Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Irrendentist numbers ???

Apparently the 150,000 source given by the Encyclopedia of World Geogrpahy is biased POV. Actually it is from a NPOV and is non-partisan. What is the problem? Apparently 150,000 is based on the "macedonian speakers", funny though. The source talks about Macedonians. Macedonian = 1.5% of the population of greece which in 1994 was just over 10,000,000 (thus 150,000). Kekrops if the Helsinki figure were also 100,000+ you would immediately discard it calling it anti-greek POV. Until you could find another figure giving a measly amount. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the max. Why not have both sources, i mean a whole bunch of others also have 100,000+. Im amazed it only took 7 minutes for you to email niko silver ;), he must be on speed dial. PMK1 (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Speakers? Speakers?! So you admit that it's talking about language, not ethnicity. That's what I've been saying all along. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No i do not, that is why "speakers" are in quotation marks. The actual book says "Ethnic composition: Greek 95.5%, Macedonian 1.5% ...", Note the word ethnic refering to the ethnic Macedonians. It is a legitmate source. Why do you question it? PMK1 (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we here at Wikipedia know that Slavophone ≠ "Macedonian", which makes your source an unreliable one. Another of the unreliable sources I culled referred to GHM for its 100,000–200,000 figure despite GHM's own (much lower) figures, which are based on a clear distinction between language and ethnicity. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But we are not talking about slavophones. We are actually talking about "ethnic macedonians". That is a POV taken by the GHM, that is one POV. Why is it only that POV which is bieng shown. Remember; Greek POV is No Aegean Macedonians, Macedonian POV is 1,000,000+ macedonians in greece, NPOV is 250,000 - 25,000 Macedonians in Greece. It is called the middle ground. PMK1 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We are talking about Slavophones, since your preferred sources refuse to make the distinction between language and ethnicity. GHM does, probably because it has a more nuanced understanding of the situation in Greece, and is therefore a much more reliable source as a result. It's funny that you've turned against them, though, considering they're among your most ardent supporters. I feel sorry for poor Panayote. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you are for them, unless you genuinely believe in minority rights like the country to your north. Of 200,000 Macedonian speakers, 85% (170,000) are Grecomans? You must be missing something. Videos like this one prove that not only Ovcarani is a pro "skopje" village. I would encourage you to travel the region speaking english, i can assure you that you will find many more "slavomakedonoi" than "slavophonoi elliniki". But what is your point, you only assume that the Encyclopedia of World Geography is "wrong". PMK1 (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop bandying about that awful video? Even if I were inclined to become a GHM fan, seeing that obese crone sing is enough to turn anyone off, which is precisely the moment I pressed the little square with the X in it. That the overwhelming majority of Slavophones identify as Greeks is an established fact on Wikipedia, so I don't know what kind of cheap point you're trying to score here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be a fact on Greek wikipedia which has slowly filtered over to this one. What a sad reality, if only it reflected the real world. I am glad that the rest of Greece is not as ignorant and intolerant as you. It is funny though, because after the singing woman/meliti clip you might see a reality. Thats enough from me. PMK1 (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In the real world, the rest of Greece is much less tolerant of your bullshit, and it has nothing to do with ignorance. Quite the contrary. By the way, all I see in the video are people dancing along to Slavophone songs. Where's the promised epiphany? Rather disappointing, if you ask me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't we been over this, before (twice)? What got into you all of a sudden, PMK? 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a personal vendetta more than anything else; just compare this to his later edits. I'm fully aware of my ability to rub people up the wrong way, but emotion shouldn't come in the way of intellectual rigour. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kekrops you ask why this source has 100,000 - 200,000 Macedonian while yours only has 30,000. Well your source is from 1999, while the minority rights .org is from 2001. Unless you can find a source post-2001 then i guess the 10,000 - 30,000 source will have to be replaced by the latest figures given by the monitor. That is fair, non? PMK1 (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. You'll have to find the actual 2001 GHM report to see if it's been quoted correctly. Do you really think they would have revised their estimates so drastically in the space of two short years? I think not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to even debate whether there are 100-200,000 Slavomacedonians in Greece. The mere Slavophones (of whom the great majority identifies as Greek) are less than half this figure. How on earth can you have 41,017 Slavophones in the 1951 census and suddenly discover 3-4 times that number today as Slavomacedonians? Did a great migration to Greece occur after 1951? Please, could you return to reality?--Avg (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I don't see Kekrops in every ethnic Macedonian-related discussion. Probably loves us more than his own peeps. Also AVG, I swear to God, if you don't stop using the term "Slavomacedonians" I'll report you to AVG and they'll sue you for copyvio. lol. Köbra | Könverse 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't love you, I love how I look next to you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You always were a masochist. BalkanFever 11:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Πετάχτηκε και η πορδή. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ბუზერანტ. BalkanFever 12:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

կեցե Հայաստանը: ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Агxти л-кунсенс двар тиегxек. BalkanFever 12:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How appropriate for you, Rasputia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

English? You fuckin' up the rotation! BalkanFever 12:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cbf with the wigger extravaganza. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Kobra using Slavomacedonians is my Wiki-compromise instead of using what I actually use when I refer to your folk in real life, which is what all Greeks use and it is of course Skopjans. Perhaps you prefer it? I'm ready to switch immediately after you give me the go-ahead. And please do report me, this is too great fun to miss :-).--Avg (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Not all Greeks, Avg. All except Panayote Dimitras and Gregory Vallianatos. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by all means prove my point. Or come up with a better excuse, 'cause standing next to me, you'd look like a joke, is what. Köbra | Könverse 12:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that, sweetheart. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In the 1950s there were 40,000 Slavophones, and Avg claims that it is impossible to have 150,000 ethnic Macedonians in 2008? Have you heard of suppression? Starting in 1913, when Greece began occupying a portion of Macedonia (as per King Otto), All Slavic speakers were being forced to hide their identity (as per UN rights reports), and the initial suppression could have caused less Macedonians (ethnic) to state their identity in the census. Also, for ignore POPULATION GROWTH! The population of Greece has grown from 8.3 million in 1961 to over 11 million today and you dare state it is IMPOSSIBLE that out of a growth of 4 million, 100,000 Macedonians (ethnic) were born. What a foolish comment. Also, I DARE YOU to start speaking "skopjan" and "skopje" because it HELPS our cause to show how racist and discriminatory the nation of Greece has become and continues to become, after all it is YOUR politicians to started using these terms (a violation of the Interim Accord 1995). Mactruth (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In this source it SPECIFICALLY states 100,000-200,000 ethnic Macedonians, and it is SOURCED with "Greek Helsinki Monitor (2001)" if you click that number "4" next to the statistics. This is clearly POV pushing being brought by the Greek users now, the source is shown, and is being ignored. Sorry, but argument cannot be used when the source speaks for itself. Mactruth (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it, Skopjan? I'm still waiting for the original GHM report from 2001 showing a tenfold increase in its lower estimate since 1999. You can't cite a source via another, especially when there is reason to believe that it has been misquoted. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So this famous "Exodus" of yours has never happened, if you managed to multiply yourselves five to six-fold in 50 years. Perhaps it's time to decide, have you guys fled Greece or not? And remember, Slavophones are NOT Slavomacedonians. Most of them are Greek, or Grecomans as you guys "affectionately" call us (which you have also made a bloody article here, so when you AfD Grecomans we might start discussing again about sensitivities). --Avg (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As per King Otto??? In 1913? Can anyone please explain that to me?? I still think Helsinki is not the best source anyway. But still the "Skopjan" thing is pretty simple. It is not racist, because it is not used in such a way. That's just the way you happen to see it.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ, Mactruth. The bullshit between both ethnic Macedonians and Greeks on this article finally died down but you had to run your mouth. Why'd you have to go and tell 'em to start calling us "Skopjans"? They don't care if you tell them it makes them discriminators, it's Wikipedia for crying out loud. It doesn't get more fucked up than that. Köbra | Könverse 08:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Avg, i knew that there had to be more to it. Me razbiraš? Zboraš ti po naši? Od dea si ti? So you admit that you are Grkoman? PMK1 (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Kekrops, Kostas Novakis is not ethnically greek!

The heading sums it up. PMK1 (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How many times must I request a reliable source that supports your claim? Until now, the evidence you have cited is purely circumstantial. The fact that he has participated in cultural events across the border and used the Cyrillic alphabet (!) does not make him non-Greek, океј? Ју рилли хев ту ду беттер ден дет. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Kekrops, i really dont know how many sources you want. He is a minor folk singer singing in a language which greece chooses to pretend doesnt exist. What you want is him in an interveiw saying; "YES!, i am an ethnic macedonian from Greece!". He is a member of the Rainbow Party, attends meetings of the exiled macedonians from Greece, and uses the Macedonian language when even releasing CD's. I really cant see why you are so reluctant to accept him for what he is!? Ју ар рили експектинг ту мач, хи из нот грик бут хи из мацедонијан! PMK1 (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I want. The Eleftherotypia article says nothing about his ethnic self-identification. We've been over this more times than I care to remember: language ≠ ethnicity. How can you be so sure that he is an "Aegean" and not just another Slavophone? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, he does refer to his language as Macedonian (in the Eleftherotypia article). In the context of Greek mainstream media, that's a pretty bold choice, don't you think? Given what we know about the political connotations of the language names, I don't think it's a huge leap of OR to conclude that identification of the language as M., in such a context, implies assertion of M. ethnicity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The name is used by a minority of Greeks, especially those of leftish persuasions. He could well belong to that significant proportion of Slavophones who reject "choosing sides" altogether. The point is we don't really know for sure. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are basically looking for a "GREEK" source in order for you to believe that is is an Aegean Macedonian. Good luck finding one, Greece denies that his people exist! He is a member of Rainbow Party etc. etc. Slavophone Greeks pretend that their language is not realted to "Fyromian" let alone producing CD's in them! language ≠ ethnicity. PMK1 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, any reliable source will do, i.e. one that does not regard all Slavophones of Macedonia as ethnic "Macedonians" by default. Do you even have a source for his alleged membership of the Rainbow Party? Not that that would constitute irrefutable evidence in and of itself, unless you can prove that every single member of the party is an ethnic "Macedonian". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You are never satisfied, are you? Why would non-Macedonians join rainbow? They struggle to comprehend people like Pavlos Voskopolous, Nikodim Carknjas and Kostas Novakis exist! If i were them i would complain to the Greek ministry of education! :) PMK1 (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger discussion

(continued from the above)

Well, I've always said the articles ought to be merged anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever happened to that idea? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same thing that always happens with good ideas: they don't execute themselves. In this case, there was also the problem that a merger can only happen if we find a neutral third title first. Can't say I'm sure which that ought to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How about merging both to Slavic dialects of Greece? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem with me, although I seem to remember some people preferred having separate articles for the linguistics and the people. Can't remember on which of the many talk pages we discussed this. Other options would be along the lines of Slavophones of Greece or the like. Hah, how about: Greek Macedonian Slavs. How many different combinations are there of possible ways of interpreting the three epithets, ethnically, geographically and linguistically? :=P I just love vagueness in article titles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Naughty. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of merging this one with Slavophone Greeks, this would allow us to treat the history and characteristics of modern Greek-identifying Slavophones, Bulgarians and ethnic Macedonians from the region under one heading. "Slavs/Slavophones of/in Greek Macedonia" would work I reckon? "Greek Macedonian Slavs" gives me nightmares :D Todor→Bozhinov 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I think we should keep dialects and people separate, there's just too much content to stuff it all in one article. Todor→Bozhinov 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Slavophones of Greek Macedonia is fine with me. I'd prefer "of", so as to cover those who are no longer "in" it but "from" it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're gonna merge, here's a draft of a lead section:

Slavophones of Greek Macedonia are members of the Slavic-speaking linguistic group in the north of present-day Greece. They constitute a minority which is today concentrated in parts of the peripheries of West and Central Macedonia, adjacent to the territory of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but have also formed emigrant communities in the neighbouring countries and further abroad. Members of this group, which used to be the predominant population element in large parts of northern Greece until the early 20th century, have had a number of conflicting ethnic identifications: largely identified as ethnic Bulgarians until the 20th century, some have followed the formation of the separate Macedonian ethnicity dominant in neighbouring Yugoslav Macedonia, while among those who remained in Greece many have come to identify ethnically as Greeks. They speak East South Slavic dialects that can be linguistically classified as either part of Macedonian or Bulgarian, but which are locally often referred to simply as Slavic or the local language. The exact number of the minority remaining in Greece today, together with its members' choice of ethnic identification, is difficult to ascertain; estimates range between some tens of thousands and 300,000.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I don't believe I have any objections and what's more important, I don't expect Greeks and ethnic Macedonians to have any serious objections either. I also agree with the choice of "of" in Slavophones of Greek Macedonia. Todor→Bozhinov 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Slavic-speaking linguistic group" - A tad awkward sounding to my ears.
• "largely identified as ethnic Bulgarians until the 20th century" - Judging from the context, I assume this means "they identified as X" and not "were identified as X by outsiders"; are we sure of this largely?
• "The exact number of the minority remaining in Greece today, together with its members' choice of ethnic identification, is difficult to ascertain; estimates range between some tens of thousands and 300,000." - I have seen no estimates of "tens of thousands" (too low; unless we are confusing "Aegeans" with "Slavic-speakers" here) [or actually "300,000" (too high) for that matter] for bilinguals. That "difficult to ascertain", in conjuction with the preceeding sentences, puts the possibility of a Bulgarian self-identification on equal footing with the other two (such people probably exist but are very very very few; unless RS exist to the contrary?). Also, sociology tells us that the whole matter is more complex than a simple "you're this, you're that" but since we do have sources that put the max Macs at 30,000, what do the rest feel like?

Of course, this is just a lead so generalisation is permitted. I assume the contents are going to be more in-depth. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously how is Slavophones of Greek Macedonia any better than Slavophone Greeks? There are two perfectly fine articles, this one and this one.

Listen, Ethnic Macedonians who are proud of who they are NEVER call themselves, Slavophones or Slavophone Greeks or Bilinguals or any other offensive names. Its really funny, all of the Aegean Macedonians have relatives who identify as "greeks" or have in the past. Their ethnic Macedonian relatives would at once considered themselves "slavophone greeks" but they were always ethnic maks. After the realised that they were not actually greeks and could only speak Greek like a 12 year could, they finally got over themselves. Authors pose the question how can one brother be an Aegean macedonian and the other a "slavophoney greek"? No matter how hard they try these people are not ethnically Greek. Many realised what they really were and grew proud of the fact that they were in fact Aegean Macedonians. This has happened at home and overseas. Labelling them all "slavophones" does not justice to the subject. More appropriate would be to incorporate the Slavophone Greeks into THIS page, and put a chapter of the Ethnic Macedonians with a Greek consciesness (grkomani). Many through years of miseducation and state sponsored separation form their cousins and relatives north of the border they now in fact that people from ROM are Yugoslavian Serbs. Dont forget these Slavophone Greeks have many brothers and sister and neices and nephews living across the border all of whom are Ethnic Macedonians, it is absurd to think that the people living south of the border are not ethnic macedonians.

It is funny how much you cling on to one email from the Human Rights Watch, because it writes 30,000. It is not a sacred text. PMK1 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The figures (if you are referring to my use of "tens of thousands") can obviously be changed if I got them wrong; I was writing that draft very quickly and off the top of my head. As for the rest, PMK, I'm afraid your stance is so far outside anything even remotely reconcilable with NPOV I'm finding it hard to address it. So, calling them Aegean Macedonians is "THE TRUTH", whereas calling them Slavophones is wrong because those guys you identify with don't like that, whereas calling the others Grecomans is okay even though those guys don't like that either? Man, get a grip. We need a neutral descriptive phrase (not a name) that covers both these groups. A name won't work, because there simply isn't a name that all the people in question would accept. A descriptive phrase, on the other hand, will obviously need something like "Slav-" in it, and something like "Macedonia". If you have a better proposal than Slavophones of Greek Macedonia, let us know. What you said just above is simply not even debatable as a solution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, forget about nationalism and your POV, man. "Slavophones" is a neutral term, it doesn't mean "Slavophone Greeks", it means "all Slavic-speaking people without regard to ethnic or national identity". I don't understand why you're sticking to matters like nationalism, ethnic pride and so on. The guys might have Bulgarian-identifying relatives in Bulgaria and Macedonian-identifying relatives in the Republic of Macedonia, so what? You need to rethink your approach entirely if you'd like to have any meaningful discussion on those subjects.

And yes, 3rdAlcove, they both identified and were identified as Bulgarians until the 20th century, this is pretty much universally recognized. Even by ethnic Macedonians, who have recently focused their efforts not on denying this, but on trying to find reasons for it. Todor→Bozhinov 07:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the term Slavophone is offensive? Is it the fact that the -phone part is of Greek origin? I'm confused. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can understand Slavophone is offensive, if and when it is used as quasi-ethnonym instead of somebody's actual, chosen ethnic name, as a marker of denial of that name. We must indeed make sure we aren't using it in that way. But it is also a fact that the group we are talking about, as a whole, simply doesn't have a single commonly agreed ethnonym, so when we are talking about all of them together we can't really avoid using a descriptive cover term rather than a proper name for them, and, like you, I can't currently think of anything better. (BTW, does anybody remember how an author like Danforth, for instance, solves the problem in his book?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Future you make no sense, "Slavophone Greeks" is offensive while "Slavophones of Greece" is not?! Our ethnicity is non-negotiable. "Slav-Macedonian of Greece", "Ethnic Macedonians of Greece" or possible "Macedonian speakers of Greece" are all legitimate names for this population. Forget the redundant c.1913 Bulgarian propaganda, they are better off pushing it here.

Kekrops, what is offensive is labelling the people as "Slav" speakers. SLAVIC IS NOT A LANGUAGE. For over 95 years Slav has been used in racist and offensive contexts primarily by Greeks to describe the Ethnic Maceodnians living there. The terminology "Slavophone" is a term which has been used by greek authorities to deny the existence of an ethnic Macedonian minority for over 95 years, i might sound like i am ranting. But, our existence is NON-NEGOTIABLE. PMK1 (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, I was rather carefully making a distinction between "names" and "descriptions". Try to understand it and read again what I wrote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the excellent collection edited by Sevasti Trubeta and Christian Voss (2003), Minorities in Greece - Historical Issues and New Perspectives, uses "The Slavic-Speakers in Greek Macedonia" as the title of one of its major sections, and three of the four papers in that section (by P. Carabott, C. Rossini and C. Voss) follow more or less the same convention, of using "Slavic-speakers" as a neutral cover term for people of all different national persuasions. The fourth paper, by R. van Boeschoten, uses "Macedonians" throughout. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FP, please make your distinction clear so that it can be properly assesed. "Slavic", "Slavo", and other "Slav" terms have been used perjatorively against the Aegean Macedonian people. When Slavic-speaker is used, it implies that they have no national consciencness of their own and speak some Slavic dialect. And you can see where that leads to. They dont Speak slavic, macedonian or for the sakes of this experiment, "Macedonian Slavic".

Some people use "Macedonian speakers", some "ethnic Macedonians", some "Slavomacedonians", some "Macedonian Slavs". I mean that is what they are after all arent they? PMK1 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that "they have no national consciencness of their own". It's that they have different ways of identifying nationally. And that, like it or not, is a pretty well documented fact. You can argue all you like that one of these identifications is the true and correct one and the other the ideological result of oppressive brain-washing. You may even by right about that. It doesn't change a thing. There are those that identify as (ethnic) Macedonians and those that identify as Greeks, and the whole point of the discussion is that we need a descriptive phrase that covers both.

As for "name" versus "description", it's really not that difficult. "Macedonia" is a proper name. "Macedonian" also is. "People who live in Macedonia and speak a Slavic language" is not a name but a descriptive phrase. "Slavic-speakers of Macedonia" is a different version of a descriptive phrase with the same meaning. Descriptive phrases refer to things by virtue of the combination of the meanings of their component words. Since words can be combined in different ways, descriptive phrases can often be exchanged for each other without a change of referent. That's what makes them more flexible than proper names in titling articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FP, i know. I am not here trying to convince people that we are the ultimate salvation. ;). Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, Why not just have Macedonian-speakers of Grece? Even greek sources refer to the people as Slav Macedonians, "Slav Macedonians of Greece" is also a possibility. I guess whether they have a Greek national identity, they are still ethnically Slavs, just as their brothers or fathers or 1st cousins have an "ethnic slav identity" (ethnic Macedonian etc.) The fact that "Slavophones of whatever" has been used in such a racist and oppresive manner would turn me off the whole idea.

But then what do you label the diaspora, the 35,000 or so living and ROM and the 50,000 living across the world? Former Slavophones of Greece, Ex-greeks with slavic language? The Slavs who left greece? I guess making a list of your ideas would not be bad.? PMK1 (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

With statements like "I guess whether they have a Greek national identity, they are still ethnically Slavs" you are on rather slippery ground. Again, "Slav Macedonians" is a name. "Slavic-speakers" or "Macedonian-speakers" is not. "Macedonian-speakers of Greece" would be okay with me personally, but it doesn't seem to be that common in the context of discussing the ethnicities (as the soruces I quoted show; I believe they are pretty representative). As for the communitites abroad, my idea was that "of" actually includes them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

PMK's histrionics are quite funny. Admins however should not make statements of the "You may even by(sic) right about that" kind. A retraction is in order, methinks. The proposed lede is still weak, distractions of all kinds aside. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not retracting that. The fact that some oppressive brain-washing has been going on is a well-considered personal opinion of mine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually questioning your acceptance of a "natural identification" especially as presented by PMK1, rather. Perhaps leaving it out in the open is the better move, though. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FP, what i am saying is that two brothers from one mother (one identifying as greek/ the other macedonian) are still of the same ethnicity (this is a famous example from one of the writers on this subject). One has a Greek consciencness, the other a Macedonian one. You are the same ethnicity as your brother or sister (excluding mix marriages and step families etc.) Either they are all ethnic greeks (which they arent) or they are all ethnic slavs (macedonians). If i was to wake up tomorrow and feel like an Albanian or Italian, i am still ethnic macedonian.

I dont care enough to go on, each to their own. This isnt a crusade, and i dont have cookies for them. By far Macedonian speakers of greece, is much better. Because dont forget "(Ethnic/Aegean) Macedonians of Greece" is still used more often then "Slav(ic speakers/phones)". Just dont let this article turn in one slandering and insulting the Macedonian minority in Greece. PMK1 (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and that's what you got from reading Danforth...WOOSH. 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The two brothers of the same family are precisely the reason why we must merge the two articles. But positing a fixed essence of what their "real" ethnic identity is, independently of what each of them feels about it, is something we must not do. Let alone assign an ethnonym of our choice to that hypothetical common identiy, when all possible ethnonyms we could use are highly controversial. As for the claim that "(Ethnic/Aegean) Macedonians of Greece" is still used more often, I highly doubt it. Not in the context of international academic literature in sociology and political science. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Newman who has recounted in 1935 as discovered in a village in Vardar Macedonia, as part of Kingdom of Yugoslavia two brothers, one who considered himself a Serb, and the other considered himself a Bulgarian. In another village he met a man who had been, "a Macedonian peasant all his life", but who had varyingly been called a Turk, a Serb and a Bulgarian. "Newman, R. (1952) Tito's Yugoslavia (London)". Jingby (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here exists a Category:Bulgarians from Aegean Macedonia . Must we now create an article Aegean Bulgarians, including there the present Prime Minister of Bulgaria Sergey Stanishev (father from Kilkis), as I have seen this is made in this article Nikola Gruevski - Prime Minister of the Republic of Macedonia (father from Florina), or this is a joke? Jingby (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge/move proposal

Okay, here's the concrete proposal. I think I'll soon go bold and move one of the articles to:

Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia,

and redirect the other article there. Technical question: which article should be moved and which redirected? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect Slavophone Greeks and merge Aegean Macedonians, please. Jingby (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been BOLD. I've used the Aegean Macedonians article as a basis, as it was more substantial and somewhat better written than the other. For further reference and easier editing, here are the states of the two articles before the move/redirect:

• "Slavophone Greeks"
• "Aegean Macedonians

We should also merge in any elements from Slavic dialects of Greece that deal with the politics, sociology and demographic history rather than the language itself. Present state of article:

• Slavic dialects of Greece

Now we just need to copy more stuff around and merge the contents.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

History, especially 20th century, needs more work to reach NPOV (still currently Macedonian view, too much precedence given to the Greek Civil War, half of the entire history); I've removed sections that totally sucked in my opinion: while we might find similar sections useful, I'd rather we start on scratch there: the entire goal of the old content was to push the view that these people are Macedonians. Todor→Bozhinov 16:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Why does making this editing proposal feel like throwing a fresh carcass to a hungry pack of wolves? ;) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF happened to this article? I guess there is no stopping y'all now. Go for it everyone, as FP, lets tear the Aegean Macedonians "carcasse" to shreds. ;) When will everyone realise that "Slavic" is not a language, we dont say "latin speakers" or "germanic speakers" when talking about italians or english people. All sense of reality has literally gone "through the window" PMK1 (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

'nuther thing

People may have noticed that I removed the infobox while putting in the new intro. People who've seen my user page may also know what I generally think of infoboxes. Could we perhaps resist the temptation of reintroducing one? Of if we must, restrict it to only the most bare-bones version? We have enough work getting the NPOV right in the text alone; condensing an NPOV version into tabular data sheet form that would be satisfactory to everybody is likely to be near impossible. Of course we can reintroduce the population statistics with its footnotes somewhere as a table. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone Stop!

Just before anymore ridiculous information gets added to this page. There needs to be some osrt of a plan, and not a free for all. Dont add sutff just for the sake of adding it. FP, you are wrong in the respect that these people are the same except for their national conscienceness. What are you all trying to achieve by your edits? Lest try to have some sort of plan and organisation of the page. And cut the crap, Slavic ≠ Macedonian ≠ Bulgarian ≠ ANY thing else! Back to reliaty people. PMK1 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Slavic-speaking

It is ridiculous to name the macedonians (as ethnicity) as simply slavic speaking. I am Slavic and I have nothing in common with the macedonians by nationality in Greece. It would imply that there are different slavic nationalities in greece. there aren't! it's like naming the article about the hungarian minority in Transilvania Finno-ugric speakers of Romanian Transilvania. Clearly complete nonsense. It's not wrong it just tells nothing.

To my knowledge there are several meanings of Macedonian in English, one is for the Slavic people, one for people from the region called macedonia and one refers to the extinct language of the ancient Maceodnians (like Alexander The Great). I think the fairest title should be based on the selfdesignation of the people concerned, they identify themselves as Aegean Macedonians. But Macedonians (ethnicity) of Greek Macedonia sounds fine aswell. Rokpok (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of this article is that not all of them identify in this way. Unlike in your example with the Hungarians, what we need here is a neutral cover term. The term "Slav", while seemingly under-specific, is the only such cover term readily available. And we didn't invent this usage for Wikipedia. This is how it's done in most of the relevant literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Slavic-speaking more common than Slavophone in the literature? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly. The Troubeta/Voss volume I was quoting uses it throughout. But in any case it has the added advantage that it cannot possibly be mistaken for an ethnic name, since it is transparently nothing more than a descriptive phrase. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How could a purely linguistic term like Slavophone possibly be mistaken for an ethnonym? It has precisely the same meaning as Slavic-speaking but is infinitely more elegant. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For somebody who knows Greek, yes, obviously. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Most Canadians are not Hellenophones, as far as I know, but Anglophones and Francophones run rampant there, apparently. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise people who are not familiar with the subject to think twice before posting anything. It is quite clear that naming the Slavic speakers in Greece Macedonians is not an option: it's not how the group identifies in their majority, it's offensive to Greeks and it's offensive to Bulgarians and the Bulgarian history of that population. I think it's pretty obvious that the Hungarian minority in Romania has a Hungarian ethnic identity: well, the Slavic-speaking minority of Greece doesn't have a mostly Bulgarian or ethnic Macedonian identity because most members identify as Greeks. That said, they don't identify themselves as Macedonians or Aegean Macedonians.

Well, I don't think you expected any other reply than "your point fails", so here it is. Take care, Todor→Bozhinov 16:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess those who identify as Greeks could fall under assimilation or similar issues. It's also offensive to the Slavs of Greece who are reduced from Bulgarians or Macedonians to simply Slavic-speaking. With terms like this i can't help but think of chovinist ideologies that try to help an ethnicity disappear by taking away it's national or ethnic identity (i.e. fascists of Italy used to refer to Slovenes and Croatians in Italy as slavophones or slavic-speakers). I am not insisting on the sole use of Macedonians, i mearly made a suggestion. Another suggestion is Bulgarians and/or Macedonians (ethnicity) of Greek Macedonia (anyway both form the diasystem of a common dialect continuum).

As a curiosity, some Hungarians in Transilvania identify as Szekely (an almost irrelevant minority of the population though). Regards. Rokpok (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the majority identify as Greeks and we have to respect that. If these people don't identify as Bulgarians or Macedonians, we can't name them Bulgarians or Macedonians: this is pretty much how it works these days. These people did have what was for the most part a uniform Bulgarian identity until sometime in the 20th century, and a number of them did develop an ethnic Macedonian identity with the rise of Macedonism in the mid-20th century, but today, the subgroups that identify as Bulgarians or Macedonians are a small minority of the Slavic-speaking population. It has never been a secret that I dislike the way ethnic minorities have been treated in Greece and specifically the assimilative policy that Hellenized Bulgarians, Vlachs and Albanians, but that's how it was.

"Bulgarians and/or Macedonians (ethnicity) of Greek Macedonia" is an extremely clumsy wording that cannot be used as a title. We simply can't have a tidy, working title if we're to include anything like "Bulgarians and/or Macedonians" in it, and as a Bulgarian I believe "Slavic-speakers" does a good job at covering the entire group we're talking about without being offensive to anybody. You and I may not like the fact that most of these people have lost their Bulgarian identity one way or another, but we have to accept the facts.

I'm aware that there are alternative theories regarding the origin of the Szekely, I was merely using your own wording to make my argument clearer to you. Todor→Bozhinov 18:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to be pedantic, the majority do identify as Macedonians, just not in the sense Skopje would prefer. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on Todor. woo! All roads lead to Sofia. ;). Kekrops if you wish for something hard enough it will eventually become true.PMK1 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody explain why we're supposed to be comfortable with "ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece" versus "pro-Bulgarian oriented part of the Slavic population"? Why isn't the ethnic Macedonian minoruty a "pro-Macedonian oriented part of the Slavic population"? Double standards. In its current state, the article overemphasizes the Macedonian POV, both through mostly irrelevant pictures and through inappropriate overlinking and repetition of "Slavic Macedonian", "ethnic Macedonian", etc. Modern events are presented entirely from a Macedonian POV or from a nonexistent bullshit POV ("during World War II and the Greek Civil War when the Slavic Macedonian culture and language were allowed to flourish."). This bias has to be cleared out: instead, we're getting more bias. Todor→Bozhinov 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is funny. Who is restricted by Greeces 1982 amnesty Laws? Slavophones? No! Ethnic Macedonians. The fact that 35,000 members of this minority live just across the border and all identify as Ethnic Macedonians is irrelevant?! Yes, during the GCW, the Macedonian language and culture did flourish. The KKE recognised it and unlike all other Greek governments did not try to remove it. Your Bulgarian POV, is very redundant and frankly the same story ALL over again, no offence.

No, the Communists merely tried to win the locals at their side and supported Macedonism, which was a popular Comintern doctrine at the time, a regional version of internationalism. And does that cover World War II? I don't think Bulgaria supported Macedonism in WWII, thank you very much. Todor→Bozhinov 07:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Educate me. How did Bulgaria support Macedonism during WW2? By invading, killing our people, taking treasures and by importing scholars and teachers to tell my Grandfather that he was in fact a Bulgarian?! The Communists had made an appropriate decision which you twist and turn into some poor excuse which Moscow forced upon them, is this really what you are thinking? PMK1 (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

thumb|right|150px thumb|right|150px There is a reason why things like this exist. Bulgaria at this time was too busy trying to Bulgarianize the population there to write about the "locals". You do realise that after Ohrana collapsed most joined SNOF, not because they were bulgarians, but they wanted self rule. Most since havent returned to Greece, they are ethnic Macedonians. So do not play innocent. For anyone seriously interested read this, [1]. Even the UN recognises the Macedonians in Greece, sadly no "Bulgarian" minority. PMK1 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, Bulgaria is too busy right now to deal with any more crap. Discuss relevant stuff and don't try to exactly define what is what: this is not the goal of the article. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Todor→Bozhinov 07:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If Bulgaria had any serious claim on this issue it would have presented itself already, it doesnt! It is only old-skool nationalists and people like Slavi Trifonov who actually are that deluded by these lies and inaccuracies. PMK1 (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

TodorBozhinov and PMK1: reported at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

Okay, apparently I haven't been discussing enough, so here's your discussion.

We've got *five* pro-Macedonian POV images and zero that represent the Bulgarian or even the Greek view. Relevant historical maps by noted scholars have been removed by PMK1 without any reason and I've been warned for this (thanks!), so why don't you suggest any solutions to this?

Before you say anything, the article's not going to stay the way it is, unless someone decides to radically ignore WP:NPOV.

Go ahead. Todor→Bozhinov 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please explain the "ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece" versus "pro-Bulgarian oriented part of the Slavic population" discrimination. I'm not tolerating this, so just do your best. Reporting editors won't solve this article's issues. Todor→Bozhinov 14:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Todor, you go on about all of these pro-Macedonian images!

Lets See; "The Bilingual Sign", this sign was due to the strong prsence of Macedonian speakers in NOF and the DSE. Just as the article said the Macedonian language/culture flourished, the use of Macedonian alongisde greek was widespread. If you dont notice it does have Greek writing on it (Greek POV) and Bulgarian has nothing to do with this, so naturally it owuld not be on there.

"The Young Partisans", proud ethnic Macedonians fighting for Greece and the Communists in the Greek Civil War.

"The Child Refugees", the most notable picture in the diaspora and RM, about the Deca Begalci. This picture is well known by all refugees and Aegean Macedonians in General, the fat that they are ethnic Macedonians is not POV as most of the refugees were.

"Association of the Macedonians of the Aegean Part of Macedonia - Bitola", this is a group from the diaspora of "Slavic-speakers" with a clear ethnic Macedonians consciencesness, like many in greece. Their logo has the Vergina Sun, which is their own perogative. Try finding a "Bulgarian" or a "ethnic Greek" group to put up? You wont find one.

"The Abecedar primer", a unique part of their history. The fact that some of the people in the Florina region speak the same dialect as people in Bitola, is not my fault!:). Their mother language is Macedonian, another linguistic fact.

You want Bulgarian images, find them. Not some old map drawn up by a German professor, find somehting Bulgarian actually in RELATION to these people. All of the "ethnic Macedonian" images are related to these people. The fact that there are very little "Greek and Bulgarian" images, just says something to you. Doesnt it? PMK1 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is clear and I wasn't looking for it. I'm looking for third-party feedback. Todor→Bozhinov 06:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to have a discussion, please keep it civil - that means, please don't dismiss each other's views in an offensive or derogatory way. Incivility is a blockable offence. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is not more ONLY about the history of Aegean Macedonians. Because of that the reverted old version, predominantly about SNOF's policy in the leading part History is not acceptable. Please, correct it to neutrality. If no, I am going to do it again. Thanks. Jingby (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? The Macedonian people/schools/newspapers/culture did not exist in Greece at that time? What is not-neutral about the sentence where the KKE recognised the Macedonian people (which it actually) and the founding of Macedonian schools/newspapers (which actually happened, see the copy of NEPOKOREN above). What do you suggest jinigby?PMK1 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the passage about the WWII in the leading part History. It is remaind from the old version about the communists and their activity. Now, if you wont describe this facts in the chapter about NOF. It is possible to change the title to SNOF and NOF for example. But the leadig chapter have to be more neutral and short. Otherwise, I have to write there another passage about Bulgarian activity, but I think it will be too long. Jingby (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This isnt some Bg vs. Mak contest. You dont threaten about writing more paragraphs, nobody is scared. If you want some clarity, make Ohrana a sub-heading underneath the World War Two heading. PMK1 (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has become extremely one-sided. Not unexpected, sadly. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To split

This article should be split into Macedonians in Greece and Bulgarians in Greece. For Albanians there are 4 articles Albanian communities in Greece, Cham Albanians, Arvanites and Albanian immigrants in Greece but for Macedonians and Bulgarians 1 article.--Ssschhh (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is funny. There used to be an article Aegean Macedonians, but there are apparently no ethnic Macedonians in Greece. Funny/Ironic/Sad, huh? PMK1 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove the info about the Pomaks. They do not live in Macedonia, because they were deported in 1920s in Turkey. This article is about the Slav-speakers in Greek Macedonia, but not in Thrace. Jingby (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Pavle, "Don't be afraid, keep your head high." There are so many articles which refute Greek positions on Wikipedia, but it simply cannot be added because they are continuously editing all things Macedonian. Even look at the moderator, Future Sunrise is a PhilHellene Mactruth (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Steps to removing the existance of Macedonians in Greece:

1. merge an individual article into many other existing
2. remove the Macedonian template from the article
3. remove all things Macedonian

Mactruth (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Future Sunrise is anything but a philhellene. Some would say his objectivity goes out of the window when it comes to the Macedonian issue. Some think he should get a medal from Mr Gruevski for services to the irredentism of the FY Republika Makedonija :-) But I say, we should leave personal judgements out of the discussion page (unless addressed directly to the person concerned?).

Anyone for a Bulgarian immigrants in Greece, article? Also, there must be Greeks who self-identify as members of a Bulgarian minority, but the numbers seem to be insignificant for an article (apologies to our Bulgarian friends if I am mistaken). Certainly, the Bulgarians who consider the (Slav) Macedonski to be ethnic Bulgarians, may also consider the Slavophones of Greece to be ethnic Bulgarians, but that is not yet reflected in northern Greece (Macedonia and Thrace) and such a perception has no base for an self-standing article. However, it could make a sub-section in a relevant Bulgarian related article (for instance in the VMRO party article). Politis (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 422 Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia. This numbers also seem to be insignificant for an article (apologies to our Greek "friends" if I am mistaken).--Ssschhh (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In Greece live 44,000 Bulgarian immigrants and around 1,000 immigrants from R.Macedonia and that's twice more than Greeks in the R.Macedonia. If 45,000 is insignificant number then 422 isn't number--Ssschhh (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahahah.There are articles for 30 Greeks in Cuba, 100 Greeks in the Philippines and 200 Greeks in Ireland. How ironic --Ssschhh (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Added persons

I am going to remove part of them, because they are not important Slavic - speakers from Greek Macedonia, but Macedonian politicians born in 1970s. in Skopje. Jingby (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No most of them are "slavic-speakers" from Greece, it is a shame that they are not BG or EL. Also can you put the Bulgarian comparison on the right hand side of the table, it makes the dialects go from East-West Left-Right. :) PMK1 (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

400,000 of these people in Bulgaria

It is a very dubious claim. It is like saying that there are 4,500,000 Pontic Greeks in Greece, and 1,000,000 Chamerian Albanians in albania. This population does not consider itself to have links with Aegean macedonia, especially when the majority of these 400,000 are at most 1/2 or 1/4 from Aegean Macedonia. Bieng in Bulgaria they obviusly speak Bulgarian and not Macedonian dialects, and as for the refugees post 1919 and 1943 they have fully assimilated into Bulgarian society/are all dead now. This number is very high when you think about the little influence that Aegean Macedonians/Bulgarians play in Bulgaria, except in songs and folklore. Any other comments on this figure? PMK1 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary - they do consider themselves Aegean Bulgarians, even those who are only 1/2 Aegeans as you said. You might've bothered reading something on the subject before writing a nonsense liкe this. And how could Bulgarians assimilate Bulgarians? The majority assimilating itself, could you explain that, please?--Laveol ^T 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This question is extremly provocative, biased and even stupid. Jingby (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Being in Bulgaria from Greek Macedonia they consider to speak different Bulgarian dialects of "Lerin", "Kostur", etc... I suppose Skopje can sue them (better than beating them when they visit the Republic) :-) And, because they live in Bulgaria since at least 1945, they do not really speak of Aegean Macedonia. I hope one day PMK you will accept the existence of a Greek province called Macedonia and whose Greek inhabitants, lead by their PM Karamanlis, identify as Macedonians ((as well as their compatriots who are Slavophones, Dopioi, Slavomacedonians or Bulgarians). The Bulgarians (including those who originate from Greek Macedonia) accept this and they have total freedom of movement to visit their ancestral homes, see relatives, buy property, do business and everything is dobro... G'day as you say in Australia. Politis (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Politis what are you talking about? Laveol, my concern was that 400,000 seems to high a figure for a population which is largely assimilated into Bulgarian society and does not even really exist anymore. Where are the "Aegean Bulgarian" associations in Bulgaria? Do they exist in real life or just in folklore? And how can they not be assimilated, the dialects of Kostur/Lerin are Macedonian language dialects. In order to become "true" bulgarians they had to of course learn bulgarian. By your logic Laveol, i can rock up to Sofiya tomorow being a pure Bulgarian too! Ne iskam da budem B'lgarin, sorry. PMK1 (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But they were Bulgarians and you or anyone else for that matter don't have the right to tell them they weren't. And quit the gibbering "the dialects of Kostur/Lerin are Macedonian language dialects" - that's your POV. They didn't have to "learn" Bulgarian cause they knew it from the start. They might've wanted to learn standard Bulgarian, but they weren't obliged to since a big part of them resettled in places where other dialects were spoken. And, yes, there are associations of these Bulgarians- I told you to read something on the subject before writing nonsense. --Laveol ^T 12:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have actually read a lot, thank you very much. It is not just my POV, that the dialects of Kostur and Lerin are Macedonian. In the same way in which the language spoken in Ohrid, Veles and Štip is Macedonian, so too is the language spoken in Kostur, Lerin and Voden. If i were to go Bulgaria i too would have to learn Bulgarian, because to us Macedonians your language is not as easy understand as you think/wish. PMK1 (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of those that have come do not think so. And the question of the language is political and not linguistic, let me remind you. Linguistically they are almost identical. And yes, it is your POV, and it is you denying the right of people in the geographical region to self-identify as anything else than ethnic Macedonians. Btw, how exactly does your place of birth determine your ethnicity? --Laveol ^T 10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on Laveol. No, linguistically they are not as close as you think. Many Macedonians often struggle to understand what Bulgarians say, that is why our politicians require interpreters when travelling east. What I wanted to say, that it is the typical Bulgarian POV, which time after time claims that there is no Macedonian language. By doing this they try to get mixed up wherever they can. Be it Mala Prespa, Aegean Macedonia, Gora or Golo Brdo in order to try and prove that the Macedonian language is merely Bulgarian. Let them identify as what they want to, my point was; that some body whose great-grandmother came to bulgaria as a young child in 1919, does not "cut it" in order to be an "Aegean Bulgarian" or "Slav-speaker from Greece". PMK1 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But it works both ways, you see. My point is that they have an equal right to be Aegean Bulgarians as do the others to be Aegean Macedonians. I'm not denying the fact that there is a Macedonian language, but why are you denying the fact that the separation is more political than linguistic? Oh, so hey require interprets? Do they really? And how do you know they need them? I've been present on such high-level meetings and I can tell you they don't. The question about your side acknowledging the existence of Bulgarians in Macedonia as about our side acknoledging the existence of ethnic Macedonians. In this, in fact, you're being far more radical than us. --Laveol ^T 09:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What seperation? We didnt seperate from Bulgarian. Our dialects were standardised into one language, for both political and linguistic reasons.

But to the actual point here; We are not being more radical. A person born as an ethnic Macedonian, can never truly be an ethnic Bulgarian. This applies to the Aegean Macedonians. An ethnic Bulgarian can never be a true ethnic Greek, even if he/she wished. These people are ethnically Macedonian, however some have Greek or Bulgarian national identities, for a variety of reasons. Most notably 96 years of bieng taught that ethnic Macedonians do not exist and that they are Greeks. If i began to espouse ethnic Bulgarian feelings, does that make me Bulgarian? In the same way it DOES NOT make me Bulgarian, neither does it to the Egejci, Prespanci, Golo Brdčani or the Goranci. Our identity is NOT as easily swappable as you wish. PMK1 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect such a rant. What exactly is the ethnic difference between Bulgarians, Macedonians, Greeks etc? It's self-identification that is important. And how the hell does the geographic location where you were born define your ethnicity? That's nonsense and I hope you see it one day. They are ethnically Macedonian, but just don't know it??? You're on the level of our extreme nationalists here - hose who say ethnic Macedonians are actually Bulgarians, but just don't know it/have forgotten. Yes, if you begin to expouse Bulgarian feelings, that might as well make you Bulgarian. Ethnicity is imagined and is a question of self-identification. There are black people that say they're Bulgarian - does their skin colour make them less Bulgarian than the rest of us? --Laveol ^T 08:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know i am not one of those Ultra-Nationalists calling for United Macedonia from Skopje to Solun. But on our language and identity, there is no compromise. We exist, we exist in Aegean Macedonia, Golo Brdo, Mala Prespa and Gora. Identity, is what you believe. Ethnicity, relies on your past and your heritage along with the modern day. We are not Bulgarians, neither are they. Are they really Bulgarian? I remember watching the Slavi Trifonov Show where they made fun at "Jimmy" from Strumica, all because he was of African descent. Dont play the sympathy card, you know as well as I do, who is Bulgarian and who isn't. Macedonia ≠ Bulgaria. I cannot say this more clearly. However it seems that Bulgarian irredentism has streched far beyond it can ever reach. PMK1 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do sound like an ultra-nationalist. You deny the right of self-identification of hundreds of thousands basing your argument on a geographical term? Some scientific approach. There is no direct connection between geography and ethnicity. "Ethnicity, relies on your past and your heritage along with the modern day" - you got that right. And if none of your parents, grand-parents or any other ancestors has ever identified as anything else than Bulgarian, how can some guy writing on the net make fun of all you are by telling you, you're actually something else. Oh, and there's even more: the one who's telling you this, does not even know what are the differences between the two. (I'll try and ask him, if you like) He just thinks that because you were born somewhere you cannot be something else, but what he says. And he would never really listen to any of your arguments, cause it's obvious he's right - geography doesn't make mistakes, does it. Yes, I do know who is Bulgarian and who is not - Bulgarian is a man who thinks he is a Bulgarian; who self-identifies as such - and thank God, PMK didn't have any say on this - enough has happened in the countries of Former Yugoslavia already. Oh, and what are the differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian people (I promised I'd ask you, remember). --Laveol ^T 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Most notably 96 years of bieng taught that ethnic Macedonians do not exist...

This is right. Your ethnicity exists real since 1945, this is around 65 years. The formation of nation is a long period. Only the Comintern has recognized your ethnicity 10 years earlier. Jingby (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Let me guess Tito created us? Poor souls, you are jealous we did not come to Sofia to grovel. Why would our people want anything to do with people like yourself? PMK1 (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Tito invented us, Bulgarians took out a patent and the Greeks lodged a copyright claim. All hail Jingibingibingibingibingibingiby, defender of Macedonia. Now I know why he chose that name. BalkanFever 12:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Denes nad Titoslavia se ragja, ... PMK1 (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quit it you two - you have no more arguments so go away and leave Jingiby alone. You can be sarcastic and nationalist on a forum, not here. --Laveol ^T 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do not know the first anthem of your country was not Denes nad Makedonija se ragja, but Bulgarian song: "Изгреј зора на свободата", later forbidden as dangerous and anti-Macedonistic. But probably, your first anthem was a Greek song from Ancient Macedonia. Jingby (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby you are not getting the point here. We have one anthem and one only. The less i have to with Bulgaria, the better. End of story. PMK1 (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Jingiby told you two facts. He's right about the anthem (I can't imagine why you wouldn't know a thing like that) and that the first to officially recognize a separate ethnic Macedonian identity was the Commintern. You can check this if you like. You choose to ignore these facts, that's your problem - but why do you have to use such language? You're more and more beginning to sound like a nationalist: "We have one anthem and one only. The less i have to (do?) with Bulgaria, the better";"Poor souls, you are jealous we did not come to Sofia to grovel. Why would our people want anything to do with people like yourself?" Wow. What's with the attitude?--Laveol ^T 23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Izgrej zora za slobata was an old VMRO song, which was later sung by some members of ASNOM. Your problem is that you focus too much on a one-sided veiw of history. No matter how hard you try, you cannot possibly get me to believe that I am a Bulgarian. I never said the song did not exist, i said that I only have one anthem, and it aint Izgrej zora na slobodata. Funnily enough, the ethnic macedonian people feel the same way. :S?

The first what? Organisation? Country? What is your point? Communists at one time ruled both of our countries. I am well aware of this, but what would you seriously like me to do about it? Pretend that we are a communist/Tito invention, Not happening.

I feel that the language is appropriate. I do not care for Bulgaria nor for the offensive and derogatory propaganda coming directly from promacedonia.org and other websites like that. You can either keeping living in a bubble or come and join the real world. Your decision. PMK1 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just read the article. Then read something anywhere. And think all about the bubble - you're so deehere. Think! We should btw cut this and move it to someone's talkpage. I was gonna do it, but I'm not sure what to move and what to leave. --Laveol ^T 19:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

STOP. All of you (us). This is just stupid ranting now. No more replying in this section. It can be removed per WP:TALK right now, and definitely will with more of this ---BalkanFever 13:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical problem with references in infobox?

They are invisible. Jingby (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Seem fine to me (Firefox 3.0.8 for Ubuntu Linux).--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit marked as vandalism

Just to make it clear - sorry, Mactruth, I didn't mean to categorize your edit as vandalism. I'm not at my personal computer and I incidently clicked on the rollback button - from there on it was all downhill and I couldn't stop it. I wanted to undo cause it's not right to emphasise on one group or meaning or whatever besides the one already in the title. Bold is to be used in specific circumstances and this was clearly not one of them (That was what I was gonna write in the edit-summary). I'm really sorry for that, again. --Laveol ^T 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

IMARO or IMRO

IMRO existed since 1920, see: Circular letter No9 issued by a secret meeting of former IMARO activists and members of its Central committee, held on December 20, 1919, cited in a collective research of the Macedonian Scientific Instutute, "Освободителните борби на Македония", part 4, Sofia, 2002, retrieved on October 26, 2007: "Поради изменилите се условия в Македония и Тракия от Балканските войни насам, организацията се преименува от ВМОРО на ВМРО, като нейната цел си остава извоюване на автономия и обединение на разпокъсаните части на Македония." (Bulgarian). The images are from 1903-1913, when its name was IMARO, but Polibiush changed it with failed motives. If no reliable explaination will be given, except politicization, I am going to change the names in accordance to the historical events. Jingby (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I double that - changing it to IMRO for made-up reasons against facts is not very encyclopedic. --Laveol ^T 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The organization is generally known today under the common name "IMRO". Also, the main article links to "IMRO". If you are that concerned about the name, then voice your concerns at the main article first, then if anything changes, we will make the changes here too. Polibiush (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No reliable explaination. Wrong! Jingby (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but your explanation is soooooo great! The organization had a dozen names in a period of 20 years, instead of choosing the general accepted name that everyone is using today, including the main article, you are fighting to choose ONE out of those DOZEN names! Very mature! You love wasting other people's time, don't you? Polibiush (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In 1893 it was known as Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (MRO). In 1897 this first and probably unofficial name was changed to Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees (BMARC); and the organisation existed under this name until 1902 when it changed it to Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (SMARO). It is not disputed that the organization changed its name to Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (IMARO) in 1905. Why did you changed this name. Is it so dangerous? Jingby (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name back to the original entry, after the same name in this article. It was you who changed it first. Polibiush (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the compromise is better. Polibiush (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you're on a spree here, but read the passage prior to deleting it. Struma is well in Macedonia in fact. --Laveol ^T 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ITRO was a revolutionary organization active in the Greek regions of Thrace and Eastern Macedonia to the river Strymon. Read before editing, pleace. Jingby (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Upto the Struma River? sorry I missed that Polibiush (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Oks, that's fine :) --Laveol ^T 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Church?

Jinigby, the source does not cut it. This church doesnt exist. Pleae give me more information. The only reason for the youtube.com was just to show you that the Nikodim Carknjas church exists. Please provide more evidence. PMK1 (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What about an interview with the Metropolitan Neophit Vodenski, the head of the church? Jingby (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything should be better then what there already was. But, it still has to be verifiable. If me and you have a discussion about establishing our own church, that still would not cut it. Are there any plans, meetings of this group, establishments? See here, the article was deleting because it did not have any sources and did not full exist. PMK1 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd need substantial, non-trivial independent third-party coverage in reliable news media. You also need to re-read the conditions of your revert parole. First go to talk page, then wait, then revert.

Come on Jingiby, don't get yourself blocked again over our old friend "Balkanian", of all things. I remember the noise this guy made about Wikipedia the last time this came up. This "Archbishopric" is basically not more than a one-man show (or perhaps three-men show) of some weirdos with a website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: For epic lulz and great justice, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglen Orthodox Archbishopric (and the external links from there; I hope they are still online). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, all gone. Don't worry FP, you're off the hook this time. PMK should be worried though, the most famous Bulgarian ever might have to show up at his house and rough him up a bit. BalkanFever 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you once, just once, come to a talkpage just to be sarcastic to someone? You've been doing this for months and months now, on and on. You don't have anything to say on the topic, but still have to slam Jingiby and all Bulgarians for the matter. Yeah, quite in the spirit of Wikipedia. Jingiby didn't write anything to provoke such a reaction, but yet you try to make fun of him. Did you read FP? I'm thinking of erasing BF's comments from here for being off-topic at the best. --Laveol ^T 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Laveol, this is something that you said to PMK above: You're on the level of our extreme nationalists here - hose who say ethnic Macedonians are actually Bulgarians, but just don't know it/have forgotten. Right below it was Jingo making exactly the kind of claim you had just denounced as nationalist. Funny, innit? :D BalkanFever 09:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I've said it before - you're not even close to being funny. From what you write here I understand you haven't read the whole discussion and base your evaluation on a single word or sentence. I have to say that during the 7-8 months I was absent Jingiby's position has gone though a great evolution. There's nothing good I can say about your behaviour, though. You still think all Bulgarians and Greeks are idiots and you show this "discovery" of yours in every comment you make. Especially when you're not in the whole dispute and just come here to drop a rant or two. --Laveol ^T 17:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, I only think Greek and Bulgarian idiots are idiots. The "idiot" part makes them idiots. And I don't drop by with rants, I drop by with a few short strings of sentences, i.e. comments. You failed miserably in understanding my comment above by the way: I didn't say I was funny, I said the fact that Jingo made a nationalist statement (by your own definition) right after you was funny. Maybe it's not exactly funny, but it shows the degree (by your own definition) of Jingo's nationalism, and also a degree of hypocrisy on your part. Peace, BalkanFever 09:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And then what about this PMK1's info "sourced" with death link: There are plans by local activists that in 2009 some classes may unofficially begin to teach Macedonian language in a private schools in the towns of Edessa and Lerin.[81] And more, this is after my correction. Initially it was not sourced and sounded as follows: In 2009 classes officially began in the Macedonian language in the town of Edessa, there are plans for these classes to be expanded to Florina and Kastoria.[74] Jingby (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Death link???! If you are refering to the link, it was working a few days ago just fine! You might find this, this and this enough evidence that the Macedonians in Lerin and Voden have decided to take the stated actions? PMK1 (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What the...? Are these your reliable links? The text is one and the same in all of them. Third party? Reliable? Multiple? --Laveol ^T 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

However I think, this is future, uncertainly event. It is not a fact, and the provided source does not work. And you made an attempt to bend the info. Jingby (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism and translation

FPS seems to be continuing with arguably racist and indimidating comments describing minorities as "some weirdos". Any evidence?

PMK1, thanks for the links, but can you translate the text, otherwise post them to Macedonian or Bulgarian wiki (and no, I am not call you a racist :-)). Thanks mate.Politis (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Politis, I'm not calling minorities weirdos, I'm calling a certain individual (and his one or two friends, if there are any) a weirdo. The weirdo in question happens to be the person who used to entertain you and me with this kind of message. That wikipedia vandal is the very person who is behind the alleged "Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia" organisation, and evidently (from what I saw on his websites) also behind the alleged "Archbishopric". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The word I would choose in not 'weirdo' but 'eccentric'. I hold that individual's list as guilty and as intimidating as your own (IMO) racist categorisations according to ethnicity. I can assure you, if I become convinced that there is racism by any known or unknown persons on wikipedia I will try to express those concerns decently, legally, publicly and outside wikipedia. Some of us, such as myself, write in the knowledge that one day our true identity (wow-wee!) will be associated with our user name - and may ye all forgive my wiki trespasses. Politis (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation, as requested. A Macedonian language school will be founded in Greece?

The Macedonians from Lerin and Voden will be able to learn the Macedonian language in a private school, which is set to open in Northern Greece. This is thanks to the efforts of the newly founded non-governmental organization of the Macedonian minority in Greece, "The Educative and Cultural Movement of Edessa". The leaders of the first Macedonian organisation in Voden have held secretive meetings on account of the possibility that Greece will face staunch opposition to the group. Far from the eyes of the public the group has begun to print books in the Macedonian language and have manufactured over 1,500 cd's of traditional songs in the Macedonian language. The first courses will begin in just under 2 months.

The Educative and Cultural Movement of Edessa plans to restart the printing of the newspaper of the ethnic Macedonians in Greece, "Zora".

With this the group plans to organise their own activies against the Greek domination, and to contact and inform human rights agencies of the existence of an ethnic Macedonian minority in Northern Greece. The financiers of the group have not yet been revealed. All is known that there have been strong assistance from the Macedonian communities present in the United States and Canada. Macedonian lobbyists in Canada claim that the group has a large support base who is ready to fight against the Greek domination. They also stated that the foundation of the group is not politically motivated nor is it directly related to any political party. Besides this, it is unclear as yet to many Macedonians in Greece that this organization as of yet exists, Jim Daicos (a Macedonian lobbyist in Canada) claims that the group however is already registered.

Daicos from the United Macedonian Diaspora said that "The first aim of the group will be to teach young Macedonians about their unique history and to teach them to write and read the Macedonian language. Apart from the school a library will also be opened. This summer the first courses will begin in Voden and the surrounding villages."

From Voden the movement has plans to expand to the Lerin and Kostur regions. The directorship, of 5 people, has of yet not been revealed.

Daicos also stated that, "The young people are not scared to tell their stories and their thoughts, and to work against the Greek propaganda. We are aware that the Greek authorities will work against us, and that Macedonians will still have fears about the free expression of their culture". The Macedonians in Greece also claim that in the village Banica parents are already taking their children, secretly, to a house where they learn the Macedonian language. Through mediums such as music, cultural activities and seminars, the movement will be a bridge between the Macedonians in Greece and other ethnic Macedonians (in Bulgaria and Albania) and the Macedonian diaspora. As of yet Vinožito was unaware of the formation of a Macedonian non-governmental organisation in Greece. Full translation.

Politis i gave you a translation now can you do me a favoutr and tell me what this page is about? What is the general "gist" of events their? Thanks. PMK1 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. At first site, it is a blog. The subject concerns a (Slav) Macedonian organisation/school to be opened in Edessa, presumably teaching the local Makedonski dialect spoken in that part of Greece or the official Macedonian language. The author uses derogatory language towards the citizens of the Republic but no rude words, for instance 'Skopjan clowns' (I totally disagree with such terms because to me they are as racist as the language used by administrator Future Perfect Sunrise). The blogger is questioning the motives for opening such an organisation and who is funding it. I will downloaded it and look at it later and contact you on your talk page. Politis (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I laughed at the offensive material. I translated that on google, however i was not able to translate these pages (and the other two). If you get a chance to roughly tell me what they are about, i would be very thankful. :) PMK1 (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed image

Names of donors to the Zograf Monastery from areas indicated as Bulgarian lands between 1527-1728, incl. the whole of Macedonia. From the Third Zograf beadroll.

The removed historical document from Macedonian monastery indicates, that in 16-17 century the Slav-speaking monks there described the area, i.e. its inhabitants, as Bulgarian lands. That means - the Slav-Bulgarian idea was alive in the monasteries. see: [2] Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History, Bulgarian Language Institute, Macedonia - documents and Materials, 1978, Article # 58, From the Third Zograf Beadroll, containing the names of donors to the Zograf Monastery at Mt. Athos from settlements and regions indicated as Bulgarian lands. Why was it removed? Give reliable explaination, please. Jingby (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it actually relevant to the article or is it just another excuse to use the B word? A donor role from the 16th century, not all that relevant. It can go somewhere else like Bulgarian Orthodoxy or something. PMK1 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The only Slavic idea at that time was the B idea. It was still alive in today Greek Macedonia and this is relevant prove about it. Also we have a Slavic document from today Greek Macedonia, supporting the only Slavic idea in the area in this period. This is all.Jingby (talk)

Apparently not. You cannot seroiusly imply that 450 year old documents helped to determine the ethnic identity of people in the 20th century. Not everything is Bulgarian, you should know that by now. PMK1 (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This document can help to determine the identity of some Slavic people and part of the Slavic clergy in Zograf monastery in 17th century Macedonia, not in the 20th. Do not bend the dispute, please. For the 20th century all is clear. Jingby (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish people would finally stop this dreadful habit of throwing historical photographs around to "prove" historical points. If the point is relevant, integrate it in the text and find a reliable secondary source that actually makes it. Don't push it in through the backdoor with images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is it not a scietific sourced and important Slavic document from late Middle ages Macedonia. Or this is not in synchron with your point of view. Jingby (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jingby all you are trying to do is to prove a point. You cannot just simply add historical images for the sake of it. PMK1 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby, using images to prove points is WP:OR. Historical images are primary sources, and judging their historical value, import, and meaning requires some very non-trivial amount of interpretation. We don't do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The donkey is loaded

Jingiby, your addition may be useful (though I have not come across it as a noteworthy reference in Bulgaria and in up to date Bulgarian book, school books, etc). But that is not my point here. You are simply adding more historical information in an article that is too heavy with a Macedonian Salad of history that makes little sense as a narrative. The article is not about history, but, I would suggest, about the current persence of Slavic-speakers in Greek Macedonia. Your reference may be more useful in a Bulgaria related article. In case I am missing something, how do you see your latest edit in the article? Politis (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it. Regards. Jingby (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Educative and Cultural Movement of Edessa

If anyone is interested here is the website of the "Educative and Cultural Movement of Edessa". Another ethnic Macedonian association established in Greece. This is the organisation which plans to open up Macedonian language schools in June. PMK1 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who told you those things, but in their scope & objective[3] as an association they do not refer to language schools. Or schools at all. Or education even. And this is a legal requirement. If it's not in the scope & objective you violate the law if you do it. Is it another of those cases where they will do something patently illegal and then blame the Greek government from shutting them down? Or they simply advertise themselves as something that they are not to you guys?--Avg (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, I didn't know if you missed this spiel just above, (translation from the Nova Makedonija website [4]). This summer the group plans to open up Macedonian language schools in Edessa and in the surrounding villages. These will be summer schools only. The group plans on continuing the use of the Macedonian language in Greece and to help the minority there. The group has begun to print Macedonian language books and cd's. Maybe the time has come for these people? PMK1 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to one of the official legal documents in relation to the movement. [5] PMK1 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they have copied and pasted this in their site. It is identical. So to sum up, if they start setting up schools or anything like that, according to Article 105, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Code[6], the Greek courts can shut them down because the scope of their association is not what they have declared. --Avg (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are not going to establish formal private schooling. Who is to say that they cannot conduct private lessons in their own facilities during the summer? With teachers (either locals or from ROM), "tutoring" the students in a large group; say of 20 children? Surely this is not illegal? Btw, there are a few more official forms in addition to the link i gave. PMK1 (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've researched a bit about this. These guys seem to be in a conflict with the Vinozhito guys, this is why they established their own organisation. Anyway, really, I want the local Slavic language to remain a living language, you might be surprised but I actually want a more official promotion of its learning. There's no need for secret/semi-legal/dubious associations or anything like that, these seminars should be done in plain light by real teachers and subsidised by the Greek Ministry of Education.--Avg (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But sadly that will not be happening anytime soon, any official help from the Greek government will mean the recognition of the "local idiom" as the Macedonian language. And we all know that Macedonian isnt spoken in Greece ;). Hopefully this group will suceed, only time will tell. There were also reports of retired teachers from Southern ROM (gevgelija, dojran etc.) to enter Greece this year and help teach the curriculum and cyrillic alphabet to many people (their dialect's are very close with the Voden/Edessa dialect). We can resume this conversation in September when summer is over? :) PMK1 (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Total Comfusion

The article about slavic speakers in Greece is comfusing. There are several groups of slavic speakers in Greece and outside of Greece that they are connected with Greece, one way or another.

1. There are native Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece.
2. There are native Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in North Eastern Macedonia, Bulgaria.
3. There are native Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Northern Macedonia, Rep. of Macedonia.
4. There are Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece, came from Asia Minor in 1922, with origins from Achrida (16th century), known as trakatrukes.
5. There are Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece, came from Northern Macedonia, Rep. of Macedonia in 1912 and 1919.
6. There are Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece, came from North Eastern Macedonia, Bulgaria in 1920.
7. There are native Slavophone ethnic Macedonians in Greece.
8. There are Slavophone ethnic Macedonians in Rep. of Macedonia, came from Greece in 1945.
9. There are Slavophone Bulgarians in Bulgaria, came from Greece in 1920.
10. There are native Slavophone Bulgarians in Greece.
11. There are native Slavophone Pomaks in Greece.

As you may see, we have 11 categories of slavophones, 6 of them refering to Greeks, 2 of them refering to ethnic Macedonians, 2 of them refering to Bulgarians and one of them refering to Pomaks. This article is comfusing everything and makes no sense at all.Chrusts 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

Neutral use of the adjective Macedonian

This article is not neutrally worded. The adjective Macedonian is a well known source of confusion. Since the title refers to Greek Macedonia it would be reasonable to assume the use of Macedonian as refering to Greek Macedonian. However the adjective Macedonian inside the article is used to refer to the Slavic ethnic group and it's language creating confusion with the Slavophones that are Macedonians (Greeks) and not belonging to the Macedonians (ethnic group). Besides a more general NPOV check is needed. E.g. I cannot understand how the tiny party in Greece with minimal electional volume and no representaion, is notable in the English encyclopedia to have it's views not only referd to, but furthermore analyzed in full. We should not report "views that are held by tiny minorities", from this policy:Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views. Shadowmorph (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A tiny party of Greece is not a reliable outside (English speaking) source. The Nova Makedonija at #Education_and_language could be a reliable (not exactly outsider) source. However the phrase "there are plans in 2009"... is just speculation with no reliable verification whatsoever. Shadowmorph (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words and sources used in #Human_rights_issues make it appear as a polemic against Greece rather than an NPOV encyclopedic section. Shadowmorph (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the human rights section is due to the human rights issues in regards to these people. The page makes it clear that it is talking about Macedonian Slavic speakers and not about Greek ones. PMK1 (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I share many of your considerations Shadowmorph. I see nothing in that section that could not be treated or isn't already treated in '"History". If it is to be kept and especially with that title it should focus on current or recent issues. The perspective of the sources it uses regarding human rights is a recent one anyway. Another issue of course is whether the whole thing is notable enough, excluding the historical facts about assimilation which don't belong there i believe. As for the use of "Macedonian" i agree with your point, that's a general clean-up matter.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It turns out the source was misquoted anyway; it didn't contain that information. Other than that, as a source in and by itself, it would have been fine, and you can spare yourself the confused rants. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Human Rights Section is clearly designed to deal with the Human Rights challenges faced today. In the past it was much stronger, but has been successively been watered down, which now makes the work hard on us :-(. The Human Rights Issues include; non teaching of the language, non-return of the ethnic Macedonian refugees, confiscation of property, non recognition of the minority etc. etc., the list goes on. Have fun :) PMK1 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, where are those issues of today then ? No mention of Rainbow or any other local group. I removed the image again, this association and its actions are not included in the text also. If you're going to repeat anything about the civil war here use the wording of the history section. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When I have time I will add the section, until then I propose a "break" from editing the article. So as to not complicate the issue further. PMK1 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want. The image has no place there until you add something about this group and i will remove it again, it's there only to prove a point without a source, the fact that you think the connection is obvious makes it even harder for me to try to discuss it with you.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

There are many sources in this article that cannot be thought of as outsiders and reliable. The figure in the infobox about those residing in Bulgaria is by an academic assistant (not even a professor) from Bulgaria. Some other Greek civil war related sources are also biased. Also, like I have already said so in another talk section, sources from the Rainbow party is the definition of a "tiny minority" and that parties close ties to the now defunct former Helsinki watch is not a reason to include links to their site. That is propaganda, plain and simple. If we have some Helsinki watch it would be preferable. Just Mentioning a tiny minority party is one thing, using it as a reliable source and analyzing it's views is against Wikipedia policy. Shadowmorph (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the bio of the "reliable" Bulgarian assistant that was used as a source. Since I can't read Bulgarian I don't know if any of the other Bulgarian sources are official. One Bulgarian official source would be Ok, but a 100 Bulgarian academics cited is just original research. They don't make up for the lack of a single English speaking reliable source about the exact number of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia that now live in Bulgaria. Shadowmorph (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, even if it is "defunct" it was still a relevant source and still is. It provides good insight into the minority population. If you have particular issues raise them here and they can be discussed. PMK1 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read my sentence: "If we have some Helsinki watch it would be preferable". My issue is with including the Rainbow party as a source by itself. Helskinki might have been a copycat of that party's views in some of their published texts; in my opinion. Yet I agree that is legitimate relevant source (although arguably not the most neutral). But the Rainbow expresses only a tiny minority opinion (and extreme if you ask me). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the Marinov source, it is obviously a reliable academic publication. You don't need to have the rank of professor to produce reputable academic publications, you know. Just goes to show you have not the inkling of an idea of how academic discourse works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You make too many assumptions about me and you sound offended, I hope you are not an assistant too. Having an academic text published, does not automatically render it a reliable academic source. And what about the scientific consensus on that matter? I will be happier with some pier reviewed publications or publications from neutral universities (e.g. English). There are thousands of assistants in Greek universities, you would accept them as the only source? Shall I go ahead and include whatever I can cite? I am not against including Bulgarian sources but they are not the only ones, I bet other sources cite very different numbers. I'll see into what I can information I can find about that in reliable outside academia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some outside neutral sources I could find:

• 1st citation: "between 1912-1933 approximately 87,000 left Greek Macedonia to be resettled in Bulgaria"- Loring Danford Pg.69 [7]
• 2nd citation: "20,000 Greeks, a substantial number of them Slavo-Macedonians fled into Yugoslavia, while another 5,000 made their way into Bulgaria in 1947"[8]

They are more reliable that the Marinov source. Are they not? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Which figure in particular are you disputing now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the 300,000 in Bulgaria, the above point to something like 100,000. The Australia number is also wrong - the source cited say different. I couldn't find the 2,900 number in the census and the other source cited in the ones in Australia says 90,000 clearly[9]. Maybe we should include this link in the ref tag.

The 300,000 is indeed not in the Marinov article. As for the other sources, this one doesn't look reliable (it's by some VMRO party functionary). I also find it dubious that the infobox speaks of emigrants "since the early 19th century" - why would those have been systematically migrating, when neither Greece nor Bulgaria existed anywhere nearby? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Right. There were two waves to Bulgaria it appears after Balkan wars and after civil war. It is reasonable to add up the above citations to have 100,000 (est) in the article.

About Australia again, here is the XLS[10] with the official census number for Australians that declared a "Macedonian" as their ancestry. It is found at this page:[11]. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

It is about 86,000 people. So the 90,000 from the other source book matches. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow expresses only a "tiny minority" according to you. As for the the Bulgarian sources even that is dubious. The 90,000 "Macedonians" in Australia refers to ALL "ethnic Macedonians" not just the ones from greece. It is estimated that the Aegean Macedonians comprised from 5,000 - 20,000 people in Australia. Aegean Macedonians are the Ethnic Macedonians from Greece. You have clearly misinterpreted the whole point of the infobox. Please comprehend your edits before clicking "save page". PMK1 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Even by Greek standards Rainbow is a tiny minority. I'm not saying so, their electoral votes say so. About Australia, maybe you are right, but it is the only number I could find. If you can narrow down from that, be my guest. The number that appeared previously 2997 something was wrong. Read the other source here [12], the number 90,000 is based on "language by birthplace".

The number of Bulgarian desandents was reduced only to the number of the migrants, who settled there after the Balkan Wars. I think, now we need to calculate only the number of Aegean Macedonian refugees in RoM and Australia, i.e. without the descendents, to have objective comparicion. Needn't we? Jingby (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

POV forks

Here is a list of the POV forks about claims of a sizable ethnic Macedonian minority inside Greece. Some of the articles are neutral, other just contradict themselves. Read the following and tell me if you find the same meaning in all of them:

1. Slavic-speakers_of_Greek_Macedonia#Human_rights_issues, in this article
2. Minorities_in_Greece#Slavic-speaking
3. Macedonian_language#Macedonian_Slavic_in_Greece
4. Macedonia_(Greece)#Minority_populations
5. Slavic_dialects_of_Greece#Political_representation
6. Slavic_dialects_of_Greece#Education
7. Rainbow (political party)
8. Political_refugees_of_the_Greek_Civil_War#Initiatives_and_Organization
9. Macedonia_naming_dispute#The_ethnic_Macedonian_minority_in_Greece
10. National_Liberation_Front_(Macedonia)#The_exodus_of_ethnic_Macedonians_from_Greece

(and the list keeps on growing, almost all mention the very small Greek party called Rainbow) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

how many articles have to have the same (mis)information. Who can make them not contradict each other when the same thing is covered in so many places? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 13:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

about Refuges and numbers

Peter Daicos is born in Australia. I am going to remove this Australian. Replace him to the diaspora, please. Jingby (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RMK1, stop your POV- pushings. The number of all Greek Refugees to Vardar Macedonia was 20,000 incl. ethnic Greeks according to neutral sourse as Oxford University Press and many others (excl. Macedonistic propaganda sources), See: A new kind of war, publisher Oxford University Press US, 1997, ISBN 0195113853, Howard Jones, Pg.69, preview in Google Books Jingby (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe that it is 20,000? Because you have one "official?" document and that it is binding? Some sources say 20,000; however many have put the figure at much higher (50,000) and consider the large population increase in Macedonia since the 1940s, a figure of 70,000 is not all that unimaginable. Your book was published by the Oxford University, that does not mea nthat it reflects the veiw or the opinion of the institution. PMK1 (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me PMK1, the compromise between Pomaks and Bulgarian Muslims is not Macedonian Muslims. Jingby (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

History paragraph

A huge amount referenced info was removed without any talk or reliable explaination. This is vandalism. Jingby (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually from what I saw the majority of the information was unsourced. My point was the that the article had focused to much on Greek Macedonia pre-1800. Greek Macedonia did not even exist until 1913, I find it hard to believe how relevant all of this information is. Apart from the 100 hyperlinks to Bulgaria and Bulgarian language etc. Try cutting back to what the article is actually about. Your other point are already covered in History of Bulgarian, Bulgarians etc. This book was written by a monk, it does need several sentences praising it. It has its own article. Your information may be sourced but consider cutting it down yourself, before others (including myself), will cut it down to conform with other Wiki articles. PMK1 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Human rights issues section

Lets make something clear again. This section needs to deal with current or recent issues that reliable sources make them relevant and notable to what the title introduces. It represents a modern perspective focusing on current realities (the ones that can be changed, that's what all those groups and individuals cited are doing, report and push for changes). It's not here to re-evaluate every signle historical fact that involves Slavic-speakers under the prism of human rights violations in relation to cultural or ethnic identities (right now it's not even doing that, it just pushes a national perspective with more or less irrelevant and biased sources). A historical background might be usefull to the extent it gives the reader an idea of what has or hasn't changed, to correlate current attitudes with possible causes (e.g: today's fear of a person expressing his identity due to past opression), etc. This collage of yours PMK1 at some points it's not even POV-pushing, but a degradation even to the eyes of a naive reader. What's the "Macedonian Muslims" mention doing there for example ? Apart from applying a non-existent at that time term to a group based on a later fully formed identity and perspective, can you explain to me why it's notable ? Does it relate to a treatment reserved specifically for Slavic-speakers of Macedonia ? The population exchange based on religion was part of a diplomatic agreement between the two countries with the participation and supervision of third parties as well, it involved all the territories of the country but a few exceptions. Would it be a scandal if it had happened today ? Probably yes, what does that have to do with it ? All these stuff you're adding or repeating are a useless inflation, when the reader has already got the picture and expects to see the actual issues of today. I'm trying to be analytic cause i have the impression you're begging to misinterpret.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion on the issue. I am sure that you would rather see the whole section removed. I dont see why you question as to whether or not there was "treatment reserved specifically for Slavic-speakers of Macedonia", as this is what the Human Rights section is in reference to. Ever since 1949 the Macedonian language has not been publicly taught in Greece. Not only does greece choose not to grant minority status to these people. I dont feel however, like ranting and going into a debate with you. Current Issues include not alowing the Child Refugees to Return, not recognising the minority, not granting minority rights, etc. There you go. PMK1 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to understand what i'm writing ? I specifically asked why is the population exchange between Greece and Turkey involving "Macedonian Muslims" notable in this section, is it part of a special treatment background ? Why are the war figures notable ? You've already mentioned the view that the persecutions during the civil war had a special ethnic character, but why all these details ? What lends weight to them ? I was being very inclusive with my last edits, leaving a lot of material with questionable value. Seeing your stance, maybe i should remove everything that's not specifically sourced as a human rights background by sources specifically dealing with human rights. I already have an idea what the current issues are, the point is that the section contains almost nothing. Instead of inflating it with historical POV forks work on that lacking.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of the 40,000 Macedonian muslims to Turkey is notable as mnay were ethnically non-Turkish and expelled from the land that they had inhabitated for 100's of years purely based on the fact that they were Muslims.

The pre-war figures are notable because under the Metaxas regime the minority was persecuted, this counts as a human rights abuse. The fact that thousands of people were tortured, killed, imprisoned, arrested, abducted purely on the fact that they were not ethnic Greeks and did not speak Greek. This is clearly a Human rights issue.

I could live with the possibility that the exact locations be removed however I still think that the figures are important in estabilishing notability to the section. PMK1 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

huh ? We seem to have a problem in communication. These past events are notable as human rights abuse by whom ? If you regard them as such by applying modern values show me a source that does such a thing. And what makes you stop in the 20th century ? We can find plenty examples since the arrival of their linguistic ancestors in the Byzantine period.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you like Monty Python btw ? Cause this would be too inspirational.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, please, stop with your POV about the Expulsion of the 40,000 Macedonian muslims! Many Muslims lived in Ottoman Macedonia and later in Greece at that time: Turkish, Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, Aromanian, but not Macedonaian. See the map. Jingby (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Austrian Ethnographic map of Macedonia (1892).

Jingiby, had I called them Bulgarian Muslims you would have given me a barnstar. I know, Tito created our people in 1945. We are still today, politically-disorientated Bulgarians. I am a politically-disorientated Grecoman Bulgarian. This mentality make me sick. PMK1 (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, aren't these people actually Torbesh? Just like Muslim Bulgarians are actually Pomaks? Am I the only one who thinks these are a distinct ethnic group (I mean both of them are one ethnic group) based on their folklore and customs? If you're of the same opinion then this dispute is quite irrelevant. --Laveol ^T 18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Laveol, yes they are "Torbeš", however properly known they are Македонци-муслимани. Because many people find Torbeš offensive. But what makes you suggest that they are a seperate ethnic group? PMK1 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I noticed the Torbesh notion when I was thinking of proposing a move to it. Well, maybe not practically ethnic, but ethnographic at the least. Most of the things that make an Ethnos are cultural and partially a matter of self-identification. The case with Pomaks and Torbesh and Bosnians looks like pretty much the same. From all I know about Pomaks I can say that, although, initially belonging to the Bulgarian ethnos they have developed into a pretty much distinct one in the course of centuries. Their customs are unique, their religion is different from that of the majority etc. My guessing is (having only the article here in mind) that Torbesh form the same group.

Coming to think about it, Pomaks is kinda pejorative as well. --Laveol ^T 23:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that they are "sub-group" of ethnic Macedonians, if anything. However the Torbeš already "belong" to the Macedonian ethos, the same way in which Pomaks are considered to be Muslim Bulgarians. However this group by now, having spent 80 years in Turkey, is probably fully assimilated into Turkish mainstream society. PMK1 (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - that's why I suppose they are one and the same ethnic (or whatever) group (I mean Pomaks and Torbesh). Considering them just Muslim Bulgarians/Macedonians is highly controversial (I just feel I'm gonna get banished for these words). They differ too much form the main group, not only in religion, to be considered as such. But since we're living in a still rather nationalistic corner of the world, this is gonna stay as the dominant agenda for years to come. Reading my comments I see I'm starting to get too off-topic. If you wanna continue this you're welcome to my talkpage. --Laveol ^T 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing, if there would be national census in Greece, there wouldn't be articles like this one for shure. I need 1 hour to read this. And then someone will say Nationalistic POV pusher?!Makedonij (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Then again France hasn't done any census that takes into account the ethnicity of the inhabitants. Nevertheless there is no Slavic-speakers in France or ethnic Macedonians in France although there are many more. I guess we just have to have many many articles about any minorities of Greece although it is such a smaller country. There is no Slavic-speakers in America article either.

Clean up

The articles mixes historical situations with contemporary (e.g. Human rights issues usually has to refer to contemporary issues, otherwise is more like historical discrimination)

The lead section is too large. Maybe make a section about names and terminology? Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

t== POV ==

According to all the other articles and POV forks all around wikipedia the ethnic Macedonias are NOT "the large part of the population" of Greek Macedonia. That is what happens when the same stuff get repeated over and over again, they end up not agreeing with each other (see above talk section about POV forks). There are many sources that support that fact in the other articles, anybody that will claim otherwise needs a reality check. There are additional sources like this 2009 US report that is largely critical of Greece but still it refers to a "A small number of Slavic speakers" about those that identify as ethnic Macedonians. Besides the article as it now stands makes allusions to the present state of Slavic speakers based on the situation during war and turmoil by not properly distinguishing historical from contemporary situation. There has to be a clear setup of sections about what happened during the war and the and claims of discrimination today which is vastly a different issue. There are multiple POV leftover pieces of text all around the article. It needs a serious NPOV rewrite. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that bit about the "large parts" when I did my cleanup earlier today. I've removed both that and your equally tendentious counter-quantifications in favour of something more hedged and conservative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What counter-quantifications from my edit[13] were tendentious? The "most now identify nationally as Greeks" or the "small part of the group with an ethnic Macedonian identity"? I base the second on the US report and the first is a fact, even the other POV fork articles and sections will tell you that. The article has other POV issues too. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The version of Future was much more neutral. RMK1, Stop POV-pushing around and explain; why did you revert the Future's variante? If no reliable explaination will be given, you know the result. This article is not about Aegean Macedonians. Did you understand? Jingby (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Aegean Macedonians was merged here on the basis that they are all the same group of people, only each with a different view among themselves and from the neighbouring populations, it would follow that the article is in fact about Aegean Macedonians. Think about it. BalkanFever 11:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

90% from this people now are Greeks and 90% from their history was Bulgarian. Think about it also. Jingby (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby is right but lets have some more accurate numbers: About Macedonians in Greece only 10,000/2,500,000 = 0,004% of those (at maximum) are the ones that say they are not Greek. Therefore Macedonians in Greece are 99.996% ethnic Greeks. However some editors forget all about Wikipedia notability policies etc. It's like if they try hard enough in confusing the reader then Wikipedia will prove to the world that 200,000 ethnic Macedonians live in Greece. copy-pasting the same false numbers. There are many reliable outside recent sources that say all the slavic-speakers are no more than 50,000. I challenge any of those still believing the dubious and old (1986) Ethnologue number 180,180 (that cites a non existent 1986 Greek census), with a reality check. And by the way how are the sales of the re-printed Abecedar going? Is it yet a best seller or not?

I am afraid Future's merging of the pages has served as a way for some people to try to create confusion and grey zones about the identification of those people. Mixing historical events with contemporary. Always mentioning a fringe minority that hasn't participated in elections as a reliable source. How more POV can it get? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying: Future's merge was right. The wrongdoers are the ones pushing the official POV of RoM. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, If you have a problem against the merge, which Fut. Perf. initiated, then bring it up with him. Its your personal opinion that the most of the Macedonians speakers identify as Greeks. You probably believe that all of the Macedonian Speakers are actually "Slavophone Greeks" who were Slavicised. Now that is strong POV. Jingiby, sadly not everyone wants to be Bulgarian. PMK1 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not an answer. No logical explaination was given, nor references or sources were provided. Why did you revert the Future's variante? Jingby (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?? For the same reason i gave in the edit summary, that is what it is there for! However i then proceeded to revert myself and improve the article. You would assume that someone who is ethnically Greek, would of course speak Greek. We do not need to mention the fact that most 99% have learned Greek, nor do I need to explain to you why i did what I did. PMK1 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not interested about your Personal opinion view. Would you give any reliable, logical explaination about your actions, i.e. Administrator's consensus version revert, or no? Jingby (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why the chronic arrogance, Jingiby? Do you really think so highly of yourself that others must meet your standards when it comes to explaining a viewpoint? ... It's a rhetorical question by the way. I don't care what your answer is. Köbra☠ 14:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hail Köbra, be happy. Jingby (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered, man, really. But don't get the situation twisted. I'm not trying to steal praise and I'm definitely not trying to attack you, or anyone else for that matter. I'm just amazed at the idea that you (and a chosen few) can keep the hate up for so long. Köbra☠ 14:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate is a strong feeling, my friend. I do not hate you or RMK1. I just love the neutrality, the objectivity, i.e. the truth. Jingby (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, keep at it, JB. I personally don't have the strength to linger over worldly things like ethnicity, land and whatnot. Köbra☠ 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ех Кобра, приятелю. Да се свети името Му, нека да е царството Му, да бъде волята му, както в небесата, така и на земята. Амин. Jingby (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is "Administrator's consensus version revert", you are saying that Fut. Perf. had a "consensus" with himself? The edit from a user (admin or not), is not a "consensus" nor anything else. Your version is much longer and is full of the 'nit-picking' and artificial correctness which has become of this page. The introduction should be a lot shorter than 3 paragraphs, I wouldn't mind cutting it down to one. Jingby, please use English and when using English please make sense. PMK1 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Now the introduction consists from only one paragrafh. I have separated a new chapter: Ethnic and linguistic affiliations. Jingby (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Minority population"

I reverted this [14] edit by Sthenel, where he had removed the term "minority". As pointed out numerous times before, the term "minority", in normal English usage, does not have the ideological negative baggage it evidently has in Greece. I minority is simply any group of the population that is distinguished from the majority by some relevant demographic factor, be it nationality, ethnicity, language or whatever. In this sense, the Slavophones are of course a minority, no matter in what terms (political, linguistic etc.) one conceptualises the distinction.

Sorry for accidentally using rollback without an edit summary though. I meant to type a summary but for some reason it didn't prompt me for one as it normally does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but I thought that we should avoid this term which may be perceived misleadingly, especially in the leading paragraph of the article, when there is a whole issue about whether this population constitutes a minority. I don't see any reason not to replace it with an unambiguous and neutral phrase like population group. On the contrary, you see. It's OK. - Sthenel (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, no, there is absolutely no "whole issue" about "whether this population constitutes a minority". Not in the normal English sense of the term. There may be an issue about what kind of minority it is, sure, but that's a different thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In politics there is an issue about it. And the word minority serves this issue. Unless, you would have no problem with removing it. There are so many articles about particular populations that forms linguistic or religious minorities within their states, but the definition minority population has not been put in every single article. Hmmm, good work. - Sthenel (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is accepted apart from FP's opinion... Politis' edit was reverted once more, and FP is not interested in finding a compromising solution about the minority population. - Sthenel (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I'm interested in is to ensure that this is the English Wikipedia, where words are used with the meaning they have in English, the way they are used in reliable English-language academic discourse. And no, I'm not interested in the slightest in finding "compromise solutions" with people who want it to be something else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since most of the articles about linguistic or religious minorities don't start with "A people is a minority population" and you insist on this term in this particular article, then you are biased and your intent is obvious. - Sthenel (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)