Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 9

message: So, how many ethnic groups are there that self-identify as "Macedonian". There are the Macedonian republicans, there are the Ancient Macedonians, is that it ?
I mean, you could possibly say that the Macedonian Greeks self-identify as "Macedonian", but then are they a distinct ethnic group from the Greeks? 
I've adjusted the disambig note at the top to make it easier to find the Ancient Macedonians. This should suffice. There seems to me to be only one ethnic group that self-identify as "Macedonian" today, and that is the Macedonians. Although I think we could stretch to including Macedonians (religious group) in the disambig if requested. - FrancisTyers 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another option would be Macedonian people. - FrancisTyers 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps Macedonians (contemporary ethnic group) and then have Ancient Macedonians at Macedonians (ancient ethnic group) with Macedonians (ethnic group) as a disambig. - FrancisTyers 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group) or simply Macedonians (Slavs) or Macedonians (Slavic)? Telex 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no reason to. "ethnic group" is sufficient disambiguation. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I defer to this comment and want you opinion on whether what you are proposing will suffice. Telex 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think it will. When I say my favourite Macedonian actress is Labina Mitevska, I am not referring to the Ancient Macedonians. This is contemporary English usage. Ask yourself, in the English speaking world, are the Ancient Macedonians or the current Macedonians more often referred to? - FrancisTyers 18:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example, ask yourself "Who are the Macedonians" (with reference to an ethnic group) then ask yourself "Who were the Macedonians" (with reference to an ethnic group). When I do this I get two different answers, do you? - FrancisTyers 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A better question to ask is, will most people believe that nowadays "Macedonians" and Ancient Macedonians are in a way related, since they have the same name? The answer is that most people DO make this connection. And this is because of the name. FYROMians are not dumb, they know why they keep using this name and why they don't want any disambiguation, it's exactly because their whole nation was built due to this ambiguity.--   Avg    18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all most people don't care. Second of all, everyone knows that the Ancient Macedonians as in the Byzantine Empire and all that crap are linked with Greece, they are Greek. It is just common knowledge, its what you learn at school. No-one in their right mind thinks that Alexander the Great was a Slav. Now, for the current Macedonians, everyone knows they aren't Greeks, a lot of people know they are Slavs. There really isn't any confusion at all. Perhaps a survey could be done of the Anglophone world, but I guarantee that if a person can find Greece and Macedonia on a map — this is my caveat ;) — they know that there is no relationship between the current Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians. Now, my history above may be trite, and it may even be wrong, I don't claim to be an expert. What I do claim to be is a native English speaker who sees no need to disambiguate further because thats just the way it is in English. - FrancisTyers 18:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes you remind me of the ancient Hebrew proverb "You dilute the mosquito and swallow the camel". You dilute the mosquito when you are contradicting Greeks, you swallow the camel when you are speaking with FYROMians. The expressions you use like "Most people don't care", "everyone knows", "common knowledge", "no-one in their right mind" show that you have a huge lack of perspective. Yes I agree with your claims, but I disagree with your assertions. Of course a lot of people know of the issue and most have arrived to believe that Greece opresses these "poor" guys, of course NOT everyone believes anymore that Ancient Macedonia is linked solely with Greece, of course people have doubts nowadays that Alexander the Great was Greek. The continuing propaganda has had its results and things are not that black and white as they were some years ago. If you like, just go out and ask a friend of yours (who is not involved in this issue of course) whether they believe that todays "Macedonians" are related to Ancient Macedonians. --   Avg    19:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are missing the point, we still call them Macedonians, just what to put in the brackets? It's now Macedonians (ethnic group), why not Macedonians (Slavs)? Telex 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you're missing the point. What you just wrote doesn't have anything to do with the question. I'm not particularly concerned what the Greeks, Macedonians or Bulgarians or whoever else has a year to waste arguing about the origins of the name of Negotino has to say. What we are discussing here is the name of the ethnic group called "Macedonians". We need to know what is the most common term in English. Oh, are you arguing that the Macedonians are Greeks? If you are, please clarify. - FrancisTyers 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about your disambiguation note - some people may have a problem with it. Telex 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why they would have a problem with it. In English, the Macedonians you are talking about who may or may not have spoken Greek are called Ancient Macedonians. That is the contemporary English usage. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say they were Greek speaking. It is true that they ended up Greek speaking they they may have not been originally. I won't protest, I love it, but User:Macedonia mightn't. Telex 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Common English usage of a name can be very misleading. For example "Asians" in America means Chinese or Japanese, but in Britain it means Indians and Pakistani. Who is "right"? Nobody (or both, depends on the way you see it). This is a bad indicator and this is why disambig pages are made for. After all people refer to ROC citizens as Taiwanese, but I don't see you supporting so heartily the renaming of the article on their country to Taiwan. --   Avg    19:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion of User:Macedonia is well known and would not be considered charitable. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no reason for it not to be "ethnic group", or even Macedonian people with the appropriate disambiguation for the Ancient Macedonians. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see this comment. We want to resolve an ambiguity - the ancient Macedonians were also a people and an ethnic group. We need something that the ancient Macedonian's were not, so as to not imply some exclusive connection between the Slavic Macedonians and the ancient Macedonians. The Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires the ambiguities to be resolved, I am arguing that they are not resolved because the ancient Macedonians were also an ethnic group. We don't want readers to think that the Slavic Macedonians have some kind of exclusive relation with the ancient Macedonians. Telex 18:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines also state that the pages should be at the most common English usage. There is no disambiguation required in the most common English usage — there is only one current Macedonians (ethnic group), the other one is referred to as Ancient Macedonians. I can see what you are getting at that people might be conned by the crazy whackos into thinking that somehow Alexander the Great was a Slav. I'm here to tell you it isn't going to happen. Your concern is misplaced. - FrancisTyers 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite - not as long as the title of this article wouldn't be out of place as title of the article on the ancient Macedonians. "Ethnic group" doesn't help at all - all that disambiguates is from the Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and Aromanians in Macedonia who are not an ethnic group. The guidlines require the most common English usage + disambiguation. The current disambiguation is insufficient. Telex 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No is isn't insufficient. This is the most common English usage. How about we have a poll, in this poll we insist on: native English and a reason for each vote. E.g. "* Keep as is contemporary English usage, IMDB and many other sites use this." or "* Move to suggestion 1 more disambiguation needed, Greeks call Ancient Macedonians Macedonians." — basically a nice friendly poll of native English speakers to find out the most common name. Of course, it wouldn't have to be binding, no polls are ever binding. Anything else is a waste of time because the Greeks will vote for "Macedonian Slavs" and the Macedonians will vote for "Macedonians (ethnic group)" and it will just be a matter of shear majority "rules", which isn't how we do things on Wiki. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying Macedonian Slavs, have you even read this discussion? I say Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group), or Macedonians (Slavic people) or Macedonians (Slavs) or something like that. As per the guileline, self-identifying common English name + disambiguation. The current disambiguation in the title, what is in brackets, is the disambiguation. Telex 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. What I meant to say was the Greeks will vote to move it to something with Slavic in the title. How about that poll? - FrancisTyers 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, to avoid confusion. Unfortunately, the last such poll was a 50/50 draw. Do you have a problem with Slavic in the title? How about Macedonians (whose name is intended to imply a relation with ancient Macedon). If the article is to remain here, I have no problem with that, as long as the fact that they are unrelated to ancient Macedon is given more (the due) emphasis, because User:Macedonia & Co have recently gone on a deletion spree deleting all such references and inserting sentences like "one of the symbols of the Macedonians is the Vergina Sun which was the symbol of ancient Macedonian Kings like Philip II and Alexander III", for I dare say obvious reasons. Telex 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I imagine the last poll attracted a lot of non-native English speakers, also they weren't required to justify their votes. I can see your point regarding "not related with ancient Macedon" and I think that could certainly be an appropriate thing to have in the disambiguation note at the top. I'll make that change now. - FrancisTyers 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be very interested if you could find an example where an ethnicity with a specific name today does not have any relationship with an older ethnicity with the same name. I tell you, it's gonna be hard. It just doesn't happen because what FYROM did is without precedence. --   Avg    19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't care. Although... "British", the majority of people confuse "English" with "British", and "British" with "Britons". The relationship being that the island is called "Britain". - FrancisTyers 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Scotsman will definitely be offended to be called English. FunkyFly 19:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No shit, would he be offended to be called British by an American though? Answers on a postcard. - FrancisTyers 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans rarely refer to Scotsmen as British, when they mean a Scott, they say a Scott. British is more a sign of lack of nformation about the background of the person. FunkyFly 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to make an association with the UK, a better equivalent would be the Scots proclaiming that their country name was not "Scotland" but "Republic of Britain" and that they are the only ethnic British people on the island. They would also claim all of Britain's history as theirs, they would speak about opressed Britons living in England, they would say that the Scottish Gaelic is the only truly British language and so on... --   Avg    19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no particular problem with that, with respect to the naming -- same goes for RoM. With respect to the history, it would be funny to see these hypothetical people try -- same goes for the RoM -- seriously laugh-out-loud. Its just sad that I guess they actually teach that in their schools. FYI, it is fair to say that over the years all the Celtic speaking inhabitants of Britain have been oppressed. - FrancisTyers 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your example is really irrelevant, but, my point remains that the association between nowadays "Macedonians" and Ancient Macedonians remains and will remain as long as there is no direct disambiguation. This is actually common logic, you have shown that you have it, but you have also shown that you only use it selectively. --   Avg    19:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See Macedonia. Telex 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that isn't nearly as anally retentive. - FrancisTyers 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just think, you could have a whole other article to argue about! ;) - FrancisTyers 19:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let me count the... whatever

message: As Macedonian [sic] nationalists claim that they are the descendants of the Ancient Macedonians and Slavs with minor elements of whoever else happened to be around, rather than the descendants of the proto-Bulgars and Slavs with minor elements of whoever else happened to be around (which is the rather bitter truth), then why can't we call them "Macedonian Slavs"? Telex 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Right, I've moved the page back. Would you like to hold a poll on the page name? Please do not move pages without getting consensus. - FrancisTyers 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, it's just that Macedonian Slavs, the original location, was moved to Macedonians (ethnic group) without a poll or any discussion at all, I assumed it was allowed. If such moves are not allowed, then perhaps the article should be moved back to Macedonian Slavs (so as to avoid double standards). Telex 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mixing them up is not the point. The issue, as I'm certain you're well aware, is the possibility of giving the impression of the modern Macedonian ethnic group being the descendants of the ancient original Macedonian ethnic group - the result of that being that the modern Macedonian ethnic group has some right in rem with regards to the Macedonian region, particularly the Blagoevgrad oblast in Bulgaria, the Greek Macedonian peripheries, Albanian Prespa etc. Anyway, as my posts above have been ignored, how about an RFC? We describe our concerns (the dispute) and see what uninvolved people think; a solution we may have not thought of may be found this way. Telex 21:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a rather heafty disambiguation note at the top of the page, why was it changed? - FrancisTyers 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we can have the poll and discussion now. Whoever moved it before was wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right ;) - FrancisTyers 21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've included a poll below, I welcome comments, when it is agreed on the format we can start the voting. I suggest we let the poll run for at least 2-3 weeks. - FrancisTyers 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Partisan as in belonging to one of the involved parties (Greeks/Macedonians). I will show good faith by voting for all options, or alternatively voting for none. To be honest, this is a watered down version of what I actually wanted to put, but seeing as Wikipedia is not a democracy, 4 Greeks and 1 Macedonian voting for the name of the page is a waste of time, we might as well just add up all the people with native Greek userbox and native Macedonian userbox and go with whichever has a larger number. I would be perfectly happy holding a poll where only native English speakers were allowed to vote, provided they give a rationale, would you? Or are you relying on strength in numbers to change the name of the page, because if you are, it really isn't going to happen. Consensus does not mean majority rule. Your opinion counts, of course, and you should vote but we aren't going to achieve consensus by just going with what the Greeks want. - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Albanian, and I clearly do have a POV on the issue. I'm certainly partisan. Also, sock checks if needed are on the cards, right? Telex 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and the usual stuff about suffrage — I'll add that now. Dang, I had you down as an Arvanite :)) - FrancisTyers 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be lying to achieve my ends ;-) Telex 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW for eligibility, there should be a minimum edit count for the day before the poll started. We can make exception for known exceptional cases (eg MatriX/Bitola). Telex 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can both agree that we wouldn't like to be involved in either of those! — at least not on the "voting" end! :)) btw, its at Rainbow party (sexuality) now :/ - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! I think this is funnier, coz it includes both options in the same page! Hell, you don't even have to say compare this with that! It's in the same page! On the other hand, although I am not actually ready to accept your proposal about partisan votes, I think you should rephrase the text to avoid accusing both peoples for being partisan on the whole! I suggest you do that quickly... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why I am not ready to agree? Obviously because the poll would turn out to become: Which side has created more seemingly independent WP:SOCKS. I am sure Telex can provide many examples as per which side has the clear advantage on that...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about Bomac's sockpuppets User:FoxyNet and User:High Elf, who suddenly dissapeared once Bomac was told that we're on to him. Look at the userboxes he's picked ;-) Telex 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, because there will be a suffrage (from the 1st March) and there will also be sockchecking, and furthermore, any vote that doesn't cite a rationale will be discounted, along with any option that doesn't has less than 25% non-partisan votes. I would be happy to up the limit to 40 or 50%. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here since 25 April :-( Telex 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we make it the 1st May then? - FrancisTyers 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have 1077 edits. Couldn't the edit count be fitted into it - at the last poll it said that only people will more than 100 edits on the week before the poll started could vote or something like that. Telex 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is appropriate to base it on edit count no. Edit counts are not good enough indicators of how much someone has added to the project. A suffrage and CheckUsers will be enough I think. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding Bomacs socks, feel free to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser them, any you or anyone else suspects. We can close the vote on a date, but leave the final count until all CheckUser results have come in. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Any takes on Republican Macedonians or Macedonian Republicans? FunkyFly 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, add them. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naaah, that would mean (for some) that these are just Macedonian Greeks that happen to have a Republican political orientation. (Now that I come to think of it, that would be a hell of a combination!)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like Spiro Agnew? FunkyFly 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Can you imagine any American voting FOR in that option of yours with the memories such examples produce? :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say it like being a republican is bad thing. My opinion is that there are no inherently bad political parties, just bad people. Anyway, the guy is greek and is republican. :) FunkyFly 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was self-sarcasm. (check my userboxes)... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Will I be able to participate? Telex 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a nice poll, although you have to admit that "partisan voting" is extremely ambiguous. Everybody is a partisan, since everybody has a POV. --   Avg    23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I? Will I be, or shall I use my third-computer-in-internet-cafe-neutral-seeming-socks to do so for me?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Brother is watching you. FunkyFly 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I don't like polls for the exact same reasons as you. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it should not be a democracy. Let's use it only as an indication and then go to RfC. --   Avg    23:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put the poll on hold, go through an RFC first and get a few more outside suggestions. Someone may propose something we haven't thought of that we all like, or we may reach an "out of court settlement". We may even get a few more options to add to the list. Telex 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, as usual, sock polls involve someone placing a notice at the Village Pump of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias, getting everyone to flock over here and sign their names beneath the specified options. The same thing will be going on over at mkwiki. This is what happened at the last such poll and I think we know how things work here. The smaller national Wikipedias are where the national POV rules are like the co-ordinating camps. The English Wikipedia is more like no man's land, where the endless squabbles take place. I think we all know that User:Bonaparte used to recruit nationalists POV pushing on the Romanian Wikipedia (and the Romanian Wikipedians' noticeboard on enwiki). Telex 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One point, Francis; May 1 is absolutely too late. Remember that we've just had a vote at Republic of Macedonia, and if we don't want too see all those who mysteriously apperared in the voting, me must choose April 1 as date of start for voters. Also, I feel it's always better to have wikipedians with a minimum of experience for the issue.--Aldux 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the same thing, but that would exclude Telex from the poll. If he doesn't mind I don't object to that reasoning. Telex, thoughts? - FrancisTyers 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree if this is not going to be based on numbers. I am one of the few non-Greek, yet pro-Greek/Bulgarian users here. If it's going to be more like a discussion, with the votes only showing what the groupthink status is, then OK. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Telex, but I really feel we must be clear on this issue; a month of experience and the starting date April 1. To many editors have bloommed in April only to vote to simply take the risk to see them voting claiming to be Germans, Russians, Spaniards, ecc.--Aldux 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn, OK, but will  be able to vote? Telex 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Account opened 11 April so no. - FrancisTyers 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of that poll, what is going to happen when this one is finished? Have a second poll to interpret the results of the first one? FunkyFly 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the result is something the Macedonian users don't like, then there'll be another poll and another one until a result they do like emerges. Then if the Greeks don't like it, there'll be another one and another one until a Greek one emerges and then back to the Macedonians again and again ad nauseam... We need something everyone's happy with. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. We need a global coverage of opinions ideally. If we can point to a poll where a good spread of users have voted with detailed rationales then it will be a lot harder to overturn than a poll of Balkanians (if you'll excuse the term) just voting yes/no. - FrancisTyers 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh... I'll have to fight the temptation of spamming the WP:ANIs of el and sqwiki - it won't help :-( Telex 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess the situation calms down for another couple of months, then whichever way it goes, someone from either side will bring it up again and then we get to go through the rigmarole again. - FrancisTyers 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (gradually becoming a leftist) So we need more people in this, so we need an rfc, so you agree to Telex's proposal that I turned into a poll above? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm fine with whatever, but here you go — an arbitrary poll for a poll. Voting closes midnight (GMT) Monday (8th May). - FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *If you want votes, I told you, I can spam the Village Pumps of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias. We'll get a few tens of nominal supporters that way. The problem is, it wouldn't help, as Francis is on the lookout for nominal "Balkanian" recruited votes. Telex 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis knows better. I could right now have 10 sockpuppets claiming they are Canadian or Japanese, right? They'd refrain from editing any article relevant to Macedonia and would appear only to vote. --   Avg    01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Discussion resulting from the survey goes here.
*Who is the arbiter over what is nationalistic vote stacking and who is partisan, you (Francis)? Does this mean that I shouldn't even bother voting, as I am a "partisan" in your eyes, so my opinion doesn't count? Telex 21:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partisan as in belonging to one of the involved parties (Greeks/Macedonians). I will show good faith by voting for all options, or alternatively voting for none. To be honest, this is a watered down version of what I actually wanted to put, but seeing as Wikipedia is not a democracy, 4 Greeks and 1 Macedonian voting for the name of the page is a waste of time, we might as well just add up all the people with native Greek userbox and native Macedonian userbox and go with whichever has a larger number. I would be perfectly happy holding a poll where only native English speakers were allowed to vote, provided they give a rationale, would you? Or are you relying on strength in numbers to change the name of the page, because if you are, it really isn't going to happen. Consensus does not mean majority rule. Your opinion counts, of course, and you should vote but we aren't going to achieve consensus by just going with what the Greeks want. - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Albanian, and I clearly do have a POV on the issue. I'm certainly partisan. Also, sock checks if needed are on the cards, right? Telex 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and the usual stuff about suffrage — I'll add that now. Dang, I had you down as an Arvanite :)) - FrancisTyers 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be lying to achieve my ends ;-) Telex 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW for eligibility, there should be a minimum edit count for the day before the poll started. We can make exception for known exceptional cases (eg MatriX/Bitola). Telex 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we can both agree that we wouldn't like to be involved in either of those! — at least not on the "voting" end! :)) btw, its at Rainbow party (sexuality) now :/ - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! I think this is funnier, coz it includes both options in the same page! Hell, you don't even have to say compare this with that! It's in the same page! On the other hand, although I am not actually ready to accept your proposal about partisan votes, I think you should rephrase the text to avoid accusing both peoples for being partisan on the whole! I suggest you do that quickly... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why I am not ready to agree? Obviously because the poll would turn out to become: Which side has created more seemingly independent WP:SOCKS. I am sure Telex can provide many examples as per which side has the clear advantage on that...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about Bomac's sockpuppets User:FoxyNet and User:High Elf, who suddenly dissapeared once Bomac was told that we're on to him. Look at the userboxes he's picked ;-) Telex 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, because there will be a suffrage (from the 1st March) and there will also be sockchecking, and furthermore, any vote that doesn't cite a rationale will be discounted, along with any option that doesn't has less than 25% non-partisan votes. I would be happy to up the limit to 40 or 50%. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here since 25 April :-( Telex 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we make it the 1st May then? - FrancisTyers 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have 1077 edits. Couldn't the edit count be fitted into it - at the last poll it said that only people will more than 100 edits on the week before the poll started could vote or something like that. Telex 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is appropriate to base it on edit count no. Edit counts are not good enough indicators of how much someone has added to the project. A suffrage and CheckUsers will be enough I think. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding Bomacs socks, feel free to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser them, any you or anyone else suspects. We can close the vote on a date, but leave the final count until all CheckUser results have come in. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Any takes on Republican Macedonians or Macedonian Republicans? FunkyFly 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, add them. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naaah, that would mean (for some) that these are just Macedonian Greeks that happen to have a Republican political orientation. (Now that I come to think of it, that would be a hell of a combination!)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like Spiro Agnew? FunkyFly 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Can you imagine any American voting FOR in that option of yours with the memories such examples produce? :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say it like being a republican is bad thing. My opinion is that there are no inherently bad political parties, just bad people. Anyway, the guy is greek and is republican. :) FunkyFly 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it was self-sarcasm. (check my userboxes)... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Will I be able to participate? Telex 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a nice poll, although you have to admit that "partisan voting" is extremely ambiguous. Everybody is a partisan, since everybody has a POV. --   Avg    23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I? Will I be, or shall I use my third-computer-in-internet-cafe-neutral-seeming-socks to do so for me?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big Brother is watching you. FunkyFly 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I don't like polls for the exact same reasons as you. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it should not be a democracy. Let's use it only as an indication and then go to RfC. --   Avg    23:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put the poll on hold, go through an RFC first and get a few more outside suggestions. Someone may propose something we haven't thought of that we all like, or we may reach an "out of court settlement". We may even get a few more options to add to the list. Telex 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, as usual, sock polls involve someone placing a notice at the Village Pump of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias, getting everyone to flock over here and sign their names beneath the specified options. The same thing will be going on over at mkwiki. This is what happened at the last such poll and I think we know how things work here. The smaller national Wikipedias are where the national POV rules are like the co-ordinating camps. The English Wikipedia is more like no man's land, where the endless squabbles take place. I think we all know that User:Bonaparte used to recruit nationalists POV pushing on the Romanian Wikipedia (and the Romanian Wikipedians' noticeboard on enwiki). Telex 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One point, Francis; May 1 is absolutely too late. Remember that we've just had a vote at Republic of Macedonia, and if we don't want too see all those who mysteriously apperared in the voting, me must choose April 1 as date of start for voters. Also, I feel it's always better to have wikipedians with a minimum of experience for the issue.--Aldux 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the same thing, but that would exclude Telex from the poll. If he doesn't mind I don't object to that reasoning. Telex, thoughts? - FrancisTyers 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree if this is not going to be based on numbers. I am one of the few non-Greek, yet pro-Greek/Bulgarian users here. If it's going to be more like a discussion, with the votes only showing what the groupthink status is, then OK. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Telex, but I really feel we must be clear on this issue; a month of experience and the starting date April 1. To many editors have bloommed in April only to vote to simply take the risk to see them voting claiming to be Germans, Russians, Spaniards, ecc.--Aldux 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn, OK, but will  be able to vote? Telex 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Account opened 11 April so no. - FrancisTyers 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of that poll, what is going to happen when this one is finished? Have a second poll to interpret the results of the first one? FunkyFly 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the result is something the Macedonian users don't like, then there'll be another poll and another one until a result they do like emerges. Then if the Greeks don't like it, there'll be another one and another one until a Greek one emerges and then back to the Macedonians again and again ad nauseam... We need something everyone's happy with. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. We need a global coverage of opinions ideally. If we can point to a poll where a good spread of users have voted with detailed rationales then it will be a lot harder to overturn than a poll of Balkanians (if you'll excuse the term) just voting yes/no. - FrancisTyers 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh... I'll have to fight the temptation of spamming the WP:ANIs of el and sqwiki - it won't help :-( Telex 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess the situation calms down for another couple of months, then whichever way it goes, someone from either side will bring it up again and then we get to go through the rigmarole again. - FrancisTyers 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (gradually becoming a leftist) So we need more people in this, so we need an rfc, so you agree to Telex's proposal that I turned into a poll above? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm fine with whatever, but here you go — an arbitrary poll for a poll. Voting closes midnight (GMT) Monday (8th May). - FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *If you want votes, I told you, I can spam the Village Pumps of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias. We'll get a few tens of nominal supporters that way. The problem is, it wouldn't help, as Francis is on the lookout for nominal "Balkanian" recruited votes. Telex 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis knows better. I could right now have 10 sockpuppets claiming they are Canadian or Japanese, right? They'd refrain from editing any article relevant to Macedonia and would appear only to vote. --   Avg    01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: # FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do the poll

message: # FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Go to RfC, then poll

message: # Telex 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If you want votes, I told you, I can spam the Village Pumps of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias. We'll get a few tens of nominal supporters that way. The problem is, it wouldn't help, as Francis is on the lookout for nominal "Balkanian" recruited votes. Telex 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis knows better. I could right now have 10 sockpuppets claiming they are Canadian or Japanese, right? They'd refrain from editing any article relevant to Macedonia and would appear only to vote. --   Avg    01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't know/don't care as I'm ineligible to vote :-(

message: I'm closing the above "poll for a poll" 20 minutes early. The result is a "resounding?" yes to the RfC for the article/poll. If anyone else wants to set up an RfC, please be my guest, otherwise I'll see what I can do tommorow. - FrancisTyers 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently 2:50 AM in Eastern Europe. Everyone there (NikoSilver, MatriX etc) will be fast asleep now. Telex 23:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll prepare an outline of the facts and the question to ask tomorrow (RFCs can be very rewarding if done properly IMO). We'll ask everyone on the talk page if they agree with the summary and if yes, we'll make the RFC. Telex 23:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Throw process to the dogs

message: For the last time, here are some sources for the term Greek Macedonians. We have a Swiss Human Rights Organization  and as we know, Switzerland is neutral ;-) It's mentioned in this University of Amsterdam study on the name dispute , you can get Kofos's book on the dispute (available online - click the link at the bottom of this page). Even the scholar User:Risto Stefov, in his book: The Little Book of BIG Greek Lies (available online), claims it was an invention (ie even he's admiting it's used) in order to deny the existence of the [ethnic] Macedonians. Telex 22:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a Bulgarian source . Telex 22:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a Greek source  from the National Center for Hellenic Studies and Research (it mentions a publication). Telex 22:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Macedonians 

message: I need a good reason not to remove a large part of the history section which deals with the history of the region and not of the nation. Miskin 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOLD is enough?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's part of the history of the genetic non-ethnic-Macedonian identifying ancestors of the present day ethnic Macedonians. I mean ancient history need not be discussed - just say who the ancestors were at the specific periods. See also my minor corrections to the original version. I'm not that bothered - keep it if you want, delete it if you want, I don't mind. As long as inaccuracies aren't presented as facts. Telex 14:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: User:Macedonia, leave the map. It's inaccurate anyway, because Bulgaria does recognize the Macedonian ethnicity within Bulgaria. --Telex 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Speaking the "Macedonian language" doesn't mean that there are Macedonians. There are "Macedonians" who cannot speak the language, but self-identify as Macedonians and this makes them Macedonians. There are also people who speak "Macedonian" (they call it "Slavic" though) and claim to be other ethnicities, mostly Bulgarians and Greeks. You'll need to find a source confirming the areas where they are alleged to originate/live. --Telex 21:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Well, please consider it. The terms is occasionally confused with the Greek Macedonians. We say that, Peloponnesians emigrated to the US, Cretans to South Africa, Macedonians to Germany. We never have (or had) to say Greek Peloponnesians, or Greek Macedonians... But we have to point out that up to WWII, that it was the Bulgarians or Serbs that emigrated to those countries. The Slavs are a great civilisation and I cannot see why a small minority of people (a few of them Makedonci) are so racist against half the European population - and get away with it. Politis 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the sound of this - after all, Krste Misirkov used the terms македонски словени (Macedonian Slavs) and македонци (Macedonians) interchangeably. Although, it probably is true that the people Misirkov was talking about are totally unrelated to the people in FYROM who today call themselves "Macedonians", they seem to think they are. Why not? --Telex 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They simply won't stop appropriating everything Macedonian. It is appalling (and an inherent flaw) that Wikipedia allows a historical monstrosity of such proportions to take place. By the way, what happened with the RfC? We abandoned the poll provided that we get an RfC. This was over two weeks ago. If nothing happens, perhaps it's time for that poll after all. --   Avg    05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Telex was perhaps stalling so he could vote the next time round ;) - FrancisTyers 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I must admit I had the same suspects ;-)))) As for the problem of socks or new editors coming out from nowhere, may I propose to put a limit of 100 edits before June for partecipating? This would let all dedicated editors free to vote, and guarantee against socks and mass levies from the Greek and Macedonian wikipedias. Opinions?--Aldux 11:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was thinking something similar, this comment, I could right now have 10 sockpuppets claiming they are Canadian or Japanese, right? They'd refrain from editing any article relevant to Macedonia and would appear only to vote. by Avg would suggest that it might be a good idea to limit the people registered before 1st May to those who have actively taken a part in this discussion so far, viz. Telex, Matrix. I really can't see a reason why this isn't reasonable. - FrancisTyers 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I won't be happy. We've already had a poll (at a point where the article name was still Macedonian Slavs), it turned out to be a disaster of ethnically motivated voting. We've already had a RfC (the request). See the dates. We have a perfectly clear Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline, for these matters, and I really don't have the time nor the nerve to go over it again. (Yup, I know your reply for this...) --FlavrSavr 10:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FlavrSavr, have you read the guideline? It says that the self-identifying name is used together with "proper disambiguation". I'm challenging the "properness" of the present disambiguation "(ethnic group)" and think it should be more like "(Slavic)". The present one implies that the Macedonian Slavs have some kind of exclusive right to Macedonia (region), as I'm sure you're well aware. Not to menion that the Aromanians are also an ethnic group and can be called "Macedonians". --Telex 11:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the discussion and the provided sources, and then comment. Believe it or not, this, hm, argument was used over and over again. There are zillion reasons why your suggested "proper" disambiguation, isn't proper, one of them being that Macedonians (Slavic), is definitely not the self-identyfing name for the ethnic group, as evidenced by their fierce resistance of this term. I've provided you with a link before - , you chose to ignore it. I'd really like to assume good faith from you, but I think that considering your expressed views, the only proper disambiguation would be Macedonians (Tito), Macedonians (fake), Macedonians (evil), Macedonians (dumb). --FlavrSavr 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More like Macedonians (Bulgaro-skopian imposters). :)) - FrancisTyers 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell, we should legalize weed, adopt Rastafarian culture and buldoze the borders. That's what I say ;).  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I detecting a straw man argument, FlavrSavr? Of course, thinking about it rationally, the existence of the Macedonians (ethnic group) is a vital ingredient to the creation of United Macedonia, is that not so? On the other hand, the truth sometimes hurts - I highly doubt that you are suggesting that we should remove the Macedonian Slavs (as per Krste Misirkov) from the article on the Slavic peoples and blank out the part of this article which states that that the Macedonian Slavs (as per Krste Misirkov) are primarily the descendants of Slavic tribes, solely on the basis that certain elements within this ethnic group claim/feel/wish that they are not Slavs, but the descendents and inheritors of the Ancient Macedonians. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica : Macedonia's Greek ethnic composition was overturned by the invasion of Slavic peoples into the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD. In other words, what the Slavs found when they arrived in Macedonia were not Ancient Macedonians, but Greeks. In other words, the impression that the "ethnic Macedonians" have some kind of exclusive relation to the Ancient Macedonians, which gives them the unalienable right to Aegean Macedonia, Mala Prespa, Pirin Macedonia and Pohor Pchinski, is quite misleading don't you think, as well as a blatant inaccuracy? I am aware that you dislike the term Slav, which explains the purge you conducted at mkwiki to that term. The guideline requires the self-identifying name together with proper disambiguation. It does not regulate what that disambiguation must be, nor that it must be something accepted by a group of which some elements are in denial of mainstream scientific consensus. I understand you opposing it, as it is presently easier to confuse the uninformed reader, but please try to think neutrally. --Telex 18:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia and throughout the world are declaring themselves simple as Macedonians - the only proper self-describing name for them is Macedonian without any additions. We have many modern nations with Slavic origin like Russians, Serbs, Croatians and we are almost always using the terms Russian, Serb, Croatian for a person belonging to those nations (I rarely hear something like Russian Slav, Serb Slav, Croatian Slav...). MatriX 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, at some point at the RfC, we had agreed that the best term for this ethnic group is Macedonian Dark Elves, but, for some reasons, Britannica refers to them as "Macedonians". For Kalimdor! --FlavrSavr 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (to MatriX)Indeed, but under the guideline, we must use the self-identifying name (Macedonians) together with something to resolve the ambiguity. The effect of this, is that the title should have the form Macedonians (X). We are not denying that they call themselves Macedonians – we are disambiguating. The extent of the disambiguation depends on what is to be disambiguated and the. I think the title Macedonians (Slavic) sounds appropriate. We are using the self-identifying name with appropriate disambiguation according to the relevant guideline, and I have yet to see a good reason why this should not be used. (to FlavrSavr) Britannica does not call you "Macedonians" - it calls you "people calling themselves Macedonians". There's a difference. --Telex 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unfortunately it refers to them as Macedonians. Telex, why don't you read the RfC, I've already explained why Macedonians (Slavic) is also ambigious. --FlavrSavr 19:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee whiz, that article must be the most comprehensive one about the Macedonian people.  /FunkyFly.talk_   19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive, FlavrSavr, but take a closer look. It refers to the people as "ethnic Macedonians" (vs Albanians) and here calls the people "calling themselves Macedonians" and says that they are descendents of "Slavic tribes" (blasphemy). In the Trajkovski article, Macedonian merely refers to geography - a politician of the Republic of Macedonia (or Macedonia). I'm still waiting for you to answer my other points. --Telex 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, is that what ethnic in ethnic Macedonians stands for? Plus, there's an article called Macedonians, unfortunately, it requires a membership to view it. As for Macedonians (Slavic), I'm not intending to explain it to you again, as I've discussed it million times before. See the RfC, (point 1). You have a full list of encyclopedias, international organizations, and other references that use "Macedonians". I really spend days on this, as well on other discussions elaborating the very same issue and it's not my problem if you are too lazy to browse past discussions. Alternatively, you can address to BBC's directive on the use of the term "Slav". Now, if you excuse me, I really have a life to live. --FlavrSavr 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I sense a little hostility - I suppose it's due to the fact that your ethnicity has numerous names which have both infiltrated the United Nations . --Telex 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get a real perspective on how the UN refer to this ethnic group Macedonians vs Macedonian Slavs. Also, keep in mind that 2 of the remarkable 6 documents are actually excerpts from ITC trials, 2 of them use "ethnic Macedonians" more frequently, and 1 is written from a person of Greek ethnicity. Bye. --FlavrSavr 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, contrary to your claims, it is acceptable to use "Macedonian Slavs" (Misirkov got away with it, as did mkwiki until recently . ) --Telex 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: FlavSavr and co. it is a simple fact that Greek Macedonians call themselves Macedonians. Accept it. There isn't only you in this world.--   Avg    19:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have I ever claimed the contrary? --FlavrSavr 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are evading the issue. No one proposed moving this article to Macedonian Slavs, just to change what is in the parenthesis. No good reason has yet been given. --Telex 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When you claim that there's no need for disambiguation, you implicitly deny everyone else's right to be called Macedonians--   Avg    19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't have a problem if some Greek is calling himself a Macedonian, I hope some day we will see the opposite.MatriX 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Macedonians (Greek)? I hope you remember that source I cited to you the other day at the CFD. I have yet to receive your sources proving that the "Macedonian" ethnicity is not a product of the 20th century. --Telex 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I take you're in favour of renaming this article then?--   Avg    20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, well, to let you know, your nation was created in the 20th century.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Funky, you always know better then us. Unfortunately, my grand father doesn't say the same as you. As FlavrSavr, I'm outta here also... MatriX 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funky, if you had said that in Skopje, you would have been lynched. For obvious reasons - see complex, psychological repression and then denial. --Telex 20:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I forgot your grandfather spoke with Goce Delchev too.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That reminds me of one case, Bulgarian toursits in Ohrid were arrested because they said that they are Bulgarian, rather than, appropriately, Macedonians. Then go figure why there's no option in the census for people to declare Bulgarian.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would give people dangerous ideas maybe, and then another 60,000 "Macedonians" would decide they were Bulgarian (like they did once that infamous law was lifted - although to this day, it remains an unwritten law)? --Telex 20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telex, my friend, I hate to break this to you but, the figure has grown already.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We were going to get the RFC first (and wait for me and my non-Balkanian looking sockpuppets to mature enough to vote). --Telex 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself will never mature!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change name: Macedonians (ethnic group), to Slav Macedonians

message: So is there interest in taking a poll? - FrancisTyers 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We were going to get the RFC first (and wait for me and my non-Balkanian looking sockpuppets to mature enough to vote). --Telex 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself will never mature!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Telex, are you certain about Hutchinson? Apparently the edit was introduced through info. gave be User:REX, an Albanian editor, who claiming to be citing the text, reported this (or more exactly, reported by User:Macedonian, who thanked REX for the quote):
"People of Macedonian culture from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the surrounding area, especially Greece, Albania, and Bulgaria. Macedonian, a Slavic language belonging to the Indo-European family, has 1-1.5 million speakers. The Macedonians are predominantly members of the Eastern Orthodox Church and write with a Cyrillic script. They are known for their folk arts.
The Macedonian language and ethnic identification have been subject to repression, especially in Bulgaria and Greece. Although the number of Macedonian speakers in Greece is estimated at 100,000-200,000 (1994), they are denied official recognition.
[Then it had a picture of Macedonians in their traditional dress]
(©Helicon Publishing Ltd, printed from the Hutchinson Educational Encyclopedia, 2000)"
I don't know what to say; may it be that we are speaking of different editions of the encyclopedia?--Aldux 12:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. I see more differences than just the numbers. I am looking at the book now, that Although the number of Macedonian speakers in Greece is estimated at 100,000-200,000 (1994), they are denied official recognition. is not written, and it does not say The Macedonians are predominantly members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it says The Macedonians are predominantly members of the Greek Orthodox Church. --Telex 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.--Aldux 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hutchinson

message: We can't keep the tag forever; or we pass through a RfC, or a poll, or we remove it. Keeping it there for weeks or months does not seem to me to be an acceptale solution.--Aldux 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: The issue seems complex. I cannot find a single source that says that Bulgaria recognizes the Macedonian Slavs as a distinct ethnicity. If they recorded them in the census, this does not mean that they recognize them as a separate ethnicity - they are merely reporting what people said. The UK has made it clear that they do not recognize the Jedi as a religious group, yet published the census results on the topic - see Jedi Census Phenomenon. --Tēlex 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving this chance, they implicitely recognize their existence; differently from what they do, for example, with the Pomaks; you won't see a separate Pomak voice, simply once saying you're an ethic Bulgarian you can say your religion. So I don't find leaving a separate ethnicity voice for them so innocent, but it seems a deliberate political decision acted by the government.--Aldux 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See it this way. There are sources saying that they do not recognize a seperate Macedonian ethnicity. Are there any sources saying they do? --Tēlex 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, they have clearly stated that they do not recognize them as a separate ethnic group to the Bulgarians. They may have recognized them as something else. --Tēlex 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I've removed the reference for now. --Tēlex 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Bulgaria does not recognize Macedonian ethnicity, because it was invented by Tito and the Jugoslav Communist Parti. Their current leaders continue spreading lies and violating greek and bulgarian history. Every action against Bulgaria or Greece in FYROM is a try to prevent FYROM from entering international organizations such as EU and NATO, because then the truth about macedonians' origins and history stolen from Greece and Bulgaria would be revealed and their leaders wouldn't have a nation to rule. As everybody knows without history there could be no nation and without nation a country cannot exist. I'm sorry if I sound too extreme, but this is the truth that should be told and everybody out of FYROM knows it. --86.216.207.238 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a Greek, however I most strongly disagree! First I disagree that they have no history, as the ethnic group emerged some time in the end of the 19th century, and it has a lot of things to be proud of. Second, I disagree because even if it didn't, there can be nations without history. ALL nations have emerged at some point in history, and one of the freshest is eg. the Americans (officialized in 1776), who are very proud regarding the relatively short history they have (not to mention how successful their nation is -regardless if some would prefer to think otherwise). NikoSilver 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgaria 

message: OK - I've made this image, and it's in the article now. I know you're thinking it's a bit politicized, but it's the best we've come up with so far (see above). It's quite clearly a PD image, so we can do what we like with it. Feel free to update it if you can think of anyone more suitable and have found a PD or GFDL image of him or her (note that the source must be given). I've been thinking that perhaps we could do what has been done at Belarusians, if there is something distinctive about the ethnic Macedonians (a traditional costume maybe) and there was a PD or GFDL image of it, then we could use that.--Tēlex 23:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Telex. Jkelly 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antidote, please read #Pictures of ethnic Macedonians if you can. --Tēlex 10:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I perfectly understand the concers regarding Prlicev, Vojdan Chernodrinski seems an acceptable candidate, as I feel we need to remove the two presidents; while Gligorov would be OK in my mind, as first president, putting the others would be like putting Prodi and Berlusconi in the images for Italian people; not a great solution.--Aldux 13:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is Vojdan Chernodrinski's birthdate. How do we find a PD or GFDL image of him. Personally, I believe those presidents have no place in the caption, but there are no other PD images (we can find at least). --Tēlex 14:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well wouldn't all images of him before 1922 be PD? And reproduction of a PD image does not create a new copyright. Certainly, we would have to make sure it is before 1922.--Aldux 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author has to have died 70 or more years ago for it to be PD. --Tēlex 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the EU; but in USA the terminal date is 1922, and I believe en:wiki is operating under the American copyright laws.--Aldux 15:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Do what you like (as long as you're sure you know what you're doing, and specify it, in case someone deletes the image). --Tēlex 15:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and removed Prlicev and added Blaze Koneski and Vojdan Chernodrinksi because both seem to be "OK-ed" by this convo and the convo above. Antidote 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures again 

message: I don't know how much you're aware about the issue, Filip, but that dab note is the result of a compromise achieved above: in return to maintain the article's present title and neutrality and not rename it to something else, e.g. Macedonians (Slavs) - a strong dab note is needed in order to not mislead the reader into believing that there is some parallel between Macedonian Slavs (modern Macedonians) and the Ancient Macedonians. Such theories appear nowhere in mainstream scholarship, as everyone except www.maknews.com is perfectly aware. The dab note is as accurate as it can be - the Argead Dynasty of Ancient Macedon were declaring as Greeks, and as such Ancient Macedon is classified as part of Ancient Greece. Furthermore, the question on whether the Ancient Macedonians were not ethnically Greek applies to the peasants, not to the aristocracy and kings, who were universally recognized as Greeks, and even participated in exclusively Greek-only affairs, e.g. the Olympic Games (then they were not international then like they are now - only native speakers of the Greek language were allowed to participate). --Tēlex 12:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Filip 

message: The new government is headed by the nationalist VMRO DPMNE. In its electoral manifesto if promised that: "The Republic of Macedonia will nurture and develop relations with Russia and other Slavic countries". Without a shadow of a doubt, it identifies itself as a Slavic nation. If anyone finds the term 'Slav' insulting, even in this context, please contact the new government in Skopje rather than edit it out here. Politis 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: They are Slav Macedonians or Slavomacedonians

message: Not to include "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks"  and "Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective" . I mean, to me they sound crazy (and probably to you too), but the papers were both published in the same reputable (as far as I can tell) journal Tissue Antigens . 
Anyway, User:Vlatkoto asked me to include one of them, and I don't feel comfortable including it without discussion, I checked to see if the paper was retracted (and it doesn't seem to have been), indeed they have published another paper. I'm going to get my flatmate to look over it, but in the mean time, criticise away! Try and keep the criticism to science, e.g. if there are papers which refute it I'd love to see them. - FrancisTyers · 09:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to look at two people on the reserach team: a M. Blagoevska and a V. Zdravkovska. They were from a "Tissue Typing laboratory. Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. FYROM". I rest my case. --Tēlex 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a warning sign, but not in any way conclusive (after all, this is science and not history). The evidence above is conclusive. - FrancisTyers · 10:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hardly suprised that they reached that conclusion ;-) --Tēlex 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, aha, aha. There is also no reason to not be included. It must be mentioned, put that in the article and the one reading it will judge for it. You have no right to disclacify such studies. Who are you?--Vlatko 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Vlatko, please remember we are using UTC here, not Macedonian time (EET?), it is confusing to see me replying to you when you have written your post in the future. - FrancisTyers · 11:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, controversy there is. Hardly to be taken as relevant according to this newspaper, just becouse of a newspaper. Why do we relay on this Nature journal sources? (Sorry for the time, I realised that time ago, but... :-) )--Vlatko 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nature is not a newspaper, it is a scientific journal — if you don't understand the difference, I suggest you read the articles. I don't see the point in continuing this any longer. You either can't or won't understand both the original paper and the refutation. Next time you bring me something published on an extremist site, research it yourself first to prevent me from wasting my time. - FrancisTyers · 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please give me a ''good'' reason

message: What a surprise! (Don't Bulgarians speak a slavic language?) Perhaps the opening paragraph needs a bit more work.   Andreas   (T) 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that anything would be lost by reverting that edit. Jkelly 19:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slav speaking communities exist [...] in [[Bulgaria]] 

message: Bad English?? Come on, this is a cheapshot :) ... Not the case i am afraid.
'"there are minority communities in Greek Macedonia with their own dialect and history but where the overwhelming majority consists of Greeks (who are also known as Macedonians in the region), as well as in Albania and Bulgaria"
Talking of bad english... This phrase does seem to make sense. Am i not entitle to change it? Seems not.
(In any case between you and me there is no seperate history and if you beleive so please make some reffereces to you sources).
The lack of refferences is quite evident in the whole of the text. I do not see why i should provide bibliography for altering (in good faith) passages that state important but in a way unaccurate facts and do not have any reffences to back them up. In any case, i will do so if anyone asks me for it but i wont lose my time when it seems that certain people are quite satisfied with their wotk and do not accept comments and corrections.(but if this is the case they should not write here, really)
As for the ancient period paragraph. It is quite misleading since it does not refer to ancient times at all. Propably should exclude all the passage from text. It is indeed a controversial article and a very amusing one to follow up, from its creation to the seemingly result. Is like drafting a treaty between hostal tribes. The fact that large parts of the outcome derive from original contributions with very clear, highly nationalistic positions for the one (mostly) and the other side is absolutely charming.
Considering all that, i think that i propably could lower my expectations but of course not abandon them. This article has flaws and can be improved. The fact that is controversial should not be considered a problem. There is no thing like status quo ante in wiki as far as i know. In any case my alterations reffer to comonly accepted facts undisputed by all sides. I will sincerely continue keeping you company in your efforts. Thanks in advance Haas
ps: i am not a freak nationalist. The choice of words should be more carefull. You are lowering the level here Bomac (and may i add: an impresseive page, wow! I wonder if you can tell the same thing for yourself...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haas K. D. (talk • contribs) 
:As mentioned directly above, I, not Bomac, reverted your last edit because it not only failed to clarify what is a problematic sentence, it also introduced misleading new confusions. The article does need a lot of work; I'm sure no one here thinks that it is perfect the way that it is. Please take the time for discussion -- the article isn't going to get to perfection in one day. Jkelly 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some considerations 

message: I suspect that someone is just having some fun with the article, and this addition should be cut, not just tagged with . Jkelly 19:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licorice farming? 

message: I've removed the Kuber and Bulgars. The "see also" section should be about themes generally related to the ethnic group, and not about groups who might have inhabited the wider region of Macedonia. Moreover, AFAIK, no serious neutral source attributes a greater Bulgar influence in the ethnogenesis of the modern Macedonian nation. IMO, it makes more sense to include the Turks and the Romans, and even Greeks into the ethnogenesis (permanent settlements, cultural influence, etc.). Kuber is a fringe personality whose influence is greatly exaggerated in contemporary Bulgaria, while being largely ignored by other historians. He's also mentioned by Ivan Mikulchic, the prominent archeologist from the Republic of Macedonia, who also claims that there were no Slavs on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia in that period (no archeological evidence, to be precise), and this, AFAIK, is contrary to the belief of 99,99% of the historians in the world. In his retirement days, he's busy creating a mosaic of Alexander the Great, however . OK, even if I'm totally wrong about all this, one thing is for sure - Kuber and Bulgars do not belong to the See also list. --FlavrSavr 01:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section 

message: I admit that Greeks are also known as Macedonians, however, the references in the English language that call modern Greek Macedonians "Macedonians" are scarce.  I believe that constant overstressing that "Greeks are also known as Macedonians" is undue weight. --FlavrSavr 15:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People of Tuscany are called Tuscanians and Italians interchangebly. People of Bavaria are Bavarians and Germans in the same way. People of Greek Macedonia are called Macedonians and Greeks all the time. They are called Macedonians in a sub-ethnic group or regional meaning, in the same way that Cretans are called like that. what? could someone expect that each time we refer to Cretans we should call them just "Greeks"? --Hectorian 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Hectorian, but the regional affiliation is used incomparably less frequently than the ethnic affiliation and this has to be mentioned in the article somehow. You can see an overall 106 Google hits for "Tuscanians". Similarly, when "Macedonian" is used in the contemporary English language, the probability that this word would refer to a contemprorary Greek inhabitant of Macedonia is very low. Prove me wrong, please. --FlavrSavr 17:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is of the term been used sub-ethnically/regionally or been used without dispute? noone disputes the usage by the Greek Macedonians of the term 'Macedonians'. u can as well search for 'Scots' or 'Scottish' in Google, instead of 'Tuscanians'. u will see that the Scots can be referred as British as well. so, since it seems to me that u are trying to add the word 'sometimes' for the Greeks Macedonians for "wellknown" reasons, then u will have to add the word 'sometimes' to the Slav Macedonians as well. In fact, most google hits using the word 'Macedonians' refer to the ancient ones, and thus, the people of RoM are 'sometimes' called like that. Not to mention that the Greek Macedonians have been called simply as 'Macedonians' for far longest time than the people of RoM, who were known as Bulgarians... --Hectorian 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're evading the issue using "wellknown" (sic) cliches. Please cite a source that would suggest general usage of the word "Macedonians" referring to the contemporary Greek inhabitants of Macedonia, so that you can justify the sentence "Greeks are also referred as Macedonians". I'd be happy to present you thousands of news articles and documents of international organizations where "Macedonians" is used to desribe the majority ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia. Take CNN for start. --FlavrSavr 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will present BBC and CNN quoting the modern people of RoM as "Macedonian Slavs". so, i guess they are 'sometimes' called simply "Macedonians", right? If the word 'sometimes' will be added for the Greek Macedonians, it will be also added for the Slavs of the Republic of Macedonia. Fair and simple enough... --Hectorian 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "As yet another example, the Republika Makedonija-Skopje must recognize that there is an administrative province in Greece with the name "Greek Macedonia" (and not Macedonia of the Aegean or Aegean Macedonia under Greece) and that those who live in Greek Macedonia commonly define themselves as Greek Macedonians in the Greek regional and cultural sense of the name, and that such names have to be used and respected."
FlavrSavr, you ask that everyone must respect the self-identification of the Macedonians (ethnic group) as "Macedonians" and not use formerly acceptable terms such as "Slavs" etc on the basis that it is the "self-identifying" name, however I detect double standards here. That the Greek Macedonians call themselves "Macedonians" has been confirmed by independent sources (e.g. the Australian People Encyclopedia), and can be seen in the numerous websites of [Greek] Macedonian associations (at home and in the diaspora) which bask in their "Macedonianess". I'm going into this in so much detail, as I'm concerned that this relatively trivial and unnoticeable alteration you are proposing may lead to something more significant (e.g. removing the fact that Greeks from Macedonia call themselves "Macedonians" completely from the article). The fact that you are going into this so persistently makes you look as if you feel threatened by the existence of the terminology "[Greek] Macedonians". --Telex 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To NikoSilver: i did not support mentioning the word 'sometimes' in both, but not mentioning in none of the two groups. but if it will be mentioned for the Greeks Macedonians, is has to be mentioned for the Slav Macedonians as well. Telex clearly described what i meant above when saying 'wellknown reasons'... --Hectorian 20:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeks also known as Macedonians 

message: I have removed the estimates of Ethnologue and the Joshua Project for Greece , as unlike the Greek Helsinki Monitor, they do not state where they got these estimates. Specifically, I don't think that the Joshua Project qualifies as a reliable source, as they only get their estimates by readers sent to , and this is very unaccountable. I normally think that Ethnoloue's data is reliable, but in this case, they base their figures on a census which never took place, so it is probably an error. --Telex 17:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnologue and Joshua Project 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia, I have tried to add an external link, but someone removed it without explanations. That’s why I want to ask:
Will you consider the source The Races And Religions Of Macedonia - National Geographic Magazine, November 1912 as  verifiable in order to include it in the external links?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.2.213 (talk • contribs) 
:Welcome! Of course you can include this reference, it seems to be a quite valuable one. I would suggest that you first give a brief summary of the points you find relevant to the topic here at the discussion page. You can also go ahead and edit the artricle and create a link to the reference at the place in the article where the reference is relevant. If you do not know how to do this, just add the URL between the square brackets, somebody will take care to change this to comply with Wikipedia standards.
:I would also like to invite you to sign your contributions to the discussion (not those to the article). You can do this by adding fort tildes to your contlribution, like this: ~~~~. This will add your user name and the date automatically to the edit. But before you do this, you are encouraged create an account and register as a user. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
*The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
*The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you.
*The ability to start new pages.
*The ability to rename pages.
*The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
*The ability to upload images.
*The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
*The eligibility to eventually become an administrator.
*Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.
*If you are editing from different computers or if your service provider assigns variable IP addresses, it will still be possible to know which contributions are yours.
:We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it.   Andreas   (T) 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Races And Religions Of Macedonia - National Geographic Magazine, November 1912 

message: How can brothers belong to different ethnic groups? --Vladko 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kith and kin

message: A native of Greek Macedonia, former exile and local historian, Pavlos Koufis, says in Laografika Florinas kai Kastorias (Folklore of Florina and Kastoria), that,
“[During its Panhellenic Meeting in September 1942, the KKE mentioned that it recognises the equality of the ethnic minorities in Greece] the KKE recognised that the Slavophone population was ethnic minority of Slavomacedonians]. This was a term, which the inhabitants of the region accepted with relief. [Because] Slavomacedonians = Slavs+Macedoninas. The first section of the term determined their origin and classified them in the great family of the Slav peoples.” Politis 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: They called themselves Slavophones and Slavomacedonians

message: To all Macedonist users here on Wikipedia and worldwide . Please understand once and for all that in the seventh century, when the Slavs settled in the central Balkans, they came into contact with a hellenized population. Britannica tells us Macedonia had a Greek ethnic composition then. Ancient Macedonians in the sixth and seventh century did not exist; how could the Slavs come into contact with them?--Tekleni 20:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, sixth and seventh century is putting it far too late and is too generous. The Ancient Macedonian language probably died out in BC times (i.e. hundreds of years before the Slavs appeared).--Tekleni 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see some actual quotes. If we don't know what Kanchov and Weigand said, then they should be removed from the article until we find out.--Tekleni 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonia in 600 AD 

message: "bg:Македонци#Преобладаващ възглед в Република Македония"
This does not work as an interwiki. Stop reverting. If you feel that strongly, make a new article on the Bulgaropaedia and point the interwiki at that. - Francis Tyers · 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: Remeber this? According to the chart, there aren't "recofnized Bulgarian dialects". BTW, since when dialects are "recognized"?
Summary of the history of Macedonian language according to Victor Friedman 
Period   	Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	Summary
1794-1840	The period of the first published texts employing Macedonian dialects. Main figures: Hadzi Daniil of Moskopole, Joakim Krckovski, and Kiril Pejcinovic. Main event: the awakening of a Macedonian Slavic national consciousness.The opposition Turk/giaour is superceded by Greek/Slav, and Slavs struggle for a literary language of their own.                               	
1840-1870	The period of the first textbooks. Main figures: Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov,Jordan Hadzi Konstantinov-Dzinot, Kuzman Šapkarev. Main event: the anti-Phanariot struggle. Most intellectuals favor a common Macedo-Bulgarian literary language based to a large extent on Macedonian.                                                                                      	
1870-1913	The period of the first grammars and nationalist publications. Main figures: Gjorgi Pulevski, Krste Misirkov, Dimitrija Čupovski, Petar Pop Arsov, and other members of the VMRO. Main events: the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate, the Ilinden rebellion, and the partition of Macedonia. Macedonian nationalism is opposed to Bulgarian and Serbian interests. </td>	
1913-1944	The recognition of Macedonian literature in Serbia and Yugoslavia leading to the crystallization and ultimate establishment
of the Macedonian literary language. </td>                                                                                                                                                                                                         	
--Bomac 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the dates - the periods are same, no Bulgar stuff. Bomac 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not trying to prove that there was Macedonian in the 1930's, but trying to prove that the dialects were Macedonian, and not Bulgarian. There was a literature on the Macedonian dialect (ofcurse, because there wasn't a codificated lng. yet), that's why it's "Macedonian literature". Clear enough? Bomac 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friedman again 

message: :Thank you Bomac. I think I agree with you, since when dialects are recognised? In this spirit, there was no Macedonian language in the 1930s, just dialects, so let us keep the updates I proposed.
:Also, Francis and Boman, please justify the following by locating the UCLA web page (I tried and cannot find anything relevant) The article reads: The Serbian National Theatre in Skopje even performed some of the plays written in the local dialects, which are now classical drama pieces (UCLA Language Material Sources, ).
: No questions have been answered (just Francis allerting Bomac to avoid 3reverts ban ;-) ?). So please, I repeat again, answer my querries or stop reverting, namely:
:(cur) (last)  14:55, 22 November 2006 Politis (Talk | contribs) (→The Balkan Wars - 1/ UCLA source offers nothing. 2/There was no Mac. lang. in 1930s, pls provide period references, not retroactive appelations.)
:(cur) (last)  15:41, 22 November 2006 Politis (Talk | contribs) (→The Balkan Wars - Please respond to justified querries before rvt!) Politis 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Spare me of politeness(Politis). My reverts were as a result of your edits, in which you called the Macedonian dialects Bulgarian, which is a POV-ish statement. Bomac 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop reverting legitimate clarification

message: Could we avoid the word "Slavophones", it's a neologism. In English, they are called Slav speakers or Slavic speakers or Slavonic speakers etc.--Euthymios 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Slavophones" 

message: Thanks for the correction Hectorian, for some reason I thought the passage also included personal names, that is why I included Zografov/Zografos: during the wars and depending which armed bands dominated particular areas, Slavs would Hellenise their personal names and Greeks Slavicise theirs. Politis 18:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous... I do not know who added the 'Zografos-Zografov' thing (or maybe i do know), but the lack of knowledge for the Greek language is obvious! as if the Greeks forced the people to "hellenize" their names... No mention of the possibility of these people voluntarily re-hellenizing their surnames. I still wait to see what 'zografov' means in the 'Skopjian dialect' of Bulgarian... BTW, -ov, as Euthymios correctly said, is a Bulgarian ending... So, even in that case, it would be a Bulgarian changing a surname in greek. to verify what i am talking about, the greek word is ζωγράφος, zografos, means 'painter' and comes from the ancient greek words ζήω-ω (to live, i am alive) + γράφω (to write)-also compare the borrowings in english: graphics, graphs, ideograph, etc... So, ... i guess i will start inserting stuff about voluntarily re-hellenization of these people, if BS of forced hellenization will be re-added... Hectorian 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Politis added it. - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok guys, please explain what just happened there. I went all sarcastic with Hectorian for removing the part about Zografov etc. but I figured Politis knew what he was writing. Kindly clarify! - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit i was sacrastic and i apologise if it was offensive to u. i think Politis meant 're-hellenization' of their surnames. but in the current status, the paragraph wants to refer to a possible "Macedonian" minority. so, simply that surname is irrelevant. unless we add more, and start talking about how these people returned to their roots... It would be interesting enough, though i doubt if such edits will manage to stay here. Hectorian 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was how I understood it. First they were Greek, then they because slavified, then they were re-hellenised. Did you not get that impression from that sentence? If so, please feel free to re-word it. - Francis Tyers · 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could write that some people re-hellenized their surnames, and add examples (not limitted to Zografos), but i bet they will be reverted, the first time a "Macedonian" sees the changes, and will lead to revert-wars. and to give u an example, not only in the Greek Macedonia, but the process of de-hellenizing greek surnames even inside FYROM, here are 2 surnames, the first two from the List of Macedonians (ethnic group): Gorge Atanasoski, Athanasios Αθανάσιος from αθανασία (means 'immortality'), Steve Stavro, from σταυρός (means 'cross')... So, i guess they would never accept noting the greek origin or some thousands of their surnames... On the contrary, they try to do the opposite. btw, i would be grateful if someone was in the position to provide and alternative theory (though it is not possible:)...). Regards Hectorian 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should cherish their cosmopolitan origins. Actually, I bet many of them are dead chuffed that they have names of Greek origin. :) - Francis Tyers · 08:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we change the example surname to Salatov? Then we can have Salatov/Salatovski/Choriatiki. NikoSilver 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re names

message: Are you sure it wouldn't be Zografov > Zografou (i.e. Slavic genitive case to Greek genitive case)?--Euthymios 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting ridiculous... I do not know who added the 'Zografos-Zografov' thing (or maybe i do know), but the lack of knowledge for the Greek language is obvious! as if the Greeks forced the people to "hellenize" their names... No mention of the possibility of these people voluntarily re-hellenizing their surnames. I still wait to see what 'zografov' means in the 'Skopjian dialect' of Bulgarian... BTW, -ov, as Euthymios correctly said, is a Bulgarian ending... So, even in that case, it would be a Bulgarian changing a surname in greek. to verify what i am talking about, the greek word is ζωγράφος, zografos, means 'painter' and comes from the ancient greek words ζήω-ω (to live, i am alive) + γράφω (to write)-also compare the borrowings in english: graphics, graphs, ideograph, etc... So, ... i guess i will start inserting stuff about voluntarily re-hellenization of these people, if BS of forced hellenization will be re-added... Hectorian 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Politis added it. - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok guys, please explain what just happened there. I went all sarcastic with Hectorian for removing the part about Zografov etc. but I figured Politis knew what he was writing. Kindly clarify! - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit i was sacrastic and i apologise if it was offensive to u. i think Politis meant 're-hellenization' of their surnames. but in the current status, the paragraph wants to refer to a possible "Macedonian" minority. so, simply that surname is irrelevant. unless we add more, and start talking about how these people returned to their roots... It would be interesting enough, though i doubt if such edits will manage to stay here. Hectorian 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was how I understood it. First they were Greek, then they because slavified, then they were re-hellenised. Did you not get that impression from that sentence? If so, please feel free to re-word it. - Francis Tyers · 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could write that some people re-hellenized their surnames, and add examples (not limitted to Zografos), but i bet they will be reverted, the first time a "Macedonian" sees the changes, and will lead to revert-wars. and to give u an example, not only in the Greek Macedonia, but the process of de-hellenizing greek surnames even inside FYROM, here are 2 surnames, the first two from the List of Macedonians (ethnic group): Gorge Atanasoski, Athanasios Αθανάσιος from αθανασία (means 'immortality'), Steve Stavro, from σταυρός (means 'cross')... So, i guess they would never accept noting the greek origin or some thousands of their surnames... On the contrary, they try to do the opposite. btw, i would be grateful if someone was in the position to provide and alternative theory (though it is not possible:)...). Regards Hectorian 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should cherish their cosmopolitan origins. Actually, I bet many of them are dead chuffed that they have names of Greek origin. :) - Francis Tyers · 08:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we change the example surname to Salatov? Then we can have Salatov/Salatovski/Choriatiki. NikoSilver 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zografos 

message: Have a read of this article from the Time archives: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796967,00.html
:Warms the cockles of your heart d'unt-it, "Old Balkan differences will never again appear in the Balkans." - Francis Tyers · 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EXPLAIN THIS

message: All regions with significant Ethnic Macedonian population, listed in this article, give us roughly about 1,650,000 Ethnic Macedonians. In previous edition of this article the probable number of Ethnic Macedoniasn was calculated up to 2,000,000, which looks incredibly. I can't see any chance to find more than 250,000 in other countries with smaller communities of Ethnic Macedonias, so I suppose that the more probable number of total Ethnic Macedonian population is around 1,700,000. Best regards, Jackanapes 16:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact sum total of the significant Ethnic Macedonian communities, listed in the article, is 1,634,479. There are 365,521 missing Ethnic Macedonians up to the presumed total number of 2,000,000. Obviously they have to live in states with smaller or insignificant Ethnic Macedonian communities. Where do they live in fact? I'm afraid that the total number of Ethnic Macedonian population larger than 1,700,000 is unrealistic. If I'm wrong, such data have to be sourced with independent and objective sources at least. Best regards, Jackanapes 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The probable number of total Etnic Macedonian population 

message: You'll excuse my ignorance, but what is the history of the Macedonians in Bulgaria?  Are they recent migrants, or a long-standing group that identifies as Macedonian?  Thanks.--Pharos 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the result of a spillover of propaganda from the time of Tito in neighboring Yugoslavia. Organizations claiming to represent them claim their number to be 250,000, yet the ethnicity census (of an EU candidate at the time) and the electoral performance of the aforementioned organizations indicate a figure of 3,000 - 5,000 (undoubtedly including some recent immigrants). Hope this helps.--Domitius 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonians in Bulgaria

message: In the light of recently discovered diary of Krste Misirkov, where he describes himself as "Macedonian Bulgarian", his image as an ethnic Macedonian begins to look inappropriate. Consider a replacement.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Frightner.   /FunkyFly.talk_  07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture again

message: I must say you've got some nerve. I suppose the parties OMO Ilinden Pirin and Rainbow in Greece and Bulgaria are "not" phantoms - may I add the same wherever they are mentioned?--Domitius 23:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomac 

message: Are we sure such a people exist? A google search for them finds mostly Wikipedia forks and forums.--Domitius 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put "Syrmians" in the caption because the section mentions them. Bomac 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but is there evidence of them having settled in Macedonia (or of them having existed at all). Who added that? Look at this ; there must be some source out there. Have you heard of anything?--Domitius 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Complete bull. Those were bulgars he was leading.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In this site there is a refference to this statement: J. Verner 1986, 1-71, Т.1-32. It is clear that Syrmians were not Bulgaro-Kutrigurs, but Romans (Romeioi) which were brought as slaves in Panonia by the Avars. Bomac 16:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely fringe.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The book you quote does not even have a title.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So? It is still a highly dubious one.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How so? Kuber's lead of bulgars is well documented fact. Now here you drop some mutually contradicting fringe sources, with no real references and expect me to counter them?    /FunkyFly.talk_  16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently stirring some discussion is the best you can achieve here.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It contradicts the first one, since Kuber is no longer leading the supposed people. Also it is not clear what it references    /FunkyFly.talk_  16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the sources I've quoted, Syrmians were Greeks which were captured as slaves by the Avars and transported in Panonia (see Syrmia, their name is derived from there). According to the sources, they were brought back to their homeland by Kuber. Bomac 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we sure that is their actual English name? Perhaps it's written differently (which would explain the Google results).--Domitius 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrmians?