Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic Macedonians of Greece


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Clear POV fork; I shall make a protected redirect after the deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians of Greece

 * – ( View AfD View log )

POVFORK of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. At one point there was a separate article on the ethnic Macedonians ("Aegean Macedonians") in Greece, but it was decided by consensus to merge with the former article on "Slavophone Greeks". This is the same group, just that some identify as Greek and some not. At the time it was decided it was best to have a single article and deal with the identity question there. Athenean (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support Wasn't it agreed some time ago that this was just a POV fork of the original article and that it should stay a redirect? That way or the other, I do not see the purpose of yet another article that repeats the original but with someone's nationalistic views included. -- L a v e o l  T 16:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * support: prime purpose of the POV fork seems to be the contentious notion that the north of Greece is inhabited by ethnic Macedonians. Other than that the overlap to Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia amounts to 100%, so why have two articles on the same subject? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Due to the utter confusion that this interpretation causes. Moreover, ethnic Slavs that inhabit Macedonia in Greece are not ethnic Macedonians (albeit a recently promoted claim) i.e. they are not the descendents of Alexander the Great's Macedonia. This is pure fantasy and invention.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article, as yet, does not provide any genuine distinction between itself and Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. I suggest that the material be merged into Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, and if an editor wants to perform a WP:content fork they discuss the rationale in that article's talk page.  A content fork may be acceptable, but a POV fork is not. --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose - The opposition to this article has mainly come from Greek and Bulgarian users, who do not generally recognise the existence of the Macedonian people and the seperateness of the Macedonian language at all, let alone as a minority population in Greece.
 * This article deals with the many people who personally identify as ethnically Macedonian. The term "Slavic-speakers" has historically been used to degrade the Macedonian ethnicity, and is considered highly perjorative to people who identify as ethnic Macedonians. There is however enough information about the ethnic Macedonians of Greece (and their diaspora), which in any other circumstance, would have left them with their own article a long time ago.
 * The Macedonians in Greece have:
 * A Political party
 * Non-governmental organisations
 * Cultural organisations
 * Macedonian language courses
 * Several Macedonian language newspapers
 * Elected Macedonians to a number political positions
 * Macedonian language radio stations
 * Produced a Macedonian-Greek dictionary
 * Printed Macedonian language school books and language primers
 * Sought recognition from the Greek government as a minority group
 * Sought recognition to have their lanaguge taught in schools
 * Been recognised by a plethora of English and French language publications, as an unrecognised minority group living in Greece. (If necessary, I will provide sources to back up these facts)


 * These people are not some "fringe group" as many of the Greek users would have everyone believe. In spite all of these examples of the self-identification of the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, Why is it not possible for them to have their own article on Wikipedia.Lunch for Two (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. - Lunch for Two (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Commment: My point exactly. "We need to have our article, where we can push our POV, since they have their articles where they push their POV." In other words, a POVFORK. For example, I note Lunch for Two is copy-pasting the same information in both Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia and Ethnic Macedonians in Greece . This is forking, pure and simple. All of the information about this group can be easily included in Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, I don't see why we need a separate article. Any new information can also be included there as desired, without any problem. Most importantly, however, it was decided by community consensus to merge these articles a while back, and re-creating the separate article is a violation of that consensus. Considering the user responsible is a returning user who is most likely aware of that consensus, this borders of disruptive editing.  Athenean (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response; I am not aware of any other ethnic groups on Wikipedia which have been forcibly grouped together with people who share completely different ideologies (belief that they are ethnically Greek vs ethnic Macedonian), customs (adoption of ethnic Greek customs, rituals and celebrations vs preservation of tradition customs, rituals and celebrations) and ways of life (accepting and fostering assimilation into the mainstream Greek ethnicity vs preservation of the Macedonian language and identification as ethnic Macedonians). It is an unacceptable POV to place people under titles which they completely reject, in order to please one side of the argument (Which it should be noted, constantly denies the existence of the seperate Macedonian people and language). The debate will not be able to progress until this POV is sorted out.
 * Furhtermore, I am not aware of an ethnic group which has shown so much self-identification, yet is forcibly reduced to being placed under the title of "Slavic-speakers"; which is a perjorative and offensive title these people clearly reject.
 * As for some information being transferred, yes, it has. I will tell you why, it is because I for one had initially posted much of the information on the "Slavic-speakers" page, only in the absence of this page. Now that this page has been created, it only makes sense to transfer the information here, and write about those people who identify as "Slavic-speakers" (as is made clear by the title of that page).
 * The fact is that given the lack of notable information about so called "Slavic-speakers" (which is made clear by the fact that hardly any of the article is actually about people who identify as "Slavic-speakers"), the article primarily revolves around the ethnic Macedonians, given the existence of a new article it is only normal for that information to be moved there. The article can then revolve around those who call themselves "Slavic-speakers" Lunch for Two (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - The arguments of the nominator (and supporting users) lack validity and appear to be the consequence of their highly nationalistic agenda. More over, I will present Wikipedia with an important quote from the Human Rights Watch, published in 1994, on the condition and denial of the Ethnic Macedonian minority of Greece, by the Greek Government:

