Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 6

• Previous discussion is available at /Archive and /Archive2.
• The renaming poll of June 2005 (now closed) is archived at /Poll. (See also /Archive2 for many comments arising from this poll.)

Are the Albanians of FYROM "Macedonian(nationality) or Albanian(nationality)?

Are the Albanians of FYROM "Macedonian(nationality)" or "Albanian(nationality)? What do the slavs and the Albanians FYROMs maintain?

Vergina 12:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They couldn't be "Albanian (nationality)" because they're not citizens of Albania. As I suggested above, the better solution would be to redirect "Macedonian (nationality)" to the article Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia. -- ChrisO 12:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Macedonian Slavs article explicitly refers to the dominant ethnic group of the FYROM. Renaming it "Macedonian (nationality)" is unacceptable as it would exclude at least a third of the FYROM's citizenry.--Theathenae 12:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a compromise be better than moving the article to Macedonians? Take a look at the current poll results and tell me. Decius 15:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ethnic majorisation" does indeed seem to be working in their favour - why did they even bother to break up Yugoslavia? - but they still won't reach the 60% required to change the name of the article, even temporarily.--Theathenae 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, ChrisO, some of them are Albanian nationality and Macedonian citizenship. If I lived in UK and had the required credentials, I would have Greek nationality and British citizenship. MATIA 19:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the word "nationality" is that it means too many things. Many people take it to mean "ethnicity". In fact, "nationality" and "citizenship" are often used as synonyms. If you're from an EU country (some other countries, too), check the page with the photo in your passport. Item #6 is labeled "nationality" in English. According to European diplomatic agreements, at least, MATIA's "nationality" is British.

The correct answer to Vergina's question is that they would be dissambiguated as Albanians (people). See Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples for the use of the word in that sense.

So, to return to the subject of this article. If the title of this article needs to be dissambiguated, the keyword would also be "people", so either Macedonians (people) or Macedonian Slavs (people). Zocky 16:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Outcome of the vote

The following is the outcome of the recent poll, which is archived at /Poll.

• Option 1: Continue calling people X "Macedonian Slavs"
  • 39 votes were cast for this option. Of these, 10 were discounted as invalid (see below). The final tally of valid votes cast for this option was 29 votes.

• Option 2: Describe people X as "Macedonians"
  • 47 votes were cast for this option. Of these, 16 were discounted as invalid (see below). The final tally of valid votes cast for this option was 31 votes.

Neither option won 60% of all votes. The poll is therefore moot.

Invalid votes for "Macedonian Slavs"

"To discourage socket puppetry, only users with more than 50 edits before 00:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) are eligible to vote."

• Lucinos - has only 4 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• El-dada - has only two contributions in editing history, both to this page
• Gavrilis - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Matia.gr - has no contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Ank99 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Toredid - has only two contributions in editing history
• EleftheriosKosmas - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• kafrileontas - has no editing history (apparently an anon claiming falsely to have a user account?)
• Kaster - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th

10 votes counted as invalid -- ChrisO 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Invalid votes for "Macedonians"

"To discourage socket puppetry, only users with more than 50 edits before 00:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) are eligible to vote."

• Ivica83 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Popski - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Emir Arven - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Yillilan - only edit is to this vote
• Alma Pater - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Zmaj - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Wulfson - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Gorann Andjelkovic - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• SashaSt - only 2 edits in history
• Ctac - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• 194.106.167.14 - only edits are to this vote
• Domatrios - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Golija - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• SpeedyGonsales - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Joshua.84 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• KoRnholio8 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th

16 votes counted as invalid -- ChrisO 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry but i have an account in the greek wikipedia with more than 50 edits so please recall your claiments for socket-puppetry. My vote counts even if i have 3 months to edit in the greek wikipedia.You invited me to vote and so i did. Check my statistics. kafrileontas

I'm wondering, if FlavrSavr would've convinced me to vote for Macedonians for People X, the article might have made the move to Macedonians (came close to doing that, after considering that most organizations refer to them as Macedonians, and Wikipedia should follow convention 99% of the time). Decius 00:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rules required 60% to vote in favour of one option, so it wouldn't have made any difference which way you voted - with 60 votes in play, there would have needed to have been a minimum of 36 votes for any one option. -- ChrisO 00:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good, then "it was out of my hands". The people voted. Though I noticed that in the time my vote was for Macedonian Slavs, the momentum was strongly for Macedonian Slavs---soon after I repealed, momentum shifted---or maybe I'm just being egocentric as usual. It stayed at Macedonian Slavs though despite the momentum shift. Interesting Wikipolitics. Decius 00:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's all about you, Decie. The outcome of the poll means that Macedonians will continue to refer to all the inhabitants of Macedonia, not just the minority that has hijacked the name at the expense of the majority.--Theathenae 10:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One question for the admins: If the results were in favor or calling Macedonian Slavs as Macedonians, what would happen to the current Macedonians article. If it would be deleted and replaced, what are the differences between this and vandalizing an article? MATIA 19:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that the original question wasn't very well thought out. "Macedonians" would have had to have been disambiguated at least five ways to capture all the meanings (geographic, ancient, religious, the people calling themselves that, etc). Macedonian Slavs couldn't have been simply moved to Macedonians, as this would have broken the disambiguation. Ethnic groups are often disambiguated by adding "(people)" after the name. So Macedonian Slavs would have probably been renamed "Macedonians (people)" - this might still happen in the future. -- ChrisO 20:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We (Macedonian Greeks) are people too... Etz Haim 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. :-) But you're a subset of a wider people - the Greeks - rather than a distinct ethnic group which identifies itself by that name. Out of interest, do Macedonian Greeks consider themselves particularly different from other Greeks? -- ChrisO 21:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are some differences in terms of culture, tradition, local dialects etc., that would make some nice Wikipedia articles. Also, the Macedonian Greeks are a subset of another wider population, that is, the Macedonians. Etz Haim 14:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The Slavs of FYROM are ethnicity Bulgars of the state SFRYugoslavia. --Vergina 16:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vergina, I have learned to ignore you, but I've got a question for you: Since "Slavs of FYROM are ethnicity Bulgars", and Bulgars are not Slavs, how come this justifies the "Slav" add-on? --FlavrSavr 18:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, the Bulgarians are predominantly of Slavic stock - although they undoubtedly are mixed to a smaller or larger extent with Bulgars, Thracians/Getae, Vlachs, Uzes, Pechenegs, Kumans, etc. etc. etc. But the same is also valid for the Macedonian Slavs. If you are hinting at the Macedonian fairy tale about "Tatarobugarite", I would recommend you to go to Bulgaria and see how Tatar they really are. It might have a beneficial effect on some of your misconceptions VMORO June 28, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

VMORO, I have no doubts that Bulgarians are predominatly Slavic, but Vergina was not referring to Bulgarians, but to Bulgars. As a matter of fact I'm going to a summer vacation in Bulgaria :-). I found a logical fallacy in your statement: the Bulgarians are predominantly of Slavic stock - although they undoubtedly are mixed to a smaller or larger extent with Bulgars, Thracians/Getae, Vlachs, Uzes, Pechenegs, Kumans, etc. etc. etc. But the same is also valid for the Macedonian Slavs. Isn't that a reason why we should call people X, Macedonian Slavs, Bulgars, Thracians/Getae, Vlachs, Uzes, Pechenegs, Kumans, not only Macedonian Slavs? --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 13:01 (UTC)

Suggest a better name, then. Preferably one not used by anybody else, to match how special and unique you are.--Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:06 (UTC)

I've already done that, how about Macedonian Apes? --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Vergina with his English and his bombastic comments is scarcely the best source you can quote... As for the rest - it is the national consciousness that counts, not the origin. VMORO June 29, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Very true, but I was trying to deconstruct Vergina's nonsense. However if national conciousness is all that counts, then there is no reason for "Macedonian Slavs". :-) --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Macadamia nuts is my personal favourite.--Theathenae 29 June 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Perhaps. Hey, and who referred to you as a Turk? (If you're talking about Alex Pater, he is Russian.) --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia. That's what my Macadamian friends call me. To which I reply: ЭИЧЦmiddot;оА РЦmiddot;ПУРоИКА МАКАТАМИЈА! >:D--Theathenae 29 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)

It's more like: ТА ЭИЧЦmiddot;Цmiddot; РЦmiddot;ПУРоИКА МАКАТАМИЈА! :-). I'm glad to see that this discussion has cooled down a bit. Often one forgets that we are all just ordinary, normal people. Particularly on the Balkans. --FlavrSavr 30 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)

Admin response

My answer is that Wikipedia should NOT refer to, er, People X as Macedonian Slavs but rather say that they call themselves Macedonian Slavs or that they call themselves Macedonians.

Wikipedia should not try to solve this identity problem, but rather describe it. It's obviously very controversial, and my previous attempt to help settle this last year was unsuccessful.

You guys all need to re-read Wikipedia:NPOV. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

And has anyone addressed this aspect yet?

• Upon annexation of Macedonia's territory, each country began terrorist campaigns aimed at expelling or forcibly assimilating the indigenous Macedonian population. Greece, in particular, began an intense campaign in order to eradicate the existence of Macedonia through a horrific policy of cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing. They outlawed the term Macedonia and proceeded to rename this region "Northern Greece". They changed the names of Macedonian people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek. Bulgaria and Greece continue to deny the existence of their large Macedonian minorities to this day and refuse to grant them human rights. [1]

This is all lies. Greece never outlawed the used of the name Macedonia but they did change the names of cities and town. Under Ottoman rule and due Slavic migration the Greek names of towns were changed (i.e Thessaloniki to Solun). When Macedonia was returned to Greece the Greek names were returned. It can not be denied that the names of these towns were originally Greek. (i.e Thessaloniki means vicotry of Thessalonians). There is not a large Slavic minority in Greece. This can be proven by the excistence of a Slavic Macedonian Party (they have there own party how is this a violation of Human rights by Greeks) which only pulls in 3,000 votes an election. FYROM often refers to Slavic speaking Greeks as Slavic Macedonians but alot of these people regard themselves as Greek and not as Slavic Macedonians. Either way ur point does not justify the exclusive use of the term Macedonian. The Macedonian can also be used to describe Greeks living in Macedonia. Also todays Slavic Macedonians are in no way connected to the Macedonians of Ancient Greece with its heroes Philip and Alexander. The truth is todays Macedonian Slavs are Slavs and live in the region Macedonia so it is only fair that they be referred to as Macedonian Slavs to avoid confusion and for us stay neutral.

Wikipedia cannot intervene to stop an ethnic cleansing campaign. Wikipedia is even more neutral than the Red Cross. Wikipedia takes 'no sides at all on any controversy.

Rather, Wikipedia offers accurated and unbiased information on what each side says. Conclusions of right and wrong are left to the reader. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree that we shouldn't take sides. But if I may say so, there are really two issues here: what should Wikipedia call "People X" and what should the article about that people be called? I don't think "People who call themselves Macedonians" would do as an article title... ;-) -- ChrisO 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear ChrisO, thank you for your answer on my not-so-well-thought-question, or perhaps my not so well stated question. I dont understand your answer 100% but I 'll sleep on it :) Please check my note on the top of this page about the differences between citizenship and nationality.
Dear Ed. I believe we agree on the wikipedia principles. And I think that the point of perfection for any wiki, would be to provide accurate info on what each side says, info that will let the reader conclude on his own about it, just as you described it.
Let me tell you few things about the passage that, perhaps, hasn't been addressed by anyone, as you said. What I'm going to write can be confirmed by millions of people who live in Macedonia (it may be just Northern Greece for you). The terms Macedonia, Macedonian etc were never outlawed. Northern Greece, consist of Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace. MACEDONIA in greek is written ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ and if you have a greek or unicode font, you can see the absolute similarity. People who live [and who lived since 4th century bC, or even before that time] in this area call themselves Macedonians. There is a historical continuity in the usage of the name, and certainly noone persecuted people during the last 100 years because they identified as Macedonians. The claims about ethnic cleansing are out of this world. And Macedonians are no minority, they are some millions, perhaps 30 or 40% of Greeks.
I believe, even with the wikis on Ancient Macedonia, Macedonia through Byzantium etc someone can understand that Macedonian culture played a major role on the Greek civilization as a whole, and the Macedonia's history is continual for 2300 years or more.
Of course our northern neighbours should have a name, and they do have the need to identify themselves. But can it be Macedonians? What would happen if I signed as ChrisO, or as Uncle Ed. How would you react? Wouldn't it be fallacious? If they wanted to be called Makidos or even Macintosh, how would Apple react? Yes, they live in a place, that is part of the geographical region called Macedonia, but can you understand our concerns about it?
MATIA 23:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone who has contributed to this article (or discussed it here) is a person, except for that one funny looking guy in the corner who's really a bot! :-) But I agree with Chris; that would be a silly title.

Unfortunately, many of the arguments (on both sides) in the naming poll were blatantly POV - arguing that it's "right" or "wrong" to "allow" the "People X" to call themselves Macedonians. The one absolutely solid and indisputable fact in this matter is that they do call themselves Macedonians, and we have no role (or even any right) as Wikipedians to determine whether they are right or wrong to do so. The fact is that they do. Unfortunately this largely got lost in all the POV-pushing that went on in the poll; it's convinced me that running polls on such questions isn't a good idea. -- ChrisO 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes they call themselves Macedonians. But that also is how a large number of Greeks call themselves.MATIA 23:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. For example Irish, can mean a citizen of Ireland or an Irishman by ethnicity. And nobody cares. Many Bulgarians call themselves Macedonian too, but they certainly don't mean an ethnic difference, but regional (They or their ancestors come from the region of Macedonia).213.91.216.210 30 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Exactly NOT. I have never met a Greek who calls him or herself Macedonian on first enquiry. They only grab for the label when they start talking politics. Why do they do this? It's rather simple. All the Greek political parties try to outdo each other on how patriotic they are, so the first one that tries to act in a politically civil way gets smeared by the other and will therefore eventually loose any forthcoming election. While outdoing each other at claiming the whole world and its surrounding are Greek ever since the begining of time, the unfortunate Greek citizens have swallowed up this politcal muck with delight. It only takes one glipmse of any ancient Greek statue to realise that contemporary Athenians have aboslutely nothing to do with these strange and distant people. But science is "believing when I see it" and religion is "seeing when I believe it" so the Greek arguments are belief based mumbo-jumbo. Having doubts? See for yourself and comparer this with this. What strikes as very true is the old Serb saying "He is complaining like a Greek nder arrest" - not only are the Greek convictions misguided, but Greeks are rather unpleasent about it when engaged in a discussion. --Paletakis 3 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

And I suppose you're a spitting image of Alexander the Great? Fuck off, you racist troll. "Unpleasent" enough for you?--Theathenae 3 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)

Thank you for substantiating my comment: that was not in the spirit of Plato nor Socrates (but then how could it be?).--Paletakis 3 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)

Piss off, you sad twat.--Theathenae 3 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice the move to region of Macedonia? Did this confuse or improve or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was an improvement, to be honest - it makes it sound like a disambiguated page when it's not. Consider "region of Epirus", "region of Thrace", etc. I don't think adding "region of" really adds anything. It's a region by definition; calling it "region of" seems rather like a tautology. -- ChrisO 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What ChrisO and Uncle Ed are trying very hard to understand

While I really appreciate your efforts and concern, I think you are missing the point. The fundamental problem is that, in itself, the use of the term "Macedonian Slavs" is a particular POV. Thus having an article with that name, dignifies and reinforces that particular POV, irrespective of its contents. This is a serious breakdown of NPOV policy and I think you may wish to consult with other admins on this.--Paletakis 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The fact is that the article is where it is because of moral/political objections - in other words, POV considerations - from one side, not because it reflects common usage or self-identification. This is clearly not satisfactory with respect to the NPOV policy and it's inconsistent with how we've handled other naming disputes (e.g. Sea of Japan, Gdansk etc). I've proposed some criteria which you can see at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict. Feel free to contribute to the discussion! -- ChrisO 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree too. People who use the term Macedonian Slavs to refer to those people are indeed expressing a certain point of view. I would hope that as good encyclopedia writers, we can discern what that point of view is and express it to our readers. Although it may be too early to predict, I will venture to say that this matter might require creation of another "definitions" article (like definitions of Palestine).

Part of the problem, in my view, is that some people want to use the encyclopedia to settle the matter. They want to say, "See? The encyclopedia calls them Screaming Blue Jeemflappers, so that's their true and proper name." (Sorry for the silly example, but that's the only way I know how to make a neutral example. I don't think the problem is silly at all.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Ed Poor, this might be a POV, but I think that is precisely the point of using the "Macedonian Slavs" term, because obviously, the practical and rational arguments for not using Macedonians are quite weak. I was quite shocked when I found out that Wikipedia (and its mirror sites) are the most important generators of this term on the net (the highest ranks on Google search). I might provoke Greek emotions with this, but this is simply, unfair. --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Could you say more about this? I don't know what you're leading up to. Can you say something about what ought to be in the article, concerning the "name of people X"? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

OK, I guess I was not quite clear. I am a member of people X, and I was expressing my POV about the Greek defiance of using the term "Macedonians". Considering the fact that Wikipedia is becoming more and more cited as neutral and reliable source of information, their argument would be: "See, the neutral and reliable Wikipedia calls them Macedonian Slavs". From the start, I wasn't insisting on the term "Macedonians", I think that Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation) should be used as a name for this article. I found out that it this acceptable for moderate Greeks. --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 16:35 (UTC)

I'd rather they said, "See, the neutral and reliable Wikipedia points out that they call themselves Macedonian Slavs." -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Ah, but the point is they don't. The only people who do call them that, as far as I can see, are the Greeks, for purely POV reasons. And the only reason the article is where it is is because of that POV, which came out pretty strongly during the recent vote. -- ChrisO 29 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Me confused. :-) --FlavrSavr 30 June 2005 12:09 (UTC)

--Theathenae 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)===Self-identification===

Would someone please clarify this for me?

• There exists a culturally / ethnically / historically distinct group of people, living in the geographical region of Macedonia.
• Greeks refer to this group as Macedonian Slavs.
• People in this group call themselves Macedonians'.

I need someone to fill in the blank, please. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Blank filled in. But the question is complicated by the fact that there are at least five separate groups that could be called "Macedonians": the modern Slavic people, the inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia, the inhabitants of the entire region (of which the RoM is only a part), the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Macedon, and an obscure early Christian sect. So one could never call the (Slav) Macedonians simply "Macedonians" in an article name; it would have to be at "Macedonians (people)" to disambiguate it from all the other meanings. The reason why we don't use that terminology at the moment is because the Greek nationalist POV is that only Greeks have a right to call themselves Macedonians. This is a controversial position, to put it mildly! -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 17:17 (UTC)

"Greeks refer to this group as Macedonian Slavs." Not entirely true, as relatively few Greeks use the one-word designation Slavomakedónes, and would in fact consider it a major compromise even to accept such a name. Most Greeks use the term Skopianoí (after their capital Skopje), and reserve the name Makedónes exclusively for the inhabitants of the Greek region of Macedonia. "Macedonian Slavs" is in fact a compromise between the two opposing POVs, as it objectively describes the core identity and origins of the people in question: Slavs living in Macedonia.--Theathenae 30 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Theathenae. It does rather raise the question of why we are using this term if neither people is using it much or at all. :-) -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

I guess we could always follow your suggestion and divide the inhabitants of Macedonia into "Macedonians (people)" and "Macedonians (non-people)". ;)--Theathenae 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere now. The problem is that the Greeks want Macedonians only to refer to those three Northern Greek provinces' inhabitants - and to no one else. While the, uh, people X, insist on calling themselves Macedonians too. Do I have it straight now? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Pretty much! It's an issue of self-proclaimed moral and historical rights for the Greeks versus a self-proclaimed right of self-identification for the (Slav) Macedonians. -- ChrisO 6 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

A lot of it has to do with the Macedonian Slavs presenting themselves as the Macedonians, despite the fact that they make up only a third of Macedonia's population. In their mind, the other inhabitants of Macedonia are not Macedonians but Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and whatever else, i.e. Macedonia is populated by "Macedonians" and "non-Macedonians". However oxymoronic this may be, it must of course imply that the "Macedonians" have a special connection to Macedonia that the other ethnic groups do not, even if these other peoples have lived in Macedonia centuries longer and form the majority of its population. And a special connection implies special rights, to the history, the heritage, and the land of Macedonia, from which the "non-Macedonians" are excluded by definition: "Macedonia for the Macedonians".--Theathenae 6 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Haha...special rights...Sorry, this seems to be overparanoid. And how these "special rights" manifest? You know, perhaps we should convince the UN to rename the northern Greek provinces of West, Central and East Macedonia into Former Roman provinces of South Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 6 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Calling yourselves the Macedonians is in and of itself a claim to special rights over Macedonia. It is a claim of autochthony. In an ideal world, the implicitly alien "non-Macedonians" would just get up and leave, right?--Theathenae 6 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that the (Slav) Macedonians had claimed that nobody else has the right to use that name? It seems to me - speaking as an outsider - that the Greek claim is exclusive ("we're the only ones who should be called Macedonians") while the Macedonian Slav claim is inclusive ("we want to call ourselves Macedonians too but we don't object to you calling yourselves that"). Of course, both claims are entirely POV. The question is how we can steer between the two poles while maintaining NPOV. -- ChrisO 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

No, the Macedonian Slavs claim that they are the Macedonians, and that their language is the Macedonian language. By implication, all the other peoples and languages of Macedonia are an alien element, since they are not "Macedonian". Indeed, many Slavs get quite offended when a Greek calls himself a Macedonian: how could he be a Macedonian when he's not a "Macedonian"? This can reach ridiculous extremes, as when one objected to my calling Thessaloniki the capital of Macedonia, or using "Macedonia" at all in a Greek context. Instead of laying claim to "Aegean Macedonia" as in the past, the new Macedonian Slav nationalism has redefined "Macedonia" to mean only the FYROM. The neighbouring region is simply "Greece" and its inhabitants are simply "Greeks", unless of course they happen to speak Slavic, in which case they may rightfully be called "Macedonians". Of course, there are always those old-school irredentists who think the international border should be defined by Mount Olympus.--Theathenae 7 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Ok, it seems this is becoming another endless POV debate. The Macedonian irredentist "threat" is not worth a serious consideration, yet many Greeks fear it as if it was a real possibility. We do not claim that we are the same as the Ancient Macedonians, nor our language is the same as the Ancient Macedonian language, but I don't see a reason why we shouldn't call ourselves Macedonians, in terms of ethnicity, just as I don't see a reason why modern Egyptians shouldn't call themselves Egyptians. In fact, the Greeks are the ones who claim to be the real Macedonians. Calling RoM's majority Macedonians, won't change a thing for Greek speaking Macedonians, they will use "Macedonian" as a regional identity, not in terms of ethnicity, just as they have always used it. As for the "special rights", I don't quite understand that objection. Perhaps the Yugoslavs parallel should be mentioned here. According to the "special rights" theory, these people who, for various reasons, choose not to be Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks etc., but simply Yugoslavs, are somehow to be considered cultural thiefs of the other peoples right to feel as Yugoslavs?

