Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia

Macedonian template

Give me one reason why should not be included that template?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not related to the article. Since I have now provided you with a reason, I'll do ahead and remove it in due time. It's a shame, though, you do not use talkpages when there's a valid discussion on them. I'm talking about another revert you made earlier. Ignoring is not a good practise in some cases, you know. --Laveol ^T 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the template? Have you been to Lerin and Voden? Have you read the article? Please do not delete the template since the Bulgarian should be deleted too. Do I see double standards?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pfff, I thought that one was removed as well. Well, I'd prefer them both gone, but that'd be hard now, wouldn't it?--Laveol ^T 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you really did not see the BG template?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had got the impression both templates were removed some time ago. What I saw was the diff in which you added the mk template. Since I'm not willing to engage in stupid edit-wars with you, I'm not removing any of them again. When you're through with your revert spree I might try and discuss it with someone willing to do so. --Laveol ^T 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the article includes Greek template, it should includes templates of other Slavic people that live in Greece, in other words BG for the Pomaks and Macedonian for the Macedonians.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As Laveol suggests, we could just remove both templates. After all, the article is clear that their identity is controversial (even among themselves) so slapping "BG for the Pomaks and Macedonian for the Macedonians" in the relevant sections transparently serves to negate the sourced information on their identity and is POV-pushing.--Ptolion (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you work together, since if it is the case it is against the rules of Wikipedia. I am just curious.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about Arvanitika

The chart in the article shows that Arvanitika (old Albanian) is still spoken around Attiki (the area around Athens, to make things simple). But I've never met anyone who speaks Arvanitika anywhere near Athens and the surrounding towns/cities. I mean all the folks I've met around here in my whole life speak Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.135.142 (talk • contribs)

That's off-topic for this page, so you might want to take this to a more appropriate article. But the short answer is: Arvanitika is only spoken by the older generation in most places; all speakers are bilingual in Greek, and they speak Arvanitika only at home, if at all. There is no doubt the language is on its way out. Literature on the topic, including surveys of how and where it is still spoken, are cited at the Arvanites and Arvanitika articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above and I have met older people who speak Arvanitika in Aspropigos and somewhere in north Athens, but is it not 'old Albanian' as we would say old English or German, we do not call Swiss German 'old German', it is a spoken though disappearing Albanian dialect. Politis (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the map shows Arvanitika in its maximum extent in 18th century and early 19th. At that time the population of Attica was roughly around 15 - 30 thousands. The Arvanitika speakers were no more than 50% (roughly 7 - 15 thousands). After the war of independence Attica was more or less destroyed and the population was diminished. It would be quite impossible to actually find many descendent of Arvanites today even in known old Arvanitika vilages.

Seleukosa (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

Rather than blocking the disputants, I've reverted to the July version before this started and protected the article. If you are unable to work together as colleagues, then go to dispute resolution and have somebody babysit. Meanwhile, if there are non-contentious edits that need to be made, tell me here and I can add them in. — kwami (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, per request, I've unblocked and restored the latest version, with one exception per the ARBCOM ruling on the word "Macedonian". I'll copy my comments from my talk page:

It's not just Macedonian–Bulgarian, but it can be offensive to use the word "Macedonian" to mean Slavic in an article on Greece, where "Macedonian" just means "of Macedonia", and "Macedonian dialects" can just as easily mean Greek dialects. Given the arbitration ruling on not using the term "Macedonian" for Slavic in such situations, I don't see how the wording can be defended, and edit warring to include it is AFAIK still a blockable offense.

I just scanned the article and purged it of "Macedonian" when that word was not used to mean "of Macedonia". I'm not claiming the words I chose to replace it are the best, and in some cases they were arbitrary (sometimes "Slavophone", sometimes "Slavic-speaking"; sometimes "Slavs", sometimes "Macedonian Slavs", etc.), though I hope the result is coherent. There are probably other instances I missed that need to be changed. There was a long ARBCOM battle between Greeks who insisted that we shouldn't use the word "Macedonian" even in the case of the RoM (that they speak "Skopje language" or some such nonsense), and Slavs insisting that we should use the word to mean "Slav" even within Greece. The result was that it's fine to use it to mean "Slav(ic)" in the case of the RoM, following common English usage, but not within Greece, nor when speaking of Macedonia as a whole (Greek Macedonia + the RoM), for then the term is truly ambiguous. Given the protracted and acrimonious nature of battle, I don't think there will be much tolerance for people using "Macedonian names" to mean Slavic names of villages within Greece, and this was one of the things I changed.

When "Macedonian" is part of the name of an organization or publication, it should of course be left in regardless of what it means. I hope that's clear, and if I've misinterpreted the Arbcom ruling, please let me know.

I should add that as an English speaker with no Greek or Slavic connections, this is purely a clarity-of-language issue. When speaking of the RoM, we call it "Macedonia", and the word "Macedonian" obviously means "of the RoM". However, when speaking of Greek Macedonia, or historical Macedonia, the word "Macedonian" is *not* understood to mean Slavic; it's generally understood to be Greek. Thus much of the latest version of this article called Slavs "Greeks" and Greeks "Slavs", an entirely untenable situation even if it weren't for all the political nonsense that surrounds this issue. — kwami (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree there were a few instances where "Macedonia" was used, whilst "Republic of Macedonia" should have been used. I have nothing against these changes.

There were a few instances where you have changed "Macedonian language" to "Slavic language", and "Macedonian speakers" to "Slavophones". I do not believe that there can be any confusion with Greek dialects in this instance, given that there is only form of "Macedonian language", and this is applied consistently across Wikipedia.

"Macedonian dialects" is unlikely to be confused with "Greek dialects" for the reason above (namely, "macedonian dialects" refers to 'Dialects of the Macedonian language' and "Greek dialects" refers to 'Dialects of the Greek language').

In this instances where simply Macedonians was used, I have no issues linking to "ethnic Macedonians" instead. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not revert even administrator. You do not have reached consensus. Jingby (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My edit was explained here [2]. Please explain your revert. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with 1920-s or 1930-s. The Slavic dialects of Greece were regarded as Bulgarian language then and the population had predominatly Bulgarian sentiments. Nor Macedonians or Macedonian language were recognised as distinct entities or existed as such, excluding some Communist circles. Jingby (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the changes I made related to the issues post-1920, so I am at odds at how you have used this to justify your revert. I have just had a look at the edit I made, and all of the changes related to post-1920 circumstances. Am I to assume, given your response, it will be acceptable to revert back to the previous edition? Lunch for Two (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they should be real after 1943. As you perfectly know prior to their codification in 1945, Macedonian dialects were for the most part classified as Bulgarian and some linguists consider them still as such, but this view is politically controversial.

The Macedonian language is almost unilaterally recognised as a seperate language, and the only group of linguists which consider it to be Bulgarian are the Bulgarians themselves. This is considered to be a WP:FringeView. The Macedonian language did not simply appear overnight in 1944, but attempts at codification were begun in the late 1800s. Before this time the language existed yet in an non-codified form. I have appealed to you numerous times, please recognise the distinctiveness of the Macedonian ethnicity and langauge, which was not simply "created" in the 1940s as you allege. Unless this can occur you will continue to edit war based on your own personal beliefs, which at this stage do not appear to be WP:NPOV. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is not a science-fiction forum. Jingby (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lunch, AFAIK the language *did* simply "appear" ca. 1950: language is not just reality, but the perception of that reality. Why Scandinavian is several language but German just one is perception, not the languages themselves. AFAIK there was no common perception of Macedonian as a separate language before ca. 1950. If 50 years from now everyone in the US says they don't speak English but "American", people will say that English and American are two different languages. But that doesn't mean that today they are two different languages, even though the language is about the same as it'll be 50 years from now. I may be wrong re. Macedonian, but this has been discussed elsewhere numerous times. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the dialects are transitional between Mac. & Bulg, why are we IDing them all as Mac? Do they all self-ID as Mac rather than Bulg? And if they do, isn't it just as unambiguous to say 'Slav'? The title is "Slavic speakers", after all, and is presumably that way for a reason. (I'm moving to correct the punctuation.) — kwami (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dialectal divisions of Macedonia.

A good example explaining the relationship between Macedonian and Bulgarian, is the relationship between Portuguese and Spanish or Dutch and German. They are related, but they are innately different and this is reflected in the fact that the seperateness of the languages is almost universally recognised as real (except for in Bulgaria since 1958, before that the Macedonian language was recognised). People have been writing in the Macedonian dialects for several hundred years now, an efforts to codify the language have been since at least the 1890s.

There is only one transitional dialects of all the dialects spoken, and that is at the very end of Greek Macedonia. The rest are also universally seen as uniquely Macedonian dialects. Take the Prilep-Bitola dialect, which is widely spoken in Florina, Greece, yet also forms the basis for the Standard form of Macedonian.

From what I am aware there are no people that identify as Bulg., however there is a large population that identifies as Macedonian, and this is discussed throughout much of the article (Recent History, Media, Education and Language, etc.) Lunch for Two (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

...People have been writing in the Macedonian dialects for several hundred years now,... Yeah, and the Macedonian identity has been existing since then! Please, Wikipedia is not a forum or a place for jokes. Jingby (talk)

Merge with Slavic Dialects of Greece

Any opinions regarding this merge? Most of the content already overlaps, so hopefully it wont be too controversial a process. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fix redirect

Please fix the double redirect on Ethnic Macedonians of Greece present to the following:

#REDIRECT [[Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia]]

Thanks. Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 03:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging

Lunch for Two, merging does not mean pushing cheap nationalistic propaganda over the article and changing it drastically. Do not rewrite it. You are not authorised from the communiry. Only merge, or you will be reverted. Jingby (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? He doesn't need "authorization" to edit an article. If you find something objectionable, the usual rules about dispute resolution and edit-warring apply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Authorization for drastical rewriting = consesus after discussion on the talk page + reliable sources. Jingby (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD applies. If you object to something, the onus of initiating discussion is on you. Name specific points you disagree with, not blanket assertions of overall bias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am objecting this article to be rewritten drastically and this to happen simultaneously with mass deletion of content and sources, without consesus was reached or discussion was held. Jingby (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your objection is not actionable as long as you don't say what specifically you object to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol! What about this passage:

Members of the group have professed a range of ethnic and linguistic identities since their incorporation into Greece in 1913. Before incorporation into Greece the speakers generally espoused either a Macedonian or Bulgarian identity. Various academics of the time also generally had conflicting views on the topic of self identification during this period. Vasil Kanchov for example writes in 1911 that "The local Bulgarians and Vlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians." The community is today split between those with an ethnic Grek and an ethnic Macedonian identity. Of those that left Greece as refugees or immigrants following the civil war, almost all have an ethnic Macedonian identity. Within most contexts these people are known as Aegean Macedonians ([Егејски Македонци, Egejski Makedonci] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)) both inside and outside Greece. These people refer to themselves as Dópia (Greek: Δόπια) or Tukašni (Macedonian: Тукашни), which translates to Locals, as distinct from the Pontic Greek immigrants which arrived in the region in the 1920s.

The rest of the changes is rich on the same pseudo-scientific and nationalistic biases. The stabile version bevore that POV above has stated:

Predominantly identified as Macedonian Bulgarians until the early 1940s, since the formation of a Macedonian nation state, many of the migrant population in the diaspora (Australia, America and Canada) have a strong Macedonian identity and have followed the consolidation of the Macedonian ethnicity. However, those who remain in Greece, now mainly identify nationally as ethnic Greeks, although, it should be noted, that though the Macedonian region is overwhelmingly inhabited by Greeks including descendants of Pontians, it is ethnically diverse (including Albanians, Aromanians and Slavs).

And more. Up until about one hundred years ago, the Slav population of Macedonia was universally considered to be Bulgarian. Since then, however, a number of different theories have been advanced, theories which are mutually exclusive but which have as their common denominator a desire to convince the Macedonian Slavs and the world at large that they are not Bulgarian, but something else. Since, however, contemporary sources make it unequivocally clear that, during the period untill 1940-s, the Slavs of Macedonia both regarded themselves predominantly as Bulgarian and were regarded as such by the world at large, the term 'Macedonian' is not used here only in the general geographical sense, but to push here the pseudo-scientific ideas of the Macedonism. Jingby (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Firsly if you only object to that passage, why add a whole string of reverts to it. And Secondly, what I wrote only condensed the section down and made the wording less complicated. Furthermore what do you object to the edit itself? It mentions that some people identified as Bulgarians and some as Macedonians, even V. Kanchov mentions that people identified themselves as that. The rest simply goes on to mention that now there are those identifying as ethnic Macedonians and those as identifying as ethnic Greeks and the terms used to refer to themselves were also listed.

Your conduct across various articles makes it apparent that it is not the words being used to express ideas which you opposed to (which would bring in WP:OR, WP:RS, etc.) but it is the whole concept being discussed that you cannot fathom and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for senseless reverts. Maybe you ought to click "edit" and better the articles rather than simply "undo" all the time. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't forget Jingiby, I opened up a comment section here a week ago asking users interested in the merge to put their input in and to generate the "consensus" you so often use. You chose not to comment and have neither did you assist with the merger between the two articles. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jingiby that the latest edits are problematic. There is a strong "Ethnic Macedonian" POV running throughout. For example, gone is the (sourced) sentence "However, those who remain in Greece, now mainly identify nationally as ethnic Greeks", which we all know is the case, and it is replaced with "Many who have remained in Greece now an ethnic Greek identity or have rejected both ethnic affiliations. Nonetheless many still living in Greece have retained their ethnic Macedonian identity." Rather than acknowledge the fact that the number of those with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness nowadays is tiny (~10,000 by most estimates, witness the dreadful performance by Rainbow in elections), we get vagueness and "many". What's many? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Also gone is "and the smallest group is made up of those who have a clear ethnic Macedonian national identity.", even though again this is sourced. Also gone is any reference to the Bulgarian language, instead we get "Various Macedonian dialects are spoken in the region of Greek Macedonia." All of a sudden it's Macedonians this, Macedonians that, even though most members of the group this article covers do not identify as ethnic Macedonians. I think what's going on is an attempt to slowly re-write the article a way so that it is all about ethnic Macedonians, then once that is achieved go for renaming it to "Aegean Macedonians". In other, an attempt to re-create the deleted Ethnic Macedonians of Greece by the back door. Then there is the question of how these edits were implemented. They were rammed through in a single edit without so much as an edit-summary [3]. Fine, WP:BOLD maybe. But WP:BOLD does not call for avoiding edit-summaries and then edit-warring [4] [5]. In such instances, WP:BOLD rapidly turns into WP:TEND. We all know this is a highly contentious subject. Ramming through major changes is bad enough, doing so without an edit summary is completely unacceptable. Lunch for Two, it is quite clear that several editors have issues with your changes. Trying to impose them by force is hopeless. The sensible (and only) thing to do is propose your changes in the talkpage. And please no false claims of consensus in an attempt to justify relentless slow-revert warring as here [6]. Athenean (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, I am happy to discuss the changes made. Maybe instead of a simple revert constructive editing will provide some benefit to the article (and this is not in reference to you). Elections do not replace censa, which tell us the true number of people wishing to be identified as such. Claiming that there are only 10,000 Macedonians because thats how many voted for Rainbow is like saying only 1% of Canadian are interested in the Environment because that is how many votes the Green Party got. There is no way of identifying the exact number of people with this identity and with that identity, people can estimate (and that is what all of these figures are) and the estimates have to be reflected, however to used words such as "there are X number of people with an ethnic Macedonian identity" is misleading as we don't really know how many there are (neither do the researchers). I would be keen to see an estimate from these researches pertaining the 2010s and not the 1990s, I suspect that the estimates would be somewhat different.

In regards to the merge with Slavic dialects of Greece and the supposed omission of the Bulgarian language, this is due to the fact that Bulgarian was spoken by the Pomaks in Thrace (not "slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia"), and I merged the relevant section across at Pomaks#Greece. My edit in this section reflected linguistic classification and underneath the wide variety of terms Slavika/Dopia/Makedonski/Po Nashe/Starski etc. were all listed. To assert that only the word "Macedonian" was used doesn reflect the next paragraph where the issues regarding local identification with the langauge were highlighted. Furthermore, you have attacked me for the merge, yet I have not seen you take any interest in merging the two articles.

As for the discussion at Ethnic Macedonians, me and PB92 reviewed all of the sourced I mentioned and highlighted the flaws and acceptable parts of what was previously written. The text was then modified to provide some form of consensus between the 2 parties involved, nonetheless it was still reverted. You are more than welcome to participate in the dicussion pertaining the usability and validity of the sources at Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). Lunch for Two (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the number of people that identify as ethnic Macedonians, while there is no census data, there are estimates in the literature. All of these estimates hover around the ~10,000 range, so there is good reason to believe that figure. It's not perfect, but it's good enough. Claiming "there is no data, so we have to be as vague as possible" is disingenuous and is not going to work. Before anything else, I want this issue closed. Your refusal to accept this figure and insist on vague language and innuendo is a big part of the problems we're having, and makes it very hard to assume good faith. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The assertion "there are X number of people with an ethnic Macedonian identity" is of course wrong, and i haven't seen anyone inserting or explicitly supporting such a thing. Lunch is right when describing the situation as volatile, and that's primarily because of the "middle group", which is more open το cultural and ethnic incentives from the other side of the border and at the same time is not caught inside the highly polarized national perspectives of any of the two (or three) countries. That said, if there were researchers doing fieldwork right now in the area how do you expect they would estimate the number of ethnic Macedonians ? The current estimate is an upward projection of the Rainbow's votes, it is clearly stated in the sources. These figures haven't risen at all. What would be the other option for them ? Summing up memberships to local cultural associations with an ethnic Macedonian agenda included in their activities wouldn't produce a higher result i think, and its accuracy wouldn't be better anyway, as, pertaining to the aforementioned polarization, we are talking about a conscious sociopolitical choice, which is better reflected through affiliations to a clearly political institution. To give an example so that i'm better understood, the frontman of Rainbow, Voskopoulos, is a first cousin of the former head of Florina prefecture, who has made it clear with his statements relating to the issue that he espouses an ethnic Greek identity. The comparison with the Green Party in Canada is of course not representative (following Lunch's Spanish-Portuguese example in a previous discussion relating to the Macedonian-Bulgarian differences which was even worse, try Danish-Norwegian or Russian-Belarusian and you're close), the obvious difference is that almost all parties in Canada have, to some degree, an environmental protection agenda, which is high in the country's priorities. On the other hand, no other Greek party except from Rainbow, has a Macedonian ethnonational agenda, like most Canadian parties don't support a greater autonomy or secession of Quebec. --IpProtected (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with you also Ip. It is hard to judge how people define their ethnicity especially given the lack of recognition/assistance the Greek state provides to those identifying as non-Greeks (and I extend this to the manner in which Greek censa are conducted). However a lot has changed in the past 20 years, especially regarding greater freedoms which have been extended to people living in Greece. Unlike in the time during which the estimates were made, there are now numerous ethnic Macedonian organisations (there are groups for example which have split off from Rainbow and now conduct their own affairs, publish their own newspapers, etc.), classes have been started at a local level to teach the language, ethnic Macedonian folkloric groups from Greece now tour the R. of Macedonia and the diaspora, several newspapers exist (the most succesful of which prints 20,000 copies and is reportedly widely distributed) and there are now elected officials who declare themselves to be Macedonians and promote the recognition of ethnic minorities. You only have to look at my user page to see expression of identity in action (something which in the 1990s polarised communities such as in Meliti [to the stage where 2 seperate events were organised simply over which language songs would be sung], however is now much more mainstream). Furthermore from what I have read there is now a greater discernable distinction made in Greece between someones "ethnicity" and "nationality" which perhaps didn't exist before (from what I have read). Lunch for Two (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for agreeing but where are you going exactly with what you're writing ? Are you proposing a shift of framework in which we deal with this article's subject ? These reports on the manifestations of the Macedonian ethnonational movement in Greece don't point to anywhere, unless we are already practicing wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your own personal opinion in the matter. I have already checked your sources in ethnic Macedonians and produced a revised version there, which i think is more balanced, if others agree maybe it could be placed here as well, unaltered or with less detail. But what are we to suppose in general based on them ? You have a newspaper (a journalistic leaflet according to the editor's note) being distributed free of charge in 20.000 copies every month and supported mainly by foreign capital and another one in 1000 copies with probably local circulation in Kastoria. These numbers are logical, if we take into account a "target group" of more than 100,000, but do not lead to any conclusion about the readership. You have a report of 30 students attending unofficial language lessons in Thessaloniki and another class in Kastoria which did not have enough attendance to continue in the proceeding year. You have the Rainbow party, some activities in Meliti and a local organization in Kastoria. Please fill in the gaps if i have forgotten something important or correct me, but what do all these tell us about a change of attitude, and more importantly, about a change of scale ? These are all qualitative references on ethnic Macedonians in Greece, which are already acknowledged as a subgroup here. And a note on your last sentence, differentiating ethnicity and nationality would be very easy if Balkan states weren't build on an ethnic-nation ideology (Greece did not start like that exactly, but "had" to follow the trend). Some day, being a Greek and being an ethnic Macedonian might not be two mutually exclusive identities, and by that i'm not by all means supporting the essentialist view that there existed a Macedonian ethnonational identity/consciousness before the late 19th century, but rather that all modern nations in the area share a common heritage to some degree. Today, being an ethnic Macedonian in Greece is primarily a political/national issue, and the "local ethnos" that identify as Macedonians are distinct enough with the ethnicity that is expressed by and evolves around the neighboring nation. They are the leftovers of a past that legitimizes all views.--IpProtected (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic rant

Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th, up until the early 20th century. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later. However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed. According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed. After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness. With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population. In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs)

What is this rant supposed to be? A proposal of text for the article? Or just a bit of the usual talkpage soapboxing prettified with footnotes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby, how does this adress the issue? Lunch for Two (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of the history as well as manipulation of the presence, must not be placed in any article. Jingby (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

All sources I have added are reliable, i.e. University Press' publications and they have countied around 50,000 Slavophones (10,00 to 100,000). Most of them, or nearly all are with Greek self-identification. Jingby (talk)

Nobody has "counted" anything. All these sources are merely citing each other's estimates. Do you know what the difference between counting and estimating is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not understand you. Check here, please. The total estimate data ranges from 10,000 up: [7], [8], [9] and so on. Jingby (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation concerning the title of this article

Macedonia in Greece is not commonly referred to as "Greek Macedonia". If you exclude Wikipedia [10] there are only 369 Google hits for "Greek Macedonia". I recommend that the title of this article is changed to Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of northern Greece.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This article reflects the common usage in English. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The common usage is "Macedonia" and not "Greek Macedonia" and it has been so even before the English language became a dominant language. The usage of "Greek Macedonia" is scarce-at-best and as the Google hits show above.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to change the offensive name of the article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There's no agreement that the proposed title is preferable to the current one. The split discussion should continue separately from the RM. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia → Slavs in Greece –

In the way I see it Slavic speakers is only a translation of the Greek Σλαβόφωνοι, a nationalist Greek word that denies the existence of minority people in Greece. The word means that the indigenous Slav population of Northern Greece does not exist and that it is Greek "but with a Slavic language" as it's described by many Greek nationalist politicians. Maybe under the eyes of Greeks the title of the article is just fine, but under the perspective of the Bulgarians and also Macedonians it's a provocation. It's a fact that Slavs have always settled here, we can see that from many ethnographic projects made over the history till today, we can see that from the separate cultures, languages etc.

Wikipedia has not got a goal to be provocative, and that's why it should be not. I'm sure that other "Wikipedians" share my opinion for this article to be changed into a different name (like the one I have recommended Slavs in Greece) that would not have offensive words like "Slavophones", "Slavic speakers" etc. in the title.

--- Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 10:16, 05 January 2013 (CET) 11:16, 05 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the title has, IIRC, been debated to death, and the present article covers a very specific set of people, not all Slavs who ever lived in Greece (Melingoi and Ezeritai, anyone?). In addition, the nominator's account positively screams of sockpuppetry... Constantine ✍ 09:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Can you please define those specific kind of people, please? Because I don't understand you, your giving me a denial of my earlier assertion without arguments, you don't have arguments. What is this, some Slavic tribes that don't exist and God knows if they ever existed or not. We're talking about the Slavs as a whole, no matter where they are, and since there are a very little living in Southern Greece they made an article about Slavs in Macedonia (where they are mostly concentrated, thats why there is not other article about Slavs in Greece). In order for this article not to have nationalist, irredentist elements from both sides I asked for a move. Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal would make sense if a) Slavic presence in Greece were confined to Macedonia and hence "Slavs of Greece" would be coterminous with "Slavs in Macedonia" (it isn't) and more importantly b) if the Slavic-speakers of today felt themselves demonstrably to be Slavs and Slavs alone (i.e. Serbs, Bulgarians, "Macedonians" or whatever else). As it is, this was not the case in the 19th and early 20th century, when nationalism was running rampant (just check any of many dozen studies on the fluidity of "national" self-perception at the time, or simply the case of Konstantinos Christou), and is not the case now. Similarly, a Turkish-speaker doesn't have to have Turkish origin or even identify as a Turk. Equating "Slavic-speaker" with "Slav" might seem straightforward, but these are the Balkans, and nothing like this ever is around here, and 99 out of a 100 times anyone who proposes getting rid of nuances in ethnonyms has an agenda of his own. BTW you would help your case if you did not utter complete nonsense like "some Slavic tribes that don't exist and God knows if they ever existed or not" for the well-attested Slavs of S. Greece, as well as the incredible "It's a fact that Slavs have always settled here". Constantine ✍ 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well if we can't say that Slavs were always on the Balkan, I guess we must say that Greeks were always present here no matter what - Hahahahaha. Firstly, I would like to point out that Macedonians Bulgarians and Serbs are Slavs together, and since the Greek Government does not recognize and does not reveal the true numbers of those separate Slavic ethnic group we can only call them Slavs as a whole. Secondly, I would point at the recognizion of Slavs by the Greek Government in 1925 with the printing of the Abecedar. Yours trulyDr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And how does any of this refute what I wrote above? We are not discussing the morality of the Greek government's policies towards minorities here, but the best, most accurate and neutral way to refer to a very specific group of people. The point is that you equate "Slavic speakers" with "Slavs" in terms of an ethnic identity, and that in itself is unacceptable because it obliterates all the finer nuances and distinctions of self-identification among them. Constantine ✍ 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure I follow the proposer's logic here, and wonder if he really isn't reading something into the article title that isn't there. If it's good enough for Swedish-speaking population of Finland and German-speaking Community of Belgium (a self-chosen title), wouldn't Slavic-speaking population of Greece be equally acceptable in this case? Nobody ever suggests that the Swedish/Finnish title is the result of nationalist or xenophobic bias, and I fail to see how Slavic speakers can be classed as offensive (quite the contrary, Slavs would probably be more offensive as it suggests ethnicity rather than a linguistic minority, which some members of that linguistic minority may not wish to be labelled with). Skinsmoke (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: The fact is, my friend, that all of these communities you have carefully selected for us are officially recognized by their governments by those names under agreement. The Slavs of Greece are NOT recognized by the Greek Government (as if they don't exist) and the name that is chosen for this article is leaning on the provocative given name to the Slavs by the Greek nationalists. When theres no official name we just have to call them Slavs of Greece.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Slavs of Greek Macedonia? Greek Slavs? — kwami (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Just like there are Albanian Australians, Bulgarian Americans etc. They are Slavs but citizens of Greece. What's so hard to understand? Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 10:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is not about the Slavs in Greece in general, but about the Slav-speaking (non-immigrant) inhabitants of (Greek) Macedonia (whether they self-define as Slavs or Greeks or "locals" or whatever). --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the proposed name is the wrong topic, but the current title suggests that topic. I doubt one reader in a thousand is going to understand that "Slavic" doesn't mean "Slavic". — kwami (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep or -- Slavic people of Greek Macedonia This is a highly politically contentious subject, because the Greek government seems to deny the possibility that theri country contains this ethnic minority. It also seeks to dney the eixistience of the independent Republic of Macedonia, insisting that its name is Skopje. This seems to be an unresolved dispute, arising form the Balkan wars about a century ago. The nom seeks to imply that this is about Slavs in Greece generally (which would include migrant workers), but that would blur the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Splitting

This article has been a matter of controversy from the beginning. We have a mixed situation where we can't find an END of the discussions that are made. The name Slavic-speakers as it is given doesn't give a real picture what does the article tell. Are Slavic-speakers just Slavophones (Greek: Σλαβόφωνοι) the Greek word used to describe those who have the Slavic as a mother language as Greeks who have accepted the Slavic language, are forced to speak Slavic etc. All in all Slavophones in Greek politics means Hellenes by heritage that speak the Slavic language for some strange reason. Also there are a number of Slavic people with Greek self-awareness that proclaim themselves as "slavophones". Σλαβόφωνοι in translation means "speakers of Slavic", so (as you can apparently see) the name of the article lies on a Greek nationalist ethnic provocation.

First, we can't just call the Slavic residents of Greece Slavic-speakers when there existence in denied by the Greek Government and their community doesn't even have an official name for which to call on.

Second, we can't call all Slavs in Greece Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, because there's a large number of Slavs that not reside in Greek Macedonia, but in the other regions of Greece as well.

We need to split this abnormal article into three totally different articles to achieve order. We need to have one about the Slavs in Greece (no matter from which region of the country they live), the Slavic dialects of Greece (dialects of the Slavic language, sometimes considered dialects of Macedonian, sometimes of Bulgarian), and one about Slavophones the Slavic people with Greek self-awareness.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 12:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article isn't about Russians in Athens or Poles in Salonika. It is about the non-immigrant community in Greek Macedonia that speaks Macedonian/Bulgarian. It is about one specific group of Slavs in Greece. Do we need an article that covers Slavic immigrant communities in Greece? No. We don't have articles on the many tens of thousands of immigrant communities scattered around the world. An article on the Slavic diaspora might be appropriate where Slavic immigrant communities throughout the world might be covered, but having a separate article for each immigrant community in each country is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Still Slavic-speakers doesn't identify nor Bulgarians, nor Macedonians.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Pomaks, who are the another native Slavic speaking minority in Greece are excluded. Jingiby (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I would not like to think of the Pomaks as such a distinctive ethnic group, all in all they're still Bulgarian.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Taivo and Jingiby. In addition, the proposed article "network" will be completely confusing to the users who want to learn something from wikipedia. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: In what meaning would you describe that "confusing"?Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusing in the sense of "Where do I find what I am looking for among all these articles?". --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reason for this maze of an article not to be divided that tells about the Slavs in Greek Macedonia, then somebody says it doesn't tell about the Slavs it's about Greek Slavophones, then someone has writen about Bulgarians, Macedonians,................. If this isn't confusing as it is...WHAT IS?Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just my point, this article is about Slavophones thats why we need to make a separate article on Slavs in Greece.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Macedonians of Greece? I agree that "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" doesn't really say what the article is about. A Russian immigrant would qualify for that description. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "Slavic" is what the language continuum Macedonian-Bulgarian is called in Greece ([11]). Calling it Macedonian runs the risk of the "FYROM" nonsense from Greeks and the fact that the eastern end is more "Bulgarian" than "Macedonian". Calling this language "Slavic" in Greece simply bypasses all those problems as well as being based on a reliable source in Ethnologue. It's actually specific. --Taivo (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Citizens of Macedonia are Macedonians, aren't they? Doesn't matter which language they speak. Not calling the language anything.

Since when do we go by what the Greeks call these things? The normal English meaning of "Slavic speakers" is speakers of Slavic languages. Not specific at all. Maybe "Slavic inhabitants of Greek Macedonia"? Something that specifies who we're talking about. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a new discussion here and that issue has been brought up before. "Slavic speakers of Macedonia" isn't "what Greeks want to call these things", but the result of discussions among participating editors at the time. "Slavic" satisfied many more problems than any other option and since it is based on a reliable source, it was deemed the most neutral solution. And in the context of Greece, it is specific. "Slavic inhabitants" doesn't address your objection any better. Ethnicity in the Balkans is much more intimately tied to language use than it often is in other parts of the world. --Taivo (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Slavic speakers of Macedonia" is inaccurate in that it excludes Slavs who don't speak "Slavic languages" and now just speak Greek. Don't we also actually have Greeks who speak one of the Slavic languages without being Slavs? Are these included or excluded? I.e. whoever doesn't speak the language, is no more an ethnic minority, but is just Greek? This is what "Slavic speakers of Macedonia" actually means. For clarity, we should also specify "Greek Macedonia" as there is another "Macedonia" as well. Same would apply for when we say "Turkish speakers in Greece". There are Turks in Greece who don't speak Turkish but speak just Greek. There are also, as odd as it may sound, ethnic Greeks who speak Turkish. There are Kurd Greeks who do speak Turkish but are not Turks. So "Turkish speakers" (Turkophones) is biased just like "Slavic Speakers" (Slavophones). We have Slavs, regardless of whether they speak one of the Slavic languages or not. I support the title Slavs in Greece, with obviously a clear and extensive section consecrated to the Slavs in "Greek Macedonia" discussed within that general page. The present page can be expanded to include all Greece. probably that way it will be less contentious for everybody. werldwayd (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't about "Slavs in Greece", it's about one clearly-defined ethnic minority in Greek Macedonia only--those who speak dialects of the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum that is called "Slavic" in Greece. Your attempts to broaden the scope of the article simply show that you don't know what the article is about and don't really care as long as your attempts to defocus attention from a single group defined by the language they speak are successful. --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I know exactly what the article is about. But the way the article is developed till now, it is riddled by so many idiosyncracies that boggles the mind. So let me get this straight. We are speaking about a rigid set of people that you narrowly want to identify, in a rigid (limited) plot of land (specified very clearly in the article). The moment they move into some other provincial Greek region, out of necessity or practicality, suddenly their identity disappears or is none of our, or the article's concern, right? Even further, they are clearly identified as "Slavic SPEAKERS" and no integration is involved and none (I am thinking about their newer generations) has lost or will be losing their ability to be "Slavic speaking" to become let's say for argument sake "Greek speaking"... (though still keeping keeping their "ethnic Slavic origins"... This is about a type of a static people who lack mobility or never ever can or want to move and are just stuck in this specific area with this specific language (so to speak).... Furthermore, it is their "proximity" to Bulgarian or Macedonian lands is what is actually being discussed and focussed upon ... This is what your defense of the present very rigid and puzzling terminology leads to, for any general reader. Unless that is that one has so much expertise in this, he/she probably never even needs to read the Wikipedia page to further explore... Again, I come back to my proposal. I suggest a broader less rigid concept, with sections more area-specific developed within such a general article. The way the article is now doesn't allow for such a flexible approach and thus all the cautionary comments you are getting from so many other colleagues as well. werldwayd (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that there's nothing to split, but this illustrates the problem with the title. Hardly any English speaker is going to understand the idiosyncratic use of "Slavic" by Greece. The normal reading is that this article is about speakers of Slavic languages, and that isn't going to change. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again we come back to a topic that has been discussed here before. The language is called "Slavic" in Greece, not "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian". --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And if we were Greek WP, that would be fine. But we're not in Greece. And outside of Greece, that's not what "Slavic" means. It's a misnomer. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "misnomer". It is a word that has a different meaning in one context than it has in other contexts. Using "Slavic" here is based on a long-standing consensus between Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks as to what to call this language in this article. And the last time I checked, consensus trumped virtually everything else in Wikipedia. If you want to initiate another discussion on what to call this group of Macedonian/Bulgarian/Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia, go right ahead and we'll see what comes out the other end. --Taivo (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And in the right context the Sun is a planet. But we'd hardly want to name an article "Sol (planet)". This title is just as confusing. I'm not requesting a move, but it should be obvious that as long as we say this article is about Slavic speakers, our readers are going to misunderstand us to mean Slavic speakers. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Life, and especially Wikipedia, is full of things we don't particularly like, but have to tolerate. The suggestion that you initiate a (separate) discussion about what to call this language in Greek Macedonia was a serious one although I sense that you took the suggestion as facetious. There are other interested editors just sitting on the sidelines watching this discussion without commenting specifically. They might have some useful input. Right now, this whole discussion about moving and splitting the article isn't going anywhere because the number of "Oppose" votes will serve as an anchor. --Taivo (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This article isn't about Russians or Poles or Czechs in Greece. It is about Macedonians in Greece, the vast majority of whom live in Greek Macedonia. After rereading WP:MOSMAC, two things become rather apparent.

• 1. Wikipedia's manual of style concerning Macedonia is clear that "Macedonian" is the name to be used in all cases when talking about the Slavic people or language of Macedonia.
• 2. #1 applies except when "Macedonian" is ambiguous, as it is in the case of Greek Macedonia, where "Macedonian" refers both to the inhabitants who are Greek and live in Greek Macedonia and the inhabitants who are Slavic and live in Greek Macedonia, both of whom also speak "Macedonian"--one a dialect of Greek, one a Slavic language.

Those two issues are part of the problem here. That is really why we used the term "Slavic speakers" here--to avoid the ambiguity of using "Macedonian" for any group of people living in Greek Macedonia. So the key is to find a term that avoids the ambiguity of using "Macedonian" to refer to a group of people who principally live in Greek Macedonia, but aren't Greek or Greek-speaking. --Taivo (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's not an easy problem to address. "Slavic", however, is similarly ambiguous. Agreed that "Macedonian" alone would be completely inappropriate. My suggestions above may also be problematic, though some of them seem less ambiguous to me. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Images in infobox

A newly registred sock created an infobox for ethnic group called Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Such ethnic group did never exist. I recognized several Macedonian Bulgarians born in the Ottoman Empire, who died there or in Bulgaria. They are not directly related to Greece. I recognized also several ethnic Macedonians born in Yugoslavia, who live in the Republic of Macedonia. They are also not directly related to Greece. More, part of the images are copyright infringement, without proper license and date. The are with a false author. I disagree with such way of action. P.S. It is futile to argue that the current Prime Minister of Macedonia must have a picture here. In the same way we must include a photo from the current Bulgarian President Plevneliev. He is descended from Bulgarian refugees who resettled from today's village of Petrousa in Drama regional unit, Greek Macedonia, in 1913. The Plevneliev family name refers to the Bulgarian name of the village, Plevna. Jingiby (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I am not trying to suggest that they are an ethnic group. Just like in the articles of Macedonians (Greeks), Macedonian Muslims, Macedonians (Bulgarians) who are not distinctive ethnic groups but have articles I wanted to create a "memorial" that Slavs existed in Greek Macedonia in the history and so do now. I would like to apologize to Jingiby who, by the way, has no arguments for what he's doing and promise to never put images of Slav Macedonians that played a such a great role in the Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Greek history. Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think, we need a third opinion. Could anybody from other editors discuss this issue here? Thank you in advance. Jingiby (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting pictures of people "belonging to the group" into infoboxes at all. A quick look at other articles shows that it tends to end up in eternal fights about who belongs to the group and who is important enough to put in. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose any editor who is arrogant enough to put their username in bigger letters than anything else on the page just for the sake of his/her arrogance. But, I also think that photos are rather silly, unless there are actual famous people to include that English speakers in the US or Britain might recognize and say, "I didn't know X was a Greek Macedonian!" Such is not the case here so an array of photos of unknown people who played some infinitessimal role in history is really pointless. I have been involved in those debates over "Who belongs here?" and the anon editor above is quite right--they quickly devolve into "Is X really a Macedonian?", "Just because X has Macedonian parents and speaks Macedonian is s/he really Macedonian because s/he lives in New York?", "Is X really Macedonian just because s/he was born in Y town?", "Is X really famous enough to include?", etc., etc., etc. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, Taivo & Jingiby. Infoboxes have this unfortunate tendency to generate controversy. In general, it is a) hard to generate a generally acceptable "representative" gallery of people for a specific group and b) in this particular case, despite its large historical section, which is necessary to understand the article, the article itself seems to focus on the Slavic-speakers after southern Macedonia came under Greek rule. Representative figures of the Slavic-speaking community would be those that have lived and acted within Greece. Including figures like Gruevski who did not grow up under Greek rule are hence irrelevant to the topic of the Slavic-speaking community in Greece, just as a German-speaker whose parents emigrated from Belgium to Germany is irrelevant to the affairs of the German-speaking community in Belgium. Constantine ✍ 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible Changes

I have only recently created a Wikipedia account and have looked up this page. I have several "issues" with it but I do not know how to change some of the stuff/don't know if my edits would be controversial.

There is one image featured in the article that shows a group dancing. My grandparents are from the Kastoria/Florina region and I am familiar with allot of the dances of Greek Macedonia, I however do not know this dance. As well as that the picture depicts a vergina sun on a red background. This alludes to the "Flag of Sovereign "Macedonia" (FYROM)" I find this quite offensive and incorrect to be portrayed as a banner at a Greek festival. Seeing as the flag for the region of Greek Macedonia is the vergina sun on a blue background. Also in the information box on the right, under the flag of FYROM it says "Macedonia" I don't believe that to be okay as the article is on Greek Macedonia and is quite offensive to refer to FYROM as solely Macedonia.

Please someone help me to edit this page legitimately. DarkLordAjuntaPall (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia is not called "FYROM" in Wikipedia, it is called by its own name, "Macedonia". Please read WP:MOSMAC before you get yourself into trouble with your politics. --Taivo (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay politics being put aside, there is one change I would like to make about the language itself. I have been brought up listening to Greek Macedonian and arguably it could be my first language. To distinguish it from other Slavic languages I would like to add a section that explains its roots in Doric (Ancient Greek) I have an example however I am not sure how to source it.

e.g. In Greek Macedonian the word wolf is pronounced "lysitsa" whereas in other Slavic languages it is "volk" and the Ancient Greek term is lycan or lycern. (Hence the name of the mountain in Athens lykavittos mountain or "the mountain of wolves"). DarkLordAjuntaPall (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

DarkLord, you have found a borrowed word in Greek Macedonian. There are hundreds of borrowed words in every language on the planet. That does not give Greek Macedonian "roots in Doric". It is a dialect of Macedonian, a Slavic language. If you want to provide a selection of borrowed words, then you need to find a reliable source on Greek Macedonian that discusses borrowed words. --Taivo (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Funniest thing

is, that all of them (slavic speakers in greek Macedonia) are originaly Serbs, All that lands were part of former serbina lands empire, kingdoms and dukes before Maritsa 1371 and Kosovo 1389 and Ottoman turkish ocupation. Noumerous monasteries are made or renovated by rullers from Nemanjić dynasty like monasteries near Kastoria or Florina...Over centuries and main influence of Constantinople patriarchy church, helenization was in progress. As witness of that are noumerous villages with slavic (serbian) names which are renamed in after ww1 period in greek way as common translation or renamed with names of greek historical persons from mithology to Macedonian struglle till 1912. "Bulgary" in Egeian Macedonia are just historical sadness and heavy life of people there under Turks. Instead of turkish government and greek popes, they try to find a peace of freedom, over good wishes from Bulgaria over churches (egyarchy schizm) and schools with favorite slavic language and lithurgy after centirues, but then bulgarization started even whole world knows how many conection name bulgar, bolgar, volgar or vulgar have with anything which is slavic. Another mess made newdays state of Macedonia with "macedonians by nation" splited by horrible neighbours Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks, propaganda with hugh comunist help over 50 years...That is terrible history of this losted people called by every different names exept the right one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.147.51 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Split proposal

I think that this article would almost necessary require splitting, because it has a large proportion of material, in terms of content, piled up in it. It would seem very much reasonable that it would be given a change to be split in the form of other “sister articles”, as the ones mentioned, in order for the content to evolve, because it surely has its notability. In that way, the neutrality of the article would come to a right balance, taking in fact that the different articles would cultivate different areas of official opinion(s). Nemojda (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal to have one article on Macedonians and one article on Bulgarians is ridiculous. There is only one Slavic language spoken in Greece, not two, and the ethnic identifiers within the borders of Greece for people who speak one language, are far from NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You must understand that I'm proposing a split to create separate "sister articles" to this one, one about Greek citizen that identify as Macedonians, and the other about Greek citizens that identify as Bulgarian, to work on themes like their settlements, organizations, culture, etc. I didn't specify anything about the usage of language. Nemojda (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I oppose. This proposal is not constructive. Jingiby (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. Can you specify a reason? Nemojda (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it starts from an incorrect presumption that those people can be conveniently classified into "Macedonian", "Bulgarian" and "Slavophone Greek" drawers, then counted, then a separate article about each group can be written. In reality, such classification does not exist, because it is personal and cultural, and borders are blurred, even on an individual level. Taken one by one, many people who are subject of the article will have Greek ethnic affiliation, many Macedonian, yet others Bulgarian, and some would be just Slavic... and many of those would be all of that at the same time. I fail to see necessity for split along these lines. A case could be made for splitting the history per WP:SS, but I don't think it is currently too long to present an obstacle for navigation. No such user (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it’s pretty much as constructive as it gets. It would devote and split contradicting positions in this article to different related articles to this one thus this article wouldn’t have a problem being neutral. Nemojda (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Plus, it would give a chance for the opposing contexts to evolve and upgrade in their separate articles. Nemojda (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is close to NPOV. The eventual split will give a good chance for biased POV. Jingiby (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not suggesting a complete split, but the titles already mentioned. These articles would have the role of reinforcing the material of this article. Thus this article's NPOV would remain intact, but on the contrary it would have a larger support on the context. In my opinion. Nemojda (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are Greeks that don't speak a Slavic language, then they don't belong in this article anyway--whether their ancestors are ethnically Slavic or not. Notice the title of the article: Slavic speakers. It's not about anyone who speaks Greek as their first language. It's only about the people who speak the one Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the reason I proposed of creating separate articles about Greek people with ethnic Slavic (Macedonian/Bulgarian) descent. You proved my point. Nemojda (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Setting up a new article for Greek speakers of Slavic ethnicity is different than splitting this article. This article is about people in Greece who still speak Slavic and their history in the country. So you still don't understand the point--this article isn't about people named Stepanovich who speak Greek. It's about people who speak Macedonian who live in Greece. --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Then, why isn't it called Macedonian-speakers of Greek Macedonia rather than Slavic speakers? Nemojda (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Because in Greece, Macedonian is called "Slavic", not "Macedonian". It is the result of a consensus a couple of years ago. --Taivo (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is quite confusing, though. The world isn't Greece. Silesian is a "Slavic dialect", but that's not what we're talking about. In the box, "Slavic dialects" should be changed to "Macedonian" (or "Slavic Macedonian" or whatever), with an appropriate link, and in the very first line "Slavic" should be defined, so people aren't under the impression that it means "Slavic". — kwami (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the whole problem, though, Kwami, and it's been discussed here before. Macedonian speakers are called "Slavic" in Greece. The lead probably does, however, need to make that clear. --Taivo (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian diaspora

@Tonimicho: You seem to have misunderstood the scope of this article. If you read it carefully (and also take a look at the talk page), you will see that it is an article about a Slavic-speaking indigenous linguistic/ethnic population group. They are or have been called Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slavomacedonian, Slavic or, most commonly, just "local". For lack of a better name (or rather: for lack of consensus about a better name), they are in Wikipedia called "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia". That is "of", not "in", since it covers a group that is indigenous of Greek Macedonia. It does not cover other Slavic speakers in Greece, like the Pomaks, and it does not cover the 43 981 Bulgarians (not "declared Bulgarians", but registered citizens of Bulgaria)) who live and work all over Greece, not only in Macedonia. Bulgarian diaspora is therefore not relevant to this article. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Who are really that slavic macedonians by documents (Historical facts with references)

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

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

2) In the year 680 in Bythinia, city of Gordoservon is mentioned whose name is derived from the Serbs resettled in Asia Minor by Byzantine Emperor Constance II from the areas around river Vardar (FYROM) . Isidor,the Episcop of Gordoservon is mentioned in 680/681 and the fact that this town was Episcopal Center gives ground to the thesis that it had large Serbian population. Around year 1200 this city is mentioned as Servochoria (Serbian Habitation) . Constantin Porfyrogenitus “De Administrando Imperio” Erdeljanovich.J. “O naseljavanju Slovena u Maloj Aziji i Siriji od VII do X veka” Glasnik geografskog drushtva vol. VI 1921 pp.189 Lequen,M. “Oriens Christianus” I, 1740, pp.659-660 Micotky,J.”Otiorum Chroate”, Vol. I ,Budapest, 1806, pp.89-112 Niederle,L. “Slovanske starozhitnosti” Dilu II,Svazek pp.389-399; pp. 444-446 Ostrogorski,G.”Bizantisko-Juzhnoslovenski odnosi”,Enciklopedija Jugoslavije 1,Zagreb 1955,pp. 591-599 Ramsay,W.M. “The Historical Geography Of Asia Minor”, London, 1890, pp.183, pp.210

3) Around 1229/1230 Bulgarian Emperor John Asen II wrote an inscription in Trnovo:”I have took the land from Adrianopolis to Drach,Greek,Albanian and also Serbian”.Since Serbian states were situated far north from the line outlined in this commemorative text,it is not unlikely that “Serbian” means an ethnically Serbian enclave,situated much more southerly than political borders of Serbia. Daskalov,H.S. “Otkritija v drevnei stolicji Bolgarskoi,Ternovo”Moskva, 1859 pp.18-19 Dujchev,I. “Car Ivan Asen II” Sofija, 1941 pp.23-24 Makushev,V “Bolgarija v’ koncjah XII i v pervoi polovini XIII veka” ,1872 pp.56-57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) In the second half of 14th century, monk Isaiah said that Ugljesha has risen Serbian and Greek army (Srbskija i Grchskiija voiska) and his brother Vukashin,and with that army they confronted the invading Turks. Novakovich,S. “Srbi i Turci XIV i XV veka , 1893,pp.184, Mikloshich ,F. “S.Joannis Chrystostomi homilia in ramos palmarum”, 1845, pp.71 Mikloshich,F. “Chrestomatia Paleoslovenica”, 1861, pp 41

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

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

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

Ljubich,S. “Listine” 4,1874, pp.437

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

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

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

Kachanovski,V. “Starine” 12,1880 ,pp.255

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crusius, M. “Turcogreciae libri octo”, 1584, pp.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Snoshenia Rossii po djelam cerkovnim” ,I,1858

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

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

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

“Snoshenia Rossii po djelam cerkovnim” II, 1860 pp.29

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

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

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

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

Visite e Colllegi, Vo.1 f66r-82r

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

Roma, 25 marzo 1628

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

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

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

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

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

….Prisren, il di 29 ottobre…

…Giorgio Bjanchi, Arciv d’ Antivari et Primate di Servia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive of the Russian Ministry For Foreign Affairs,Year 7156

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

Fermendzhin,E. “Starine” 25,1892, pp.172

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

Dimitrijevich,S. “Glasnik Srpske kraljevske akademije”, 58,1900.

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

“Filologicheskaja nabljudenija A.H. Vostokova”.1865, pp.184

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

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

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

Fermendzhin,E. “Starine” 25,1892, pp.194

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

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

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

Fermendzhin,E. “Starine” 25 ,pp18

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

Heylin,P. “Cosmographie in four books” London,1666

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

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

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

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

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

Fermendzhin E., “Starine” 25, 1892. pp. 195-196

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

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

46) Around 1680 Urban Cerri mentioned in his report to Pope Inocentius XI archbiscop of Skoplje in Serbia.

Theiner,A.” Vetera. Monum. Slav. Mer. Histor. Ill.” II, 1875,pp 213

47) Archbishop of Skoplje writes about Serbia and says that Skoplje is capital city in Serbia (Scopia….metropolli di Servia) .Further,He mentions that Orthodox houses in Skoplje are Greek and Serbian (Case Greche e Serviane) .

Theiner,A. ibidem, pp. 220

48) Canonical Visit by Archbishop of Skoplje Peter Bogdani in 1680 indicated that inhabitans of Skoplje are “Greeks, Serbs, Jews, Armenians”. “Scritture orig. rif. nelle. congr. gen. vol. 482 ad congr. die 5 maii 1681 Nro 24″

49) In 1685 Catholic Archbishop of Skoplje Petar Bogdani wrote to Cardinal Cibo saying that Turks had thrown him into exile from entire Serbia (da tutta la Servia) .

Horvat,K. “Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini” XXI, 1909, pp. 403

50) Mitropolit Jevtimije from Serbian land of Skoplje (Serbskija zemli goroda Skopija) arrived in Russia in 1687 where he delivered a request in which he says that he is Mitropolit of Serbian land of Skoplje (Mitropolit Serbskije zemli Skopskie Crkve) .

Dimitrijevich,S. “Glasnik Srpske Kraljevske Akademije” 60, 1901 pp.154

51) In 1690 Catholic Bishop of Cotor, Marin Drago,reports that “Skoplje is inhabited with Turks, Serbs of Greek Rite and Catholics”,

“Scritture riferite nei congressi – Servia.Vol. I, Fol. 120″

52) Austrian Emperor Leopold proclaimed Jovan Monastirlija from Bitolj a Vojvoda (Military chieftain) of the Serbian nation in Austria in 1691.

Trifunoski,F.J. “Makedoniziranje Juzhne Srbije” Beograd 1995 pp.24

53) Bratan Ivanov,a Serb from Macedonian land arrived in Russia (Makedonskie zemli Serbin’ Bratan’ Ivanov) in the year 1704. Archive of the Russian Ministry For Foreign Affairs,Year 1704 Kapterev,N.A. “Harakter otnoshenii Rossii k Pravoslavnomu Vostoku v XVI i XVII stoletija” 1914 pp.348

54) Dimitrije Petrov from Kichevo arrived in Russia to collect funds for building church dedicated to St. Demetrius in Kichevo.He declared himself as coming from the Serbian land of Kichevo (Serbskie zemli goroda Karacheva) .The arrival is recorded as being by the: “(From) Serbian land (from) Ohrid’s Eparchy (of the) Krachevite city Serb Dmitrei Petrov”: “Serbskie zemli Arhidonskija Eparhi Krachevskogo goroda Serbjanin Dmitrei Petrov”.

Archive of the Russian Ministry For Foreign Affairs,Year 1706, No. 7

55) Archbishop of Bar, Vichentije Zmajevich mentiones that “main places in Serbia are: Belgrade, Smederevo, Nish, Skoplje, Prokuplje, Novo Brdo, Prishtina, Trepcha, Prizren and Pech, and forts Kachanik, Tetovo, Janjevo, Vuchitrn, Mitrovica, Djakovica and Novi Pazar” “Scritture riferite nei congressi – Albania. Vol. V, Fol. 175″

56) In 1723 Gerard Cornelius von Driesch,secretary of the Austrian delegation heading for Constantinople, mentioned that in Pirot there are “Greeks and Serbs in those lands” (Grichen oder Raitzen dieses landes) .He also mentioned place named Grobblian located eastern of Sofia saying that the greater part of its inhabitants are Serbs (Raitzen) .

Cornelius,G.V.D. “Historische nachricht von der Rom. Kayser.Gross-Botschaft nacht Konstantinopol” Nurnberg 1723 pp.84; pp.102

57) The Urgent Congregation of Roman Catholic Church in 1742 issued an report which states that “Serbs of Greek Rite” are peopling Croatia,Slavonia,Hungary,Serbia,Thrace,Macedonia,Albania and Montenegro.

Archivum Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide.”Congregazioni Particolari”Vol.106.Fol.1

58) In the year 1744 Russian Empress Elisabeth addressed the “Noble and honest lords of Serbian lands in Macedonia,Skandaria,Montenegro and Primorje of Montenegrin people,to the governors , dukes, princess and captains as well as their spiritual and secular masters”.

Milutinovich,S.”Istorija Crne Gore”,1835

59) In a 1756 letter main cities in Serbia (La Servie) are mentioned, and among them Skoplje ,where Serbian Archbishop reside; Cratovo,by which province is named (Scopia, ou reside Archeveque Rascien; Cratovo, qui donne son nom au Gouvernement) .

“Le Voyager francois, ou la connoissance de l’ ancien et du noveau monde mis au jour par M. l’ Abbe Delaporte”, tome XXIII, Paris,1777

60) Catholic Archbishop of Skoplje Matija Masarek, an Albanian, reported that the city as inhabited with “Grece, scismatici Serviani, Ebrei et Armeni” in a report written c.1770.

In 1790 he mentioned in his report that Turks are suspicious of Greeks and Serbs of Skoplje because they have sent letters to Russia. “Scritture rif. nei congressi – Servia. Vol. III”, marzo 1790

61) A group of French staff officers in 1807,with the permission of the Turks, traveled around Macedonia compiling a statistical survey of the population. Apart from Greeks,Turks,Albanians and Aromanians they found only Serbs.

Slijepchevich, Dj. “The Macedonian Question”,The American Institute For Balkan Affairs, Chicago,1958

62) Correspondence by the Czech philologist Dobrovski to a Slovenian colleague B. Kopitar between 1809-1810 contains this opinion by Dobrovski: “I have little regard for geographical names.Dubrovnikers, Macedonians, Bosnians are nevertheless Serbs” : “Die geographischen Benennungen kummern mich wenig. Ragusiner, Macedonier, Bosnien sind doch Serben”. Jagich, V. “Briefwechsel zwischen Dobrowsky und Kopitar” Berlin, 1885 pp.34

63) A statement by Joseph Muller, Austrian, Medical officer in Turkish Army in early 19th century, who worked in Albania about Slavs in neighboring countries that were visited by him.Dr. Muller was a fluent speaker of the Serbian language. “Together with Slavic community of Spiz on Triplex confinium and smaller communities in Skadar,Podgorica and Spuzh,Serbian tribes live in eastern mountains Altin-Ili in Dibr-Sipre in the area of Struga as well as in eastern coast of the Ohrid Lake, further in the valleys of Rezna and Prespa in the city of Monastir and its northeastern surrounding, in the valley Srebrnica,and by name on communities of Optorosh,Shrbica,Mahmusha,Mrtvuca,along the left, eastern coast of White Drim in communities of Kremovik, Mirozhizh, Cuprevo, Grebnik, Zlokuche.” Joseph Muller, “Albanien,Rumelien und die Osterreichisch-Montenegrinische Grenze”,Prague,1844

64) “The Serbian pastoral tribes are separated from the Bulgarian agrarian population of Macedonia by the Greeks, who inhabit the central and coastal regions of this great land”. Cyprian Robert, “Les Slaves de Turque” Paris, 1844, Vol. II pp.234

65) “Serbian branch includes, with the exception of Serbian Principate, Montenegro, Bosnia, also many other enclaves in Albania and Macedonia” Cyprian Robert, “Die Slaven der Turkei” Stuttgart, vol.II pp. 278

66) Edmund Spencer’s comment about ethnicity of peoples in the region of Macedonia, visited by him in the mid-19th century: “The inhabitants are for the most part composed of Rayahs, a mixed race of Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians, who, it cannot be doubted, would join to the man their brethren in faith of Serbia and Upper Moesia.It must therefore be evident that the great danger to be apprehended to the rule of the Osmanli in these provinces, is the successful inroad of the Serbian nationality into Macedonia; with this people they have the tradition of right, and their former greatness, aided by the powerful ties of race and creed” Edmund Spencer, “Travels in European Turkey”, vol. II , London, 1851, pp. 30

67) “Serbian tribes are by language and according to origin in possession of the greatest part of western part of European Turkey.At east they are distributed up to Nishava and Struma, Strumion of the Ancients, which goes in the Gulf of Orpheus.From southern to the northern border of Greek language, they inhabit Bosnia, Herzegovina, Old Macedonia.Montenegrins and Dalmatians, although not subjected by the Turks, are of Serbian tribe” Ruestow, W “Der Krieg in der Tuerkey 1875-1876″, Zurich, 1876

68) From 1880 to 1881 the Serbian Brsjaci Revolt (Brsjachka Buna) was fought in the areas of Demir-Hisar,Porech and Kichevo.The leaders of this uprising were local Chetniks:Ilija Delija,Rista Kostadinovich,Micko Krstich and Andjelko Tanasovich. Veselinovich,V.M. “Brsjachka Buna” Beograd 1905

69) A 1854 request of the inhabitants of village Selce near Debar to HRM King Alexander Karadjordjevich. 22 Oktovra Arsenije Janovich,Gavril Janovich,Damjan Markovich, Vasil Milich, Tane Ninovich, Trifun Grujovich, Stanisha Nikolich, Cvetko Damjanovich, Despot Potnikovich, Gligorije Naumovich i Filip Aleksich proshenijem od 21 t.m. mole Knjaza da bi se obshtini ninoi Selachkoi u Albaniji za Crkvu shtogod knjiga pravitelstvom srpskim za sirotinske crkve u Turskoj nabavljeni podarilo. Djambazovski, K. et al. “Arhivska Gragja za istorijata na Makedonskiot narod” Beograd 1979 vol I, book 2, pp. 235

70) On the basis of the Priviligies by Rudolph II many thousands Serbian familes emigrated from Bosnia and Macedonia under the Dukes Vukovich and Pjasonich.

Czoernig, von Carl “Ethnographie der oesterrichischem Monarchie”, Wien, 1885, Vol II pp.169

71) “It is understandable that the Turks preferred the patient and submissive Bulgar to the rebellious Serb or Greek. Since the Serbian principality had gained its freedom, the Turks regarded every Serb who declared himself to be such as a rebellious conspirator against the Turkish regime.

This circumstance was widely exploited by the Bulgars in order to spread their propaganda among the Serbs outside the principality. Whoever was reluctant to become a Bulgar and persisted in calling himself a Serb was denounced to the Turks as conspiring with Serbia, and could expect severe punishment. Serbian priests were maltreated; permission was refused to open Serbian schools and those that were already in existence were closed; Serbian monasteries were destroyed.

In order to avoid persecution, the population renounced its nationality and called itself Bulgarian……..during the last thirty or forty years, propaganda has been rife in which the Bulgars have encouraged the Turks to act against Serbs and Greeks. Hence, throughout Macedonia, Thrace and Dardania, Slavs are considered to be Bulgars, which is quite incorrect. On the contrary, the Slavs in Macedonia are incapable of understanding a Bulgar from Jantra.

If it is desired to designate these Slavs correctly, than they must be considered as Serbs, for the Serbian name is so popular among them that for example male children are sometimes christened “Srbin” [Serb]*. the Serbian hero of the folk poems, Marko Kraljevich is obviously the Serbian ruler in Macedonia.”

Alexander von Heksch “Die Donau von ihrem Ursprung bis an die Mundung”,Leipzig,1885,pp.63

• On the subject of appearance of the male name “Srbin” (a Serb) ,see:

“Licno ime Srbin u krajevima danasnje BJRM (“male name Srbin in the areas of todays FYROM”) “,pp.41-44 in: Jovan F. Trifunoski “Makedoniziranje Juzne Srbije”, Beograd, 1995

72) In 1886 Russian publicist I.S. Jastrebov published his book “Obichai i pesni tureckih serbov v Prizren,Ipek,Morava,i Dibra” (“Customs and songs of the Turkish Serbs in Prizren,Pech,Morava and Debar) in which the following reference to the important Serb custom of “Slava” is found: “Slava is celebrated by Serbs not only in Serbia,in Austria,Hungary,Bosnia,Montenegro,Kosovo,Morava and area of Prizren,but also in the areas of Skopje,Veles,Prilep,Bitola and Ohrid,including also Debar and the area of Tetovo.All inhabitants in the mentioned area who speak with the Slavo-Serbian dialect keep that custom holy.”

Jastrebov,I.S. “Obichai i Pesni tureckih serbov v Prizren,Ipek,Morava i Dibra”,1886,pp.1-2

73) “Divided by faith on three parts, divided out of political destiny, under various jurisdictions, Serbian race has the missfortune to be dispersed over various provinces, names of which hinther its unity.Serbia, Old Serbia, (in today’s Turkish vilayets of Kosovo and Sandjak) , Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, with Dubrovnik, southern parts of Hungary (Bachka, Srem, Baranja) , Slavonia, Croatia”

Dozon,A. “L’ Europee Serbe, chants popularies heroiques (Serbie, Bosnie et Herzegovine, Croatie, Dalmatie, Montenegro”, Paris, 1888, pp.15-16

74) An observation by the Austro-Hungarian Field Marshal Anton Tuma von Waldkampf: “In Macedonia Serbs are living, partly in the great plain of Bitolj,partly in Vardar plain and are particularly compact in the valley of Tetovo” Anton Tuma von Waldkampf “Griechland,Makedonien und Sudalbanien”,Leipzig, 1897 pp-214-215

75) A conclusion by the linguist Petar Draganov about the songs of “Macedonian Slavs”:”It is a strikingly obvious that within the circle of Cars,Kings,dukes,heroes and other individuals of these songs one can find only persons and significant events from the medieval,new and latest Serbian history”.

P.Draganov “Makedonsko-Slavjanskii Sbornik” pp.VIII (n.d.)

76) “Serbs are in the south of Dalmatia, in the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, at the south of the Kingdom of Hungary,in Macedonia” Henry, Rene “Questions d’ Autriche-Hongrie et Question d’ Orient” Paris, 1905, pp.207

77) Remark of Dr. Karl Oestreich about Skoplje: “The city’s population consist of all possible elements-some of whom have come out in favor of the Bulgarian Exarchate and call themselves ‘Bulgars’-and Albanians or Mohammedanized Serbs. Although it is situated south of Sar-planina, Skoplje is the chief city of Old Serbia…..the rural population, although it is Serbian in origin, has for the most parts given its support to the Exarchate, since a Bulgarian bishop is for them more acceptable than a Greek bishop of the Ecumenical Church to which they formerly belonged. This is how the rural population around Skoplje has today come to be mostly Bulgarian; the same is true of the purely Serbian Tetovo”.

Karl Oestreich “Makedonien” Geographische Zeitschrift, Vol.X, No.1, 1904,pp 198-199

78) Referring to the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Macedonia,Karl Oestreich noted: “A considerable part of the rural population, although it then felt to be Serbian, seized the first opportunity of obtaining Slavic priests and so declared itself to be Bulgarian ……Whoever joined the Bulgarian Exarchate was registered in the Turkish population records as “bulgari-milet” and to the world as large was a Bulgar”.

Karl Oestreich “Die Bevolkerung von Makedonien”,Geographische Zeitschrift,Vol. XI, No.1,1905,pp.291

79) Theodor von Sosnosky wrote about Bulgarian Propaganda in Macedonia: “What this methods were the Greeks, Serbs and Turks of this unhappy land felt on their own backs. By plunder and arson, rape and murder, armed bands tried to make them come to the Bulgarian side”. Theodor von Sosnosky “Die Balkanpolitik Osterreich-Ungars seit 1886,Stuttgart-Berlin,1914, Vol.II,pp.129

80) During World War I, the Bulgarian troops under the command of first lieutenant Alexander Protogerov (a high-ranking VMRO member) were ordered to inflict reprisals upon the population east of Kumanovo for an attack made on some Bulgarian troops .Before the reprisal measures were begun, the entire population declared that it was Bulgarian, purely in order to avoid being punished.Protogerov was greatly perplexed. Here is a quote by Gilbert in der Maur regarding this event: “Then Protogerov’s aides had an idea: they asked who celebrated the ‘slava’.Those who did so were shot, since the celebration of the ‘slava’ is a sign that one is a Serb:it is a custom which the Bulgarians do not have”. Gilbert in der Maur “Jugoslawien einst und jetz” Leipzig-Vienna, 1936,pp.330

81) “Although the Serbian national epic found its fullest realization in the regions of the northwest, nevertheless a considerable part of its material was taken from Southern Serbia.And Vice Versa: many poems which originated elsewhere found their way to Southern Serbia, were sung here and inherited”. Alois Schmaus, “Dichtung”,”Mazedonien: Leben und Gestalt einer Landschaft”,Berlin,1940 pp.106

82) A List of topographical names in Old Serbia (FYROM) with the characteristic Serbian root “Srb-”: Srbinovo, near Tetovo; Srbica, Srbjani , Srbjan Dolence in the Area of Bitolj (Bitola,Monastiri) ;Srbce and Srbci south from Bitolj;Srbinovo in the area of Gorna Dzhumaja (Pirin area in Bulgaria) ;Srbinica,river source near the village of Podles. V.K’nchov “Makedonija” ,Sofia,1900 pp.256 M.A. Vujucic “Recnik mesta u oslobodjenoj oblasti Stare Srbije”,1914,pp.241 V.K’nchov Ibidem pp.191 V. K’nchov Ibidem pp. 238 V. Radovanovic: “Tikves i Rajec”, Etnogr. Zbornik XXIX pp.457 J.F. Trifunoski “Makedoniziranje Juzne Srbije”,Beograd,1995,pp.33 --Boris Godunov (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)