Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 3

message: Are the Albanians of FYROM "Macedonian(nationality)" or "Albanian(nationality)?
What do the slavs and the Albanians FYROMs maintain?  
::Vergina 12:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They couldn't be "Albanian (nationality)" because they're not citizens of Albania. As I suggested above, the better solution would be to redirect "Macedonian (nationality)" to the article Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia. -- ChrisO 12:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macedonian Slavs article explicitly refers to the dominant ethnic group of the FYROM. Renaming it "Macedonian (nationality)" is unacceptable as it would exclude at least a third of the FYROM's citizenry.--Theathenae 12:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: "Ethnic majorisation" does indeed seem to be working in their favour - why did they even bother to break up Yugoslavia? - but they still won't reach the 60% required to change the name of the article, even temporarily.--Theathenae 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the Albanians of FYROM "Macedonian(nationality) or Albanian(nationality)?

message: "To discourage socket puppetry, only users with more than 50 edits before 00:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid votes for "Macedonian Slavs"

message: Oh, well, it only took a single mention of translating the Macedonia-related articles from Македонски into English to silence y' all?  I guess you are all busy translating, so I'll leave y'all to it ... Chronographos 15:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, you guys, nothing yet?  It's been two days already.  Surely it needn't have taken y'all this long to translate 4 or 5 half-page-long articles form your mother tongue into English?  What's taking y'all so long?  Chronographos 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Silence of the Lambs]]

message: This debate is trying to determine whether certain people should call themselves Macedonian or not. They are doing it already, and we here are trying to comment upon their choice.
Instead of directly trying to give positive or negative verdict on the historic fact why not try to examine it in another way. Why not start by setting rules according to which any number of people may rightfully call themselves.... lets say Spanish for example. We could use Canadian or ... Finnish for that matter. The point is that the rules must be the same for any "name" for any "group of peoples".
If these people have "played" by the rules ... then there will be no debate at all!! They will have rightfully done so to call themselves Macedonians!! Just as the Spanish people in our example will have done so as well. If these people have not meet the rules then.... sorry but you cannot call your self macedonian because if you do then other people that are not spanish might call themselves spanish ... and that would not be fair to the spaniards now would it ??
So ... let’s start.
I recommend that the rules be:
1. He speaks Spanish. And as Spanish we should recognize what the majority of already recognized Spanish people speak. You can’t come along talking German and start claiming that the other 40 million Spanish are speaking Portuguese and you are not really speaking German but Spanish that sounds abit like German!! OK??
2. He has the same religion as the majority of the already recognized Spanish people. Again as far as what the real Spanish religion is you can’t claim that yours is the real one like with the language.
3. He has none or VERY little similarities to other neighboring peoples. If you claim to be Spanish but you speak a German dialect, you eat German food; you look German, and live close to Germany ... well its more like you’re a German on an identity crisis rather than a Spaniard. And if you are not and really think you are Spanish we stop speaking German for starters and start acting like a Spaniard... otherwise you're neither Spanish nor German. In which case you can choose to create a new people (that is a nice option. I am sure the United Nations would give you a hand) or you can choose to not have a national and ethnical identity (that would be original if nothing else).
4. He must not have recently had military problems with the majority of the already recognized Spaniards. It would be funny if a Catalonian suddenly started calling himself Spaniard now wouldn’t it?. Even though he has large similarities with the Spanish and meets all previous rules the fact that his people (his community) has been at war since ... well since forever kind of makes his case hard to accept.
5. (And this is the most important rule I believe as it shows the real intentions of someone who wants to be called Spanish.) He, or she of course, must have as his only request that to be welcomed and included into the rest of the already recognized Spanish people. He must want only legal citizen ship from Spain. Kind of strange wouldn’t it be if someone started screaming that he is Spanish but he doesn’t want to be apart of Spain !! no he wants Spain to divide in 4 peaces and to give him (and his peoples) one of those peaces. That just HAS to be against the rules !!!. That’s not wanting to be Spanish that's trying to start some war or national tension """ and i think the planet already has enough of that for us to accept more of it.
6. He must also, accept Spanish history, culture, way of life and policies as are accepted by the majority of the already recognized Spaniards.
I believe that if some one came up and met all these rules that the Spanish government would grant him citizenship straight away and welcome him into the country !!! Dont you ?
Lets not start talking about Macedonia and Slavs and Spartans and the Chicago Bulls just yet. Lets only agree that these are good rules for somebody to have the right to claim that he is Spanish.
OK?
So ... what do you think of my rules ? there are only 6 of them !!
1.the language rule (I think very basic, all historians use language to say whether something is Egyptian or Hellenic) 2.the religion rule (again historically always been a source of national identification) 3.the exclusion rule (if an artifact has 100 similarities to Chinese culture and only 5 to Japanese culture then its more Chinese by fare than Japanese) 4.the historical rule (if Egyptians keep fighting the Arabs then they would find it hard being accepted into the Arab society even if they meet other criteria) 5.the intentions rule (if you want to be called British then the first thing you must do is bow to the Queen and to the British government. You can’t claim to be British but demand some mysterious independence of some part of Britain) 6.the acceptance rule ( you must accept the nation that you are claiming to be a part of as do all the member of that people)
Well ?
***Please note I copied the above in response request stating inadvertent blanking occured, I've not checked every dot, but it looks right to me, the request appeared on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Macedonian Slavs. Alf 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 198.176.19.40 comment (copy)

message: Although I know that no rational solution to this article will ever be found, why not call it Macedonian (ethnicity) and use "ethnic Macedonians" as the default option in the text? All of the other modern people that you could describe as "Macedonians" are ethnic Greeks, ethnic Albanians, etc., etc. - Nat Krause 10:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonian (ethnicity)

message: These changes are copy-paste from a website, irrelevant to this wiki, and misinterpret statistics for the region Macedonia as if they are statistics for Macedonian Slavs. MATIA 08:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more pov 

message: The mention of the Holocaust reminded me a letter from the Jewish Communities in Greece, January 8, 1993, it is part of an epistle by Mr Nikolaos Martis, former minister of Macedonia-Thrace (Northern Greece).
MATIA 20:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jews of Thessaloniki and elsewhere are also Macedonian Jews, and they would appear to disagree with you.--Theathenae 16:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you're right. --FlavrSavr 16:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  greek-jewish pov on Macedonian question 

message: Miskin, what exactly makes you think that the name of the nationality (not the name of the state!) in the UN is not standardized? It is standardized, and it's in general use for 60 years. I have already given you links of hundreds of UN documents that are explicitely referring to them as Macedonians. Also, I have provided you with a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that nobody can deprive someone of his right to a nationality. Their nationality is Macedonian. Moreover, I have given you examples where someone (Council of Europe) actually did try to relativize that they are Macedonians, and how it ended. For the millionth time, the name of the nationality was never disputed in the United Nations. Do I have to cite the  resolution: 
::2. Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement ofthe difference that has arisen over the name of the State;
Where does it mention the nationality/ethnic group? --FlavrSavr 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  dab answered you on why you cannot use the plain adjective "Macedonian" when you refer to the Macedonian Slav minority of Macedonia.  As usual, you chose to ignore his reply and just reiterate your position in another page.  As a psychiatrist, I do have to point out to you that repetitive behavior is a cardinal characteristic of insects.  Although it may outwardly appear to be "intelligent" decision-making, experiments have definitely shown it to be no more than a "spinal" reflex, without any "cerebral" component.  You may be interested in looking this up, and also reading about Asperger syndrome while at it.  Chronographos 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronographos, it was dab that moved the conversation in that talk page, because, apparently, he got tired of our bilateral antipathy. It was a matter of courtesy that I contiuned the conversation there. Also, Nat Krause seems to think that the "Macedonian Slavs" label is inappropriate. However, you seem to know much about encyclopedia behaviour, so I've put up a RfC for the section. I'm positive that the neutrals, will, again, consider your position ridicilous. Regards, --FlavrSavr 14:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also dab who wrote that he answered you.  Chronographos 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: User:FlavrSavr, do you have a source to support your claim that the majority of this ethnic group finds the term "Macedonian Slavs" as an ethnic designation offensive? In my own experience, I know several people who don't have a problem with it, especially when used to distinguish themselves from the Macedonian Greeks and others.--Theathenae 15:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: One might ask you the same question. What gives you the right? Politicians from your country certainly do call themselves "Macedonians", but User:Miskin is right to say that they have also used the Slav epithet on a number of occasions, at the highest level. We shouldn't omit this from the article simply because it conflicts with your point of view.--Theathenae 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But I have already explained that, to cite : Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. Now, believe me, when more than 10% of a population actually sends a postcard as a protest because they do not want to be labeled as such, I believe that we can say that they do find it offensive. I didn't send a postcard, but I do find it offensive. Interview 1000 of them, asking this question: "Are you Macedonians or Macedonians Slavs", 990 of them will answer "Macedonians". There were some attempts to label them as SlavoMacedonians in Australia, and they reacted the same way: Don't label me against my will. And again, I am not trying to deny that they actually said that, but Miskin's conclusions are way far fetched. --FlavrSavr 15:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Still, you cannot censor his references to the politicians who have used that terminology.--Theathenae 15:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I think that the statements are taken out of the context (those are the very same politicans who fought for the recognition of the name Republic of Macedonia), but nevertheless, they should be mentioned. Maybe we should have a separate part for it. However, it is a fact that the majority of the ethnic group finds the term offensive. Asserting, in the first paragraph, that X,Y,Z said "Slav Macedonians" on several ocassions, and that's why the reader, or the ethnic group in question, shouldn't find it offensive, is simply, absurd. It's like saying that the Greek Helsinki Watch refers to them as "ethnic Macedonians", and that's why Greek Macedonians, shouldn't find the name "Macedonians" offensive. --FlavrSavr 15:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miskin's edits 

