Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 10

Kanchov & Weigand
Македонците са чисти българи,а не тяхна подгрупа каквато са посочени в статията. Can we get a look at the actual quotes, because if this is going to be based on hearsay as it currently is, I'm going to remove that statement completely and replace with entirely with Britannica's (which mentions only two ethnic groups: Greeks and Slavs).--Domitius 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture yet again
Also please consider a replacement for Vojdan Chernodrinski.  /FunkyFly.talk_  18:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough with this bullshit of yours Fly. Chernodrinski is Macedonian, just as Misirkov. Bomac 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But if he declared as Bulgarian, you can hardly undubiously claim him as "Macedonian".--Domitius 21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They've also declared as Macedonians. Bomac 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't you find someone who declared only as "Macedonian", someone like Metodija Andonov Cento perhaps? Apparently he's significant enough to be featured amongst other "Macedonians" (despite the fact that one declared as Greek and one as Bulgarian) on the cover of Alexander Donski's Etnogenetskite razliki pomeđu makedoncite i bugarite. You've already honored the first two here (and given us all a good laugh in the process). The third great "Macedonian" could be featured here.--Domitius 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough with monopolisation of the pics of Macedonians. Will it be this or that, these people are Macedonians, born in Macedonia, declared as Macedonians. Bomac 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true macedonist! Congratulations!   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * @Bomac: Ethnic or regional? NikoSilver 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * @Niko: Can't you read man? It's ethnic Macedonians, and please stop being silly. Bomac 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * @Bomac: Read who, where? NikoSilly is offended 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bomac, this picture is supposed exemplify ethnic Macedonians. Misirkov is hardly the case, and neither is Chernodrinski, who sought refuge in Bulgaria, and wrote most of his works in Bulgarian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are wrong. Bomac 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No sources.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why dont you put Zhivko Chingo? He was featured at mk.wikipedia at some point. Or is he too recent for your claims of cultural continuity stretching back several millenia?   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not Slavs
I am Macedonian and not a Slav. Your poll is oppressing. I want this case reopened. --Bonina 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * According to my copy of The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Slavs are the peoples of central and eastern Europe who speak Slavic languages.--Domitius 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here, check it out --Bonina 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This publication is widely, and for a good reason, regarded as pseudoscience in the community.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another one then . This one comes from a historian, not a linguist. --Bonina 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alexander Donski does not have a degree in history, and has quite a daunting list of pseudoscientific ideas.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bonino, please stop, you're only digging yourself deeper. Many of Alexander Donski's theories are fringe views - to get the mainstream facts, go here.--Domitius 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Another one And, I am sorry but I will not accept a Greek and a Bulgarian to tell me what I am --Bonina 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can declare whatever you want, but to write about ethnic Macedonians as people, you need more backing than some irredentist propagandist site.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the Encyclopaedia Britannica . According to them: [the] largest group, calling themselves Macedonians (about two-thirds of the population), are descendants of Slavic tribes that moved into the region between the 6th and 8th centuries AD.--Domitius 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the language is mainly Slavic (but very very influenced by other non Slavic languages too), and it's very very difficult to classify a nation. Especially not by its language. Example: Are the Senegalese French? Id go with the imagined communities.--Bonina 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-Slavic languages, like Ancient Macedonian? Completely fringe theory, see also Rosetta Stone article for some "professors" claiming Ancient Macedonian was actually present day Slavic language. As a matter of fact, there is significant position that views the Macedonian language as a dialect with Bulgarian, albeit with Serbian influence.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-Slavic languages, like Turkish mainly. Latin also. Hebrew letters in our alphabet? What does the Rosetta stone have anything to do with this? its written in Greek, Egyptian, and some weird form of Arabic. --Bonina 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we agree on something. However, Britannica is pretty explicit, the population is Slavic, no traces of Ancient Macedonians.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, Britannica has based these claims on the language. Have they any other sources? And, while I am NOT saying that we are Ancient Macedonians, I am saying that its crazy to say that we are Slavs. We are mixed with Slavs, just as much as we are mixed with many others. --Bonina 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see Macedonism   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you two are, at least in part, arguing over mere definitions. Saying Macedonians are a "Slavic ethnic group" does not mean that all of their ancestors thousands of years ago were Slavs. No statement of that type would be true for any ethnic group. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable thing to say that Macedonians are a "Slavic ethnic group" in the cultural sense.--Pharos 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than a mainly Slavic language, our culture is outright Southern. The same culture as at least 20 other countries. And the only binding thing is the Macedonian. Albeit, Republic of Macedonia Macedonian.--Bonina 01:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what neanderthal had the grand idea to vandalise this article with the "Macedonian Bulgars" stuff, wrote it in Bulgarian too! --Emeraldher 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You unhistorical fools! All people living in North Greece are Macedonians-all of them! because the ancient Macedonian nation was created there. Shame on you to accept a slavian nation as greek-macedonian.I really doubt for the constancy of your contents on wikipedia. They ought to be refered as SLAVOMACEDONIANS (if not simply as history-counterfeiters nation)

Nicolaos Vasaras from Thessaloniki city-(real) Macedonia,Greece

Bonina, you embarrass all Macedonians with your crap. The real Macedonians are Slavs. Obviously not 100% Slavs because of ethnic intermarriage but still. And don't use Donski as a source. He makes all Macedonians look stupid.

Nicolaos Vasaras is correct. Solun (or 'Thessaloniki') is in the real Macedonia. Greece should return Aegean Macedonia to the real Macedonians. They annexed it in 1913 when Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece tricked the Macedonians into fighting Turkey, and then split it up between themselves.

Actually modern (slav) macedonians are a mixture of slavs and the 'original inhabitants' of the Balkans- whomever that may be. Genetic studies have shown that Macos, Serbs and Bulgarians stand apart from other slavs (including slovenians and western Croats) in that they assimilated a large part of the native Balkan population (hence aren't pure slavs). In the Macedonians case, Thracians, Illyrians and probably Greeks were assimilated. So who is to say that they don;t have some ancient Macedonian in them, It is very possible that they do. Just beause ancient macedonia was centred in northern Greece, it does not mean that the ancient macedonians live in Thessaloniki only. Obviously they were dispersed across the region. Now even after the deline of ancient greece, and all Roman, Slav and Turkish invasions, many descendents of Macedon would have remained where they are. However, the slavic incursions of 600AD saw a slaviisation of most of northern greece (ie Aegean Maedonia), and almost 100% of the rest. There was interbreeding between greek and slavic populations. This is shown by the genetic proximity between macedonians and greeks. Further suggesting the possibility that some ancient macedonian blood lies in all the peoples that lived in Macedonia. However, it should be noted that many of the Greeks that NOW live in greek macedonia were placed there (from other parts of GReece) by the government after the expulsion of slavs in 1950s. So are they the real Macedonians ? More like the real Athenians Hxseek 03:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the Yugoslavians who settled and mixed in Vardar Macedonia? What about the Macedonians regardless nationality born in USA,Canada,Australia?

As for the ANCIENT MACEDONES their descendants live more probably in Asia and Africa than in the region of Macedonia! they were absorbed in the greco-roman globalization Later populations were constantly transfered between Asia and Europe during byzantine and ottoman times

for example Lydia of Thyatira,a merchant who is portrayed as the first european Christian in Macedonia had minor asian origin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

History section
A red user has been copying information from history of the Republic of Macedonia to this article. This is not an article about a region, it is an article about a people. There's no point to flood the article with irrelevant historical information, let alone copy-pasted from other articles. Historical information on Macedonia exists in dozens of articles, including Demographic history of Macedonia, Macedonia (region), Macedonia (terminology) and more more more. I'll keep reverting such edits, there's been a consensus about this a long time ago. Also the genetics information provided... what can i say, personally I think such entries are bad for wikipedia's reputation. If other people think they're normal then go ahead and restore them. Miskin 08:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetics info is bad for wikipedia's reputation? Very interesting suggestion!Jingiby Historical information on Macedonia exists here too, but not entirely without Ancient times! Jingby 10:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeating information is generally disapproved in wikipedia, let alone when it comes to such a controversial and over-repeated topic. Your perception of "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" is not shared with mainstream scholarship, your edits are unsourced and abide by a certain nation's minority view. Such aspects of this article have been discussed dozens of times in the past, sourced and counter-sourced, and the article's currect state was the result of a painful editor consensus (you can go through the archives if you want). You can't just barge in and change it, especially with such poor argumentation and sourcing. Last but not least this is an article about a modern Slavic nation, and the history of the Slavic-speaking peoples of what is now called Republic of Macedonia (for it had different names in the past - see Macedonia (terminology). See also WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:ATT and WP:3RR. Miskin 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the genetics stuff, personally I think it's unencycopaedic, if for no good reason because it aims to provide proof a partisan POV, supported by stuff that the majority of readers cannot understand nor verify. I think it gives a bad imagine to wikipedia. This is of course something arguable. Miskin 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The same!Jingby 13:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)I do not resist any partizan or FYROM position, but thise facts are objective and makes the problem more clear!Jingby

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This Article
This article is such a mess!!!! It should be deleted. It is written according to the point of view of Greeks and Bulgarians. While I respect your views, Wikipedia is something that has all point of views, and therefore the Macedonian point of view should be acknowledged especially in an article about them. 900 Macedonians in Greece? Come on! Neutral estimates from non Macedonian groups (Ethnologue, Joshua Project, Human Rights Watch) all estimate around 200,000.

Uuttyyrreess 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It depend on what you mean when you say Macedonian. --Laveol 10:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OR would suggest 10,000 to 20,000 maximum ethnic Macedonians/Slavomacedonians exist in Greece. Read the very well sourced articles Minorities in Greece and Slavic language (Greece), as well as the estimates by the [Greek-POV-criticizing] Greek Helsinki Monitor which are based on the 2,900 votes for the Rainbow (political party). NikoSilver 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link (Greek Helsinki Monitor) by Niko Silver. This is what I found on page 20:

As official census data do not exist, and if they did they would not be reliable, we will mention here the most frequent estimate of some 200,000 Macedonian speakers in Greece (IHF, 1993:45; & Rizopoulos, 1993); the 1987 Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year 1987 gives an estimate of 180,000 (Banfi, 1994:5). Also, an anonymous Greek ethnologist gave an estimate of 200,000 for the community, among whom some 100,000 understand the language and a few thousands have a Macedonian conscience (Chiclet, 1994:8). Another scholar, based of a detailed estimate of 30,000 speakers in the Florina and Aridea area makes a global estimate of 100,000-150,000 Macedonian speakers throughout Greek Macedonia (Van Boeschoten, 1994). '''Thus, the 200,000 estimate for the Macedonian community seems reasonable''', also in view of the fact that the -naturally conservative- prefects of Greek Macedonia estimate the ‘idiom’ speakers at some 100,000 (Financial Times, 4/11/1992), also the estimate of the Jyllands Posten correspondent (17/7/1993).

So like I said neutral estimates are around 200,000 for the (Slavic) Macedonian community in Greece, and therefore stating that there are only 1000 is just unacceptable.

Uuttyyrreess 02:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Uuttyyrreess, your sources speak of the number of speakers of the language, not the size of the alleged ethnic minority. If you read that same report, it also tells us that the overwhelming majority self-identify as Greeks (Grkomani). Officially there is no such minority and in the infobox we stick with what's official. Don't feel sad, Greeks have to do the same thing - that's why at the Greeks article we say that there are 58,785 Greeks in Albania whereas there are sources claiming there are as many as 400,000 Greeks there.--Ploutarchos 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, the Greek community is under estimated in Albania just like the Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria. However, there is no reason why there can't be a paragraph in the article that explains the current situation, after all the more information, the better the article. Uuttyyrreess 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Slav ??
I was reading the article Not Slavs, 2 guys arguing about whether Macedonians are slavs

Macedonians ARE slavs. Yes, they have other influences too, but are predominantly Slavic. Macedonians (ie real macedonians, ecxluding Albanians and other minorities) would all say that they are Slavs. They have Slavic culture, slavic way of life, slavic religion, and identify with other slavic peoples

Your suggestion to the contrary is wrong. Full stop


 * Slavic culture, and above all, Slavic way of life? What the heck is a Slavic way of life. Take a look at other Slavs like the Russians, have you any idea how different our mentalities are? Slavic religion? So then the deduction is that Greeks are Slavs too? The only Slavic people we identify with are possibly the Serbs. Our culture, mentality and heritage are too mixed and complex to be simply called Slavic. --Emeraldher 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By Slavic religion the above user meant Slavic Mythology from which we gained the name of the city Veles, among other things. There still are traces of Slavic rituals in Macedonian folk tradition. Zaebangad 03:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Bulgaria to Macedonia as Germany is to Austria?
Interesting way of looking at it. But Macedonia wished to be independent from Bulgaria, whereas Austria was expelled from the German league by Prussia.

And Austrians see themselves as a 'German nation' without being 'Germans' (if you follow). Where as I am sure that Macedonians do not see themselves as neither Bulgarians nor as a Bulgarian nation Hxseek 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Macedonia wished to be independent from Bulgaria." No, the nation you call "Macedonia" was divided from Bulgaria by Serbian and later Yugoslav force; it was never an independent act of self-determination. Your selective interpretation of history leaves a lot to be desired. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Where as I am sure that Macedonians do not see themselves as neither Bulgarians nor as a Bulgarian nation" - In the face of the statistic that 60000 Macedonians applied for Bulgarian citizenship in the last year, including the former premier of Macedonia Lyubcho Georgievski, the above statement looks a little quaint. Lantonov 09:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You do realise that if you are a citizen of a country it means the government of that country offers consular support if you get into any problems, don't you? If ever something were to happen to these 60000 Macedonians, it would be Bulgaria's problem as well. And it more like: Macedonia is to Bulgaria as Slovakia is to the Czech Republic. Alex202.10.89.28 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree on both points. Lantonov 10:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Only 962 Macedonians living in Greece?
Are you fucken joking me? Go to northern 'Greece' aka Aegean Macedonia and see just how many of them are Greek, and how many of them are Macedonian


 * The Greeks (especially those in Aegean Macedonia) know this very well. But Wikipedia is where they come to propagate their romantic nationalist fantasies. --58.169.249.32 12:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to Florina and present yourself. Go on, do it. :P Druworos (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article about historical Greek census
Uuttyyrreess 04:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Greeks fire their own ambassador in Skopje for saying that Greece should face reality and recognize Macedonia


If Greeks are firing Greeks from their jobs just for sharing the same views as Macedonians, one could only imagine how scared the Macedonians in Greece must be to say that they are Macedonian. Uuttyyrreess 20:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, your wrong. I'm Macedonian and i went to Greece and said I'm macedonia. They don't care. I guess your greek probaley.

.≈Болеста - Лага со лага се рани.Вистината ќе си ја покажи главата пак беэ раэлика.wiki>--144.138.45.47 11:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians celebrate St. Elias in Meliti, Florina, Greece (New Video 2007)
Uuttyyrreess 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is proof of Macedonians in Greece, nobody can hide this, not even you Mr. Neutron  Uuttyyrreess 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Source for image
Where are you getting the data for the image showing Macedonian majority in the Blagoevgrad oblast? This is clearly not true since the last Bulgarian census records 5000 ethnic Macedonians in the country, 3000 in Blagoevgrad oblast vs. about 200000 Bulgarians. Mr. Neutron 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from "Ancient period"
I moved the following for discussion, since it is unsourced, contains weasel words, and promotes a pov: "and possibly the ancient Macedons -although the ruling class was subsequently Hellenized" --Ronz 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Macedonians
Imagine Greek and Bolgarian users are writteing in encyclopedia about Macedonians.IRONIC!!!Greek and Bolgarian propaganda! Whay dont you live as alone?Like Serbs did.Or we should take guns like Albanians did?? Makedonij 22:25, 21 August 2007 (KIZO)

Greeks are probably more qualified to write about Macedonians than anyone. As for the Bulgarians, I suppose they know more about your people (seeing as your ethnicity and language are related). Don't talk about propaganda... the bullshit coming out of your country gives new meaning to the word. Dragases (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Go on, take guns. Should be a laugh. Druworos (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

origins
I added some info about new DNA studies about macedonians. Interesting. I have taken a pretty neutral, stricly scientific view, with the conclusion they are a mixture of different ancestries. Hxseek 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing origins with ancestry. DNA alone cannot adequately describe an ethnic group's origins; other factors such as language, culture, history and the like are arguably a lot more important. In any case, the genetic references in the previous wording should be sufficient. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course You're right about culture and language defining an ethnic group's current status. I simply included info from a newer, more detailed study, although it is nothing particularly novel or controversial, simply confirms previous historical theories.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "I think you're confusing origins with ancestry. DNA alone cannot adequately describe an ethnic group's origins". As i said, i agree that DNA is only part of the story. But in today's scientific age i think not including such info limits the understanding and picture we can draw from an article. THis is in line with other articles in Wiki.

If there is anything in particular you do not agree with, please feel freee to discuss. The premise of the chapter is that The present-day ethnic Macedonians are the descendants of a mixture of peoples. The article is factual and written neutrally. Also, please check any preconceived agendas that you might have at the door. [User:Hxseek|Hxseek]] 01:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added Semino's study that calculates Haplogroup R1a to reach 35% among Macedonian Slavs. Kapnisma ? 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pitu Guli
Why is there a picture of Pitu Guli in this article? Although he was Macedonian by nationality he was ethnically Aromanian. I don't know how to properly remove it so can someone else? And maybe there should be at least one picture of somebody that the Bulgarians won't complain about like Boris Trajkovski or Kiro Gligorov or Koco Racin. Alex 202.10.89.28 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetic analysis
This should have a separate article because it is not a mainstream scientific hypothesis (ony a few peer-reviewed sources, some of the sources are not reliable sources). Other articles on ethnic groups do not include such information. The separate article could in future include a critique section etc. Andreas (T) 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you will find that you might be slightly incorrect.

1) Articles on other ethnic groups do have genetic info. See the Finnish, British, Croatian, etc, etc.

2) yes, the findings presented are theories. Yet vitrually everything we know is mere theory. So should we disregard and delete all that info as well ? ?

Furthermore, the study appears to be from credible scientists. Yes, it is still a relatively new field, but that is no reason to exclude it. I agree one should not accept the findings as fact, but they help shed some light on the topic, and are in keeping with historical theories and some other studies. THis fulfils the criteria of biological plausability and reproductability. That is why the section is styled in the from 'this study suggests, that they may ...

I agree that it may be a good idea to create a seperate article on origins. Until we do that, i think we should keep the info, so not to lose it. Hxseek 10:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already made a separate article at Genetic analysis of ethnic Macedonians (I did not delete "all of it"). Given that my edit was reverted and the Origin section was further edited, I asked for deletion of the article. I still strongly believe that this section should be moved to a separate article. Also, I second the idea that the section should be renamed Ascestry, since the origin of an ethnic group is more than who the ancestors were.

Note that in science, a theory is an established system of thoughts, as opposed to a hypothesis. Andreas (T) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with AndreasJS, that if genetic info is mentioned at all, it is done so in another article. The information currently in the article should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:OR.  I suggest it be moved to this talk page in the meantime. --Ronz 20:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think that one can mention some of the info. Then, yes, a seperate article would be good to elaborate and critique. I note that you are not editing out genetic info from other ethnic groups, and they are hypothesies too. Numerable pages on Wiki have been opened discussing these findings. So if you aim to make a scientific, unbiased critiquem, then aim it at all articles, not just this one

THe article itself does not posit the hypothesis. The hypothesis that modern macedonians have ancestors dating back to paleoloithic balkan times has been propsed for over a century by various historians and archeoligists. The study did not aim to prove this, but the data it generated support the abovementioned theories. Hxseek 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of Macedonians
I see some edit warring here about the numbers. The solution should be quite simple, source the original census documents that every country has and just add all the numbers together. We should probably differentiate between people with ethnic Macedonian ancestry and those who declare themselves as such by nationality, as there are many people in Canada, USA, etc. who declare themselves as Canadian, American, etc. though they come from ethnic Macedonian parents/grandparents etc. Capricornis 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Me again. The two additions that User: Makedonij did about macedonians in poland and czech are valid, as I've found them all over the web, and there are macedonian societies there, just that I am having trouble finding reliable census sources with the actual numbers, as the links Makedonij put are broken. They don't change the total number significantly though. Capricornis 17:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians
Did somebody see the articals of Macedonians Greeks or macedonians Bulgarian,there is no data sorces but nobody is cheanging them becouse we can all see that all of thouse who are cheanging the Macedonians arthicals are from Greek and Bulgarian origins.I once allready say that is IRONIC that thouse users are writting about ethnic Macedonians.

Imagine those sorces that they give!Ther ware 5000 Slavs in the battle for Thesalonica,what that means,that is 1/3 probebly of all Slavic population!If today a professional national army have 20000 armed mans and population of samble state is 2milions what is then the number of Slavs?Mybe 15.000,and how then thouse slavs can assimilated a millions of Macedonians,Greeks or others????Imagine just Aleksander Macedonian had 30.000 armed mans!!

Next about tsar Samuil,the Bulgarian historians baried a stone in 19cen.on which is written that he declare himself as Bulgarian,and the director of their national museum was saying that it was fake stone,today he is declaring that thouse stone is original becouse he has been promoted. The only one who wrotte about existing of Macedonians in Bulgaria,was fired or killd,and those country is today in EU like democratic state(dreem on),and about this Greeks are sayng that population of R.of Grees is populated 98% by Greeks,where on the world is that possible,the clear nation 98%(yeaa dreem on).Read the book of Bulgarian author Sthepan Micov Vlahov--Filozofskiot kluc na Makedonskiot identitet.

No body can denai exissting of Israel state today,even if they reenew it after 2000 years.the same case is whit Macedonia.The R.of Macedonia is a part of reenewd Macedonian state and every body on Balkan and the world will soon see that.

I can give you a millions of arguments based on proves not like those which they give.The whole Greece is argumentig that macedonia is 4000 years of Greek hystory on a theatre game written by Sokrat.I mean did some body reed Odisseya and Iliada the original,there are a 1000 words of Macedonian or for you Slavic origins,for example It says they were drinking Vineo,How Greeks say vine(VINO)?............. Makedonij 09:30 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course they were drinking vineo, as in Greek Fοίνος, from a Proto-Indo-European heritage, like Latin vin-, Germanic win- etc. For your information Fοίνος in pre-classical Greek would have been pronounced as /woinos/. So, seriously, if you're going to mount a linguistic argument, try reading a book on historical linguistics first. And not something by Giorgi Makedonski either :P Read a British, or American, or whatever else you think is objective, peer-reviewed, introductory book on historical linguistics. Then try to mount a linguistic argument, if you absolutely must (though linguistics is probably the single one field where Slavic Macedonians are thoroughly in the wrong) Druworos (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the ancient greek word Oinos (Οίνος = κρασί = wıne)?Giannis (Greek Makedonas)

I think here is a world encyclopedia but not a regional IT forum! Jingby 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Map
Please dont insert such garbage. The map is obviously falsified as it completely contradicts official censuses. Also alleged "source" has nothing to do with the map. ForeignerFromTheEast 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the source too, and I agree that it doesn't seem to support the map. -- ChrisO 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Identities
THe identities section keeps getting weighed down by users such as Jingiby who insist on propagating the idea that Macedonians are 'disoriented' Bulgarians, as he put it.

Whilst i agree it is appropriate to mention that the idea that Macedonians are western Bulgarians has existed amongst Bulgarians and non-Bulgarians alike, especially in the past, you do not have to keep on citing 'facts' about this. While they may well be facts, in the sense that bulgarian government actually beleives that macedonians are Bulgarians that have lost their way, and that 0.5% of Macedonians still call themselves Bulgarians, how is this exactly relevant? The article is meant to be macedonian identity, not the Bulgarian belief of Macedonian identity. You are just lengthening the article unnecessarily.

Whats more, it is chauvanistic and arrogant. Just because you add cited facts, it doesn;t cloak the fact that all you are doing is pushing your own agenda. These kind of intentions should not be a part of wikipedia. How can you seriously make claims that an entire nation is 'disoriented' about their identity, and make claims about irredentism without making the point that it is a minority of Macedonians who actively pursue the idea of a United Macedonia.

I reiterate, while i think that it is certainly valid to make the point of similarity between Macedonians and Bulgarians, stop pushing your greater Bulgarianism. This is an encyclopaedic article, not a propaganda forum. And it shall stop. Hxseek 11:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And in fact, you are ignoring basic historic facts as to why Macedonians have always been seperate to Bulgarians.

The population of Macedonia consists of Bulgarians, Turks, Albanians, Vlachs, Jews and Gypsies!

Gjorche Petrov

Sample statistical data from neutral sources

The following data reflects the population of the wider reason of Macedonia as it was defined by Serbs and Bulgarians (Aegean, Vardar and Pirin), which was significantly larger that the traditional region known to the Greeks.

Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha (1904)

Encyclopaedia Britannica

The 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica gave the following statistical estimates about the population of Macedonia:
 * Bulgarians (described in encyclopaedia as "Slavs, the bulk of which is regarded by almost all independent sources as Bulgarians"): ca. 1,150,000, whereof, 1,000,000 Orthodox and 150,000 Muslims (the so-called Pomaks)
 * Turks: ca. 500,000 (Muslims)
 * Greeks: ca. 250,000, whereof ca. 240,000 Orthodox and 14,000 Muslims
 * Albanians: ca. 120,000, whereof 10,000 Orthodox and 110,000 Muslims
 * Vlachs: ca. 90,000 Orthodox and 3,000 Muslims
 * Jews: ca. 75,000
 * Roma: ca. 50,000, whereof 35,000 Orthodox and 15,000 Muslims

In total 1,300,000 Christians (almost exclusively Orthodox), 800,000 Muslims, 75,000 Jews, a total population of ca. 2,200,000 for the whole of Macedonia.

