Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)

Previous discussions are available at Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5 and Archive 6.

The renaming poll of June 2005 (now closed) is archived at Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll. (See also Archive 2 for many comments arising from this poll.)

Helsinki Monitor and numbers

Let's discuss this. I suggest that there are two questions.

1. Is the Greek Helsinki Monitor a reliable source as Wikipedia defines the term?
2. If it is not, is the article improved by noting that an unreliable source claims such-and-such number?

I'm tempted to say that it may be interesting and informative to note those estimates from even the most biased sources, as long as they are clearly identified as being unreliable. The way to clearly label them is not, however, to describe them as "Macedonian sources", which is confusing and suggests that they are official, but to clearly state the specific source (in this case, the Helsinki Monitor) and describe to the reader what that source's agenda is. I am, of course, open to the idea that this source doesn't meet WP:RS and that the issue is so contentious that getting into it in the article is not a service to the reader. But let us discuss it here instead of in edit summaries. Jkelly 20:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. In my opinion, the Greek Helsinki Monitor is a serious and reliable source. In fact I'm not contesting the Helsinki Monitor; Krassimir Kanev's statement comes from there, and other citations. The passage in question is this: "10.803 (1992 Bulgarian census). 200.000 (Macedonian Sources) (Popov et al., 1989:17). 15.000 - 25.000 (Kanev, 1998a)" What worries me on accepting Macedonian sources is of leaving free ground for nationalism, and I believe these sort of pages already suffer from an excess of nationalism. These are my fears, and the reason why I have always insisted on idependent sources: even mentioning blatantly false numbers gives an impression they may be true, for the simple fact of being there. I've heard some Macedonians speak of even one million ethnic Macedonians in Greek Macedonia. Should we right this? And howcan we do this without strengthening nationalism. Also, then we should start mentioning all the national myths, included that one that makes the ancient Macedonians a Slavic people, or that Alexander the Great was Albanian, or that modern Asyriand descend directly from the ancient ones. In my opinion, we should accept only independent scholarly sources, as the falsification of national history has always been a popular sport. Please give me your views. Ciao :-) Aldux 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "Macedonian sources"? The Republic of Macedonia's Ministry of the Interior? Random people on the street? I don't see a lot of danger in presenting "Nationalist propaganda" if it is clearly identified as nationalist propaganda. For example, the sentence "The newspaper Everything Macedonian estimated that there are slightly more than twelve million ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, a number which is higher than the total population of that country. The same article also argued that the Minoans were Slavs." discusses a kind of propaganda without endorsing it. I suggest that the real question here is how to discuss various numbers without seeming to endorse dubious ones. Jkelly 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, Mr. Kelly, do you not expect propaganda from someone who proudly demonstrates his support for "United Macedonia". :) FunkyFly 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually mentioned something along those lines recently. Still curious about exactly who these "Macedonian sources" actually are. Jkelly 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

And because this keeps coming back (this might be the 11th or 9th time), there's a book about Slavonic speakers in Greece by John Koliopoulos (Ιωάννης Κολιόπουλος) named "Λεηλασία Φρονημάτων - Το Μακεδονικό Ζήτημα στην Κατεχόμενη Δυτική Μακεδονία 1941-1944". The author is professor of Modern History at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. talk to +MATIA 22:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, +MATIA. Anything in English (other than Poulton) that you know about? Glenny doesn't seem to have anything. Jkelly 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea. talk to +MATIA 23:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is available in english too. ISBN 185065381X "Plundered Loyalties: Axis Occupation and Civil Strife in Greek West Macedonia, 1941-49" (yes they have different dates on their front covers). Perhaps one can find it at a library and have a look. talk to +MATIA 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! Jkelly 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Macedonian sources" is the book Contemporary Greek government policy on the Macedonian Issue and Discriminatory practices in breach of international law, written in 1989 by Chris Popov and Michael Radin and pubblished at Mebourne by the "Central Organizational Committee for Macedonian Human Rights - Australian Sub-committee". The authors are explicitely called by the Helsinki Monitor "Macedonian nationalists". Aldux 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"COCFMHR-AS"? Quite the name. What do you think of the sentence "According to the Helsinki Monitor, "Macedonian nationalists" claim x number of people in y country."? Jkelly 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

