Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Macedonian template

Give me one reason why should not be included that template?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not related to the article. Since I have now provided you with a reason, I'll do ahead and remove it in due time. It's a shame, though, you do not use talkpages when there's a valid discussion on them. I'm talking about another revert you made earlier. Ignoring is not a good practise in some cases, you know. --Laveol ^T 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the template? Have you been to Lerin and Voden? Have you read the article? Please do not delete the template since the Bulgarian should be deleted too. Do I see double standards?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pfff, I thought that one was removed as well. Well, I'd prefer them both gone, but that'd be hard now, wouldn't it?--Laveol ^T 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you really did not see the BG template?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had got the impression both templates were removed some time ago. What I saw was the diff in which you added the mk template. Since I'm not willing to engage in stupid edit-wars with you, I'm not removing any of them again. When you're through with your revert spree I might try and discuss it with someone willing to do so. --Laveol ^T 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the article includes Greek template, it should includes templates of other Slavic people that live in Greece, in other words BG for the Pomaks and Macedonian for the Macedonians.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As Laveol suggests, we could just remove both templates. After all, the article is clear that their identity is controversial (even among themselves) so slapping "BG for the Pomaks and Macedonian for the Macedonians" in the relevant sections transparently serves to negate the sourced information on their identity and is POV-pushing.--Ptolion (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you work together, since if it is the case it is against the rules of Wikipedia. I am just curious.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about Arvanitika

The chart in the article shows that Arvanitika (old Albanian) is still spoken around Attiki (the area around Athens, to make things simple). But I've never met anyone who speaks Arvanitika anywhere near Athens and the surrounding towns/cities. I mean all the folks I've met around here in my whole life speak Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.135.142 (talk • contribs)

That's off-topic for this page, so you might want to take this to a more appropriate article. But the short answer is: Arvanitika is only spoken by the older generation in most places; all speakers are bilingual in Greek, and they speak Arvanitika only at home, if at all. There is no doubt the language is on its way out. Literature on the topic, including surveys of how and where it is still spoken, are cited at the Arvanites and Arvanitika articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above and I have met older people who speak Arvanitika in Aspropigos and somewhere in north Athens, but is it not 'old Albanian' as we would say old English or German, we do not call Swiss German 'old German', it is a spoken though disappearing Albanian dialect. Politis (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the map shows Arvanitika in its maximum extent in 18th century and early 19th. At that time the population of Attica was roughly around 15 - 30 thousands. The Arvanitika speakers were no more than 50% (roughly 7 - 15 thousands). After the war of independence Attica was more or less destroyed and the population was diminished. It would be quite impossible to actually find many descendent of Arvanites today even in known old Arvanitika vilages.

Seleukosa (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Rather than blocking the disputants, I've reverted to the July version before this started and protected the article. If you are unable to work together as colleagues, then go to dispute resolution and have somebody babysit. Meanwhile, if there are non-contentious edits that need to be made, tell me here and I can add them in. — kwami (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, per request, I've unblocked and restored the latest version, with one exception per the ARBCOM ruling on the word "Macedonian". I'll copy my comments from my talk page:

It's not just Macedonian–Bulgarian, but it can be offensive to use the word "Macedonian" to mean Slavic in an article on Greece, where "Macedonian" just means "of Macedonia", and "Macedonian dialects" can just as easily mean Greek dialects. Given the arbitration ruling on not using the term "Macedonian" for Slavic in such situations, I don't see how the wording can be defended, and edit warring to include it is AFAIK still a blockable offense.

I just scanned the article and purged it of "Macedonian" when that word was not used to mean "of Macedonia". I'm not claiming the words I chose to replace it are the best, and in some cases they were arbitrary (sometimes "Slavophone", sometimes "Slavic-speaking"; sometimes "Slavs", sometimes "Macedonian Slavs", etc.), though I hope the result is coherent. There are probably other instances I missed that need to be changed. There was a long ARBCOM battle between Greeks who insisted that we shouldn't use the word "Macedonian" even in the case of the RoM (that they speak "Skopje language" or some such nonsense), and Slavs insisting that we should use the word to mean "Slav" even within Greece. The result was that it's fine to use it to mean "Slav(ic)" in the case of the RoM, following common English usage, but not within Greece, nor when speaking of Macedonia as a whole (Greek Macedonia + the RoM), for then the term is truly ambiguous. Given the protracted and acrimonious nature of battle, I don't think there will be much tolerance for people using "Macedonian names" to mean Slavic names of villages within Greece, and this was one of the things I changed.