Independent Point of View
The region was further identified as predominantly Greek by French F. Bianconi in 1877 and by Englishman Edward Stanford in 1877. He maintained that the urban population of Macedonia was entirely Greek, whereas the peasantry was of mixed, Bulgarian-Greek origin and had Greek consciousness but had not yet mastered the Greek language. European ethnographs and linguists until the Congress of Berlin usually regarded the language of the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. French scholars Ami Boué in 1840 and Guillaume Lejean in 1861, Germans August Heinrich Rudolf Griesebach in 1841, J. Hahn in 1858 and 1863, August Heinrich Petermann in 1869 and Heinrich Kiepert in 1876, Slovak Pavel Jozef Safarik in 1842 and the Czechs J. Erben in 1868 and F. Brodaska in 1869, Englishmen James Wyld in 1877 and Georgina Muir Mackenzie and Adeline Paulina Irby in 1863, Serbians Davidovitch in 1848, Constant Desjardins in 1853 and Stefan I. Verković in 1860, Russians Viktor I. Grigorovič in 1848, Vinkenty Makushev and M.F. Mirkovitch in 1867, as well as Austrian Karl Sax in 1878 published ethnography or linguistic books, or travel notes, which defined the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. Austrian doctor Josef Müller published travel notes in 1844 where he regarded the Slavic population of Macedonia as Serbian.

The predominant view of a Bulgarian character of the Slavs in Macedonia was reflected in the borders of future autonomous Bulgaria as drawn by the Constantinople Conference in 1876 and by the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878. Bulgaria according to the Constantinople Conference included present-day Vardar and Pirin Macedonia and excluded the predominantly “patriarchist” southern Macedonia. The Treaty of San Stefano, which reflected the maximum desired by Russian expansionist policy, gave Bulgaria the whole of Macedonia except Thessaloniki, the Chalcidice peninsula and the valley of the Aliakmon.

Independent Point of View


Independent sources in Europe between 1878 and 1918 generally tended to view the Slavic population of Macedonia in two ways: as Bulgarians and as Macedonian Slavs.

German scholar Gustav Weigand was one of the most prominent representatives of the first trend with the books Ethnography of Macedonia (1924, written 1919) and partially with The Aromanians (1905). The author described all ethnic groups living in Macedonia, showed empirically the close connection between the western Bulgarian dialects and the Macedonian dialects and defined the latter as Bulgarian. The International Commission constituted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1913 to inquire into causes and conduct of the Balkan Wars also talked about the Slavs of Macedonia as about Bulgarians in its report published in 1914. The Commission had eight members from Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and the United States.

The term "Macedonian Slavs" was used by scholars and publicists in three general meanings:
 * as a politically convenient term to define the Slavs of Macedonia without offending Serbian and Bulgarian nationalism;
 * as a distinct group of Slavs different from both Serbs and Bulgarians, yet closer to the Bulgarians and having predominantly Bulgarian ethnical and political affinities;
 * as a distinct group of Slavs different from both Serbs and Bulgarians having no developed national consciousness and no fast ethnical and political affinities (the definition of Cvijic).

An instance of the use of the first meaning of the term was, for example, the ethnographic map of the Slavic peoples published in (1890) by Russian scholar Zarjanko, which identified the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians. Following an official protest from Serbia the map was later reprinted identifying them under the politically correct name "Macedonian Slavs".

The term was used in a completely different sense by British journalist Henry Brailsford in Macedonia, its races and their future (1906). The book contains Brailford's impressions from a five-month stay in Macedonia shortly after the suppression of the Ilinden Uprising and represents an ethnographic report. Brailford defines the dialect of Macedonia as neither Serbian, nor Bulgarian, yet closer to the second one. An opinion is delivered that any Slavic nation could "win" Macedonia if it is to use the needed tact and resources, yet it is claimed that the Bulgarians have already done that. Brailsford uses synonymously the terms "Macedonian Slavs" and "Bulgarians", the "Slavic language" and the "Bulgarian language". The chapter on the Macedonians Slavs/the Bulgarians is titled the "Bulgarian movement", the IMRO activists are called "bulgarophile Macedonians".

The third use of the term can be noted among scholars from the allied countries (above all France and the United Kingdom) after 1915 and is roughly equal to the definition given by Cvijic (see above).

Siegfried Jakoby, secretary to Einstein, who in an article 'Macedonia - What I Saw There' (1927) writes: "Macedonia is a country populated by pure Bulgarians; the Serbs there now are only settlers and colonists. The Macedonian Bulgarians are by no means an amorphous half-savage mass living there by chance but are pure Bulgarians, with a national consciousness created long ago, who, for almost a century, have been fighting - cut off from Bulgaria - for their political and spiritual freedom. And during the years after the War it is possible to see in Macedonia how valorously the Macedonian Bulgarians there are fighting for their sacred rights. The Macedonian Bulgarians are fighting with an idealism without parallel, and whoever calls these militants 'brigands' and 'gangsters', is a deliberate liar and a schemer. ... The centre of Macedonia are the districts of Ohrid, Prilep, Prespa, Moglena, Ostrovo, Kostour, Veles, Skopje, Voden, Melnik. There the popula­tion is pure Bulgarian - not only the language, but the entire spiritual life is Bulgarian. In these places I spoke with hundreds of peasants, workers and in­telligentsia and all immediately assured me that they were Bulgarians and that they wished to be Bulgarians in their own land. All over Macedonia I was able to see that the population is peaceloving and very weary from the recent wars; but they told me - we shall have to take to arms again because we are being tortured and are not left in peace. The Macedonians are Bulgarians and their duty is to work for the liberation of this land, it is their duty to their children."

Declaration of the local Bulgarian Action Committees in 1941.

BULGARIANS!

''Macedonia is free! Free is Macedonia forever!'' The end of the rule under which Macedonia suffered until yes­terday had come. The centuries-long enslavement of Macedonia - Greek, Turkish, Serbian, spiritual and political, and in XX C. eco­nomic and social as well, had finished forever, great ideal, THE LIBERTY, for which Macedonia had fought for centuries lead century-old fight with unprecedented heroism and numerous sacrifices is now reality.The efforts of Tsar Boris III to put that great deed to an end were accomplished successfully and finally. The leader of one great world revolution, the leader of the German nation ordered to his brave and victorious armies together with his ally Italy to gain the freedom of our amiable Motherland, of our great martyr Macedonia. Macedonia is free and is already in the Bulgarian national com­munity.

More than 20,000 people from countries such as Moldova and Macedonia have taken up Bulgarian citizenship in the past few years, and at least 55,000 more are on the waiting list. All applicants need to provide is a birth certificate and say that they have no convictions, and then sign a statement claiming they are Bulgarians by origin. The process takes up to a year, but it could be fast-tracked to a couple of months for a higher fee. Sunday Telegraph 13/08/2006

In late summer of 2007 the vormer Premier of RoM Lyubcho Georgievski published his book ("Facing the truth") in Bulgaria. In it he reveals his attitude to Macedonian identity and Bulgarian past in the Republic of Macedonia: "Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionary tradition comes exactly from Bulgarian Exarchate part of Macedonian people. We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were teachers of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Macedonia."<

ФОРУМ:Дали навистина Делчев се изјаснувал како Бугарин и зошто?

АКАДЕМИК КАТАРЏИЕВ: Ваквите прашања стојат. Сите наши луѓе се именувале како Бугари... ...Во идеологијата на Ванчо Михајлов и на оној дел на македонското национално движење коешто на чело со Тодор Александров се приближи кон Бугарија, македонскиот народ беше збирна именка. Таа се однесуваше на сите жители во Македонија - Бугари, Албанци, Власи, Турци... Тие работи треба да се имаат предвид, за да не се дојде до погрешни заклучоци. МАКЕДОНСКАТА СВЕСТ ПОЧНА ДА СЕ РАЗВИВА ДУРИ ПО ПРВАТА СВЕТСКА ВОјНА, највеќе во Србија и во Грција, бидејќи таму се спречи бугарската пропаганда, се затворија бугарските училишта, а во Македонија мрежата на бугарскиот школски систем беше дури погуста отколку во Бугарија. Инаку ЗА МАКЕДОНСКА ИНТЕЛИГЕНЦИјА МОЖЕ ДА СЕ ЗБОРУВА ДУРИ ПО 1945 г. и тоа благодарение постоењето на државниот субјект НР Македонија во рамките на југославија. ТАА МАКЕДОНСКА ИНТЕЛИГЕНЦИјА СЕ РАЗВИ ПРВО ВРЗ ОСНОВА НА РЕПРЕСИјАТА, ЗА ДА МОЖЕ ДА СЕ РАЗВИЕ И ТАА СВЕСТ ...Така ВРЗ ОСНОВА НА ВЕќЕ ФОРМИРАНАТА БУГАРСКА НАЦИјА ВО МАКЕДОНИјА се прави сепарација. ТИЕ БЕА СО БУГАРСКА НАЦИОНАЛНА СВЕСТ, А МАКЕДОНСКА НАЦИјА СЕ СОЗДАДЕ ПО ВТОРАТА СВЕТСКА ВОјНА ОД ПОЛИТИЧКИ ПРИЧИНИ (!!!)

Jingby 12:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am well acquianted with all of the above. By the way using another wikipedia article for a source is hardly heavy evidence. Nontheless I do not disagree.

As i have already said, you need to stop inserting your 'facts' just to justify your political dreams. Our personl feelings should not colour the article, maybe it would be better off if all south slavs were united, who knows -that's not the point.

Because all your editions to try and prove that Macedonians are bulgarian just mnakes the section long winded, and it reads like a debate rather than a description of what Macedonians identity is. The fact of the matter is: macedonians are considered a seperate identity by everyone except Bulgaria (for better or worse). THis article is not a space for you to vent your disagreement with this. Please refer to the whole Bosnian identity issue for comparison.

Final point: one may argue that all south slavs are the same. BUt this will not sit well these days. Macedonians and Bulgarians are two ends of one spectrum. Very much of what Macedonia is today is owed to medieval Bulgaria, yes. But just because modern bulgaria is "Bulgaria" doesn;t mean that 21th century Macedonians just sprang into existence after WWII. THe people that lived in Macedonia had many contributions to THe bulgarian Empire. If they were called Bulgarians back in medieval times doesn;t change that fact. One can make arguements as to why Macedonians are seperate from Bulgarians.

1) different substrate of autochthonous people (Pelasgians vs Thracians) 2) Different slavic tribes in 700s (Dragovits vs '7 clans and Severs') 3) Different groups of Bulgars settled in Macedonia vs Bulgaria 4) The core Bulgarian territory only corresponded to what is now modern Bulgaria. Macedonia was given by Byzantine to Bulgaria becuase it was virtually completely slavic, and to avoid war at a weak point in Byzantine power 5) There was a seperate 'west Bulgarian' bishopric during the first bulgarian empire 6) When Bulgaria fell, the western part, ie macedonia remained. THe byzantines crushed the eastern part, with its capital Preslav. They had no wish to destroy the western part (ie Macedonia) because they recognised that it was the eastern part (ie bulgaria proper) that was the enemy. Only after the leaders of Macedonia continued using the name Bulgarians-probably for prestige reasons and to gain support, that Byzantine destroyed the western part too. 7) Before the ottoman invasion, macedonia was part of serbia, bulgaria was part of Byzantine empire 8) The lack of a unified Macedonian ethnic consciousness doesn;t mean they were Bulgarian. Just as many saw themselves as Serbs or Greeks. If they were bulgarians then surely there would be no issue, would there? 9) First hand accounts by WWII surviviors in Macedonia who perceived the Bulgarians as foreigners.

SO there are many historical and sociological reasons why they are seperate. Yes much of their history is common, and they are very similar. But so are Serbs and Croats, but try telling them they are the same ! SO you must move away from your ideas that Bugaria owns Macedonia, its people and its heritage. Hxseek 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the Macedonian nation "created" in 1944 by Tito? Lets have a look...
No it wasn't. The ethnogenesis took part between the late 19th century and 1944. Tito officialized what was already there, and that was a significant political step that further enhanced this ethnogenesis. What is your point? Who denies the existence of the early manifestations for a separate ethnic identity after 1870? NikoSilver 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The national awakening of the ethnic Macedonians can be said to have begun in the late 19th century and early 20th century - this is the time of the first expressions of ethnic nationalism by limited groups of intellectuals in Belgrade, Sofia, Istambul, Thessaloniki and St. Petersburg. Jingby 05:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to '''Was the Macedonian nation "created" in 1944 by Tito? Lets have a look...'''

We have there 5 photos from different books and newspapers. One from the articles was written from ethnic Bulgarian, two others from people with obscured ethnitity, one from ethnic Macedonian and the last is extract from local census from 1920s. Sorry but this are the best proves about Macedonian identity before Tito! All of them ware created outside the borders of your country! This is very scantilу! Jingby 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Hxseek
I was not going to take part in this and found it rather entertaining ... before I saw Hxseek's last comment. Firstly, I have to say, I, personally, recognize that there is a separate Macedonian identity at the moment, but as all the sources tell (and as so much ethnic Macedonian academicians acknowledge) there was no such thing prior to the beginning of the XX century and most of the people living on the territory of nowadays Republic of Macedonia did obviously identify as Bulgarians (this is a fact - they just couldn't have fooled the whole world, could they?). Nonetheless if they feel like ethnic macedonians today, we cannot deny this either. If they didn't mess with the history and memory of Bulgaria and Bulgarians there wouldn't be any problem. The real one is that they persist to call people that more than obviously felt Bulgarians Macedonians (in the modern ethnical sense) - see the MK article about Nikola Vaptsarov for instance (lived in Bulgaria, fought for Bulgaria, wrote about Bulgarians, but still obviously an ethnic Macedonian as he was born in Macedonia.

Now, let's start with your comments: They had no wish to destroy the western part (ie Macedonia) because they recognised that it was the eastern part (ie bulgaria proper) that was the enemy. Only after the leaders of Macedonia continued using the name Bulgarians-probably for prestige reasons and to gain support, that Byzantine destroyed the western part too.'
 * I see you are a professional archaeologist as you have with one sentence defined the borders of the Thracians and Pelasgians (and where did Illyrians go?)
 * The same goes for the slavic tribes and for the differences between the tribes in the early years of their settlement in the Balkans (do you even know that scholars define two groups of Slavic tribes on the Balkans: Eastern - Bulgarian (including the tribes in Macedonia) and Western - Serbocroatian.
 * This is one of the funniest - Different groups of Bulgars - they were led by two brothers. That's all I'll say on the 'differences' between them.
 * 'The core Bulgarian territory only corresponded to what is now modern Bulgaria. Macedonia was given by Byzantine to Bulgari a becuase it was virtually completely slavic, and to avoid war at a weak point in Byzantine power' - completely untrue - the core Bulgaria included a lot of land north of the Danube and only to Stara Planina in the South. I see you have already forgotten about the Bulgars that settled in Macedonia. ' Macedonia was given by Byzantine to Bulgari' I'll live without a comment again.
 * I guess you're talking about the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid which was established by the Bulgarian ruler Boris I in the theme which was later called Bulgaria? I guess you do.
 * ' When Bulgaria fell, the western part, ie macedonia remained. THe byzantines crushed the eastern part, with its capital Preslav.

Judging from this I reckon Medieval history is not your strongest. Ever heard of Krum of Bulgaria. When you take the capital you take the whole country (Medieval). part of Byzantine empire' - should I comment on this. You've come here to comment on Bulgaria and drop things like this? again Medieval history. doesn;t mean they were Bulgarian. Just as many saw themselves as Serbs or Greeks. If they were bulgarians then surely there would be no issue, would there?'
 * 'Before the ottoman invasion, macedonia was part of serbia, bulgaria was
 * 'The lack of a unified Macedonian ethnic consciousness

The issue as I see it is in the very fact that they thought they were Bulgarians.

Sorry, if I was too harsh, but from all your edits I judge that you are comletely unfamiliar with the Balkan history as a whole, but still Persist editing it. I assume it's in the interest of NPOV, but this comment was really ... I'm not even sure how to label it. I hope there are no hard feelings. -- L a v e o l  T 08:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I claim no expertise, but i do think i know something. As i said i do not deny the whole bulgarian thing. And some of your points are incorrect


 * I meant to say Paeonians (not Pelasgians) my typo, sorry.
 * the east slavic / west slavic thing is a modern classification of language. Not the original tribal classification, which were all very undifferentiated back then.
 * the Bulgars that settled in Macedonia did not really manage to establish a bulgar state in macedonia, unlike their kin in Bulgaria proper. The level of Bu;gar presence is debatable in Macedonia, whereas it is obviously undeniable in macedonia
 * My point about the western Bulgarian empire is that it is possible that rulers can claim lineage from dynasties to gain support and bolster their image. This has been seen many times in history
 * as for you last point that slavs living in Macedonia saw themselves as Bulgarians, you obviously are simplifying things. back then the vast majority of Balkaners, especially in the region of our interest were uneducated peasants. They had little sense of identity. Their affiliation gravitated towards the village chief/ elder, the local church and the language they spoke. It is doubtful they had a 'greater vision' whereby they had a sense of common belonging. It is known that an entire village claimed to be greek, whereas its neighbours would be 'bulgarian'. This was rather haphazard, and based in whether Greece or Bulgaria had religious jurisdiction iver the area, rather than true ethnic origins.

So no, i did not take your 'criticism' too harshly at all. I suggest you brush up on your history knowledge, and get some basic common sense on your way. Cheers Hxseek 08:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman government restored the once unlawfully destroyed Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of "Bulgarian Exarchate" by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870. The original Exarchate extended over present-day Moesia, Thrace without the Vilayet of Adrianople, as well as over north-eastern Macedonia. After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%), the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. The Exarchate was also represented in the whole of southern Macedonia and the Vilayet of Adrianople by vicars. Thus, the borders of the Exarchate included all Bulgarian districts in the Ottoman Empire.

The immediate effect of the partition of Ottoman empire during the Balkan Wars was the anti-Bulgarian campaign in areas under Serbian and Greek rule. The Serbians expelled Exarchist churchmen and teachers and closed Bulgarian schools and churches (affecting the standing of as many as 641 schools and 761 churches). Thousands of Bulgarian refugees left for Bulgaria, joining a still larger stream from devastated Aegean Macedonia, where the Greeks burned Kukush, the center of Bulgarian politics and culture, as well as much of Serres and Drama. Bulgarian language (including the Macedonian dialects) was prohibited, and its surreptitious use, whenever detected, was ridiculed or punished.The Ottomans managed to keep the Adrianople region, where the whole Thracian Bulgarian population was put to total ethnic cleansing by the Young Turks' army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is enciclopedia not patriotical page for Macedonian identity during the centuries! Jingby 09:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's nice. I recall saying the same thing. Hxseek 10:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i really don;t think I;m saying anything that goes against what you say, anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 10:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand you! I chanched for example in this sentence - During the 1930s the Comintern prepared a Resolution about the creation of Macedonian nation - creation with recognition - but you reverts even it! Jingby 06:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i will leave it for now. But i think a couple of changes still need to be made, plus a few grammatical corrections so the paragraph reads better Hxseek 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Jingby 10:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, i think we are just keep on adding peripheral ideas not central to the theme of macedonian identity, serving only to lengthen the section unnecessarily. Example:

"Even though, officially, only about 0.5% of the population identify as Macedonian Bulgarians today, but around 50,000 have recently applied for a Bulgarian passport. During the last few years in which Bulgaria saw rising economic prosperity and admission to the EU, many citizens of Republic of Macedonia applied for Bulgarian citizenship. All applicants need to sign a statement claiming they are Bulgarians by origin.[24]"

This 0.5% of people could actually represent Bulgarians who live in Macedonia rather than macedonians who identify as bulgarians. And migration patterns for economic reasons hardly constitue a real reflection of peoples identity. Hxseek 09:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The same is with these 5,000 people in Bulgaria. They are less than 0.5% of the population in Bulgaria! See Bulgarians in the Republic of Macedonia! Jingby 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I;m just making the section better, more readable, I donlt think anything cotradicts what you beleive. So you don;t have to revert. If you really want, you can include your 'data' on migration or minorities section. Hxseek 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, talk before editing here! Regards! Jingby 10:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. The rule is still: be WP:BOLD, that's what Hxseek did. And you don't own the page, so you don't have the right to demand of others to come to the talk page and get your permission before they edit.
 * Hxseek was making good-faith additions that may well have been an improvement to the article. Parts of his version at least are clearly better than the previous version. If you have objections against it, it's your responsibility to engage in a meaningful, constructive discussion about them. Don't blindly revert. You need to discuss first, not he. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Statistics
Why are we using numbers of people with macedonian citizenship to determine the numbers of ethnic Macedonians? Someone with Macedonian citizenship could be an ethnic Macedonian, Albanian, Turk, Vlach, etc. There are 962 people holding Macedonian citizenship in Greece, not 962 ethnic Macedonians. There are 200,000 Macedonians in Greece, but if that number is not acceptable for some of you, the Greek Helsinki Monitor stated that out of these 200,000 Slavic-speakers, 10,000-30,000 have a clear ethnic Macedonian national identity. The 170,000 rest call themselves dopii (locals). Why shouldn't we base the number of Macedonians in Greece on the 30,000 estimate by Greek Helsinki Monitor? Why is it based on holders of citizenship? Fatmanonthehorse 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stick to the official census, please, and refrain from comments like 'there are this hundreds of tthousands Ethnic Macedonians in Greece' without a reliable source (and the Greek Helsinki committee is not) -- L a v e o l  T 01:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly: Why is it acceptable to count the number of Republic of Macedonia citizens as "ethnic Macedonians", as citizens could be ethnic Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, etc.
 * Secondly: Why is the International Helsinki Monitor, seen here a non-acceptable source?


 * And why are you telling me to stick to a census that counts citizens instead to ethniciies, this article is about ethnic Macedonians not Macedonian citizens and who do you think you are judging what source is acceptable or not without any explanation?

Fatmanonthehorse 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the only estimate. Greece does not conduct census based on nationality. ForeignerFromTheEast 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw if we erase the figure for Greece, we should also erase the figure for Italy and Germany for example, as they are also based on holders of citizenships and not ethnic origin. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then erase all of the numbers that are based on citizenship and not ethnic origin!!! I'm not just picking on the Greece number, erase the others as well.Fatmanonthehorse 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we will have to lower the total estimate from 1.7 to 1.6 million. ForeignerFromTheEast 04:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. Fatmanonthehorse 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Images for deletion
Do not reinsert images for deletion. When their copyright is fixed then you can insert them back. There is not need to have red links when they are deleted. ForeignerFromTheEast 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop it. I'm going to reintroduce the images for the time being; their status is being investigated on commons; if and when they will be deleted they will automatically get removed here. There's no harm in keeping them until then. They were apparently uploaded in good faith and with a serious effort at getting them licensed/tagged correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. They were uploaded after they were deleted from here, under glaringly falsified "self made" licences. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Trijazicnik.png
Interestingly, this document is written in modern Macedonian cyrillic with letters like љ, ћ, џ, yet it is supposedly published in 1875, long before there was a separate Macedonian alphabet. Interestingly, the Albanian and Turkish versions are also written in the same alphabet. Can anybody explain this? Andreas (T) 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is written in the Serbian alphabet, in Belgrade. I guess a Serbian alphabet typewriter was available. ForeignerFromTheEast 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hxseek 11:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Jingiby
We have been going round and round in circles regarding the paragraph regarding todays Macedonians who identify as Bulgarians. You insist on including information about migration of Macedians to Bulgaria, 'in light of economic prosperity in Bulgaria'. I don't think this is particularly pertinent to Identities. You are confounding the issue, confusing yourself. There is a difference between having been previously seen as Bulgarians, and even still being thought of as Bulgarian by some, and migrating to Bulgaria for jobs and economic reasons. I can see you really want to push the point the Macedonians are Bulgarians. ANd yes, you may have certain good reasons for that, but i think you are just flogging a dead horse with the last point. Not only that, you word the whole thing poorly, making an otherwise well written paragraph less coherent and uneccesarily longer.

