Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)

Previous discussions are available at:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7
• Archive 8

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.)

The title is POV

This article really should be renamed to a title which gives the due weight to the Slavic character of these Macedonians. If "Macedonian Slavs" is out of the question, then how about something like Macedonians (Slavs). The current title is biased in favor is those propagandistic websites (and userpages) which like to allude to the existence of only one Macedonian ethnic group which date from antiquity to recent times. Telex 11:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of this proposal. Maybe we should cast a vote. After all the article was moved from "Macedonian Slavs" to the present title without a real consensus. Miskin 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If somebody wants to prepare a vote, it's there right; but the article was regularly by a decision taken through a poll, who obviously believed the name was not POV.--Aldux 13:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who? The article was moved here unilataraly (without a poll or anything) from Macedonian Slavs (check the previous discussions). If I click on the page move button and move it to Macedonians (Slavs) and then damege the redirects so it can't be moved back, does that mean there's a consensus? Telex 13:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, the article is completely NPOV, because name other ethnic group that is named Macedonians? Does maybe Kofi Annan refers to other ethnic group as Macedonians ? Bomac 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, eat me - the un.org has called you "Macedonian Slavs" (In the 1994 census, Macedonian Slavs made up 66.7 per cent of the population and ethnic Albanians 22.7 per cent [1] - Macedonian Slavs were fleeing ethnic Albanian areas of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia... [2]). I'm not proposing to rename the article to Macedonian Slavs though, but to Macedonians (Slavs) or something siilar, so as to emphasise the fact that you are Macedonians with an ethnic Slavic background so as to avoid misunderstandings. Both names are accurate as you are Macedonians, you are an ethnic group and you are Slavs. Therefore, it's a matter of what is more NPOV. Telex 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? The UN also uses Macedonians. Misunderstandings?!? Wow, this is smt. I didn't heard before . How can be misunderstanding, when, actually, there is no other ethnic group called Macedonians today? Let's not overreact. Bomac 15:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting changing the reference - I am merely suggesting changing what is in the brackets. The article's title is Macedonians (X). What sould the X be? Ethnic group or Slavs, they are both accurate and they both can be used neutrally. The reason I'm proposing the change is to avoid confusing the reader into believing that this article has something to do with the ancient Macedonians who were also an ethnic group. Telex 15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is what you are looking for - Ancient Macedonians. They are prehistory now, so no misleadings can occur. The Ancient even indicates that . Bomac 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that article does have a disambiguating term, this one has a very weak one. According to the (in)famous guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, we should use the self identifying term + proper disambiguation. I am disagreeing with the current disambiguation and assert that it is insufficient. Proposals are welcome. Telex 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, everything is according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict. So, what's the problem again? Bomac 15:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The current disambiguating term is too weak. According to the guideline, we need proper disambiguation so as to resolve the ambiguities. I am asserting that the current term is not proper as it fails to resolve the ambiguities. Telex 15:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm dying of wish to cite me at least one current ethnic group that is called Macedonians. Well? Bomac 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who says it has to be a current ethnic group? That's your POV, I respect it, but it's still your POV. What is this whole dispute about? It's about not misleading the reader that there is some kind of exclusive connection between you and the ancient Macedonians. Do you think the current disambiguating term achieves this - I don't, that's why I started this debate. Telex 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly Bomac, you're using rules and criteria which are irrelevant to wikipedia. Macedonian Slavic POV which implies connection to ancient Macedonians and denies the existence of Greek Macedonians must be prevented. Miskin 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, I'll leave you here for now, but don't start the circulus vitiosus. But you are entering the zone of double standards again. Bomac 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian (Slavs) is reasonable. The ethnic group's name typically is just "Macedonians", then again the country's name typically is "FYR Macedonia", but the respective article is not called as such. Yet the term "Macedonian Slavs" is very widely used, especially in historical accounts. Macedonians (Slavic) is a very good compromise. I repeat that the article was moved to the current name without any consensus. Miskin 15:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You claim a name that is not yours, Macedonians, and that's the reason this article has to be renamed. This is where the ambiguity is created. If the thief claims the stuff he stole from the rightful owner to be his, then people who don't know what happened would believe it's indeed his. As simple as that. --   Avg    15:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. I feel that name as mine, too, I'm Macedonian. Bomac 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you do, because you were not the one who usurped the name. It was Tito. You were born in a country which was already named Macedonia and everybody was telling you that you are Macedonian. It's absolutely logical and understandable that you feel this way. This though doesn't change the fact that the name was stolen 60 years ago.--   Avg    16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, your POV. BTW, remember Pulevski or Misirkov? Anyway, ,,Macedonians" as a term did existed in one way or another, no matter which suffixes or prefixes it was given. Bomac 16:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Misirkov say the following:

We are Bulgarian more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. The Serbian not only want to colonize Macedonia with Serbs from other part of Yugoslavia, but they wish to kill our Bulgarian consciousness. They took our right to call ourselves Bulgarians, even Macedonians, they intrude their schools and education, so much false and Jesuit, so much as the study of St. Sava and finally they come to the idea for the special Macedonian nationality, which they discover in South Macedonia. -Krste Petkov Misirkov, 1924

Telex 16:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but he also said this:

"Yes, Macedonian culture and history are quite separate from Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian culture and history; they have never been the object of an impartial and detailed study. The Greeks, Serbs, and the Bulgarians most unfairly took from Macedonian culture only what they could make use of for the glory of their own national names; ignoring facts of capital importance either because they did not concern them, or because they contradicted their own national aspirations. Unfortunately, the Macedonians themselves are only now beginning to study Macedonian history, having realized, towards the end of last century, that they could no longer trust the historians of Athens, Belgrade or Sofia..." Bomac 16:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, I think you are lying. Search for that quote on the web, and the only source is Wikipedia itself [3]. Who are you trying to kid? Telex 16:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As it says in the statement: they have never been the object of an impartial and detailed study and ignoring facts of capital importance and own national... (whatever) . Bomac 16:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you like some more quotes (oh you can find them, I can assure you) from On Macedonian problems? Bomac 16:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... that quote is quite clearly fabricated. What is the source - even a Macedonian nationalistic site will do, but not even they include it!?! Are you sure you didn't make it up for the portal? (I'll be removing it from the portal in due course until sources are cited). Also, there is also a Cyprus problem, does that mean that there is a Cypriot ethnicicy? We need actual evidence - why are you denying me it? Telex 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Every region with it's specific... As we say here in Macedonia (the republic): Every mountain has it's own weight. Here are some more quotes (oh, what will you think of now ?) Bomac 16:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Money talks BS walks, show me the quote you just gave (in English or the original Bulgarian) instead of bluffing, and make sure it's from the original version, not the amended Fyrom version. Thus far, only assertions have been made, and as I've said before, assertions remain claims until they are proven. Telex 16:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, cosmopolitan ;-), maybe Misirkov wanted to say the first part of your sentence, only in other words (ignoring facts of capital importance either because they did not concern them, or because they contradicted their own national aspirations). This is the only version of On Macedonian matters (problems), which BTW was exposed to an act of vandalism by the Bulgarian nationalists. They wanted to destroy it. Oh, there is a Greek version of the book, if you thought of that. Bomac 17:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting... I asked you to find me that alleged quote (the full text is here). Or is that quote a fragment of Macedonian Slavic nationalist imagination. C'mon, it shouldn't be too hard :-) Telex 17:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan ;-), if you read every single word from that book, you'll find same or similar quotes. On the contrary, it isn't hard finding them, they are in every corner of On Macedonian matters. Bomac 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tedious - either the quote exists or it doesn't. Which one is it? If it exists, show it to me (btw, I have yet to find a quote in that book denying the (extremely likely) possibility of the Macedonian Slavs [sic] being a regional identity of (you guessed it) Bulgarians). Telex 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, you'll find where Misirkov is talking about the Bulgarian propaganda a lot . Bomac 17:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say that, "imaginative" quoting is a common practice among Macedonian Slav writers, who publish works such as "biography with elements of fiction", where they push their nationalistic ideas, presenting "quotes" from historical figures that were never uttered. Apparently some younger people like Bomac, read those works of fiction, and do not know what exactly is going on. Yes, yes, it's the "spirit" of the quote, but where is the quote itself? Most likely it is made up by the writer of the fiction book FunkyFly 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are alluding on the fact that Macedonians were calling Bulgarians then, I completely agree with that thesis. Simply, Bulgaria was the closest Slavic free country which Macedonians could rely on. Apparently, it seems that Bulgaria wanted much more than to be a sister-country... That's why Macedonians have never been the object of an impartial and detailed study.

As for the "imaginary" stuff and alike, it is not "our" practice. As you can see, there is nothing imaginary - the book is more than real. Bomac 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The best policy is to deny it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. Come on, be a good nationalist and dont disappoint your government. By the way you havent found sources for the quote of Goce Delchev, a couple of others were already removed for the same reason. FunkyFly 17:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, this is desperate. I say that I agree with that, and now, according to you, I'm denying it. Whatever you like, your POV . Now I have to go, I have to make some some "deliveries" for "my" government. Bye! ;-) Bomac 17:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say my friend, whatever you say. Tell them to ban the enlgish wikipedia like they already did in China, because it seems like it is the place where Macedonian nationalistic dreams are shattered in the face of historical truths, and that is obviously not good for the Republic. FunkyFly 17:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read it with an agenda (and I read Bulgarian really slowly for obvious reasons), you can prove anything. I can take references from the Old Testament to prove that a Macedonian ethnicity existed. He does not say however that Macedonian Slavs [sic] ≠ Bulgarians. Telex 17:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to quote. Everything is in that link, cosmopolitan ;-) Bomac 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Show it to me then. Give me the Bulgarian text (a literal quote so that I can use Ctrl+F to find it), because at the moment I cannot find it. C'm on, fellow cosmopolitan... Telex 17:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to change the way they are referred to. The article's title should be Macedonians (X) with X being something to resolve any ambiguities as per the relevant guideline. I proposed Macedonians (Slavs), Miskin proposed Macedonians (Slavic), Bomac proposed Macedonians (ethnic group). What do you think should be in the brackets - Macedonians (usurpers), or maybe Macedonians (thieves of Greek and Bulgarian history)? ;-) Telex 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex both are excellent recommendations! :-) --   Avg    16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't proposed Macedonians (ethnic group) because the name is like that. Comment on the last part: Good POV of yours you have there . Bomac 16:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are opposing any change and this has the effect of endorsing the current title - Macedonians (ethnic group). Telex 16:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. ;-) Bomac 16:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me count the... whatever

So, how many ethnic groups are there that self-identify as "Macedonian". There are the Macedonian republicans, there are the Ancient Macedonians, is that it ?

I mean, you could possibly say that the Macedonian Greeks self-identify as "Macedonian", but then are they a distinct ethnic group from the Greeks?

I've adjusted the disambig note at the top to make it easier to find the Ancient Macedonians. This should suffice. There seems to me to be only one ethnic group that self-identify as "Macedonian" today, and that is the Macedonians. Although I think we could stretch to including Macedonians (religious group) in the disambig if requested. - FrancisTyers 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be Macedonian people. - FrancisTyers 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps Macedonians (contemporary ethnic group) and then have Ancient Macedonians at Macedonians (ancient ethnic group) with Macedonians (ethnic group) as a disambig. - FrancisTyers 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group) or simply Macedonians (Slavs) or Macedonians (Slavic)? Telex 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no reason to. "ethnic group" is sufficient disambiguation. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I defer to this comment and want you opinion on whether what you are proposing will suffice. Telex 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think it will. When I say my favourite Macedonian actress is Labina Mitevska, I am not referring to the Ancient Macedonians. This is contemporary English usage. Ask yourself, in the English speaking world, are the Ancient Macedonians or the current Macedonians more often referred to? - FrancisTyers 18:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another example, ask yourself "Who are the Macedonians" (with reference to an ethnic group) then ask yourself "Who were the Macedonians" (with reference to an ethnic group). When I do this I get two different answers, do you? - FrancisTyers 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A better question to ask is, will most people believe that nowadays "Macedonians" and Ancient Macedonians are in a way related, since they have the same name? The answer is that most people DO make this connection. And this is because of the name. FYROMians are not dumb, they know why they keep using this name and why they don't want any disambiguation, it's exactly because their whole nation was built due to this ambiguity.--   Avg    18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all most people don't care. Second of all, everyone knows that the Ancient Macedonians as in the Byzantine Empire and all that crap are linked with Greece, they are Greek. It is just common knowledge, its what you learn at school. No-one in their right mind thinks that Alexander the Great was a Slav. Now, for the current Macedonians, everyone knows they aren't Greeks, a lot of people know they are Slavs. There really isn't any confusion at all. Perhaps a survey could be done of the Anglophone world, but I guarantee that if a person can find Greece and Macedonia on a map — this is my caveat ;) — they know that there is no relationship between the current Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians. Now, my history above may be trite, and it may even be wrong, I don't claim to be an expert. What I do claim to be is a native English speaker who sees no need to disambiguate further because thats just the way it is in English. - FrancisTyers 18:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes you remind me of the ancient Hebrew proverb "You dilute the mosquito and swallow the camel". You dilute the mosquito when you are contradicting Greeks, you swallow the camel when you are speaking with FYROMians. The expressions you use like "Most people don't care", "everyone knows", "common knowledge", "no-one in their right mind" show that you have a huge lack of perspective. Yes I agree with your claims, but I disagree with your assertions. Of course a lot of people know of the issue and most have arrived to believe that Greece opresses these "poor" guys, of course NOT everyone believes anymore that Ancient Macedonia is linked solely with Greece, of course people have doubts nowadays that Alexander the Great was Greek. The continuing propaganda has had its results and things are not that black and white as they were some years ago. If you like, just go out and ask a friend of yours (who is not involved in this issue of course) whether they believe that todays "Macedonians" are related to Ancient Macedonians. --   Avg    19:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, we still call them Macedonians, just what to put in the brackets? It's now Macedonians (ethnic group), why not Macedonians (Slavs)? Telex 18:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is disputed (by a minority of scholars) that the Ancient Macedonian language was a form of Greek. It is true that Herodotus claims they spoke the Doric Greek dialect and the Pella katadesmos seems to confirm this, however προπαγάνδα εξ Σκοπίων (propaganda ex Skopion - propaganda from Skopje) seems to indicate otherwise. It is agreed by everyone though (except User:Macedonia and Bomac) that by year zero they spoke Koine Greek (Attic Greek, the dialect of Athens, which was endorsed by Alexander the Great) and the Slavs started coming from the 6th century (ie 500 years later, so all they found in Macedonia were Attic Greek speakers). Here's a diagram of the language of the ancient Macedonians and their descendents:

       |the past--------------------------------[[year zero]]------[[6th century]]----------today|
       |--[[Ancient Macedonian language]]------[[Koine Greek]]-----------------------------------|
 

Evidently, when the Slavs arrived in Macedonia, there were only Greeks (and other ethnicities, eg Vlachs), no ancient Macedonians, who by that time were assimilated by the Attic Greeks. The Greeks claim that Ancient Mac was a different form of Greek, Skopje claims it was an independent European language. Either way, they ended up speaking Greek. Telex 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you're missing the point. What you just wrote doesn't have anything to do with the question. I'm not particularly concerned what the Greeks, Macedonians or Bulgarians or whoever else has a year to waste arguing about the origins of the name of Negotino has to say. What we are discussing here is the name of the ethnic group called "Macedonians". We need to know what is the most common term in English. Oh, are you arguing that the Macedonians are Greeks? If you are, please clarify. - FrancisTyers 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about your disambiguation note - some people may have a problem with it. Telex 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why they would have a problem with it. In English, the Macedonians you are talking about who may or may not have spoken Greek are called Ancient Macedonians. That is the contemporary English usage. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You say they were Greek speaking. It is true that they ended up Greek speaking they they may have not been originally. I won't protest, I love it, but User:Macedonia mightn't. Telex 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

My opinion of User:Macedonia is well known and would not be considered charitable. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the point, we agree that the title of this article should be Macedonians (X) and the people referred to as Macedonians. What should the X be? An X is needed according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, which required usage of self identifying name + proper disambiguation (the X). The X currently is "ethnic group". I am proposing renaming it to "Slavs", in other words, to move the article to Macedonians (Slavs). We still call the people Macedonians, it's just the X in the article title that changes. Telex 18:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for it not to be "ethnic group", or even Macedonian people with the appropriate disambiguation for the Ancient Macedonians. - FrancisTyers 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, see this comment. We want to resolve an ambiguity - the ancient Macedonians were also a people and an ethnic group. We need something that the ancient Macedonian's were not, so as to not imply some exclusive connection between the Slavic Macedonians and the ancient Macedonians. The Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires the ambiguities to be resolved, I am arguing that they are not resolved because the ancient Macedonians were also an ethnic group. We don't want readers to think that the Slavic Macedonians have some kind of exclusive relation with the ancient Macedonians. Telex 18:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines also state that the pages should be at the most common English usage. There is no disambiguation required in the most common English usage — there is only one current Macedonians (ethnic group), the other one is referred to as Ancient Macedonians. I can see what you are getting at that people might be conned by the crazy whackos into thinking that somehow Alexander the Great was a Slav. I'm here to tell you it isn't going to happen. Your concern is misplaced. - FrancisTyers 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite - not as long as the title of this article wouldn't be out of place as title of the article on the ancient Macedonians. "Ethnic group" doesn't help at all - all that disambiguates is from the Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and Aromanians in Macedonia who are not an ethnic group. The guidlines require the most common English usage + disambiguation. The current disambiguation is insufficient. Telex 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No is isn't insufficient. This is the most common English usage. How about we have a poll, in this poll we insist on: native English and a reason for each vote. E.g. "* '''Keep as is''' contemporary English usage, IMDB and many other sites use this." or "* '''Move to suggestion 1''' more disambiguation needed, Greeks call Ancient Macedonians Macedonians." — basically a nice friendly poll of native English speakers to find out the most common name. Of course, it wouldn't have to be binding, no polls are ever binding. Anything else is a waste of time because the Greeks will vote for "Macedonian Slavs" and the Macedonians will vote for "Macedonians (ethnic group)" and it will just be a matter of shear majority "rules", which isn't how we do things on Wiki. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Macedonian Slavs, have you even read this discussion? I say Macedonians (Slavic ethnic group), or Macedonians (Slavic people) or Macedonians (Slavs) or something like that. As per the guileline, self-identifying common English name + disambiguation. The current disambiguation in the title, what is in brackets, is the disambiguation. Telex 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. What I meant to say was the Greeks will vote to move it to something with Slavic in the title. How about that poll? - FrancisTyers 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, to avoid confusion. Unfortunately, the last such poll was a 50/50 draw. Do you have a problem with Slavic in the title? How about Macedonians (whose name is intended to imply a relation with ancient Macedon). If the article is to remain here, I have no problem with that, as long as the fact that they are unrelated to ancient Macedon is given more (the due) emphasis, because User:Macedonia & Co have recently gone on a deletion spree deleting all such references and inserting sentences like "one of the symbols of the Macedonians is the Vergina Sun which was the symbol of ancient Macedonian Kings like Philip II and Alexander III", for I dare say obvious reasons. Telex 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I imagine the last poll attracted a lot of non-native English speakers, also they weren't required to justify their votes. I can see your point regarding "not related with ancient Macedon" and I think that could certainly be an appropriate thing to have in the disambiguation note at the top. I'll make that change now. - FrancisTyers 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be very interested if you could find an example where an ethnicity with a specific name today does not have any relationship with an older ethnicity with the same name. I tell you, it's gonna be hard. It just doesn't happen because what FYROM did is without precedence. --   Avg    19:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't care. Although... "British", the majority of people confuse "English" with "British", and "British" with "Britons". The relationship being that the island is called "Britain". - FrancisTyers 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A Scotsman will definitely be offended to be called English. FunkyFly 19:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No shit, would he be offended to be called British by an American though? Answers on a postcard. - FrancisTyers 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Americans rarely refer to Scotsmen as British, when they mean a Scott, they say a Scott. British is more a sign of lack of nformation about the background of the person. FunkyFly 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make an association with the UK, a better equivalent would be the Scots proclaiming that their country name was not "Scotland" but "Republic of Britain" and that they are the only ethnic British people on the island. They would also claim all of Britain's history as theirs, they would speak about opressed Britons living in England, they would say that the Scottish Gaelic is the only truly British language and so on... --   Avg    19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no particular problem with that, with respect to the naming -- same goes for RoM. With respect to the history, it would be funny to see these hypothetical people try -- same goes for the RoM -- seriously laugh-out-loud. Its just sad that I guess they actually teach that in their schools. FYI, it is fair to say that over the years all the Celtic speaking inhabitants of Britain have been oppressed. - FrancisTyers 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

By the way, as an aside, do we have a page like British Isles (terminology) for Macedonia (region)? Might be worthwhile to explain this figurative minefield. - FrancisTyers 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

See Macedonia. Telex 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that isn't nearly as anally retentive. - FrancisTyers 19:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just think, you could have a whole other article to argue about! ;) - FrancisTyers 19:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Breakthrough

The disambiguation note that has been devised by Telex strikes me as an equitable compromise.

This article is about the Slavic speaking ethnic group; for the unrelated non Slavic speaking ethnic group in antiquity living in Macedon, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian.

Does anyone disagree? - FrancisTyers 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I elaborate to

This article is about the Slavic speaking ethnic group; for the unrelated non Slavic speaking ethnic group in antiquity living in Macedon, roughly in the present day region of Macedonia in northern Greece, see Ancient Macedonians. For other meanings, see Macedonian.

Telex 19:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. No problem here. - FrancisTyers 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And why not change "non-Slavic speaking" with "Greek speaking". Is it that bad?--   Avg    19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My version did say Greek speaking, personally I wouldn't have a problem with Greek-speaking, but I think Telex has a point too. - FrancisTyers 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehm... Telex was joking :-) --   Avg    20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Look what I say above - by year zero, all historians (except User:Macedonia and Bomac) agree that the ancient Macedonians spoke Koine Greek, the dialect of Athens by cultural assimilation, regardless of what they initially spoke. So if they are still regarded as ancient Macedonians at 1 AD, then Greek speaking is accurate. That's how they ended up (contrary to claims by User:Macedonia and Bomac that they were still speaking ancient Macedonian in 500 AD when the Slavs started arriving). Telex 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Because it is unanimously agreed that the ancient Macedonians didn't speak Slavic. While the majority view is that they spoke the Doric Greek dialect some (mostly Macedonian Slav) scholars have proposed that they spoke an independent Indo-European language, probably Illyrian. The fact that there is ample evidence to the contrary (eg their contemporary historians, Herodotus and the Pella katadesmos) doesn't dampen their spirits. Of course, we know that in Skopje, they don't like ancient inscriptions such as the Pella katadesmos and the Bitola inscription

Telex 19:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

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

Page move

Right, I've moved the page back. Would you like to hold a poll on the page name? Please do not move pages without getting consensus. - FrancisTyers 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just that Macedonian Slavs, the original location, was moved to Macedonians (ethnic group) without a poll or any discussion at all, I assumed it was allowed. If such moves are not allowed, then perhaps the article should be moved back to Macedonian Slavs (so as to avoid double standards). Telex 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand this unnecessary move... Who will nowadays mix the current Macedonian ethnic group with the Ancient one? I think that this is absolutely redundant. Bomac 20:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

We had a rather heafty disambiguation note at the top of the page, why was it changed? - FrancisTyers 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can have the poll and discussion now. Whoever moved it before was wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right ;) - FrancisTyers 21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've included a poll below, I welcome comments, when it is agreed on the format we can start the voting. I suggest we let the poll run for at least 2-3 weeks. - FrancisTyers 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll

To prevent a move war or whatever, lets have a nice happy survey to see what people think about the page name. I will be listing it at current polls.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, adding a brief rationale. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

The voting is approval voting. Any vote for all options including "Slav*" will be noted as a vote for including Slavs/Slavic in any future name. Any vote for all options excluding "Slav*" will be noted as a vote for not-including Slavs/Slavic in any future name. Each vote should be followed by a rationale, any votes not followed by a rationale will be discounted. The outcome of the vote is non-binding. To prevent obvious nationalistic vote stacking, any option without at least 25% non-partisan votes will be discarded. Opposing votes will be disallowed, as will be votes from users who have registered on or after 1st May 2006 or those posted by anonymous IPs.

Feel free to suggest alternative options in the Discussion section, they will be added to the poll, and any votes as above regarding Slav*/non-Slav* will be duplicated.

The page name should be:

Discussion

Discussion resulting from the survey goes here.

• Who is the arbiter over what is nationalistic vote stacking and who is partisan, you (Francis)? Does this mean that I shouldn't even bother voting, as I am a "partisan" in your eyes, so my opinion doesn't count? Telex 21:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Partisan as in belonging to one of the involved parties (Greeks/Macedonians). I will show good faith by voting for all options, or alternatively voting for none. To be honest, this is a watered down version of what I actually wanted to put, but seeing as Wikipedia is not a democracy, 4 Greeks and 1 Macedonian voting for the name of the page is a waste of time, we might as well just add up all the people with native Greek userbox and native Macedonian userbox and go with whichever has a larger number. I would be perfectly happy holding a poll where only native English speakers were allowed to vote, provided they give a rationale, would you? Or are you relying on strength in numbers to change the name of the page, because if you are, it really isn't going to happen. Consensus does not mean majority rule. Your opinion counts, of course, and you should vote but we aren't going to achieve consensus by just going with what the Greeks want. - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm Albanian, and I clearly do have a POV on the issue. I'm certainly partisan. Also, sock checks if needed are on the cards, right? Telex 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and the usual stuff about suffrage — I'll add that now. Dang, I had you down as an Arvanite :)) - FrancisTyers 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I could be lying to achieve my ends ;-) Telex 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• • Well, for starters, there's a big difference between "Partysan" and "partysan"... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • "partysan" is a disambiguation page. Telex 21:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that we wouldn't like to be involved in either of those! — at least not on the "voting" end! :)) btw, its at Rainbow party (sexuality) now :/ - FrancisTyers 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I think this is funnier, coz it includes both options in the same page! Hell, you don't even have to say compare this with that! It's in the same page! On the other hand, although I am not actually ready to accept your proposal about partisan votes, I think you should rephrase the text to avoid accusing both peoples for being partisan on the whole! I suggest you do that quickly... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why I am not ready to agree? Obviously because the poll would turn out to become: Which side has created more seemingly independent WP:SOCKS. I am sure Telex can provide many examples as per which side has the clear advantage on that...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about Bomac's sockpuppets User:FoxyNet and User:High Elf, who suddenly dissapeared once Bomac was told that we're on to him. Look at the userboxes he's picked ;-) Telex 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, because there will be a suffrage (from the 1st March) and there will also be sockchecking, and furthermore, any vote that doesn't cite a rationale will be discounted, along with any option that doesn't has less than 25% non-partisan votes. I would be happy to up the limit to 40 or 50%. - FrancisTyers 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm here since 25 April :-( Telex 21:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Shall we make it the 1st May then? - FrancisTyers 21:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have 1077 edits. Couldn't the edit count be fitted into it - at the last poll it said that only people will more than 100 edits on the week before the poll started could vote or something like that. Telex 21:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to base it on edit count no. Edit counts are not good enough indicators of how much someone has added to the project. A suffrage and CheckUsers will be enough I think. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Any takes on Republican Macedonians or Macedonian Republicans? FunkyFly 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, add them. - FrancisTyers 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Naaah, that would mean (for some) that these are just Macedonian Greeks that happen to have a Republican political orientation. (Now that I come to think of it, that would be a hell of a combination!)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean like Spiro Agnew? FunkyFly 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Can you imagine any American voting FOR in that option of yours with the memories such examples produce? :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You say it like being a republican is bad thing. My opinion is that there are no inherently bad political parties, just bad people. Anyway, the guy is greek and is republican. :) FunkyFly 22:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was self-sarcasm. (check my userboxes)... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, are we happy with the current structure/content of the poll? :) Any further suggestions? - FrancisTyers 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I think it's a nice poll, although you have to admit that "partisan voting" is extremely ambiguous. Everybody is a partisan, since everybody has a POV. --   Avg    23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And I? Will I be, or shall I use my third-computer-in-internet-cafe-neutral-seeming-socks to do so for me?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Big Brother is watching you. FunkyFly 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Avg, Telex, Niko, et al. Yes everyone can vote, but the partisan thing means that you won't be able to get the name changed simply because there are more Greeks (or Albanians, Bulgarians or whatever) than Macedonians. This is not going to be a "Ladies and gentlemen, the Soviet Union has been declared an outlaw nation. The bombing starts in five minutes." — democracy in action. Maybe you could try that though — use democracy to vote the Macedonians out of existence. :P If you aren't comfortable with this then by all means we can drop the poll and go to RfC. - FrancisTyers 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't like polls for the exact same reasons as you. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it should not be a democracy. Let's use it only as an indication and then go to RfC. --   Avg    23:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should put the poll on hold, go through an RFC first and get a few more outside suggestions. Someone may propose something we haven't thought of that we all like, or we may reach an "out of court settlement". We may even get a few more options to add to the list. Telex 23:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. (Ha! This just turned into a poll about whether we're gonna have a poll!) NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, as usual, sock polls involve someone placing a notice at the Village Pump of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias, getting everyone to flock over here and sign their names beneath the specified options. The same thing will be going on over at mkwiki. This is what happened at the last such poll and I think we know how things work here. The smaller national Wikipedias are where the national POV rules are like the co-ordinating camps. The English Wikipedia is more like no man's land, where the endless squabbles take place. I think we all know that User:Bonaparte used to recruit nationalists POV pushing on the Romanian Wikipedia (and the Romanian Wikipedians' noticeboard on enwiki). Telex 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

One point, Francis; May 1 is absolutely too late. Remember that we've just had a vote at Republic of Macedonia, and if we don't want too see all those who mysteriously apperared in the voting, me must choose April 1 as date of start for voters. Also, I feel it's always better to have wikipedians with a minimum of experience for the issue.--Aldux 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say the same thing, but that would exclude Telex from the poll. If he doesn't mind I don't object to that reasoning. Telex, thoughts? - FrancisTyers 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree if this is not going to be based on numbers. I am one of the few non-Greek, yet pro-Greek/Bulgarian users here. If it's going to be more like a discussion, with the votes only showing what the groupthink status is, then OK. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Telex, but I really feel we must be clear on this issue; a month of experience and the starting date April 1. To many editors have bloommed in April only to vote to simply take the risk to see them voting claiming to be Germans, Russians, Spaniards, ecc.--Aldux 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yawn, OK, but will MatriX (talk · contribs) be able to vote? Telex 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Account opened 11 April so no. - FrancisTyers 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of that poll, what is going to happen when this one is finished? Have a second poll to interpret the results of the first one? FunkyFly 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the result is something the Macedonian users don't like, then there'll be another poll and another one until a result they do like emerges. Then if the Greeks don't like it, there'll be another one and another one until a Greek one emerges and then back to the Macedonians again and again ad nauseam... We need something everyone's happy with. Telex 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We need a global coverage of opinions ideally. If we can point to a poll where a good spread of users have voted with detailed rationales then it will be a lot harder to overturn than a poll of Balkanians (if you'll excuse the term) just voting yes/no. - FrancisTyers 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

sigh... I'll have to fight the temptation of spamming the WP:ANIs of el and sqwiki - it won't help :-( Telex 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

(gradually becoming a leftist) So we need more people in this, so we need an rfc, so you agree to Telex's proposal that I turned into a poll above? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with whatever, but here you go — an arbitrary poll for a poll. Voting closes midnight (GMT) Monday (8th May). - FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the poll

1. FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to RfC, then poll

1. FrancisTyers 00:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
2.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Democracy is king!
3. --   Avg    00:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know/don't care as I'm ineligible to vote :-(

1. Telex 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• You're free to talk though, so vote for the rfc thing. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• If there is an RfC, the poll will be delayed and you will be able to vote then:-)--   Avg    00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think so, but the point of the rfc is to invite people and discuss, so that a single vote won't make a difference... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you want votes, I told you, I can spam the Village Pumps of the Greek and Albanian Wikipedias. We'll get a few tens of nominal supporters that way. The problem is, it wouldn't help, as Francis is on the lookout for nominal "Balkanian" recruited votes. Telex 00:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis knows better. I could right now have 10 sockpuppets claiming they are Canadian or Japanese, right? They'd refrain from editing any article relevant to Macedonia and would appear only to vote. --   Avg    01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)