Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 7

message: Let's discuss this.  I suggest that there are two questions.
#Is the Greek Helsinki Monitor a reliable source as Wikipedia defines the term?
#If it is not, is the article improved by noting that an unreliable source claims such-and-such number?
I'm tempted to say that it may be interesting and informative to note those estimates from even the most biased sources, as long as they are clearly identified as being unreliable.  The way to clearly  ntesting the Helsinki Monitor; Krassimir Kanev's statement comes from there, and other citations. The passage in question is this: "10.803 (1992 Bulgarian census). 200.000 (Macedonian Sources) (Popov et al., 1989:17). 15.000 - 25.000 (Kanev, 1998a)" What worries me on accepting Macedonian sources is of leaving free ground for nationalism, and I believe these sort of pages already suffer from an excess of nationalism. These are my fears, and the reason why I have always insisted on idependent sources: even mentioning blatantly false numbers gives an impression they may be true, for the simple fact of being there. I've heard some Macedonians speak of even one million ethnic Macedonians in Greek Macedonia. Should we right this? And howcan we do this without strengthening nationalism. Also, then we should start mentioning all the national myths, included that one that makes the ancient Macedonians a Slavic people, or that Alexander the Great was Albanian, or that modern Asyriand descend directly from the ancient ones. In my opinion, we should accept only independent scholarly sources, as the falsification of national history has always been a popular sport. Please give me your views. Ciao :-) Aldux 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are these "Macedonian sources"?  The Republic of Macedonia's Ministry of the Interior?  Random people on the street?  I don't see a lot of danger in presenting "Nationalist propaganda" if it is clearly identified as nationalist propaganda.  For example, the sentence "The newspaper Everything Macedonian estimated that there are slightly more than twelve million ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, a number which is higher than the total population of that country.  The same article also argued that the Minoans were Slavs." discusses a kind of propaganda without endorsing it.  I suggest that the real question here is how to discuss various numbers without seeming to endorse dubious ones.  Jkelly 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh wow, Mr. Kelly, do you not expect propaganda from someone who proudly demonstrates his support for "United Macedonia". :) FunkyFly 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually mentioned something along those lines recently.  Still curious about exactly who these "Macedonian sources" actually are.  Jkelly 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see archive 1, archive 3 and a new report (mentioned in archive 3). Thanks. talk to +MATIA 22:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And because this keeps coming back (this might be the 11th or 9th time), there's a book about Slavonic speakers in Greece by John Koliopoulos (Ιωάννης Κολιόπουλος) named "Λεηλασία Φρονημάτων - Το Μακεδονικό Ζήτημα στην Κατεχόμενη Δυτική Μακεδονία 1941-1944". The author is professor of Modern History at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. talk to +MATIA 22:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, +MATIA.  Anything in English (other than Poulton) that you know about?  Glenny doesn't seem to have anything.  Jkelly 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I have no idea. talk to +MATIA 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is available in english too.  "Plundered Loyalties: Axis Occupation and Civil Strife in Greek West Macedonia, 1941-49" (yes they have different dates on their front covers). Perhaps one can find it at a library and have a look. talk to +MATIA 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Jkelly 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Macedonian sources" is the book Contemporary Greek government policy on the Macedonian Issue and Discriminatory practices in breach of international law, written in 1989 by Chris Popov and Michael Radin and pubblished at Mebourne by the "Central Organizational Committee for Macedonian Human Rights - Australian Sub-committee". The authors are explicitely called by the Helsinki Monitor "Macedonian nationalists". Aldux 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "COCFMHR-AS"?  Quite the name.  What do you think of the sentence "According to the Helsinki Monitor, "Macedonian nationalists" claim x number of people in y country."?  Jkelly 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helsinki Monitor and numbers 

message: Shouldn't we finally end up to reliable statitics?The article says:'There is a Slavic macedonian political party in Greece, the Rainbow Party: their last (2004) election tally amounted to 6,176 votes (or 0.1%) nationwide'.as i guess most people know,this is not just a party for the slavophone people of greece,but also a political party for the gay rights.but even if we assume that all it's voters are 'macedonians',their number is by far lower than the estimation of FYROM.in addition,the fact that these people have a political party in greece,is not something that supports the propaganda that they are facing discrimination.as it is clearly shown in all the other cases(corsica,catalonia,basque country,scotland,etc),when a minority has a potical party of its own,is capable of announcing accurate population figures and NOT misleading the people with estimations and assumptions.And if someone should be objective and accurate,he/she should mention in the Demographics of Macedonia that according to other estimates(than the disputed census) the Aromanian population is higher  .--Hectorian 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hectorian. We cannot find a reliable statistics for the real number of Macedonians in Greece because Greece doesn’t collect census data regarding the nationality. So, the real number of Macedonians in Greece is uncertain. Their number surely cannot be determined by the votes for the Rainbow Macedonian party in Greece, probably a significant number of Macedonians have voted for the biggest Greek parties as Pasok and Nea Demokratia.  What is problematic is that the political party of Macedonians in Greece does confirm that there is abuse of the rights of Macedonians in Greece, like the use of Macedonian language in the schools, communication, media, the ability to freely express their nationality etc. You are also mentioning that the census in Macedonia is disputed, the fact is that the last census was performed under the monitoring of several international organizations and nobody had major objections on the quality of the census. About the Aromanians, as I know, they are very well integrated and they enjoy the rights of learning their language in the schools, radio and TV programs on their language, they have (as well as the other minorities) eased admission requirements at the state universities etc… Bitola 11:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with what certain users here refer to as the "Macedonian minority in Greece" is that their identity is disputed amongst themselves. While from the Greek point of view they are all "Slavophones", some of them identify their language with Bulgarian and others with "Macedonian". Whether these people identify themselves as part of the predominant ethnic group in the FYROM on in Bulgaria is unknown. If so, how many? My point is that this should be mentioned in the paragraph dealing with this minority. According to Euromosaic  few of these people can actually speak the language as it is spoken in the respective countries fluently. This should be mentioned as well. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding what is the treatment of minorities in Greece:, it is not strange that many Macedonians there have doubt about their real nationality. They had very bad treatment in the past, nowadays they have no classes in the schools on the Macedonian language, no TV and radio programs, no newspapers, in contrary, many Greeks are becoming hostile if someone declares himself as a Macedonian (probably you noticed that here on Wikipedia as well).  I think this also should be mentioned in the paragraph about Macedonians in Greece. Bitola 15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the condition it is adequately sourced an accurately reflects what is written in the source about les (Slavo)macédoines/Bulgares de Grèce. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Then we should focus on other matters . --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you noticed, your last link describes something happening in 2001, during the short war in Macedonia, and, you know, war always brings things like that:. If we are focusing in such things, then here we go: . Bitola 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuses. Don't criticise others for doing things you yourselves do. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion about which arguments are valid reminds me of that Burger king commerical: "You are cheesy! No, you are cheesy!" FunkyFly 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Latinus, no hard feelings, I will always criticize when I think that I have arguments to do so. That is what you are doing too and that is what Discussion pages are for.FunkyFly, I think your comment is not much apt. Bitola 17:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Hectorian again. I can assure you that if there is a country on the planet that respects the rights of minorities, then it is MACEDONIA. Do you really believe that if there are Greeks in a significant number, Greece would allow us to discriminate him? The answer is simple; there are no Greeks in a significant number in MACEDONIA. From the other side, there are MACEDONIANS in Greece in significant number and that is why they have even a political party, despite all problems Greece is causing to them. About Greek hostility to the word MACEDONIA, the answer is simple too, we ARE MACEDONIANS and we will be MACEDONIANS as long as we are alive. Bitola 17:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You can easily say that after you started the fire. I agree the discussion is becoming pointless. Bitola 18:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Macedonians' in Greece 

message: User:Macedonia made this edit on the ground that it is irrelevant. I say it is relevant. Official sources (of over 50 years ago) count the Slavic speakers. The problem is that these Slavic speakers are not all Macedonian Slavs. This clarification is necessary in order to avoid misleading the reader into believing that they are all Macedonian Slavs, whereas in reality they are not. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. This article is about the native Slavic speakers and they vary on how they describe their language. Did you read the source? This Slavophone minority is not 100% Macedonian. In fact, some of them dismiss being called Macedonians or Bulgarians, but that they are separate ethnicity altogether (this is already mentioned in the article). The census only counts Bulgarian immigrants with Bulgarian citizenship. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, Slavophones refers to people who speak (Slavo)Macedonian/Bulgarian. Only part of them are Macedonians - stop trying to imply that all of them are part of your nation. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Macedonia's changes 

message: In the past few weeks I was pretty much involved in lengthy discussions about the so-called Macedonian question. During that period, using different reliable sources, I was trying to explain why Greeks are making a big mistake regarding my country and my people. Their theory that we are using a name that is Greek property is mistaken from the very beginning; regarding the fact that considerable number of historians is telling that the Ancient Macedonians were different people from the Ancient Greeks. Even if that is not true, it is really funny that some country is forcing another country to change its name for the things happened several thousands years before.  Ancient Macedonians and Ancient Greeks are for a long time dead, thanks God we are alive, but we are wasting our time and energy on this meaningless issue for years.  This Greek obsession is also wrong regarding the fact that one of the basic human rights is the right of self-determination, in other words, the right to freely express your nationality and your name. If someone is feeling that he is a Macedonian, Greek, American or every other choice, leave him, you shouldn't stop him in his determination. Finding nicknames that are insulting (what they are doing all the time) is, by my opinion, horrible. We should all be proud that we inherited, if not more, the territory where these famous people once lived and made a history.  But, obviously, it is hard to explain to someone something when he doesn't want to listen.  For that reason, I will try to minimize my discussions about the Macedonian question for some time. I do not intend to explain to every new narrow-minded nationalist why he shouldn't act like that.  This time I would like to thank to several moderate Greek editors (like E Pluribus Anthony, Politis and Michalis Farmelis) for their reasonable and non-insulting way of discussing things and to all other editors who are expressing good faith regarding the Macedonian articles. Of course, I will not stop to make my contributions to Wikipedia (and to revert some bad-faith edits as well:)) So long, catch you later! Bitola 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Канагјанец, мислам дека работиме заедно денеска :). Фала за средување на знамиња. Јас ги додадов историски знамиња, и ги поредав хронолошки, зашто мислам да е потребно тоа да се знае, дека и симболите имаат историја и значење. Зошто не ги вратиш ОРАЈИТ СУМ, али и ДОБРО СУМ, не само ДОБАР СУМ? То се се варијантите на јазик, не е ли така? Поздрав од Zikicam 00:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If I seriously answer to this, I might give you suicidal tendencies. Miskin 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: IMO it doesn't matter what the Ancient Macedonians were. It is true that the vast majority of (neutral) historians say they were Greek and that alternative (what Bitola refers to as those of "a considerable number of historians") theories are merely fringe theories. I'm not bothered whether they were Greek or not for the reasons Bitola stated, however, one should always bear in mind what Kiro Gligorov said about himself and his countrymen: We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. The point here is that even if they were not Greek – they still have nothing to do with the modern ethnic Macedonians. I'm more bothered about Bitola's attitude, who by his own admission, tried to convince others that they are wrong. He initiated many offtopic debates on talk pages whose primary function is to discuss the article alone and have now cluttered them up to the extent that the pages are unreadable and increasingly disrupted the negotiation process on an extremely contentious area. All his attempts were futile obviously, because it is impossible to convince someone of something he or she does not want to believe. In the same way, it would be impossible to convince Bitola that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks, because it is something he does not want to believe, so please, let's stop having these tiresome discussions on article talk pages. If, Bitola, you ever feel the urge to compare and contrast the propaganda you've heard with the propaganda I've heard, just drop me a line and we can take it to IRC: #wikipedia-mediation and #AMA.Wikipedia are almost always empty, or, we could put it in context and discuss it at #wikipedia-balkan. Just no more of irrelevant, personal belief pushing and provocative statements on article talk pages. It's extremely disruptive. --Latinus 17:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I would think so. But you just can't declare such things in public and then go "oh that, sorry I was under pressure". Not in politics you don't. It stays there recorded and it's being mentioned as an official statement. In fact I've been long thinking of a way of compiling it into the MacSlav articles. Miskin 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian question 

message: 1/ this was not the flag of Macedonia - the region never had its own flag, but of the Republic of Macedonia.
2/ it was not called 'Vergina Sun'.
3/ Question. I understand that it originated from pressure groups amongst Macedonian Slavs in Australia, and was not the obvious choice of Skopje. If so, could someone include the correct info? Politis 11:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag debate is mentioned in 5 other articles already, I really don't see an argument for repeating it here. Miskin 08:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Vergina' sun flag

message: I'd like to ask all parties to stop revert-warring.  I'd further like to encourage people to focus their attention on the fact that this is an encyclopedia article, and that we are aiming for verifiable and neutral information, and a reasonable level of clarity.  The sentence The Vergina sun is also kept in honour by Greeks, who regard it as an exclusively "Greek symbol"., which is being reverted to constantly, is both poorly-worded and strangely punctuated.  What does "kept in honour by" mean?  Why is "Greek symbol" in quotation marks?  Is there a source we're quoting?  It is not clear to me that everyone involved is actually reading the passage in question with an editorial eye.  Please consider using this Talk page to come up with a reasonable solution, prehaps beginning with an examination of the Vergina sun article as something to summarize.  Jkelly 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war

message: Please consider the following:
STALIN TO BULGARIAN DELEGATION (G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov, T. Kostov)
The Kremlin, 7 June 1946
Cultural autonomy must be granted to Pirin Macedonia within the framework 
of Bulgaria. Tito has shown
himself more flexible than you - possibly because he lives in a multiethnic 
state and has had to give equal
rights to the various peoples. Autonomy will be the first step towards the 
unification of Macedonia, but in
view of the present situation there should be no hurry on this matter. 
Otherwise, in the eyes of the Macedonian people the whole mission of 
achieving Macedonian autonomy will remain with Tito and you will get the 
criticism.
You seem to be afraid of Kimon Georgiev, you have involved yourselves too 
much with him and do not want to give autonomy to Pirin Macedonia. That a 
Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no 
account. No such consciousness existed in Belarus either when we proclaimed 
it a Soviet Republic.
However, later it was shown that Belarusian people did in fact exist. ...  
(Who and why removed the POV flag I had inserted? - Is this eligible? And why is this section now appearign in the talk page instead of the articel itself? How can we decide to put something in the main of talk page?)
User:Macedonia, if you want to debate on the ethnic status of Macedon then take it to the corresponding articles. I'm giving the description used by other encyclopaedias in the head of their articles on Macedon, which "a Kingdom of Northern Greece". I can copy-paste if you want me to. Miskin 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The root of the problem (1946)

message: Hi, I don't know if you can read Slav-Macedonian, but there is a Macedonian source - a contemporary historian from Skopje - his name is Mikulchich (Mikulchik, Mikulčić, Микулчич, Микулчић, Микулчиќ), who has made archeological excavations in the Republic of Macedonia and he claims that the land of modern day Macedonian republic has been completely deserted in the 4-6th century with no population at all for more than two centuries, and the first settlers were not the Slavs, but Asian tribes (Bulgarians claim that they were Bulgarian), and the Slavs joined later, so there is absolutely no chance for the Slavs mixing with the indigenous population and inheriting its name. I can provide you with link. --Komitata 14:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the truth coming out at last :-) --Latinus 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Right! It was completly deserted for more than 2 centuries. The population was sucked into a fleet flying saucers by evil aliens from another galaxy using special sucking beams. Then according to Alexander's own words, these evil aliens performed evil experiments on the whole population of Macedonia. Before leaving they used another kind of speciel beams to program the minds of the surrounding populations to act like nothing happened. That's how Macedonia stayed deserted for more than 2 centuries. True story! Realek 18:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Straw man. --Latinus 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now, warent your own words "Ah, the truth coming out at last"??? Do I need a citation for that too? It's few rows up! Realek 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Straw man. --Latinus 18:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should see Straw man, because you are the one who instantly welcomed the ridiculous "deserted Macedonia" theory with the words: Ah, the truth coming out at last   Realek 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really - it is a theory supported by an actual scholar, quite unlike your theory of Macedonian Slavs have some kind of relation with the Ancient Macedonians. I asked you for a source - instead you resorted to straw man arguments and did not cite a source. Can I do anything else but declare your words anything other than what is described at WP:BALLS? Cite a source, please, if you want to have a serious conversation. Thanks. --Latinus 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I must dismiss any such inconceivable theory and I must conclude that we're not talking about a serious person here. Realek 19:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, how about citing those neutral sources which assert that the Macedonian Slavs are related in some way to the Ancient Macedonians? I feel the same way about this theory as you feel about Mikulchich's theory. The only difference between the two theories is that one is from an academic ;-) --Latinus 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you said that you dont think its certain that Macedonians were Greeks - the modern Greeks dont have any more rights than the modern Macedonians to claim all that is Macedonian is Greek. Especially exclusive rights to all things Macedonian. Realek 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macedonian Slavs, can't claim anything, as there is no evidence that they are related in any way. I have asked you for this evidence, but you have failed to produce it. The Greeks can claim (exclusive) rights to Ancient Macedon, because the land of the original kingdom of Macedon is 100% within modern Greek borders - it is part of the history of Greece (whether of the Greek people or not is still debatable, as a scholarly minority think they weren't). FYROM contains the land that was part of Dardania - Ancient Kosovo ;-) No links whatsoever to Ancient Macedon or its people, therefore nothing can be claimed - this is not the case with Greece. --Latinus 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is false, but even if the ancient Macedonians were Greeks and Slavic treibes didnt mix at all with the natives, Greeks dont have the exclusive rights to all that is Macedonian (including this ridiculous greek claim over the geographic name of the area) Realek 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: They might have invented flying cities and left the land to live in the blue skies above. Unfortunately the engine batteries soon run out... FunkyFly 18:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, so the territory of the Republic may have been almost uninhabited for 2 centuries. So what? Why is it a problem? Well, it is a problem for those who want a greater Macedonia and base their argument that Greece, Albania and Bulgaria should get lost, and that their Slavic language is that of Alexander. But for the sane and logical citizens of the Republic, and for most of us, it doesn't matter because the country exists and will continue to exist happily in its borders. Politis 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Politis, what you say doesnt make any sense. Furthermore let me assure that I dont want a greater Macedonia and I dont think that "Greece, Albania and Bulgaria should get lost". But when it comes to my right to call myself Macedonian I dont think Greeks have any right to stop me. Also the opression of ethnic Macedonians in Greece (and their unability to freely express their nationality) is unacceptable and will come to an end wheather you like it or not. Greece has been a member of the EU for a long time now, and cannot avoid this for much longer, especially now when its clear it failed to sabotage the Republic of Macedonia as an independant state. Yet another matter are all those Macedonian refugees from Greece that will eventually get their land back or compensation by the Greek state, wich will have to face the horrible atrocities it commited. This is also long overdue, but its a matter of international justice and Greece wont be able to avoid far in the fututre. Realek 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations, you've just opened a can of worms! :)) FunkyFly 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind - Realek just showed his true face. Of course we may discuss the plight of the Albanian minority (?) in FYROM who were tortured by the police for freely expressing their nationality back in 2001. From FYROM's point of view, this seems to be totally acceptable - what happened over fifty years ago (including the Pontian Genocide and expulsion of Greeks from Turkey, which happened at about the same time), show that all nationalities have been victims and victimisers. The bottom line is that Greece is a member of the EU and as such has been feeding FYROM through economic aid. Of course, as Tony Blair told FYROM's prime minister (I think), FYROM will have to change its attitude... apparently, that has yet to happen! --Latinus 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know how your comments (and threats about veto) are in any way relevant to the discussion but i will respond anyway. 1- I'm not a future teller but i am aware of historic processes going on. 2- Republic of Macedonia will join the EU with the name that is decided in the Security Council (USA, China, Russia and 106 other countries recognise the country by its constitutional name; This doesnt mean that the others accept the greek position, simply they are still undecided. The number of countries that recognize our name is growing fast). 3- Latinus you tell plain lies when you talk about the position of the Albanian minority in Macedonia, but now there is an international guarantied solution for that. Its Greece that should think what will it do with its minorities including the Albanian for wich you are so concerned. Greece is constantly heavily criticized for its treatment of minorities. 4- The expulsion of Greeks from Turkey is a problem between theese two countries, but funny you should mention it because a lot of those were setteled in the place of the expelled Macedonians from Greece thus changing the ethnic makeup of Macedonia. 5- Also its a funny thing you talk about economic aid. Greece is a huge net recipient of funds from the EU, not a net donor. Therefore your claim that Greece is feeding Macedonia with aid through the EU is false. Realek 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But accurate - anyway, as the UK, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council (with veto power) and Greece, which is (alongside the UK) a member of the EU with the ability to veto the ascension of new members, I think FYROM will have to change it's attitude (as per Tony Blair's suggestion) if it ever wants to join. The EU is very strict over who can join - have you seen all the requirements they (we) are imposing on Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey, Croatia etc. No matter though, I'm sure an appropriate ascension name for your country can be found; if not FYROM, then Makedonija-Skopje or something similar. Greece can put off - they have nothing but time ;-) Imagine - Kazakhstan will have joined before FYROM (that is assuming their attitude hasn't changed by then). --Latinus 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So this is what it comes to? Greece can bully Macedonia because its "stronger". And Greeks will invent a name for us beuse Greece has a veto power in the EU. Your "noble" view is true to an extent, but doesnt prove you right. And fortunately isnt the complete story. All those requirements for joining the EU dont have anything to do with some acceding country being blackmailed about its name by an EU member. Why do you think all the other 24 members will help Greece to continue with its irational position. And even your threats to block my country's future with veto power are not going to materialise. Because if you apply the same "right of the stronger" rationale, then Greece will have to dance like the big ones play. And it seems Greek irational arguments werent too convincing for 109 of 191 members of the UN. Like I said it doesnt mean the 82 left support your position, they havent made the decision to recognize the constitutional name yet (anyway the trend is ireversible). Latinus, you can coin funny names that seem apropriate to you and you can be cynical all you want, but your sugestion to what my country should be called will go no further than this discussion. Concerning Blair's statemant, he didnt say that Macedonia will have to change its attitude, but anyway do you remember the official Washington tone a month before USA recognised the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia? That one surely came out of the blue didnt it? Realek 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All those countries dont accept that the Greeks have exclusivity over all things macedonian. And fortunately you dont decide what we can or cant have. Now about you mentioning the Greek lobby in the USA. Are you claiming that a country's name can be "unrecognised" or "de-recognised" if you bribe enough politicians? Realek 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Hectorian, where are your neutral, reliable sources?????? Realek 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hectorian, 1- You dont respond to what I wrote, but you respond to what you want to respond. Anyway dont ask from me something that youre not ready to provide. 2- All this countries obviously dont accept that Greece has exclusivity over all things Macedonian. 3- Albanians had extensive minority rights in Macedonia even before the Ohrid agreement. Now they have even more, surpassing european standards. Greece on the other hand is the one not even recognising minorities. It has a long way to go and there are numerous minorities including large Macedonian, Bulgarian, Albanian and Turkish comunities. The process is forced by the international comunity ofcourse, and is gaining pace. 4- A lot of Macedonians were expeled and killed even before the refugees from Turkey came. The process of ethnically cleansing Macedonians continued until after the civil war in Greece. Ofcourse there were tensions, but all those right-wing Greek governments used very bloody methods of quelling the situation. 5- Investment and trade are completely other things than economic aid. This things happen because of the interests of greek bussinesman and companies who are quite happy to accept the name Republic of Macedonia in order to make a profit. I guess that's how important to them are the Greek "ideals" about Macedonia. Greece does not give any financial aid to Macedonia! Nor can Greece (a huge net recipient of funds from the EU) be considered feeding aid to Macedonia through the Union. Realek 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 1 - There are some things that you can predict and you dont need to be a future-teller (eg the earth will continue its rotation in the forceable future; and please dont ask for a source for this too). The second part of what you say is purely subjective. 2 - Then why would you dispute the name of the Republic of Macedonia ??? 3 - Like you said it: Greece only recognises religious minorities. That's a 19th century concept. Why is the situation in greece so special that ethnic minorities should not be recognised??? And is that the rationale by wich you dismiss the existance of the Macedonian minority (wich share the same religion as the Greeks)? Anyway the situation is not tolerated by the international factor, wich is the main reason things are starting to move in a better direction. Meanwhile Greece is constantly heavily criticised among the others by: the council of Europe, the State department, the Helsinki group, the HRW... 4 - I dont get how the first part of what you (not accurately) say, has to do with what we're talking about. Unless it is an attemp to insult me in some funny way, but nevermind. Greece will have to face the horrible atrocities it commited (especially in the first half of the 20th century). Maybe you can dispute the number of Macedonians killed and tortured, but you cant dispute all those ethnically cleansed Macedonians all over the world. There's an international system of justice set up now that will recognize the mountain of evidence. If no less Greece will have to return/compensate their confiscated land, houses, other possesions and will have to offer them greek citizenship. Most probably will have to compensate their suffering and offer an apologise. 5 - So you agree that to some Greeks those "Macedonian ideals" are not that important. Anyway you still confuse investments made by companies and economic aid. Those are totaly different things and there's no economic aid given to Macedonia by Greece. The aid from the EU is totaly different thing. I'm glad that we at least cleared that Greece is not financialy participating in that aid. How Greece votes on this issue I'm not aware but the greek vote is not necessary because it doesnt have veto power over this. If you can give me info on this matter I'd be gratefull to you, but even in the cases when Greece suported Macedonia it was because it was in the best interest of Greece, not because they wanted to help Macedonia, eg E-75 (Pan-European Corridor 10)  Realek 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 1 - Yet again you speak of unrelated things! Anyway: I think that Macedonians in Greece should enjoy their rights within the borders of Greece. Also refugees should be cmpensated. That has nothing to do with Greater Macedonia and ancient history books. I say again: I dont support Greater Macedonia (and any other Greater state). So stop your accusations! 2 - You did not respond 3 - You did not respond 4 - You did not respond 5 - I'm glad that we at least cleared the investment confusion. Unfortunately you still pretend to not understand the EU aid issue. Again: Greece is a huge net recipient of EU funds (for a few decades now). So when the EU gives aid to Macedonia, it simply cannot be considered Greek money. About the voting issue - honestly i dont relly to much on what you say (it would have been nice to include some evidence). But since you agree that Greeks side with Macedonia when its in the best interest of Greece, explain why do you expect gratitude or something. Like you said - its just politics. Concerning the E-75 freeway (part of the Pan-European Corridor 10), you're obviously wrong as to what it is. And its by far the best link between Greece and the rest of Europe. So Greece simply cannot afford to sabotage Macedonia in the completion of this project. Realek 18:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hectorian, since you point to the internet every time you need to give a source, you shouldnt demand anything else from others. I'm glad we cleared another thing (about interests in politics) but you (and Latinus) were the ones who falsely claimed how Greece was feeding aid to Macedonia. Why did you do that, even if you thought it was true? Finally: Slavs that came to Macedonia 1500 years ago must have mixed with the natives. How much I dont know nor it can be determined. On the other side weather Macedonians were Greeks, or completely separate people is not clear. So where does this Greek arrogant stance come from - That Greeks have monopoly over all things Macedonian? Realek 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: --Latinus 20:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was clearly FALSE. You also dont respond to what I say but are continuing your monologue. I responded to all your points even when some of them didnt deserve a response. Anyway:
# I dont understand why you keep bringing theese irrelevant claims, however: Macedonia doesnt get aid from Greece. Nor does Macedonia get greek aid through the EU. It gets money from the net donors in the EU budget. This is very simple but if you still dont get it ask an economist to explain you. Greece on the other hand has been draining EU funds for over 3 decades and is still on the tail of Europe. And greece can vote anyway it sees fit. I was under the impresion that we agreed already, that when greeks dont block this things, they dont because they are looking for their best interest. I cant belive you dragged investment and trade into this again! Well I will tell you again: those are different things than aid. And Greek businesman and companies are quite happy to recognise Macedonia and Macedonians in order to make a profit. So much for Greek idealism on the issue! Finaly, your persistent claim that Greece is the largest trade partner of Macedonia is a plain lie. Mathematics is an exact science and you cannot play with numbers like you do with history!
#Even if I accept your fallacious assumptions, you dont prove your point. Greece doesnt have monopoly, nor exclusivity, nor some kind of trademark over all things Macedonian.
#Modern ethnic Macedonians still live in the whole area of ancient Macedonia including Greece (in Aegean Macedonia). There were a lot more before the genocide that Greece commited during the first half of the 20th century. Anyway look more closely at the map that you provided. Even if we take the 450BC territory that you reffer to, it still includes parts of todays Republic of Macedonia. Realek 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW when are you going to cite that source which asserts that the Macedonian Slavs are related in some way to the Ancient Macedonians. I can't wait... --Latinus 20:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You made me give you sources even for the well established historic fact that Alexander of the Macedonians was blonde. When I ask for a source you tell me to search the internet and to read more books. How do you think that makes you look? The previos comments (the roman empire; the eskimos) are false and dont deserve a response in so many ways. Realek 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Latinus your comments make less and less sense. And more and more you use plain lies. Please talk about what is being discussed. Dont jump to another subject everytime you are confronted about a false information that you give. To begin tell me how do you figure that Grece is Macedonia's greatest trade partner and point me to any kind of greek aid to Macedonia (not that I understand why would you bring such issues here) About the sources, I already explained my position - you didnt respond to that, you're just continuing your monologue...  Realek 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again: This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I wont stay quiet to your lies and fallacious claims!
#So you admit that you have knowingly LIED! Largest IMPORT partner is not the same as largest trade partner and I'm sure you can understand something that simple!. Overall Greece is the 3rd trade partner of Macedonia after Germany and Serbia & Montenegro. Use your own source to make the calculation. As i said: Mathematics is an exact science and you cannot play with numbers like you do with history! Did you really think that you can just cheat your way out?. Furthermore I wonder how you fail to understand that trade is not something that one gives to another, but it goes both ways. Thats what they are called trade partners. Not to mention that if this trade would somehow suddenly stop, Greece would be hurt more because its a net exporter to Macedonia.
#So what? First of all that has nothing to do with aid but has all to do with profit. And those Greek investing companies and businesman are quite happy to recognise Macedonia and Macedonians in order to make a profit. So much for Greek idealism on the issue!
#You could be not well informed on the issue, so I wont assume you made another fallacious claim on purpose. Instead I will explain you where you make the mistake. Those funds from the HIBERB are European money and Greece is only channeling them through the region (with oversight from the EU). Just few days ago a Greek delegation to Macedonia tried to use them as a bargening chip but failed.
#I dont claim to have any exclusivity over anything Macedonian. Nor do I claim that modern Macedonians must have significant ties with the ancient Macedonians. You claim that the Greeks have monopoly over everything Macedonian. You need to give evidence not me. Realek 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, My GOD! You people really waste energy. How come you do not discuss the source? As a matter of fact I don't agree with the Greek view that only a Greek can call himself a Macedonian, but I am not willing to waste time arguing for it. This is Wikipedia, and every significant POV has its place under the sun. Since there is a region of Macedonia, everyone who is born there or descends from there can call himself so. I am absolutely over this discussion. What I wanted to say was, that the modern day Macedonians cannot claim the name based on heritage arguments, but only on geography, since they really live in a part of that region. And so, does someone need my assistance to put the source on the article and how can I help you? --Komitata 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: #But Latinus started the "economic discussion" and both of you kept bringing it on, while I kept saying that its irrelevant. Let me quote myself: This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I wont stay quiet to your lies and fallacious claims!
#Dont try to lay fog now. Let me quote myself again: I dont claim to have any exclusivity over anything Macedonian. Nor do I claim that modern Macedonians must have significant ties with the ancient Macedonians. You claim that the Greeks have monopoly over everything Macedonian. You need to give evidence not me.
#Weather you realy dont understad even simple mathematics and basic economic terminology, or you just tried to push your argument anyway - I really dont know. It is a good thing that at last, you decided to stop trying to cheat the numbers concerning economy.  Realek 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting source on the Ethnicity of present-day Slav-Macedonians 

message: user 61.195.9.220 and user Realek signed up today and seem to speak with a similar(obstructive?) voice on Macedonian issue. Certainly 61.195.9.220 is being mischievous if not disrespectful of conventions over official state symbols. Action please. Politis 18:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont get you Politis. Is there any difference weather I signed up today or yesterday? Also what is the problem with me having similar opinions with somebody? And finaly can you tell me how was I so obstructive to wikipedia? Realek 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As it has been said already: Greek terms are used (ex. Slavomacedonians, FYROM, Greek Macedonia, etc.) therefore Macedonian terms should be used also (ex. Aegean Macedonia) Realek 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that what the group of greek politicans said reflects reality: Macedonia is a name "encoded" in the minds of the world population, but not in the ones of greek nationalists. (No offence). Bomac 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: N.B. Upper statement that I quoted is said by the true Macedonians, ergo Greeks. Bomac 14:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizzar edits

message: To the Greek users, just out of curiosity... Lets construct a theoretical situation - modern Macedonians are actually Bulgarians who were brainwashed by Tito in just a couple of years to think that they are now members of this newly invented, up to that date, non-existant ethnicity (like you are constantly claiming). But with you persistently explaining us this, we become aware that you are actually right. That we were wrong about who we are, and our parents are wrong, and our granparents are wrong, and our great great grandparents were wrong, and so on. That you actually know better than us, who we are... All of a sudden we are Bulgarians "again". And we unite with Bulgaria ofcourse. Wouldnt such a course of events be very negative for Greece??? So why would you push such nonsence, unless you dont really belive it and youre doing it out of other motives! Realek 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Go ahead and re-unite. Just kidding, ofcourse! But I'am curious too, so I'll reverse the question: What is your problem in the above theoretical situation? Bulgaria is entering EU in 293 days, you are mutually intelligible (sic), you'll have a coast in the Black sea, and you will all live happily ever after! ;-) NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you really dont understand why such a course of events would be very negative for Greece, I wont even bother to explain further. I'm waiting for comments from the other Greek users. Realek 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That scenario you describe might not be completely hypothetical in the not so distant future. Especially, the way things are going in the country with 40% unemployment (over 20% even if albanians are excluded), almost no foreign investment and hardly any economic growth... And by the way, only you and your parents "could bе hypothetically" wrong. I doubt that there are much "grandparents" that would be deny their bulgarian background. FunkyFly 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my great-greatmother (born 1897) never had any doubts about her Macedonian national feeling, nor she mentioned anybody she knew that had. But she told me a lot about Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian propagandas, assimilation policies, and atrocities. Realek 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me assure you FunkyFly the scenario is completely hypothetical! It can unfold only in your head. Anyway I think your point was to remind me how bad the economy is in Macedonia. I dont know why economics are brought here all the time, but like I said few times already: I wont stay quiet. So let me remind you how "prosperous" Greece was before the 80s. Even now after all theese years of sucking billions of euros from the EU, you're still on the tail of Europe. BTW growth in Macedonia is greater than in Greece ;) Realek 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The growth in Greece is 3.7 vs 4 in Macedonia, not that big of a difference in relative terms, but in absolute terms that is a much greater growth for Greece, because the Greek economy is already about 15 times the Macedonian. FunkyFly 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, wasnt it your head that it unfolded in first?! :) You're funny my lad. And are you by chance a president or prime minister to claim what is possible or what not? You should visit the town of Strumica, people there will certainly disagree with your grandmother, I wish her well. But anyway, things have changed somewhat in the last years, but there is still a lot of surpressed facts that will surely surface in the minds of many Macedonians. One way or another, through students in Bulgaria like Vlatkoto for example, or people finding employment in Bulgaria, through EU channels or in some other way, the truth will trickle down. FunkyFly 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said "only hypotetically", but as a real possibility it can unfold only in your head. About Strumica - you just make stuff up. And about user Vlatkoto, why dont you ask him how he feels about what you say. But obviously you are accustomed to claim to know what people think better than they themselves. Thats why you claim you know my national feelings better than me. Realek 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only laugh on your theory about the "rebulgarisation of the Macedonians" that  exists in your head.I never felt more stronger and sure that I'm Macedonian .I laugh on your fables about my land.And the next time you use my nick please ask me for permision FunkyFly.Vlatko 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, so funny, next time I'll submit written request, Vlatko. Are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech? This is not Macedonia you know :))). Maybe you just have nothing beeter to say. FunkyFly 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep your freedom of speech "the way you are living it".Say whats on your mind..Vlatko 08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So your POV is: It was in the best interest of Greece to claim that Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia were Serbs, and to collaborate with Serbia to occupy them. But now its not and Greece can go back to claiming that they are Bulgarians. Realek 04:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if? 

message: I'm not trying to take sides here, but I think you all would be interested in the following map:
http://www.anesi.com/rmap.htm
Click here for the full size. You'll notice that it shows the present-day Macedonians as Bulgarians. Just thought it was interesting. --Khoikhoi 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant, you would find maps that claim that Macedonians are Serbs also. Wich ones are true then? But if you think that this particular map proves everything, then it seems Greece owes some territories to Bulgaria. And if you search the net harder you will find maps according to wich Greece owes even more territory to Bulgaria and some to Albania also. Realek 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant? I think you're using the wrong word here. Would you be able to show me any of the maps that you mentioned? I don't see why anyone would claim that. I never said that this map knows all, I just said it was interesting. Why would Greece owe territories to Bulgaria? It's 1923, things have changed since then. --Khoikhoi 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you only see on this map what you want to see. The things you dont like, you just ignore. And how can things have changed so much since 1923? At best with ethnic cleansing and at worse with full genocide. There is no other way to raddicaly erase a population from a given territory. Those maps you ask I promise I'll give to you tommorow since is very late now and I'm too tired to look for them. Realek 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. But what do you mean I see what I want to see? I was looking for Macedonia, and I see it. I'm not quite sure what you mean. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that you "missed" to notice all that "Bulgarian" teritory that Greece occupied. And I wonder what happened to all those "Bulgarians" in the next 25 years. Were they also abducted by alliens? Realek 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be quite honest I don't know the answer. As we all know Greece claims that it is 98% Greek, but I feel that this is not true. I'm sure you feel the same way. In such a diverse place like the Balkans, how can a country be almost homogeneous? --Khoikhoi 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse, its obvious it cant be. Let me be honest with you too. In present times I dont think that this is some evil Greek policy. Its more a leftover from the past. Greece realy cant change things overnight. I just hope that the process of accepting that minorities exist and granting them standard minority rights will not be disrupted too much from within Greece. Realek 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Khoikhoi, as I promised... Here is an interesting example: the same map, from the same publisher (probably printet on the same printing press). But in two different versions, for two different clients: the bulgarian and the serbian propaganda. 
.
Furthermore notice that the Serbian "point of view", even in 1914 doesnt claim that all Macedonians were "Serbs" but in some territories recognises them as Macedonian Slavs. Realek 20:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bulgarians in Greece and most Greeks in Bulgaria were exchanged under the Treaty of Neuilly in 1919. Of course, some of these people didn't want to have to leave their homes, so some of the Bulgarians (now what FYROM alleges were Macedonian Slavs :p) in Greece changed their names so Greek ones (FYROM alleges this was forced on them) and declared themselves Greeks so that they could stay. So, as far as the Greek state is concerned, all Bulgarians have been expatriated and all Greeks abroad are now in Greece. All minority populations were officially exchanged except the Turks (Muslims) of Western Thrace under the Treaty of Lausanne. These "minorities" which FYROM sees in Greece don't see themselves as minorities (except a few fringe elements) and reject any campaigning - this is demonstrated by the poor electoral performance of the Fyromian political party (the Rainbow party) which gained c. 2000 votes in Greek Macedonia, where according to FYROM, there are over 200,000 Macedonian Slavs. No one under 70 can speak the language fluently (or in most cases at all) and the language in Greece (which differs a lot from the variety spoken in Skopje) is never written - the recent Cyrillic alphabet used by the Rainbow party members was probably imported from FYROM in the 1990s. The sad fact is that these people view themselves as Greeks of slavic descent (as they can no longer speak the language - except the over 70s). --Latinus 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Racial map of Europe", 1923 

message: I just thought we all needed that.;-) NikoSilver (T) @ (C) 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the closest headline?