Template talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)

Do not present minority view held in Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia only as mainstream! The western scholarship does not recognize the First Bulgarian empire as "Macedonian Empire". This POV will be removed. Mr. Neutron 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but we have only your word that it is "minority view". It is perhaps minority view here in Wikipedia because of several aggresive nationalist Bulgarian editors of Wikipedia who want to impose opposite view by all cost. Regarding western scholarship, the problem with that scholarship is same as problem with Wikipedia - Bulgarians were simply more agressive to impose their view to western scholarship, which do not mean that this view is a Holly Bible. PANONIAN 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, what is all this Frankenstein of a compilation? For reference, check Britannica's disclaimer. Most stuff listed here concerns Macedonia (region), not to mention History of Greece, History of Bulgaria and History of Persia (satrapy). I'm removing irrelevant stuff. Niko Silver 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to say that Republic of Macedonia have no history before 20th century at all? I am sorry, but everything what in history was located in the territory of present-day Republic of Macedonia is part of its history, especially former states and provinces that had same name as modern country and that were partially located in its territory. PANONIAN 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and the history of the region can be found here. --Laveol ^T 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Panonian: No, I'm not saying there's no history before; nor am I saying that there is. All I am saying is that the history of before is never included in credible academic sources as part of history of RoM, unless with disclaimers of the sort of Britannica above and then too briefly and with constant references to Greece Bulgaria and Serbia respectively; and except only in partisan highly discredited sources. As such, I find it unsourced to include all that here, especially on the grounds of the same name! Please bear in mind that this is the exact Macedonistic doctrine that Macedonia (country)=Macedonia (region) and other irredentist bullshit of the sort (see also United Macedonia). Disambiguation is a hard issue in Macedonia; and I am the first to suggest that "continuity" (historical or genetic) is immaterial and silly, however I am strongly opposed to misinformation. Please read the featured Macedonia (terminology) (of which I am the proud main contributor) to see who was what and when, because that's all we need to describe in WP. On a side nationalistic note, me and you were supposed to be on the "same side" in most issues, and I appreciate the fact that you may sound against the flow, but this is not our issue here, because neither of us is a nationalist. Our issue is correct information based on credible academic sources. Niko Silver 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NickoSilver why do you feel you need to insert yourself into every matter related to Macedonia? This template was not created by some "evil Macedonian nationalist" it was created by a non-objective observer who wanted to create a template about the history of RoM. Just because a fringe group deny it, it is not fair to be one-sided. This view is held by many countries in the region and Bulgaria seems to be the only one that denies it. If we want to be progressive it is a good idea to move forward and present all views, rather then the minority one held by Bulgaria. Alexander the great1 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And which are those countries? Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia. Mr. Neutron 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but Bulgaria is the only country in the region that thinks he was Bulgarian.Alexander the great1 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. Wester scholarship+slavic non-Serbnian thinks the same way. Mr. Neutron 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron do you have any sources from the REGION (balkan) that think he was Bulgarian? This is important, as they would be more reliable then what some historian in England thinks that has never been to the area.Alexander the great1 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. According to Greek history, he was Bulgarian. Remember: Basil II. Mr. Neutron 21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks support anything Anti-MacedonianAlexander the great1 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al, you are crossing the line here. See especially the first bullet. Niko Silver 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NikoSilver, please show me where I have made a "personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia" as that link says. I simply asked you a question.

Alexander the great1 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What question? You posted an explicit racial/ethnic insult right above. Incidentally, who's "he", in your comment of 20:44? Niko Silver 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar Samuil Perhaps, but Bulgaria is the only country in the region that thinks Tsar Samuil was Bulgarian.Alexander the great1 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?? What have you got wrong here? Who gives a rat's ass what countries think? Wikipedia only includes information on what academics think. And these academics have to be third party and above all reliable. Including information that countries think otherwise is defamatory, and I strongly discourage you from doing so. Not to mention that officially none of the countries you state has the audacity of officially stating things contrary to academic consensus. Unless you have a source, of course. Niko Silver 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many “academics” in Serbia and Macedonia that have come to the consensus that Tsar Samuil was a Macedonian. Ignoring that only makes the whole thing sound one-sided and a bit fundamentalist to not accept any theory other then the one of Bulgaria. Alexander the great1 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What question? my first "bullet", if I understand what you mean.Alexander the great1 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the first bullet of the page WP:NPA which I linked. Niko Silver 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make any explicit racial/ethnic insult as it was not aimed at anyone, it was a general statement. Although there are many instances where Greece has acted very anti-Macedonian. You should read this [1]

