Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 2

• This is wrong. First of all, considering the fact that the most interested users in this article are Greeks, Bulgarians (having a long history of denying the very existence of Macedonians) or Macedonians, while also having in mind that Greek and Bulgarian users of the English Wikipedia are far more numerous - the "Macedonians" option could be simply outnumbered. That does not mean that it this is the majority view of the name of Macedonians. Second, the neutral users of this page would see the extremely biased article already called Macedonian Slavs, along with "facts" that I believe are giving far more weight to the Greek POV than it is actually accepted in reality. Third, there are obvious mistakes in the presented facts because, no country (except Greece), actually denies the existence of a nation called Macedonians (reffering to the people X), which is widely accepted in the international community. No international institution (INCLUDING the UN), nor government (except Greece) denies that Macedonians ("people X") should be called Macedonians. Forth, to cite a neutral admin (ChrisO) of Wikipedia concerning the issue of the use of "Macedonians Slavs" - which seems quite logical: However, "Macedonian Slavs" also has ambiguities - Bulgarians, Serbs etc who live in geographical Macedonia are Slavs, and (geographical) Macedonians, and therefore also "Macedonian Slavs". It also isn't the most commonly used term by the ethnic group in question. Fifth, this black and white situation (Macedonians vs Macedonians Slavs) is not a good solution to end this dispute, because, if the use of the term Macedonians causes confusion, this could be resolved in a less dramatic way - Macedonians (ethnicity), Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nationality) or Ethnic Macedonians. That means that there are other options, as well. Sixth, although this is a naming convention about an article, it may be a too sensitive issue to resolve in a poll, since it is connected with some basic human self-identification rights. Also, the other options should be mentioned, and some baseless parts of the facts section should be presented a bit more neutral. (I will add some indisputed facts there, I'll try to be as neutral as possible). --FlavrSavr 02:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that your concerns are misplaced.

1. This poll is advertised on Wikipedia:Current surveys, which should attract more eyes. If you feel that there are other places where it should be advertised, please do so.
2. I tried to list the facts and sources above as neutrally as I could, and by the reactions so far it would appear that my personal POV is not showing very much. If I had thought that this should be decided on the basis of the current text of the article, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of writing the above description of the dispute.
3. If you read the above information carefully, you will see that it says what you want it to say.
4. If you read the above information carefully, you will see that it says what you want it to say.
5. As the wording says, if the option "Macedonians" win, the People X will be called "Macedonians" and the articles will be properly dissambiguated, so I believe that it already says what you want it to say.
6. This debate has been going on for years. It has caused many edit wars and has consistently involved personal attacks, ethnic slurs and other forms of bad taste. A poll seems the only available option.

Zocky 02:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• OK, I see that the article was changed during my previous comment. It seemed to me that the facts section was to be left permanent by the wikipedia admins, while it was obvious that some facts were missing. In addition, I will post several objections to the structure of this poll. --FlavrSavr 02:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following citation from the article "Macedonian Slavs" is not meant to trigger a historical discussion, I cite it because of its, in my opinion, biased structure:" Some nationalist Macedonian Slav historians claim that their people were the descendants of the ancient Macedonians who mixed with slavs when they invaded the Balkan peninsula, but this is strongly disputed by Greek historians, who claim that the ancient Macedonian was just one more of the Greek states. Greek historians bring as proof the language of ancient Macedonians, the religion, and the civilization which were all Greek. All ancient Macedonian inscriptions on monuments, temples etc. are in Greek. The ancient Macedonian religion was the ancient Greek religion and they adored the same heroes like Hercules. Another proof is that when ancient Macedonians as the ruling Greek state conquered the world they spread the Greek civilization and philosophy. Another proof (out of many) that the ancient Macedonians felt Greeks is that Alexander the great after his first victory over the Persians dedicated all the spoils to the temple of Athena in Athens saying "Alexander and the Greeks except Spartans from the barbarians who live in Asia". Not even a slight note that the Hellenic character of the ancient Macedonians is in fact disputed by other historians other than some nationalist Macedonian Slav historians, not a mention of the attitude of Demosthenes towards Macedonians, etc. I'm not going to a discussion whether Ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not but to add "another proof (out of many)", that the current article is far from NPOV. --FlavrSavr 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's what people X call themselvses and wish other people to call them. + "They think that is their basic human right" or something in that sense? I'm not sure because i'm rather biased by definition (I guess): This might be insinuating, cause it sort of puts People X in a position of a victim, although they definitely think that way. --FlavrSavr 05:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments on 'comparable situations'

The problem is, in the case of Macedonian Slavs, there is no proof or even a strong indication that they have any direct ancient Macedonian heritage (words/language elements; notable genetic element; or even customs). The French are directly linked to the Franks by the fact that the Frankish language, along with popular Latin and Gaulish, formed French (yet the Gaulish/Celtic element in French is known to be negligible, at least in terms of word-stock). Romanians, by the fact we speak a Romance language, directly links us with the heritage of the Romans. I am going to remove Romanians and French from this list. Romanians would be a comparable situation if we officially called ourselves Dacians---but we do not. Decius 00:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Despite the lack of demonstrable ancient Macedonian heritage, it is still possible for Macedonian Slavs to be called Macedonians simply because they inhabit that geographical region. But this would extend to all inhabitants of that region. Decius 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've copied/pasted your comment in the comments section, and also added few more examples. Hope you don't mind. --FlavrSavr 03:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, no problem. As long as the examples are comparable in the sense intended in the list. Decius 03:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not all those new examples are comparable at the same level. The Belgae example is good, as the Belgae were an ancient ethnicon. But 'Canadian', AFAIK, was never a Native American ethnicon, nor was American an ethnicon originally, since it is based on Vespucci's name. See, if 'Americans' was the name of a Native American tribe that the U.S. citizens usurped/adopted, that would be a solid parallel case. Maybe we might consider adding 'levels' of comparability. Decius 03:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you list Rus' as a parallel case, you might as well list Bulgarian. In both cases, a non-Slavic people 'imposed' their ethnonym on an earlier Slavic people. Decius 03:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added a distinction between the cases listed. Decius 03:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're right on the Canadians. However, it was ment to point that a nation's name might arrive from totally distant ethnonyms. I think that Americans is a comparable situation, in a sense that, regardless of naming controversies with the Hispanic world, it is almost always used to decribe a citizen of the US, a certain nation. I'm not sure about the 'levels' of comparability, the naming problems has multiple aspects, not only an ethnic one. 'Levels' means that some aspects (the ethnicity) are more important than others (the most common name used to descripe People X, right of self-identification etc.). Perhaps different 'areas' of comparability are more appropriate? The Bulgarian - Bulgar example is a good one, thanks for reminding me of that. Regards. --FlavrSavr 04:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right that 'areas' of comparability might be better, because 'levels' does imply that certain elements are more important---though I think certain elements are more important. The most parallel cases, of course, are the ones where a newer people have taken on the name of a previous people, even though there is no demonstrated linguistic, cultural link (not much of a direct genetic link either, but this is harder to prove---also "ancient Macedonian genes" could have entered via intermediaries: Greeks, maybe Albanians, etc.). Decius 04:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand the Belgians are hardly an ethnicity, so our problems continue :). Maybe even closer parallel is the Mexican case, since the word "Mexico" is possibly the name of the Aztec rulling class "Meshika" or an Aztec God? The Spaniards took their term, so the inhabitants of modern Mexico, are usually refered to as Mexicans. Moreover, there are several other towns and a US state, New Mexico, bearing the same name. As for the genetic links, they are impossible to decipher. The name "Macedonian Slavs" is too unusual since it ignores the ethnological complexities of this region - the mixing of a wide range of ethnic groups that have inhabited the region of Macedonia, for centuries. (I have pointed several of them, see the archive if you're interested). On the other hand, Greeks and Albanians are no less mixed than the "Macedonian Slavs", so a person can claim that he's a Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, or Macedonian, regardless of the genetic links to the original bearers of the name. If a person feels that he's a Macedonian, he is Macedonian by any means. Yes, several other peoples inhabit this region, but none of them uses the word "Macedonian" in ethnic terms, except PeopleX. --FlavrSavr 04:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can tell you from personal knowledge (in Los Angeles) as well as accepted knowledge that the Mexican people are extremely mixed, with many of them looking more Native American (Aztec, Mayan) than Spaniard. In other words, many of them are mestizos. They also generally acknowledge and take pride in their Native American heritage. In some parts of Mexico, the native pre-Spanish languages are still spoken. Mexican is not a good parallel, because the Mexican people have strong Aztec links. Decius 05:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As you can see from the mestizo article, mestizos make up an estimated 60% of Mexico's population, and I can tell you that figure is accurate, if not more. Mexican should not be listed at all, given the high percentage. Decius 06:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A very important note: There is a significant time dimension, that must be mentioned - try to filter all Google searches with -2001, especially those concerning the various media attitudes towards the naming of people X, it is easy to conclude that they haven't used the "Macedonian Slavs" term since 2001, while they continue to use the name "Macedonians" after that year. This was done because of similar naming controversies - they have chosen to use the name "Macedonians" instead of "Macedonian Slavs". --FlavrSavr 06:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A somewhat important note: Out of the top results of the Google search "Macedonian Slavs" there is a number of mirror Wikipedia sites (absoluteastronomy.com and others). Plus, there are some greek sites, as well. --FlavrSavr 06:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since, the US government has not used the term "Macedonian Slavs" since 2001, and states that 64,2% of the inhabitants of RoM (PeopleX) are "Macedonians", (plus the USA recognizes the RoM under its constitutional name) - does this actually mean that the US recognizes People X as "Macedonians", officially? Albania also seems to recognize the term "Macedonians" - it had allowed a registration of People X's party called party of "Macedonians". I'm not sure what officially recognized name of a people means, but most governments give the freedom of self - determination. Since People X declare themselves as "Macedonians" in all countries, not as "Macedonian Slavs", and as such (as "Macedonians") appear in the official results of the censuses - this could mean that the officially recognized name of this people by all countries is "Macedonians"

Similar Google searches should be done with all English speaking domains: .au, .uk etc. This should be done with the un.org domain, also. (a tiny indication of the stance of most UN official documents - [1]

Maybe a note should be added somewhere to indicate that only people X use the word "Macedonians" in terms of ethnicity.

That's all I have to say, for now. Sorry, for being such a pain in the butt. --FlavrSavr 07:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This will be a rather unpopular one. Although Wikipedia tends to be more and more neutral over time, and is often used as a reference (as an active Wikipedian, I feel good about that), I think that it should be somehow emphasized that the current article is not to be used as only reference, or at least that it should be treated with a dose of suspicion. I personally feel that the article is far from neutral, due to various reasons, (mainly because of poor involvement of Macedonians on Wikipedia). You can see some evidence I have elaborated in the /archive2 section. --FlavrSavr 19:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"People X are Slavic" is too harsh if we are to accept that "It is plausible and quite possible that People X have inherited much genetic material from ancient Macedonians". I think that "People X speak a Slavic tongue/language" is much more appropriate considering the ethno-genetical complexities of this region. I'm not sure whether the following is an unconcious bias or a more neutral POV: I found it troublesome that People X are not (ancient Macedonian) descendants in cultural or ethnic sense, since that could possibly mean that modern Macedonians cannot be ethnic Macedonians. The cultural or ethnic sense of the ancient Macedonians is too relative, and it also depends on "definitions which changed through time": I find that "they're probably not their descendants in cultural sense", is more precise (since they did accept the ancient Greek culture). Indication(s), small note(s) that modern Greeks might also differ "in a cultural or ethnic sense" from the ancient Macedonians can also soften the somewhat deterministic tone of the entire paragraph. --FlavrSavr 05:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I feel that the rule to have a minimum of 50 edits is unfairly banning me from voting (sadly, I have spent a long time editing without registering as a user). It should be clear from my previous record on both the English Wikipedia and, especially, the Macedonian Wikipedia (where I am one of the three admin and have by far the biggest number of edits), that I cannot be classified as a case of socket puppetry. If the rule is to serve the purpose and the purpose has not been defied in any way, the rule should not be applied strictly, in my view at least. That said, if you feel that my case does not qualify for exemption, I will respect your solution. -- Ivica83 02:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We recently had an outburst of sockpuppetry on some tangentially related VfD's — that was my main reason for including that clause. The purpose of the clause is to discourage sockpuppetry, and 50 edits on any Wikipedia should in principle be enough to provide for that. I think that your vote should be counted. Anyone dissagree? Zocky 02:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not Macedonian Apes?

VMORO, I find your concerns unnecessary. If we are to distinguish people X from other people inhabiting this region we can use Macedonians (nationality) or Macedonians (ethnic group). The Ancient Macedonians article should redirect to the current Macedon article. I really don't see any rational, legal, moral, historical or practical reason why Macedonians shouldn't be called Macedonians, except for maybe proving that they are a "nation" in quotation marks. Maybe we should call them Macedonian Apes, instead? This avoids confusion even more. They are undoubtedly of primate origin, plus this is how they are generally percieved by their neighbors. "Macedonian Apes are a nation of primate origin. They call themselves "Macedonians" and a "nation", but this is somewhat ambigious, since several other real peoples inhabit the region of Macedonia." --FlavrSavr 03:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against the renaming of the article to "Macedonians (ethnic group)" or something similar. However, I am of the opinion that Macedonian Slavs should continue to be used synonymously in contexts which are potentially confusing. The same regards even in a higher degree the adjective. The present adjective Slav Macedonian/Macedonian Slav should be preserved to distinguish events/persons/other phenomena which refer to the nation from events/persons/other phenomena which refer to the whole region. I will remind you that the same modifier is used with regard to the ancient Macedonians - in this case the adjective "Ancient Macedonian". Don't presuppose that all comments referring to "Macedonian Slavs" are aimed to insult you, that is not the case. VMORO 13:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Many of the arguments put forward against using the term Macedonians are pointless. A group of people have made their social contract and formed their national identity and vision. They chose the name Macedonians conciously and politically. No one else wanted it anyway - and even if they did, tough luck (but they didn't, so stop whinning you Hellenic Republicans!). What right does anyone have to call them anything else? What right has Wikipedia to promote an externally imposed and political name? Would it not be contentious if Wikipedia carried an article about Greek Slavophobes (ethnicity) or Macedonian (traitors)?