message: I've left some comments on naming conflict talk page. One of them is my question whether the terms Slav or Slavic are offensive. You may want to check it and give your pov (I've read that Slava means glory for example). MATIA 15:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  to Flavsavr 

message: The name dispute and the political negotiations are about the term Macedonia and all related terms (macedonian,macedon,macedonic etc). MATIA 15:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  to Miskin 

message: *REX's quote That website is in some language I can't understand (12 September 2005), list of Greek to English translators including REX  (earlier today) and in Talk:Arvanites REX claimed to be (among others) Greek (26 July 2005). Later in the same talk page he changed his tune but in his user page he declares that This user is a native speaker of English and Greek (ΠϮ..Ϭ,ϏeϬ ο χρήσϬ,ηϬ έχει ωϬ μηϬ,ρική γλώσσα Ϭ,ην Φmiddot;λληνική.) 
*Right now I am not WP:COOL at all. I am furious. Yet there was a page, that I can't find to copy-paste the quote, that REX told to other users they should not attack him personally, in political way like (his example, probably citing WP policies) calling him NAZI. Today, REX called me for the 10th (I've lost the count) time far-right-wing (see above for his white power accusations against me), eventhough a) I told him I've got nothing to do with such circles and I told him repeatedly that he offends me, b) there's not even one contribution I did that could support his claims (since I am not far-right or even right-wing) and c) he wouldn't like to be attacked in this way. I am mad and furious with all these lies and calumnies.MATIA 23:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: REX is Albanian.  Chronographos 01:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok then. Report me because I called you a troll, and I'll bring the evidence. The clock is ticking, aren't you hasty this time? MATIA 08:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: REX is Albanian.  Chronographos 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care what he is. My problem is his actions, and in particular his calumnies against me. MATIA 10:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: REX is Albanian. Think about it.  :-))) Chronographos 11:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''More lies by REX''' 

message: Ethnologue says that in 1986 there were 180,180 Macedonian speakers in Greece. Ethnologue is a credible source. Obviously, now we can't not use these figures. Ethnologue must be neutral. Unless of course  Chronographos and MATIA feel that they know better than the professionals who compiled this document. That is unlikely. So naturally, Chronographos and MATIA will have to withdraw their request that we omit these figures (the far-right Greek extremist view). Shame! REX 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MATIA is trolling, MATIA is trolling. Do official elections in Greece include linguistic minorities. NO. That is because they are not recognised. Greece recognises only the Muslims of Thrace. So even if there was an official census in 1986 they wouldn't have asked that question anyway. MATIA obviously can't read. We have already been into this above, how convenient that he didn't see it. Obviously there must have been some other (possibly non official) census. All I know is that Wikipedia policy requires that these facts be used. If you like causing trouble (ie trolling), I cannot help you. Ethnologue knows better than [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA].] REX 15:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to do the report of I 'll have to do everything by myself? MATIA 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnologue and the number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece 

message: I would prefer you writing that report instead of trolling. As for the census of 1986, you may have forgotten it but everybody else can verify that no census was held in 1986. MATIA 15:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MATIA is trolling, MATIA is trolling. Do official elections in Greece include linguistic minorities. NO. That is because they are not recognised. Greece recognises only the Muslims of Thrace. So even if there was an official census in 1986 they wouldn't have asked that question anyway. MATIA obviously can't read. We have already been into this above, how convenient that he didn't see it. Obviously there must have been some other (possibly non official) census. All I know is that Wikipedia policy requires that these facts be used. If you like causing trouble (ie trolling), I cannot help you. Ethnologue knows better than [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA].] REX 15:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to do the report of I 'll have to do everything by myself? MATIA 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  and round again 