As I mentioned above, this debate is endless, and there is no possibility for anyone to "win". Wikipedia has a clear NPOV policy to end this debate. We are not here to debate the right of people X to call themselves "Macedonians", nor who were the "true Macedonians". Wikipedia should not assume that neither of the sides is right or wrong, it is only here to describe the disputes fairly. In this case, Wikipedia fails to do so. To cite the NPOV policy:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

It is clear that the very name "Macedonian Slavs" does give (in my opinion) even too much attention to a minority view, and the entire discourse about people X, is, at start, a distorted one. --FlavrSavr 7 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

"Too much attention to a minority view"? From the same person who rallied against "ethnic majorisation" a couple of weeks ago?--Theathenae 7 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

You could have waited for yesterday to pass. Anyways, you deliberately fail to see the difference between an ethnic majority/minority and majority/minority. Believe it or not, the majority of non-Greeks and non-Macedonians, refers to Macedonians as Macedonians. Of course, the new article will have a separate part dealing with the naming issue and its controversies - that is the proper, NPOV handling of this issue. --FlavrSavr 8 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

The "minority" as you describe it is an ethnic minority, is it not? An ethnic minority that you wish would just accede to the wishes of the "majority".--Theathenae 8 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

No, it is a minority in global proportions, because only a minority of media, books of reference, goverments refer to people X as Macedonian Slavs. Please don't go to ethnic lines again, believe me, I'm not comfortable there. Wikipedia is not a place for ethnic frustrations, from either of the sides. --FlavrSavr 9 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

You cannot deny that calling people X "Macedonians" will alienate the Greeks, making it a POV decision by definition. Not that you care, of course, as the Greeks are simply "wrong" and you are "right". As for "Macedonian Slavs", it is not the Greek preference for what people X should be called (Greeks almost always call you Skopjans); it is a compromise between two otherwise irreconcilable POVs and an objective description of what people X are. I honestly don't see how it can be so objectionable when even your own president suggested it a few short years ago. But you're right, this debate is endless, as Greeks will never recognise you as Macedonians and you will never stop calling yourselves that. Let's just agree to disagree.--Theathenae 9 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

ChrisO and Uncle Ed please proceed with deletion of this aricle

Theathenae is right - the discussion is pointless, and so is this article. But she is somewhat idealistic and misguided in nurturing excpectations that it is easy to have "an objective description" of a political category. There is nothing objective about an expression of political will and all nationalisms are similar in this respect, including the Macedonian and Greek ones. Thus the only correct resolution is to delete this article. A deadline should be given by which any of its content could be re-used in the Macedonians article. That article contains many varied interpretations of what Macedonians could or should be and there is already some mention of Macedonian Slavs. Once this is done we can proceed to attribute the label of Macedonian Slavs as one held sometimes by some Greek politics in the Macedonians article itself. Please set a deadline for deletion and thanks for your facilitaton of these discussions.--Paletakis 11:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Macedonian Slavs" is not a label "held sometimes by some Greek politics"; it has been used fairly widely in the international media, especially to differentiate the majority ethnic group of the FYROM from its non-Slavic minorities, particularly the Albanians. In Rumania it is used to distinguish people X from the Macedoneni, a common Rumanian term for the Aromanians. It is common for people X to denounce "Macedonian Slavs" as a Greek imposition reflecting the Greek POV. In fact, as I mentioned above, "Macedonian Slavs" is not the term preferred by Greeks, who almost overwhelmingly use the term Skopjans, considering any use of the term Macedonian inappropriate for anyone who isn't Greek. That is the reason I see it as an objective description of people X that satisfies neither POV, and should not be deleted.--Theathenae 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion of an "objective description" as no description is objective - this is a contradiction in terms; descriptions are by their very nature subjective. There is nothing wrong with saying that a certain, or even several, political interests use the term Macedonian Slavs and this can be well explained to include the political sources and historical backdrop. But not here - all this belongs in the Macedonians articel. Please proceed and delete this article, but first do give some time (say 10 days?) for people to reassess what could be used in the Macedonians article.--Modi 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

We have just had a poll that resulted in retaining the current name, so moving this article to "Macedonians" cannot happen until approved by another poll. --Theathenae 06:51, 11 July 2005

The poll was decided on grossly POV grounds - on both sides - so to be honest, I don't regard its results as binding or conclusive. Many of the participants didn't even pretend to be deciding on NPOV grounds and treated the whole exercise as a nationalistic tug of war. We even had rival nationalists trying to drum up votes from their own ethnic communities, which was ridiculous. Perhaps fortunately, the result was a draw. I do think that the status quo is unsatisfactory and not in compliance with NPOV requirements, but it's clear that the community can't reach a consensus on this matter. I'm currently thinking about posssible ways forward. They will not involve the deletion of this article, but most likely its renaming to something else. -- ChrisO 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Region of Macedonia?

How can someone just prance in and move the Macedonia article like that? We just had a 2-week poll on whether to move Macedonian Slavs, and that failed. "Region of Macedonia" as opposed to what of Macedonia?--Theathenae 23:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The situation is totally ridiculous. Obvious as it is that Wikipedia cannot dictate international policy, it is equally obvious that polling does not define truth, regardless of the outcome. Leaving aside the issue of Macedon and the Ancient Macedonian language for a minute, the hard numbers say the Greek province of Macedonia incorporates the majority of land and the majority of people in the geographical region described as Macedonia. Furthermore, about 1/4 of the citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are of Albanian ethnicity. It is inevitable that, until a political solution agreed to by all interested countries and international institutions is reached, any Wiki-stance is a potentially POV-stance. The solution to all this mess is a smartly designed disambiguation page, not endless polling on potentially POV-nuanced questions Chronographos 11:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"The situation is totally ridiculous...."

So it is! Vergina 06:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the situation, however I have a different view of it. --FlavrSavr 13:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not surprised. It is likely, however, that as your brand new, relatively poor and resource-lacking country will (hopefully) be attempting to find its footing and place in international life and, above all, international institutions, your view will broaden. Chronographos 15:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to respond to nationalistic provocations, but what are you talking about? All international institutions already officialy refer to people X as "Macedonians", and unofficialy to the name of the republic as Macedonia. Of course, Greece might try to blackmail RoM to give up of its name, but I'm not sure whether that would suit Greek economic interests in RoM, nor its international image of "birthplace of democracy". --FlavrSavr 16:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You are being unnecessarily defensive (or, should I say, aggresive). Again, I'm not surprised. Chronographos 17:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have tracked a nuance of unnecessary arrogance towards the "relatively poor and resource-lacking country" and the predictability of its inhabitants which is of no meaning to the main dispute. (I shouldn't have reacted in the first place, Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks). However, while the name of the country is in fact a matter of international dispute, the name of the people is not, and never was disputed by any relevant international institution (except of an unsuccesful episode in the Council of Europe) - please see Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#International_organisations. I definitely agree that solution to all this mess is a smartly designed disambiguation page, not endless polling on potentially POV-nuanced questions, but Macedonian Slavs is not the neutral choice for it - Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation) or similar disambiguating is the best solution, IMHO. --FlavrSavr 19:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What you thought of as "arrogance" was merely a reminder of what I think the priorities of any state should be: the welfare of its citizens. Unfortunately, this primarily means material welfare. If only we humans could debate on an empty stomach ... Now I will readily admit to being somewhat materialist myself, and often feel remorseful about my material wealth while kids in Africa starve. But that's a personal issue which is irrelevant to the matter discussed here:

The name of the people of a state is usually referred to by the name of the state. E.g. Belgians, which includes the Flemish and the Walloons. Therefore until the name dispute is resolved, one has no choice but to use ethnic designations (e.g. Macedonian Slavs vs. ethnic Albanians). The plain "Macedonian" designation is apparently offensive both to Macedonian Greeks (who number 2,500,000 million) and to the ethnic Albanian citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (who number 500,000). Should the state in question be finally named "Ruritania" (a hypothetical example), its citizens will be referred to as Ruritanians. Of course this will not change its ethnic composition, which is 67% Slavic, 25% Albanian and ~4% Turkish, according to the Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia article. Chronographos 19:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to put this in your style - I'm not suprised of your reaction :-). Of course that the name of the people of a state is usually referred to by the name of the state. But not everybody in that state is referred to by that name - for instance, when someone mentiones Russians, it is clear that by that he doesn't refer to Chechens, Ukrainians, Ossetians or whatever ethnic group lives in it. If you think that the large percentage of Albanians is a problem, then check out the demographics of Estonia. And believe me, Albanians are not offended of the use of the term "Macedonians", in fact they would probably find that use for them offensive. I already suggested that plain "Macedonians" designation won't be used, but Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation) or whatever. That does not deprive Macedonian Greeks of their right of the term "Macedonians", they will continue using the name (and be referred to) with the same meaning of "Macedonians" that they have always used it - as a regional identifier. Greeks will use it as a regional identifier, while Macedonians as an ethnic identifier. --FlavrSavr 00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe an Albanian from your country would be more credible in making the claim you are making. I seem to recall there has been extensive ethnic strife in your country in recent years, and there have been UN/NATO peacekeepers there for that very reason, haven't they? Furthermore, the examples you provide are not at all germane to the issue at hand: Russia is a Federation, and Estonia has a large Russian population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. I believe the Russians in Estonia are not even schooled in Russian. Your ethnic vs. regional argument is a non sequitur, for how can two ethnically different peoples share a name? A truly inclusive solution would be one that included both ethnic and geographic qualifiers. You were quick to bring out the ugly word "blackmail", which proves to me that my initial prompt about international relationships and institutions was valid. One should only hope that consensus, not blackmail, is the basis of healthy relationships. For example, consensus is the basis that allows the EU to function. Witness what happened after the French and Dutch referenda: consensus collapsed in the most undeniable way, and the EU is into a major crisis as a result. Chronographos 09:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"for how can two ethnically different peoples share a name?" Try Bretons and Britons, Brittany (Bretagne) and Britain (Grande Bretagne), etc... Also, the Swiss don't seem to have a problem in that area. I'm sure there are other examples! -- ChrisO 09:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I was certain that someone would bring up this example. And I am equally certain that you know the explanation: Celts (Britons) were pushed out of present-day France by invading Germanic tribes and confined themselves to Britanny or fled across the Channel. Since then, of course, Britain was also invaded by Germanic tribes. The name "Great Britain" as a designation of a state was established only when the personal union of the Crowns of England (which had absorbed the Principality of Wales) and Scotland was turned into an constitutionally merged Crown of Great Britain. I believe this happened during the reign of Queen Anne. Still, the current state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the terms "British" and "Britain" being used only expeditiously as they fail to include the kingdom's Irish component. Indeed, officials try to use the term "UK" as often as is practical for that very reason. Frankly I fail to see how this situation applies to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, other than to point out the importance of inclusion as opposed to exclusivity. Chronographos 10:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC).

Regardless of the connection between Breton and Briton, a distinction is still made, however small. As for the Swiss example, it is not quite analogous to what we're discussing here. "Swiss" is not used as an ethnic identifier, and the people it describes belong to a single nation.--Theathenae 10:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. As a matter of fact, Swiss stamps use the Latin designation Helvetia, I believe, as there is no space on a stamp to include the name of the country in all the languages used in Switzerland. Chronographos 10:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

We are entering the magic circle again? OK, let's analyze what arguments have been brought into attention (and if I may add - how contradictions appear in the same text)

Obvious as it is that Wikipedia cannot dictate international policy (Chronographos)... - international policy (every relevant international institution) and every government (except Greece, and maybe Romania) refers to Macedonians as Macedonians, and this is not a recent situation - they have been called by that name for about 60 years. Moreover, Wikipedia has a clear NPOV policy which states that: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. Note that this does not mean an ethnic minority - but minority in global proportions. Also, Wikipedia does not assume that the majority of the people holding a certain POV are telling the "truth", it simply describes a dispute. I found an excellent example how this is done here.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy, as it would be an objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. However, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV. The moral of the story is: describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, it may well be worth mentioning that this usage is disputed by the Maputans and linking to an article describing the controversy.

The name of the people of a state is usually referred to by the name of the state. ... True, but not always. Even so, the name of the country is Republic of Macedonia, with a temporary designation FYR of Macedonia. It is not a nameless state, it's a state with a disputed name. However, the name of the people X was never questioned oficially (except in Greece). And that is not a matter of indolence, there is a very profound reason for that: No one can deny the right of a nation to choose its own name.

Should the state in question be finally named "Ruritania" (a hypothetical example), its citizens will be referred to as Ruritanians. Of course this will not change its ethnic composition, which is 67% Slavic, 25% Albanian and ~4% Turkish... No, that's not the ethnic composition of the country - there's no such ethnic group called "Slavic", not even a state called "Slavia". I'm under the impression that the Greeks cannot fully understand the concept of "Slavic" just because in the Greek case the ethnic group (Greeks) is not a subgroup of any other group of peoples. Slavs are a larger group of people and using Slavs as an ethnic identifier dissapeared in the Middle Ages, in the slow process of nation building and mixing with the other inhabitants of the region where Slavs have lived. Calling people X Slavs is: 1.inaccurate because it makes no distinction between them and the other "Slavs" (in your example you haven't made a distinction between Macedonians and Serbs) and 2. offensive because it negates a) the right of a modern nation for self-determination b) the ethnic complexities of that modern nation. The modern Greek nation is not an exception - in fact, modern Greeks are a result of the mixing of ancient Greeks with other non-Greek people, most notably (and ironically) Slavs. That is precisely why modern nations are not called Celts, Latins, Normans etc.

I seem to recall there has been extensive ethnic strife in your country in recent years, and there have been UN/NATO peacekeepers there for that very reason, haven't they?... No. The reasons for the ethnic insurgency of Albanians are different: from radical (creation of a Greater Albanian state, making RoM a federation) to relatively moderate (equal representation in governmental institutions, higher education in their mother tongue, making Albanian a co-official language). The fact that they are not named "Macedonians" was not a reason. In fact, after ceasefire was accomplished there were two main proposal for the making of the new constitution: 1. a republic composed of ethnic communities (Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Roma, Bosniaks, Vlachs, etc) and 2. a republic based on the citizenship principle (not putting the ethnic frame in the constitution, but only stating that it is a republic of Macedonian citizens, regardless of their ethnic group). The second proposal was rejected by Albanians because they saw it as a way of perpetuating the "ethnic domination of Macedonians", and they have specifically asked for a differentiation between them and (ethnic) Macedonians. Talking about who gets offended - the only ones offended are the Macedonians when some right-wing Albanian parties (deliberately) call them Slavs (as a notion of cultural inferiority of Macedonians). If you're not convince try to label a modern Macedonian Albanian (ask him, for example, "are you a Macedonian?") and see what happens. The most probable answer would be ("No, I'm an Albanian living there").

Russia is a Federation... and how that "justifies" the naming of only one ethnic group in it Russians? Perhaps we should call them Russian Slavs?

Estonia has a large Russian population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. I believe the Russians in Estonia are not even schooled in Russian. ...That does not mean that the Russians are Estonians, no? Moreover, you must be aware that this argument excludes Greeks from the right of the term "Macedonians" - South Macedonia has a large Greek population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by Greece in World War I.

A truly inclusive solution would be one that included both ethnic and geographic qualifiers.... True, but in this case, "Macedonians" is used as both ethnic and regional identifier. "Slavic" is not an ethnic identifier, it's merely a large group of people speaking a Slavic language. Check the Yugoslavs case I have mentioned above.

You were quick to bring out the ugly word "blackmail", which proves to me that my initial prompt about international relationships and institutions was valid. One should only hope that consensus, not blackmail, is the basis of healthy relationships.... In general, this is true. However, there are some logical fallacies in your reasoning. First of all, international institutions (including UN, EU etc.) already refer to people X as Macedonians and it is likely that they will continue to do so, regardless of the solution of the name of the state. That is because they follow international law which in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ) in Article 15 clearly states:

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

That means that international law is based on some fundamental principles which apply to international institutions and international relationships as well. Those principles were consensually adopted by all members of the UN, including Greece. People X have a nationality - they identify themselves and are identified as Macedonians, not as Macedonians Slavs, Macedonian Bulgarians, FYROMians, Skopjeans, or Skopje Gypsies (as one grafitti in northern Greece states "Death to Skopje Gypsies"). Their right for that is indisputable by international law. These basic principles (Human rights) are established to prevent a violation of consensually adopted human rights. I'll take a banal example why these rights are established - Let's assume that people A want people B to be erased from the face of the planet because they think their (people B's) very existence is a threat. People B, of course, don't want that. A possible "consensus" would be, People B, to be left without limbs. Of course, this is a overdramatization and oversimplification of the situation, but it is basically the same with the Macedonian case - an attempt to deprive them of their right of self determination. No, not everything is subject to a "consensus". Similarly, Wikipedia functions on a NPOV policy which is also indisputable, and it clearly goes in the favour of the "Macedonians" option. Of course, there are plenty of disambiguating options, Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (ethnic group), Ethnic Macedonians and others which are reasonable form of a consensus. (even to some moderate Greeks I have encountered)

The ugly word "blackmail" was an emotional reaction of political reality. However that reality is much uglier - how can be Greek political actions be else described when they are put like this: "Pick another name" (or politically correct "Broaden your view") "...or else" ("another embargo", "we won't let you to EU/NATO"). --FlavrSavr 19:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For all your clichéd invocations of "human rights" and "NPOV" to support your nationalist arguments, your description of the incorporation of Greek Macedonia after the Balkan Wars makes your true sentiments abundantly clear: "South Macedonia has a large Greek population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by Greece in World War I." This country? Forcibly annexed? In other words, Greece's presence in Macedonia is illegitimate, and "Aegean" Macedonia is the part of "this" (your) country under Greek "occupation". "Macedonia for the Macedonians".--Theathenae 19:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My mistake in copy-pasting. "Country" should be replaced with "region". The fear of Macedonian occupation of Northern Greece is 1. paranoid 2. not an argument why they shouldn't be called Macedonians. What is more pathetic (excuse me if I sound aggresive) is your inability to face the answers of two simple questions:

1. Are people X referred to as Macedonian Slavs by international institutions? No.
2. Is naming people X Macedonian Slavs in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy? No.

Projecting your own paranoid sentiments under the label "fear-thee Skopjeans", ("Macedonia for the Macedonians") chants is not an objective factor in deciding whether people X should be labeled "Macedonian Slavs" in a Wikipedia article. There is a real NPOV policy dealing this matter. --FlavrSavr 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Not paranoid at all, as Greece is more than capable of defending herself. I merely note your aggression.--Theathenae 06:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:) We are pure evil, better beware! --FlavrSavr 01:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that population exchange between the Balkan States and the Ottoman Empire were governed by mutually signed treaties that are still valid and questioned by no one is obviously something our friend is not comfortable with. He views consensus as amputation, UN-sponsored negotiations as blackmail, is busy erecting strawmen, and defends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as if it applied to nomenclature. Hey, I want to make Lacoste shirts and if Lacoste sue me, i'll slam them with the UN charter. That'll show 'em! Chronographos 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it was you was busy proving that Russians living in Estonia are actually not Estonians, only because they were forcibly settled later (!?), that had came as a reply to my parallel of Estonia to the Macedonian case which was ment to illustrate that the large minority of Albanians (who, moreover, do not want the "Macedonians" term for themselves) does not mean that we shouldn't call the majority of RoM "Macedonians". I actually don't know what your original point was - Don't call them Macedonians because 2,5 million Macedonian Greeks and 0,5 Macedonian Albanians will get offended? (definitely not true for the Albanians) What about 1,5 million Macedonians who will get offended by the "Slavs" add-on? Then the real logic behind your arguments shows up - 2,5 million offended people is more than 1,5 million offended people - so label them "Slavs". Humm, the fact that population exchange between the Balkan States and the Ottoman Empire were governed by mutually signed treaties that are still valid and questioned by no one does not exclude the fact that the region of Macedonia gained that 2.5 million Greek majority only in the 20th century. Of course, that does not mean that they have no right over the term "Macedonians", in fact it does not mean anything. Greeks use "Macedonians" as a regional identifier, not an ethnic one, and referring to people X as "Macedonians" won't change anything for them (Macedonian Greeks). However labeling people X "Macedonian Slavs" will change something for people X - they are deprived of their right to identify themselves as Macedonians, in ethnic terms. That right was given to them by consensually adopted international treaties signed by Greece, too. No, I'm not considering consensus as an amputation, however searching consensus over things that are basic human rights (the right to live, the right of an identity) that are previously consensually adopted and widely considered historical achievements of humanity and applied in every international institutions (and yes, they do apply to nomenclature), is not only a methaporical amputation, but as one Bosniak observer of this disputed put it - an intelectual aggresion.

But of course, there is your inadequate comparison of national names with textile brands - are you applying that the name "Macedonians" has a legal copyright owner? (the Greek government, perhaps?) Where's the document that grants that right? The answer is simple, of course - "Greeks are the real Macedonians". In the end, I am the one who's labeled a nationalist.

BTW, where did you get the idea that I considered UN-sponsored negotiations as blackmail? Where did I say, or even, insinuate that? What about your permanent circumventing of UN's official documents [2], and comparing its basic principles to mere trade rules? What about some real arguments against my "nationalist" arguments instead of seamless personal attacks? You know what, perhaps you and Theatheanae should really see the NPOV policy. --FlavrSavr 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is beyond boring. You are constantly picking and choosing the playground, so that you play by your own rules. You are constantly misrepresenting what other people say, and then you expect people to sit down and hold an honest discussion with you? What you are saying in essence is that the UN sponsors negotiations that question its very charter and the nature of Human Rights. Let me put it mildly: you are imagining things. Chronographos 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I must have an astounding imagination then - it seems like it is affecting 178 UN documents all of them referring to people X as Macedonians. Does that mean that the UN recognizes people X as Macedonians, thus separating that issue from the name of the state? Perhaps I'm imagining... As for my constant picking and choosing the playground, I always end up with an offer of a NPOV playground. But then again, it's a really "boring" playground, so I'll better continue my dishonest existence. --FlavrSavr 02:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I covered this with the "Ruritanian" hypothetical example above. The UN has to be using something until the talks it sponsors conclude. Obviously it cannot use "Former Yugoslav Republicans ..."; it sounds silly. If your country is finally named "Ruritania", there might be a change there. In the meantime I was saddened to read about the situation of the Albanian minority in your country in the relevant Wikipedia article. Apparently, not only are the universally adopted human rights being violated, but even the laws of your own country are not being adhered to when it comes to Albanians. And you are under the impression that your problem is ... Greece ?? Greece is helping your country in the most important way possible: investment. Chronographos 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are again ignoring the fact that the name of the state is not legally, and formally connected with the name of the state. While the UN negotiations about the name of the state (a political institution) are formally legitimate (although my own, personal opinion is that they are not in the spirit of UN), negotiations about the name of people X (individual or group right of selfdetermination) are not legitimate under the UN. In fact, that is precisely why these 178 UN documents refer to people X as Macedonians. The right of self-determination is an indisputed human right, and not a mere question of nomenclature. Again, even if we accept that the name of the state should determine the name of the people, the temporary designation is FYRO Macedonia, not Macedonia (Slavic) or anything simillar.The proper question that you might ask yourself is: Why if the UN, every other international institution, virtually every major media house, and other books of reference use "Macedonians" ("something") to refer to these people, Wikipedia should use "something" else than that?

As for your concern of the situation of Albanians in the RoM:

1. I think that does not qualify as an argument whether or not we should call peopleX "Macedonians". (wasn't that you who complained about using different playgrounds?)

2. It belongs to the talk page of that article, unless, of course, you want to present people X as inherently evil people who do not deserve to be called "Macedonians"

3. The article you were talking about, is missing some very relevant information - for example the 2001 crisis in which an entire new constitution was made providing the necessary mechanisms to improve the situation of Albanians in Rom. See Macedonian NLA and Tetovo#Albanian_Minority as well. Of course there is plenty of work to be done for ethnic reconcillation, but I hope the debilitating tension between Macedonians and Albanians will end up in a shorter period as possible.

4. Greek treatment of Albanians is even worse. In RoM there wasn't a case where an Albanian is killed for mere celebrating his national soccer team victory over Greece.

I would have to agree that "Greece is helping your country in the most important way possible: investment". I never suggested that Greece is the main problem for RoM. However, these investments are not done for altruistic reasons, but for financial interests. There were some cases where obvious illegal deals between Greek firms and Macedonian authorities took place. But that's another discusiion.

And again, stick with the NPOV policy. I won't be able to participate in this discussion until the beginning of August (I'm going on a summer vacation to gain some tan and more evility, of course :)) --FlavrSavr 19:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You are reacting in the most predictable way possible: purposefully equating how your state institutionally mistreats its citizens with how a Greek criminal once treated an alien. Well, no peacekeepers have been stationed in Greece to prevent civil war and protect minorities. Greece judiciously respects the rule of law and due process as a member of the European Union: by far the most law-abiding group of states in the world. You are also implying that Greece is somehow collectively responsible because some of your country's officials are corrupt and eager to be bribed. You are so certain of the correctness of your beliefs, that you grievously offend the United Nations by saying that what the UN does violates its own charter. I hope your absence will do you good, even if you wish the contrary. Chronographos 19:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, Chronographos, you are reacting in the most predictable way possible. You are not responding to the key question: Why if the UN, every other international institution, virtually every major media house, and other books of reference use "Macedonians" ("something") to refer to these people, Wikipedia should use "something" else than that? Please respond to this question according to the NPOV policy. This is not an article about the Albanians in Macedonia (who are equal in all matters with Macedonians, check the facts). If you are unable to make difference between facts, conventions, and feelings, at least stop assuming things. -- Ivica83 02:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the UN recognise your country under a temporary designation while talks last. If it is finally agreed that it's name will be "Ruritania", the UN might start calling you "Ruritanians". And frankly, I do not see any validity in your claim that an ethnic designation should always take precedence over a regional designation, and neither do 2.5 million Macedonian Greeks. It is more than obvious to any bona fide observer what your country has been trying to do all these years. It has treated its large Albanian minority so atrociously that foreign troops had to be stationed there to protect them. Your constitution was unacceptably phrased, and you had to change it. Your flag was unacceptable, and you had to change it to a poorly designed imitation of the Japanese Naval Ensign: File:Japaneseensign.png. Now you are trying to monopolise the "Macedonia" designation: witness the Culture of Macedonia article, where 25 centuries of Macedonian culture are reduced to a pitiful recount of almost-unknown "cultural achievements" as pertaining to your people and country only. You say that you find the current Wiki-designation "Macedonian Slavs" insulting? Why? Is it an insult to be a Slav? This designation distinguishes you from other Slavs, and from other Macedonians at the same time. Since you insist, for some reason, to retain the name given to you by Tito after World War II, you must understand that there are other claimants to that name: there are more numerous, and their historical and cultural roots in this area go back to the dawn of historical time. Therefore you should not use it without appropriate qualifiers. You will precictably respond that what I say is POV. Well, so is what you say. And this is exactly what talk pages are for: discussion of various POV's. I think that the article title, as is, is as NPOV as it can be reasonably hoped for, and please note that I have not edited a single word in it, ever. If you want to appear objective, do something about the aforementioned Culture of Macedonia article: either change its title or work hard to include all components of Macedonian culture through the ages in it. Write about the prehistoric, Ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Ottoman and Yugoslav periods as well, attributing to each its proper weight and extent. Now get crackin', you've got your work cut out for you. Chronographos 10:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Chronographos revealed were the real dispute lays. The problem is not, as you deliberately claim, the greek denial to an other nation to call itself as it likes. Do you honestly believe that we would have any problem if you were not using propaganda? I would personally feel very honoured if a non-greek wanted to use a greek name. The problem is your will to monopolise terms like Macedonia,Macedonians.

The fact that you are constatly trying to connect yourselves with the ancient Macedonians (when i say you, i mean the macedonian-slavs generally) is something obvious to all, not only by various edits in articles about Macedon, but also by the Wikipedia version in your language (and in which you happen to be an administrator and have dove nothing to change it, so spare me the we-have-nothing-to-do-with-ancient-macedonians style), where you present yourselves as the descendants of macedonians, falsificate the etymology of the term Macedonia, etc.

One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to provide accurate infos to anyone. If we follow your demand and baptise you, as Tito did, Macedonians do you imagine what congusion that would create to someone not familiar with History?-And i'm not including your old-fashioned, communist-style propaganda on the subject-

This demand is also unacceptable by the fact that the term macedonian-slav does not fulfill greeks either. We don't call you thatway, we call you Skopianoi. As you see it's a compromise between two POVs and so, we are willing to accept it, only for the sake of clarity Odysseas 12:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

We have to make sure the articles you refer to are translated in English and forwarded to the Wiki-powers-that-be. These guys profess and write the most outrageous lies in their own language, and yet all of a sudden they undergo a Damascene transformation when in the English section and present themselves as innocent, starry-eyed virgins about to be raped. This blatant hypocrisy has to stop. Chronographos 14:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why if the UN, every other international institution, virtually every major media house, and other books of reference use "Macedonians" ("something") to refer to these people, Wikipedia should use "something" else than that? Please respond to this question according to the NPOV policy.

The answer to this is pretty straight forward. It makes me wonder whether you don't see it on purpose or you cannot see it because you're blinded. The only fact here is not a single international institution has recognised that state as "Macedonia" neither its people as "Macedonians". What happens is that the state is given the temporary name FYROM, and the people are called for convenience "Macedonians". Both names are temporary, meaning that they could completely change in the near future. In that respect, wikipedia which is no supposed to settle with "convenience", has absolutely no reason to create confusion and national conflicts by using an obviously improper term. Most academic sources I've come across refer to 'Macedonian Slavs' as "Western Bulgarians", or "Bulgarians of Macedonia" (C. Coon - The Races of Europe), and they do this for a reason. I'm not saying that this is the name wikipedia should use, what I'm saying is that wikipedia has the same academic reason to not refer to that nation simply as "Macedonians". The UN and the international institution (that have never recognised an official name) don't need to follow the academic examples and settle for the most convenient term. If we were to follow simply what the international organisations use then we should also change the article Republic of Macedonia to "Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia", but you can't have it both ways, you're just asking too much. Miskin 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally as a response to the people who constantly claim that the term Macedonian Slav is an ethnic slur, I'll just direct them to the declarations of those who are representatives of their nation:

“We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century AD ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

and:"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

• Ambassador of FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska:

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”

• On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM's Ambassador to Canada:

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country."

Since you people insist on being official, then official we shall get. I just demonstrated that the term "Macedonian Slav" not only is not an ethnic slur, but is also used by Macedonian Slav poticians. Therefore any person from FYROM who keeps insisting the opposite, is blatantly coming from a biased point of view. I think I just proved that wikipedia is obliged to use the term "Macedonian Slavs" for at least practical reasons. Miskin 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Miskin You are a mistaken to think you can prove anything that is a historic notion. In fact, only mathematical abstractions are provable. Everything else stands as "a possible explanation" until it is disproved. One thing that is really easy to disprove is that contemporary Greeks have anything to do with ancient Greeks. Just have a look at a contemporary version and compare him to the classic model and everything is cristal clear. While very few Macedonians claim to be direct decendents of Alexander, it is improbable that any Greek has anything to do with the ancient Greeks (a common delusion among modern Hellens). In all likelyhood, the modern Macedonians and modern Greeks (Bulgarians and Serbs as well) should be ethnically more similar than their similarity across time with any imagined ancestry of old.--Paletakis 15:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That made me laugh. A person from a Bulgarian-speaking nation with a history of 10 years and a foreign minority of 40%, calls shamelessly calls itself "Macedonian" and questions the ethnic purity of others?? How more comicotragical can this get?! :D I don't think this deserves a serious answer, you have demonstrated what a brainwashed extremist you are. What else do they tell you in school? That Greeks are lizard-like demons maybe? Miskin 16:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"While very few Macedonians claim to be direct decendents of Alexander, it is improbable that any Greek has anything to do with the ancient Greeks (a common delusion among modern Hellens)."
1. What do u mean with the word "direct"?
2. I don't know what's going on inside FYR Macedonia, but I do know that almost all Macedonian Slavs in the net claim that are descendants of Macedons (Ancient Macedonians).
For example: [www.historyofmacedonia.org|http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/]
Just use Google. Search for forums about the ancient Macedonians and Alexander the Great. Almost all Macedonian Slavs claim the same thing. That they are descendants of ancient Macedonians.
3. Do u claim that modern Greeks aren't descendants of ancient Greeks? If so, could u plz give us historical evidence supporting that?

There is no need to claim the obvious. If you choose to live in denial that you are a mongrel population and aspire to the myth of ethnic purity with imaginary links to some ancient people, its your own loss. Please educate yourself and understand that there is no need to support my claim; the only honest way is to see if the positive Greek claim (i.e that modern Greeks 'are' descendents from the ancients - and the wholy and rightful one's in the minds of many fanatics) stands up to facts, and the facts are that modern Greeks do not look anything like the ancients, CASE CLOSED. Thus any Greek monopoly to its linkage to anything "ancient Greece" is ideological, i.e. its imagined in the minds of Greeks but it is not an objective truth. If you understand this, you will be happier as you will step of your imaginary pedestal and finally join humanity at large. --Paletakis 17:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Mongrel"?!? That is a racist insult. Care to retract or care to be reported? Chronographos 18:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with the user above.I was going to start writing something relevant to your posts, but you seem perfectly able to discredit your opinions by yourself.--Jsone 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

ТА ЭИЧЦmiddot;Цmiddot; РЦmiddot;ПУРоИКА МАКАТАМИЈА!--Theathenae 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Silence of the Lambs

Oh, well, it only took a single mention of translating the Macedonia-related articles from Македонски into English to silence y' all? I guess you are all busy translating, so I'll leave y'all to it ... Chronographos 15:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, you guys, nothing yet? It's been two days already. Surely it needn't have taken y'all this long to translate 4 or 5 half-page-long articles form your mother tongue into English? What's taking y'all so long? Chronographos 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop changing the number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece

The number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece is 962 [3]. So stop changing it. This is an official census. What else do u want?

Do u have a problem because it is a table about immigrants in Greece?
All ppl in Greece with Greek citizenship have Greek nationality, too. The biggest part of the countries of the world, prefer to count the ppl inside their countries according to nationality. But in Greece, as I mentioned, if u have a Greek citizenship then u have Greek nationality, too. So Greek government prefers to count it's ppl according it's citizenship in order to emphasize that these ppl are foreigners (not Greek citizenship). The reasons that they want to emphasize that are obvious:
Greater Albania
Great Bulgaria
Claims on the area of Macedonia and the history of Macedons by Macedonian Slavs
Turkish claims in Aegean Sea

For the same reasons it doesn't recognize any minority inside Greece.

But what happened to the indigenous ppl of foreign nationality?
The most ppl left the country during the population exchange, wars end civil war. The rest had been assimilated. Keep in mind that Greeks outside Greece were apx 10 millions a few years ago and now days they are 2-3 millions. What happened to them? They had been assimilated. ;)

Is the Greek census reliable?
Yes, it is.
US claims that the 2% of the ppl in Greece are foreigners.
EU claims that less than 5% of the ppl in Greece are foreigners.
Greece says that 7,3% (officially according to the census of 2001) are foreigners. Now days they estimated that 9% of the ppl in Greece are foreigners. So obviously u can't claim that Greek census or even the Greek government are unreliable. They give a higher number than the rest major countries and organizations. ;)

So stop changing this number. If u claim that there isn't any official census for Macedonian Slavs in Greece, then anyone can claim the same thing not only about the rest groups of ppl in Greece, but on other countries that they use the same or a similar ways in order to count the ppl inside their country.

Keep in mind that I wont explain or at least not in such degree, why I changed smth else in this topic. For God's shake, for 1 minor change u made me write all the above, because u were (a few of you) insisting changing that number.

External Links

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org <-- Deleted
Propagandistic & faulse material about Macedonian Slavs & ancient Macedonians.
[4]

http://www.macedonia.org/ <-- Deleted
Propagandistic & faulse material about Macedonian Slavs & ancient Macedonians.
[5]

The rest links seems OK.

Neutral Wikipedia???

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

---

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

---

---

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

---

---

I sterbinski 12:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia."

Quote from FYROM'S former President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.

Right from the Horses mouth. You are Slavs, face it and get over it and stop feading us your Grandaddy's propaganda bullshit.

198.176.19.40 comment (copy)

This debate is trying to determine whether certain people should call themselves Macedonian or not. They are doing it already, and we here are trying to comment upon their choice.

Instead of directly trying to give positive or negative verdict on the historic fact why not try to examine it in another way. Why not start by setting rules according to which any number of people may rightfully call themselves.... lets say Spanish for example. We could use Canadian or ... Finnish for that matter. The point is that the rules must be the same for any "name" for any "group of peoples".

If these people have "played" by the rules ... then there will be no debate at all!! They will have rightfully done so to call themselves Macedonians!! Just as the Spanish people in our example will have done so as well. If these people have not meet the rules then.... sorry but you cannot call your self macedonian because if you do then other people that are not spanish might call themselves spanish ... and that would not be fair to the spaniards now would it ??

So ... let’s start.

I recommend that the rules be:

1. He speaks Spanish. And as Spanish we should recognize what the majority of already recognized Spanish people speak. You can’t come along talking German and start claiming that the other 40 million Spanish are speaking Portuguese and you are not really speaking German but Spanish that sounds abit like German!! OK??

2. He has the same religion as the majority of the already recognized Spanish people. Again as far as what the real Spanish religion is you can’t claim that yours is the real one like with the language.

3. He has none or VERY little similarities to other neighboring peoples. If you claim to be Spanish but you speak a German dialect, you eat German food; you look German, and live close to Germany ... well its more like you’re a German on an identity crisis rather than a Spaniard. And if you are not and really think you are Spanish we stop speaking German for starters and start acting like a Spaniard... otherwise you're neither Spanish nor German. In which case you can choose to create a new people (that is a nice option. I am sure the United Nations would give you a hand) or you can choose to not have a national and ethnical identity (that would be original if nothing else).

4. He must not have recently had military problems with the majority of the already recognized Spaniards. It would be funny if a Catalonian suddenly started calling himself Spaniard now wouldn’t it?. Even though he has large similarities with the Spanish and meets all previous rules the fact that his people (his community) has been at war since ... well since forever kind of makes his case hard to accept.

5. (And this is the most important rule I believe as it shows the real intentions of someone who wants to be called Spanish.) He, or she of course, must have as his only request that to be welcomed and included into the rest of the already recognized Spanish people. He must want only legal citizen ship from Spain. Kind of strange wouldn’t it be if someone started screaming that he is Spanish but he doesn’t want to be apart of Spain !! no he wants Spain to divide in 4 peaces and to give him (and his peoples) one of those peaces. That just HAS to be against the rules !!!. That’s not wanting to be Spanish that's trying to start some war or national tension """ and i think the planet already has enough of that for us to accept more of it.

6. He must also, accept Spanish history, culture, way of life and policies as are accepted by the majority of the already recognized Spaniards.

I believe that if some one came up and met all these rules that the Spanish government would grant him citizenship straight away and welcome him into the country !!! Dont you ?

Lets not start talking about Macedonia and Slavs and Spartans and the Chicago Bulls just yet. Lets only agree that these are good rules for somebody to have the right to claim that he is Spanish.

OK?

So ... what do you think of my rules ? there are only 6 of them !!

1.the language rule (I think very basic, all historians use language to say whether something is Egyptian or Hellenic) 2.the religion rule (again historically always been a source of national identification) 3.the exclusion rule (if an artifact has 100 similarities to Chinese culture and only 5 to Japanese culture then its more Chinese by fare than Japanese) 4.the historical rule (if Egyptians keep fighting the Arabs then they would find it hard being accepted into the Arab society even if they meet other criteria) 5.the intentions rule (if you want to be called British then the first thing you must do is bow to the Queen and to the British government. You can’t claim to be British but demand some mysterious independence of some part of Britain) 6.the acceptance rule ( you must accept the nation that you are claiming to be a part of as do all the member of that people)

Well ?

• • • Please note I copied the above in response request stating inadvertent blanking occured, I've not checked every dot, but it looks right to me, the request appeared on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Macedonian Slavs. Alf 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian (ethnicity)

Although I know that no rational solution to this article will ever be found, why not call it Macedonian (ethnicity) and use "ethnic Macedonians" as the default option in the text? All of the other modern people that you could describe as "Macedonians" are ethnic Greeks, ethnic Albanians, etc., etc. - Nat Krause 10:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

more pov

These changes are copy-paste from a website, irrelevant to this wiki, and misinterpret statistics for the region Macedonia as if they are statistics for Macedonian Slavs. MATIA 08:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

explanation for my edits

1. No international institution disputes that the name of the ethnic group - "Macedonians". You can check this by searching the sites of these instutions.
2. No contemporary scientific source refers to them as "Western Bulgarians". They did so, in the past. That is explained in the sections below, and stressing it on the first paragraph is meant to insinuate that a significant minority disputes that Macedonians are a real nation, which is not the case.
3. The insult tag. Miskin, you are not here to prescribe what the reader should find offensive or not. If it was up to you, you don't find the "Slavic crowd" term offensive, as well. --FlavrSavr 15:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. The United Nation recognises only the name of the state as FYROM and most international organisations as FYR-Macedonia. There's no official recognition for its nationality, which by default is FYR Macedonian. Again, most people refer to the country as "Macedonia" and the people as "Macedonians" for the obvious convention of not having to say FYR all the time. That doesn't mean that anybody recognises them really as Macedonians. And since the UN has given a temporary name, I don't even know why are we discussing this, it just means that it does NOT recognise them as Macedonians, at least not yet. Just deal with it and get on with your life.

What are you talking about? The United Nations refers to them as Macedonians, and no international instutition refers to them as "Macedonian Slavs" nor, "FYR Macedonians". The only attempt to somehow impose this term in the Council of Europe, ended as a failure, and this institution still refers to them as "Macedonians" [6]> This is done not for convinience, but for profound reasons (it's called "Self identification"), which are to be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which, you are obviously, unaware of.

I think you intentionally refusing to understand the situation. I'll siplify it for you: Neither "Macedonia" nor "Macedonians" is officially recognised by the UN. Internation organisations that refer to it as such, is only done for convenience. Until a name is officially established, wikipedia is obliged to use a neutral and realistic term such as Macedonian Slavs.

I think that you are confusing the naming dispute of the state with the naming of the nationality. The naming of the nationality was never internationally disputed (for about 60 years). Read the UN resolution regarding the FYROM temporary designation. It doesn't mention the name of the nationality, and don't try to impose your own interpretations on it. The only ones who tried to dispute the name of the nationality were some circles within the Council of Europe, and they didn't succeed in that. Now read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Their nationality is Macedonian, not Macedonian Slav. Miskin, it is hard to accept the fact that the UN won't change the name of the nationality, but face it - they don't have the slightest reason to do that. POV tag remains. --FlavrSavr 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I gave you an exampe: C. Coon - The races of Europe, a very popular anthropology textbook used in universities world wide. The book is not outdated at all, it was written in the '90s (96 if I'm not wrong) by an American prof. which yo u can look up for yourself. In fact almost no academic refers to them as "Macedonians", for the simple reason that they're not (what they call themselves is irrelevant). This is the policy wikipedia does and should follow, whether you want to accept it or not is a different story.

Carleton Stevens Coon, (23 June 1904–3 June 1981) was an American physical anthropologist best remembered for his books on race, often cited as definitive examples of "scientific racism", and the academic scandal that followed him later on in life.

Wow, he writes 15 years after his death! And indeed, he is quite popular! I am sure that certain circles enjoy his works! And what, you found only one (perhaps there are even two) "contemporary" authors, that are claiming that Macedonians are Western Bulgarians. Well that is what Wikipedia calls "insignificant minority view" which should be mentioned, but not on the opening paragraph. Then again, there are authors that claim that the Holocaust didn't happen... I'm sure they are quite "popular" as well... --FlavrSavr 15:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're doing the homework I'm giving you. I wasn't sure about the first publication of the book, but 1996 was the republished version of the one I've read. That proves that it's not an outdated old version like you'd like to believe. "Scientific racism" is a term that creates an artificial link between antrhopology and the national socialism. It's only used by naive people who were too scared to face reality and prefer to avoid it. The specific book is taught in universities (hence its constant republication) and it has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific racism of the 3rd Reich. Until you read it you can have no opinion on it. What you'd like to be called "insignificant minority view" is in fact the scientific view, but of course I'd never expect you to admit that. Miskin 12:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Slavic crowd is as offensive as "Hellenic crowd" or "Germanic crowd". I've already posted various times instances where Macedonian-Slav politians refer to their nation as Slav-Macedonian, which automatically makes your claims a personal POV. It's not me who's "prescribing" what's offensive or not, it's the representatives of your nation. Or would you care to see them again? Just scroll further up. Miskin 15:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what a crowd is? --FlavrSavr 15:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was the term "Slavic" that bothered you. Miskin 12:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the whole statement and the whole attitude of yours. Not that you care, though. --FlavrSavr 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, because some of the participants of this discussion seem to believe that I am somehow IMAGINING that Macedonians (out of vanity, or whatever) find the "Macedonian Slavs" label insulting, I would like to provide with you with this link - [7] - to cite: Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. --FlavrSavr 16:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No one says you are imagining things. You are part and parcel of a propaganda offensive, and you carry out your part with the utmost awareness of what you are trying to achieve: to monopolize the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonian/s" for your own country and people. You want to hijack and appropriate the terms. Every single instance, argument and link you provide, just like the above, corroborates this: "Say Macedonia", "Call me by my name". I cannot but thank you for it. It makes my argumentation so much easier. Chronographos 17:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I used that argument as a proof that Macedonians of RoM find the Macedonian Slavs label insulting. Miskin and you think that they are stupid and brainwashed for thinking that way, but nevertheless, it is a fact that they find the term offensive. The statements of some politicians (who are taken out of the context), does not change the fact the majority of the population of RoM finds the term offensive, and Miskin and you are not in the position to decide what they find offensive. As for me being, a part and parcel of a propaganda offensive, that is the lamest an argument can get. Someone disagrees with you, he is brainwashed, a part of propaganda. I might also say that you are a part of propaganda (but no, perish the tought that Mr.Chronographos might be under the influence of social and media forces!) I had the integrity to openly condemn some Macedonian nationalist thesis, while you openly keep defending Greek POV positions (some Greeks actually agreed that Macedonians (nationality) is the best solution), and some of those have been unamiously ridiculed by the neutrals (the template idea). So, Chronographos, please stop attacking me, and just for a change, bring out some arguments. --FlavrSavr 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that all three of your arguments have been refuted. The edits I make are true, so please don't try to sweep them under the rug in order to satisfy your personal nationalist myths. Miskin 15:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

One side is "true" and the the other side is "personal nationalist myths" and everyone agrees, so the POV tag can come off? That doesn't strike this outsider as anything close to an NPOV resolution. I'm putting the POV tag back on. CDThieme 15:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

greek-jewish pov on Macedonian question

The mention of the Holocaust reminded me a letter from the Jewish Communities in Greece, January 8, 1993, it is part of an epistle by Mr Nikolaos Martis, former minister of Macedonia-Thrace (Northern Greece). MATIA 20:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Matia, please don't go there. My sole intention was to put the fact that some, um, scientists actually deny the Holocaust. Some claim that Croats are catolicized Serbs. As for your information, the Macedonian Jews Jews in the Republic of Macedonia accept the constitutional name of the state: [8] , and don't find it a hostile place for them. Recently, a monument as a rememberance to the Holocaust was built in Skopje, and a Memorial center is being built, as well. --FlavrSavr 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Jews of Thessaloniki and elsewhere are also Macedonian Jews, and they would appear to disagree with you.--Theathenae 16:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, you're right. --FlavrSavr 16:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin's edits

Miskin, what exactly makes you think that the name of the nationality (not the name of the state!) in the UN is not standardized? It is standardized, and it's in general use for 60 years. I have already given you links of hundreds of UN documents that are explicitely referring to them as Macedonians. Also, I have provided you with a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that nobody can deprive someone of his right to a nationality. Their nationality is Macedonian. Moreover, I have given you examples where someone (Council of Europe) actually did try to relativize that they are Macedonians, and how it ended. For the millionth time, the name of the nationality was never disputed in the United Nations. Do I have to cite the resolution:

2. Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement ofthe difference that has arisen over the name of the State;

Where does it mention the nationality/ethnic group? --FlavrSavr 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

dab answered you on why you cannot use the plain adjective "Macedonian" when you refer to the Macedonian Slav minority of Macedonia. As usual, you chose to ignore his reply and just reiterate your position in another page. As a psychiatrist, I do have to point out to you that repetitive behavior is a cardinal characteristic of insects. Although it may outwardly appear to be "intelligent" decision-making, experiments have definitely shown it to be no more than a "spinal" reflex, without any "cerebral" component. You may be interested in looking this up, and also reading about Asperger syndrome while at it. Chronographos 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (You should not misconstrue my arguments as an attempt to perform a diagnosis online. That would be both highly inappropriate and potentially erroneous on my behalf. I merely strive to improve your encyclopedic education, and trust you will appreciate my endeavor)

Chronographos, it was dab that moved the conversation in that talk page, because, apparently, he got tired of our bilateral antipathy. It was a matter of courtesy that I contiuned the conversation there. Also, Nat Krause seems to think that the "Macedonian Slavs" label is inappropriate. However, you seem to know much about encyclopedia behaviour, so I've put up a RfC for the section. I'm positive that the neutrals, will, again, consider your position ridicilous. Regards, --FlavrSavr 14:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It was also dab who wrote that he answered you. Chronographos 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

User:FlavrSavr, do you have a source to support your claim that the majority of this ethnic group finds the term "Macedonian Slavs" as an ethnic designation offensive? In my own experience, I know several people who don't have a problem with it, especially when used to distinguish themselves from the Macedonian Greeks and others.--Theathenae 15:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the do not-find-offensive thing, do you want to give other statements by the same politicians where they are explicitely referring to the nationality as "Macedonian"? Here's one, from Kiro Gligorov:[9]. Moreover, how come only politicians matter, while the vast majority of the Macedonians in RoM, doesn't. Excuse, but your reasoning can be describe like this "Some prominent rappers have used "Niggers" as a self-identifying" term for their race, and therefore the use of Niggers within this article is not meant to be offensive to this race.". What gives you the right to determine what's offensive and what's not? --FlavrSavr 15:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

One might ask you the same question. What gives you the right? Politicians from your country certainly do call themselves "Macedonians", but User:Miskin is right to say that they have also used the Slav epithet on a number of occasions, at the highest level. We shouldn't omit this from the article simply because it conflicts with your point of view.--Theathenae 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

But I have already explained that, to cite [10]: Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. Now, believe me, when more than 10% of a population actually sends a postcard as a protest because they do not want to be labeled as such, I believe that we can say that they do find it offensive. I didn't send a postcard, but I do find it offensive. Interview 1000 of them, asking this question: "Are you Macedonians or Macedonians Slavs", 990 of them will answer "Macedonians". There were some attempts to label them as SlavoMacedonians in Australia, and they reacted the same way: Don't label me against my will. And again, I am not trying to deny that they actually said that, but Miskin's conclusions are way far fetched. --FlavrSavr 15:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Still, you cannot censor his references to the politicians who have used that terminology.--Theathenae 15:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course. I think that the statements are taken out of the context (those are the very same politicans who fought for the recognition of the name Republic of Macedonia), but nevertheless, they should be mentioned. Maybe we should have a separate part for it. However, it is a fact that the majority of the ethnic group finds the term offensive. Asserting, in the first paragraph, that X,Y,Z said "Slav Macedonians" on several ocassions, and that's why the reader, or the ethnic group in question, shouldn't find it offensive, is simply, absurd. It's like saying that the Greek Helsinki Watch refers to them as "ethnic Macedonians", and that's why Greek Macedonians, shouldn't find the name "Macedonians" offensive. --FlavrSavr 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the do not-find-offensive thing, do you want to give other statements by the same politicians where they are explicitely referring to the nationality as "Macedonian"?

For crying out loud FlavrSavr please don't play it dumb with me. It works with other people who don't really know what's going on bu it doesn't work with me, and it only underestimates my intelligence. I never said that FYROM politicians have reserved the term "Macedonian Slavs" to refer to their nation. That would have been an argument strong enough to resolve the name-debate in the UN, not in a wiki discussion page. My argument was that since FYROM politicians have in various occasions used the term "Slav Macedonians", then the term "Slav" is not a racial slur, and your main counter-argument is automatically nullified. Plain and simple, the reference stays. If your politicians are using racial slurs then don't vote for them. Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some prominent rappers have used "Niggers" as a self-identifying" term for their race, and therefore the use of Niggers within this article is not meant to be offensive to this race."

So let me get the straight, you're actually implying that the lyrics of some rapper have the same factor of importance as the official declarations of a politician?!!? Boy, you really are desperate... Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have provided you with a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that nobody can deprive someone of his right to a nationality.

That's such a load of rubbish. So tell me what would happen if Greek Macedonia chose to break off the Greek state and create a Greek-speaking state of its own of Macedonian nationality. Why would they have to find a name which differentiates from plain "Macedonian", while they're obviously geographically and culturally the only inheritors of that name. But you don't have an answer to that do you? You just say "that won't never happen" and it probably won't. The point is that those people X of Northern Greece who call themselves Macedonian, are as much as people as the Macedonian Slavs, and I don't see a reason for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not applying to them. We're not even suggesting that plain "Macedonians" is restricted to Northern Greeks, which for the obvious reasons is the only realistic scenario. On the contrary, we're suggesting that the name "Macedonian" should not be monopolised by anybody, but I suppose a nation with no real history or culture is too insecure to settle with such a compromise. What goes around comes around. Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, what exactly makes you think that the name of the nationality (not the name of the state!) in the UN is not standardized? It is standardized, and it's in general use for 60 years.

Is that so? There's also an official document from the '40s where the president of the USA is rejecting the existence of a "Macedonian nation" which only serves to promote Yugoslavian land-claims against Greece. I'm sure you're familiar with it. If you insist to pretend that the entire world recognises FYROMians as "Macedonians", I'm going to stick that document in the article. In the meantime I'm making a copromise revert by restoring the part where FYROM politicians refer to the people as Macedonian Slavs, and you have no argument to remove it. The name dispute against Greece is about both name of the country and its nationality, and since the UN hasn't settled on an official name for the former, neither it does for the latter. Your edits imply that the UN have recognised this nationality as "Macedonian", it doesn't mention explicitly that it's only called so by convenience. This is a pure act of propaganda, which I urge you to save for the Slavic wikipedia. Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

to Flavsavr

I've left some comments on naming conflict talk page. One of them is my question whether the terms Slav or Slavic are offensive. You may want to check it and give your pov (I've read that Slava means glory for example). MATIA 15:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

to Miskin

The name dispute and the political negotiations are about the term Macedonia and all related terms (macedonian,macedon,macedonic etc). MATIA 15:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

hla

There have been a long talk on Talk:Macedonia about this biogenetic research. (see 27.HLA Genes research, 35. And now for some REAL genetics research, 37. Caution:A genetic research and maybe more). MATIA 06:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It really is pitiful, how people who don't even know what HLA is, let alone the MHC or even a T lymphocyte for that matter, assume the liberty to quote and interpret life science papers, and use their nitwit interpretations to advance a prima facie racist agenda of racial purity, or impurity. If only human biology were so easy as to be a playpen for illiterate kids. Chronographos 12:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And speaking of illiterate kids, let the record show as well that I totally disagree with Miskin's latest edit, which is short-sighted and nationalistic. Chronographos 12:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Miskin is normal. It is expected to be nationalistic if you come from the Balkans, however, he goes to extremes, which are unacceptable by any standards. VMORO 12:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~

That's one of the funniest things said in this discussion page. A sad patriotic Bulgarian from who-knows-where uses the term "Balkans" to generalise countries such as Greece, Bulgaria, Albania or FYROM - as if they're all at the same sociopolitical level. Check the GDP of each of those countries and you'll realise how silly you make yourself look. Miskin 14:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin's moronic examples

The only example given of Slav Macedonians was a quotation from "Toronto star" (and not by a Macedonian politician as you claim) and it was used only as a counter balance to Ancient Macedonians - we are not Ancient Macedonians, we are Slav Macedonians. The rest was just quotes where politicians say that the present-day Macedonians are Slavs. Well, Miskin, that's something that the whole world knows - except you, of course. You can find similar examples by Bulgarian politicians - the Bulgarians are Slavs but this doesn't mean that we call ourselves Slav Bulgarians. The examples are bad and they do not prove the "thing" you dumped on the page in any way. So, sorry, but it is thrown out. VMORO 12:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~

Sigh- I never said that FYROM politicians are using the term "Macedonian Slavs" all the time - for crying out loud. What I said was that since FYROM politicians have at several occasions used the terms "Slavs" and "Slav Macedonians" to describe their nation, it means that "Slav" is definitely NOT an ethnic slur (like Flavrsavr was trying to convince us earlier). That's all. Please try to read and understand what you're removing, before removing it. Miskin 13:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you in this respect: everyone knows that Bulgarians are Slavs, but there is no other entity that calls itself Bulgarian, therefore the "Slav" term is redundant. Not so with the Macedonian Slavs: they are the minority in Macedonia, and if they insist on being called "Macedonians" plain, they monopolize a designation that does not belong to themselves alone and infringe upon the rights of the remaining Macedonians, who are after all the majority. I hope this clears the issue as to where I stand on the matter.

While we may disagree on this, we may agree on other matters: for example on how the FYROM is trying to appropriate (confiscate would be a better word) the undoubted Bulgar character of the region in the Middle Ages in order to create a false historical past for themselves. While on the issue, I urge you to read an excellent book by Bulgarian historian Vera Mutafchieva (spelling?) named "I, Anna Comnena". Not only is it very well written historical fiction, but it also captures the essence of the times, as it involves Anna's grandmother, Maria of Bulgaria, who held the whole of Ohrid as a fief (!) from her ancestor, the Tsar Samuel. Chronographos 13:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we disagree on anything whatsoever. The question as to whether the Slavs in RoM should be called "Macedonian Slavs" or "Macedonians" in Wikipedia is one thing. I don't intend to dig into it again, for me both names are equally inappropriate. But I wasn't talking about it at all. I was talking about Miskin's inclination to make inflammatory edits which diverge from the truth. As it is quite clear that the Macedonian Slavs themselves regard the name as inflammatory and call themselves Macedonians. The examples Miskin gave do not support in the slightest bit what he wrote and he proves yet again that he's here just to wreak havoc and confusion. Well, I've had enough of that. VMORO 13:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~

Well, risking Miskin's and FlavrSavr's wrath, what would you consider an appropriate name? Chronographos 13:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, the matter is too explosive, so I think I'd rather not breach it... VMORO 15:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)~

Why not? Free speech is the very foundation of democratic societies. The most important phrase ever uttered in the political evolution of humankind is the phrase "Ϭ,ιϬ αγορεύειν βούλεϬ,αι?", "who wishes to address the Assembly?", the phrase which commenced open debate in the assembly of the people of Ancient Athens. It was the first time in history that it was instituted that every citizen who wished to speak about politics had the unalienable right to do so. Whether FlavrSavr or Miskin throw a fit afterwards is no reason whatsoever for anyone to censor him- or herself. For example, names that would fit the geographical area best would be "Vardarska Republika", or, if they insist of some ancient past of sorts, Paionia, the ancient name of the region which corresponds with the modern state exactly. Of course they have no cultural or linguistic connection with the Ancient Paionians, but then again they have no such connection with the Ancient Macedonians either. What do you think? Chronographos 19:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want my sincere opinion: the right to self-determination comes before anything else. So if the Macedonian Slavs want to call themselves Macedonians in English, they should be called in this way. The way they can be entered here is Macedonians (ethnic group) or something similar with Macedonian Slavs given as a co-option, as well. In articles where the names Macedonians and especially the adjective "Macedonian" can cause confusion (like the present one), the optional Macedonian Slavs and the adjective Macedonian Slav/Slav Macedonian should be used. In articles where there is no danger of confusion (like Republic of Macedonia or the demographics article of RoM) only Macedonians should be used with a link to this article and not to the disambiguation. This is, in my opinion, a civilised way to deal with this issue. It's a completely different question that the Greeks would get a heart attack when they hear the proposal and the Macedonians will use - yet again - the opportunity to lay a claim to the Ancient Macedonians. But civilised solutions are impossible when discussions here degenerate every time into cheap mud throwing. Furtermore, with people like Istirbinski and Miskin, no solution can be reached for anything. VMORO 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)~

For crying out loud VMORO, don't you have the slightest feeling of self-judgement? You create multiple IDs and edit entire articles (supposedly as different editors) in order to support your nationalist myths of a Greater Bulgaria which reaches down to the Aegean sea. You constantly imply that Greeks had never ever anything to do with Macedonia, not in antiquity, not in Hellenistic times, not in Byzantium (you even deny that Byzantines were the Greeks), not in the Ottoman Empire, I mean honestly what about today? Are there any Greeks present in Macedonia or is it another Greek propaganda? For F's sake, before you accuse others take a look at yourself. You have never offered any real contribution to wikipedia, all you do is watch and propagate on what you consider as "Bulgarian-related articles". You are a virus to this encyclopedia and every means of neutral information that exists - I really find it extremely ironic that you're shameless enough to criticise me or anybody else for that matter. You're not even in position to criticise Istirbinski. Miskin 13:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

??? Do you need a psychiatrist? Multiple IDs, tra-la-la... You suffer from paranoia - but that's your own problem. Keep your comments here to the point and don't bother the other readers with the your disorders. The sources you quoted simply say that the Macedonians are Slavs and have nothing to do with the Ancient Macedonians - there are two lines in Macedonian historiography right now, the one claims that the Macedonian Slavs are descendents of Slavs who intermingled with the Ancient Macedonians, the other one claims they are Slavs and have nothing to do with the Ancient Macedonians. Not a word that they like calling themselves "Macedonian Slavs", no, they don't. The examples quoted by you are irrelevant to your claim, they don't support it and since they don't support it, the claim in Italics which u are so brazen to put every time you come in here, gets subsequently erased. Period. Cheers and I hope I am a persistent element of your nightmares. VMORO 14:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)~

there are two lines in Macedonian historiography right now, the one claims that the Macedonian Slavs are descendents of Slavs who intermingled with the Ancient Macedonians,

This sentence alone is sufficient to reveal to any reader of basic historical knowledge what kind of pseudo-academic, banano-scientific background you're coming from. The term "Macedonian historiography" is probably a brilliant branch of the Skopje or Sophia history department, and yet alien to any other academic institution in the world. The fact that you regard it as something that we should have been all familiar of, proves what kind of delusional nationalist you're. Take my advice and stick to the Bulgarian wikipedia - if you can even speak Bulgarian that is. Otherwise stick to your day job (let me guess, civil servant?). Miskin 14:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Number of Macdonian Slavs in Greece

According to my copy of the Hutchinson Educational Encyclopaedia there are Macedonian speakers in Greece and they number 100,000 - 200,000 est. I don't know if this qualifies as a credible source as you will have to accept my word for it, unless of course you have a copy of this encyclopaedia yourselves. That is why I didn't add it to the article. REX 12:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a Greek political party, the "Rainbow Party", which champions the cause of Macedonian Slavs in Greece and calls for the official recognition and protection of their language. Their best electoral showing so far was a little bit over 6,000 votes in the 2004 European Parliament elections (0.098 % of the total vote). Their best single return was in the prefecture of Florina, where they garnered about 1200 votes (out of 36,000 cast). In other prefectures in the vicinity they got a few hundred votes at best and a few dozens at worst. Detailed election results by prefecture can be found at the Greek Interior Ministry website. They did not participate in the 2004 national elections because of lack of funds. As they state in their website, the fact that the 2004 national and European elections were held close together prevented them from funding two consecutive campaigns adequately. Since the Greek electorate tends to cluster towards the major parties at the expense of smaller parties in national elections, it is likely that the Rainbow party decided to skip national elections altogether in favor of the Euro- ones, as they thought their showing would be even poorer. Voter turnout in national elections is higher that in Euro- ones (compare 7.6 million vs. 6 million votes cast in the 2004 national and Euro- elections respectively, an manifestation of the so-called "Euro-apathy"). If I'm not mistaken, in past national elections they have formed a coalition with the "Organization for the Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Greece", a fringe far-left group of Trotskyite tendencies, and have got something like 0.05 % of the vote. Chronographos 13:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

let's twist again

Round and round and up and down, we go again, sang Chubby Checker. Having read those discussions too many times, I must remind to everyone interested that we've been over this before. Chronographos it looks like a vicious circle, doesn't it?

Yea, let's twist again, twistin' time is here! MATIA 14:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Why did you bring it up again then? It was conclusively answered and laid to rest by Etz Haim. You are spinning so fast, one could in all frankness mistake you for an electron. Chronographos 16:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA seems to have the impression that he is funny. Ho ho! Ha ha! I think that we should surrender now to far-right Greek extremism and say that there are no ethnic minorities in Greece. That Greece is 100% White, 100% Greek Orthodox and 100% Greek speaking. Wow it sounds like L.A.O.S. is active on Wikipedia and anyone who dares disagree with MATIA's infallible word is deemed by him to be going aroud in vicious circles. He didn't explain that claim though. How interesting? It sounds like propaganda. Trying to convince people that false facts are true. Everyone listen: We must obey MATIA because he knows everything and we know nothing. What arrogance! REX 14:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You prove your lack of arguments with personal attacks. Is it the 8th time you slander me as right-wing and/or nazi? Despite the fact that I told you I have nothing to do with these? Despite the fact that there is not even one contribution I've did that could justify your claims. You are a liar, and your continuous calumnies are more than offending, unjustified, personal attacks. MATIA 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care anymore what you think. All you do is lie. You accuse me of circular arguments. That is not true. To begin with there were no arguments at all. Above I made a request. But obviously MATIA and Chronographos like to make up straw man arguments even when all I made was a request. Anyway, Ethnologue says that there are 180,180 speakers of Macedonian in Greece and because naturally they know better than Chronographos and MATIA I shall use that figure in the article. REX 16:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to be drawn into your spiteful rhetoric. The Ethnologue "census" data you quote is highly suspect of error: post WWII Greek censuses have always been held once a decade, on the first year of the decade: 2001, 1991, 1981, 1971, 1961, and 1951. I don't know what happened pre-1940. This can be verified at the National Statistics Service of Greece website. There was no census carried out in 1986. Chronographos 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, take the time to read Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Archive#macedonian-slavs_in_Greece and perhaps you can tell us about Encarta too. MATIA 17:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you will have to spell it out for me. You will have to provide links to specific Web pages which say that Ethnologue is lying. I shouldn't have to research to prove my own sources wrong. REX 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue is widely respected and cited in the international linguistics community. Jonathunder 18:23, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Jonathunder, I can confirm what you said about Ethnologue - but one should cross-check every source. REX, Ethnologue is the perfect source today? Should I remind you, your quote from few days before? MATIA

That's right Jonathunder, but Chronographos and MATIA expect us to take their word over Ethnologue's. REX 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

REX I gave you the link to a previous discussion regarding this article. I don't have to spell it out for you (as you said) and as a matter of fact I won't. You can either read it, and refrain from disrupting wikipedia, or you can check the National Statistics Service of Greece website link that Chronographos gave you, and verify that no census was held in 1986. MATIA 20:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I'm afraid I cannot find anything on use at the link you pointed out except far-right Greek extremist arguments. Nor does the Website www.statistics.gr say that there was no census in 1986. So I guess that we will just have to write what Ethnologue says because Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability) instructs us to do so. Remember, Trolls will be reported. REX 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to report yourself, me or someone else, REX? MATIA 20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoever engages in trolling. The website provided by Chronographos does NOT say that there was no census in 1986, nor does your link. You are aware tha POV pushing is frowned upon. Anyway, even if you did agree to observe Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability) I would also have to persuade User:VMORO to observe Wikipedia policy as well. He removed the true facts which you reject for no reason whatsoever [11]. REX 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonathunder, it is true that "Ethnologue is widely respected and cited in the international linguistics community". Nevertheless there was no Greek census carried out in 1986. You may douse yourself with gasoline and set yourself on fire in protest, but that's all there is to it. REX, you will have to search www.statistics.gr a little bit better. No, it does not say that there was no census in 1986. Nor does it say that there was no census in any years other than 2001, 1991, 1981 etc. Just like the phonebook says that I am a physician: it does not say that I am not a lawyer, a gardener, a priest or a football player for Real Madrid. Chronographos 21:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove to us that there was no census in 1986? If yes, καλώϬ; if no, then pipe down! I don't believe that that website says anything about censa in the 80s. I think that you are trying to send me on a wild goose chase. You seem to be rather familiar with that website. Paste a quote here saying whatever it is that you are trying to prove, also provide a link to the page which contains the quote. I don't think you can. I suspect foul play afoot (ie lies). REX 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I can. And here's more!. Now can you prove that your mother is not a woman of, let's say, ill-repute? I do not mean to insult you or that impeccable lady your mother, obviously, just point out the mendacity, and ultimate futility, of your sophistry. Chronographos 22:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That website is in some language I can't understand. Have you not read Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability)? Sources must be in English. I cannot understand that language, so I guess we must reject your source. Shame! REX 22:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, really? It seems to me you can write Greek with few mistakes when you want to. Which is to be expected from an Albanian who was educated in Greece (on Greek taxpayer money). The second list above is a list of all official publications available by the Greek National Statistical Service. It details censi (not censa!) and it is obviously in Greek. You may run it, along with the first link, through Babelfish and get a reasonable idea of what it's about. I'll give you a euro if you do. BTW there's more and more and more. Chronographos 23:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (Guess what? No euro for you!)

The last Greek census which asked about language was in 1951. It found 41,000 Slav-speakers. It is unlikely that this is an overestimate, and one can speculate that it is an underestimate for various reasons: census-takers not canvassing completely; census fraud either in the field or in the central office; and fear of persecution (justified or not). However, it is an official census figure. On the other hand, it doesn't say anything about the identification of these people. Did they think of themselves as Makedonski? as Bulgarian? as Slav-speaking Greek? Maybe even several of these things at the same time. Or none of them. --Macrakis 23:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that the National Statistics Service of Greece does NOT ask a question on ethnicity and minority languages (because the Greek state does not recognise ethnic minorities, only one religious minority, the Muslims) we can assume that this service did not undertake this census. Therefore the census mentioned in Ethnologue must have been a different census (possibly an unofficial one). So, we still have a case of Ethnologue's word against yours. Who do we believe? Hmm. I think I'll go with Ethnologue. REX 23:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Does your mother agree? Chronographos 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, she does. Why, doesn't yours? REX 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

More lies by REX

• REX's quote That website is in some language I can't understand (12 September 2005), list of Greek to English translators including REX (earlier today) and in Talk:Arvanites REX claimed to be (among others) Greek (26 July 2005). Later in the same talk page he changed his tune but in his user page he declares that This user is a native speaker of English and Greek (ΠϮ..Ϭ,ϏeϬ ο χρήσϬ,ηϬ έχει ωϬ μηϬ,ρική γλώσσα Ϭ,ην Φmiddot;λληνική.)
• Right now I am not WP:COOL at all. I am furious. Yet there was a page, that I can't find to copy-paste the quote, that REX told to other users they should not attack him personally, in political way like (his example, probably citing WP policies) calling him NAZI. Today, REX called me for the 10th (I've lost the count) time far-right-wing (see above for his white power accusations against me), eventhough a) I told him I've got nothing to do with such circles and I told him repeatedly that he offends me, b) there's not even one contribution I did that could support his claims (since I am not far-right or even right-wing) and c) he wouldn't like to be attacked in this way. I am mad and furious with all these lies and calumnies.MATIA 23:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

REX is Albanian. Chronographos 01:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I know that this may seem a rather difficult task for you to perform, but if you think fairly you will see that on NO occasion did I call you anything that you mention above (I may have implied them though). Also, I have no problem with personal attacks, I am used to them now thanks to certain Greeks on Wikipedia. The page you are looking for is at User talk:Theathenae and I say that if X can make a personal attack against me then I can make one against him. It seems that your attempt to slander me failed and your multitude of lies have been exposed. REX 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

REX you are a troll. File a report against you and I'll bring the evidence. I'm sick and tired of all your lies and calumnies. MATIA 07:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

See, when MATIA runs out of aruments he makes personal attacks (he called me a troll. I haven't called him anything, EVER). His lies have been exposed, he is not giving the Greeks a good name at all! tut tut! REX 08:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. Report me because I called you a troll, and I'll bring the evidence. The clock is ticking, aren't you hasty this time? MATIA 08:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

REX is Albanian. Chronographos 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what he is. My problem is his actions, and in particular his calumnies against me. MATIA 10:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: REX is Albanian. Think about it.  :-))) Chronographos 11:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue and the number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece

Ethnologue says that in 1986 there were 180,180 Macedonian speakers in Greece. Ethnologue is a credible source. Obviously, now we can't not use these figures. Ethnologue must be neutral. Unless of course Chronographos and MATIA feel that they know better than the professionals who compiled this document. That is unlikely. So naturally, Chronographos and MATIA will have to withdraw their request that we omit these figures (the far-right Greek extremist view). Shame! REX 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

and round again

I would prefer you writing that report instead of trolling. As for the census of 1986, you may have forgotten it but everybody else can verify that no census was held in 1986. MATIA 15:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA is trolling, MATIA is trolling. Do official elections in Greece include linguistic minorities. NO. That is because they are not recognised. Greece recognises only the Muslims of Thrace. So even if there was an official census in 1986 they wouldn't have asked that question anyway. MATIA obviously can't read. We have already been into this above, how convenient that he didn't see it. Obviously there must have been some other (possibly non official) census. All I know is that Wikipedia policy requires that these facts be used. If you like causing trouble (ie trolling), I cannot help you. Ethnologue knows better than [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA].] REX 15:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to do the report of I 'll have to do everything by myself? MATIA 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to do everything yourself. You'll also have to accept Ethnologue's word. You don't know beter than them! REX 16:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Famous Macedonian Slavs?

Can anybody think of any famous Macedonian Slavs of whom we have pictures? On the article at the ethnic group table there is a blank space for pictures of prominenent members of the nation in question (like in the articles English, Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians). Are there any pictures availabe of Macedonian counterparts (could I use the picture of Alexander the Great, he was Macedonian wasn't he?). REX 10:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please let us all know, if this is the way you understand humour or if it's just your way of being provocative. MATIA 12:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a serious proposal with a flavour of British humour. We need photographs of four prominent Macedonian Slavs to put at the head of the table. Sadly, I cannot think of any because this nationality came into the limelight quite recently and before that they were either considered Bulgarians or Serbs. Also, MATIA why don't you try helping us improve the article instead of criticising and being no help whatsoever. REX 12:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The only famous (some would say infamous) Macedonian Slav is I_Sterbinski, a.k.a. the "secret human rights organization". I can also think of ex-footballer Tony Savevski, who is well-known and popular in Greece. Of course the Macedonian Slavs in their desperate search for a history, any history, are eager to claim various personalities such as Alexander, Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria, and possibly Noah of the Ark too. Chronographos 14:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Come on Chronographe. You can do better that that. We have no pictures of I Sterbinski or Noah of the Ark. We need four people of whom we have pictures. REX 18:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't you upload a picture of yourself instead? You could add the explanation: "Until a famous Slavomacedonian is found, here is an Albnanian". Chronographos 19:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha, εϮ..θϮ..μίσαμε πάλι! I don't think that that would be practical. We need pictures of four famous Macedonians. REX 21:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's Macedonians, I would say Alexander the Great, Philip II of Macedon, Euro 2004 MVP Theodoros Zagorakis and Traianos Dellas. Chronographos 22:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

They are no good. We have no pictures of (the of questionable sexuality) Alexander the Great nor do we have pictures of his (supposed) father. Also, it would be impractical to use pictures of sportsmen, don't you think? We need people who have done something special for the Republic of Macedonia, someone who was involved in the establishment of the state perhaps. Someone who people would see and think Aha! The Republic of Macedonia. REX 08:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If you won't have a picture of yourself, how about a picture of your mother? Her sexuality was not questionable, and I presume her repute was not either. A disclaimer could be added to that effect: "REX's mother, whose sexuality and repute are beyond reproach". Chronographos 09:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Chronographe, I would very much appreciate it if you stop mentioning my mother. I never mention your mother, nor do I raise questions about her moral values. Again, we need pictures of four well known individuals who have made some contribution to the Republic of Macedonia, in any field. REX 09:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You did, but that's beside the point. You seem obsessed about people's sexuality, and as a psychiatrist I know this to be a hallmark of individuals whose own sexuality is a source of distress to them. In principle you cannot be sure of anyone's sexuality, except maybe yours and that of your close ones. And since your own sexuality seems to be a source of ego-dystonic feelings, I opted for the next-closer person whose sexuality must be "unquestionable". If this is objectionable to you, fine, the subject is dropped. I obviously never meant to imply that the lady's sexuality was "questionable" or that she is indeed a lesbian, heavens forbid (not that there's anything wrong with that)! Since I cannot think of any Slavomacedonian who has ever achieved international fame, I will leave this noble task to you. I am sure you are eminently qualified for it and will pursue it with due diligence. Your intellectual gifts are exceptional and your mother must be very proud of you, and justly so. Chronographos 12:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it an obsession, but rather a highlighting of certain questions raised in Alexander (film) about the main character. Questions I really want to know the true answer to, not the answer the Greeks promote. As for the mentioning of mothers, YOU started it and you do it often, you should stop it! I cannot think of any famous Macedonians either, so we should probably ask I Sterbinski or someone else who would know. REX 13:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You should not be generalizing about what "Greeks" promote. I understand why you, as an Albanian, are incensed by the agenda of such far-right-wing people, who also want to deport all Albanians from Greece, where lies their only hope for a decent livelihood. Rest assured that humanistic values are firmly entrenched here and that such a pogrom will never happen. I am not sure what you mean by "questions" raised by the film "Alexander". Everyone agrees that Alexander was probably more homosexual than heterosexual, and the film is rather straightforward about it. Or gayforward, if you so prefer. I am surprised you find it such a big deal. Or maybe I'm not that surprised (speaking as a psychiatrist). My guess is that Stone did not include explicit scenes between Alexander and Hephaestion because of the strict rating system in US movie theaters and the resultant sales repercussions. Fortunately prudes are out of fashion here in Europe. Chronographos 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just noticed that just by mentioning that film and what it suggests seems to bring out the best in Greeks. It is actually quite amusing. Even the way you reacted (implying things about me) shows that this is an issue sensitive to most Greeks. REX 14:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I implied nothing. It's not my job to come up with answers, or even suggest or imply them. My job is to come up with the proper questions and help people find the answers they have in themselves. I hope to have helped you in this matter, provided you are determined enough to let such issues (should they exist) "come out", so to speak. Of course you do not have any obligation to publicize those answers here. Your private life, including what may or may not happen in your bedroom etc, is sacrosanct. Chronographos 14:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stop implying things about me. Personally, I believe that given that you have engaged in such an extensive research on such matters rather interesting and raises questions about you. Your (and most Greeks') indignation to the suggestion that such a proninent member of the exhalted Greek nation, Alexander, be affiliated to such practices is, as I have already said, quite amusing. I myself find such practices a lot of Bourgeois nonesense and I hope you know that I do not take kindly to those who imply thing like that about me. Nevertheless, I do think that the fact that you are implying such things about me is your form of vindictive indignation to my insult to the famous Alexander. REX 15:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What indignation? I am quite comfortable with anyone's sexuality, Alexander's, yours, or any number of consenting adults. I could not care less about what you do in bed (or in any other place however unorthodox, such as a public bathroom for example). You could call Alexander a bisexual, a homosexual, a child molester, a necrophiliac or a pyromaniac for all I care. I am also puzzled about your "extentive (sic) research" statement. This is mundane, standard stuff taught in Medical School and in residency training. There is nothing esoteric about it. What does bother me is your paleo-communist characterization of sexuality as "Bourgeois nonesense" (sic). Surely you are not a prude, are you? What also puzzles me is your apparent indignation and downright anger: never have I seen so many spelling and syntax error in a text of yours. Coming from a person who claims to be studying law at an English University, this is rather alarming. If you are willing to talk about it, I am willing to listen and help (no fees involved). It won't be the first time I do pro bono work. Chronographos 15:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I just realised what you did! You succeeded in luring me away from our main point of discussion. A very well known tactic. We are talking about famous Macedonians, not what you believe about me or anybody else. I can't believe I fell for that, especially after I had told FlavrSavr that that is what he should look out for! Now to get back to the point, I am suggesting that we make a new table for the head of the article because I cannot find any pictures and you don not seem willing to help me find any! REX 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are apparently willing to avoid the subject; nevertheless I am ready to help you confront any issues you may be experiencing as ego-dystonic. I feel empathy towards migrants and the dire financial straits they often find themselves in, through no fault of their own. Chronographos 16:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like dispite your claims above you are not just implying, but saying that I am in some way repressed, I wish I knew how you came up with that. This is a well known tactic of yours trying to avoid discussing the article but changing the subject because you know that you don't have any sources to support your Greek POV views here. I also advise you to stop commenting on people's grammar and orthography. You make just as many mistakes as anyone else such as the tought you hurredly corrected above. I suspect that you are not a MD like you claim, you seem to spend a lot of time on the Internet, every day. I thought MDs were busy people. But perhaps you are an unemployed one. Your profound interest in such subjects is as I have already said very interesting, I suggest that you sort out any issues you have first and then comment on other people's. REX 16:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This really got off topic! OK, I can list some famous Macedonians (pick four of them), but I am not sure whether we can find images that are not subject of copyright. (Perhaps we can upload it under the fair use flag?) Namely:

• Milcho Manchevski - the director of the Golden Lion winning film Before the rain (also an Academy award nominee) - I warmly reccomend it to anyone in this discussion [12]
• Petar Naumoski - a basketball player, former star of Efes Pilsen, now a bit older :-) [13]
• Vlatko Stefanovski - a guitar player and a musician [14]
• Mike Zafirovski - former COO of Motorola, now a director at Boeing [15]
• Goran Stefanovski - playwright [16]
• Boris Trajanov - opera singer. The baritone performed in over 550 operas in the past seventeen years and has played more than thirty-five leading roles. In February 2005 he was named UNESCO Artist for Peace. [17]

OK, got to go now. --FlavrSavr 16:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hiya FlavrSavr, I tink that using too many artists would be a mistake. I think that ideally it should be:

• 2 politicians or millitary officers
• 2 artists or musicians.

I like the idea of using Boris Trajanov because classical music is timeless, people are still talking about Maria Callas the Greek/American soprano. Also Milcho Manchevski sounds good, if he has won an award then he must have made a significant contrubution to humanity. Now we need politicians/millitary officers. Do you know who the first president of Macedonia was, because we could use him; Also, any communist officials who reached high office of state during the Tito regime or anyone who fought during the war could be used. All we need is someone who was born in the area which is now the RoM. Remember, we need pictures of them. REX 17:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph

So these are Miskin's famous examples:

“We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century AD ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

and:"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

• Ambassador of FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska:

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”

• On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM's Ambassador to Canada:

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country."

It is clearly visible that in those examples the politicians in question assert that the present-day Macedonians (here called Macedonian Slavs) are descendants of Slavs who came to the Balkan peninsula in the 6th century and they have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians. So if a Macedonian comes here and makes an edit to the effect that "the present-day Macedonians regard themselves as descendants of Alexander the Great and the Ancient Macedonians", you can easily make an edit to the effect that "however, this is strongly contested even in RoM itself as Macedonian politicians have asserted many times that the present-day Macedonians are Slavs and they have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians".

However, Miskin's slur is not corroborated in any way by those examples (and he'll have to look a loooooong time to find a Mac. politian who addresses the Macedonians as Macedonian Slavs). The only time "Slav Macedonian" is used, it is part of a negation in the meaning "we are not Ancient Macedonians, we are Slav Macedonians". There is a considerable difference between saying that your origins are Slavic and between calling yourself a Macedonian Slav. It doesn't surprise me that Miskin can put something like this in the article - he has the intelligence of an average undernourished dog flea, but why do you argue with me about something as clearly visible as that, Matia? VMORO 13:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)~

VMORO, I am really interested to know what your personal views are on the Slavomacedonians as a people. My own view is that they were nothing but Bulgarian, until Bulgaria's defeat in the Second Balkan War when the territory was ceded to Serbia and a process of "de-Bulgarization" started, for reasons which are more than obvious. I should imagine that after decades of propaganda, and lacking a sturdy linguistic and cultural heritage to fall back on, they bought it, lock, stock and barrel. Therefore I was stunned to read that more than 10% of them have taken up Bulgaria's offer and have acquired Bulgarian citizenship! I believe this phenomenon is unprecedented in history: such a huge percentage of a country's population being eager to "betray", as it were, their apparent identity so easily. What are your thoughts on the above? Chronographos 14:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC) (also any update you might have on the Bulgarian citizenship affair would be most enlightening)

I think we agree, more or less VMORO, and I'm wondering what are the needed changes for that paragraph. MATIA 14:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have too much time to write but I pretty much agree with u. From what I have read (and I have read enough on the matter), I can say that there was a regional Macedonian identity before the Balkan wars usually combined with a Bulgarian national one (but also with Greek and a Serbian one). According at least to Roudometoff, the tranformation of the regional identity into a national one happened as a result of the "attempt at forceful acculturation (understand assimilation) of the Macedonian Slavs in Greece and Serbia during the interwar period" or something like this. There is also the linguistic differences between the western Macedonian dialects and eastern Bulgarian. The situation in Pirin Macedonia is very curious as the vast majority of the population there continues to have a regional Macedonian identity and a Bulgarian national one and you can meet people who could tell u that "they are Macedonians" and straight afterwards that "all Macedonians are Bulgarians". VMORO 16:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)~

How about the citizens of FYROM who have lately gotten Bulgarian citizenship? Is it 10%, more or less, and what's the trend? Chronographos 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA has not yet sorted out his position. He just likes adding fuel to the flame because he likes to see people argue. I mean it is obvious that VMORO is right. MATIA choses to ignore that. That helps him in his agenda of being provocative! REX 13:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

REX tonight I 'll fill a report against you, thank you very much. MATIA 14:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Good luck! You'll need it given that it will be very hard for you to find proper evidence. REX 14:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your calumnies against me are all over WP, and your contributions on talk pages are all the evidence needed. The only reason I'm not reporting you right now, is to give you some time to think about it. MATIA 14:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Empty threat (ie bluff)! The only reason you are not reporting me right now is because you have no evidence. My orthodox observance of Wikipedia polcy ensures that I have never made an actual personal attack against anyone (you will never find one because I have never directly called anybody anything, I have only implied things. That does not qualify as a personal attack), nor have I ever commited vandalism, unlike certain individuals who I do not care to name. REX 15:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not bluffing or threatening. My greatest problem with you is that you continually attack me and offend me. You will, also, be able to explain your unorthodox ways of contributing on that report. I'll let you know on your talk page. MATIA 15:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I suggest you read Slander and libel as well as Malice (legal term). I never slandered you as a right-wing as you say, I just said I detect right-wing politics (or something like that). I have never called YOU a right-wing. For all you know I could have been referring to someone else. Also, personal attacks are in reference to the person, not content (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). You should have considered that before making the accusation. That accusation is entirely unjustified. Also, you should know that I don't appreciate wiki-stalking. REX 17:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What is important that the personal attacks which you mention NEVER occured. Perhaps you should find out what a personal attack is. Nothing I ever did qualifies as a personal attack. You say that proof is on the talk pages. That is a lie. You are trying to convince people that there is something on the talk pages while in reality there isn't. I bet that you cannot produce even one example of my many calumnies as you call them! REX 17:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you stop exposing yourself, the kids are yelling: The king is naked! MATIA 17:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You cannot provide examples of personal attacks can you? That is because they don't exist. If you provide one of my quotes which qualifies as a personal attack I will acknowledge it and retract it with a full apology. You can't though. Because you are lying. No such quotes exist. Are you sure that your friends call you a besha. I believe that they should call you a gënjeshtar. I reflects reality! REX 18:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

VMORO I'll try to explain what the purpose of this paragraph is for one last time. This paragraph does not claim that FYROM politicians use the term "Slav" or "Slav Macedonian" in a regular basis. This paragraph does not emphasise the use of the term "Slav Macedonian" over "Slav", eventhough the former has also been used (you can change it to plain "Slav", that will make many Greeks happier). This paragraph aims to reveal the hidden truth which contradicts every Slavomacedonian nationalist's claims: That FYROM is Slavic nation, and that the term 'Slav' is not a racial slur. Flavrsavr's main counter-argument against the use of "Macedonian Slavs" was that the word "Slavs" is a racial slur similar to "nigger" (his own example). Well this paragraph proves the opposite, and if you had read the discussion page more closely you would have realised it for yourself. Miskin 14:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin!

Your statement: "The term "Macedonian Slavs" has been used on several occasions by Macedonian Slav politicians as a self-identifying term" is INCORRECT. I know you are frequently delusional but understand once and for all times: ALL MACEDONIANS THINK THEY ARE SLAVIC, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT SOME THINK THEY ARE DESCENDENTS OF BOTH SLAVS AND ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AND SOME THINK THEY ARE DESCENDENTS ONLY OF SLAVS. THE MACEDONIANS DO NOT THINK THEY ARE DESCENDENTS ONLY OF THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS. GET THIS IN YOUR HEAD. Until a statement which is logically true is found, the paragraph will be placed on the Talk page. I personally don't think there is need for such a paragraph at all - because it says nothing, but anyway. VMORO 16:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)~

Your statement in capitals is factually incorrect, VMORO, and grossly so. The majority of Macedonians are Greeks, more than 2 million of them. The remainder are Slavs, (1,300,000), Albanians (600,000) and some other far smaller groups. Chronographos 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks VMORO for copying it here. I believe this paragraph (perhaps with some changes) can be used to show the usage of that term. MATIA 17:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the insertion of the paragraph is prescriptive and its removal is not? MATIA 16:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"People's peculiar logic"

There's nothing wrong with VMORO's logic, Miskin. Me and VMORO had some serious disagreements about Macedonian history, (and we still do), but that didn't stop us to find a rational NPOV solution for the Goce Delchev article. He always puts tons of sources to back up his arguments. I personally disagree that the formation of the Macedonian nation could have occured in only 3 decades of "de-bulgarization", but I'll put that off-topic now.

The only "people with peculiar logic" here are guys who take 2-3 statements of individuals, take them out of the context, and prescribe what the reader or the ethnic group in question, should, or shouldn't find offensive (bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive). Yet they choose to ignore the fact that [18]: Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. This was the only attempt to somehow officialize the Macedonian Slav term in an international organisation, and it ended up as a failure. Now, believe me, when more than 10% of a population actually sends a postcard as a protest because they do not want to be labeled as such, I believe that we can say that they do find it offensive. I didn't send a postcard, but I do find it offensive. Interview 1000 of them, asking this question: "Are you Macedonians or Macedonians Slavs", 990 of them will answer "Macedonians". There were some attempts to label them as SlavoMacedonians in Australia, and they reacted the same way: Don't label me against my will.

Miskin, you are the one with peculiar logic, and I tell you for the millionth time: We find the term, when used as an ethnic identifier, offensive. I don't care if your Carleton Coon textbooks told you that we are only a Slavic crowd, and I don't care that you think that a GDP of a country necessarily mean that the country is on a higher "socio-political level". Nazi Germany was one of the wealthiest countries when it slaughtered 6 million Jews. I don't care how "scientific" your racism is, it is still racism. --FlavrSavr 15:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You never tire of repeating the same arguments over and over again, do you? dab answered you above, but you chose to ignore it: Macedonia is a geographical region, and the adjective Macedonian applies to matters pertaining this region, historically, culturally and otherwise. Claiming the terms without qualifications is tantamount to monopolizing the designation for yourselves. This would be sort of acceptable if you were the majority, but you are not. Furthermore your claim is relatively new, counting less than a century at best and 14 years at worst, whereas the region's historical and cultural past is far, far older. You are corroborating this yourself: "Say Macedonia", "Macedonian journalists", etc, when referring to your country and people only. This is totally unacceptable. You are attempting to impose common usage, like dab pointed out. You have also failed to answer my point, namely that there is no reason whatsoever for an ethnic claim to take precedence over a regional one. After all a region can encompass several ethnicities, which in this case are subsets of a larger set. The region Macedonia is a case in point. Chronographos 16:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr how would you write this paragraph? I know that there are 3 or 4 variations of the words Slavs in your language, but I cannot understand the non-english results I get from .mk domain. How would you describe the usage of that term and how would you explain (perhaps in this paragraph) why this term is offensive. MATIA 19:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "Macedonian Slavs" has been used on several occasions by Macedonian Slav politicians as a self-identifying term and its use here is not intended to offend the people of this ethnic group. Occurencies of this term can be found in .mk domains, sometimes in historical context.

Flavrsavr it's true that you keep repeating yourself and give the image of a civilised extremist. Let's examine your claims for one more time:

• He (VMORO) always puts tons of sources to back up his arguments.

It's not the quantity that counts but the quality. VMORO has concentrated all sources that suit his views and ignores all others. In the article Demographic history of Macedonia for example, he just can't accept that present Greek Macedonia had been prodominantly ethnically Greek. He sticks to his maps and unreliable sources and he ignores neutral and reliable ones such as the demographic cencus of the Ottoman Empire (by claiming that they had bad criteria of ethnicity).

• The point is that, VMORO respects the self-determination of one modern nation as "Macedonians", and that is encouraging. The logic behind it is perfectly balanced.

What makes you think I don't? What makes you think that I don't recognise the right of Macedonian Slavs to reclaim themselves as a separate nation from Bulgarians and Serbians? Was it the fact that I pointed out that up until VERY recently they were part of the Bulgarian nation? That doesn't deny Macedonian Slavs the right to be a nation of its own, it only points out that they can't change history up until they point where they decided to be separate. It's just doesn't work. It'll never work. Bulgarians don't really recognise Macedonian Slavs as a separate nation, and neither does VMORO - that's a fact. The Bulgarian govertnment has recognised and promoted the idea of a Separate "Macedonian" nation for one simple reason: That to them it's by default a "Macedonian Bulgarian" nation which at any time might be incorporated to the Bulgarian state. Macedonian Slav land claims on Northern Greece are for the Bulgarians a vision of compensating their losses in the Balkan Wars. In the Bulgarian side it's all a game of diplomacy which doesn't give a crap about the Macedonian Slavic ethnic feelings, it's all about their nationalist dream of expanding their teritorry all the way to the Aegean Sea. Actually I feel quite stupid to be telling you so, I thought this was common knowledge to people of basic understanding of the political situation. If you really care to know what I believe about the Macedonian Slavic nation here goes. There has indeed been a Slavic ethnic group in the region of Macedonia that recognise itself different from the Serbs and Bulgars. This ethnic group has existed before the official promotion of a Macedonian nation by Tito but in very smaller numbers, that's a fact that VMORO and no Bulgarians would ever accept (despite what they openly claim). It has not pre-existed however before the early 20th century. Why? Because they're simply not a historical record to verify so. This is also proved by the pathetic attempts of Slav Macedonian nationalists to claim Bulgarian intellectuals and artists as "Macedonian" and other similar efforts to invent or even nick history. That's something which I can't understand. Macedonian Slavs can't realise that "you can fool some people some times, but you can't fool all the people all the time". They would have to burn all existing historical records and magically replace them with new ones in order to be taken seriously in the world. Sure they can fool a random unsuspected reader who browses wikipedia into thinking that the Republic of Macedonia is just the democratic version of Philip's Kingdom. Sure they can basically force (by leaving no choice) a bunch of people to refer to them as "Macedonians", and their language as "Macedonia". What I really, really, REALLY, don't understand how could any ethnic group of a basic national pride could take satisfaction in that. I don't understand how can you take satisfaction by making people to confuse you with something you're not: A glorious ancient civilization which in reality is alien to you, and ethnically related to the people you officially hate (the Greeks). Life can have a sick sense of irony I suppose. How could at an individual level anyone could find satisfaction in being confused by someone else? Imagine of a person who changes his name to "Einstein" and lies all around that he's the grandchild of Albert Einstein, and gets a satisfaction by living under this illusion (which is of course bought only by the stupidest individuals). Does that ring a bell? Yet the answer to this is not so complicated, and of course it has to do with the socio-political situation of an newly formed "Republic" which has its roots in a recent communist regime. I don't try to imply any offence by this. For instance why do you think that China wins more and more medals in the Olympics? Why didn't they win any in the past? Why did the USSR used to win all the medals in the Olympics? Why do you think that ex-Soviet countries still win many medals in the Olympics in comparison to their population and current economy? Do you think that it's all at random? I hope you get the hint. As I was saying the answer is simple and it has to do with FYROM's recent communist past. It's not that people accept to live in a national myth and take satisfaction by people who buy it, it's just that the people have bought their national myth themselves. As I mentioned earlier, a small Slavic ethnic group which recognised itself different from Serbs and Bulgars did exist in Macedonia prior to Tito. This ethnic group recognised itself as "Macedonian Orthodox" and had broken off the Bulgarian nation mainly for religious reasons. Those people however who during WW2 declared to be "Macedonian Orthodox", were poor and uneducated people who didn't of mean that they hailed from the Great Alexander. After Tito's promotion of the existence a Macedonian nation, many other Slavic groups of the reason bought the story. Newer generations lived on the idea of being "Macedonian", without really knowing what this word stands for. The educated masses took advantage of ancient history and did what every reasonable nation-builder would: Try to link the "Macedonian part" of "Macedonian Orthodox" with the Macedonian of the Old. Then of course they had to create some history inbetween. As nobody could hide the fact that they were a Slavic-speaking people, they decided to steal the Slavic history of the region, as what's closest to the of course? Bulgaria. Then ludicrous claims continue, and they even try to label Tsar Samuil's Empire as "Macedonian" (completely ignoring the fact that the Greek emperor who conquered it was nicknamed 'Bulgar-Slayer'). This is also extremely comical, as the Macedonian Slav nation was at the time still part of the Bulgarian. In a way it's as if Bulgarians are trying to steal Bulgarian history and call it something else. So there you have it, you have created a nation. The question that follows is for how long can such a ridiculous fairy-tale can last. When FYROM one day advances and breaks off completey from its communist past (and the nationalist propaganda that follows), people will look back and laugh. I just hope for your own sake that this happens before the country is incorporated into Greater Albanian or Greater Bulgaria. I don't really see the point in you pointing out how many letters "Macedonian Slavs" have sent to the EU. My paragraph aims to declare that the term "Slav" is not a racial slur as you constantly claim, and therefore doesn't intend to offend. If it does offend some people (and it probably does) that's a different story. Greeks are also offended by the use of RoM over FYROM, but the matter was settled by a label claiming "Usage of RoM doesn't mean to offend Greeks blah blah blah". So this sentense aims to declare the same thing, hence I'm moving it back. PS, I find it extremely ironic that you call me a racist. I'm not the one who's inventing and promoting pseudo-scientific researches which aim to degrade a nation by linking it to a non-white background. Miskin 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the use of the term Macedonian Slavs misleading, I mean if there are atleast two Slavic nations in the wider region of Macedonia (the Bulgarians and this nation) how would one know which nation Macedonian Slavs refers to? Anyway, most credible sources call this nation Macedonians, apart from Greek POV there is no reason whatsoever to call them Macedonians. REX 16:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry REX but I don't waste my time with children. Miskin 15:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean you can't prove that you are right and that I (and a large part of the non-Greek POV pushing scholarly establishment) are wrong. Hmmm, interesting! All right Miskin, we'll all accept your name for this ethnic group because if we disagree with you you'll call us childish(!) REX 15:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dammit, you busted me. Miskin 12:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That's right. I proved that you have no sources to support your arguments. REX 13:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Εάν όντως μιλάς Ρωμαίικα θα σου εξηγήσω. Miskin 13:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Δεν μιλάω Ρωμαίικα, μιλάω Ελληνικά. Τα Ρουμανικά λέγονται Ρωμαίικα!!!!!!!!!!! REX 14:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In English please. MATIA 14:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Και που έμαθες εσύ Ρωμαίικα; Με την επιφήτηση του Αγίου Πνεύματος;

Σου είπα, δεν μιλάω Ρωμαίικα/Ρουμανικά(!) Μιλάω Ελληνικά. REX 15:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ρωμαίικα = Νέα Ελληνικά, για να μαθαίνεις. Miskin 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Όχι, Ρωμαίικα<Ρωμαίος<Ρώμη (Δες και αυτό). Τα Ρουμανικά είναι Λατινογενής γλώσσα, τα Ελληνικά δεν είναι! Είναι σαν το ζήτημα FYROM και Macedonian Slavs, οι Έλληνες τα θέλουν όλα τα ονόματα δικά τους. Αδίκως βέβαια, ως συνήθως. REX 16:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't care, but the Hellenes were called Romioi. The term Romioi and the term Rumania derives from Romania or Romanity, aka the Eastern Roman Empire. Maybe you know the latter as Byzantium. You may want to read Ritsos poem about Romiosini, or Palamas thesis about the name Romios, or perhaps you may want to listen to a, not that old, bouzouki song Romios agapise Romia, Romia ke Thessalonikia. MATIA 17:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

GREEK POV ALERT! There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the Eastern Roman Empire (ie Byzantium) was called in its day Romania/Ρωμανία or anything similar. This is just Greek POV and this theory is just supported by Greek scholars. What does that tell us? REX 17:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The same time-travellers who went to Macedon and planted those damn stone inscriptions (to be found today by archaelogists) went back to Byzantium and forced the Roman Emperor to sign treaties as the Emperor of Romania or The Emperor of Hellenes. This is not POV ALERT, this is the X Files. MATIA 17:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Aren't the X-Files fictional? It really does seem like the Greek POV pushers here on Wikipedia are trying to hijack all the ethnic/regional names. They are trying to say that the Macedonians are Greek, they are trying to say that Romania is a Greek name, they are trying to include the of slavonic descent Macedonians in the same category as the Bulgarian Magedonians inder the POV name Macedonian Slavs. What next? They are going to claim that Japan is also a Greek name and derives from Ionia/Ιωνία? REX 18:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok let's make a point,

• REX says:

It really does seem like the Greek POV pushers here on Wikipedia are trying to hijack all the ethnic/regional names. They are trying to say that the Macedonians are Greek, they are trying to say that Romania is a Greek name Dictionary.com says: romaic adj : relating to modern Greece or its inhabitants or its language n : the modern Greek vernacular (syn: Romaic, Demotic)[19]

• REX says:GREEK POV ALERT! There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the Eastern Roman Empire (ie Byzantium) was called in its day Romania/Ρωμανία or anything similar. This is just Greek POV and this theory is just supported by Greek scholars. What does that tell us?

The Byzantine Empire wiki-article says: The Empire's native Greek name was Ῥωμανία Romanía or Χασιλεία Ῥωμαίων Basileía Romaíon, a direct translation of the Latin name of the Roman Empire, Imperium Romanorum. Miskin 15:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What does this tell us? Maybe that most of REX's ludicrous claims are the result of his own ignorance? Alas this "anti-Greek" attitude is quite typical for certain masses of troubled Albanians and other envious Balkanite "developing", ex-commie nations... I think a point is made, you lack fundamental historical knowledge. I was right to have never taken you seriously. See you later kid. Miskin 15:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a revelation of Miskin's new profound interest in the truth. He however ignores the fact that vast majority of sources refer to the ethnic group discussed in this article as Macedonians, not Macedonian Slavs and that the term Macedonian Slavs is misleading as there are more than one slavic ethnic groups in the wider region of Macedonia. He wants us to accept his POV as binding. Gee, well that's not going to happen, is it? REX 15:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Far-right narrow-minded Greek extremism

Does far-right narrow-minded Greek extremism lie at the root of this dispute? I mean why can't these people be called Macedonians? Just because Greece happens to have a region called Macedonia? Then why does China protest to Mongolia calling itself Mongolia because China also has a region called Mongolia? Using the term Macedonian Slavs is misleading because there are more than one Slavic-speaking ethnic groups in the wider region of Macedonia (the Bulgarians as well as the principal ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia). Why should Wikipedia mislead so many inquisitive people? Just because the Greeks think that they have the right to play with the truth. There are more sources referring to this ethnic group as Macedonians than Macedonian Slavs. The Greek extremists may not like that but Wikipedia's purpose is not to appease them, but to spread the truth. Also, Ethnologue clearly states the number of Macedonian speakers in Greece. Because nobody here is likely to know better than them and because there is no evidence to support to reverse, we will just have to use that figure regardless if the Greek extremists like it of not. REX 20:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this thing over with

I think that the best way solve our little dispute here is to try the steps outlined in the dispute resolution process. I suggest (although I am not sure that a request for comment has been made in the past on an other page, Macedonia I think it was, but I'm not sure) that we should request Mediation. However I you all think that it is clear enough that the ethnic group which the article refers to is indeed called Macedonians we may not have to push this thing further. Personally, I feel that the name Macedonian Slavs cannot be used because there are more than one Slavic ethnic groups in the wider region of Macedonia which spans three states. There are, as well as the ethnic group we are discussing now, the Bulgarians who live in the Bulgarian part of Macedonia. Anyway, we can refer to the encyclopaedias: Britannica, Hutchinson, Webster's World, Philip's; as well as the CIA World Factbook and the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All these sources refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. Are they all wrong? I don't think so. This ethnic group should be called Macedonians and as this is the neutral way of phrasing it (all the encyclopaedias above are neutral) Wikipedia policy requires that we use this NPOV way of phrasing it. Wikipedia should be neutral, it should not be the way the Greeks want it! REX 11:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I've added some more info below, however, there is a RfC for the dispute here, I've posted it here... how much time should we wait for a request for a Mediation? BTW, it is interesting to note that every non-Greek engaged in it,so far, sees no reason why we shouldn't refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. Sounds familliar? :-) --FlavrSavr 23:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, Encarta will change this non-sence and in its next edition it will call us with our real name, Macedonians. Actually, it seems like Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia which is forcing the use of the term "Macedonian Slav".

Why is that? Of course, because the Greek (and often Bulgarian) nationalism on Wikipedia is very powerful, even more powerful than the NPOV policy. They both will like to ignore our nation and present it as artificial, all in favor of their wish to hide the truth of the Balkan wars.

Even in the poll that was organized, it was too obvious that only the Greek and Bulgarian nationals deffend this artificial "Macedonian Slav" policy.

But, there are about 2 million people in the region and at least 700000 more around the world who feel different, who feel that they are Macedonian and will never accept any other naming.

Wikipedia should urgently react and change this non-sence. It is about time to stand on the way of the Greek nationalism and remove all the assimilative elements on Wikipedia. Macedonian Slav is NON-EXISTANT nation, because noone in the world identifies like one.

We are Macedonians and noone can take that right away from us.

Macedonian 13:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you are Macedonians, Mr. "secret human rights organization" Sterbinski. In fact you are about 35% of the Macedonians. You are not the Macedonians, however. Chronographos 11:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Again... when you have no fact that supports your nationalistic and assimilative position, you use senceless atacks.

I could very easily hide that I am conected with the i_sterbinski nickname. But I didn't because there was nothing to hide. I do not regret letting someone else using my nickname because it already gave result. Check the next edition of Encarta. Maybe Wikipedia does not care, but MS certainly cares if they get sued for breacking human rights.

I said what I had to say and your opinion is worthless to me. Macedonian 01:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've been off this discussion for a while. This is due to objective factors (lack of time) and due to subjective reasons (frustration, because this lasts too long, despite its absurdity). And, I am again and again, repeating my position on this matter quoting what should be the alpha and omega of this encyclopedia - the NPOV policy (that is, I remind you, non-negotiable): Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. The majority of encyclopedias (actually all of them, except MSN Encarta), international organizations (all of them), governments (all of them, except Greece, and Cyprus, and maybe Romania), news media outlets (BBC oficially apologized for using that term) say that the name of this ethnic group is Macedonians. --FlavrSavr 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, although the above sources actually constitute the common, popular usage of this term, the Google Test also confirms this conclusion. So, I really cannot impose common usage, to something that is already in common usage, Chronographos. --FlavrSavr 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

And what is perhaps the most important thing, "Macedonians" is the self-identifying term of this ethnic group. There is a specific policy, namely the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy dealing with this matter, and practising it means this (I've pasted ChrisO's table):

Criterion	Option 1 Macedonians (people) ‡	Option 2 Macedonian Slavs
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current official name of entity †	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity †	1	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. † Use English translation of name, where available ‡ Disambiguation is required to distinguish between the multiple meanings of this term.

And this: We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used. --FlavrSavr 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As for me striving for exclusivity of the term, that is ridicilous. I don't suggest that the current Macedonians article should be erased, or that modern Greek Macedonians shouldn't be referred to as Macedonians (although virtually nobody refers to that term). However, you cannot negate the existence of a modern ethnic group named Macedonians. We can have an entire article whether they have the right or not to bear that name, but it is an objective fact that they identify themselves as such, and are identified by the majority as such. So, to conclude: Chronographos, you are making a false accusation: I am not striving for the monopolization of the term. Neither does the Greek Helsinki Watch, nor the UN, nor the CoE, or every international organization - they are simply respecting the Universal Charter of Human Rights - Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. There is no such nationality as Slav, Macedonian Slav, or Slavomacedonians. There aren't any formal protection of the regional identity. So, not only I am not striving for the monopolization, but even if I do - national identity does take precedence over regional identity (although undoubtedly important). People are (still) organized in nation-states, not region-states. People engage in war (sadly) because of different nationality, not because of different region they dwell in. --FlavrSavr 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, what I found racist about your behaviour is you naming my ethnic group a crowd. Also, you've been quick to label me as a "editor from the Slavic crowd that shouldn't be taken seriously", although, at that point I haven't made a slightest edit on the relevant article (Macedonia). You also claimed (and you still do) that I somehow supported the Genetic research although I openly refused its conclusions before your "you are racist" label, and I repeated my position again - Talk:Macedonia_(region)#Caution:A_genetic_research. --FlavrSavr 00:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, you do not have to keep defending from their attacks. It is normal for them to use direct atacks when they can not find any fact that supports their possition. Any reasonable mind will understand that all words of theirs against you are simple and senceless try to make your name dirty. But, I will repeat... without any supporting fact.

Macedonian 00:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am well aware that personal attacks play a large role in their argumentation, however, I'm more concerned about attracting neutral editors, such as REX, here. I am confident that there is absolutely no reason for labeling this ethnic group "Macedonian Slav", and I mostly refer to the NPOV policy. I think it is only a matter of time until this is changed. Because the RfC doesn't work (it didn't attract significant number of neutral editors), I guess I'd be taking the dispute to Mediation. Wikipedia has rules and policies, and it is shame that they aren't enough human resources (I guess that's the problem) to implement them. --FlavrSavr 01:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I am neutral on this question or not, however, it strikes me that this dispute has gone on long enough, and it really should be resolved, through some external means if internal discussion does not lead to a consensus. So, please, do mediation or anything else you can think of. Generally, I think a few people, neither Greek nor Slavic in origin, would easily arrive to a consensus on this question. It's the nationalistic feelings on both sides that cloud the issue. Ornil 02:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not fair to say that defending our own identity is a nationalistic action. I do not push the Greeks to change their name and identity. They are the ones who try to change my identity.

Even if we keep the history away, keeping my identity and choosing how to call myself is my basic human right. Any support to the Greek position on this issue is denying my basic human right and ignoring the reality.

I am Macedonian and Macedonian Slav has no meaning for me. How can Wikipedia has a text about a nationality "Macedonian Slav" when noone identifies himself with that name? I appologise for my strong words, but that is lear non-sence. Macedonian 01:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I know that this dispute doesn't really concern me as I'm Irish, but it appears to be perfectly clear that these people are called Macedonians. These is ample evidence to suggest such a thing and after reading the whole talk page I still couldn't come up with a good reason to use the name Macedonian Slavs. GrandfatherJoe 07:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it should concern you because you are Irish. FYROM's first President, a communist called Kiro Gligorov, cynically explained his rationale thus: "Why should I be a minority in your country when you can be a minority in mine?". Ring a bell? Remember how 6 out of the 9 Ulster counties were singled out to create Northern Ireland, in such a way as to produce a certain majority there? (Why should I be a Unionist minority in your country when you can be a Republican minority in mine?) I am sure you are well aware of the aftermath.

Macedonia is geographical region and no ethnic group living there is entitled to monopolize the term "Macedonians" for themselves: this applies equally both to the Greek majority (60%) and to the Slavic minority (35%). Indeed if anyone may claim the term "Macedonian" for themselves, it is the Greek majority, whose claim to the region's millennia-old linguistic and cultural heritage is the oldest and firmest. Still we Greeks are willing to share this designation with the minority. It is their endeavor to monopolize the designation for themselves that Greece will not accept. Chronographos 09:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a complete misleading. Kiro Gligorov never said something like that. He was respected president from all nations that live in Macedonia and has won many, many international prizes as such. He is a complete anti-nationalis. Again, you are giving senceless atack because of not having a valid facts and proofs of your position.

Giving those per-cent of yours have no meaning. It is a fact that 100% of the so called "Macedonian Slavs" call themselves "Macedonians". Also it is a fact that more than 80% of the sources (including the most reliable and trusted ones) use the name "Macedonians" to identify those people.

And let me remind you that non of us Macedonians oppose the Greeks living in the teritory of Macedonia to use the term Macedonian for themselves. But, the truth is that NON of you does. You all identify yourself as Greeks, no matter do you live in Kilkis or Athens. No international source has ever registered that you identify yourself as Macedonian. But, all of them know as a fact that we all identify ourselves as Macedonian. Macedonian 01:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Chronographos, that is POV. Encyclopaedias should be neutral. It doesn't make any difference what I think about the Troubles in Northern Ireland or anything. What is true is what matters. You just revealed that your sole purpose for participating in this discussion is to make the article conform to your POV. You don't care what is true and what is not, you just want to see your POV on the article. Well Chronographos I've got news for you: Wikipedia:No original research, IF one can find certain facts in verifiable sources he or she is obliged to use them. We cannot come up with a theory on our own just because we have researched and have found out that some people disagree with the usage of the term Macedonians. I'm sure that the editors of Britannica, the Hutchinson encyclopaedia, Phillip's encyclopaedia etc knew that Greeks don't like the usage of the term Macedonians. That didn't stop them from using them, did it? I advise you to behave like an adult and accept what you cannot change. These people are practically called Macedonians by everyone except the Greeks! The Greek view is the minority view here. Because you are so concerned with the majority being the right way to go then you shouldn't object to the usage of the term Macedonians. This is a clear display of double standards (which you claim to hate). Behave like an adult! GrandfatherJoe 10:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my, I am being admonished! How shall I ever survive this? What part of "Macedonia is a geographical region" don't you understand? The fact that no ethnic group living therein may monopolize the term for themselves is neither POV nor "original research" (!), it is common sense and derives directly from the geographical nature of the term Macedonia. If you want to claim the NPOV moral high ground, you should propose how best the term "Macedonian" should be disambiguated when applied to the various peoples and states in Macedonia. Wikipedia's solution so far was to vote and opt for "Macedonian Slavs" whenever referring to the Slavic inhabitants of FYROM. And your proposal would be? Chronographos 10:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, for the 1000th time: We do not wish or have any goal to monopolize the name Macedonia. Actually, it seems that all your facts are based on the lie. Let me remind you that I (or any other Macedonian) never opposed you usign the name Macedonia or Macedonian for yourself. You are actually the one who want to monopolise the name and not let us using it. If you feel as Macedonian, say it to the world. Even if you do, your identity will still be Greek. But do not try to stop me to use the only identity that I know for myself: Macedonian. I have no other identity to choose from. And even if I did, the shoice would be mine and you would not have any right to oppose it.

It is simple: It is my basic humman right. But, reading all the reports of the human right organizations around the world about the human rights in Greece, it is more than clear that you actually have no idea what "basic human right" mean.

Greece is the country with most negative critics in Europe. Use a simple google search and you will see how truth is that: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2BHuman+%2Brights+%2BGreece+%2Breports

Macedonian 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Again and again people try to convince us why "people X" should be called "Macedonians" or "Macedonian Slavs". But deciding what they should be called is not our job. Our job is merely ascertaining which name is used, following the principles of Wikipedia's naming convention. To reiterate, any argument about why either of the names is morally or historically right or wrong is misplaced. Zocky 10:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I am arguing for clarity and disambiguation, not morality or righteousness. Chronographos 10:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You are arguing for your own POV, not for the reality. The text for the Macedonians can include explanation of your own (and official Greek) POV, even the Bulgarian one. But, in same time it has to include the Macedonian "answers" of your position. So, the readers will decide who has better facts. What is a matter of fact, we are talking about my nationality, not yours. You are not the one whose identity is denied. I am. Macedonian 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Either that or we could request Mediation. That is of course unless you're afraid. Britannica, Hutchinson, Webster, Phillip's and Ethnologue don't seem to be having the doubts you have. I doubt that they are written by Macedonian nationalists, but I believe that they are written by scholars who are sensitive and insightful and above all NEUTRAL. Unlike you whose purpose here is to disrupt Wikipedia. That is what you are doing. REX 12:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all the problem is that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, even extreme nationalist as you, Chronographos. Macedonian 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

And yes, it is about time to get mediation on this. The Wikipedians should see how ridicolous is the Greek position and they should understand how easy a nationalistic group can even change the name of the whole nation here on Wikipedia, so it will never happen again. Macedonian 01:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Chronographos, I find your uncivil behaviour appalling. If this is how you all have been behaving no wonder a consensus hasn't been reached yet. I suggest you read Wikipedia:No original research. You will discover something you have obviously never heard of before. Official policy requires that you refrain with coming up with bizarre theories on your own especially when reliable sources say the opposite. Our reliable sources being of course the encyclopaedias Britannica, Hutchinson, Webster's, Phillip's etc. You can't surely believe that (as REX bluntly puts it and I have noticed that you never answer that accusation) they are wrong in referring to this ethnic group as Macedonians. You may sneer at me but we know that you are like the Irish police officers. None of them carry guns, in the same way you have no sources. You may shout, scream or even burn yourself alive in protest, but that will not change the fact that the term Macedonian Slavs cannot be used (it can also refer to Bulgarians). And given that fellow encyclopaedias use the name Macedonians, we can assume that Wikipedia will stick out like a sore thumb for saying something different. I really expected more mature behaviour from you, especially considering the claims that you have on your UserPage. GrandfatherJoe 13:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You are imagining things. I was not being uncivil and I did not claim any "original research", as you keep carping (or should I say "harping"?) about. If Britannica chooses to be confusing and ambiguous, that's their problem. It is not to be replicated blindly. Wikipedia is not a glorified redirect to Britannica, Google or what have you. So don't patronise me, Grandpa, it will be to no avail. I am rather flattered that you have busied yourself reading my contributions and copying my style. I hope that your, apparently ample, free time has been enriched by your reading what I have written. You have not answered my substantive question though: namely how best to disambiguate the various groups forming the 4 million inhabitants of Macedonia (all 3 thousand Bulgarians included). Chronographos 14:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

By using the names they use for themselves. You promote your nationality as Greek (not Macedonian), Bulgarians say they are Bulgarian, Albanians say that they are Albanian etc. If Ronaldo says he is Brazilian, will you deny that only because he spent 5 of the last 8 years in Spain and the other 3 in Italy? That is why you have the words region, nation and country... by using them you can make difference between them all. If you want to reffer to thge inhabitants of the region Macedonia, use that exact naming: inhabitants of the region Macedonia. But, when you reffer to the people in the Republic of Macedonia, if they feel Macedonian, you should call then Macedonians. Macedonian 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

GrandfatherJoe I honestly thing that you're out of your element here. This article is not about "what most people officially or unofficially call the Slavomacedonians", it's about a name that best reflects reality. Why? Simply because there is no officially recognised name at the moment, neither for the state of FYROM nor for its nationality. Everbody refers to the country as "Macedonia" and its people as "Macedonians" for the obvious convention that it offers. In a more neutral perspective where reality is above convention, we have to choose a name that doesn't offend the numerous groups of people that also refer to themselves as macedonians and take offence when a ethnic group (historically alien to the name) is trying to monopolise it. Last but not least, I find extremely retarded the argument of the type Macedonian Slavs is not a good name because there are other Slavs in the region and there might be confusion that is being brought up here lately. People who seriously bring this up as an argument, obviously don't have a realistic understanding of the situation. Why? Because the term "Macedonian Slavs" refers solely to the Slavic ethnic group of FYROM (some 60% of the country's population), and not the the nationality (which can be ethnically Albanian, Turkish, Bulgarian, Serbian etc). So in fact, the addition of the term "Slavs" serves for that very purpose, i.e. identify the ethnic group which is supposed to be the representative of the state. So according to the logic of your arguments, we should change the name of Saudi Arabia to something else, because there are other non-Saudi arab groups in the region, isn't that right? I hope you get my point. You probably fall to the trap of romantically comparing the Slavomacedonian-Greek situation with the Irish-British conflict of NI. It's normal for someone who is not familiar with the situation to fall into that trap, besides, that's one of the targets of the Slavomacedonian propaganda (to attract pity). Well for what it matters, the Slavs were the ones who invaded the region of Macedonia in the middle-ages just like the English invaded Scotland and Ireland. Despite what fanatic Balkanites claim, the native population of the region has been Greek since ancient times, I think that's an undisputed fact which is constantly tried to be swept under the rug. Lastly, in case you didn't know, the region of FYROM is not the region that has been historically known as Macedonia, it was only baptised "Macedonia" in the 20th century in order to lay-land claims to the authentic region of Macedonia which lies in Northern Greece (See Greek Macedonia), which coincidentally happens to have access to the Aegean Sea and rich oil resources... :] In the early '90 when FYROM obtained independence, the Slavomacedonian government issued notes displaying the White Tower of Thessaloniki as a Slavomacedonian symbols. The land claims were officially removed after the embargo from Greece, but in the Slavomacedonian culture it's still part of their nationalist myths. This is not about the human rights of a supressed, poor ethnic group like they're trying to make you believe, it's about the long-term expansionist policy of an unsatisfied ex-communist state. Miskin 14:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There is officially recognized name for the country as "Republic of Macedonia" by more than 110 nations (which is 2/3 of all the ones that have diplomatic relations with the country).

But, even the ones who fail under the Greek presure and call the country FYROM, even them call its inhabitants Macedonians. Everyone except Greece and Cyprus.

Also, talking about people who call themselves Macedonians, but are actually of Greek nationality was never registered, at least not in a bigger form by any authority. That is all just a imagined fact that has no real bases.

BTW, when you use %, at least try to be accurate. It is kind of boring you to change the officially recognized % in order to suit you and your so called "facts" better.

No one would like to change the name of Saudi Arabia because that is the name they have chosen. But, you want to change the name I use for myself. Do you really beleive I will change my identity to Macedonian Slav just because you don't like my real identity (Macedonian)? It kind of makes me wonder... Who the hell you think you are?

I am not planing to open a history discussion here, especially about some 2300 years ago... but why would someone call himself Macedonian if he was Greek? Simple answer... it is completely idiotic to think of that period of time in the terms of nations. Learn some history, the first nations were formed more than 15 centuries after.

And at last... do you really think that Macedonia (or whatever you call it) can invade Greece? Can you please give us some bigger non-sence to laugh a little more?

Wanna talk about nationalism? Explain to me why the people in Greece that identify themselves as non-Greek and Macedonian or Albanian have no basic human rights of education and culture events on their own language? Why is their number only estimated by international organizations, but never checked?

You should know that the history of the Balkan is too mixed and confusing. It is even senceless to argue here about it, because we will never agree. But, the reality is something else. The reality that is clear as a tear: Macedonians is the name of the nation that you are talking about.Macedonian 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, I totally sympathise with your views, but your arguments have very little credibility. They may be true, but they also are, for the purposes of verifiability, baseless conspiracy theories. There is no proof for such statements and in my opinion they seem to touch upon original research. The Macedonian government has said many times that they have no expansionist ambitions. This country is in economic crisis, has little cultural awareness and has limited defence forces. You surely aren't suggesting that they will even attempt anything against a NATO and EU member. All I know is that FlavrSavr's criteria above certainly enable us Wikipedia to use the name Macedonians. The many different encyclopaedias mentioned call these people Macedonians and you cannot deny that the Bulgarians are also technically Macedonian Slavs. On the hypothetical side, even if we did call these people Macedonian Slavs, what difference would that make to any ambitions that the Republic of Macedonia does or doesn't have? Britannica calls them Macedonians. They can't be wrong, can they? GrandfatherJoe 16:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're talking very abstractly. If you want to question the reliability of my arguments or claims, then all you have to do is be specific and you'll get proof for every single one of them. The reason I didn't include proof earlier (such as photos of Slavomacedonian notes with the White Tower), is because I regard some things as common knowledge. You're repeating yourself about Britannica there, although I explained the difference between "Macedonian" as a nationality and "Macedonian Slav" as an ethnic group. For the record - the Irish and British policemen do have guns. They're just obliged by law to leave them in the trunk and use them only when needed. But you didn't know that did you? Miskin 15:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe some insane person did those postcards. Why I never saw one? I spent my whole life living in the capital of Macedonia, Skopje.

The insane person will not change his mind because of the Greek presure over the name Macedonia. It will even make him hate you and wish to invade you more. But, only an insane person can beleive that Macedonia can invade a NATO and EU member as Greece is, a country much more powerful than they are. Macedonian 01:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my oppinion that no one is perfect, so mistakes can be made. But, in this case only Wikipedia is making a mistake promoting an non-existant and unaccepted name for our nation. I will repeat again... no one of us identifies with the name Macedonian Slav. We are all Macedonians, that is how we feel and that is how we will die. Macedonian 02:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about "what most people officially or unofficially call the Slavomacedonians", it's about a name that best reflects reality.

Err... no. This article is not about the name. It's about the people. Incidentally, for deciding how things are called, "what most people officially or unofficially call" something is exactly how we determine the name to be used. Please read Wikipedia:Naming convention for more info. Zocky 19:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be correct iff there had been an officially recognised name for FYROM. Since there is no official name then there's no obligation to use the POV one. Out of the people and official organisations who call Macedonian Slavs simply as Macedonians, how many do you honestly believe that they consider them to be "Macedonian"? I can site you scientific sources that refer to them as "Western Bulgarians". Why? Because for anyone who has a basic knowledge of history, not only it's retarded to call those people Macedonians, but it's also insulting. It feels strange having to state the obvious every single time. Miskin 15:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstable, Macedonia has officially recognized name. Just Greece and Cyprus use another name than Republic of Macedonia in direct contacts with us. Also, more than 110 nations (of about 150 with which we have direct diplomatic relations) recognize Macedonia under the same name: Republic of Macedonia. Despite the Greek presure, this number is quickly rising. Even USA, a country which has close to 1 million people with Greek origin recognized our name as it is: Republic of Macedonia. Not to mention the names of China, Russia, then the parlaments of Great Britain, Germany and Italy (soon Spain too), all of the last Greek partners in EU.

Also, conecting the antique Macedonians with the modern Macedonians is just partly mistaken. The mixing truth the centuries was quite intensive, especially because all of us here (except the Albanians) around are of Ortodox religion. Just to remind you, we are talking about 25 centuries ago, a time which was at least 15-20 centuries before the moment when the modern nations were getting formed. It is simple: all of us in the region (whether Greek, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Albanian and even Romanian) have conections to Macedon and those people. To be honest, I wouldn't be proud to be connected with Alexander the Great, a person who was even bigger killer than Hitler was, but I am, same as you are.

Let me just stress the fact that NOONE can have exclusivity over that part of the history. Several times before you were arguing that we want exclusivity over Macedon, but we always say that it is not truth. Actually, you are the one who want to get exclusivity over Macedon, which is quite clear after your tryes to shut us up.

Macedonian 01:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Miskin, but what about the fact that the UN refers to this ethnic group as Macedonians? Yes, they are doing this out of convention... What about the Greek Helsinki Watch referring to this ethnic group as "ethnic Macedonians". Please, you can barely hide (actually you're not even trying to hide) that you resent this ethnic group (if not, why referring to it as a "crowd"?!?). You keep claiming that the are significant scientific sources that consider this ethnic group as Western Bulgarians. That is true, but they are to be found, in the past. Some sources considered them Southern Serbs, Slavophone Greeks, you name it. No one considers them as such, in modern times. Carleton Coon is dead about 20 years or more. IHis scientific racism is ridiculed. However, you seem very fond of his theories. --FlavrSavr 16:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I want to hear your apology about your false accusations against me as a person. I leave to others to judge about your opinion on this ethnic group, the "Slavic crowd". --FlavrSavr 16:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw little of relevance to the issue discussed here on Wikipedia:Naming convention, except maybe the second sentence: "It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone." Chronographos 19:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And why do you think that this case is going to be one of those exceptions. Because it suits you? REX 19:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

All right! I see that childish behaviour is quite common so I'll try to guide you. Can each party give a brief summary of what they want and any evidence they have to support it. GrandfatherJoe 20:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What we want is simple and short: Wikipedia to use the common and the only acceptable name for our nationality: Macedonians. Evidence: Putting here the names of 2-2,5 million people all over the world who identify their nacionality as Macedonian would take a lot of time. The Greeks are the only ones opposing this, but despite their political and economical power (which is far higher than the power of Republic of Macedonia), everyone else is using the name "Macedonians".

A simple google test: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22macedonian+slav%22

A seach for the term "Macedonian slav" gives only 976 results, many of them as a part of Wikipedia or as a part of some pro-Greek web site. Anyone who uses google will know how little 976 results is. It is simply very rarely used term. Why? Because no one identifies with it. Macedonian 02:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For those who are unfamiliar with the prolonged history of this dispute: after years of edit wars, I attempted to break the deadlock earlier this year with a collaborative effort to gather opposing arguments and have a discussion about them. Look at /Naming to see what we came up with. Unfortunately, I also called a somewhat premature poll (see /Poll), which ended in a new deadlock (29:29). Maybe we should get new, neutral people to look at the evidence and have an intelligent discussion about it. Zocky 03:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Zocky, maybe we should request Wikipedia:Mediation. Naturally, the Greeks will resist it because their lies and circular arguments will then be exposed. GrandfatherJoe 07:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Zocky. Don't you think that some of the agreed facts, for example The Slav-Macedonian National Liberation Front are missing from this article? +MATIA ☎ 09:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, it is included into the article, thanks to Greek vandalism of the "Why call People X Macedonian Slavs?" secton. There are also other brilliant arguments: "The creation of a "Macedonian" ethnicity is an old commintern (1923)plan in order to create territorial claims against Greece". On the other hand, other irrelevant facts are missed, such as the fact that the only attempt to impose the Slav add-on on an international level ended as a disaster:[20] - Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards (10% of the Macedonian citizens, my additon) to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. This is not important as a decisive factor on whether we should refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians and Macedonian Slavs (as it is a subjective criteria) to illustrate that Macedonians resent the term (although this can be use against the claim that Macedonians don't find this term offensive), but it is important to illustrate the fact that no international institution refers to this ethnic group as Macedonian Slavs, and the only attempt to do that was a complete fiasco.

Zocky, I'm glad that you're back. The poll was a bad idea from the start, and I have warned you about that. You're right to say that we shouldn't discuss whether this ethnic group has the right or not to be called Macedonians. I suggest that all should have a look at the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy, which is now official. I also suggest to take this dispute to Mediation. --FlavrSavr 14:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, as I have told you these people think that they are above the rules (Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research). There is no reason whatsoever to not call this ethnic group Macedonians. If Britannica can do it, then Wikipedia can do it. It is the NPOV way to go. Unless of course Britannica is influenced by the government of the Republic of Macedonia. That is a possibility. REX 15:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very unluckily the goverment of Macedonia to have a bigger influence than the Greek goverment. Britanica names us Macedonians because of one simple fact: that is the name of our national identity. Macedonian Slav is just artificial construction to satisfy the Greeks, but no one identifies his nationality as Macedonian Slav. Therefore, it is senceless to call these people anyway else than Macedonians.

Macedonian 01:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a great possibility, lol. It has also influenced the other encyclopedias, and the United Nations to refer to them as "Macedonians". We are such a red propagandistic scum! :))) --FlavrSavr 16:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, the Republic of Macedonia's influence is even greater than that of Zionism. That is why they have brainwashed everyone else (except the Greek extremists) into believing something. How curious :-)))))))))))). Do you know what always cracks me up? The deletion of that obviously Greek POV template. It seems that NPOV is returning to Wikipedia. looooooool! REX 17:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wake up to reality, oh fellow Balkanians. No one gives a flying fuck what they're called, except those directly involved and affected. By the way, I find the rapprochement and alliance of Albanian and Slav on this talk page most touching. It means we may even enjoy a lasting peace in the region, which is Greece's overriding strategic objective - for her own interests, of course.--Theathenae 18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Is cooperation strange for you, Theathenae? Just a nationalistic mind as your labels the people with nationalities. We all live in the same world. The "Macedonian" and the "Albanian" knows what is respect, a term that you obviously forgot long time ago. Maybe we had and have problems between us, but we respect each other. At the end, we are all humans. Strangley, but that includes you too.

You only have respect towards your own nationalistic mind. Sad story, though. Macedonian 01:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite human, I'm a sub-Saharan savage, remember? By the way, when is that "human rights" report being released, Igor? I can't wait to see my name in print.--Theathenae 06:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No one gives a flying f*ck says Theathenae. What dreadful language. Obviously the utilisation of barbaric rude language is a characteristic of Greeks. He is not giving them a good name, is he? Apparently they use bad language when they have no sources to promote their arguments and try to scare their opponents into submission. Well, that's not going to happen, is it? REX 21:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As always, racism and homophobia are characteristic of User:REX.--Theathenae 06:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Theathenae's argument was a cheap mud-throwing ment to defocus the whole discussion. It is evident that there are people who are not directly involved, and they take part in this discussion. I will name several of them: REX, GrandfatherJoe, ChrisO, Zocky, Nat Krause... there is a general pattern, they all find absolutely no reason for the Macedonian Slavs term, and anyone even a bit introduced to the NPOV and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy would react the same way. I wouldn't pay much attention to Theathenae's current trend. Theathenae, if you have any arguments concerning this issue, bring them to the discussion. Wikipedia is not an internet forum. --FlavrSavr 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said, it's good to see Albanian and Slav working together instead of killing each other like they were as recently as 2001. If the "Greeks" need be demonised as the common "enemy" they need to "fight" against, so be it. :)--Theathenae 06:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

moved from the section below:

User:REX is far from neutral. His entire raison d'être on Wikipedia is to antagonise Greeks whenever and in any way he can.--Theathenae 06:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't flatter thyslf Δεαθήναι, I know that I am one of your Bêtes noires inter alia, but all I am doing is promoting NPOV while you are promoting Greek extremism. Your Swedish User Arvanítis has been banned for POV pushing and the same will happen to you now. Did you see [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Invitation_to_investigate_the_behaviour_of_User:REX.2C_User:Theathenae_and_their_alleged_sockpuppets|here], your imaginary friend User:Fred Bauder left a little note. He doesn't condemn me like you seem to think. REX 07:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't he? His precise words were "Reject, I might entertain a complaint against REX (talk · contribs) for repeatedly insisting on referring to a language used by Greeks as "Albanian" (which I know to be insulting), but in the absence of input by Theathenae (talk · contribs) making such a complaint and in consideration of our considerable docket, I will refrain." That's hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? As for his latest comment, he rightly thinks we (that includes you) should cool down. I for one am quite content with the present status quo, and see no reason to continue this dispute.--Theathenae 08:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, some scholars have indicated that racially the Greeks are Slavs. It seems like the Ancient Greek Blood of which the distinct nation, the Modern Greeks are so proud is long gone; much like the dative and the aspirate (h) in their language. Well, never mind. I'm sure that the other Slavic nations will welcome the Greeks into the brotherhood of Slavic peoples. So technically the terms Macedonian Slavs and Slavic crowd apply to the Greeks as well as to the Bulgarians and the primary ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia. So, if all the ethic groups of the region Macedonia are Slavs, things can be broken up as follows: Bulgarians of Bulgaria, Greeks of Greece and Macedonians of the Republic of Macedonia. REX 09:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are such scholars - check Hitler. +MATIA ☎ 10:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rexhep's Albanian compatriots, of course, are the pure descendants of the Illyrians - or is it the Pelasgians? In fact, they are so pure they cannot bear to have the air they breathe contaminated by any other ethnic group in Kosova, whether they speak Albanian, like the Ashkalis, or not. Truly sickening.--Theathenae 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, Theathenae's sockpuppet User:Chronographos seems to have lapsed into Absolute Silence ever since it became clear that he is a sockpuppet, a sure indication of guilt. Check this if you don't believe me Special:Contributions/Chronographos. REX 09:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Have you missed him so much that you cannot bear his absence? I'm sure he'll be back with a vengeance soon enough. Also, I am confused as to whether we are Slavs or sub-Saharan savages as User:I_sterbinski claimed. Which is it?--Theathenae 09:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

STRAW MAN ALERT! Theathenae seems to think that by stalling us an GrandfatherJoe wisely noted it will change any of the issues. He is sadly mistaken :-)))))) REX 09:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I need an Albanian to tell me whether I am a Slav or an African, so I can act accordingly.--Theathenae 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Δεαθήναι seems to think thet by setting up straw men he will change the issues. The tactics are well known. And also, what does your username Δεαθήναι mean. Mine comes from REXhep. Lot's of people have that name, including Rexhep Meidani the obvious difference between us being of course that he is an Albanian nationalist and I am not. REX 09:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My username comes from the Greek verb ΘΕΑΘΗΝΑΙ, which you would know if you were Greek as you erroneously claimed until very recently. In fact, Rexhep, you are both an Albanian and and an Albanian nationalist.--Theathenae 09:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

So here's the situation. The attempts to solve this dispute until now have ended as a failure.

The poll

At this point everybody should know that there was a poll concerning the issue. The poll ended up as a draw. Moreover there were several serious errors in the conduct of the poll, namely:

• Sock puppetry on both sides
• Voting on ethnic lines on both sides - the poll didn't have mechanisms to stop partisan voting on both sides, and it didn't attract the necessary number of neutrals to give this poll a credibility
• The "agreed facts" section was vandalized on several occassions (and it remained in its vandalized edition), although, the new 'agreed facts' should have been discussed thoroughly before adding them in the first place, with neutral supervision

The poll didn't reach a consensus.

The RfC

There was a RfC for this issue at the Wikipedia:Naming conflict talk page, at this section. I've posted the Request for RfC here, three weeks ago. No consensus was reached.

Conclusion:Mediation

Because these steps of the dispute resolution procedure didn't work, we should take this dispute in to the next level - Mediation.

Basically, the position of the two POVs are the following

• Macedonian Slavs is the proper name for the article and the use of this term in articles
• Macedonians, Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nationality) or other properly disambiguated option is the proper name for the article and the use of this term in articles

The relevant policies conserning this dispute are: NPOV, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Naming convention.

IMHO, the Wikipedia:Naming conflict is a rather clear policy, but Mediation could also be helpful. So, is there anyone against Mediation? (if so, please state your reasons) --FlavrSavr 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia:Naming conflict official Wikipedia policy? It doesn't have the official policy tag.--Theathenae 08:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not a policy proposal as well. In fact, it is a guideline. Nevertheless we always have the NPOV policy which states: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. It is as clear as day that the majority view of the name of this ethnic group is "Macedonians". To avoid ambiguity, we can use Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nation) or a similar solution. Because I don't believe that you would agree on that, I suggest we should ask for Mediation, and attract neutral users into this debate. --FlavrSavr 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we should expand the agreed facts on Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Naming, after discussion. +MATIA ☎ 09:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe some of you may have misread the structure of the info at /Naming - the Agreed Facts section was not vandalized (that I can see in this version anyway) and it should probably not be expanded, since there aren't many more agreed facts. The section to which you seem to be referring is entitled "options", the remnant of the fact that two names were options in the poll. They list arguments for and against both names, and as such will not be "agreed" or "NPOV", but they should still be worded as if they were written by somebody who doesn't care either way. Maybe we should rename the sections to make it clearer? Zocky 09:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I meant that we could discuss some issues regarding this topic, and then, hopefully, after agreeing on them, include them somewhere in Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Naming. +MATIA ☎ 09:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Zocky, all of the Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Naming part is vandalized, to a lesser and to a greater extent, depending on the section. The 'Agreed facts' section is a bit spared but there are still some missing facts, such as the fact that all international organisations refer to People X as "Macedonians". The 'Options' section is an evident disaster, and I wouldn't like to comment about it. The 'Resources' section is also vandalized - notice the caps locked statements, the links to .gr sites etc. Also, I think that there can be a general conclusion that the international organisations do refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. When it comes to the international media, there is a visible trend of reducing the "Macedonian Slavs" term. BBC officially apologized for using that term. --FlavrSavr 16:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I really believe that we have exhausted all the options - we have reach a point where we cannot reach a solution by ourselves. You are expecting me to invent another name for this ethnic group. I have already told you that I do not oppose that the article name should be Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (people) etc. It's meaning should be visible depending on the context. We should clarify that the article is not about the Ancient Macedonians, nor the other Macedonians that are using this term as a regional identifier. Therefore, involvement of neutral editors as mediators is an objective need. --FlavrSavr 16:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have a question for both of you: Why are we discussing about the Naming agreed facts, options and resources? Are we preparing this part for neutral observation? --FlavrSavr 16:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Greek extremism fears Mediation

Obviously MATIA and Theatheanae have some reason to fear Mediation. They are afraid that their Greek extremist vicious circles and racist remarks will be exposed. Given that Macedonia is a region primarilly inhabited by slavs (ethnic group X, Greek, Bulgarians) then the term Macedonian Slavs is inaccurate. It cannot be used. Britannica ond the other sources say that this ethnic group is called Macedonians. It is NPOV regardless if the Greeks like it or not! REX 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, Theathenae you sockpuppet is being unusually silent (see Special:Contributions/Chronographos), what? You don't need him anymore now that he has been exposed. REX 11:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Extra Reading

I suggest that everyone reads the following (they are about Greek extremism on the poor Macedonian minority) scandalous human rights reports on Greece:

• Greece: Report on the Macedonian minority
• Greece: Inhuman refusal of entry and denaturalization of ethnic Macedonians in Greece
• Macedonian diaspora leaders met UN envoy Matthew Nimetz

I must say all this is very disturbing. Greece who fancies herself so much as European. Well, Greece has a loooooooooooooong way to go befor she matches the standards of the United Kingdom and her indifferent parliament passes the Greek equivalent to the British Human Rights Act 1998. The Greeks are RACISTS and deny minorities their basic human rights! REX 13:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

None of the above explains why you are so racist against Greeks.--Theathenae 13:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth! Get it Δεαθήναι? REX 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you admit you're a racist. I on the other hand reject petty Judaeo-Christian "morality", and don't consider "the Albanians" to be racists, even if some Albanians, like you, most certainly are.--Theathenae 13:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Judaeo-Christian? He is Muslim, you know (not that there's anything wrong with that). Chronographos 16:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm! I said that I was racist says Δεαθήναι. Where did that take place pray do tell. In your dream maybe? REX 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

REX, the UK is not faultless in its observance of Human Rights: note the cold-blooded murder of Jean Menezes in the London Tube not too long ago. Regardless of that, I couldn't agree more with Tony Blair when he said: "Coming to Britain is not a right and even when people have come here staying here carries with it a duty," he said. "That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life.". I support this statement for the UK, Greece, and indeed every country that attracts foreigners. Obviously this is not a problem with countries, such as Albania, whose citizens flee with every given chance. Like you. Chronographos 14:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. And seeing as our young friend Rexhep enjoys linking to the Greek Helsinki website so much, let's not forget Albania's own dirty linen, like the appalling treatment meted out to the Greek minority during the 2000 municipal elections:[21]--Theathenae 14:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No matter: the human rights standards Greece adheres to are not even remotely comparable to those of Albania or any other neighboring country. That's only one of the reasons why Albanians flee to Greece and not vice versa. Chronographos 14:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah Chronographe, I see that Theathenae has activated you again. Excellent! Well, you must remember that certain low standards in certain sectors are to be expected of Albania considering its recent history. But Greece, Greece has no excuse for breaking basic Human Rights, especially considering the aid they have received from the EU (including the UK). See Éire for an example who exploited its aid better than Greece and developed a Celtic Tiger economy is just a few years which Greece is still struggling to match. Well, if Greece does not mend her ways she will never be permanent member of the UN Security Council or G8 (like the UK). REX 15:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The EU is not a charity organization and the funding of its policies is not "aid". It is the collective will of its citizens. Being an Albanian citizen, you would understandably not be cognizant of EU policies. By the same token, since you come from a country that cannot sustain itself and lives on charity, you are forgiven to think likewise. Chronographos 16:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the lad's youthful ignorance is enough to bring a gleeful tear to the eye. Greece a permanent member of the Security Council? Greece in the G8?! Along perhaps with Ireland and its Celtic Tiger economy? Or Norway, Sweden, or any other of the richest countries on earth? Alas, Greece may be too small to be a permanent member, but she was recently elected a non-permanent member of the Security Council by the rest of the member-states of the United Nations. They obviously took a more positive view of the country than young Rexhep, wallowing in his own hatred and negativity beneath the depressing grey hue of the English sky.--Theathenae 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Κρονόγκραφε, to change the subject completely and given that you are so knowledgeable about everything I was hoping that you would care to comment on some information that has come my way. Apparently some scholars believe that the Modern Greeks are not product of continuous influences on the Ancient Greeks but that the Modern Greek are racially Slavs. So the precious Ancient Greek Blood which the Modern Greeks cherish so much and believe it to be running through their veins as we speak, is in fact long gone; much like the dative and aspiration (h) from their language. Anyway, I'm sure that the current Slavic nations will accept into their midst another Slavic people. Therefore the modern region of Macedonia is in fact wholly inhabited by Slavs (with a few exceptions such as the Albanians) so the usage of the term Macedonian Slavs is inaccurate to refer to the primary ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia because they are other Slavic peoples in the wider region of Macedonia such as the Greeks and the Bulgarians. Do tell me what you think. REX 16:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Genetics is not something I would care to discuss with a little boy (or, as the case may be, girl). Should you need to discuss such issues with me, you should first take a graduate course in Genetics, pass it successfully, ring my secretary, submit your credentials, wait to have them okayed by me, reserve an appointment, prepay a fee (I charge 200 euros per hour), and then I may spare you some of my time. The above notwithstanding, genes do not make peoples. Culture makes peoples. That's all you need to know for now. Chronographos 16:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that you, User:REX, are constantly disrupting wikipedia, and maybe I'll do something about it. Stupid racistic ideologies have nothing to do with Ancient Greece, or as Isocrates said: Hellenes are those who take part in Greek education. So, if you have problems regarding precious people XYZ blood don't make it our problem. +MATIA ☎ 16:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

He is just enjoying being provocative. It's one of his many "questionable" qualities. Such traits usually run in the family. Chronographos 16:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I also bet that User:REX don't know who are the scholars he is quoting and what was their relation with Hitler. +MATIA ☎ 16:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this sort of racist Weltanschauung is commonly referred to as White trash. Chronographos 17:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because I'm quoting Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, that doesn't mean that I agree with him. I'm just demonstrating that his theory is another way to look at this matter and use the name Macedonians for the primary ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia. You can sneer at me if you want but that is not disrupting Wikipedia. Your POV pushing dispite obvious lack of sources is disruption of Wikipedia. REX 17:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How nice, we got a name. Yet he wasn't the only scholar used by Hitler. You can always report me, if you believe that I do what you, actually, do (aka disrupt the WP) and save me from the trouble and the hesitations of reporting you. +MATIA ☎ 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

REX already has an Arbitrator on his case, who may also care to investigate his suspected sockpuppetry. Chronographos 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just took a look at Fallmerayer and some information are missing from that wiki. For example, few years after announcing this theory, Fallmerayer's opinion changed, partly. +MATIA ☎ 17:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I suggest you use your brains for a change. Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer died on the 26 April 1861. What relations could he have had with Hitler. Unless of course Hitler constructed a time machine and travelled back in time and told him what to say I see very little reason in your arguments. Of course, it is very easy to dismiss such theories by saying that they were affiliated to Hitler, but you know, in this case those theories were not. I know you don't like that, you have been caught lying yet again, if I were you I d now be ashamed to even show my face never mind accuse others. Ill use the English motto now: Honi soit qui mal y pense. Also, stop lying and being provocative. REX 17:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And I quote: "After the German invasion of Greece in 1941, his theory was adopted and promoted by the Nazis, as there was a need to rationalize the discrepancy between the Nazi's admiration of the Ancient Greeks and their brutal treatment of their modern counterparts. Finally in the 1990s, after a long lull, interest in Fallmerayer's theories was renewed when the Macedonian question re-emerged in the news." It would appear that young Rexhep is in very distinguished company.--Theathenae 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Gee, Δεαθήναι (Chronographos's sockpuppeteer) I guess that means that the Nazis influenced scientific opinion before they came into existence. That is the least intelligent statement I've heard from you (well, not per se). REX 17:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

REX I had studied the world war 2, in the past. After you do the same, come back and we might be able to discuss it. Till then don't mess Hitler with X-Files. Beside that, one should also notice that you repeatedly associated me with far-right-wing-etc (aka nazis) and then you used Hitler's arguments (when you didn't name Fallmerayer, I thought you were reffering to nazi scholars who shared the same opinion with him). +MATIA ☎ 18:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well MATIA, I've studied WWII as well. It was in my end of year exams three months ago. Aha, my knowledge is more recent, so we can assume that I know better. REX 18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So much for being a "law student" ... Chronographos 18:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have already told you O Wise One, I am 18 years old. If you have ever been to university that is the age most people start. Before that you have to pass you GCE A-levels. The Λύκειο as they call it in Greece. Why, do such students not study history. So much for the Greek education system then. Isokratis is obviously full of it. Also, Theathenae STOP using sockpuppets, we know it's you. REX 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that was high school? Were your "A-levels" like Prince Harry's or merely on Hooked on Phonics? Chronographos 18:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Sockpuppet. I think that if you check Special:Contributions/Chronographos and Special:Contributions/Theathenae you will see a very interesting pattern. You talk the same, you always agree. Theathenae, you must think that we're all stupid. REX 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to file a report. Chronographos 18:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you're stupid, Rexhep. A hate-filled racist and homophobe, perhaps, and a tad too enthusiastic in your hatred given your young age, but not stupid. I am actually flattered that you would compare me to User:Chronographos. I look up to him, you know, even if we don't always see eye to eye as you would have it. He busts my balls when I fail to think like a Scorpio and am too quick to pounce on the buzzer. :)--Theathenae 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks remember Theathenae. I am not hate filled, not as much as you anyway. I'm afraid that if I file a report it will be ignored, if I protest I will just look foolish, if I do nothing I essentially agree with you, I have had bad experience in that sector. That User:Fred Bauder seemed to think that it was all trifles. Damn! REX 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you ignored often? And how does this make you feel? 19:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Chronographos

I have only been ignored on one occasion. Are you ignored often, how does that make you feel? REX 19:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you weren't ignored in that instance. You were reprimanded. There is a difference.--Theathenae 20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

the missing link

Now I get it. REX reffers to himself as we including his sockpuppets. Ok. +MATIA ☎ 19:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Weakest link

No MATIA, the real question is why don't you accept the facts? Britannica refers to this people as Macedonians, they are NPOV. Why can't we do what they do? Because it conflicts with your POV? MATIA, you are the weakest link, goodbye! REX 19:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, you must think that we're all stupid. REX 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC). As for citing NPA, think of it before calling other people nazis (Greek extremism, far right wing-anything etc). +MATIA ☎ 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You know, Rexhep, for a homophobe, your behaviour is rather camp at times.--Theathenae 20:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he? Ginger Rogers built a career on high heels. Chronographos

MATIA, I have never called anyone a Nazi; why don't you try to find an example of that. Oh that's right you can't, because no one exists. And yet again, MATIA has been caught lying. That red colour his face has gone even matches that red sweater he is wearing. And Theathenae and Xronographo, #$%#@%#$%$%^$^$%(*%@#@! REX 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No $$ around here. Want a €? You know what to do to earn it. Chronographos 20:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cum again, ju lutem?--Theathenae 21:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Party's over

All right everyone, party's over. Maybe you lot should consider archiving this page because it really is too long. We are all here for one purpose and one purpose only, to apply NPOV to the article; if Chronographos, MATIA, Theathenae and REX are going to play games, I don't see that happening. You should all note that various encyclopaedias of all shapes and sizes call these people Macedonians. I have read this entire talk page a few times and I still can't find any reason not to call them by the name they use for themselves apart for a few pathetic original research attempts to cloud reality. As far as I can tell not one of you seems to care what the NPOV is: the Greeks want to use the name Macedonian Slavs and the Macedonians want to use the name they use for themselves. If you don't stop POV pushing, then this dispute will never end. So I expect more mature behaviour from you, if POV information is on the page, then that will confound readers. We don't want that, do we? I don't intend to participate in this discussion much, but I will be checking you frequently. GrandfatherJoe 20:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight (sorry Rexhep). "The Greeks want to use the name Macedonian Slavs and the Macedonians want to use the name they use for themselves." Which means, does it not, that you support the "Macedonian" POV over the Greek POV? Naturally, you may take sides if you so wish, but neutral you are not.--Theathenae 21:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, only one of the two possible wordings can be used. What our job here is, is to find out which one is more appropriate. GrandfatherJoe 21:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If we adopted your proposal, we would be adopting the "Macedonian" POV, not a NPOV. "Macedonian Slavs", on the other hand, is not the Greek POV. Every Greek I know refers to them as Σκοπιανοί - Skopianoí.--Theathenae 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Δεαθήναι is trying to fool us into believing that Macedonian Slavs is the NPOV way to go. Britannica doesn't seem to agree with him/her though. I wonder why? Oh yes, because it's his/her POV. Macedonians is NPOV. It must be, Britannica uses it! REX 21:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sashay, chantay!--Theathenae 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

When naming things, you can only choose one option. The only unbiased way to do that is to choose a set of rules and follow them. NPOV in this case means "in line with the naming convention", not "everybody likes it". Zocky 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There were some more comments here, but they weren't contributing anything to the progress of the debate. They're now at /More comments. If you would like to continue that discussion, please do it on that page.

Sorry Zocky, but I think it is important to mention Rexhep's volte-face on this issue, as it speaks volumes about his credibility as an interlocutor. As recently as the 8^th of September he "happened... to believe that these people should be called Macedonian Slavs rather than just Macedonians because the latter is very misleading, unlike the former."[22]--Theathenae 11:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Although he has sinned, he is still a Jew! said the ancient Rabbis. I guess that that absolves me from my sin. Huh Δεαθήναι? REX 13:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Lights out

Nice to see some hours of silence around here. Let me get some things off my chest:

This talk page is a disgrace. We are faced with an editorial question. This particular article has to follow the convention, just like all the others. Policies on which we should be able to base our decision are available. We should apply them as if not one of us has ever heard of Macedonia or Greece. If the policy isn't clear enough, we can't solve that problem here, and we should concentrate on updating the policy, not on shouting.

Look, anyone can come up with a punchy ethnic slur. Most of us can even do it without resorting to vulgarity, not to mention vulgarity in languages incomprihensable to most readers. I could tell Theathenae that "It's typical that it takes a Greek to make friends out of a Slav and an Albanian". Or I could take a cheap shot at the economic state of REX's and FlavrSavr's countries and tell them that "Macedonia is that country for which Albania is The West". Punchy, witty, unoriginal, boring and entirely unhelpful.

So I suggest that if you people really care about how to chose the title most suitable for Wikipedia, not for yourself, you do some research and thinking and come up with a convincing case for your side of the argument. Wasting everybody's time and nerves with childish bickering will only serve to diminish your reputation and hence the weight of your words. Zocky 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, master.--Theathenae 17:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae is obviously unwilling to cooperate. This is due to the fact he is afraid that his POV Greek extremist agenda will be exposed and he will have to accept Britannica's views or the NPOV. REX 17:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Zocky, I coudn't agree with you more. Things have gone too far. No one is trying to help solve this dispute. I think that mediation is necessary. It is the only way. Theathenae really doesn't really want to even try. He has no sources and yet he continues stubbornly POV pushing. As for FlavrSavr and REX, the former is quite moderate and reasonable while the latter is very immature. This is just going on and on. It's ridiculous! GrandfatherJoe 17:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

GrandfatherJoe is patronising again I see. I'd comment on that, but given that he supports my NPOV views, I'll let it pass, REX 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, how convenient.--Theathenae 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well Theathenae, speaking of sockpuupets, how is your sockpuppet User:Chronographos. In the washing machine? When he is dry again, I'm sure the two Greek extremist POV pushers that are in fact one user, will be back! REX 18:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear master of sockpuppets Theathenae! I think that all your words are non-sense and worthless. Bomac 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (not macedonian slavs)

Ofcourse the people of the Republic of Macedonia are macedonians. By the way, the stolen Aegean part of Macedonia by Greece is now only a region in Greece (in which today, Greeks say that live only Greeks). So, I don't see anything bad about the name MACEDONIANS. Otherwise, why would the Greeks rebbel so much about it?

I mean, how it would be if the people of Greece were called not Greeks, but Thesalians, Peloponesians (even Macedonians) etc.? Bomac 19:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)