So to compromise I have left the sentence that certain Macedonians continued to identify as Bulgarians. Hxseek 23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not recommend yow to delete soursed info! Otherwise I will set again the objective info about your vormer Presidents and Premiers who have been declared Bulgarian origin during 20th and 21th Century! This is the compromise! Jingby 08:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just becuase info is sourced, it doesn;t make it relevant and in the best interest of the article. You seem to be missing this rather important point. Unfortunately, all you are trying to do is add tid -bits of info and 'facts' to support your claim that Macedonians are Bulgarians. Take a step back and breathe man ! The article is abour Macedonian people. If you really wish, open up your own page titled "macedonians - the lost Bulgarians" or something similar, and i;m sure yoou'd be able to fill page after page of facts supporting your view, or wish, or whatever it may be. But at the moment you are only cluttering the article by continually adding random bits of info, not paying attention to the fact that your a ruining the flow of the article with your poor english and POV-pushing agenda. If you continue to aggressively pursue this agenda of yours I shall be forced to ask for mediation, but I;d rather it be avoided. Hxseek 11:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably the truth is not always nice for us, but it does not matter for an encyclopedia! Jingby 11:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have know-how of the truth. You don't like it. You just want to impose your fake great-bulgarians shits.Basta !Maleshevski 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From a moderate tone, I feel that Jingiby probably has good intentions, and is reminiscent of when Bulgaria was once a formidable enmpire. Point of the matter is, the ethnicity debate is a futile excercise. It is exactly the same deal with the Bosnicas debate, and the debate about whether Paganians, etc were Serbs or Croats. I am just trying to make people see that we cannot conclusively say that Macedonians were Bulgarians. Yes there is evidence they were referred to as such by 19th century demographers, but who is to say they are correct ? ? As discussed in the article, 'Bulgarian' was a bit of a blanket statement in regards to its use in Macedonia. We cannot be sure whther the common person identified himself as a Bulgarian, or whatever. Probably neither, but rather identified with his religion, the local village and the language he spoke. THis coupled with population exchanges and the ever changing borders and rulership over Macedonia makes it very simplistic to say Macedonians are Bulgarians. Yes there is a strong case, but one should practice restraint from forcibly trying to 'prove' their own point of view, resulting in cluttering the article with edits that simply repeat what has already been said (and written in pretty poor english as well) Hxseek 04:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Some defects
I have seen some defects.First "Arrival of Bulgars" is full with lies.If it was right Macedonians would speak Turkic langage but they don't.There aren't evidence that this Kuber was brother of Asparuh.There aren't evidence about contacts with Dunabian Bulgaria. The archaeologist Ivan Mikulchik say Kuber and Kutrigurs were expeled from Macedonia in present day Albania! Also he sad nothing about "later Bulgar archaeological culture throughout Macedonia". He talks only for bulgarian military camps from the time of bulgarian rule. Second - macedonian Slavs were christianizated not in Bulgaria, but in Byzantium earlier.For example St Kiril implemented conversion to Christianity at Bregalnitsa region BEFORE bulgarians came! There are a lot of bulshits for Ivan Michaylov's IMRO during the WWwar, but no word for liberation of towns Kichevo and Debar in 1943 from macedonian partisans. NO word about Josif Josifovski. There are suggestions bulgarian army liberated Macedonia from nazi-German, what is lie. They just walked after macedonians partisans. It is real anti-nazi fight, not like these pro-bulgarian nonsenses. I saw that this article is made previously from bulgarians, whos are everything else but not honest!!! It must be corrected!Maleshevski 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll allow only one comment on all the things you said (the other things do not even deserve such - especially the part about the real anti-nazi fight - the term itself sounds ridiculous). Yes ethic Macedonians do not speak a slavic language, but neither do Bulgarians ;) -- L a v e o l  T 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BRITANNICA 2007 SAYS 1.8% OF GREECE ARE MACEDONIANS!!!!
Fatmanonthehorse 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet it comes from the world's best and top encyclopedia, you got a problem with it? Talk to them. Fatmanonthehorse 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not come from the Encyclopedia though. They are simply publishing it. Its "unofficial" as they say. ForeignerFromTheEast 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of that, if the top encyclopedia in the world thinks its legitimate to publish this information in their academic products, then its legitimate here too. Fatmanonthehorse 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unofficial sources are, as the name suggests, unofficial hence the figures are not legitimate.--   Avg     00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You people are outrageous. Every ethnic group page in wikipedia has unofficial estimates, yet when it comes to Macedonians it has to be the lowest number possible, but that's not the point. Not only that, but the 962 number that you people so strongly support doesn't even count ethnic Macedonians but instead the number of Macedonian citizenship holders in Greece. How can you even consider counting the number of citizenship holders as the number of ethnic Macedonians in Greece? And then here we have the world's biggest Encyclopedia saying that there are 200,000 Macedonians and yet you guys are denying Britannica? Fatmanonthehorse 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's really sad to live in one's own bubble so I should feel sympathy for you but anyway. There are not 200,000 Slavomacedonians in Greece. Sure there are 2,500,000 Macedonians, but they are GREEKS. The only Slavomacedonians in Greece are those with FYROM Nationality, hence 962. That's it. Britannica is not citing any source at all, just quoting a figure from somewhere (where?). Last election, only 2,955 votes for Rainbow party, which are some of your folk and some marginal leftists. That's the plain truth. It's difficult to face it I know, when you live in a lie, but you're welcome to actually VISIT Greece and search all over Macedonia for these 200,000 people. They must be hiding very well! --   Avg     01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel sorry for you, living in your dream of ethnic and racial purity like that of Hitler's. Please, leave politics out of this. Because when you say that there are no Macedonians in Greece except the 962 migrants, thats plain old politics talking, that is not the truth, just like how some people deny the Holocaust from happening, so are you denying Greece's racial diversity. Please, leave politics and racism out of this, try to find academic sources like I did. Fatmanonthehorse 01:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I do not consider a reference to an "unofficial source" academic. How about the results of the elections? Not good for you? I guess Greece has a dictatorship and Slavomacedonians are longing for freedom?--   Avg     01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Electoral results??? Again, stay away from politics. Again, every ethnic group page in wikipedia has unofficial estimates, the one I found was published by Britannica. Fatmanonthehorse 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, electoral results last time I checked were an official source and legitimate.--   Avg     01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you insane? I forgot what we are counting, voters of a political party, or an ethnic group. So lets say 2 adults vote for Ouranio Toxo, they are Macedonians? But their children can't vote yet, so they are ethnic Greeks? But I support Nea Demokratia, so I am automatically a Greek? Fatmanonthehorse 01:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever been to Greek Macedonia? You can't hide 200,000 people. There are some very distant villages mainly in Florina with people that claim they are Slavomacedonian and everybody knows which villages these are. We;re talking about hundreds of people, the 200,000 claim is so ridiculous I shouldn't even start a discussion but I'm just (wrongly I'm sure) assuming good faith. In fact I'm having good faith for another reason, I should report you for 3RR violation, but I'm not.--   Avg     01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been to Greek Macedonia, and will be going again in the future. But listen here, no you cannot hide 200,000 people. Its not hiding that's happening here. It's called forced assimilation. Forced assimilation, just like the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, or the Gypsies in Europe, or the even the Greeks in Albania. If only you knew what Macedonians went through during the early 1900's by the fascist government of Metaxa, you wouldn't be saying anything right now about why such a small number of people still claim their macedonian identity. But I am not blaming you for your beliefs, I'm just telling you that things aren't always what they seem just because the government of a country says it is. The government of Iran for example states that the Holucaust never happened, are we to take that seriously? The same way in Greece the Greek government states that "there are no ethnic divisions in Greece", how can a country not have any minorities? especailly in a place like the balkans?Fatmanonthehorse 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well unfortunately I can't sympathize here, because I know this is a blatant lie. Propaganda and lies by the experts, your government. There has been a population exchange between Greeks and Bulgarians (because this is what you are in reality), that's what it was. And the people that were actually prosecuted were prosecuted from Metaxas because they were communists. This continued after the WW2 when the communists lost the civil war and most of the people fleeding to Yugoslavia were actually Greeks. Read history first because you know there are people here who actually know a thing or two.--   Avg     02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who should learn a thing. Slavs from eastern Greek Macedonia were only part of the population exchange, the Slavs in western Greek Macedonia still remain today. Secondly, Communism was only embraced by Macedonians in Greece after the 1940's, the Metaxas regime was in the 1920's. And by who are you refering to as "my government"? I am not from the Republic if thats what you mean, where I'm from is not important. Again, try not to label people based on their beliefs, or the party they vote for ;-) Fatmanonthehorse 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Metaxas regime was immediately pre-war, from 1936 to early 1941 and he was anticommunist. He couldn't be in the 20s anyway since (and that's quite basic) he was the one who said the famous "Ochi" to the Italians. Since you simply parrot Skopje's position it's reasonable to think you're another brainwashed Slavomacedonian, if you're not, even worse really, you don't have this excuse.--   Avg     02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Metaxas became a state minister of Greece in 1928, but anyway I am not parroting Skopje's position, parroting Skopje's position would be something like "there are 500,000 Macedonians in Greece" (former government estimate) or even "1 million Macedonians in Greece" (quote from human rights activist). Fatmanonthehorse 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Skopje's position is that there are 100,000 to 120,000 Slavomacedonians in Greece, so you're doing really well.--   Avg     02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, please read the whole sentence before making arguments, or read the website. Apart from that did you really start searching to see what I said is true? trust me, its true, I think its from the late 80's or 90's. Fatmanonthehorse 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the "scientific" number they quote isn't it? Now, I've already researched the issue years ago, don't really need to search again, except to find proofs against the outrageous propaganda Skopje is spewing all over the place. --   Avg     02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway I am leaving this discussion for now, if you find any other estimates SPECIFICALLY ON MACEDONIANS IN GREECE (not voters in elections, or passport holders, or any other random information), you are welcomed to add them in and discuss it here. Fatmanonthehorse 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can help with the latter. Macedonians in Greece are 2,492,232 according to 2001 census.--   Avg     02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the Greek Prime Minister ;-)

Fatmanonthehorse 02:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the next text in Macedonians abroad - Greece:

(The unofficial site of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 states that Macedonians make up 1.8% of the total population, i.e. approximately 180,000, with no mention of how this figure is obtained, as it is evidently refuted by the latest census figures, see here: .) Jingby 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fatmanonthehorse: you are misquoting Avg. You know very well that when he says 'Macedonians' he means Greeks; if he said Peloponnesians, Corfiots or Thessalians, he would also mean Greeks. In this spirit, there are up to 2 million Macedonians in Macedonia and probably just a few thousand in RoM/FYROM. In SE Europe, there are more Greek Macedonians than Slav Macedonians. Personally, I have met Greeks with a 'Slavomacedonian' identity in Greece and with Greek identity Macedonian citizens in RoM/FYROM. I also suggest that you catch up on the 1940s terrible civil war in Banovina Vardarska / Y.S.R. of Macedonia, and that you read up on the plight of most Greek citizens, including Slavophones up to the 1950s. Politis 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone please explain to me why the 962 migrants with Macedonian passports be equalled to the number of Macedonians in Greece when you people know very well that a person with Macedonian citizenship could be an Albanian, Turk, Vlach, etc. Fatmanonthehorse 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Secondly, the 1.8% figure (which comes to 200,340) was published by Britannica, an international academic learning tool that is used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. So I ask you, what good does hiding it from Wikipedia do? Of coarse the number is "unofficial", the last time I checked Greece's official line (of racial purity) is "there are no ethnic divisions in Greece..." Are we to take that seriously? Obviously Britannica does not. Fatmanonthehorse 23:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you might have uncovered the secret workings of the Epsilon Team. Sooner or later the Truth will see the light.--   Avg     00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To Hkseek
I'd suggest you stop pushing your blatant POV in the article. Your tone is not encyclopedic, the claims are outrageous, and the sources are partisan. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but you're full of shit. I have kept civil and written well. It's blatantly obvious that Jingiby, Foreignerfrom east, and other Greater Bulgarianists are trying to hijack this article. You all collectively edit out any theory that does not agree with your idea. In effect, you are terrorising the article and other users. I am not going to let you guys do that. Hxseek 09:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Macedonians and their place in history
I find this whole discussion arbitrary and capricious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDisverybad (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Macedonians aren't important? So what if they've never accomplished anything useful, I don't find anything written about them to be "arbitrary and capricious". Perhaps you should find more important things to do than troll online encyclopedia discussion pages. PleasedToHelpYou 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Britannica
Can someone please explain to me why the 962 migrants with Macedonian passports be equalled to the number of Macedonians in Greece when you people know very well that a person with Macedonian citizenship could be an Albanian, Turk, Vlach, etc.

Secondly, the 1.8% figure (which comes to 200,340) was published by Britannica, an international academic learning tool that is used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. So I ask you, what good does hiding it from Wikipedia do? Of coarse the number is "unofficial", the last time I checked Greece's official line (of racial purity) is "there are no ethnic divisions in Greece..." Are we to take that seriously? Obviously Britannica does not. Fatmanonthehorse 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And why did user: Asteraki remove the Britannica source as "vandalism"??? Does this user even know what vandalism is? Fatmanonthehorse 20:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn --   Avg     22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting if someone could get more information on the source used by Britannica. Any ideas? Obviously the number of people with (slav)macedonian consciousness is not zero in Greece. Equally obviously, it cannot be higher than the number of slav speakers -- because a lot of these speakers proclaim their Greek affiliation today.

So, what is the number of (slav)macedonian speakers in Greece? One field study undertaken by Professor Riki van Boeschoten in 1993, funded by the European Commission examined the Prefecture of Florina and the province of Aridea in the Pella Prefecture. These are definitely the two Greek regions with the highest numbers of (slav)macedonian speakers. The study found 20,700 such speakers. [See "Usage des langues minoritaires dans les departements de Florina et d' Aridea (Macedoine)"]. It should be added that Professor van Boeschoten is extremely sympathetic to the minority and has conducted extensive research on it.

Even allowing for a few more thousands in Kastoria and in the remaining part of the Pella Prefecture, the total figure can hardly exceed 30,000. And, remember, only a portion of it can be described as having a non-Greek ethnic preference. Tafi 12:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources on Macedonians in Greece:
 * Britannica 1987: 180,000
 * Britannica 2007: 200,340
 * World Book Encyclopedia 1992: 180,000
 * Joshua Project Unreached Peoples of the World: 250,000
 * Minority Rights in Europe (Book, page 478): 200,000

Fatmanonthehorse 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot seriously claim such numbers. Even if one was to accept 200.000 speakers of Slavic Macedonian language (big if there) only a few of them have a Macedonian identity (as separate from Greek). It's clearly not zero, and almost certainly more than 962, but i doubt it's much more than 10.000 people with a Macedonian identity. So not much. My grandfather was from a Slavic village, and he was a communist as well, he still had a Greek identity though. So, please. Druworos (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to demonstrate how reliable the Britannica is: the same page states that only 1.5% of the inhabitants of Greece are Albanians, i.e less than the "Macedonians". As any visitor to the country can assure you, Albanians can be seen all over. Where are the "Macedonians"? Taking into account that they are concentrated in the north-western part of Greece, they should form an overwhelming majority there. Yet, they are hardly visible and only in a few, well-known, remote villages.

Second point. The funny thing about the "200,000" number is that it is equal to the sum of the population of the Perfecture of Florina and the Perfecture of Pella (45K and 155K, respectively), where all the slav-speaking Macedonians are located. But not even the historians of Skopje claim that all of Pella is inhabited by (slav)Macedonians: they estimate that around 50% is of Asia Minor origin -- and they bitterly resent this!

All this confusion may be tiring to third parties, but at least serves a useful purpose: the use of the term "Macedonian" by only one party in this conflict is extemely unproductive. Fortunately the Wikipedia has accepted this fact and has employed disambiguation pages to sort it out. As such, it is far superior to traditional encyclopedias! Tafi 09:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Albanians you speak of are mostly ilegal immigrants who are working in Greece and are constantly moving back and forth between the two countries. Britannica does not count these immagrants, but only the permanent ethnic Albanians who come from southern parts of Greece. The rest of your claims are POVs, so I am not going to waste my time with unsourced content. Fatmanonthehorse 21:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation edit request
The Identities section has links to Serbian, Bulgarian, and Greek, all of which are disambiguation pages. In context, these should be links to Serbian Orthodox Church, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and Greek Orthodox Church, with pipes to preserve the current text. Ntsimp (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Sandstein (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jingiby and Laveol
From The Balkans: From Constantinople to Communsim. D P Hupchik (Bulgarian History Professor @ Wilkes UNiversity, USA). Pages 297- 300

''In 1893, a small band of anti-Ottoman Macedonian Slav revolutionaries met secretly in.. Resna and founded IMRO with a militant program for creating an autonomous Macedonian state completely independent from the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. They considered Macedonia an indivisible territory and all of its inhabitants “Macedonians”, no matter their religion or ethnicity, thus signaling the beginning of a new, strictly Macedonian national movement.''

Although the Macedonian Slav majority still retained Bulgarian affinities, these wore thin by the domineering attitude often taken by the Bulgarian-born excharcist clergy

Later, there were 2 factions. Delcevs and Sandanski's IMRO which still wished for an independent MAcedonia- who's tactics centred on mass uprisings; versus the EMRO- from Sofia, which was pro-Bulgarian aimed for Macedonia's incoporation into Bulgaria and embraced armed conflict and ploitical assassination as a means to their aims. EMRO became the dominant faction.

So, as you see, what i have included in the article is not my POV, but sourcedinfo from an informed, reliable and neutral source. End of matter. 203.166.99.230 HxSeek (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Article has wrong name
Why is this article called "Macedonians (ethnic group)"? It should be called "Slavic Macedonians" or "Macedonian Slavs" because there are two other ethnic groups (or one other) which are called Macedonians: the ancient Macedonians and their modern counterparts.--71.107.172.221 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I am a neutral party on this matter, as I am neither Greek, Macedonian, nor Slavic. I think an ideal title for the article would be "Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group)." Someone had previously moved the article to "Macedonians (slavic ethnic group)" ("Slavic" is a proper noun and thus should be capitalized), but it was reverted as "POV." However, that title is certainly not biased; it is, in fact, the truth (even the very first sentence of this article calls them a "South Slavic ethnic group").--71.107.172.221 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the group of modern Greeks that call themselves Macedonians are not an ethnic group. They identify as Macedonians on a regional level. Whether the Ancient Macedonians were or were not a different ethnic group from the Greeks is not known. You called the Greek Macedonians the modern counterparts of the Ancient Macedonians - so even by your definition, those two groups are not ethnic groups.  Balkan Fever  10:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anon. has a bit of a point. If the ancient Macedonians were a separate ethnic group from the Greeks, as claimed by members of the ethnic group discussed in this article, then there are two ethnic groups, one ancient and one modern and Slavic, that have historically self-identified as "Macedonians". Unless of course we're supposed to believe that there is an unbroken line of continuity between the two. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what are you going to call that article: Ancient Macedonians (Ancient ethnic group)? Ancient Macedonians (Macedonian ethnic group). And besides, we all know it's going to be moved to Ancient Macedonians (Greek ethnic group) or Ancient Macedonians (Greek) by vandals. And because of the fact that it is not known for sure whether they were or were not, it will only cause confusion to label them an ethnic group, just like it would cause confusion to label them a subgroup of Greeks. That is discussed in the article. In antiquity, there was only one group calling themselves Macedonians - hence the disambiguation with Ancient. In modern times, there are two groups calling themselves Macedonians, an ethnic group and a subgroup, hence the current disambiguation.  Balkan Fever  01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was another bunch of ancient Macedonians, the Macedonians (religious group). Let's not forget them. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I guess it's no secret that I consider neither the ancient nor the modern Macedonians to be separate from the Greeks, but I understand the need for Wikipedia to maintain an agnostic stance. That means that ancient Macedonians should stay where it is and the title of this article should be further disambiguated, to cater for the possibility that the ancients were a distinct ethnic group in their own right. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia need to cater for possibilities, though? And besides, it is in the dablink at the top of the page - Even a Google search] tells you that they are Slavs.  Balkan Fever  09:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know they are referred to as Slavs but it is what they call themselves that counts. What needs to be remembered is that modern Ethnic Macedonians are descended from the revolutionaries who only in recent centuries embarked on this national movement. The ideas behind their nationalism were published by scholars around the same time that most other European nations were reviving or developing new nationalist aspirations. It is hard to call the ancient Macedonians an "ethnic group" for two reasons, the first: everything we consider to denote nationalism now only goes back so far, before that, it was never clear what made an "ethnicity" and the very term is not even used as long ago as the Macedonian crusades. The same can be said of "nation", a word which is less than a thousand years old. Secondly: even if we settle on calling a certain population "a related people", we know that the origins of the Macedonians are not universally accepted. But what difference would it make? Does anyone have any idea just how many strands of society have co-existed? Looking elsewhere in the Balkans, you have people whose surname reflects descent in certain brotherhoods (losely related groups of familes) who in turn are of such and such clan, who are in turn from such and such tribe who are in turn from the Serbs or Croats who are from the Southern Slavic settlers who are from the Proto-Slavs who are from the Indo-Europeans etc. (the last part of this looked that the linguistic asepct). Historians have often said that before Romantic nationalism, people could have used up to seven demonyms at the same time. The point I am making is that "ethnicities" as we know them, are relatively new. The Romans were a... I don't know myself what to call them! They were the Romans, they came from Rome, they spoke Latin, they dissimilated non-Romans who fell to them, they rose, they fell, that is all. I know that many people are uncomfortable with the Macedonian position given its Slavic appearance, but this is far from being the only example of a nation whose endonym also happens to be an exonym. It reflects a fusion of some kind between two linguisticly different populations: French is a Latin-descended tongue but the Franks (their demonym) were Goths (ie. Germanic). Italy and Spain derive from non-Romanic demonyms; Bulgaria, another example, similar to the Macedonian question except for order of appearance, Bulgars came after the Slavs but ancient Macedonians dwelled on the Balkan for centuries before Slavic arrival, but a fusion is a fusion, it can work either way. The list goes on: Belgium (Dutch: Belgie, French: Belgique) is neither Dutch nor French in origin, the Belgui were Celtic. These examples can be found all over the world. This is why it should cause no offence to anyone for a section of the Balkan population to consider themselves Ethnic Macedonian, and why "ethnic group" is not appropriate to the ancient population. Evlekis (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said that man. - Francis Tyers · 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed Druworos (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said Evelkis. To elaborate further, I must say, with no offence to Greek people, that it is rather arrogant and/ or ignorant on behalf of the Greek nationalists who state "Macedonia is Greek". Not only for the reasons you have already made, but the idea that Greek Macedonians are the rightful successors of Anceint Macedonians. As you said, the background of ancient populations is unknown and often mixed. Being culturally Hellenized doesn;t equate with ethnicity. Secondly, as anyone with historical knowledge would realize, todays Greek "Macedonians" mostly stem from Anatolian and Bulgarin Greek ancestry (ie the population exchanges after Balkans Wars and WWI). This is how southern Macedonia was Hellenized. Conversely 'ethnic Macedonians' have lived there for at least 1,400 years. They have a right to be called Macedonians. 1,400 years is a conservative estimate, if we take the simplistic view that they are slavs. However, as people are beginning to see, the Slavic component is just the latest in a millieu of many layers of different peoples and cultures that have mixed in. It just tends to predominate because the language was kept as Slavic, and macedonia subsequently fused into Yogoslavia thus cementing it's Slavic nature. Although some people are wary of the DNA tests', they are inciteful into terms of shedding light. According to the often quoted Y-DNA study on southern Slavs, the majority of Macedonian (Slavs) genetic ancestry is from the neolithic and Paleolithic Balkan settlers, that is, ancient Balkan populations. So i am not trying to prove that they are anything necessarilty to do with ancient Macedonians, but certainly have ancient Balkan heritage (-whoever that may be from), and not just interlopers that 'stole' Macedonian identity from Greece. Hxseek (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a great story, but apart from it not being true, this is not where we stand now. Tell me again, which side is intransigent, the one that recognises that both peoples are Macedonians and proposes both sides to be called Macedonia but with a qualifier (geographic or ethnic) or the other that affirms that it's only them the ones to be called Macedonians? And yes, it's Greece who is proposing a compound name for FYROM INCLUDING Macedonia and it is FYROM who only accepts plain "Macedonia", as if there are no other Macedonias. And these are the official government positions. So much for bad Greek nationalists...--   Avg     02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not be enraged just becuase the real truth is starting to be shown ! Macedonians do not wish to monopolise Macedonia, they just want to share what they are rightfully part of. As for FYROM as a name- that is ridiculous. Which country can honestly accept an ACRONYM as a name ? ? LOL. Hxseek (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "FYROM" is only a temporary reference, but "RoM" cannot be the permanent name either. If Skopje is so averse to the former and genuinely doesn't wish to monopolise Macedonia, it's time it negotiated a better alternative. As for the essays above, they don't alter the fact that this is a Slavic ethnic group as clearly stated in the lead. In fact, Evlekis's examples above demonstrate the absurdity of denying that they are Slavs. Despite their other origins, the (Slavic + Turkic) Bulgarians do not deny their classification as Slavs, nor do the (Latin + Germanic + Celtic) French deny theirs as part of the Latin peoples. The only legitimate argument is over whether the ancient Macedonians were an ethnic group, and whether further disambiguation is therefore necessary here. If they were not Greek, and were not an ethnic group or nation as those concepts ostensibly didn't exist in their time, what were they? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hxseek I'm not "enraged", perhaps you are? I'm just stating each country's position and you're diverting the subject. Have I mentioned anywhere that anybody wants the name FYROM as a final solution? This is a name nobody likes but that it just has to be used until we reach the end of the negotiations. The geographic or ethnic qualifiers do not exist in FYROM after all, how would Greece like it? Athens has proposed Vardar Macedonia, Northern Macedonia, Slavic Macedonia, among others, and Skopje has denied them all because they only want Macedonia. So all your arguments are moot, Greece is recognising that FYROM is rightfully part of Macedonia. As you say yourself, it is PART OF Macedonia. It's not Macedonia. --   Avg     11:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If I might just assert something again, Avg is right in saying that the country which split from Yugoslavia in 1991 is merely a "part" of the region, the larger section lies in Greece, we know that. My purpose was never to argue whether or not it is right that the region be called Macedonia in any shape or form, that is all together a separate issue, I was referring to the population who declare Macedonian ethnicity; I simply stated that it is not a problem for them to do so. It needn't cause an offence. Supposing tomorrow, a change in frontiers results in all of Macedonia going to Greece: the former Yugoslav republic, the Pirin region of Bulgaria as well as the chunks in Serbia and Albania, there is every likelyhood that the Slavic-language speakers may continue to use "Macedonian" as ethnicity. In Bulgaria, the mood is mixed. A small percentage choose Macedonian but the majority choose Bulgarian! In earlier censa, the percentage of Macedonian there was greater. Within the (FY)ROM itself, the ethnic structure among Slavic peoples also varies. For a start, there are a thousand or so Bulgaians there, a number of Muslims who declare Bosniak, Goran or Torbesh/Pomak, and a whole 2% of the overall population declares Serb. Most of the examples here are long-established members of the population, not descendants of earlier migrants. If the region ends up in Greece, there is no reason for the non-Macedonian Slavs to change their ethnicity, so why should the Macedonians??!! It sounds strange to say this but even if the country in question changes its name completely to something else appropriate to the territory, it doesn't mean that the population have to develop a replacement demonym. Here are two close-to-home examples: Kosovo will soon become independent, and its prinicple population will be Albanian; but neither Albania nor the endonym Shqipëria are mentioned in the title "Kosova", likewise the Hellenic Cypriots, despite independence, declare themselves Greek and not Cypriot. And in the case of the name of the land, one needs to bare in mind that during the nationalist renaissance of the 18th and 19th centuries, a section of the population chose to develop a "Macedonian" identity based on a historical name for the land. Now because this was originally an Ottoman-resistence movement, its original purpose (so I am told) was to be a multi-ethnic Christian union (a proposed theocracy in opposition to the Islamic character of the Ottoman). One legacy is that there there are very few if any Slavic Muslims who consider themselves Macedonian, compared to Bulgaria an Serbia where - despite having national religions - some Slavic speaking Muslims do consider themselves part of that nation. Now it is possible that Greeks, Christian Albanians and Vlachs etc: lost interest; drifted back; or simply became dissimilated by a Slavic language majority inadvertently carving out a Slavic-only type of person who chooses to be Macedonian. Of course, I may be wrong in some of my details but unfortunately for those who don't like the idea of it, we are stuck with the idea of a Macedonian ethnicity with no positively connected ties to the ancient population. Evlekis (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have some very good points here Evlekis, however if I may disagree with some of your conclusions. Although I was referring to the country's name, the dispute propagates to the ethnicity name as well. These are not two separate issues. For example, if the country were to adopt the name Republic of Slavic Macedonia, this would mean that it would be inhabited (in its majority at least) by Slavic Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs, who would be a subset of the, not ethnic but geographical term, Macedonians. Let me use Belgium to illustrate what's going on with Macedonia: Imagine if the state of Belgium dissolutes and that the two communities have two different courses: Flemish go independent and Walloons join with France. Now the Flemish decide that only their part of the land will be called "Belgium" and themselves "Belgians". Walloons then say, hey wait, Belgium is now a geographical term, you are Flemish! You have of course every right to be called Belgians, since you live in the greater Belgium region, but you are Flemish-Belgians, if you call yourselves Belgians alone then what about us? So we are proposing that you name yourselves Republic of Flemish-Belgium or Republic of Flanders and yourselves Flemish-Belgians or Flemish alone. The Flemish vehemently deny that and say, no, you deny us of our name, the only option is we call ourselves Belgians and our state Belgium and you, Walloons, well you are part of France, so you are French anyway, you have a name. And let me divert now from reality and say what if historically it was proven that the Walloons were in Belgium area dozens of centuries before the Flemish? How would they feel if they saw another people appropriating the name Belgium and monopolising the ethnicity Belgians?--   Avg     16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now it's my turn to disagree :). Avg, with you're model of Belgium: In that scenario, the Flemish would not be going independent; rather Wallonia would be seceding from Belgium., and therefore the Walloons cannot say anything. Just like if Kosovo splits from Serbia and unifies with Albania, the people from Kosovo cannot complain that "Serbia is now a geographic term" and therefore the country's name needs a qualifier, like "Slavoserbia". If the Walloons chose to unite Wallonia with France, then why would they call themselves Belgians? Anyway, that does not illustrate the Macedonian question. This is the parallel to Macedonia:


 * Belgium splits up - Wallonia becomes part of France and Flanders becomes part of the Netherlands. Wallonia is heavily Gallicized, and Flanders becomes a constituent republic of the "Socialist Federal Republic of WestGermanic-ia" uas "SR Belgium". The people of SR Belgium identify as ethnic "Belgians", because they are different from the Dutch and the other peoples of WestGermanic-ia. After a while, SR Belgium becomes independent, along with Friesland, Zeeland etc. At this point, the long-ago Gallicized Walloons decide that the newly-independent country and its people are not allowed to use the name "Belgium" and "Belgians" without a qualifier - because it is "offensive". Furthermore, the French people calling themselves "Belgians" do not want to disambiguate themselves or the name of their region because they consider it pleonasmic. The newly-independent "Belgians" do not want to call themselves "Flemish Belgians" because the name "Flanders" has not been used officially for quite a long time - and nowadays is used with irredentist connotations by a minority. The West-Germanic Belgians only know the name "Belgians" for their people - but apparently must change it along with their country name.


 * There are two issues here - the country and the people. Don't think that if the Republic of Macedonia disambiguates it's name that the people will change what they call themselves. The ethnic group in the hypothetical "Upper Macedonia" will not be "Upper Macedonians" - they will be "Macedonians", and the only argument Greece has is that the "misuse" of that name is offensive. And I don't see Greece suggesting Greek Macedonians disambiguate their identity or the name of that region so really, who is intransigent? What Greece wants is for "Macedonia" to mean this and "Macedonians" to refer to the group of Greeks, while every other meaning uses a qualifier  Balkan Fever  09:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be of those Greeks who would want for "Macedonia" to mean that, "Macedonians" to refer to all the inhabitants of that, while every other meaning (including for these and that) to be forced to use a qualifier. I have yet to see one from the other side say the same. NikoSilver 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I said "Greece", meaning the country/government. Unless you run Greece, Niko, what you yourself think is not reflected in Greece's proposals of a "solution".  Balkan Fever  10:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it may be because nobody asked. I'm sure Greece would agree. See for example that Greece does not raise issue with the term "Aegean Macedonia" (this ref). Why do you infer that Greece would refuse? Also, Greece always raises the issue of "monopolization of the name of a wider region"; so if she committed the same "sin", how convincing would she be? And how logical would that be? I would say that this is definitely reflected in Greece's proposal. And, be sure, these guys wouldn't care if they were called "Macedonian Greeks" (because they already are in many contexts). NikoSilver 11:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not inferring that Greece would refuse, I'm saying disambiguation of Greek Macedonia is not brought up by Greece on purpose. And you said once that the Greek Macedonians do care - that lame pleonasm thing. Also, I really don't see a disambiguation in Greek (Ellinomakedonos or Makedonoellinos) being accepted.  Balkan Fever  11:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's still not obvious, then let's hope it's the hidden ace in Greek diplomacy; for both of us. NikoSilver 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * About the GrMacs, I said so in the context of why should they alone dab, and not the others too. NikoSilver 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think it's going to be a case of "Real" Macedonians and Disambiguated Macedonians argued by both sides, regardless of the solution to the naming dispute for the country. Example: Ellinomakedonos/Gornomakedonci = never, whereas Grkomakedonci/(insert Greek word for "upper" here)makedonos = yes.  Balkan Fever  01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually you can't expect the two peoples to call themselves differently internally, this is probably unrealistic, they will always be Makedones/Makedonci when speaking between themselves. What they should be forced to do though is to call themselves Ellino/Paleo/Notio/Aigaio Makedones and Slavo/Novi/Gorno/Vardar Makedonci when interacting with other peoples and in their international relations.--   Avg     04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In conclusion: The article should not be moved as there is and has only been one ethnic group (in the sense of European nationalism) that call themselves Macedonians. This group is described in this article. The Ancient Macedonians, whatever the hell they were, were definitely ancient, and we will leave it at that. The other contemporary group that call themselves Macedonians are not an ethnic group, but a subgroup of the Greek ethnic group.  Balkan Fever  11:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. 123.243.54.136 (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly (unconstructive, hypothetical) question: If the Greeks decided to split Greece into separate autonomous republics, and decided to call the Northern one "Republic of Macedonia", and its inhabitants "Macedonians", then what would happen? :-)


 * Possible answers:
 * a) Can't do that, there's another "Republic of Macedonia" already.
 * b) By all means they can, based on the principles of self-determination and self-identification.


 * If you chose (a), then all current ethnic Macedonian arguments apply for the Greeks also, so you shouldn't have chosen it (i.e. "no copyright", "self-identification/self-determination" etc). If you chose (b), then we'd have TWO "Republic of Macedonias", you finally see the disambiguation problem is based on something that scholars worldwide (and the rules of Wikipedia also btw) emphatically renounce: The self-identification and self-determination rights of a group of people should not be in any way relevant to their political status (see Kosovo, Kurdistan) or their political recognition (see Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, Abkhazia etc)! NikoSilver 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But of course, no one needs to worry about this hypothetical question, because Greeks would never shoot their own leg (see e.g. Cyprus or, worse, Yugoslavia)... NikoSilver 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're hypothetical situation is more about the country than the people.  Balkan Fever  22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read carefully, you'll see it's more about the people, irrespective of countries and national borders. It is the people in Greece who self-identify as "Macedonians", and they don't belong in a "Macedonian Republic", but in a "Macedonian subnational entity". What I'm saying is that their level of political autonomy should be irrelevant to their right to self-determination and self-identification. Don't you agree? NikoSilver 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but no ethnic Macedonian said that those Greeks can't call themselves Macedonians. Yet those Greeks still do say that those Slavs have no right to be Macedonians. Again, not you, Niko, but almost everyone else. If some group from Japan wants to call themselves "Macedonians", that's fine as well. But what you will see is Greeks telling them that they have no right to do so.  Balkan Fever  01:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But even if all Greeks told them they had a right to be called Macedonians (which they do now -at least officially), the disambiguation problem persists because they don't want any qualifier whatsoever added when needed for disambiguation. They label all such qualifiers "offensive". Greece sees this as an attempt to "elevate" the status of a subsection of the region and the status of a subsection of the population of the region to the level of implying the whole region and its whole population. I think it is a logical concern. You must understand that it is logically wrong for only part of the Macedonians to be referred to as plain Macedonians. NikoSilver 10:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, but no-one said that only part of the Macedonians should be referred to as Macedonians. You must understand that ethnic Macedonians don't care what anyone else calls themselves. This goes for any regional group of Greeks as well. All that ethnic Macedonians care about is being allowed to call themselves what they want, and they are not allowed to. There is no official argument from the Republic of Macedonia's side saying that they are the only Macedonians. All they say is that they are (one group that chooses to call themselves) Macedonians. They don't mention anybody else.  Balkan Fever  10:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be a pain, but nowadays we have the Republic of Korea, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. We also have the Republic of the Congo, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. All four are internationally recognised states, that also recognise each other by their constitutional names. The issue doesnt seem to be all that pressing, when one looks at current international practice. The naming dispute is a joke, and Greece (sorry Niko) is thoroughly wrong. Greece *is* right about Macedonian irredentism (on a practical note) and ahistorical Macedonian claims to Ancient Macedonia (on a more moralistic note). But as far as the name of the country, and a people's right to self-determination, is concerned, we are simply wrong. Druworos (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation is, simply, that only one ethnic group, nowadays, call themselves Macedonian. Greek Macedonians are not an ethnic group, by virtue of the fact that they dont consider themselves to be such. If you must disambiguate, disambiguate thus: Macedonians (contemporary ethnic group). Though, frankly, I dont think there's any real need for a disambiguation. As much as, being Greek, it hurts to admit the fact that these people are right on a lot of counts, they are. They're wrong on a load of other counts, too, but still. Druworos (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself, Budapest. Yes, we do have the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but none of these is shortened to simply Korea or the Congo. Instead, we have South and North Korea, while the latter two generally have to be spelled out in their entirety in order to avoid confusion. Furthermore, the two Koreas have been inhabited by the same people for thousands of years, and the two Congos are largely populated by the same mix of ethnic groups, so there is simply no comparison to the centuries-old conflict over Macedonia between Greeks, on the one hand, and Slavs, of a variety of persuasions, on the other. The real question is why should Skopje have an inalienable right to no disambiguation? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Identities again
Exactly what is going on? What is relevant/irrelevant? What should stay, what should go? Also Jingiby, sorry if it looks like I'm reverting everything you do, I'm not, you're just editing too quickly for me, so I see most of your contributions after I have edited.  Balkan Fever  12:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant to discuss here the activity of people with obscured ethnicity as Misirkov and Pulevski, I think! The chapter is going too long! Jingby (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is marked here - The national awakening of the ethnic Macedonians gathered pace in the late 19th century and early 20th century - this is the time of the first expressions of ethnic nationalism by limited groups of intellectuals in Belgrade, Sofia, Istanbul, Thessaloniki and St. Petersburg. And this people are have toomany pro - Bulgarian activities! Jingby (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But they had pro-Macedonian activities. That is why the movement started.  Balkan Fever  13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They had any real influence in the population! Nationality in early 20th century Macedonia was a matter of political convictions and financial benefits, of what was considered politically correct at the specific time and of which armed guerrilla group happened to visit the respondent's home last. The process of Hellenization at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century affected only a limited stratum of the population, the Bulgarian Revival in the middle of the 19th century was too short to form a solid Bulgarian consciousness, the financial benefits given by the Serbian propaganda were too tempting to be declined. Jingby (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cupovski's activities must stay, because he was one of the most significant actors in ethnic Macedonian awakening. He published Makedonski Golos, and made efforts to initiate a conference for resolving the Macedonian question with an ethnic Macedonian perspective. It is w2ritten that Cupovski arrived prior to WWI in Veles and met with local IMRO leaders (written in Alekso Martulkov's, Vlahov's and Brashnarov's memoirs). --Revizionist (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

anthro section
Whilst overall well written, there are a couple of questionable references:

“ they are not Serbs, for their blood can hardly be purely Slavonic. There must be in it some admixture of Bulgars and other non-Aryan stock (Kumans, Tartars, Pechenegs). On the other hand, they can hardly be Bulgarians, because they have left much Serbian blood in and the admixture of non-Aryan blood can scarcely be so considerable as it is in Bulgaria. They are probably a Slav people derived from rather various peoples, who invaded the peninsula at different periods.[28] ”


 * There is no documented tartar or Pecheneg presence in Macedonia historically. One tribe of Cumans (detached from the main body in Cumania) made it into Macedonia, who were rapidly assimilated. Their overall impact on the paleo-genetics of the people would be near zero. And serbs are not pure Slavs. (there is no such thing)

"Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Edition described the Macedonan Slavs as somewhat different both appearance and character from their neighbors beyond the Bulgarian and Serbian frontiers and peculiar type which they presented was probably due to a considerable admixture of Vlach, Hellenic, Albanian and Turkish blood and to the influence of the surrounding races. The Mongolian physical type, which prevails in the districts between the Balkans and the Danube, is also found in central Macedonia.[29]"


 * The mongolian phenotype prevelant in the Balkans? Which balkans are we talking about? ? Whilst, yes, we can certainly see the odd Slavic person who is decidedly darker and (shall we say) more slanty-eyed than the others, calling this the prevalent phenotype is a bit of a stretch.

Such obvious flaws unfortunately cast doubt on the expertise of the referenced authors Hxseek (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, the chapter Origin (Anthro + Genes) was more reliable before the last edits of Revizionist! 88.203.200.74 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Penestians
Anon IP keeps inserting these people in the anthro section. Google search says "did you mean: pedestrians" and what I assume would be Macedonian variants (Пенесчани and Пенестијани) return nothing.  Balkan Fever  02:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably this refers to the Penestae. Don't have a clue what they have to do with this article. But I might have a clue who the Albanian anon from the Netherlands is  --    Avg     20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian anthropology
Macedonians are not dark and slant eyed so there should be little existence of Pecheneg and Kuman blood. As far as I know and seen Macedonians are mainly a mixture of Germanic, Slavic, Illyrian and Hellenic peoples. Not Turkish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongolic eyes and elements exist more or less from Scandinavia to Balkans. Even the name of Kumanovo is derived from Cumans, a turkic nomadic people Maqedan (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to some researches, they are most related to the Serbians and Bulgarians[33][34] ...
Those studies never mention Serbians. The study published in Tissue Antigens, which is famous for that debunked pseudo-science study by Arnaiz-Villena that claims the Greeks are of Sub-sahran african origin claims (http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2004/09/study-clarification-ii.html) the "Phylogenetic analysis based on HLA allele frequencies shows that Bulgarians were characterized with closest genetic similarity to Macedonians, Greeks, Romanians, Cretans and Sardinians in comparison to the other European and Mediterranean populations." Funny how they now publish something that claims the exact opposite.

Fig: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/na102/home/ACS/publisher/synergy/journals/production/tan/2002/60/6/j.1399-0039.2002.600605.x/images/large/tan_600605_f2.gif

The other study concludes the same and verifies the results, "Phylogenetic analysis based on HLA allele frequencies shows that Bulgarians were characterized with closest genetic similarity to Macedonians, Greeks, Romanians, Cretans and Sardinians in comparison to the other European and Mediterranean populations." Funny how this study actually references the debunked study done by Arnaiz Villena --even though the present study concludes differently...I dont get Macedonian scholars.

References Arnais-Villena A, Dimitrovski K, Pacho A et al. (2001) HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks. Tissue Antigens 57:118–127 CrossRef >http://www.springerlink.com/content/8300nn2q37527183/ >http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1034%2Fj.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x --"HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks"

Anyway im getting rid of Serbian and putting Greek and Romanians on there. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slav Macedonian (pejorative and offensive!!!)
Slav Macedonian is outdated term that does not exist in any censuses. The term Slav Macedonian was used hundred years ago by foreigners because Macedonia did not existed as state. From 1944 People's republic of Macedonia, later Socialist, and from 1991 Republic of Macedonia are countries where Macedonians live as majority officially. Macedonians (not Slav Macedonians) live in Bulgaria and Serbia by their official censuses as minority. Nationality or ethnicity is basic human right Article 15. The Article 15 continues "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality". Therefore please don't use Slav Macedonian in the article. (Toci (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
 * So the only non-offensive term is "Macedonian" right? Well sorry, you won't monopolise it as much as you try. We have Macedonians too and they are double your size (2.5M us, 1.2M you) plus they existed thousands of years before you.--Avg (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In which census your Macedonians exist as Macedonians? Or they exist in Karamanlis' statement? You are ethnically 2.5M Greek as ethnical censuses are concerned and it doesn't matter how long who has lived in which part of Macedonia. (Toci (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Our Macedonians exist in all censuses, as they are inhabitants of Macedonia. Greeks who live in Macedonia are Macedonians, Greeks who live in Thrace are Thracians, Greeks who live in Crete are Cretans. You (very recently) masqueraded a regional term to a national term. Which leads to the question, in which census your Macedonians existed as Macedonians before Tito?--Avg (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys guys guys! There's no need for official censi (yes, this is the correct plural in Latin). Nobody in academia disputes that people there self-identify as Macedonians. Neither for Greece, nor for the country north. Official censi are redundant in confirming the obvious fact of self-determination of these two peoples. NikoSilver 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(off topic deleted) (Toci (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Wise words. And thank you for respecting the right for nationality. But you must refer to hard facts sometimes and the censuses are the facts for population and ethnic groups. I know that most of the Greeks feel that Macedonia is Greece, but the reality is that we are here as well and we have no other identifiers besides Macedonians. Macedonians are not Tito invention. Many people that declare themsleves Macedonians in 1944 were older then Tito, as well many people declare themselves other nationality then Macedonians.
 * I know that in Greek censuses there are no official nationalities and the censuses are rather vague, but that is that. The self-determination of ethnicity of the people is seen only in the censuses.
 * On the Slav Macedonian topic. The request (officially by Nimetz's proposal) is that the people in Republic of Macedonia should not to be Macedonians (point 8 not to use Macedonians and the attribute Macedonian). If you refer to us as Slav Macedonians and you are Greek Macedonians, if we delete Macedonians, we have Slavs and Greeks. Therefore Slav Macedonian is offensive, it tends to give different unknown (Slavs is general group of people) ethnicity to my people in the future. It is rafined way to deprive the people from their nationality (a major human right offense), with assigning them two nationalities from which the first is disputed and will probably be deleted. (Toci (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Are you suggesting in a vague way that the term Slav by itself is offensive? -- L a v e o l  T 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At least you are honest. You clearly do not believe you are Slavs, but somehow you hail from Ancient Macedonians, innit?--Avg (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the use of terminology is offensive. It is X in X Macedonians that is offensive (regardless of X and with a plan to delete Macedonian in the future). Luckily the Greeks didn't got an idea to use X=Bulgarian instead of X=Slav. Then I would have been in trouble with my mathematics. (Toci (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Of course they did. Bulgaroskopian is used for both the language and the people of FYROM, but it is considered rather derogatory. Bulgaromacedonian on the other hand isn't used because it has already been used as a term in our dispute with Bulgaria at the start of the last century. --Avg (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Laveol and Avg, how can you not understand anything? The term "Slavs" is not offensive, but it does not describe a specific ethnicity. Let's say we have "Slav Macedonians" now. Agreeing to Nimetz's proposal, we have "Slavs". So in the Balkans, there live, among others, Greeks, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Bulgarians and Slavs. This may be news to you both, but that is 1) more confusing than "Macedonians", and 2) devaluing national identity, because the ethnic group is being described only by a generic name that is also used to refer to people from Siberia to Lusatia. If you care so much for "monopolisation" then why are you promoting this?  Balkan Fever  07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "Slav Macedonians" is used only in Macedonia as I wrote and it got deleted in the article by foreign diplomats that want to show good will to the Greek side and try not to offend the Macedonian side. But we get sick when we hear it and every diplomat that uses it is regarded as not trustworthy at once. Also Albanians in Macedonia (see that I don't use Albanian Macedonians) use lately "Slav Macedonians" rather "Slavomacedonians" (the original Greek term) when they want to display some demands and want to confront with the Macedonians. So it is name that brings confrontation and unease in Macedonians in Republic of Macedonia. It is local insult (therefore I write it as offensive).
 * I pointed out in the article that "Slav Macedonians" is not used by us, but by other and we don't regard it as polite, but it was reverted two times. I think it is neutral view to have that mention. I also don't think that Wikipedia should be place to promote derogatory names like Bulgaroskopian, Fyromians or Skopians (I agree with Avg on that). To be completely honest we see any "X Macedonians" as derogatory. On the other site the Greek claim on the name Macedonian is historical, not ethnical, since there is no censual proof that Greeks are ethnically Macedonians. Factually by the censuses, the Balkans ethnically for the last 55 years is consisted of Slovenes, Croats, Hungarians or Magyars, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Bosnians, Montenegrians, Albanians, Macedonians, Greeks and Turks, and Vlachs and Rhoma (who are ethnicities without states). The antique Balkans nations are dead and this is the factual ethnic situation today in 2008.
 * I always refer to censuses as mark for ethnicity. I wonder how many people will sign under Macedonian nationality on the next census in Greece (Macedonian nationality will automatically excude the Greek nationality because they will exist parallel). If 90% of Greece are against use of Macedonians and will sign as Macedonians in some next census just for the reason we don't use Macedonians then there will be no Greeks as ethnicity in Greece by my mathematics. So the Greek passion to declare themselves as Macedonian can be knife with two sides. (Toci (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Cypriots declare Cypriots and there are Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots Maqedan (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots means Greeks and Turks living in Cyprus. Does this mean that Greek Macedonian and Slav Macedonians are Greeks and Slavs living in Macedonia? As I wrote before its a cheap and rafined trick to delete our ethnicity (with no offense to the stock of people that are Slavs). And you here pointed out one more time that as a goal. Depriving someone from his nationality or changing it without consent is major offense on human rights. If you publish that you want to rename me from Macedonian to Slav Macedonian and deprive me from my right to be Macedonian I will sue you and you will go to jail or pay fine for breaking human rights and freedoms and I will be Macedonian again. The declaration for human rights is very clear. (Toci (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

1.The example was a response to your comment that if Greeks declare Macedonians they are not Greeks. 2.Go sue the scholars and the linguists!..who most of them use both Macedonian and Slav Macedonian Maqedan (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Denko Malevski on Slav Macedonian term
........"But when we had to encourage the moderate Greek political variant and move into a direction of reconciliation among peoples, our nationalism was modeled according to the Greek one.The direct descendants of Alexander the Great, raised the fallen flag on which the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia was written and led the people in the final confrontation with the Hellenes, the direct descendants of Greek gods.This warlike attitude of the "winners" which was a consequence of the fear of politician from heavy and unpopular compromises, had its price.In those years, we lost our capability for strategic dialog.With Greeks?No, with ourselves.Since than, namely, we reach towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seeks in the depths of the history and WE ARE ANGRY AT THOSE WHICH DARE TO CALL US SLAVS and our language and culture SLAVIC!?We are angry when they name us WHAT WE,-if we have to define ourselves in such categories-are,showing that we are people full with complexes which are ASHAMED FROM OURSELVES.We lost our capability for reasonable judgment, someone shall say, because the past of the Balkans teaches us that to be wise among fools is foolish.Maybe.Maybe the British historians are right when they say that in history one can find confirmation for every modern thesis,so, we could say, and for the one that we are descendants of the Ancient Macedonia.The trouble is that this thesis leads us into direct clash with the most powerful nationalism in Europe, and perhaps in the World-the Greek one. Is that wise?"..........