message: Does far-right narrow-minded Greek extremism lie at the root of this dispute? I mean why can't these people be called Macedonians? Just because Greece happens to have a region called Macedonia? Then why does China protest to Mongolia calling itself Mongolia because China also has a region called Mongolia? Using the term Macedonian Slavs is misleading because there are more than one Slavic-speaking ethnic groups in the wider region of Macedonia (the Bulgarians as well as the principal ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia). Why should Wikipedia mislead so many inquisitive people? Just because the Greeks think that they have the right to play with the truth. There are more sources referring to this ethnic group as Macedonians than Macedonian Slavs. The Greek extremists may not like that but Wikipedia's purpose is not to appease them, but to spread the truth. Also, Ethnologue clearly states the number of Macedonian speakers in Greece. Because nobody here is likely to know better than them and because there is no evidence to support to reverse, we will just have to use that figure regardless if the Greek extremists like it of not. REX 20:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Far-right]] narrow-minded Greek [[extremism]] 

message: Because these steps of the dispute resolution procedure didn't work, we should take this dispute in to the next level - Mediation.
Basically, the position of the two POVs are the following
*Macedonian Slavs is the proper name for the article and the use of this term in articles
*Macedonians, Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nationality) or other properly disambiguated option is the proper name for the article and the use of this term in articles
The relevant policies conserning this dispute are: NPOV, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Naming convention.
IMHO, the Wikipedia:Naming conflict is a rather clear policy, but Mediation could also be helpful. So, is there anyone against Mediation? (if so, please state your reasons) --FlavrSavr 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is Wikipedia:Naming conflict official Wikipedia policy? It doesn't have the official policy tag.--Theathenae 08:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a policy proposal as well. In fact, it is a guideline. Nevertheless we always have the NPOV policy which states: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. It is as clear as day that the majority view of the name of this ethnic group is "Macedonians". To avoid ambiguity, we can use Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nation) or a similar solution. Because I don't believe that you would agree on that, I suggest we should ask for Mediation, and attract neutral users into this debate. --FlavrSavr 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is interesting to note that you can count on your own fingers the number of people who are not a part of the mentioned etnic group (mistakenly reffered here as Macedonian Slavs) that, after beeing asked "What are you?" will answer "Macedonian". They will say they are Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian etc... but not Macedonian. Macedonian 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion:Mediation

message: Now I get it. REX reffers to himself as we including his sockpuppets. Ok. +MATIA  ☎ 19:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the missing link 

message: OK, before we start again taking ethnic perspectives ("the Aegean part of Macedonia was stolen", "Macedonia - 100000 years of Greek history" etc.) I feel the need to again, explain my case. We are not here to discuss the right of this ethnic group to call themselves "Macedonians". Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Zocky, if you were referring to my shouting, of which I was well aware of, I'll try to explain why I reacted that way. Naturally, it takes a great deal that I am a Macedonian myself, but that's besides the point. The point is that this lasts too long, despite some obvious violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've spent months of argumenting, reasoning, investigating the Wikipedia policies in discussions, yet I still feel ignored - for example, why has nobody answered to my questions at the Conclusion:Mediation section? This goes to MATIA, Chronographos and Theathenae: Is there any reason why we shouldn't take this dispute to neutral Mediation? I mean, if you're sure of your arguments, what can you lose?
Zocky, the main point is that, in the months while you were absent of the English Wikipedia, a new policy (or guideline) was developed, to deal specifically with this type of disputes - Wikipedia:Naming conflict. There is an explicit section called How to make a choice among controversial names and and even a more explicit one Dealing with self-identifying terms (from which I took the Cabindans vs Maputans example). There is also a mechanistic, and objective method to determine those names (the table method). I didn't invent the table I have presented in the upper parts of this discussion. Actually, I have just copy pasted the SPECIFIC table which is available in the guideline's talk page, and it was made by another user - ChrisO. 
Even without this policy (or guideline), a cold approach to the NPOV policy would do, as well. Esentially, the both options - Macedonians and Macedonian Slavs, are POV, by default. Namely, the NPOV policy (in the Undue weight part) says that we shouldn't give the minority view as much as detailed description as the majority view. Because we can accept only one of them (Macedonians or Macedonian Slavs) - the logical implementation of this policy would be that we should implement the majority view instead of the minority view, even if it is, uh, "not true". The minority view (a small minority, if I might add) of encyclopedias, international organisations, news media outlets etc. regards this ethnic group as "Macedonian Slavs". Using this term gives a distorted image of not only this article, but to all articles even mentioning this ethnic group. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Of course, a proper disambiguation term is needed - Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nationality) etc. Of course, the use of Macedonians does not mean that we shouldn't mention or describe that there is a naming controversy considering the name of the group.
So, Zocky, I hope that you'll consider the positions above seriously. I fear (I might be wrong) that you have misinterpreted me as a somewhat of a nationalist. Sure, I am a partisan in this debate, but that does not mean I don't have valid arguments and I cannot reason properly - I have warned you before everybody else that the poll would be a disaster because of voting on ethnic lines. At the time, you thought that my fears were misplaced, but eventually, it appeared that I was right. 
At this point, my greatest fear is that the neutral admins of this Wikipedia (in general) have:
*neglected this dispute
*deliberately avoided this dispute (as bogdangiusca put it: the rest of world avoids entering in the negotiations of Balkan issues like the plague)
I don't think my fears are misplaced, again. I think that there is an urgent need for neutral admins to engage in this debate. --FlavrSavr 21:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I'm not saying that you are a nationalist, or unreasonable, or anything. But, just like the rest of them, you continue this endless ping-pong match. If you are discussing something relevant, and somebody jumps in with a stupid remark, don't answer them. Just ignore them. We all know by now what everybody's position is. No length of text is going to change anybody's mind and no neutral will bother to read all this text. Zocky 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. --FlavrSavr 22:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Zocky 

