Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:44, 13 September 2005

• Previous discussion is available at /Archive and /Archive2.
• The renaming poll of June 2005 (now closed) is archived at /Poll. (See also /Archive2 for many comments arising from this poll.)

Are the Albanians of FYROM "Macedonian(nationality) or Albanian(nationality)?

Are the Albanians of FYROM "Macedonian(nationality)" or "Albanian(nationality)? What do the slavs and the Albanians FYROMs maintain?

Vergina 12:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They couldn't be "Albanian (nationality)" because they're not citizens of Albania. As I suggested above, the better solution would be to redirect "Macedonian (nationality)" to the article Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia. -- ChrisO 12:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Macedonian Slavs article explicitly refers to the dominant ethnic group of the FYROM. Renaming it "Macedonian (nationality)" is unacceptable as it would exclude at least a third of the FYROM's citizenry.--Theathenae 12:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a compromise be better than moving the article to Macedonians? Take a look at the current poll results and tell me. Decius 15:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Perhaps, ChrisO, some of them are Albanian nationality and Macedonian citizenship. If I lived in UK and had the required credentials, I would have Greek nationality and British citizenship. MATIA 19:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outcome of the vote

The following is the outcome of the recent poll, which is archived at /Poll.

• Option 1: Continue calling people X "Macedonian Slavs"
  • 39 votes were cast for this option. Of these, 10 were discounted as invalid (see below). The final tally of valid votes cast for this option was 29 votes.

• Option 2: Describe people X as "Macedonians"
  • 47 votes were cast for this option. Of these, 16 were discounted as invalid (see below). The final tally of valid votes cast for this option was 31 votes.

Neither option won 60% of all votes. The poll is therefore moot and the outcome is that the status quo shall remain unchanged, i.e. the article and links to it shall remain as Macedonian Slavs.

Invalid votes for "Macedonian Slavs"

"To discourage socket puppetry, only users with more than 50 edits before 00:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) are eligible to vote."

• Lucinos - has only 4 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• El-dada - has only two contributions in editing history, both to this page
• Gavrilis - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Matia.gr - has no contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Ank99 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Toredid - has only two contributions in editing history
• EleftheriosKosmas - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• kafrileontas - has no editing history (apparently an anon claiming falsely to have a user account?)
• Kaster - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th

10 votes counted as invalid -- ChrisO 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Invalid votes for "Macedonians"

"To discourage socket puppetry, only users with more than 50 edits before 00:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) are eligible to vote."

• Ivica83 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Popski - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Emir Arven - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Yillilan - only edit is to this vote
• Alma Pater - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Zmaj - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Wulfson - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Gorann Andjelkovic - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• SashaSt - only 2 edits in history
• Ctac - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• 194.106.167.14 - only edits are to this vote
• Domatrios - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Golija - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• SpeedyGonsales - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• Joshua.84 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th
• KoRnholio8 - has less than 50 contributions in editing history prior to June 11th

16 votes counted as invalid -- ChrisO 00:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry but i have an account in the greek wikipedia with more than 50 edits so please recall your claiments for socket-puppetry. My vote counts even if i have 3 months to edit in the greek wikipedia.You invited me to vote and so i did. Check my statistics. kafrileontas

I'm wondering, if FlavrSavr would've convinced me to vote for Macedonians for People X, the article might have made the move to Macedonians (came close to doing that, after considering that most organizations refer to them as Macedonians, and Misplaced Pages should follow convention 99% of the time). Decius 00:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rules required 60% to vote in favour of one option, so it wouldn't have made any difference which way you voted - with 60 votes in play, there would have needed to have been a minimum of 36 votes for any one option. -- ChrisO 00:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good, then "it was out of my hands". The people voted. Though I noticed that in the time my vote was for Macedonian Slavs, the momentum was strongly for Macedonian Slavs---soon after I repealed, momentum shifted---or maybe I'm just being egocentric as usual. It stayed at Macedonian Slavs though despite the momentum shift. Interesting Wikipolitics. Decius 00:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's all about you, Decie. The outcome of the poll means that Macedonians will continue to refer to all the inhabitants of Macedonia, not just the minority that has hijacked the name at the expense of the majority.--Theathenae 10:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One question for the admins: If the results were in favor or calling Macedonian Slavs as Macedonians, what would happen to the current Macedonians article. If it would be deleted and replaced, what are the differences between this and vandalizing an article? MATIA 19:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that the original question wasn't very well thought out. "Macedonians" would have had to have been disambiguated at least five ways to capture all the meanings (geographic, ancient, religious, the people calling themselves that, etc). Macedonian Slavs couldn't have been simply moved to Macedonians, as this would have broken the disambiguation. Ethnic groups are often disambiguated by adding "(people)" after the name. So Macedonian Slavs would have probably been renamed "Macedonians (people)" - this might still happen in the future. -- ChrisO 20:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We (Macedonian Greeks) are people too... Etz Haim 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. :-) But you're a subset of a wider people - the Greeks - rather than a distinct ethnic group which identifies itself by that name. Out of interest, do Macedonian Greeks consider themselves particularly different from other Greeks? -- ChrisO 21:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are some differences in terms of culture, tradition, local dialects etc., that would make some nice Misplaced Pages articles. Also, the Macedonian Greeks are a subset of another wider population, that is, the Macedonians. Etz Haim 14:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The Slavs of FYROM are ethnicity Bulgars of the state SFRYugoslavia. --Vergina 16:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vergina, I have learned to ignore you, but I've got a question for you: Since "Slavs of FYROM are ethnicity Bulgars", and Bulgars are not Slavs, how come this justifies the "Slav" add-on? --FlavrSavr 18:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, the Bulgarians are predominantly of Slavic stock - although they undoubtedly are mixed to a smaller or larger extent with Bulgars, Thracians/Getae, Vlachs, Uzes, Pechenegs, Kumans, etc. etc. etc. But the same is also valid for the Macedonian Slavs. If you are hinting at the Macedonian fairy tale about "Tatarobugarite", I would recommend you to go to Bulgaria and see how Tatar they really are. It might have a beneficial effect on some of your misconceptions VMORO June 28, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

VMORO, I have no doubts that Bulgarians are predominatly Slavic, but Vergina was not referring to Bulgarians, but to Bulgars. As a matter of fact I'm going to a summer vacation in Bulgaria :-). I found a logical fallacy in your statement: the Bulgarians are predominantly of Slavic stock - although they undoubtedly are mixed to a smaller or larger extent with Bulgars, Thracians/Getae, Vlachs, Uzes, Pechenegs, Kumans, etc. etc. etc. But the same is also valid for the Macedonian Slavs. Isn't that a reason why we should call people X, Macedonian Slavs, Bulgars, Thracians/Getae, Vlachs, Uzes, Pechenegs, Kumans, not only Macedonian Slavs? --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 13:01 (UTC)

Suggest a better name, then. Preferably one not used by anybody else, to match how special and unique you are.--Theathenae 29 June 2005 13:06 (UTC)

I've already done that, how about Macedonian Apes? --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Vergina with his English and his bombastic comments is scarcely the best source you can quote... As for the rest - it is the national consciousness that counts, not the origin. VMORO June 29, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Very true, but I was trying to deconstruct Vergina's nonsense. However if national conciousness is all that counts, then there is no reason for "Macedonian Slavs". :-) --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Macadamia nuts is my personal favourite.--Theathenae 29 June 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Perhaps. Hey, and who referred to you as a Turk? (If you're talking about Alex Pater, he is Russian.) --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)

Nobody on Misplaced Pages. That's what my Macadamian friends call me. To which I reply: ЖИВЕЛА РЕПУБЛИКА МАКАДАМИЈА! >:D--Theathenae 29 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)

It's more like: ДА ЖИВЕЕ РЕПУБЛИКА МАКАДАМИЈА! :-). I'm glad to see that this discussion has cooled down a bit. Often one forgets that we are all just ordinary, normal people. Particularly on the Balkans. --FlavrSavr 30 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)

Admin response

My answer is that Misplaced Pages should NOT refer to, er, People X as Macedonian Slavs but rather say that they call themselves Macedonian Slavs or that they call themselves Macedonians.

Misplaced Pages should not try to solve this identity problem, but rather describe it. It's obviously very controversial, and my previous attempt to help settle this last year was unsuccessful.

You guys all need to re-read Misplaced Pages:NPOV. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

And has anyone addressed this aspect yet?

• Upon annexation of Macedonia's territory, each country began terrorist campaigns aimed at expelling or forcibly assimilating the indigenous Macedonian population. Greece, in particular, began an intense campaign in order to eradicate the existence of Macedonia through a horrific policy of cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing. They outlawed the term Macedonia and proceeded to rename this region "Northern Greece". They changed the names of Macedonian people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek. Bulgaria and Greece continue to deny the existence of their large Macedonian minorities to this day and refuse to grant them human rights.

This is all lies. Greece never outlawed the used of the name Macedonia but they did change the names of cities and town. Under Ottoman rule and due Slavic migration the Greek names of towns were changed (i.e Thessaloniki to Solun). When Macedonia was returned to Greece the Greek names were returned. It can not be denied that the names of these towns were originally Greek. (i.e Thessaloniki means vicotry of Thessalonians). There is not a large Slavic minority in Greece. This can be proven by the excistence of a Slavic Macedonian Party (they have there own party how is this a violation of Human rights by Greeks) which only pulls in 3,000 votes an election. FYROM often refers to Slavic speaking Greeks as Slavic Macedonians but alot of these people regard themselves as Greek and not as Slavic Macedonians. Either way ur point does not justify the exclusive use of the term Macedonian. The Macedonian can also be used to describe Greeks living in Macedonia. Also todays Slavic Macedonians are in no way connected to the Macedonians of Ancient Greece with its heroes Philip and Alexander. The truth is todays Macedonian Slavs are Slavs and live in the region Macedonia so it is only fair that they be referred to as Macedonian Slavs to avoid confusion and for us stay neutral.

Misplaced Pages cannot intervene to stop an ethnic cleansing campaign. Misplaced Pages is even more neutral than the Red Cross. Misplaced Pages takes 'no sides at all on any controversy.

Rather, Misplaced Pages offers accurated and unbiased information on what each side says. Conclusions of right and wrong are left to the reader. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree that we shouldn't take sides. But if I may say so, there are really two issues here: what should Misplaced Pages call "People X" and what should the article about that people be called? I don't think "People who call themselves Macedonians" would do as an article title... ;-) -- ChrisO 20:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear ChrisO, thank you for your answer on my not-so-well-thought-question, or perhaps my not so well stated question. I dont understand your answer 100% but I 'll sleep on it :) Please check my note on the top of this page about the differences between citizenship and nationality.
Dear Ed. I believe we agree on the wikipedia principles. And I think that the point of perfection for any wiki, would be to provide accurate info on what each side says, info that will let the reader conclude on his own about it, just as you described it.
Let me tell you few things about the passage that, perhaps, hasn't been addressed by anyone, as you said. What I'm going to write can be confirmed by millions of people who live in Macedonia (it may be just Northern Greece for you). The terms Macedonia, Macedonian etc were never outlawed. Northern Greece, consist of Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace. MACEDONIA in greek is written ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ and if you have a greek or unicode font, you can see the absolute similarity. People who live in this area call themselves Macedonians. There is a historical continuity in the usage of the name, and certainly noone persecuted people during the last 100 years because they identified as Macedonians. The claims about ethnic cleansing are out of this world. And Macedonians are no minority, they are some millions, perhaps 30 or 40% of Greeks.
I believe, even with the wikis on Ancient Macedonia, Macedonia through Byzantium etc someone can understand that Macedonian culture played a major role on the Greek civilization as a whole, and the Macedonia's history is continual for 2300 years or more.
Of course our northern neighbours should have a name, and they do have the need to identify themselves. But can it be Macedonians? What would happen if I signed as ChrisO, or as Uncle Ed. How would you react? Wouldn't it be fallacious? If they wanted to be called Makidos or even Macintosh, how would Apple react? Yes, they live in a place, that is part of the geographical region called Macedonia, but can you understand our concerns about it?
MATIA 23:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone who has contributed to this article (or discussed it here) is a person, except for that one funny looking guy in the corner who's really a bot! :-) But I agree with Chris; that would be a silly title.