Denko Maleski in the Newspaper "Utrinski Vesnik",16.Oct 2006 http://217.16.70.245/?pbroj=1515&pr=18&stID=18244 Maqedan (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (off topic talk deleted) (Toci (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Denko Maleski thinks that if try to be moderate we can get to the agreement with the Greeks, but he does not use anywhere Macedonian Slavs or Slav Macedonian. On the question that he got in a Greek restaurant: "Where are you from?" He answers: "From Skopje in Macedonia". An answer that made the waiter furios. This is one year old text. I wonder what will Maleski say today if you delete Macedonian out of his ethnicity. But Maleski affirms one more time in his monologue that WE ARE ANGRY AT THOSE WHICH DARE TO CALL US SLAVS and our language and culture SLAVIC. This is one more proof that Slav Macedonian is offensive and makes the majority of us angry. (Toci (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

and he criticizes this mentality. This is another proof of Anti-Slavic hysteria after 1990Maqedan (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have written offensive to describe the hysteria thing, so you agree that the term Slav Macedonians causes hysteria (excess of bad emotions) or it is offensive to most of the Macedonians in other words. (Toci (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Megistias (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)The fact that you are slavs and your language slavic is a world scientific fact.linguist Subgroup  :   	  Eastern South SlavicMegistias (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Malevski, Krste Misirkov ,Katardzhiev and other Makedonci don't find it offensive except the Macedonists ,Donski etc Maqedan (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Slav Macedonian offensive and pejorative for Makedonski Nationalists only after 1990
The term “Slavomacedonian” was used by the European organization EBLUL to refer to both the Slavic speaking minority in northern Greece, and the population in the Republic of Macedonia. The term was dropped after complaints from ethnic Macedonian organisations http://www.answers.com/Slavomacedonian
 * But the term was used by Makedonci before 1990
 * Just count how many times Krste Misirkov uses the term Slav Macedonians
 * In WWII there is Slavomacedonian Front

Slovenomakedonski Narodno Osloboditelen Front


 * and the term is currently used by Scholars


 * (Alexander and ancient Macedonians was not part of our school national history during 1945-1990

Denko Malevski (1st Makedonija’s minister of foreign affairs):

"The idea that Alexander the Great belong to us,was at the mind of some outsider political groups only!These groups were insignificant the first years of our independence but the big problem is that the old Balkan Nations have been learned to legitimate themselves through their history. In Balkans, if you want to be recognised as a Nation,you need to have history of 3000 years old.

Since Greeks made us to INVENT a history,we did invent it!" Maqedan (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially in the period of 1944-1990 the term Slavic was over-emphasized for promoting 1.the yugoslavian brotherhood 2. and the distinction of Slav to Bulgarian. And even today one can hear of Makedonski nationalists saying to Bulgarians that they are pure Slavs and Bulgarians are Tatars who just took the Slavonic language from Macedonian Slavs Maqedan (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually this is just the thing that happens most times when we try to speak to Macedonians. -- L a v e o l  T 13:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote in the deleted part of the article that Macedonian Slavs is used today in history schoolbooks. I have learned about Macedonian Slavs coming from behind the Carpatian mountains and settling in Macedonia. Mijak's, Brsjak's, Velegzit's, Dragovit's, Strumjan's were some of the Macedonian Slavs that settled Macedonia. A tribe of Greek Slavs Ezerci settled Peloponese in the same time (I read that in Ostrogorsky book about Byzantium). These Macedonian Slavs mixed with the local population and today that mix is called officially by censuses Macedonians. If you say Macedonian Slavs you think in the 6th century terms and this is 21st century.
 * The Macedonian use of Tatars for Bulgarians is derogative and offensive and it has no place in Wikipedia. The Bulgarian as the Macedonians are a mix of various tribes that passed and settled these regions. When one tribe is emphazised in the history it is seen as offensive. So using Slavs for Macedonians is same as Tatars for Bulgarians (offensive due to overemphasize). I hope I made it clear now.
 * The fact is that the public use of Slav Macedonian for Macedonians begun from 1991. Before 1991 Greeks used Yugoslav to describe the Macedonians. (Toci (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
 * The use of tatars for Bulgarians is racist and unscientific most of all. And it is used to distinguish us (the Great Macedons) from them (the ugly tatars and mongols). It is no over-emphasize - it's just a bunch of bullsh*t and noone knows why they use it to start with. It means only to offend and nothing else. -- L a v e o l  T 14:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

1.Macedonian Slavs is currently used for ethnic Macedonians  along with the term Macedonians (See also Misirkov and WWII Slavomacedonian front) 2.Medieval Slavs took many local names Dalmatsi,Pelagonci,Trakyitsi but no Macedonci 3.There are few Greeks who find the term Greek pejorative and prefere Hellene but this is irrelevant for the scholars Maqedan (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bulgars by the legend came from Volga (Bulgar-Bolgar-Volgar). Tatars from Volga had later a state Volga Bulgaria. The Bulgars had a khan, a Turkic & Mongolian title (Russians use Tatar for these tribes). These are the parallels and inspiration to use Tatars, but their overemphazise and saying that Bulgarians are Tatars (Tatars-Volga Tatars-Bulgars) is offending. I competely agree with it and I have never used it. Same with the use of Slavs for us, so I urge you to not use it. It is selective and overemphazising approach that negates the reality today. (Toci (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

It's not a case between you and Laveol and Tatar name is not comparable. Scholars and Bulgarian people don't and haven't used the term Tatar Bulgarians as synonym for Bulgarians. Scholars continue to use the term Slav Macedonian as synonymous with Macedonian ; and Ethnic Macedonians had used it before 1990. Maqedan (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My dear friend Maqedan research a bit before you write in the talk. "Bozhidar Dimitrov, the well-known Bulgarian historian, claims that the Bulgars played a more important role in the formation of the Bulgarians as a people than the Slavs, himself claiming to be of possible Bulgar ancestry." Bulgarian use the term Bulgar (Bulgar~Bolgar~VolgarVolga Tatar) as you can see. It is also rather unpropriate to use words like "Go...!". We are having a debate of facts, noone needs to "Go...!" and do anything except show facts. Please don't google on "Slav Macedonians" and copy a list of Google books to show me facts from literature or what the politicians have said (please use ethnological facts or population statistics).
 * Is there a consensus in the talk that "Slav Macedonian" is offensive and pejorative as ethnic term for majority of the Macedonians today (means even from 1990s to today) and that Macedonians ethnically exist only as Macedonians in the censuses on the Balkans for 55 years (the slavic heritage of Macedonians exists, but ethnically it is unnecessary to be emphasized in Macedonians with the "Slav" addition)? (Toci (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC))


 * No they don't and haven't used the term Tatar Bulgarians and they also claim that Bulgars were of Iranian rather than Turkic origin.
 * Ethnic Macedonians exist in census but this will not stop scholars and linguists to use ALSO the terms Slav Macedonian Maqedan (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw Bulgarians have proudly used the term Slav-Bulgarian (1762 Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaya from Saint Paisius of Hilendar, a Pirin-Macedonian) Maqedan (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly - sorry, Toci, but the links you put Bulgar-Vulgar and so on are really really far away from any truth. If they teach that in the Republic I surely understand from where all this lame offenses come. I respect the fact that you don't use the word Tatar, but again I'd advise you not to advise people on such issues. Bozhidar Dimitrov actually insists on the Iranian theory distancing us from Tatars and moreover Bulgars did not come to the Balkans from Volga Bulgaria. That sounds really bizarre, but once again given the well known weakness in the education system in the Republic, I begin to understand where most problems lie. -- L a v e o l  T 19:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No lectures on Bulgaria in school, sorry. I am not especially interested in Bulgarian history. "Bulgars" says in Wikipedia "lived in the steppes near Volga and part of them became the ancestors of the modern Bulgarians and gave rise to the Bulgarian state". If this is wrong you should point out in that article.
 * My idea was not to show my knowledge or dispute something in the Bulgarian history, but to show the level of uneasy that Bulgarians get with the word Tatars. By your reply you sounded quite confrontation ready. We get the same unease and confrontation feeling hearing the term Slav Macedonians today. That was my point. (Toci (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I get uneasy mostly because of the fact Bulgars are not Tatars and because of the things ethnic Macedonians want to say when they refer to Bulgarians as Mongolians or Tatars. But on the other side ethnic Macedonians are predominantly Slavs (as are Bulgarians). So it's not the same calling someone something he's not, and calling someone something he is, but does not like it. It's not like only Greeks have referred to you as Slav Macedonians. I really can't understand it - instead of being happy you're not called Bulgarians (as it seems you think this is the worst that could happen) you don't like the Slavs thing as well. I don't know why Todor Aleksandrov was not Bulgarian, but he was obviously not an ethnic Macedonian jidging from what they think of him. So he might be one of those Macedonian Slavs (or Slav Macedonians) we're seeking.
 * Sorry, I'm really a little emotionally taken by the whole Todor Aleksandrov's monument issue. I hope I'm not being offensive. -- L a v e o l  T 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seven Slavic tribes of Bulgaria vs Kuber of Macedonia (Bulgars played also a major role in Macedonia) .Who is more or less?. Because Bulgarians kept the Bulgarian name this does not make them less Slavs (like Russians with their Viking name) Maqedan (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, your being too simplistic laveol. Read the new Kuber article, written from non-Bulgarian sources. Hxseek (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm, it wasn't me that wrote that. But you're right - Kuber's article deserves a tag or two ;) -- L a v e o l  T 01:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Slovaks / Slovenes _ Proud Slavs
A Slavonym here defines an ethnicity and it's not offensive or pejorative Maqedan (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was reffering to this when I asked if Toci considers the term Slav to be pejorative. And only because he was talking about how Greeks wanted to abolish the term Macedonian and leave only Greek and Slav which is off course ridiculous. -- L a v e o l  T 13:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am against the compound Slav put together with Macedonians (or any compound X in X Macedonians where X=Slavo,Bulgaro,Skopjano,Fyromano). But seems you need a precise explanation so I will write is in detal. I am against use of Slavomacedonians, Bulgaromacedonians ,Skopjanomacedonians, Fyromanomacedonians and Anythingimaginablemacedonians or Slav Macedonians, Bulgarian Macedonians, Skopjan Macedonians, Fyromanian Macedonians, Anythingimaginable Macedonians. I hope we are clear now.
 * The point 8 of Nimetz's proposal is about abolishion of use of Macedonians and attribute Macedonian both by Macedonians and Greeks in any means except commercial. It is not ridiculous, but rather precise statement and point of ongoing negotiations between the Hellenic Republic and Republic of Macedonia on the dispute of the name Macedonia.
 * I have nothing against the Slavs, we are party Slavs as well as the Bulgarians and Greeks are. The Slavs conquered all Greece as well by George Ostrogorsky, so the same Slav genes are here and there as well. Ostrogorsky was world expert in Byzantology. The after Slav equasion will be Slav Greek-Slav Macedonian-Slav Bulgarian, not Greek-Slav Macedonian-Bulgarian. (Toci (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

and Avars,Turk,Gothic,Roman,Venetian,Scythian,Celtic,Roma... only Slavs came in Balkans? Slav is mainly a linguistic term and NOT a gene one Maqedan (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Toci, what you or I are against is respected and interesting but ultimately it is POV. The term Slav is above all cultural. It used by the church of the fy/ROM, many academics and historians in Skopje and was gladly accepted in WWII by the 'Slav Macedonians' who were also glad to be full members of the Yugo-Slav family. The litterature of those days often uses the term. It is also true that some people find it offensive, but that does not change the situation on the ground. Politis (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We are talking ethnicity today, not on literature and diplomacy. What is the situation on the ground? Does Slav Macedonians live in Republic of Macedonia today??? Read the censuses once more please and find the Slavs or Slav Macedonians. It is not POV. Censuses and statistics are hard facts. Macedonians (together with Serbs and Yugoslavs) exist in Serbia censuses (the last from 2002. Are Macedonians Serbian POV? (Why would the Serbians use Macedonians as ethnicity if they dont exist??? Why they dont use Slav Macedonians???) Macedonians exist in the Bulgarian census and they are definetly not Bulgarian POV ( from "Bulgaria: A Country Study"). Macedonians as Macedonians are ethnic group that lives in 2008 in Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria and all around the world. Slav Macedonians are historical tribe from history books that came in the region of Macedonia in the 6th century. They don't exist today as such. If you object to the use of Macedonians write a different heading in the bottom of the article or write in the talk. The article about Macedonians as ethnic group should be done only in regard to the factual ethnic statistics in the Balkan countries, the disputes should be in the talk and then in separate headings. (Toci (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

It's not about the term Macedonian which is used even by Pro-Bulgarian Macedonians. You just negate the fact that Scholars and Misirkov use Slavic Macedonian term as synonymous with Macedonian and they don't consider it offensive but rather clarifying Maqedan (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many references to Slav Macedonians from the 19th century, and they pre-date the 1980s reference to 'ethnic Macedonians'. It would be denying the roots of today's 'ethnic Macedonians' if we wipe out the reference to 'Slav'. Recent Skopje based historians such as Kriste Pitoski, Alexander Trayanovski, Risto Poplazakov, Ian Katardziev, and PM Dimitar Vlahov clarified they meant the 'Macedonian' people of Slav descent, or Slav Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs. At the same time, The immigrants to Australia in the 1940s and 1950s identified themselves also as Slav Macedonians - you only have to see their newspaper Makedonski Glas. Perhaps one day we may see two different nations, ethnic Macedonians, and then the Slav Macedonians of Ohrid fame, etc... living side by side, but that is not the aim of this article. I am really bafled why some people from fy/ROM and its diaspora take offense to the term 'Slav'; it was introduced in the 19th as the Macedonian issue was emerging. You can always email me if you like. Politis (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is true, "ethnic Macedonians" is rather new term (but it is more precise it shows ethnicity - Macedonian, so it is rather acceptable). Macedonian Slavs was introduced long ago to show closeness to the Slavic people, so people probably have written about Macedonian Slavs from some nostalgia (the Balkans are full of people that tend to see in the past or from some ideals, as Milco Mancevski writes make the centuries not to follow, but to co-exist), but they will always write Macedonian as ethnicity.
 * Same goes for the Greeks named as Greek Macedonians in Wikipedia. They will glorify their Macedonian heritage, but they will write Greek ethnicity.
 * I spoke with my carrot today and she (a Swedish girl) told me: "Why do you look in today, look to the future." I think even in thousand years we will dispute Slav Macedonians vs Greek Macedonians looking in the past and forgetting that we will be in the future ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Greeks. I will teach my kids to be Macedonians and they will teach their kids. I will tell them the stories about Macedonia. I believe that you will tell different stories about Macedonia and teach your kids to be Greek, and they will teach their kids to be Greek. Balkan cultures are narrative (especially Macedonian, because we never had a state and we kept our wisdom in stories and songs). Balkan people, we, don't write, we prefer to tell and therefore Balkan people are very very hard to be convinced. That is why we will have this debate forever. Look at the Macedonians in Greece. After so many years living in Greece, educated to be Greeks, they are stubborn like hell and tell their stories of being Macedonians. Same situation exists in Serbia in Vojvodina. There are Macedonians who moved there long time ago, two-three generations ago, educated in Serbian, but they are telling the same stories and still have Macedonian names. I use the Macedonian example, and I know that the Greek is the same, wherever they go they are Greeks to the grave. Even if we kill each other (the worst possible scenario) there will be hidden sparks that will be Greek traitors/Macedonian heroes or Greek heroes/Macedonian traitors and the debate will be on again. The only way to stop the debate is to recognize the Macedonians, because we will live as neighbours for many more centuries. Even if we are deleted as Macedonian next week, we will remain Macedonians in our stories and sooner or later we will enter the debate again. There are no Slav Macedonians (Slovenski Makedonci, sounds like Slovenian Macedonians) in my lecture to my kids, but there are Slavs, (proud Macedonian Slavs (Makedonski Sloveni) from the history schoolbooks) that probably also makes the people sometimes nostalgic. That is why we get offended, we are not familiar so good with Slav Macedonians, except recently in the diplomacy speeches. Slav Macedonians (Slovenski Makedonci) is logical to be Slavomacedonian (Slavomakedonci) to us and now it is a offensive part of our stories, unfortunatelly, that gives us unease. (Toci (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Say whatever you want at home, but if you aspire to be an equal member of the international community then you have some obligations, not only rights. You should respect other countries sensitivities even if you disagree with them. We don't like you calling yourselves a Greek name such as Macedonians, but we respect your right and just ask you to use a qualifier. You on the other hand act like children who want it all. That's not a mature way to go forward.--Avg (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Not all Balkan people have a tradition of illiteracy. I guess that's why some of us attach so much importance to documented evidence, as opposed to our grandmothers' fairytales. "The only way to stop the debate..." That's the objective, is it? No dissent? And how the hell does one speak to a carrot? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I call "carrot" my redhaired girl. I was replying directly to Politis. I think he will understand me since the question was: "Why against Slav Macedonians?" About international community things are clear. Macedonians exist in censuses and Republic of Macedonia is recognized as such by many states and by all including Greece as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (not Fyrom). Internationally I reply to ethnic Greeks now, to Avg and Kékrōps (you can check your passports for your nationality). I am Macedonian internationally (in my passport also says ethnicity: Macedonian). I kind of doubt that Macedonian will be deleted from my password ever, because it is human right. I don't do nothing wrong, because you are not officially and ethnically Macedonians. Makedones=Greek Macedonians (Wikipedia)=Greeks (the 442 people written under Greek Macedonians as minority in Republic of Macedonia are Greeks (officially by the census). As I wrote Macedonia is inside our told history, but Greeks officially are Greeks, we officially are Macedonians (there are no Slav and Greek Macedonians). We are not living in the history, but today and the future is in front of us, as my carrot says. Macedonians (as the Greeks) are persistant buggers as I wrote and the Macedonians have kept and will keep our ethnicity in our stories and officially in censuses where is allowed. Republic of Macedonia is motherland of the Macedonians from the 1940's and officially for the first time with a state document the Macedonians were recognized in 1943 (a short constitutional history of Republic of Macedonia, Centre for European Constitutional Law). As you were complaining about Macedonians you should have done it in 1943. Today you can either accept it or negate it (negations are all compound Macedonians names as well because constitutionally, ethnically and internationally we are Macedonians). (Toci (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC))


 * The difference is that you only "exist in censuses" since the 1940s, while the Μακεδόνες demonstrably go back to these guys, who didn't need censuses to prove their existence. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you connecting these guys with the 600000 Greeks from Anatolia from 1920s as well? You have a serious population conflict there (the exchange of population is documented clearly and ancient Macedonians have no direct continuity with all the 2.5M Μακεδόνες from the newspapers). If these guys were Greeks they should exist in the south of Republic of Macedonia as well and speak Greek. Greeks live up to the Greek border to Republic of Macedonia and ancient Macedonia is a bit further up. Vardarski rid is settlement of ancient Macedonians and no Greeks live in Gevgelija today and there is no record that they lived in the last centuries.
 * You might argue, there are Μακεδόνες (Greeks) in Macedonia (Greece) from the antiquity to today. From the article: "The 1904 Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha recorded 373,227 Greeks and 204,317 Bulgarians in the vilayet of Selânik (Thessaloniki) alone. According to the same census, Greeks were also dominant in the vilayet of Manastır (Bitola), counting 261,283 Greeks and 178,412 Bulgarians." (Explanation: Turks counted religions, Muslims, Jews and non-Muslims. The Christians were divided by their churches (the Greeks were Christians belonging to the Greek Patriarchate and Bulgarians to Bulgarian Exarchate (here is a Greek source on Patriarchists and Exarchists, saying "The term "Patriarchist" did not necessarily mean "of Greek consciousness" nor the term "Exarchist" always identify with the term "Bulgarian minded". Peasants' identity could easily change, either due to opportunism or pressure, as circumstances demanded."))) This is a situation before the Greeks were settled in Thessaloniki and if you see the population of the members of the Greek and Bulgarian church are same in Selânik and Manastır.
 * Now if you imply that the Turkish counted Greeks (as Μακεδόνες), the "Patriarchists", from 1904 in Selânik (today declared ethnically as Greeks) are direct descents of these guys then the Turkish counted Greeks, the "Patriarchist", in Manastır (today declared ethnically as Macedonians) have the right to be also direct descents of these guys. The trick is that the Thessaloniki is also populated with settlets Greeks who were not there in 1904. So if you imply a clear connection ancient Macedonians-Greeks (Ottoman census)-Greeks in the province of Macedonia from the above, then the clear picture for inheritance is only in Bitola where the link is ancient Macedonians-Greeks (Ottoman census)-Macedonians(from 1953 to today). The Greeks in the province of Macedonia are mix of Greeks (Ottoman census) and Greeks from Anatolia. It is a wrong to write Μακεδόνες if you are originally from Anatolia and it is even wronger to proclaim ancient Macedonian heritage. Don't you think? Bitola had no population input from 1904 and the Greek and Bulgarian Christian declared themselves Macedonians in the 1940s, only 50 years later and some of the people were in the both censuses. The Turk census was done with counting religion heads, whereas the census in 1953 was done on self-determinations of ethnicity.
 * The ancient Macedonians are not important to the factual ethnic situation today. Greeks can say that there is a mix, but we can say it as well, especially the people in Bitola who are not different at all from the people in Skopje (except that their dialect is more purely pronounced Macedonian language). So the debate on heritage and who is who in the past will lead us nowhere as I wrote. It is a forever debate.
 * So if you have no ethnic data or more precise exact number of Μακεδόνες in Greece written as Μakedones (Macedonians) in censuses or anywhere except "2.5M Μακεδόνες" in newspapers I don't see why we can not use only Makedonci (Macedonians) today. (Toci (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I've noticed that your responses are becoming inversely proportional to other editors' posts. Keep up the good work. You're missing the point, however; the heritage of ancient Macedonia is part of Greece's national heritage. In other words, it belongs to all Greeks, not just those who happen to live in Macedonia today. And the continuity of the Macedonian identity is not and need not be of a genetic nature; the fact that there is a continuous tradition of self-identifying Greeks living in Macedonia and self-identifying as Macedonians, regardless of their ultimate origins, can hardly be disputed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why Macedonian historians like Katardziev and Georgievski prefer the documents instead of the fairy-tales Maqedan (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Greece did object.


 * 1957,Times,
 * 1944,Megistias (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

An ancient,unrelated name cannot not be monopolized
Would they be the terms Illyrian Slavs, North Illyrians pejorative and offensive?? if Bosnians,Croats or Serbs had chosen them? and there has been already a Slavic Illyrian movement and the term Illyrian in 17th-19th c. meant mostly Balkan Slavs. Even the Serbo-Croatian language was named Illyrian. Do you think Albanians wouldn't react?

the term Illyrian for Slavs precedes Macedonian Illyrians

Hristofor Zhefarovich an 18th-century painter, writer and a notable proponent of Pan-Slavism from Dojran, Macedonia worked for the spiritual resurgence of the Bulgarian and Serbian people, as he considered them to be one and the same "Illyrian" people. Zhefarovich described himself as a "zealot of the Bulgarian homeland" ("ревнитель отечества болгарскаго"), but also discussed "our Serbian motherland" ("отечество сербско наше") and signed as a "universal painter of Illyria and Raška" ("иллирïко рассïанскïи общïй зографъ"). In his testament he explicitly noted that his relatives were "of Bulgarian nationality" ("булгарской нации"). Maqedan (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do scholars use also the term Slav Macedonian? ..the Greek position? I don't think so.. they use it because Macedonian name belongs mainly to ancient Macedonians. Maqedan (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is Egyptian Arabic offensive and pejorative because Egyptian language refers mainly to Ancient Egyptians? Maqedan (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If the above, presumably Greek commentators, actually knew their histry, they would know that there is virtually no such thing as a Macedonian "Greek", in the true primordial ethnic sense. Not that it matters. It just seems it is a bit of an irony and hypocrisy that they are so fervently against Macedonians being called that. Hxseek (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This section is unrelated to the Greek position and distinguishes Ancient Macedonians to Slav Macedonians Maqedan (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Just as, i;m sure, modern Greeks distinguish themselves from ancient GReeks Hxseek (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it just so happens that Ancient and Modern Greeks are indeed connected through language and culture. The same can obviously be said for Ancient Macedonians and Macedonian Greeks, since Ancient Macedonians were Ancient Greeks and Macedonian Greeks are Modern Greeks. Ancient Macedonians and Slavomacedonians on the other hand have no, zilch, nada connection. And yet it's them who try to monopolise the name! Surreal, but true... --   Avg     06:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Avg, are you thick in the head? Over half of the "Macedonian Greeks" were Pontic Greeks before 1920s! And even more "Macedonian Greeks" are assimilated ethnic Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Vlach. Get over yourself with your hypocrisy. Maktruth (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to my archive of civilised and enlightened responses from Slavomacedonians.--   Avg     21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? The self-determination principle applies equally to all, regardless if they directly descend from the left testicle of mighty Philip or not. The Greek population in Macedonia indeed doubled after the population exchange, but that doesn't mean that the other half wasn't related genetically. In any case, nobody should care, because we can all name many "pure descendants" who are total idiots (even after only one generation, let alone 100 generations since Alex). NikoSilver 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly Niko, the problem is when they deny our self-determination because of it. These people that self-determinate as Greek Macedonian who have Pontic Greek or Bulgarian/ethnic Macedonian/Vlach origin deny the ethnic Macedonian self-determination stating they are the "true Macedonians." That is OBSURD and that is the issue. The truth is BOTH Greek Macedonian and Ethnic Macedonian are MODERN terms, and both sides need to get over it because it wasn't "the other half" are genetically related to ancient Macedonians. In Ottoman Macedonia, only 10% of the population stated they were Greek (about 300,000 people), the rest were assimilated or came to the land after the population exchange. HENCE about 90% of the "Greek Macedonians" have no connection. Maktruth (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maktruth, self-determination is a double-edged knife. The Greeks have a right to that self-determination also, regardless if they were all new to the area. However, regarding your percentages (10% vs 90%), they are wrong: Greek population in Macedonia doubled. Here's a non-Greek source that says the percentage before was 43% and became 89% after the exchange: NikoSilver 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that even the Pontic Greeks arguably have a lot more relation to the Ancient Macedonians. The ancient Greek diaspora happened after (and because of) Alexander; so you could even say they simply returned. This shouldn't matter, though, since self-determination should prevail, which is actually good for you especially (and which I totally support!) NikoSilver 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nikosilver, I state Greek Macedonians are allows to self-determinate, I have no problem with that, the problem is when they try denying our self-determination because of it. The percentages you gave are partially WRONG because of the times you give for the percents: Ottoman Macedonia had a Greek population of 10%, BUT after Greek Macedonia was given to Greece (1913 until the population exchanges), Greeks from Southern Greece came into Macedonia while non-Greeks were being removed or assimilated from Greek Macedonia. A combination of both increased the Greek population from pre-1913 10% to pre-population exchanges 43%. Maktruth (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that claim? NikoSilver 20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Pontic Greeks don't have relation to the ancient Macedonians. It is well known Greeks were colonizing the East, including modern-day Turkey, well before Alexander the Great was even born, considering the first recorded Greek colony around the Black Sea was 800 BC. So I don't view them as "returning." Again though, I agree it DOES NOT MATTER because Greek Macedonian and ethnic Macedonian are BOTH modern terms, the sooner both sides realize this the better. Maktruth (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Glad we're back in the topic. NikoSilver 20:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) vs Makedonci (Македонци=Macedonians)
(the heading was wrong for the talk so I made a new to reply Kékrōps) Seems that we have same thought with Hxseek in the above heading. Kékrōps wrote: "The continuity of the Macedonian identity is not and need not be of a genetic nature; the fact that there is a continuous tradition of self-identifying Greeks living in Macedonia and self-identifying as Macedonians, regardless of their ultimate origins, can hardly be disputed." The Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) are reason for using Slav Macedonians for Makedonci (Македонци=Macedonians) in the article. I tried to find censual data for the Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians), but it seems they are self-identified people by Kékrōps and they don't exist in censuses. I don't understand what self-identified Macedonians are so I went in the Greek Wikipedia to see the Μακεδόνες, but strangely I got redirected to the page for Macedonia. I don't know Greek, but there is no reference who are the Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) today and what is their number. There is reference to the ancient Macedonian dinasty. Now I can only guess that the self-identified Macedonians today are the ancient Macedonian kings (αρχαίοι Μακεδόνες)? I also checked the en:Alexander the Great article. Seems that he is not ancient Macedonian, or self-identified Macedonian, but ancient Greek. So confusing for me. I am trying to find these self-identified Macedonians that dispute us, but I can't, I find Greeks instead. (off topic, a reply to Kékrōps): Kékrōps also added: "The heritage of ancient Macedonia is part of Greece's national heritage. In other words, it belongs to all Greeks, not just those who happen to live in Macedonia today." I get rather worried when still I see national heritage and the belonging thing. It reminds me of Milosevic speeches and the graffiti "Serbia to Tokyo". Milosevic's wars devastated our region and we all lost. Now on the Balkans we all depend on foreign help (and the problem will be if my carrots people and its neighbours stop that help). I wrote that the city of Gevgelija that is populated with Makedonci (Македонци=Macedonians) is near an ancient Macedonian settlement and there are no Greeks there (except the ones that visit the local casinos there, Gevgelija is the Balkan's small Las Vegas). I just hope that in the wish to become "a true part of the Greece's national heritage" Gevgelija will not be covered with graffiti in a style "Greece to India". I hope that someone in Greece thinks of the national future instead of the heritage. (Toci (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