When "Macedonian" is part of the name of an organization or publication, it should of course be left in regardless of what it means. I hope that's clear, and if I've misinterpreted the Arbcom ruling, please let me know.

I should add that as an English speaker with no Greek or Slavic connections, this is purely a clarity-of-language issue. When speaking of the RoM, we call it "Macedonia", and the word "Macedonian" obviously means "of the RoM". However, when speaking of Greek Macedonia, or historical Macedonia, the word "Macedonian" is *not* understood to mean Slavic; it's generally understood to be Greek. Thus much of the latest version of this article called Slavs "Greeks" and Greeks "Slavs", an entirely untenable situation even if it weren't for all the political nonsense that surrounds this issue. — kwami (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree there were a few instances where "Macedonia" was used, whilst "Republic of Macedonia" should have been used. I have nothing against these changes.

There were a few instances where you have changed "Macedonian language" to "Slavic language", and "Macedonian speakers" to "Slavophones". I do not believe that there can be any confusion with Greek dialects in this instance, given that there is only form of "Macedonian language", and this is applied consistently across Wikipedia.

"Macedonian dialects" is unlikely to be confused with "Greek dialects" for the reason above (namely, "macedonian dialects" refers to 'Dialects of the Macedonian language' and "Greek dialects" refers to 'Dialects of the Greek language').

In this instances where simply Macedonians was used, I have no issues linking to "ethnic Macedonians" instead. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not revert even administrator. You do not have reached consensus. Jingby (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My edit was explained here [1]. Please explain your revert. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with 1920-s or 1930-s. The Slavic dialects of Greece were regarded as Bulgarian language then and the population had predominatly Bulgarian sentiments. Nor Macedonians or Macedonian language were recognised as distinct entities or existed as such, excluding some Communist circles. Jingby (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the changes I made related to the issues post-1920, so I am at odds at how you have used this to justify your revert. I have just had a look at the edit I made, and all of the changes related to post-1920 circumstances. Am I to assume, given your response, it will be acceptable to revert back to the previous edition? Lunch for Two (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they should be real after 1943. As you perfectly know prior to their codification in 1945, Macedonian dialects were for the most part classified as Bulgarian and some linguists consider them still as such, but this view is politically controversial.

The Macedonian language is almost unilaterally recognised as a seperate language, and the only group of linguists which consider it to be Bulgarian are the Bulgarians themselves. This is considered to be a WP:FringeView. The Macedonian language did not simply appear overnight in 1944, but attempts at codification were begun in the late 1800s. Before this time the language existed yet in an non-codified form. I have appealed to you numerous times, please recognise the distinctiveness of the Macedonian ethnicity and langauge, which was not simply "created" in the 1940s as you allege. Unless this can occur you will continue to edit war based on your own personal beliefs, which at this stage do not appear to be WP:NPOV. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is not a science-fiction forum. Jingby (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lunch, AFAIK the language *did* simply "appear" ca. 1950: language is not just reality, but the perception of that reality. Why Scandinavian is several language but German just one is perception, not the languages themselves. AFAIK there was no common perception of Macedonian as a separate language before ca. 1950. If 50 years from now everyone in the US says they don't speak English but "American", people will say that English and American are two different languages. But that doesn't mean that today they are two different languages, even though the language is about the same as it'll be 50 years from now. I may be wrong re. Macedonian, but this has been discussed elsewhere numerous times. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the dialects are transitional between Mac. & Bulg, why are we IDing them all as Mac? Do they all self-ID as Mac rather than Bulg? And if they do, isn't it just as unambiguous to say 'Slav'? The title is "Slavic speakers", after all, and is presumably that way for a reason. (I'm moving to correct the punctuation.) — kwami (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dialectal divisions of Macedonia.

A good example explaining the relationship between Macedonian and Bulgarian, is the relationship between Portuguese and Spanish or Dutch and German. They are related, but they are innately different and this is reflected in the fact that the seperateness of the languages is almost universally recognised as real (except for in Bulgaria since 1958, before that the Macedonian language was recognised). People have been writing in the Macedonian dialects for several hundred years now, an efforts to codify the language have been since at least the 1890s.

There is only one transitional dialects of all the dialects spoken, and that is at the very end of Greek Macedonia. The rest are also universally seen as uniquely Macedonian dialects. Take the Prilep-Bitola dialect, which is widely spoken in Florina, Greece, yet also forms the basis for the Standard form of Macedonian.

From what I am aware there are no people that identify as Bulg., however there is a large population that identifies as Macedonian, and this is discussed throughout much of the article (Recent History, Media, Education and Language, etc.) Lunch for Two (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

...People have been writing in the Macedonian dialects for several hundred years now,... Yeah, and the Macedonian identity has been existing since then! Please, Wikipedia is not a forum or a place for jokes. Jingby (talk)

Merge with Slavic Dialects of Greece

Any opinions regarding this merge? Most of the content already overlaps, so hopefully it wont be too controversial a process. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fix redirect

Please fix the double redirect on Ethnic Macedonians of Greece present to the following:

#REDIRECT [[Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia]]

Thanks. Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 03:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic rant

Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th, up until the early 20th century. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later. However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed. According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed. After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness. With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population. In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs)

What is this rant supposed to be? A proposal of text for the article? Or just a bit of the usual talkpage soapboxing prettified with footnotes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby, how does this adress the issue? Lunch for Two (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of the history as well as manipulation of the presence, must not be placed in any article. Jingby (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

All sources I have added are reliable, i.e. University Press' publications and they have countied around 50,000 Slavophones (10,00 to 100,000). Most of them, or nearly all are with Greek self-identification. Jingby (talk)

Nobody has "counted" anything. All these sources are merely citing each other's estimates. Do you know what the difference between counting and estimating is? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not understand you. Check here, please. The total estimate data ranges from 10,000 up: [2], [3], [4] and so on. Jingby (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging

Lunch for Two, merging does not mean pushing cheap nationalistic propaganda over the article and changing it drastically. Do not rewrite it. You are not authorised from the communiry. Only merge, or you will be reverted. Jingby (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? He doesn't need "authorization" to edit an article. If you find something objectionable, the usual rules about dispute resolution and edit-warring apply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Authorization for drastical rewriting = consesus after discussion on the talk page + reliable sources. Jingby (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD applies. If you object to something, the onus of initiating discussion is on you. Name specific points you disagree with, not blanket assertions of overall bias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am objecting this article to be rewritten drastically and this to happen simultaneously with mass deletion of content and sources, without consesus was reached or discussion was held. Jingby (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your objection is not actionable as long as you don't say what specifically you object to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol! What about this passage:

Members of the group have professed a range of ethnic and linguistic identities since their incorporation into Greece in 1913. Before incorporation into Greece the speakers generally espoused either a Macedonian or Bulgarian identity. Various academics of the time also generally had conflicting views on the topic of self identification during this period. Vasil Kanchov for example writes in 1911 that "The local Bulgarians and Vlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians." The community is today split between those with an ethnic Grek and an ethnic Macedonian identity. Of those that left Greece as refugees or immigrants following the civil war, almost all have an ethnic Macedonian identity. Within most contexts these people are known as Aegean Macedonians ([Егејски Македонци, Egejski Makedonci] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) both inside and outside Greece. These people refer to themselves as Dópia (Greek: Δόπια) or Tukašni (Macedonian: Тукашни), which translates to Locals, as distinct from the Pontic Greek immigrants which arrived in the region in the 1920s.

The rest of the changes is rich on the same pseudo-scientific and nationalistic biases. The stabile version bevore that POV above has stated:

Predominantly identified as Macedonian Bulgarians until the early 1940s, since the formation of a Macedonian nation state, many of the migrant population in the diaspora (Australia, America and Canada) have a strong Macedonian identity and have followed the consolidation of the Macedonian ethnicity. However, those who remain in Greece, now mainly identify nationally as ethnic Greeks, although, it should be noted, that though the Macedonian region is overwhelmingly inhabited by Greeks including descendants of Pontians, it is ethnically diverse (including Albanians, Aromanians and Slavs).

And more. Up until about one hundred years ago, the Slav population of Macedonia was universally considered to be Bulgarian. Since then, however, a number of different theories have been advanced, theories which are mutually exclusive but which have as their common denominator a desire to convince the Macedonian Slavs and the world at large that they are not Bulgarian, but something else. Since, however, contemporary sources make it unequivocally clear that, during the period untill 1940-s, the Slavs of Macedonia both regarded themselves predominantly as Bulgarian and were regarded as such by the world at large, the term 'Macedonian' is not used here only in the general geographical sense, but to push here the pseudo-scientific ideas of the Macedonism. Jingby (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Firsly if you only object to that passage, why add a whole string of reverts to it. And Secondly, what I wrote only condensed the section down and made the wording less complicated. Furthermore what do you object to the edit itself? It mentions that some people identified as Bulgarians and some as Macedonians, even V. Kanchov mentions that people identified themselves as that. The rest simply goes on to mention that now there are those identifying as ethnic Macedonians and those as identifying as ethnic Greeks and the terms used to refer to themselves were also listed.

Your conduct across various articles makes it apparent that it is not the words being used to express ideas which you opposed to (which would bring in WP:OR, WP:RS, etc.) but it is the whole concept being discussed that you cannot fathom and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for senseless reverts. Maybe you ought to click "edit" and better the articles rather than simply "undo" all the time. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't forget Jingiby, I opened up a comment section here a week ago asking users interested in the merge to put their input in and to generate the "consensus" you so often use. You chose not to comment and have neither did you assist with the merger between the two articles. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jingiby that the latest edits are problematic. There is a strong "Ethnic Macedonian" POV running throughout. For example, gone is the (sourced) sentence "However, those who remain in Greece, now mainly identify nationally as ethnic Greeks", which we all know is the case, and it is replaced with "Many who have remained in Greece now an ethnic Greek identity or have rejected both ethnic affiliations. Nonetheless many still living in Greece have retained their ethnic Macedonian identity." Rather than acknowledge the fact that the number of those with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness nowadays is tiny (~10,000 by most estimates, witness the dreadful performance by Rainbow in elections), we get vagueness and "many". What's many? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Also gone is "and the smallest group is made up of those who have a clear ethnic Macedonian national identity.", even though again this is sourced. Also gone is any reference to the Bulgarian language, instead we get "Various Macedonian dialects are spoken in the region of Greek Macedonia." All of a sudden it's Macedonians this, Macedonians that, even though most members of the group this article covers do not identify as ethnic Macedonians. I think what's going on is an attempt to slowly re-write the article a way so that it is all about ethnic Macedonians, then once that is achieved go for renaming it to "Aegean Macedonians". In other, an attempt to re-create the deleted Ethnic Macedonians of Greece by the back door. Then there is the question of how these edits were implemented. They were rammed through in a single edit without so much as an edit-summary [5]. Fine, WP:BOLD maybe. But WP:BOLD does not call for avoiding edit-summaries and then edit-warring [6] [7]. In such instances, WP:BOLD rapidly turns into WP:TEND. We all know this is a highly contentious subject. Ramming through major changes is bad enough, doing so without an edit summary is completely unacceptable. Lunch for Two, it is quite clear that several editors have issues with your changes. Trying to impose them by force is hopeless. The sensible (and only) thing to do is propose your changes in the talkpage. And please no false claims of consensus in an attempt to justify relentless slow-revert warring as here [8]. Athenean (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, I am happy to discuss the changes made. Maybe instead of a simple revert constructive editing will provide some benefit to the article (and this is not in reference to you). Elections do not replace censa, which tell us the true number of people wishing to be identified as such. Claiming that there are only 10,000 Macedonians because thats how many voted for Rainbow is like saying only 1% of Canadian are interested in the Environment because that is how many votes the Green Party got. There is no way of identifying the exact number of people with this identity and with that identity, people can estimate (and that is what all of these figures are) and the estimates have to be reflected, however to used words such as "there are X number of people with an ethnic Macedonian identity" is misleading as we don't really know how many there are (neither do the researchers). I would be keen to see an estimate from these researches pertaining the 2010s and not the 1990s, I suspect that the estimates would be somewhat different.

In regards to the merge with Slavic dialects of Greece and the supposed omission of the Bulgarian language, this is due to the fact that Bulgarian was spoken by the Pomaks in Thrace (not "slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia"), and I merged the relevant section across at Pomaks#Greece. My edit in this section reflected linguistic classification and underneath the wide variety of terms Slavika/Dopia/Makedonski/Po Nashe/Starski etc. were all listed. To assert that only the word "Macedonian" was used doesn reflect the next paragraph where the issues regarding local identification with the langauge were highlighted. Furthermore, you have attacked me for the merge, yet I have not seen you take any interest in merging the two articles.

As for the discussion at Ethnic Macedonians, me and PB92 reviewed all of the sourced I mentioned and highlighted the flaws and acceptable parts of what was previously written. The text was then modified to provide some form of consensus between the 2 parties involved, nonetheless it was still reverted. You are more than welcome to participate in the dicussion pertaining the usability and validity of the sources at Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). Lunch for Two (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the number of people that identify as ethnic Macedonians, while there is no census data, there are estimates in the literature. All of these estimates hover around the ~10,000 range, so there is good reason to believe that figure. It's not perfect, but it's good enough. Claiming "there is no data, so we have to be as vague as possible" is disingenuous and is not going to work. Before anything else, I want this issue closed. Your refusal to accept this figure and insist on vague language and innuendo is a big part of the problems we're having, and makes it very hard to assume good faith. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The assertion "there are X number of people with an ethnic Macedonian identity" is of course wrong, and i haven't seen anyone inserting or explicitly supporting such a thing. Lunch is right when describing the situation as volatile, and that's primarily because of the "middle group", which is more open το cultural and ethnic incentives from the other side of the border and at the same time is not caught inside the highly polarized national perspectives of any of the two (or three) countries. That said, if there were researchers doing fieldwork right now in the area how do you expect they would estimate the number of ethnic Macedonians ? The current estimate is an upward projection of the Rainbow's votes, it is clearly stated in the sources. These figures haven't risen at all. What would be the other option for them ? Summing up memberships to local cultural associations with an ethnic Macedonian agenda included in their activities wouldn't produce a higher result i think, and its accuracy wouldn't be better anyway, as, pertaining to the aforementioned polarization, we are talking about a conscious sociopolitical choice, which is better reflected through affiliations to a clearly political institution. To give an example so that i'm better understood, the frontman of Rainbow, Voskopoulos, is a first cousin of the former head of Florina prefecture, who has made it clear with his statements relating to the issue that he espouses an ethnic Greek identity. The comparison with the Green Party in Canada is of course not representative (following Lunch's Spanish-Portuguese example in a previous discussion relating to the Macedonian-Bulgarian differences which was even worse, try Danish-Norwegian or Russian-Belarusian and you're close), the obvious difference is that almost all parties in Canada have, to some degree, an environmental protection agenda, which is high in the country's priorities. On the other hand, no other Greek party except from Rainbow, has a Macedonian ethnonational agenda, like most Canadian parties don't support a greater autonomy or secession of Quebec. --IpProtected (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with you also Ip. It is hard to judge how people define their ethnicity especially given the lack of recognition/assistance the Greek state provides to those identifying as non-Greeks (and I extend this to the manner in which Greek censa are conducted). However a lot has changed in the past 20 years, especially regarding greater freedoms which have been extended to people living in Greece. Unlike in the time during which the estimates were made, there are now numerous ethnic Macedonian organisations (there are groups for example which have split off from Rainbow and now conduct their own affairs, publish their own newspapers, etc.), classes have been started at a local level to teach the language, ethnic Macedonian folkloric groups from Greece now tour the R. of Macedonia and the diaspora, several newspapers exist (the most succesful of which prints 20,000 copies and is reportedly widely distributed) and there are now elected officials who declare themselves to be Macedonians and promote the recognition of ethnic minorities. You only have to look at my user page to see expression of identity in action (something which in the 1990s polarised communities such as in Meliti [to the stage where 2 seperate events were organised simply over which language songs would be sung], however is now much more mainstream). Furthermore from what I have read there is now a greater discernable distinction made in Greece between someones "ethnicity" and "nationality" which perhaps didn't exist before (from what I have read). Lunch for Two (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for agreeing but where are you going exactly with what you're writing ? Are you proposing a shift of framework in which we deal with this article's subject ? These reports on the manifestations of the Macedonian ethnonational movement in Greece don't point to anywhere, unless we are already practicing wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your own personal opinion in the matter. I have already checked your sources in ethnic Macedonians and produced a revised version there, which i think is more balanced, if others agree maybe it could be placed here as well, unaltered or with less detail. But what are we to suppose in general based on them ? You have a newspaper (a journalistic leaflet according to the editor's note) being distributed free of charge in 20.000 copies every month and supported mainly by foreign capital and another one in 1000 copies with probably local circulation in Kastoria. These numbers are logical, if we take into account a "target group" of more than 100,000, but do not lead to any conclusion about the readership. You have a report of 30 students attending unofficial language lessons in Thessaloniki and another class in Kastoria which did not have enough attendance to continue in the proceeding year. You have the Rainbow party, some activities in Meliti and a local organization in Kastoria. Please fill in the gaps if i have forgotten something important or correct me, but what do all these tell us about a change of attitude, and more importantly, about a change of scale ? These are all qualitative references on ethnic Macedonians in Greece, which are already acknowledged as a subgroup here. And a note on your last sentence, differentiating ethnicity and nationality would be very easy if Balkan states weren't build on an ethnic-nation ideology (Greece did not start like that exactly, but "had" to follow the trend). Some day, being a Greek and being an ethnic Macedonian might not be two mutually exclusive identities, and by that i'm not by all means supporting the essentialist view that there existed a Macedonian ethnonational identity/consciousness before the late 19th century, but rather that all modern nations in the area share a common heritage to some degree. Today, being an ethnic Macedonian in Greece is primarily a political/national issue, and the "local ethnos" that identify as Macedonians are distinct enough with the ethnicity that is expressed by and evolves around the neighboring nation. They are the leftovers of a past that legitimizes all views.--IpProtected (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation concerning the title of this article

Macedonia in Greece is not commonly referred to as "Greek Macedonia". If you exclude Wikipedia [9] there are only 369 Google hits for "Greek Macedonia". I recommend that the title of this article is changed to Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of northern Greece.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This article reflects the common usage in English. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The common usage is "Macedonia" and not "Greek Macedonia" and it has been so even before the English language became a dominant language. The usage of "Greek Macedonia" is scarce-at-best and as the Google hits show above.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Images in infobox

A newly registred sock created an infobox for ethnic group called Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Such ethnic group did never exist. I recognized several Macedonian Bulgarians born in the Ottoman Empire, who died there or in Bulgaria. They are not directly related to Greece. I recognized also several ethnic Macedonians born in Yugoslavia, who live in the Republic of Macedonia. They are also not directly related to Greece. More, part of the images are copyright infringement, without proper license and date. The are with a false author. I disagree with such way of action. P.S. It is futile to argue that the current Prime Minister of Macedonia must have a picture here. In the same way we must include a photo from the current Bulgarian President Plevneliev. He is descended from Bulgarian refugees who resettled from today's village of Petrousa in Drama regional unit, Greek Macedonia, in 1913. The Plevneliev family name refers to the Bulgarian name of the village, Plevna. Jingiby (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I am not trying to suggest that they are an ethnic group. Just like in the articles of Macedonians (Greeks), Macedonian Muslims, Macedonians (Bulgarians) who are not distinctive ethnic groups but have articles I wanted to create a "memorial" that Slavs existed in Greek Macedonia in the history and so do now. I would like to apologize to Jingiby who, by the way, has no arguments for what he's doing and promise to never put images of Slav Macedonians that played a such a great role in the Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Greek history. Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think, we need a third opinion. Could anybody from other editors discuss this issue here? Thank you in advance. Jingiby (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting pictures of people "belonging to the group" into infoboxes at all. A quick look at other articles shows that it tends to end up in eternal fights about who belongs to the group and who is important enough to put in. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would oppose any editor who is arrogant enough to put their username in bigger letters than anything else on the page just for the sake of his/her arrogance. But, I also think that photos are rather silly, unless there are actual famous people to include that English speakers in the US or Britain might recognize and say, "I didn't know X was a Greek Macedonian!" Such is not the case here so an array of photos of unknown people who played some infinitessimal role in history is really pointless. I have been involved in those debates over "Who belongs here?" and the anon editor above is quite right--they quickly devolve into "Is X really a Macedonian?", "Just because X has Macedonian parents and speaks Macedonian is s/he really Macedonian because s/he lives in New York?", "Is X really Macedonian just because s/he was born in Y town?", "Is X really famous enough to include?", etc., etc., etc. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, Taivo & Jingiby. Infoboxes have this unfortunate tendency to generate controversy. In general, it is a) hard to generate a generally acceptable "representative" gallery of people for a specific group and b) in this particular case, despite its large historical section, which is necessary to understand the article, the article itself seems to focus on the Slavic-speakers after southern Macedonia came under Greek rule. Representative figures of the Slavic-speaking community would be those that have lived and acted within Greece. Including figures like Gruevski who did not grow up under Greek rule are hence irrelevant to the topic of the Slavic-speaking community in Greece, just as a German-speaker whose parents emigrated from Belgium to Germany is irrelevant to the affairs of the German-speaking community in Belgium. Constantine ✍ 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting

This article has been a matter of controversy from the beginning. We have a mixed situation where we can't find an END of the discussions that are made. The name Slavic-speakers as it is given doesn't give a real picture what does the article tell. Are Slavic-speakers just Slavophones (Greek: Σλαβόφωνοι) the Greek word used to describe those who have the Slavic as a mother language as Greeks who have accepted the Slavic language, are forced to speak Slavic etc. All in all Slavophones in Greek politics means Hellenes by heritage that speak the Slavic language for some strange reason. Also there are a number of Slavic people with Greek self-awareness that proclaim themselves as "slavophones". Σλαβόφωνοι in translation means "speakers of Slavic", so (as you can apparently see) the name of the article lies on a Greek nationalist ethnic provocation.

First, we can't just call the Slavic residents of Greece Slavic-speakers when there existence in denied by the Greek Government and their community doesn't even have an official name for which to call on.

Second, we can't call all Slavs in Greece Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, because there's a large number of Slavs that not reside in Greek Macedonia, but in the other regions of Greece as well.

We need to split this abnormal article into three totally different articles to achieve order. We need to have one about the Slavs in Greece (no matter from which region of the country they live), the Slavic dialects of Greece (dialects of the Slavic language, sometimes considered dialects of Macedonian, sometimes of Bulgarian), and one about Slavophones the Slavic people with Greek self-awareness.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 12:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article isn't about Russians in Athens or Poles in Salonika. It is about the non-immigrant community in Greek Macedonia that speaks Macedonian/Bulgarian. It is about one specific group of Slavs in Greece. Do we need an article that covers Slavic immigrant communities in Greece? No. We don't have articles on the many tens of thousands of immigrant communities scattered around the world. An article on the Slavic diaspora might be appropriate where Slavic immigrant communities throughout the world might be covered, but having a separate article for each immigrant community in each country is ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Still Slavic-speakers doesn't identify nor Bulgarians, nor Macedonians.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Pomaks, who are the another native Slavic speaking minority in Greece are excluded. Jingiby (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: I would not like to think of the Pomaks as such a distinctive ethnic group, all in all they're still Bulgarian.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Taivo and Jingiby. In addition, the proposed article "network" will be completely confusing to the users who want to learn something from wikipedia. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: In what meaning would you describe that "confusing"?Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Confusing in the sense of "Where do I find what I am looking for among all these articles?". --79.160.40.10 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reason for this maze of an article not to be divided that tells about the Slavs in Greek Macedonia, then somebody says it doesn't tell about the Slavs it's about Greek Slavophones, then someone has writen about Bulgarians, Macedonians,................. If this isn't confusing as it is...WHAT IS?Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just my point, this article is about Slavophones thats why we need to make a separate article on Slavs in Greece.Dr. Mr. Sea Fall Ph.D 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Macedonians of Greece? I agree that "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" doesn't really say what the article is about. A Russian immigrant would qualify for that description. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that "Slavic" is what the language continuum Macedonian-Bulgarian is called in Greece ([10]). Calling it Macedonian runs the risk of the "FYROM" nonsense from Greeks and the fact that the eastern end is more "Bulgarian" than "Macedonian". Calling this language "Slavic" in Greece simply bypasses all those problems as well as being based on a reliable source in Ethnologue. It's actually specific. --Taivo (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Citizens of Macedonia are Macedonians, aren't they? Doesn't matter which language they speak. Not calling the language anything.

Since when do we go by what the Greeks call these things? The normal English meaning of "Slavic speakers" is speakers of Slavic languages. Not specific at all. Maybe "Slavic inhabitants of Greek Macedonia"? Something that specifies who we're talking about. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a new discussion here and that issue has been brought up before. "Slavic speakers of Macedonia" isn't "what Greeks want to call these things", but the result of discussions among participating editors at the time. "Slavic" satisfied many more problems than any other option and since it is based on a reliable source, it was deemed the most neutral solution. And in the context of Greece, it is specific. "Slavic inhabitants" doesn't address your objection any better. Ethnicity in the Balkans is much more intimately tied to language use than it often is in other parts of the world. --Taivo (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Slavic speakers of Macedonia" is inaccurate in that it excludes Slavs who don't speak "Slavic languages" and now just speak Greek. Don't we also actually have Greeks who speak one of the Slavic languages without being Slavs? Are these included or excluded? I.e. whoever doesn't speak the language, is no more an ethnic minority, but is just Greek? This is what "Slavic speakers of Macedonia" actually means. For clarity, we should also specify "Greek Macedonia" as there is another "Macedonia" as well. Same would apply for when we say "Turkish speakers in Greece". There are Turks in Greece who don't speak Turkish but speak just Greek. There are also, as odd as it may sound, ethnic Greeks who speak Turkish. There are Kurd Greeks who do speak Turkish but are not Turks. So "Turkish speakers" (Turkophones) is biased just like "Slavic Speakers" (Slavophones). We have Slavs, regardless of whether they speak one of the Slavic languages or not. I support the title Slavs in Greece, with obviously a clear and extensive section consecrated to the Slavs in "Greek Macedonia" discussed within that general page. The present page can be expanded to include all Greece. probably that way it will be less contentious for everybody. werldwayd (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't about "Slavs in Greece", it's about one clearly-defined ethnic minority in Greek Macedonia only--those who speak dialects of the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum that is called "Slavic" in Greece. Your attempts to broaden the scope of the article simply show that you don't know what the article is about and don't really care as long as your attempts to defocus attention from a single group defined by the language they speak are successful. --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I know exactly what the article is about. But the way the article is developed till now, it is riddled by so many idiosyncracies that boggles the mind. So let me get this straight. We are speaking about a rigid set of people that you narrowly want to identify, in a rigid (limited) plot of land (specified very clearly in the article). The moment they move into some other provincial Greek region, out of necessity or practicality, suddenly their identity disappears or is none of our, or the article's concern, right? Even further, they are clearly identified as "Slavic SPEAKERS" and no integration is involved and none (I am thinking about their newer generations) has lost or will be losing their ability to be "Slavic speaking" to become let's say for argument sake "Greek speaking"... (though still keeping keeping their "ethnic Slavic origins"... This is about a type of a static people who lack mobility or never ever can or want to move and are just stuck in this specific area with this specific language (so to speak).... Furthermore, it is their "proximity" to Bulgarian or Macedonian lands is what is actually being discussed and focussed upon ... This is what your defense of the present very rigid and puzzling terminology leads to, for any general reader. Unless that is that one has so much expertise in this, he/she probably never even needs to read the Wikipedia page to further explore... Again, I come back to my proposal. I suggest a broader less rigid concept, with sections more area-specific developed within such a general article. The way the article is now doesn't allow for such a flexible approach and thus all the cautionary comments you are getting from so many other colleagues as well. werldwayd (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that there's nothing to split, but this illustrates the problem with the title. Hardly any English speaker is going to understand the idiosyncratic use of "Slavic" by Greece. The normal reading is that this article is about speakers of Slavic languages, and that isn't going to change. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again we come back to a topic that has been discussed here before. The language is called "Slavic" in Greece, not "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian". --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And if we were Greek WP, that would be fine. But we're not in Greece. And outside of Greece, that's not what "Slavic" means. It's a misnomer. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a "misnomer". It is a word that has a different meaning in one context than it has in other contexts. Using "Slavic" here is based on a long-standing consensus between Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks as to what to call this language in this article. And the last time I checked, consensus trumped virtually everything else in Wikipedia. If you want to initiate another discussion on what to call this group of Macedonian/Bulgarian/Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia, go right ahead and we'll see what comes out the other end. --Taivo (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And in the right context the Sun is a planet. But we'd hardly want to name an article "Sol (planet)". This title is just as confusing. I'm not requesting a move, but it should be obvious that as long as we say this article is about Slavic speakers, our readers are going to misunderstand us to mean Slavic speakers. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Life, and especially Wikipedia, is full of things we don't particularly like, but have to tolerate. The suggestion that you initiate a (separate) discussion about what to call this language in Greek Macedonia was a serious one although I sense that you took the suggestion as facetious. There are other interested editors just sitting on the sidelines watching this discussion without commenting specifically. They might have some useful input. Right now, this whole discussion about moving and splitting the article isn't going anywhere because the number of "Oppose" votes will serve as an anchor. --Taivo (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This article isn't about Russians or Poles or Czechs in Greece. It is about Macedonians in Greece, the vast majority of whom live in Greek Macedonia. After rereading WP:MOSMAC, two things become rather apparent.

• 1. Wikipedia's manual of style concerning Macedonia is clear that "Macedonian" is the name to be used in all cases when talking about the Slavic people or language of Macedonia.
• 2. #1 applies except when "Macedonian" is ambiguous, as it is in the case of Greek Macedonia, where "Macedonian" refers both to the inhabitants who are Greek and live in Greek Macedonia and the inhabitants who are Slavic and live in Greek Macedonia, both of whom also speak "Macedonian"--one a dialect of Greek, one a Slavic language.

Those two issues are part of the problem here. That is really why we used the term "Slavic speakers" here--to avoid the ambiguity of using "Macedonian" for any group of people living in Greek Macedonia. So the key is to find a term that avoids the ambiguity of using "Macedonian" to refer to a group of people who principally live in Greek Macedonia, but aren't Greek or Greek-speaking. --Taivo (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's not an easy problem to address. "Slavic", however, is similarly ambiguous. Agreed that "Macedonian" alone would be completely inappropriate. My suggestions above may also be problematic, though some of them seem less ambiguous to me. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)