'Macedonians' in Greece

Shouldn't we finally end up to reliable statitics?The article says:'There is a Slavic macedonian political party in Greece, the Rainbow Party: their last (2004) election tally amounted to 6,176 votes (or 0.1%) nationwide'.as i guess most people know,this is not just a party for the slavophone people of greece,but also a political party for the gay rights.but even if we assume that all it's voters are 'macedonians',their number is by far lower than the estimation of FYROM.in addition,the fact that these people have a political party in greece,is not something that supports the propaganda that they are facing discrimination.as it is clearly shown in all the other cases(corsica,catalonia,basque country,scotland,etc),when a minority has a potical party of its own,is capable of announcing accurate population figures and NOT misleading the people with estimations and assumptions.And if someone should be objective and accurate,he/she should mention in the Demographics of Macedonia that according to other estimates(than the disputed census) the Aromanian population is higher [1] [2].--Hectorian 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hectorian. We cannot find a reliable statistics for the real number of Macedonians in Greece because Greece doesn’t collect census data regarding the nationality. So, the real number of Macedonians in Greece is uncertain. Their number surely cannot be determined by the votes for the Rainbow Macedonian party in Greece, probably a significant number of Macedonians have voted for the biggest Greek parties as Pasok and Nea Demokratia. What is problematic is that the political party of Macedonians in Greece does confirm that there is abuse of the rights of Macedonians in Greece, like the use of Macedonian language in the schools, communication, media, the ability to freely express their nationality etc. You are also mentioning that the census in Macedonia is disputed, the fact is that the last census was performed under the monitoring of several international organizations and nobody had major objections on the quality of the census. About the Aromanians, as I know, they are very well integrated and they enjoy the rights of learning their language in the schools, radio and TV programs on their language, they have (as well as the other minorities) eased admission requirements at the state universities etc… Bitola 11:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with what certain users here refer to as the "Macedonian minority in Greece" is that their identity is disputed amongst themselves. While from the Greek point of view they are all "Slavophones", some of them identify their language with Bulgarian and others with "Macedonian". Whether these people identify themselves as part of the predominant ethnic group in the FYROM on in Bulgaria is unknown. If so, how many? My point is that this should be mentioned in the paragraph dealing with this minority. According to Euromosaic [3] few of these people can actually speak the language as it is spoken in the respective countries fluently. This should be mentioned as well. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding what is the treatment of minorities in Greece:[4], it is not strange that many Macedonians there have doubt about their real nationality. They had very bad treatment in the past, nowadays they have no classes in the schools on the Macedonian language, no TV and radio programs, no newspapers, in contrary, many Greeks are becoming hostile if someone declares himself as a Macedonian (probably you noticed that here on Wikipedia as well). I think this also should be mentioned in the paragraph about Macedonians in Greece. Bitola 15:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On the condition it is adequately sourced an accurately reflects what is written in the source about les (Slavo)macédoines/Bulgares de Grèce. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we should focus on other matters [5]. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If you noticed, your last link describes something happening in 2001, during the short war in Macedonia, and, you know, war always brings things like that:[6]. If we are focusing in such things, then here we go: [7]. Bitola 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuses. Don't criticise others for doing things you yourselves do. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 16:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about which arguments are valid reminds me of that Burger king commerical: "You are cheesy! No, you are cheesy!" FunkyFly 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi Bitola.according to statistics prior to the FYROM's census of 2002,the number of Aromanians in the country was much higher.according to various sources,they still are more than the official number.what i want to say here is that since in the demographics of 'Macedonian' people,there are doubtable estimations about their number in greece,there should also be estimations about the number of Vlachs in FYROM.it would also be interesting to note weather they identify themselves with the 'macedonian' nation or not...the fact that the slavophone minority in greece did not vote for the Rainbow Party,does not mean that they are under persecution of the greeks or the greek government...why don't we accept the obvious?:they are not that many or they are not feeling distinct ethnically from the rest greek population.about the media representation,bare in mind that they have 2 magazines published in Florina.if they want to have a tv station,they can...i never heard of a court decision not allowing them to do that.but lets be honest...if they were up to 200000 (or even 800000!as some FYROM sites say),wouldn't they have?but no tv can be profitable if it has a popularity of 6-7000 viewers...What really makes me curious is why no greeks are shown in FYROM's census...perhaps u could enlighten me...How come in a complex area like the Balkans,were every nation has a minority in all the neighbouring ones(e.g.romanians in serbia,bulgarians in romania,pomaks(a.k.a. bulgarians) in greece,greeks(sarakatsanoi)in bulgaria,albanians in serbia,greeks in albania...etc etc...),FYROM appears to be having only an albanian minority(i am talking only about minorities from the neighbouring countries),but in the same time claims minorities in all the neighbouring countries.I know for sure that a town near Gevgeli(maybe u call it somehow else) was settled by greek refugees from asia minor,cause of a mistake during the their tranfer(difficult times and bad scheduling)...they by no means can be considered 'macedonians'...also,i know that even the grandchildren of Zorba the Greek live in Skopje(capital)...Lastly,the greeks are becoming hostile only when someone uses the words 'macedonia' or 'macedonians' with the intention to present them distinct from 'greece' and 'greeks'.if u have been here,u will probably have noticed that noone would be hostile to u for any other reason...What the greeks cannot get is how the people of FYROM can be descendants of the ancient Macedonians,since they are slavs...If they used this word refearing to the area they live in,it would be fine...but since it is used in another sence,yes,i have to admit it myself,we get hostile...but hostile to the word usage,not to the people who use it...--Hectorian 17:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The question is when did you start being Macedonians ;-) Please, both of you, this is not the place for that kind of thing. Take it to IRC or e-mail. This page is for discussing only the article attached to it. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

