Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia/Archive 5

message: This article, as it stands is not about the demographic history of Macedonia, it need to be retitled "Bulgarian versus Republic of Macedonia views on Macedonia"
I am not going to take a position on that interesting question, but the article is simply a confusing polemic that leaves one to believe no Greeks Turks or Jews have a demographic place in the modern history -- ie this is all about argumetns between two of the five major groups on which those two can only agree on one thing, the marginalization of the other three!
:example no greek historians  are even listed on the source section
:even in the talk pages here is this quote which is indicative: and thus a great part of merchants in Rumelia chose to convert to Greek Orthodoxy and become Hellenised....meaning they should not be considered "Greek." I cannot figure the assetions other than race basis for ethnicity, which is wrong. People who choose to become Greek are Greek, people who choose to be come Bulgarian are Bulgarian, etc. The proponent of this is saying that there are 30 million Italians in America who are not American because there great great graet grandparents choose to come here out of economic interest? 
:now here is the kicker. look a the section Independent Point of View the entire thing completely ingroes the Greek, Turkish and Jewish populations! outside observers saw no Greeks, Jews or Turks?DaveHM 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DaveHM, I have been long striving to make the point that you successfully spotted and summarized. Have a look at the edit-wars on the history section and the neutralised version I once created for this article in order to remove those chauvinist edits once and for all. Miskin 16:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has the wrong title 

message: Hi.  User:Miskin, you may want to consider reading some Wikipedia guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Disambiguation.  Your editing of this article removed many links to articles and instead pointed them to a disambiguation page.  Please don't do that.
Furthermore, you changed many of the references to the Roman period to Hellenes.  That is a confusing change.  You also added, throughout the article, indicators of who, in your opinion, are of what ethnic group, what jobs they had (mercenaries), and removed descriptions of Ottoman effects on the area, removed the fact that Bulgaria occupied parts of Greece, etc.  You may also need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.  The previous version of the article still needs work, but in many places had more informative and less confusing content.  Jkelly 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  the Germans occupied Greece in WW2, that's about it. Any other intepretation is a POV. it is incorrect to say the bulgarians did not occupy Greece during world war two. they occupied a large chunk and proportional death rates and deportations by the Bulgarian army of Jews exceed that of German occupied GreeceDaveHM 18:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Miskin, I think you may have me confused with someone else.  I have made one edit to the article Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=30236682&oldid=30236605 this), and one to its talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGreeks&diff=28236273&oldid=28157112 this).  That said, there was a period in which the article on Greek fascism had a lot of weird "Metaxas was a good fascist" material that I reverted back to because it looked like an anon was removing sourced material.  Is that perhaps the incident that you are thinking of?  To return to discussing the article, can you explain to me why you are changing references to Romans to Hellenes, why you removed material about the region being depopulated, why you are calling Thrace "non-Hellenized", why you removed information about Ottoman killings, why you removed the information on Orthodox church changes impacting "the Greek idea", and explain how the Bulgarians "invent"ed ascendency (this is weird phrasing)?  That said, cutting the sentence "Also, the present-day historians from Macedonia claim that there were two IMRO organisations - a macedonian one and a vrhovistic one, which declared as a bulgarian organisation." was a good idea, as it was unsourced.  Your explanation of your change in re: Bulgaria and WWII makes sense to me.  Jkelly 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't worry about calling me a Nazi.  And, while we are at it, I should apologize myself for a response to your editing that wasn't a model of WP:COOL.  I remain concerned about a... "fluidity" of historical interpretation in this article.  There are a bunch of references listed at the bottom, but it's mostly impossible to guess what statement is referenced by what.  I'd like to ask about one remaining point that I am unclear on.  Are you contending that the Ottoman killings are unreferenced, or are a Bulgarian POV?  Jkelly 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think there's suspiciously too many references? I've argued with the person who has supposedly written the article and read all those books but he didn't give that impression. He also claimed to have no agenda on the subject and yet a word count on the string "bulgarian" would use up all my system resources. The article is extremely one-sided and for the sake of neutrality it should be largerly revised. Which section of the article are you referring to? It's been awhile since I made this edits and I don't remember them by heart. Miskin 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to edit Wikipedia articles

message: Please let us finally sit down and discuss this article on a civil and producive manner in order to reach to a mutually respectable solution. Miskin 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To VMORO