Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/nationalities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nationalities and national connections

[edit]

This is a voluntary log of the nationalities and national connections of editors involved in this discussion. It is intended to promote transparency by indicating whether editors have any personal connections with the disputing nations.

  • Akhilleus I agree w/Fut. Perf., we probably shouldn't be doing this. But...I'm from the U.S., and a complete mongrel, except no Slavic or Greek ancestry (that I know of). As my username should tell you, I feel a strong connection to ancient Greece... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shadowmorph Greece . "We are all Greeks". I am a Macedonian = Greek with descent from Macedonia region of Greece. Strongly oppose this should be done or that it should be relevant. I participate only for honesty and consistency with my earlier declarations, I do not endorse in any way what is happening here. No one's ethnicity should be considered conflict of interest and marginalized for any reason whatsoever. This list and anyone's transparency is voluntary but does it exist so that "the appropriate conclusions can be drawn from refusals to be transparent"[1]???. I say we use WP:AGF and respect the ones who don't want to be transparent and not "draw any conclusion" about them. <irony>Now everyone can nicely assume my bad faith if he wants to and conjecture that I am a nationalist Greek POV-pusher (whatever that means)</irony>. Shadowmorph ^"^ 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • jd2718  New York City New Yorker. A second cousin married a Greek boy. Vacationed in Crete, Athens, Thessaloniki. Passed through Macedonia on a miserable train ride once, but the Macedonians and Serbs I shared the car with were friendly (and generous). So, no, no real connections. Jd2718 (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heimstern  California: Contrary to many people's guesses from my username, I'm Californian. Ancestry from Northern Europe. No known connection to any Balkan areas. Living in another country not on either my native continent or the one in question in this debate. (Note that I really did this mainly just because I love to see the Bear Flag flying on these pages. =3) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grnch  MKD - a Macedonian living in Macedonia (I'm not actively participating in this whole discussion, but I did make some factual corrections about Britannica so I guess I should introduce myself).

Comments

[edit]

@Shadowmorph: Quote: "the appropriate conclusions can be drawn from refusals to be transparent"[2]" Did you expect anything less? The coercion of this "purely volunteer" list is apparent. And since I refuse to comply I guess I must be hiding something. I would give anything for WP:AGF and a suspicion-free editing environment where the evaluation of my contributions would be based on intellectual and objective criteria and not on coercive tactics and assumptions of bad faith. Sadly it may be too late. Dr.K. logos 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that for the record, I at least will not hold it against someone if they do not want to reveal their nationality. J.delanoygabsadds 02:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice thought J.delanoy and I appreciate it. However it would be nicer if we deleted this subpage altogether. I find it a useless and pointy exercise which sticks like a sore thumb amidst the lofty Wikipedian principles of WP:AGF and reasoned academic discourse. This page subverts academic discourse by replacing reasoned evaluation of editor contributions with allegations based on editor background and social connections. This exercise is unreal and almost comical, if it were not so utterly unacademic. Dr.K. logos 05:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Tasos, you're beating a dead horse now. I'm myself not a huge fan of this list in this form, but your apparent total opposition to all talk about ethnic backgrounds is really becoming worn-out. It's an obvious fact that "Greek editors versus non-Greek editors" has been the driving force in this conflict for years. The Arbitration Committee itself has recognised this as a fact (see here). Our task here is explicitly to find some way to make a decision excluding this block influence, so you'll please have to forgive us if we are discussing some way of keeping in account who comes from which side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) And the funny thing is there are editors with nicknames in the above list who declare themselves to have no background or connections with either Greece or RoM. I guess we have to use WP:AGF and believe everything they say despite there being no proof that their background is what they claim. We also have to AGF that they don't harbour any antipathies directed toward any nationalities. This application of WP:AGF is unfortunately selective. Because the same WP:AGF is not applied to people of Balkan background. Because if it were, there would be no need for these silly declarations in the first place. In an encyclopedia we are, and yet logic is running away from these non-sequiturs. What a comedy. Dr.K. logos 06:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Future we just had an edit conflict. Despite that, please read my comments above, which obviously were not meant as a reply to you, and let me know where you think I'm wrong. Dr.K. logos 06:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. K., your objections to this voluntary listing are duly noted (I doubt that anyone expected you to post anything here other than objections anyway). Now please find a nice place in the discussion where you have contributions to make. We're waiting for your productive wisdom whether we agree or disagree with your conclusions. (Taivo (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Taivo, my dear friend. You, of all people, chastising me to participate in a discusssion full of non-academic paraphernalia. You obviously have not addressed any of the points I just raised. Why? How am I going to serenely use my intellect when surrounded by this insulting theatre of the absurd, where all pretense of logic has long expired? Dr.K. logos 06:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously Future, if you need to see my passport coming to this discussion, you obviously will not or cannot see my ideas. Because my ideas are in my head, not in my passport. Asking me for my passport as a way of evaluating my ideas is insulting to me. So I refuse to participate in this anti-intellectual exercise. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 06:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, Tasos, seriously, we've all understood your position now. No need to restate it another thirty times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Future, please. I did not restate anything. These points are independent of each other. Nonetheless, I don't have an argument with you, because you made it clear that you don't like this either. You mentioned above that Arbcom has a finding about ethnic block voting and that this method is one of the ways to keep track of who's coming into the debate. However you know and we all know that the nationalities of all the usual suspects participating in this debate are well known. So these declarations are utterly unnecesary on top of being unacademic. Arbcom's finding, I'm sure, can be supported using more intelligent methods. Dr.K. logos 07:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@THE REFEREES:  ::It makes good sense for referees to declare their nationality in this instance as an indication of impartiality but it makes no sense to have the same requested from editors taking part in this discussion. An affirmation from the referees that they will not "hold it against someone if they do not want to reveal their nationality" is very good, indeed, but not enough. The concept for nationality declarations is done so that "appropriate conclusions can be drawn from refusals to be transparent". This is creating a very bad precedent for wikipolicy. This incident must not be just wiped off these proceedings, it must also be explicitly denounced in official WP policy. One should not have to supply any rationale for this thesis on account of its obviousness and on account of what has already been stated in the deleted arguments that can be found in the "diffs" herewith (once the mud is thrown, the damage is done). Actually, that was a very bad start of these proceedings. To state that "appropriate conclusions can be drawn from refusals to be transparent" is a clear statement of bad faith. This is not about "incivility" or plain "bad conduct", as it bears heavily on the content and the outcome of the proceedings. It must be acknowledged that a lot of prior work has gone in the preparation and the framing of these "centralized" proceedings, thanks to Fut. Per. who did it in a professional manner. However, whilst the original framework leans in favor of the author's opinion, new entries with opposing views had to fight an uphill battle to get their way through. In fact, this framework has not attracted even a minimum of editors from the opposing side to make the outcome appear somehow impartial. I wonder if this is accidental or if this is due to a scary situation arising from the "optional" declarations of nationality. So, right from the outset, these proceedings are marred by a biased framework together with the threat to editors to declare their nationality or else ... Only Shadowmorth (from the "Greek" side), a Macedonian himself, opted to reluctantly declare his nationality and therefrom to wage an uphill struggle to get his ideas through. Practically alone, he had to respond to the salvos from several editors. It is extraordinary that he was nominated for a ban out of the discussion, when no real misconduct is evident (unless some wikilawyer can make one out). The only thing he has done is to supply us with a huge amount of information, not "drivel" as someone said in a demeaning way. If he has been so prolific in response to a professionally well prepared side, he should be granted a barnstar by now, and not be nominated as a disruptive participant. I find it even tactless the fact of nominating the only serious participant, from that side, for a ban. If that happened, then any worthwhile discussion is probably over and the outcome predictable, as I wonder how many from the "Greeks" would want to follow the same fate, see Talk:Greece#Centralised discussion. No doubt there are many non-Greek scholars with expertise of the region, but who can doubt that Greece can provide many editors with a very high professional standard in the topic? Should they be banned out or labeled by being asked to "voluntarily" declare their nationality so that "appropriate conclusions can be drawn from refusals to be transparent". I am not in favor of bans and retributions of any sorts, but if Shadowmorth is seriously considered for a ban, for no apparent reason, then certainly there are grounds for other candidates to receive the same medicine, namely: He who conceived/initiated the idea of "nationality declarations" (unclear to me who, as it may go back some time) and those who genuinely advocate and support such actions. Clearly, such editors are the ones who are deliberately disruptive, who wish to monologue in the absence of serious opposition. Really. The "nationality declarations" issue may be connected not only to bad faith, it may also have to do with words I often hear like "gaming", "trolling", "stonewalling", etc. which I must say I have no clear understanding as my reading of detailed policies is scanty, apart from having learned and understood well "the five pillars of Wikipedia" together with the "common sense" principle. Clearly, though, something critical is missing from the outset of these discussions. In conclusion, if these proceedings are going to produce any outcome that will be respected by the community, two things are required at the moment: (a) A re-drafting of the framework of the proceedings that will allow focused (not spread-around) discussion with a logical sequence of decisions and (b) clearing out of the discussion the real disruptive editors, or at least containing and controlling them, in order to restore good faith and attract more editors of good standing; the material already presented to be moved in the neutral framework as approved by the referees. Esem0 (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. I couldn't agree more. In fact I am not participating in this debate due to the poisoned atmosphere these declarations have created. And I am not even an expert on Macedonia. I don't think there are any editors of Greek background participating, other than Shadowmorph. It is ironic that measures against block voting are being taken, such as these declarations, at a time when the Greek editors have abandoned, en masse, this discussion. Greek editors have become an extinct species in this debate. How can an extinct species form a block? Dr.K. logos 07:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that we have referees who monitor the proceedings and an Arbcom finding against block voting. It is exceedingly unlikely a block could ever form under these adverse conditions, even if Greek editors came out of extinction to form one. And even if it formed it would and could readily be dismissed by the referees. This page, therefore, in addition to its many other sins, is simply beating a dead horse. Dr.K. logos 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And obviously, when people are being so delicate as finding important enough to declare who got married to whom and whom they met in trains, I don't think I have a WP:SNOW chance of being accepted in this debate. I have met so many Greeks in my life that I could fill stadia with them or trainloads running from Belgrade through Skopje to Athens. Even if I were not Greek, my Greek connections, if used as a criterion, would render me as tainted as FDA condemned food. Dr.K. logos 07:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem there is much to add here than openly thanking Tasos and Esem0 for their kindness.
@Esem0 it's "Shadowmorph", not "Shadowmorth" (lol) :D Shadowmorph ^"^ 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shadowmorph for your kind comments. Dr.K. logos 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many NBA teams have two different jersey colors that they use for road games. One night on the road the star of the team noticed that the jersey they were using that night was not his favorite road color. He told his teammates that he wouldn't play unless they changed the color of the jersey. The rest of his team was already dressed and the game was about to start. They went out and played while their star player sat in the locker room complaining about the color of the jersey. They lost the game. It's just a story about basketball. Those guys make millions of bucks a year and can complain about the color of their jersey. (Taivo (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Taivo, your story is very nice and the NBA analogy delightful. Except there seems to be no team here and star players, in our context, are a nice but not realistic idea. Your intentions are nevertheless appreciated. Take care and thanks. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 19:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

People, please get over it already. I don't particularly support nor condemn these nationality declarations, and I know I'm technically asking for a response by making this post (paradox, hypocrisy, whatever) but I will say something. This isn't a ploy to get rid of every Greek. I, for one, can tell who is and isn't Greek by their comments and contributions to the discussion and topic area. This isn't one-sided. In the past, Greek trolls (and yes, their identity is of relevance) have dismissed the coherent arguments of uninvolved editors and third parties as "pro-Fyrom" or "anti-Greek" and a attacked them in a variety of other ways. One Greek troll active here has dismissed every contributor in this discussion as biased. No interpretation of AGF or CIV can make us take him seriously. It is crystal clear that his opinions are related to his national identity. In fact they're based on his (false) interpretation that due to his national identity he has a duty to uphold particular views. That's a COI. So if a moron like that can accuse everyone of being biased, those who wish have a right to defend themselves against such frivolous claims. Two national identities (naturally) show a correlation (causation, likely, but not necessarily) with two opposing views on this topic. Nobody can deny or ignore that. They are the Macedonian and the Greek one. While I don't consider myself a Macedonian nationalist, I'm the closest thing that we'll get at this discussion. So from a Macedonian nationalist perspective, I can state with certainty that nobody who has contributed to the discussion so far is "on my side". Perhaps they have the same views on naming (although I haven't explicitly stated or completely elaborated on which proposal(s) I support, nor do I plan to) but their views are of no relevance to a Macedonian identity which they don't have. The last thing we (all of us) want is this same troll (or a new one) to pop up after a definitive decision has been made and accuse the referees of being "Fyromian" therefore biased and then for you, Tasos or Shadowmorph, to expect us to seriously address his trolling as a legitimate contribution in the name of AGF and start all over. While I consider myself to strive towards NPOV and follow policies, I'm not going to get offended if anybody has a legitimate concern in regards to me being biased. I don't believe I've been disruptive here, but I'm not going to take it as a personal attack if somebody wants to exclude me from this discussion. And I expect the same from the "other side", because logically if somebody feels I should be excluded they'll feel the same about others.

I also won't hold it against anybody if they don't read this, since it is in fact quite long and probably boring :) BalkanFever 03:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BalkanFever if you understood from the arguments that I have presented so far, that, in the future, I will try to defend trolls who will attempt to retroactively destroy consensus, I have nothing to add. Also the clarification in your edit summary was not needed. Dr.K. logos 04:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just saying that national identity does have a degree of relevance. You seem to disagree. BalkanFever 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I didn't say that. I said that national identity should not be prima-facie evidence of intended wrongdoing. The quality of contributions should be the only criterion. Let's asume that I was an anonymous user who did not disclose any personal information about myself. I then went ahead and started my editing by reverting everything to FYROM. Now would you care where I came from? Or do my edits speak on my behalf? Dr.K. logos 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the edits. But then if you, the anonymous editor, went to the discussion page, I can predict, to a degree, what you would say. Whether your nationality influences your opinion and whether your opinion influences your actions will be evident from your comments. BalkanFever 04:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no way to know the nationality of an anonymous editor. The anonymous editor can only be judged by his/her contributions. That's the only record available to us. We can suspect the nationality from the type of contributions they make. But the nationality is really irrelevant. Everything you need to know comes from the contributions. Your comments are also your contributions. So in fact we agree. Dr.K. logos 04:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - naturally)+(too long piece following; don't read: >)

I believe this discussion to be important because while it has popped up here, it is an issue that affects the whole of WP, by being a precedent in WP's treatment of regional controversies. Criticism of having to deal with "nationality declarations" is coming from the Greek side because it is the Greek side that has been targeted (demonized?). Trolling can come from any "Macedonian", either from Macedonians (Greeks) or Macedonians (ethnic group). Only the second group has fewer disruptive participants, that's because Wikipedia, by following its (strict?) naming policy has effectively (inadvertently) sided with their preferences or with their interpretation of NPOV if you'd like. The primary concerns of ethnic Macedonians on the naming issue are thus satisfied.
Some of their other concerns include their interpretation of NPOV that says that Wikipedia should make room for equally airing fringe theories on the "Greek-ness" of historical figures from Macedonia (ancient, Roman, Byzantine) or the "Slavonic-ness" of the "Macedonian" language. Since the previous has not yet been met since Wikipedia policies state that NPOV does not mean to give undue weight to certain opinions (e.g. Flat Earth "theory") we have seen some "disruption"/"trolling"/"vandalism" in the behalf of the ones pushing the above (not all of the ethnic group of course).
Imagine for one moment that Wikipedia's conventions stated that "Wikipedia will follow United Nations terminology at all mentions of country names". In that case we would definitely see lots of IPs changing "FYROM" to Macedonia and not going along with that hypothetical WP naming policy. (People would call them vandals in that scenario and the neutrals would be on the "Greek side").
Right now I believe that a large part of ethnic Macedonian editors ("nationalists" one could call that part) does in essence see certain uninvolved editors as proxies of their POV. The uninvolved editors are not to blame of course, they just call for Macedonia being the name of the country by their interpretation of Wikipedia's policies --they are neutral. That doesn't mean that inadvertently they are not representing the ethnic Macedonian POV. So ethnic Macedonians have no primary reason to be indulged in this discussions.
An artist's impression of the 6th pillar of Wikipedia regarding making lists of Wikipedia editors based on novel "nationality vs subject-topic" relational criteria for conflict of interest. Some editors have criticized the 6th pillar as being unstable[citation needed]
What has been suggested here is that editors no matter how hard they try will be subconsciously affected by the POV of their nationality. That is if we ignore any ethics or etiquette related reasons to not regard the previous as true. However if one follows this line of argumentation he must also hold a belief that other types of connections that are not nationality related can also subconsciously affect the standpoint of editors. Political preferences is the first that comes into mind. This line leads to Mcarthyism in mathematical progression. I don't believe that line of argumentation should be followed.
I really have reasons for writing the long piece above and wanting it to be recorded. My reasons are somewhat summarized in this page.

tip:using paragraphs, Balkan and Esem0, makes for a better read of long and boring pieces like the above - Shadowmorph ^"^ 05:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just say something, Shadowmorph?  ;) Really, guys, you need to get out more. Take a drive in the country or something. Stop at a nice tavern, have a beer, and chat up some nice young lady (or guy, if that's your thing). This is really wasting your time on something that is just voluntary and everyone else is being a little lighthearted about. Have you seen a single instance in the discussion on the other pages where anyone has referred to this page? No. It's true value is to keep people who disagree with me from calling me a Macedonian. My beautiful wife is Slavic (not Macedonian), so I have nothing against Slavs, but I'm Irish-American and proud of it. I don't want to be called Macedonian (let alone "FYROMian"). So guys, chill out. No one is really paying attention to this list in the serious pages where actual work is getting done. And, Shadowmorph, really--McCarthyism? I dislike fish, especially herring. (Taivo (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Herring reddened with beetroot. Particularly delicious when mashed.
Anybody who keeps bandying about that particular variety of fish will be required to eat it daily for breakfast for the next two months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer herringópita. BalkanFever 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(herringópita? LOL). You're probably right. I dislike the fishy smell, but fish goes great with ouzo ;). I have tried to avoid this page but something keeps leading me to come back.
I think I might have found one Greek expression that might be related to "red herring", it's "Πράσιν' Άλογα" which literally means "Green Horses" but it is actually a pun of "Πράσειν άλλογα" ("Alogus Factum" by my bad latin, English: "Αcting without reasoning"). While you may find that I put "green horses" in the conversation, my main argument is that we should act reasonably and consider the consequences pages like this might have (even though not having any right now). @Taivo: I hope noone will regard you as biased in Ireland-related naming talks. If I ever come to America sorry...United States, it would be nice to have a Guiness and talk world politics with you. That goes for Balkan in Australia or Future in Germany too, although I might be choosing something less preferable to Guinness in those places.Shadowmorph ^"^ 06:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VB. Or ouzo. Or rakija. BalkanFever 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wanna intrude on this chit-chat between you guys; it's just that my stomach cringes at the sight of pig-Latin and paretymologies and the only cure known to me is to correct them as soon as I can ;) 1st: the correct form of this Neo-Koiné Greek phrase is 'πράσσειν (τὰ) ἄλογα'; this phrase does not date before the 1980s. 2nd: Its correct Neolatin rendition is 'agere irrationale'. 3rd: The relation btn. 'πράσιν' άλογα' and this modern-grc phrase is a popular urban myth (if you can read Greek, see this blog-post). The (early Modern Greek) concept of πράσινο άλογο "green horse" has been traced (by the famous Greek ethnographer Nikolaos Politis) to the Old Romanian phrase 'a umbla dupa cai verdji' (Modern Romanian: 'a umbla după cai verzi (pe pereţi)' "to go after green horses (on walls)"; also compare with the historically irrelevant but conceptually similar English phrase: Green ideas sleep furiously). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you mean "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". (Taivo (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hehehe :) Thanks for the info, I was really uninformed about that. Disregard my wrong conclusions. Lingustics is not my thing. I didn't know what "red herring" exactly was too. Shadowmorph ^"^ 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly understandable that historical linguistics isn't someone's cup of tea. The thing is that, since this is the case with you, I honestly don't understand why you bothered to invoke (ill-informed) hist.-linguistic arguments concerning etymology and phonology issues (v. ἀγωνία, Macedon, Makethon) in this epic debate you had a month ago with Taivo. I don't want to make this conversation more serious than it has to be neither do I want to --heavens forbid!-- begin a dogfight :) I just wanted to make the proposal that the section "Disambiguation_discussions" be copy-pasted to Macedonia (ancient kingdom)'s talk-page (SQRT5P1D2 had pretty much "summed up" all the great misunderstandings about the etymology of Μακεδονία and the origin of Macedon as an English word in his postings and I think that this debate should be included in the aforementioned talk-page where it can be "publicly" contested) instead of just letting it be another off-topic thread in an obscure RfA-page. Of course, the collocutors have to agree with this and find it reasonable for it to be done, of course; plus, I hope there exists no policy forbidding such copy-pastes. Any thoughts? --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Omnipaedista for these etymologically excellent points and for the classy entrance. Sorry about that, but since this is a nationality declaration page and you seem to know a lot of Greek, is there any possibility you are Greek? ;) Dr.K. logos 23:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, Tasos, are you actually thinking that someone's nationality is relevant? That sort of blows your whole raison d'etre for spending time on this page!  ;) (Taivo (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
LOL Taivo. Didn't you see the emoticon at the end of my comments? It was supposed to be a joke. Oh man. I can't believe I have to clarify this. Thanks for the laughs though :) Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 03:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(outdent) Oops. I didn't see your emoticon. Sorry for the silly wikilinks then :) Dr.K. logos 03:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnipaedista, about the epic debate you might have noticed how I pulled out of the discussion when the more knowledgable SQRT5P1D2 (φ) provided the accurate explanation. It is anyone's right to debate based on his understanding of something and I acknowledge when I am in error. However while I couldn't accurately describe my point (SQRT did), the essence of the thing I was trying to say about Makedhon was correct. Somepeople continuously talk about statistical strength here even though it is not their thing.
Also there are several other points in that thread that I think to be important. That disambiguation discussion is very relevant to this discussion and I also think we should paste it here for convienence and avoid the possibility of repeating it again (but paste as a closed thread).Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/nationalities&oldid=1137405209"