"The Greek  government  denies  that  a  Macedonian  minority  exists  in Greece.  It refers to ethnic Macedonians as "Slavophones" or "Slav-speakers."  The official Greek position is that the Greek state is ethnically homogeneous, the only exception  being  the Muslim minority  in western Thrace  (the Turkish minority32) whose existence was confirmed in 1923 by the Lausanne Treaty."

Full Report can be viewed here.

Since this is also Wikipedia (an international Encylopedia,) deleting this article would be in clear violation of the most basic user and human-right, the recognition of one's ethnic existence.--Xythianos (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This user is a Persian ultranationalist troll who is wikistalking me and is clearly only voting here out of spite.  This is in apparent retaliation for a content dispute over at Ancient history . Athenean (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Even in Greek census such minority exist, even though the number is small. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Canvassing alert: The preceding comment is result from canvassing on the Macedonian Wikipedia. The comment reads: "If you have time, please, vote here (link to the article) as Greek user are once again trying to delete the article. Help is needed so that Macedonians in Greece have their article on the English language version of Wikipedia. If there are other users, please, vote.".-- L a v e o l  T 10:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose: for two reasons: first, because this is an encyclopedia and as such it is an obligation of Wikipedia to include all views within it and document them objectively. Secondly, because language does not mean ethnicity. "Slavic-speakers" is Greek POV to refer to the Macedonians in Northern Greece. I use that in Greek as well, but this is not a Greek encyclopedia, nor is it a platform to promote the Greek (or Macedonian) POVs. However small the minority in Greece is, it deserves its own article under an appropriate name and not a subsection of an article on speakers of Slavic languages in Greece. Likewise Turks in Germany should be a subsection of Turkic speakers in Germany, which would also include Azerbaijanis in Germany, Kazachs in Germany and Turkmens in Germany. Another more relevant example would be Hellenic-speakers in the United Kingdom instead of Greeks in the United Kingdom, which would also include Cypriots in the United Kingdom.


 * Wikipedia is not a platform for pushing POVs, and if the article is kept I believe it should be very well-sourced and reviewed by people neutral to the Greek-Macedonian dispute. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe the article should be moved to Ethnic Macedonians in Greece, "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece" sounds like Greece owns the ethnic Macedonian living within it, like "Music of Greece", "Culture of Greece" etc. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Athenean. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. These matters had been sorted a couple of years ago. The User:Lunch for Two has joined Wikipedia specifically to edit articles that have quietly prospered following a protracted debate followed by an arbitration. All parties came to an agreement and this has met the approval of those involved. Please see, Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 *** Naming conventions (Macedonia). Politis (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please point to which points of Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 and Naming conventions (Macedonia) are applicable to this article title? On an initial reading I can't see anything on either page that says or implies that the people who are, in plain English, ethnic Macedonians should be referred to in Wikipedia as "Slavic-speakers", any more than ethnic Swedes should be called "Germanic-speakers" or ethnic Portuguese "Romance-speakers". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree. I can't find any reference to this, could you please direct us to the correct part of these two pages where relevant information can be found? --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair point. The Macedonia related article edited (IMO trolled) by the new user have survived over the last 2 years due to a lengthy arbitration process that made different editors with different priorities come to an agreement. All editors have respected the arbitration. But there is more to it than that, and this is my point here, editors have also refrained from changing the names of articles which, in many cases are redirected. Politis (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The NCMAC and ARBMAC2 are completely irrelevant here. Regarding this article, Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia was originally created by User:PMK1 under the name Aegean Macedonians back in '08. There was also an article called Slavophone Greeks for those Slavic-speakers that identified as Greeks rather than ethnic Macedonians. At some point (I think it was either 2009 or 2010), it was decided to merge these two articles into a single article called Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. This was discussed on some talkpage (I think that of Slavophone Greeks). I've tried to find the discussion but because of all the merging I have so far been unable to find it. I remember User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was part of the discussion, and he might know more. Here it is . Athenean (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is for these above reasons why debate about this topic should once again occur. It has been over 3 years since the issue came to the fore, and during this period many people have had the chance to reassess their own personal beliefs given the increased scholarship and information now available for this subject. Compared to 3 years ago, there are significant more Greeks (on Wikipedia and more widely) who do recognise the existence of ethnic Macedonians living in Greece (this in itself is a significant shift). In the future due to better hinformation and greater tolerance I can only see more people also coming to this conclusion. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to start a new debate, which is fine, the way to do that is to propose that the article be recreated on a talkpage, then let the debate begin. Not by creating a fait accompli and then hoping for "consensus by default" (once an article is created "keep" votes have an inherent advantage, as in the event of an inconclusive AfD the article is kept by default). Athenean (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per policy in wiki about Balkan minorities. There is no need to create the same articles with a diferrent or similar name (we have Slavic speakers in Greece and its enough). I remember a similar situation where 'Greek minority in Albania' and 'Northern Epirotes' were merged, although the terms are not completely the same. Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic in this. Are you suggesting that the fact that I speak English makes me ethnically British? Likewise, does speaking the Macedonian language make someone Macedonian? They would very well have a Greek consciousness and still speak Macedonian. Language and ethnicity are two very different things, and in this case "slavic speakers" is a Greek-POV euphemism for the small albeit existing minority of Macedonians in Greece, which also includes non-Macedonian slavic speakers. Also, what wikipedia policy on Balkan minorities?--Philly boy92 (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no wikipedia policy on Balkan minorities, but the thing to keep in mind here is that there is one group of people, not two. Regardless of how they are named or how some of them identify, they are never treated in the literature as two separate groups of people. Thus there should only be one article, where nomenclature and identity are properly discussed. The title of the article may well be up for discussion, but that is a separate matter that can be dealt with a move request as Noleander points out. Athenean (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - One of the arguments of the "keep" editors is that a better name for the slavic-speakers of Greece is the phrase "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece". That may be true, but the best process to use to  reach that goal is to work on the Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia article, improve it, then propose a rename to "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece" using the WP:REQMOVE process. --Noleander (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That may be true, however in this circumstance it is unlikely to happen. There is no way that Greek users will allow the whole article to be renamed "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece", because not all of the Macedonian speakers identify as ethnic Macedonians (I personally would not agree with this move either). I believe you have possibly missed the main issue in this debate, and I urge to read both articles again, and then reassess the situation.
 * It is not about being a "better name" but rather the right to their own name (which they have chosen for themselves). Lunch for Two (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's article naming policies are not about their "own name they have chosen for themselves", or about what "the Greek users will or will not allow", but rather what is the most commonly used name in the literature. Athenean (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Athenean, you know very well that Greek users will not allow the "Slavic-speaker" of Greece to be ever changed to "ethnic Macedonians" of Greece. Ideally, Yes, Wikipedia does try to use the most common name used in literature, however in relation to Macedonian issues there are a series of terms which may not be the "most commonly used name in literature" however for the purposes of this project have been adopted by the Wikipedia community. (Take "Slavic dialects of Greece" which is an invented term used on Wikipedia only to artificially unite languages (Macedonian language in Greece and language of the Greek Pomaks); even though all of these dialects have some form of page on Wikipedia already (Solun-Voden dialect, Prilep-Bitola dialect, etc.) where they are assessed from a linguistic and not political viewpoint) Lunch for Two (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Using "the Greek users" and their seeming omnipotence as an excuse to avoid having a discussion on the title is highly disingenuous. I think you give Greek users waaaaaaaaaaaaay to much credit here. If they were as powerful as you would have us believe, this article would called Republic of Skopje or something like that, and you know it. So enough already with all this stuff about "the Greek users would never allow it so let's not have a debate and call it what I want to call it and be done with it", this fools no one. There is absolutely no reason not to have a single article, and a frank debate about the title, rather than two POVFORKS. Athenean (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, there is merit in what I am saying regarding the strong lobby present on Wikipedia. Now that you have finally acknowledged that this article is a POVFORK, namely a "Greek-POV euphemism" as an ethnically Greek user here has already pointed out. Now, unless the name of this article is changed, I cannot see how this POV issue will be resolved. In fact there are many more sources in literature which point out this existence of "[ethnic (possibly Slav/ic])] Macedonians of/in/from Greece", or alternatively "Aegean Macedonians" as they are also widely known, then there are of the "Slavic-speakers of/in/from Greece".
 * I am just putting these here to highlight (of course is not definitive) the approach that literature has taken
 * 359 hits on google books
 * 712 hits
 * 376 hits
 * 69 hits
 * 34 hits
 * 7 hits
 * 21 hits
 * 0 hits (Although this is the name of the article, I only created it with that name ("ethnic" Macedonians) due to the fact that a Wikipedia arbitration has decided that all articles dealing with Macedonians, should use the term "ethnic Macedonians") - However in literature more widely, simply Macedonians is used (as is supported by the finding of this little exercise).

vs
 * 8 hits (+ One, which is a copy of the Wiki article)
 * 19 hits
 * 1 hit
 * 17 hits


 * If we are going to use literature as a guide about what to do, we are better off renaming this article to either "Ethnic Macedonians in Greece" (simply "Macedonians in Greece" would be the best option, however again this would conflict with the Wiki arbitration) or "Aegean Macedonians"; and then have a section regarding those who identify as Greeks and provide a link to here. Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia can be merged into the current article; if we are to use literature as a guide.
 * You may believe that the lobby is not that strong, however the fact that this article, with almost minimal references in literature, has been kept for so longer over much more mainstream terms, speaks for itself. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - I'm still trying to figure out if these two articles are describing the same group of people or not. The discussion above seems to imply it is a single group, but has two different names, depending on the political inclination of the speaker.  So my question is:  Editors who believe that there should be two different articles, can you describe some groups of persons that are in the "Slavic speaking" group, but who are not in the "Ethnic Macedonian" group?  Or vice versa: identify some groups of persons that are in the "Ethnic M" group but not in the "Slavic speaking" group?   And, whatever your answer is, what is the magnitude of these "non intersection" groups?   1% of the the Slav speakers?  10%?  --Noleander 03:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply - The magnitude of the non-intersect groups can be judged by the list of things which the ethnic Macedonians have done to self identify as such (posted above). It is quite a significant group.
 * There are groups who can be classified in the "slavic speaking" but not "ethnic Macedonian" category; these people espouse a local/regional consciousness, whilst others call themselves ethnic Greeks. However these people (in the latter category) have a sort of 'phantom' presence on the article which was merged with "Aegean Macedonians" (another name for ethnic Macedonians of Greece), in order to include these people. And by this I mean that this article mainly revolves around people with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness and their self-identification; however hardly mentions those people with a local affiliation or Greek affiliation (despite the fact that the name of "Slavic-speakers" is best suited to them). Lunch for Two (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * @Noleander: Precise figures are hard to come by, but from what I know from the literature, there are an estimated ~200,000 Slavic-speakers, the vast majority of whom identify as "Slavophone Greeks". The number of Slavic-speakers with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness is again impossible to pin down, but has been estimated by human rights organizations (e.g. Greek Helsinki Monitor) at 10,000-30,000. This is based on extrapolating from the number of votes the ethnic Macedonian party "Rainbow" received in the 2004 elections (3,000-4,000 votes), while it hasn't participated in elections since 2004. As for all the magazines, newspapers and cultural organization as such that Lunch mentions, they are tiny and their circulation is small. By my own estimate, I would say roughly ~90% of Slavic speakers in Greek Macedonia identify as Greek, the remaining 10% as ethnic Macedonians. The 10,000-30,000 figure seems reasonable to me. As far as I know there are no non-Slavic speakers with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness. There is only one group of people, some of which now identify as Greeks, some not. But the language they speak is identical, ditto the customs and culture, and they have common ancestry. Most importantly, they are never treated as two separate groups in the literature. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC


 * I have read that Nova Zora magazine has a circulation of 20,000; but that is not the main issue here, although it does dispute your claims regarding ethnic identity correlating with the results of Rainbow. It is impossible to put a figure on the number of people with a Macedonian, Greek or local identity. It is however, refreshing to see that Athenean does recognise that there is an ethnic Macedonian population living in Greek Macedonia; and only with recognition of this fact can any real debate occur.
 * It is true that many people of this group have been assimilated and now identify as Greeks. However, the presence of partly assimilated population groups does not facilitate the invention of new terms to describe them (as is the Wikipedia invention of "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia")
 * Take Poles in Germany. Here we have a large group of people some of which have a Polish identity, whilst roughly a million people of Polish descent (according to the article), whilst although not differing from the 'Polish identifying people of Polish descent' (in heritage, culture, etc.), now have another identity (presumably German).
 * Such a large population (~ 1,000,000) does not necessitate the creating of another page "Lechitic speakers of Germany" or "West Slavic speakers of Germany" (To 'avoid' the POV of calling them Poles), but these people are simply dealt with in the text of the page. Not only would coining new terms conflict with WP:NOR; but having to create a new term would be a POV inconsistent with the literature upon which Wikipedia is meant to be based (And by this I mean that literature, if notable enough a topic, should have its own terms to describe them already).
 * Given that we now agree that they are of the "same ancestry" (and it is obvious what this common non-Greek ancestry is), I dont see why we can't merge Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia into this article and have a WP:CONTENTFORK about those who do not identify as ethnic Macedonians, and link to either Ethnic Greeks or Macedonians (Greeks) (Preferred option). I also don't see why there cannot be a new chapter in Macedonians (Greeks) to deal with these ethnic Greeks with different Origins and Culture (these are two sub-chapters on that page), and to provide any notable information about the people with a Greek ethnic identity on that page.
 * Is this not an acceptable compromise? It leaves recognition of those persons with an ethnic Macedonian conscioussness whilst also providing detailed infomation on both (1 and 2) pages about persons with a Greek ethnic identity. I think that this is a fair compromise from both sides. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - If you look at this situation, it's really not much different than the one with Iran and Azerbaijanis, because Macedonians have their own country like the Azerbaijanis. Yet however, indigenous Azerbaijanis are and have always been found in Iranian region of Azerbaijan, the same way that Ethnic Macedonians are indeginous to the Macedonian region of Greece. Remember, borders are a new invention after the world wars and these kind of issues are common in many places throughout the world today. We cannot deny a people's right to existence, just because maps were redrawn and for them being speakers from a different linguistic branch. Azeris are Turkic-speaking yet indiginous to the Azerbaijan region Iran in again the same way that Ethnic Macedonians are Slavic-speaking yet indigineous to the Macedonia region of Greece (I've done my research). I hope this helps some of you realize that it's pointless trying to deny someone's ethnic existence, even if it's only Wikipedia.(it doesn't make it any less hurtful). Remember, politics shouldn't also be involved in making our decisions on here. After all, there is a page on the Ethnic Azerbajanis of Iran, so why shouldn't there be one on the Ethnic Macedonians of Greece? My advice is to keep this page, but just make it well sourced and have editors review it that are far away from the conflict, so that there is a neutral unbiased approach to its form. You could also look into renaming it, "Greek Macedonians" is an option :) And good luck.--Xythianos (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This from the editor who nominated Tajik people for deletion on the grounds that the existence of a separate article on Tajiks was "offensive to the Persian nation". Athenean (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The only reason 'User Lunch for Two' created his account 10 days ago (18 July 2011) is to create a controversial article and then keep editing it irrespective of the AfD notice or past agreements {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lunch_for_Two}. His working knowledge of Wikipedia indicates, IMO, he has edited or perhaps is editing Wikipedia under a different name. If I am right, this could be a serious matter. If I am wrong, what is the explanation. Politis (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy which prevents users editing article which have an AfD on them. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cannot comment on Lunch for Two's past editing pattern, but his notion of "Ethnic Macedonians" in Greece is so terribly far in POV lands that his position is literally undistinguishable from that of the foreign department of the Republic of Macedonia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can argue on this all you want, but I can just as easily say that your opinion is that of the Greek ministry of foreign affairs. Please don't make the same mistake that most Greeks do. Just because someone is Macedonian doesnt mean he is a nationalist, and likewise the fact that I am Greek does not mean my position will be that of Greece. Also I don't get how the notion of ethnic Macedonians in Greece is "POV", everyone knows they are there. They even have a party, if you remember, which got 7,000+ votes. --Philly boy92 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can say that — as long as you don't forget to mention the 200+ foreign ministries which support Greece's position. Which makes your position extreme POV and that's the point of this AfD, isn't it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which 200+ foreign ministries? I think that you'll find that most of the world's governments who have any interest in the matter are totally exasperated by this childish naming dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Philly boy: I think it was more like 3,000-4,000 votes in the 2004 elections, which was the last one Rainbow participated in. Athenean (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

'User:Lunch for Two' should probably be blocked
Is there an admin anywhere here? User:Lunch for Two should probably be blocked for bad faith edits, and his/her status as a potential Sock Puppet looked into. The user must know exactly what I am talking about. Politis (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.