Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 12

File:Letter of Leopold I - Macedonians.jpg

This image has no reliable sourse. It has any direct relation to the article or the chapter, where it was placed. If any explaination, source or referense will be given I am going to remove it as POV. Jingby (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are 2 "Original research" templates, but not one {{fact}} tag

what's with that? the people who put the OR templates should put {{fact}} wherever needed so that we can all work for it. ..or else the OR templates will be "challenged and removed".. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I was joking

Check out the video [1]. It was, apparently, produced by the official Macedonian Radio-Television. You can also read the full translated text on the same site. As far as I can tell, it looks like the real thing. If so, an official video made by recognised authors and producers cannot be dismissed. If they teach they are 'Macedonoids', it should be included in an article. Perhaps a fellow editor living in the republic may have more information. Obviously, I will not re-introduce the issue in the article until the full story unravells. Politis (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That video has made the rounds here already. Yawn. Yes, it's stupid. So what? BTW, nobody has yet bothered to document who actually made it. But even if it was in the responsibility of the state-owned channel itself, its inclusion here would still be putting undue weight on a laughably fringe episode, and it will be unsourced OR as long as we haven't got reliable secondary sources analysing for us what its meaning and significance is. So, in short: forget it. We are not youtube here, and our purpose is not to tickle the nationalist reflexes of the one side by lampooning the stupidities of the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Language ≠ ethnicity

I have removed the "Population estimates" section, which erroneously attributed a "Macedonian" ethnicity to the Slavophones of Greece. This article is about the former, not the latter. The immediately preceding section is clear on this: The overwhelming majority of Greece's Slavic-speaking community is composed of people with Greek consciousness... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that your government denies to recognize the ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece does not mean such minority does not exist in reality. There are people in your northern province that declare themselves as ethnic Macedonians, they have their own political party, the Greek Helsinki Monitor recognizes them as well, and the section you are trying to delete is about those people and therefore there is no reason to remove it completely. MatriX (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How is any of that relevant to what we're discussing? Those that self-identify as such are mentioned in the previous section. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(BTW, something slightly on-topic). Let's not forget "recognition" by a government in this case does not mean a mere understanding of existence, it also means giving special rights and treatment. That's what countries - various countries, not just Greece - try to avoid when they resist recognition of minorities. They tend to go for the largest (minorities) only. --AaThinker (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians in Bulgaria

Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria in 1989 and an explanation for the number...

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa260/Piperkata/418-1.png

Can someone add this?

Source: “Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: History, Data, Analysis” By Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski, 2003, page 418

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.164.212 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2009

Added images

The added people, who self-identified exclusively and only as Bulgarians + 1 ethnic Aromanian will be removed. Despite disputed and with heavy pro-Bulgarian activities Misirkov could stay. Jingby (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove Gotse Delchev. Reasons:

...Even the famous leader of the Macedonian revolutionaries, Gotse Delchev, openly said that “We are Bulgarians” and addressed “the Slavs of Macedonia as ‘Bulgarians’ in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention”...; See:The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Loring M. Danforth, Editor: Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566,p. 64.

• Delchev have called himself Bulgarian
• In the documents he left the Slavic-speaking population in the regions of Adrianopole and Macedonia - Bulgarian.
• Delchev graduated Bulgarian gymnasium.
• Delchev was Bulgarian teacher.
• Delchev was Bulgarian officer caddet.
• Delchev had never written anything in a language different from the Bulgarian one.
• Delchev was member and later one of the leaders of an organisation whose initial name was Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Committees
• Delchev's best friends were Bulgarians and they considered him as Bulgarian.
• Delchev was considered as Bulgarian by the Ottoman Empire authorities.
• Delchev was considered as Bulgarian leader by the Greeks.
• Delchev was considered as Bulgarian by a quite authoritative source as "The New York Times".
• Even some of the most popular historians from Macedonia admit that Delchev had Bulgarian self-consciousness and considered the local population as Bulgarian.
• The Bulgariannes of Delchev is recognized from MacDermott, 1978:192, 273, quoted in Danforth, 1995:64 and Perry, 1988:23, quoted in Danforth again, 1995:64. Jingby (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove Kiril Peychinovich. Reasons:

Ogledalo ("A mirror") is a religious collection of prayers and instructions, many of which written by father Kiril Peychinovich himself in modern Bulgarian. According to the book's title page, it was written in the 'most common and illiterary Bulgarian language of Lower Moesia' ('препростейшим и некнижним язиком Болгарским долния Мисии'). It was printed in 1816 in Budapest. Peychinovich's book, Utesheniе Greshnim ("Solace of the sinner"), much like his first one is a Christianity|Christian collection of instructions — including advice on how weddings should be organized and how those who had sinned should be consoled, as well as a number of instructive tales.During the printing Theodosius substituted Peychinovich's original introduction with his own one, but still preserved the text that referred to the language of the work as the 'common Bulgarian language of Lower Moesia, of Skopje and Tetovo' ('простий язик болгарски долния Мисии Скопсский и Тетовский'). Also he selfe-identified as Bulgarian and is unposible to be emblematic Macedonian. Jingby (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove the Aromanian Pitu Guli also. Reason: he was not Macedonian. Jingby (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added images of some historical figures, who first began to develope Slav Macedonian consciousness, but have had also strong pro-Bulgarian activities. This was at the time, when the first signs for the future split between the Bulgarians and the Macedonian Slavs have appeared, i.e. in the late 19th. century. Because of their strong pro-Bulgarian activities, I have added remarks. Jingby (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Evem if Delcev did consider himself, and Macedonian Slavs, to be a part of the greater Bulgarian ethno-cultural group, does not the fact that he advocated an independent Macedonia (even if only politically) mean something ? Hxseek (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not replace actual est. number of Macedonians in Bulgaria from 2006 with old data from the 20th century. This is now historical number. Jingby (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OMG, the 20th Century. That is so Old Skool! Haha. Sadly ONE comment from an unregistered party does not give an objective veiw of the situation. Sorry. PMK1 (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group) or just Macedonians

Dear fellow wikipedians, I am coming back to an old topic that was opened several months ago, and was decided to leave it open until the necessary time comes. As all of us are aware that for native English speakers the term Macedonians refers to members of the Macedonian ethnic group, I believe it is time to change the title of the article from Macedonians (ethnic group) to simply Macedonians (as it is commonly accepted in the English speaking world). The disambiguation page Macedonia will remain in order to distinguish the modern Macedonians from the inhabitants of Ancient Macedonia. Regards to all. --Revizionist (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And once again what about Americans. It is clear the word is used for the citizens of the US, but yet it is a disambiguation page on the basis that there is a whole continent called America with many more people self-identifying as Americans in the regional (continental) way. In the same way Macedonia is a region a lot bigger than the country and the regional Macedonians (Bulgarians, Greeks and ethnic Macedonians) are much much more than the ethnic Macedonians alone. --Laveol ^T 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a good idea , I'm a macedonian too , but I do not belong to the ethnic macedonians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivann-d-mitev (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind we couldn't do this right now, because of the Arbcom injunction, even if we had a consensus for it. Revizionist, if you want to have a discussion about it nevertheless, please decide which page you want it on, and link your other notices there. – Personally, I'm not convinced renaming would be useful. I'm open to discussion, but preferably not right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's too ambiguous a term. I'm a native English speaker, but my understanding of 'Macedonian' depends strongly on context. Alexandrian Macedonians is always a strong possibility. I do think the title is unfortunate, however. After all, the ancient Macedonians were also an ethnic group. IMO Slavic Macedonians would be a better title. kwami (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well , Kwami, you're obvious not a native English speaker, because you'd otherwise know that nobody calls Macedonians "Slav Macedonians". Hxseek (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems an odd thing to say, considering that by your response you evidently don't control English grammar well enough to make such a judgement. I do agree with you about "Slav Macedonians", but you might want to review what I actual said. kwami (talk)