Some will say: wait a minute Macedonian (traitors) is a political issue! Well so is Macedonian Slavs. And unlike Macedonian (traitors), it is double political as it is trumped up by people in denial of their own multi-ethnic and mixed racial background. Traitors to their own cultural and historical richness because they would rather deny themselves than embrace others: a history of the Balkans in a nutshell.

When will people realise that the racial and ethnic disctinctions in the Balkans are a myth that is not supported by scientific genetic research? Ethnicity and nationalism are expressions of political self-determination. They have nothing to do with any notion of "who you actually and scientifically are" - this person-type doesn't objectively exist. Thus if Macedonians have decide that they are Macedonians, it is not Wikipedia's business to explain that they are actually and in fact this that or the other. At best Wikipedia can indicate that certain politcs in some countries chose not to use this term Macedonians these days and explain why, end of story. To validate that POV in a Wikipedia article title is absurd and a denial of its philosophy and principles.

At the end of the day, Macedonian Slavs can be a kept only if the text explains only that this is a POV and political term used by the Hellenic Republic and a certain number of its institutions and individuals. The article would then point to Macedonians, which is awful as well, but at least has some strucuture and maybe hope for a NPOV outcome.

Finally, I take note of VMORO's comment:

>Can someone explain to me how we are going to distinguish between "Macedonian"...

Please, VMORO, who the heck is "we"? Maybe you're representing someone? If so please tell me, I'd love to know. Are you an organization of some sort because your pseudo sure sounds like one? Maybe you represent Wikipedia.org?
This is one serious Balkan sickness - using third person plural. I thought only the Queen of England called herself "we". Or was it "We"?. Just in case you are some kind of royalty, I will title you with You from now on.
If Your problem is that You just don't get something, just say so: don't hide Your embarassment by hiding behind "we". Just say "I don't understand" or "I don't know". At first it may be difficult, but You have only self-improvement to look forward to as people will respond better to Your questions, because they are Yours and You are a person. But then maybe You're an organization. On to the explanation You seek: "Any potential ambiguity of "Macedonians" can be easily avoided in prose. Ambiguity in article names can be avoided by following standard naming conventions." Sounds familiar? Its under "options" above. Read it again if You need.
You also chose to abstain by voting NO (???) in the part where contributors are asked to vote "YES: Keep this article". There was no request for a NO vote: only for a YES vote for one of two options. This is again another Balkan sickness: people voting against stuff (but I hear its catching in other places, like France).
Next time You vote, please spare me Your confusion: just vote and don't tell me about Your unfathomable logic.

FlavrSavr's Macedonian Apes is an excellent suggestion. However, I would prefer Macedonian Ape-like Bipeds as the first would certainly be an insult to any Hellenic Republican Ape. How about Macedonians (duh!?) or Macedonians (wOOt!) or even a Scooby-Doobien Macedonians (huuuh???)?
--Paletakis 14:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Palatakis, I will tell you only one thing: Get a life. You have cluttered the talk page with an endless stream of unclear rumminations and spiteful comments. I will kindly suggest you that if you can't say anything constructive and to the point, you might as well keep the rest for yourself. I doubt that anyone has bothered read your "thingie" in depth. VMORO 13:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness, "we" is often used on Wikipedia to mean "we the writers of Wikipedia", and there's nothing presumptuous in asking "how are we going to do something". It's not like he said "we prefer it this way". Zocky 16:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing fair or unfair about it. We is We and its not I. So who gave VMORO the privilege, right or duty to speak for the writers of Wikipedia? Is it perhaps you? I certainly didn't, I wouldn't and I have no right to do so. The only reason anyone may want to use "I" is to make others think there is more of you (when there is not), in other words to intimidate - and that ain't nice! I accept that it can become an unconcious bad habit. But I will have none of it all the same. Same goes for voting NO. Its easy to be against something because it spares you from saying what you are for. Why don't "we" write an article against Macedonians then, and we could call it Macedonians (not). According to the article under discussion a lot of things are not Macedonian (for example Macedonians) so it would be a big project and perhaps some "We"-ner could write it on behalf of the writers of "We"-kipedia.--Paletakis 17:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paletakis, beleive me, I understand your concerns over VMORO's "we" attitude, but nevertheless, he has the right to it, whether we (me, and you) like or not. My primary objection to VMORO's reasons was putting the Macedonian nation into quotation marks. Some of VMORO's activities can be seen as inconsistent, but in one thing he has been seriously consistent - that is denying that Macedonians, are actually, a real nation. As for the neutrality of the current article, I do believe that there should be a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" mark in the beginning. If nobody disagrees, I will put it there. So, anyone? --FlavrSavr 19:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One argument I see against the term Macedonian Slav is that it supposedly "ignores" the genetic mix of People X. That's a wrong way of thinking (if anybody was thinking that). Slav in Macedonian Slav refers to language classification, and I think it is valid. It does not refer to 'Slav' as genetic type. Decius 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then it should be Slavophonic Macedonians. But this is absurd because there is no such thing as a Slav language; "Slav" is a term that designates a group of languages, many of which I personally do not understand at any useful or practical level. But never mind reality (which has anyway been amputated from this article): your idea must then be corrected as to read: Macedonians (that speak Macedonian) or Macedophonic Macedonians. I've even got a better idea: Why don't we all start pinning language to other national identities and start reclassifying these according to our newfound wisdom!? Lets do the Spanish first: anyone dare? Of course not, better just stick to beating up the Macedonians! Even better: anyone up for a redirect of American to American (anglophone)? Now that would be really well received!
Decius, you can think whatever you like is valid, but you're missing the point. This article must represent what Macedonians think is valid as it is THEY who express their self determination and national politic and name, and not you. What the rest of the world thinks is secondary and any disapproving view can be reflected under its own subtitle in the article - but then that POV is attributed fairly and squarely. FlavrSavr please go ahead and put the disputed neutrality mark.--Paletakis 12:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got a question that I think is very much on topic: Are there any words in the Macedonian Slav language that any credible linguist has nominated as possibly of ancient Macedonian origin? Probably not, and if there are some nominated, those nominated may as well be from Thracian or Illyrian. The absence of ancient Macedonian words speaks for itself, and so you're right that it doesn't depend on what Decius says. Decius 13:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, my problem is more with the usage outside of Wikipedia. I guess in Wikipedia it wouldn't make much of a difference if the term "Macedonian" is used, since Wikipedia doesn't have much political influence in any case. Decius 14:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Basically the entire debate and the arguments brought up by the Slavic crowd are a comical contradiction. Some people suggested that Macedonian Slavs (a nation with no official name yet) have to be referred to as "Macedonians", because that's how they recognise themselves. On the other hand, Macedonian Slav scholars claim that eventhough ancient Macedonians clearly viewed themselves as Greeks, they shouldn't be recognised as such because the Greeks didn't view them that way (something which is false anyway). Macedonian Slavs are so desperate to link a historical background to their artificial nation and their vary according to the circumstances. In other words, the fact that Slavo-Macedonians refer to themselves as Macedonians is something completely irrelevant to what they actually are in reality. In most academic sources that have no ethnic context they are referred as "Western Bulgarians". And as a last notice, Nothern Greeks today refer to themselves as Macedonians as well, while on the other hand ancient Macedonians referred to themselves as Northern Greeks. After agreeing with this, the Slavic crowd had better come up with a damn good reason as to why we should consider what FYROM calls itself more valid than real Macedonians/Northern Greeks. Miskin 14:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius and Miskin you are getting confused: this article is not about ancient Macedonians, but about a contemporary nationality that designates themeselves as Macedonians with no add-ons. Macedonians speaking for themselves is the only thing that speaks for itself. Everything else is but commentary about Macedonians speaking for themselves, including your noted linguists. The fact is that there are political interests that do not want Macedonian self-determination and its expression in the use of the the name "Macedonian" documented - this can and should be noted as an indication of a particular POVs, but not as a title of a Wikipedia entry. Thus your suggestion is completely off topic. Now please go and join the work and discussion at the article Ancient Macedonian language, your expertise will surely be appreciated there. --Paletakis 14:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you agree that this discussion has nothing to do with the Ancient Macedonians. Decius 14:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And what the hell does "Macedonians speaking for themselves is the only thing that speaks for itself" mean? Circular nonsense. Decius 14:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're not in position to tell me what to do and not do. Macedonian Slavs have nothing to do with ancient Macedonians but the example that I brought up does, because it was an argument against the childish argument "Macedonians Slavs should be called Macedonians because that's how they want it". It aimed to explain how Macedonian Slavs base their claims on national myths rather than logic. It's very relevant and crystal clear. Whether you refuse or fail to understand it, it's your personal problem. Miskin 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And is it any wonder why they want to be called Macedonians? Slavs are known to lack Slavic pride. We always hear how the Croats are "not in fact a Slavic people, we descend from ancient Iranians", and so on and so forth. This is a common tendency among Slavic speakers. Many seek to connect themselves with anything except Slav. That's what it comes down to. That's why they fear the term Slav. It is an "insult" to call them Slavs, even though they speak Slavic languages. Decius 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius of course is an AK-47-wielding Latin Lover, so you'd better watch out. I do however agree that the only proud Slavs seem to be the Russians and the Serbs. Good on them. The rest seem to try to convince the world that they're something they're not. It's an alien concept to me, but I guess I'm not a Slav to understand. User:Theathenae