in Ottoman census and elections.
 * Offcourse the main reason is the Ancient Macedonians why the scholars use ALSO the term Slav Macedonians for Makedonci
 * Sicilians also redirects to Sicily. There are in Italian censcus no Sicilians. The same for Bavarians (Germans in census)
 * Since you like so much the census, you would have no problem and respect the fact that your ancestors declared Bulgarians
 * Other "offensive" examples : Egyptian Arabic, American English, Spanish American Maqedan (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) were breathing and living milion people population. Seems that Makedones (Μακεδόνες)=ancient Macedonians (not Macedonians). Ancient Macedonians have their own article in the English Wikipedia, separate from Macedonians (so they can be used for the dispute, you can name them in their full name in Greek as αρχαίοι Μακεδόνες in Macedonian we use Anticki Makedonci, Drevni Makedonci or I even heard Stari Makedonci (Old Macedonians) to make the difference). Even more in the article on the Ancient Macedonians says: "Whether the ancient Macedonians were an ethnically Greek people themselves continues to be debated by historians, linguists, and lay people." So Greeks say as well don't use Macedonians because of Ancient Macedonians who are debated to the ethnically Greek people or not. The answer on the question are Ancient Macedonians who are ethnically Greek people or not we can't solve because there are both sources that says they are, and sources that say they are not and most od all we can't solve it because they don't exist anymore.
 * So I can conclude that the Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) is used in the media for the declared ethnical Greeks that believe in a romantic national story (that insists that the Ancient Macedonians) are Greek national heritage and Ancient Macedonians are Greeks, a fact that is disputed and it can't be solved). Where the population facts show ethnic Greeks (not Macedonians or Greek Macedonians) and ethnic Macedonians (not Slavs or Slav Macedonians) in the whole region of Macedonia today. And therefore in the use of anything else then Macedonians is unnecessary in the article.
 * There should be maybe a heading name Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) that tells the Greek national story (with a mention that is not ethnic fact, but more nostalgical feeling of some Greeks (I believe all) toward the Ancient Macedonians). But then if there is a heading like that then there should be heading saying the Macedonian national story (with a mention that is just a story) that also believe that Ancient Macedonians, Slavs, Romans, and other armies that pass through Macedonia are all ancestors of the Makedonci (Македонци=Macedonians). Alexandar the Great as king is also included in our told stories. (Toci (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * NO its not.FYrom is in paeonian and dardanian land,its people speak bulgarian and they renamed their nation and language to a non related Greek element called Macedon.Megistias (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether they were originally Greek is irrelevant since they either were or became 2500 years ago and still are.Megistias (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The modern Greek position is irrelevant. Macedonian name belongs by its origin to Macedonians (Ancient Macedonians, original name Makedones). Scholars use both Macedonian and Slav Macedonian name for Makedonci. Slav Macedonian is offensive for Macedonist Nationalists who want all the name and its ancient history ,spreading confusion upon Makedones and Makedonci. just simple Maqedan (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Slav Macedonian is a secondary, clarifying term for Macedonians (Makedonci). Nothing more. Maqedan (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fyrom and its people have nothing to do with macedon.In no aspect.Greeks were macedonians for 2700 years since hesiod mentioned them.Keep fyrom fantasies away.Megistias (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We are talking both on Greek and Macedonian fantasies of the origin to the ancient Macedonian (as I wrote up the Greek origin of the ancient Macedonians is disputed even in Wikipedia where most of the editors are Greek). But the ethnicity Macedonian means only Makedonci (Македонци) today. There is no ethnographical facts or population numbers of Makedones (Μακεδόνες) today, sorry (therefore they are Greek fantasy). They are ethnic Greeks, by censuses who fantasy they are Makedones (Μακεδόνες) because they live in Macedonia. According to the 2001 census, the total population of Greece was 10,964,020 out of which 93% (or 10,196,539) were Greeks and 7% foreigners (mostly from Albania and Bulgaria). So until you make an ethnicity Macedonians (Μακεδόνες) in your census list that you check next to the check for Greeks (Έλληνες) (as it is in the censuses in Republic of Macedonia, Bulgaria and Serbia) you have no fact that Macedonians (Μακεδόνες) exist in Greece and you can dispute our use of Macedonians. (Toci (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * The fantasy zone is what fyrom is in.Its not in ancient macedon its in Ancient Dardania and Paeonia.The people speak bulgarian and want to be called macedonians the past few years.Whislt for 2700 years macedonians were Greeks.Like cretans and thessalians thats what it means, a Greek.Now modern FyroMacedonian means bulgarian language on ancient thracians/illyrian land and a people brainwashed by communism.Megistias (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a link of the other declared Macedonians (Μακεδόνες) in Greece. Please read carefully with regards from Europe.
 * Please, the use of Bulgarian or FyroMacedonian, Fyrom (noun) is not proper for this talk (it is consensual and proper use Republic of Macedonia (RoM) or former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYRoM). Read WP:TALK. The above uses I see as personal attack to my ethnicity and my language which are by Wikipedia Macedonian (we are discussing the alternative names now, Macedonian is not disputed). (Toci (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * The language is not as bulgarian "relative" disputed pardon my abruptness but my ethnicity is insulted as well about 10000 time and everytime you call yourselves mak and separate it from the Greek ethnicity ,its like the turks saying they are Macedonians and that they are related to ancient macedonians!Megistias (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article you quote says "Macedonian is closely related to and mutually intelligible with Standard Bulgarian."Dont hide behind your finger man.Megistias (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The link is from the political party rainbow.They can declare themselves Martians but it wont make them thus.Megistias (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Macedonian language is mutually intelligible with Standard Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian as well, not only to Bulgarian, also to some extend to the other Slavic languages, but you wrote "The people speak bulgarian". The people in Republic of Macedonia speak Macedonian language (MKD).
 * The political party Rainbow are party of ethnic Macedonians in Greece (officially recognized as minority in Europe). They use the Greek term Μακεδόνες Macedonians to describe their ethnical identity (Macedonians, or Makedonci in Macedonian) in their school book (which is 2006 reprint from a Greek school book from 1925). So I gave you a link to a book originally printed in Greece in 1925, reprinted in 2006 not to the party. I wrote to unreveal the Greek term Μακεδόνες. I this book the term Μακεδόνες (in English, Macedonian) is used for Makedonci.
 * These people seem like self-identified Macedonians (Μακεδόνες) in Greece, with a notion ethnic that means ethnicity, a tribe of people, not geographical location of a tribe of people. (Toci (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * They only use the name when its a name used to identify Greeks.Like (RoM) does.Its a name that is applied with no essence or relationship with actual Greek Macedonians or Ancient Macedonia/ns/language which is and was in Greece/Ancient Greece and not in Paeonia/Dardania and unrelated to Slavic peoples whether they put the epithete Macedonian or Martian in their name.And just so you know the leader of this party said that he himslef has no nationality at all (rom) or otherwise since he is a communist at heart and its all reaction for him. Megistias (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The 442 Greeks in the census in Republic of Macedonia from 2002 (and all the censuses before) are clearly Greeks (Έλληνες, not Μακεδόνες). In the same direction 93% of the population in Greece is Greeks and the word Έλληνες is used if you see their article in Wikipedia. Μακεδόνες or Macedonians is not used anywhere in the article about Greeks (there are only Greeks). So you are basically complaining about the use of Macedonians, without originally using it yourselves (you use Greeks everywhere). And it is rather the Greeks that use the epithete Macedonian as addition to their ethnicity and are proud to be Greek Macedonians or Macedonian Greek. We have no epithetes to Macedonians and there is no need of one.
 * Any references to communism as something bad is unnecessary and off topic, everyone has right to be whatever likes. If you want to undergrade the party with a mention that it is a communist party that is your personal view. Personal views are for forums, not for Wiki-talks.
 * (unserious remark for relax, not for Wiki-talks as well: When I think twice Martian Macedonians would sound funky).(Toci (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC))


 * You really have to get over your obsession with considering the terms "Macedonian" and "Greek" to be mutually exclusive. They are not. The Μακεδόνες are both Macedonian and Greek, and see no conflict or contradiction therein. Regarding your confusion above vis-à-vis Alexander the Great, no one has ever disputed the fact he was an ancient Macedonian - how would that even be possible? Just like today's Μακεδόνες, he saw himself as Macedonian, therefore Greek. In fact, one could argue that your persistence on segregating the Macedonian from the Greek is un-Macedonian, as it goes against the ancient Macedonian tradition of active identification with and participation in the Greek culture. It is telling that those who disputed the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians through the ages were not actually ancient Macedonians themselves. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no obsession, Macedonian syntactically and semantically is different word then Greek (Macedonian and Greek are not synonyms). I don't see the segregation of Macedonian from the Greek, but I see the attribution of Macedonian in Greek as Macedonization. You are being heavily Macedonized. There are no censual or any ethnic facts of Macedonian Greeks or Greek Macedonians today, but in Wikipedia they are forwarded as separate ethnic group that is slowly Macedonized in the edits. It the old revision of the article Macedonia (Greece) from 12 May 2007 says: "The inhabitants are overwhelmingly ethnic Greeks (Greek Macedonians)...". In the old revision of the page 22 November 2007 says "... Greek Macedonians have developed a strong regional identity..." (no mention of Macedonians (Μακεδόνες)). And today is written: "Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) is the term by which ethnic Greeks originating from Macedonia, particularly the Greek region of Macedonia, are known. The Macedonians have a strong regional identity..." As the Macedonization goes probably in a year this page will be changed and will display these Greek Macedonians (Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) even though factually they don't exist as separate ethnic group from the Greeks (or exist in censuses).
 * The process of Macedonization of Greeks is followed by second attribution process of Slavonizing the ethnic Macedonians (the use Slav Macedonians, Slavic language, Slavs, etc). I don't edit the articles, but I participate in the talks to improve the articles, and these two tendencies Macedonization of Greeks and Slavonizing the ethnic Macedonians should cease.
 * The relation ancient Macedonian-today’s Greeks is under a big question. I urge all the editors in the talk to not use this Greek national story as argument because it has no ground. There is no 100% proof that the ancient Macedonians were Greek (they could be Greek, but also could not be), even more there is no answer on that question and I doubt that there will be. So Ancient Macedonians are not the same as today’s Greeks (this argument stand even if Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, because there is more then 2000 years between us and them). We are living in the 21st century, they in the 6-2nd BC, and lot of armies and settlers passed in that time. (Toci (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt (page 143) By Willy Clarysse, Dorothy J. Thompson

163 BC Ptolemaios son of Glaukias Macedonian soldier in Egypt said "They chase me because I am Greek". By your logic he is not Macedonian!
 * The question is about the first origin of Macedonians. Nobody denies the fact that after 4th c.BC are Greeks who by force hellenized other people in Balkans, Africa and Asia.
 * Several Greeks and most Bulgarians don't have problem with Macedonian name of yours but they have with the monopolization and the interpretation of history you do. You can be Macedonians as much as you like but you cannot make ethnic Macedonian past people who did not have this identity Maqedan (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ROM) is slavic people unrelated(slavic language,paeonian-dardania region,slav history) to the ancient greeks whilst modern greeks are related to them,see genetics and history.You just stole the name and claim 1/4th of greek territory.You also steal Greek & Bulgarian history.We know ancient MAcedonians have nothing to do with (rom) other then in the brainwashed mind of peoples.Megistias (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many and different Macedonians in past and present. Not all Macedonians (Makedonci) believe in a "Non-Slavic Macedonism". Gligorov said : we are Macedonians, Slav Macedonians unrelated to Ancient Macedonians but still Macedonians Maqedan (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats even more confusing cause of the name.Megistias (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you read my posts and the heading? This is a talk about the Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) today, in the 21st century.
 * If you refer to ancient sources there is confusion and they sometimes make difference between Macedonians and Greek (there was even a duel between a Macedonian and a Greek where, where the Greek hero won in one of Alexandar's III histories) and sometimes not (as in your example). Macedonians were sometimes refered as barbarians due to their culture (barbarian is non-Greek speaker) and sometimes not. So this ancient Macedonian debate is futile, no one really can prove anything. There are sources that back up the both sides. The interest of this talk is to see who are the Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) today, in the 21st century. So if you know any of them, (besides Karamanlis who I see is born in Athens and even by Greek standard should be Attican (Athenian), not Macedonian meaning inhhabitant of the region Macedonia) please put a reference to them (and the source should must not be from the newspapers and politician staetement).
 * If there are no factual sources on Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) today i will ask the editors to refer to them as is their ethnicity and not to use Macedonize them (Wikipedia is not a place for original research and new ideas). (Toci (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
 * There is no confusion they were ancient Greeks.Thats what archeology tells us about all sections of culture on their existence.There are sources that back only the Greeks.(Rom) uses only the name as an irredendist tool.Spartans and most non Athenians were called barbarians as well as an isnult.There is nto greek hero vs mac hero.You are not makedones except in name as we are makedones as a variant of being Greek now and in the past.Megistias (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole concept of (rom) is original research and a new idea based in irredentism and claiming other peoples identities and territories.Megistias (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Karamanlis was born in Athens but his origin is from Proti Kupkoy Serres Macedonia. He is also married to a Macedonian woman.
 * There is no confusion about the hellenization of Macedonians. The dispute is about their first origin before 4th c.BC. (Even if they

were not Greeks, they were hellenized and hellenized other people,too. Maqedan (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This has to do nothing with (ROm) if Macedonians were either Hellens or Hellenised in 500-400 bc is irrelevant.The data shows they were Hellenes from the start and not phrygians,thracians,Illyrians.Megistias (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Toci, you're still missing the point. Stop being so hung up on ethnicity. The Macedonians are not and do not claim to be a separate ethnic group; they are the Greeks of Macedonia, just as the Cretans are the Greeks of Crete, the Athenians are the Greeks of Athens, etc. How many times does this have to be explained to you? Is "Macedonian" the only term by which you identify yourself? If you are from Skopje, aren't you also a Скопјанец, or an Охриѓанец if you are from Ohrid? Or do you need a census to "prove" that too? Your obsession with census figures is particularly misguided in light of the fact that ethnicity is not recorded at all in the Greek census. Perhaps you dispute the existence of Greeks in Greece as well? They don't appear in the census, after all. Even if ethnicity were recorded, it wouldn't change the fact that the Macedonian identity is independent of the notion of ethnicity. Come to think of it, the Macedonians already are recorded in the census, as the sum total of the population of Macedonia. The Macedonians do not have to be "ethnic Macedonians" in order to be Macedonians, especially given that the concept of a Macedonian ethnicity is a neologism that does not exist at all in the Greek view. Macedonia is inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups, and the claim of one of those groups that it is "ethnically Macedonian" implies that it is somehow autochthonous to the region, and that the others, of course, are not. If one were able to claim autochthony at all in a region with such a mixed population and volatile history, that could only be the Greeks themselves, who have demonstrably been there the longest. The real question is what makes you more "Macedonian" than the inhabitants of Macedonia who do not share your ethnicity but have lived in the region longer? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we are talking about tribes (nations, nationalities, ethnic groups), not about city addresses. Here is what means ethnology. It is about ethnic, racial, and/or national divisions. You wrote: "The Macedonians are not and do not claim to be a separate ethnic group; they are the Greeks of Macedonia." I am trying to say that there is no difference between Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) as Greeks from the other Greeks and therefore they are Greeks (why name them Macedonians). So making Greek Macedonians or lately refered as Makedones (Μακεδόνες=Macedonians) is the new term (neologism) that Macedonizes the Greeks. (I make distinction here between modern Greeks of Macedonia and ancient Macedonians who are disputed to be related historically).
 * "Macedonia is inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups (I am completely agreed on that), and the claim of one of those groups that it is "ethnically Macedonian" implies that it is somehow autochthonous to the region (I don't agree with that, no tribe is clearly autochthonous on the Balkans and has solely right to proclaim successor rights, that is all nationalist stories that should be overlived). I have no gains being Macedonian, I use it to make tribal distinctions (Macedonians are over tolerant (they prefer to put their head low in the ground), super curious, loud talking people who like to sing when they are drunk and they dance oro's (complicated and often broken rhytm ring dances), make tavce-gravce and bunch of overcooked (that is a remark from my carrot who teaches me to eat some healthy food) veggie dishes). Greeks are also loud talking people, but they often lack tolerance, they are cockey (they prefer to put their head high in the clouds), they dance sirtaki, make giro and also lot of overcooked dishes, but with origano (a Greek spice we call it)). Internationally if you use Macedonian you will get confused for one in a group of ring dancers, instead of a alone sirtaki dancer or a group of straight aligned sirtaki dancers (I hope I made a clear distinction on ethnicity and that is the answer on your question what makes us "Macedonian" and you "Greeks").
 * Macedonia is much smaller region then 100 years ago seen internationally (you can see that the province Macedonia in Greece is not named Macedonia on the map). On a national level you are Greeks, on a national level we are Macedonians. That is a fact that counts for Wikipedia. The Greeks exist officially. Says there that the collection of data about the other tribes in Greece is rather vague.
 * You wrote that: "Macedonian ethnicity is a neologism that does not exist at all in the Greek view." I can only answer that the Macedonian ethnicity (tribe) is fact that as Greeks (Bulgarians also) you should start seeing us (we are your neighbours for a long long time). You are always very welcome in Republic of Macedonia for a visit. I am in Skopje these days, the air is a bit polluted, there is terrible congestion of trafic, but the spring is just wonderful. (Toci (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC))


 * That still doesn't answer my question. If you are "completely agreed" on the fact that Macedonia is inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups, what makes you "Macedonian" and the Greeks of Macedonia not? The basic meaning of Macedonian is someone or something from Macedonia, isn't it? Wouldn't you agree then that a poor choice of name was made in 1944? Or was denying the Macedonicity of the other ethnic groups of Macedonia the whole point? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost every ethnicity/nationality shares its name with the demonym for a region or country. What does "Bulgarian" mean? Someone in Bulgaria, or an ethnic Bulgarian? What does "German" mean? Someone in Germany or an ethnic German? What does "American" mean? If all those and many more terms can have multiple meanings, so can "Macedonian".  Balkan Fever  07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that the Greeks of Macedonia are neither part of nor subordinate to the "Macedonian" nation. Toci is saying that because of this, they are not and cannot be Macedonians. That's the gist of the problem. The entire notion of a "Macedonian" ethnicity is based on the denial of the Macedonicity of the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia, especially the part not occupied by the Republic. According to this fantasy, the Greeks of Macedonia are "Greeks" and nothing else, ergo alien to Macedonia. Strangely, a new form of denial seems to be emerging vis-à-vis the name of the region as well. Since Aegean Macedonia is now under Greek occupation and we can never get it back, it shouldn't be called Macedonia at all, only "Greece". It isn't marked on the CIA map, after all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Greeks of Macedonia are Greeks by all the facts, that is not fantasy. Any other claim is twisting the facts. Same goes for the map. If you think that the CIA factbook is not reliable reference, please point out why.
 * Yes, the Greeks are not part of nor subordinate to the Macedonians (Macedonian nation), but they are equal inhabitants in the entire historical region of Macedonia, as the Albanians, Rhomas, Serbians, Vlachs (the decentralization, local self-governing and deborderization (EU's agendas) will emphasize that equality). Noone denies the Macedonicity (regionally) of the other ethnic groups, but you can not be ethnic Macedonian if you are ethnic Greek, Albanian, Rhoma, Serbian, Vlach. I don't want to be missunderstood, each of these tribes is unique and precious to the ethnological and cultural map not only of Macedonia, but of the Balkans. (Toci (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Thank you for demonstrating my point. It is your belief that you are "ethnically Macedonian" that lies at the core of the problem, as it makes you unable or reluctant to accept the reality that one can be Macedonian without sharing your ethnicity. Yes, the Greeks of Macedonia are Greeks, and they are also Macedonians, albeit not in the way you use the term. If you accept that "they are equal inhabitants in the entire historical region of Macedonia", why can't you accept that they are Macedonians? If we agree that Macedonia is a multiethnic region, aren't all of its inhabitants Macedonians, regardless of their national identity? Why should the name belong exclusively to a minority of ⅓ of the region's population? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is simple really. Let's say that some people somewhere in Europe adopt the term "ethnic Europeans". Suddenly the French, Germans, English, Italians and co will say "hey, we are Europeans too!". But the reply will be "Yes, but you're not Ethnic Europeans". How can you beat this insanity? --   Avg     01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese in Mongolia are Mongolian, but not ethnic Mongolian. The ethnic Kazakhs in Russia are Russian, but not ethnic Russian. It's not insanity, you just don't understand it properly because in Greece there is no such distinction.  Balkan Fever  02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you are referring to nation-states, not transnational regions. Your examples are simply not comparable to what we're talking about here. If the "Republic of Macedonia" controlled all of Macedonia, any Greeks who remained would have no choice but to be "Macedonian" citizens. There is no Bulgaria outside the Republic of Bulgaria, no Germany outside the Federal Republic of Germany, no Russia outside the Russian Federation. There is, of course, an Inner Mongolia, but the Chinese living there do not, as far as I know, identify as Mongolians, hence no naming dispute. I guess the only really comparable example is America, which has been hijacked by the world's superpower, much to the chagrin of Latin Americans who despise the appropriation of the term by the hated gringos, preferring instead to call them estadounidenses or norteamericanos. Naturally, there would be no naming dispute if you were a superpower, but you're not. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The older questions were: "If we agree that Macedonia is a multiethnic region, aren't all of its inhabitants Macedonians, regardless of their national identity? Why should the name belong exclusively to a minority of ⅓ of the region's population?"
 * But first, I don't believe that I am Macedonian. It is written in my passport that I am.
 * If we are multiethnic region why should we write everyone as Macedonian, when at least in Republic of Macedonia the ethnic groups are clearly differentiated in the censuses? Why depriving them from their ethnicity? If they are Albanians it is wrong to declare them as Macedonians or making Macedonians out of them (Albanians are proud to be Albanians in Republic of Macedonia and they are keeping their Albanian customs).
 * You are making confusion with attributing Macedonian to Greek, on the assumption that everyone that lives in Macedonia should be Macedonian. The factual situation is that the Greeks in the region of Macedonia are declared only as Greeks (without attributes). If we attribute Macedonian as is used for Greeks we will be Macedonian Macedonians, Albanian will be Albanian Macedonians... A terminology that is rather useless and adds typing time. The ethnic groups are there to make some differences. Macedonians have their customs, Greeks have theirs, Albanians theirs, Vlachs, Rhomas... Some Macedonian customs are eating tavce-gravce, lutenica and ajvar and drinking rakija and mastika. Some Greek customs are eating gyro and drinking tsipouro and ouzo. There are differences.
 * You are seeing the historical region of Macedonia as one and the reality is that is divided in four parts with state borders. You can't sum them up together and declare the Macedonians a minority in the region. If you see factually Macedonians are majority in Republic of Macedonia and minority in the other parts of the historical region of Macedonia and in Serbia. The name Macedonians describes (belongs exclusively to) that ethnicity, those people today. The Greeks of Macedonia presented as Macedonians are no Macedonian people, but Greek people. They exist as Macedonians only recently in the English Wikipedia (maybe the new version of the article should be verified) (and not in the Greek Wikipedia). In the English Wikipedia they were refered as ethnic Greeks (Greek Macedonians) or Greek Macedonians last year ( check the history of the article Macedonia (Greece)) based on one article from 1998. (Toci (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

Wrong again. The Greeks of Macedonia are Macedonian and Greek people, because that's how they see themselves and are seen by others. Indeed, our Macedonians have existed for thousands of years, long before "it" was written in your passport, which by the way is unrecognized and useless in most (51%) of Macedonia. They are not an invention of the English Wikipedia. You, however, are an invention of Yugoslav expansionism. While the name Μακεδόνες is attested since classical antiquity, "Македонци" is simply not. Even in the Slavic languages, "Македонци" has been used as an ethnonym for only a small fraction of its overall history as a word. That is an irrefutable fact. "The factual situation is that the Greeks in the region of Macedonia are declared only as Greeks (without attributes)." "Declared only" by whom? You?

I like the irony in your remonstration that I am "seeing the historical region of Macedonia as one". Isn't that how you view it? A single historical entity that rightfully belongs to you, the "Macedonians"?

You are right about the differences between us, however, which further demonstrate why Macedonian can only be a regional, not an ethnic identifier. I am Macedonian and I am not like you. You can say that I am not Macedonian, of course, but I will say the same about you. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (quote: "Why should the name belong exclusively to a minority of ⅓ of the region's population?") I read that you wrote Macedonians are ethnic minority in Macedonia. You clearly see the entire region as Macedonia. I tend to think of Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia) as the country where the Macedonians are majority. I also don't forget the rights of the Macedonians in the surrounding countries, but not in that view. United Macedonia is unrealistic as any nationalist story. It is rather useless and contraproductive article as Great Albania or Megali Idea.
 * No. Macedonia (region) exists according to all scholars. It just happens that your country has the name of a wider region where it belongs. Period. NikoSilver 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Macedonians today, even though they are small tribe, are verified ethnic group (you can't deny that) with their language, culture and customs (Macedonian folklore, especially the music, stories and epic poetry, is rather precious and unique). The term Macedonians (Makedonci or Makidonci, also used in the past) precedes even the Kingdom Yugoslavia, so your argument doesn't stand. We are old event that is consistent.
 * No. According to all credible scholars, your national awakening began in the late 18 hundreds with Misirkov et al. Before those, your people mainly self-identified as Bulgarians, hence they do not exist in any census of the time. That's not bad. All ethnic groups were created at some point in time. NikoSilver 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will write for the hundred time ancient Macedonians are not verified to be Greeks (you can't say that the ancient Macedonians are Greeks) and they will not be verified by the present sources (read Demosthenes and you will be pursuaded that the Macedonians are not Greeks). Everything about the Ancient Macedonians can be disputed and most of the Wikipedia articles are biased. Take for example Macedon. Macedon does not exist as such in the history. Instead Macedonia exist everywhere. Macedon (Ancient Macedonia is the correct term) is used to make difference from Macedonia (common reference for Republic of Macedonia). Also the term Greeks is used for Ancient Macedonians if you see the article Alexander the Great. So the Greek editors prefer to delete ancient Macedonia and ancient Macedonians and use Macedon and Greeks, but on the other hand they declare themselves Macedonians (you do as well) in the newest version of the article about Macedonia (Greece) these days. It is very unconsistent use of terms.
 * No. There are recent theories that the ancient Macedonians could have been a non-Greek people, based mainly on fringe theories about a different language. IMO this is a remote case, but I'll play along with this hypothesis. Even so, their rulers, including Philip and Alexander, self-identified as Greeks. Period. Now if the ancient Macedonians were different, yet they chose to be ruled by Greeks, then choose your own conclusions. NikoSilver 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And BTW, even if they were different, according to all scholars they had been assimilated by the Greeks until the end of the transitional period for the Greek language (about 300 AD). Slavic peoples started coming as late as 600 AD. So, either you mixed with Greeks (which I find very plausible, but I'm sure you'd hate the idea given your comments) or you do not have the ancient Macedonian blood inside you (because there were no Macedonians left by then, unless they were blended with the Greeks). It is crazy to claim that you are the descendant of both Alexander the Great and Tsar Samuel at the same time! LOL! To add to this crazy history you're being taught, maybe you should know that Basil the Bulgar-slayer who kicked Samuil, was a member of the Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantine Empire. Was he one of yours too? NikoSilver 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am Macedonian. I am consistent in the use of the term (we don't use any other term or addition to Macedonian). I am recognized as Macedonian by every country where you can travel with my Macedonian passport. I am only denied to be Macedonian in the Hellenic republic that doesn't recognize our ethnicity (Hellenic republic doesn't recognize any ethnicity and regards everyone as Greek). Therefore the Greeks in the region of Macedonia are declared only as Greeks (without attributes) by everyone. Here is an example in Greece's Country Report on Human Rights Practice: "A number of citizens identified themselves as Turks, Pomaks (Slavic speaking Muslims), Vlachs, Roma, Arvanites (Orthodox Christians who speak a dialect of Albanian), or Macedonians." The State Department of US clearly does distinction between Macedonians and Greeks. So be careful when you declare yourself as Macedonian. You will be regarded as Macedonian in the US, not as Greek. As you see Macedonians and Greeks are mutually exclusive, same as Greek and Turks or same as Greeks and any other tribe. (Toci (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Yes you are. You are also Balkanian, European, Eurasian, and an earthling. The Greeks do not negate your existence as an ethnic group. They negate your identification as a group with the use of a term that in part encompasses their territory, and history. You try to make "Macedonians and Greeks mutually exclusive". The Greeks tried for fifteen years to make "Macedonians and Greeks mutually inclusive". The truth is that Macedonians, for sure, are the inhabitants of the wider region, regardless of their ethnicity (including Greeks, Bulgarians and your people). This is indisputable. What we are debating, is whether we can have an ethnic group with the name of a wider region. Not if the wider region exists, or whether there are other Macedonians around too. NikoSilver 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. All I have to add to Nik's comments is that yes, all ethnic groups were created at some point in time; the Greeks just happened to undergo their ethnogenesis a few thousand years before these guys. Those in Macedonia also happened to be the first to call themselves Macedonians, many centuries before anyone else expressed an interest in doing so. And yes, even before there was a CIA or State Department to pontificate on faraway people's identities. To deny the Macedonians the right to use their own name today is the epitome of absurdity. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A hundred years or so before those guys, surely? Modern Greeks, that is. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The demonym Macedonian has been attested in Greek, the first language in which it was recorded, for at least as long as Hellene or Greek itself, surely? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ethiopian, as well. What's your point? I was commenting on the only relevant Greek ethnogenesis. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You are not speaking about ethno-genesis. You are speaking about nationalism, which advocates that the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation. You see, we had Greeks well before we had Greece. That's what ethnogenesis is. Read the article. NikoSilver 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the other issue, I agree. I don't give a damn if Greeks attested "Macedonia" first. They also attested "Europe" first (should we claim the name lol?) I wouldn't even care if it was you guys who self-identified as "Macedonians" before the Greeks did! All I care is that there are many more Macedonians around, and they self-identify as such. Let them do it without qualifiers of the form "Outer Macedonian", because they do belong to the region. Please. NikoSilver 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

<!-- ===Off topic===
 * Exactly, that's the only thing that should matter. Greek Macedonians have a strong regional identity (not to mention make up most of the population of Macedonia, most of which is in Greece etc. etc.), which is not mutually exclusive with their self-identification as Greeks, something that Toci doesn't seem to comprehend, and might view the whole deal as a monopolization (sorry for repeating what you guys have said about a million times already).


 * Regarding the other (other) issue though, as far as I know there was no group consistently identifying as "Greeks" -rather they identified as Romans- since back then, hence my comment. Greek-speakers existed, obviously, but people identifying as "Greeks" (excepting a few scholars like Plethon)? 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The other other issue: Greeks still do not identify as Greeks. They identify as Hellenes. They neither did identify as Romans; they would tweak that one to the Greek ending -oi (Romioi -pronounced Romií). The Greeks passed from several identifications over the years, and are called by various names from the rest of the world. All of these names are Greek, or were Greek at some point or at some location. See the featured Names of the Greeks, and notice that our current international name derives from a ...village in Boeotia! NikoSilver 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Graikoi(hellenes) was also used to self identify themsleves in the era of byzantium as the Hellene variant was coidentified with paganism but you can find its use though very rare as the term slowly returned later in the last centuries prior to the fall.Neibouring states and other states still called them the names for Greeks, "Yunan" and so on.Megistias (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh... I wish we had an alternate name for Macedonia to stick to and get away from this idiotic mess! NikoSilver 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW Megistias is right. Read Byzantine Greeks. Note also that many Romans (from Rome) would call the Byzantine Empire as "Imperium Graecum". NikoSilver 22:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Niko, don't play games with me ;). I'm Greek (sorry, Ellinas/Έλληνας) so I know the equivalent terms in Greek. What I disputed was that they -sorry, we- have had the same ethnic identity throughout all these years, the article "Names of the Greeks" notwithstanding. Greek-speakers sure but Greeks? For about 200 years.


 * As for the neighbouring states, well, the western neighbours did call us Graeci etc. but that also had much to do with their belief that we weren't the rightful heirs of Rome, no? Our eastern neighbours, though, called us Rum and similar "Romaios" derivatives. I believe they used Yunan to refer only to the ancients (of course they use it for us, nowadays).


 * Regarding the 'mess', I think it'd be nice if the other side accepted a North/Upper Macedonia solution. That should satisfy both sides and if not, why the hell not?


 * PS: I just (re-)read the talk page title and noticed how off-topic most of this is. Ouch. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What would you define as the "same" ethnic identity? Is it a matter solely of what a group calls itself? This discussion has been had at Talk:Arvanites, where Future Perfect argued that the article can refer to the ancestors of both modern-day Albanians and Arvanites as Albanians, even if they called themselves Arvanites, not Albanians. In other words, there is an element of continuity and convention that has to be considered. The Romans of Byzantium were Greeks even if they didn't (always) identify as such, at least by our modern understanding of the term. In any case, I don't think we are quite comparable to the subject of this article. Their ethnogenesis did not involve a simple name change; it was brought about by a deliberate process of secession from other Slavic ethnic groups. And that only happened a few decades ago, unlike our separation from the Armenians, which is slightly older. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

-->

Macedonians in Catholic encyclopedia
So Macedonians for Theologians are Macedonians (religious group). Not even Ancient Macedonians. (There are many and different Macedonians in past and present) Maqedan (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats not a source.Catholic encyclopedia is not a reference.Megistias (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is and more from Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 15 by James Hastings] Maqedan (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The book you quoted can be a source,catholic encyclopedia is not to be trusted.Megistias (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is about the heretics called as such.Macedonius was also a arrianist episcope that was against the orthodox.Megistias (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The followers of his specific version of the heresy were called thus by his nameMegistias (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its was Arianism and is explained and mentioned with the priest in the book you quote as well.Megistias (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And hellenes was a synonym for pagan but i was used simultaneously by the Hellenes/greeks of the middle ages.Megistias (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs as new article, not as redirect to Macedonians
I will write the Macedonian Slavs article (now it redirects to Macedonians) based on the official Macedonian history book from 1972. Macedonians Slavs are the tribes of Slavic peoples that came on the Balkans in the 6th century AC. Macedonian Slavs has not the same meaning as Macedonians by this source. Feel free to add additional sources about the Macedonian Slavs here if you feel that the Macedonian history book is biased source. (Toci (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Yes it is. By definition. We don't need to add more sources here, they are all in the article itself. Educate yourself, and stop reading this sick stuff they are feeding you! Your schoolbooks and the history taught in your country are a pile of garbage in its entirety. NikoSilver 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, Toci, you sound like a nice fellow. Just try to understand that there is a whole world around your country. People say bad things. They say that you only want the name to monopolize the history and the land around you. Just prove them wrong, by reading what the actual situation is. Then you'll have a chance to make Greece accept your name. When I first said in my country that you too are Macedonians, my compatriots called me a traitor. Now it is the official Greek position (at last). It's hard, I know. NikoSilver 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Prove whom wrong? Toci does want to monopolize the name and history at least. (I'd say the land as well, if he could.) He claims that the Greeks of Macedonia can only be "Greeks", not Macedonians. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding me. But you are wrong, there is nothing about monopolisation, we are just talking about the ethnic facts today, where Macedonian and Greek don't mean the same.
 * I don't claim that the Greeks of Macedonia can only be "Greeks", they are. There is no censual or any factual data of Macedonians (as Greeks) or Greek Macedonians (except only "Greeks" living in Macedonia). Combining Macedonian and Greek is recent event that makes the whole confusion. There was time in Greece like 20+ years ago when you were going in jail for mentioning that you are Macedonian (the Rainbow party members were for a while in a jail), now you are traitor if you are not Macedonian. So Niko, as you see, you are true when you say that we are Macedonians, and you are true that you say that you are traitor in the present situation (because probably you don't regard yourself as Macedonian).
 * And about the rest of the world, we are Macedonians everywhere except in Greece (we are Σλαβομακεδόνες there, a term that give us unease). I live in Sweden (I am currently in Macedonia for a vacation) and they write that I am Makedoner. So by your talk probably the entire world needs to be educated, starting with the Sweds, not only me.
 * If you talk about history monopolisation and you have been on a archeological site you will know that monopolisation of the history on the Balkans is not possible. There are so few artefacts. That makes space for lot of nationalistic interpretations today who don't even refer to any artefacts and most of them are garbage. It is a neverending game of nationalistic interpretations who is who or better who was who in the past that is contraproductive.
 * Our medieval national history about the Slav settlements is based on George Ostrogorsky, Russian-born Yugoslavian historian who acquired world-wide reputations in Byzantinology. He descibes the Sclavinii (which tribe of Slavs and where did they settled) on the territory of Macedonia and the entire Balkans. If you say that his work is garbage I please point out better resource on the Macedonian Slavs if there is any (Macedonian Slavs as Makedonski Sloveni is mentioned in our medieval national history, whereas Ostrogorsky uses only Slavs).
 * In Wikipedia there is try to name us first Slav Macedonians (from Σλαβομακεδόνες) and now it was wrongly changed in Macedonian Slavs which as Makedonski Sloveni is used in Republic of Macedonia. I am trying to make clear where Makedonski Sloveni (Macedonian Slavs) is used (for group of Slavic tribes that settled Macedonia). In the article you can write "Macedonians also refered as Σλαβομακεδόνες (Slavomakedones, Slavomacedonians) in Greece (a term often regarded as pejorative (in the text or in the footnote) by Macedonians themselves)", "Macedonians also refered as Macedonian Slavs" is wrong, because we use the reference Macedonian Slavs in the national history book (not in the school history book), but not for Macedonians, but for the Slavic tribes then who mixed with the local population (there is probably some reference to the genetic mix of the Slavs in the Macedonians today, genetics is not my specialty) and made the Macedonians today. (Toci (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Utter hogwash. Macedonian and Greek have been combined by the Greeks of Macedonia since time immemorial, but you are evidently unable to grasp such a basic fact no matter how many times it is reiterated to you. I think it's better that we wind up this discussion, which has been going around in circles for longer than I care to remember. But before we do, I have to say that your remonstrations regarding the Slavs are rather amusing; while you do at least count them among your ancestors, unlike other "Macedonists" who claim they are the pure descendants of Alexander the Great, you find their name "offensive" due to their not being your only ancestors. Why not apply the same principle vis-à-vis the ancient Macedonians? If you are only partly descended from them, as you say, their name should also be "offensive", right? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is true Macedonian and Greek have been combined in the antique. Antique Macedonians were undoubtely philhellenic, Greek worshipers, they were not Greek patriots. Greek was attributed by some Macedonians then (especially by the Macedonian kings who controled Greece).
 * I wrote that Macedonians Slavs or the Slavic tribes came to the entire territory of Macedonia in the 6th century and in the mix with the local population that were already Macedonians (in that time there was no nations, but Macedonians were the people who lived in Macedonia) they evolved Macedonian national conscience 100+ years ago. That Macedonian national conscience resulted in formation of the Macedonian state in the Yugoslavian part of Macedonia. These Slavic tribes probably were not enough powerful in Macedonia to change the name of the native population, as they were not enough powerful to change the name of the Greeks in Greece, Romanians in Romania and the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The Macedonian national conscience is clear, Macedonians were people who didn't had Greek, Vlach, Serbian, Bulgarian or Rhoma conscience and who fought for authonomous Macedonia "Macedonia for Macedonians" in the struggle for Macedonia. The Macedonians (Christians of Macedonia regarded as Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians by different travellers and Turks) were majority together with the Turks in the region of Macedonia hundred years ago. Today they are declared majority only in the Republic of Macedonia and exist as minorities also in Albania, Greece (not officially, but they have their political party as Macedonians (Makedones)), Serbia and Bulgaria.
 * That same Macedonian national conscience that formed People's republic of Macedonia was one of the causes for the Greek Civil War in the Greek part of Macedonia. Macedonian nationalists (majority) and Greek communists fought together against the Greek Monarchists. The outcome was Macedonian (majority) and communist exodus from Greece (mostly from the Greek part of Macedonia). If you see Macedonians with help of some Greeks (who promised official recognition to the Macedonians and later betrayed that promise) fought the majority of Greeks. Due to the Macedonian exodus the Greeks are majority in the Greek part (provinces) of Macedonia today.
 * Macedonian nationalism was always standing against Greek nationalism and Greeks in the past used Macedonia, but avoided the use of Macedonians (as Bulgarian nationalist do today). But these days, from the end of the 1980s the Greek nationalists found a new way to fight Macedonian nationalism. They are philmacedonic today, attributing Macedonian to Greek. The Greek prime minister is Macedonian or more precise philmacedonic, since he is born and lives in Athens (he is officially not inside the 2.5M counted Greeks in the province Macedonia, in Wikipedia these people are regarded as Greek Macedonians or as Macedonians from few months ago). I know that he is married with a girl from the province Macedonia (I have a Swedish girl, but I am not Swedish and I don't want to be, I don't even want to be Swedish Macedonian). The Greek prime minister is clearly declared Greek who wants to be Macedonian (now he is Macedonian Athenian Greek or maybe better Macedonian Attican Greek). I hope he will not identify his Macedonian side soon with the rebels of the Ilinden uprising who were fighting under a red flag that says Macedonia "Freedom or death".
 * As you can see I also find this philmacedonism rather amusing and I want to find out more about it. I spoke with a Turkish researcher on the university and he said to me that his family is originally from Salonica. I asked him: "Aha, You must be Macedonian?" He said: "No I am Turk, even though my origin is from Macedonia". So I don't see what is bad in being only Greek in Macedonia or being only Macedonian in Sweden. (Toci (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC))


 * There's nothing wrong with it if that's how you feel. If. The Turks probably never felt Macedonian because they were not native to the region. I guess you put the Greeks in the same basket, but you're wrong. Karamanlis is Macedonian because that's where his family origins lie; if BalkanFever can parade around here calling himself "Macedonian" despite being born and raised in Australia, why not Big Kon? And no, he won't identify with the Ilinden uprising because that was a Bulgarian affair, the more recent "Macedonist" revisionism notwithstanding. And no, the "Macedonians" were not the majority in Macedonia a century ago as you claim, simply because they don't appear in any contemporary "censual" documents, of which you are otherwise so fond. However, references to Greeks as Macedonians are ubiquitous in Greek literature, well before the "end of the 1980s" and certainly much earlier than the invention of the "Macedonians" in Yugoslavia. I am curious as to why your nationalists have picked on that date specifically; it seems to be spewed up time and again for some reason. I'm glad you acknowledge that the ancient (not "antique"; that word is used in English for furniture) Macedonians were pro-Hellenic, a tradition contrasting sharply with the rabidly anti-Greek sentiments displayed by people calling themselves "Macedonians" today. One has to wonder... ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raining on it.  Balkan Fever  04:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 600000 Anatholian Greeks and their children today (probably more them 1M are not natives of Macedonia). Why do you regard them Macedonians or Greek Macedonians if you don't regard the Turks that lived before them as non-Macedonians? How do you know that Karamanlis' family did not moved in Ser (Serres) in the 1920's?
 * Please enlighten me with the Macedonians in Greek literature. Point me some sources in English, I will really like to read about those people.
 * We have nothing against Greeks. I have lot of Greek friends and all of them agree that I am Macedonian (you will probably regard them as traitors). We have problems with the Greeks who attribute Macedonian to their Greekness to deprive us from being Macedonian. Antique is synonim to ancient and thank you for agreeing that the Ancient Macedonians were pro-Hellenic (pro-Hellenic means that they were worshipers of Greek culture, for example like some Romans like Scipio were).
 * There are American aliens (immigrants) signing as Macedonians in 1909. They were coming from cities that are today in Republic of Macedonia like Prilep. Were they also invented by Tito? Tito was teenager then and Yugoslavia was not existing. BalkanFever is son of one of these immigrants in Australia. Even after one or two generation he feels that he is Macedonian. It is his national conscience. Karamanlis has no Macedonian national conscience, he has Greek and works for the Greek people. Karamanlis writes: "I want to reassure all Greeks that I will not settle for anything less than what has been promised; that their demands constitute the unswerving objectives of our policies." He forgot to refer to his Macedonians on his site. 2.5M Macedonians that declared by him are 25% of Greek population, they can be a different state from Greece.
 * Please don't refer to Ilinden uprising as Bulgarian (it is Bulgarian POV). The Ilinden flags are red with written Macedonia and Bulgaria was not involved in the rebelion (there was not a single flag of Bulgaria in the rebelion, all the flags are red). The people that survived the Ilinden Uprising 50 years ago declared themselves as Macedonians when they could freely express their nationality.
 * About the censuses. All censuses for Macedonia before World War II were biased and none of them is seen as reliable source for ethnicity. The Turkish censuses counted religious groups by their churches, not ethnicities. Bulgarians, Serbians and Greeks had not recognized Macedonians as ethnicity then and Republic of Bulgaria and Hellenic republic don't recognize the Macedonians as ethnicity even today. How can you say check the Greek censuses between the two World Wars for me to see that there are no Macedonians there, when there are no ethnic Macedonians in the Greek censuses even today. Officially Greece denies the existence of ethnic Macedonians (Makedones) even though they have officially registered political party and call themselves as Macedonians (Makedones) in their schoolbook.
 * This is heading about Macedonian Slavs and reliable sources about them. We can discuss them as well in this talk. Are there any Greek sources on Macedonians Slavs? (Toci (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Constantine Karamanlis (senior) was born in Proti, Serres in 1907, when Macedonia was still under Ottoman rule. That's how I know. I regard the Greeks of Macedonia as Macedonians regardless of their origins because that's what they are today, plain and simple. As for having "nothing against Greeks", when you have maps of a United Macedonia plastered all over your classroom walls, deny the Greeks of Macedonia their Macedonian identity and refer to us as "sub-Saharans" who don't belong in Europe, we beg to differ. And no, "antique" is not a synonym of "ancient" in this context. The ancient Macedonians were both pro-Hellenic and Hellenic; one can be non-Greek and pro-Hellenic, or even Greek and anti-Hellenic, but they were neither. 1909, ey? Wow, impressive, but still a tad behind the Greeks of Macedonia who have identified as Macedonians since antiquity, I'm afraid. Karamanlis junior has no Macedonian national conscience because there is no such thing as a Macedonian nation in the Greek view. He doesn't need to mention "his" Macedonians separately because he is the prime minister of all Greeks, not just the Macedonians, who have no desire to be "a different state from Greece". I won't bother getting into an argument over Ilinden; I'll leave that to the Bulgarians. As for "all censuses for Macedonia before World War II" being "biased" because they don't suit your agenda, what more can I add? You've said it all yourself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The United Macedonia is not realistic concept today and noone really believes that is possible, besides the pictures in the classrooms (you can also see pictures of Great Albania in some classrooms in the Republic of Macedonia). They are all the great visions of Balkan nationalisms. Same as Greece to India, or Serbia to Tokyo (they are all useless usual Balkan concepts and I personally don't know why they occur).
 * How sure is that Constantine Karamanlis was ethnic Greek in 1907 and that origin can be traced from the ancient Macedonians (Serres was inhabited by Romans (Vlachs), Slavs and Turks as well). On the page says he become Greek in 1913, so maybe he was not Greek before. Karamanli is not of Greek root (it is Turkish), neither Constantine is (it is Latin root). Seems to me even though his name is not of Greek origin he regarded himself only as Greek. Is there a fact (written in his memoirs) that Constantine Karamanlis was declared as Macedonian (Makedones)?
 * Being pro-Hellenic=philhellenic (in favor of Greeks, for Greeks) and Hellenic (Greek) is semantically different, sorry. The small pro is important distinction.
 * Back to the topic. Are there any Greek sources on Macedonians Slavs or they exist only in Macedonian national history? (Toci (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I guess you must be Greek then, as Тодор derives from Θεόδωρος. What a silly argument. The article does not say Karamanlis became Greek in 1913, it says he became a Greek citizen in 1913, the date Macedonia was liberated from the Ottoman Empire. The same way you became "Macedonian" in 1991, whereas until then you were Yugoslav. Richard Clogg in his A Concise History of Greece introduces Karamanlis as follows (p. 148, 2nd edition): "This bluff Macedonian was to be a dominant force in politics, whether in or out of office, for the next thirty-five years." So we even have a reliable academic source attesting to his Macedonian identity, if anyone were to dispute it. The difference between your brand of irredentism and ours is that yours is still very much alive and promoted by the state. We don't have maps of a "Greater Greece" in our classrooms, period. Yes, "pro-Hellenic" and "Hellenic" are semantically different, which is why I said that the ancient Macedonians were both. Greek sources on Macedonian Slavs? That has always been the reference used in Greek for the ethnic group, as opposed to the nationality (Σκοπιανοί - Skopjans). ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Todor might be from Theo-Dorus, but also from To-Dor=Bo-Dar=Bogov-Dar=Todor(MKD), so it could be Greek or Macedonian (maybe in some ancient form of Macedonian). Todor in the same form exist in Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria as well.
 * We were never Yugoslavs ethnically (it is again prefered refence used by Greeks), we were officially Macedonians in Yugoslavia by all censuses (as you are Greeks in Macedonia). But you already know about that and I don't know why you push that we were Yugoslavs, when we are Macedonians on the censuses and even in our Yugoslav passports. Yugoslavia was never officially consisted of Yugoslavians, it had 6 nationalities, Slovenes, Croats, Muslims, Serbs, Montenegrians and Macedonians united in a federation.
 * Richard Clogg is salesman (market oriented) of history in the 1990s and if he doesn't use Slav Macedonian noone in Greece will buy his concise history (therefore he uses Greek terminology and it is Greek POV). Richard Clogg may write "bluff Macedonian" in 1990s or 2000s, but I still doubt that Karamanlis said it as such for himself before 1990s. Therefore I asked for a direct source (his memoirs or speaches) where Karamanlis (senior) himself refers to him as Makedones (Macedonian) as his nephew himself declares loudly in the 2000s. Or any other modern Greek historical source for Karamanlis before 1990s.
 * You don't have maps for Greater Greece, but you learn that Macedonia is Greek in school and when you say Macedonia you think the region of Macedonia 100 years ago. The Greek province when you enter the Macedonian-Greek border is named Central Macedonia. That means that you incorporate in your concience that Republic of Macedonia as (north or upper) part of the region of Macedonia 100 years ago and that region is Greek. You don't have physical maps, but Greek nationalism is more refined then Macedonian or Albanian, or even Bulgarian. So you are no different then us, just your nationalism is more hidden, but it does not mean less strong.
 * Refer to that in the article, that Macedonians are refered by Greeks as Slavomacedonians and that is a Greek POV with addition that Macedonians find Slavomacedonians offensive because they live in an "anti-Slavic" hysteria (that is a settled fact in this talk I think, some Greek editors agree that Macedonians find Slav Macedonian unpropriate and uneasy term for Macedonians, whereas Macedonian Slavs is not same as Slav Macedonian and it is historical term for the Slavic tribes that settled Macedonia). (Toci (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Whatever you say, Богов-Дар (LOL, thanks for the laugh). Yes, Тодор is Slavic for Θεόδωρος, I know, which is why it occurs throughout the Slavophone Balkans. Just like Македонија is Slavic for the original Μακεδονία. When we say Macedonia is Greek we mean the Greek region of Macedonia, as well as the name, obviously. "Central" Macedonia is not a veiled territorial claim on the "North"; your ridiculous inference would only be valid if we had a Southern Macedonia. As it happens, we only have a Western and an Eastern Macedonia (and Thrace). I won't bother replying to the rest of your mental diarrhoea. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Macedonian people in its long history had only twice the right of a free self-determination by a referendum: in 1991 when we voted for an independent Macedonia and in 1871 when with a decree the (Ottoman) sultan allowed an equally free referendum and when the Macedonian people with a majority of over two thirds accepted the Bulgarian Exarchy as their own."