As I understand it the modern notion of "ethnicity" cannot be applied to ancient tribes. I agree this discussion should be delayed at least until the end of the WP:ARBMAC2 injunction. BalkanFever 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think it's more a matter of often not having the evidence to determine ethnic identity. kwami (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Laveol, the thing is that this is an English-language encyclopedia, and in the native English speaking world there is no ambiguity for the term Macedonians. Macedonians for the English speakers means members of the Macedonian ethnic group. There is a very clear linguistic distinction between a modern Macedonian and a ancient Macedonian. There is no issue about it, it is clear; but Future Perfect is right, we must wait for the Arbcom to finish and respect the decision. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this "very clear linguistic distinction" in English between the two types of Macedonians? If you read any Greek history—say Plutarch's lives—"Macedonians" means the ancient people, and "the Macedonian" means Alexander—as in the 1933 volume The Macedonian: A Study of the Personality of Alexander the Great. As far as I can tell, it is only context that disambiguates. The OED would seem to back me up: it defines a "Macedonian" simply as "a native of Macedonia", whether ancient, Slav, or Greek, though the latter (Greek) usage is uncommon in English and is usually dab'd as 'Greek Macedonian' or 'Macedonian Greek'. kwami (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an english speaker and when you say "Macedonia", I don't know if you're talking about the salad. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not helpful. We're discussing people; the question is whether in an ambiguous context an English speaker would know which kind of Macedonian we mean. kwami (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. ;) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly that is why when talking for the modern country English speakers say Macedonia, and when talking for the contemporary people English speakers say Macedonians. When talking about the inhabitants of Ancient Macedonia, English speakers say Ancient Macedonians. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist, it's a bit rich for you to lecture native speakers how to speak their own language. It would seem that you are simply pushing a political agenda, since you're pretending to know what you're talking about when you clearly don't. kwami (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kwami, I always keep a gentleman tone while talking to my fellow wikipedians regardless of the fact do I agree or not with their opinion, and I also would like you too use the same tone while talking to me. I am not lecturing nobody, I am just taking part in the discussion. I was referring to the fact that when English speakers say Macedonians they refer to the contemporary people, and when they refer to the Ancient people, they say Ancient Macedonians. There is no problem with this and there is no confusion. An indicator for this are the mainstream media in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, some of which I regularly follow - all of them when referring to the Macedonian people, say Macedonians. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, but then again when they refer to the citizens of the US, they say "Americans" and yet it'd be pretty unfair to call them and exclusively them American when tons of other people(s) live there. And in the same way, it'd be unfair to call one group Macedonians when there are tons of other people living in the region, who to self-identify as Macedonians (not in the national sense). Is there a difference between the two? --Laveol ^T 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Revizionist, first, my apologies. You said nothing to deserve an ungentlemanly tone. I've got too many names of people I don't know in my head, and I mixed you up with someone else who did deserve such a tone. Again, my apologies.

Revizionist and Laveol, when "Macedonian" is mentioned in the media, the context is current events / foreign affairs, which is enough to disambiguate. That's why the assumption can be made. However, when archeology or the Classics are under discussion, "Macedonian" is just as clearly assumed to mean the ancient variety. Here on WP there is no context at all: someone looking up "Macedonian" may be interested in either the ancient or the modern people. Therefore I don't think we should make the choice for them, especially when deciding either way would be seen as an affront by an entire country.

I'm sympathetic to the "American" question. I tend to call myself a Usonian, and I use etats-unien/estado-unidense/beikokujin etc. in other languages. However, there are a couple differences: (1) Even in countries where people may dispute the US's claim to the word "American", most people nonetheless call us "Americans". I use alternate words more than do most Quebequois and Latin Americans I meet. (2) In the context of archeology, genetics, and history, "American" generally does not mean Native American etc. unless disambiguated (the "first Americans", the "American colonists", etc.). (3) "American" generally equals "US American" in nearly all English-speaking contexts, and even if disambiguating would be the NPOV thing to do, good luck trying to get your motion past all the Usonian editors who would take affront at such a move. Even if I were to grant you your point (which I don't), two wrongs still don't make a right. (Though as National Lampoon would point out, three do...) kwami (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point Laveol, but the thing is that Americans make that distingtion when they use the term Americans. This is a English speaking encyclopedia and not a "толковен речник". As I said - English speakers make a distinction when they use the word Americans, but when they use the term Macedonians, they do not refer neither to Macedonian Bulgarians, neither to Macedonian Greeks, they simply refer to the Macedonian people - and this is the thing that is important in English wikipedia, what do generally English speakers refer to when they use the term Macedonians. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is fool of false soreces, Boris Sarafov is noticed like Bulgarian? Here is his statemant, i can ashure many printed versions from english world how he describe him self!

Macedonia and the Macedonians

We the Macedonians, are no Serbs nor Bulgarians, but simply Macedonians. The Macedonian People is existent independent of the Bulgarian or Serb People. We have sympathies with both of them, Bulgarians and Serbs; who will help our freedom fight, to them we will say thank you, but damn Bulgarians and Serbs forget that Macedonia is so precious for the Macedonians. (Boris Sarafov)

Nice Bulgarian :)Makedonij (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm loath to appear in the middle of this (for the record, I'm not from the Balkans), but I do want to point out that "Macedonian" (even restricting it to modern usages found in English-language media dealing with current events) does *not* necessarily only refer to ethnic Macedonians: it is systematically ambiguous, I would claim, between referring to citizens of the Republic of Macedonia (and other elements having to do with the country) and ethnic Macedonians. When the New York Times reports that Ivanov was elected the Macedonian president, they intend the adjective to be used in its national, not ethnic, sense. This goes for many such usages ("Someone with a Macedonian passport does need a visa to enter the US", etc.). It is especially relevant given the ethnic make-up of the country, of course. So merely counting instances of "Macedonian" in modern sources and showing that the adjective neither refers to the ancient kingdom nor to the region in Greece is still not enough to establish that it is primarily an ethnic designation: only the particular context of use will show whether the adjective is used as a designator of nationality or of ethnicity. My two cents. (And this may have been the point Ivann-d-mitev was trying to make above.)Mundart (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • I would prefer the name Macedonian Slavs or rather Slavomacedoniansbecause the term Macedonians can be used for too many meanings: (1) Citizens of Republic of Macedonia FYROM (of a number of ethnic groups); (2)inhabitants of the geographic Region Macedonia (included in Rep. of Macedonia. Greece, Bulgaria (also many ethnic groups); (3) inhabitants of the Greek administrative province of Macedonia; (4) ancient Macedonians (Kingdom of Macedonia). --Deguef (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Macedonians (ethnic group)" could also mean Ancient Macedonians. My first choice would also be "Macedonian Slavs". kwami (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Are people still pursuing an actual renaming of the article as a serious proposal? Then it's a pity nobody brought it up at WP:MOSMAC2 when the centralised discussion was open; that would have been the best way of deciding this with the least hassle. If we must discuss this again, let's please distinguish more clearly between two issues here: how to distinguish between the various meaning in running text (where necessary), and how to title the article. Where and to what extent the term "Macedonians", in actual text, can create ambiguity and how to solve it, is an issue we have always had to deal with, and I think we have fairly stable solutions for it. How to title the article, on the other hand, is an entirely technical problem: article titles don't need to be 100% unambiguous; they just need to be unique for technical reasons. If this article should be renamed, I personally would oppose anything that would make the difference between the actual name and the disambiguating qualifier less clear. The actual name of this group, in common present-day English – be it ambiguous or not – is plain "Macedonians", and only "Macedonians". If ambiguity is a problem, add a qualifier; any qualifier will do; but don't create the impression that the qualifier is part of the name. That's why I would oppose "Macedonian Slavs". "Macedonians (Slavs)" would be more acceptable. Any other qualifier instead of the clumy "(ethnic group)" would also work: "…(modern)", "…(nation)", "…(nationality)", "…(Slavic)", "…(whatever)". I guess each of these would be disliked by some, for some reason or other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To what extent Ancient Macedonians were an "ethnic group" is so irrelevant that there is no substantial reason for the article to be renamed based on this. BalkanFever 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"To what extent"? To the same extent that modern Slavic Macedonians are an ethnic group. This is entirely relevant, since because of it "(ethnic group)" does not actually disambiguate. kwami (talk)

This seems to have petered out. Fut.Perf. made a valid objection to "Macedonian Slavs" and proposed "Macedonians (Slavs)" or "Macedonians (Slavic)". Are those acceptable to people? (I would object to (modern) because the Macedonian Greeks are also modern.) kwami (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No comments? Any preference between the two? kwami (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Or we could leave it :) BalkanFever 05:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just Macedonians

Like it was before all of this Greek-Bulgarian denideing, Macedonians were always noticed as Macedonians,in 19st. propaganda begine. Here are some proves, pl ease use them in Article about Macedonians.