I'm not "threatening" anybody here so stick to the topic. I'll let VMORO do the threatening on this page, since he lives in the Republic and is within firing range. Decius 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, you can do what you like, but you can't label other's how you like: self determination is a right and if you have a problem with that you should take it up with your ambassador in the UN: he signed away that you grant this right to others. If you have any sense of ethics, you will respect that right, not only for yourself but for others. But if you deny others that right, you should not expect others to grant yours. Let me assure you, there is no logic to nation building: it is all politics - grow up and get used to it (or go set up Wiki-kiddie-pedia as a platform for infantile delusions such as that any of the various people in the Balkans have one particular distinct origin). As for you Decius, you too can help with Wiki-kiddie-pedia: please go and start a page on "Slavic pride (not)". There you can explain your biggoted opinions and give us your esteemed insight in swooping generalizations about assorted Balkan bipeds.--Paletakis 16:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paletakis, you're actually wrong (again). Miskin can do what he likes and he can also label others however he likes. You don't have to agree with him, of course, nor do you have to respect his "right to self-determination" if you feel he does not respect yours. (The UN Charter also guarantees nations' territorial integrity and sovereignty; in the real world, that didn't stop Bubba in Serbia or Dubya in Iraq.) Call him whatever you like, if it makes you feel better. But you cannot make him call you a Macedonian. Grow up and get used to it.--Theathenae 17:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether generalized or not, it is a noted phenomenon among Slavs. And it relates directly to the situation here. No use trying to deflect from the fact. Decius 16:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, there is not much more juice to squeeze out of this. I'm not foaming at the mouth on this topic, and it is an issue outside of Wikipedia's jurisdiction. In the end, no one can force a people to adopt an ethnonym they don't want, even at gunpoint. And this issue doesn't involve me personally, only when it crosses over into historical claims, so peace I'm out of here for now. But if I hear another stupid comment from any of you as I step out, I'll be back. Decius 17:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Slavic crowd" sayer barely deserves a comment. However, please note Miskin's attitude. That will exactly show us why Greece insists so much on the "Slavs" term. It is a political issue, not historical, nor practical. "Crowds" do not have the right for self-determination. Hope this will end up in Macedonian Apes or Macedonian Ape-like bipeds variant, it seems to be less hypocritical! --FlavrSavr 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paletakis, thank you for proving that you're unable to participate in a healthy dialogue, you know, of the kind where people answer in respect to what has actually been said to them, reaching thus a mutual communication. The name "Macedonians" has been invented and used by people who recognised themselves as Greeks 2700 years ago. Today it's still used in the same area by people also recognise themselves as Macedonian Greeks. Obviously during all this time many ethnic groups managed to settle in Macedonia (including Slavs and Turks) but Greeks never ceased to be the majority until the area was ethnically cleansed. So due all the respect, but with what logical arguments do you expect us to let this name be monopolised by a people who is alien to both the real region of Macedonia and the historically known Macedonian people? But you can't answer that can you? Let me guess, Big Brother never told you that ancient Macedonians recognised themselves as Greeks nor that part of the Greek war of independence took place in Macedonia (which is understandable). What's most pathetic about you is that in order to desperately promote your national myths about a fictional huge Slav Macedonian minority being hidden in Northern Greece, you chose a username that would sound like a real Greek name and stupidly enough a Cretan, a region which has little if anything at all to do with Macedonia. It reminds me of the Danish-made Feta which is called "SALAKIS", another a pseudo-Cretan name, written in a ridiculous ancient Greek font in order to fool French consumers into believing that it's the real thing... Miskin 11:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:FlavrSavr, I never said that this argument has no political context. It has an all political, historical, practical and cultural context (and the list can go on). Basically to someone who has fundamental historical knowledge on the term "Macedonia", it's pretty self-explanatory why Macedonian Slavs should not be allowed monopolise the name "Macedonians". In one phrase: Because they're not. The reason I'm pointing out the term "Slavic crowd" is in order to make a linguistic distinction from the real Macedonians. You can call Greeks "Hellenic" if that makes you feel any better. A more realistic debate on this article, would be on whether or not we could actually consider FYROMians as an ethnic group different from Bulgarians, instead of whether or not they should be called "Macedonians". FYROMians is a Slavic ethnic group and Macedonians is a Hellenic. The word "Macedonia" itself is a Greek word that has no meaning in the Bulgarian dialect that's so ironically baptised "the Macedonian language". What more proof do you need in order to realise that not only you don't own that name, but you also have no connection to it? What's most ironic is that your Slavic ancestors have probably fought and died against the real Macedonians who were Greeks. The sense of irony comes when the new generations want to adapt the name and heritage of their historical enemies. Imagine suddenly all Greeks wishing to be called Ottomans or something similar (and claiming that Ottomans were never a Turkic people). Since you're not ashamed of it, I rest my case. But it's extremely ridiculous that at the same time your people thinks it has an ethnic pride... What would life be without a sense of irony? :) Miskin 11:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And for crying out loud, the UN and NATO do not, not, NOT recognise "Macedonians" they only recognise FYROM. Are you really extremely ignorant or intentionally lying as usual? The name "Republic of Macedonia" will never be officially recognised, unless of course FYROM someday decides to stay forever outside NATO and the EU. Miskin 11:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, if you really think that I am supposed to believe that you consider the Macedonians a real nation, or even humans, after saying a "Slavic crowd", we being "aliens" to the region, well, I don't know what to say - you can barely hide your racist attitude. You could have said "Slavic speaking people" if you wanted to be fair. You're also calling me a liar, while you obviously do know that this article is not about the name of the country, but about the name of the people. While the Republic of Macedonia name is disputed, the name of the people is not disputed, as you can see in the international organizations list above, just as the Macedonian language is accepted. Actually, the majority of credible institutions and media refer to the Macedonians as Macedonians, plain and simple. I don't see how the usage of the Macedonians (nationality) term deprives from your right to feel as Macedonian? You use it in a regional sense, we use it in a national sense. There would be a real problem if two ethnic groups use the term Macedonians in an ethnic sense, but that's actually not the case. Your knowledge of history amazes me! It is funny that you mentioned that the Greeks were ethnically cleansed from the region of Macedonia. Please check out censuses before the Greek Civil War, who was the majority of Macedonia. Actually, in the 20th century, it is the Greeks that have ethnically cleansed considerable amounts of Macedonians, Bulgarians, Turks, etc. I happen to live in an entire neighborhood comprised of Macedonian refugees from Aegean Macedonia, I do believe that is actually what we are talking about when in comes to "ethnic cleansing". Talking about history, this is not a historical debate, and when reffering to the actual naming of this article Wikipedia is not here to debate that there is such a thing called Macedonians (nationality), it is only here to state facts about them (among the facts, of course, is that their right to call themselves is disputed by a considerable minority, in world terms). Please see NPOV, for details. --FlavrSavr 02:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, I must state that the idea to rename the article to Macedonians (nationality) would be the best option; the term Macedonian Slavs is considered by many people X offensive, while Macedonians (nationality) is not. Also, notice that we are not suggesting that people X shouldn't be called Macedonians! The issue is about clarity here; can Wikipedia readers understand that we are talking about the nationality with the term Macedonians or would it be confusing? Adding nationality in parentheses would definately make this clear, and people X will keep the name they want others to call them -- as simple as that. --dionyziz 15:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually don't understand why this poll was conducted, it is obvious that Macedonians (nationality) is the most rational and NPOV choice. Actually it is seems that this poll is giving space for ethnic majorization, which is far from "describing debates fairly" (NPOV). I'm very glad to hear some common sense in this debate, finally. --FlavrSavr 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Only those who agree with you possess "common sense". The rest of us are to be ignored. It's like we're fresh out of democratic, gotta get yourself a little something semi-automatic, yeah...--Theathenae 12:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this is beginning to look like a personal dispute, so I'm not intending to continue. However you seem to ignore the fact that this poll is actually forcing out Greek POV, although, it is quite obvious that this is baseless - what is wrong with Macedonians (nationality)? --FlavrSavr 17:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with "Macedonians (nationality)" is the fact that the name of the nation in question is in fact a matter of international dispute.--Theathenae 00:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The name of the nation is not a matter of international dispute, the name of the state is. --FlavrSavr 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. The name of the state is in fact less important than the name of the nation.--Theathenae 06:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, we're not discussing what is more important, but whether something is a matter of international dispute or not. --FlavrSavr 09:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hellenes are misappropriating the name Macedonia for themselves

As the ancient Greeks did not recognize Macedonia as a Hellenic nation, there is absolutely no point in regonizing the Hellenic Republic (Greece) claim to be the righteous owner of the term Macedonian. Since ancient Macedonia is non-Hellenic, any claims to ownership of the name (whose people were spread across the ancient world by Alexander himself) as exclusively Greek is a distortion of history. 132.205.45.148 18:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So of course it follows then that it should be recognised as exclusively Slavic instead? Right.--Theathenae 07:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Greece can't have a prefecture called Macedonia, only that Greece cannot claim exclusive rights to the name. Besides, how many *real* (traditional ethnic group) Prussians did you find in Prussia anyways? (Note: not the same as German). The United States has a state called New Mexico, and there's a country refered to as Mexico. Californias exist on both sides of the US-Mexico border. There are two countries named Congo! We have two Chinas, two Koreas, used to have two Germanys, there are two Irelands. What's the problem with calling this nation Macedonia? 132.205.95.65 21:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is quite annoying to misinterpret ancient history. What's the deal, are you only following Demosthenes positions? Fortunately, if one is really interested about ancient history, there are many evidence that macedonians are just another Greek group, like Spartans or Athenians. There were a lot of people opposing Demosthenes, just study the history before and during the reign of Alexander the Great. The Slavs came to Balkans around the 7th century a.D. and all the names Alexander, Phillip etc are of Greek origin and have greek etymology. Matia.gr 12:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Germans in Prussia were not ethnic Prussians, but still called themselves Prussian. Names, ah names. Why do so many Christian-names come from the Bible when these people with those names are not semitic? Why do you find so many Britons of antiquity with Latin names when they're not members of any Latinate tribe? Why do the Germanic Frank-descended and Gaullic-descended French speak a Latin language and not a Germanic or Celtic one? 132.205.95.65 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The two parts of Ireland are working for a union, we only have one Germany for the last 15 years, I 'm not aware of a second China. Will FYROM join Greece? Will FYROM dream, like Bulgary surely did one century ago, of "Aegean Macedonia", an exit to sea? Have you studied ancient history? Have you checked out the wikis about Demosthenes and other people of Alexander's era? Surely Demosthenes called Macedonians barbarians, not Greek. Do you know he built an army against Alexander with Persian gold? Are you aware of Demosthenes' political ambitions? Do you know that there were many people in Athens who disagreed with Demosthenes? I understand the right of FYROM to exist and their need for self-identification. And I want the people of Skopje to live free and happy. But what about my need and right for self-identification? How can you deprive my right to call myself Macedonian. This name is active in the Greek history for more than 2000 years. It's not something forgotten or a myth. Perhaps if FYROM choose the name of Atlantis it would be different... It's not true that only ancient macedonians names were Greek. All of them, not just their kings, were Greeks and believed it. The books exist, and even the wikis are right here available, you just have to read them. Finally, I want to emphasize that wikipedia is not the place to change the facts or to change history. Matia.gr 00:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The two parts of Ireland are *not* working for a Union. They are working towards something that is yet to be determined. Considering that a great many Protestants in Northern Ireland would like to remain in the UK, while a great many Catholics in Ireland would like to join the Republic of Ireland, this issue is to be resolve. There are two Chinas, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. There is a movement to prevent a future unified China in the ROC. I see from the way you write, you are a Greek partisan (ofcourse your username also helps). I used Demosthenes' statement as a supporting point, not the whole of the argument. Your point that It belongs to Greece because the Macedons were Greek and were thought so by ancient Greeks, doesn't really matter if you looked at my statement about Prussians. The Prussians were not German, but the Germans appropriated the name (and some of the territory) for use in their own state of Prussia. This is the most similar parallel I can currently think of. I see no reason not to call Prussia Prussia, just because Germans were the main ethnic group there, and they spoke a Germanic and not a Balitc language. Macedonia occupies part of the region of Macedonia, the people are mostly Slavic, and speak a Slavonic tongue, but that they are slavic doesn't really matter, since they still occupy part of the region of Macedonia, and they called their country Macedonia. Greek petty imperialism focuses on the people. However, the land is also important, and since it occupies a portion of the region traditionally considered as Macedonia, it is perfectly fine to call it Macedonia. Ofcourse even if it did not occupy any part of the region of Macedonia (say if it were in South America), it is the name that it chose for itself. There's a US state called Georgia, there's also a country called Georgia. Does the fact that there's a Cambridge in Massachuettes denigrate the cultural heritage of Cambridge England? Does the fact that Zaire renamed itself the Democratic Republic of the Congo mean that the former Zaire is making a territorial play for the Republic of the Congo (or Congo-Brazzaville) ? The Russe were a Viking tribe, hence Germanic, invited to rule from Kiev (Ukraine), but Russia carries the Germanic name of a country based in the Ukraine, and they're slavs, not germans. Are you saying that Russia should be called Moscow because the capital is Moscow, the people are slavs, and they don't speak a Germanic language? 132.205.44.134 20:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about "Rome"?

What was the motivation behind choosing the name "Macedonia" for FYROM? Maybe it might be relevant to look at any documentated evidence of the thought process behind this. I wonder why it wouldn't have been safer to choose the name "Rome" for the country. That way they could have a much better territortial claim, claiming that they were the modern day Roman empire. :) I wonder if Italy would have had any objections... --Rebroad 09:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the Yugoslav Republic that was part of Yugoslavia was called Macedonia, so when it became independant, it called itself 'Macedonia. What wonders the world provides, when a sub-national unit secceeds and wishes to translate it's former sub-national political division name into the name of the country it became! Will wonders never cease?  :)
  • But seriously, as Macedonia occupies part of the region generally known by Greeks as Macedonia, there's not a very good reason why it can't use the name, considering that PRUSSIA occupied part of the region traditionally associated with the Baltic tribe of Prussians, but whose citizenry were Germanic and not Baltic at all, and spoke German, not Prussian. 132.205.44.134 20:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of going on? (to Zocky)

I'm sick and tired of this nonsense. I haven't heard any rational arguments about why shouldn't peopleX be called Macedonians (nationality). People equating Slavs and Slavic language, (Dutch = Dutch Germans, following that logic), people claiming that people X are ashamed of their Slavic heritage (what a nonsense, we would equally be ashamed of any irrational add-ons), greek and bulgarian national-chauvinists, people equating democacy with majorization, people that simply didn't manage to see the ripe version of the poll (Geogre). Facts, numbers, comparative situations, international organizations, media, books of references all calling peopleX Macedonians, all this blatantly ignored. Not to mention self-determination. Not to mention a violation of NPOV policy. I have already warned everybody about ethnic majorization that would, and is already happening to this article/poll, and I haven't seen some steps to prevent that. I mean, yes, I can put this topic to some Wiki IRC channels of friendly countries, and probably get some more votes on the "Macedonian" side, but is that the point of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is about truth, Wikipedia is about freedom, Wikipedia is about knowledge. I can barely see that in this poll. This is already ruining the image of Wikipedia, failing to accept that there is such a thing called Macedonians (nationality), that this is commonly known in the entire world, and barely causes confusion - that is a great shift from reality. I guess the English administration does not see the seriousness required when such delicate themes are discussed, nor it cannot foresee the grave consequences of this adventure. Allowing discrimination on ethnic or quasihistorical basis is a serious human rights issue, and most admins should be aware that they have the responsibility to prevent that. To make myself clear, I will hardly accept the relevance of this poll, regardless who wins. I'm rather wikidepressed right now, so I'm thinking of quitting of the Macedonian project. I might be off this discussion for a while, meanwhile, I kindly reccomend for this article to be called Macedonian Apes. That will spare "everybody" (the admins and the nationalists) from trouble. Now, I'll climb up my FYROM tree and parasite some bananas. --FlavrSavr 02:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I trust you won't be complaining about "ethnic majorisation" now that it appears to be working in your favour.--Theathenae 06:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be underestimating my honesty, just like you're underestimating my nation. I've started complaining even before the poll actually started (check out the archive). I still think that the poll is a bad idea. --FlavrSavr 14:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

To the user who consistenly tries to change the number of the Macedonian Slavs in Greece to 962: The numbers regard the number of INDIGENOUS Macedonian Slavs with Greek citizenship, what you quote is the number of legal emigrants from RoM living in Greece. If you had paid any attention to the discussion before (you haven't), you would have found out that there was a dispute whether the article should include only the Greek government estimate (10,000) or estimates from other sources, which, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION, amount to as high as 350,000 people. If you wanna continue to substitute 962 for 10,000, I'll find myself forced to add the other sources, as well - not only the Greek government estimate of 10,000 but also the one of Helsinki watch (240,000) and the speculations of the Macedonian government (up to 350,000). Your choice. VMORO 21:31, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, no need for such kind of language. You make it sound like a threat. I mean, go ahead and add the sources, who's gonna stop you? Project2501a 22:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey VMORO, you should insert those edits and references. I mean, Helsinki Watch is a credible organization, right? However, take it easy with that attitude man - if you're on the ball maybe its cooler to just do the edit for the article's sake: what's the point of being one-up on an anon? --Paletakis 13:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see lively discussion in this section and I would like to draw your eyes further up the page, to the currently ongoing poll. See top of the page. Zocky 14:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The FYROM government will also claim that Macedonian Slavs have nothing to do with Bulgarians and they'll give you demographics with Macedonian Slavs existing in the 19 century. They will also tell you that Northern Greece is an occupied territory, and in order to back this up they'll come up with data that shows Greek Macedonian population being 95% Macedonian Slav. Quoting what they think or say doesn't make you look very intelligent. As for the Helsinki Watch, I'm curious to know how out of 240,000 supressed Macedonian Slavs in Greece, less than 1000 vote for their political party. But you didn't know that did you? How come most Greek Macedonians I know have never met a "Slavo-phone" in their lives? Oh, I know, it's because of those cursed Greeks. They are hiding them so well and don't allow them to speak their languages so nobody has ever realised that they exist. I bet those hairy Greeks smell bad too. Miskin 09:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic slur?

It is an ethnic slur to call someone a Slav? Can someone explain why Macedonian Slav is a slur when Swiss German or Dutch-Flemish or Greek Cypriot are not? If the argument is that "that's what they call themselves" and calling them anything else amounts to a serious violation of their human rights, what about all those peoples who call themselves one thing and are called something entirely different by the rest of the world? The Germans are Deutscher, Hungarians are Magyar, Albanians are Shqiptar, Dutchmen are Nederlander, Finns are Suomen, Greeks are Hellenes, and so on and so forth.--Theathenae 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not necessarily an ethnic slur to call someone a Slav (depending on context), but it is an ethnic slur to refer to ethnic Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs" in present terms. Why are these two things different, you ask? Let's go back to your examples of people being called differently at home and abroad - none of them negates the existence of the nation in question. On the other hand, the term "Macedonians Slavs" is meant to disregard the existence of People X as a separate nation and it is in this context that Greeks have introduced it in the political discourse. The term "Macedonian Slavs" is also being used by some Bulgarians and few Serbs with the subtext that Macedonians are really Bulgarians or Serbs. Also, if you watch political debates concerning the Republic of Macedonia and its peoples, you will notice many politicians and other parties who normally use the term "Macedonians" use the term "Macedonian Slavs" as a very clear offense. Ivica83 03:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it is simply a disambiguating term. My mom is a Macedonian. She is not, however Slavic, or a resident of the Republic of Macedonia; she is a Macedonian Greek. Thus we have Macedonian Slavs and Macedonian Greeks. The Greeks, at least, do not dispute the existence of this group as a people or a sovereign nation; they simply dispute their claim to unqualified use of the term "Macedonian". --Delirium 07:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I do believe we are making some sense here. However, I do believe that Ethnic Macedonians, Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (ethnicity), or Macedonians (nationality) are far more disambiguating than Macedonian Slavs, aren't they? Furthermore, you obviously don't see the essential difference between the "Macedonian Greek" and the "Macedonian Slav" term. While "Greek" is a name that is commonly accepted as an identifier of a certain nationality (actually, the identifier of that nationality abroad), "Slav" is merely a 6th century tribesman, and it is certainly not acceptable when refering to the certain modern nation. --FlavrSavr 08:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"'Slav' is merely a 6th century tribesman"?? All 300 million of them living in Europe today? OK, now I've heard it all. Where's that Latin Lover Decius when you need him?--Theathenae 15:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, your mixing things up. Slav, in itself, is not a slur, Macedonian Slav is, just as English Norman or Swedish Viking would be when referring to an English or Swedish person. --FlavrSavr 12:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the Greeks wished to negate the existence of people X as a separate nation, they would not call them Skopianoí or Slavomakedónes; they would simply call them Bulgars or Serbs. Indeed, Greece would be rather disinclined to promote a greater ethnic Bulgaria in this way. As Delirium mentioned, the only problem Greeks have is not with the existence of people X as a separate nation, but their unqualified use of the name in a way Greeks see as negating their existence in the region. It is simply absurd to say that "the Macedonians form a minority of the Macedonian population", as if the majority were an alien element and by implication had no right to be there. (There are, of course, many Slav nationalists who wish to "liberate" the region from Greek "occupation" and expel the entire "occupying" Greek population, though these loonies are far more numerous and vociferous in the diaspora than they are in the FYROM itself.) Don't confuse the Greek and Bulgarian positions, they are in fact diametrically opposed.--Theathenae 07:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, please show me the official population breakdown of Greece and tell me just when did Greece recognize the existence of the "Skopianoi" and the "Slavomakedones" as you call them. The Greek government did not bother recognizing the existence of these people in northern Greece until very very recently and the estimate of 10,000 people is just a number thrown out there because of political pressure. So, according to the Greeks, there is no nation there to speak of at all, not Macedonians, not Bulgarians, not Serbs, nothing at all. The term "Macedonian Slavs" is not meant to mark any kind of nation. In fact, if you go deeper into the problem, you will see that Greek nationalists simply call them Slavs or various aggressively depreciating terms. Ivica83 12:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the terms that Greeks use to define people X, not the official policy of the Greek state - a policy which simply does not exist. The Greek state recognises only Greek Citizens within its borders. It says nothing and cares less about their actual or perceived or supposed ethnic origins. In this way it is very much like France, after which the modern Greek state was modelled after all. The only legally recognised minority is in fact the religious minority of western Thrace, i.e. the Muslims. Of course, what happens outside Greece's borders is an entirely different matter. Greece has never denied the existence of a South Slavic nation distinct from the Bulgarians and Serbs. It simply rejects the notion of a Macedonian nation. As I understand it, the Greek position is simple: find another name, or at the very least qualify the term Macedonian with something that distinguishes you from Greece's largest province, and we will be more than happy to do business. Slav is not "aggressively deprecating", it is the precise equivalent of Greek or Latin or Germanic. Most ethnologists and linguists would agree that Slav is not a slur.--Theathenae 15:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree that the supposed Macedonian occupation is completely insane. Actually, it is written in the Macedonian Constitution, that the Republic has no territorial pretensions on any foreign country. Is it absurd to say, for example, that "the ethnic Macedonians form a minority of the region of Macedonia"? When it comes to the ethnic composition of the region of Macedonia, it has drastically changed in the 20th century. --FlavrSavr 08:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with calling people X "Macedonians" is the implication that they have a special status or special connection to Macedonia that the rest of the Macedonian population, including an ethnic group that has demonstrably lived there much longer than people X and happens to be in the majority today, does not. And it's downhill from then on: special status means special rights; people X are the Chosen People. "Macedonia for the Macedonians".--Theathenae 10:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What special status are you actually talking about? I must assure you, no one sane in the Republic of Macedonia, has territorial pretensions over the region of Macedonia, considering that would be not only morally wrong, but also politically, economically and legally impossible. Greeks and Bulgarians living in the region Macedonia also have the right of ethnic self-determination, they choose to declare themselves as Greeks and Bulgarians, not Macedonians. There would be a real problem if they too wanted to declare themselves as Macedonians in ethnic terms, but they do not. As for the ethnic group that has demonstrably lived there much longer than people X, it is probably nearly "ethnically Slavic" as their northern counterpart, peopleX. You seem to be talking about some ethnically pure, vacuumed ethnic groups? Not to mention that the Slavic speaking inhabitants of the region were actually the majority of the population of until the beggining of the 20th century, inhabiting the region for only 14 centuries. It is actually Greek Macedonians wanting to have "special rights". But the issue itself is not historical. The right of peopleX to declare themselves and to be percevied as Macedonians (nationality) is indisputable, legally. What would be the problem if the article Macedonians is about the different people in the region, while Macedonians (nationality) for the peopleX, which are widely known as Macedonians, both officially and unofficially? --FlavrSavr 11:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting me. I did not speak of any "ethnically pure, vacuumed ethnic groups". I was simply referring to the continuous and unbroken presence over the course of millennia of people who have lived in Macedonia and have identified as both Greeks and Macedonians, regardless of their genetic ancestry. Yes, any territorial pretensions against Greece would indeed be impossible to realise, but those calling for the "spiritual reunification of Macedonia" were only removed from the constitution in 1995 after intense Greek and international pressure, as was the Sun of Vergina from the national flag. Doesn't this mean that the "natural" national impulse tends towards such irredentism? Isn't Greece's relative strength the real reason these territorial pretensions are "impossible", rather than a genuine lack of such sentiments among the people X?--Theathenae 15:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. We barely manage to maintain an actual unification in the very Republic of Macedonia, considering the damaged inter-ethnical relations with Albanians. However, there are certain individuals that bear such irredentist emotions, I can assure you they are marginal. There was a certain element of irrational nationalism in the early 90's (I was like 8 years old then) filled with right wing romantic revival and baseless paroles such as:"Thessalonika is ours" (Solun e nash). After 15 dramatic years of a devastating economic crisis, rapid pauperization, and economic, legal, political and moral degradation of the Macedonian society, that culminated in the War conflict, Macedonians learned that having an independent state is not a kiddie play with nationalist swords. I can assure you that no serious person living in the RoM has territorial pretensions towards Greece. --FlavrSavr 13:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We hava a constitution that assures everybody that RoM has no expansion intentions to any neigbour country. Since this is a modern state, which is recognized by everybody, it should be an sufficent insurance that people X have no teritorial pretensions towards Greece!? Other than that, I dont see how Macedonian (Nationality) can be considered hostal. Turks lived (occupied) on this land for 5 centuries but we dont find them a treat now. --Misos 17:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would be able to accept Macedonian (nationality) so long as it is properly explained who uses this term and who objects to it. The term nationality is relatively neutral as well since it implies a connection to the nation in question, the Republic of Macedonia, while something like Macedonian (ethnicity) would be more problematic IMO. I definitely think Macedonian with no qualification should remain a more general page like it currently is. --19:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone wondering where did the word "Slav" derive its negative connotation from? In the absence of true arguments, political and historical, official FYROM diplomacy often resorts to the "I'm offended" cliche in every mention of the "S" word. This has nothing to do with what the rest of the world thinks of FYROM, the majority of its inhabitants, and the rest of the Slavs. (And hopefully, this won't ever affect the world's view of the Slavs.) This is merely a diplomatic tactic, duplicated here in order to create confusion and spread false impressions. People should focus on the real arguments and totally disregard this hilarious claim. Etz Haim 13:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I ask that if "slav" is slur to slavomacedonians why "greek" do you think is not slur to the greek macedonians. (If the name "Macedonian Slavs" of the article change to "Macedonians" it will be very offencive to greek and simply POV. --Lucinos 08:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Every time you are given an inch you try to take a whole mile

I still don't understand what's your problem with the term Slav Macedonians. So, it doesn't matter if Macedonia has a greek history of more than 2000 years, and only matters the 50 or 150 last years of the people self-identifying themselvers as Macedonians. I wonder what would happen if Greece instead of a pacifist nation were warmonger. And I 'll never understand why people of FYROM cannot find something from their history to use as a name.

Vergina's comment to Ivica83

For EU see:http://www.mpa.gr/article.html?doc_id=522728

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION ON WESTERN BALKANS

At the same time, it voted down the amendments urging the Council to recognize FYROM under its constitutional name (139 in favor, 398 against and 26 abstentions).

Vergina 20:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Falsification of Etymology

See [http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0 This is falsification of Etymology! Vergina 19:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't read Slavophonic Macedonian, but I think that Wiki article claims that Makedonia is from Make + Don (make=mother, don=earth)? That sounds pretty false to me. Decius 12:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't read enough to tell in what manner that alleged etymology is given (as a speculative hypothesis or as fact). Decius 12:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mother earth". "the Mother land". Suggesting no doubt that Macedonia is the age-old homeland of the Macedonian Slavs? See, politics & nationalism do begin to infringe on history, which is why I'm concerned with this issue---but the nationalists who make such claims don't represent the position of the entire people. Decius 12:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ottamu, Makedonia oznachuva Majka Zemja" (roughly transliterated), means, so far as I can tell, "Therefore, Macedonia means Mother Land". Decius 14:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, don't take offense to the term Slavophonic Macedonian, because the language of the modern Egyptians is called Egyptian Arabic. Decius 14:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius, here's the translation of the sentence: Because of the Great Mother cult which was practised not only in Macedonia and the Balkans, but also on a broader region the word Makedonia is a coin word from Make (mother) and Don (land), on the ancient Macedonian language. Therefore, Macedonia means Mother Land. I have no idea whether those are ancient Macedonian words or not, but they do look suspicious to me too. The text is not so well organized, but: 1. there are several other explanations of the etymology of the term, one of them being that the name comes from greek words etc. and 2. although, it is slightly confusing, it mentions prominent representatives of the theories shown: Nada Proeva, J.R. Ellis, and a greek archeologist Photis Petzas. Because I'm not an expert historian, I left them there (and also added some cosmetics and links on them), until someone negates these theories are actually supported by scientific research. The Egyptians - Macedonians parallel works pretty well, because, although their language is Arabic (the peopleX's language is Macedonian, officialy, not Macedonian Slavic), and although there are groups (the Copts) that are more likely to have more in common with the "true" Egyptians, their right to declare themselves seems indisputed, while peopleX's right is denied. --FlavrSavr 15:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the fuller translation. I'm wondering who originated that alleged etymology. The article should definitely make it clear that it is a speculation (& I'm sure it's wrong). Does that idea emanate from a linguist at least? I wouldn't assume that it does. Decius 16:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was put into the article so-far-as-I-can-tell by anonymous user 84.177.113.93 (01:42 8 May 2005) without a reference for it or authoritative name mentioned. Decius 16:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Egyptians - Macedonians parallel works pretty well, because, although their language is Arabic (the peopleX's language is Macedonian, officialy, not Macedonian Slavic), and although there are groups (the Copts) that are more likely to have more in common with the "true" Egyptians, their right to declare themselves seems indisputed, while peopleX's right is denied.

Your parallel is based on a false assumption: That just like "Egyptian", the name "Macedonian" has always referred to an distinct ethnic group (rather than a group which recognises itself ethnic Greek). In other words, you're taken for granted that the entire world is under the FYROM government's nationalist propaganda. Until you debate and make a point on this, bringing up such bad exaples will only makes look rather stupid. I hope the demographics provided by User:Vergina have convinced you that nobody outside FYROM buys the existence of "Macedonian nation" prior to Tito. Basically if it makes you feel any better, the only link between Slavo-Macedonian and the real Macedonians, is that both of them are part of a greater ethnic group (the former being Bulgarian and the latter Greek). Miskin 14:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first expressions of a separate X identity actually go back a few decades further than Tito, but that's not even the real issue. Denying their existence as a separate nation is not the policy of the Greek government. Greece respects their right to self-determination, as long as it doesn't infringe on Greece's right to self-identify as a (partly) Macedonian nation. If people X called themselves anything other than "Macedonian", Greece would have no issue with their distinct nationhood. But whether one likes it or not, Greece considers Macedonia an integral part of its national heritage, and this must be taken into account in any fair decision regarding the name. "Macedonian Slav" is the only viable compromise solution to this otherwise intractable dispute. It is the only alternative term that has been used internationally, including by Greeks, and I personally know X moderates who would not consider it the end of the world or a gross violation of their human rights. I find it interesting that nationalists of the X persuasion would lay claim to Saints Cyril and Methodius and the Old Slavonic language when they show such disdain for the term "Slav" in the ethnonymic context. Why? Finally, I remind you that Kiro Gligorov himself suggested "Slavomakedonija" back in the early 90s.--Theathenae 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belgians, Egyptians, Palestinians

The only difference here being that Belgians and Egyptians describe peoples entirely contained within the nations of Belgium and Egypt. Belgium and Egypt occupy the whole of Belgium and Egypt, not a mere 38%, and nobody but a Belgian or Egyptian would describe his or herself that way. Also, none of the ethnic groups in Belgium or Egypt claims the exclusive right to call itself ethnic "Belgians" or ethnic "Egyptians" speaking "Belgian" or "Egyptian". A truer parallel would be if the Walloons started claiming that they were the Belgians (and that the Flemings were irrelevant; the more hotheaded "Belgians" would openly say that Flanders should be "liberated" and the Flemings should leave). As for Palestinians, the Israelis have consciously rejected the term to describe themselves, whereas the (non-people X) Macedonians have never stopped calling themselves Macedonians.--Theathenae 11:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wouldn't ethnic Macedonian handle ethnic Macedonians, and Macedonian handle Macedonia nationals? There are other regions with the same name as countries, but without this problem introduced by Greece as a way of laying claim to a people that Hellenes didn't even consider Greek (they thought Macedonians were barbarians, so why should we let Greeks get away with stealing their conqueror's heritage?) Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc, all extend further than their nations as ethnic group coverage. The former non-viable country of the Rhineland didn't cover the entire Rhine valley, Turkey certainly doesn't cover the traditional turkish region... 132.205.45.148 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Etymology of the Name Macedonia,Macedonians! The Macedonia region took its name from the inhabitants, the Macedonians or Makednoi See Herodot I,56 I,56. By these lines when they came to him Croesus was pleased more than by all the rest, for he supposed that a mule would never be ruler of the Medes instead of a man, and accordingly that he himself and his heirs would never cease from their rule. Then after this he gave thought to inquire which people of the Hellenes he should esteem the most powerful and gain over to himself as friends. And inquiring he found that the Lacedemonians and the Athenians had the pre-eminence, the first of the Dorian and the others of the Ionian race. For these were the most eminent races in ancient time, the second being a Pelasgian and the first a Hellenic race: and the one never migrated from its place in any direction, while the other was very exceedingly given to wanderings; for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Pthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called Dorian.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_herodotus_1.htm

Vergina 19:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to Dionyziz: Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

Dear Dionyziz, you claim that you would allow for Macedonians to call themselves as they like but that for the sake of clarity, they should call themselves Macedonian Slavs. Have you considered the following two possibilities: 1. The present article "Macedonian Slavs" could also be titled "Macedonians (nationality)" and all articles that contain the different applications of the term "Macedonians" would have modifiers such as "nation", "geographic" or "Ancient" to make distinction; 2. The term "Macedonian Slavs" is not clear on its own because of all the Slavic people living in the region who do not consider themselves as Macedonians and because the Slavic nature of its own is disputed. In addition, I would like to underline that research has shown that the use of the term "Macedonians" in international relations as well as on the web refers to "People X" in most of the cases whereas the term "Macedonian Slavs" is outdated as of 2001. For more information, consider the various sources displayed above. Clarity is, therefore, an argument that needs to be reconsidered. Thank you for your attention. Ivica83 12:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outdated as of 2001? Quite the contrary. International news media began referring to people X as "Macedonian Slavs" in the year 2001 precisely to distinguish the majority ethnic group from the Albanian minority, which was a relevant distinction to make in the context of an ethnic conflict. Before then, the ethnic complexity of the FYROM was largely ignored and the focus was on the naming dispute between two states - quite different from an ethnic conflict. Curiously, 2001 was also the year the Greek media started to refer to people X as Slavomakedónes rather than the erstwhile ubiquitous blanket term Skopianoí.--Theathenae 14:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, the term "Macedonian Slavs" actually gained some "popularity in" 2001 (by BBC and CNN), and was very soon after replaced with Macedonians, by the same televisions. As you obviously think that World media = Greek media, here are some examples of how BBC sees people X after 2001:

Monday, 16 September, 2002, 03:51 GMT 04:51 UK: Many hope the vote will help cement the peace process which brought an end to last year's conflict between Orthodox Christian Macedonians and the minority Muslim ethnic Albanians. [2]

Monday, 8 September, 2003, 11:39 GMT 12:39 UK: (interview with the Prince of Jordan) the list continues Moldovans versus Russians, Hungarians versus Romanians, Macedonians versus Greeks - these are all Christians and I haven't yet touched on Rwanda and Sierra Leone. [3]

The make up of the population of Yugoslavia at the time of World War Two was extremely complex. Broadly speaking, there were two main ethnic groups - the Serbs and the Croats - plus three other smaller ethnic groupings - Albanians, Macedonians, Slovenes. [4]

Monday, 18 October, 2004, 15:52 GMT 16:52 UK: Of a population of two million people 62% are Macedonians and a quarter ethnic Albanians. [5]

Friday, 22 October, 2004, 15:39 GMT 16:39 UK: Al-Jazeera broadcast a statement by the militant group called the Islamic Army in Iraq which claimed it had killed two Macedonians whom it accused of spying for the US. [6]

Sunday, 13 March, 2005, 23:53 GMT UK: Many ethnic Macedonians, who make up a majority of the population, are unhappy with the electoral changes. [7]

As a matter of fact, a growing number of BBC articles uses the term Macedonians as the end of 2001 approaches: [8], [9], [10], and the list of Macedonians is too huge to bother continuing this list... check out for CNN, also... --FlavrSavr 15:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you agree with me then that Macedonian Slavs was used when there was a need to make an ethnic distinction between people X and the Albanians, only to recede when the conflict had fizzled out? Is this article not about people X specifically as an ethnic group?--Theathenae 15:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are like 15 or 20 news articles on the BBC site with the refference "Macedonian Slavs", they stopped when they realized how utterly stupid was this term. (I guess there was some Greek lobying in all this) Besides, you seem to be ignoring your statements "Outdated as of 2001? Quite the contrary". Here are some news articles, about the supposed "confusion" what the word Macedonians refers to, before, and in the beginning of the crisis:

Wednesday, March 11, 1998 Published at 10:47 GMT: The battle for day to day existence has left many with little sympathy for the Albanians' plight. Some Macedonians warn that they too are ready to bear arms to keep their nation together.[11]

Tuesday, 27 February, 2001, 23:57 GMT 00:57 UK: The Macedonians say ethnic Albanian fighters in the Presevo valley in southern Serbia are trying to spread the conflict across the border into Macedonia. [12]

Sunday, 25 March, 2001, 18:35 GMT 19:35 UK: Equally predictably the far smaller number of Macedonians who haven't left this predominantly Albanian city with their families, spoke of the just deserts that the rebel fighters were getting. [13]

Friday, 29 June, 2001, 11:52 GMT 12:52 UK: At first Macedonians were polite if distant to the many British and Americans here. They saw the UK, in particular, as its ally in a battle against rebels who wanted to partition the country into two enclaves - one for ethnic Albanians, the other for Macedonians. [14]

Monday, 9 July, 2001, 22:12 GMT 23:12 UK: The two Macedonian and Albanian parties taking part had shown up and no-one was shouting at each other, the sources said. [15]

I've already pointed out that after that, they are almost exclusively referred to as "Macedonians", and I'm not going to further debates on this topic, wasting my time to correct someone's attitude towards reality. I'm having a small The Smiths music session to forget all this nonsense and hatred towards "PeopleX" that I have encountered today, and then I'm going out. After all, I'm a perfectly normal ape. Peace, to you all. --FlavrSavr 16:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment, so for what it's worth:

• Wikipedia is not permitted to identify any group as the "true PQRS" (to use another ethnic identity variable). Any attempt to settle the issue is doomed to failure, which is the primary reason Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger devised the NPOV.

The best we can do is to continue what the article has done a fairly good job of doing: outlining and describing the conflict about the ethnic identity and rightful name of, er, People X.

As for the best article title, we might pick something like:

• ethnic groups in Macedonia / Macedonian ethnic groups (which would attempt to list and describe the various groups in and around the historical region of Macedonia.

This problem is similar to the "Palestinian issue". Wikipedia has utterly failed to identify the true Palestinians. It can't do so, and never will. The articles should merely describe the major POVs about who really owns the region of Palestine. Clearly the Palestinian Arabs are the major claimants: they're the loudest, they have the widest political support, etc. But determining the veracity of their claims is outside Wikipedia's purview.

This is not a blog, not an opinion board, it's an encyclopedia. When there are multiple POVs about what's what, we can only describe each POV fairly and accurately. Let's do that for people X, too.

Thanks for listening.

-- Uncle Ed (talk) (not speaking as Mediator, but merely as an "old hand" around here)

The falsification of the Macedonian language as Greek language

CLEOPATRA SBORUVALA NA MAKEDONSKI JAZIK

CLEOPATRA SPOKE IN THE MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE! See: http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2005/sonce570.pdf/50_52_donski.pdf Vergina 16:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is clearly talking about the ancient Macedonian language. --FlavrSavr 18:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Desite what the wikipedia article supports, major academics categorise acient Macedonian as a dialect of North-Western Greek. So it does lie about the Greek language. Miskin 14:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Clearly"? The intentions and implications of exclaiming that "Cleopatra spoke Macedonian!" (as if this were some kind of earth-shattering revelation), and calling the language "Makedonski jazik" when that is exactly the same name given to the unrelated modern Slavic language, are quite obvious. The author makes no attempt to disambiguate the ancient Macedonian language from the modern "Macedonian" language, leaving your average "Macedonian" assuming that they are one and the same. This kind of deliberate historical falsification lies at the heart of the "Macedonian" issue.--Theathenae 00:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So much for the "Greek-speaking aristocracy and Macedonian-speaking population" theory... What's up next? Etz Haim 15:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's up next? Well, you know, we were working on an atomic bomb, specifically designed to attack Athens, and and a brainwashing TV program that will cause Greek Macedonians to ally with us, when our super-troopers would launch the final offensive. Mwhahaha! --FlavrSavr 22:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cute, but off subject. Etz Haim 19:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but what is the subject? --FlavrSavr 22:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Witty you. After Cleopatra was unrolled from her carpet in front of Caesar, she was asked about it and said: "NE ZNAM." So 1) she was off topic too and 2) she spoke in Macedonian. Killer piece of evidence by Cleopatra's contemporary Vasil Ilyov... But wait... Even if he was her contemporary, would he still have been able to salvage a 7000 year old WOODEN inscription in Macedonian? Etz Haim 10:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eccentrics such as that anonymous Vasil Ilyov do not constitute the majority of the Macedonian's opinion. Macedonian people clearly recognize the difference between the ancient and the modern Macedonian language. That's what I actually ment when saying that you're "underestimating my nation" - they're not that stupid. There's no such thing as Macedonian irredentism towards Greece, except for maybe a handful of dumb folks. --FlavrSavr 03:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which people is the "Macedonian Slavs"?

Which people is the "Macedonian Slavs"? Macedonian Slavs are the Bulgarian people of Yugoslavian Vardarska Banovina.See map: Vardarska Banovina. 1945 ago no slav people existed as Macedonians.Only Serbs and Bulgars. See ethnographic maps: http://img67.exs.cx/img67/6475/brailsford.jpg

http://img67.exs.cx/img67/8450/MapbyAmiBoue1847.jpg

http://img67.exs.cx/img67/5561/Safariknarodi.jpg

http://img10.exs.cx/img10/3681/mackenzie.jpg

http://img56.exs.cx/img56/5857/VolkerkartevonMittel-undSudosteuropa.jpg

http://img56.exs.cx/img56/3069/slaveni-karta.jpg

http://img57.exs.cx/img57/1241/ResizeofEuropavolkerundsprachenkarte.jpg

http://img57.exs.cx/img57/8127/1880-geoturkeyethnographical.jpg ( ????)

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/races_balkan_shepherd_1923.jpg

http://img57.exs.cx/img57/7518/macedonia_19192.jpg

http://www.cjcr.cam.ac.uk/gateway/maps/Ethnic16.gif

See Yugoslavian ethnographic 1921-1931(Serbs,Croats,Slovenians): http://www.univ.trieste.it/~storia/corsi/Dogo/tabelle/popolazJugosl1921-31.jpg

IMRO,the Macedonian revolutionary organisation,was likewise a Bulgarian organization. See "Invitation from the central revolutionary commitee to all Bulgarians" http://img24.exs.cx/img24/7216/Invitation1893.jpg All of the documents are in Bulgarian language. Vergina 07:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yugoslavia-Bulgaria ACTION:

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius: “The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. “This Government considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland” or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece”.

Vergina 07:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vergina, I must state that your I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY!!! attitude and your bad English is doing much damage for the Greek POV. However, thanks for proving that: 1. Greece/most Greeks/some Greeks (I wouldn't like to make generalizations) actually, still deny that PeopleX are a distinct nation. 2. That maps provide a fine evidence that most of the population in northern Greece (except Chalcidice) was in fact non-Greek. --FlavrSavr 23:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the Greek POV matters to you at all; you will continue to ignore it however it is presented. Vergina simply makes the point that the Slav-speaking population of Macedonia were not regarded as ethnic "Macedonians" until fairly recently. That is a valid point to make, even if you find it irritating. And the fact that Greek-speakers were not in the majority among the Macedonian peasantry does not negate their continued and unbroken presence in the region over a period of millennia. Moreover, the maps belie the substantial Greek presence in the urban areas throughout Macedonia, not just Chalcidice as you claim.--Theathenae 07:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The United Nations recognize PeopleX as Macedonians

The United Nations clearly recognize PeopleX as Macedonians. You can check out the Google search that Zocky has performed - while Macedonians gave 170 results, the Macedonian Slavs search gave only 5 results, of them:

• Two are actually excerpts of statements given by individuals in some trials done by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: [16], [17]
• http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN014972.pdf Pan-Albanianism: How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability? - is an ICG report. The text uses "Macedonian Slavs" in one ocassion, while it also undoubtedly refers to peopleX as "Macedonians" two times, in one of them the term "ethnic Macedonians" is used. There are various statements of Albanian politicians referring to peopleX as "Macedonians". Sometimes the term Slav is used to describe a Montenegrin.
• http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN014972.pdf Smuggling in Southeast Europe - a text by Marko Hajdinjak, uses "Macedonian Slavs" in one ocassion, while it also undoubtedly refers to peopleX as Macedonians four times, in two of them term "ethnic Macedonians" is used.
• http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNTC/UNPAN019075.pdf The politics of ethnic identity in the Balkans in a post Communist power vacuum - the only text that refers to peopleX as "Macedonian Slavs" is written by Katerina Limenopoulou, obviously, a person from Greek ethnicity.

From this I can conclude that the UN refers to peopleX as Macedonians. Given the fact that the United Nations is one of the most reliable sources when dealing such matters, I do believe this fact should be incorporated in the Agreed Facts section, rather than in the lower "International Organizations part" of the poll. I will do that, unless somebody provides me evidence that the UN does not refer to peopleX as Macedonians. Also, It would be good to stress that the term Macedonians is rarely used (in international media) to describe a person from Northern Greece or Southwest Bulgaria.. --FlavrSavr 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The UN is not an encyclopedia, though, and rarely deals in classical history. There is a disambiguation here that the UN doesn't have to deal with, but we do: There are an ancient people called the Macedonians as well, so at the very least we must use Macedonian (nationality). --Delirium 22:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I actually, happen to agree with that, if you see my previous posts. However, the UN references to people X, are of great significance to portray, just how much "Macedonian Slavs" is accepted in reality. --FlavrSavr 22:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The provisional designation used by the UNO, EU, and NATO is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) Vergina 23:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The name of the nation is not a matter of international dispute, the name of the state is. --FlavrSavr 00:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The name of the state,the name of the nation & the name of language is a matter of international dispute!

The name of the state included the name of the nation & name of the language!

Vergina 06:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, do not try to distort the nature of the dispute. It is not just the name of the state that is in dispute. Nimetz's proposal includes references to what the people of Republika Makedonija-Skopje should be called, and all these proposals are of course open to negotiation between the two parties.--Theathenae 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOT TRANSLATABLE NAME:Republika Makedonija-Skopje

--Vergina 07:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RMS... like Richard Stallman, and I dont think he 'll have a problem with it. Matia.gr 00:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are Alexander I,king of Macedonia not Macedonian and Greek?

It is a fact that the slavic population FYROMs are not the Macedonian (ethnicity). Whether the Macedonian (ethnicity) Greeks are or not is not discussion-subject here.Nevertheless!

Are Alexander I,king of Macedonia not Greek? See Herodot(Kalliopi IX 45):

• 45-They at once, hearing this, made haste to the outpost, where they found Alexander, who addressed them as follows:"Men of Athens, that which I am about to say I trust to your honour; and I charge you to keep it secret from all excepting Pausanias, if you would not bring me to destruction. Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece, I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself a Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. Know then that Mardonius and his army cannot obtain favourable omens; had it not been for this, they would have fought with you long ago. Now, however, they have determined to let the victims pass unheeded, and, as soon as day dawns, to engage in battle. Mardonius, I imagine, is afraid that, if he delays, you will increase in number. Make ready then to receive him. Should he however still defer the combat, do you abide where you are; for his provisions will not hold out many more days. If ye prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."

As soon as he had said this, Alexander rode back to the camp, and returned to the station assigned him.

The Macedonian Language(Greek) 45.Οι δε έπει ταύτα ήκουσαν, αυτίκα είποντο ες τάς φύλακας. Άπικομένοισι δε έλεγε Αλέξανδρος τάδε' "Άνδρες Αθηναίοι, παραθήκην υμίν τα έπεα τάδε τίθεμαι, απόρρητα ποιεύμενος προς μηδένα λέγειν υμέας άλλον ή Παυσανίην, μη με και διαφθείρητε• ου γαρ αν έλεγον, ει μη μεγάλως έκηδόμην συναπάσης της Ελλάδος• αυτός τε γαρΈλλην γένος ειμί τώρχαίον, και άντ' ελευθέρης δεδουλωμένην ουκ αν έθέλοιμι όραν την Ελλάδα. Λέγω δε ων ότι Μαρδονίω τε και τη στρατιή τα σφάγια ου δύναται καταθύμια γενέσθαι" πάλαι γαρ αν έμάχεσθε• νυν δε οι δέδοκται τα μεν σφάγια εάν χαίρειν, άμα ήμέρη δε διαφωσκούση συμβολήν ποιέεσθαι' κα-ταρρώδηκε γαρ μη πλέονες συλλεχθήτε, ως εγώ εικάζω. Προς ταύτα ετοιμάζεστε. ην δε άρα υπερβάληται την συμβολήν Μαρδόνιος και μη ποιήται, λιπαρέετε μένοντες• όλιγέων γαρ σφι ήμερέων λείπεται αιτία. Ην δε υμίν ο πόλεμος όδε κατά νόον τελευτήση, μνησθήναί τίνα χρή και έμέο έλευθερώσιος περί, ός Ελλήνων είνεκα έργον ούτω παράβολον έργασμαι υπό προθυμίης, έθέλων υμίν δηλώσαι την διάνοιαν την Μαρδονίου, ίνα μη έπιπέσωσι υμίν εξαίφνης οι βάρβαροι μη προσδεκομέ-νοισί κω. Ειμί δε Αλέξανδρος ό Μακεδών." Ό μεν ταύτα είπας άπήλαυνε οπίσω ες το στρατόπεδον και την έωυτού τάξι (Herodot)

• Tito Livius XXXI 29, 15

"...there were representatives from Aitoloi, Acarnanes, Macedonians, people homoglossoi (speaking the same Greek language)..." Macedonians=Not Macedonian Slavs Vergina 23:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MAKEDONIJA and MACEDONIA is diferent names

Macedonians, wants to be called "MAKEDONCI" and for his state wants to be called "MAKEDONIJA"

Greeks have province "MACEDONIA" and people called "Macedonans". Those names is not identical. Greek`s distraint for useing this name is unmeaning

The most important of all those arguments is that someone lives in county named "Makedonija" and he wants to be called "Mekedonac". In the name of what someother interdict this name because likewise to substantive (antecedent) "Macedonia"194.106.167.14 01:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)194.106.167.14 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vergina, this argument has been gone through before: the Macedonian Royals were of Greek descent, that is known, but there is still uncertainty whether the Macedonians could be considered Hellenic. I am of Greek descent on my paternal lineage (the Hellenized version of my name would be Alexandros Gheorghiou [18] See number 3693) from Braila, but I am Romanian myself---that argument is not enough. If you got something more, post it here also: Talk:Macedon. Decius 03:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, the very fact that Alexander the I made it clear that he was of Greek descent is because he was a King of the non-Greek ancient Macedonians. Decius 04:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I knew it! *Takes a peep underneath Decius's Greek skirt*--Theathenae 06:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but even though I don't believe the ancient Macedonians were Greek doesn't mean I will vote in support of people X being called Macedonians---nope, I can't do that. By the way, some of those who voted don't enough edits to qualify: see 80.74.168.40. Decius 06:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius, is your father's heritage Hellenophone or Aromanian?--Theathenae 07:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hellenophone. But they spoke Romanian also at least as far back as my great-grandfather, and my father never learned Greek, and neither did I. Beyond my great-grandfather, I don't know if they spoke Romanian. I know my great-grandfather spoke Greek also because his wife was a Greek who didn't speak much Romanian. Decius 07:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And to think Ypsilantis actually believed people like you would help us rise up against the Turkish yoke. Ts ts ts...--Theathenae 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't rise against anything if I wasn't even born yet. Maybe they were busy. I don't even know much about that phase of history, so I can't comment. Decius 07:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My exact words were "people like you". It's interesting that you seem so proud of your forebears assimilating as Rumanians when you're so hostile towards Aromanians who have assimilated as Greeks.--Theathenae 07:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's because I'm a Latin Lover. But let's not continue this on this talk page. There's plenty other stuff going on. Decius 07:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll try to make it relevant to the page then. Your attitude towards the Aromanians kinda reminds me of the grkomani slur that nationalists of the X persuasion hurl at Macedonian Slav-speakers (and even their non-Slavophone descendants) who identify as Greeks. The very same people who preach "self-determination", nonetheless.--Theathenae 07:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I got a question: how many Slavophone Macedonians would you estimate are in Greek Macedonia, if you want to take a guess? I bet there's more than the Greeks claim, but I don't know. Decius 07:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nationalists of the X persuasion would say there are over 1 million "Macedonians" in "Aegean Macedonia", out of a total population of just under 2.5 million. They'd also say that Solun e nash (Thessaloniki is ours). On the other hand, the Skopje-aligned Rainbow Party (Ouranio Toxo in Greek) received a mere 6,176 votes[19] at the last European elections in 2004 in a free, fair and secret ballot. They achieved their best result in Florina, widely acknowleged in Greece as the Slavic heartland of Macedonia; but even there they only managed a paltry 3.13%.[20] Their next best result was not even in Macedonia; it was among the Muslim population in the Thracian prefecture of Rodhopi, with 0.44%. Their next best result in Macedonia was in the Pella prefecture, with a grand total of 0.39%. As parties stand for election across the entire length and breadth of the country, that national total of 6,176 includes people in Greece's positively ethnically undiverse deep south who probably only voted for them on account of their pretty name. (I found their 148 Cretan votes particularly amusing.) And that number certainly excludes the much larger number of Slavophones in Macedonia who identify as Greeks and see the Rainbow Party as an affront to their Greek identity. Or maybe they're just afraid to show their true colours (excuse the pun), after all those evil, barbarian Greeks have done to them. I really don't know the answer to your question.--Theathenae 08:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy: Rainbow Party is not so "Skopje-aligned", because contrary to what they were expected to do, they were among the first to declare that they support a no-border-changes policy. This has brought a clash between them and the official FYROM administration. Etz Haim 20:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think the government in Skopje advocates any border changes. After all, if the borders in the region ever do change, it will certainly not be in Skopje's favour. I described the Rainbow Party as "Skopje-aligned" purely in terms of the ethnonational persuasion of its adherents, i.e. not Greek and not Bulgarian.--Theathenae 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the arguments play no role in the voting

Apparently the arguments play no role in the voting!

Vergina 07:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For perhaps the first time ever, I have to agree with you. The evidence posted under #Resources above clearly shows that "Macedonians" is by far the most widely used term for People X. Yet this seems to be ignored in favour of rival nationalists trying to get out the votes for their own position (I've seen evidence of this on both the Greek and Macedonian sides). The evidence is largely being ignored in favour of partisan positions.

I've come to the conclusion that a RfC vote is the wrong way to go about deciding this sort of question. There is, however, an alternative - to put disputed names in the hands of a committee of neutral editors - and I'll work up some proposals for that. -- ChrisO 09:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. In a case like this, where the vote is dominated by partisans for either side - the numerical result is meaningless and shouldn't be used to determine the outcome. Your alternative would be much better. --Cjnm 13:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See User:ChrisO/Naming disputes for the proposals. Comments are welcome! -- ChrisO 23:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the discussion is almost completely compromised, this is the best decision. The panel of arbitrators should, however, be very well prepared as the question is not just a mere question of denomination - it is above all a question of politics and it is as politically laden as a nitrogen bomb. And a politcal question demands a political answer. VMORO 23:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a question of nomenclature. The problem is precisely that two groups of nationalists insist on taking a trivial matter of naming as a deadly insult to their machismo; the last thing we need is to transfer that sort of thinking to a neutral and independent panel. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The problem with this sort of vote is that many of the participants bring so much emotional and political baggage with them that they don't - and perhaps can't - take an objective view. Contentious decisions on naming need to be taken out of the hands of the POV-pushers on both sides. -- ChrisO 00:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure - but do you honestly expect that if this panel of yours decides tomorrow that the decision will be "Macedonians" without a qualifier, the decision will be accepted by the Greeks? And how long do you think that such a decision will last? The same regards the preservation of the status quo - "Macedonian Slavs". Quite obviously, this is not a working variant. VMORO 00:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not just a question of nomenclature, the point is to find a compromise solution which is not gonna be automatically resented as an affront either by the Macedonians or the Greeks. In my own opinion, "Macedonians" with some qualifier - (ethnicity), (nationality), Modern, etc. - is the best possible solution. Macedonian Slavs and Macedonians without a qualifier are obviously loathed by either of the sides. VMORO 00:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The point about the panel of neutral editors s surely that their decision would be final; the article would be protected against moves, so that it wouldn't matter whether nationalist editors complained — there'd be nothing that they could do, and editors who simply wanted to write better articles could ignore them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No solution is going to be acceptable to everyone. As we've already seen from this debate, some Greeks don't want the Macedonian Slavs to be called "Macedonian" at all, while of course the Macedonians themselves understandably would prefer to be called by what they call themselves. Whatever solution is found, someone will be offended. "Macedonians" without a qualifier is clearly not a suitable name, as there are multiple meanings of the term "Macedonians", but I would expect that the panel that I suggested would find a suitable qualifier to disambiguate it. -- ChrisO 07:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well - that is something I wanted to hear. And anyway, my point was only that the panel has to take in mind the possible political repercussions of their decision. The rest of my comment - as an answer to FlavrSavr. VMORO 21:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the committee of neutral editors should decide on this matter. Of course, no ethnic ties should be allowed for the members of this committee. No politics, also. I am a member of people X, so this can be seen as a POV: but, actually no significant (non-Greek, and non-Bulgarian) media, international organization or books refer to the modern non-People X inhabitants of Macedonia as "Macedonians", so I wouldn't be so confident about that "Macedonians" is clearly not a suitable name. Macedonians (region) option should also be considered. However, every qualifier mentioned above sounds good to me, except maybe "Modern Macedonians"... that is rather strange. --FlavrSavr 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is actually more a response to Mel Etitis, I thought mistakenly that it was FlavrSavr that had written that "thing" up there. No article is supposed to be frozen in a state of "permanent beauty". And even panel of neutral editors does not have the right to decide which "permanent beauty" is best for an article. The appropriation of the name "Macedonians" only for the present population of RoM is unjustified and absolutely unacceptable. And as far as I am concerned, I will appeal such a decision as long as the world turns. And I will be far from the only one.

To make things clear - in case someone misunderstands me now - I'll again reiterate that a decision on "Macedonians" with a qualifier is perfectly acceptable for me - whether this qualifier is "(ethnicity)" or "(nationality)". And I agree with FlavrSavr that Modern Macedonians sounds rather bizarre. Inasmuch as the Greek Macedonians are neither an ethnicity, nor a nationality, I can't see any reason as to why this proposal should be unacceptable for them... And inasmuch as FlavrSavr also agrees to such a variant, I would propose that most people who have some common sense in their heads unite around such a compromise variant. VMORO 22:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, isn't "Modern" the counterpart to "Ancient"? Seemed fairly logical to divide Macedonians into Ancient and Modern. It's still not ideal though, as it doesn't clearly establish which category Macedonians from Greek Macedonia belong. Question: How long has the Macedonian region of Greece been around for? Does it span the time period from Ancient Macedonia to present day? --Rebroad 08:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia has been so-called for at least 2500 years. I don't think disambiguating Macedonians as "Modern" would be particularly useful, though. Ancient Macedonians were a distinct ethnic group - Greek-speaking, arguably ethnically Greek themselves, etc. "Modern" Macedonians implies a line of descent from the ancients - which is controversial to say the least - and it's also much too imprecise. Who would you mean by "Modern" Macedonians? - Greeks, Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarians or what?

I think there are five categories for disambiguation here:

• Ancient Macedonians - the Greek-speaking classical people
• Macedonians (nationality) - the inhabitants of the ROM
• Macedonian people - the Slavic ethnic group who call themselves Macedonians
• Macedonians (geographical) - the inhabitants of the wider region of Macedonia
• Macedonians (religious) - an early Christian sect

The article Macedonians would thus need to disambiguate all of these, much like Chinese does. -- ChrisO 12:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with ChrisO, Maredonians should be a small disambig article with all these meanings. MvR 21:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree. However, Macedonians (nationality), is somewhat confusing to me, that is already included in Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia, and RoM is constitutionally consisted of ethnic groups, among them Macedonian people. I think that an Albanian would be even offended if he is told that he is a member of Macedonians (nationality), although he definitely is a Macedonian citizen. Besides, no one refers to them as Macedonians. I think I have a semantic trouble with all this nationality-ethnic group-nation-citizenship differentiation. Would you mind explaining the need for Macedonians (nationality) as such? I think I'll have to correct you, Ancient Macedonians become Greek-speaking in time, some historians argue that they had a distinct language before that. Ah, history again. Whatever. Not meant to trigger another infinite discussion, just a note. --FlavrSavr 04:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, Macedonians (nationality) should just redirect to Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia. -- ChrisO 10:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By "Modern", I just mean "Present day", i.e. current usage of the word. Regardless of it's historical accuracy, if everyone agrees that a large majority of the world now uses the term "Macedonians" to refer to the inhabitants of FYROM, then why not rename Macedonian Slavs to Modern Macedonians or Present day Macedonians. I'm sure there are plenty of words which have had their meanings change over the years. The important thing to to accept modern day usage, WITHOUT distorting history. --Rebroad 09:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian language MATIA 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "Ethnic Macedonians" or "Macedonians" ,for the Slavs of FYROM, is false!

The term "Ethnic Macedonians" or "Macedonians" ,for the Slavs of FYROM, is false! Would consider that the ethnic Macedonian symbols (Vergina Sun) are Greek symbols. Here an again saying gives. The flag of FYROM is not "Ethnic Macedonian symbol"!

Vergina 22:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The slavs of FYROM are ethnicity Serbs and Bulgarians!Not ethnicity Macedonians!
• Uskub,as capital city of Vilayet Kosovo is not Macedonia country!
• See Uskub(Skopje) 1915:

http://images.google.de/images?q=Uskub&hl=de&lr=&start=40&sa=N&filter=0

Prisonniers Serbes;Prisonniers Bulgars

See Prisonniers Serbes:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/grande.guerre/novembre15/pserbes1.jpg

See Prisonniers Bulgars:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/grande.guerre/novembre15/pserbes2.jpg

• "..of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan..."

See U.S. State Department:

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius: “The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. “This Government considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland” or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece”.

• FYROMs anthem is Pro-Bulgarian!

See Fyromian anthem:

"..................................

Now again the flag flies

(that) of the Krushevo Republic

Goce Delchev, Pitu Guli

Dame Gruev, Sandanski!

Goce Delchev, Pitu Guli

Dame Gruev, Sandanski!

......................................."

Goce Delchev is ethnicity Bulgar!

Goce Delchev:We must struggle for the autonomy of Macedonia and the district of Adrianople in order to preserve them in their integrity which is a stage to their future incorporation to the common Bulgarian fatherland." (1901)

http://knigite.abv.bg/en/turk/turk_4.html

Sandanski=Bulgar !

"We considered creating an organization that would follow the model of the revolutionary organization in Bulgaria before the Liberation, we considered following the example of Botev,Levsky, Benkovsky etc."(1905)

Pitu Guli ethnicity Vlah !

Dame Gruev ethnicity Bulgar !

Dame Gruev:"...We are Bulgarians and we always work and will work for the unification of the Bulgariandom."

the flag of the Krushevo Republic is Bulgarian Symbol of IMRO.

See "Invitation from the central revolutionary commitee to all Bulgarians"

http://img24.exs.cx/img24/7216/Invitation1893.jpg

Republic of krushevo is established as a Bulgarian "province"!

Vergina 09:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And Mount Ararat is not armenian? See Coat of arms of Armenia! Alma Pater 00:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Choose your examples with more care. The Armenians actually have territorial claims on what they call "western Armenia" and they do so in the most straightforward manner. Etz Haim 10:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Riviera is not yet into Turkey! (lake "Turkish Riviera")!

Vergina 12:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Republika Makedonija, Makedonski?

One of the ideas non-partisan international observers have toyed with in the past is to use the native Slavic terms Republika Makedonija for the country and Makedonski for the people and language even in English, along the lines of Republika Srpska instead of Serbian Republic, Belarus instead of White Russia or Byelorussia, Moldova instead of Moldavia and Iran and Farsi instead of Persia and Persian. Makedonski makes it abundantly clear that it is a Slavic language; Macedonian does not. Accordingly, the terms Macedonia and Macedonian(s) would be reserved for the wider region or specifically for Macedonia (Greece) as the modern counterpart of ancient Macedon.--Theathenae 15:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no logical reason to reseve Macedonia for Greece in your argument. What would you call Prussia, given your stance that the Prussians are not the Germanics who lost East Prussia to the USSR? If we have Republic of Macedonia for the country; Macedonian as a disambiguation page for: Macedonian (nationality) (Or Republic of Macedonia national) for the people of that country, Macedonian, Macedonian (slavic ethnicity) for the ethnic Macedonians that are a slavic people, Macedonian (slavophonic language), Macedonian (ancient ethnicity) for the pre-Hellenized Macedonians of antiquity, Macedonian (antiquity) for things related to the kingdom and empire of antiquity, Macedonian (region) for things related to the region of Macedonia, Macedonian (Greek biased word definition) for an article on the controversy profferred by Greek special interest groups; Macedonia as a disambiguation page for RoM, Macedonia (antiquity) for the old Empire / Kingdom of Alexandrian days, Macedonia (political subdivisions of Greece) for the Greek prefectures/etc, Macedonia (region) for the geographic region, Macedonia (Greek biased word definition) which redirects to the Macedonian page above. Then we can start disambiguating Greece and Greek. 132.205.44.134 21:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell me one reason, why should Macedonians be reserved for the greek inhabitants of the region instead of Makedoniai, or whatever the greek translation is. --FlavrSavr 15:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because that would reflect the continuity between the ancient Macedonians who spoke Greek and the modern Macedonians who speak Greek. But the primary issue here is what to call people X and their country. What do you say?--Theathenae 15:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's no use saying the original ancient Macedonians spoke Greek if that hasn't been proven. It makes a person look biased and dogmatic when they say things like that (doesn't help this argument). Decius 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me, Decie? Whatever language the Macedonians spoke in 500 BCE, they all spoke Greek by the time the Romans arrived. Wouldn't you say they were still ancient then?--Theathenae 16:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they may likely have all taken up Greek by the time Rome conquered Macedon, that's why I said original ancient Macedonians---and now you defined what you meant. Decius 16:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fact: Macedonians have been speaking Greek at least a thousand years longer than they have been speaking Slavic. The language the "original" ancient Macedonians spoke is largely irrelevant; the ancient Macedonians were indisputably Greek by the time of the Roman conquest - several centuries before the first Slavs arrived - and were quite arguably Greek from the very beginning. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, as it doesn't change the essence of my argument one iota. And sorry for calling you Decius instead of Decie in the correct vocative case.--Theathenae 16:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm, what about the large portion of the ancient Macedonian population that accepted the Slavic language in the Middle Ages? The language the original ancient Macedonians spoke is the most relevant, when you're making such parallels. You are actually assuming that only the Greek influence on the Macedonians is relevant, which is, so obviously, biased. --FlavrSavr 16:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, what's your source for that info? Just trying to verify, not necessarily questioning that info. Decius 16:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. "The ancient Macedonian population that accepted the Slavic language in the Middle Ages"? The ancient Macedonian population accepted no Slavic language. The Macedonians were already mediaeval Greeks by the time the Slavs arrived. And I'm still waiting for an answer in regards to Republika Makedonija and Makedonski.--Theathenae 16:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decie, I am intrigued. I'd like to see your sources regarding the survival of the ancient Macedonian language beyond the Roman conquest.--Theathenae 17:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said there are indications---such as the Fifth Century AD lexicon of Hesychius which includes Macedonian words about a century before Slavic arrival---though some words doesn't necessarily prove language survival as long as those who passed down the words remembered that they were Macedonian words---but an AD survival is possible. Decius 17:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many words? Off the top of my head I can think of at least two modern Greek words that have survived from ancient Macedonian: κρεβάτι (kreváti, bed) and καράβι (karávi, boat).--Theathenae 17:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how many are in Hesychius. It's to be expected that some words would outlive the language, so Hesychius might be inconclusive regarding language survival---unless he noted it was still being spoken. Decius 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Vergina knows. Hehe..--Theathenae 17:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes! That is a compromise proposal!Until a solution is found in the UNO. The article "Republic Macedonia"should be renamed in "Republika Makedonija". "Republika Makedonija" should be untranslatable. That is the Constitutions name of the country. See UNO proposal (Nimitz).

Vergina 17:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The silence of people like FlavrSavr regarding the Republika Makedonija/Makedonski proposal is deafening. What I'm really hanging for is for a person X to come out and say Republika Makedonija and Makedonski are offensive slurs that are tantamount to a gross violation of their right to self-determination and their human rights in general. Now that would be a hoot! :D--Theathenae 17:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do the Fyromian not want to accept the Constitutions name of the state as "Republika Makedonija"?

Vergina 18:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Use "Macedonians" for the inhabitants of the greater Macedonia region, and "Makedonski" (or the appropriate native term) for the people that define themselves so. Etz Haim 22:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That won't work. We don't use "Russki" for the Russians or "Hrvati" for the Croatians so why use "Makedonski" for the Macedonians? Remember that this is the English Wikipedia, so the common English name should be used - which happens to be "Macedonians". -- ChrisO 23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your argument collides with the reality of the use in English of Monégasque for the people of Monaco and their language, Moldovan instead of Moldavian, Rusyn instead of Ruthenian and Republika Srpska instead of Serbian Republic, to mention just four examples. None of Skopje's supporters can proffer a valid reason why the same convention can't be applied here. As for the "common" English name, 13 years is hardly long enough to establish what is common usage, especially when that usage either unintentionally or deliberately ignores the history of the use of the name in the English language and the fact that its use by people X is disputed.--Theathenae 00:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't translate every foreign name into English, which is why we call the Deutsch the Germans but we call the Xhosa the Xhosa, for instance. It's mostly a matter of historical accident and linguistic needs. Republika Srpska is a special case; it's customarily not translated in order to avoid confusion with Serbia proper (compare "Serbian Republic" with "Republic of Serbia" - in English the two have the same meaning.) In the case of the Macedonians, there's already a well-established term (the word "Macedonian" has been used for hundreds of years, though admittedly not for people X) and there's no confusion with another ethnic group or country called Macedonians or Macedonia. Let's face it, the main issue that you're concerned about is whether they have the right to call themselves Macedonians - but that is entirely a POV issue and isn't something that we as Wikipedians should be deciding. -- ChrisO 10:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Project2501a made a good statement when he said that this poll was used for the purpose of making a point. And this is becoming too chat-based (I admit that I have tried to make a point too, on several ocassions, got carried away by emotions), this perhaps will be my last violation of that policy:

• Republika Makedonija is not the constitutional name of the country, Република Македонија is, since there isn't an constitutional (official) latinicized version of the name. Republika Makedonija as a term, cannot be found in any official international documents of RoM.
• Republic of Macedonia is not only the commonly used version of the constitutional name of RoM, it is the official English translation of "Skopje's" constitutional name after the United States recognized Republic of Macedonia as Republic of Macedonia.
• Macedonians translated into Macedonian is Makedonci, not Makedonski
• The name of the people, was never a matter of international dispute. United Nation recognize people X as Macedonians (the english version of Makedonci). Also, they have declared themselves as Macedonians, in all English-speaking countries, not as Makedonci.
• As for "people like FlavrSavr" and their "deafening silence"... whatever, that was of really epic dimensions, I'll let you live in them. --FlavrSavr 04:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who vandalized the Options section?

Dear god... I have just noticed this...

• The creation of a "Macedonian" ethnicity is an old commintern (1923)plan in order to create territorial claims against Greece
• None has the right to steal a nation's history
• It is the first step on a wider plan for the destabilization of the area (my favorite)
  • People X, are actually CIA agents trying to destroy Greece (my addition)

... please, although this poll is seemingly absurd, do prevent vandalism. --FlavrSavr 02:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear FlavrSavr can you explain why is vandalism the expression of a certain view. Even if you strongly disagree with this? I wrote the above statements and they are absolutely true. On the contrary your attermpt to delete my views is censorship and vandalism. Is it not true the fact that in FYROM's school books there are maps of a "liberated" "united" Macedonia? Is it not true that Political parties in FYROM encourage signs "MACEDONIANS ARE MACEDONIAN...NOT GREEK...MACEDONIA CONQUERED GREECE AND ONE DAY ALL OF MACEDONIA WILL BE TOGETHER AGAIN!!!!! MAKEDONIA ZA MAKEDONCITE!!!!!" Similar posts were posted in this page a few days ago isn't it?

Dear FlavrSavr, the only way to read this discussion page is through the history link [diff by diff]. You disagree about that 1923 [or 1948 or whatever] "plan". What about the constitutional changes that your country have done the last decade? You do remember what quotes have been removed and I do suppose that you can see the similarities with that "plan". Now, the destabilization. It has been mentioned before, the existance of two Koreas and two Germanys etc. Ask yourself how those countries were split apart, check history and think about it. Can you see a pattern there? MATIA 10:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know that, but I was only drawing attention to that problem, which, sadly, still exists. As for the other,, no one sane in the Republic of Macedonia, has territorial pretensions over the region of Macedonia, considering that would be not only morally wrong, but also politically, economically and legally impossible. It is constitutionally forbidden. Regards. --FlavrSavr 11:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you believe that ordinary people of Eastern Germany hated the ordinary people of West Germany? Right now we have one united Germany. Can you understand the motives behind such moves?MATIA 11:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Council of Europe resolution

EXECUTIVE BOARD CONSEIL EXECUTIF

F.B (2004) OS 2 March 2004

Note for the attention of the members of the Executive Board

References concerning "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and persons belonging to a minority or speaking a minority language outside the country

Taking into account Resolution (95) 23 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1995 at the 547th meeting of Ministers' Deputies, the Secretarial is hereby instructed to use the following references provisionally for all purposes within the Council of Europe pending settlement of the difference which has arisen over the name of the State in question. They are to be used in all documents prepared by the Secretariat of the Council of Europe.

The Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and independent monitoring mechanisms are strongly encouraged to use these references. However, texts emanating or prepared under instructions from the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, independent monitoring mechanisms, as well as reports, declarations and other texts attributed to individual Parliamentarians, representatives to the Congress, judges of the Court or members of independent monitoring mechanisms will not have to be changed if they are not in line with the agreed references.

As regards the country

Country:

"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

The inverted commas are an integral pan of the reference. When the term appears within a sentence, the (the) must be written with a small (t)

Adjective/ Nationality:

of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Examples: the government of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", the police of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" citizen of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

Adjective referring to culture: Macedonian (Slav) Examples: Macedonian (Slav) traditions. Macedonian (Slav) culture

Language: Macedonian (Slav)

As regards persons belonging to a minority or speaking a minority language outside the country

Persons/group: Macedonian(s) accompanied by a footnote reading �Terminology of self-identification used by the person(s) concerned�

Adjective: Macedonian (Slav) Examples: Macedonian (Slav) traditions. Macedonian (Slav) associations, Macedonian (Slav) schools

Language: Macedonian (Slav)

Jan Kleijssen, Director of the Secretary General's Private Office -- 10:33, 23 Jun 2005 Theathenae

You know, I didn't think that Wikipedia was covered by any one of the Council of Europe's "Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and independent monitoring mechanisms". What international bodies call states is a matter for those international bodies. It doesn't constrain what we call states, particularly if political usage conflicts with common usage. Otherwise we wouldn't have an article on the Republic of China, for instance (the RoC is unrecognised by most of the world). -- ChrisO 10:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I posted the resolution merely to refute FlavrSavr's false assertion that the name of people X is not a matter of international dispute, as the UN recognises people X as "Macedonians". In fact, the only international organisation with an official and articulated policy regarding the issue is the Council of Europe.--Theathenae 10:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A well known case in the Republic of Macedonia. This is a good example exactly why we shouldn't be using Macedonian Slavs term. This wasn't a resolution, it was only a reccomendation that was immediately cancelled due to mass NGO organized protest called Don't you FYROM me!. Thousands of letters were send to Walter Schwimmer, the chairman of this organization. Also official governmental reaction followed, that the CoE was deconstructing its basic princple. It was immediately withdrawn. In fact Walter Schwimmer himself stated that such a resolution never even existed. The Council of Europe still refers to people X as Macedonians. See: [21] --FlavrSavr 11:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, you distort the facts. The resolution clearly states that the decision is binding only on the Secretariat, not the other CoE bodies (such as the ECRI which you cite), for which it is merely a recommendation. Your campaign appears to have failed miserably, as the country is still referred to everywhere on the main CoE website as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and your assertion that the resolution was withdrawn is refuted by the fact that its main provision is still studiously enforced, inverted commas and all.--Theathenae 11:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A question to FlavrSavr. At your previews message you said that as long as the term Slav Macedonians is being used by WIKIPEDIA ".....As an admin of the Macedonian Wikipedia I found it very hard to convince a wider macedonian public to participate in the macedonian wiki project ...." It looks like blackmailing isn't?

People in Northern Greece call themselves Macedonians and they have strong Greek identity. Are n't those Macedonians entitled to use those terms? Should we answer people of FYROM "Don't you (steal) MACEDONIA (from) me!" ? MATIA 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UN practice

On more than a one occasions I've been to UN meetings and have had discusions about how does this FYROM/RoM business work. I know that this is only marginally relevant to this article, but it is an illustration about how far away from everyday realities the anti-Macedonian position is here.

In the UN this the usual state of affairs:

RoM delegations get to call it and themselves what they like AND everybody at the meeting is obliged to respond to them. Meaning, if a RoM delegate makes a statement "The Gov't of the RoM is of the opinion etc..." that statement is accepted as any other official statement from anyone else. No one, niether UN beurocrat nor country delegate, not event he Greek delegation, can explain failure to act or respond on the basis of "I don't know who this delegation represents" or "who was that?".

The catch is that RoM must respond if anyone from the UN or other member country delegations requests: "Can we have a comment/report from FYROM" - then their delegate must respond or take note and cannot ignore or use this as an excuse to ignore, in the sense of "that's not us, why bother?".

In practice the second applies only when there is a Greek dlegate or official in the room because, even though non-Greek delegates are mostly not concerned in the least, if anyone starts RoM-ing or Macedonian-ing the RoM delegates, the Greek delegations are obliged by automatism in the form of a prescription from the Greek Foreign Office to react with a usual statement which they keep in their pocket and heartlessly file with the particular meeting's secretary, often much to their own embarassment.

When there is no Greek at a UN meeting, the RoM delegation is habitually reffered to as RoM, "Macedonian delegation" and Macedonians.

I urge any Macedonian and Greek to when in NY visit the UN and attend a meeting - many of them are public. Maybe they get lucky to see one where there will be some delegates from one or both countries and see this practical compormise in action. Its almost cute, especially when the meeting brakes and they go altogether for a kafedaki!

If the wiki Greeks think this is impossible or outrageous - think twice: no UN decision can be above and higher than the UN charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which describe the rights related to self-determination and nationhood. The decision is just a temporary patch up about a technical naming convention: it is not a statement of politcal thought or siding in the international fora from a daily perspective. Of course, its very political in the country capitals - this I do not deny.

I hope the wiki Greeks don't come flaming at this, I understand it may go against their principled understanding of politics - but real life in the international political insitutions is much softer and measured than some of then seem to appreciate, or that is evident by some of the official statements or decisions.

Peace&love --Modi 20:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That really brought a tear to my eye, Modi. It's also cute when I affectionately call my X friends Macadamia nuts and they call me a Turk - despite the Greeks having thrown off the Turkish yoke a century earlier. Greeks are well aware that the world doesn't know or care enough about the issue to refrain from calling the FYROM "Macedonia" or people X "Macedonians", but that does not mean they cannot or should not express their legitimate grievances, or, as you suggest, that they are "heartless" or "embarassed" to do so. We live in the real world and not everyone has to agree with you.--Theathenae 09:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians wiki

What about the current Macedonians article?

Is this voting an attempt to justify the vandalizing of Macedonians? If the wiki about Macedonian Slavs replace the wiki about Macedonians would this be like vandalizing the original wiki, or not?

MATIA 11:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)