Unfortunately, many of the arguments (on both sides) in the naming poll were blatantly POV - arguing that it's "right" or "wrong" to "allow" the "People X" to call themselves Macedonians. The one absolutely solid and indisputable fact in this matter is that they do call themselves Macedonians, and we have no role (or even any right) as Wikipedians to determine whether they are right or wrong to do so. The fact is that they do. Unfortunately this largely got lost in all the POV-pushing that went on in the poll; it's convinced me that running polls on such questions isn't a good idea. -- ChrisO 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes they call themselves Macedonians. But that also is how a large number of Greeks call themselves.MATIA 23:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. For example Irish, can mean a citizen of Ireland or an Irishman by ethnicity. And nobody cares. Many Bulgarians call themselves Macedonian too, but they certainly don't mean an ethnic difference, but regional (They or their ancestors come from the region of Macedonia).213.91.216.210 30 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Exactly NOT. I have never met a Greek who calls him or herself Macedonian on first enquiry. They only grab for the label when they start talking politics. Why do they do this? It's rather simple. All the Greek political parties try to outdo each other on how patriotic they are, so the first one that tries to act in a politically civil way gets smeared by the other and will therefore eventually loose any forthcoming election. While outdoing each other at claiming the whole world and its surrounding are Greek ever since the begining of time, the unfortunate Greek citizens have swallowed up this politcal muck with delight. It only takes one glipmse of any ancient Greek statue to realise that contemporary Athenians have aboslutely nothing to do with these strange and distant people. But science is "believing when I see it" and religion is "seeing when I believe it" so the Greek arguments are belief based mumbo-jumbo. Having doubts? See for yourself and comparer this with this. What strikes as very true is the old Serb saying "He is complaining like a Greek nder arrest" - not only are the Greek convictions misguided, but Greeks are rather unpleasent about it when engaged in a discussion. --Paletakis 3 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

And I suppose you're a spitting image of Alexander the Great? Fuck off, you racist troll. "Unpleasent" enough for you?--Theathenae 3 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)

Thank you for substantiating my comment: that was not in the spirit of Plato nor Socrates (but then how could it be?).--Paletakis 3 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)

Piss off, you sad twat.--Theathenae 3 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice the move to region of Macedonia? Did this confuse or improve or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:40, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was an improvement, to be honest - it makes it sound like a disambiguated page when it's not. Consider "region of Epirus", "region of Thrace", etc. I don't think adding "region of" really adds anything. It's a region by definition; calling it "region of" seems rather like a tautology. -- ChrisO 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What ChrisO and Uncle Ed are trying very hard to understand

While I really appreciate your efforts and concern, I think you are missing the point. The fundamental problem is that, in itself, the use of the term "Macedonian Slavs" is a particular POV. Thus having an article with that name, dignifies and reinforces that particular POV, irrespective of its contents. This is a serious breakdown of NPOV policy and I think you may wish to consult with other admins on this.--Paletakis 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The fact is that the article is where it is because of moral/political objections - in other words, POV considerations - from one side, not because it reflects common usage or self-identification. This is clearly not satisfactory with respect to the NPOV policy and it's inconsistent with how we've handled other naming disputes (e.g. Sea of Japan, Gdansk etc). I've proposed some criteria which you can see at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conflict. Feel free to contribute to the discussion! -- ChrisO 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree too. People who use the term Macedonian Slavs to refer to those people are indeed expressing a certain point of view. I would hope that as good encyclopedia writers, we can discern what that point of view is and express it to our readers. Although it may be too early to predict, I will venture to say that this matter might require creation of another "definitions" article (like definitions of Palestine).

Part of the problem, in my view, is that some people want to use the encyclopedia to settle the matter. They want to say, "See? The encyclopedia calls them Screaming Blue Jeemflappers, so that's their true and proper name." (Sorry for the silly example, but that's the only way I know how to make a neutral example. I don't think the problem is silly at all.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Ed Poor, this might be a POV, but I think that is precisely the point of using the "Macedonian Slavs" term, because obviously, the practical and rational arguments for not using Macedonians are quite weak. I was quite shocked when I found out that Misplaced Pages (and its mirror sites) are the most important generators of this term on the net (the highest ranks on Google search). I might provoke Greek emotions with this, but this is simply, unfair. --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Could you say more about this? I don't know what you're leading up to. Can you say something about what ought to be in the article, concerning the "name of people X"? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 15:20 (UTC)

OK, I guess I was not quite clear. I am a member of people X, and I was expressing my POV about the Greek defiance of using the term "Macedonians". Considering the fact that Misplaced Pages is becoming more and more cited as neutral and reliable source of information, their argument would be: "See, the neutral and reliable Misplaced Pages calls them Macedonian Slavs". From the start, I wasn't insisting on the term "Macedonians", I think that Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation) should be used as a name for this article. I found out that it this acceptable for moderate Greeks. --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 16:35 (UTC)

I'd rather they said, "See, the neutral and reliable Misplaced Pages points out that they call themselves Macedonian Slavs." -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Ah, but the point is they don't. The only people who do call them that, as far as I can see, are the Greeks, for purely POV reasons. And the only reason the article is where it is is because of that POV, which came out pretty strongly during the recent vote. -- ChrisO 29 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Me confused. :-) --FlavrSavr 30 June 2005 12:09 (UTC)

--Theathenae 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)===Self-identification===

Would someone please clarify this for me?

• There exists a culturally / ethnically / historically distinct group of people, living in the geographical region of Macedonia.
• Greeks refer to this group as Macedonian Slavs.
• People in this group call themselves Macedonians'.

I need someone to fill in the blank, please. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Blank filled in. But the question is complicated by the fact that there are at least five separate groups that could be called "Macedonians": the modern Slavic people, the inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia, the inhabitants of the entire region (of which the RoM is only a part), the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Macedon, and an obscure early Christian sect. So one could never call the (Slav) Macedonians simply "Macedonians" in an article name; it would have to be at "Macedonians (people)" to disambiguate it from all the other meanings. The reason why we don't use that terminology at the moment is because the Greek nationalist POV is that only Greeks have a right to call themselves Macedonians. This is a controversial position, to put it mildly! -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 17:17 (UTC)

"Greeks refer to this group as Macedonian Slavs." Not entirely true, as relatively few Greeks use the one-word designation Slavomakedónes, and would in fact consider it a major compromise even to accept such a name. Most Greeks use the term Skopianoí (after their capital Skopje), and reserve the name Makedónes exclusively for the inhabitants of the Greek region of Macedonia. "Macedonian Slavs" is in fact a compromise between the two opposing POVs, as it objectively describes the core identity and origins of the people in question: Slavs living in Macedonia.--Theathenae 30 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Theathenae. It does rather raise the question of why we are using this term if neither people is using it much or at all. :-) -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

I guess we could always follow your suggestion and divide the inhabitants of Macedonia into "Macedonians (people)" and "Macedonians (non-people)". ;)--Theathenae 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere now. The problem is that the Greeks want Macedonians only to refer to those three Northern Greek provinces' inhabitants - and to no one else. While the, uh, people X, insist on calling themselves Macedonians too. Do I have it straight now? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Pretty much! It's an issue of self-proclaimed moral and historical rights for the Greeks versus a self-proclaimed right of self-identification for the (Slav) Macedonians. -- ChrisO 6 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)

A lot of it has to do with the Macedonian Slavs presenting themselves as the Macedonians, despite the fact that they make up only a third of Macedonia's population. In their mind, the other inhabitants of Macedonia are not Macedonians but Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and whatever else, i.e. Macedonia is populated by "Macedonians" and "non-Macedonians". However oxymoronic this may be, it must of course imply that the "Macedonians" have a special connection to Macedonia that the other ethnic groups do not, even if these other peoples have lived in Macedonia centuries longer and form the majority of its population. And a special connection implies special rights, to the history, the heritage, and the land of Macedonia, from which the "non-Macedonians" are excluded by definition: "Macedonia for the Macedonians".--Theathenae 6 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Haha...special rights...Sorry, this seems to be overparanoid. And how these "special rights" manifest? You know, perhaps we should convince the UN to rename the northern Greek provinces of West, Central and East Macedonia into Former Roman provinces of South Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 6 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Calling yourselves the Macedonians is in and of itself a claim to special rights over Macedonia. It is a claim of autochthony. In an ideal world, the implicitly alien "non-Macedonians" would just get up and leave, right?--Theathenae 6 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that the (Slav) Macedonians had claimed that nobody else has the right to use that name? It seems to me - speaking as an outsider - that the Greek claim is exclusive ("we're the only ones who should be called Macedonians") while the Macedonian Slav claim is inclusive ("we want to call ourselves Macedonians too but we don't object to you calling yourselves that"). Of course, both claims are entirely POV. The question is how we can steer between the two poles while maintaining NPOV. -- ChrisO 6 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)

No, the Macedonian Slavs claim that they are the Macedonians, and that their language is the Macedonian language. By implication, all the other peoples and languages of Macedonia are an alien element, since they are not "Macedonian". Indeed, many Slavs get quite offended when a Greek calls himself a Macedonian: how could he be a Macedonian when he's not a "Macedonian"? This can reach ridiculous extremes, as when one objected to my calling Thessaloniki the capital of Macedonia, or using "Macedonia" at all in a Greek context. Instead of laying claim to "Aegean Macedonia" as in the past, the new Macedonian Slav nationalism has redefined "Macedonia" to mean only the FYROM. The neighbouring region is simply "Greece" and its inhabitants are simply "Greeks", unless of course they happen to speak Slavic, in which case they may rightfully be called "Macedonians". Of course, there are always those old-school irredentists who think the international border should be defined by Mount Olympus.--Theathenae 7 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Ok, it seems this is becoming another endless POV debate. The Macedonian irredentist "threat" is not worth a serious consideration, yet many Greeks fear it as if it was a real possibility. We do not claim that we are the same as the Ancient Macedonians, nor our language is the same as the Ancient Macedonian language, but I don't see a reason why we shouldn't call ourselves Macedonians, in terms of ethnicity, just as I don't see a reason why modern Egyptians shouldn't call themselves Egyptians. In fact, the Greeks are the ones who claim to be the real Macedonians. Calling RoM's majority Macedonians, won't change a thing for Greek speaking Macedonians, they will use "Macedonian" as a regional identity, not in terms of ethnicity, just as they have always used it. As for the "special rights", I don't quite understand that objection. Perhaps the Yugoslavs parallel should be mentioned here. According to the "special rights" theory, these people who, for various reasons, choose not to be Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks etc., but simply Yugoslavs, are somehow to be considered cultural thiefs of the other peoples right to feel as Yugoslavs?

As I mentioned above, this debate is endless, and there is no possibility for anyone to "win". Misplaced Pages has a clear NPOV policy to end this debate. We are not here to debate the right of people X to call themselves "Macedonians", nor who were the "true Macedonians". Misplaced Pages should not assume that neither of the sides is right or wrong, it is only here to describe the disputes fairly. In this case, Misplaced Pages fails to do so. To cite the NPOV policy:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Misplaced Pages. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

It is clear that the very name "Macedonian Slavs" does give (in my opinion) even too much attention to a minority view, and the entire discourse about people X, is, at start, a distorted one. --FlavrSavr 7 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)

"Too much attention to a minority view"? From the same person who rallied against "ethnic majorisation" a couple of weeks ago?--Theathenae 7 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

You could have waited for yesterday to pass. Anyways, you deliberately fail to see the difference between an ethnic majority/minority and majority/minority. Believe it or not, the majority of non-Greeks and non-Macedonians, refers to Macedonians as Macedonians. Of course, the new article will have a separate part dealing with the naming issue and its controversies - that is the proper, NPOV handling of this issue. --FlavrSavr 8 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

The "minority" as you describe it is an ethnic minority, is it not? An ethnic minority that you wish would just accede to the wishes of the "majority".--Theathenae 8 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

No, it is a minority in global proportions, because only a minority of media, books of reference, goverments refer to people X as Macedonian Slavs. Please don't go to ethnic lines again, believe me, I'm not comfortable there. Misplaced Pages is not a place for ethnic frustrations, from either of the sides. --FlavrSavr 9 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

You cannot deny that calling people X "Macedonians" will alienate the Greeks, making it a POV decision by definition. Not that you care, of course, as the Greeks are simply "wrong" and you are "right". As for "Macedonian Slavs", it is not the Greek preference for what people X should be called (Greeks almost always call you Skopjans); it is a compromise between two otherwise irreconcilable POVs and an objective description of what people X are. I honestly don't see how it can be so objectionable when even your own president suggested it a few short years ago. But you're right, this debate is endless, as Greeks will never recognise you as Macedonians and you will never stop calling yourselves that. Let's just agree to disagree.--Theathenae 9 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

ChrisO and Uncle Ed please proceed with deletion of this aricle

Theathenae is right - the discussion is pointless, and so is this article. But she is somewhat idealistic and misguided in nurturing excpectations that it is easy to have "an objective description" of a political category. There is nothing objective about an expression of political will and all nationalisms are similar in this respect, including the Macedonian and Greek ones. Thus the only correct resolution is to delete this article. A deadline should be given by which any of its content could be re-used in the Macedonians article. That article contains many varied interpretations of what Macedonians could or should be and there is already some mention of Macedonian Slavs. Once this is done we can proceed to attribute the label of Macedonian Slavs as one held sometimes by some Greek politics in the Macedonians article itself. Please set a deadline for deletion and thanks for your facilitaton of these discussions.--Paletakis 11:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Macedonian Slavs" is not a label "held sometimes by some Greek politics"; it has been used fairly widely in the international media, especially to differentiate the majority ethnic group of the FYROM from its non-Slavic minorities, particularly the Albanians. In Rumania it is used to distinguish people X from the Macedoneni, a common Rumanian term for the Aromanians. It is common for people X to denounce "Macedonian Slavs" as a Greek imposition reflecting the Greek POV. In fact, as I mentioned above, "Macedonian Slavs" is not the term preferred by Greeks, who almost overwhelmingly use the term Skopjans, considering any use of the term Macedonian inappropriate for anyone who isn't Greek. That is the reason I see it as an objective description of people X that satisfies neither POV, and should not be deleted.--Theathenae 19:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion of an "objective description" as no description is objective - this is a contradiction in terms; descriptions are by their very nature subjective. There is nothing wrong with saying that a certain, or even several, political interests use the term Macedonian Slavs and this can be well explained to include the political sources and historical backdrop. But not here - all this belongs in the Macedonians articel. Please proceed and delete this article, but first do give some time (say 10 days?) for people to reassess what could be used in the Macedonians article.--Modi 22:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

We have just had a poll that resulted in retaining the current name, so moving this article to "Macedonians" cannot happen until approved by another poll. --Theathenae 06:51, 11 July 2005

The poll was decided on grossly POV grounds - on both sides - so to be honest, I don't regard its results as binding or conclusive. Many of the participants didn't even pretend to be deciding on NPOV grounds and treated the whole exercise as a nationalistic tug of war. We even had rival nationalists trying to drum up votes from their own ethnic communities, which was ridiculous. Perhaps fortunately, the result was a draw. I do think that the status quo is unsatisfactory and not in compliance with NPOV requirements, but it's clear that the community can't reach a consensus on this matter. I'm currently thinking about posssible ways forward. They will not involve the deletion of this article, but most likely its renaming to something else. -- ChrisO 07:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Region of Macedonia?

How can someone just prance in and move the Macedonia article like that? We just had a 2-week poll on whether to move Macedonian Slavs, and that failed. "Region of Macedonia" as opposed to what of Macedonia?--Theathenae 23:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The situation is totally ridiculous. Obvious as it is that Misplaced Pages cannot dictate international policy, it is equally obvious that polling does not define truth, regardless of the outcome. Leaving aside the issue of Macedon and the Ancient Macedonian language for a minute, the hard numbers say the Greek province of Macedonia incorporates the majority of land and the majority of people in the geographical region described as Macedonia. Furthermore, about 1/4 of the citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are of Albanian ethnicity. It is inevitable that, until a political solution agreed to by all interested countries and international institutions is reached, any Wiki-stance is a potentially POV-stance. The solution to all this mess is a smartly designed disambiguation page, not endless polling on potentially POV-nuanced questions Chronographos 11:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"The situation is totally ridiculous...."

So it is! Vergina 06:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the situation, however I have a different view of it. --FlavrSavr 13:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not surprised. It is likely, however, that as your brand new, relatively poor and resource-lacking country will (hopefully) be attempting to find its footing and place in international life and, above all, international institutions, your view will broaden. Chronographos 15:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to respond to nationalistic provocations, but what are you talking about? All international institutions already officialy refer to people X as "Macedonians", and unofficialy to the name of the republic as Macedonia. Of course, Greece might try to blackmail RoM to give up of its name, but I'm not sure whether that would suit Greek economic interests in RoM, nor its international image of "birthplace of democracy". --FlavrSavr 16:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You are being unnecessarily defensive (or, should I say, aggresive). Again, I'm not surprised. Chronographos 17:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have tracked a nuance of unnecessary arrogance towards the "relatively poor and resource-lacking country" and the predictability of its inhabitants which is of no meaning to the main dispute. (I shouldn't have reacted in the first place, Misplaced Pages is not a place for personal attacks). However, while the name of the country is in fact a matter of international dispute, the name of the people is not, and never was disputed by any relevant international institution (except of an unsuccesful episode in the Council of Europe) - please see Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#International_organisations. I definitely agree that solution to all this mess is a smartly designed disambiguation page, not endless polling on potentially POV-nuanced questions, but Macedonian Slavs is not the neutral choice for it - Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation) or similar disambiguating is the best solution, IMHO. --FlavrSavr 19:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What you thought of as "arrogance" was merely a reminder of what I think the priorities of any state should be: the welfare of its citizens. Unfortunately, this primarily means material welfare. If only we humans could debate on an empty stomach ... Now I will readily admit to being somewhat materialist myself, and often feel remorseful about my material wealth while kids in Africa starve. But that's a personal issue which is irrelevant to the matter discussed here:

The name of the people of a state is usually referred to by the name of the state. E.g. Belgians, which includes the Flemish and the Walloons. Therefore until the name dispute is resolved, one has no choice but to use ethnic designations (e.g. Macedonian Slavs vs. ethnic Albanians). The plain "Macedonian" designation is apparently offensive both to Macedonian Greeks (who number 2,500,000 million) and to the ethnic Albanian citizens of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (who number 500,000). Should the state in question be finally named "Ruritania" (a hypothetical example), its citizens will be referred to as Ruritanians. Of course this will not change its ethnic composition, which is 67% Slavic, 25% Albanian and ~4% Turkish, according to the Demographics of the Republic of Macedonia article. Chronographos 19:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to put this in your style - I'm not suprised of your reaction :-). Of course that the name of the people of a state is usually referred to by the name of the state. But not everybody in that state is referred to by that name - for instance, when someone mentiones Russians, it is clear that by that he doesn't refer to Chechens, Ukrainians, Ossetians or whatever ethnic group lives in it. If you think that the large percentage of Albanians is a problem, then check out the demographics of Estonia. And believe me, Albanians are not offended of the use of the term "Macedonians", in fact they would probably find that use for them offensive. I already suggested that plain "Macedonians" designation won't be used, but Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation) or whatever. That does not deprive Macedonian Greeks of their right of the term "Macedonians", they will continue using the name (and be referred to) with the same meaning of "Macedonians" that they have always used it - as a regional identifier. Greeks will use it as a regional identifier, while Macedonians as an ethnic identifier. --FlavrSavr 00:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe an Albanian from your country would be more credible in making the claim you are making. I seem to recall there has been extensive ethnic strife in your country in recent years, and there have been UN/NATO peacekeepers there for that very reason, haven't they? Furthermore, the examples you provide are not at all germane to the issue at hand: Russia is a Federation, and Estonia has a large Russian population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. I believe the Russians in Estonia are not even schooled in Russian. Your ethnic vs. regional argument is a non sequitur, for how can two ethnically different peoples share a name? A truly inclusive solution would be one that included both ethnic and geographic qualifiers. You were quick to bring out the ugly word "blackmail", which proves to me that my initial prompt about international relationships and institutions was valid. One should only hope that consensus, not blackmail, is the basis of healthy relationships. For example, consensus is the basis that allows the EU to function. Witness what happened after the French and Dutch referenda: consensus collapsed in the most undeniable way, and the EU is into a major crisis as a result. Chronographos 09:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"for how can two ethnically different peoples share a name?" Try Bretons and Britons, Brittany (Bretagne) and Britain (Grande Bretagne), etc... Also, the Swiss don't seem to have a problem in that area. I'm sure there are other examples! -- ChrisO 09:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I was certain that someone would bring up this example. And I am equally certain that you know the explanation: Celts (Britons) were pushed out of present-day France by invading Germanic tribes and confined themselves to Britanny or fled across the Channel. Since then, of course, Britain was also invaded by Germanic tribes. The name "Great Britain" as a designation of a state was established only when the personal union of the Crowns of England (which had absorbed the Principality of Wales) and Scotland was turned into an constitutionally merged Crown of Great Britain. I believe this happened during the reign of Queen Anne. Still, the current state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the terms "British" and "Britain" being used only expeditiously as they fail to include the kingdom's Irish component. Indeed, officials try to use the term "UK" as often as is practical for that very reason. Frankly I fail to see how this situation applies to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, other than to point out the importance of inclusion as opposed to exclusivity. Chronographos 10:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC).

Regardless of the connection between Breton and Briton, a distinction is still made, however small. As for the Swiss example, it is not quite analogous to what we're discussing here. "Swiss" is not used as an ethnic identifier, and the people it describes belong to a single nation.--Theathenae 10:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. As a matter of fact, Swiss stamps use the Latin designation Helvetia, I believe, as there is no space on a stamp to include the name of the country in all the languages used in Switzerland. Chronographos 10:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

We are entering the magic circle again? OK, let's analyze what arguments have been brought into attention (and if I may add - how contradictions appear in the same text)

Obvious as it is that Misplaced Pages cannot dictate international policy (Chronographos)... - international policy (every relevant international institution) and every government (except Greece, and maybe Romania) refers to Macedonians as Macedonians, and this is not a recent situation - they have been called by that name for about 60 years. Moreover, Misplaced Pages has a clear NPOV policy which states that: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. Note that this does not mean an ethnic minority - but minority in global proportions. Also, Misplaced Pages does not assume that the majority of the people holding a certain POV are telling the "truth", it simply describes a dispute. I found an excellent example how this is done here.

Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used.

Misplaced Pages should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Misplaced Pages can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy, as it would be an objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. However, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV. The moral of the story is: describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, it may well be worth mentioning that this usage is disputed by the Maputans and linking to an article describing the controversy.

The name of the people of a state is usually referred to by the name of the state. ... True, but not always. Even so, the name of the country is Republic of Macedonia, with a temporary designation FYR of Macedonia. It is not a nameless state, it's a state with a disputed name. However, the name of the people X was never questioned oficially (except in Greece). And that is not a matter of indolence, there is a very profound reason for that: No one can deny the right of a nation to choose its own name.

Should the state in question be finally named "Ruritania" (a hypothetical example), its citizens will be referred to as Ruritanians. Of course this will not change its ethnic composition, which is 67% Slavic, 25% Albanian and ~4% Turkish... No, that's not the ethnic composition of the country - there's no such ethnic group called "Slavic", not even a state called "Slavia". I'm under the impression that the Greeks cannot fully understand the concept of "Slavic" just because in the Greek case the ethnic group (Greeks) is not a subgroup of any other group of peoples. Slavs are a larger group of people and using Slavs as an ethnic identifier dissapeared in the Middle Ages, in the slow process of nation building and mixing with the other inhabitants of the region where Slavs have lived. Calling people X Slavs is: 1.inaccurate because it makes no distinction between them and the other "Slavs" (in your example you haven't made a distinction between Macedonians and Serbs) and 2. offensive because it negates a) the right of a modern nation for self-determination b) the ethnic complexities of that modern nation. The modern Greek nation is not an exception - in fact, modern Greeks are a result of the mixing of ancient Greeks with other non-Greek people, most notably (and ironically) Slavs. That is precisely why modern nations are not called Celts, Latins, Normans etc.