• For a number of reasons I am against the term Macedonians, any other solution mentioning the slavic origin would be welcome.--Deguef (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum, 10th century

• latin language

De ciuibus bulgarorum et macedonum

Transactis quibusdam diebus zuard et cadusa cum omni exercitu suo, eleuatis uexillis signiferis aquam danubij transnauigauerunt, et castrum borons ceperunt, deinde ad castrum scereducy iuerunt. Audientes hoc ciues bulgarorum et macedonum, tumerunt ualde a facie eorum. Tunc omnes incole illius miserunt nuntios suos cum donarris multis, ut terram sibi subiugarent, et filios suos in obsides traderunt. Zuard et cadusa paci fauentes et dona et obsides eorum accipientes eos quasi suum proprium populum in pace dimisserunt. Ipsi uero ceperunt ecuitare ultra portam Wacil, et castrum philippi regis ceperunt, deinde totam terram usque ad cleopatram ciuitatem sibi subiugauerunt. Et sub potestate sua habuerunt totam terram a ciuitate durasu usque ad terram rachy. Et zuardu in eadem terra duxit sibi uxorem, et populus ille qui nunc dicitur sobamogera, mortuo duce zuard in grecia remansit. Et ideo dictus est soba secundum grecos id est stultus populus, quia mortuo domino suo uiam non dilexit redire ad patriam suam.

• English language

Of the countrymen [civibus] of the Bulgarians and Macedonians

Some days later, Djuard and Cadusa with their whole army, emblazoned standards aloft, crossed the water of the Danube and captured Barancs [Borons] castle, after which they went to the castle of Scereducy. Hearing this, the countrymen of the Bulgarians and Macedonians feared greatly before them. Then all the inhabitants of that land sent their envoys with many gifts, to surrender the land to them and hand over their sons as hostages. Djuard and Cadusa, inclining to peace and taking their gifts and hostages, left them in peace, as if they were their own people, and riding beyond the Vasil Gate [ultra portam Wacil], they took the castle of King Philip, then they conquered the whole land up to the city of Cleopatra [ad Cleopatram civitatem], and they had in their power the whole land from the city of Durazzo [Durasu] to the land of Rác [ad terram Rachy]. And Djuardu brought his wife to him into that land and the people, who are now called Sobamogera, remained after Duke Djuard’s death in Greece and they were thus called soba by the Greeks, that is stupid people, because with their lord dead they did not take the way home.

Where are ethnic and greek MacedoniansMakedonij (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Despod Djurad Brankovič:gospodar srbima, podunavlju i zetskom primorju", Čedomilj Mijatović, 1880, page 128

• Serbian language

Istina, ja znam da turska vojska broji dve stotine hiljada ljudi. Ali večinom su to pešaci i malo ih je, koji su potpuno naoružani. Osim toga u toj vojsci ima veliki broj hriščana, Grka, Bugara, Makedonaca, Arbanasa, Slovena, Vlaha, Srba i drugih, koji mu svi po nevolji služe...

• Englsh language

It's true, i know that Turkish army counts two houndred tousend mans. But mainly all of them are infatry, and there is a small number of them who are well dressed. Among that in that army, there is a great number of christians, Greeks, Bulgars, Macedonians, Albanians, Slavs, Aromanians, Serbs and others, who by force serve to the sultan...

This book describes the period 1427-1444 in Serbian historiography, written in 1880.Makedonij (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia and Macedonians in Early-Mid Ottoman Period (1500-1800)

• With the assumption of control in the Balkans by the Ottomans, the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia had its widespread power and influence marginalised, while the Patriarchate of Constantinople found itself in a rejuvenated position resulting from its new found friendship with the recently arrived Muslim overlords. With the renewal of the Archbishopric of Pech in Serbia in the year 1557, the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia began to lose even more ground and traditional territories, however, the Macedonian people stood firm behind their church and the main foe continued to be the Turk. Tensions between the Macedonian Christians and Ottoman Muslims increased significantly from the 1560's onwards, which saw places like Debar, Ohrid, Tetovo, Gostivar, Skopje, Prilep, Mariovo, etc explode in sporadic revolt and resistance against the foreign oppressor. (Chris Stefou)

• In 1571 a group of about 300 well-armed Christian rebels who had refused to pay taxes for the last two years banded together near the village of Ezerani and stormed the Ottomans. This rebellion too was instigated by the priests of Venice through the consultation of archbishop Atanasij I from Ohrid. This particular rebellion lasted longer than expected due to lack of Ottoman resources to quell it...........

• In the same year, 1571, the Ottoman navy was destroyed near Corinth by Don John of Austria, a victory which encouraged the local populace around the Aegean mainland and the islands to rebel against the Ottoman overlords. Although Ottoman authority was swiftly re-established in the south, the rebellions emanating from Ohrid in western Macedonia continued to expand to adjacent regions such as Prespa as late as 1573.

• The autonomous status of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia was always a source of conention with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the latter's close relations with the Ottomans resulted in the rebellious Macedonians and neighbouring Slavic peoples looking towards Russia, Austria, and the Roman West for assistance. In the year 1589, the Archbishop of Ohrid, Gavril, wrote to Ferdinand the Archduke of Habsburg, speak of how "the Turk, who from day to day has pursued and blackmailed us and our ancestors ....in the whole of Macedonia, Greece and the nearby countries...then among our countries we have Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia....". Once again, the Archbishopric of Ohrid in Macedonia was engaged in activities in support of the local population. Due to certain efforts at collaboration against the Turks between the people of Macedonia and Albania, who were often unified under the 'guidance' of Catholic Roman clergy, a letter sent by an 'Albanian' to Pope Clement VIII in the year 1593 was imprinted with a title that read Stamp of the Kingdom of Macedonia and Albania. (Stojcev, Vance. "Military History of Macedonia". P.132)

• In the year 1611 Epirus experienced a short-lived revolt led by Bishop Dionysius the Philosopher, which resulting in severe Ottoman reprisals. Peace was by no means assured as the Archbishopric of Ohrid continued to be a dominant and influental factor on the territory of Macedonia and the greater region. In a letter from Pope Urban VIII to the Archbishop of Ohrid Porphyrius Palaelogus, which was written in the year 1624, the following address is made: "To the respected brothers Porphyrius Paleologus, Patriarch of Justiniana Prima of Ohrid and the other subordinate archbishops, bishops of Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania and of the other side of Macedonia".

The fact that the local population cited in these regions speak a Slavonic language is further corroborated in the links below from the year 1630, which cite Slavonic as the dominant tongue of the region, it is the vulgar speech of the Macedonians. (James Howell,Epistolae Ho Elinae, August 1613)

Again where are the regions of Macedonia, ethnic and Greek Macedonians, who is propaganda maker now??Makedonij (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Another short-lived revolt against the Turks occured in the year 1639 which began in the village of Gaveto in Macedonia, but a few decades later stakes were raised as the activity of the Macedonian rebels coincided with an Austrian push southward against the common enemy. In the years prior to the Karposh Uprising, places like Bitola, Voden, Veles and Prilep had been rebelling against the Turks due to the regular injustices endured by the Christian populations. During the 1680's the Austrians did battle against the Turks and encouraged the local population under Ottoman rule to revolt. Their declarations were addressed to the Christians of "Albania, Servia, Mysia, Bulgaria, Silistria, Illyria, Macedonia and Rashka", and the Macedonians appear most emboldened by the events. Parts of the region errupted in rebellion, the most notable in Macedonia being led by Karposh the "King of Kumanovo", as another declaration by the Emperor Leopold of Austria spoke about "two Macedonians, Marko Kraida born in Kozhani and Dimitri Georgi Popovic, born in Macedonian Salonika, have told us that the Macedonian people, with respect for our most righteous task......" (“The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618-1815″ By Charles W. Ingrao, 1994, page 81)

• During the early 1700's the Russians had their turn at war against the Turks, this time in Wallachia and Moldavia, where they enjoyed the support of the local Romanians. The Turks won the battle and as a form of punishment against the Romanians they instated the Phanariot Hospodars in Wallachia and Moldavia.The Russian Czar Petar sent proclamations to the "Albanians, Macedonians, and Bosnians who were subject to the porte"....(“History Of Montenegro” by Francis Seymour Stevenson, 1914, pages 144-145)

• After the peace treaty with the European Powers the Turks inflicted a severely harsh reprisal on the Macedonians, which prompted some of the first signs of emigration into Austria and Russia. Several Christians of the Ottoman Empire made requests for emigration to Russia, and in the year 1751 these requests were granted to Macedonians, Serbs, Vlachs and Bulgarians. The following year in 1752 infantry regiments were established within the Russian army which were divided according to nationality, described in a Russian royal edict as the "Orthodox Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Vlach peoples”.

In the year 1757 Montenegrin Metropolitan Vasilije Petrovic wrote a letter to the Russian Count Shuvalov expressing the feelings of the “Albanians, Macedonians, Bosnians, Serbs and Bulgarians”, who viewed Russia as the great Orthodox Slavic power and their saviour from the Turks. The Macedonians in the Russian regiments were still active in the mid 1760's as a number of them were sent back into Balkan lands to fight for the cause of freedom from the Turks. (“Voprosy istorii” 1988-04-30VPI-No. 004, pages 174-180)

• All these fugitives, Uskoks....Albanians, Macedonians, Serbians and Wallachians, were hospitably received in Austria, and settled as beforein...the Banat, for the defence of the frontier.