i think the same,cause i do not think we will ever end up to an agreement...but,concerning the article,and since there are speculations about the number of 'macedonians' in greece,i just say that there should also be speculations for the population of aromanians in FYROM.this is what i wanted to say from the early beginning...--Hectorian 01:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia's changes

User:Macedonia made this edit on the ground that it is irrelevant. I say it is relevant. Official sources (of over 50 years ago) count the Slavic speakers. The problem is that these Slavic speakers are not all Macedonian Slavs. This clarification is necessary in order to avoid misleading the reader into believing that they are all Macedonian Slavs, whereas in reality they are not. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As you know, Greece does not recognize the Macedonian language or Macedonians, instead they have reffered to their language as Slavic and refered to them as Slavophones. Whereas the with the Bulgarians, there are many Bulgarian immigrants in Greece (see Greece, demographics section)and so Greece has counted all Bulgarians (both native and foriegn) as Bulgarian, not Slavophone, therefore the word Slavaphones only implys to the Macedonians and therefore all "Slavophones" in Greece are Macedonians. --Macedonia 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. This article is about the native Slavic speakers and they vary on how they describe their language. Did you read the source? This Slavophone minority is not 100% Macedonian. In fact, some of them dismiss being called Macedonians or Bulgarians, but that they are separate ethnicity altogether (this is already mentioned in the article). The census only counts Bulgarian immigrants with Bulgarian citizenship. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Macedonians are labelled as "Slavophones" in Greece, if other ethnic groups are also described as Slavophones (which I highly doubt), then it belongs in their article, thats why its irrelevant in an article about Macedonians only. --Macedonia 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Macedonian question

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

Канагјанец, мислам дека работиме заедно денеска :). Фала за средување на знамиња. Јас ги додадов историски знамиња, и ги поредав хронолошки, зашто мислам да е потребно тоа да се знае, дека и симболите имаат историја и значење. Зошто не ги вратиш ОРАЈИТ СУМ, али и ДОБРО СУМ, не само ДОБАР СУМ? То се се варијантите на јазик, не е ли така? Поздрав од Zikicam 00:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

User Bitola said: "This Greek obsession is also wrong regarding the fact that one of the basic human rights is the right of self-determination, in other words, the right to freely express your nationality and your name. If someone is feeling that he is a Macedonian, Greek, American or every other choice, leave him, you shouldn't stop him in his determination."
That's interesting. You see the ancient Macedonians (Philip II and Alexander II included) insisted on being Greek, but ironically enough, it was some of the Greeks who would not accept them as their kin. So what you're now suggesting of ancient Macedonians not being Greek eventhough they felt so, means that you're either ignorant of the history you're trying to claim, or that you're just contradicting yourself and speak nothing but rubbish. One thing is for certain, the Slavic invasions took place during the 7th century AD, that would be some 1000 after the assimilation of the real Macedonians. If you're with me so far, you must hold your horses and try to rationally realise how irrational your claims sound to a person outside your sphere of propaganda. PS: By the way, If Macedonian Slavs had chosen to call themselves Americans, I think you wouldn't be here to tell us your opinion about it. Miskin 16:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, what connection with the Ancient Greeks, your country a newly created state which never existed before the 19th century!!! The modern Greeks are not only NOT direct descendents of the ancients, but their Greekness is a myth, a modern 19th century creation. Makedonec 16:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

First of all, Kiro Gligorov is not a historian; he is politician and it cannot be trusted as a historian. About the Bitola's attitude, first see your attitude and the attitude of other Greek editors who are tormenting all of us with your story about stealing of history, instead working for better articles. Makedonec 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes,u are right ,Makedonec, when saying that Kiro Gligorov is not a historian.but he is not just 'someone'!he was the first president of your state!and no matter wheather he has historical knowledge or not,i bet he knows his fellow countrymen's origins...Also,could u tell me why his sister is a self declared Bulgarian and not a 'Macedonian'?don't they have the same origins? And if u want to talk about historical records,the best i think,would be to see what Herodotus and the other contemporary greek historians said about the ancient macedonians.cause all u can say is a specific Demosthenes' quot,who apparently was a rhetor(a.k.a. an ancient politician or lawer).and i really wonder if someone can show me a politician or lawer who never lied!so,if Gligorov lied cause he is a politician,so did Demosthenes'...so,u have not even one single reference that the macedonians were not considered greeks...--Hectorian 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I remind you Hectorian that since Kiro Gligorov was the first president of R. Macedonia, he experianced extreme pressure and discrimination from opposing sides? I mean, wasn't he the victim of an attempted assisination car bomb plot? And after a newly independent landlocked nation with only 2 million people whos unemployment is 30% has gone through a trade embargo with neighbouring countries, well, don't you think he would have done almost anything to make reality better (changing the flag, not claiming decent of ancient Macedonians, in other words, NEGOTIATING WITH GREECE?) --Macedonia 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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

[Removed my comments as an indication of good faith in stopping endless and pointless debates] --Latinus 11:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

'Vergina' sun flag

1/ this was not the flag of Macedonia - the region never had its own flag, but of the Republic of Macedonia. 2/ it was not called 'Vergina Sun'. 3/ Question. I understand that it originated from pressure groups amongst Macedonian Slavs in Australia, and was not the obvious choice of Skopje. If so, could someone include the correct info? Politis 11:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The flag debate is mentioned in 5 other articles already, I really don't see an argument for repeating it here. Miskin 08:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

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

The root of the problem (1946)

Please consider the following:

STALIN TO BULGARIAN DELEGATION (G. Dimitrov, V. Kolarov, T. Kostov) The Kremlin, 7 June 1946

Cultural autonomy must be granted to Pirin Macedonia within the framework of Bulgaria. Tito has shown himself more flexible than you - possibly because he lives in a multiethnic state and has had to give equal rights to the various peoples. Autonomy will be the first step towards the unification of Macedonia, but in view of the present situation there should be no hurry on this matter. Otherwise, in the eyes of the Macedonian people the whole mission of achieving Macedonian autonomy will remain with Tito and you will get the criticism. You seem to be afraid of Kimon Georgiev, you have involved yourselves too much with him and do not want to give autonomy to Pirin Macedonia. That a Macedonian consciousness has not yet developed among the population is of no account. No such consciousness existed in Belarus either when we proclaimed it a Soviet Republic. However, later it was shown that Belarusian people did in fact exist. ...

(Who and why removed the POV flag I had inserted? - Is this eligible? And why is this section now appearign in the talk page instead of the articel itself? How can we decide to put something in the main of talk page?)

User:Macedonia, if you want to debate on the ethnic status of Macedon then take it to the corresponding articles. I'm giving the description used by other encyclopaedias in the head of their articles on Macedon, which "a Kingdom of Northern Greece". I can copy-paste if you want me to. Miskin 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac's comment

Bomac, in this edit summary, you claim that there is a thesis according to which the Macedonian Slavs are in some way related to the Ancient Macedonians. I'd like to issue a challenge to the interested parties to provide a source according to which there is some continuity, or any relation at all for that matter, between the Macedonian Slavs and the Ancient Macedonians. If a neutral source can be cited, then I'll agree to removing that fragment. Saying that the Ancient Macedonians were not ethnically Greek is one thing - possible, but a fringe theory. Assuming the minority are right and they weren't, how does that make them Macedonian Slavs? Tell me, I really want to know... I would really love to read these neutral sources that affirm the possibility of the Macedonians Slavs being related to the Ancient Macedonians. --Latinus 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess we are forgetting the Olive branch...

Latinus, I have never said that Ancient Macedonians are Slavs. That would be silly. I stated that the

Slavs mixed with the population they came upon in Macedonia. Logically, it isn't possible that this

population simply to "sublimate" and don't have any kind of interaction with the Slavs (Mac. Slav - :Anc. Mac. families, cultural interactions etc.). Bomac 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the Slavs didn't mix with Goths or Celts or Huns or Latinised Thraco-Illyrians, or anyone else who had been in the region? By the 7th century there were no Macedonians, there were only Greeks, or Greek Macedonians if you prefer. Miskin 08:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're saying and I'm asking you to source it (WP:NOR), or at least, if you don't like the present wording, to come up with a different one. --Latinus 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you know what this's about - I have no problem with saying that the Ancient Macedonians may have not been Greeks (scholarly consensus on than point in inexistent), but implying, totally without sources, that they have some kind of "special relationship" with the ethnic Macedonians is POV and silly - especially considering that your theory applies to the Greek Macedonians as well (didn't they have interactions? The An. Macedonians were completely hellenisised before the Slavic arrivals - there were two ethnic groups there in the 7th century; the Greeks (+hellenisised Ancient Macedonians) and the Slavs). --Latinus 22:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't help think of any other explanation for you removing the "unrelated" bit is that your actually trying to imply that they actually are related - I think we both know that's not true, considering that the Ancient Macs were hellenisised by the time the Slavs arrived. Just give a source, or come up with a different wording. --Latinus 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Slav-Macedonian mix is a Macedonian salad theory supported only by FYROM and nobody else. Britaof the Slavs who settled the region in the middle ages, and an Engllish source on the Balkans thannica clearly states that they are the ancestors t I've got says that they have been ethnically separate from the Bulgarians only for a maximum of 100 years. Miskin 08:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I'm pretty sure i know better than you and your "Engllish source on the Balkans" weather i regard myself as a Bulgarian or a Macedonian. For you to claim that a ethnicity can be just created out of an existing ethnicity in a few years is plain ridiculous. I had a conversation with my great-grandmother (born 1897) while she was still alive about this issue. She told me that she always regarded herself as a Macedonian, like her parents and like their parents... It takes centuries to build national awareness and all the things that separate you from the other nationalities. Realek 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also - The fact that modern Macedonians are ancestors of the Slavs that started setteling Macedonia some 1500 years ago is undisputed. But to claim that they didnt mix with the Ancient Macedonians already living there is also ridiculous. What is disputable is this theory that the Ancient Macedonians were Greek people. Realek 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,the ancient historians clearly say that the ancient macedonians were greeks and that Alexander the Great regarded himself as a greek,with greek origins(while participating in the Olympic Games-were only greeks were allowed to participate).what i cannot understand is that,since u know and accept the fact that 'modern Macedonians' are descendants of the Slavs(who settled in the region in circa 5th cent.AD),why claiming the ancient macedonians as ancestors.even though there was probably a mixing between them(already hellinized,if not orinally greeks) and the slavs,the same happened in egypt,pakistan,syria,iraq and in every place conquered by Alexander the Great-i never heard any syrian or turk saying that he is a macedonian...Even if (according to a minority of scientists) the ancient macedonians were not a greek tribe,nothing links u with them more than the other countries that were under their rule.--Hectorian 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim that ancient Macedonians must have mixed with the Slavs who came to the same geographical area is so obvious. The difference between Syria for example and Macedonia is that in Macedonia (where the wast population of the Macedonians lived, compared to the small number of Macedonians setteled in Syria) this mixture of people and cultures was substantial and with much more weight on the "Macedonian" side than in other places. So much more links us with the ancient Macedonians, than those other people. Anyway, the point is that the Greeks don't have the trademark over all things Macedonian even if the Macedonians were Greeks, wich is disputed. Realek 15:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No one said the Greeks do. As far as I'm concerned, the Ancient Macedonians may not have been Greeks. The issue we're addressing is how are they related to the Macedonian Slavs? It's an inconceivable theory and I insist on reliable sources before adding it or implying it into the article. By the time the Slavs arrived 6th century onwards, the Ancient Macedonians were completely hellenisised - they spoke Greek and were of Greek culture (regardless of what they had been before)! How can there be a cultural connection between the Macedonian Slavs and the Ancient Macedonians? The bottom line is that you'll just have to cite a neutral source confirming this thesis. --Latinus 16:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, I agree on the first 2/3 of you comment. But ancient Macedonians must have been a separate people in order to be hellenised later. So why should Greeks have an exclusivity over all things Macedonian from the earlier time when ancient Macedonians were diferent, separate people? Realek 16:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming an exclusivity, au contraire, I'm trying to prevent you lot claiming it. My point is that the Ancient Macedonian language (whether it was a Greek dialect, closely related or totally independent language - theories vary) had been replaced by Hellenistic Greek language (the Koine, based on the dialect of Athens) by the time of the Slavic arrivals. So ultimately, if you are denying any Greek claims to Ancient Macedon, you have that right, but I'm just trying to point out the fact that the Macedonian Slavs can claim even less, which explains my latest edit. I still am waiting for an adequate explanation for why I was reverted. --Latinus 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,don't u know that your country was not part of the ancient kingdom of macedonia?how do u 'measure' the mixture of people and cultures?with the language,religion,customs?cause u have neither the anc.macedonians' language,nor their religion nor their customs...At least the Kalasha of Pakistan have some rituals that relate them with the macedonians.Maybe u assume that there must had been a 'substantiaAnd how l' mixture...u do not know for sure,nor u can rely on something to prove it-if u can,pls do so...The point wether the greeks have the 'trademark'...well,Alexander said he was greek,Herodotus and Strabo also said that Macedonia was greek.i do not think that the greeks see the name as a trademark(do not forget that there are places called 'macedonia' in other countries as well,but at least they do not claim the heritage of the anc.macedonians...).and once more:it is disputed by a minority of scholars(who are modern scholars,not ancient-whatever this obviously means).--Hectorian 16:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You may want to see what scholars in Skopje have to say [8] - Also, let's not forget what Kiro Gligorov said: We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. Apparently, this "theory" that the Macedonian Slavs have any relationship whatsoever with the Ancient Macs, is merely a fringe theory in FYROM as well as in the whole world. --Latinus 16:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, then how the hell are greeks connected with the ancient Macedonians??? They also dont have their language, nor their religion nor their customs! And I'm pretty sure you were there when Alexander said he was greek, but if we're going to use "facts" like this then how do you explain the fact that Alexander was blonde? I havent seen any blonde Greeks. Realek 16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,it is your POV that the greeks do not have anc.Macedonians' language-according to my POV(and apparently the 'POV' of the majority of scholars) ancient Macedonian was a dialect of the Greek language,so we still have it.the descendants of the ancient Macedonians changed their religion(note that they also worshipped the Olympian Gods as all the Greeks) along with the rest of the Greeks,before the arrival of the slavs in the region-they acted as the rest of the greeks in the case of religion.there are still customs with roots in ancient greek custure in the region-just to use an example:a few days ago,cause of the carnival,we saw once more these customs,which are very similar with the carnival customs in other places of greece and are recorded since ancient times.i guess u are a bit ironic:no,i did not hear Alexander myself,but i have read the ancient scripts(moreover,i've read them in the language they were written).and i believe that the ancient writters,who knew for sure the ancient macedonians and lived with them and the same place and era,are more reliable than anyone else.u want me to explain why Alexander was blonde?Phillip or Olympias were also blonde?Alexander was not the only one who was blonde.many greeks were and many greeks are blonde-haircolour does not show the ethnic origins.i expected u to come up with a better idea...but u still have shown nothing linking the ancient Macedonians with u...--Hectorian 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

How do you know, did you see him? I'll have you know that most neutral scholars think the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe and their language was a Greek dialect. My point again is that the Macedonian Slavs have no connection whatsoever to Ancient Macedon and no neutral scholars claim they do, whereas there are some (the vast majority) neutral scholars who claim that they were Greek. Whoooosh... --Latinus 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He was blonde and that is a well established historic fact, unlike some supposed statemants he gave. Realek 17:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What a pity you can't cite a source :-) That means I'll have to dismiss what you're saying per WP:BALLS... --Latinus 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I cite a source if I claim something undisputed like Hitler having moustache for example??? Realek 18:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See Straw man. --Latinus 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are so isistant that I should give a source even for the well accepted facts here you are - [9], and ofcourse a Greek source [10] Realek 19:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

An interesting source on the Ethnicity of present-day Slav-Macedonians

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

Ah, the truth coming out at last :-) --Latinus 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Right! It was completly deserted for more than 2 centuries. The population was sucked into a fleet flying saucers by evil aliens from another galaxy using special sucking beams. Then according to Alexander's own words, these evil aliens performed evil experiments on the whole population of Macedonia. Before leaving they used another kind of speciel beams to program the minds of the surrounding populations to act like nothing happened. That's how Macedonia stayed deserted for more than 2 centuries. True story! Realek 18:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See Straw man. --Latinus 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, warent your own words "Ah, the truth coming out at last"??? Do I need a citation for that too? It's few rows up! Realek 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See Straw man. --Latinus 18:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You should see Straw man, because you are the one who instantly welcomed the ridiculous "deserted Macedonia" theory with the words: Ah, the truth coming out at last Realek 18:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really - it is a theory supported by an actual scholar, quite unlike your theory of Macedonian Slavs have some kind of relation with the Ancient Macedonians. I asked you for a source - instead you resorted to straw man arguments and did not cite a source. Can I do anything else but declare your words anything other than what is described at WP:BALLS? Cite a source, please, if you want to have a serious conversation. Thanks. --Latinus 18:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I must dismiss any such inconceivable theory and I must conclude that we're not talking about a serious person here. Realek 19:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, how about citing those neutral sources which assert that the Macedonian Slavs are related in some way to the Ancient Macedonians? I feel the same way about this theory as you feel about Mikulchich's theory. The only difference between the two theories is that one is from an academic ;-) --Latinus 19:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you said that you dont think its certain that Macedonians were Greeks - the modern Greeks dont have any more rights than the modern Macedonians to claim all that is Macedonian is Greek. Especially exclusive rights to all things Macedonian. Realek 20:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

OK, so the territory of the Republic may have been almost uninhabited for 2 centuries. So what? Why is it a problem? Well, it is a problem for those who want a greater Macedonia and base their argument that Greece, Albania and Bulgaria should get lost, and that their Slavic language is that of Alexander. But for the sane and logical citizens of the Republic, and for most of us, it doesn't matter because the country exists and will continue to exist happily in its borders. Politis 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Politis, what you say doesnt make any sense. Furthermore let me assure that I dont want a greater Macedonia and I dont think that "Greece, Albania and Bulgaria should get lost". But when it comes to my right to call myself Macedonian I dont think Greeks have any right to stop me. Also the opression of ethnic Macedonians in Greece (and their unability to freely express their nationality) is unacceptable and will come to an end wheather you like it or not. Greece has been a member of the EU for a long time now, and cannot avoid this for much longer, especially now when its clear it failed to sabotage the Republic of Macedonia as an independant state. Yet another matter are all those Macedonian refugees from Greece that will eventually get their land back or compensation by the Greek state, wich will have to face the horrible atrocities it commited. This is also long overdue, but its a matter of international justice and Greece wont be able to avoid far in the fututre. Realek 19:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've just opened a can of worms! :)) FunkyFly 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,i saw u are talking about the future...are u any kind of a future-teller?or just a story-teller?if u want to talk about the future,tell me with what name do u think your country join the EU?sorry to say that,but greece has a veto power...And about our 'horrible' attrocities and the macedonian refugees,better take a look in the early 20th century ottoman census about the greeks in Bitola.what happened to them?they flew for another planet?...;-)--Hectorian 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - Realek just showed his true face. Of course we may discuss the plight of the Albanian minority (?) in FYROM who were tortured by the police for freely expressing their nationality back in 2001. From FYROM's point of view, this seems to be totally acceptable - what happened over fifty years ago (including the Pontian Genocide and expulsion of Greeks from Turkey, which happened at about the same time), show that all nationalities have been victims and victimisers. The bottom line is that Greece is a member of the EU and as such has been feeding FYROM through economic aid. Of course, as Tony Blair told FYROM's prime minister (I think), FYROM will have to change its attitude... apparently, that has yet to happen! --Latinus 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bizzar edits

user 61.195.9.220 and user Realek signed up today and seem to speak with a similar(obstructive?) voice on Macedonian issue. Certainly 61.195.9.220 is being mischievous if not disrespectful of conventions over official state symbols. Action please. Politis 18:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont get you Politis. Is there any difference weather I signed up today or yesterday? Also what is the problem with me having similar opinions with somebody? And finaly can you tell me how was I so obstructive to wikipedia? Realek 18:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)