I seem to recall there has been extensive ethnic strife in your country in recent years, and there have been UN/NATO peacekeepers there for that very reason, haven't they?... No. The reasons for the ethnic insurgency of Albanians are different: from radical (creation of a Greater Albanian state, making RoM a federation) to relatively moderate (equal representation in governmental institutions, higher education in their mother tongue, making Albanian a co-official language). The fact that they are not named "Macedonians" was not a reason. In fact, after ceasefire was accomplished there were two main proposal for the making of the new constitution: 1. a republic composed of ethnic communities (Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Roma, Bosniaks, Vlachs, etc) and 2. a republic based on the citizenship principle (not putting the ethnic frame in the constitution, but only stating that it is a republic of Macedonian citizens, regardless of their ethnic group). The second proposal was rejected by Albanians because they saw it as a way of perpetuating the "ethnic domination of Macedonians", and they have specifically asked for a differentiation between them and (ethnic) Macedonians. Talking about who gets offended - the only ones offended are the Macedonians when some right-wing Albanian parties (deliberately) call them Slavs (as a notion of cultural inferiority of Macedonians). If you're not convince try to label a modern Macedonian Albanian (ask him, for example, "are you a Macedonian?") and see what happens. The most probable answer would be ("No, I'm an Albanian living there").

Russia is a Federation... and how that "justifies" the naming of only one ethnic group in it Russians? Perhaps we should call them Russian Slavs?

Estonia has a large Russian population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. I believe the Russians in Estonia are not even schooled in Russian. ...That does not mean that the Russians are Estonians, no? Moreover, you must be aware that this argument excludes Greeks from the right of the term "Macedonians" - South Macedonia has a large Greek population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by Greece in World War I.

A truly inclusive solution would be one that included both ethnic and geographic qualifiers.... True, but in this case, "Macedonians" is used as both ethnic and regional identifier. "Slavic" is not an ethnic identifier, it's merely a large group of people speaking a Slavic language. Check the Yugoslavs case I have mentioned above.

You were quick to bring out the ugly word "blackmail", which proves to me that my initial prompt about international relationships and institutions was valid. One should only hope that consensus, not blackmail, is the basis of healthy relationships.... In general, this is true. However, there are some logical fallacies in your reasoning. First of all, international institutions (including UN, EU etc.) already refer to people X as Macedonians and it is likely that they will continue to do so, regardless of the solution of the name of the state. That is because they follow international law which in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ) in Article 15 clearly states:

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

That means that international law is based on some fundamental principles which apply to international institutions and international relationships as well. Those principles were consensually adopted by all members of the UN, including Greece. People X have a nationality - they identify themselves and are identified as Macedonians, not as Macedonians Slavs, Macedonian Bulgarians, FYROMians, Skopjeans, or Skopje Gypsies (as one grafitti in northern Greece states "Death to Skopje Gypsies"). Their right for that is indisputable by international law. These basic principles (Human rights) are established to prevent a violation of consensually adopted human rights. I'll take a banal example why these rights are established - Let's assume that people A want people B to be erased from the face of the planet because they think their (people B's) very existence is a threat. People B, of course, don't want that. A possible "consensus" would be, People B, to be left without limbs. Of course, this is a overdramatization and oversimplification of the situation, but it is basically the same with the Macedonian case - an attempt to deprive them of their right of self determination. No, not everything is subject to a "consensus". Similarly, Misplaced Pages functions on a NPOV policy which is also indisputable, and it clearly goes in the favour of the "Macedonians" option. Of course, there are plenty of disambiguating options, Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (ethnic group), Ethnic Macedonians and others which are reasonable form of a consensus. (even to some moderate Greeks I have encountered)

The ugly word "blackmail" was an emotional reaction of political reality. However that reality is much uglier - how can be Greek political actions be else described when they are put like this: "Pick another name" (or politically correct "Broaden your view") "...or else" ("another embargo", "we won't let you to EU/NATO"). --FlavrSavr 19:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For all your clichéd invocations of "human rights" and "NPOV" to support your nationalist arguments, your description of the incorporation of Greek Macedonia after the Balkan Wars makes your true sentiments abundantly clear: "South Macedonia has a large Greek population which entered this country after it was forcibly annexed by Greece in World War I." This country? Forcibly annexed? In other words, Greece's presence in Macedonia is illegitimate, and "Aegean" Macedonia is the part of "this" (your) country under Greek "occupation". "Macedonia for the Macedonians".--Theathenae 19:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My mistake in copy-pasting. "Country" should be replaced with "region". The fear of Macedonian occupation of Northern Greece is 1. paranoid 2. not an argument why they shouldn't be called Macedonians. What is more pathetic (excuse me if I sound aggresive) is your inability to face the answers of two simple questions:

1. Are people X referred to as Macedonian Slavs by international institutions? No.
2. Is naming people X Macedonian Slavs in compliance with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy? No.

Projecting your own paranoid sentiments under the label "fear-thee Skopjeans", ("Macedonia for the Macedonians") chants is not an objective factor in deciding whether people X should be labeled "Macedonian Slavs" in a Misplaced Pages article. There is a real NPOV policy dealing this matter. --FlavrSavr 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Not paranoid at all, as Greece is more than capable of defending herself. I merely note your aggression.--Theathenae 06:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

:) We are pure evil, better beware! --FlavrSavr 01:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that population exchange between the Balkan States and the Ottoman Empire were governed by mutually signed treaties that are still valid and questioned by no one is obviously something our friend is not comfortable with. He views consensus as amputation, UN-sponsored negotiations as blackmail, is busy erecting strawmen, and defends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as if it applied to nomenclature. Hey, I want to make Lacoste shirts and if Lacoste sue me, i'll slam them with the UN charter. That'll show 'em! Chronographos 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it was you was busy proving that Russians living in Estonia are actually not Estonians, only because they were forcibly settled later (!?), that had came as a reply to my parallel of Estonia to the Macedonian case which was ment to illustrate that the large minority of Albanians (who, moreover, do not want the "Macedonians" term for themselves) does not mean that we shouldn't call the majority of RoM "Macedonians". I actually don't know what your original point was - Don't call them Macedonians because 2,5 million Macedonian Greeks and 0,5 Macedonian Albanians will get offended? (definitely not true for the Albanians) What about 1,5 million Macedonians who will get offended by the "Slavs" add-on? Then the real logic behind your arguments shows up - 2,5 million offended people is more than 1,5 million offended people - so label them "Slavs". Humm, the fact that population exchange between the Balkan States and the Ottoman Empire were governed by mutually signed treaties that are still valid and questioned by no one does not exclude the fact that the region of Macedonia gained that 2.5 million Greek majority only in the 20th century. Of course, that does not mean that they have no right over the term "Macedonians", in fact it does not mean anything. Greeks use "Macedonians" as a regional identifier, not an ethnic one, and referring to people X as "Macedonians" won't change anything for them (Macedonian Greeks). However labeling people X "Macedonian Slavs" will change something for people X - they are deprived of their right to identify themselves as Macedonians, in ethnic terms. That right was given to them by consensually adopted international treaties signed by Greece, too. No, I'm not considering consensus as an amputation, however searching consensus over things that are basic human rights (the right to live, the right of an identity) that are previously consensually adopted and widely considered historical achievements of humanity and applied in every international institutions (and yes, they do apply to nomenclature), is not only a methaporical amputation, but as one Bosniak observer of this disputed put it - an intelectual aggresion.

But of course, there is your inadequate comparison of national names with textile brands - are you applying that the name "Macedonians" has a legal copyright owner? (the Greek government, perhaps?) Where's the document that grants that right? The answer is simple, of course - "Greeks are the real Macedonians". In the end, I am the one who's labeled a nationalist.

BTW, where did you get the idea that I considered UN-sponsored negotiations as blackmail? Where did I say, or even, insinuate that? What about your permanent circumventing of UN's official documents , and comparing its basic principles to mere trade rules? What about some real arguments against my "nationalist" arguments instead of seamless personal attacks? You know what, perhaps you and Theatheanae should really see the NPOV policy. --FlavrSavr 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This is beyond boring. You are constantly picking and choosing the playground, so that you play by your own rules. You are constantly misrepresenting what other people say, and then you expect people to sit down and hold an honest discussion with you? What you are saying in essence is that the UN sponsors negotiations that question its very charter and the nature of Human Rights. Let me put it mildly: you are imagining things. Chronographos 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I must have an astounding imagination then - it seems like it is affecting 178 UN documents all of them referring to people X as Macedonians. Does that mean that the UN recognizes people X as Macedonians, thus separating that issue from the name of the state? Perhaps I'm imagining... As for my constant picking and choosing the playground, I always end up with an offer of a NPOV playground. But then again, it's a really "boring" playground, so I'll better continue my dishonest existence. --FlavrSavr 02:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I covered this with the "Ruritanian" hypothetical example above. The UN has to be using something until the talks it sponsors conclude. Obviously it cannot use "Former Yugoslav Republicans ..."; it sounds silly. If your country is finally named "Ruritania", there might be a change there. In the meantime I was saddened to read about the situation of the Albanian minority in your country in the relevant Misplaced Pages article. Apparently, not only are the universally adopted human rights being violated, but even the laws of your own country are not being adhered to when it comes to Albanians. And you are under the impression that your problem is ... Greece ?? Greece is helping your country in the most important way possible: investment. Chronographos 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are again ignoring the fact that the name of the state is not legally, and formally connected with the name of the state. While the UN negotiations about the name of the state (a political institution) are formally legitimate (although my own, personal opinion is that they are not in the spirit of UN), negotiations about the name of people X (individual or group right of selfdetermination) are not legitimate under the UN. In fact, that is precisely why these 178 UN documents refer to people X as Macedonians. The right of self-determination is an indisputed human right, and not a mere question of nomenclature. Again, even if we accept that the name of the state should determine the name of the people, the temporary designation is FYRO Macedonia, not Macedonia (Slavic) or anything simillar.The proper question that you might ask yourself is: Why if the UN, every other international institution, virtually every major media house, and other books of reference use "Macedonians" ("something") to refer to these people, Misplaced Pages should use "something" else than that?

As for your concern of the situation of Albanians in the RoM:

1. I think that does not qualify as an argument whether or not we should call peopleX "Macedonians". (wasn't that you who complained about using different playgrounds?)

2. It belongs to the talk page of that article, unless, of course, you want to present people X as inherently evil people who do not deserve to be called "Macedonians"

3. The article you were talking about, is missing some very relevant information - for example the 2001 crisis in which an entire new constitution was made providing the necessary mechanisms to improve the situation of Albanians in Rom. See Macedonian NLA and Tetovo#Albanian_Minority as well. Of course there is plenty of work to be done for ethnic reconcillation, but I hope the debilitating tension between Macedonians and Albanians will end up in a shorter period as possible.

4. Greek treatment of Albanians is even worse. In RoM there wasn't a case where an Albanian is killed for mere celebrating his national soccer team victory over Greece.

I would have to agree that "Greece is helping your country in the most important way possible: investment". I never suggested that Greece is the main problem for RoM. However, these investments are not done for altruistic reasons, but for financial interests. There were some cases where obvious illegal deals between Greek firms and Macedonian authorities took place. But that's another discusiion.