During these turbulent times the Greek-speaking Romans appear to be missing from most if not all of these rebellions, and instead of joining their Christian brothers in revolt they were forging closer ties with the Ottoman Turks. The endless uprising initiated by the Macedonians and other Orthodox Slavic and Latin peoples in the region had turned the Turks sharply against this part of the Ottoman population. That the Turks showed favour to these Greek-speaking Romans as a result of the latter's obedience (and greed for control among Christians) is evident in two things above all - Phanariot domination in Wallachia and Moldavia, and the forced cessation of Romanian and Slavic-speaking church liturgy and schools during the 1766-67 in the Balkans.

The Macedonians were quite brave and lively even after these events during the 1780's when they were met by Baron De Tott, who speaks of "twenty-two Macedonians, each with his musket on his shoulder, went thither, and met in a tavern, where they sang the victories of Alexander". However, from this period onwards assimilative propaganda in the Balkans and among the Balkan people spread, and it was chiefly orchestrated by the Greek-speaking Romans. (“Austria: Vienna, Prague, Hungary, Bohemia, and the Danube; Galicia, Styria, Moravia, Bukovina, and the Military Frontier.” by J. G. Kohl, 1844, page 269)

Again all of you administrators, please read the qoutes and think who is spreading nationalaisem and who is saying the truth! Truth will come out one day you know, wiki or no wiki.Makedonij (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

DO YOU GUYS NEED MORE MATERIAL?:)Makedonij (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to contact your Doctor. Jingby (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What a stupid remark...It is you who are Bulgarifying the Macedonians that needs to go to the doctor...

"a" vs "the"

The latest edit war (denying that Macedonians speak a Slavic language) would appear to be, not POV pushing, but a misunderstanding of the meanings of the English articles "a" and "the", interpreting "speaking a Slavic language" to mean that the name of the language is "Slavic". Let's assume good faith when possible. kwami (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is ambiguous. Orthodox Christians who speak a Slavic language could mean Serbs or Bulgarians. Why not: The Macedonians are a people with a unique identity derived from an influence of different cultures. The large majority identify themselves as Macedonian Orthodox and speak the Macedonian language. Their culture shares some similarities with the culture of their Balkan neighbours. Bruka (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not at all ambiguous. It merely orientates the reader to what kind of people they are (though I agree it is inaccurate to imply that all M's are actually Orthodox or Christian). But "a people with a unique identity derived from an influence of different cultures" is meaningless verbiage. We could just say "The Macedonians are a people", which means exactly the same thing, since all peoples on the planet have a unique identity derived from an influence of different cultures. And the rest is non-NPOV: "the Macedonian language" is only politically, not linguistically, a language, and anyway does not define them: The Macedonian language is defined as the language spoken by the Macedonian people, not vice versa. That's like defining Bosnians are the people who speak the Bosnian language. And their culture shares more than "some" similarities with their Balkan neighbors. kwami (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you reverted all, you could revert that thing that bothers you, not my whole editing? What is wrong with map? What is wrong with saying that in Iljos cheta there were 206 Macedonians, do you need a copy qoute from the book?

Who then is POV pusher and who is Vandal? MAKEDONIJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.219.22 (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You reverted an edit because of what appeared to be a misunderstanding on your part, so I restored it. I don't care about the map; I'll leave that decision to the editors here. But if you're going to accuse people you disagree with of being "vandals", then you are not engaged in good-faith discussion, and you won't have my support. kwami (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with saying that in Iljos cheta there were 206 Macedonians,

This people and their leader Ilyo Voyvoda where not Macedonians, but Macedonians. This is wrong! Jingby (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The book is Serbian and has the title "Serbo-Bulgarian history". Even if it was reliable I have the sense that it treats Macedonians in a regional sense. + Edit only when logged in with your main account, please--Laveol ^T 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So Jingiby, to which Macedonians is it refered here when we have so many of them?

It's true, i know that Turkish army counts two houndred tousend mans. But mainly all of them are infatry, and there is a small number of them who are well dressed. Among that in that army, there is a great number of christians, Greeks, Bulgars, Macedonians, Albanians, Slavs, Aromanians, Serbs and others, who by force serve to the sultan...

And Laveol, if thouse ware Bulgarian Macedonians, how then they refer to other Bulgarians, should the writter say Cheta had 200, Macedonian Bulgarians, 200, Bulgarian Bulgarians, and 200, Greek Bulgarian....and should we throw away Bulgarian references when they are used in things like that? Makedonij —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.219.22 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the book name is Serbian - Bulgarian wars.Makedonij (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

At a whole if it was after 1944 , they would be Slav Macedonians. Jingby (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea wright, i know some Slavo Bulgarians and Slavo Russians to, also i know Slavo Srebs, and Slavo Greeks!LOL

Here is an example from article: "Examples include the 17th Century traveller Evliya Celebi in his Seyahatname - Book of Travels to the Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha in 1904 and later. However, they also remarked that the language spoken in Macedonia had somewhat of a distinctive character — often described as a "Western Bulgarian dialect".

Celebi also remarked whole population of Sebia like Bulgarians, and that is an propriate reference? That is an ingnorance not pronouncing that in that time raja was split on Greeks and Slavs aka Bulgarians....becouse of the church. Hard to admit to some one, and you guys are welcome to tell Serbs that there is no prove from 16st.-18.st that they existe, becouse they were all Bulgarians in that time.Makedonij (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Besides having close to null knowledge on this field and showing total ignorance to the whole subject, you clear lack the English-language skills to continue this discussion. Please, try using proper English as it's getting pretty hard to understand you. Chelebi is an Ottoman traveler and he has made none of the conclusions you're claiming he made. Illyo Voivoda self-identified as Bulgarian on a number of occasions. Further, the book is Serbian (a.k.a. anti-Bulgarian) and it was written in 1908. How do you intend to convince anybody that this is a reliable secondary third-party source? I guess, you're not. The map is crappy and I cannot make anything from it - there are tons of maps with a better quality. If you've come here only to push ill-thought propaganda, try doing it somewhere else. --Laveol ^T 20:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My english is fine, but you are acting hipocratic, you use Bulgarian references in all clue articles about Macedonians, and then you acuse me, that i do not use third partis?! Bajgan! Makedonij (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this is your third party reference:Are you jokeing me?, look the title of the page! Makedonij (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

To anounce more, here is how you guys use third party references![2]?Makedonij (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"the Macedonian language" is only politically, not linguistically, a language. LOL assuming this is true, how is it relevant and how is saying that the Macedonians speak Macedonian non-NPOV??? Like I said, the current wording is simply unacceptable as both Serbs and Bulgarians fall under the current definition. On the Bosnians page we see that they are associated with up to 4 languages, while the Macedonians are only associated with Macedonian, so that's not a very good analogy. If the language does not define the people, then perhaps we should just remove the fact they speak a Slavic language? Bruka (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, IMO we should not judge fellow editors by their English language skills, even if they make mistakes. The important thing is factual correcteness and to be relevant. Also, using Bulgarian references is not a crime or POV (only using biased or POV references is). There are excellent Bulgarian references - as well as others, of course :-) Thank you guys, Fala and Merci! Politis (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the English language wikipedia and he is more than willing to debate, it's really helpful if he could writ in proper English. Otherwise the communication is impossible. And besides he's soooooo far from being correct. --Laveol ^T 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian is not only a political 'language'. See Kortland, Andersen, Matasovic, Noval & Blazek (some of the most influential Slavic linguists): all classify it as an independent language without any side-note of it being a 'political' separation. This is just Bulgarian POV. Hxseek (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian and Bulgarian are part of a single dialect continuum. Whether one considers it one language or two is a social conception and political decision: there is no dividing line in the Bulgarian-Macedonian language itself. Standard Macedonian is based on the western dialect at least partially to make it as distinct from Standard Bulgarian as possible—another political decision. I'm not saying that's wrong: the separation of Swedish and Norwegian, of Spanish and Portuguese, of Malaysian and Indonesian, of Hindi and Urdu, were also (at least partially) political distinctions. For an extreme example, look at Moldavian. Given that the distinction is not an obvious one, like the differences between Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, and Turkish, it's entirely reasonable to cover the history of language politics and of a separate Macedonian identity. And I'm not arguing that the politics are only on the Macedonian side: Bulgarian grammar books used in Bulgarian schools teach about imaginary verbal tenses that don't actually exist, because a political decision was made that Bulgarian needed to have the same grammatical distinctions as some other language. All this stuff can be emotional, but it's our responsibility to try to present an unbiased account of it to our readers. kwami (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian POV? Venko Markovski, writer, poet and politician from Macedonia, who in 1945 participated in the Commission for the Creation of the Macedonian Alphabet and in the Commission for the Codification of the Macedonian language, once published what was the first contemporary book written in standardized Macedonian, stated in an interview only seven days prior to his death, that the ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonian language were a result of Comintern manipulation. Jingby (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding that they are also called Skopjans in Greece, Bulgaria and Albania, among other places