And this[2] Alexander the great1 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are instances, and I need not see your links. I also need not remind you that generalizing to all Greeks includes those present. And actually what you said is totally incoherent, because Neutron highlighted that the guy who kicked Samuil's ass went to history as Voulgaroktonos, literally "Boulgari-cide" in Greek. Not "Macedoni-cide", and certainly that would be really funny, since he himself was the distinguished member of the Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantine Empire (aka "Imperium Graecum")!! Niko Silver 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, claiming that the Greeks had an... Anti-Macedonian agenda back in 1004 AD, is simply amusing. Niko Silver 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'd appreciate if you could post links or works or the names of those academics you mentioned. I need them for my collection of propaganda (state-sponsored or simply for ill-perceived national "good"). Niko Silver 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted links on propaganda, I already posted two above.Alexander the great1 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read me above admitting Greeks may have instances of expressing what you describe as "Anti-Macedonian sentiment". Now post here what I asked for, please. Niko Silver 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking for links for your “collection of propaganda”, I am sorry but I cannot provide links to propaganda related to this topic as it is not propaganda. Alexander the great1 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post those that aren't propaganda in your view. You need to justify your claim of 23:13 that "There are many “academics” in Serbia and Macedonia that have come to the consensus that Tsar Samuil was a Macedonian." Niko Silver 01:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link from the BBC a “western” source: Tsar Samuil created a strong Macedonian medieval kingdom with its center at Ohrid. Soon he conquered parts of Greece, a large part of Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3352286 Alexander the great1 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. See my response: Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Ethnic_Macedonians. Anything else? Niko Silver 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template

Are we going to also link ethnic groups? I thought this is a page of political entities. Mr. Neutron 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that only political entities should be mentioned here. Other things important for Macedonian history could be here as well. Just compare Template:History of Bulgaria where you have link to article named National awakening of Bulgaria or Template:History of Serbia where you have link to article named First Serbian Uprising, etc, etc - these are not political entities, so why we should have here only political entities? PANONIAN 22:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they are not political entities, but "Brsjaci" was neither uprising (aimed at creating of a political entity) neither a political entity. I've also removed the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising, as there is no mention of "Macedonians" organizing or participating in it. Mr. Neutron 23:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this is ridiculous. Who else participated in Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising if not Macedonians? Also, there is no rule that only political entities or uprisings should be in this template (i.e. "only events aimed at creating of a political entity"), but all other important things related to country history could be here. Both, Brsjaci and Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising are very important for Macedonian history and since they are mentioned in the article named History of the Republic of Macedonia there is no reason why template cannot have these links as well. By the way, Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising did created Kruševo Republic, so I really do not understand why you deleted this. PANONIAN 11:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Panonian, in the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising, in addition to Macedonians (population of the Bulgarian region of Macedonia), participated also Tracians from Southern Tracia (another Bulgarian region). Lantonov 13:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians did not participate in the Uprising, see the main article, it was organized and executed by Bulgarians. As for ethnic groups, there is no evidence Brsjaci are related to the ethnic Macedonians, as they are in the Bulgarian slavic group. I dare you include Ancient Macedonians? Mr. Neutron 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Frightner keeps reverting the template (sigh). I desist. Left with opinion that Republic of Macedonia was created somewhere in 8th century BC, some weird remnant of the Greek city states (republics) :). Lantonov 12:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vardar Banovina has no relation with the Republic of Macedonia

I excluded the word Vardar Banovina from the box. It is a term used by Serbian occupation and it has an offensive connotation Revizionist 20:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this template seems agreeable to all sides. I think it is good to be protected. Lantonov 05:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Vardar Banovina is actually the title of one of the nine banovinas of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which encompasses today's Republic of Macedonia, it's not just an occupations term. 124.168.101.42 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand - what was occupied! BEFORE VARDAR BANOVINA THERE WAS THE BULGARIAN ARMY AND 500 YEARS BEFORE THEM - THE TURKS!Jingby 11:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Provide some relevant information rather than talking gibberish. 203.59.65.185 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Vardar Banovina was a province (banovina) of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia between 1929 and 1941. It was located in the southernmost part of the country, encompassing the whole of today's Republic of Macedonia, southern parts of Central Serbia and southeastern parts of Kosovo. It is part from the history of Yugoslavia. Jingby 07:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock the template

I ask the administartors to lock the template, because there is an anonimous user coming and rweverting it from time to time. Revizionist 10:09, 05 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, history of the Republic of Macedonia. NOF took place in Greece. Unless you are mistaking the template for "History of the ethnic Macedonians", NOF should not be included. Or if it will make you happy, add NOF but leave Demographic history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.241.11 (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the history of the ETHNIC MACEDONIANS, which includes the Republic of Macedonia, geographic Macedonia and the diaspora therefore NOF should be on the template Maktruth (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Period

I have seen in several articles such as: England[[3]] Italy[[4]] Greece[[5]] Egypt[[6]] That they include their Ancient History in their history templates, even though their country did not exist at that time (Italy did not exist during Rome) (Modern Greece did not exist during the time of the Ancient city states). Therefore I only think it is fair to include Macedon in the template as it extended into the Republic threw Pelagonia. Philip also united Peonia into the empire when conquering them as he did in the south, this basically covered the whole modern Republic. Ireland101 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider that Macedon is part of (FY)RoM history? I suggest you to read this [7] Kapnisma ? 07:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kapnisma please do not try to divert attention to unrelated information. The fact is that Pelagonia the northern part of Macedon is now in what you call "(FY)RoM". And Peonia which covers basically all of Macedonia was united by Philip. Face the facts and don't post political POV. Ireland101 (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political POV ? Find a reliable source that connects (FY)RoM with Macedon before editing. Also try to avoid pseudohistory Kapnisma ? 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you Kapnisma but when I studied the history these sorts of arguments did not appear. Macedon was a large territory, in modern terms a large part of it is in Greece, and another part of it is in RoM. Have you heard of Heraclea Lyncestis? do you know were it is? it is not in Greece. Have you heard of Pelagonia? Part of it is in RoM and a lesser part in Greece. This was the northern part of Macedon. Did you know that Peonia was united by Philip, this territory covers all of RoM? Kapnisma please do a little more research about Macedonia before posting these sorts of comments. Ireland101 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You mean that Pelagonia? Which is over Macedon [8]here and [9]here?

Open again your history books and read more carefully before making meaningless edits Kapnisma ? 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was entertaining but I don't have time to waste. Pelagonia was the Upper part of the Macedonian Kingdom, it is in the country Macedonia modern day homeland of the Macedonians, end of story. Ireland101 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template on the "Republic of Macedonia" or on "Macedonians" ???

The two are not the same. Macedonians come from the the whole Macedonian region, but this template is only on the RoM. Does that mean that MAcedonians only come from the RoM? NO! Part of our history is also on Macedon because many Macedonians come from northern Greece. So either fix the template or change it back to Republic of Macedonia template because its obviously about the country and not the actual people. 55lokheart (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was originally on the Republic of Macedonia (hence the title) but then it was changed to Macedonians. The page wasn't moved though. Balkan Fever 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ON the article History of the Macedonian people, in the ancient period section, it only gives the history of the Republic of Macedonia. But ethnic Macedonians come from northern greece as well. So why isn't the history of Macedon mentioned as well? Why is it only on Paeonia? Is this a article on the history of RoM or Macedonians? If it was on the history of RoM, then its ok to only mention PAeonia. But if its on ethnic Macedonians, we must also mention Macedon as well. 55lokheart (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if I may use Serbia as an example. There are two templates; Template:History of Serbia (Focuses on Serbia as a political state) and Template:Serbs (Focuses on Serbs ethnically, culturally, religiously etc. within, and outside of, Serbia). Perhaps we could have two templates as well? One for a chronology of the Republic of Macedonia as a political state and one focusing on just ethnic Macedonians regardless of location. Köbra ⁸⁵ 03:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which symbol?

Some people like the official coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia (the sun and mountain and nature and whatnot) and some people like the unofficial coat of arms of the Macedonians (the lion). Which one should it be? Balkan Fever 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the coat of arms better, solely based on looks. I could settle for the lion if the quality was a tad better. I will try to upload a vector version of the unofficial coat of arms and we could use that if more people would like to use the lion over the official coat of arms. In the meantime I think the official coat of arms should stay. Köbra ⁸⁵ 03:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the official coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia too. I would also like to add that this is not final - for example I would also like the old 1992 flag with the vergina star on red background (which is confirmed by both Macedonian and international experts to be the most used symbol of the ethnic Macedonians). But for the time being let the official coat of arms stay. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked both 55lokheart and that IP user (both have been editing this template) to comment here. I also posted a note at WP:MKD for anyone else interested to join the discussion. Balkan Fever 09:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion earlier in one of the above posts; to have two templates because, really, statehood should be its own template. Unless some of our other Wikipedians object, I think this is a good way to go. Köbra ⁸⁵ 10:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I missed that. I agree. That would make it a lot easier. Balkan Fever 10:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how valid my opinion might be, but I find the current state better. The lion is (and was) one of the most exploited symbols, so the current one looks more unique so to speak. For the other suggestion, I don't know what would make it for the template, but few of the topics will be uncontroversial (you know what I mean:)--Laveol ^T 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well officially the Coat of Arms would be used, but most people identify with the staar of vergina or the lion so one of these two would be appropriate. But it would be near impossible to post the star of vergina up, so i suggest an intricate version of the lion would be appropriate (as opposed to the version on ethnic macedonians which is very simple). I think the lion is more readily identified with than the coat of arms.P m kocovski (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms should be the yellow Lion with a red background, since that is the coat of arms that has historically represented Macedonia and represents the Macedonian ETHNICITY, while the official coat of arms simply represents the Republic of Macedonia and ALL its people. Maktruth (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun of the ancient Macedonians is a recent discovery and a recent use by both Macedonians and Greeks, but the yellow Lion with Red background has historically represented the people of Macedonia, but should not be confused with the red Lion with yellow background, which represents the people of Bulgaria. Maktruth (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians in Albania

Would someone be able to change the template so that the link for Macedonians in Albania no longer goes to the Albanian Section on the Macedonian Page. There is now a NEW page for that. Macedonians in Albania. If someone could get onto that it would be appreciated. :)P m kocovski (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve go naprav. Balkan Fever 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blagodaram P m kocovski (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Lanaguage

Is it possible to add a section for the Macedonian Language and its dialects eg. Strumica/Pirin?, Ohrid/Struga like is present in many other 'nation' templates.??? P m kocovski (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strumica what???--Laveol ^T 01:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding macedonians in bulgaria

could someone please change the template for macedonians in bulgaria to redirect here Macedonians in Bulgaria as opposed to the general macedonians page. thanx P m kocovski (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already changed. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms for the template

The coat of arms should be the yellow Lion with a red background, since that is the coat of arms that has historically represented Macedonia and represents the Macedonian ETHNICITY, while the official coat of arms simply represents the Republic of Macedonia and ALL its people.Maktruth (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun of the ancient Macedonians is a recent discovery and a recent use by both Macedonians and Greeks, but the yellow Lion with Red background has historically represented the people of Macedonia, but should not be confused with the red Lion with yellow background, which represents the people of Bulgaria

The only reason the unofficial coat of arms is not used by the Republic of Macedonia is because Bulgarian pressure not too, but the ethnic Macedonians relate far more with the lion then the ROM coat of arms, and since this article is about ETHNIC MACEDONIANS and not ROM, the lion should be used. Maktruth (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]