And again, stick with the NPOV policy. I won't be able to participate in this discussion until the beginning of August (I'm going on a summer vacation to gain some tan and more evility, of course :)) --FlavrSavr 19:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You are reacting in the most predictable way possible: purposefully equating how your state institutionally mistreats its citizens with how a Greek criminal once treated an alien. Well, no peacekeepers have been stationed in Greece to prevent civil war and protect minorities. Greece judiciously respects the rule of law and due process as a member of the European Union: by far the most law-abiding group of states in the world. You are also implying that Greece is somehow collectively responsible because some of your country's officials are corrupt and eager to be bribed. You are so certain of the correctness of your beliefs, that you grievously offend the United Nations by saying that what the UN does violates its own charter. I hope your absence will do you good, even if you wish the contrary. Chronographos 19:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, Chronographos, you are reacting in the most predictable way possible. You are not responding to the key question: Why if the UN, every other international institution, virtually every major media house, and other books of reference use "Macedonians" ("something") to refer to these people, Misplaced Pages should use "something" else than that? Please respond to this question according to the NPOV policy. This is not an article about the Albanians in Macedonia (who are equal in all matters with Macedonians, check the facts). If you are unable to make difference between facts, conventions, and feelings, at least stop assuming things. -- Ivica83 02:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Because the UN recognise your country under a temporary designation while talks last. If it is finally agreed that it's name will be "Ruritania", the UN might start calling you "Ruritanians". And frankly, I do not see any validity in your claim that an ethnic designation should always take precedence over a regional designation, and neither do 2.5 million Macedonian Greeks. It is more than obvious to any bona fide observer what your country has been trying to do all these years. It has treated its large Albanian minority so atrociously that foreign troops had to be stationed there to protect them. Your constitution was unacceptably phrased, and you had to change it. Your flag was unacceptable, and you had to change it to a poorly designed imitation of the Japanese Naval Ensign: File:Japaneseensign.png. Now you are trying to monopolise the "Macedonia" designation: witness the Culture of Macedonia article, where 25 centuries of Macedonian culture are reduced to a pitiful recount of almost-unknown "cultural achievements" as pertaining to your people and country only. You say that you find the current Wiki-designation "Macedonian Slavs" insulting? Why? Is it an insult to be a Slav? This designation distinguishes you from other Slavs, and from other Macedonians at the same time. Since you insist, for some reason, to retain the name given to you by Tito after World War II, you must understand that there are other claimants to that name: there are more numerous, and their historical and cultural roots in this area go back to the dawn of historical time. Therefore you should not use it without appropriate qualifiers. You will precictably respond that what I say is POV. Well, so is what you say. And this is exactly what talk pages are for: discussion of various POV's. I think that the article title, as is, is as NPOV as it can be reasonably hoped for, and please note that I have not edited a single word in it, ever. If you want to appear objective, do something about the aforementioned Culture of Macedonia article: either change its title or work hard to include all components of Macedonian culture through the ages in it. Write about the prehistoric, Ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Bulgarian, Ottoman and Yugoslav periods as well, attributing to each its proper weight and extent. Now get crackin', you've got your work cut out for you. Chronographos 10:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Chronographos revealed were the real dispute lays. The problem is not, as you deliberately claim, the greek denial to an other nation to call itself as it likes. Do you honestly believe that we would have any problem if you were not using propaganda? I would personally feel very honoured if a non-greek wanted to use a greek name. The problem is your will to monopolise terms like Macedonia,Macedonians.

The fact that you are constatly trying to connect yourselves with the ancient Macedonians (when i say you, i mean the macedonian-slavs generally) is something obvious to all, not only by various edits in articles about Macedon, but also by the Misplaced Pages version in your language (and in which you happen to be an administrator and have dove nothing to change it, so spare me the we-have-nothing-to-do-with-ancient-macedonians style), where you present yourselves as the descendants of macedonians, falsificate the etymology of the term Macedonia, etc.

One of the purposes of Misplaced Pages is to provide accurate infos to anyone. If we follow your demand and baptise you, as Tito did, Macedonians do you imagine what congusion that would create to someone not familiar with History?-And i'm not including your old-fashioned, communist-style propaganda on the subject-

This demand is also unacceptable by the fact that the term macedonian-slav does not fulfill greeks either. We don't call you thatway, we call you Skopianoi. As you see it's a compromise between two POVs and so, we are willing to accept it, only for the sake of clarity Odysseas 12:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

We have to make sure the articles you refer to are translated in English and forwarded to the Wiki-powers-that-be. These guys profess and write the most outrageous lies in their own language, and yet all of a sudden they undergo a Damascene transformation when in the English section and present themselves as innocent, starry-eyed virgins about to be raped. This blatant hypocrisy has to stop. Chronographos 14:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why if the UN, every other international institution, virtually every major media house, and other books of reference use "Macedonians" ("something") to refer to these people, Misplaced Pages should use "something" else than that? Please respond to this question according to the NPOV policy.

The answer to this is pretty straight forward. It makes me wonder whether you don't see it on purpose or you cannot see it because you're blinded. The only fact here is not a single international institution has recognised that state as "Macedonia" neither its people as "Macedonians". What happens is that the state is given the temporary name FYROM, and the people are called for convenience "Macedonians". Both names are temporary, meaning that they could completely change in the near future. In that respect, wikipedia which is no supposed to settle with "convenience", has absolutely no reason to create confusion and national conflicts by using an obviously improper term. Most academic sources I've come across refer to 'Macedonian Slavs' as "Western Bulgarians", or "Bulgarians of Macedonia" (C. Coon - The Races of Europe), and they do this for a reason. I'm not saying that this is the name wikipedia should use, what I'm saying is that wikipedia has the same academic reason to not refer to that nation simply as "Macedonians". The UN and the international institution (that have never recognised an official name) don't need to follow the academic examples and settle for the most convenient term. If we were to follow simply what the international organisations use then we should also change the article Republic of Macedonia to "Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia", but you can't have it both ways, you're just asking too much. Miskin 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally as a response to the people who constantly claim that the term Macedonian Slav is an ethnic slur, I'll just direct them to the declarations of those who are representatives of their nation:

“We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century AD ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

and:"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

• Ambassador of FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska:

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”

• On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM's Ambassador to Canada:

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country."

Since you people insist on being official, then official we shall get. I just demonstrated that the term "Macedonian Slav" not only is not an ethnic slur, but is also used by Macedonian Slav poticians. Therefore any person from FYROM who keeps insisting the opposite, is blatantly coming from a biased point of view. I think I just proved that wikipedia is obliged to use the term "Macedonian Slavs" for at least practical reasons. Miskin 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Miskin You are a mistaken to think you can prove anything that is a historic notion. In fact, only mathematical abstractions are provable. Everything else stands as "a possible explanation" until it is disproved. One thing that is really easy to disprove is that contemporary Greeks have anything to do with ancient Greeks. Just have a look at a contemporary version and compare him to the classic model and everything is cristal clear. While very few Macedonians claim to be direct decendents of Alexander, it is improbable that any Greek has anything to do with the ancient Greeks (a common delusion among modern Hellens). In all likelyhood, the modern Macedonians and modern Greeks (Bulgarians and Serbs as well) should be ethnically more similar than their similarity across time with any imagined ancestry of old.--Paletakis 15:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That made me laugh. A person from a Bulgarian-speaking nation with a history of 10 years and a foreign minority of 40%, calls shamelessly calls itself "Macedonian" and questions the ethnic purity of others?? How more comicotragical can this get?! :D I don't think this deserves a serious answer, you have demonstrated what a brainwashed extremist you are. What else do they tell you in school? That Greeks are lizard-like demons maybe? Miskin 16:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"While very few Macedonians claim to be direct decendents of Alexander, it is improbable that any Greek has anything to do with the ancient Greeks (a common delusion among modern Hellens)."
1. What do u mean with the word "direct"?
2. I don't know what's going on inside FYR Macedonia, but I do know that almost all Macedonian Slavs in the net claim that are descendants of Macedons (Ancient Macedonians).
For example:
Just use Google. Search for forums about the ancient Macedonians and Alexander the Great. Almost all Macedonian Slavs claim the same thing. That they are descendants of ancient Macedonians.
3. Do u claim that modern Greeks aren't descendants of ancient Greeks? If so, could u plz give us historical evidence supporting that?

There is no need to claim the obvious. If you choose to live in denial that you are a mongrel population and aspire to the myth of ethnic purity with imaginary links to some ancient people, its your own loss. Please educate yourself and understand that there is no need to support my claim; the only honest way is to see if the positive Greek claim (i.e that modern Greeks 'are' descendents from the ancients - and the wholy and rightful one's in the minds of many fanatics) stands up to facts, and the facts are that modern Greeks do not look anything like the ancients, CASE CLOSED. Thus any Greek monopoly to its linkage to anything "ancient Greece" is ideological, i.e. its imagined in the minds of Greeks but it is not an objective truth. If you understand this, you will be happier as you will step of your imaginary pedestal and finally join humanity at large. --Paletakis 17:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Mongrel"?!? That is a racist insult. Care to retract or care to be reported? Chronographos 18:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with the user above.I was going to start writing something relevant to your posts, but you seem perfectly able to discredit your opinions by yourself.--Jsone 19:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

ДА ЖИВЕЕ РЕПУБЛИКА МАКАДАМИЈА!--Theathenae 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The Silence of the Lambs

Oh, well, it only took a single mention of translating the Macedonia-related articles from Македонски into English to silence y' all? I guess you are all busy translating, so I'll leave y'all to it ... Chronographos 15:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, you guys, nothing yet? It's been two days already. Surely it needn't have taken y'all this long to translate 4 or 5 half-page-long articles form your mother tongue into English? What's taking y'all so long? Chronographos 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Stop changing the number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece

The number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece is 962 . So stop changing it. This is an official census. What else do u want?

Do u have a problem because it is a table about immigrants in Greece?
All ppl in Greece with Greek citizenship have Greek nationality, too. The biggest part of the countries of the world, prefer to count the ppl inside their countries according to nationality. But in Greece, as I mentioned, if u have a Greek citizenship then u have Greek nationality, too. So Greek government prefers to count it's ppl according it's citizenship in order to emphasize that these ppl are foreigners (not Greek citizenship). The reasons that they want to emphasize that are obvious:
Greater Albania
Great Bulgaria
Claims on the area of Macedonia and the history of Macedons by Macedonian Slavs
Turkish claims in Aegean Sea

For the same reasons it doesn't recognize any minority inside Greece.

But what happened to the indigenous ppl of foreign nationality?
The most ppl left the country during the population exchange, wars end civil war. The rest had been assimilated. Keep in mind that Greeks outside Greece were apx 10 millions a few years ago and now days they are 2-3 millions. What happened to them? They had been assimilated. ;)

Is the Greek census reliable?
Yes, it is.
US claims that the 2% of the ppl in Greece are foreigners.
EU claims that less than 5% of the ppl in Greece are foreigners.
Greece says that 7,3% (officially according to the census of 2001) are foreigners. Now days they estimated that 9% of the ppl in Greece are foreigners. So obviously u can't claim that Greek census or even the Greek government are unreliable. They give a higher number than the rest major countries and organizations. ;)

So stop changing this number. If u claim that there isn't any official census for Macedonian Slavs in Greece, then anyone can claim the same thing not only about the rest groups of ppl in Greece, but on other countries that they use the same or a similar ways in order to count the ppl inside their country.

Keep in mind that I wont explain or at least not in such degree, why I changed smth else in this topic. For God's shake, for 1 minor change u made me write all the above, because u were (a few of you) insisting changing that number.

External Links

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org <-- Deleted
Propagandistic & faulse material about Macedonian Slavs & ancient Macedonians.


http://www.macedonia.org/ <-- Deleted
Propagandistic & faulse material about Macedonian Slavs & ancient Macedonians.


The rest links seems OK.

Neutral Misplaced Pages???

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Misplaced Pages calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Misplaced Pages is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Misplaced Pages most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Misplaced Pages says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Misplaced Pages is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Misplaced Pages.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Misplaced Pages, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Misplaced Pages? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Misplaced Pages says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Misplaced Pages says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Misplaced Pages says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Misplaced Pages ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Misplaced Pages claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Misplaced Pages wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Misplaced Pages are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Misplaced Pages simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Misplaced Pages says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Misplaced Pages claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Misplaced Pages? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Misplaced Pages NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Misplaced Pages takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Misplaced Pages calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Misplaced Pages as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Misplaced Pages) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Misplaced Pages as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Misplaced Pages claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Misplaced Pages claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Misplaced Pages does NOW). Then, Misplaced Pages claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Misplaced Pages says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Misplaced Pages claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Misplaced Pages says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Misplaced Pages completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Misplaced Pages says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Misplaced Pages later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Misplaced Pages even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Misplaced Pages says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Misplaced Pages is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

I sterbinski 12:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia."

Quote from FYROM'S former President Mr. Kiro Gligorov.

