Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 6

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

FOR STARTERS

Please remove the picture in the top right portion of the screen because the first person to the left is a Bulgarian - Konstantin Miladinov (see Miladinov Brothers for additional information).

The people of Republic of Macedonia beleive they were Macedonians. And, there are many sources that support this.

Reading enought about them will show you that both (Macedonians and Bulgarians) have right to claim that they are a part of them. Will you travel in time and ask them personaly? Macedonian^(talk) 04:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

How's this?
File:300px-Macedonians.jpg
REX 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That is quite good. Bomac 19:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians are not some kind of former people (Fyromians, don't make me laugh!). If you find any example in the world, call me. So stop with your emptied propaganda already. As I said before, justice comes slowly, but it'll come some day. The ,,date of use of the Bukurest treaty ends in 2013 or 2014. And who the heck are YOU?!?! I see you've made quite a long pause. Are you a sockpuppet? Bomac 09:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the link FYROM leads to the truth - REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (or simply, MACEDONIA). Bomac 10:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Gee, more and more sources

This morning, after church, I was flicking through my copy of the Hutchinson Encyclopedia and I found a rather comprehensive definition of Macedonian. Not Macedonian (ethnicity), not Macedonian Slav, but Macedonian. How curious :-) I guess this means that in conjunction with the fact that Britannica, Ethnologue, the UN etc refer to these people as Macedonians, then we can assume that prominent scholars would appear to disagree with Miskin and Vergina, who seem to believe that the SlavoMacedonians as they call them are mere Bulgarians on Prozac in Yugoslav style. Well, given that their view plays a fringe role in the scientific community, we can assume that we will have to ignore their views (which just coincidentally happen to coincide with those of ΛΑΟΣ :-)) and use the NPOV views as expressed by the vast majority of English language encyclopaedias and use the name that they use accordingly. They are the perfect sources; I wish I knew where Miskin and Vergina got their views. Not from credible encyclopaedias, that's for sure.

In case anyone's interested, here is the entry:

---

Macedonian

People of Macedonian culture from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the surrounding area, especially Greece, Albania, and Bulgaria. Macedonian, a Slavic language belonging to the Indo-European family, has 1-1.5 million speakers. The Macedonians are predominantly members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and write with a Cyrillic script. They are known for their folk arts.

The Macedonian language and ethnic identification have been subject to repression, especially in Bulgaria and Greece. Although the number of Macedonian speakers in Greece is estimated at 100,000-200,000 (1994), they are denied official recognition.

[Then it had a picture of Macedonians in their traditional dress]

(©Helicon Publishing Ltd, printed from the Hutchinson Educational Encyclopedia, 2000)

---

I hope that Miskin and Vergina acknowledge the fact that they are wrong and that their views are POV. REX 11:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Some logical and usual facts

• Macedonian Slavs should NOT be the name for Macedonians because there are many other nations (in the region or in other parts of Europe) that actually belong to the Slavic group of people. According to this, the word Slavs is not used to describe a nation, but to describe only a group of people (for example, like Arabs, who you'll find in Saudi-Arabia [Saudi-Arabians], Egypt [Egyptians], Libya [Libians], Mauritania [Mauritanians] etc.) So, there are many Slavs: Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovenians etc. There is absoluttely no-need of adding the suffix Slavs after each nation (it's pointless).

• The UN refers to these people as Macedonians. Encyclopedia Britannica, also, refers to them as Macedonians etc.

• The people in the Republic of Moldova (or Moldavia), are called Moldovans (or Moldavians) worldwide. I'm mentioning this because the Republic of Moldavia borders with the region of Moldavia in Romania, similar "case" as Macedonia / Greece. There are so many other examples like this in the world (Republic of Armenia and the region Armenia in Turkey. The people in the Armenian republic stay Armenians etc.).

• Republic of Macedonia has no terittorial or any other kind of pretensions towards Greece. Because of this, it's non-sence these people not to be referred as Macedonians.

And, these people's democratic choise is to be called Macedonians. They want to be called like that. It's against all rules one country to tell the other how it's citizens to be called. Bomac 18:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The name Macedonian Slavs should not be used. There is no reason whatsoever to use that name except to please a few Greek nationalists, who hate this ethnic group and want to impose a label that they find offensive on them (ring a bell, Miskin?). The vast majority of sources refer to these people as Macedonians: Britannica, the CIA World Factbook, the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Harvard Dictionary of Music, Philip's Encyclopedia, the Macmillan Encyclopedia, the Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, Penguin Encyclopedia of Places, the Companion to British History, the Hutchinson Encyclopedia and Ethnologue ALL call this ethnic group Macedonians. To say that Greece also has a region called Macedonia and because of that we should call them Macedonian Slavs is ridiculous. There is a Republic of Mongolia, but that doesn't stop China and Russia having regions called Mongolia. The name Macedonian Slavs is inaccurate anyway; there are at least two Slavic peoples in the wider region of Macedonia, it could also apply to the Bulgarian Macedonians. This dispute has been going on for too long and it is time that the NPOV name be used. More people call these people Macedonians; this is an English language encyclopaedia, most English language sources call these people Macedonians. Macedonian Slavs is inaccurate and offensive to the people in question, it cannot be used. Wikipedia's naming policy also requires the use of the name Macedonians. I think that all this is clear enough, and the name Macedonians is the more appropriate one, and therefore that one should be used. NEXT! REX 19:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Due to some unavoidable duties I was not able to discuss here. Basically all has been said before. I would wish once again to stress that the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy is pretty clear on this matter. In fact, tt couldn't get more clearer. Also it is a good thing to add that this policy has become a naming convention guideline. I think that it is a pity that Matia and Chronographos avoid answering the mediation proposal, it only gives them more options. --FlavrSavr 23:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

And, as some politicians and people say, Macedonians are not Fyromians! Nowhere in the world there aren't some kind of "former people". Macedonians are living in the present! They have their own history! Bomac 11:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The people opposing the usage of the name Macedonians for this ethnic group are not answering us. I propose that we take their silence as an indication of approval, and replace Macedonian Slavs with Macedonians (ethnicity) and use a footnote saying that these people can also be known as Macedonian Slavs. The vast majority of sources use the name Macedonians to refer to these people. I fail to see why the minority name (Macedonian Slavs) should take precedence over the one used by the majority. REX 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Or, because in everyday talk noone uses the term Macedonians to describe the Greeks that live in the Greek region of Macedonia, we can simply move it to "Macedonians". Bomac 16:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Country is a country (in the R. of Macedonia live Macedonians) region is a region (in the Greek region of Macedonia live Greeks and other ethnicities). Bomac 16:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No Bomac, we shouldn't call your nation plain Macedonians. Let's not take it too far; Macedonians (ethnicity), Ethnic Macedonians or Macedonians (ethnic group) will do for now. It is true that other encyclopaedias (ie Hutchinson) call your nation plain Macedonians and it may be an acceptable name, but given that Wikipedia is built on consensus, the claim to the name Macedonians just for your ethnic group, will provoke reaction from Greek and Bulgarians and result in violent edit wars and pointless lengthy discussions. My proposals above will do, I think, because they are not too questionable and they are accurate. It acknowdedges the fact that your name is Macedonians (that is the name you use for yourselves as opposed to the fictional Macedonian Slavs) and that you are a modern ethnic group, but it does not imply that you are the only Macedonians and that the Greeks and Bulgarians are not just unwanted tresspassers. REX 17:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. For now, it is the best solution - smth. like Macedonians (ethnicity). Bomac 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good, at least we're sorted out. REX 17:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask why the Macedonians (or people with close Macedonian origin) that live in other countries (such as USA with more than 150.000, with more than 40.000 in Michigan, Canada with more than 250.000, Australia with more than 250.000 etc.) are not mentioned at all in the text for the modern Macedonians?

Those people are actually the ones that can be the biggest proof of our distinct ethnicity. Most of them moved out of the region in the first 40 years of the 20th centrury, because of what they had no conection with Tito.

That makes the claims expressed on Wikipedia that the modern Macedonians are creation of Tito a complete non-sence, because these people identify as of Macedonian ethnicity, despite the fact that they never were under influence of Tito.

Also, I would like to mention the following:

The Bulgarian prime minister, Mr. Serge Stanishev recognized and again confirmed his Macedonian origin, saying that his whole origin from his father side is Macedonian. Just few days ago, during his meeting with the Macedonian prime minister Vlado Buchkovski he said that except Bulgarian, he also has Macedonian, Russian and German blood in his vains. He also said that his grandparents (the Macedonian part of the family) runned away from Kukush (today Kilkis, in northern Greece) in 1913th and setled in Dupnica. I know that someone will now try to change this fact and say that Mr. Stanishev was talking about the regions. So, it is necesary to explain that Mr. Stanishev did not reffer to the regional origin, because he mentioned another nationalities (Bulgarian, German and Russian) in the same context.

Mr. Stanishev expressed the same many times before during several interviews that he gave in the past.

As you can see, he lived all his life in Bulgaria, but he clearly knows his origin and the fact that he has other origin except Bulgarian.

Another thing I would like to add that every preposition of the United Nations for the naming conflict between Macedonia and Greece includes that we should be called Macedonians. This is also included in the newest preposition, which appeared just 2-3 days ago.

I almost forgot to mention the newest resolution of the senate of Michigan, USA, which clearly supports the Macedonian nation, its ethnicity, history, the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, its church and language, giving a complete support over the naming conflict to Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians.

Macedonian 20:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Another question... why the link http://makedonija.150m.com/ is constantly used, sometimes even without mentioning that is pro-Bulgarian web site?

Even the site is hosted on a free server (www.150m.com), which gives clear assumption that something is not the way it should be. All the objects that can be found on this site are of unconfirmed origin and could be easily a product of the Bulgarian tries to assimilate the Macedonians. This claim is even more posible when we have on mind that all the objects listed on this web page are kept in Bulgaria and most of them do not have support and can not be found in some international and neutral source or archive. Macedonian

"Assimilate" is a sharp word, you may like to avoid it. What's bad with it being a pro-Bulgarian website? Don't we have the right to have our own opinion? I don't think you had any evidence at all on the documents on the site being forged, it is very unusual to think of something as being forged without any evidence. Are you sure it's just refusing to accept it? Besides, this thing you said about Stanishev isn't trustworthy, Bulgarians with ancestry from the region Macedonia might usually say that "Macedonian blood is flowing in their veins" (и на български ще ме разбереш, "македонска кръв тече във вените им", нали така?). And we mean the region, as Kukush is obviously not a part of the Republic of Macedonia and has actually never been. Many Bulgarians fled or were expelled of the Greek part of Macedonia after the wars. It's just you that didn't get what he said, so you might prefer to avoid using such "evidence" in the future. File:Bulgaria flag large.png → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 08:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Todor, there is nothing bad for you to have your oppinion. To be honest, I find it very offensive for me, but noone can take away your right to express your own oppinion.

Concerning the word "Assimilation", I can not avoid it, even if I want. You know by yourself that every day your TV stations and newspapers are full of claims that Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. It is time for you to wake up and realise the truth. I know very different historical facts than the ones you beleive in. And, both of us are right, because the history of the region is in fact twisted and quite unclear one, so both POVs (mine and yours) have a lot of supporting evidence. Whatever the past was, the present fact stays: We are here, our nationality/ethnicity is Macedonian and noone can change that. Actually, even this last post of yours is assimilative, because you obviously try to deny my separate (Macedonian) existance of your own (Bulgarian).

Concerning Mr. Stanishev... his words and aditude is completely clear. This was not the first time he said this (reminder for you at his interviews, where he never hided the fact of his mixed origin). His father was raised as Macedonian and he recognizes that. It is complete bulshit to claim that someone is calling himself Macedonian and saying that Macedonian blood is in his vains just because of the region. The blood does not have any sence of regions. I am sure that Mr. Stanishev would never say that French blood is flowing in his vains just because someone of his family is born in France. If you were born in Scandinavia, would you say that Scandinavian blood flows in your vaines? Sorry, but I have to characterise this as complete non-sence.

The difference between you and Mr. Stanishev, my friend, is that he spent most of his life out of Bulgaria and his brain is not completely washed by everyday programs that run on your TV (something that you can not deny and something that even I have seen). I recognize that many Bulgarians also lived in the area of Kukush before the 1913th, but they were not the only ones.

I have to stress here the fact that, despite his really mixed origin, Mr. Stanishev is obviously Bulgarian, because he feels like Bulgarian and identifies with that ethnicity. I have no intention to deny or hide that and I completely respect that feeling of his, it is his basic human right.

But, I have to protest that, like Mr. Stanishev, I have the right to identify my own nationality. It is not a decision that I or someone else took. It is a feeling that grew through the human development.

Macedonian 19:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly clear now that Macedonians is the name of this ethnic-group. There is no reason whatsoever to call them Macedonian Slavs. REX 21:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest this page to be replaced. Bomac 08:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The educational method used in the Communist countries consisted of the following: recite the Party line, ask for questions, answer the questions by reciting the Party line again, then ask for further questions, then re-recite the Party line, etc etc, ad nauseam. This is what our esteemed editors (who are actually fewer persons than what their liberal use of various nicknames might suggest) are doing. Which is what is to be expected of scions of the Communist "education" system. Endless repetition, however, is not argumentation; rather it falls into the spectrum of Autism. Chronographos 09:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstable, if you knew ANY history, you would know that Yugoslavia was much closer to USA and UK than to the other comunist countries. Should I remind you how the Yugoslav National Army became a world power after the WW2? Should I remind you that in that time Greece and Yugoslavia were actually in a military union?

Another thing I have to point out... neighter me, neighter my dad or grandfather were comunists. Read some literature, educate yourself. The Yugoslav communist was not exacly communism, especially after the death of Tito in 1980th.

And, the last reminder. Macedonia is not a part of Yugoslavia since 1991st. Another reminder... the problems between Greece and Macedonia started after 1991st, when we were out of Yugoslavia. Tito is long gone, we are completely independant now, trying to get in EU and NATO. Have you ever asked yourself why we still identify ourselves as Macedonians? If we are Bulgarians, why we simply do not join with Bulgaria and get in EU just in 1 year time? Why instead we decide to stay independant state?

Macedonian identity is the only one that we know (no matter did it start 2000 years ago, in the 6th or 19th century, 1945th or 1991st). It is simply not a choise, it is a feeling that won't disapear just because you would preffer it that way. Macedonian 20:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah Chronographe, welcome back! I can see that Δεαθήναι has activated you. Very nice! I hope you know that Macedonians is what this ethnic group should be called as the largest part of the available evidence points in that direction. It is the NPOV way to say it and that is what we should do. Greek POV is of very little value and the NPOV of Britannica, Hutchinson... etc... etc seem to think is appropriate to use the name Macedonians. Unless you provide us with a good reason to use the name Macedonian Slavs, it will be considered an indication of acceptance of our proposal. Also, the Greek "education" system is not that good either. Propaganda upon propaganda is forced on the students, most of it is a pack of lies anyway (believe me, I've been there). REX 10:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a eurocent for your, er, "thoughts". Chronographos 10:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You should actually pay us for reading your comments, Chronographos. How do you dare talking about education, when your history books (same as your constitution) say that Greece has no national minorities? It is idiotic to beleive that any country on the Balkan can be "clear" (something reminds of the Nazi ideas, doesn't it?). No wonder there is no human rights organization which did not criticise Greece for its treatment of its minorities. Macedonian 20:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Chronographe I think that you should know that the Partia e Punës e Shqipërisë did not impose education in that manner. It was more of a "if you know what is good for you, you will know what is true" attitude. You know, the same attitude that is used in Greece today. REX 10:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And here's another. Chronographos 10:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And here's a penny for all your hard work. If I'm not much mistaken, a penny is worth more than a eurocent. Gee! Anyway, given that Chronographos's "argument" was a cheap mud-throwing meant to defocus the discussion and to conceal the fact that he has no arguments to support his views I don't think that he should be taken too seriously. REX 10:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why I set up the New Chapter. I ignore non-constructive talking (or BLA-BLA). Bomac 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

New Chapter

Well, where were we? Ah yes... replacing the page in it's real name (or heading)! Bomac 09:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that there is NO reason whatsoever to call these people Macedonian Slavs and the majority of sources call them Macedonians, that is the name that should be used. REX 10:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have assembled a team of some kind :) Good luck in the World Championships. By the way, Boamc, don't you think your wording is a bit POV? I mean, this might be already decided, but this doesn't mean you have to show arrogance after a little win like this one. After all, there are people that don't actually think that the "real name" of the page is "Macedonians" (not that I am one of them, I'm not expressing an opinion as I don't have a one on this topic, I'm just stating). File:Bulgaria flag large.png → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 17:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Todor, I do not have anything against your national flag, but putting it anywhere on your posts will characterise you as nationalist. This is not request, just a friendly advice.

Concerning the so called "team"... as you can see, this position is supported by users with different nationalities, not only by Macedonians. On the other hand, the opposites are all of Greek origin. Probably with time some sockpuppet of some Greek user will appear claiming his neutrality, but it is not easy to hide that. Macedonian 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn describe myself as a nationalist, actually. I love my country and am proud with it, that's why I've put the flag in my signature. I've seen other people do this here and I don't think it's a practice for nationalists only. That's certainly not what I've meant, to be viewed as a nationalist. It actually it isn't even common for me to take part in such complex topics like Macedonia and the identity of its people. I was just expressing an opinion about the course the discussion has taken and its overall tone. File:Bulgaria flag large.png → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 20:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that I never described you as a nationalist. I haven't had much contact with you and I can not make any relevant judgement, but for now I think you are OK.

Concerning the flag, I just gave a tought. Your flag (same as anyones flag) does not bother me at all (why would it?). I am sure that many people will see me as nationalist just because of my nickname, so I just gave a tought (probably I will get another Eurocent from Mr. Chronographos for this :)). But, same as you, I am proud of what I am. But in same time, I have great respect for everyone here, no matter of their POV (even of you, Chronographos. Another Eurocent?). Only thing that I can not accept is someone trying to steal or ignore my identity. I am sure that no one would accept something like that.

I am sure that sometime in future we will have some disagreevment about some issue. But, untill we keep the respect for each other, we will be cool.Macedonian 01:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

With all my respect to you, Todor, but I am not being arrogant around here. Just look upwards and you'll see tons of arrogance from some other users. I am only arrogant when someone speaks to me with arrogance.

If you are talking about the last talks with Chronographos, he is only trying to make someone be arrogant with him, and in that way he'll gefocus the constructive talk around here. I mean, here we are to tell the things as they are: Every country has the right of it's opinion about Macedonia and Macedonians, but Macedonia and Macedonians are a fact, reality, and they don't want someone to interfere in "their" internal things, just as Bulgaria, Greece, U.S.A. etc. won't like that. Macedonians have the right of it's opinion, too (about their issues!).

As for the team, I don't know the other users, we only share the same opinions (and I don't see what is wrong with that?!?). I won't call this a "little win" because I am not a "player" and I am not "playing" around here. I just want the truth to make it's way through the darkness (no offence, my opinion). Macedonia has it's right to "live and breathe" in the way she wants. Bomac 18:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about your dialogue with Chronographos, it's this "real name" thing that upset me and I found POV-ish. Just that. I accept the rights of Macedonians to be called whatever they want, everyone has this right. It's actually the history and language of your nation and more precisely the way you're describing them what we Bulgarians find untrue in most cases. File:Bulgaria flag large.png → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk} 20:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ever heard of Mentos? Chronographos 18:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And you remember the pants thing? Bomac 18:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC).

What about Mentos? Do you (Chronographos) consider them to be Greek because of the "s" at the end of its name? Do we have another joke that can be a part of "My big, fat, Greek wedding", Part 2? Macedonian 20:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

All right! Bomac, Chronographe; if you want to play games and be rude to each other, go to one of those simple chat websites. Bomac, stick to the issues. Chronographe, provide valid arguments, or be ignored. REX 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am doing that all the time, but Chronographos wants to make Circulus vitiosus. Bomac 18:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Bomac, my suggestion is not to respond to Chronographos provocations. Chronographos, instead of cheap attempts to provoke an emotinal reaction from Bomac, please be more constructive. It's a pity that your use your knowledge of psychiatry this way. The both sides need an atmosphere of mutual respect to engage in to a civilized debate - it's one of the key Wikipedia policies. For a start: You didn't state your opinion about mediation on the naming dispute? --FlavrSavr 18:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I will have to review Wikipedia procedure first, and will do so in my own time. Unlike you teenagers I am a busy professional, especially this time of the year, and am going through a computer system migration. I have seen very little good faith on your behalf: for example you have failed to accept the outcome of the June poll, and I have not seen a single instance of you reverting the outrageous edits of your compatriots (assuming they are not the same person), or even offering the slightest criticism. Contrast this with my explicit disavowal of Miskin's practices. Until you prove, with deeds rather than words, that you are honest and trustworthy, and until I review the Wikipedia conflict resolution guidelines, I will have to withhold my approval. Chronographos 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC) (As to who provoked whom, be advised to get a whiff of the stench that emanates from your esteemed friend, Bomac)

Err, no Chronographos. You do realise that if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Macedonians is indeed the name that should be used for this ethnic-group according to the evidence as it is interpreted by Wikipedia policy, it doesn't make any difference what you think. Even if you did accept mediation, it wouldn't make any difference as everyone else has refused. I really do hope that you will find an acceptable pattern of behaviour (at least for Wikipedia). Your tormenting Bomac is hardly doing you any favours and is a disruption of Wikipedia, so I would advise you to stop. Mature behaviour (something which you clearly lack) is something very important, especially when dealing with "teenagers" as you seem to think that everybody is. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Will three eurocents satiate your hunger? Chronographos 19:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Your immature behaviour is apparently incurable. Your provocations with the intent of disrupting Wikipedia are not helping anyone, including yourself, as I have already told you. You are aware, I trust, that not many people will be willing to take you seriously if you persist in behaving this way. As far as I can see, you haven't made any significant contribution to this discussion and your presence here is merely a waste of bandwidth. So, I advise you to stop patronising and to find some reason why the final state of the article should be the way you want it. You obviously dislike some aspects of this article. Why don't you tell us them with valid reason why they should be amended and then we can have a healthy debate. I appreciate that not everyone here would be willing to do that (Miskin, Bomac and the rest of the "teenagers"). If you perceive yourself to be above their level, I would expect you to act accordingly, instead of sinking to their level. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, four eurocents, you Shylock. Chronographos 19:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Chronographe, I think I've told you that I don't wish to engage in the other debates until the naming dispute is over. If you haven't noticed I've never made a significant edit to this article (check the article's history). I had only reverted Miskin absurd claim, 3 or 4 times, and after that, I didn't even tried to do that. I honestly don't remember that you somewhere criticized Miskin's edits (Where?). I also didn't engage in the edit wars, I didn't revert neither of the POVs regarding the number of Macedonians in Greece, or the pictures. I think we should resolve the naming issue first, and then discuss the other topics.--FlavrSavr 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As for Bomac, he's relatively new in Wikipedia, and to this dispute as well. I think that he's a being a bit overdramatic, but it is understandable, considering the sensitivity of this issue. I also happen to lose my temper, sometimes, but I try to stay cool, as possible. I don't approve personal attacks on both sides. In this particular arguement, I think that it was you who started the unnecessary attacks by labeling him as a communist propagandist, or whatever. That doesn't not mean that he should have responded (and he responded in a really ugly manner), because, as he put it, we would enter the magic circle. We have a specific topic to discuss, and we needn't involve our personal frustrations with this issue. Chronographos, I would appreciate if you stop making sweeping generalisations such as - "You're only doing this because your country is poor, and it has communist history". That is not an argument, it's a personal attack, and tends to lead to an another quarrel. It is better for both sides to cite their sources, instead.--FlavrSavr 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are misinterpreting the outcome of the June poll - first of all, the poll was a draw. Second, the poll was an obvious disaster because the participants of both POVs didn't even pretend to be NPOV. Third, polls are not meant to be elections - they are means of reaching a consensus (at least 60% of the votes, or actually, the stated opinions) - see Wikipedia:Poll.--FlavrSavr 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I urge you to see the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, as soon as possible. There was a Mediation request 10 days ago, and we still don't have a definite NO or YES from you. I hope that our future discourse would become a bit more civilized. Regards. --FlavrSavr 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I will not be able to meet your schedule for at least a month. This is what I propose to you: I would like you to edit the text of this article and then request that it be locked for a month in the form you will have given it. I am disgusted by all these "various" "Macedonians", "Bomacs, "Macap"s, "Grandfathers" and "REX"s (i.e. sockpuppetry galore). Then we may discuss. Chronographos 20:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you have any evidence, please "sing" them to us. Othervise, shut the f*ck up and concentrate on the topic. (I exuse myself for my language, but I had to find words that can be understood by hronographos).

I do not understand why we keep asking Chronographos, Miskin or similar characters like that for aproval. I do not remember that the Macedonian side was asked when the name "Macedonian Slav" was given. No Macedonian can accept forced change of his ethnicity.

Just look at the "eurocents and pennies" that Chronographos threw here. Quite childish behavious from a "non-teenager".

Can we ask some other users to include, some that are from neutral nationalities? Their presence on this issue is obviously of good use (no matter which side I support, aldough that is too obvious). Macedonian 21:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You barely even know me. How can you say this? Bomac 20:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC) And, please, stop finding "excuses" about why you don't want to participate. You are becoming very "obvious". Bomac 20:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing you is one of the many reasons for which I thank God every morning. Not ever knowing you is one of the things I ask of Him. Would it be too much to ask Him that you never address me again? Chronographos 20:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC) (the same goes for the Albanian writing below)

Said the nationalistic crap Chronographos.

You don't have to "expose" anymore, it's worthless talking to you and requesting co-operation. Bomac 20:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

GrandfatherJoe and FlavrSavr, I can't understand why you are even bothering trying to reason with that sad individual. Chronographos doesn't want to find the NPOV and use that. The wants to see his POV in the article (which coincidentally happens to concur with that of ΛΑΟΣ). He fails to see the sad state of his country when compared to the other EU countries which are wealthier and more influential that his rather remotely located country (Ευρωβλάχοι). You can see even now that he is making fun of you when you asked for sincere co-operation and his display of bad faith is overwhelming. He can't see that his consent to mediation wouldn't make any difference; he is just trying to make a nuisance of himself. As for his accusations of sockpuppetry, the glittering hypocrisy of it! What about User:Theathenae? If you want to talk about sockpuppets, let's talk about him. I agree with GrandfatherJoe, he is a waste of bandwidth. REX 20:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Chronographos, who do you think you are? You can't just waltz in here and lay down the law. If you are not going to be here when we decide what is to be done, we will just have to proceed without you. You can't have the page blocked at your pleasure, so that no one can edit it in your absence. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia, that means that anyone can edit it at any time and that all editors are equal. You will just have to accept whatever we decide while you are away. Also, what do you mean by Shylock? GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, he means that he is so full with knowledge. I don't share that opinion, no way! Bomac 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that Chronographos has completely discredited himself with these ludicrous requests and authoritarian demands. Well Chronographe, I hate to break it to you, but on Wikipedia you are on equal terms with the "Albanian" and the "Slavomacedonian". You cannot dismiss other users as sockpuppets because you fell like it. You have no proof, so you will just have to listen to the "sockpuppets" and watch them make decisions on the articles. On Wikipedia, even a baby from Mali (the poorest country of earth) is equal to you and has the same influence and rights as you, and don't you forget it. So, you can either co-operate, or you can leave. Take your pick. REX 21:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Chronographos, I'm sorry, but your proposal is unacceptable. First of all, I cannot and I do not wish to forbid nobody from editing - if you feel that the changes they did are unacceptable, please state your reasons why in the discussion page, accompanied by relevant sources. I will not interfere in neither of these discussions until the naming dispute of this page is not solved. It's a free encyclopedia, as GrandfatherJoe properly put it, and I am by no means privileged to make edits as I please, and request those edits to be protected, because me and you had made some deal in the past. Second, I have some remarks on the edits they've made, but I have already stated that, until the naming dispute is not solved, I do not wish to have anything to do with the edits of the contents regardless whether they come from Greek, Bulgarian or Macedonian side. Because the very name of the ethnic group is disputed, this dispute takes precedence over all other disputes. I actually discouraged editing of other topic until the naming dispute isn't solved. Third, this lasts for too long, and I don't see any reason for prolonging it for an entire month, just because you happen to have those PC shifts - I am by no means obliged to do that. The request for Mediation has been made 12 days ago, and you have had enough time to answer it. I've been at this dispute for nearly half a year, and I think I have shown more than enough patience, despite the sensitivity of the issue, and despite taking loads of serious personal attacks against me, and as well attacks towards my ethnicity, from some proponents of the other POV. (to remind you: some of these attacks have been made by you, Chronographos)

To conclude: I am willing to wait for another day, to make your decision whether you accept the mediation or not. After that, I'll be asking some admins to tell me the further steps that should be made concerning the naming dispute. --FlavrSavr 22:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to wait one more day then: I have other priorities (including a couple of Wiki-projects of my own) for the next month or so, therefore I, in my turn, do not accept your Mediation proposal. Chronographos 22:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC) (I think I offered you a fair and balanced deal: I am sorry you prefer the mess of edit wars and the consequent inflammation of emotions)

Thank you for your answer, Chronographos. After the neutrals decide on this matter, I assure you that I will do my best for this article to be edited according to the NPOV policy. --FlavrSavr 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the others engaged in this discussion: let's focus on the naming dispute. It is by far the most important dispute, and it is fundamental to the article. I can not forbid anyone to edit the contents of the article, but it would be better (for all) to concentrate on the naming issue. Please don't make edits to the contents that are not supported by relevant sources. Regards to all --FlavrSavr 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I see... Rexhep Bojaxhiu 20:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Unrealistic population estimates

Someone estimated over 200,000 McdSlvs live in Canada/US/Australia nad the like even two of those census don't even list Macedonians due to their insignificant populations and one (US) lists less than 10,000 (of whch could be Albanians).

Anonimous IPs should not even be alowed here. Please register a nickname and include in the discussion, if you would like. This way, we can always doubt that you might be someone's sockpuppet.

Anyway, Here are some links for you:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-mt_name=ACS_C2SS_EST_G2000_PCT026

Here you can find about people with Macedonians ancestry that live in USA, which is at about 40.000 that reported their Macedonian ancestry. Macedonians, not Albanians.

By the way, the site is the official site of the US 2000 census.

Here is about Canada:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/ETO/Table1.cfm?Lang=E&T=501&GV=1&GID=0 (official site of the Canadian census)

Just a note that the Canadian embasy in Skopje released a information that in the last 5 years, 3500 Macedonians move in Canada every single year (5years*3500=17500), and 1500 yearly in average since 1991st (14years*21000)... What about the ones that moved before, during the whole 20th century?

Now little about Australia:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110124.NSF/0/87BD8C1561992B644A2564D400286575?Open

By the way, this is just for Macedonians born in Macedonia. What about the people that are born in Australia? Toshe Proevski's concert in Melbourne had 15.000 visitors. Just in one city...

Now, I would like you (or anyone else) explain me the estimates given on Wiki for the Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks etc. which live outside their countries and provide proofs in the censuses of those countries... Also these estimates look funny and far too high on the first sight, but not when you dig a little in the history.

(By the way, we all know that many of these people register as citizens of those countries, not like Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Macedonians or anything else).

One question for the end... Do you really think that George W. Bush would risk his friendship with the Greek side if the Macedonian comunity in US was not big enought? Maybe you should check how many official meetings he had in the last few years with representors of the Macedonian comunity in USA. Then, try to imagine the number of the unofficial ones... Macedonian 04:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, I would like you (or anyone else) explain me the estimates given on Wiki for the Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks etc. which live outside their countries and provide proofs in the censuses of those countries... Also these estimates look funny and far too high on the first sight, but not when you dig a little in the history.

I think the Bulgarian and Serb statistics are overrepresented too. I never said I didn't. But the ones you're giving make no sense in the longrun. Of the estimated 50,000 Macedonians in America, who's to say they don't include Albanians, Greeks, and Bulgarians? Remember, the census asks for the area of peoples origin; they don't care about how nations are infact formed. The modern territory of Macedonian is only minimally occupied my McdSlvs.

Finally, if you want to include statistics for the diaspora above. I think a total estimate of 200,000 for US, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe would be satisfactory. Perhaps with another 5 - 10,000 living elsewhere.

The statistics for Macedonians is separate from the ones of the Greeks. Even a 2 year old kid knows that any Greek, Bulgarian or Albanian when asked about their origin, they will say it to be Greek, Bulgarian or Albanian. Only the Macedonians identify as Macedonians, all the rest is just unrealistic propaganda.

So, please stop saying that those numbers might be from Albanians, Greeks or Bulgarians. If that is so, Switzerland would have more than 50.000 Macedonians, which are actually Albanians from Republic of Macedonia. Only person without any knowledge of the region can claim what you say about this issue.

These days I will search the web and fill the page with official statistics and estimations which are supported by relevant people. Anyway, be sure it will be at least 500.000. Official statistics of Republic of Macedonia shows that just in the last 15 years about 50-60.000 Macedonians + 40.000 Albanians left Macedonia. In the same time there are Macedonian families that live in the diaspora for more than 3 generations. Macedonian 01:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the estimates for the Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs will be changed too, untill the numbers are confirmed in the same way as the ones for the Macedonians will. Macedonian 01:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Another thing. You anonimously said:

"Remember, the census asks for the area of peoples origin; they don't care about how nations are infact formed. The modern territory of Macedonian is only minimally occupied my McdSlvs."

Do they count the people from Scandinavia as Scandinavians, rather than Swedish, Norwegian or anything else? Or do they count the Kurds as Turkish or Iraqi? This comment of your is extremely senceless and to be honest, a little bit dull.

One thing for the end... MY FUCKING ETHNICITY IS MACEDONIAN. GET USED TO IT, AS*HOLE!!! Macedonian 02:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the real deal behind the naming problem?

Taken from: http://www.makfax.com.mk/look/agencija/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue=254&NrSection=10&NrArticle=11661&ST1=tekst&ST_T1=vest&ST_AS1=1&ST_LS1=-1&ST_max=1

(the whole interview can be found on Macedonian at: http://www2.dw-world.de/macedonian/temamace/1.157534.1.html. Before anyone try to deny this, have on mind that this is from the official Deutsche Welle web page) Macedonian 04:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Foss says minorities are Greek big lie

Bon/Skopje, 13:54

A big lie of Greeks is their attitude towards ethnic minorities i.e. the denied existence of other ethnicity in Greece, German historian Christian Foss said.

"This also refers to Macedonians given the official non-recognition of Slav minority in northwest part of Greece, which clearly declare themselves as Macedonians. I reckon that minorities-related issue stands behind the big agitation over the name of the Republic of Macedonia," Foss told Deutsche Welle Radio.

Historian Foss stressed that name issue ignited by Greece is "artificial".

"The problem was created artificially given the fact that the name Macedonia plays no role as far as Greeks are concerned. The Ministry in Northern Greece used to call itself a Ministry for Northern Greece, and following the rift with the Republic of Macedonia in 1991, Greeks started to glorify Alexander The Great and his heritage, the Vergina Star, in particular the name Macedonia, which has been too much exploited on national level," Foss said. In this context, he also mentioned the renaming of an airport in Thessaloniki, and Alexander-engraved 100 drachma coins.

As regards the historical context of the name, Foss said the problems occurred in early 20th century, when the three Balkan neighbors of Macedonia forged ahead with grabbing its territory.

"In the course of Greek dictatorship era in early 20th century, Greece had mistreated the Slav-speaking population. Greece took an advantage of the civil war in late 40s (of 20th century) to banish tens of thousands of Slav-speaking residents fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with communists. This is an important factor to comprehend why Greeks block a solution to the so-called Macedonian issue.

Up to present days, these refugees have been derived from their right to return home as Greece challenges Macedonian identity, German historian said in an interview with Deutsche Welle Radio

---

By the way, Angela Merkel will be the new chancellor of Germany. Not good news for the Greek position about this issue, because her party was the one who actually voted for the recomendation of the German parliament to the goverment (then lead by Gerhard Schröder) to recognize Macedonia's constitutional name and the Macedonian identity. By the way, maybe Great Britain, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy or Spain have some suprise... who knows? Some of the parlaiments of these countries already did the same as the German parliament did... Macedonian 04:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures again

Look everyone, can we leave this picture business for now. We'll fix the picture in the fullness of time. Just leave the pictures out for now. They are obviously disputed and this kind of dispute cannot be solved. I'll see if I can find anyone to replace Samuel and Cyril with. REX 07:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I would only accept Samuel and Cyril not to be included in the Macedonians picture only if noone else includes them, because their ethnicity is obviously disputed. Maybe we can try Kiro Gligorov, Boris Trajkovski, Milcho Manchevski, Darko Panchev, Gotze Delchev, Dame Gruev, Jane Sandanski, Nikola Karev, Dimo Hadzi Dimov, Naum Ohridski, Simon Trpcevski, Mike Zafirovski, Blaze Konevski, Petar Naumovski, Vrbica Stefanov and many others from the history whose names I will try to avoid in order to avoid conflicts with the stealers of the Macedonian history. The fucked up thing is that till the beggining of this century the Macedonians were saying that they are Bulgarians just in order to protect themselves from the Greek assimilation and because the Bulgarians were pretending to be our brothers at that time. It is idiotic to beleive that just 100 years after that there can be about 2,5 million people around the world that feel very strongly as of Macedonians ethnicity and would never accept to be called Bulgarians or anything else. It is especially interesting because they lived in many different counties around the world and some of them are out of Macedonia for more than 70-80 years. Macedonian 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I made another picture. You can find out who they are by clicking on the picture. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So, one of them is a person who published a collection of ... folk songs, except he himself called them "Bulgarian folk songs". How very apt ... Chronographos 09:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry Κρονόγκραφε, but I am not Macedonian. I am Greek (!). Given that you know everything, why don't you find a famous Macedonian and a picture of him/her. You are useless, all you do is sit back and critisise. Anyway, I think that given that the Macedonians were called Bulgarians then, had this individual lived today he would have called them "Macedonian folk songs", but don't take it on my authority. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 11:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You are a "Greek"? Yeah right ...

Find a famous "Macedonian"? Yeah, right ...

He "would have called them"? Yeah right ...

Which reminds me of the famous little ditty:

All the Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas

Layin' in the sun,

Talkin' 'bout the things

They woulda-coulda-shoulda done...

But those Woulda-Coulda-Shouldas

All ran away and hid

From one little did.

Chronographos 11:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, most amusing! Why are you here again? To make a valuable contribution to the article (lol) or to cause trouble? BTW here is another penny on top of all that aid that the EU (including the UK) have given to your country. Might help you repay that debt for the airport, the games etc :-))) Rexhep Bojaxhiu 11:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Too bad that even those friends of yours are slowly abandoning you, Chronographos. Maybe your behavious can give us a clear hint why is that happening... Macedonian 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Evasion

As Chronographos and Miskin are not presenting any reasonable arguments in favour of calling these people Macedonians, I'll take their silence as an indication of their acceptance of the impending renaming of this page. REX 13:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, dear. You will not decide the outcome of this long-standing dispute on your own. Not only will this arbitrary, unilateral move not stand, but you will have repercussions. Chronographos 18:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about me???? As far as I know, it was Bomac who moved the page. I know that you like to direct all your malice at me, but he started it and you joined in the edit war after him and then I joined in. I did not make the first move. It was you and Bomac who started the edit war. I sicerely hope that you will retract those lies, or I will have to report you. Regards. REX 19:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course Bomac did it (so much is obvious in the edit history) and somehow you knew that the renaming of this page was "impending". You obviously possess the unique gift of telepathy, and so does Bomac, one may safely assume. BTW feel free to report me in whichever way you see fit. I am retracting nothing. Chronographos 19:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, unless you believe that Bomac is my sockpuppet (lol) I fail to see why you would accuse me (the inoccent one) of having anything to do with all this. I flatter myself of being in possession of the gift of clairvoyance and that may be the explanation. What I would like to know is why don't you ever seem to be trying to solve this dispute like I do. All you do is cause trouble. I have proposed mediation, cited sources and displayed signs of a desire to engage in a constructive discussion over the available sources. A good sign of my good faith is he number of times I have amended that picture as to avoid offence from aither Bulgarians or Greeks (with the minor exception of the joke one). It is a hard task I can tell you, famous Macedonians don't grow on trees. You on the hand do nothing but criticise and cause trouble, I hope you know that that may qualify as trolling (ie unconstructive disruption). Also, where is your sockpuppet Theathenae? In the washing machine? REX 20:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Your repeated insults (which you call "arguments") are beneath contempt, their worth being less than a eurocent. As you undoubtedly recall, I stated that I will not be able to participate in the process of mediation until mid-November. Chronographos 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Whereas yours are holy. You have not given even one reason to support this Macedonian Slavs nonsense. The vast majority of sources call these people Macedonians, I fail to see what you have against this name so much. As for our postponing mediation. We're used to that, in mid-November you would say "sorry, it has to be mid-December". The tactics are well known by now, they have been used many times before. You can however be online now though, right? REX 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I am having my house renovated starting Monday. If you are willing to come and work (for free), maybe I'll get done sooner than mid-November. There will even be some Albanians in the crew, so you'll have ample entertainment. I'll still be online from the office, but it will be in between patients and on the ISDN line, not ADSL. Chronographos 08:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Didn't you said just few days ago that you have some profesional obligations at your work? Now you say it is your home.

Makes me wonder... is this just another one of the 1000s senceless lies "made by Chronographos"? Macedonian 00:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Page moved

The page Macedonian Slavs has been moved to Macedonians (ethnicity) by User:Bomac. Given that the vast majority of sources refer to these people this way and it is plain common sense to use the name that they use for themselves I strongly suggest that the name be left in this, compatable with Wikipedia policy, way until the dispute is finally solved. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

User Slavomacedonian said: Until the 1920th the Greek king published several documents where he describes the teritory Macedonia as occupied. Not taken back... occupied. Proof that the Slavomacedonians do have land-claims on Northern Greece, whether or not their dream can become reality is irrelevant. For this and many other reasons, the article stays as "Macedonian Slavs" until the UN has decided on an official name. Miskin 14:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The UN does not have anythin to decide concerning our ethnicity. For the UN and the rest of the world, we are Macedonians.

Here are 2 links for you from the United Nations:

UN pages where they use the term Macedonians (275 pages):

http://secap174.un.org/search?q=macedonians&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8

UN pages where they use the term Macedonian Slavs (4 pages):

http://secap174.un.org/search?q=%22macedonian+slavs%22&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=un_org&num=10&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fsearch%2Fun_org_stylesheet.xslt&oe=utf8

So, you can see by yourself how wrong you are and how little arguments you have.

Just to remind you that the only talks we have is about the name of our country, but not at all about our ethnicity. And just to remind you that you are kind of loosing the "game", having on mind that about 55% of the countries in the UN, despite the Greek presure recognise as as Republic of Macedonia. On the other hand, just about 20% officially use another name, but even them (except Cyprus and Greece) use our original name (Republic of Macedonia) in the direct contacts with the country (The rest of 25% do not have official relations with Republic of Macedonia). Should I remind you that USA, China and Russia (3 of 5 full-time members of the Security council of the UN) recognise us under our original name. Should I remind you that the parliaments of Germany, UK and Italy already recomended their goverments to do the same (recognize us as Macedonia)?

Just to make it clear... We do not have any claims towards your teritory. We know that it was ours, but that was almost 100 years ago. In mean time you killed or expelled the majority of the Macedonian population in that area and only 1/10 stayed, from which many were pushed by endless list of represions to become Greeks.

Anyway, that teritory is yours now and noone can shange that. If you think that anyone will beleive you that Macedonia can attack Greece and take that teritory back, you have to be endlessly stupid.

If we wanted to attack you, we would push that to happen during Yugoslavia, whose army was one of the most powerful in the world. But, we did not, because we never wanted a war with anyone and because we know that now mostly Greeks live there. Macedonian 02:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove to us that the UN call these people Macedonian Slavs? You can't, the UN has not recognised this ethnic group under any name. They have only recognised their country as FYROM, that does not mean that they are recognised as Macedonian Slavs. The vast majority of sources call these people Macedonians. That is the name Wikipedia should use. You still haven't provided any good reason to call them Macedonian Slavs. REX 20:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The current picture is alright but...

Could you make it a bit neater? It looks odd with two B & W pics and two colored portraits. Also, what's wrong with St. Cyril being on that image list? ALL sources state his mother to be a Slav from Macedonia.

The Bulgarians claim St. Cyril to be "theirs", same as we claim that he is "our". Aldough I can not understand that Bulgarian position and I think is senceless (same as many of the sources), I have to respect that. As far as St. Cyril does not appear in the Bulgarian page, it is OK he not to appear on Macedonian page.

The Macedonian and Bulgarian delegation have always same treatment by Vatican when they visit St. Cyril's grave in Rome. Having on mind that Vatican has the best historical sources in the world and having on mind that they are not available to the public (not for now), non of us (Macedonian or Bulgarians) can completely exclude the posibility St. Cyril to belong to the other nation. Macedonian 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says they were Byzantine Greeks from Thessaloniki, and came from a family of Senatorial rank. Chronographos 08:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, you will only get satisfied when we reveal that the dinosaurs were in fact Greeks with bad taste of fashion.

Should I remind you here that any relevant historian can confirm you that it is senceless to talk about nationalities at that time of the human history?

St. Cyril and Methodius were obviously promoting and teaching the Slavic culture. Claiming that you have no Slavic blood in you, these 2 guys did not have influence over yourself.

And, to be honest, I really don't think they were giving a damn how they will be considered in future, when the modern nationalities and ethnicities will appear. If they had any big connection to this piece of land, they would not spend most of their lives far away, dedicating most of their lives to some other people that in no case can be Greek, Macedonian or Bulgarian. Macedonian 00:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

archived

this was like the biggest talk page ever - I went ahead and archived everything. Also, both this page and the article are protected from moves - please try to come to a comprimise people! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(People can still edit here normally right?) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I moved it to Macedonia (Slav) since that is the obvious wrong version :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I do not see any point in continuing to fight with someone who wants to hide the Macedonian identity, but have no sources to support his claim. As you can see, only the Greek side keeps supporting the "Macedonian Slavs" version of the name. But, unfortunately for them no one on this world would identify itself as Macedonian Slav. So, if that page exists, it should clearly say: Population of 0. On the other hand about 2,5 people claim to be Macedonians (concerning the ethnicity, not the region). So, the page should clearly express that with having the name "Macedonian (ethnicity)" or something similar. Macedonian 02:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please reffer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28Slav%29#What_is_the_real_deal_behind_the_naming_problem.3F.

There you can clearly read about the real problem between Macedonia and Greece. And, that is written by a German expert about the history of the region, which makes him very neutral. Especially knowing the historical connection bewteen Greece and Germany. By the way, he made this interview for Deutsche Welle, which again is neutral. Macedonian 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Why involve RN into this? It is obvious he does not care for the issue much. Let the man be and let us (try to) solve our dispute between ourselves. Chronographos 09:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has to get involved. We obviously tried a lot to solve the issue (please see the archives), but it did not end up in a solution. Also in the "real world", the UN are the ones who are mediators, because we simply are not able to solve this by ourself.

No matter of your reasons (which I partly understand, but partly I think is crap full of lies), it is imposible to ask from someone to change his identity and to expect he to listen to you. We never had some other identity, for us to get back to it. The only identity we know for ourselfs is the Macedonian one, which is mostly Slavic, but no historian in the world can deny that our origin is also (more or less) from several antient tribes living on this area, including the Antique Macedonians (which you also have origin from, same as the Bulgarians and the Albanians).

So, whatever it takes, be sure that non of us can accept to forget our identity (the only one that we ever had) and quit our name (also, the only one that we ever had). That is something that can not be played with, something that we can not trade, something that we can not forget.

Actually, I don't understand what is the use for you this page to be Macedonian Slavs or Macedonians (Slav), when the rest of the world will keep using our original identity "Macedonians" (not Antique Macedonians, or Greek Macedonians)? What will the "Macedonian Slavs" name do for you, when NO ONE in the world will ever say that his ethnicity/nationality is Macedonian Slav. Completely senceless.

Also I would like to remind you on the "constructive" aproach by giving eurocents and pennies. Macedonian 01:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I asked him to on WP:AN/I. We have to solve this dispute, hopefully the current state of the page will motivate you into proving that your version is the correct version. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh no.... you're supposed to come to a comprimise people, not have it entirely one way or the other, mmk? I honestly don't care what the U.N. names them, because clearly that's not solving anything here. My own suggestion would be Macedonians (Slav), but for purposeful reasons its locked in a bad name that hopefully no one likes. (admin rules dictate I can't become involved in editing this article anyway) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to react that Macedonian (Slav) can not be good solution. One simple reason: The modern Macedonians are mostly Slavs, but any historian can confirm that except the Slavic, we also have not Slavic origin, which is also quite strong.

Also, what is the use of a text "Macedonians (Slav)" or anything similar, when NO ONE in the world identifies himself with that name? Macedonian (Slav) is simply a non-existant nation.

That would be the same as identifying you as "English (West German)" (with a wild guess that your ethnicity is English. I hope you won't get angry at me because of this guess, I just wanted to make my point clear)

On the other hand, the existance of a separate Macedonian ethnicity today is complete reality, same of a separate Macedonian language and culture. That is something that any relevant source recognises. No matter of the history, that is a reality now, in this moment and obviously at least in future several decades. If 95% of the other sources can use "Macedonian" to identify my ethnicity, why would Wikipedia use something else? We can use Macedonian (ethnicity) in order to make it clear, but any artificial name products can only be a offensive politics and basic human rights breaking to over 2 million people around the world. Macedonian 01:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you search the UN website you will find that they have used the name Macedonians to refer to these people quite a lot. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Folks, the article should be moved to Macedonians (ethnic group). I would say that Greek Macedonians are ethnic Macedonians indeed, but they are part of the Greek ethnic group. A Bulgarian in Macedonia is also a Macedonian, but he is part of the Bulgarian ethnic group. An Aromanian, An Albanian, etc. Calling these people Macedonian Slavs is taken as an insult by many of them, whether we agree or not, and we shouldn't call the article "Macedonian Slavs". Wikipedia has to move on and choose a practical solution. An internet encyclopedia is not the place to carry on crusades. Eventually, more Wikipedians should reach the same conclusion. -Alexander 007 18:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we protect from sockpuppets?

Is there a way how we can protect from sockpuppets? There has to be a way howto check the IPs of the users, so we can see are several users using the same IP. I know how to get someone's IP, but that user has to be online at the time. And it is very difficult to hunt all day long. Maybe some administrator can check that directly by checking the users, their edits and the IPs they used. Macedonian 03:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Macedonian, there is a way to check their IP addresses. Administrators have access to a program which when they enter your user name it displays all the IPs which have used that account. That is how they identify sockpuppets. Let's hope that they open the box and bring it into practice on this talk page! It might reveal some very interesting facts. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know have you noticed, but these days several new users appeared concerning the Macedonia pages, which I strongly suggest they are sockpuppets. Their user pages have no information at all, neighter their disscution pages.

How can I (or anyone else) ask for the administrators to check if someone has several sockpuppets? I think a test like that can be very usefull concerning the Macedonia issue.

Also, I would like to ask if there is some other method of checking this, concerning that changing the IP address is well known method, already used by some anonimous editors which were already blocked. Macedonian 01:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If you suspect sockpuppetry, you should take your suspicions to WP:AN/I and ask an administrator to check. All I know is that they can check the IP address. Other than that, I don't know what else they can do. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

page title

Like, what the ...? The article named "Macedonia (Slav)" talking about an ethnic group? User:RN, could you have picked a sillier and syntactically trivially incorrect name? --Joy [shallot] 22:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL - I thought about "The people known to some as Macedonians and known to some others as Macedonian Slavs", but then that would be a bit verbose :). The point of it was to stop a move war, as you have probably guessed (even though its move locked). Feel free to change it to what you desire, of course :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Macedonian Apes? Or Macedamia nuts? Or even Stuart Mackintosh? REX 22

33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Page title> Macedonians (ethnic group). There is no other current ethnic group that calls itself "Macedonian" or "Macedonians", though there are portions of other, larger ethnic groups that may call themselves such (Greeks, Bulgarians, etc.). Let's move the page already. -Alexander 007 00:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The only proper name for this ethnic group is Macedonians. All other names are only Greek and Bulgarian propaganda against Macedonian people. How would Greeks felt if the article about Greeks had title "Indoeuropeans from Greece", or how would Bulgarians felt if the article about Bulgarians had title "Slavs from Bulgaria" or what ever. If Wikipeadia use any other name than Macedonians for this article then it obviously would be acceptance of Greek and Bulgarian POV. I am not Macedonian but Serb, and this Greek-Bulgarian crusade against Macedonians on Wikipedia looks really pathetic to me. Besides this, ancient Macedonians were not Greeks but Thracians. Greeks have no right to Macedonian name. User:PANONIAN

I agree, according to Wikipedia's naming policy and the available evidence, Macedonians is the name to use. REX 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia (Slav) is not a name for ethnicity, that's for sure. But, if Ryan Norton wants to "satisfy" the Greek propagandators, no one has the right to object... Bomac 16:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Bomac, RN is not trying to satisfy Greek nationalists. This is just a temporary solution. I think that the article should be at Macedonians (ethnicity), Macedonians (ethnic group) or Macedonians (nation). All the evidence and the vast majority of sources suggest that Macedonians is the proper name for these people. REX 17:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that Macedonian (nation) is not OK, because there are 1000s of Macedonians that live abroad, but they do not have the Macedonian nationality (for different reasons). The other two are acceptable, but only if someone searches "Macedonian", to be redirected to this page.

You remember the article Macedonia (region)? When someone searches for "Macedonia", he is redirected to "Macedonia (region)" and latter there he is given option to go to "Republic of Macedonia". Macedonian 02:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I would directly ask for the administrators to move the page to "Macedonians", "Macedonians (ethnicity)" or "Macedonians (ethnic group)". Also, all references to this ethnic groups that can be found on the other pages should be instantly changed into "Macedonians" or "Macedonians (ethnic group)".

How can Wikipedia allow few assimilators to change the only name of this ethnic group to something so artificial as "Macedonian Slavs" or "Macedonian (Slav)"?

Also, I have to protest for the all lies given in the text for the Macedonians, where we are clearly represented as artificial ethnic group. WHAT A BU**SHI*!!!

Example: The page says that Tito made many Vlachs or Greeks to turn into Macedonians... What a terrible lie!!! Tito and all those communist crap were pushing us to forget our ethnicities and identify as "Yugoslavs".

Another Example: The page claims that many Macedonians were inprisoned because of pro-Bulgarian ideas... Another lie!!! They were inprisoned because of promoting the idea of separating Macedonia from Yugoslavia and making it independent country (like it happened in 1991st). Those people are free now, most of them still are alive... why they don't show any pro-Bulgarian ideas now, when Tito and Yugoslavia are far past?

Also, the treatment of the Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece is not even mentioned. Is Wikipedia trying to hide all this, just in order to satisfy the Greek and Bulgarian propaganda?

All the pages relating Macedonia are completely addopted to the Greek and Bulgarian POV, no matter they are clearly assimilative and clear propaganda. How many human rights organizations should criticise Greece for Wikipedia finally to stop hiding those facts? (Here I am not talking just about the Macedonians in Greece. I am talking about all other minorities in Greece that share the same problems.)

Should I continue with examples? Macedonian 02:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

REX claims that the numbers haven't changed. What the hell is all that about then? http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_language.asp?code=MKJ Revert on your own Miskin 15:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No Miskin, you're wrong. Your link is from the 2000 edition. My link is from the 2005 edition. If you used your brain for a change and read what was at the heading of yours. REX 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone help me to get more information about the Macedonians around the world, including their census number and estimates? The Macedonian diaspora is the most valuable proof that the Macedonian ethnicity/nation is not an artificial product of Tito's wishes, a claim completely supported by this page, despite of its clear pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian nationalistic and assimilative origin (which is not a POV of all the people belonding to these 2 nations).

Many of the Macedonians that live in those countries all around the world were out of Macedonia for generation, some of them for more than a century, far before Tito got important role in the area, but despite that, they still identify themselves as Macedonians. Macedonian 03:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I can help you a little. According to official census in Serbia in 2002, there were 25,847 Macedonians in Serbia, of which 14,062 lived in Central Serbia and 11,785 in Vojvodina. User:PANONIAN

---

I think I can help you little more. I have one interesting book: Pavel Rudjakov, Seoba Srba u Rusiju u 18. veku, Beograd, 1995. The book speaks about Serbs who immigrated to Russia in 1752. The book also contain the list with recorded names and nationality of people who immigrated to Russia in the mentioned year. Many of those people were Serbs, but others belonged to several other nationalities. It is interesting that many of those declared that their nationality is Macedonian. And here are the names of some of these Macedonians: Stepan Andrejev, Sava Makrejev, Ivan Petrov, Fjodor Atepanov, Matvej Tokarev, Kirila Nebrikajev, etc. Present day Macedonians have very similar names. This list is a proof that people who considered themselves Macedonians existed in 1752. User:PANONIAN

Thank you a lot, PANONIAN. This might be very useful.

Even nowdays, in the 21st century the anti-Macedonian propaganda is so powerful that even Wikipedia does not call us by the only name we identify with, "Macedonians". Can you imagine how was that 100-150 years ago? No wonder that many sources from that time calls us Bulgarians, same as Wikipedia in 2005 calls us Macedonian Slavs. What a propaganda... Macedonian 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Disambiguation

Dear Bomac, you reverted the disambiguation paragraph:

In this article, "Macedonian" or, more precisely, "Macedonian Slav", refers to this ethnic group (regardless of place of residence), and not to other groups also called "Macedonian": the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, regardless of ethnicity; the inhabitants of the geographic and historical region of Macedonia, regardless of nationality or ethnicity; or the inhabitants of Greek Macedonia, regardless of ethnicity. This usage is disputed by some of these other groups.

Oh please, the heading [Macedonia (Slav)] of this article tells it what you've written in the disambiguation. So, there is no need of furthermore unnecesarry "cargoing" of this article. Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

characterizing it as "Greek NPOV is not NPOV". I am frankly surprised. I expected to be crucified by the Greek nationalists on this. Surely you acknowledge that "Macedonian" by itself can refer to many different groups of people, including not only the Slavic-speaking ethnic group, but also all citizens of the Republic of Macedonia (some of whom are not ethnically Macedonian) and all residents of a larger geographic area, part of which lies in the Republic of Macedonia, part in Greece. For that matter, historically, it can also refer to the ancient ethnic group (which may or may not be a Greek ethnic group, but is surely not Slavic), to a Bulgarian political party before the Balkan Wars, to an ancient Greek political party/faction led by Aeschines, etc.

Noone in Greece or Bulgaria will say that is "Macedonian" by nationality. In Greece and Bulgaria, Macedonia is only a region. Maybe in the internal (in Greece and Bulgaria) talk some will say that are from this region. So, this Wikipedia article is about ethnicity (Macedonians), and I haven't seen (neither heard) of any ethnicity originating from region. As for the ancient historic group (Macedonians), the heading of that article should be, in this example: Antic Macedonians (Noone says that these antic people were Slavic BTW). And, finally, about that parties you are mentioning, simply, in the heading you should add party - most of the Greek politicians and Wikiusers are extremely good in adding prefixes and suffixes :-) It's really simple.

There is nothing unusual about this—lots of other ethnic/regional/political/national groups have this kind of ambiguity)—and there is nothing in it which either promotes or denies any particular group's claims to the name. It is descriptive of the facts on the ground, that is, NPOV. The only thing which might be unusual is reporting that there is some dispute about the name. Again, the above wording does not say whether this is a stupid dispute or a valid dispute, just that it is a dispute. That seems indisputable, as witness this page. It doesn't even say it is a widespread or important dispute--just a dispute among some of the other groups.

I will mention again, that ethnicity should NOT be mixed with regions, antiquity or parties. Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally, let me recall that the Macedonian hero Goce Delčev called for the "elimination of chauvinist propaganda and nationalist dissentions that divide and weaken the population of Macedonia". --Macrakis 17:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes he called for this, so... ?!? Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am frankly surprised that you are surprised. The sole aim of User:Bomac and his ilk is to appropriate the name, history and heritage of Macedonia for a particular ethnic group that forms a minority of the Macedonian population, to the detriment of the majority.--Theathenae 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you forgot that just some 30-40 years ago the use of the term "Macedonia" was completely banned in Greece? How come sudenly you decided to turn towards promotion of the region Macedonia, when just some years ago you were imprisoning the people who used this term?

Even the todays "Ministry for Macedonia and Trace" was called "Ministry for northern Greece".

How come suddenly you started using the name of Macedonia for streets, universities, libraries and so on?

Or, maybe you realised that you can not hide the existance of a separate Macedonian identity in northern Greece, so you decided that it would be easier to promote their history and culture as yours?

The people are not stupid, Mr. Theathenae. Maybe you can adopt the far history in the way you like it, but you can not hide what happened in the last 100 years. Macedonian 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, you again confirm the fact that your only reason that you're here is only because of making quarrels and non-constructive talk. Bomac 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, I can't say that I find most Greeks' behavior in this discussion any better than most Macedonians'.

Bomac, I can't say that I find most Macedonians' behavior in this discussion any better than most Greeks.

A plague on both your houses. I am not a Greek chauvinist (though I am of Greek background), and I am not anti-Macedonian (Slavic ethnic group or Republic of) in any way. I am just trying to find a sensible resolution to this ridiculous and embarrassing wrangling.

I agree, Bomac, that ethnic groups shouldn't be confused with regional identities, etc. And the current article title is silly. A reasonable title would be "Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)". There would be other articles entitled "Macedonians (ancient nation)", etc. Clear, simple, consistent with Wikipedia policy. It is also consistent with Wikipedia policy to clarify any possible confusion about the meaning of the article, and terms used within the article, in a prologue, typically indented and in italics, (:xxx), in all the articles on related subjects. --Macrakis 01:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The title "Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)" can not be acceptable, because our identity and origin are not 100% Slavic (aldough Slavic is dominant). On the other hand, there is clear distinction between Macedonians (or Macedonians (ethniciy)) and Antique Macedonians.

Only the uneducated can claim that we are same as the Antique Macedonians. But, also only the uneducated can deny any connection bewteen us and them.

If you really want to make difference between the modern and Antique Macedonians, we can simply add a introduction to this topic saying that "the modern Macedonians are not continuing of the Antique Macedonians, but also it is possible they to have genetic origin from them, same as many of the other ethnicities populating this area". We should clearly promote the internationally accepted idea that no one can have exclusive rights over the Macedonian name and history. Macedonian 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Why you simply do not write 4 different articles about Macedonians, and make a Macedonians disambiguation page, which can contain all 4:

• Macedonians (disambiguation)
  • Macedonians (ancient people), about ancient Macedonians
  • Macedonians (ethnic group), about modern Macedonians
  • Macedonians (regional affiliation), about all people who live in historic Macedonia region
  • Macedonians (nationality), about all citizens of the Republic of Macedonia.

User:PANONIAN

This is the best idea that I have heared. Also, the idea that I support the most.

But, the problem is that the issue we have with the Greeks and the Bulgarians is much deeper, because they are not prepared to accept a separate Macedonian nation, because that way they would have to recognize the Macedonian minority living in these 2 countries, same as their history and culture. As you can see, all they want is to push their POV that Tito invented the Macedonians, which were previously Bulgarians.

Quite idiotic claim though, having on mind that the Macedonians fighted against the Bulgarian army during the World War 2, starting from the period when no one even heared about Tito. Macedonian 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I see that this disambiguation page already exist. So, since it exist what problem these Greek nationalists have with this article? Greeks have no right to tell to Macedonians how they should call themselves. The name "Macedonian Slavs" exist only in the heads of Greek nationalists. Ethnic Macedonians do not use this name for themselves. User:PANONIAN

---

To conclude: all nations of this World have democratic right to call themselves with the name what they choose. Greeks are the one who do not have right to tell to their neighbours how they should call themselves. One more thing: Greece was the birthplace of democracy, but seems that some modern Greeks do not understand what the word democracy means. This Greek crusade against Macedonians can be compared only with the crusade of Adolf Hitler against Jews. I maybe was little harsh, but it is the only concluision what one neutral observer like me can to have here. User:PANONIAN

---

Name again

Well, the current name of the article is really bad. Even name "Macedonian Slavs" is better than "Macedonia (Slav)". The second name is supposed to describe region of Macedonia, not people. Could the title be changed into "Macedonians (Slavs)" or something like that? User:PANONIAN

---

The title should be changed to "Macedonians (ethnicity)". Macedonian Slavs or anything similar can not be acceptable. Simply, the number of those people is 0, because no one identifies with this term. On the other hand, Macedonians is the identity (ethnicity and nationality) of more than 2 million people. The adding "(ethnicity)" can be added just in order to make distinction, but it shouldn't be used in assimilative purposes. Macedonian 03:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The title should be changed to Macedonians (ethnic group). User:PANONIAN also agrees with Macedonians (ethnic group), as well as some other people. First step is to have Administrators overrule the "poll", which was a fiasco and ended up a tie anyway. -Alexander 007 03:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (ethnic group) seems fair. I don't see it offensive. Aldough enormous majority of sources calls us simply "Macedonians", the name Macedonians (ethnic group) for the page can be acceptable. We have to have respect towards the Greek POV, aldough I can not see any logic in it. Macedonian 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's probably time to contact administrators who are part of the Arbitration Committee, or even User:Jimbo Wales himself. -Alexander 007 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Macedonian 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want to take it to the arbitration committee, but at any rate I moved it to ethnic group as that seems to be acceptable to most here. Any comments? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the move. In any case, calling the article "Macedonian Slavs" seems to be against Wikipedia's spirit, since many of this ethnic group consider it an insult. I don't know of any other case where we have named an ethnic group's article by an insulting title. And we've seen how most (?) sources term them "Macedonians", so it's not an uncommon term. -Alexander 007 06:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the move as well. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 07:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Total support for the move too. Aldough this is not a perfect solution (because vast majority of the sources reffer to us simply as "Macedonians"), we should have respect towards the Greek POV (aldought I can not understand their possition at the beggining of the 21st century). Macedonian 01:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The qualifier/disambiguation (ethnic group) seems to be the thing to do, because Macedonians should redirect to a disambiguation page as many Wikipedians agree. It is not just a "Greek" POV. -Alexander 007 02:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians actually redirects to a qualifier/disambiguation page where the user can pick which Macedonians he is looking for. In my oppinion, this is far best choise. It simply makes it clear and gives the user directions.

Anyway, this page should be worked on in a way how it clearly will show the choises, where the demography will be the first option. Macedonian 02:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

totallydisputed

I'm sick and tired of a certain group of users who disrespect everything. There was a poll, long discussions and all these are ignored by less than 10 editors. This is absolutely unfair and against the wikipedia (theoritical) spirit.

See also Talk:Macedonia#POV_dispute.3F. +MATIA ☎ 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also sick and tired of beeing denied and beeing called by names that are simply not realistic and offensive for me. How would you like to be called "South European non-Slav"? Can you even imagine how is someone to keep trying to take away your identity? The only identity you have? Macedonian 02:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That poll was a draw. A Wikipedia:Consensus requires at least 60% support. In that poll, no side achieved 60% support, therefore there is no consensus. No Wikipedia:Consensus was arrived at through the long discussions. Again, there is no Wikipedia:Consensus which those editors are disrespecting. You are ignoring Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms. That was arrived at through long discussions and is generally at Wikipedia:Consensus with the majority of Wikipedians and you are disrespecting it. Therefore, your claim that this is absolutely unfair and against the wikipedia (theoretical) spirit, is untrue. It is an attempt to follow the naming conflict policy. Regards, GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 09:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with the Wikipedia procedure described at Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms, which was arrived at by a consensus which overrules any premature poll that ended in a stalemate. The procedure is clear. -Alexander 007 09:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, what is the problem here? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Reality is the problem? Or maybe WP policies and guidelines, I don't know. I had participated in long discussions in the past about Macedonia related articles. You may check Talk:Macedonia#POV_dispute.3F, Macedonia_(region)#External_links, agreed facts and many other pages were I had tried to help. Or you may file an RFC against me and have a neutral party check my contribs in depth. Or you can take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/REX where I'm already involved and try to prove that I am not an elephant. And if you do these, then you can give a better answer than mine on your question "MATIA, what is the problem here?", I'm afraid I cannot, the same way I cannot parse all these or find more. With my best regards to RN. +MATIA ☎ 11:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The reality is more than clear on this issue. 2 million people identify their nationality and ethnicity (not just regional origin) as "Macedonian". Also, the vast majority of sources, including United Nations, CIA Factbook, 90% of the Encyclopedias etc. etc. etc call us simply as "Macedonians". Except the Greek POV based on unsupported, unreal and unjustified fear of its far, far, far weaker neighboor, can you give me any reason this article not to be called in this way (Macedonian (ethnicity))?

I just want to remind you of something. Do you maybe remember that after the recognition of Republic of Macedonia by the US there was a big celebration in Skopje, where the most dominant element was the enormous Greek and Macedonian flag joined together? Wasn't that clear sign of friendship? Or maybe that was not even mentioned in the medias in Greece?

You should understand that "Macedonian (ethnic group)" is a compromise, which clearly follows the Wikipedia policies and main principles. Macedonian 02:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right: Reality is the problem. People X call themselves Macedonians, and many Greeks and Bulgarians don't accept that self-determination, nor should they accept it if they don't want to. But real world disputes aside, here in Wikipedia, we have policies. Self-determination is granted, per policy, but it is balanced a bit by the disambiguation policy (hence, Macedonians (ethnic group), satisfying both policies). -Alexander 007 11:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

+MATIA is evading the issues and the questions asked (as usual). +MATIA, I hope that you know that your unjustifiable attempts at blocking or stalling the true facts being used, as explicitly stated by the sources as NPOV and the Wikipedia naming policy. Your attitute can potentially be characterised with a absence of good faith if you persist in behaviour which could justifiably be characterised as trolling, by virtue of your above statement. I quote: Some trolls are critical of the project, its policies [you characterised Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as Reality is the problem? Or maybe WP policies and guidelines], its users, its administration, or its goals. Often, this criticism comes in the form of accusations of cabals, ilks, or campaigns, that are typically invested in a particular POV, invested in maligning a specific user [your obsession with REX ], and other similar claims. I hope you know that with your attitude and behaviour people might misinterpret your motives. In my opinion, your views are the problem. You are obsessed with naming this ethnic-group against its will and against the sources we already have. Do you see a problematic pattern here, I do. Regards, GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You (Grandfather and/or REX) seem to have a problem with me... And while this is irrelevant with my active (in the past) participation in discussions about Macedonia related articles, it is highly relevant with your latest trick (nothing to do with Knopfler's song) here. +MATIA ☎ 12:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And finally as long as the agreed facts of Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll are not part of the article, a proper tag should be placed here. The neutral admins should check what would be that tag. +MATIA ☎ 12:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The agreed facts are in Wikipedia:Consensus and are and shall be used, the naming poll is not. 60% of the vote was not obtained by either side, therefore that issue is still open to debate. What you think that this name should be called is of no importance and your accusing me of being a sockpuppet, a totally unjustified and unproven claim, is, to put it mildly, idiotic! The naming poll was a draw and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, that is not a consensus and therefore, not binding on anyone. You should be interested to know that if these people are called Macedonian Slavs in defiance of the consensus reached here, that would warrant the display of the totally disputed notice on the page as opposed to now, where no consensus is being violated. You are just adding that notice out of spite, because you are distressed by the fact that the appropriate and NPOV name is being used because you don't agree with it. The Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms is in consensus for all naming disputes and it was approved by many Wkipedians, the Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll was a draw, it in not in consensus. Ultimately, the name Macedonians (X) can be used without the display of the disputed tag, the Macedonian Slavs, can't. Deal with it! GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, a neutral administrator moved this page to where it is now. You didn't know that, did you? GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that everyone should know that Macedonians (ethnic group) really is the most appropriate name. It is not found offensive by the ethnic group in question (unlike the name Macedonian Slavs, which is as offensive to them as calling the Arvanites of Attica Albanians). I'm sure that MATIA would agree with me that names which are found offensive by the people in question shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. If he applies those rules to the Arvanites only and not to the Macedonians, then that will be double standards. Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Columbia Encyclopedia, The Harvard Dictionary of Music, Philip's Encyclopedia, The Macmillan Encyclopedia, Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, Penguin Encyclopedia of Places, The Companion to British History, the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia and Ethnologue all call these people Macedonians. Wikipedia's naming policy also directs us to use the name Macedonians. There is no good reason whatsoever to use the name Macedonian Slavs and I applaud the defenders of the right self-determination who managed to finally move this article to Macedonians (ethnic group). My congragulations and gratitude to Bomac who's initiative, guided by the cunning of The Almighty, managed to arrive to such an unexpected twist of fate, where NPOV managed to return to this Wikipedia article and to force out the Pro-Greek Propaganda which imposed the false and offensive name Macedonian Slavs on this article. Wikipedia policies have finally been implemented despite forcible Greek propagandistic pressure who claimed that a consensus had been reached. I is well known that that is a lie, as a consensus requires 60% of the vote and that the poll was a tie. Oh Joy :-) REX 15:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

POV and inaccurate

The article in its present form satisfies only the Macedonian Slav POV. And as long as it doesn't have the agreed facts (check my previous comments here) it is also inaccurate, therefore I reverted the tag removal by GrandfatherJoe. +MATIA ☎ 10:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not satisfy the Macedonians, because their internationally accepted name is "Macedonians". Instead of giving accusations, maybe you should make a survey about how many sources use the name "Macedonians" against the ones that use any other name. You will easily find out that the vast majority of sources, including the most of the other enciclopedias, United Nations, EU, USA, CIA etc, etc, etc use the name "Macedonians".

This newest article satisfies only the reality, which is clear that the identity of these people is "Macedonians", but in order to make difference between modern and antique Macedonians, we used the adding (ethnic group).

Anyway, just to remind you that the search of "Macedonians" on Wikipedia redirects you to the "Macedonian (disambiguation)", where you can clearly select which Macedonians you are looking for. With this, it is obviously that you have no reason to claim that someone can get confused. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote him: "it is against Wikipedia policy to remove this sign" 18 October 2005. +MATIA ☎ 10:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand the POV tag to be here, but totally disputed? And all because of your wish the name of this page to be different, a wish that you can not support with any fact. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does +MATIA feel that he can add a POV tag to articles when he feels like it? I am here and ready to discuss and he is also around, but is unwilling to discuss. Bad Faith! +MATIA, If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please 'share' them with the world. If you wish to ignore Wikipedia's policies and the consensus reached on naming disputes Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms. You are violating a consensus and a RFC will be filed against you if you persist in refusing to co-operate and disrupting Wikipedia. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

To quote him 14:50, 8 September 2005: it's all written, perhaps you should read them again and remove the POV tag. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the Personal Attacks - I'm beggining to enjoy them. +MATIA ☎ 10:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why you don't discuss instead of complaining? I do not see any personal attack against you here. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

+MATIA however many times you accuse me of pa, it will never come true. You are being spiteful and disruptive and it's time for the world to know about it That RFC is being prepared. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

spiteful? disruptive? It's supposed that you are descedant of civilized Macedonians. I think you are not. An you know what? You are not interested about historic truth. Finally wikipedia comes to end as it concerns NPOV. As ethnic groups Greeks, Slavs, Turks, Anglo-Saxons -whatever the hell they are- are capable of changing historic truth so easily there is not NPOV. That's the reason why nobody is taking you serious. Even the big boss of wikipedia admits that you are simple a cultural hole. Now respect national treaties and more or less go read them, read serious history -not this one you are taught in your school as we have been taught in our schools- and then we can talk seriously, if we need to talk at all--Kalogeropoulos 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about the history, we are talking about basic facts that a reality nowdays. Whatever was the history, the truth fact that exist is that these people reffer to themselves and are in more than 90% of the cases reffered to as "Macedonians".

By the way, we can fight forever about the history, but that won't change anything.

If the history is more important to you than the reality and present days (including the future), maybe you should concentrate exacly on those issues, at the history. This issue is about the modern (present day) ethnic group. When we die or suddenly dissapear, I will inform you, so you can edit this page as history. Macedonian 04:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Kalogeropoulos, try to avoid personal remarks such as those I've marked up with HTML strikeout formats. This will help the discussion move along more smoothly, I believe. Uncle Ed 14:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please go on and tell me more about it. +MATIA ☎ 10:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

+MATIA is defying a consensus. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Anyway, It's not important what +MATIA thinks. The consensus is that this ethnic group is to be called Macedonians with the designation (ethnic group). This is how it is in the light of WP policy and this is how it shall remain. I'm feeling so happy that Greek POV is finally quashed :-))) GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that your group let the world know that you are preparing a RFC against me. I'm sure it'll be much better than REX's previous attempt (no-one ever clarified it or gave me a chance to defend myself against invisible as you would say accusations). FYI no-matter if you are a group and I'm on my own you can't keep a good man down. +MATIA ☎

Discuss here, give some facts. Proof that you can be reffered to as a "good man". I think you should understand that no one here has anything against you. But, you should also understand that you can not just ignore the basic principle in the democracy world called "a right for self-identification". Also, you should learn that ignoring and hidding someones identity (which happened to be the only one we have) is completely against any human standards. Macedonian 03:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Sterbinski refrain from questioning my integrity and my honour. +MATIA ☎ 15:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Mr. Sterbinski did not send a post here for several months. And having on mind that I only posted some 5-6 posts using that nickname, I can not be reffered by that name.

I will not comment any further provocations on this issue. Let's concentrate on the topic, Mr. self-promoted man of honor". Macedonian 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hear that Mr Sterbinski, you're not allowed to question MATIA's integrity and honour. MATIA must be afraid of something, but what? They say that an honest man has nothing to fear, but MATIA seems to be afraid? Is it possible that the honour he is always babbling about doesn't exist. MATIA, you can't just say you have honour, you have to behave accordingly. Deeds mean more than words, remember. You dismissed the idea of mediation, would a man of honour do that? I don't think so. REX 18:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he must be affraid after their sceletons (that they kept in the closet) started appearing one by one. Macedonian 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

update

Reading the discussions, it seems that other users also find the article POV (for different reasons than mine). I've "splitted" the tag into POV and disputed. The second tag is because the agreed facts of the poll are not part of the article. The first tag (POV) is for the reasons I've stated before and for other users, read what they wrote and where they disagree. +MATIA ☎ 15:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users of Bulgarian and Greek origin, pushing their own nationalistic POV. Of course they will appear, because the existance of the Macedonian ethnicity (whatever Slavic or not) is direct treat to their lies they promoted so hard during the last centuries.

So, calling us Macedonians (ethnic group) is POV pushing. I am really interested what would you say for the United Nations, CIA Factbook, EU, USA and every other country except Greece and Cyprus, then 90% of the enciclopedias, Universities etc. etc. etc. that call us simply "Macedonians". Does that make them "extreme POV" pushers?

You can keep the tags as much as you want. I will be more than glad if some reader of the article decides to read (at least parts of) this talk page. It might make him even more curious, so he will read and search sources further and read about all the unjustice and problems you made to us just because we do not accept to lose our identity and dissapear from the face of the earth, so you can freely share our teritory and culture and present it as your own. Macedonian 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, there were no agreed facts of the poll. That poll was a tie, can't you understand that? REX 18:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

An afterthought (and a bit about categories)

I had an idea which is not really a compromise, but might be acceptable to both sides. Coming right after a lengthy introduction.

In our coverage of ethnic groups and nations, we mostly do not go into defining which is which, because it's (a) contentious and (b) not meaningful. Hence the articles Germanic peoples, Latin peoples, Slavic peoples, etc. Our categories mostly follow that (see category:Indo-European peoples, category:Germanic peoples, category:Baltic peoples), but, unfortunately, not the ones dealing with Slavic peoples. We have category:Slavic ethnic groups and category:Slavic nations, which are weirdly connected to other categories, plus the division just makes things harder to find. This article is currently in neither of them. So, what I suggest that we do is that we merge those to categories into category:Slavic peoples and make this article a member of that.

And here comes the final bit: if we want to avoid the ethnic group vs. nation question and just call them a people, this article should theoretically live at Macedonians (people). As this is still quite ambiguous, mostly because of ancient Macedonians, I propose we move this article to Macedonians (Slavic people). This would allow PeopleXians to have themselves refered to as they wish, and it would be clearly disambiguated from any Greek sense of the word "Macedonians". Zocky 10:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It can not be acceptable, because of 3 reasons:

1)The modern Macedonians are mostly Slavic, but they also have another non-Slavic origin from several groups that lived in the area.

2)This is just another version of the old and already refused "Macedonian Slavs". Also, will the Bulgarian also become "Bulgarians (Slavic People)"? (This is because a regular Wikipedia user does not clearly know the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians).

3) I find the name "Macedonians (Slavic people)" offensive because it can also reffer to other Slavic groups that live in the region Macedonia. This can easily be seen (and I see it) as an attempt to loose the separate Macedonian ethnicity of these people (which I am a part of).

The "Macedonian (disambiguation)" page already makes very clear difference and gives clear choise to the user. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (Slavic people) sounds good at first. But we should talk about it and avoid changing it in a night (as has happened the night before). +MATIA ☎ 10:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Zocky's suggestion seems like a needless step backward. I'm not sure what you mean by the "nationality" or "ethnic group" question. The article is about an ethnic group. If I become a citizen of the Republic of Macedonia, I will become a member of the nationality but not the ethnic group. If a member of People X becomes a British citizen, he is still an ethnic Macedonian. I suggest that the article remains at Macedonians (ethnic group). It is already disambiguated from any Greek sense of the word (Greek Macedonians are ethnic Greeks), and disambiguated from the Ancient Macedonians by an adjective. -Alexander 007 10:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Check the previous discussions. If you become citizen of RoM then you would have RoM citizenship not nationality. +MATIA ☎

Then the example of the British Macedonian is sufficient. -Alexander 007 11:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't trust me, ask someone else to explain the similarities and the differences between nationality, ethnicity and citizenship. +MATIA ☎ 11:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference bewteen the 3 is very weak when translated from English to many languages.Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well excuse me, as a non-Balkanite (thank the Lord), a distinction between a citizen and a national is strange to me. I will leave this debate, with the hope that it doesn't degenerate into another spout of Balkanite mud-slinging. Cheers, -Alexander 007 11:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose Macedonian (disambiguation) to be moved to Macedonians and Macedonia (region) to be moved (as it was before one month) to Macedonia. The Macedonians should be permanently protected and if someone prooves that something should be added there, then it would be temporarily unprotected and edited. And Macedonia should be watched by neutral admins. +MATIA ☎ 11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

These movement completely satisfies the Greek POV and the denial and ignoring of the modern Macedonians. The page Macedonian (disambiguation) is clearly to give the Wikipedia user choises, where he can choose what he is looking for.

Follwing your instructions, MATIA, we will make many users completely confused. A user which is looking for the modern Macedonians and he searches for "Macedonians" will be transfered to the page of the Antique Macedonians. Then, he will think that the Antique Macedonians are the same as modern Macedonians.

Also, searching for "Macedonia" might take the user to the region of Macedonia, even if the user was searching for the Republic of Macedonia. So, he will think that whole region of Macedonia is a part of the Republic of Macedonia.

Not an option that you would like. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to express my opinion that Macedonian (disambiguation) should be moved to Macedonians, that Macedonia should be a disambiguation page and Macedonia (region) should remain as it is. I think that given that most English speaking people (the ones who will be using the English Wikipedia) mostly know the Slavic Macedonian state plainly as Macedonia (see conventional long form on CIA World Factbook). Strictly speaking the page Republic of Macedonia could be moved to something like Macedonia (country). Just in the same way that the Republic of Georgia is at Georgia (country) (the country serves to distinguish from the US state Georgia (state)). However, given the ambiguities, Republic of Macedonia should suffice for now. As the word Macedonia can refer to many different things and places, Macedonia should be a disambiguation page which directs readers to Macedonia (region), Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia etc. I also believe that this article should remain as it is Macedonians (ethnic group). If we start distinguishing them by adding the tag 'Slavs' everywhere, it could be perceived as a racial slur. I similar phenomenon has been observed amongst Jews, who find that excessive use of the word Jew as a qualifyer is perceived as a racial slur. They are an ethnic group aren't they? There is no other ethnic group which claims the name Macedonians, is there? Therefore, IMO this article should remain as it is. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian (disambiguation) is already moved to Macedonians. That way a Wiki user can always choose what he is looking for. The most neutral choise and according to any of the Wiki policies.

In the example of Georgia, they are both political/govermental terms (state and country). But, in the Macedonia issue, we are talking about region versus country. Anyway, I beleive that the term "Macedonia (country)" is not perfect, but acceptable for most of the people.

Yes, the use of the term Slav for Macedonian was seen as offensive exacly because of the racial context. It gives a feeling that our ethnicity is not accepted and we are seen as some Slavic tribe of 15 centuries ago. Also, it is a fact that the modern Macedonians are not only Slavic. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I also prompt +MATIA to read nationality, citizenship and ethnicity. It will do him the world of good! GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 12:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, as I say above, Wikipedia usually refers to ethnic groups and nationalities as "Peoples", see above examples. I don't see how calling them a Slavic people is an ethnic slur (frankly, as a Slav, I'm mildly disconcerted by the suggestion). Zocky 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This sugestion is very weak and it gets us back at the same place where we started. And, as I partly Slav, I find it unacceptable because of the resons that I already explained. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be an ethnic slur, Grandfatherjoe does have a point. The word "Albanian" is an ethnic slur in Greece and while simply calling someone an Albanian would not be found offensive, but incorporating it into one's form of address would be found offensive. Miskin has often called the Macedonians a "Slavic crowd" and he was using the word 'Slavic' in a derogatory way (it is a racial slur, as Macedonians themselves have said). While no one is denying the fact that they are Slavs, singling this ethnic group out and appending thw word Slav to their name could be interpreted as a racial slur. Personally I can't see anything wrong with 'ethnic group', it is accuate and not misleading and is certainly not found offensive by anyone. A fragile balance has been achieved. Let's not wreck it. REX 13:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's hard not to define this as a strawman argument, so let's call it as the "offensive" card at the deck. But the problems with that card have been analyzed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict, and I have pointed out that the term Macedonian Slavs is used in .mk domains. (and I hope that someone will check the various spellings in .mk domains for example:Македонски Словени, Славомакедонци, Словенски Македонци, Македонци Словени etc, I'm afraid I only speak English and Greek). +MATIA ☎ 14:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to protest against your try to change the facts. It is truth that "Macedonians Slavs" is sometimes used by the Macedonians, but to reffer to the Slavic tribes that settled Macedonia in the 5th century.

This is actually one of the reasons why the modern Macedonians see the adding "Slav" to their name as offensive and as a try to destroy their identity.

MATIA, I will have to ask you to stop playing dirty. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah MATIA, I see you're not WP:COLD any more, very nice. Have you cleared the calumnies against you, cleared your Criminal record and obtained that "formal apology" yet? However, I believe that your vicious circles have come to an end, given that if you had read the conclusions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict you would know why what you are suggesting is not possible. Also, I find it most interesting that you are so keen on naming the Macedonians against their will, while you displayed such sensitivity when it came to the Arvanites (of which the ones in Epirus and Western Macedonia call themselves Albanians). If I'm not mistaken, you said: YOU CANNOT LABEL PEOPLE THE WAY YOU WANT AGAINST THEIR WILL AND/OR AGAINST THE FACTS. Strange how that that doesn't apply here. The fact that some Arvanites call themselves Albanians doesn't count, but if a few Macedonians acknowledge their Slavic ancestry then a racial slur must be imposed on them. Tut tut! Anyway, in addition to the fact that it is a racial slur, it is misleading, because there are at least two Slavic Macedonian peoples. This ethnic group and the Bulgarians (we mustn’t forget them). Saying ethnic group, though is true as there is only one ethnic group which identifies solely as Macedonians. I fail to see why you are so keen to impose this racial slur on a reluctant population. You know how much they loathe it: you remember that incident when 10% of the population of the Republic of Macedonia sent letters of protest and requesting to be called by the name they use for themselves. The word Slavs denotes their origin. You don’t see articles called Irish (Celtic people) or English (Germanic people). No, it is Irish people and English people. Unless of course you would prefer calling them Macedonian people the best thing to do would be to leave it as it is now Macedonians (ethnic group). It is true, accurate and not found offensive by anyone. REX 14:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I enjoy your Personal Attacks more and more. +MATIA ☎ 14:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And I enjoy your slander and libel. It makes me feel sooo good :-) REX 14:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (i would advise you to stop saying that whoever disagrees with you is making personal attacks. It is totally transparant)

Let me be slightly more formal

Let's say I propose the article to live at Macedonians (Slavic people) as the permanent solution. Let me review the rationale for this solution:

• Macedonians: In line with overwhelming proof and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, it clearly establishes that people X are called "Macedonians", thus satisfying one side of the debate.
• People: In line with Wikipedia convention, it circumvents the question of what "nation", "nationality", "ethnicity", "ethnic group", etc. mean in different countries, cultures and languages, by applying the neutral term "people".
• Slavic: It gives the article about people X a clearly dissambiguated name, even when looking at the alphabetical index of articles. (There is the matter of ancient Macedonians also needing to be listed under "M", that's why we also have the redirect at Macedonians (ancient people)). This should also satisfy the other side of the debate, as it removes any possibility of confusion with anything Greek.
• Stability: It's not enough to convince or overpower the current opposition in the editorship and force a solution that's most close to your heart. If we want to stop wasting our time with this endless discussion, we need a solution which will be less likely to raise complaints and easier to defend from future hotheads. A slight overkill in precision is a small price to pay for the end of this eternal debate.

For now we have one Greek editor saying that Macedonians (Slavic people) is probably acceptable. Some people have suggested that calling Macedonians a Slavic people might be an ethnic slur and we have yet to hear what Macedonian editors think about this. From my experience with Macedonians, I don't expect this to be a problem.

I would like more directly interested editors to voice their opinion, but please take any flaming to some other section. Zocky 15:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is completely unaceptable for me, as a Macedonian editor. I already listed my reasons. I can not understand why someone is keep trying to change our identity. That is against any concept of humanity and democracy.

I would just like to remind you that adding "Slavic" will just explain (a part) of the origin of these people. But, it won't be the present reality.

I really do not see any problem with the current name Macedonians (ethnic group). It is not offensive and it satisfies the Greek need to make a difference bewteen the modern and antique Macedonians. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of hearing this group referred to as "people X" although it reminds me of Racer X, the enigmatic older brother of Speed Racer in the Japanese anime classic. Uncle Ed 15:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been off from this discussion for a while. I agree with the move. It is a descriptive title, not prescriptive. Macedonians call themselves Macedonians, and they are an ethnic group. The prescriptive way of dealing with this matter is naming this ethnic group with a name that some editors decided that Wikipedia should use, such as Macedonian Slavs, Slavic Macedonians, Slavomacedonians, etc. and therefore taking a prescriptive approach to this problem. This is explained at Wikipedia:Naming conflict. --FlavrSavr 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the current Zocky's proposal, before stating my opinon, I have a question: Does this solution implies that we will use Slav Macedonians, Slavic Macedonians, Macedonians Slavs or similar solution in texts? --FlavrSavr 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the article would be called "Macedonians" (the rest is dissambiguation), I think that it's obvious that the name "Macedonians" should be used and dissambiguated where needed. Zocky 15:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

REX's comments

In that case, Macedonians (ethnic group) is OK, because we are emhpasising the fact that the ethnic-group is being discussed, but the Slavic element in them will be (and is now) discissed in the history section. REX 16:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Slavic refers to the ancestry of these people and carries a slightly racist meaning. It is possible that many Macedonians (ethnic group) are not Slavs and imposing such a label in them may seem like one is trying to assert the "ethnic purity" of this ethnic group. Macedonians have been saying that they finds being called a Slavs (that incident with the thousands of letters saying callme by my name etc) a racial slur and I must say that I agree with him. I mean no one says English Germanic people, or Irish Celtic people, or Spanish Visigoth people. Macedonians (ethnic group) is perfect, because unlike Macedonians Slavic people (which is not according to WP policy which just uses people), it is not misleading as there are at least two people who would qualify to be called that way (the Macedonian Bulgarians). Macedonians (ethnic group) is perfect as it signifies the ethnicity, something which the Greek Macedonians and the Bulgarian Macedonians lack (therefore it shouldn't annoy them and they cannot cause confusion with them. REX 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you that Wikipedia policy requires that these people be called Macedonian people and not Macedonians (Slavic people). Therefore calling them Macedonians (ethnic group) is a massive concession and attempt to compromise. It is perfect, there is no other ethnic group which uses that name. It is not open to misinterpritation. REX 15:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

REX, please consider staying out of this issue for a while. Since (a) you have no direct stake in the matter, being neither ethnically Macedonian nor Greek, and (b) your style of discussion is one-sided and inflamatory, Greek editors will inevitably read your comments as coming from an anti-Greek POV. At this moment, your contributions to the debate are not likely to help the position you claim to support. Thank you. Zocky 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Zocky, having on mind what you just said, I might think that you are supporting the anti-Macedonian POV. Please do not misunderstand me, but your proposition is offensive for me and most of the modern Macedonians, same as the "Macedonian Slavs" was.

The reality is that we are a separate ethnic group and your proposition might be seen as a try to deny that.

To be honest, if this was written by MATIA, I would feel very offended. But, having on mind your neutrality, I know that you only wanted to help. Thanks for that.

Anyway, I would like to ask all Wikipedians to use the same standards as used towards the other ethnicities/nations. If the page for English people is moved to "English (Germanic people)", then you can use the same principle with the Macedonians.

NOTE: The example with "English" is not ment to be offensive towards anyone. I just gave a meaningless example. I appologise for any hard feelings that I might have caused with this. Macedonian 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Title of the page

I note that somebody moved this page to Macedonians (ethnic group) and I'd like to ask how my fellow contributors feel about this.

Does it succeed or fail, in conveying the idea that Wikipedia is taking no sides in the controversy over what the "real, true name" of this group is?

I ask this from the vantange point of knowing very little about this group. Frankly, I've been careful to learn as little about them as possible, while concentrating purely on the linguistic and administrative aspect of the dispute.

Is it fair or accurate to say that this group of people are an ethnic group?

Has Wikipedia also taken into account the objections of Greeks (or Greece itself) to the use of Macedonians to describe this group? Note that I myself am not taking sides, or at least I am trying not to. It looks to me like Greeks prefer / insist that Macedonia should be used only to mean the sector of Greece which Greeks call "Macedonia": some sort of province or county within its borders, I guess. Likewise with Macedonian (adj.) and Macedonians.

My hope is that readers of Wikipedia, as well as its volunteer contributors, will agree to allow Wikipedia to avoid taking sides in this dispute. I'm trying to get the articles to convey the current state of the real-world dispute, which of course remains unresolved despite recent developments. Uncle Ed 14:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This move is prescriptive, POV, it takes a side, and was made in a night by a small group of editors. And they call it consensus, while everyone else was sleeping. You may check my previous comments here and on other related articles. +MATIA ☎ 14:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you expect Wikipedia to change the name of the whole ethnic group? What is the use of having "Macedonian Slavs" page when no one identifies with that name?

Also, if a user wants to find data for the modern Macedonians, it will be a nightmare till he reaches his goal. It even seems that the previous version of the name was intentionally made misleading in order to hide the identity of these people. Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with this, it was a very good thing to do.
• it succeeds in conveying the idea that Wikipedia is taking no sides in the controversy over what the "real, true name" of this group is.
• They are an ethnic group.
• yes it has, that is why it is called Macedonians (ethnic group) and not plain Macedonians or Macedonian people which is proper Wikipedia policy.
• I agree totally with that last bit of Ed's. REX 14:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't knew that agreeing (I agree with this, it was a very good thing to do) with yourself counts. +MATIA ☎ 14:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK ALARM! I really am anjoying this abuse directed at me by MATIA :-( REX 14:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (I was agreeing with Uncle Ed and you know it)

MATIA, anyone who reads the disscussion that took place before this even can see how unconstructive you were.

Not to mention that, despite your unjustified fears, you could not give us any reason why to keep the old name of the page. Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

Please review the policy pages on personal remarks and attacks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). I suggest that we all avoid saying things like:

• Agreeing with yourself
• Enjoying this abuse
• You know it

I'm not deleting, merely "marking up" with HTML strikeout. Uncle Ed 14:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in such heated disputes where there is a clash of POVs it is inevitable that people will make personal attacks. MATIA, Bomac, I, everyone has made at some point a personal attack. I for one an willing to try and quit (yet another indication of my good faith). I am pleased with the articles as it is now. If we apply the MATIA principle, it appears even more perfect as it is not labelling people against their will. I'm sure that MATIA agrees with me :-)))))) REX 15:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a man of honour. What I wanted for Arvanites is the same with what I wish for that article. And some of the facts, are the agreed facts of the poll. +MATIA ☎ 22:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Lie: you want to name these people against their will. Also, that Poll was a tie, there are no agreed facts. REX 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Soy un hombre muy honrado: Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Naming. +MATIA ☎ 00:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Then start acting like one... Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, you do realise that to say that you are a man of honour, you will have had to behaved like one. Have you? Nah! REX 11:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan's comments

MATIA - I read your comments before but I am asking what would be acceptable to you NOW. Also, people - Long, protracted arguments are getting us nowhere here. Policy isn't really getting us anywhere here either, so lets forget about that for a moment. MATIA doesn't like the current state - so then what would be acceptable to MATIA and others? Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)? Let's try to keep our responses, to say, no longer then 20 words or so, lest we be arguing forever :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Zocky's proposal is better than the current state. Thanks for your patience. +MATIA ☎ 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't understand why MATIA doesn't like Macedonians (ethnic group). What is wrong with the current state? At least it's not a racial slur. REX 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Is anybody who is ethnic Macedonian offended by being called a Slav? Zocky 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Very offended ethnic Macedonian here. The proposal "Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)" has no difference to the previous one "Macedonian Slavs" and it is complete racial slur, anyone neutral can see that, especially when no similar topic is used for any other ethnic group. Also, it is very inaccurate.

Another fact: the modern Macedonians are in fact mostly Slavs, but they also have other, non-SLavic origin. A fact that is confirmed by everyone.

I can continue forever, But I already spent my 20 (even more) words... Macedonian 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Zocky's answer to some concerns

OK, let me first point out some things:

• Macedonians (Slavic people) is very different from Macedonian Slavs, as it clearly establishes that the title of the article and thus the proper name of the people is "Macedonians", which fully grants the central demand of your side. The rest is disambiguation.
• The fact that Macedonians also have other-than-Slavic ancestors does not stop them from being one of the Slavic peoples. In fact, Macedonian editors have fought for Macedonians to be listed at Slavic peoples.
• English people are listed at category:Germanic peoples. Nobody seems to mind.

Currently there seems finally to exist the momentum for calling this page Macedonians (something), which in view of the overwhelming evidence was to be expected. We now have to decide what that (something) will be. I think that we should chose a name that will be accurate and non-controversial, so that we don't have to revisit this debate on regular basis.

"ethnic group" and "nation" are bad choices, as they're ambiguous and often controversial terms. The convention is to use "people". Macedonians (people) would make me entirely happy. But, if we use any of these without further disambiguation, we're bound to have another round of this nonsense the next time some Greek editor says "(Ancient Macedonians|Modern Greek Macedonians) are also an (ethnic group|nation|people)", and they'll actually have a good case. I'm getting tired of this debate. I was hoping to do some work on the article, but while we're having the age-long edit war about the name, it's hardly worth it.

So, if we decide to go with further disambiguation in order to preclude future edit wars, how do we go about it? In the whole somewhat silly paradigm of ethnicity/race, Macedonians are one of the Slavic peoples, which in turn are a kind of Indo-European peoples. "Slavic people" just seems like the logical choice. Other ideas for further disambiguation just seem worse to me: Macedonians (people of RoM)? Macedonians (not Macedonian Slavs)? Macedonians (non-Greek people)? Macedonians (modern people)? Yuck.

The only statement that Macedonians (Slavic people) makes is "Macedonians are one of the Slavic peoples". This has been a part of our agreed facts, which both sides have used in their arguments, for months. It can hardly be construed as an ethnic slur without implying an insult to all Slavic peoples.

I will drop the proposal and humbly admit being wrong if anybody provides evidence

1. that the correct name for this people is anything else than "Macedonians", or
2. that the ancient Macedonians were neither an ethnic group, nor a nation nor a people, or
3. that a typical modern Macedonian is insulted by the statement "Macedonians are one of the Slavic peoples"

Zocky11:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The English are listen in Germanic people, but their name is not changed and their article is called "English people". And, in my oppinion this is because of makin difference between adjective "English" and "English" as identifier to whole nation/ethnicity.

Anyway, "Macedonian (Slavic people)" sounds very racial. We are mostly Slavs, no one argues with that. Our culture is dominantly Slavic, same as our language. That is why we would preffer beeing listed in Slavic peoples. But, our origin is not only Slavic. We should make a difference here.

The proposal to use something else inside "()" than nation or ethnic group/ethnicity seems offensive by its own, because of one and only reason:

The Macedonians see any try to change their name or the name of the country as a try to deny their identity, as a try to hide it and ignore it.

Think about it. If you were on our place, you would feel the same. In this exacly moment while I am writting this, probably someone is already changing the text inside "Macedonians (ethnic group)" in another form, where it can be understood that the modern Macedonians are an artificial product of Tito's politics.

Just to remind you that justsome 5 days ago, any text concerning Tito and the modern Macedonians was giving the reader a feeling that the Macedonians are artificial nation which has no right to a separate identity, because they are artificial product of a communistic politics of a dictator.

Again... how would you feel in my shoes?

You mentioned that you need a fact showing that the antient Macedonians were not ethnic group or nation. Here is a fact:

The modern ethnic groups/nations were formed at least 15 centuries latter. This can be confirmed by any relevant historian.

So, no people from that time can be identified with some ethnicity/nationality in a modern sence of these 2 words. Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Macedonians (Slavic decendants)?

We share origin from more groups, where the Slavic is dominant. But, still not the only one. Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, first of all I feel the need to explain what exactly is derogatory about the Slav add-on in general. Of course that Slav, in itself is not a slur, but we do find it offensive when used as an ethnic identifier. There is a difference. The Macedonian language is a Slavic language, and that is a fact. However, the use of "Slav" as an ethnic denominator for a modern nation is unnaceptable. I'll add several reasons for that: 1. We do not use Russians (Slavic people), for the Russians, although the Rus' were probably a Scandidavian tribe. Russians will probably get offended if we try to label them Slavic Russians, and say that they are not real Russians, but merely Slav Russians. 2. We do not use Egyptians (Arabic people) for the modern Egyptians, do we? They drastically differ from the Ancient Egyptians, but no one makes the confusion. Also, we do not use Palestinians (Arabic people). The point is that the ethnic substratum of every modern nation or ethnic group cannot be reduced to Slavic, Latin, etc., because they are a mixture of several ethnicities. The Slavic invasion in the 6th century (remember, that was 14 centuries ago) drastically changed the ethnic composition of this region (including Greece), but the ancient inhabitants didn't dissappear just like that.

However, linguistically, Macedonians are a Slavic people, and because we need to somehow dissambiguate between them and the ancient Macedonians, I personally find the Macedonians (Slavic people) proposal acceptable, with the following two important conditions:

1. No unjustified Slavic Macedonians, Slav Macedonians terms within texts. I already explained why that is offensive and inappropriate. These terms would be used only when there is really a need for dissambiguation (perhaps a better term is Slavic speaking Macedonians, instead of Slavic Macedonians. Because the I guess that the Greek editors will try to push Slav(ic) as much as they can, I leave it to the administration to intervene if such attemtps are made, because The name of the people is Macedonians, and the name of the language is Macedonian.
2. Before the opening paragraph we could add this: This article is about the modern Slavic speaking people that identify themselves and are generally identified as Macedonians. The historical, cultural and ethnic continuity between the Ancient Macedonians and this modern ethnic group is controversial. For the Ancient Macedonians, see Macedon. For the other meanings of this term, see Macedonians. This is a neutral statement with the sole purpose to explain that the Slavic add-on is used only to dissambiguate, and not to imply that the modern Macedonians have absolutely nothing in common with the Ancient Macedonians. They might have, or might have not, and we should let the reader to decide on that matter.

I also have another proposal to avoid the constant Slavic/non-Slavic tweaks, and that is to move the article to Macedonian (modern ethnic group) or Macedonians (modern people). The "modern" prefix is to make the necessary distinction between the ancient Macedonians and the modern ones, which might be or might not be their descendants. I think that the proposal is the best one, although I find the Macedonians (Slavic people) acceptable, as well. (with the two conditions fulfilled) And one more thing: I hope one of these proposals would finally end this dispute, and if there's a consensus on this matter, I do not intend to go to further Mediations or similar. I need to hear everybody's opinion about this matter, although, I won't be able to thouroughly discuss the comments these days, due to college obligations. Regards to all, and let's finally end this dispute. --FlavrSavr 13:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand this right, your concern is with the somewhat exceptional disambiguation, rather than with the statement that "Macedonians are a Slavic people". (Note that our articles on Russians, Slovenians, Czechs, etc. include similar statements - they are no more true there than here in the literal/genetic sense and no less true in the language/hystorical/cultural sense.) I can understand that, but I thought a lot about this and simply don't see a different option with any hopes of being a stable solution for some time. I don't like the sound of "modern people" (plus modern is a new ambiguous term), but the real problem is that sooner or later somebody will say "modern people living in the (Greek|Bulgarian|whole) region of Macedonia are no less Macedonians (modern people) than people X."

Another thought: many people would say that our current naming of Ireland, Republic of Ireland, China, People's republic of China and Republic of China leaves much to be desired, but it turns out that although not many people really like it, most people find it acceptable, the issue is stalled (not necessarily resolved) and people actually get some work done on the articles. That would be a change for the better in this case. Zocky 14:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I can bet my life that, if allowed once, certain users will push the adding "Slavic" far behind any limit. We already experienced that while using "Macedonian Slavs", when any chance was used just in order to deny our identity.

Also, I can not understand... when more than 90% of sources (no matter which cathegory you choose) use the term "Macedonians", why Wikipedia does not follow that practice?

I have respect towards the Greek POV and its supporters, that is why I accept the "Macedonians (ethnic group)". Or, even "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)" can be acceptable (but only if the Macedonians of the slayer Alexander The Great are called "Antique Macedonians", which will really make a difference and make this much clearer). But, you can not expect me to accept any namings for my identity just to satisfy someones fears. It is simply not fair. Ans also, it is my basic human right to identify with any nation I want and pick up a name for it (as a member of that nation).

Can someone "neutral" just tell me one thing... will he, in any conditions accept a change in the name of his own nation/identity? Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, I have nothing against the statement Macedonians are a Slavic people, and therefore I do not oppose your proposal. Linguistically, there is no doubt about that, and there is nothing wrong in the statement that they have a rich Slavic cultural heritage. However, I can not accept unjustified adding of Slavic Macedonians, Macedonian Slav and similar terms within texts, instead of plain Macedonians, or ethnic Macedonians (as the Greek Helsinki Watch refers to them). What I asked from you (or the administration as a whole) was to stop such labels within texts - there is no difference between Macedonian Slav and Slavic Macedonian, and it's common use within texts is something I cannot accept, although Slavic Macedonians or better Slavic speaking Macedonians, can be used in some cases, when disambiguation is really needed. I didn't understand your view about this? Are you implying that we should commonly use "Slavic Macedonians" or plain "Macedonians", within texts? --FlavrSavr 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

And I slight remark - if you say that Macedonians (modern people) "modern people living in the (Greek|Bulgarian|whole) region of Macedonia are no less Macedonians (modern people) than people X", you must also consider that there will be folks who'd say that "Slavic peoples (namely the Bulgarians) living in the region of Macedonia are no less Macedonians (Slavic people) than people X". Man, this issue is really a Gordian knot :-)... --FlavrSavr 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, you are seeking for a stable solution for this, and so am I, but your proposal won't end edit wars - within texts, somebody (read: the Greek editors) will always add "Slav" to everything that has plain "Macedonian" in it, and somebody else (read: the Macedonian, Albanian, and Bulgarian editors) will always revert that. Either way you turn, a greater involvement of the neutral admins on this matter is an objective need. --FlavrSavr 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean acceptable on the title of this article. We'll burn other bridges when we get to them, let's first see what people think about the title.

OK, so that is one Macedonian editor who says acceptable and one Greek editor who says more acceptable than something else, which means at least somewhat acceptable. That's more than we had for any other proposal :)

So, other ethnic Macedonian and Greek editors, do you find the title Macedonians (Slavic people) acceptable (not necessarily good, right or fine)? Zocky 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, not at all. For the reasons that I already stated several times before.

You got another proposal... "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)". Why is this less acceptable than the racial "Macedonians (Slavic people)" (at least I see it that way)?

If the Greek side is really seeking to make difference bewteen us and the Antique Macedonians, and the other people of the region of Macedonia are seeking for the same difference, then "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)" should be 100% acceptable for them. It makes very, very clear difference bewteen us and any of those groups (no matter antique or modern). It is a fact that no ther ethnic group is called "Macedonians".

I will repeat that more than 90% of the sources of any category use the name "Macedonians" to reffer to us. You can not ask me to keep changing my name (or maybe the whole identity) just because someone does not like it.

The Macedonian name for a Greek is Grk (which is not offensive at all, same as the Spanish call then Griego). Will MATIA or anyone else accept they to change their identity to Grk (or Griego) just because I have some objections to the term "Greek"?

I will say again. This what is done to our name and identity is really not fair. I hope you will be in this possition for just one hour, in order to see how it feels... Macedonian 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A little remark, again: acceptable, IF (I said what) :-). Also, a friendly remark - there are other involved parties in the dispute, it is not necesarilly a Macedonian-Greek consensus. So, I'm leaving the discussion for a while, obligations. Regards to all. --FlavrSavr 14:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A sardonic comment on names

Consider a mythical land called Sardonia, known for their sarcastic comments about their neighbors. The modern English word sardonic is named for them.

Two millienia later, this ancient region no longer has any political integrity - we might even say the original people lacked personal integrity (but that would be your opinion, buster! ;-)

By 1963, the Yossarians had left Mimsy, which allowed Souse and Floom to combine into the Republic of Flimsy, which had the most Sardonic population. But a province of neighboring Mylandia was called Sardonia by the Mylandistas. Everybody clear with the scenario?

Then the Flimsies decided to call their country "Sardonia" (formally: Republic of Sardonia) and all hell broke loose. The king of Mylandia said, "This is my land! You can't say that your country or anyone in it is Sardonic!!" Uncle Ed 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is perfect example for my question...

Why would Mylandistas or the Flimsies or anyone else have exclusive rights over the name "Sardonia"?

We only want to keep our identity, so we can survive as a ethnicity/nation. As I can see, in the example that you mentioned above, no ones identity is "Sardonian". So, there are no "Sardonians".

In the real world, the Macedonian nation is internationaly recognized and far, far, far most of the sources use the name "Macedonians" to reffer to them.

It would be the same if Great Britain asks for Ireland to change its name and the name of its nationality.

Just, in the case of Macedonia, there is only one country using the name "Macedonia". All rest reffers to region.

Same as Scandinavia is a region. And, even if Norway changes its name to "Scandinavia", Sweden will never object, because they have something called "democracy". Something that obviously many people here forgot. Macedonian 05:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad my silly example sparked a response like this. I need some time to think over what you've written. I also need to read the commet below about the "real reason". I'm confident that we can all come to a stable, mutually satisfying agreement. Uncle Ed 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The real reason behind this issue

In order to understand the posible real reason behind all this issue of the naming of Macedonia, please read the text taken from [|Rainbow Pary Website], the party of the Macedonian minority in Greece:

---

2005 October 21 European Court of Human Rights Rules Against Greece and Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Greece and Bulgaria for the way they treat their Macedonian minorities and violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

---

Also you might find these following links useful:

[| The whole text of the article, on Greek], [| The full text of the final decision of the court in the case against Greece], [| The full text of the final decision of the court in the case against Bulgaria].

Here, you can see very clearly just couple of examples of the treatment of the Macedonian minority in Greece and Bulgaria. If these represions and assimilation attempts are happening now, in the 21st century, can someone imagine what was happening there some 50 or 100 (or more) years ago, when the Human rights on the Balkan were not important issue.

Also, here are 2 links of google search where you can find enormous ammount links full of information concerning the treatment of the Macedonian minorities in Greece and Bulgaria: | The Human rights of the Macedonians in Greece, | The Human rights of the Macedonians in Bulgaria.

Also, some interesting information about the treatment that Macedonians were receiving in the region can be found here: [|The Macedonians in Aegean Macedonia, which is nowdays a part of Greece], [|The Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia, which is nowdays a part of Bulgaria]. The last 2 links are from a web site which is clearly supporting the Macedonian side of the story about both history and culture, but the facts about the treatment of the Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria are supported by any major Human Righst organizations in the world.

It is more than clear that if the world was so concirned about the human rights some 50 years ago, Greece would never become a EU country. Macedonian 06:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like the issue goes deeper than "what is the right name for this group" but involves intentions and policies of assimilation and cultural destruction. Like, "You have no right to exist" followed by "You do not exist". I hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm probably not.

Yes, that is the problem. Do you think that this talk page (same as the talk page of the region of Macedonia) can be so enormously huge just because of a simple naming issue? There are many factors hidden in here. One of them is the fact that more than 10.000 Macedonian refugees from Greece are preparing a law suit in front of the European courts against Greece where they are asking back for their lands that Greece took away from them after they were expelled from their homes.

I will not try to fill your (or anyone elses) mind with something that someone might characterise as Macedonian POV. That is why I left you links from www.google.com, so anyone of you can choose any link he wants and read it. They all agree on the same concerning the treatment of the Macedonian minority in Greece or Bulgaria. Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In America, the right of peoples to keep their cultural roots is based on their paying allegiance to national unity. Their loyalty to America is their guarantee that their cultural heritage will be respected. I guess it's different in Europe, and that's probably why Europeans came here to start a new nation - but maybe that's my excessive patriotism talking. I don't know if this is helping!

Do we have an article on Greek attitudes toward ethnic Macedonians? Or is there a section of an article I can read? Uncle Ed 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no section because of one simple reason... it will be endlessly vandalised, erased and ignored. Actually, Wikipedia might be the only relevant source in the world that do not mention anything on this topic. And, I am not talking just about the treatment of the Macedonian minority in these 2 countries. I am talking about any minority that live there. Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[[1]] (check posts of Sterbinski and answers by admins and users). +MATIA ☎ 17:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to add that I am partly connected with the nickname of I_sterbinski (as I say on my user page), but only less than 5% of the edist made by this links are mine. Who used it after me is information that I can not talk about. And, I am not planning to involve in those comments, even if I agree/dissagree 100% with them.

I am not planning to hide that I posted couple of comments with the nickname of I_sterbinski. If I wanted to hide it, I would very easily. Instead, that was the first thing that I put on my User page after registering (you can check my history). Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we supposed to be taking arguments from blatantly nationalist websites as evidence now?One just has to read this juicy tidbit to get an idea of the quality of information presented there:

"This is a non-issue. Before the Greek propaganda changed, you could not say the "M" word to a Greek. They vehemently denied the existence of such a land, people, or language. Now they claim that the land is Greek, but there are still no ethnic Macedonian people or language, that it is simply "Slavic" or "Bulgarian".

In Greece, the government tried to eliminate any trace of Macedonia. Since the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, however, a concerted programme was implemented in order to prove the "Greekness of Macedonia". Institutions such as the "University of Macedonia" opened in Solun (Greek name-Thessaloniki), the "Museum of Macedonia" and a news agency called the "Macedonian Press Agency".

   * "In August 1988 Greece renamed "Northern Greece" as "Macedonia". Only since this renaming have Greek claims to Macedonian heritage gained widespread publicity." 5

   * "...Greece did not refer to any part of its current territory as Macedonia until 1988, when Papandreou's government officially adopted the name Macedonia to replace that of Northern Greece. This point added weight to the notion that the dispute with Macedonia was a manufactured one." 6"

In short, it is claimed that a whole region and its inhabitants were renamed in one fell swoop, overnight and without any resistance.They also claim that this was in some magical way kept hidden from the rest of the world.I think people travelling to, or conducting some sort of business with this "North Greece" region must have been thoroughly surprised when it disappeared overnight. In fact, "North Greece" was the name of the administratorial division of Greece that contained the regions of Macedonia and Thrace.It was not called Macedonia because it was not equal to the province of Macedonia, but in fact quite larger.It had its own ministry that was in fact called "Ministry of Northern Greece".The administratorial division of North Greece has since been renamed to "Macedonia and Thrace", partly because of the naming dispute, in order to reflect just what "North Greece" is made of(This is probably where this silly claim originated).The region of Macedonia had never been renamed to anything, nor its existance denied.Someone trying to claim that a land that had been so influential in world history in ancient times as well as in the 20th century (Macedonian question, Balkan wars) had suddenly disappeared in 1913 would have to be extremely stupid.--Jsone 18:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

At the same beggining, let me remind you all that first I posted google search links, so anyone can choose the page/link/sorce he wants. They all say the same about the poor treatment of the nationalities in Greece and Bulgaria.

Also, let me remind you that I stated that the last 2 links are from a web site that supports the Macedonian POV. I clearly said: "The last 2 links are from a web site which is clearly supporting the Macedonian side of the story...". Didn't I?

Also, I said that the facts about the treatment of the minorities in these regions are supported by any neutral source (did you Jsone maybe spent some time to read what the European Courts think about these issues?).

Strangely, but even neutral historians from EU members (therefore Greek partners) support the facts that you posted here and that are taken from the web page you mentioned. I already posted here, so please follow the link: [| The facts supported by the German historian Christian Foss]. Also, there you can find links to Deuche Welle, where his oppinion was published.

At the end, I just want to say to Uncle Ed and all other users... I hope that the previous comment of Jsone explains how this isses are treated and why Wikipedia does not have any text about the treatment of minorities in Greece and Bulgaria (aldough I have to say that there is some slight possitive changes in Bulgaria because of the EU presure, but the changes in Greece are even more negative). Macedonian 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes you have posted google search links.Unfortunately the first 5 pages (as much as i bothered to read) are littered with websites propagandizing the idea of a "United Macedonia",a nationalist pipe dream concerning the annexation of Bulgarian and Greek territories to finally "liberate" an arbitrarily defined version of Macedonia.Funnily enough, links to these sites were posted underneath the heading "The real reason behind this issue".Oh, sweetest irony...

The decision of the European Court of rights you posted relates to Greek police being unable or unwilling to protect the offices of the Macedonian minority party in Greece from an attack by an angered mob.I agree that this behavior was wrong, but it is a huge stretch from being evidence of massive persecution of said minority.I have read reports by human rights oragnizations about the treatment of said minority in Greece.The only issue that comes up in a substantial amount is the fact that they are denied to publicaly call themselves or any sort of unions they create "Macedonian".We should note that terms like Slavo-Macedonian or other compound terms are not banned.This ban is a product of the naming issue and not its origin, as people have implied here.

Christian Foss, in his article (or speech, whatever it is), only says what I have already mentioned above:That several institutions in the Greek Region of Macedonia have been renamed to "macedonian" in recent years(a huge distance from what the nationalist websites claim).That's not a secret to anyone.Again, these renamings are a product of the naming issue and not its origin.Inhabitants of Macedonia (the Greek region), felt the need to emphasize what they considered their identity to be, faced with FYROM's claim.No credible person or organization has ever repeated the idiotic claim that the region itself was renamed, or that its existance was denied.No one could possibly pull of the en masse renaming of a region, its institutions and brainwashing of its entire populace in a tiny amount of time and hope to keep it a secret, like these websites claim happened.The fact that residents of the region thought of themselves as Macedonians (Note, "Macedonians" as a regional identifier, not national) is recorded in an enormous amount of books,maps,school manuals, even songs an poems.I will return with examples later.--Jsone 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jsone...

Is "Human Rights Watch" a source that you think promotes pro-Macedonian positions?

A reminder for you... the search of google was simple, using the following combination: +"human rights" +Greece +Macedonians. It is normal that some Macedonian sites are found, because they include this subject. But, this search gives links to any major human rights organization you can think of. This is due to a simple fact... there is no bigger international human rights organization that did not criticise Greece for their poor treatment of the minorities.

Concerning the issue of "United Macedonia"... anywhere in the world you can find some nationalists with some crazy ideas. During the last century you did pretty good job in cleaning the Aegean Macedonia from the Macedonian minority, a process that is still lasting (as the human rights organizations clearly confirm, same as the European Courts).. So, nowdays the populations of that teritory is predominantly Greek.

Having this fact on mind, together with the fact that Greece is much much much bigger power than Republic of Macedonia, I would like to ask you...

Do you really beleive that the world will swallow your lie that you make all these problems to us because of the imaginary teritorial claims from Macedonia towards Greece?

You do this with a simple reason... to hide the sceletons from your closet. But, I have news for you, my dear. The closet got too small to keep all the sceletons inside, so it is slowly breaking apart and leaving those scelerons outside, so everyone can see them.

And, just a reminder for you... the European Court clearly says that those people who trashed the offices of the Rainbow party were asked to protest by the goverment officials. That is why Greece is beeing punished.

You should not forget that the European Court for human rights clearly recognizes the existance of a Macedonian minority in Greece, something that Greece denies.

Also, I should mention another process that is lasting against Greece... it is because Greece denies to register a cultural center of the Macedonian minority. Another basic human right of any individual in the world.

Jsone, my dear... do you maybe want us to start talking about all the killings and inprisoning general Metaxas did to anyone who even used the Macedonian language in their own homes?

In that case the sceletons that you keep in your closet will start flying from everywhere...

Concerning Mr. Foss... the interview clearly shows what he thinks of. What you say is clear changing of the clear facts.

Mr. Foss clearly says that the Greeks were forbitting the use of the name "Macedonia" until recently. It also said that they changed this when they actually realised that they can not hide it from the world, so they decided to start promoting the name "Macedonia" as Greek identifier.

You should stop trying to change the facts. Mr. Foss was actually one of the main promotors of the Macedonian problem in Germany. That action resulted in a recomendation from the German parlaiment to the German goverment to recognize Macedonia under its constitutional name. A thing that might happen quite soon, having on mind that Angela Merkel's party was the main supporter of the recomendation.

Just to remind you, Germany will not be the first of your EU partners who did this. As I said, it is hard to keep so many sceletons in only one closet... they slowly come out in front of the face of the public.

Also, I would like to state these link: [| Intro from the Human Rights Wach Paper called: Denying Ethnic Identity: The Macedonians of Greece.] and [| A "Macedonian Tribune article called "Tsarknias Speaks Out].

I also would be happy to link you to the following site: [| The Greek Helsinki cometee's reports on the issue of the "Macedonians in Greece"], where you have more than 50 links/stories related to the topics. Or, maybe the Greek Helsinki Cometee is not a reliable source for you?

So, Mr. Jsone... lets see how realistic and neutral you are... Please give me an answer on only 2 questions:

1)Is there a Macedonian minority in Greece?

2)Did Greece try to hide and ignore this minority through the history, sometimes even using force?

Before you answer, please do not forget that there are 1000s of sources about this issue. So, let's see... Macedonian 03:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing - but by whom?

• Why is the link consistently erased? The article is written by Lyubcho Georgievski, who was a prime minister of RoM for nearly four years, not by a Bulgarian/Greek jingoist. Who is POV pushing, CDwhatever?
• About the "strongly nationalistic character of the Macedonian freedom movement in the 1940s:
  • The Yugoslav Communist Party and the Macedonian Question by Palmer and King extensively deals with the early 1940s, the Bulgarian "occupation" and the "freedom movement" of Vukmanovic-Tempo, based entirely on original documents, correspondence and manifestoes of the Yugoslav Communist Party, the Macedonian Communist Party, the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Soviet Communist Party. According to it:
    • After Bulgaria started administering Vardar Macedonia in 1941, the Macedonian CP (led by Shatorov) placed itself voluntarily under the supervision of the Bulgarian CP. There was extensive correspondence between the Yugoslav and the Macedonian CPs, in which Tito urged the MCP to "start armed struggle against the Bulgarian fascist occupiers". To all such demands the MCP responded that "the MCP will fight the monarchist and fascist dictatorship of Bulgaria, but never the Bulgarian troops" and that "Vardar Macedonia is now part of Bulgaria, thus the MCP will not take any more orders from the YCP, the MCP is now under the direct supervision of the BCP and that's the way it will be."
    • As both the breakaway MCP and the VMRO of Ivan Mihaylov supported a union of Macedonia with Bulgaria, there was NOT ANY WHATSOEVER armed resistance and NONE WHATSOEVER FREEDOM STRUGGLE in Vardar Macedonia until the end of 1943. There were under ten activists of the MCP who remained faithful to the YCP, among them Lazar Kolishevski, and they were engaged in propaganda war, not in actions.
    • The "armed struggle movement" in Macedonia was organised by a Montenegrin (!!!!), Svetozar Vukmanovic-Tempo under the direct orders of Tito in the end of 1943, initially in the Italian-occupied zone and as late as 1944 in the Bulgarian-occupied zone. This movement never had more than a 1000 activists, even at its height.
• The text was unjustly pro-Macedonian (in view of the real events which are scarcely glorious for the Macedonians), and it was made extremely POV-Macedonian due to the last edit. I understand that if something is hammered in people's heads for 60 years, they can't even imagine it can be any other way, BUT IT IS. I would advise anyone who blames me for POV-pushing to prepare himself at least a little bit before spitting some crap into the article. VMORO 21:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1)Lyubcho Georgievski was the same idiot that proposed a division of Macedonia bewteen the Albanians and the Macedonians during the short crisis we had, and right after that he pulled this proposition back. Same happened to this article. He latter denied any connection to it, saying that his words were completely twisted. But what can you expect from a schizophreniac. (By the way, this is not an insult for him. It is a well known fact by anyone in Macedonia that Mr. Georgievski has schizophrenia and he travels in Paris every 2-3 months for treatments)

And, yeah... I almost forgot. The same Mr. Georgievski was the one who promoted the idea his party (which at first was strongly right and even nationalistic oriented) to held their 2nd congress in Solun, Thesalonikki (this was back in 1991st and 1992nd), and in that way showing teritorial claims towards our south neighboor. Exacly those words he said are probably the biggest reason for all the problems we (Macedonia and Greece) have now. In my oppinion, he is the biggest scum in the world. (I have to note that I am not politically active and have no simphaties towards any political party in Macedonia.)

2)The society of Macedonian freedom fighters does not think that way as you do VMORO. And, they were the ones that holded the guns at their hands and fighted for the freedom from the Bulgarian occupier.

How ridicilous are your claims can be seen from a simple fact: Tempo arrived in Macedonia almost a year after the fights against the Bulgarian occupator started.

Another fact... wasn't the same Bulgarian Comminist Party the one that was trying to make Bulgaria a part of Yugoslavia at the late 1940s and beggining 1950s?

Another fact... no one administrated the Macedonian freedom fighters from abroad until Tempo arrived in Macedonia. It is truth that Shatorov made some connections to the Bulgarian communist party, but that was in order to get freedom for nowdays Republic of Macedonia (which was under Serbian occupation at that time).

The same Shatorov that you mentioned was one of the most important figures for the independance fight (that is why he "accidentaly" fall in a trap and got killed). His most important phrase that the people remember him by was "One occupator left (the Serbs), another came (the Bulgarian fasists)", which clearly says what he tought of Macedonia beeing a part of Bulgaria.

Another lie is that there was no resistance till 1943rd. The resistance started at 11th of October 1941st in 2 towns in same time, Prilep and Kumanovo. Also, my grandfather was a partizan since March 1942nd. My father keeps his medal of honors saying this date.

VMORO, I do not know what lies your primary school history books have, but you are talking about a period of just 60 years ago. More than 3000 partizans from Macedonia are still alive. They know much more than you and your assimilation attempts.

Seeing what all you try to do now, in the 21st century (read what the European Court means of the Bulgarian assimilation attempts at the beggining of the 21st century), I can just imagine the torture and assimilation that was done over the Macedonians some 100 or 200 years ago.

Why you just do not deal with it... Macedonians are separate nation, with their own identity, culture and language. That is reality, and no matter of the past, the present will not change just because you do not like it.

VMORO, I would recomend you this link: [[2]]. There you can learn something and use it in your life.

Here is what the text says:

". Трябва да престанем да гледаме на Македония като на Малка България, трябва да престанем да се държим като Матушка Рус към своите по-малки славянски събратя. Има македонски българи, има български македонци, но има и македонски македонци. И преди да викнем, че царят е гол, нека да огледаме собствените си срамотии - нашите деца, за разлика от македонските, не знаят и не пеят не само нашите македонски песни, но не знаят и не пеят нито добруджанските, нито родопските, нито тракийските, нито мизийските, нито шопските такива. "

English translation (thanks to the VKokielov for his help and translation on English from Bulgarian):

"We have to stop looking at Macedonia as if it were Little Bulgaria; we have to stop acting like Mother Russia to her little Slavic brothers. There are Macedonian Bulgarians, there are Bulgarian Macedonians, but there are also Macedonian Macedonians. And before we scream that the king is naked, let us gaze at our own navels [i.e. see our own shame] - our children, as opposed to the Macedonian, don't know and don't sing not only our Macedonian songs, but don't know and don't sing Dobrudzan, Rodopian, Trakijan, Mizijan, or Shopian songs."

Think about it, VMORO. Macedonian 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Order...Order!  ;)

I think we need to get ourselves in order here.

VMRO, Macedonian...can you cite any sources? It's the best defense. You know the trouble with any article on this question from a historian aligned one way or another with Macedonia or Bulgaria: there will be an opinion. Can you cite disinterested sources? --VKokielov 06:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that there are many sources, but most of them are heavily influenced by the big powers and their possitions during the cold war. Conserning Macedonia, both sides had one "member" which was very interested in denial of the Macedonian nation (Bulgaria in the Russian side and Greece in thge US side). Also, I should mention that during the world war, Yugoslavia (whose member was Macedonia) was neutral keeping it self away from the cold war.

So, for the reason that I just mentioned and for several other reasons (including the tries of Greece and Bulgaria to deny the existance of the Macedonian ethnicity), there are many sources concerning this period.

What I rely on about 3000 partizans who took part in the Macedonian resistance and that are still alive. They clearly say what they were fighting for and who were they fighting for.

One of them is Mr. Atanas Prokopiev Zabaznoski, half Russian half Macedonian partizan. At age of 16, he was the one who supplied the partizans with fireguns he stole from the Bulgarian occupator. The same guns were used in the first attack of the partizans over the Bulgarian occupator at 11th of October 1941st year, which actually was the start of the armed ressistance.

For the ones that know some Macedonian, you can read his interview at [| The daily newspaper Dnevnik], given at the same date of the start of the ressistance, but 64 years after. You can very clearly see what a real partizan thinks, not just some assimilative Wiki user (do you maybe recognize yourself in these words, VMORO?). Macedonian 02:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Our ruler, and the first that is mentioned as a Serbian King is King Bodin of Doclea. According to his annals, in 1072 he helped the uprising of Slavs in Macedonia. His annals seperate this people from Bulgarians, and from that point onwards, he and his descendents call the people there excplicitly Macedonians. HolyRomanEmperor 13:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bulgarians held heavy influence over the Macedonian people only for two short periods of time - during the First and the Second Bulgarian Tsarinate (Empire). Tsar Samuilo is, as far as we know, a Macedonian Slav, not a Bulgarian. HolyRomanEmperor 13:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Serb Empire of Tsar Stefan Dušan recognized three constitutional peoples - Serbs, Albanians and Greeks. Then he recognized also the Bulgarians as a constitutional minority (living in today's western Bulgaria) HolyRomanEmperor 13:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians' ancestors were then concidered Serbs, they contibuted greatly to the Serbian littarature, and, although most of them were working the fields, many worked as Stefan's courtiers. We today learn these Serbian national songs, but we make no doubts that they were written in old-Macedonian, and that Macedonians wrote them! HolyRomanEmperor 13:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians' ancestors were then concidered Serbs, they contibuted greatly to the Serbian littarature, and, although most of them were working the fields, many worked as Stefan's courtiers. HolyRomanEmperor 13:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

We today learn these Serbian national songs, but we make no doubts that they were written in some old-Macedonian, and that Macedonians wrote them! HolyRomanEmperor 13:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Although how the Macedonian people got ther name is a bit sporadic, their autochtonous civilization isn't. The foreigners used Macedonian traditionally for Bulgarians. The Serbian Princes and Kings fought against this, especially Prince Mihailo Obrenović. This can be seen in the support given to the Илинденски устанак of 1903. HolyRomanEmperor 13:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

after the Bulgarians became the bad guys in the First World War, the Serbs (especially Jovan Cvijic) saw this as an excellent opportunity to assimilate the Macedonian people. Because of the present situation, this was aproved by the international community. HolyRomanEmperor 14:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

After the wars were over (Balkan Wars and WWI) the Serbs were victories and most successful (together with Macedonians) and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes issued the Serbo-Croatian as the only language that should be used. The official population census of 1921 mentions Macedonians as others and as a minority, since most declared themselves as Serbs (because of the recent facts) HolyRomanEmperor 14:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The people of the Military Frontier declared themselves as Kraishniks (Frontiersmen) and of Slavonia as Slavonians. Both of the entities were majorily Serb-populated, but the mention of Serbs is in the minority. the Austro-Hungarian historian Karl von Czoernig conducted an official population census and concidered themselves as Serbs :) even though they didn't declare themselves that way. HolyRomanEmperor 14:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Montenegrins declared themselves as Serbs since the first census of 1909. After WWII the they all became Montenegrin; and the number is constantly fading in favor of Serbs until the present. Nevertheless, they are internationally represented as Montenegrins, no matter of their historical background or origin. HolyRomanEmperor 14:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

(Ethnic group) or (Modern ethnic group)?

Should we move this article to Macedonians (Modern ethnic group)? A problem I see is that modern may be interpreted in different ways. To some people, modern is everything from the 19th century, and up. But I think we can disambiguate some more without bringing the word Slav into the issue. I want to get this article settled on a name already, but it has to be a name with as little systemic conflict as possible. Given that in history we have two ethnic groups calling themselves Macedonians, we have a systemic conflict (we are dealing with two different ethnic groups, at least as different as ancient Latins and modern Italians). -Alexander 007 05:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree that no one can claim a direct connection to some antique ethnicity/group. And that is valid for everyone, not just for the Macedonians (ethnic group). All we or anyone else can claim is some genetic origin, even maybe just a little bit of cultural identifiers. Nothing else. Macedonian 03:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexander 007, in one of your edits I found in history you wrote:" I noticed that the Egyptian case has totally avoided the issue by redirecting Ancient Egyptians to Ancient Egypt and Egyptians to Egypt, but we can't do that here. I'm looking for parallel cases in Wikipedia."

Why we can not use the same model? If it worked for them, why it wouldn't work for us? "Antique Macedonians" for Antique Macedonia and "Macedonians" (or even "Macedonians (ethnic group)") for the Macedonians that live in present time?

The systemic conflict that you mentioned can be elliminated with the search "Macedonians" redirecting to Macedonian (disambiguation), the way it actually is now. That way the user can clearly shoose what is he looking for.

Macedonian 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the article Egyptian, a modern Egyptian is merely a "citizen of Egypt", so the ethnic group issue is not there, as it is here. I'm still looking for a better parallel. It is not a solid parallel, otherwise we would just redirect Macedonians (ethnic group) to Republic of Macedonia, as Egyptians redirects to Egypt (at least, for now it does; this may also change in the future). -Alexander 007 06:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand now. I agree. But, this is not good example. During my visit to Egypt this summer, it was obvious to me that those people there acnowledge their Arab ethnicity.

Anyway, in this case, the only ethnicity that the modern Macedonians know for themselves is the Macedonian one. That can not be questionable, having on mind that the whole world completely accepts this as a fact. Macedonian 02:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Conflict?

If these facts are agreed upon:

A. The Ancient Macedonians

They called themselves Macedonians--->Yes

They were called Macedonians by other groups--->Yes

They are refered to simply as Macedonians in many sources--->Yes

They were an ethnic group--->Yes*

Then Macedonians (ethnic group) or Macedonians (ethnicity) may refer to them unless it is an anachronism.

B. The modern Macedonians

They call themselves Macedonians--->Yes

They are referred to as simply Macedonians in many sources--->Yes

They are an ethnic group--->Yes

Then Macedonians (ethnic group) or Macedonians (ethnicity) may refer to them.

Systemic conflict: A and B (except for some sources which can be described as nationalist) are not considered to be the same ethnic group, primarily because they speak different languages (yes, consensus of references) and they have different cultures (yes, even if the modern Macedonians have elements of the old culture, it is not the same). So we need to disambiguate more unless we have an anachronism. -Alexander 007 06:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note: the issue is not whether the ancient Macedonians were an ethnic group unto themselves, the issue is whether we can even apply that term to any ancient group (don't remember if this is the practice). Whether they were an ethnic group or not, Wikipedia would have to leave open the (very strong) possibility that they were, so Macedonians (ethnic group) could apply to the ancient Macedonians. So that fact doesn't even need to be agreed upon. -Alexander 007 08:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should make a clear difference between the modern Macedonians and the Antique Macedonians. According to me, and following -Alexander 007's conclutions, I think we have 3 options:

Option 1) We can call the page about the modern Macedonians "Macedonians (ethnic group)" (leave it as it is).

Option 2) We can call the page about the modern Macedonians "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)"

Option 3) The page to be moved to "Macedonians (nationality)". The Antique Macedonians can not ever be a nationality, so there is a clear difference between the 2.

In all of this cases, I strongly beleive that the page for the Antique Macedonians should be reffered to as "Antique Macedonians".

I want to identify the problems that might happen in Option 2):

As Alexander 007 already said, the term "modern" can be understood as something that is not older than 100 years. That might be seen as direct support to the Bulgarian and Greek claims that the Macedonian nation was artificially made by Tito (which is clear nonsence). I personally do not see it threatening, but I am sure that many ethnic Macedonians that read it will see it threatening, so we might be pushed back again at this point. So, option 2 in my eyes is a posibility, but quite risky one.

Now, let's identify the problems that might happen in Option 3): These days, almost no one (for example, a regular user of Wikipedia) can make a difference between between nationality and citizenship. Therefore, the other minorities that have the citizenship of Republic of Macedonia can also be confused with the term "Macedonians (nationality)". Quite tricky.

On the other hand, I want to sumarise the present situation (Option 1) without the term Antique for the "other" Macedonians). When a regular user of Wikipedia searches for the term "Macedonians" or "Macedonian", he is redirected to the Macedonian (disambiguation) page. There, he can clearly choose from all the options, so there is no chanse to mix between Antique Macedonians and the Macedonians.

So, I do not see any posibility of mixing between the two.

Macedonian 03:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

For now, Macedonians (ethnic group) satisfies me, but this will have to be decided by more people, because of course it doesn't depend on any one person, you or me. It is the right of others to seek more disambiguation if it is reasonable, but me personally I do not find it a big problem. The page will be titled Macedonians, with a disambiguation of some kind, but the best disambiguation will be debated for awhile. -Alexander 007 03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I must note that the problems with the wiki-name Macedonians ethnic group were discussed long ago (some months maybe) but I cannot provide a diff right now. +MATIA ☎ 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If it was already discussed, I am curious to know...

How did you and anyone else included decided to change the naming of a whole ethnic group, despite the fact that the whole world knows them and recognises them as "Macedonians"? Seems like someone managed to push his POV then...

And, a question for all. Does anyone here (except the Greek users) feel that he is given a right to change the name of some ethnic group and support a name that is not used almost at all when reffering to this ethnic group?

And, why Macedonians are the only problem. Why we don't discuss the name of the modern Greeks, who obviously have origin, but are not the same people as the antique Greeks? There is no neutral historian in the world who would even dare to say that the Antique and the modern Greeks are the same people... Macedonian 02:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The real reason behind this issue 2

Just another link to a part of the truth about the poor (or more precisly non existant) humman rights that Greece provides to its minorities. The article is called "Forgotten Discrimination in the European Union".

[|Source: Reality Macedonia], which during the ethnic conflict in Republic of Macedonia in 2001st was voted by the world journalists for the most reliable and neutral source.

The same story at another | Source: MakNews.

Macedonian 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More news... the former United Nations special envoy to Macedonia Henry Sokalski today said that "The international community should apologize to Macedonia for being admitted to the United Nations under the name, unappreciated by its citizens."

He also said that "For being forced to accept another name in order to join the United Nations Macedonia should be compensated".

The whole text can be found at the following link: [| Source:MIA, Macedonian Information Agency].

Macedonian 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

New moments in the naming dispute

Greek MP calls on Government to recognize Macedonia's name

Athens, 20:04

The deputy of the ruling New Democracy Nikos Georgiadis called the Greek Government to put an end to the name dispute, which poses as rift between Skopje and Athens since 1991, and to accept the name Macedonia, which, as he put it, is used by all countries in the world.

We should acknowledge that we lost that battle. The more we opposing, the more we risk losing, said Georgiadis in his article published in "Kathimerini".

According to the MP, the diplomatic battle Greece is conducting has pushed the country into isolation.

The moment has come for the ruling power to say "one big 'Yes' and to demonstrate realism and courage", Georgakis said. I would prefer a different name, but we cannot change it now. The sooner we accept it, the greater benefit we shell gain, he stated, adding that Athens has lost a great deal in the 15-year long dispute.

Sources: | MakFax, the independant news agency which also can be found here | MakFax link No.2, or you can reffer to this one | Source: Reality Macedonia. Macedonian 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Kathimerini
Please find the source.

This is the English edition of Kathimerini. It is not the same to the Greek one. I tried to look for the article at the Greek Kathimerini, but I do not understand Greek.

Anyway, this news is one of the top 5 in every single newspaper in Macedonia (except the sport ones). It is published on MakFax too, a agency that is considered as completely independant. The news is also a part of all 3 newspapers owned by "Media Print Macedonia", a German owned publisher with biggest rating in the country. If this information is not truth, then I am sure that Mr. Georgiadis would soon deny it.

By the way, a journalist text with very similar ideas appeared in the Greek newspaper "To Vima" just some week before this statement by Mr. Nikos Georgiadis. Macedonian 02:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nikos Georgiadis = "Νίκος Γεωργιάδης"
Skopje = "Σκόπια"
Macedonia = "Μακεδονία

Let's check the Greek edition of Kathimerini:
All 3 key words. No results.
The first 2 keywords. No results.
The first and the 3rd keyword. No results.

Conclution: Either your sources lie or they made a mistake (all of them!!??) about which newspaper wrote this.
Anonymous, 7:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not uderstand Greek, but here is a link searching Kathimerini just for the name of the guy: [[3]].

Also, the same news was also presented at BBC on Macedonian and Deuche Welle on Macedonian.

Anyway, the information about the articles in the Greek newspapers are sent to Macedonian news agencies by several journalist that live in Greece and that are in fact of Greek ethnicity and nationality.

I don't know did they make a mistake of the newspaper, but I know that the news was still not officially denied. And as I said was confirmed by BBC and Deuche Welle. Macedonian 02:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Here are more news on this issue (Source: [| MakFaks, Independent News Agency]):

The Greek MP persistent - Athens cannot give name to Macedonia

Athens, 18:58

The Greek MP Nikos Georgiadis reiterated again his stance that Greece cannot impose a different name to Macedonia.

Georgiadis said Athens couldn't decide on the name of a neighboring country, regardless of how much Greece dislikes the existing one.

"There is no country in the world, which does not addresses our neighboring country as Macedonia, there is no international document nor map, in which the country is noted as Macedonia. Nobody but us, the Greeks, calls it Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", said Georgiadis for the National Radio Alpha.

We cannot expect that through the foreign policy and the stubborn citing of the 1995 Agreement we will manage to persuade the whole world the we are right, and all those who use the name Macedonia are wrong, said the MP of New Democracy Georgiadis.

Macedonian 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

response and a message to REX

Kathimerini had a nice article with comments on Nicholas Burns' agenda for the Balkans, before two weeks (probably Sunday edition). Do look it up.
response to REX: You seem to believe that calling me names is the same thing as me expressing my opinion, but WP:RPA cannot apply on your changes that you choose to repeat today. Don't vandalize my comments. +MATIA ☎ 08:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to report it to WP:VIP? +MATIA ☎ 10:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

response to MATIA: If you can blank out all comments which you feel are personal attacks, but we can't do the same to your offensive personal remarks and attacks, you are sadly mistaken. If you can vandalise my comments, then I can vandalise yours. If you restore your comments, please restore mine, [User:Macedonian]]'s and whoever else's you may have vandalised. Regards, REX 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your action. I'll leave my comments "marked" because most of what you claim to be personal attacks, describes exactly the problem of this article move in one night. And I'm afraid it involves me and the Arb. case I'm involved. +MATIA ☎ 12:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

What is that Arb. case about? Anyone can link? I have an idea what is this about, but I am not sure. Macedonian 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, either all PA has to be marked, or none at all. I fail to see why only my and Macedonian's PA has to be marked. Are your words too holy or something, whereas Macedonian and I are too low down the food chain? Personally, I think that marking PA is a waste of time, but if you think that you can mark the offensive parts or my posts, then by God I can mark the offensive parts of yours. I certain that if I had said that move in one night bit to you, you would have reacted in indignation, calling it a personal attack and started telling us about your "honour". REX 12:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, as far as I know, you are the one who first started marking so called PA [reminder from the history]. If you can do it, why someone else wouldn't?

In my oppinion, non of you guys should mark PA on this page. If anyone feels like there are PA against him, he can complain to the Notice boards. Not here!!!

In my oppinion, no one of us included in this topic are "virgins", when concerning PAs. So, is senceless if we start crossing half of the things that we wrote here. Macedonian 02:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add something interesting on the Egyptians: see Kosovar Egyptians HolyRomanEmperor 16:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is also an ethnic group in Macedonia using this name. Actualy, the same things written on Egyptians (Kosovo) are worthed for the Macedonian egyptians. Macedonian 02:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing by Macedonian

• Whether you like Lyubcho Georgievski or not, he has been one of the most prominent politicians in RoM since the independence, prime minister for four years and leader of the biggest political party in RoM for more than 10 years. He is not no one in RoM and his opinion deserves mention. Erasing something just because you don't like it VIOLATES THE POLICIES OF WIKIPEDIA AND IS CALLED POV-PUSHING. Keep your personal likings to yourself.
• The BCP wanted to form a cofederation with Yugoslavia where Bulgaria and Yugoslavia would have equal status, Tito wanted to incorporate Bulgaria into Yugoslavia as a republic, just like RoM or Serbia, that's the reason why the union did not work - sources: Building the Party, Building the Nation by Troebst and Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question by Palmer and King.
• Your claims about "100,000 partisans" and that "the armed struggle had started long before Tempo" are laughable. Macedonian, the two books quoted by me are the GREATEST NEUTRAL (i.e. not Yugoslav or Bulgarian) RESEARCH WORKS ON THE DEVELOPMENTS IN MAC DURING AND AFTER WWII, BASED ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND NOT SERVING A POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL AND ETHNIC PURPOSE. Your problem is that you are acquainted only with the PROPAGANDA version of your history which is CORRUPTED, FALSE AND INDEFENSIBLE.
  • • So when P & K publish a letter of Shatorov to Tito in which he says that he WILL NOT OBEY THE YUGOSLAV COMMUNIST PARTY BUT ONLY THE BULGARIAN C. PARTY and that THE BULGARIAN TROOPS ARE NOT OCCUPIERS and you claim that he only had "some contact with the Bulgarian communists, I'll surely believe P & K, and not you.
    • And when P & K quote correspondence and documents PROVING that there were only A HANDFUL OF FAITHFUL TO THE YCP BEFORE 1943 AND THAT THERE WAS PRACTICALLY NO RESISTANCE TO THE BULGARIAN ADMINISTRATION BEFORE 1943 and you claim that "there was", I'll sure believe them and not you.
    • And when P & K show correspondence and documents PROVING that it was A MONTENEGRIN, TEMPO who had TO COME FROM YUGOSLAVIA AND ORGANISE A LIMITED FORM OF RESISTANCE, and you claim that the resistance was Macedonian-born and NOT Yugoslav inspired, I'll believe them and not you.
• You are not quoting facts or sources, only your own ideas of the history which are binding neither for me, nor for anyone else here. Admit your defeat and stop pushing POV - or provide non-Macedonian sources. And, please, stop the epistolar attempts on my talk page, if you have smth to say, say it here, you are only clogging my talk page with whining and boasting.
• To Kokielov - the sources which I have quoted are the most possible neutral ones which exist. If you can, read Palmer and King and let's discuss it here - they at least publish the translated version of practically all correspondence between the YCP, MCP and BCP, as well as all documents relating to the matter in question.
• As for the completely inadequeate comments by the Roman Emperor - Konstantin Bodin proclaimed himself Tsar of the Bulgarians, not Tsar of the Macedonian Slavs. 3 centuries later, when Dushan conguered central and southern Macedonia, he said that he has conquered a part of the Bulgarian Tsardom. He proclaimed himself Tsar of Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians and Albanians (Arvanites), not Tsar of Serbs, Greeks, Macedonian Slavs and Albanians (Arvanites) - the only Bulgarian territory he ruled was part of the Kyustendil region but he ruled the whole of Macedonia.
• I think I have answered to all who has asked me questions or have made comments, have a good evening you all VMORO 17:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not about do I like Mr. Georgievski. I even voted once for the bitch, before he revealed his truth face. And I didn't stop liking him because of ethic reasons... I started hating him because he is 30 and something year old person who owns houses in Miami, has several lands, houses, palaces etc... he was even numbered between the Balkans 50 richest man. And the only position he was on during his life was a leader of a party (who he left latter) and a prime minister. Do you get it now?

BTW, VMRO-DPMNE is one of the 2 biggest parties and was biggest just during some 5 years. Now, Mr. Georgievski has another party, which is the 5th according to the overal rating.

Also, Mr. VMORO... do you think that we should mention everything that we want which supports our ideas (like you do)? Are you aware how many things are not mentioned?

Why we don't mention the European Courts resolutions agains Bulgaria and Greece, when concerning the political parties of the Macedonian minority in those countries?

Why we don't mention not even 1 of the 1000s reports of the poor (read: non existant) human rights in Bulgaria and Greece, confirmed by any bigger human rights organization that is present on the Balkany?

Why we don't mention the number of Macedonian refugees from Greece after the Greek Civil War?

Why we don't mention the fact that more revolutioners from the beggining of 20th century (that the Macedonians regards as their) got killed by Bulgarians, than by the Ottomans?

Why we don't mention the killings that Vancho Mihailov did over people in Bulgaria who were regarding themselves as Macedonians? Why we don't mention that he actually got support from the Bulgarian goverment in doing this?

Why we don't mention the people who left the region Macedonia before 1945th, but their families regard themselves as Macedonians (by ethnicity, not by regionality)? How come they regard themselves that way, when they never lived in a country that Tito was president of? How come the Macedonians (again by ethnicity, not by regionality) in Bulgaria and Greece regard themselves that way when they too never were influenced by Tito?

Why we don't mention the stupidities of several Bulgarian politicians that are parlaimentary members in Bulgaria who say that all Macedonians see themselves as Bulgarians, when the whole world knows this is non-sence?

Why we don't mention Mr. Stanishev's partly Macedonian ethnicity (again, not regionality) that he never denies (aldough it is clear he regards himself as Bulgarian)?

Do you know how many "Why"s I can put here?

Concerning the POV pushing, you VMORO can get a master degree on this issue. When you decide to include all the assimilation bullshit the Bulgarians and Greeks have done (and still are doing) to the Macedonians, I will be glad to allow you to put one statement of a schizophreniac, that he latter denied (which I personally beleive he did because of the presure from the public). Also, as a powerful figure, he managed to hide that he ever said that, so almost no one in Macedonia is aware of this statement (I learned from you that it even exists).

Concerning Shatorov... I personaly have seen an original letter (on an exposition in Podgorica, Montenegro) of his with the famous sentance "One occupator left, another came".

How ridicolous your statements and sources are is the fact that the first fights in Macedonia against the Bulgarian occupator started on 11th of October 1941st and the first rebelion units are formed just some 15-20 days after. Actually, just several days ago the union of the fighters in the WW2 celebrated 64 years of the formation first anti-faschistical units in Macedonia.

Maybe if you read something neutralm, you will see that Tempo actually arived in Macedonia in 1943rd, a year and a half after the first fights.

Maybe I should mention something interesting... Shatorov is seen as a traitor from the Macedonians. These days there is some polemics was he a traitor, or his ideas were for independant Macedonia, but if what you say is truth about him (a idea denied by many Macedonian fighters from that time that are still alive), then he is nothing but a traitor for the Macedonians.

I would need you to explain why would anyone fight agains their own people? My grandfather was a partizan for 4 years, he even has a medal which clearly says "active 1941-1945th". If I was Bulgarian, wouldn't he or my father told me that I am Bulgarian? He told me I am part Russian, because his grand-father was Russian. He told me I am a part Greek, because his Grand-Mother was Greek. But, he never mention anything about Bulgarians. On the other hand, he always was proud of his Macedonian nationality. I can still ask him, even wake him up now, in the middle of the night if you want. But, that won't change the fact that all you say is bullshit.

Limited resistance my a**. The Macedonian union of freedom fighters in the WW2 counts more than 100.000 people, of whom 3000 are still alive. 80% of those people are of Macedonian ethnicity.

If you are trying to proclaim all this lies just 60 years after you claim they happened, I can clearly understand what all my ancestors had to resist in order to protect their Macedonian ethnicity from the constand Bulgarian and latter Greek denials and brutal assimilation attempts.

As an ending I have to say... do you really think that people here will beleive you that a completely self aware and patriotic nation can be formed just for some 60 years of time? If your claims are truth, this might be a new world record of "The fasted formation of an ethicity EVER". Who are you kidding...

Tito is dead since 1980th. Now is 2005th, 1/4 of a century after. We also are out of Yugoslavia for 15 years, but we still regard ourselves as Macedonians (and again, ethnicity, not regionality) and that won't change. Get over it. Macedonian 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

user:VMORO, please read what I had said carefully before making such statements; the thing that you said has nothing to do with what I said. Konstantin Bodin was a Serbian ruler, not a Bulgarian Emperor. Stefan Dushan proclaimed himself Tsar of all Serbs, Albanians and Greeks; later including the Bulgarian title. But what are you trying to say with that anyway? HolyRomanEmperor 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Article titles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you explain any of the following?

1. What is "the Macedonian nation"?

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

1. • Who is denying it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary page move

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

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

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

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

Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005

For all the racist hate speech and allegations of heinous human rights abuses directed against Greece by various contributors to this talk page, the reality is rather ruthless. Reporters sans frontières ranks Greece 18^th in its annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index, alongside Belgium and Germany and above such countries as Canada, Britain, France, Australia and the United States of America.[4]--Theathenae 16:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The European Court for Human rights just issued a case close against Greece in favor of the party of the Macedonian minority in Greece: [[5]]. This is not the first case that Greece loses and it certainly will not be the last one, having on mind that several other similar cases are still on a trial.

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

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

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

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

I do not hate Greece. I hate unjustice.

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

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

Revert war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background of the dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being bewildered

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

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

Documents as evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactics and tricks

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

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

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

MATIA's perspective

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

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

Ματιά 21:25, 18 Ιουν. 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

where are the admins now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step by step

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

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

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

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

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

will we have a second one-night-consensus?

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

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

User:"Macedonian"

The above user's melodramatic pap about "human rights" all rings rather hollow when one considers his purely chauvinistic attempt to extinguish any reference to the Bulgarian and Greek minorities in the Republic of Skopje: [6], [7]. He even disputes the fact that 51% of geographical Macedonia belongs to Greece[8]. Selective denial of the mere existence of ethnic minorities in his country, thinly-veiled irredentism against a neighbouring country, and an obsession with using a disputed ethnonym and national flag to identify himself. Who is the nationalist here?--Theathenae 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not the first time he uses these methods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should I remind you to these posts, where we can clearly see how Greece acts towards the Macedonians that live there: [[9]], [[10]], [[11]].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stating the obvious

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

180,180

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content moved from Macedonia (region)

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

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

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

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

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

Modern and ancient Macedonian culture / ethnicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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