian. This has been particularly true since Christos Sideropoulos was convicted in court just for saying "I feel Macedonian." And lots of people are afraid to travel across the border to visit their relatives since Stohos (Greek newspaper) printed the names of people who had crossed from the republic.

With all this you are telling me that you can't see why Macedonians identify themselves as Greek? You got to be kidding me Latinus. Please dont revert any more. -Macedonia

What you are saying is wrong, you are saying that pressure from the Greek government caused them to believe that they are Greek. In reality, the ones you are mentioning in private, do admit their Macedonian ethnicity. A more accuate phrasing is the following: harassment by the Greek public and authorities has caused a substantial percentage of Greece's ethnic Macedonian identifying minority to be reluctant to publicly identify itself as such. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the discrimination made Macedonians think they are Greek, I'm saying that the discrimination makes them scared to say they are Macedonian so they say they are Greek. But anyway, like JKelly and Aldux said, mentioning the results of the votes of Rainbow Party is not nessecary or reliable to figure out the total number of Macedonians in Greece. - Macedonia

Miskin's reverts

Miskin has countinually been reverting my edits from the article. Macedonians are also native inhabitants of Aegean Macedonia (northern Greece), Pirin Macedonia (sowthwestern Bulgaria), as well as the eastern villages of Albania. He points out that this is a POV and that Slavs invaded in the region in the 6th century AD. Well Miskin, your right, Slavs did invade in the region 1500 YEARS AGO, including Greece. Bulgarians are decendents of these invaders, aren't Bulgarians considered native to Bulgaria??? Serbs are also Slavs, aren't Serbs native of Serbia??? If we considered your point that today's Macedonians are direct decendents from these Slav invaders who settled in the region 1500 years ago, well isn't 1500 years native enough to you? (despite the Slavs mixing with the ancient ethnic groups in the region who have been there thousands of years before). One can only see all the irony when Macedonians of Macedonia are not considered native to you, while Greeks in Macedonia who originate from Pontic refugees from Turkey, first coming in the 1920's, are considered native to you. Greeks have even given the name to Macedonians in Greece as "dopia" meaning natives, so what are you trying to prove with your annoying reverts? --Macedonia 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To call the Slavs in Macedonia natives is a blatant POV to every editor except yourself. Please try to realise that wikipedia is no place express you nationalistic insecurities and ethnic feelings. According to the non-Slavic demography, Macedonian Greeks were a majority in both Macedonian (Aegean) and Southern Vardar (vilaet of Monastir), long before the Asian Greeks arrived. Deal with it and go on with your life. Miskin 04:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the only name Greeks have ever known for "Macedonian Slavs" is Bulgarians. Same goes for the rest of the word outside of Yugoslavia before 1948. Miskin 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Miskin, please stop adding "unrelated" to the disambig header; it is just going to annoy some of our editors and readers can figure out what disambiguation pages are used for by themselves. User:Macedonia, please stop adding that line about Macedonians being "native" to some region or other. Instead, please find a reliable source that discusses the development of the modern Macedonian language and ethnic identity. Jkelly 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not removing, I'm only restoring it. Disambiguation serves to identify unrelated things, nothing's wrong with the use of 'unrelated' except the paranoia of the Vardar slavic editors. Every single disambig of "Macedonian" is unrelated in every context outside the borders of FYROM. Many things annoy me as an editor, but I don't remove them without a valid reason, so I don't see why we should compromise to editors who just can't face a reality. However I'm willing to compromise if they stop adding such ridiculous and hateful POV, for now and forever. All it can do is cause edit-wars. Miskin 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)