Right from the Horses mouth. You are Slavs, face it and get over it and stop feading us your Grandaddy's propaganda bullshit.

198.176.19.40 comment (copy)

This debate is trying to determine whether certain people should call themselves Macedonian or not. They are doing it already, and we here are trying to comment upon their choice.

Instead of directly trying to give positive or negative verdict on the historic fact why not try to examine it in another way. Why not start by setting rules according to which any number of people may rightfully call themselves.... lets say Spanish for example. We could use Canadian or ... Finnish for that matter. The point is that the rules must be the same for any "name" for any "group of peoples".

If these people have "played" by the rules ... then there will be no debate at all!! They will have rightfully done so to call themselves Macedonians!! Just as the Spanish people in our example will have done so as well. If these people have not meet the rules then.... sorry but you cannot call your self macedonian because if you do then other people that are not spanish might call themselves spanish ... and that would not be fair to the spaniards now would it ??

So ... let’s start.

I recommend that the rules be:

1. He speaks Spanish. And as Spanish we should recognize what the majority of already recognized Spanish people speak. You can’t come along talking German and start claiming that the other 40 million Spanish are speaking Portuguese and you are not really speaking German but Spanish that sounds abit like German!! OK??

2. He has the same religion as the majority of the already recognized Spanish people. Again as far as what the real Spanish religion is you can’t claim that yours is the real one like with the language.

3. He has none or VERY little similarities to other neighboring peoples. If you claim to be Spanish but you speak a German dialect, you eat German food; you look German, and live close to Germany ... well its more like you’re a German on an identity crisis rather than a Spaniard. And if you are not and really think you are Spanish we stop speaking German for starters and start acting like a Spaniard... otherwise you're neither Spanish nor German. In which case you can choose to create a new people (that is a nice option. I am sure the United Nations would give you a hand) or you can choose to not have a national and ethnical identity (that would be original if nothing else).

4. He must not have recently had military problems with the majority of the already recognized Spaniards. It would be funny if a Catalonian suddenly started calling himself Spaniard now wouldn’t it?. Even though he has large similarities with the Spanish and meets all previous rules the fact that his people (his community) has been at war since ... well since forever kind of makes his case hard to accept.

5. (And this is the most important rule I believe as it shows the real intentions of someone who wants to be called Spanish.) He, or she of course, must have as his only request that to be welcomed and included into the rest of the already recognized Spanish people. He must want only legal citizen ship from Spain. Kind of strange wouldn’t it be if someone started screaming that he is Spanish but he doesn’t want to be apart of Spain !! no he wants Spain to divide in 4 peaces and to give him (and his peoples) one of those peaces. That just HAS to be against the rules !!!. That’s not wanting to be Spanish that's trying to start some war or national tension """ and i think the planet already has enough of that for us to accept more of it.

6. He must also, accept Spanish history, culture, way of life and policies as are accepted by the majority of the already recognized Spaniards.

I believe that if some one came up and met all these rules that the Spanish government would grant him citizenship straight away and welcome him into the country !!! Dont you ?

Lets not start talking about Macedonia and Slavs and Spartans and the Chicago Bulls just yet. Lets only agree that these are good rules for somebody to have the right to claim that he is Spanish.

OK?

So ... what do you think of my rules ? there are only 6 of them !!

1.the language rule (I think very basic, all historians use language to say whether something is Egyptian or Hellenic) 2.the religion rule (again historically always been a source of national identification) 3.the exclusion rule (if an artifact has 100 similarities to Chinese culture and only 5 to Japanese culture then its more Chinese by fare than Japanese) 4.the historical rule (if Egyptians keep fighting the Arabs then they would find it hard being accepted into the Arab society even if they meet other criteria) 5.the intentions rule (if you want to be called British then the first thing you must do is bow to the Queen and to the British government. You can’t claim to be British but demand some mysterious independence of some part of Britain) 6.the acceptance rule ( you must accept the nation that you are claiming to be a part of as do all the member of that people)

Well ?

• • • Please note I copied the above in response request stating inadvertent blanking occured, I've not checked every dot, but it looks right to me, the request appeared on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress#Macedonian Slavs. Alf 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian (ethnicity)

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

more pov

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

explanation for my edits

1. No international institution disputes that the name of the ethnic group - "Macedonians". You can check this by searching the sites of these instutions.
2. No contemporary scientific source refers to them as "Western Bulgarians". They did so, in the past. That is explained in the sections below, and stressing it on the first paragraph is meant to insinuate that a significant minority disputes that Macedonians are a real nation, which is not the case.
3. The insult tag. Miskin, you are not here to prescribe what the reader should find offensive or not. If it was up to you, you don't find the "Slavic crowd" term offensive, as well. --FlavrSavr 15:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. The United Nation recognises only the name of the state as FYROM and most international organisations as FYR-Macedonia. There's no official recognition for its nationality, which by default is FYR Macedonian. Again, most people refer to the country as "Macedonia" and the people as "Macedonians" for the obvious convention of not having to say FYR all the time. That doesn't mean that anybody recognises them really as Macedonians. And since the UN has given a temporary name, I don't even know why are we discussing this, it just means that it does NOT recognise them as Macedonians, at least not yet. Just deal with it and get on with your life.

What are you talking about? The United Nations refers to them as Macedonians, and no international instutition refers to them as "Macedonian Slavs" nor, "FYR Macedonians". The only attempt to somehow impose this term in the Council of Europe, ended as a failure, and this institution still refers to them as "Macedonians" > This is done not for convinience, but for profound reasons (it's called "Self identification"), which are to be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which, you are obviously, unaware of.

I think you intentionally refusing to understand the situation. I'll siplify it for you: Neither "Macedonia" nor "Macedonians" is officially recognised by the UN. Internation organisations that refer to it as such, is only done for convenience. Until a name is officially established, wikipedia is obliged to use a neutral and realistic term such as Macedonian Slavs.

I think that you are confusing the naming dispute of the state with the naming of the nationality. The naming of the nationality was never internationally disputed (for about 60 years). Read the UN resolution regarding the FYROM temporary designation. It doesn't mention the name of the nationality, and don't try to impose your own interpretations on it. The only ones who tried to dispute the name of the nationality were some circles within the Council of Europe, and they didn't succeed in that. Now read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Their nationality is Macedonian, not Macedonian Slav. Miskin, it is hard to accept the fact that the UN won't change the name of the nationality, but face it - they don't have the slightest reason to do that. POV tag remains. --FlavrSavr 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I gave you an exampe: C. Coon - The races of Europe, a very popular anthropology textbook used in universities world wide. The book is not outdated at all, it was written in the '90s (96 if I'm not wrong) by an American prof. which yo u can look up for yourself. In fact almost no academic refers to them as "Macedonians", for the simple reason that they're not (what they call themselves is irrelevant). This is the policy wikipedia does and should follow, whether you want to accept it or not is a different story.

Carleton Stevens Coon, (23 June 1904–3 June 1981) was an American physical anthropologist best remembered for his books on race, often cited as definitive examples of "scientific racism", and the academic scandal that followed him later on in life.

Wow, he writes 15 years after his death! And indeed, he is quite popular! I am sure that certain circles enjoy his works! And what, you found only one (perhaps there are even two) "contemporary" authors, that are claiming that Macedonians are Western Bulgarians. Well that is what Misplaced Pages calls "insignificant minority view" which should be mentioned, but not on the opening paragraph. Then again, there are authors that claim that the Holocaust didn't happen... I'm sure they are quite "popular" as well... --FlavrSavr 15:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're doing the homework I'm giving you. I wasn't sure about the first publication of the book, but 1996 was the republished version of the one I've read. That proves that it's not an outdated old version like you'd like to believe. "Scientific racism" is a term that creates an artificial link between antrhopology and the national socialism. It's only used by naive people who were too scared to face reality and prefer to avoid it. The specific book is taught in universities (hence its constant republication) and it has nothing to do with the pseudo-scientific racism of the 3rd Reich. Until you read it you can have no opinion on it. What you'd like to be called "insignificant minority view" is in fact the scientific view, but of course I'd never expect you to admit that. Miskin 12:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Slavic crowd is as offensive as "Hellenic crowd" or "Germanic crowd". I've already posted various times instances where Macedonian-Slav politians refer to their nation as Slav-Macedonian, which automatically makes your claims a personal POV. It's not me who's "prescribing" what's offensive or not, it's the representatives of your nation. Or would you care to see them again? Just scroll further up. Miskin 15:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you know what a crowd is? --FlavrSavr 15:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was the term "Slavic" that bothered you. Miskin 12:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the whole statement and the whole attitude of yours. Not that you care, though. --FlavrSavr 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, because some of the participants of this discussion seem to believe that I am somehow IMAGINING that Macedonians (out of vanity, or whatever) find the "Macedonian Slavs" label insulting, I would like to provide with you with this link - - to cite: Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. --FlavrSavr 16:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No one says you are imagining things. You are part and parcel of a propaganda offensive, and you carry out your part with the utmost awareness of what you are trying to achieve: to monopolize the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonian/s" for your own country and people. You want to hijack and appropriate the terms. Every single instance, argument and link you provide, just like the above, corroborates this: "Say Macedonia", "Call me by my name". I cannot but thank you for it. It makes my argumentation so much easier. Chronographos 17:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I used that argument as a proof that Macedonians of RoM find the Macedonian Slavs label insulting. Miskin and you think that they are stupid and brainwashed for thinking that way, but nevertheless, it is a fact that they find the term offensive. The statements of some politicians (who are taken out of the context), does not change the fact the majority of the population of RoM finds the term offensive, and Miskin and you are not in the position to decide what they find offensive. As for me being, a part and parcel of a propaganda offensive, that is the lamest an argument can get. Someone disagrees with you, he is brainwashed, a part of propaganda. I might also say that you are a part of propaganda (but no, perish the tought that Mr.Chronographos might be under the influence of social and media forces!) I had the integrity to openly condemn some Macedonian nationalist thesis, while you openly keep defending Greek POV positions (some Greeks actually agreed that Macedonians (nationality) is the best solution), and some of those have been unamiously ridiculed by the neutrals (the template idea). So, Chronographos, please stop attacking me, and just for a change, bring out some arguments. --FlavrSavr 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that all three of your arguments have been refuted. The edits I make are true, so please don't try to sweep them under the rug in order to satisfy your personal nationalist myths. Miskin 15:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

One side is "true" and the the other side is "personal nationalist myths" and everyone agrees, so the POV tag can come off? That doesn't strike this outsider as anything close to an NPOV resolution. I'm putting the POV tag back on. CDThieme 15:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

greek-jewish pov on Macedonian question

The mention of the Holocaust reminded me a letter from the Jewish Communities in Greece, January 8, 1993, it is part of an epistle by Mr Nikolaos Martis, former minister of Macedonia-Thrace (Northern Greece). MATIA 20:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Matia, please don't go there. My sole intention was to put the fact that some, um, scientists actually deny the Holocaust. Some claim that Croats are catolicized Serbs. As for your information, the Macedonian Jews Jews in the Republic of Macedonia accept the constitutional name of the state: , and don't find it a hostile place for them. Recently, a monument as a rememberance to the Holocaust was built in Skopje, and a Memorial center is being built, as well. --FlavrSavr 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Jews of Thessaloniki and elsewhere are also Macedonian Jews, and they would appear to disagree with you.--Theathenae 16:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, you're right. --FlavrSavr 16:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin's edits

Miskin, what exactly makes you think that the name of the nationality (not the name of the state!) in the UN is not standardized? It is standardized, and it's in general use for 60 years. I have already given you links of hundreds of UN documents that are explicitely referring to them as Macedonians. Also, I have provided you with a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that nobody can deprive someone of his right to a nationality. Their nationality is Macedonian. Moreover, I have given you examples where someone (Council of Europe) actually did try to relativize that they are Macedonians, and how it ended. For the millionth time, the name of the nationality was never disputed in the United Nations. Do I have to cite the resolution:

2. Recommends to the General Assembly that the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement ofthe difference that has arisen over the name of the State;