Ljubco Georgievski - "Who should be reconciled with whom" - Skopje 1994.


 * "Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionary tradition comes exactly from exarchist part of Macedonian people. We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gyorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were teachers of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Macedonia." Ljubčo Georgievski ex-prime Minister of RoM

..Despite these promises the insurgents flew Bulgarian flags everywhere and in many places the uprising did entail attacks on Muslim Turks and Albanians.. Who Are the Macedonians? - Page 57 by Hugh Poulton 

Around the end of 1945 the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization IMRO was reorganized and began an illegal struggle In 1946 IMRO issued a Memorandum to the Great Powers, expressing again the sufferings of the Bulgarian population in Yugoslav Macedonia. The leaders were arrested but were defended by the Communist prime minister of Macedonia Though a Communist,Chento also felt himself a Bulgarian.He was sentenced to 12 years and the delegation from the great powers was not allowed to meet him Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook Page 808 Maqedan (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Macedonian people are Macedonians, majority in the censuses in Republic of Macedonia. They are ring dancers, singers, ajvar and tavce-gravce makers.
 * Even the Bulgarian don't dispute the Macedonia name on the Ilinden Uprising, Preobrazhenie Uprising is not Macedonian uprising neither is related Ilinden is one day, Probrazenie is another (in those days there were rebelions every weekend). Bulgarians say because Macedonia is natural part Bulgaria, any flag that has Macedonia is Bulgarian flag (that is Bulgarian POV). Our POV (Macedonian POV) is that any flag that has Macedonia on it is Macedonian flag.
 * Ljubčo Georgievski due to his statements now is marginal politician in Macedonia, so he is not reliable source to refer. Even if he was important politician, the sources from nationalist politicians are not reliable. That stands especially in Republic of Macedonia (we have high rate of corruption and for some sum of euros they can declare themselves whatever you like them to be).
 * You have refered to a source (Hugh Poulton) that says that ancient Macedonians were not Greek, that there are Macedonians and says that there is Macedonian minority in Greece. Please elaborate these topics from this source further in this talk. It seems like a good source to find out who are the Macedonian Slavs (or Slavs pg.18) and who are the Macedonians (pg.116-169). (Toci (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC))


 * The more important question is whether he considers the ancient Macedonians to be your ancestors, as this article is about the ethnic group that often claims such descent. As for the "Macedonian" minority in Greece, that is already elaborated ad nauseam in the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically we are agreed that there is Macedonian minority in Greece. I don't know why there is the ad nauseam pressure to use Slav Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs, especially to use Macedonian Slavs in Republic of Macedonia, where Macedonians are officially majority (66% of the population).
 * The question of the ancestry should be discovered only by archeology, but that will be a joint effort of Macedonian and Greek archeologists. The archeological digs in Republic of Macedonia in the last years are public and ongoing (these possible nationalistic digs were not allowed in former Yugoslavia), so pa can easily access them online both on Macedonian and in English. I am not so familiar with internet pages about ancient Macedonian archeological sites from the Greek provinces of Macedonia. (Toci (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Um, no. The only Macedonian minority in Greece are the 2.5 million inhabitants of Macedonia, who numerically form a minority of the country's overall population of 11 million. What I meant was that the issue is already adequately treated in the article, and the fact that I don't delete the relevant passage doesn't mean that I endorse it. It's not my decision to make. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now they are majority. In the past Ottoman censuses Bulgarians were majority and in the future who knows? Bulgaria accepts the real name Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organisation  as well Internal Thracian Revolutionary Organisation, Internal Dobrudjan Revolutionary Organisation,Internal Western Outland Revolutionary Organisation etc
 * Georgievski had expressed his views since 1994 and was elected Prime Minister in 1998-2002. VMRO-NP took 6.09% in 2006 in its first time; not bad. The views of Georgievski are supported by mainstream neutral scholars. The support of local Slavophones for the Bulgarian Exarchate is a fact as well the myth that Vardar-Makedonija chose freely to join Yugoslavia..

(You said that in Yugoslavia everything was free) Let'see Sasha Uzunov in maknews


 * As for your intention to make Slav Macedonians article referring only to Medieval ages. This is not the worlwide scholar view.

Medieval South Slavs went even to Anatolia ,Crete and Spain and those who stayed in Macedonia had many tribal names but no name like Makedonci. They contributed into the Bulgarian empire and nation after Boris I of Bulgaria's slavicization/christianization of his people Maqedan (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Macedonian Slavs were Slavic tribes that settled only the region of Macedonia. Macedonians are a mix of the Slavs and the local Macedonians then, that evolved into Macedonians today. (Toci (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC))


 * In other words, a mixture of Slavs and Greeks? The local Macedonians of the 6th century AD were indisputably Greek, as the ancient Macedonians, if they weren't originally Greek, were definitely Greek many centuries before the arrival of the Slavs. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that Kekrops, ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks never identified as one, so you cannot simply state that. But, Macedonians ad Greeks have similar customs, folklore, dances, songs, and have inhabited Macedonia for a while now, the only main difference is language, and Macedonian girls are hotter :) Mactruth (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean local Macedonians by region OK (Byzantine Greeks, latinophone Vlachs,Thraco-Romans,assimilated Goths who came before Slavs,Anatolians (e.g.Armenians) who settled by the Emperors during the Bulgaro-Byzantine wars (and Slavs exchanged in Anatolia).But most of the above were in the side of Byzantines, while most of Slavs along with Avars were in the side of Bulgarian Empire, hence the Slavonic language there.As for Ancient Macedonians they mixed with Greeks,Thracians,Persians,Egyptians,Syrians before they were absorbed into the Greco-Roman world. Maqedan (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway a separate article "Macedonian Slavs" would be a Disambiguation page, may refer to:


 * Slavic tribes of medieval Macedonia like Sagudats
 * Macedonians (ethnic group) Maqedan (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

hi
$$Insert formula here$$ i just added a new greek map from 1918. whoever has the time please write a context to this map. pozdrav vlad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.44.29 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

addition
i just added the number of macedonians in greece based on data from britanicca encyclopedia 2007. would someone please make the appropriate changes to the code so that greece is listed second in the table and not the last. thank you. vlad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.44.29 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The number you have provided according to britanicca is based on, as it say, unofficial data of unknown origin. Please don't start edit wars for nothing. This matter is very well discussed and explained later on this article Kapnisma ? 16:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

usage of image


hi, would it be possible to use this image in the article i have taken the results form this page and other census' to create the table, the legend is on the map page?? P m kocovski (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian: ethnic or regional
I want to hear an opinion from a Greek, since I know that Greeks are constantly on all Macedonian pages of Wikipedia. You state their are 2 Macedonians: ethnic Macedonians and Greek Macedonians. Now, Macedonians (with a Slavic origin) state "Macedonian" in terms of ethnicity. Greek Macedonians state "Macedonian" in terms of regional identity, but still state Greek in terms of ethnicity. So, how are there two Macedonian ETHNICITIES? When clearly "Macedonian" in Greek Macedonian is simply a regional identifier? Also, what about the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, what are they supposed to call themselves? Since "Greek Macedonians" view that term as being Greek ethnicity with Macedonian regionally (hence: Greeks living in Macedonia) doesn't that monopolite from ethnic Macedonians living in Greece from calling themselves "Greek Macedonian" in which "Greek" means nationality and "Macedonian" means ethnicity? The same argument holds true with "Albanian Macedonians"(ethnic Macedonians living in Albania), "Bulgarian Macedonians" (ethnic Macedonians living in Bulgaria), and "Serb Macedonian" (ethnic Macedonians living in Serbia) Maktruth (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite right; there aren't two Macedonian ethnicities. In fact, in the Greek view, there aren't any, since Macedonian is a purely regional identifier. As for the "ethnic Macedonians" of Greece, I think you'll find they reject being called Greek altogether. Isn't that the whole point of the term "Aegean Macedonian"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you asked for it, in Greece there is only one kind of Macedonians, the Greeks who live in Macedonia. The inhabitants of FYROM are called Skopjans. So there aren't "two" Macedonians in a Greek context. Macedonia is used only as a regional identifier (Greek province). So obviously it is unacceptable that it could be used by anyone as an ethnic identifier. This is the current situation. However, given that you use the same name (which, again, is unacceptable for us) and since we're in discussions with you and we don't want neither party to monopolise the name, we accept that both you and us refer to our respective places, names, languages etc with a qualifier.--   Avg     23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Avg, your statement is a breach of international law, the right to self-determination. The fact that your government supports the use of "Skopjans" is just disgusting to us, and is VERY derogatory to the ethnic Macedonian people. We accept their are two Macedonian: regional and ethnic. You state "The inhabitants of FYROM are called Skopjans" but the fact is we self determinate as Republic of Macedonia and as ethnic Macedonian. It is unacceptable to who? Only to Greeks, sorry Avg but the world recognizes our self-determination. It is only Greek sponsored racism that it is unacceptable too. That is the problem with the name issue also: We KNOW you're trying to change our ethnicity and language name with a change in our nation's name. That is why the issue is not going anywhere, the name change will not include an ethnic and language name change Avg, GET OVER IT! Maktruth (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And then Greece states they want "friendly relations" Maktruth (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please, you yourself asked what is people in Greece believe. And even though the vast majority is still offended by your use of Macedonians (in latest polls no mention of Macedonia in the name has again risen to over 70%), they accept a compromise exactly because they do want friendly relations. Do you? --   Avg     08:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * C'mon Avg, Everyone has seen the Greek encyclopedias which within it state the Macedonian state and Macedonian ethnicity/language within Yugoslavia. C'mon you have even seen Greek scholars recognized the Macedonian ethnicity within Greece! The problem is Greece flip flops, they recognize either Bulgarian or Macedonian depending on which poses a less threat to Greece. To go from a nation which recognized to a nation that denies is hypocrisy, and can be anything but "friendly relations." Maktruth (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You mix things up. As long as Yugoslavia was a state, Greece and Greeks had no problem with a region of it called Macedonia. It is a fair enough geographical term. However, never has Greece recognised a state called Macedonia nor a nation called Macedonia. And in this one the government of Greece simply reflects the will of the people. This is an issue almost every Greek agrees and gets extremely sentimental with, so even if the government wanted to recognise your state as Macedonia, the people wouldn't allow that, they would fall immediately. This is a top priority national matter--   Avg     06:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

HLA and Macedonians in Bulgaria
During disambiguation exercise I have come to troubles with exact meaning of HLA link. Also, I have removed "see also: Macedonians in Bulgaria" as linked article is currently quite uselessly for this meaning redirected to Macedonian, therefore not very helpful for reader. It could be however possible to link to Bulgarians, if this is preferred by regular article editors, just go ahead. :-) --Ruziklan (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That page was moved to Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria and then was redirected to the dab page. I fixed it now.  Balkan Fever  02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Macedonians in greece
if the official report from the ethnologue is widely accepted on many wikipedia ethnic gourp pages, why not for this page??? apart from the obvious reasons is there any comments as to its possible inclusion?? P m kocovski (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians in Greece Pt. 2
The sources that estimate the M. minority at 200,000 (actually, only one of the sources. the other that uses the same number explicitly states that it refers to M. speakers) cite the Greek Helsinki Monitor as their source, however, the GHM report cited here gives the maximum number of M. speakers at 200,000 while mentioning that

"...those with a Macedonian national identity can be estimated to between 10,000-30,000. Indeed, the political party “Rainbow” which was created in 1994 and has campaigned for the recognition of a national Macedonian minority, received 7,300 votes in 1994 and 5,000 in 1999, two elections it contested alone: these figures correspond to some 7,000-10,000 citizens of all (not just voting) ages. One can estimate that besides this “hard core” there may be other citizens voting for mainstream parties that also espouse this identity, hence the above estimate.";

Would anyone be opposed to changing the estimates to 1,406 - 30,000 (or 10,000 - 30,000. I didn't notice which, if any, sources use 1,406) while mentioning (in a note or in a parenthesis, perhaps) that "up to 200,000 (are) bilingual speakers"? 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should state 1,407-30,000 Macedonians with Macedonian national identity and 1,407-200,000 citizens with Macedonian origin, how does that sound? Mactruth (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem 3rdAlcove is Greece has laws in its constitution that discriminate against non-Greeks so many "Bi-lingual" citizens maybe Macedonians who are afraid of losing their job or house or place in society if they confess they are Macedonian, many laws state non-Greeks are not allowed to have power or ownership or entrepreneurship etc, so the amount of Macedonians with Macedonian national identity (expressed) is up to 30,000 but Macedonian national identity (expressed and suppressed) may be up to 200,000. Mactruth (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No way - and how does up to 200,000 citizens with Bulgarian origin sound to you? Just to check if you like the other POV. -- L a v e o l  T 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the source states "200,000 Macedonian speakers" ie Slavophones from western Greek Macedonia (eastern and Thrace would fall under "Bulgarian speakers", right?). Obviously their ultimate origin can't be verified and we do know that the majority express a Greek identity. 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a question why was the original estimate changed from 200,000 to 30,000. The helsinki report was just one of the various sources which fell in between the 1,4060-200,000 benchmark. If used alone then 30,000 would be appropriate to list under the estimate. Until the greek government does an official ethnic survey then we can add the official number. also the 1406 number is the citizens from ROM. I cant see why the original estimate is not bieng reinstated?? PMK1 (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I looked at all the sources (if I overlooked any, please point them out to me). The two sources which mentioned the max, 200,000 estimate cited Helsinki as their source; Helsinki in turn speaks of "200,000 Macedonian speakers, 30,000 having an ethnic Macedonian consciousness". The 200,000 as a max estimate belongs to Macedonian language, but not here. Again, if I overlooked a particular source, please do point it out. 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually 2, the book by peter hill which puts the figures at over 100,000 to 150,000. The britannica extract. Oh, and also the minority rights.org references the helsinki monitor from 2001, not 1994 when the Macedonians in greece publication was published. a lot could have changed in 7 years. I think unless you can find a reference from helsinki which is newer than 2001 we will have to reinstate the old estimate.PMK1 (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I believe I did notice the Britannica reference but I figured it was linguistic since it gave a number of 200,000 (roughly; it uses percentages). Doh. Could you post the relevant Peter Hill passage? 3rdAlcove (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Britannica is refering to ethnic composition. I dont actually have the peter hill book with me but if i get it again i will post it. Also just because the number is 200,000 does not mean it innacurate, until there is an official survey we will never know. Once again it seems that the macedonians are having the lowest possible estimate? Also do you have a newer reference sugesting other than the 2001 reference? PMK1 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a helsinki monitor report here Thus, the 200,000 estimate for the Macedonian community seems reasonable. I needn't say no more.PMK1 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from the good fun that GHM reports give me (Dimitras, Karakasidou and co.), perhaps you should read the top of this section first and see what 3rdAlcove says?--   Avg     13:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the report says: "Thus, the 200,000 estimate for the Macedonian community seems reasonable, also in view of the fact that the -naturally conservative- prefects of Greek Macedonia estimate the ‘idiom’ speakers at some 100,000 (Financial Times, 4/11/1992), also the estimate of the Jyllands Posten correspondent (17/7/1993). Among them, a minority of a few tens of thousands, a figure growing since the beginning of the recent ‘Macedonian imbroglio’ (Karakasidou, 1993:20), have a non-Greek consciousness"


 * 200,000 = linguistic, few thousand = ethnic Macedonian consciousness. Drop that victim mentality, by the way; no one is oppressing you here. 3rdAlcove (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's to say they dont identify as macedonians, i mean they are all estimates. Please clarify for me why the 200,000 estimate is acceptable even though it is more common then c30,000???PMK1 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All Slavophones do identify as Macedonians, but not your kind. And we're anyway using an inflated estimate from a POV source as I've mentioned many many times. The total population of Florina and Kastoria prefectures together is barely 100,000 (reminder, the population there is overwhelmingly Hellenophone, Slavophones are a small minority).--   Avg     11:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And the guy, even after been given sources, starts what seems like a POV-fork already. Aegean Macedonians. Of course an estimate of 10,000 - 200,000 is mentioned. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * @ AVG, no they dont! What about slavophones in thrace why would they identify as macedonians? Overwhelmingly hellenophone? You must be visiting another florina?. PMK1 (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you must be. Florina is overwhelmingly Greek-speaking nowadays, even if many of its inhabitants of local Slavophone origin retain a passive understanding of Slavic. Yes, a century ago the predominant language was what was then known as Bulgarian. So? In Thessalonica it was Spanish, and in Smyrna prior to 1922 it was Greek. How does that relate to the situation today? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've suggested to someone before you to do the "main square" test. If you're so sure, go to Florina's main square and speak Slavic. I take no responsibility for whatever happens next.--   Avg     17:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair, they'll most likely respond to him in Slavic. Now, if he shouts anything pro-"Macedonian (ethnic group)", hmm, I'm not sure. Since we're on the topic of chit chatting, it pisses me off to no end that they completely ignore everything said by the "Other". 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, by "speaking" I meant "speaking his mind". If he says zdravo, people will say zdravo, although most people won't understand it anyway.--   Avg     18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't overstate your case. ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I was last in Florina some weeks ago and I've been quite a few times. Unless all people are fully bilingual, I didn't notice even the slightest hint of accent to anybody I've spoken to (in Greek). Obviously I'm not saying that nobody is Slavic speaking, this is absurd. However most Slavic speakers are at villages outside the city and it's not THAT easy to find one as our northern friends would lead us to believe.--   Avg     19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the area around Florina (though I'm not certain about the city itself) is certainly bilingual. The newer generations seem to retain knowledge of the language (probably will change in the future), though they use Greek amongst themselves mostly. Entirely anecdotal, so never quote me. ;) (this is awfully off-topic, btw. would anyone mind if I removed most of the section?) 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably should be moved - but to clarify: I'm in Florina and I ask some random guy how to get to Kastoria (Vo koj pravec e Kostur?) and he will possibly (probably?) point and say "Vo toj pravec". But if I ask if there are any ethnic Macedonians here (Ima li Makedonci tuka?) I will get punched in the face.  Balkan Fever  11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer, if it is indeed in Slavic - Greeks tend to prefer English with foreigners - will probably be something alone the lines of Да, има ли Македонци тука, of course, but not the kind you mean. Unless, of course, you're such a κωλόφαρδος that you actually bump into one of the 3% of the Florina electorate that voted for Виножито in 2004 (still, the highest percentage in the country by far). ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean "(Da) ima Makedonci tuka" ("li" is used in interrogatives).  Balkan Fever  11:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he means "Да, има многу Македонци тука. Не намиране се други Македонци навсякъде." NikoSilver 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should rephrase my question. What would happen if I asked "Дали има наши тука?" ? Btw can you translate your Pomak? Looks like: I don't something they are different Macedonians everywhere". What were you meaning to point out?  Balkan Fever  03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See below. What is nashi? Is it dopioi/locals? NikoSilver 09:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Who would have thought that greeks were so interested in the Slavic langauges? :)!PMK1 (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * lol, pardon my ignorance... The guy says: "Yeah, we got lots of Macedonians here. There aren't any other kind anywhere." Of course, he is one of the many partisans there, but that's what you'll probably hear. What I'd like you to hear is: "Yeah, we got lots of Macedonians here. Is this the kind of Macedonians you refer to?" NikoSilver 09:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Наш is first person plural possessive; "our". Наши, roughly translated, means "our kind" (referring to people), so said by an ethnic Macedonian it means ethnic Macedonians. Well, I definitely won't be hearing Pomak in Florina, but is there an answer to my original question, i.e. when will I be punched in the face?  Balkan Fever  10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you go there and find out? Probably no earlier than Nikos would get punched in the face for saying Macedonia is Greek in the middle of Bitola. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's funny, because asking if there are ethnic Macedonians in Florina is not the opposite of your situation at all.  Balkan Fever  09:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who said it had to be? I know that you dislike the idea of Greeks in Bitola, but you don't seem to object to the term Greeks, so it is not quite comparable to what we're discussing here. I opted instead for a ubiquitously held Greek view that the other side finds at least as objectionable as Greeks find the idea of a "Macedonian" ethnic group, especially one within their borders. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One by one then. I am in Florina. Во кој правец е Костур? gets me a map. Yes or no?  Balkan Fever  10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Next question. I am in Florina. Дали има наши тука? gets me a) a Slavic не; b) a Greek ναι; c) a punch in the face. Which one?  Balkan Fever  10:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it would all depend on a. Whether whoever you bump into is actually a Slavophone, which is by no means a given even in Florina; and b. How said Slavophone will interpret наши - you could be just another Slavophone Greek, не? Or would your dialect/accent give you away as a Скопјанец, even though Bitola is much closer to Florina than to Skopje? I honestly don't know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(un)Speaking of "Greeks in Bitola", what happened to the Greek population around Manastir? Were they included in any of the exchanges? 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Im not sure of any exchanges? But in 2002 there was 422 greeks in Macedonia. Also what do greeks call the Greeks who live in the republic of Macedonia? Also reverting to your first comment (@ 3 alcove)'Would anyone be opposed to changing the estimates to 1,406 - 30,000 (or 10,000 - 30,000. I didn't notice which, if any, sources use 1,406) while mentioning (in a note or in a parenthesis, perhaps) that "up to 200,000 (are) bilingual speakers"? " I think that is a reasonable suggestion that up to 200,000 are bilingual speakers or are of Ethnic Macedonian origin. PMK1 (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The sources are very clear that the majority of Greece's Slavophones do not identify as "ethnic Macedonians", so they cannot be grouped with the minority who do. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * oh, and @ kekrops, the macedonian speakers in greece will probably tell that you are from Republic of Macedonia, they speak macedonian in a certain way, with the emphasis falling on different parts of the words, and other dialectial differences. It is easy to tell a Aegean, Strumican and a Скопјанец (Skopjan)  by the way that they speak and the use of words, and emphasis'. The difference between a speaker in Greece and on the Serbian border is quite astonishing.PMK1 (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But they're all dialects of the same language whether they like it or not, right? Perish the thought... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes regardless of the speakers identities they are lingustically dialects of the Macedonian diasystem. I would imagine that Greek would also have various dialects similar to the example i gave. Where by it would be easy to tell from where the person is from, depending on the dialect and accent??. PMK1 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)