Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 6

message: * Previous discussion is available at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4 and Archive 5.
* The renaming poll of June 2005 (now closed) is archived at Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll. (See also Archive 2 for many comments arising from this poll.)
[ personal attacks by  removed by Izehar on 13:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I can't really understand why the page was locked after the article was in an altogether satisfavctory shape after the edits if REX??? [[[User:VMORO|VMORO]] 22:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that several version during day or two before the lock were more NPOV. Macedonian 22:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Being bewildered

message: 1) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 15th-18th century].
Adding: "And there are .... many Christians who perforce serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Esclavoni, Razici, Serbians..." - Bertradon de la Broquier, The 15th century travel-writer
Adding: "...it is very high, and here are to be found many monasteries of Christian monks, of whom some are Greeks, others Macedonians, Vlachs and even Italians, as well other nations, who live the lives of saints" - Angiolelo about Mt. Athos
2) [| Several Russian documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 18th century]. No wonder they were one of the first that recognized Macedonia under its constitutional name.
3) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the 19th century].
4) [| Several documents as evidence of the separate Macedonian ethnicity in the first 19 years of the 20th century].
5) [| From La Macédoine et les Macédoniens, by Edmond Bouchié de Belle [E.B.de Belle, published in Paris (Librairie Armand Colin), 1922, completed in 1918]].
6) [| Letters to "Rizospastis" (Journal of the Greek Communist Party), 1932nd-1935th]. So, not all the Greek sources were denying the existance of a Macedonian ethicity.
At the end, here is what the French Consul in Salonica (end of 18th century) Felix de Beaujour tought of Macedonia: "If one regards Macedonia from the point of view of its natural advantages, one comes to the conclusion that there exists no land in Europe where the people have more prospects of prosperity. But if it is viewed from the aspect of its political forms, one comes to the conclusion that all the misfortunes of the barbarian administration have been assembled here in order to paralyze one of the most beautiful regions of the world in all its richness and variety of products".
The Macedonian question is a clear example why many people use the phrase "the asshole of the whole world" to reffer to the Balkan. And, I don't blame them at all... Macedonian 23:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the documents and facts that proove our separate identity are not on internet. The sources given above are more than enough to proove that our identity did not appear in 1945th. But, that is just a few of the sources. Macedonian(talk) 01:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Documents as evidence

message: On the Greek Wikipedia on Talk:Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, MATIA confidently claims the following:
:Οι Κρητικοί ήταν και είναι Έλληνες. Και κυρίως νιώθουν Έλληνες. Οι Σκοπιανοί από το 1940 περίπου βαφτίστηκαν Μακεδόνες κι όλα γίναν μακεδονικά. Μακεδονικό δηνάριο, δημοκρατία μακεδονίας, μόνο τον χαλβά δε μας φάγανε ακόμα. Το νόμισμά τους όπως και τα υπόλοιπα είναι κομμάτι της προπαγάνδας τους.
: Ματιά 21:25, 18 Ιουν. 2005 (UTC)
Translation: Cretans were and are Greeks. And they mainly feel Greeks. Skopyans from round about 1940 were baptised (ie started to be called) Macedonians and everything became Macedonian. Macedonian denar, Republic of Macedonia, all they haven't taken yet is our halva. Their currency like everything else is part of their propaganda.Matia 21:25, 18 June 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Matia.gr should be reported for this organization of POV push. I know that the mediator (User:Ed Poor) is quite bussy in something which is not so ridiculous as this dispute is, but I would like to ask him to express his oppinion on this kind of actions. Are we allowed to do them? If we are allowed, we should know, so we can react respectivly. Thanks in advance. Macedonian(talk) 01:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean, wiki-stalking, MATIA. It's you who are wiki-stalking. That you look at people's contribs is well-known. If you check, you would notice that I had an account at the Greek Wikipedia before you did. You followed me there! Rex(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Followed you there: I would laugh but I can't. As for the edits... I have 1797 here and 1468 in greek WP (both are since my registration following you last june and I 've never used any other account). I'll gather all your calumnies, you are boring. +MATIA  ☎ 18:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you, +MATIA tell us what the Greek Wikipedia says about the modern Macedonians? I would really like some of the administrators to see what kind of POV push and national-shovinism is happening there. Macedonian(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't care much for you personal attacks. Don't you dare dicipline me for PA after you have behaved this way. So I called a poll, so what? I am a man of honour, I have nothing to fear (and nothing to lose). I wanted the article at Arvanitika. You caused a dispute, now a poll shall resolve the dispute with a consensus once and for all. Rex(talk) 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand WP policies and perhaps I don't either. We'll have them explained to us, but not here. +MATIA  ☎ 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, +MATIA, please provide some neutral source. Not a nationalistic pro-Greek page such as www.macedonia.com. Macedonian(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Matia.gr|MATIA]]'s perspective 

message: couldn't help wondering about that. My opinions are already recorded in English Wikipedia. It's very interesting that REX escalated his wiki-stalking, but as I told him before he could have read the poll. And no the poll cannot be interpreted as binary. Alll the comments on the poll should be checked by the Med's. And I don't expect REX to dictate what kind of thinking is allowed. Boolean logic or Circular logic doesn't apply on my comments. +MATIA  ☎ 17:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, wiki-stalking, MATIA. It's you who are wiki-stalking. That you look at people's contribs is well-known. If you check, you would notice that I had an account at the Greek Wikipedia before you did. You followed me there! Rex(talk) 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Followed you there: I would laugh but I can't. As for the edits... I have 1797 here and 1468 in greek WP (both are since my registration following you last june and I 've never used any other account). I'll gather all your calumnies, you are boring. +MATIA  ☎ 18:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you, +MATIA tell us what the Greek Wikipedia says about the modern Macedonians? I would really like some of the administrators to see what kind of POV push and national-shovinism is happening there. Macedonian(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't care much for you personal attacks. Don't you dare dicipline me for PA after you have behaved this way. So I called a poll, so what? I am a man of honour, I have nothing to fear (and nothing to lose). I wanted the article at Arvanitika. You caused a dispute, now a poll shall resolve the dispute with a consensus once and for all. Rex(talk) 18:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand WP policies and perhaps I don't either. We'll have them explained to us, but not here. +MATIA  ☎ 18:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, +MATIA, please provide some neutral source. Not a nationalistic pro-Greek page such as www.macedonia.com. Macedonian(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  where are the admins now? 

message: Could anybody please explain me what points of the article are the subject of the dispute, specifically? There's no point in general discussions (there are forums for that), we are here to discuss how disputes will be described in the text of the article (not in the real world). I have a proposal - since the naming dispute is more or less resolved on WP, I propose to resolve the other specific disputes step by step, starting with the top of the article. That would be the populations of Macedonians in various countries? After we work out a specific version that would be in accordance with the NPOV policy, we would go and try to solve the other disputes. The logic behind this is that there is no point in trying to solve complex historical debates, without first solving the more tangible disputes. --FlavrSavr 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this approach. The naming dispute is already resolved and that policy shall be in force until a good reason is found why this case should be treated as an exception. All other disputed areas can be seen here. Let's work on them one by one taking into consideration Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:NPOV and of course Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rex(talk) 21:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you, guys. We should identify all the problems and write the article in a NPOV way. An article like this can not be assimilative and saying that the modern Macedonians are product of Tito's imagination, when there are great number of sources for separate Macedonian ethnicity even back to 15th century, when actually the ethnicity took more attention by the historians. There are several issues, but we have to work on them, one by one. Macedonian(talk) 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Tito did not create the Macedonians. It is foolish to think that one man can create a whole nation. Bomac 08:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: When REX contacted me, he only asked me to vote on the issue. On the other hand, there are clear contributions of yours at the Greek Wikipedia where you are calling the users there against the Macedonians. Not to vote or tell their oppinion. You are calling them to attack the Macedonian position. Macedonian(talk) 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step by step 

message: How nice that you all agree, again. Almost as nice as this. +MATIA  ☎ 18:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When REX contacted me, he only asked me to vote on the issue. On the other hand, there are clear contributions of yours at the Greek Wikipedia where you are calling the users there against the Macedonians. Not to vote or tell their oppinion. You are calling them to attack the Macedonian position. Macedonian(talk) 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  will we have a second one-night-consensus? 

message: I've restored some, there was also a section named "Origin of the name" that disappeared too, check this. +MATIA  ☎ 02:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my oppinion, this paragraph was set up here only for spreading anti-Macedonian ideas. Actually, the paragraph did not include anything that was not already said. It simply does not deserve to see the daylight. Pure propaganda. Macedonian(talk) 00:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraphs that disappeared 

message: * Slovenia 3.972 (2002, Makedonci) ()
*Austria 13.696 (2001, Mazedonien) ()
*United States 42.812 (2002 estimate)()
*Canada 31.265 (2001)([])
*Australia 81.899 (2001)()
*Croatia 4.270 (2001)()
*Germany 61.000 (2001, Mazedonier)()
*Albania 10.000 (Mazedonier)()
*Bosnia and Herzegovina  1.595 (1991, Mazedonier)()
*Serbia and Montenegro 25.847  (2002, Mazedonier)()
*New Zealand 456 (2001)()
*Switzerland 6.415 (2000, Macédonien)()
*France 2.300 (2003 est Macédonienne)()
--FlavrSavr 01:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populations of ethnic Macedonians by country 

message: I warn the people reverting my entries not to do this if they have no clear purpose. For example, once again I had to post the entry of Bulgarization in Pirin Macedonia, because there are just 2 assimilation processes left: the Serbization and the Hellenization. What about the Bulgarization? Without it, one can get the impression that only the Bulgarians DID NOT assimilate the Macedonians, and it was quite the opposite! Actually, the Bulgarization process of Macedonians and Serbs from Eastern Serbia and what is now Bulgaria (Vidin, Kjustendil etc), especially during the Bulgarian occupations in the I and II World wars were among the storngest in the history of Balkans. As a person of Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Aromanian origins, I have a clear right to say that. I will continue with posting the Bulgarization article until the malicious people stop reverting it, OK? Also, I would like to explain the surname endings once again. Zikicam 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bulgarian repression in Macedonia (1914-1918, 1941-1945)

message: Miskin brought this article back to my attention. My latest edits are based on two considerations: 1) the presence of Thracian, Illyrian, ancient Macedonian genes etc. in any degree in modern Macedonians cannot yet be proven, though it is very likely. 2) Many historians do believe that the ancient Macedonians were Hellenized by the time the Slavs came, and if they are right that means there were Greeks and Slavs mixing, not ancient (no longer ancient in Byzantine times) Macedonians mixing with Slavs. The burden seems to be on the opposing party to bring references that argue for a late survival of the Ancient Macedonian language. Otherwise, WP will give more prominence to the idea that the Slavs mixed with Greeks, not ancient Macedonians (who would no longer be ancient in Byzantine times). Alexander 007 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a confusing conflation of language groups, self-identification, descent and political boundaries going on in this constellation of articles.  Jkelly 17:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Genes have no ethnicity. But genes from members of one ethnic group pass to members of other ethnic groups, directly or indirectly, in varied amounts. There are no such things as ancient Macedonian genes. But there are such things as genes that passed from ancient Macedonians to other peoples, which is what is intended here. Feel free to find resolution in the opening paragraph, but Miskin's deletion seems extreme. Alexander 007 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of new edits

message: I mean, good god people! The Macedonians exist after all nowadays. HELLO!!! Anybody??? Cheers from Bomac 18:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come on people, let the other people (Macedonians) breathe... 

message: Per WP:CITE I am cutting the disputed paragraph to this Talk page for verification.  References, and re-wording, are both needed.
:"...but it is possible that the genetic make-up of a Macedonian includes some genes from autochthonous groups such as the Thracians, Illyrians, Paionians, and Ancient Macedonians, though there is no way at present to verify this. If present, the transmission of genes from the ancient Macedonians could have happened via the descendants of Hellenized ancient Macedonians, many historians believing that the ancient Macedonians were completely Hellenized by the time of the Slavic arrival."
The line "it is possible... but there is no way at present to verify this" appearing unreferenced in an article is troublesome.  Jkelly 19:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph cut here for citation

message: I don't know why it suddenly came to your attention now, but saying that "it is likely that their ancestry includes elements of autochthonic groups such as the etc." was saying the exact same thing all along. Also unreferenced. Physical descent (ancestry) is reckoned by genes, physical kinship with ancient peoples---again, by genes. Not keratin or calcium content. Alexander 007 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Genes just sounds more specific, like you're trying to make a point. Unless you're suggesting that the modern Macedonians inherited their mysterious ability to jump from tree to tree from the Ancient Macedonians via the relevant gene, it just sounds silly, and no reasonable source would ever use that word in this context. It is an inappropriate word. If you're going to discuss the prevalence of Chron's disease amongst Ashkenazim, then fine. You can say that they are the descendents of these people. Genes are relevant to what they inherited from their ancestors, not their ancestry itself. Izehar (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not totally true. Ancestry is often established by gene-comparison, as is kinship. For example, if we find ancient Macedonian mummies with sufficient genetic material intact and compare it to modern populations, this is accepted science for comparing kinship and descent. Something similar to this was done in England and English populations not too long ago, and they found great continuity between the ancient English sample and modern populations in a region of England. So, I conclude that I'm not too far off. Alexander 007 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What about the phrase that Alexander007 tried to change? Do you find it POV too? +MATIA  ☎ 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Alright, I may have (or may not have, I'm not convinced) used the word gene in a wrong way. Then substitue DNA or alleles or whatever in their place. But when people claim physical ancestry, they claim a physical link---DNA, then. mtDNA especially is used in these contexts.  When I wrote "a Macedonian" I intended "a random Macedonian individual" chosen. Alexander 007 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Izehar, are you sure you can't inherit genes? I may be misreading the article gene, but it seems to affirm that genes can be inherited. Alexander 007 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So why did you say, "You cannot inherit genes"? Alexander 007 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We're not into "punishment" around here and "semi-vandalism" (by which you mean POV editing) isn't something that's caught by the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy - and rightly so. -- ChrisO 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Izehar, read this:. Even National Geographic makes use of such formulations as "modern populations on the island of Malta" having "genes from the Phoenicians", though more specifically they mean DNA. No pseudo-science to say that so-and-so a people have genes from such-and-such an ancient people. It's an accepted manner of speaking in these fields. Of course, nothing on this subject should be added without credible sources in this article. Alexander 007 04:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Phoenician genes/DNA probably survived among the Maltese because of the relative genetic isolation on the island. Phoenician genes are barely found among the modern populations of the Levant, where one may have expected them. Alexander 007 06:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Saying the same thing

message: Look, no one here appears to be a geneticist. In absence of references, we can only treat the ancestry claims as claims. Not unlikely claims, considering that other studies usually find great genetc (or whatever) variation, and indications of older substratums, or whatever. In the case of ancient Macedonian claims, we have to consider the general historical view that the ancient Macedonians were Hellenized before the Slavic invasion, and any ancient Macedonian physical element in modern Macedonians according to this view would be via Byzantine Greeks. Alexander 007 21:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that is unreferenced does not belong on Wikipedia.  See WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:NOR.  Jkelly 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have not reverted you or Izehar. Alexander 007 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to handle it

message: Genes are just a fancy way of saying ancestors here.  And it seems certain that many people currently identified as Macedonian (Slavic-speaking) have some ancestors who would have been identified as Macedonian (different meaning, of course) in the 5c BC.  And there are many people currently identified as Albanians and Vlachs and Bulgarians and Greeks and Turks and Serbs who have some ancient Macedonian ancestors.  And I'll admit that the Welsh and Danish have fewer ancient Macedonian ancestors, and the Japanese even fewer.  So what? --Macrakis 21:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To me it's also So what?. But it's not "so what" to the Macedonian (ethnic group)/Macedonian Slavs. It is their claims we are addressing here. Alexander 007 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry

message: There may have been errors in my recent edits, but let me underscore the pseudoscience in the earlier version, namely: 
:"...but it is likely that their ancestry includes an element of autochthonic groups such as the Thracians, Illyrians, Paionians, Ancient Macedonians..."
The problem with considering any ethnic group as one unit when considering ancestry is illustrated by these quotes (Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 9th Ed., Jurmaine, Kilgore, Trevathan, Nelson, 2003, pgs. 397-398):
:"The results were surprising. Only 6.3 percent of the total genetic variation was explained by differences among major populations (Lewontin's seven geographical units). In other words, close to 94 percent of human genetic diversity occurs within these very large groups. The larger population subdivisions within the geographical clusters (e.g., within the category Caucasians: Arabs, Basques, Welsh) account for another 8.3 percent. Thus geographical and local "races" together account for just 15 percent of all human genetic variation, leaving the remaining 85 percent unaccounted for. The vast majority of genetic differences among human beings is explicable in terms of differences from one village to another, one family to another, and, to a very significant degree, one person to another---even within the same family."
:"These latest data dramatize even further the results obtained by Lewontin, leading one geneticist to conclude, "These results indicate that individual variation in DNA profiles overwhelm any interpopulational differences, no matter how the populations are racially or ethnically classified" (Cummings, 1994, p. 500). And while not quite as overwhelming, all the genetically based studies cited here support Lewontin's initial results, strongly indicating that the great majority of human variation does occur within human populations---not between them."
--It is pseudoscience to speak of "their ancestry", so my revision changed an erroneous generalization to a consideration of the ancestry of a random individual Macedonian (ethnic group) member:. Now, I acknowledge that I may have misused the term gene, and in absence of references neither my version nor the previous version (which was both pseudo-scientific and unsourced) is acceptable. What annoyed me here extremely is the way Izehar focused on my edits, but ignored the blatant and more extreme (IMO) pseudoscience in the previous version. I suppose the use of the terms "gene" and "genetic" got him riled up. Alexander 007 06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Their

message: I made some new edits and added the "fact" template after two different sentences. I don't expect these edits to be unchallenged, but they seem reasonable. Alexander 007 07:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New edit

message: Basically, I've made some edits I've announced some week ago, and nobody seem to object them. I've changed the ethnic Macedonian population in other countries from 10,000 to Unknown, since nobody gave reasons, nor cited sources for that estimate. The previous number of 100,000 Macedonians was also arbitrary. --FlavrSavr 10:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are your people related to Greek people? Would you write it in the article? +MATIA  ☎ 12:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe they are! In fact, the Macedonian salad is the perfect example of the absurdity of striving for a national purity, which, in recent history turned some people into some quite unvegetarian behaviour. --FlavrSavr 00:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. +MATIA  ☎ 01:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits 

message: Can someone justify why the article implies that Slavophones in Greece are ALL ethnic Macedonians who are treated by the Greek government, people and dogs like trash? I mean how more ignorant POV do I need to chase out of this article? The Slavs that were expelled during WW2 were viewed as BULGARIANS who were being punished for their siding with the Nazis, and their massacres against the Greco-Jewish population of Thessaloniki, I think that's a tiny detail that needs to be mentioned every time someone wants to bring up Greek policies in the region. Furthermore Metaxas was a fascist and not a representative of the Greek people, so his actions should not be abstractly referred to as the actions of the "Greeks". Thirdly, Slavophones not all Slavophones today are recognised by neither themselves nor by others as "Macedonians", and any claims on the opposite are just unsourced POV. Slavophone Greeks do however have the status of "Greek citizens" in the same way that "French Arabs" have a French nationality and are only recognised as such. They are therefore equal by law, stop trying to lie about this on the article. Miskin 19:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: user: Makedon45, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for beginning to use Talk pages to discuss editing the article. Jkelly 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavophones in Greece 

message: I would like to propose a change in the structure of the article. I think that we should merge the "Major Populations of Macedonians by country" and "The situation today" section. This section could be after or before the history section. We will then have subsections regarding the various countries, which would start with the speculated numbers of Macedonians there, which would be followed with a brief explanation on the human rights issues regarding Macedonians in that particular country. --FlavrSavr 16:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm against. While you're absolutely right that we're not here to determinate the truth, a problem which should be left to scholars, I believe we have a sort of duty to our readers and coeditors to at least try not to furnish misleading information and try to represent the mainstream scholarship. To do an example, this is the reason we don't write in the article Alexander the Great that he is Albanian, even if a respectable number of Albanians seem to think it. I hope you understand my position. Bye :-) Aldux 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we won't furnish false information in that way. We are attributing the view by saying that the Macedonian community claims 150,000. It is a fact that they do claim that, and I believe that is a relevant info to add - as we are actually talking about them. That is not to say that there are actually 150,000 Macedonians in Albania, only that the Macedonian community believes that the number of Macedonians is much higher. In the absence of credible official data from the Albanian government, I don't see a particular reason why we shouldn't put their claim, there. I've already stated that I actually don't believe that the number of Macedonians is that high. I think that the other editors should reconsider my proposal, as well, and I'll leave it to them to decide whether we should put that number in the article, or not. --FlavrSavr 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As for Alexander the Great... I really don't know why all Balkan people are so obsessed with him, I think we should be more focused on the future, and on putting an end to our present economic, political and cultural impotence. That is not to say that the past is not important, but we shouldn't be obsessed with it. --FlavrSavr 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, what about the merging proposal? :) --FlavrSavr 23:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two sections are related very much, but I also think that the "Major Populations of Macedonians by country" section is nice and I'm not sure about the merging. +MATIA  ☎ 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal on merging 

message: Why is everyone trying to deny the actual numbers of Macedonians? People like user: Antidote is always changing the total population to 1.6 million, when the list in the article adds upto 1,701,512 (you can even add it yourself). The only concern with 1,701,512 is that it does not include any Macedonians in Greece. Greece is one of the few countries besides th RoM that has a significant Macedonian population. Independent researches state that there are 200,000 people of Macedonian decsent in northern Greece. So the number adds to 1,901,512, but lets just say 1.9 million. Then there are neutral estimates of Macedonians in bulgaria and albania not included in the total, at about 30,000 in albania and 25,000 in bulgaria, so the total adds up to some 1,950,000 Macedonians. Lastly, there are no Macedonians included from the "Rest of the World" heading that is mentioned in the article, only because it is "unknown". This is unfair for many reasons and there should at least be an estimated number noted. To back this up, even though some 31,000 Canadians declared themselves as Macedoninas in canada, community spokesmen and local officials estimate that there are actually 100,000 - 150,000 Canadians of Macedonian descent in Canada . So the total will add upto some 2.1 million Macedonians. But for the sake of you Greeks and propagandic nationalists who are stubournly trying to ignore facts and put the lowest number of Macedonians as possible, I was puting in the article "1.6 - 2 million Macedonians (est)" just to try to be nice. So lets just leave it at that and end this dispute since there is nothing to be disputed about. 
- Makedon45
::I was switching it to 1.6 by accident, since I thought thats what the numbers added up to. I'm getting rid of your range for the reason that not all these Macedonians abroad are ethnic Macedonians (the title of this page). The Macedonian diaspora includes Albanian Macedonians, Aromanian Macedonians, Turkish Macedonians, Roma Macedonians, etc.. etc.. etc.. I know that the Greek Macedonians are missing but that's at most an extra 200,000 and that is why 1.7 is an estimate. The same thing is done on the Estonians and Slovenians page for the same reasons. 
Also, Makedon45, I wish to start improving the list of Macedonians, and would need some expert help. If and when you are willing, give me a chime. Antidote
:UCLA Language Materials Project: Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia, formerly the Yugoslavian Socialist Republic of Macedonia; it has a total of 2 million speakers including 1.4 million in Macedonia and about 200,000 in Greece. There are also speakers in Yugoslavia ( Republic of Serbia), Albania, and Bulgaria. Outside of Europe there are speakers in the USA, Canada, and Australia. Numbers of speakers are not available for Bulgaria or Albania because of those countries' language policies. Total speakers may number 2.5 million (Friedman 1985). --FlavrSavr 20:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of Macedonians  

message: This is a message from Miskin to User:Makedon45: An meneis ontos stin Ellada apodeikse to mou milontas apokleisteika romaiika. YS: Malaka. I know what Ellada means, and what Malaka means. Will someone be kind enough to translate it into English? --FlavrSavr 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, Miskin, try to act a little bit nicer. Antidote
Let me clarify something. I am not a Slavophone. A Slavophone is an ethnic Greek who speaks a Slavic language. I am not an ethnic Greek. I was not born in Greece. I was born and living in Canada. My parents are MACEDONIANS and were born in the Greek part of Macedonia. They speak broken Greek for the reason that Macedonian is mostly spoken in the Northern Greek districts. So I consider myself a Macedonian, with ancestry who came from Aegean Macedonia (or modern Greece). So no Miskin, I do not speak Greek. I speak English and Macedonian. I do however, only know one phrase roughly in Greek : Δεν μιλώ τα ελληνικά, και δεν θέλω να μάθω πώς να μιλήσω τα ελληνικά. Μιλώ Μακεδόνικά και αγγλικά μόνο. - Makedon45
I don't see how that gives you the right to pretend that you're an opressed ethnic Macedonian Slav from Greece like you implied earlier. There used to be ethnic Greeks living in Monastir, did you forget about that? They were also forced out of their houses, but of course Big Brother doesn't talk about it. Those were different times that cannot be judged with our meta-modern criteria. Haven't you ever thought that it's been a long time since your parents left Macedonia (the real one)? 2,000,000 Greeks were forced out of Asia Minor in 1922, do you know of anything that can match this number? Yet you don't see Greek people bitching all over the internet about it. Maybe it's time to forget about the past and think of the present. There's almost no Slavophone minority left in Greek Macedonia as there's no Greek minority left in Bulgaria and FYROM, it's done, it's over, deal with it, stop hating and get on with your life. Miskin 03:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Miskin, your claims are becoming unbelieveable. You are going to fascinate every single scientist with your propy-thesis. Ah, till where can the human brain go and be manipulated! Sadly! Bomac 15:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry Macedonia, but your numbers are wrong and are not those ot the Ottoman census; also you should have noted that somebody important is missing from your list (BTW, a vilayet is not a municipality) Aldux 18:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's your opinion which I respect, but back in the real world, Paionia was nothing but a barbaric tribe, definitely not Macedonian. In 334 BC Northern India was also part of Alexander's Empire too. But it wasn't Macedonia... So sorry. Miskin 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation needed

message: not to pour oil in the fire or anything (hoho), but has this been discussed? I was very amused reading it, it sounds like a very elaborate joke played on the Greeks. I really love the graphics, too. Needless to say, the paper turned out to be worthless  , but it is really a nice episode to illustrate how (a) this battle is really fought on all fronts, and (b) you will find some marker to prove anything you want, in genetics :) dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: of course, it would have been Sterbinski (or his team) :o)) I actually think this is quite good, possibly even better than the Albano-Phoenician inscription hoax. dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: genetics

message: I've unprotected the page - page protection gets in the way of non edit warriors, so the 3RR violators have been blocked instead. Izehar 19:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: A few issues I have is that the article states "often referred to as Macedonian Slavs". Where? Only on Wikipedia by pseudo-Athenian propagandists. Most (if not all) public media groups outside Greece refer to the Macedonians, as just that – Macedonians, the same applying to the naming dispute. I don't object to having the term "Macedonian Slavs" on the page, I simply object to the use of the word 'often', can this be changed to a similar word of lesser degree? My second concern is the statement “The Macedonians are primarily the descendants of the Slavic tribes …” I understand that there is a notice calling on citation, but until proper citation is provided can this be edited slightly to something like … “In some circles, it is thought that the Macedonians are …” and furthermore, I ask that the general Macedonian view be represented; that is, that the current Macedonians are descendants of the ancient Macedonians and that the Slav tribes assimilated with these people. --Daniel tanevski 13:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian Slavs 

message: English people, Irish people, French people, Dutch people, Turkish people, Kurdish people, Tibetan people, Chechen people... Have I made my point across? I mean, "Macedonians" and "Macedonian people" are interchangeable, just like Germans and German people. What's the point of having "(ethnic group)" in the title when you can just say "Macedonian people"? --Khoikhoi 07:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a lot of controversy about the page name here. After a lot of time and discussion people more of less settled on Macedonians (ethnic group) or whatever the last name was (well, more people could live with that then the other options). I'd reccommend you move it back, as it may start up another move war here. Also, PLEASE use WP:RM for controversial moves. The answer to your question is the whole debate of this version versus the other macedonian people as it were and if they really are a people, or something like that. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "ethnic group" and "people" are the same thing... Also, "Macedonians" = "Macedonian people". I don't seee what the big deal is. --Khoikhoi 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not the same. Ethnic group is more specific,  disambiguates and doesn't cross over into the whole tension of regional identities in the area (Macedonian Greeks, Macedonian Bulgarians). Try moving the article Ethnic group to People. Alexander 007 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ryan: Wikipedia:Requested moves. Alexander 007 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for page move 

message: How long is this poll going to last - when does it close? The usual is five days, but sometimes they are left running for a week. Izehar 18:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should set a time-limit ASAP. No more than a week seems like a good choice. Alexander 007 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, as usual, only accounts with enough edits should have their votes counted. Alexander 007 23:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, this is complicated and no single answer will suffice it seems. I only supported the idea of Macedonian people as I wanted the same format to be applied so that all of the ethnic groups would be referred in the same manner. Ultimately though, perhaps Macedonian Slavic people would work better then? Or Bulgarian Macedonians as they are pretty much the same group, BUT it seems that they are not behaving as such lately. That way it would be clear that there are two types of Macedonians. It seems strange, but are there even plans for Greek Macedonians page? Perhaps if there were two pages, as Bomac seems to suggest, there would be disambiguation page that would allow readers to choose one and realize that the two are somewhat distinct? Tombseye 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Aldux, the ancient Macedonians are an indigenious population. You have a source (Kanchov, Weigand), that claim that it is possible that they have mixed with the Slavs. What I find totally irresposible is the continuous removal of any connection between the modern and the ancient Macedonians - so the Slavs could have mixed with Vlachs, Trachians, and the Illyrians, but with the ancient Macedonians - no way! Someone could have added Japanese there, and nobody would complain, but to say that it is possible for the modern Macedonians to have anything in common with the ancient Macedonians - that is a sin! --FlavrSavr 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal is legitmate and has been explained. It does not in any way logically follow that if some Thracians were still around, there were still un-Hellenized Macedonians around. Find good references: simple as that. Alexander 007 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "ancient Macedonians and/or Greeks"? As far as I know, nobody provided a definite proof that the ancient Macedonians were totally subsumed within the Greek ethnicity, although it is indisputable that they have adopted a great deal of Greek culture. And why is nobody requiring a good reference for Thracians?  --FlavrSavr 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thracians are referenced by (Kanchov, Weigand). I don't have at the moment references on how completely Macedonians were absorbed by the time the Slavic tribes came. However, on the basis of what numerous editors have testified and what is surely the case (the consensus among historians; consensus=most agree), the burden here is to get a specific usable reference (e.g., from a historian, not an unsourced tourist page folks) that Macedonians were still an ethnicity when the Slavic tribes came into Macedonia. Alexander 007 23:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt they have had a strong Macedonian ethnic identity in the 6th century AD - there were strong waves of Hellenization and later on, Romanization. Same applies for the Thracians and Illyrians, though. Do Kanchov and Weigand specifically mention Thracians, Vlach and Illyrians? :-)--FlavrSavr 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was a little more than "a wave" of Hellenization, I think most historians would agree. More like a tsunami. By the 5th Century AD, the consensus (=most historians, or the more authoritative historians) is (as far as I've determined; others have stated this also) that the Macedonians were long Hellenized. The Macedonian identity among them was secondary (probably regional identity), they probably spoke no XMK, and they were Byzantine Greeks. It's doubtful you could even refer to them as "a regional unit" in that time, but that's very possible; I would have to see the references. Both sides need more references here, but the ancient Macedonian claim needs a specific legitimate reference. I have not read Kanchov or Weigand. Alexander 007 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is best to only mention "indigenious population" - I also believe that most of the indigenious inhabitants of the Balkans didn't have a separate ethnic identity in the 6 century AD - even the Greeks considered themselves to be a sort of "Eastern Romans" or something like that. --FlavrSavr 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, that might be okay. The most I have found for the claims of the Macedonians (ethnic group) is a quote from The Search for Alexander, 1980, that Macedonians were often contestants in Roman chariot races in various arenas as late as the 3rd or 4th century AD, and if that's correct there was at least a regional Macedonian identity at that time. That book by the way was originally written in Greek in 1979 or so and the essays in it were under the auspices of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Science.Alexander 007 23:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As a final note, I recommend that everybody here calms down a bit regarding the Ancient Macedonians: they're not going anywhere. If evidence and legitimate references exist for any of the various modern Macedonian claims, it will be included in the article in the main sections (otherwise, they will have to be relegated to a section describing modern unsubstantiated claims or else completely removed). I'll go find that Search for Alexander book again myself and also look for its sources. Alexander 007 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, my beef was more about the extra treatment of ancient Macedonians, who, IMHO, should deserve a similar treatment as the Thracians. Nobody seemed to matter about the latter. I have adressed this problem earlier. I'll restore the original formulation by Kanchov and Weigand, until we discover to what indigenous populations they were actually referring. --FlavrSavr 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello guys. I usually try to be as academic as possible and I fixed up some aspects of the Greek people page even as some people (or just one guy probably) thought I was doing a Greek nationalist job which was not my intent so I'm not anti-Greek here! I think Rex raises a good point. Most encyclopedias and reference books I've read do just say Macedonians so Macedonian people in accordance with how wikipedia works would be logical. The reality is that most people outside the Balkans probably will never take the time to learn the differences or even care. It seems to come down to bragging rights and claims to the name. As far as I know, most Macedonians don't claim to be Alexander's descendents or Greeks. This debate is going on with the Azerbaijanis too. Apparently, since the name is new they have no history etc. These are just names ultimately used by living people. I sympathize with the Greeks quite a bit. I pretty much think Turkey was wrong in Cyprus, although the Greeks probably could have been more accomodating to their Turkish minority, but I also believe the Macedonians who live in Macedonia have a right to an identity and don't deserve to have to pass some litmus test to use a name. Romania is not Roman, but the language is Latin and the Italians aren't telling them to stop calling themselves Romanians even though they aren't really of Roman ancestry. I'm trying to be objective here and just say that Macedonian people is fair and consistent and can include a caption at the top that explains that these aren't the Macedonians of ancient Greece etc. after some reader comes upon a disambiguation page that relates the ethnic Slavic Macedonians of Macedonia or something to that effect. That's a pretty fair compromise I think. Tombseye 02:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, okay, but aren't you the same guy who said that Macedonians (ethnic group) can well be moved to Bulgarian Macedonians (see above)? And as long as you brought it up: Romans was a matter of citizenship in the Roman Empire, and Romanians descend (yes, I know that the more exact way to say this is to consider individual lineages rather than that of an entire ethnic group, but this is for the sake of expedience) in a sizable part from such citizens, as well as (no historian that I know of challenges this) in part from direct Roman colonists as well as indigenous groups, Slavs, Cumans, etc. etc., and the name Romania developed naturally from such old traditional concepts as Ţara Romaneasca or Ţara Rumanesca (see Etymology of Romania), Romaneasca and Rumaneasca deriving from Latin Romanus, Roman (that's why "Italians are not complaining"). Being Academic is a good idea. I'm not upset, just a bit irritated by the murkiness of your statements; nor am I really that against "Macedonian people" for this article or anything. It's just the philosophy: "If you're going to do the math, do the math right". Alexander 007 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes I was feeling out possible compromises rather than just taking a side for the sake of taking a side. Reasons are important here. Why can't they just be called Macedonians especially since that's what every other reference book does? Until Rex pointed it out, I hadn't thought of it even though it's rather obvious. As for the Romania usage, it's ultimately derived from the Roman Empire, started and based in Italy, and the analogy is not murky at all as it is the same situation here. The use of a name that one group does not want confused with another that they claim as 'theirs'. In the case of Italy I imagine they just don't really care, but that's really besides the point. Also, 'Roman' colonists doesn't mean Italians and people seem to claim a lot of things all over the world that turn out to not be true. Romans were in Britain, Tunisia, Portugal, Armenia so having colonists who were 'Roman' doesn't really mean anything as a Roman citizen could have come from Gaul or Mauretania or Sarmatian troops in Britain. All of that aside, as you seem to be hung up on the analogy rather than the intitial point of the Macedonians usage, why should Macedonians be treated differently? If reference books, the CIA factbook, and everyone else use the term Macedonians why can't wikipedia just refer to them as such? This does now appear to be catering to Greek indignation of the use of the name rather than just confusion since there seems to be extreme sensitivity to convey that these aren't Macedonian Greeks. And for the record, I am changing my position somewhat due to some convincing arguments as I initially was leaning towards Macedonian people to create some uniformity, but now think it's absurd to have to emphasize the obvious, that they are an ethnic group when that's done at the disambiguation page and if we just put Macedonian people it would come to the page where you can AGAIN explain that these aren't the Macedonian Greeks, but the people of a country called Macedonia. Not sure what math has to do with this, but okay. Tombseye 04:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What criteria for Greekness? Language is usually what most academics use. The other 'claims' are just that claims. The Kalash claim to be the descendents of Greeks, but that doesn't mean they are now does it? Matter of opinion as to whether my example was good or bad depending upon CONTEXT and name usage and not an exact analogy. I agree though that Roman lost its exclusive Italic application after losing its city definition sure. Ultimately, the Macedonians aren't going to be considered Greeks because they do not speak Greek. Academics don't simply assign people to become another people based upon claims that they are descendents of some group. Tombseye 18:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomby:I know what Roman colonists includes (the distinction I made above was between later citizens of the Roman Empire, who could be simply Romanized indigenous peoples who were Romanized by the colonists; vis-a-vis direct Roman colonists, but not necessarily Italic colonists). I'm not interested in debating your position at this particular moment, but I am going to continue with your (unintentional) misrepresentations. You seem to be "hung up" on the concept that Romans means citizens of the city of ancient Rome or current Rome, not just the empire, and that some may say that only the descendants of the citizens of ancient Rome should be called "Romanians". Well, guess what: Romanians didn't decide to suddenly call themselves Romanians. The Romanized inhabitants of the Balkans lost their specific ethnic identities (Thracians, Illyrians, Dacians, or whatever) and began using ethnonyms derived from Romanus (=Roman). Your example is weak. Bulgarians and Greeks, remember, claim these people only began calling themselves Macedonians in the past hundred years or less; if that's true, ain't no way that "it is the same situation" as the Romanian situation; by the way, more Romanians are interested in claiming Dacian descent rather than Italic; the name Romanian/Rumanian was simply passed down because the Balkan inhabitants were Romanized; Romanians are not "wanna be Italics". However many Macedonians do seem to wanna-be Ancient Macedonians. Nothing really wrong with that until it becomes ingrained national mythology, and we know what national mythology can lead to. As far as the name of the article goes, I prefer Macedonians (ethnic group) (not to curb any national mythology, but because it seems to work fine) and would like User:Jimbo Wales to possibly weigh in on this problem and how Wikipedia should handle it. Alexander 007 05:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think ChrisO summed up the argument for keeping it at Macedonians (ethnic group) well when he voted oppose. Alexander 007 06:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the history lesson, but I'm well aware of the background of Romania/Moldova etc. and you know full well what the point was here. People can claim whatever they want, but the simple fact is that there are a Macedonian people and they have a country. Period. Well maybe the Romanians are part 'Roman' and maybe they're not and maybe the Macedonians are part-Greek and maybe they're not. Really a matter of opinion as verifying these things is difficult and historians don't always agree. Romanian opinions actually vary so I'm not sure where you got your concensus from. Some I've met, including an ex-roommate, believe they are part Roman from Italy, others not so much, but again the point is still the Macedonians. Are we catering to Greek nationalism or just presenting an article about a people who happen to be called Macedonians TODAY? In fact, if for example they examined say the DNA of someone they believe to be an ancient Macedonian and it matched say a Slavic Macedonian then what? None of us know for sure that they aren't part Greco-Macedonian and that's not really the point. We're not here to take sides as the point has been made clear through the disambiguation page already and on the Macedonian people page as well. The UN, most of the governments on earth, reference books (some which I looked at during this debate) all call it Macedonia and the people Macedonians. Not ethnic Macedonians or whatever else. There is sometimes a reference that these are Slavic speaking Macedonians not to be confused with the ancient Greek speakers during the descriptive part, but other than that they just talk about them. And so after the disambiguation page and the section that states that these are Macedonian Slavs it's still 'vague'? Come on. If people don't get it at that point, perhaps they should work on their reading and comprehension skills. What are we really talking about here? I have no problem with Jimbo Wales or whatever adminstrator weighing in, but this does seem to be just a way to kick the Macedonians around and 'put them in their place' as non-Macedonian Greeks more than a way to formulate clarity. Tombseye 08:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kick the Macedonian Slavs around? Just because the Macedonian Slav politicians have brainwashed their people (since they days of communism) that they have exclusive rights to anything derived from "Macedonia", it doesn't mean that everybody else objects to that needs to shut up because he's "kicking around the poor Macedonian Slavs". That the most irrational logic I've ever heard. In a carricature, it's like saying "we shouldn't be kicking around the poor nazis for claiming to be an Aryan race". Let's just agree to it. Please, let's keep the discussion to a serious level. Miskin 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the local name of the former province that is now a country. Period. Notice that this argument is not being waged in any reference books? It's nationalism pure and simple. They are noted as Macedonian Slavs at least 3 times. Just how much do they need to be set apart here? And where is it that we are supporting an exclusive use of Macedonia for Macedonian Slavs? I merely said that this article should be treated like all the others FOLLOWING a clearly marked disambiguation page. Everything else seems to be set these people apart further still. Comparing the Nazis to the Macedonians? That your idea of being serious? Tombseye 18:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome for the history lesson, and now here's my next lesson: many (I'd say most) Macedonians believe that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek (very possible; I kinda agree, but it's just one possibility: see Macedon and Ancient Macedonian language); not only that, many Macedonians believe that the ancient Macedonians were a Slavic people, and the modern people are their direct descendants. Romanians would be a good parallel example if Romanians called themselves Dacians as an ethnic group, claimed they spoke the same language as Dacians, and claimed direct descent; and to make it better, if they currently lived north of most of the territory known as Dacia, and if Dacia/Dacian was also claimed by a people to the south of these northerly "Dacian" people; and to make it even better, if to the northeast of these "Dacians" (Romanians), there was a country full of people who still called themselves Romanians, and who claim (with much historical evidence) that the "Dacians" only began calling themselves "Dacians" in the past 60 years or so, and before that they were known as Romanians and were the same people as the rest of the Romanians, with only regional differences. Then I would be applauding your skill at finding parallel examples. With that said, there are good arguments for either name for the article:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Macedonian people. There are of course Macedonians who don't make all those claims, and simply reserve the right to call themselves Macedonians and claim some ancient Macedonian heritage, which few people I think would have a problem with. Alexander 007 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've heard that theory that the Macedonians were not Greek, however most indications are that the Slavs had not arrived in the Balkans by that time period, so even if they weren't say a type of Greeks, they most likely weren't Slavs either. I have trouble with people 'claiming' historical tribes as their own anyway as people change, intermingle, move around etc. Many Romanian historians are increasingly turning to a Dacian background for the people just as a rediscovery of partial Celtic origins has sprung up in England, the Hittites in Turkey, Phoenicians in Lebanon etc. Also, the Dacians, themselves a branch of Thracians, may not even be the earliest inhabitants, but a progression of people afterwards had no doubt changed things for the region. Alright, look, forget my Romanian example anyway. It was meant to discuss the GENERAL claims upon names and not to be an exact analogy. Lastly, I don't think I agree that people should have exclusive rights to claiming names or ancient people. Since we've just go through talking about how the Macedonians may not have been Greeks it stands to reason that exclusive rights should not be a factor here. We're not here to cater to any one group. The disambiguation page clarifies the various Macedonian usages. The page for Macedonians then clarifies their Slavic language. How much more does the point need to be made? Bottom-line. Tombseye 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, just 'cause you keep sticking to your comparison, there is no dispute among historians AFAIK that there is some Roman ancestry in the Romanian stock: whether Romanized indigenous peoples who, by the fact that they lived in the Roman Empire and spoke a Latin language, and due to some other facts of the time, were thus Romans (if the Hungarians are right and Romanians come from Roman provinces south of the Danube in the Balkans, this is a certainty, by the way); if the Romanization occured in Dacia, then stock from Roman colonists is also certain, though the amount of Italic stock is unknown, nor does it change the fact that the peoples' ethnonym was long ago derived from Romanus, older identifications having vanished; nor does the ethnonym involve a claim of Italic descent, any more than Greeks calling themselves "Romioi" means they claim they are Italian. I'm going on about this because your example really is unsatisfactory (it's not quite, as you say, "maybe Romanians are part Roman, and maybe they're not", unless you mean "part Italic", which is irrelevant). The Macedonian situation is pretty different, nor do you seem to have had much of a clue about the Macedonian situation up until yesterday and today. Be as academic as possible, if you can. Really, only an imbecile can believe that Romanians have absolutely no Roman (not talking about Italic here) stock, and I would like you to find one reputable historian who even believes this. If a person has no idea what they're talking about when they make comparisons, why do they even bother to make comparisons. This is not even an issue of ethnic claims, these are accepted historical facts, and basic facts for someone seeking to pontificate in this field (to quote: "Romanians, even they though they aren't really of Roman ancestry", interesting Original research there; in actuality, even an Italic element is admitted by quite a many historians, though Italic stock is not the issue nor the criterion for Roman; see Roman Empire). Alexander 007 09:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on. I meant most Romanians are probably not of Roman origin. It was not meant as an absolute. Surely you knew that I was not saying there was NO Roman settlement as I just got through saying that it could MEAN anyone from the Roman Empire. You're really going off on a tangent there AFTER I explained the usage and wanted to move on. Dude, latching on to some comments doesn't really change my original intent at all. Fine, the example isn't the best when deconstructed, but my intent was not to draw an exact analogy, just something that came to mind right off the bat. Keep in mind though, that what is irrelevant to you may not be irrelevant to others. I don't care if Macedonians are Greeks or descendents of Alexander, but I don't think this name has to become some exclusive property based largely upon nationalism.  Your opinion of my analogy or what I know and don't know really doesn't make any difference BECAUSE I explained its original intent while you decided to tell me what I already knew about Romania and the Romans. Congrats on explaining things for yourself.  Now moving on to the usage of Macedonian people...  Tombseye 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For myself? Sure buddie. I don't want to make a personal attack, but on many, many points you barely knew what you were talking about; and yes, you got schooled son. Alexander 007 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. I spent like two minutes responding to you quoting from other articles because frankly you really couldn't face the issue head-on and had to resort to tangential arguments about exact analogies.  Hey think what you like sport, but telling me what you just read off of other articles without an iota of original thought behind it is hardly going to school me.  Whatever boosts that self-esteem though for ya kid. Tombseye 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Your "original thought" was best left undiscussed. I have nothing to prove to you, Tomb boy. Wikipedia is about Academic information. For the rest, see The Finger. You had the faintest clue what you were talking about, and yet you attempted to pontificate. I already knew all that stuff I discussed, I provided the links for others to read.Alexander 007 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooo, Alex is angry at me.  See, when someone says they aren't going for a personal attack they usually turn out to be, well, someone like you.  Good thing you don't have to prove anything to me 'cause you sure didn't 'prove' jack.  Tombseye 04:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha. Well, most readers will see your incompetence exposed on numerous points, whether you see it or not. You didn't prove jack shit. Alexander 007 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol.  This must be part of the no personal attacks routine.  Man, do you always do what you say you aren't really doing or are you just not really aware of it?  That's a rhetorical question by the way so feel free to not answer it.  Tombseye 04:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I did not want to take it to personal attacks (I don't prefer to engage in personal attacks and such), but it was extremely difficult not to. Have a peachy day. Alexander 007 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... This is getting nowhere. (also, Alex, are you the artist formerly known as Decius? :)) --FlavrSavr 11:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oui. And as once stated on zee talk page of my friend Decius, Decius was le pseudonyme of a man named Alexandre. Alexander 007 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bien. I was wondering where have you dissapeared, et voila - here you are with a brand new identity. I knew that your name was Alexander, but I wasn't 100% sure. --FlavrSavr 22:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Genetic testing revealed that most of the Kalash and Pashtuns who claim Macedonian ancestry in fact do not show any genetic markers to corroborate, although the Kalash did show small markers that could either mean they are part Macedonian or have some other general European ancestry that remains unclear. Similarly, genetic tests with Macedonians cluster them with other Mediterranean populations so it's not beybond a reasonable doubt that Macedonians have some Greek ancestry of indeterminate origin. Historical records often discuss conquests by a small group or tribe OR some major events, while the masses are left unrepresented. You can see this with the American Revolution in which a large proportion of 'Americans' favored remaining a part of Britain. The usage of Macedonia from a geographic perspective is perfectly valid AND since no one can agree as to who are the real Macedonians, we can just go by their language and still classify them as Slavs which is already the case. This doesn't in any way alter the situation as cultural assimilation can take many forms and exclusive name usage is rather pointless. Tombseye 18:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tombseye what are you talking about? The specimen used by the Oxford University as representative of Alexander's armies was from modern Greeks. They didn't even consider the "Macedonian" part of the "Macedonian ethnic group" as a literal term, which proves the opposite of what you thought. What you suggest your opinion and I respect it, but it's still a POV. A large number of assumptions, "there have been examples of this and that", that's just not good enough to make a solid point, nor to monopolize a name which culturally belongs to another ethnic group. Nobody regards the "Macedonian Slavs" as a representative Macedonian nation except themselves. If that's what you believe then you are as much delusional as they are. In German there's even a different word for "Greek/ancient Macedonian" and "Slavic Mazedonien". Nobody told the Slavs not to use the term "Macedonian", they were told not to monopolise it. Greed is an important sin. They want to monopolise it, hence they risk their recognition under international organisations. Anyway, by the way you compare the British and the Americans, I see you have no good understanding of the situation. You probably don't even know of Tito's linguistic and political reforms on the region, nor about the American government's official rejection of the existence of a "Macedonian nation" during the 40's. Which doesn't surprise me. Miskin 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mishkin, for the sake of exact usage, yes you are correct it was a Greek, but since most of the original 'Greeks' who were part of the initial invasion force were Macedonians, I was using it in that context, but indeed I apologize if there was some misunderstanding as that was not my intent. Yes, I read that study also and some other studies that were done that cluster the Pashtuns with Iranian peoples who are generally similar to Mediterranean populations especially via the Y-chromosome and the genetic studies have been inconclusive, but do show that there was Greek settlement in Afghanistan in the form of Bactria, but nothing really major and these sporadic Greek genes probably also show up in Slavic neighbors. What many genetic tests have shown is that there is an autochthonous origins for many people which somewhat downplays the notion of invasions drastically altering populations. Thus, the Greeks of today are in the majority the Greeks of ancient times, etc. All of that aside, I'm not supporting any monopolization of the name Macedonian. I believe that you are assuming that I am arguing on points that I'm really not.  I've also studied the various assessments made of Macedonian and Balkan backgrounds in general, both historical records, anthropological and genetic views, and other points so I think we actually agree more than you realize. Also, I would make one point here and that is that there was a 'Romanization' of elites that usually left out the masses.  The Byzantines in fact thought themselves Roman and Greek at the same time and in this regard and a good example of who was more 'Roman' comes from the encounter with the Crusaders as related by Anna Comnena when the Crusaders, with disdain, called the Byzantines 'Greeks' and the Greeks called them Germans as both were claiming to represent some 'Roman' entity. That's the thing with names and usage. The Macedonians of today may not be the Macedonians of the past, but using the name in a geographic sense and for their country is really up to them. They call themselves Macedonians. The disambiguation page splinters off the different meanings and leaves the reader with the solid conceptual realization that the term Macedonian has different meanings. Thus, Macedonian people would not be confusing at all, especially with an Italicized reminder at the top explaining that these are Slavic-speaking Macedonians as opposed to the ancient Macedonians. If written in this fashion it is neutral and doesn't promote any relationship other than name usage. Tombseye 06:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Possibly the ancient Macedonians"

message: Bomac you asked me to explain to you what credible sources mean. Very well then. First of all have a look at WP:NOR. You don't have the right to claim "Pavlos Melas said Newly conquered territories, hence the Greeks admit that they have conquered Macedonian territory". You have to cite Mr X's credible, neutral, and unbiased publications which have assumed so. Right now what you're doing is not only POV-pushing, but an official promotion of Macedonian Slavic land claims towards Greece. Most people (including FYROM politicians) say that MacSlavs have no land-claims, they just want to be called "Macedonians" etc, etc. Well, you're the live example, the undisputed evidence, of why the land-claims are actually true. Not only in the government circles, but also in the culture, MacSlavs are brought up to believe in those things. You're justifying my participation in those ethnic debates that I so much abhor. Miskin 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But MELAS said so. It's not my problem he did that. Unbelievable - territorial-claims by editing the article? Miskin, don't make me laugh. Bomac 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the "Secrets of the Swamp", and although I don't remember in detail, I'm sure as hell that it didn't have any implications on a "Macedonian nation". The Greeks were never aware of a Macedonian nation before 1991, neither were Bulgarians and apparently nor was anybody except the post-Tito Yugoslavians. Even if the book said something like that, your claim would fall under original research. Like 99% of your edits, you're trying to push another a nationalist misinterpretation into the article. Just have a look at your personal page, what on earth is that thing? Wake up and smell the roses, what do you think you're doing in wikipedia? It's never gonna work. Miskin 20:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He described it as newly-conquered territory, because that's what it was. It was conquered. The question is from whom? Athens and central Greece was also conquered territory some decades earlier. That doesn't mean that they weren't considered Greek territories. They were all conquered territories from the Ottoman Empire, which was the official holder of the land. Your nationalist interpretation was straight-away "conquered from the Slavs!". Those are the results of a 60-year old nationalist propaganda, thank you for the demonstration. Melas was himself a Macedonian, a Greek one of course. He had no reason to regard his motherland as a foreign region. The "conquest" of (Greek) Macedonia from the Turks was in fact liberation to him. That's right, there have always been Greeks in Macedonia (Greece), stop hiding behind your fingers. As the data reveals, they've been the majority of the population, even in the vilaet of Monastir (Bitola). That is something which needs to be pointed out in the article. Miskin 20:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sincerely, if there really was a "Macedonian nation" in the early 20th century, would we really be in need of such references (Delta's novel etc) in order to be aware of it? It's not that we're talking about a lost trible from 500 BC where scholars would point out "Herodotus mentions blah, blah, blah", we're talking about something recent. Why are there always so many "coincidental" confusions between Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs? Why does the POV history of the "Macedonian Slavs", always coincide with Bulgarian (e.g. First Bulgarian Empire -> some Macedonian Empire, Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid -> Macedonian Orthodox Church, Bulgarian language ~ Macedonian language (practically a dialect of the former). Don't you see too many coincidences there? Repeated coincidence, is not a coincidence. Who are you trying to convince of the "Macedonian nation"'s long existence, us, or yourselves? Miskin 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credible Sources 

message: Who are the four macedonians on top? Does wikipedia have articles about them? If they are notable to represent all macedonians, articles must be. I would suggest to describe them in the image page. Mukadderat 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you reffering to my post? If so, which "Macedonians on top" are you interested in? I could provide you with some external links. Daniel Tanevski talk 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for being unclear. I am speaking about the four portraits on the top of the article, who are supposed to represent Macedonians. I see all four portraits are in one image. Please describe these people in the image description page. Mukadderat 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --FlavrSavr 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the people on the pictures' nationalities are disputed, while some have explicitly emphasized on their Bulgarian origin, such as the Miladinov Brothers. I'd suggest that you use portraits of contemporary people, who are universally regarded as Macedonians (which haven't stated another nationality), such as your president or prime minister, some other important, influential or just popular figure and so on. These portraits now will only intensify any disputes.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 10:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who are the four persons?

message: Hi, JSimin I didn’t realize that you answered until now. Talk pages related to Macedonia tends to expand at malign cancer speed, so it’s hard to keep track. Regarding the references what I tried to say is there is very little (close to none) original sources 14-18 century where somebody is being declared as Bulgarian. Like, I, (name here) X from the city Y (from Macedonia) did this and that. Unlike Serbian sources. Almost all references are indirect i.e. traveler reports, slave market reports etc. This is what I was talking about. 
Zikicam, you pointed several times that there are Bulgarians and Serbia and that is some kind of proof of tolerance in Serbia. I don’t think so. There is no tolerance in Balkan!! At least not in 19/20  century to be sure. What you are referring is the people from Western Outlands that were part of Bulgaria from 1878-1919. The national division between the Serbs and Bulgarians was political. In the territories that were permanently given to the Serb state, there was no (or very little) Bulgarian self-consciousness, as well as the territories which entered permanently in the borders of Bulgarian 1878 there is no (or very little) Serb self-consciousness, no matter that the people from both sides of the Serb-Bulgarian border without any doubt belong to the same ethnic entity. Mixed self-consciousness exists only in the territories which until 1919 represent the Bulgarian territory and later entered within Serbia. In the same way the division between the Macedonian and the two neighboring Slavic nations was made on a political and geographic basis.  This is why I think tagging many people from Macedonia in the 19th century as Bulgarians is anachronism. 
Regards
--Cigor 17:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Aldux (contd)

message: One way or another Reefus2 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Matter would solve itself

message: User Macedonia is inserting the following text into the article:
:It should be noted that language and ethnicity are not coterminous, and only a small minority of Slav-speakers in Greece proclaim a (non-Greek) "Macedonian" identity due to the ongoing discrimination and harrasment that Macedonians face from the Greek government.
He is backing it up with the following source . I don't understand something though - at no place in there does it say that restrictions and harrasment by the Greek authorities are the cause of the fact that the vast majority of "Slavophones" identify as Greeks. If there is such a section, please copy it here. I personally cannot find a reason for the Greek self identification of vast majority of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece in that document. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is problematic.  Using the number of votes for what I understand to be a single-issue ethnic party to determine the number of people identifying as belonging to that ethnicity is dodgy, and unless someone has suggested that this is meaningful, is also original research.  Even worse is to say that because of "harrasment and discrimination" from the Greek government outlined in an old report that current identity politics and voting should be dismissed -- this is purely speculative and wouldn't cut it in an Opinion Editorial, much less here.  Please don't fuss over trying to find the right wording for WP:NPOV.  Instead, WP:CITE facts.  If there aren't any, say only that and resist the temptation to speculate about it.  Jkelly 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easier said than done... :-( --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all with JKelly. This POV of using a parties vote to estabilish Macedonian ethnicity is absurd: if we accepted it, in Scotland (just to make an example) only those who vote for the Scottish National Party could be considered Scots, while all the other (3/4 of the population) are really English or God only knows what. And the same argument can be made for nearly all ethnic or regional parties. And remember that all the numers of the party are already given in the sub-paragraph on the Macedonians in Greece today. For this I'll remove the piece, only leaving "It should be noted that language and ethnicity are not coterminous", which makes sense. Aldux 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What you are saying is wrong, you are saying that pressure from the Greek government caused them to believe that they are Greek. In reality, the ones you are mentioning in private, do admit their Macedonian ethnicity. A more accuate phrasing is the following: harassment by the Greek public and  authorities has caused a substantial percentage of Greece's ethnic Macedonian identifying minority to be reluctant to publicly identify itself as such. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Macedonia]]'s additions 

message: Miskin has countinually been reverting my edits from the article. Macedonians are also native inhabitants of Aegean Macedonia (northern Greece), Pirin Macedonia (sowthwestern Bulgaria), as well as the eastern villages of Albania. He points out that this is a POV and that Slavs invaded in the region in the 6th century AD. Well Miskin, your right, Slavs did invade in the region 1500 YEARS AGO, including Greece. Bulgarians are decendents of these invaders, aren't Bulgarians considered native to Bulgaria??? Serbs are also Slavs, aren't Serbs native of Serbia??? If we considered your point that today's Macedonians are direct decendents from these Slav invaders who settled in the region 1500 years ago, well isn't 1500 years native enough to you? (despite the Slavs mixing with the ancient ethnic groups in the region who have been there thousands of years before). One can only see all the irony when Macedonians of Macedonia are not considered native to you, while Greeks in Macedonia who originate from Pontic refugees from Turkey, first coming in the 1920's, are considered native to you. Greeks have even given the name to Macedonians in Greece as "dopia" meaning natives, so what are you trying to prove with your annoying reverts? --Macedonia 21:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Miskin, please stop adding "unrelated" to the disambig header; it is just going to annoy some of our editors and readers can figure out what disambiguation pages are used for by themselves.  User:Macedonia, please stop adding that line about Macedonians being "native" to some region or other.  Instead, please find a reliable source that discusses the development of the modern Macedonian language and ethnic identity.  Jkelly 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not removing, I'm only restoring it. Disambiguation serves to identify unrelated things, nothing's wrong with the use of 'unrelated' except the paranoia of the Vardar slavic editors. Every single disambig of "Macedonian" is unrelated in every context outside the borders of FYROM. Many things annoy me as an editor, but I don't remove them without a valid reason, so I don't see why we should compromise to editors who just can't face a reality. However I'm willing to compromise if they stop adding such ridiculous and hateful POV, for now and forever. All it can do is cause edit-wars. Miskin 05:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miskin's reverts