message: I've added the disputed tag regarding the imaginary 1986 census and the number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece. Apparently User:REX chooses to ignore the facts - see also this and that. +MATIA  ☎ 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  macedonian slavs in Greece 

message: I think this is trully NPOV. Even in the downer text it says that: Macedonian Slavs (also known as Macedonians). This is my explanation. Bomac 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This won't change the fact that noone identifies with this nationality (Macedonian slavs (Macedonians)). So, anything else than the internationally accepted name "Macedonian" is senceless and POV push. Macedonian 03:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian slavs (Macedonians) 

message: This dispute has been going on for too long, it's time it stopped. Have you see the edit history of this page? It's a disgrace! GrandfatherJoe 14:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Many, many discutions here are not even close to the real topic. Macedonian 03:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough 

message: *10:05, 7 October 2005 REX (Tweak ignorant propaganda)
*07:22, 7 October 2005 Bomac (rvt. vandalism)
Before embarking on a flight and further provocative edit summaries, I would kindly suggest to have a *careful study* at the following discussions (rich in citations) and links.
*1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Archive#macedonian-slavs_in_Greece
*2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balkans#Greece
*3) A report contesting some NGOs
To clear the confusion, a distinction of the following groups is needed:  
(For the economy of the conversation I will not consider (Slav) Macedonian expatriates currently living in Canada, Australia, USA etc. since this group is not at the center of the controversy.)
*Group 1: Slav Macedonians/Macedonians with ethnic and national affiliations to FYROM/ROM. (Again I will not consider other ethnicities, citizens of FYROM/ROM as the Albanians since they are not at the center of the confusion here)
**The official data of the FYROM/ROM’s 2001 census is used.
*Group 2: People that may share the same ethnic and/or national affiliations of the above group, living in Albania, Bulgaria and Greece thus safely calling them Slav Macedonians as in Group 1. This group is represented in the “Populations of Macedonian Slavs section of the article).
**The official censi data are also used for each country. Greece does not have official census data in regards to that group.
 
*Group 3: Slavic (Macedonian) speakers with Albanian, Bulgarian or Greek ethnic and national affiliations to their respective countries (i.e. consider themselves, ethnically and nationally, as Albanians, Bulgarians or Greeks). This group is not a point of controversy here.
*Group 4 :( Slavic) Macedonian speakers of unspecified (or unknown) ethnic and/or national affiliations. In this category the Ethnologue estimations *may* come in play 
::*Albania:  est. 15,000 Macedonian speakers
::*Bulgaria: Unspecified number of Macedonian speakers
::*Greece: est. 180,180 Slavic (Macedonian) speakers.
The above estimates are regarding the Slavophone (in Macedonian) and/or bilingual population in each country and are not representative of Group 2. The accuracy of the estimations is another issue. Ninio 12:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications