Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 11

Image
The pictures of Edeesa is from my family album,and is showing Macedonians in Greece!!! All the pictures are my own from my albums!!And i dont think that pictures needs to be sorced?!!! I did'not see that others pictures has sorces!!!!

Makedonij 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is from your family album, then why does it have a French inscription? And how could you tell it shows ethnic Macedonians? I'd say it shows Greeks. The problem is that you have put tags that you have made the pics yourself and we really doubt this is the case. Have you been to the USA by the way? -- L a v e o l  T 08:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is and if you can't prove otherway,stop POV!!! The picture is private and it's showing Macedonians(ethnic)in Greece!!! You can allso find picture in a book of Helsinki right wach-Macedonians in greece!!!ISBN:960-86206-1-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonij (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So I perceive it actually isn't your own photo. Why did you say it was yours? And how do you expect us to believe that you have uploaded a single image that is in fact yours?-- L a v e o l  T 19:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

People
Please, don't add any of the controversial ones. Btw do you want me to upload some pics from the Republic to commons? I found some the other day.-- L a v e o l  T 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some pics - you can see them on my commons account . Cheers. -- L a v e o l  T 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Minority flags
I think that every minority can have a flag.Here is a link where all of flags of minorites can be seen.http://eurominority.org/version/eng/minority-state2.asp?id_states=9Makedonij (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

'Macedonians are genetically ...(the frequency of the proposed Slavic Haplogroup R1a1, formerly Eu19 ranges to 35% in Macedonians'
The figure in Semino is for GREEK Macedonians-not Macedonians in The Republic of Macedonia...for that group, the number is 15%. Unless we absolutely sure that the sampled people identify as Macedonian Slavs or Greek Macedonians, this should be altered. 72.168.20.187 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, Semino et al. does have the number at 35%. I thought what was being cited was Percic et al, which interestingly has r1a in Macedonia at 15% and Greek Macedonians at 35% (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/FIG5). Viewing the frequency surfaces, it clearly shows r1a in the Southern Balkans hit its peak around the West Macedonia province of Greece, while the r1a in the Republic of Macedonia (freq 15.2) is not too different from the other areas in Northern Greece (West Macedonia aside) approx 15% and Bulgaria (14.7). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.61 (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Apostol Petkov
The fact that i'm greek dosen't matter for this one and what i believe about the naming issue also doesn't matter.Now i want to say that this article is wrong in the part famous Macedonians as Apostol Petkov wasn't a Macedonian.He was one of the ringleaders of the Bulgarian militia and gangs formed with the purpose of terrorising the Greek minority in order to make it easier in the long run for Bulgaria to conquer today's greek Macedonia.He didn't belong to this Slav-Serb-Bulgarian ethnicity that nowdays is called Macedonian.That's why he was also the main enemy of the greek militias formed to protect the greek minority.The Turks and that time Ottoman Empire also recognized him as bulgarian criminal.I believe it should be removed.TheJudge0791 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
I removed any controversial names and added a few-non controversial Macedonians into the gallery. Hope you like it! Mactruth (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"Macedonians are genetically closely related to the other (SOUTH) Slavic people..."
"Macedonians are genetically closely related to the other Slavic people. The Slavic Haplogroup R1a1 has varied among Macedonians based on study. According to Semino et al., the frequency of the proposed Slavic Haplogroup R1a1, formerly Eu19, ranges to 35% in Macedonians. [49] But, according to Percic et al., the frequency ranges to 15% in Macedonians..."

Macedonians are slavs culturally, but to a lesser extant genetically (as some studies suggest). I suggest we specify which group of slavs (South) and not be ambigious or misleading. The highest estimate of r1a in Macedonia is that 35% sampled in Semino et al., this is still low relative to other slavic peoples (West and East slavs) who have frequencies of r1a in excess of 50%. The Balkan/South Slavs are characterized by a significantly reduced amount of r1a, 35% in Croatians, around 15-20% in Serbs and Bulgarians, and 15-35% in Macedonian. 9-12% in Albanians and Greeks at-large (35% according to Pericic et al. for Macedonian Greeks). Judging from the large discrepency between the sampled estimates of Macedonians, they seem to be an amalgam of Balkan and Slavic groups...if you average the r1a low of 15% and the high of 35%, I think would more accurately reflect the Macedonian population as a whole-which would give 25%-which isnt far from the norm in other Balkan populations. From the studies ive seen, like Percic et al, Bosch et al, etc, South Slavs have more affinties with Balkan populations than to the traditional Slavic populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation is too simplistic. R1a is not the "slavic gene". You make a common mistake repeated by people who do not really understand the complexities of genetic analysis. No ethnos or tribe was mono-genetic. R1a is not Slavic, E3b is not Thracian, I is not Illyrian. These haplogroups are thousands of years old, far outdating the origins of Illyrians, Slavs or any other 'ethnic' group. Hxseek (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you Hxseek. Too many people confuse genes/race with ethnicity. Every time someone brings up DNA (whether from Greece or FYROM) I get flashbacks of Aryans trying to prove some sort of racial purity. What seems fairly clear is there was some "mixing" of ethnicities in the region. That being said... that doesn't make a Greek a Turk, a Turk an Armenian, an Armenian an Albanian. etc... etc.. (and to be frank I sometimes wish there was no such thing as "ethnicity" either but the bugger is hard to get rid of when other groups seem to gang up on one's own) --Crossthets (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin
The Macedonian academy of sciencies may states whatever it wants but what is written in the section "origin" in the article is a bad interpretation of historical facts. Certainly there was slav population in Macedonia in 6th century as in most of the Balkans but in 680 AD a Bulgar tribe let by khan Kuber settled there which in the beginning of the 9th century merged with Danube Bulgaria. The slav population in Macedonia as all other slav population in Bulgaria mixed with Bulgars and this is how modern Bulgarian ethnos has been formed. What today is known as FYROM in Middle Ages was part from either Bulgaria or Byzantine empire (Serbian rule during the reign of Stefan Dusan was too short to be of any significance)and there is absolutely no evidence that Macedonian people had the conscience to be a separate people. Having in mind that today the population of FYROM is predomonantly Slav and speaks language which is VERY similar to Bulgarian ( I am a Bulgarian and can assure you that there are some dialects in Bulgarian language which are more difficult to understand than the so-called "Macedonian" language) the origin of FYROM's population is therefore Bulgarian. FYROMs have today the consciense to be a separate people. So be it. But don't try to change history in order to look older than you are, please.Gur4eto (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is your imagination and part of the BUlgarian propaganda.I think you should care where the Bulgars came from.In fact every Greek and Bulgarian usually have some hateness towards the Macedonian people.I wouldnt be bothered explaining everything to you,but really there is no point.The Macedonians are Macedonians,you cant change it and deny it,I better suggest you to research who are the descendants of Bulgarians,and where does the term Bulgarian comes from,rather than harassing the Macedonian nation and claiming thats in fact Bulgarian.Thats a typical Bulgarian nonsense and propaganda.You should really care about the people who live in your country,and stop claiming that Macedonians are Bulgarians.Even if I give you a lot of sources contradicting the fact that you wrote,you wouldnt understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I have nothing against Macedonians at least because I personally have a certain Macedonian descent both on my mother's and father's line. I just want the truth not to be denied. And the truth is that before 1945 most Macedonians had Bulgarian consciensness and the 'ethnic Macedonian'-concept as well as the 'Macedonian language' are results of Serbian propaganda aiming to split you from us. If you were under Serbian rule 50-80 years more, probably you would consider yourselves Serbians - thank God this didn't happen. My grand-grandmother (who died at age of 94 and I remember her) was a Macedonian and believe me she considered herself a Bulgarian. I repeat myself - since Macedonians have the consciense to be a separate people - then so be it. But I want the truth about your origin not to be denied. Tell me something - why should Bulgarians claim that Macedonians are Bulgarians if this wasn't true? Isn't it more likely Serbians to have such claims since you were one and the same state? Think about this. I don't want to offend neither you nor any Macedonian. I am just trying to open your eyes. That's all.Gur4eto (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * True. But there is no evidence that, in the Middle Ages, that the macedonian Slavs aspired to a Bulgarian ethnicity, in the modern sense of the word, either. Because eraly demographers classed them as bulgarians does nto mean that the average Macedonian peasant saw himself as bulgarian.

Also: Kuber's so called "Bulgars" were actually the descendents of Roman Christians captured by the Avras in 600AD, that were moving back to their homeland in region of Thessaloniki. Certainly anthropologically and genetically, there are defining fetures between Macedonians and bulgarians. Bugarians have a lot more Turkic influence.

At any rate, the Slavs in Macedonia have been described as an "amourphous mass of archaic Slavs" which failed to form any consolidated state. Yes, they were a central paert of the Bulgarian Empire in the 900s, but they were also part of the Byzantine Emprie and Serbian Empire. So what does that prove ? See the identities section for the discussion at length

Hxseek (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Genetic studies on populations are still considered to be much controversial ( see Genetic history of Europe ) and cannot be a serious evidence for a distinct Macedonian ethnos. It is possible that people in Macedonia show some insignificant genetic difference with Bulgarians (because of the different geographical location) but I am sure that Bulgarians living near the Danube river also show some genetic difference with those near the southern border (by the same reason). As a whole Europeans are quite homogenous genetically with some relatively significant differences between northern and southern peoples and to a lesser extent between eastern and western ones. As to the antropological evidence. . . I know about anthropological differences between Europeans and Chineses but between Bulgarians and Macedonians?

You are right by saying that we don't know what was in the minds of medieval Macedonian's peasants. But being "an amourphous mass of archaic Slavs which failed to form any consolidated state" it is quite reasonable to claim that they were absorbed during the centuries by the peoples that ruled them. By the way in the Bulgarian ethnos during the Middle Ages were absorbed significant populations of many other peoples (Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, even west-Europeans) that were not slavs at all - so how Macedonian slavs remained separate without mixing with Bulgarian ones and what is more important - what evidences are available supporting this theory?Gur4eto (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, genetic evidence is not the be all and end all. It only illustrates ancient migrations from when Europeans were still being 'formed'. All the later Slavic and Bulgar arrivals did very little to change the genetic composition and proportions, except to maybe increase the level of Y Haplogroup R1a. What i was specifically referring to was that Bulgarians have a high level of J2 (circa 25%), which is more like Greeks, Turks and Sth Italians, whereas other South Slavs have < 10%. This represents an old, Neolithic migration from Anatolia to Southern Europe. As for the latter migrations, the Turkic peoples definitely were more restricted to the eastern balkans (ie Bulgaria), because of the routes they took to enter Europe. Pechenegs, Cumans, all steppe nomads came via Moldavia, Wallachia, and were often placed by the Romans as merceneries and border guards along the northeastern Bulgarian Danube front. Macedonians, one could argue, are a more pure mixture of Slavs and pre-Slavic Balkan peoples (Illyrian, Thracians, Greeks). Not that this really matters.

When you say they were absorbed by the people they were ruled, there is no evidence for this. Ethnicity is a modern, social construct. It mattered not whether they were ruled by Greeks, Serbs or Bulgarians - this would have hardly changed any aspect of their life. All that was replaced was the ruling structure, which themselves weren't too different anyway, all being Balkan Orthodox states.

What really is the issue is that although being a vital geographic area, Macedonia (esp northern macedonia), was never consolidated as the core region of any one state, it always kept changing hands. This is what is unique about it. This is why it is not Greek, nor Serb, nor Bulgarian. If it had remained part of Bulgaria since 850, then definitely today's macedonians would consider themselves as Bulgarians. But a period of rule from 850-1018 (less than 200 years) + a few even shorter periosds in the 13th century is not long enough to cement a Bulgarian identity to Macedonia.

Another arguement used by Bulgarians that Macedonians are Bulgarian is the so-called settlement of "Kuber's Bulgars" - the 5th son of Kubrat. Firstly, these bulgars were predominantly greeks previously taken hostage by the Avars, that rebelled under Kuber's lead, and returned back to Macedonia. Secondly, it is only a theory that Kubers is one of Kubrat's sons. Thirdly, there is absolutely no evidence that there was a 2nd Bulgar khanate in Macedonia in parrallel existence with that in Bulgaria. Fourthly, the apparent wide-spread Bulgar culture in Macedonia which some describe as identical to bulgaria and the land north of the Black Sea (where "Old Great Bulgaria" supposedly was) is not a uniquely Bulgar archeology. This is an over-simplification. It actually represents a culture which spanned many of the nomadic groups in the Ponto-Caspian steppes and was traded over a vast area of eastern Europe.

Hxseek (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether Kuber was a son of Kubrat or not - this is not so important. I don't know the exact composition of the people in the Kuber's state but I know that Byzantines at least considered them Bulgars - it is mentioned in a Byzantine chronicle that in 688 AD Bulgars let a campaign near Solun which took Romans by surprise ( so obviously these were not Danube Bulgars ).

The theory about the 'unique mixture of peoples in Macedonia' is nice but there is no evidence about it. On the contrary - there are a lot of evidences that it is not true. Here are some of them: 1) "Serbian component" can easily be eliminated because Serbian rule over Macedonia under Stefan Dusan was too short (for less than one generation). If there were Serbian contributions to the macedonian population they were during the existence of Yugoslavia. 2) Thrace also switched between Bulgaria and Byzantine empire but there is no 'thracian ethnos' nor a state called "Thracia". 3) If medieval Macedonians had the feeling that they were unique certainly there would have been Macedonian rebellions against the Bulgarian rule. Byzantines at least would have encouraged such uprisings - they did so with Serbs when the latter were under Bulgarian rule and surely they would have done the same with Macedonians. But there is no mention neither of Macedonian rebellons nor of distinct Macedonian people in Byzantine sources. 4) Macedonian slavs were under the influence of the Ohrid literary school and the Ohrid archbishopry which were Bulgarian institutions. Even if they didn't consider themselves Bulgarians they were quickly bulgarized - by state doctrine the state name was Bulgaria, its subjects were called Bulgarians and the language spoken and used in clergy was also Bulgarian. And for a writingless people like Macedonians before 850 AD century and a half is not so little time. 5) According to the Treaty of San Stefano (look at it) by which the Russian-Turkish war ended liberated Bulgaria had to include all territories with Bulgarian population - Macedonia also belonged to these territories. However, the Great Powers decided that so large Bulgaria was no of their interest and Macedonia remained within the Ottoman empire.

So the conclusion is that the Macedonian ethnos has been formed only recently as a result of not being within the Bulgarian state and Serbian propaganda during Yugoslavia's time. But I am glad to see that nosenses like "Today's Macedonians - descendants of Alexander the Great" and "Tsar Samuil - the Macedonian tsar of the Macedonian state" were abandoned.Gur4eto (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Macedonians could very easily have been Bulgarian had the Treaty of Stefano been upheld. I am not really sure what you mean about a Thracian state. I was saying that in Antiquity, Macedonia (the region) was a borderland where Illyrians, Thracians and Hellenes intermingled.


 * As for point (1) of yours. I never stated that Serbs 'Contributed" to the Macedonian population. I am saying that in Macedonia lived Slavs, which at one point were part of the Bulgarian Empire, then Byzantine, then Serbian. The demography never changed, all that changed was the nominal rulers of the region.


 * Whilst I certainly acknoweledge that Macedonians are very similar to Bulgarians, as I have pointed out, there are several reasons why they can be considered as a seperate entity. The late development of their national identity is not reason alone to deny this. There has been a considerable enough dis-similarity, historically, between Macedonia and Bulgaria to consider grounds for a seperate ethnos. If you want to go back to the start: who are the ancestors of the South SLavs ? They were numerous Slavic tribes that came to the Balkans and assimilated Greeks, Thracians,Illyrians here and there. Although they all spoke one language, they were all seperated, existing as independent tribes. Early on, only three states formed: Croatia, Serbia and Bulgaria. The Serbs and Croats were just two of many other Slavic tribes which somehow became powerful, influential and cultural enough to expand their power over neighbouring SLavs. They then developed principalities and kingdoms that became recognised by the Pope or Byzantine Emperor. It was this recognition which cemented their existence, and the other tribes that they assimilated , eg Abordrites, Braniches, ceased to exist as seperate enttites, but were Serbianized or Croaticized. Slightly different situation in bulgaria, where the Bulgars were (supposedly) a Turkic or Pamirian (or whatever) ethnos, which came to rule the Severians and the "so called 7 slavic clans". They were initially seperate, and their client Slav tribes were placed at border regions of the early Bulgar khanate to serve as guards against the Avars and Byzantines. At this time, the Slavic tribes in Macedonia - the Draguvites, Bersites, Sagudates, etc, were raiding Imperial territories, but never formed a established state. Then the Bulgars expanded into Macedonia c. 850 AD. Historians debate how this happed. Some state that the Bulgars defeated the Byzantines who then had no choice but to accept Bulgar rule over Macedonia. Others suggest that the Byzantines had no say over macedonia anyway, because it lay in the hands of unruly Slavic tribes. These tribes merely saw an alliance with the Bulgars (and their other Slavic clients) as an attractive proposal. Thus the Bulgar influence then extended over macedonia. After a generation or two, the numerically inferior Bulgars merged and fused with the Slavs. - Thus the birth of Bulgarians. but clearly this was centred in the eastern Balkans. The Bulgar presence in Macedonia was compartively light, it at all existant.


 * As for the arguement of King Samuel: certainly he was not a Macedonian King in the modern day sense. Yet his 'legacy' can be celebtrated in both Macedonia and Bulgaria, because his state was centred in Macedonia. Although there was no macedonian ethnos in the Middle Ages, the ancestors of modern Macedonians were part of this state, whether you call them Bulgarians or not. Ethnicity in the middle ages was a different thing to what it means today. It was more a categorisation of citizenship or statehood, rather than a strict categorisation of some kind of primordial ethnicity.  Hxseek (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bulgars settled at their arrival on Balkans in Moesia (the region between the Balkan mountain and the Danube river). The other parts of today's Bulgaria ( more precisely - Thrace) were added to the First Bulgarian Empire later just like Macedonia. So the Bulgar influence in Thrace was comparable with that in Macedonia ( provided that we accept your theory that there were no Bulgars in Macedonia in 7th century - but what was the people that emperor Justinian II fought against in 688-689AD near Solun, which Byzantines considered Bulgar?) And Thrace just like Macedonia was an arena of many battles between Bulgaria and Byzantine empire and wasn't a permanent part of the territories of neither of the two states. And there is no state called "Thracia" today and "Thracian ethnos" different from the Bulgarian one. Simply southern Thrace is in Greece and inhabited by Greeks and northern - in Bulgaria and inhabited by Bulgarians; southern Macedonia is in Greece and northern. . . is a separate state?! If we follow your logic we should divide each Balkan state into its geographical subregions (Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia etc.) because of some hypothetical slight ethnic differences. Take for example the region of Belgrade ( and the city itself) - it became under Serbian rule for the first time in 1284. Before that the local slavs were in Bulgarian, Hungarian and Byzantine states and were all but not serbs. Quite a good reason to create a "Belgradian" ethnos, don't you think? Let us not mention the region of Vojvodina. The truth is that all modern nations are not "biological products" but rather more political formations. And what is today known as FYROM or just Republic of Macedonia is a political formation on what once was considered to be a Bulgarian ethnic zone. That's it.Gur4eto (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Look. I do see your point, but I'm just telling you that other theories do exist. Hxseek (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lazar Kolishevski.JPG
The image Image:Lazar Kolishevski.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Aleksandar Sarievski.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone change that first picture of the "Ethnic Macedonian girl in traditional folk dress." It's in black and white and the colour version is much more appealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Why have you changed the previous picture in the infobox? --  MacedonianBoy Oui? 10:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

!
i hate to ruin this article but it already is.

some of the most vital parts of this article aren't backed up by serious scholars and sources... "Slavs absorbed the native culture"? how? when? evidence? or just a hypothesis? and particularly what cultures? Greek, Thracian, Illyrian? but then that wouldn't make them Slavic+Macedonians, but Slavic+Greek+Thracian+Illyrian (with Slavic dominant of course). by the time the Slavs came in the area, didn't the native people already belong to groups of Nations such as Greeks, Romans, Armenians etc? and if they have the Macedonian National identity from those native people, this means those natives must have identified as Macedonians by race and nation, but did this happen? was it recorded? as far as i know, absolutely not. the Ancient macedonians had been long belonging to the Greek nation by then, and the only mention about Macedonia was through the Byzantine province Macedonia_(theme) that was in 800AD and really in Thrace and the Macedonian_dynasty that was Byzantine of course and has been recorded that it was made by Armenian and Greek Emperors......

"Slavic-Byzantine culture"? how? by when? ..

and this whole sentence has a wrong source: "the genetic studies support the theories that Macedonians genetic heritage is derived from a mixture of ancient Balkan peoples, as well as the relatively newly arrived Slavs with deep European roots. They share"the genetic contribution of the people who lived in the region before the Slavic peoples expansion" ... i don't know... it's really confusing, don't you think?150.140.225.175 (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nations ? There was no Armenian or Roman nation in Macedonia. Nations came into existence in the early modern age ! Prior to this everything was multi-ethnic empires/ confederacies/ kingdoms. The idea that Slavs merged with pre-Slavic peoples is nothing novel, nor peculiar to Macedonia . Historical source metnion that the Slavs would either exhange prisoners for a small re-imbursement, or accept them as part of their own tribes, if they wished. Anthropoligists theorize about the mixture of Slavs with pre-Slavic peoples. Did you look at the references ? The whole genetics thing is still in its infancy at the moment, but it shows that Macedonians (Slavs) have a primarily "Balkan" genetic makeup. It they were entirely "Slavic", then there Y-DNA haplogroup make up would be a lot more similar to Ukrainians or Russians, for example.


 * Furthemore, that there was a merging of cultures has been shown archaeologically. And clearly the Byzantine culture was important, because Balkan Slavs became Orthodox Christians, but adopted it to Slavic liturgy. Macedonias referrs to the wider Region of Macedonia, based on the Roman provinces. That the Byzantines chose to call their Macedonian theme "Macedonia" when none of it actually lay in Macedonia does not change the generally accepted geographical definition. (It was because none of real Macedonia, except Thessaloniki, was under their control


 * Its not rocket science. Hxseek (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * it's not rocket science when you have a rough (very rough) sketch in your mind and ORing all over. You are very general. More accuracy is needed. We can't just throw claims. So. when the Slavs came, the Balkan-supposed-ancestors-of-today-Macedonians said: "Zdravo comrade", and mixed with the Slavs? didn't the North Balkaners belong to federations/empires ? what were they? hunter-gatherers not to belong? who were exactly those nations of the Balkans who mixed with them?? aren't there anything left from their culture, language etc? mixing means stuff remain, not Slavic dominance.that's not mixing of cultures. but merely mix of some %blood which is irrelevant anyway.a ghost culture with no Language, no distinct names ? the R1a of the Slavs can be also found 75% in North India and 10% in Syria. not much conlusions. btw Armenians existed 5th century AD. the population of today's Macedonia, being largely Slavic, with Albanian, Turkish, Greek, Roma minorities. only the Slavic population identifies as ethnic Macedonian. that population part is the mixed one we're talking about right? what i'm saying is there are "supposed" balkan population that mixed with Slavs, in this article. what are they? if you/they imply ancient Macedonians, there is not a chance because the ancient greek tribes (Aetolians, Ionians, Macedonians etc) either Greek from earlier or Hellenized, had long been united under the same language Koine and same nation and saw the name Macedonia only geographically, not tribally. anyway, if you wanna leave this article with ghosts of supposed populations go on. 150.140.225.175 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I really am sorry that you are not intelligent enough to grasp simple concepts.

As i already said, there were no nations in the Balkans in the 500s and 600s. You either don;t speak English well enough or you have no understanding of history / anthropolgy. "Nations", as in political countries, are different to the medieval empires. There were ethnic groups, yes, but even these were interchangeble. Your entire arguement is full of basic errors that totally undermines your arguement, and if I were any lesser person, I would not even respond. But out of good will, I will edicate you. We are only talking about Macedonians here, not Turks or Albanians or whatever.

When the Slavs came, the territory of Macedonia (ie the whole region, Greece and modern RoM) was part of the Eastern Roman Empire, by that time, already becoming "Byzantinised". Going back further, when the Romans came, only the cities became "Roman" in language and culture. Outside of Greece, the native peoples (whether you call them Illyrians or Thracians, or whatever) most likely retained their own ways and language. They did not belong to any federation. Whilst they were nominally part of the Byzantine empire, they were actually independent. Back then, nothing was systemetized like modern countires are now. Into the 500s, the Empire was declining more and more. Cities in ther interior of the Balkans were getting smaller, and eventually all fell to the Avars and SLavs. Only coastal cities like Thessaloniki, Corinth, Constantinople did centralized, Imperial control remain in place. In the countryside, some villages and semi-nomadic shepherds also survived. Most of these were Greek-speaking by this time, although some were Vlachs- Roman speakers. (In addition, there were probably other people living in the Balkans also, such as Germanics who had invaded earlier). So the Slavs would have had contact with all these people, and eventually fused. Naturally only one language can be dominant, but ideas and cultures can be transferred both ways. So what were these people that the Slavs fused with ? Its too complicated to go into, because no one except the Greeks had a sense of greater regional/ national unity (and even they were fragmented). We can call them palaeo-Balkan peoples. It is certainly recognised that by the 500s, much of Thrace and southern Illyria was Hellenized, culturally and Linguistically. But it is impossible to state exactly who and what they were, despite attempts to call them Illyrians or Thracians. And no one denies that the kingdom of Macedon had long ago ceased to be an independent political unit, and its people largely Hellenized.

The old theory that the Slavs came in hundreds of thousands is outdated and incorrect. On the contrary, Slavs only occupied some parts of the Balkans, although it was over a wide area ranging from Austria to Peloponessus. Archaeological finds show that the Slavs interacted with native peoples, adopting some of their techniques, as well as some words. It just so happened that Slavic became the lingua franca in most of the Balkans (there are some interesting theories for this).

You statement about R1a, only shows your lack of understanding. R1a is not the "Slavic gene" which lay people like yourself call it. It is just a haplogroup marker which arose in Ukraine c. 15, 000 years ago. Scientists theorize that it was brought into the Balkans ages before the Slavs arrived. After the last 'mini' ice age in Europe (12, 000 years ago) and perhaps by the Indo-Europeans (4,000 years ago). Lastly, if there were the "massive Slavic migrations" as reported by the Byzantine chroniclers, they too could have brought R1a into the Balkans from Ukraine, the postulated homeland of Slavs (however, many scholars do not agree that Ukraine really is the Slavic homeland).

So it is far more complicated than you think. The ancestry of Macedonians is quite mixed. The Slavic component was merely the latest layer. Just because the language is Slavic, it does not mean that's all they are.

Hxseek (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's great that you "edicate" me. but you still fail to answer simple questions. you are way too general and simplistic and you are wrong from the first sentence. there were nations in the 500s. nations/empires/federations/proto-nations:

Chinese, Greeks, AngloSaxons, Armenians, Romans, Visigoths, Vandals, Slavs etc. All that i am saying are sourced and common historical facts. what you are saying is baseless and OR. find me a source that says "there were no nations in the Balkans in 500AD"... and of course i know about R1a, i mentioned it as a not only Slavic haplogroup explicitly. anyway now you specify those Balkan people as "Illyrians or Thracians, or whatever". cool. then why isn't that in the article?? source it and put it in there. what i'm saying is the article should be more specific. your irrelevant ORing is unneeded and won't be put in the article anyway because it's unsourced.150.140.227.137 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC) and lol you fail to recognise that culture has nothing to do with genes. they may have mixed with natives (Illyrians, ghost nations you make up) but what is important is to mention what has remained from the "cultural mix" you refer to. and that as far as scholars know is zero. Slavic and Slavic only. having mixed genes but only Slavic language/culture doesn't make them mixed cultured. .. and the article seems to ignore your side. "Their linguistic and cultural origins stem from the 6th century when various Slavic tribes migrated to, and settled in, the region of Macedonia." and agrees with me. 150.140.227.137 (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL it seems like editors agree with me. in the article>>>>"including Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians" nice. that's what i wanted to be added in the article. Specific people. not ghost "palaeoBalkan people". thanx peeps who edited. sorry for pissing you off Hxseek that's what i meant. Bye.150.140.227.137 (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you actually read the article, all the information you are seeking was there to begin with. There is no OR on my behalf. You just lack to faculties to grasp simple concepts. Educate yourself about the difference between ethnic groups in Medieval times and modern nations. There is little point in coming here and arguing baseless points which have no thesis. You simply lack the English capabilities, as well as general neuro-cognitive capacity, I'm afraid.

All i was saying is that Illyrians and Thracians are very broad and oversimplistic terms (see the Illyrians article). There was never some unified people called Illyrians, who were aware of being 'the same' as each other- politically, ethnically, culturally. The Illyrians were but one tribe, whose name the greeks then used to refer to all other tribes in the province which became known as Illyricum. In reality, however, all these tribes were independent, even had different languages. Some were more venetic or Celtic than 'illyrian'. But sorry for confusing you, I shouldn't assume that people are as intelligent as me :)

There is ample evidence of cultural borrowings from the pre-Slavic peoples, eg plowshares etc. There are plenty of references in my talk page in discussion with another editor. This is not OR, its just common sense. When people mix, one group's customs doesn't just evaporate into thin air just because their language disappears.

Hxseek (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical claims on Macedonia region
What part of "claims" are "Points Of View" don't you get Hxseek? Illustrate. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical claims should nevertheless be based on historical fact. I am not trying to neither minimalise the Greek stance, nor enhance the Serbian or Bulgarian one. As it was, the article presented all 3 sides succinctly and fairly enough.

There is no need for you to come along and abduct the section, needlessly elaborating it with subjective and emotive allusions to 'true inheritence', whilst removing the 'claims' of the other parties

Additionally, the 'claims'- contrary to what you beleive- should represent the official standpoint of the Greek government, not your personal POV.

That is why you were, and will continue to be, reverted. Hxseek (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So there is a section that is named "Historical claims on Macedonia region" and in that it says "there are 3 countries who believe the other country is theirs". Are you listening to yourself?... Did you happen to see what the sources I brought with my addition say? Those, mainstream, scholar, generally accepted as scientific sources made the claim. Not me, nor the Greek government. The historical views on wikipedia are based on history, not current political events and declarations of officials. So your perception about what this section is, is fundamentally wrong.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say that I find it funny the debated change ... anyone with open eyes can see that the text is simply rewritten to say the same things but with the following small changes:
 * removing key points of the Greek perspective, which were supported by two academic references
 * inserting a POV statement: "period between 1878 and 1912 when the rival views succeeded in engaging the Slavic speaking population of Macedonia into three distinct parties, the pro-Serbian, the pro-Greek or the pro-Bulgarian one, at the expense of development of a unique Macedonian identity".
 * 1.I do not get it... do you imply that there are other Macedonians (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian and not forget Albanians a small part of the greater area of Macedonia is in Albania and 1/3 of the population of FYROM is Albanian) and they are not unique... you imply that they are fake? This line of though reminds me the argument from the recent American elections with Palin talking about real America and everybody were wondering which is the fake America???? Do you imply that the people of FYROM are the real Macedonians? I doubt that your reference actually supports what you are saying! This is so... POV
 * 2.Additionally the statement is not only POV but also wrong, there was also a large part of Greek and Jewish speaking population as well in the region, not it was just slavic! In fact in 1913 it the Aegean Macedonia the Greek population was 44.1%, with Bulgarians was just 8%, the Moslems was nearly 40% and Jews 8%... Greeks enter into the Balkan wars not to divide the slavic population but (believe it or not) to liberate the Greek population!
 * 3.It is funny that Hxseek demands "historical facts" when his/her changes to the text are not supported by facts. So next time please provide reliable sources and/or explain where we were wrong in real english so that we can understand. Enjoy Life!A.Cython (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * and moreover the statement goes "Greeks/Bulgarians/Serbians believe this and that". It doesn't say "it is historically undeniable that this and that is true". If it said "Greeks believe the sun is purple" would it need references to be presented as a historical fact? it's a belief not a universally accepted proven fact. You are confused and please understand. They're just 10 lines to present 3 Points Of View.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but i just cannot understand what you two fellas are ranting on about.

As it was, beofre CHB made his own edits, the section on "Historical claims" was succinct and good enough. It states that Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia all had, in their eyes, a historical claim upon the region of Macedonia. That is all that it intends to communicate. It does not atempt to judge which country was more right or not.

In contrast, CHB cut out the other claims and launched into an a philosophical thnk-piece as to why greece is the rightful claimant on Macedonia. This is not the prupose of the article, nor the paragraph,. Just a quick outline on the opposing claims, That's all. I really fail to see why you have to try and hijack and distort the perfectly acceptable version which has been for over a year just becaue one editor wants to push his own perspective. Period. Reverted

Hxseek (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Second, the 10 lines you fight over: A. never made a decision as to which country was more right or not. nor if any of them is right. Finding out what the word claim stands for should be helpful. B. nowhere in there it says or implies that Greece is the right claimant on Macedonia. this is the Historical claims section if i'm not mistaken. not today's territorial claims. but merely 3 claims in 10 lines. C.It's still a quick outline of opposing claims. 10 lines of 3 Points of View in such a debated subject are too many for you? D. this is not my perspective. it is the perspective of the historical views of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. E. i repeat, this is a claim section. a Point of View section. and therefore does not present what wikipedia believes but as it explicitly says what other countries believe and claim. As you see your current reasons are not enough to make a case. Try something else. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all get your periods elsewhere.

It is not my fault your writing abilities are so poor, and you wish to pollute the article with your comical style, or lack thereof. You do not have to counsel me ad nauseam about what a "claim" means. My point is that your edit adds nothing to the understanding of the matter, and is in fact, inferior to the previous version.

In addition, you follow a flawed logic. Your aim is intent on proving that now all modern greeks are descendents of ancient macedonians. Whilst one can accept that the Macedon's became Hellenized after they easily conquered your greek ancestors (in a similar fashion that the Goths accepted Roman law), i do not understand now how Cretans are descended from macedonians. The cultural inheritence was in the opposite direction, and the gene flow would be negligible between such distant regions.

That aside, your paragraph reads ; ancient macedonians became Byzantine Greeks who became modern GReeks, therfore the region of Macedonia is Greek. Primary school logic. Hxseek (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * CHB, please read for context. That passage is about a section in the history of this ethnic group. It's all about what was going on during the late 19th century. It's in the past tense. If anything, the "positions" presented in the sections must be those that were actually brought forward back then. Have you got any sources about what arguments proponents of the Greek claims were using at the time? There's been again this very dangerous tendency at work here that instead of reporting positions, wikipedians keep trying to heap up what they themselves consider would be the best arguments to bolser up their favourite national perspectives. You need sourcing not just for the factual premises of those arguments, you need sourcing for the claim that those were the arguments actually proposed.


 * Plus, the Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian ideologies are only an extremely minor side issue in the context of this article. One or at most two sentences for each is more than enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hxseek ... my version didn't imply Ancient Macedonians were the only ancestors of Medieval Greeks. it's common sense to understand that a Greek population (Chinese, Hellenized or Hellenic from the start) belongs to the evolving Greek identity just like Cretans, Eteocretans, Cypriots, Ionians, Molosians etc. About my writing abilities i will say comparison works, "therfore" try it. Fut. are you kidding me? the historical claim must be limited to late 19th century? and "there is a need to quote what Greeks of the 19th century believed"? first of all did the 19th century Greeks believe that ancient Macedonians were closest to them "linguistically"? when they told you that did they say "στη γλωσσα" or "γλωσσολογικα"? and the 19th cent. Serbians told you about Dusan? give me a break.. so it's not the favorite national perspective that should go. ok. should we put the least favorite national perspective? like in articles of singers for example, not to mention that they have a big fanbase, but that they have a small hatebase. makes so much sense. i agree that claims and historical disputes should not take over articles of nationalities but your version is 8 lines, mine 10, whoa what a hysterical oversized analysis of 2 more lines.. and i repeat this isn't just a nationalistic perspective in the like of []. it is sourced by non-Greek scholars before and after the 19th century events. so not even the mere presentation of the Greek perspective/POV in a section that explicitly names it as a claim isn't needed?. so why the "Greek" perspective altogether? delete it and everything related to it. Start from there and then add some more mainstream scholar view from someone non-POV. the Macedonians for example [] after all they are the Macedonians they know their history best. a bitter neighbor that was once conquered by the Great Macedonian is bound to be POV right? I insist that my version is more accurate and that you have no real case against it but anyway SlavMacedonians are already "attacked" in so many articles that i don't believe we should take over their main article too. there are already many articles explaining what i said and what you're saying in that imo poor version. oh and i have sources for what i said. unlike you, the bulgarian view and the serb view ( 1.http://books.google.com/books?id=vGQ2enTZWO4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Greek+Macedonians+19th+century#PPA15,M1  2.Borza, Eugene N. In the Shadow of Olympus. 3.Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics By James Hastings, John Alexander) but anyway we always ελεουμε τους φτωχους. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A mess
CuteHappyBrute requested that I review the section and provide a general assessment. Upon reviewing both the section and its (lack of) references, I can safely state that I am 100% confused. At this point, I am starting to get a headache just trying to read this long-winded POV-induced shouting match.

Let's all take a deep breath and scrutinize the section sentence by sentence.

1) Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece all had, in their views, "historical rights" over the territory of Macedonia.


 * Aside from the fact that this statement has no reference citations, I recommend that somebody elaborate on these historical rights a little further given the fact that the territorial delimitations of "Macedonia" seem quite vague.

2) Greece promoted the view that modern Greeks are linguistically the closest living relatives of the ancient Macedonians, and are therefore the rightful inheritors of their legacy and territory.


 * Again, no reference citations. Also, this sentence sounds a bit POV-ish given the fact that modern Greeks already had ethno-cultural, linguistic, and historical views regarding the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians prior to the Balkan Wars. That the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians was a "promoted view" implies that the notion itself was socially constructed out of nothing for propaganda purposes. Dubious.

3) The Bulgarians claimed Macedonia because it had been a part of the Bulgarian Empire, and had even been granted Macedonia in the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano.


 * Again, no reference citations. Again, no specific territorial delimitations regarding "Macedonia".

4) Likewise, Serbia also invoked its medieval legacy; the city of Skopje served as the capital of Stefan Dušan's 14th century Serbian Empire.


 * Again, no reference citations. Again, no specific territorial delimitations regarding "Macedonia" (except the mention of the city of Skopje).

5) The dispute continued in the period between 1878 and 1912 when the rival views succeeded in engaging the Slavic-speaking population of Macedonia into three distinct parties, the pro-Serbian, the pro-Greek or the pro-Bulgarian one, at the expense of development of a unique Macedonian identity.


 * One reference citation, which is better than nothing. However, there is no page number or direct quote to validate any aspect of the overall sentence. Unfortunately, the sentence is very POV given the fact that the phrase "at the expense of development of a unique Macedonian identity" makes no sense given the fact that before 1944, there was no such thing as an "ethnic Macedonian" identity.

'''Conclusion: This section needs to be fixed as soon as possible. Otherwise, it should be removed without the typical shouting match drama.''' Deucalionite (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * and Fut. i have another source from the era.  from a Greek philologist 1848-1941  it speaks about ancient Greek dialects. involving Macedonian. and talking about Ancient Macedonian people, kings etc. so yea find another reason for why you guys dontlikeit.CuteHappyBrute (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote chunks of it ages ago, referenced from Hupchik's The Balkans. From Constantinople to Communism- the section about Macedonia in modern times. But the page has been edited so many times that it it must have been removed. I will clarify the references about the tri-partite claims. Hxseek (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I trust you Hxseek. In the meantime, I will tweak the section so that it is easier for you to make further improvements. Trust me, the section needs a lot of work. Good luck with your research my friend. Deucalionite (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

NOT referred to as Macedonian Slavs
The only document there is stating Macedonian Slavs is the Krste Misirkov "On Macedonian Matters" text written back in the days when there was no Macedonian State, so he needed to use a qualifier to distinguish the Macedonians from the rest of the inhabitants of the Macedonia region. Since there is evidence that the terms Macedonian Slavs or Slavomacedonians have a pejorative and discriminatory connotations and that the Macedonians (ethnic group) do not use the Slav qualifier, the presence of the term should be reviewed. Alex Makedon (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick question: Is not this article about the ethnic group not the state or country (i.e. FYROM) or area (Macedonia_(region)) and therefore the distinction from the other Macedonian ethnic groups (e.g. Macedonians_(Greek)) is needed? Besides the point of your last sentence is a little bit confusing... assuming that you are right then you say that if someone identifies himself/herself as Macedonian then automatically he/she is a Slav? Remember we are talking here about the ethnic groups and there are people belonging in different ethnic groups and yet identify themselves as Macedonians! I think the Slavic origins are needed for clarification and to avoid confusion.A.Cython (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL "other Macedonian ethnic groups" where is that from!? There is just one and only Macedonian ethnicity, you are making confusion with the unofficial and mainly unevidented Regional Macedonian Identity (the regional identity of the inhabitants of the region Macedonia). There are no other "Macedonian ethnic groups", so the "slav" qualifier besides beeing imposed,| inaccurate, unofficial and often considered | offending is obsolete too, read documents on Macedonians (ethnic group) :UN, CIA fact book, Ethnic Macedonian diaspora AU, USA , Canada etc, etc... Alex Makedon (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "there are people belonging in different ethnic groups and yet identify themselves as Macedonians!" LOL there are no different ethnic groups that state Macedonian ethnicity, double ethnicity contradiction lol. Different ethnic groups yes could use a Macedonian identity qualifier, still its about different identity categories than the ethnicity, mainly regional identity.
 * Slav Macedonian is only needed when it crosses with Greek Macedonians, but since the articles are only about ethnic Macedonians, i think it isn't needed, talk to the admins about it. Mactruth (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So the intro according to both of you should be "The Macedonians are a South Slavic people who are primarily associated with the Republic of Macedonia."? So nothing is missing there, no ambiguity at all.--Avg (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Slav Macedonian or Macedonian Slav is not only needed when refering to other Macedonians in the same context, the guideline itself is an argument to leave the term here, it proves there is an alternative reference which is neither obsolete nor pejorative. This is the main article and the term is necesary, it's still used in English bibliography and besides only one mention serving to introduce disambiguation to the reader doesn't hurt anyone but the ones who wish to monopolize the name. --Zakronian (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro could be: "The Macedonians are a South Slavic ethnic group who are primarily associated with the Republic of Macedonia", it could even stand as Avg stated it above, no harm done since the article states clearly that we are talking about an ethnic group. There are no other "Macedonian ethnic groups" so where is the confusion? Zarko what is "refering to other Macedonians in the same contex" there are no other Macedonians in the same context (ethnic groups). In addition to the negative connotations, the term (slavomacedonians) introduces a confusion with an unproper disambiguation since the single term - Macedonians (ethnic group)- is clearly not associated with more than one topic. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read more carefully.--Zakronian (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Alex Makedon: I agree with Avg and Zakronian, the term is there to avoid confusion (just as you were completely confused by my previous post)! Also if you feel that "Slav" has a negative meaning then it is your POV problem and you have to deal it outside the WP. A.Cython (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are the one that is making confusion distinguishing the terms ethnic and regional identity. The article states clearly: Macedonians (ethnic group), is clearly not associated with more than one topic, so where is the confusion? About the The Greek Helsinki Monitor reports over the discriminatory and pejorative use of the term read here so much for the POV accusations. What non Greek (what do the greeks matter here any way?), contemporary sources we have that the Macedonians (ethnic group) are referred to as Slavo Macedonians, if not why keep "Slavo Macedonians" points of view POV on the page? Alex Makedon (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, one more time, the term should stay because :1) it's not perceived as pejorative in Wikipedia, as clearly shown from the naming guideline, 2)this is the main article about ethnic Macedonians, a) the alternative reference serves to give a meaning to the disambiguation inside Wikipedia space, b) mentions the notable present need to disambiguate in English bibliography 3) regardless of the general need to disambiguate in Wikipedia content or outside sources the (present or past) use of "Slav Macedonian", "Macedonian Slav" and "Slavic Macedonian" is notable enough to be mentioned here anyway ! Alex Makedon, try searching for sources yourself, i'll only add some if you have the nerve to start edit-warring again, one for every revert, untill this dispute starts to seem ridiculous to you also.--Zakronian (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Repeating the same fallacious POV arguments over and over again does not make them more convincing, you are just wasting mine as well as your time You do realise that it comes down on how Macedonians call themselves and how the world referrs to them, not on how some Greek editors have decided to call them. Alex Makedon (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "notable present need to disambiguate" disambiguate what? there is no other ethnic Macedonians group
 * given that there is even the disambiguation inside Wikipedia space on the top of the article about Ancient Macedonians and the regional Greek group the need use again "Slavic" comes down to zero.
 * you still find the "arguments" to dispute the discriminatory and prerojative connotation of the term, Wikipedia is full of quotations and refferences on the matter, etc etc...
 * Yeah yeah, i can't help you, being more analytic is a waste of time. There's nothing to agree to in this discussion, you can remove it, i will add it again. Bye.--Zakronian (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't resist not answering... if you find this un-constructive feel free to delete it.
 * What is the difference between ethnic and regional identities? Here is an example. According to your perspective when the slavic tribes migrated to the Balkans in the 6th century AD, in which one of the places where they settled were at Macedonia. And i say slavic tribes because were ethnically slavic. They lived among other people ethnically different in this region for many centuries. Note that the other people there also described themselves as Macedonians (say because of the region). Today the descendants of these slavic tribes in Macedonia are the Slavomacedonians (or Slavo Macedonian or etc etc). According to your argument (by separating the ethnic and regional identity and making the latter disappear) they should use not the Macedonia word, since this is a regional not ethnic description but instead they should be just Slavs. Contradiction... oh yeah! You want to convince me or others that because a country pushes a nationalistic agenda at all fronts that is to the people that shared that region for centuries (hate media with Bulgaria, fear tactics with Albanians , disputes with Serbia about Kosovo ... not to mention Greece ) your perspective is somehow right out thin air? Just because you say so? Of course the other player are not angels but where are the facts and logic?
 * Look I am not here to cause trouble nor I have the time to spent or have the desire to inflame this topic but I do not want to see things put under the carpet for whatever reason... The only way to write or improve a WP article is with reliable sources of academic level and presented with proper argumentation. Enjoy Life! PS: I will not comment in this topic anymore. A.Cython (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Macedonians are the only Macedonian ethnic group, politically speaking. Other inhabitants of the region of Macedonia have other ethnicities - Greeks, Albanians, Aromanians, etc, etc. Simple. This is not a discussion about the naming dispute issue Hxseek (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's the whole point of the Slav disambiguation. Why are the "Macedonians" the "only" Macedonian ethnic group? What makes them more "Macedonian" than any of the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are 'Americans' the only people to be called so in America ? Because the others are 'Mexicans', 'Canadians'. Athough they are not the only people which inhabit nth America, and are not 'more American' than the others, they are, politically identified simly as Americans. No need for qualifiers. Hxseek (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, their claim to exclusivity is strongly contested in Latin America, where they are rather known as norteamericanos or more accurately estadounidenses. And even "Americans", who in any case are not comparable to the "Macedonians" as they are not an ethnic group, call themselves United States citizens in formal contexts or when they need to disambiguate. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 06:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know the term is contested in the US as well. In the academic circles or especially during an international conferences they'd never present themselves as Americans, but as citizen of the US. What would the rest of the continent's inhabitants be called if not American? The same goes for our own little Balkan case. -- L a v e o l  T 10:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it should do, but alas... · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 10:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, i rly hate to ruin your hopes and dreams... but the Macedonian ethnicity exists, the whole world acnoledges it, it is officially recognized (UN,, Ethnic Macedonian diaspora AU, USA , Canada ) Too bad, do continue your argumented talks.Alex Makedon (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So do the Macedonian Slavs, apparently. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 14:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With the only difference that I quote official UN and Goverment Documents and you state an unclear reference quote by scholar.google.com, hey look what I found in google scholar.com | Hellass, we d'better edit WIkipedia accordingly. Alex Makedon (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Retract that piece of anti-Greek hate speech or you will be reported. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 14:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The term Slav Macedonian is pretty anti-Macedonian and pejorative hate talk, the term | Hellass was just an example to show the relevance of the information found on "scholar.google.com", dont get too upset over it. Alex Makedon (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pejorative? Tell that to the plethora of scholars and media that use it, not me. As for your "example", how can you compare what is so obviously a spelling error in a single text to the sources cited in the article? I also note that you have repeated your comparison of Greece to the fundamental orifice, despite my request for a retraction. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 14:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I never compared a thing with Greece. As you see you can find all strange an inaccurate things on www.scholar.google.com, you cannot dispute the official name of the Macedonian ethincity, recognized by UN with things you find on the internet.Alex Makedon (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Come off it. "Hellass" is a common pejorative epithet for Greece used by nationalists of various ethnic persuasions with a bone to pick, especially on the Internet. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but that didn't stop you from using it. Twice. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I never thought that an ethnicity has to be recognised... I've always thought that it just exists! Perhaps the people in Skopje wonder: "Are we an ethnicity or not?". --Hectorian (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

People (again)
As you'll see if you look ten or so sections above, you'll see my comment that pictures of "controversial" people should not be added. I think we've discussed it thoroughly, but it might be somewhere in the archives. Especially the likes of Pulevski that repeatedly self-identified as being nothing of the sort. Thank you. And again, Mactruth, you're supposed to participate in discussions and give reasons for your edits and reverts.-- L a v e o l  T 12:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You state to participate in discussions, but before you even edited the discussions page, you edited the main article (double standard... again). As far has Pulevski "repeatedly self-identified as being nothing of the sort":
 * "Thus the Macedonians also are a nation and the place which is theirs is called Macedonia"
 * "In it, Pulevski systematically contrasted his language, which he called našinski ("our language") or slavjano-makedonski ("Slavo-Macedonian")" Mactruth (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said he repeatedly self-identified as Bulgarian. And it is you that edited the page before consulting the talkpage where we have discussed the issue time and time again. -- L a v e o l  T 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is not important to put ,,undisputable‘‘ Macedonians only. The pictures should contain people which are important in Macedonian history, and Pulevski certainly is. Bomac (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add Tose Proeski and/or Aleksandar Sarievski as well? Bruka (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I am going to replace the portrait from Pulevski from the colage into the same article as for example is placed the portrait from Misirkov as compromise. I agree that Pulevski as Misirkov is very important for the Macedonians, but his ethnicity is clearly disputed. He has had slso a lot of strong pro - Bulgarian activities. Just read the article about him. Regards. Jingby (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians in Albania
"The following interview with Edmond Temelko, president of the Macedonian organization “Prespa” in Albania, outlines the precarious position of the Macedonian minority in Albania. It appeared in the Macedonian weekly, “Makedonsko Sonce”, on June 15, 2001.

"The plight of the Macedonians in Albania is already known. Macedonians in Albania are discriminated against and the government continues to unrealistically present their numbers. Albania recognizes that on its territory live only 5,000 Macedonians. But we alone, as Macedonian organizations in Albania number 120,000 Macedonians who are members of our organizations, or if we investigate there are perhaps more then 350,000 Macedonians in Albania."

http://www.macedoniansinalbania.org/news/osce_albania03.html

So please put the 120,000-350,000 number in the Macedonians around the world section for Albania. Thank you. Makedonija77 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal about the name of the article
Dear colleagues, I propose that the name of the article be changed to Macedonian people. Thus it will be clear that the article is about a modern people (ethnic group), and not a ancient historical community. I think that the proposal is decent and fair. Thanks in advance. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But what about regioneers and geographers? Bomac (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

They will all be included in the Macedonians disambiguation page, but my preposition is:


 * The Macedonians (ethnic group) article to be renamed as Macedonian people.

All of them will be included as Macedonians, but the Macedonian ethnic group which use the name in a ethnic sense will be included as Macedonian people, thus distinguishing it from those that use the name in regional and geographic sense. I think that the proposal is the best compromise solution. Regards to all. --Revizionist (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the current name ? for a start.--Zakronian (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And where is the disambiguation from the Macedonian people, who by the way are no longer even mentioned on the merged dab page? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 03:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there is nothing wrong with the name of the article, but I thought that it will be more helpful if it was defined like this:

- Macedonian people - Macedonian Greeks - Macedonian Bulgarians

Just an idea. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because Greeks and Bulgarians aren't people. Got it. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By the same logic Greeks and Bulgarians aren't ethnic groups.  Balkan Fever  11:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thus, those that call themselves as Macedonians in ethnic sense (thatis, a separate Macedonia people) will be presented as Macedonian people in the article. Those Greeks who consider themselves Macedonians by regional sense, will be Macedonian Greeks, and those Bulgarians that consider themselves Macedonians in geographical sense will be Macedonian Bulgarians. All of them will be included in a new Macedonians disambiguation page, as Macedonian people, Macedonian Greeks and Macedonian Bulgarians. All of them are Macedonians in the disambiguation page Macedonians, but the first are in ethnic sense, the second in regional and the third in geographical. I think this is the best compromise proposal ever. What do the admins think about it? regards to all. --Revizionist (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Greeks and Bulgarians don't need to be disambiguated. Macedonian people, on the other hand, is equivalent to Macedonians, which is why they both redirect to the same dab page. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see how "Macedonian people" would solve any problems better than the current title. On the other hand, there will probably come a time when we should in fact move this page right to Macedonians, this meaning being the overwhelmingly most common one in present-day English usage (per WP:DAB). Predictable furious howls from our Greek friends notwithstanding. But probably not right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Macedonian people" is a reasonable choice, IMO. I agree with Revizionist's take on it above; it would have the additional advantage of consistent naming with other articles about specific ethnic groups. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not Ethnic Macedonians? Macedonians and Macedonian people are simply too broad and ambiguous. As for the "people" bit reflecting convention, not really. We have English people but Greeks, Scottish people but Germans as well as Ethnic Germans. And what does "not right now" mean? A way of circumventing all your Greek "friends" will have to be devised first? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 16:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a worthwile proposal. "Not right now" means that when the whole naming dispute is resolved ( if it ever is!?). Anyway by using the most common English Term "Macedonians" is the most obvious choice, but that is for another discussion. "Macedonian people" is a good proposal, or "Ethnic Macedonians". PMK1 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Macedonians (ethnic group)" is better than "Ethnic Macedonians".  Balkan Fever  08:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Makedonci? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Next.  Balkan Fever  09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I mangle the Slavonic? Sorry. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're trying to mangle the English.  Balkan Fever  10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * English is overrated. If Belarus and Moldova can do it, why not Makedonija? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong article, bub.  Balkan Fever  10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless, I'm happy we solved the Macedonia naming dispute with Makedonci/Makedonija (for English and worldwide usage). Shall we forward our decision to Matthew Nimetz, Zoran Jolevski and Adamantios Vassilakis? NikoSilver 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought we had it confirmed long ago that Nimetz is editing here anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Vassilakis got indef-blocked.  Balkan Fever  11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, was he the guy who cut-and-paste forked Aegean Macedonians to Macedonian H A Ǵ G Є R the other day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses, we still need the other side to appoint a new negotiator. Протоѓер (Πρωτόγερος) is clearly too Greek for the job. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. They already have. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

caption
"This article is about the South Slavic ethnic group; for the unrelated ancient people, see Ancient Macedonians and Macedon; for the modern Greek regional group, see Macedonians (Greek). For other meanings, see Macedonian."

Who says the modern Macedonians (ethnic) are not related to the ancient people? Mactruth (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's obvious.  Balkan Fever  23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's disputed Bruka (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hardly. Nowhere except in the discourse of cheap nationalist rhetorics and pseudo-science. Nothing worth taking into account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not take it back to the cheap made-up stuff, Mactruth, shall we. You should have learned long ago that what they teach you at school is not the reality we live in. Todor→Bozhinov 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it depends what you mean by "related". There is considerable, non-nationalistic, non-Macedonian theories and evidence supporting the view that modern Macedonians have always lived in Macedonia. That they arrived in the 6th century is a over-simplification which has been propagated by editors that are either not knowledgeable enough, or intentionally trying to push a particular point of view.

Politically and culturally, yeah, the ancient Macedonia ceased to exist long ago. One cannot propose a clear political continuity between anceint Macedon and the modern namesake.

At the same time, no one seems to see the weakness in the greek arguement, largely lying on the premise that because the ancient macedonians possibly spoke a language either Greek, or closely related, then they are the true cultural inheritors. There are many aspects to culture and identity, not language alone. Although some would like to think so, there were no consolidated 'nationalities' in 300 BC, just ethnies and empires

Hxseek (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not just the language; it's (primarily) the Greek identity professed by the Macedonians themselves. The notion that they were not Greek has always been asserted by others, from the ancient Athenians to the modern "Macedonians". Still, if the Greeks have only the language in common, what do you have? Genetic "proof" that you "have always lived in Macedonia"? As opposed to the Greeks, who haven't? Good for you, though that still doesn't prove a connection to the ancient Macedonians of Philip and Alexander per se. In any case, if you believe "there were no consolidated 'nationalities'" in antiquity, you should have no problem with the statement that you are unrelated to them, should you? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 06:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it depends what you mean. Biologically speaking, yes, it is possilbe. These genetic 'proofs', as you sarcastically refer to , suggest that the genetic make up of all nations stem from ancient times. This is not a secret. So yes, macedonians probably are directly related to people who have lived in the region of macedonia since the ages. Of course this isn't evidence of direct relationship to Alexander. But neither does this exist for modern Greeks. In fact, genetic studies show immense similarity between Ethnic macedonians and northern Greeks. It seems that geography dictates genetic relationships to a far greater degree than linguistic and cultural bounderies, for the most part. This again illustrates that the 'biology', the bulk of an area's population, was essentially already created by the Neolithic.

Although the Argeads aspired to a Hellenic identity, we ultimately do not have any proof of what the average anceint Macedonian saw himself as. Most likely as an ancient Macedonian, not "Greek". Hxseek (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we have no "proof", on what exactly do you base your claim that the average Macedonian "most likely" did not consider himself Greek? Furthermore, I don't think you can equate the two modern groups so easily when it comes to their "relatedness" to the ancient Macedonians (or lack thereof). Whatever the Macedonians were to begin with, they were absorbed into the common Greek culture of the Hellenistic era. Unless of course you're claiming a common descent from those Hellenistic-era Greeks. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 08:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is none. That's what I am saying. But going from some scholarly theories about concepts of ethnicity and identity in pre-modern times most had just a very regional affiliation. Some even think that only the societal elites actually aspired to an 'ethnic' identity Hxseek (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably true, but it underestimates the role of élites in forming a society's identity. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 09:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, elites were the ones who formed identity Hxseek (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In which case it's pure speculation to suggest that the Argeads' subjects had a different identity. The way I see it, if Alexander could convince his Macedonians to follow him to India for the glory of Greece, they can't have resisted the idea of being Greek that much, can they? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 09:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Hxseek (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "It seems that geography dictates genetic relationships to a far greater degree than linguistic and cultural bounderies, for the most part." Wouldn't that then exclude the inhabitants of the fYRoM, which lies north of the original kingdom of Macedon (you know, before it expanded to the Indus)? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to such a micro-regional extent. I know this might ruffle a few feathers, but northern greeks, are genetically more similar to "Slav" macedonians than to cretans. Now I know its language, culture and common history, etc which is more important. But its a fact. just has to do with the patterns how Europe was colonized in the prehistoric years. For example, northern GReeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians and Serbs have very similar proportions of R1a, J2, E1b1b, R1b. All this means is that they all come from a common "biological pool". It just so happens that historical and political circumstances caused divergent linguistic affinities. We have no DNA data from ancient Macedonians, so we do not know if today's genetic make up is the same as back then, but likely ancient Macedonians, Dardanians, Paionians all had similar biology. Another thing, As you probably know Europeans are the most homogeneous people of all. The one country of India is more diverse than all Europe is. However, of all Europeans, the Balkan people are most diverse - a testament to the importance of the Balkan region in the migratory processes in EuropeHxseek (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that you're clutching at straws a tad. Why not to such a micro-regional extent? The modern borders of Macedonia are entirely arbitrary, actually. If Macedonians are genetically closer to Skopjans than to Cretans, why must we believe that someone from Skopje has more in common genetically with a native of Vergina than someone from Vranje? Is Macedonia a genetic island or something? In 431 BC, Macedon barely extended into what in later times became the Slavophone areas of Macedonia. I must then ask what makes you more Macedonian than, say, Paionian or Dardanian? And if Macedonians, Dardanians, Paionians "all had similar biology", what about the Greeks? Were they that different? Are you really claiming Macedonian descent solely on the basis of a non-specific Palæo-Balkan (but somehow expressly non-Greek) ancestry, with a bit of Slav thrown into the mix? If that's the case, wouldn't that make the Bulgarians and Serbs "Macedonians" too? Finally, if the "northern Greeks" share the "Macedonian" ancestry of their northern neighbours and speak the modern descendant of the Koine, the language established as the common standard of the Greek world by the Macedonians themselves, does that not entitle them to claim a closer connection to Macedon than anyone else? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 03:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not 'clutching at straws' but merely illustrating that the case is not so straightforward. But yes, the Hellenism associated with Macedon is not disputed. Macedonia is not a genetic island, never said it was. Not did I claim there was no Greek element, in fact, Greek language and culture was of course the dominant element in macedonia until the 'Slavic invasions'

Hxseek (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I must dispute - or at least strongly querry - this entry of the article, "for the modern Greek regional group, see Macedonians (Greek)." There are Greeks in the 17th century signing their name as Macedonians because they were born in what they considered Greece and Macedonia. Do those Macedonians belong to 'the modern Greek regional group'? I think not. They belong to the traditional group of Greeks who considered themselves Macedonians, as others considered themselves Chians, Athenians, Cretans, Smyrniots, etc... Politis (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that Hxseek is interested in the genetic origin of the Balkan people and I recommend he read the article in http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200306/ai_n9288054/pg_5  -  it is written that today's Macedonians (the Slavomacedonians as Greeks call them), Bulgarians and Iranians are genetically close - this is because Bulgars (or proto-Bulgarians) were of Iranian origin as the latest theory states. I think that this article unintentionally but plausibly illustrates what the origin of Macedonians is.Gur4eto (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilst an interesting study. The HLA system is only one of many genetic data we can use. Some geneticists argue that a pan-autosomal analysis is better, whilst other prefer Y-DNA or mtDNA data. Nothing is proven to be better, but we certainly cannot make any conclusions abut Macedonians' origins from a study focusing on a few HLA loci of Chuvash people. According to the analysis of this study, yes, macedonians and Bulgarians cluster with Iranians becuase they have eastern Mediterrean HLA-genetic make up ( ? whatever that means. It is a bit of a surprising finding given that Iran isn;t anywhere near the Mediterranean ?? ). Clustering does not imply origins, nor does it establish temporality or direction of movement. Although it might fit nicely with the Iranian origin of Bulgars theory, it doesn't represent proof, nor does the study claim it to be so. The Bulgars, whether 'Turkic' or 'Iranic' were probably mostly "European", anyway. Hxseek (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well - this aricle is not a proof, I agree with that. But at least it contradicts to your theory of the genetic similarity between peoples that are geographically close ( see figure 3 in the same article - unfortunatelly it is not shown in the link I gave above but see it in http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Genetichni%20izsledvaniya/Chuvash%20-%20origin.htm  - it is the same article although translated into Bulgarian) - it is strange that Bulgarians and Macedonians are so close to Iranians but differ quite a lot from, for example, Romanians, don't you think? As to the genetic similarity between northern Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians and Serbs - it can be quite easily explained by the considerable Slavic admixture of all of them (yes, northern Greece descents from these parts of the Byzantine empire which were inhabited predominantly by Slavs, moreover these territories were at times a part of the Bulgarian empire). The prehistoric genetic background of modern Balkan peoples is disputable - some historians believe that the local Balkan populations (Thracians, Illyrians, etc) were at least significantly reduced by the numerous barbarian invasions (and Slavic also) if not slaughtered completely.Gur4eto (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It does not contradict my theory, which, by the way is actually the theory of published Geneticists such as Covalli-Sforza, Dupanloup and Rosser. Bulgarians and Macedonians are far closer to Romanians than to Iranians. The article does not contradict this in anyway. It suggests that for some of the HLA loci analysed in this particular study Bulgarians, and Macedonians, cluster with Iranians; for some (unexplained) reason. You should not make your own conclusions about the significance of that. HLA loci are just small parts of the genome which code for proteins found on immune and inflammatory cells. HLA loci are not "ideal" for mapping migrations and ethnic relationships. By the way, in that same cluster lie Russians, Cretans, Morrocans and Munchurians (northern Chinese)- a rather random mix of people with no geographic, linguistic or historic relationships. Unfortunately, the authors of the study do not stipulate a conclusion as to why this may be. But it merely confirms that looking at a few HLA loci in isolation is not exactly ideal for studying 'genetic origins' and population affinities. If one does base their study on autosomal loci such as HLA, blood and protein loci, then you need to select many and multiple loci to get a complete picture. The paper by Covali-Sforza has done just this- it examined 120 such loci, not just 4. That study clearly showed that Europeans are very genetically similar, but with some patterns. The most important one was a south-eastern to north-western cline. I.e. Macedonians and Bulgarians clearly have a more similar make up to Greeks, Romanians, Serbs, etc than to Irish, Iranians, or Chinese from Manchuria, for that matter.


 * As for the reason of this similarity between Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians, there is not definite conclusion. Yes, northern Greece was exposed to Slavs. From what I have read, however, the similarity comes from pre-historic times: that being the patterns by which the Balkans was colonizied during the initial Palaeolithic settlement of Europe, the Mesolithic re-expansions, the Neolithic farmer migrations, and to a lesser extent - migrations during the historic period. This means that, contrary to the historic sources which state that the Balkans was 'devastated' by Huns, Goths, etc; many of the 'native' Balkan people actually remained. Rather than killing the locals, groups like SLavs and Goths actually recruited, assimilated and traded with them. They didn;t just rape, kill and pillage. Moreover, these invaders were only small in number, but because they were militaristic and fierce, they could demand tribute and loyalty from the more numerous locals


 * PS : thanks for the link with the picture of the clusters.

Hxseek (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no "proofs" whatsoever about the modern Slavs being "connected" in some special way to the ancient Macedonians. That is ridiculous. As for the argument that Macedonians cannot be Greeks because the Greeks have already a Greek nationality, in the same way a Londoner cannot be British and a new nation can call their ethnicity Londoners. Let's be serious. Macedonian ethnicity can only refer to the ancient Macedonians and their descendants, who spoke Greek - not Slavic - and used Greek for administration as long as a Macedonia existed as an administrative district of the Roman and Byzantine empires. Finally, that the ancient Greeks considered themselves an ethnos, indeed Herodotus spoke of etnicities, is nothing new. Wikipedia is not an instrument of nationalistic propaganda from FYROM against Greece.(Skamnelis (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC))


 * It's almost certain that Macedonian Slavs (is there a reason that's not the title of this article?) descend at least partially from ancient Macedonians, just as modern (Ottoman) Turks descend largely from Armenians, Greeks, Hittites, and other classical peoples of Anatolia. (The Azeris are pretty much Turkish-speaking Armenians.) The question is whether, at the time of language shift from (ancient) Macedonian to Slavic, people retained a sense of Macedonian (or perhaps at that point Greek) ethnic identity, or if they traded in their identity as well. This probably wouldn't be an easy question even if it had happened yesterday: There were huge debates at the turn of the 20th century over what exactly a "Turk" or an "Arab" was, and even today it's not always clear. kwami (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are writings in the Macedonian newspapers about researches conducted by different institutes and companies that examine the genetic origins of Europeans. I recently read about the research made by iGENEA (the European branch of FamilyTreeDNA, the leading organisation for DNA genealogy that carries out 90% of all DNA genealogy tests worldwide). Here is the link:. According to this, it appears that modern Macedonians are 30% Macedonian, 20% German, 15% Hellenic, 15% Slavs, 10% Illyrian etc. About Greeks it says that they are 35% Hellenic, 20% of Slavic origin, 20% Phoenician and only 5% Macedonian (in north more than 18%) . Here is one visual depiction of the results of this research (text is in Macedonian):
 * This reveals some interesting things: that modern Macedonians are one third of Macedonian origin, only 15% of Slav origin and have significant portion of German blood too:) etc. On the other hand, it seems that Greeks are not much genetically related to ancient Macedonians (only 5%), but have significant Slavic origin (20%).


 * Another interesting link: . I must admit, I'm not sure how much these researches can be trusted and how much are they reliable, but if they are true some interesting conclusions and decisions can be made (at least we should remove unrelated on the top of the page) MatriX (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the results seem reasonable, but my question is where did they get a statistically valid sample of ancient Macedonian DNA? Unless maybe they used Albanians as a stand-in for the ancient (pre-Slavic, pre-Hellenic) Balkans: then Mac. Slavs would be 30% Albanian, and Greeks only 5% Albanian. The 20% Slavic ancestry of Greeks also seems reasonable, considering the Byzantine Empire, but I do wonder what exactly it is that they're measuring. I mean, 10% Illyrian: they can't use Albanians for both Macedonians and Illyrians, so where did they get blood samples or cheek swabs from a statistically significant number of Illyrians? kwami (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They say they are specialized in the genetic origins of Europeans by defining different historical indigenous people (groups from Antiquity who are defined not only by their own language, culture and history but also by their own DNA-profile) and that they are analyzing the genetic material recovered from archeological and anthropological finds, that way examining the DANN of Celts, Germanic Tribes, Illyrians, Slavs, Vikings, Iberians, Persians, Turkish People... In cases, where the finds could not be clearly ascribed to a single culture, the DNA-profiles obtained were compared with the genetic material of people from a region recognized as belonging to the particular people.
 * On their forum page they posted the following info about the methods they use to isolate the DNA of a primitive tribe:


 * By analyzing the actual habitants and examine if they have common markers. (Jews)


 * By analyzing archaeological funds and isolate the DNA from bounds (Illyrians, Thracians)


 * By combining both methods (Macedonian, Celtic, Germanic)
 * MatriX (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)