If this is about neutral point of view, then all the points of view should be expressed. It is a known fact that this particular ethnic group is called 'Skopjans' in Greece, Cyprus, Albania, part of Bulgaria and a few other countries. Adding such a clarification would improve the article and add more value to it. --87.221.5.107 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? They are called skopjans in bulgaria and albania. They aren't called skopjans, even the albanian government has recognised an ethnic macedonian minority. And many bulgarian source make reference to the Macedonians (ethnic) in Bulgaria. Skopjans is derogotory name, see WP:MOSMAC if you wish to clarify. PMK1 (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonian = Greek Macedonian. You mean Bulgaro-macedonian or Slavo-macedonian or Skopjan in any case. It makes no sense at all to use the word ethnic Macedonian if they are not ethnic Greek Macedonians.

That term is derogatory and only used recently by the Greek government. Mactruth (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it is used globally by Greek Population, not the government, and thus has to be added as well. All points of view habe to clearly been reflected. If you consider that some Skopjans find it offensive then tough luck, this is what they are after all. I think offensive would be to call them Bulgarians, which might in fact be what they are... who knows. The fact that they do not accept it does not mean it isn't truth. --87.219.84.239 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The term ethnic Macedonian is derogatory to Greeks. It should be removed. Preserving NPOV, no one actually uses that term. Most people call them Slavomacedonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.84.239 (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case then Greek Macedonian is derogatory to ethnic Macedonians and that article should state that we call them "Christian Turks." Bulgarians, Albanians etc do not call Macedonians Skopjans... only the people of the city of [Skopje] are called Skopjans. The only ones who call Macedonians "Skopjans" are Greeks and nationalists. If you have a reliable source that proves me wrong, please show it.

Also, "Skopjan" was introduced by the Greek government, and knowing that Greeks are puppets to their priests and politicians the term has spread like wildfire. You are welcome to create an account and try to edit the article, but you'll only be wasting your time. The international community recognizes an Macedonian ethnicity and Macedonian language, that is the REALITY and if YOU don't like it then though luck. Again, if you add it, I will immediately delete it and add "Christian Turk" to Greek Macedonian. Mactruth (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Mactruth keep the conversation calm. Skopjans isn't offending it normally represents the inhabitants of a city. Now listen, not only is the NPOV disputed in the article of RoM for globally it is recognised (and by that I mean the UN and the EU) as FYROM, but also because people (and I don't give a damn who this is it can be from FYROM or from Greece my point is the same) let their views poison this encyclopedia. And yes I use the word poison because that's that. Plus, this particular matter has been treated by the community very lightly indeed. This is very serious, trust me on that. I declare this here and now: This is an encyclopedia, not a nationalist playground. I've read countless discussions on this particular matter and only have seen that this situation is truly bad. You may say things against me, alright I'm fine with that, I'll survive that. Also, I'm not from the people that will vandalize, change/alter or do anything to any articles I trust the editors for that. I didn't intend to write so much, but I was really disappointed with the way Wikipedia works in this series of articles. And lastly, I would like to say that any action such as deleting these words will just prove that there can't be proper conversation (I'm sorry for talking harshly but I'm really fed up with this) in here. Thank you in advance 85.72.162.232 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

sometime you guys remind me of internet trolls that yell: AMAGAD,me right you wrong &%$# off. if you have facts that you are recognised as such,please show them. For the confusion,at least here in Greece. Skopians (or skopianoi as we call it) is reffered purelly to the people of FYROM,not to the people of Northern Greece. Unfortunatelly the article is wrong on the part of dopioi. Dopoioi (or locals) isn't used for the people of northern Greece,but it has the exact same use of the word 'local'.We call the 'blakxoi'. I will edit that —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilisDa (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hellenism in the Near East 1918.jpg

Hello! Someone tried deleting "Hellenism in the Near East 1918." I contacted the person who deleted the picture and got the following response:

Hi, the author of the image in question was George Soteriadis, according to the description page. According to one of our contributors,

The first search result for "George Soteriadis" on JSTOR is a 1942 paper (Eugene Vanderpool, "An Archaic Inscribed Stele from Marathon") which says in part "... Professor George Soteriadis, who was then doing archaeological work... . In the spring of 1940, at Professor Soteriadis's request, the Ministry of Education ordered the stone to be brought to Athens". Assuming it's the same person (which seems likely), then he has not been dead 70 years.

Ergo, the image was still in copyright in the United Kingdom (the country of origin, which has a copyright term of life of author + 70 years), and Commons policy requires images to be free in both the country of origin and the United States. Given that it was published in 1918 (again, according to the image description), you can upload it to Wikipedia, since WP follows US copyright law alone; this is pre-1923 and therefore public domain in the US. Cheers, Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 22:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (please reply on my Commons talk page with further questions)

DO NOT delete the photograph, it is copyrighted within the United States and has fair terms. Mactruth (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the article is semi-locked.If someone can correct the mistake and change it from dopoioi to blakhoi it would be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilisDa (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ABOUT REFERENCES

Would you bulgarian and greek editors consider this, or material inside of it, as good references?Makedonij (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

More goutes,these are very rare and interesting letters, that were sent around the time of the Russo-Turkish war and the Kresna Uprising. They were cited in the book "Gorgi Pulevski, Izbrani Tekstovi - Nasha Kniga, Skopje

• Letter 1, 7th December, 1876

Драги ми пријателе Козмане,

Както разбрах од дјаду Натанаил, си му писал на 26-ого ноемврија и си искажал желанија да сме приели богом благословено и народом избавително дело. И јас у тој мах оставих службата ми и пријах под старос народното своето претпријатие. Распратих посланија по све слободни краеви српских и собрах људје и тргнах тука.

Кугато пристигнах сос четоју, кроз солзи рекох: О судбино божјо, зар ушче не се раскидају ланци петсто годишњи кои тижди нашиот народ маќедонски! Зар ушче је кљатва Адамова на македонског народа?

А Македонци вкусихом дух слободе, зато е всеки од нас решен умрети за чес и златну слободу, отколи живет ув ропство и азијатско тиранство. Нам е св. Отац задача и од бога и од људје: 1) Љубов, 2) Слога и 3) Единство. Зато, ако мислиш, возми четују и ела, време е!

Сос бога напрет, напролет одимо на Турском сви синове славомакедонски. Или вси ќе измреемо или ќе го издигнемо царството на Александар Маќедонски. Ево, ти пишем на руки и, ако си на умут и имаш воља, дојди!

...:(English)-Either we will all die or we will re-commence the empire of Alexander of Macedon.

• Letter 2, 8th January, 1879

Предрагиј ми Деспоте,

Преди еден месец видох писмо ут твојот брат Кузман и му писах да дојде тука и да собери колку може поголема чета. Тогиз, кога му писах, азе ошче верувах за ошчо сме тргнати да се биеме за Маќедонијата. И не само азе, туку всите верувахме и бехме готови да мрееме: или слобода или смрт, трето нема. Ама не било така. Едно мислел волкот, а друго увчарот.

Неколку дена напрет дјаду владика Натанаил ми даде едно твое писмо. Прочитах го. Ти писуеш, Деспоте, како искаш добруволец и ветиш 1000-2000 добруволци. Тоа јет убаво и преубаво. Ама азе ќе ти речам да не идеш сос луѓе ваму, јер овде има нешто лошо. Ту Болгарите се подигравеат сос нас и вртат вода на своја вуденица заедно сос црнокапецот Натанаила, куј што е Маќедонец, ама повеќе тегли на болгарско.

Да ти кажем, еве сос чети чекаме толкоз време да врвим ув Турско и се биеме за нашата свобода, ама не поштает. Кладоја огон и сега искат поеќе тревога пред Јевропа. Еве, мојте војници се растурају полека, а и азе немат зошто да чекам.

Ако вистина имаш 1000 до 2000 добруволци, моли серпската влада да помогнит, есапам почовечни сет. Тугаш и јазе сос чета ќе дојда, а и другите чети ќе кренит и вси заедно да удрим на Турчин ут север.

Писмово мое не го давај никому, да не го најдит црнокапецот Натанаил.

Јави ми да зема со време мерки!

Laveol's level of English is very good, so he could translate them if he is in move.Makedonij (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Chris Stefou was born in present-day Greece, and he emigrated to Canada in his teens. He is an engineer by profession and a scholar of Macedonian history by avocation. OMG! Jingby (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is, but what about you, did you buy your self a computer in Bulgaria or did your govermant buy it for you to spread Bulgarian Humor around the world.

OH, i'm so stupid help me i dont speak english well! Is he a Slavophone Greek or Macedonian who is a Greek form A region Macedonia in Greece, which is not to be confused whit Macedonia the republic which is a part of a Greek region of Macedonia ?!?IRONIJA Makedonij (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Makedonij, your debating behaviour on talk pages these last few days is not exactly helpful. Please pull yourself together. As for your question: No, Risto Stefov is not a reliable source. We had some discussions about him some time back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I put Goce Delcev in the section "Macedonians through the History", because he is present in the article Bulgarians so it can be in Macedonians too, because in Macedonia (and wider) is considered as Macedonian. I put ome other Macedonians too. 1111tomica (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Cleopatra, Philip II, Tsar Samuil and others. Jingby (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

1111tomica (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)What do you want to say with that...? And please give me prove that Goce Delcev "was" Bulgarian!!! 1111tomica (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have to read the article Gotse Delchev and the added sources. I am shure you did not. You can read also: Freedom or Death. The Life of Gotsé Delchev by Mercia MacDermott. The Journeyman Press, London & West Nyack, 1978.

Some facts useful for you:

• Delchev have called himself Bulgarian
• In the documents he left the Slavic-speaking population in the regions of Adrianopole and Macedonia - Bulgarian.
• Delchev graduated Bulgarian gymnasium.
• Delchev was Bulgarian teacher.
• Delchev was Bulgarian officer caddet.
• Delchev had never written anything in a language different from the Bulgarian one.
• Delchev was member and later one of the leaders of an organisation whose initial name was Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Committees
• Delchev's best friends were Bulgarians and they considered him as Bulgarian.
• Delchev was considered as Bulgarian by the Ottoman Empire authorities.
• Delchev was considered as Bulgarian leader by the Greeks.
• Delchev was considered as Bulgarian by a quite authoritative source as "The New York Times".
• Even some of the most popular historians from Macedonia admit that Delchev had Bulgarian self-consciousness and considered the local population as Bulgarian.
• The Bulgariannes of Delchev is recognized from MacDermott, 1978:192, 273, quoted in Danforth, 1995:64 and Perry, 1988:23, quoted in Danforth again, 1995:64.

"Gotse Delchev, openly said that “We are Bulgarians” and addressed “the Slavs of Macedonia as ‘Bulgarians’ in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention”; Read:The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Loring M. Danforth, Editor: Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566,p. 64.

This is all. Jingby (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. How Gotse Delchev explained the aim of the struggle against the Ottomans in 1901: "...We have to fight for autonomy of Macedonia and Adrianople regions as a stage for their future unification with our common fatherland, Bulgaria." Jingby (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

hahaha... all of this is stupid propaganda...how can all of these be possible..when his nephew that today is live (lives in today's Bulgaria, Pirin Macedonia) says that she is Macedonia, Goce fought for autoumnous Macedonia and not for Bulgaria. He is Macedonian. You are giving me some stupid Bulgarian propaganda sources ... give me world sources !!! 1111tomica (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is propaganda, this stuff is actually easy to verify if you care. Talk to historians, go to museums and see the original letters. Oh, and if you find it a tiny bit difficult to read them, that's because they are written in Bulgarian, not Macedonian. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.30.243 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is not a Kindergarten. Jingby (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you are right here is Propagandagarten!!! 1111tomica (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonianism as a Political Construction - BLOCK

Macedonianism as a Political Construction

The existence of Macedonians as a separate ethnic group is based on Macedonianism, a political doctrine whose ideological father is Stojan Novakovic, as an instrument against the Bulgarian ethnicity in Macedonia: “ Since the Bulgarian idea, as it is well known to everyone, has deep roots in Macedonia, I am of the opinion that it is almost impossible for this idea to be completely destroyed if it is opposed only by the Serbian idea. I am afraid that this idea wouldn’t be in a position, as a straight and bare opposition to destroy the Bulgarian idea and for this reason, the Serbian idea could be backed up by some kind of ally that would be strongly directed against Bulgarianism and that would contain elements that can attract the people and the people’s feelings, splitting it up from Bulgarianism. I can see such an ally in the Macedonianism or in some wisely determined borders, such as the expressions of the Macedonian dialect and the Macedonian specificity. There is nothing more opposed to the Bulgarian tendencies than this – the Bulgarians cannot find themselves in a more irreconcilable position thanks to Macedonianism.[35] ”

Stojan Novakovic tried to be close to the Macedonian national figures so that he could use them for the causes of Serbian politics and propaganda, and he had meetings with Krste Misirkov. These contacts were fruitful. At first, Misirkov wrote his book “On the Macedonian Matters”, but later he categorically renounced the point of this book, explaining that its content lies very far away from unprejudiced science, that with his action as an improvised politician on the Macedonian question, he undermined his work and interests and that he acted as a tool of Serbian politics.[36]

The political constructions of Novakovich were realized at the end of the Second World War, when with a political document of the Comintern from 1936, the Macedonians were declared a separate ethnic group [37]. In a similar way, by a political decision of the People’s government of the Federative Macedonia, from May 5, 1945, a Macedonian alphabet based completely on the Serbian alphabet was adopted, which facilitated the process of Serbianization [38].

All of this as you can read is propaganda or with three letters POV. We are not rats for god sake... Stop with the game BULGARIANS... Like this first of all the source claiming about the Misirkov is a propaganda Bulgar source ... So I am pleading the administrators to see about this section and to propose it for deletion I AM SICK OF THE BULGARIAN AND GREEK GAMES!!! 1111tomica (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There may be non-NPOV in the section, but the existence of the section is not non-NPOV: it's integral to the history of the concept of 'Macedonian'. kwami (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Like first the section is stupid ... because Gjorgjija Pulevski in the mid 1850s said that Macedonians existed as separate nation... and in this section is saying as the Macedonians were created by the Yugoslavs (which is not true, that is an invention by the jealous Bulgarians or better said VULGARIANS) in the 1940's . So this section should be proposed for deleting immediatelly. 1111tomica (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, it's hard to take you seriously with your bigoted outbursts. If the best argument you can come up with is to call people names, why should any of us pay any attention to you?

That said, the current title of the section almost seems designed to create conflict. kwami (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you or someone else will or not pay attention to me... I want everybody to pay attention on the article and on this horrible section that "grew" immedietelly in the article in a period of one night (or what i want to say that in the previous night some Greek or Bulgarian was bored so he said let me make some propaganda od the poor Macedonians) , a section that should be deleted because everything that is said there are Bulgarian lies. I just want to call all the administrators that are really interested in Macedonia question to see whats happening here . 1111tomica (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have merged it into Macedonism. Jingby (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not so much good by my opinion it should be deleted :D ... but still is BETTER ... Thank you!!! 1111tomica (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Thank you for VULGARIANS. Read the article Macedonism. It would be useful to you. Jingby (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

hauahaahhaahahaaha... sorry for that, but it was a nervous moment :) ... and I really know that we were closely related in the past... but still the Macedonians existed... and I prefer don't reading the article Macedonism becaus I will really get angry... Thanks anyway...Greetings 1111tomica (talk)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This section have to be merged into Macedonism. Jingby (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok than I will merge the section into Macedonism, but please give a warning to Relativefrequency for undo the article and he even does not discuss on the talk page. 1111tomica (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Identities"

This section should be made more compact, removing sub-chapters such as 'historical claims' etc, and amalgamated into one discussion abut the development of Macedonian identity. Hxseek (talk) 06:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Maps needed to balance the historical facts

If the article includes ethnic maps that show the existence of Slav Macedonians,such as 'Ethnic map of the Balkans (1897)' [3] and [4], then it should also show ethnic maps where no Slav Macedonians appear. The vast majority of ethnic maps do not contain this ethnicity (I must stress that I am not challenging the existence of 'Macedonians (ethnic group)' in the present). The two ethnic maps of this article were the product of a specific political climate and this context is not made apparent in the accompaning text. Politis (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and content removal

Bomac, do you have any well-grounded explanations, pertaining to Wikipedia principles, why you deliberately vandalized the article and removed the provided content on Misirkov's work? Relativefrequency (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that passage on Misirkov again, see my talkpage for reasons. In short: It's "original research" as long as there's no reliable discussion based on academic secondary sources about the significance of that text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You consider citations of reliable and verifiable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article as "original research"? Relativefrequency (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If they are "primary sources" and our assessment of their historical significance and meaning is basically just your personal interpretation, then yes. That's the policy here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification on the Wikipedia policies. I provided additional source from an academic publishing house. Relativefrequency (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can gather, that article is a cheap nationalist polemical pamphlet. No wonder it's again mirrored on that perpetual website, promacedonia.com, where certain Bulgarian wikipedians apparently get all their wisdom from. Not a reliable source, as far as I'm concerned, and probably giving undue weight to a viewpoint of questionable academic standing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

MACEDONIANS IN THE WORLD: TABLE UNCLEAR

I dont understand wether these figures refer to ethnic Macedonians or to citizens of the Macedonian Republic. For instance a great share of the Macedonians living and working now in Italy belong to the Albanian ethnic group.--Deguef (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

MACEDONIANS AS CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AND SLAVO-MACEDONIANS AS ETHNIC GROUP

I would not object calling Macedonians the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, but, as a scholar, I would strongly reccommend to make use of the term Slavo-macedonians or Macedonian Slavs for the ethnic group.----87.14.160.41 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)87.14.160.41 (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in geographical facts

There is one mistake that you can easily correct. Under the photo of Koco Racin, the poet, it is written that Sombor is in Croatia but it is in Serbia. This is a big mistake, this is so easy to chek fact, that this is quite embarrassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.92.61 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Samobor looks pretty Croatian to me...Alex Makedon (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously it was Sombor, I changed it ! 1111tomica 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

also referred to as Macedonian Slavs

Some could have also referred to them as Martians, it doesn't significate that we have to put it as an alternative name too. What (some) other people refer them as is irrelevant, on top of this the fact that Slavomacedonian is a racial slur. Its a fact that some (racist) refer Black people as niggaz, still I dont see Black people also known as Nigers on the page, slavomacedonian in the same manner is a racial offense and a POV and Wikipedia is no place for this. Alex Makedon (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

a doubtful origin of used photo

Dear friends. If you use a photograph, showing symbols of other nation, not Macedonian, than the photograph should be proven that it is not stolen. Therefore I have deled the Kolona Makedonki Partizani.JPG in your article. I hope, the original file will soon be finally equipped with necessary data, about the author and depicted persons, shown on it. Or the original source file should be deleted too, as propably a stolen photo. --Dimkoa (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavo-macedonian is not a racial slur

Macedonians (ethnic group) The description on the title, ethic group, does not correspond with scientific terms when we talking about the modern nation, national or civil state or sovereign people. The term ethnic group which was used most often when we talking about people that lived in ancient time, medieval age until the great French revolution and creation of The 2nd French Republic, as a first national and civil democracy, as a first national state in modern sense. The French Republic is a ripper for all European modern nations – known in the history as - the period of Romanticism.

I suggest changing the title, into the new title: Macedonian nation

(On the beginning of this article I suggest to have a short text about ethno-genesis of the Macedonian nation).

Text about ethno-genesis: The formation of the first modern Macedonian state was on 02 August 1944, and that date is marked as the beginning of the creation of the Modern Macedonian national or civil state and Modern Macedonian nation. The first modern Macedonian state, The People republic of Macedonia, was a part of the Socialist Federal republic of Yugoslavia, but since Yugoslavia was not a national state, but a federation, association of six national or civil states, and since there was no Yugoslav nations, but there were separate six nations within Yugoslavia, we take this period as a purely Macedonian period, the period of creation of the modern Macedonian state and nation.

Sources: • The Decision for re-construction of Yugoslavia on the federal principle.

Decision of the 2nd Session of AVNOJ, in Jajce 29 November 1943.

2nd Paragraph: To achieve the principle of sovereignty of the people of Yugoslavia, that Yugoslavia represents a true homeland of all its peoples, and never again to become hegemonic domain of any clique, Yugoslavia what we created and we will build on the federal principle, which will ensure full equality of: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrins, i.e. the people of Serbia, Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Source: Arhiv Jugoslavije).

• Declaration for proclamation of independence of the Macedonian state - (Manifesto) of ASNOM - 02 August 1944

ASNOM became and remained the biggest event of Macedonian struggle for national freedom and sovereignty. The most important decision at the First Session of ASNOM was the decision to proclaim ASNOM the supreme legislative and executive body representing the Macedonian people, and the pinnacle of state authority in Macedonia. It incorporated initial guidelines on constituting the Macedonian state, creating the "constitutional, legal document, upon the basis of which the Macedonian federal state is to be established and built." The decision also provided for constituting the people's administration,” the government of the Macedonian state, the functions of which were, for the time being, to be performed by the Presidium of ASNOM". Furthermore, in structuring executive authority, this document provided for the formation of "a required number of departments for the various branches of state administration" which were to perform the function of ministries until a government was established. This initial constitution for Macedonia was further supplemented by ASNOM with a definition of essential and guaranteed civil rights. The Declaration on Citizens' Rights stated that all citizens of Macedonia "are equal before the law, irrespective of their nationality, sex, race and religion." The Declaration also guaranteed the rights of ethnic minorities "to a free national life." The minorities are further mentioned in the ASNOM Manifesto, wherein the freedom and equality of all nationalities in Macedonia is proclaimed." (source: Mi-Am publishing)

• The Constitution of Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia 31/01/1946

FEDERAL PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA Article 1 Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia is a Republican form of Federal State, the community of equal peoples, those who on the basis of the right to self-determination, including the right to secede, expressed their willingness to live together in a federal state. Article 2 Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia consists of: People’s Republic of Serbia, People's Republic of Croatia, People's Republic of Slovenia, People's Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, People's Republic of Macedonia and People's Republic Montenegro. People's Republic of Serbia has in the composition of : Autonomous Province Vojvodina and the Autonomous region of Kosovo-Metohija .

BASIC RIGHTS OF PEOPLES AND PEOPLES REPUBLICSItalic text

Article 9 The sovereignty of national republics within the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia is limited to only the rights that this Constitution has been transferred to Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia protect and defend the sovereign the right people's republics. Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia protecting the safety and social and political regulation of people's republics. Article 10 Contrary to the Constitution, any act directed against the sovereignty, equality and national freedom of the people of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia and its people's republics. Article 11 Each People's Republic has a Constitution. People's Republic brings its own Constitution. Constitution of the People's Republic of Republics reflects the characteristics and needs be in accordance with the Constitution FPRY. (Source: Arhiv Jugoslavije)

• The first constitution of People Republic of Macedonia 31/12/1946

The first constitutional period of Macedonia in a formal sense began with the introduction of the Constitution of Popular Republic of Macedonia on the 31st December 1946. The first constitution of Macedonia was passed and proclaimed by the Constitutional Assembly of the Popular Republic of Macedonia, which, after having passed the Constitution, continued its work as a regular assembly. Apart from its constitutional and legal significance as the highest act of the country, this constitution also had a particular political importance, because it was a document through which the Macedonian state was constitutionally established, and therefore, generally recognized. The constitution of 1946 first set out the character of the state and the way in which it was to be administered. The People's Republic of Macedonia was established as a people's state in a republican form, in which the Macedonian people, expressing their free will, joined together with the other nations of Yugoslavia and their people's republics on the principle of equality to form a common federal state - the FPRY. This definition of the republic exclusively expressed its state legal element, which was necessary and justified during that period, in order to express its constituting as a state. In this definition, there are also elements of the principle of self-determination of the people, expressed in a voluntarily and freely expressed will to join together with the other nations of Yugoslavia. (Source: CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Dr. Cvetan Cvetkovski, Ass. Professor, Faculty of Law, Skopje)

• International legal rights on sovereignty and own way of building the country

Charter of the United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter. PREAMBLE WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. Article 2 The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. 1.The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 2.All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. 3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. 5.All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. 6.The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. 7.Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. Article 4 1.Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. 2.The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Article 5 A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council. Article 6 A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. (Source: Secretary of the Publications Board United Nations).

Macedonian ethno-genesis

As a result of many centuries of process of ethno-genesis of the Macedonian ethnic group, or the Macedonian people, as a result of an inheritance tradition, culture, religion and living in a separate ethnic groups with the strong traditional and religious links between the people, helps Macedonians to kept their national consciousness in a long period living into slavery and the struggle for freedom and finally to create their own state in 1944. This is not something that someone gave as a present to Macedonians, but the process that lasted so longer that had a strong cohesive links inside the nation, which after such a long time resulted in the formation of the nation.

The modern Macedonian nation has inherited the all civilization and history of the land of Republic of Macedonia and the people living on that soil since pre-history, antiquity, medieval time up to modern days. Human blood is not a basic criterion by which can be described the ethno-genesis of the people, although in this part the Macedonian nation has strong proves to have inherited the blood relations with the ancient Macedonians, which was showed through DNA analyses made by several research institutes.

Macedonia: 35%macedonian 10% illyrian 15% hellenen 5%phoenician 20% germanic 5% hunnen 10% slavs

(Source: IGENEA)

Also modern Macedonian language, the ethimology of Macedonian language has inherited more than 15,000 ancient words, or words which are same as those in ancient KOINE. The spoken language and the modern language is a very important link in the people's ethno-genesis.

Avlija = Авлија (двор)=Αυλή= back yard, adamant = скапоцен камен = αδαμας,διαμαντη = diamod, aktapod=октопод= χταπόδι=octopus, angarija = ангарија (мачна работа за џабе)=αγγαρεία = hard work, andart = андарт (партизан) αντάρτης=partisan, aresam = арeзан = αρέζω, elate = елате, дојдете=να έρθετε= come, harno / arno = арно =χαρούμενος, καλός, hiljada = илјада = χιλιάδα=thousand, kada = када (корито, кофа)=κάδος=bucket, kalup = калап, калап за обувки = καλαπόδι=shoe last, mould, klonka = клонка, заклон = κλωναράκι=shelter, komat = комад (парче) = κομμάτι= piece, kofnid = кофа= κοφινιδι, κοφίνι=crate, leunka = бремена жена=λεχώνα=pregnant horo / oro = оро = χορός=dance, magare = магаре=γομάρι=donkey, mirisam = мирисам=μυριζω=smelling mirudija = мирудија, зачин=μυρουδιά= spice, murenka = муренка (дуденка) μουριά= kind of fruite, mustak = мустаќ=μουστάκι= moustache, pratim = пратам = κάνω, κατασκευάζω , πράττω= follow, parjasnitsa = избега, развод, испраќа = ζωντοχήρα απο το ρήμα παριαζω, παρατώ=quit, divorse, sevgar = ѕевгар (пар)=ζευγάρι= pair, couple, sviram = свирам=σφυρίζω, παίζω μουσική η ένα μουσικό όργανο = play music, tipkanje = типкање, допир = χτύπημα απο το ρήμα τύπτω = touch, zugraf = зограф = ζωγράφος = painter, and many more ...

Anti-Macedonian propaganda of neighboring countries

The confusion over so-called the "controversy" of the Macedonian national identity and ethno-genesis is a result of the Propaganda of neighboring countries: Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria during 18,19 and 20 century. All these neighboring countries have created their own nation and national states before Macedonian and immediately after the collapsing of the Ottoman Empire. All Balkan peoples in the Byzantine and Ottoman empires have shared the same identity. The first ethnic group who gain autonomy and their national state was Serbia, a 60 years before Greece which has gained independence with the assistance and help of the Great European powers. 60 years later, with assistance of Russia, Bulgaria has gained autonomy. Macedonia in this environment has gained independence last, 40 years after Bulgaria has gained independence, as a result of the liberation war during WWII.

The propaganda of neighbouring nations toward Macedonians is aimed at the ethnic division into three pieces of of Macedonia national tissue. How was carried out division and what was actually the subject of division? It was divided the entire Macedonian ethnic charackteristic. it were divided the tradition, culture, history, religion and the people. The division has started within the Orthodox faith. After the abolition of the Ohrid Archbishopric, for very first time on the Macedonian soil have started the propaganda activities performed by Bulgarian Exarchate, Greeks Patriarchate, called phanariotes, as well as the Serbian Patriarchate. All of those neighbouring churches had full access to the territory of Macedonia which was allowed directly by Sultan him-self. All of these had their own Eparchies, and within the Eparchy have established their religious, educational, cultural and social activities. Since there was no protection from anyone for the Macedonian people and for the Macedonian national consciousness, they were left only to themselves, to be ranked with those orders as if they consider it closer to them. The majority of illiterate peasants, those from the countryside and the remaining regions were followers of the Bulgarian Exarchate, while the middle class has belonged to both Serbian and Bulgarian Exarchate. Wealthy merchants were followers of the Greek Exarchate or as they called them phanariots.

Using terms like those: Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks, for the Macedonians themselves, and for the Ottoman government representing only a social category inside the millet system, which is more religious and social, then ethnic system, not expressing the national commitment. Also all of the neighbouring countries and their propaganda really makes a clear distinction between themself and the Macedonians, and not call Macedonians as call themselves, but using epithets to specify a different title for them.

So in their documents, you can find one and the same people, either brother from the same parents, to call them, depend in which propaganda is: Bulgaria: Macedonian-Bulgarians, Serbia: South-Serbs and Greece: Slavophone-Greeks or Slavo-Macedonians (endopi). All these terms are imposed to the Macedonians and they are not the result of their National consciousness.

Sources: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F4061FF7385813738DDDAC0A94D9415B828DF1D3 http://i55.tinypic.com/o0v4gw.jpg http://www.promacedonia.org/en/hb/hb_4_10.html http://www.promacedonia.org/en/hb/hb_4_11.html http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/letter-from-the-greek-embassy-in-thessaloniki-1876/ http://www.dlib.mk:8080/jspui/html/68275/171/85132042.html http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2eL_0livP-4/Szk00h-CJvI/AAAAAAAAANU/wcsNJNNoh2E/s800/Janovenski_1a.jpg http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2eL_0livP-4/Szk00rdUu0I/AAAAAAAAANY/_4y86XmIkOc/s800/Janovenski_2a.jpg http://lh5.ggpht.com/_2eL_0livP-4/Szk00h-lFSI/AAAAAAAAANc/IyzZp8e1xJg/s800/Janovenski_3a.jpg http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2eL_0livP-4/Szk-nZSr5oI/AAAAAAAAAOs/QS1X8IyGuTg/s800/Greek_MK1a.jpg http://lh4.ggpht.com/_2eL_0livP-4/Szk-nrwYDjI/AAAAAAAAAOw/uIc8BL9WdQA/s800/Greek_MK2a.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marko markov (talk • contribs) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) user:marko markov 19:55:00 27 Jan 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC).

• Slavo-macedonian is a scientific term for a specific ethnic group currently living in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as well as in neighbour countries. Belonging to the slavic family of peoples is certainly not a shame.--Deguef (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Of course it's not, but why did you mention that? --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is just a comment to a nonsense by Mr. Alex Makedon.--Deguef (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can say that they're called whatever you wish. But from an international point of view, when (egin places like Australia, Canada, Britain), when one says Macedonians, everyone knows who this refers to. No need to supplement this with Slav. This just might be hard to accept for some, with due to respect to the historical consideration and all Hxseek (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not always. Sometimes when I say to people "I'm Macedonian" they reply "nice, I always wanted to visit Greece" or "cool, Alexander's land, that great Greek" or even "which Macedonia, the Slavic or the Greek"? A Macedonian (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the word "Slav" should supplement the word Macedonians. It clears up the cultural and ethnical background of these people. Macedonia is a geographic term, not an ethnical. There are Slav macedonians, greek macedonians, bulgar macedonians etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpap (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would add that the term Macedonians could be applied both to inhabitants of the geographical region Macedonia (splitted among Macedonia FYROM, Greece, Bulgaria) and citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, but is not at all a term acceptable for an ethnic group living in a number of coutries. This should be clear enough! In fact we dont use the terms Belgians, Swiss, Istrians for ethnic groups.--Deguef (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in the RoM

There is a huge consensus in the Republic of Macedonia, including MANU supporting the concept of a Slavic ethnic group. Politis (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that a lot of editors don't like the S word. Sticking with modern would avoid another edit-war that would start with a huge invasion from the MKpedia.--Laveol ^T 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think 'Slavic' is better than 'modern' because the latter implies, to me at least, 'new'. I don't mind if either stays, though I don't think any word is really necessary between 'the' and 'ethnic'. Or maybe we could just delete the entire first sentence of the dablink? --Local hero ^talk 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about that today and I've got to ask - were he Ancient Macedonians an actual ethnic group? I have the feeling the scientific world wouldn't have got to a single opinion on this, but what do most think?

Modern corresponds to Modernity or Modern history which is not as new as most people think ;) If most readers do actually associate it with something relatively new, they wouldn't be far from the truth. As a concept it's quite new. It's new even in regard to most other Balkan nations and especially in comparison with the Ancient Macedonians. --Laveol ^T 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)