Where does it mention the nationality/ethnic group? --FlavrSavr 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

dab answered you on why you cannot use the plain adjective "Macedonian" when you refer to the Macedonian Slav minority of Macedonia. As usual, you chose to ignore his reply and just reiterate your position in another page. As a psychiatrist, I do have to point out to you that repetitive behavior is a cardinal characteristic of insects. Although it may outwardly appear to be "intelligent" decision-making, experiments have definitely shown it to be no more than a "spinal" reflex, without any "cerebral" component. You may be interested in looking this up, and also reading about Asperger syndrome while at it. Chronographos 15:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC) (You should not misconstrue my arguments as an attempt to perform a diagnosis online. That would be both highly inappropriate and potentially erroneous on my behalf. I merely strive to improve your encyclopedic education, and trust you will appreciate my endeavor)

Chronographos, it was dab that moved the conversation in that talk page, because, apparently, he got tired of our bilateral antipathy. It was a matter of courtesy that I contiuned the conversation there. Also, Nat Krause seems to think that the "Macedonian Slavs" label is inappropriate. However, you seem to know much about encyclopedia behaviour, so I've put up a RfC for the section. I'm positive that the neutrals, will, again, consider your position ridicilous. Regards, --FlavrSavr 14:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It was also dab who wrote that he answered you. Chronographos 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

As for the do not-find-offensive thing, do you want to give other statements by the same politicians where they are explicitely referring to the nationality as "Macedonian"? Here's one, from Kiro Gligorov:. Moreover, how come only politicians matter, while the vast majority of the Macedonians in RoM, doesn't. Excuse, but your reasoning can be describe like this "Some prominent rappers have used "Niggers" as a self-identifying" term for their race, and therefore the use of Niggers within this article is not meant to be offensive to this race.". What gives you the right to determine what's offensive and what's not? --FlavrSavr 15:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

One might ask you the same question. What gives you the right? Politicians from your country certainly do call themselves "Macedonians", but User:Miskin is right to say that they have also used the Slav epithet on a number of occasions, at the highest level. We shouldn't omit this from the article simply because it conflicts with your point of view.--Theathenae 15:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

But I have already explained that, to cite : Macedonian citizens have sent more than 210,000 postcards to the Council of Europe supporting the use of that country's constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, "Utrinski vesnik" reported on 8 April. The postcards reading "Say Macedonia," "Call me by my name!" and "Don't you FYROM me!" were printed by a group of NGOs after the Council of Europe recently decided to refer to the Macedonian language as "Macedonian (Slavic)" and to Macedonian nationals as "persons from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in official documents. Now, believe me, when more than 10% of a population actually sends a postcard as a protest because they do not want to be labeled as such, I believe that we can say that they do find it offensive. I didn't send a postcard, but I do find it offensive. Interview 1000 of them, asking this question: "Are you Macedonians or Macedonians Slavs", 990 of them will answer "Macedonians". There were some attempts to label them as SlavoMacedonians in Australia, and they reacted the same way: Don't label me against my will. And again, I am not trying to deny that they actually said that, but Miskin's conclusions are way far fetched. --FlavrSavr 15:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Still, you cannot censor his references to the politicians who have used that terminology.--Theathenae 15:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

As for the do not-find-offensive thing, do you want to give other statements by the same politicians where they are explicitely referring to the nationality as "Macedonian"?

For crying out loud FlavrSavr please don't play it dumb with me. It works with other people who don't really know what's going on bu it doesn't work with me, and it only underestimates my intelligence. I never said that FYROM politicians have reserved the term "Macedonian Slavs" to refer to their nation. That would have been an argument strong enough to resolve the name-debate in the UN, not in a wiki discussion page. My argument was that since FYROM politicians have in various occasions used the term "Slav Macedonians", then the term "Slav" is not a racial slur, and your main counter-argument is automatically nullified. Plain and simple, the reference stays. If your politicians are using racial slurs then don't vote for them. Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"Some prominent rappers have used "Niggers" as a self-identifying" term for their race, and therefore the use of Niggers within this article is not meant to be offensive to this race."

So let me get the straight, you're actually implying that the lyrics of some rapper have the same factor of importance as the official declarations of a politician?!!? Boy, you really are desperate... Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have provided you with a specific article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that nobody can deprive someone of his right to a nationality.

That's such a load of rubbish. So tell me what would happen if Greek Macedonia chose to break off the Greek state and create a Greek-speaking state of its own of Macedonian nationality. Why would they have to find a name which differentiates from plain "Macedonian", while they're obviously geographically and culturally the only inheritors of that name. But you don't have an answer to that do you? You just say "that won't never happen" and it probably won't. The point is that those people X of Northern Greece who call themselves Macedonian, are as much as people as the Macedonian Slavs, and I don't see a reason for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights not applying to them. We're not even suggesting that plain "Macedonians" is restricted to Northern Greeks, which for the obvious reasons is the only realistic scenario. On the contrary, we're suggesting that the name "Macedonian" should not be monopolised by anybody, but I suppose a nation with no real history or culture is too insecure to settle with such a compromise. What goes around comes around. Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, what exactly makes you think that the name of the nationality (not the name of the state!) in the UN is not standardized? It is standardized, and it's in general use for 60 years.

Is that so? There's also an official document from the '40s where the president of the USA is rejecting the existence of a "Macedonian nation" which only serves to promote Yugoslavian land-claims against Greece. I'm sure you're familiar with it. If you insist to pretend that the entire world recognises FYROMians as "Macedonians", I'm going to stick that document in the article. In the meantime I'm making a copromise revert by restoring the part where FYROM politicians refer to the people as Macedonian Slavs, and you have no argument to remove it. The name dispute against Greece is about both name of the country and its nationality, and since the UN hasn't settled on an official name for the former, neither it does for the latter. Your edits imply that the UN have recognised this nationality as "Macedonian", it doesn't mention explicitly that it's only called so by convenience. This is a pure act of propaganda, which I urge you to save for the Slavic wikipedia. Miskin 15:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

to Flavsavr

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

to Miskin

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

hla

There have been a long talk on Talk:Macedonia about this biogenetic research. (see 27.HLA Genes research, 35. And now for some REAL genetics research, 37. Caution:A genetic research and maybe more). MATIA 06:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It really is pitiful, how people who don't even know what HLA is, let alone the MHC or even a T lymphocyte for that matter, assume the liberty to quote and interpret life science papers, and use their nitwit interpretations to advance a prima facie racist agenda of racial purity, or impurity. If only human biology were so easy as to be a playpen for illiterate kids. Chronographos 12:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And speaking of illiterate kids, let the record show as well that I totally disagree with Miskin's latest edit, which is short-sighted and nationalistic. Chronographos 12:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Miskin is normal. It is expected to be nationalistic if you come from the Balkans, however, he goes to extremes, which are unacceptable by any standards. VMORO 12:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~

That's one of the funniest things said in this discussion page. A sad patriotic Bulgarian from who-knows-where uses the term "Balkans" to generalise countries such as Greece, Bulgaria, Albania or FYROM - as if they're all at the same sociopolitical level. Check the GDP of each of those countries and you'll realise how silly you make yourself look. Miskin 14:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Miskin's moronic examples

The only example given of Slav Macedonians was a quotation from "Toronto star" (and not by a Macedonian politician as you claim) and it was used only as a counter balance to Ancient Macedonians - we are not Ancient Macedonians, we are Slav Macedonians. The rest was just quotes where politicians say that the present-day Macedonians are Slavs. Well, Miskin, that's something that the whole world knows - except you, of course. You can find similar examples by Bulgarian politicians - the Bulgarians are Slavs but this doesn't mean that we call ourselves Slav Bulgarians. The examples are bad and they do not prove the "thing" you dumped on the page in any way. So, sorry, but it is thrown out. VMORO 12:39, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~

Sigh- I never said that FYROM politicians are using the term "Macedonian Slavs" all the time - for crying out loud. What I said was that since FYROM politicians have at several occasions used the terms "Slavs" and "Slav Macedonians" to describe their nation, it means that "Slav" is definitely NOT an ethnic slur (like Flavrsavr was trying to convince us earlier). That's all. Please try to read and understand what you're removing, before removing it. Miskin 13:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you in this respect: everyone knows that Bulgarians are Slavs, but there is no other entity that calls itself Bulgarian, therefore the "Slav" term is redundant. Not so with the Macedonian Slavs: they are the minority in Macedonia, and if they insist on being called "Macedonians" plain, they monopolize a designation that does not belong to themselves alone and infringe upon the rights of the remaining Macedonians, who are after all the majority. I hope this clears the issue as to where I stand on the matter.

While we may disagree on this, we may agree on other matters: for example on how the FYROM is trying to appropriate (confiscate would be a better word) the undoubted Bulgar character of the region in the Middle Ages in order to create a false historical past for themselves. While on the issue, I urge you to read an excellent book by Bulgarian historian Vera Mutafchieva (spelling?) named "I, Anna Comnena". Not only is it very well written historical fiction, but it also captures the essence of the times, as it involves Anna's grandmother, Maria of Bulgaria, who held the whole of Ohrid as a fief (!) from her ancestor, the Tsar Samuel. Chronographos 13:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we disagree on anything whatsoever. The question as to whether the Slavs in RoM should be called "Macedonian Slavs" or "Macedonians" in Misplaced Pages is one thing. I don't intend to dig into it again, for me both names are equally inappropriate. But I wasn't talking about it at all. I was talking about Miskin's inclination to make inflammatory edits which diverge from the truth. As it is quite clear that the Macedonian Slavs themselves regard the name as inflammatory and call themselves Macedonians. The examples Miskin gave do not support in the slightest bit what he wrote and he proves yet again that he's here just to wreak havoc and confusion. Well, I've had enough of that. VMORO 13:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~

Well, risking Miskin's and FlavrSavr's wrath, what would you consider an appropriate name? Chronographos 13:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, the matter is too explosive, so I think I'd rather not breach it... VMORO 15:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)~

Why not? Free speech is the very foundation of democratic societies. The most important phrase ever uttered in the political evolution of humankind is the phrase "Ϭ,ιϬ αγορεύειν βούλεϬ,αι?", "who wishes to address the Assembly?", the phrase which commenced open debate in the assembly of the people of Ancient Athens. It was the first time in history that it was instituted that every citizen who wished to speak about politics had the unalienable right to do so. Whether FlavrSavr or Miskin throw a fit afterwards is no reason whatsoever for anyone to censor him- or herself. For example, names that would fit the geographical area best would be "Vardarska Republika", or, if they insist of some ancient past of sorts, Paionia, the ancient name of the region which corresponds with the modern state exactly. Of course they have no cultural or linguistic connection with the Ancient Paionians, but then again they have no such connection with the Ancient Macedonians either. What do you think? Chronographos 19:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want my sincere opinion: the right to self-determination comes before anything else. So if the Macedonian Slavs want to call themselves Macedonians in English, they should be called in this way. The way they can be entered here is Macedonians (ethnic group) or something similar with Macedonian Slavs given as a co-option, as well. In articles where the names Macedonians and especially the adjective "Macedonian" can cause confusion (like the present one), the optional Macedonian Slavs and the adjective Macedonian Slav/Slav Macedonian should be used. In articles where there is no danger of confusion (like Republic of Macedonia or the demographics article of RoM) only Macedonians should be used with a link to this article and not to the disambiguation. This is, in my opinion, a civilised way to deal with this issue. It's a completely different question that the Greeks would get a heart attack when they hear the proposal and the Macedonians will use - yet again - the opportunity to lay a claim to the Ancient Macedonians. But civilised solutions are impossible when discussions here degenerate every time into cheap mud throwing. Furtermore, with people like Istirbinski and Miskin, no solution can be reached for anything. VMORO 16:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)~

For crying out loud VMORO, don't you have the slightest feeling of self-judgement? You create multiple IDs and edit entire articles (supposedly as different editors) in order to support your nationalist myths of a Greater Bulgaria which reaches down to the Aegean sea. You constantly imply that Greeks had never ever anything to do with Macedonia, not in antiquity, not in Hellenistic times, not in Byzantium (you even deny that Byzantines were the Greeks), not in the Ottoman Empire, I mean honestly what about today? Are there any Greeks present in Macedonia or is it another Greek propaganda? For F's sake, before you accuse others take a look at yourself. You have never offered any real contribution to wikipedia, all you do is watch and propagate on what you consider as "Bulgarian-related articles". You are a virus to this encyclopedia and every means of neutral information that exists - I really find it extremely ironic that you're shameless enough to criticise me or anybody else for that matter. You're not even in position to criticise Istirbinski. Miskin 13:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

??? Do you need a psychiatrist? Multiple IDs, tra-la-la... You suffer from paranoia - but that's your own problem. Keep your comments here to the point and don't bother the other readers with the your disorders. The sources you quoted simply say that the Macedonians are Slavs and have nothing to do with the Ancient Macedonians - there are two lines in Macedonian historiography right now, the one claims that the Macedonian Slavs are descendents of Slavs who intermingled with the Ancient Macedonians, the other one claims they are Slavs and have nothing to do with the Ancient Macedonians. Not a word that they like calling themselves "Macedonian Slavs", no, they don't. The examples quoted by you are irrelevant to your claim, they don't support it and since they don't support it, the claim in Italics which u are so brazen to put every time you come in here, gets subsequently erased. Period. Cheers and I hope I am a persistent element of your nightmares. VMORO 14:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)~

there are two lines in Macedonian historiography right now, the one claims that the Macedonian Slavs are descendents of Slavs who intermingled with the Ancient Macedonians,

This sentence alone is sufficient to reveal to any reader of basic historical knowledge what kind of pseudo-academic, banano-scientific background you're coming from. The term "Macedonian historiography" is probably a brilliant branch of the Skopje or Sophia history department, and yet alien to any other academic institution in the world. The fact that you regard it as something that we should have been all familiar of, proves what kind of delusional nationalist you're. Take my advice and stick to the Bulgarian wikipedia - if you can even speak Bulgarian that is. Otherwise stick to your day job (let me guess, civil servant?). Miskin 14:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Number of Macdonian Slavs in Greece

According to my copy of the Hutchinson Educational Encyclopaedia there are Macedonian speakers in Greece and they number 100,000 - 200,000 est. I don't know if this qualifies as a credible source as you will have to accept my word for it, unless of course you have a copy of this encyclopaedia yourselves. That is why I didn't add it to the article. REX 12:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a Greek political party, the "Rainbow Party", which champions the cause of Macedonian Slavs in Greece and calls for the official recognition and protection of their language. Their best electoral showing so far was a little bit over 6,000 votes in the 2004 European Parliament elections (0.098 % of the total vote). Their best single return was in the prefecture of Florina, where they garnered about 1200 votes (out of 36,000 cast). In other prefectures in the vicinity they got a few hundred votes at best and a few dozens at worst. Detailed election results by prefecture can be found at the Greek Interior Ministry website. They did not participate in the 2004 national elections because of lack of funds. As they state in their website, the fact that the 2004 national and European elections were held close together prevented them from funding two consecutive campaigns adequately. Since the Greek electorate tends to cluster towards the major parties at the expense of smaller parties in national elections, it is likely that the Rainbow party decided to skip national elections altogether in favor of the Euro- ones, as they thought their showing would be even poorer. Voter turnout in national elections is higher that in Euro- ones (compare 7.6 million vs. 6 million votes cast in the 2004 national and Euro- elections respectively, an manifestation of the so-called "Euro-apathy"). If I'm not mistaken, in past national elections they have formed a coalition with the "Organization for the Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Greece", a fringe far-left group of Trotskyite tendencies, and have got something like 0.05 % of the vote. Chronographos 13:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

let's twist again

Round and round and up and down, we go again, sang Chubby Checker. Having read those discussions too many times, I must remind to everyone interested that we've been over this before. Chronographos it looks like a vicious circle, doesn't it?

Yea, let's twist again, twistin' time is here! MATIA 14:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Why did you bring it up again then? It was conclusively answered and laid to rest by Etz Haim. You are spinning so fast, one could in all frankness mistake you for an electron. Chronographos 16:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA seems to have the impression that he is funny. Ho ho! Ha ha! I think that we should surrender now to far-right Greek extremism and say that there are no ethnic minorities in Greece. That Greece is 100% White, 100% Greek Orthodox and 100% Greek speaking. Wow it sounds like L.A.O.S. is active on Misplaced Pages and anyone who dares disagree with MATIA's infallible word is deemed by him to be going aroud in vicious circles. He didn't explain that claim though. How interesting? It sounds like propaganda. Trying to convince people that false facts are true. Everyone listen: We must obey MATIA because he knows everything and we know nothing. What arrogance! REX 14:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You prove your lack of arguments with personal attacks. Is it the 8th time you slander me as right-wing and/or nazi? Despite the fact that I told you I have nothing to do with these? Despite the fact that there is not even one contribution I've did that could justify your claims. You are a liar, and your continuous calumnies are more than offending, unjustified, personal attacks. MATIA 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care anymore what you think. All you do is lie. You accuse me of circular arguments. That is not true. To begin with there were no arguments at all. Above I made a request. But obviously MATIA and Chronographos like to make up straw man arguments even when all I made was a request. Anyway, Ethnologue says that there are 180,180 speakers of Macedonian in Greece and because naturally they know better than Chronographos and MATIA I shall use that figure in the article. REX 16:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I refuse to be drawn into your spiteful rhetoric. The Ethnologue "census" data you quote is highly suspect of error: post WWII Greek censuses have always been held once a decade, on the first year of the decade: 2001, 1991, 1981, 1971, 1961, and 1951. I don't know what happened pre-1940. This can be verified at the National Statistics Service of Greece website. There was no census carried out in 1986. Chronographos 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, take the time to read Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Archive#macedonian-slavs_in_Greece and perhaps you can tell us about Encarta too. MATIA 17:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you will have to spell it out for me. You will have to provide links to specific Web pages which say that Ethnologue is lying. I shouldn't have to research to prove my own sources wrong. REX 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue is widely respected and cited in the international linguistics community. Jonathunder 18:23, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Jonathunder, I can confirm what you said about Ethnologue - but one should cross-check every source. REX, Ethnologue is the perfect source today? Should I remind you, your quote from few days before? MATIA

That's right Jonathunder, but Chronographos and MATIA expect us to take their word over Ethnologue's. REX 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

REX I gave you the link to a previous discussion regarding this article. I don't have to spell it out for you (as you said) and as a matter of fact I won't. You can either read it, and refrain from disrupting wikipedia, or you can check the National Statistics Service of Greece website link that Chronographos gave you, and verify that no census was held in 1986. MATIA 20:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I'm afraid I cannot find anything on use at the link you pointed out except far-right Greek extremist arguments. Nor does the Website www.statistics.gr say that there was no census in 1986. So I guess that we will just have to write what Ethnologue says because Misplaced Pages policy (Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability) instructs us to do so. Remember, Trolls will be reported. REX 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to report yourself, me or someone else, REX? MATIA 20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoever engages in trolling. The website provided by Chronographos does NOT say that there was no census in 1986, nor does your link. You are aware tha POV pushing is frowned upon. Anyway, even if you did agree to observe Misplaced Pages policy (Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability) I would also have to persuade User:VMORO to observe Misplaced Pages policy as well. He removed the true facts which you reject for no reason whatsoever . REX 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonathunder, it is true that "Ethnologue is widely respected and cited in the international linguistics community". Nevertheless there was no Greek census carried out in 1986. You may douse yourself with gasoline and set yourself on fire in protest, but that's all there is to it. REX, you will have to search www.statistics.gr a little bit better. No, it does not say that there was no census in 1986. Nor does it say that there was no census in any years other than 2001, 1991, 1981 etc. Just like the phonebook says that I am a physician: it does not say that I am not a lawyer, a gardener, a priest or a football player for Real Madrid. Chronographos 21:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove to us that there was no census in 1986? If yes, καλώς; if no, then pipe down! I don't believe that that website says anything about censa in the 80s. I think that you are trying to send me on a wild goose chase. You seem to be rather familiar with that website. Paste a quote here saying whatever it is that you are trying to prove, also provide a link to the page which contains the quote. I don't think you can. I suspect foul play afoot (ie lies). REX 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I can. And here's more!. Now can you prove that your mother is not a woman of, let's say, ill-repute? I do not mean to insult you or that impeccable lady your mother, obviously, just point out the mendacity, and ultimate futility, of your sophistry. Chronographos 22:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That website is in some language I can't understand. Have you not read Misplaced Pages policy (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability)? Sources must be in English. I cannot understand that language, so I guess we must reject your source. Shame! REX 22:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, really? It seems to me you can write Greek with few mistakes when you want to. Which is to be expected from an Albanian who was educated in Greece (on Greek taxpayer money). The second list above is a list of all official publications available by the Greek National Statistical Service. It details censi (not censa!) and it is obviously in Greek. You may run it, along with the first link, through Babelfish and get a reasonable idea of what it's about. I'll give you a euro if you do. BTW there's more and more and more. Chronographos 23:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (Guess what? No euro for you!)

The last Greek census which asked about language was in 1951. It found 41,000 Slav-speakers. It is unlikely that this is an overestimate, and one can speculate that it is an underestimate for various reasons: census-takers not canvassing completely; census fraud either in the field or in the central office; and fear of persecution (justified or not). However, it is an official census figure. On the other hand, it doesn't say anything about the identification of these people. Did they think of themselves as Makedonski? as Bulgarian? as Slav-speaking Greek? Maybe even several of these things at the same time. Or none of them. --Macrakis 23:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that the National Statistics Service of Greece does NOT ask a question on ethnicity and minority languages (because the Greek state does not recognise ethnic minorities, only one religious minority, the Muslims) we can assume that this service did not undertake this census. Therefore the census mentioned in Ethnologue must have been a different census (possibly an unofficial one). So, we still have a case of Ethnologue's word against yours. Who do we believe? Hmm. I think I'll go with Ethnologue. REX 23:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Does your mother agree? Chronographos 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, she does. Why, doesn't yours? REX 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

More lies by REX

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

REX is Albanian. Chronographos 01:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, I know that this may seem a rather difficult task for you to perform, but if you think fairly you will see that on NO occasion did I call you anything that you mention above (I may have implied them though). Also, I have no problem with personal attacks, I am used to them now thanks to certain Greeks on Misplaced Pages. The page you are looking for is at User talk:Theathenae and I say that if X can make a personal attack against me then I can make one against him. It seems that your attempt to slander me failed and your multitude of lies have been exposed. REX 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

REX you are a troll. File a report against you and I'll bring the evidence. I'm sick and tired of all your lies and calumnies. MATIA 07:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

See, when MATIA runs out of aruments he makes personal attacks (he called me a troll. I haven't called him anything, EVER). His lies have been exposed, he is not giving the Greeks a good name at all! tut tut! REX 08:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. Report me because I called you a troll, and I'll bring the evidence. The clock is ticking, aren't you hasty this time? MATIA 08:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

REX is Albanian. Chronographos 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care what he is. My problem is his actions, and in particular his calumnies against me. MATIA 10:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: REX is Albanian. Think about it.  :-))) Chronographos 11:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethnologue and the number of Macedonian Slavs in Greece

Ethnologue says that in 1986 there were 180,180 Macedonian speakers in Greece. Ethnologue is a credible source. Obviously, now we can't not use these figures. Ethnologue must be neutral. Unless of course Chronographos and MATIA feel that they know better than the professionals who compiled this document. That is unlikely. So naturally, Chronographos and MATIA will have to withdraw their request that we omit these figures (the far-right Greek extremist view). Shame! REX 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

and round again

I would prefer you writing that report instead of trolling. As for the census of 1986, you may have forgotten it but everybody else can verify that no census was held in 1986. MATIA 15:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

MATIA is trolling, MATIA is trolling. Do official elections in Greece include linguistic minorities. NO. That is because they are not recognised. Greece recognises only the Muslims of Thrace. So even if there was an official census in 1986 they wouldn't have asked that question anyway. MATIA obviously can't read. We have already been into this above, how convenient that he didn't see it. Obviously there must have been some other (possibly non official) census. All I know is that Misplaced Pages policy requires that these facts be used. If you like causing trouble (ie trolling), I cannot help you. Ethnologue knows better than .] REX 15:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)