Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Helsinki Monitor and numbers

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

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

I'm tempted to say that it may be interesting and informative to note those estimates from even the most biased sources, as long as they are clearly identified as being unreliable. The way to clearly ntesting the Helsinki Monitor; Krassimir Kanev's statement comes from there, and other citations. The passage in question is this: "10.803 (1992 Bulgarian census). 200.000 (Macedonian Sources) (Popov et al., 1989:17). 15.000 - 25.000 (Kanev, 1998a)" What worries me on accepting Macedonian sources is of leaving free ground for nationalism, and I believe these sort of pages already suffer from an excess of nationalism. These are my fears, and the reason why I have always insisted on idependent sources: even mentioning blatantly false numbers gives an impression they may be true, for the simple fact of being there. I've heard some Macedonians speak of even one million ethnic Macedonians in Greek Macedonia. Should we right this? And howcan we do this without strengthening nationalism. Also, then we should start mentioning all the national myths, included that one that makes the ancient Macedonians a Slavic people, or that Alexander the Great was Albanian, or that modern Asyriand descend directly from the ancient ones. In my opinion, we should accept only independent scholarly sources, as the falsification of national history has always been a popular sport. Please give me your views. Ciao :-) Aldux 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Macedonians' in Greece

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Macedonia's changes

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

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

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

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

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

Macedonian question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Vergina' sun flag

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

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

Revert war

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

The root of the problem (1946)

Please consider the following:

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

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

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

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

Bomac's comment

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

I guess we are forgetting the Olive branch...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Macedonian Slavs, can't claim anything, as there is no evidence that they are related in any way. I have asked you for this evidence, but you have failed to produce it. The Greeks can claim (exclusive) rights to Ancient Macedon, because the land of the original kingdom of Macedon is 100% within modern Greek borders - it is part of the history of Greece (whether of the Greek people or not is still debatable, as a scholarly minority think they weren't). FYROM contains the land that was part of Dardania - Ancient Kosovo ;-) No links whatsoever to Ancient Macedon or its people, therefore nothing can be claimed - this is not the case with Greece. --Latinus 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is false, but even if the ancient Macedonians were Greeks and Slavic treibes didnt mix at all with the natives, Greeks dont have the exclusive rights to all that is Macedonian (including this ridiculous greek claim over the geographic name of the area) Realek 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dont know how your comments (and threats about veto) are in any way relevant to the discussion but i will respond anyway. 1- I'm not a future teller but i am aware of historic processes going on. 2- Republic of Macedonia will join the EU with the name that is decided in the Security Council (USA, China, Russia and 106 other countries recognise the country by its constitutional name; This doesnt mean that the others accept the greek position, simply they are still undecided. The number of countries that recognize our name is growing fast). 3- Latinus you tell plain lies when you talk about the position of the Albanian minority in Macedonia, but now there is an international guarantied solution for that. Its Greece that should think what will it do with its minorities including the Albanian for wich you are so concerned. Greece is constantly heavily criticized for its treatment of minorities. 4- The expulsion of Greeks from Turkey is a problem between theese two countries, but funny you should mention it because a lot of those were setteled in the place of the expelled Macedonians from Greece thus changing the ethnic makeup of Macedonia. 5- Also its a funny thing you talk about economic aid. Greece is a huge net recipient of funds from the EU, not a net donor. Therefore your claim that Greece is feeding Macedonia with aid through the EU is false. Realek 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But accurate - anyway, as the UK, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council (with veto power) and Greece, which is (alongside the UK) a member of the EU with the ability to veto the ascension of new members, I think FYROM will have to change it's attitude (as per Tony Blair's suggestion) if it ever wants to join. The EU is very strict over who can join - have you seen all the requirements they (we) are imposing on Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey, Croatia etc. No matter though, I'm sure an appropriate ascension name for your country can be found; if not FYROM, then Makedonija-Skopje or something similar. Greece can put off - they have nothing but time ;-) Imagine - Kazakhstan will have joined before FYROM (that is assuming their attitude hasn't changed by then). --Latinus 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So this is what it comes to? Greece can bully Macedonia because its "stronger". And Greeks will invent a name for us beuse Greece has a veto power in the EU. Your "noble" view is true to an extent, but doesnt prove you right. And fortunately isnt the complete story. All those requirements for joining the EU dont have anything to do with some acceding country being blackmailed about its name by an EU member. Why do you think all the other 24 members will help Greece to continue with its irational position. And even your threats to block my country's future with veto power are not going to materialise. Because if you apply the same "right of the stronger" rationale, then Greece will have to dance like the big ones play. And it seems Greek irational arguments werent too convincing for 109 of 191 members of the UN. Like I said it doesnt mean the 82 left support your position, they havent made the decision to recognize the constitutional name yet (anyway the trend is ireversible). Latinus, you can coin funny names that seem apropriate to you and you can be cynical all you want, but your sugestion to what my country should be called will go no further than this discussion. Concerning Blair's statemant, he didnt say that Macedonia will have to change its attitude, but anyway do you remember the official Washington tone a month before USA recognised the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia? That one surely came out of the blue didnt it? Realek 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

All these countries that recognise FYROM under the name 'Macedonia' do not say that u also inherited the ancient macedonian history nor that u are anc.macedonians' descendants.in fact,this is how the whole problem began: when u started claiming the ancient history,the Vergina Sun and the White Tower as symbols,and when your government started printing maps that showed even Olympus as part of your country.in all these countries there are universities,and in these universities the students learn who the ancient macedonians really were.so,only the name is what u can possibly have...About the United States,i guess this was all that u could ever had expected.it did came out of the blue,but do not forget that there is a strong greek lobby in the USA...

All those countries dont accept that the Greeks have exclusivity over all things macedonian. And fortunately you dont decide what we can or cant have. Now about you mentioning the Greek lobby in the USA. Are you claiming that a country's name can be "unrecognised" or "de-recognised" if you bribe enough politicians? Realek 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw,where is the neutral,reliable,academic,bla bla bla source that we were talking about?;-)--Hectorian 00:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hectorian, where are your neutral, reliable sources?????? Realek 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,1.u say that u are aware of the historic process going on,but u seem totally unaware of history.btw,i am still expecting the neutral and reliable and academic sources that link u with the ancient macedonians;-).2.what u are not saying is that all these countries do not link u with the ancient macedonians,nor are they accepting your 'view' of history,but just give u the name that u chose.3.again,u ommite the fact that u were pressed to find a solution with the albanians and u called for help,isn't that?u did not give rights to the albanians cause of your good faith.and soon,through your EU accession u will have to give similar rights to your other minorities.4.were should we place them?in the descenly populated athens?in any case,they were welcomed in the region by the local population.it is funny,cause if the locals were not greeks('change the ethnic makeup',as u said) there would had been tensions:-).5.who is the biggest investor in FYROM?who is your major trade partner?if u answer to these,u will see who is feeding u aid.--Hectorian 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, 1- You dont respond to what I wrote, but you respond to what you want to respond. Anyway dont ask from me something that youre not ready to provide. 2- All this countries obviously dont accept that Greece has exclusivity over all things Macedonian. 3- Albanians had extensive minority rights in Macedonia even before the Ohrid agreement. Now they have even more, surpassing european standards. Greece on the other hand is the one not even recognising minorities. It has a long way to go and there are numerous minorities including large Macedonian, Bulgarian, Albanian and Turkish comunities. The process is forced by the international comunity ofcourse, and is gaining pace. 4- A lot of Macedonians were expeled and killed even before the refugees from Turkey came. The process of ethnically cleansing Macedonians continued until after the civil war in Greece. Ofcourse there were tensions, but all those right-wing Greek governments used very bloody methods of quelling the situation. 5- Investment and trade are completely other things than economic aid. This things happen because of the interests of greek bussinesman and companies who are quite happy to accept the name Republic of Macedonia in order to make a profit. I guess that's how important to them are the Greek "ideals" about Macedonia. Greece does not give any financial aid to Macedonia! Nor can Greece (a huge net recipient of funds from the EU) be considered feeding aid to Macedonia through the Union. Realek 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek,1.all my responses were based in what u had said-it is not my fault for u talking about what will happen the future...sorry,but i do not know what will happen,and neither do u.No,i will not provide u anything,cause it is easy for u to find ancient texts,and u can also find easily mediaval texts-there is no need to provide u something u can find yourself.On the contrary,u still keep saying nothing about your case...2.all these countries may build a city named 'Macedonia',in that sense,macedonian symbols can be used by anyone(apparently u are not talking about such a sense of symbol usage).3.i cannot understand were u see the 'large' minorities...Greece is an EU member,and as a such has all the obligations that the other member-states have.FYROM has to achive the level of EU,not EU the level of FYROM.greece recognises the minorities in a religious and cultural level,cause this is what her minorities are.the muslim minority is quite free,the roma minority has not expressed complaints,the slavophone minority has its own political party.when u will join the EU,u will see that all rights of people are respected.4.do not forget that it was u who were under communist rule(whatever this suppose to mean) and u changed your system to become as greece and western europe.the greek governments after the civil war were not what we would call 'democratic',but this had effect in all the greeks,not in a particular group of people.and it any case,greece was by far a better place than Tito's Yugoslavia...the terms 'genocide' and 'bloody methods' are used by those who have nothing to do with reality and are dreaming of 'discovering' mass graves...i am sorry to disappoint u,but u'd better look in another country,not in greece.5.businessmen are doing there job...they want money,and money is all they get...do not mention them as representing all the greeks.it's all about money!greece yes,gets aid from the EU...but is also capable in investing in your country.do not forget that the EU is giving aid in FYROM,and that greece is a member of the EU.the aid u get(economically speaking)does not come from greece,but greece also votes for u to get it.so,greece has at least some sort of involvement in the aid u get...--Hectorian 13:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1 - There are some things that you can predict and you dont need to be a future-teller (eg the earth will continue its rotation in the forceable future; and please dont ask for a source for this too). The second part of what you say is purely subjective. 2 - Then why would you dispute the name of the Republic of Macedonia ??? 3 - Like you said it: Greece only recognises religious minorities. That's a 19th century concept. Why is the situation in greece so special that ethnic minorities should not be recognised??? And is that the rationale by wich you dismiss the existance of the Macedonian minority (wich share the same religion as the Greeks)? Anyway the situation is not tolerated by the international factor, wich is the main reason things are starting to move in a better direction. Meanwhile Greece is constantly heavily criticised among the others by: the council of Europe, the State department, the Helsinki group, the HRW... 4 - I dont get how the first part of what you (not accurately) say, has to do with what we're talking about. Unless it is an attemp to insult me in some funny way, but nevermind. Greece will have to face the horrible atrocities it commited (especially in the first half of the 20th century). Maybe you can dispute the number of Macedonians killed and tortured, but you cant dispute all those ethnically cleansed Macedonians all over the world. There's an international system of justice set up now that will recognize the mountain of evidence. If no less Greece will have to return/compensate their confiscated land, houses, other possesions and will have to offer them greek citizenship. Most probably will have to compensate their suffering and offer an apologise. 5 - So you agree that to some Greeks those "Macedonian ideals" are not that important. Anyway you still confuse investments made by companies and economic aid. Those are totaly different things and there's no economic aid given to Macedonia by Greece. The aid from the EU is totaly different thing. I'm glad that we at least cleared that Greece is not financialy participating in that aid. How Greece votes on this issue I'm not aware but the greek vote is not necessary because it doesnt have veto power over this. If you can give me info on this matter I'd be gratefull to you, but even in the cases when Greece suported Macedonia it was because it was in the best interest of Greece, not because they wanted to help Macedonia, eg E-75 (Pan-European Corridor 10) Realek 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that u expect a reply in the first things that u wrote...u wrote them,just cause u wanted to write them.u are dreaming of a Great 'Macedonia',and of the 'humiliation' of Greece.I would advice u to open a history book from the ancient or medieval times and to be less hateful towards the greeks.u cannot predict the future!politic are not like the laws of physic,and do not pretend that u don't understand...Your 5th comment is apparently the only clear enough:in the budget of the EU all the member-states contribute.greece makes up about 1.5% of this budget(if i am not wrong) and gets as aid about the double or maybe triple.the aid u get from the EU comes from the whole budget.so,u cannot say that u are taking german or french money...u do not know from which country this money come from,and it is not important.it is just a collective aid from the EU for u,and greece is an EU member.U are wrong,greece can block the aid if she wants...we did it in the past(1994) when greece blocked the EU aid for albania,when 5 members of the greek minority political party were imprisoned.every member has a veto power towards the EU aid(recently there were negotiations so that Cyprus will not veto the EU aid for the occupied northern part of the island,and in the past negotiations about the EU aid to Ivory Coast,Romania,etc...).U are right when u say that greece helped(-s) FYROM cause of her interests.the 'Pan-European Corridor 10' is the EU mission after the albanian revolt,right?greece helped u cause the last thing we wanted was a war in our borders!and in any other case that greece help FYROM was for greece's interests...well,that's politics...your country does the same...all countries do.states are not charity organisations,u know.--Hectorian 17:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1 - Yet again you speak of unrelated things! Anyway: I think that Macedonians in Greece should enjoy their rights within the borders of Greece. Also refugees should be cmpensated. That has nothing to do with Greater Macedonia and ancient history books. I say again: I dont support Greater Macedonia (and any other Greater state). So stop your accusations! 2 - You did not respond 3 - You did not respond 4 - You did not respond 5 - I'm glad that we at least cleared the investment confusion. Unfortunately you still pretend to not understand the EU aid issue. Again: Greece is a huge net recipient of EU funds (for a few decades now). So when the EU gives aid to Macedonia, it simply cannot be considered Greek money. About the voting issue - honestly i dont relly to much on what you say (it would have been nice to include some evidence). But since you agree that Greeks side with Macedonia when its in the best interest of Greece, explain why do you expect gratitude or something. Like you said - its just politics. Concerning the E-75 freeway (part of the Pan-European Corridor 10), you're obviously wrong as to what it is. And its by far the best link between Greece and the rest of Europe. So Greece simply cannot afford to sabotage Macedonia in the completion of this project. Realek 18:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not expect to give u all the evidence that u need...u seem aware enough of the Internet,search yourself if u do not rely on what i say.noone expects gratitude by noone.u know how politics are,i am sure u do not expect me to enlighten u...I did not know what E-75 is,and i guess it will be a benefit for both when it will be completed.

but in any case what do all these things have with the issue?no embargo(sabotage?) will happen,no war,nothing bad between the two nations...

the issue is 'An interesting source on the Ethnicity of present-day Slav-Macedonians',this is how the whole discussion started and for this case u talked about proof that links u with the anc.macedonians.well,i am still expecting this neutral,scientific and academic proof...when u will provide it,i will answer anything related with that.if u won't show this proof,which yourself first said u have,the discussion is off topic and i will have to dismiss u;-)--Hectorian 19:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, since you point to the internet every time you need to give a source, you shouldnt demand anything else from others. I'm glad we cleared another thing (about interests in politics) but you (and Latinus) were the ones who falsely claimed how Greece was feeding aid to Macedonia. Why did you do that, even if you thought it was true? Finally: Slavs that came to Macedonia 1500 years ago must have mixed with the natives. How much I dont know nor it can be determined. On the other side weather Macedonians were Greeks, or completely separate people is not clear. So where does this Greek arrogant stance come from - That Greeks have monopoly over all things Macedonian? Realek 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Greece does aid FYROM as it votes to provide that aid - should Greece veto it next time? Greece is also FYROM's largest trade partner etc...
2. The natives who the Slavs found were not Ancient Macedonians as they had been hellenisised.
3. Greeks have a right to Macedonian symbols etc because the land that was Ancient Macedon is in Greece. The same way that Alexander's birth place is in Greece.

--Latinus 20:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Here we go again... You can repeat it 1000 times but it wont become the truth.

1. Macedonia doesnt get aid from Greece period.
   1. Macedonia doesnt get direct aid from Greece - it was discussed already.
   2. Macedonia doesnt get aid from Greece through the EU - it was discussed already.
   3. Greek voting was discussed also
   4. Its a plain lie that Greece is the largest trade partner of Macedonia.
   5. Anyway I dont understand why you keep bringing theese irrelevant claims.
2. Lets agree for a moment that all the Macedonians were hellenisised. Does it mean that you cant mix with Bulgarians because the Bulgarians were slavicized? Or all those people that were Romanised (Including Greeks)
3. Greeks have no monopoly over all things Macedonian and fortunately you are not in charge of the decision.
   1. Such monopolies simply dont exist.
   2. Not the whole land is in todays Greece!
   3. Using your rationale Republic of Macedonia can claim everything Byzantine since Justinian's birthplace was in todays Macedonia.

Now, wich part are you disputing? Realek 20:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There u go again:

1.U do not know which country's money u get,and it is nothing that concerns u.u get EU aid and Greece is a member of EU.that's all.Greek vote was also discussed,and i am telling again to take a look in the economic structure of EU: all member-states can block the aid if they want.Greece is the largest foreign investor in FYROM and its largest trade partner.

2.Even if the Macedonians were not greek,it is sure that by the arrival of the slavs in the region,they were hellinized.so,according to your theory,u got mixed with a hellinized population,right?In any case,there is NO evidence about a mixed slav-hellinized macedonian/distinct macedonian/macedonian(as a greek tribe).every nation can be mixed,but in your case,there is no evidence...i can say as well that your ancestors got mixed with the illyrians,or the albanians,or maybe the greeks,the romans...I have no evidence for that,and neither have u for your claim.the only thing that is obvious and undisputed is that u are slavs!can't u get it?

3.are there any great ancient macedonian archaeological sites in your country?if yes,show me!u know very well that Vergina is in greece,and so is Pella.the heartland of ancient macedonia is here.what will u say again?that anc.macedonians 'must had moved northern'?where is the proof?here is a map of ancient macedonia [11].only a small part of Bitola is included,and this is in the borders of ancient macedonia!Justinian was born in the region that now is your country...but your ancestors had hardly settled in the region by that time.by the way,we know his origins.so,their nothing u can claim about him.

was that clear enough?--Hectorian 21:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was clearly FALSE. You also dont respond to what I say but are continuing your monologue. I responded to all your points even when some of them didnt deserve a response. Anyway:

1. I dont understand why you keep bringing theese irrelevant claims, however: Macedonia doesnt get aid from Greece. Nor does Macedonia get greek aid through the EU. It gets money from the net donors in the EU budget. This is very simple but if you still dont get it ask an economist to explain you. Greece on the other hand has been draining EU funds for over 3 decades and is still on the tail of Europe. And greece can vote anyway it sees fit. I was under the impresion that we agreed already, that when greeks dont block this things, they dont because they are looking for their best interest. I cant belive you dragged investment and trade into this again! Well I will tell you again: those are different things than aid. And Greek businesman and companies are quite happy to recognise Macedonia and Macedonians in order to make a profit. So much for Greek idealism on the issue! Finaly, your persistent claim that Greece is the largest trade partner of Macedonia is a plain lie. Mathematics is an exact science and you cannot play with numbers like you do with history!
2. Even if I accept your fallacious assumptions, you dont prove your point. Greece doesnt have monopoly, nor exclusivity, nor some kind of trademark over all things Macedonian.
3. Modern ethnic Macedonians still live in the whole area of ancient Macedonia including Greece (in Aegean Macedonia). There were a lot more before the genocide that Greece commited during the first half of the 20th century. Anyway look more closely at the map that you provided. Even if we take the 450BC territory that you reffer to, it still includes parts of todays Republic of Macedonia. Realek 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that FYROM has as much right to claim Ancient Macedon as they do to claim the Roman Empire. The people are totally unrelated and they contain none of the land which was part of the ancient kingdom - why not claim Eskimo history as well? --Latinus 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW when are you going to cite that source which asserts that the Macedonian Slavs are related in some way to the Ancient Macedonians. I can't wait... --Latinus 20:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You made me give you sources even for the well established historic fact that Alexander of the Macedonians was blonde. When I ask for a source you tell me to search the internet and to read more books. How do you think that makes you look? The previos comments (the roman empire; the eskimos) are false and dont deserve a response in so many ways. Realek 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Aleksandar SK на Македонската Википедија (I am Корисник Латинец), I see you have failed to provide sources to support this claim that the Macedonian Slavs are related to the Ancient Macedonians. Why? Is it possible that because you don't have any - hmm... Therefore, under Wikipedia policy we cannot state nor imply that they are related. BTW you still haven't found a source stating that Alex was blond - you just gave 2 irrelevant links. BTW Greece gives aid to FYROM and you know it. Ancient Macs did not exist when the Slavs arived, therefore they couldn't have mixed and all Ancient Macedon in in Greece - we have the historical sites to prove it - what historical sites do you have in your country to link you to Ancient Macedon? Alexander's capital city Pella? --Latinus 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus your comments make less and less sense. And more and more you use plain lies. Please talk about what is being discussed. Dont jump to another subject everytime you are confronted about a false information that you give. To begin tell me how do you figure that Grece is Macedonia's greatest trade partner and point me to any kind of greek aid to Macedonia (not that I understand why would you bring such issues here) About the sources, I already explained my position - you didnt respond to that, you're just continuing your monologue... Realek 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

U want links?

1.CIA world factbook 2005:greece is your 3rd largest export and 1st import partner [12]

2.BBC:greece is your larget foreign investor [13]

3.greek investment through the Hellenic Plan for the Economic Reconstruction of the Balkans [14]

U wanted evidence,u got evidence!now,would u be kind enough to provide the 'evidence' that links u with the ancient macedonians?--Hectorian 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Again: This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I wont stay quiet to your lies and fallacious claims!

1. So you admit that you have knowingly LIED! Largest IMPORT partner is not the same as largest trade partner and I'm sure you can understand something that simple!. Overall Greece is the 3rd trade partner of Macedonia after Germany and Serbia & Montenegro. Use your own source to make the calculation. As i said: Mathematics is an exact science and you cannot play with numbers like you do with history! Did you really think that you can just cheat your way out?. Furthermore I wonder how you fail to understand that trade is not something that one gives to another, but it goes both ways. Thats what they are called trade partners. Not to mention that if this trade would somehow suddenly stop, Greece would be hurt more because its a net exporter to Macedonia.
2. So what? First of all that has nothing to do with aid but has all to do with profit. And those Greek investing companies and businesman are quite happy to recognise Macedonia and Macedonians in order to make a profit. So much for Greek idealism on the issue!
3. You could be not well informed on the issue, so I wont assume you made another fallacious claim on purpose. Instead I will explain you where you make the mistake. Those funds from the HIBERB are European money and Greece is only channeling them through the region (with oversight from the EU). Just few days ago a Greek delegation to Macedonia tried to use them as a bargening chip but failed.
4. I dont claim to have any exclusivity over anything Macedonian. Nor do I claim that modern Macedonians must have significant ties with the ancient Macedonians. You claim that the Greeks have monopoly over everything Macedonian. You need to give evidence not me. Realek 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, My GOD! You people really waste energy. How come you do not discuss the source? As a matter of fact I don't agree with the Greek view that only a Greek can call himself a Macedonian, but I am not willing to waste time arguing for it. This is Wikipedia, and every significant POV has its place under the sun. Since there is a region of Macedonia, everyone who is born there or descends from there can call himself so. I am absolutely over this discussion. What I wanted to say was, that the modern day Macedonians cannot claim the name based on heritage arguments, but only on geography, since they really live in a part of that region. And so, does someone need my assistance to put the source on the article and how can I help you? --Komitata 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

if u want to continue an economic discussion,go the article Economy of the Republic of Macedonia.the discussion started concerning the ethnicity of present-day Slav-Macedonians and u claimed that u have a neutral and academic source that they are linked with the ancient Macedonians.that's the source that u were sopposed to bring to our knowledge,but u denied,cause u do not have it(and u can't have it).there is nothing more i can say,unless u provide that source(all the other matters that have opened here belong to other fields,that are not among my favourite,eg mathematics).End of this discussion for me--Hectorian 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

1. But Latinus started the "economic discussion" and both of you kept bringing it on, while I kept saying that its irrelevant. Let me quote myself: This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I wont stay quiet to your lies and fallacious claims!
2. Dont try to lay fog now. Let me quote myself again: I dont claim to have any exclusivity over anything Macedonian. Nor do I claim that modern Macedonians must have significant ties with the ancient Macedonians. You claim that the Greeks have monopoly over everything Macedonian. You need to give evidence not me.
3. Weather you realy dont understad even simple mathematics and basic economic terminology, or you just tried to push your argument anyway - I really dont know. It is a good thing that at last, you decided to stop trying to cheat the numbers concerning economy. Realek 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bizzar edits

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

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

what kind of an edit is this?the usage of the term 'Aegean Macedonia' doesn't somehow have to do with propagandistic territorial claims?we call this region 'Macedonia',and for u especially,we change it to 'Greek Macedonia'.do not ask for more...--Hectorian 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As it has been said already: Greek terms are used (ex. Slavomacedonians, FYROM, Greek Macedonia, etc.) therefore Macedonian terms should be used also (ex. Aegean Macedonia) Realek 02:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong - the self identifying name is used. Republic of Macedonia for what we call FYROM, Macedonians for what we call the Fyromians and Greek Macedonia for what you call Aegean Macedonia. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict. --Latinus 13:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that what the group of greek politicans said reflects reality: Macedonia is a name "encoded" in the minds of the world population, but not in the ones of greek nationalists. (No offence). Bomac 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek, until (and if) I can trace what I meant by including your name, I fully withdraw my comment about you. But 61.195.9.220 is violating our constructive efforts. Regarding Bomac's observation; following the logic of your comment, we conclude that since Macedonia is encoded in the minds of the whole world exept Greek nationalists - therefore, Greek nationalists are not concerned about Macedonia; so, the Greeks who are concerned must be the true Macedonians. Ergo, Macedonians are Greeks. QED (quod erat demonstrandum). Po-po glendia! Politis 14:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

N.B. Upper statement that I quoted is said by the true Macedonians, ergo Greeks. Bomac 14:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing by User:Macedonia

User Macedonia raised the following issues in his recent edit summaries:

• Evidence for the term "Macedonian Greeks"
  • My answer: Look at how many neutral universities use that term [15]

This is not what you claim, its just a Google search, and those that do say "Macedonian Greeks" are referring to ancient peoples of ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians. Macedonia 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? They don't all as I'm sure you've noticed. A search for the Greek translation gives us a few more clues, considering that the self identifying name should be used [16]. --Latinus 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Greek terms are used in Greek related articles (ex. Slavomacedonians, etc.) only Macedonian terms will be used here.
  • My answer: Wrong - the self identifying term is always used – see Wikipedia:Naming conflict. In this case, Macedonia or Greek Macedonia

Have you even seen the Macedonia (Greece) article ??? Macedonia 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? --Latinus 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• He claims that 99% of Greek Macedonia are Pontic refugees.
  • My answer: That's silly, there's no evidence of that - cite a source, then we talk.

Answer me here, don't revert or I'll report you for violating the 3RR. Regards, --Latinus 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats right, 99% of Greeks in Macedonia are pontic refugees and their families, its too bad that they hide their identity and wish that they were real Greeks, or Macedonian* Macedonia 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A asked you for a source - you failed to provide one, therefore, for the purposes of Wikipedia, your theory is 100% WP:BALLS. Pontian Greeks are Greeks by their own admission and of other Greeks and I can't say I'm dissapointed at your racist attitude towards them. BTW are you a "Macedonian"? I'd bet you've never been to Macedonia, nor speak any language spoken there. I wouldn't be suprised if have never set foot out of Canada (which is where I presume you were born and the only language you know is English). --Latinus 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, i'm really surprised, you must know everything about me, oh well, now that you got me, i'm not really Macedonian, I don't speak Macedonian, I never went to Macedonia, so I guess I don't know what the hell i'm doing here in Wikipedia constantly editing articles concerning Macedonia --Macedonia 05:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing is for sure - Macedonia knows how to wikify long sentences. Yeah, I doubt he's born in Canada, you can tell by his English. FunkyFly 08:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but there are people in Canada who can't even spell. I'm sure that User:Macedonia is a young Canadian boy desperately seeking an exotic ethnic identity. He probably has some Slav-Macedonian ancestry, has never been to Europe and the only Slav-Macedonian he knows is what he picked up from phrase-books and dictionaries. It's his claim that he's from "Aegean Macedonia" that roused my suspicions. --Latinus 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it impossible to come up with a stable neutral version? I want to - I'm sure it'd be possible if everyone tried. --Latinus 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User Macedonian's comment that about 99% of Greek Macedonia are Pontian Greeks , is totally false.there are 1 million pontian greeks in greece,even if all of them lived in Greek Macedonia(not even the half of them do) they would make up the 40% of the population of the region.Follow the internal link and the the external links...there are plenty of sources,whereas u have not mentioned not even one for your claim.--Hectorian 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess ridiculous exaggerations are not ethnically limited. But its funny how youre perfectly able to notice and dispute such exaggeration when it comes from the other side, but the very next second you can make a similar ridiculous exaggeration yourselves! Realek 18:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

See Straw man. --Latinus 18:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, every time you do that, you are only reffering to yourself. Realek 18:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Realek , did you see the "Macedonian"** song on this article ? Makes me laugh, anyway, mabey we should also put a song on our article, anyone know the whole lyrics to Begajte Grci ? --Macedonia 06:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia, you said here that "The Macedonians aren't culturally and linguistically related to Bulgarians". Yet according to this Bulgarian and Macedonian are mutually intelligible. Ethnologue even says that it is considered by some to be a dialect of Bulgarian. I don't understand. --Khoikhoi 07:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The only people that consider the Macedonian language a Bulgarian dialect is Greeks and Bulgarians, and that is exactly who ethnologue is reffering to. --Macedonia 17:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, prior to Tito, the whole world, including the Macedonian Slavs themselves (who then called themselved Bulgarians), considered it a Bulgarian dialect. --Latinus 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know people why are you arguing unnecessary - Macedonian is a language and that's it. And the talks about the dialect - yes, they will be always "present", but let the people talk, and talk... bla-bla etc. It's their problem that they can't accept the language ;-) Bomac 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem or not, the issue is here to stay my friend. And by the way, it is very unlikely that the Macedonian language will be used, at least under its current name, in the European union if Republic of Macedonia joins, exactly because of Bulgaria and Greece veto, so the problem is very relevant even to your government. FunkyFly 19:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly not the place to solve your issue ;-) Bomac 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not solving it, we're just presenting it. You're the one denying it. FunkyFly 19:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I do not deny the existence of the nationalistic-initiated problem. Study it closely my pre-previous statement. Cheers, Bomac 20:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ;-)

So, you admit there is a problem? What do you think the outcome will be? --Latinus 20:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But it is not my problem, remember? :-) Bomac 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll see... --Latinus 20:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And what will you do about it? (Greece). What isyour opinion on this issue? Bomac 20:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't say what Greece will do. Language or dialect (check the definitions), they are still too close. If you define, though, that it is a language, then I think this sounds "nationalistic-initiated" (greater diversity gives more "reasons to exist" for new nations, instead of e.g. merging). Personally, I feel that there is no danger(?) of such merger, so insisting on defining it as a language seems like an excessive nationalistic measure. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnologue doesn't seem to agree with you [17]. That goes for like, every relevant linguistic source. Only in Bulgaria, and in Greece, however, Macedonian is not considered a separate language. Those Ethnologue nationalists! --FlavrSavr 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I insist on removing the sentence from the opening paragraph: The Macedonians are culturally and linguistically closely related with the Bulgarians, with the two peoples' languages being mutually intelligible. Here's why:

• Danish and Norwegian are mutually intelligible. But I don't see any such statements included in the opening paragraphs of the Danish people and Norwegian people articles. Not that it wouldn't be true, it is simply not necessary.--FlavrSavr 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Can anyone explain, or if possible, cite a source which claims that there is a special cultural relationship between Macedonians and Bulgarians? I mean, all Balkan people are culturally related, and I don't see a particular reason why Macedonians are not culturally related to Serbs, for example? Oh, and why not add "Bulgarians and Serbs are culturally related"? Actually, Macedonians resent the Bulgarian attitude of negating the existence of a separate Macedonian ethnicity, although, there is no serious modern source that claims that modern Macedonians are Bulgarians. Actually, most Macedonians regard the Serbs as a more friendly nation than the Bulgarians, although there are remaining issues.--FlavrSavr 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Given the above said, I must conclude, that every attempt to create a "special relationship" between modern Bulgarians and Macedonians, in the opening paragraph, could be seen as absolutely misleading and POVish. Macedonians and Bulgarians are separate nations, everyone except the Greeks and Bulgarians acknowledges that.--FlavrSavr 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I won't object to removing it - go ahead. --Latinus 23:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would. Ethnologue states the dialect alternative clearly. It also states that "The standard dialect was recognized in 1944." (we all know by whom and too young not to be disputed for being an autonomous language, dont you think?) As for the links you requested for cultural relation, see here: Bulgarians (in WP!), Misirkov statement in 1925, joint sociological study by Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje and St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia (read the results and the methodology).

Cultural relation for your e.g. Norwegians appears inside the box as "Related ethnic groups:" (to Danes, Swedes, Icelanders, Faroese). Personally, I would not disagree if you included it in this article's box also.

Finally, there is no cabal! Nobody is attempting to create a "special relationship". The "special relationship" just exists and nobody said that they these are not two separate nations. Peace. ;-) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

NikoSilver your post is confusing in some parts, but anyway: 1. The point is that there is no need to make an exemption in the Macedonians article, since such similarities between other nations are not mentioned. 2. Concerning your reference to the box and the Related ethnic groups - nobody is singled out in the Norwegian people article. 3. About your comment on who first recognised the Macedonian language - I guess regimes in Greece, Bulgaria and the Yugoslav monarchy were much worse, and would rather continue to violate basic human rights, than to do the rational thing. Anyway a language doesnt need an exclusive recognition by you in order to exist. It simply exists! 4. Your claim about what Ethnologue states is fallacious. It only states that: it is considered to be a dialect of Bulgarian by some in Bulgaria. Well "some in Bulgaria" think that their country should get a large chunk of Greek territory. Would you agree with them??? Realek 02:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What if?

To the Greek users, just out of curiosity... Lets construct a theoretical situation - modern Macedonians are actually Bulgarians who were brainwashed by Tito in just a couple of years to think that they are now members of this newly invented, up to that date, non-existant ethnicity (like you are constantly claiming). But with you persistently explaining us this, we become aware that you are actually right. That we were wrong about who we are, and our parents are wrong, and our granparents are wrong, and our great great grandparents were wrong, and so on. That you actually know better than us, who we are... All of a sudden we are Bulgarians "again". And we unite with Bulgaria ofcourse. Wouldnt such a course of events be very negative for Greece??? So why would you push such nonsence, unless you dont really belive it and youre doing it out of other motives! Realek 01:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Go ahead and re-unite. Just kidding, ofcourse! But I'am curious too, so I'll reverse the question: What is your problem in the above theoretical situation? Bulgaria is entering EU in 293 days, you are mutually intelligible (sic), you'll have a coast in the Black sea, and you will all live happily ever after! ;-) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you really dont understand why such a course of events would be very negative for Greece, I wont even bother to explain further. I'm waiting for comments from the other Greek users. Realek 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That scenario you describe might not be completely hypothetical in the not so distant future. Especially, the way things are going in the country with 40% unemployment (over 20% even if albanians are excluded), almost no foreign investment and hardly any economic growth... And by the way, only you and your parents "could bе hypothetically" wrong. I doubt that there are much "grandparents" that would be deny their bulgarian background. FunkyFly 02:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well my great-greatmother (born 1897) never had any doubts about her Macedonian national feeling, nor she mentioned anybody she knew that had. But she told me a lot about Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian propagandas, assimilation policies, and atrocities. Realek 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me assure you FunkyFly the scenario is completely hypothetical! It can unfold only in your head. Anyway I think your point was to remind me how bad the economy is in Macedonia. I dont know why economics are brought here all the time, but like I said few times already: I wont stay quiet. So let me remind you how "prosperous" Greece was before the 80s. Even now after all theese years of sucking billions of euros from the EU, you're still on the tail of Europe. BTW growth in Macedonia is greater than in Greece ;) Realek 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The growth in Greece is 3.7 vs 4 in Macedonia, not that big of a difference in relative terms, but in absolute terms that is a much greater growth for Greece, because the Greek economy is already about 15 times the Macedonian. FunkyFly 03:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, wasnt it your head that it unfolded in first?! :) You're funny my lad. And are you by chance a president or prime minister to claim what is possible or what not? You should visit the town of Strumica, people there will certainly disagree with your grandmother, I wish her well. But anyway, things have changed somewhat in the last years, but there is still a lot of surpressed facts that will surely surface in the minds of many Macedonians. One way or another, through students in Bulgaria like Vlatkoto for example, or people finding employment in Bulgaria, through EU channels or in some other way, the truth will trickle down. FunkyFly 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I said "only hypotetically", but as a real possibility it can unfold only in your head. About Strumica - you just make stuff up. And about user Vlatkoto, why dont you ask him how he feels about what you say. But obviously you are accustomed to claim to know what people think better than they themselves. Thats why you claim you know my national feelings better than me. Realek 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only laugh on your theory about the "rebulgarisation of the Macedonians" that exists in your head.I never felt more stronger and sure that I'm Macedonian .I laugh on your fables about my land.And the next time you use my nick please ask me for permision FunkyFly.Vlatko 18:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, so funny, next time I'll submit written request, Vlatko. Are you trying to restrict my freedom of speech? This is not Macedonia you know :))). Maybe you just have nothing beeter to say. FunkyFly 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep your freedom of speech "the way you are living it".Say whats on your mind..Vlatko 08:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If u had made this question 80 or 50 years ago,i would tell u that this would be a great threat for greece and that a Greater Bulgaria would work as a barrier between Greece and Serbia...But now,2006,such dangers do not exist.in any case,next year bulgaria will be an EU member.and after some years RoM will also.so,no borders will exist... I really cannot understand what's the point of your question...--Hectorian 02:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So your POV is: It was in the best interest of Greece to claim that Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia were Serbs, and to collaborate with Serbia to occupy them. But now its not and Greece can go back to claiming that they are Bulgarians. Realek 04:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this what u understood i said?i said that,in that time,if Bulgaria had incorporated RoM,would be a threat for greece.in the same way that if Eastern Rumelia was not unified with bulgaria,but with greece,would be a danger for bulgaria.and if Albania had not become independent,but became part of Serbia,would be a threat for even Greece...and if Romania had included Moldova and the whole Banat would be considered as a threat by both serbia and bulgaria.every 'greater' state would be viewed as an enemy by its neighbours.this is how things were 50-80 years ago.Do not 'butcher' my words to make them fit in your theories...And in any case,questions like 'what if' have no point...(e.g. what if the slavs never came to the region?what if the turks never conquered Constantinoupolis,what if....Gosh!)--Hectorian 12:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Racial map of Europe", 1923

I'm not trying to take sides here, but I think you all would be interested in the following map:

http://www.anesi.com/rmap.htm

Click here for the full size. You'll notice that it shows the present-day Macedonians as Bulgarians. Just thought it was interesting. --Khoikhoi 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, you would find maps that claim that Macedonians are Serbs also. Wich ones are true then? But if you think that this particular map proves everything, then it seems Greece owes some territories to Bulgaria. And if you search the net harder you will find maps according to wich Greece owes even more territory to Bulgaria and some to Albania also. Realek 03:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant? I think you're using the wrong word here. Would you be able to show me any of the maps that you mentioned? I don't see why anyone would claim that. I never said that this map knows all, I just said it was interesting. Why would Greece owe territories to Bulgaria? It's 1923, things have changed since then. --Khoikhoi 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So you only see on this map what you want to see. The things you dont like, you just ignore. And how can things have changed so much since 1923? At best with ethnic cleansing and at worse with full genocide. There is no other way to raddicaly erase a population from a given territory. Those maps you ask I promise I'll give to you tommorow since is very late now and I'm too tired to look for them. Realek 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But what do you mean I see what I want to see? I was looking for Macedonia, and I see it. I'm not quite sure what you mean. --Khoikhoi 04:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you "missed" to notice all that "Bulgarian" teritory that Greece occupied. And I wonder what happened to all those "Bulgarians" in the next 25 years. Were they also abducted by alliens? Realek 04:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To be quite honest I don't know the answer. As we all know Greece claims that it is 98% Greek, but I feel that this is not true. I'm sure you feel the same way. In such a diverse place like the Balkans, how can a country be almost homogeneous? --Khoikhoi 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Easy, firstly, don't include nationality in annual censuses, try to assimilate, discriminate, and brainwash any minority who dares to tell about their non-Greek ethnicity, and thirdly, change the names of non Greeks to Greek ones so at least they artifically look Greek, and there you go, you end up with what is called a homogeneous Greece. --Macedonia 05:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, its obvious it cant be. Let me be honest with you too. In present times I dont think that this is some evil Greek policy. Its more a leftover from the past. Greece realy cant change things overnight. I just hope that the process of accepting that minorities exist and granting them standard minority rights will not be disrupted too much from within Greece. Realek 20:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, as I promised... Here is an interesting example: the same map, from the same publisher (probably printet on the same printing press). But in two different versions, for two different clients: the bulgarian and the serbian propaganda. [18]

[19]. Furthermore notice that the Serbian "point of view", even in 1914 doesnt claim that all Macedonians were "Serbs" but in some territories recognises them as Macedonian Slavs. Realek 20:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bulgarians in Greece and most Greeks in Bulgaria were exchanged under the Treaty of Neuilly in 1919. Of course, some of these people didn't want to have to leave their homes, so some of the Bulgarians (now what FYROM alleges were Macedonian Slavs :p) in Greece changed their names so Greek ones (FYROM alleges this was forced on them) and declared themselves Greeks so that they could stay. So, as far as the Greek state is concerned, all Bulgarians have been expatriated and all Greeks abroad are now in Greece. All minority populations were officially exchanged except the Turks (Muslims) of Western Thrace under the Treaty of Lausanne. These "minorities" which FYROM sees in Greece don't see themselves as minorities (except a few fringe elements) and reject any campaigning - this is demonstrated by the poor electoral performance of the Fyromian political party (the Rainbow party) which gained c. 2000 votes in Greek Macedonia, where according to FYROM, there are over 200,000 Macedonian Slavs. No one under 70 can speak the language fluently (or in most cases at all) and the language in Greece (which differs a lot from the variety spoken in Skopje) is never written - the recent Cyrillic alphabet used by the Rainbow party members was probably imported from FYROM in the 1990s. The sad fact is that these people view themselves as Greeks of slavic descent (as they can no longer speak the language - except the over 70s). --Latinus 08:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell me Latinus, is this your own opinion or is it based on a source? --Macedonia 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking about assimilation and persecution of minorities(or majorities),what about the law introduced in your country during Tito's regime and remained active till 1998?it was talking about 'forbidence of declaration of bulgarian ethnicity in the name of protecting the 'macedonian' nation',right?--Hectorian 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific Latinus, I'm talking about the part where you claim that Rainbow Party has connections with the government of the Republic of Macedonia (thats what i'm assuming you're saying by calling it "fyromian") and the part where you say that no one under 70 years old knows how to speak Macedonian or that the language spoken by Macedonians in Greece can't be written. Are all these based on perhaps personal expiriances where you know a Macedonian family in Greece who only the 70 year olds know how to speak Macedonian but not Macedonian enough to be written using cyrillic and at the same time consider themselves Greeks of Slavic origin voting for a "fyromian" party who imports in literature from across the border, or are you getting all this from the trash --Macedonia 22:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

GREEK LEFTISTS TO CALL MACEDONIA BY ITS NAME

[20] - Here's something interesting for everyone here, enjoy! --Macedonia 06:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! "Some 60 Greek leftists have decided to call the neighboring Macedonia by its constitutional name." What a huge croud that is! LOL, let's not remind how many links have been presented above for FYROM people who consider themselves of Bulgarian origin. By the way, if you want to remove the culturally-related-with-Bulgarians phrase completely, there is NO concensus (and too much POV from your side). You can include it if you want in the info-box. I am adding it again. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No single nation is pointed out in the Norwegians article and the other articles. If you want the Bulgarians to be there, then all the other south Slavs should be there too. All the other south Slavic nations articles should be modified vice-versa also! 62.162.14.91 11:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC) 62.162.14.91 11:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No single nation to Norwegians has such extreme language and culture relationship as FYROM and Bulgaria. If it was ONE, then ONE would have been included in Norwegians. For a SINGLE nation pointed out, see Slovaks, Czechs, Sorbs, Aromanians, Romanians, Vlachs. South Slavic is too vague and misses the point. BTW, why don't you get a name? Your edits are POVish and you certainly sound like someone I know. See front or paper tiger. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a short information - Comparisons have been made (Bulgarian-Macedonian, Norwegian-Swedish), and the conclusion was that Norwegians have more similarities with the Swedish people, unlike Macedonians with Bulgarians. Bomac 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right :-) --Latinus 20:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favour and follow this link [21].if the link is accurate,i cannot see any other reason that Macedonian should be considered separate from Bulgarian,apart from the political one.--Hectorian 20:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, they are separate languages. Yes, the languages are similar. But, the Macedonian is a codificated language (it's a fact). What will you say about Croatian and Serbian? They are almost identical.

I wan't to state that your criteria for a language is wrong. You have never been in situation to see how the Bulgarian is a bit of "weird" (no offence towards the Bulgarians here) and "uclear" for understanding for the Macedonians. Bomac 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

About the Serbian and Croatian,i have seen numerous times been refeared to as Serbocroatian(although they use totally different alphabets,which is not the case between Macedonian and Bulgarian).in the article about the Serbian language the similarity with the Croatian is clearly stated.Look,i do not say that there is not a separate Macedonian language(even for political reasons,according to my POV),but the close relation with the Bulgarian must be stated.

About the criteria for languages: Cypriot and Pontic Greek are much different than standard Greek,maybe more than macedonian and bulgarian.but this does not make these dialects separate languages.in any case,we are not talking about listing Macedonian as a bulgarian dialect(this would be politically incorrect),but as a closely related language.--Hectorian 20:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian, are you sure you've red Macedonian language?!? Bomac 20:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not revert articles without knowing their content.e.g. now i am reading the differences between between the current and last version of this article...--Hectorian 20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Serbian, Croatian language#The Serbian connection and Serbocroatian. Also, Cypriot Greek and Cretan are SUPER "weird" to Modern Greek speaking Athenians. Furthermore, British English sounds "weird" to American English and Australian English speakers. All of them (except Crete) are separate nations, all English speakers accept that their language is a dialect of British English, while only Croats deny that their language is a dialect of Serbian (or Serbo-Croatian), due to political reasons. HOWEVER, the wiki articles for Serbian and Croatian (as well as the Serbocroatian one) mention it very clearly. After Hectorian's link, I think we should also create a new article "Bulgaromacedonian language". NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you know that the differences between the dialects of the Chinese language are about as much as the differences between Spanish and French! --Latinus 21:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Bulgaromacedonian" is smt. that never existed, nor anyone of Bulgaria, not to mention Macedonia doesn't want's to exist. It is a kind of intention described in the statement of the Greek leftists in user Macedonia's link, and doesn't have any scientific importance. And, you are talking 'bout same people - Greeks. Like it or not, Macedonians are not Bulgarians. Bomac 21:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What a wonderful discussion is unfolding here. I'm glad to hear so many opinions on the topic. Bulgarian cultural influence on Macedonia is just beginning to really take off after decades of isolationism and serbian propaganda, so we'll see how it develops. Patience is a virtue... FunkyFly 21:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And what about the people who declare themselves as Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece? Certainly, they were under "Serbian rule". Bomac 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

They didn't declare themselves as such prior to 1992 - perhaps it spread like a new exotic cult, something like the Moonies, perhaps. If you want the full truth, see this page. --Latinus 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure - only some people were "chosen" to be Macedonians. Bomac 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, it was their parents' fault - they didn't take care of their children well enough. FYROM's original plans were to present all the slavic speakers in Greece as members of the "Macedonian ethnicity", but not all were brainwashed, still today, what FYROM points at and calls the "Macedonian minority in Greece", in fact declares itself as "Slavic speaking Greeks", "Dopii" or (you guessed it) Bulgarians. Only c. 10% of all Slavophones in Greek Macedonia identiy themselves as part of this "Macedonian minority". --Latinus 21:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And what about the harsh Greek restrictions and repressions over the Macedonian minority, dated even form Metaxas's time? I have been in Voden. The people are simply glad to see someone with who they can speak Macedonian. It reminded me of tyrany and Hitler the talk I've made with the people in Voden. Bomac 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain it was a "Macedonian" minority? --Latinus 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes,I'm certain. And even if it wasn't Macedonian,it's unnacceptable. Bomac 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If u compare Metaxas with Hitler (not that Metaxas was a noble man,of course),with who would u compare Tito?--Hectorian 21:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Satan himself? :))) FunkyFly 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

At least Tito was not Macedonian. ;-) There are no such cruel and unhuman "beasts" in Macedonia. Bomac 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Only the ones who silence those who dare say that they think they may be Bulgarian ;-) --Latinus 22:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear about Tito;-)

But since u are talking about restrictions,i made an edit above,that u may did not notice,so i repeat it: what was that law that your country had during Tito's regime and (strangely!) kept till 1998?it was about 'not allowing people declare bulgarian ethnicity in the name (!) of the 'macedonian' nation'?--Hectorian 22:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, I'm afraid to break it to you sweetheart, but I think that story of what happened when you visited "Voden" is in fact a line of BS. I've been to Edessa and can tell you for a fact that it's 99.99% only Greek speaking (including immigrants). Where did you meet the Slavic speakers (who are of the precious 10% I mentioned above)? In your dream perhaps - I think I'll tell you of the time I visited Skopje and had a nice conversation with my Eskimo landlord ;-) --Latinus 22:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sur Latinus those people were 99.99% only Greek speaking :-) I also had a similar experiance as you Bomac (above) a couple of years ago, and I found it rather surprising on how glad they were to talk to someone in Macedonian. These people are such good masters of disguise, I mean everytime they were out in public (outside in the resturaunts or cafes) they would speak Greek, talk with the Greeks (Pontians), and sometimes act like Greek nationalists, but the moment they were alone or at home with their families they were like different people, (talking in Macedonian, having a pro Macedonian sense in their attitude and talking behind the backs of those Greeks who trust them as fellow Greek nationalists). But I cannot say that i blame them, for they need to do this for their social status (they greatly fear that they and their children will loose their jobs and have a "bad" reputation if they show any signs of their non-Greek chahracter). Any way, going back to language, they felt sort of relieved when they talked to me in Macedonian because they didn't feel like they had to cover up anything and were entirely open. --Macedonia 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Da (you know what this means, right?), User:Macedonia, my Canadian friend. BTW how did you manage to speak "Macedonian" given that you don't know the language? Oh, of course - you used a phrase-book :-)) --Latinus 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you the idea that I don't speak Macedonian, perhaps you just like making up lies when you're stuck in a tight situation or when you're wrong about something and want to quickly change the subject :-) Macedonia 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have insight, my Canadian friend ;-) I can detect BS when I see it. From the moment that you claim to be an "academic student" from "Aegean Macedonia", I smell a rat - tell me, were you born in Ottawa or Toronto and is your only mother tongue English or do you know French as well :-) --Latinus 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually my nationality is Pakistani, but I was born in Paris, France. The languages I speak is English, and Somalian. You got me! Good job detective Latinus, I knew I could never trick you. --Macedonia 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW did you know that all non Greek Slavic speakers in Greece were repatriated to Bulgaria in the 1920s. How this non-Greek majority found its way into Greek Macedonia is a mystery to me... --Latinus 00:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That upwards is the group in which Metaxas is placed, it was not meant for Tito ;-)). And I don't say that Tito was the shiniest man on Earth.

And will you tell me why so many people Tito had tortured (and killed) in Goli Otok 'caus of their thoughts for independent Macedonia and Macedonians? Bomac 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And I don't know about the Eskimo (of which I don't believe you), but I've met defacto people who spoke Macedonian. Maybe the Greek government hides the truth? Oh no, how could it be... Bomac 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac,i am starting to think that u try not to refer to that specific law(which was active till 1998).am i right?.oh no,how could it be...;-)--Hectorian 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The question I asked is related with your issue. I suppose you know the answer of both. ;-))) Bomac 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no prob answering u...:i am pretty sure that u met people here(quite few,u must admit) with whom u could communicate in the same language.but if u had asked them,they would have told u that they are speaking 'ntopia' or slavic or bulgarian,simply cause all these forms are mutually intelligible.now pls,tell me about that law;-)i am curious how such a minority-friendly and sure-about-itself state had such a law untill so recently!--Hectorian 22:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Minority friendly"? Why don't you ask the Albanians what they think ;-) Or the Bulgarians who are forced to declare themselves as "Macedonians", or the Greeks, who are forced to declare themselves as Aromanians... --Latinus 22:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So Latinus, how are those 99.99% Greek friends of yours doing in Edessa? :-)--Macedonia 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking Greek, their mother tongue - like your only mother tongue is English ;-) --Latinus 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to respond back, my Greek friend just came over and I had to exit this before she saw what I was really up to :-) --Macedonia 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

...and still,'not a word about the murder';-)how could it be?'macedonians' think they are more effective in saying their stories about what they saw in greece(according to their POV),but when the discussion comes to such an obvious persecution,like that law,they say nothing...;-)--Hectorian 22:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I have never heard of this law before until just recently by you, are you sure its not another Greek or Bulgarian POV again? --Macedonia 00:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets try this, why don't you try smuggling in a Bulgarian book the next time you're escaping the Greek Euro to buy cheap goods from the Republic of Macedonia, and tell us what happens to you :-) --Macedonia 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, User:Macedonia, I see my revelations above to you about the alleged Macedonian minority in Greece have caused you to reconsider your approach :-) --Latinus 00:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to find a way to take out the content box, its getting in the way of things, but if you insist, I'll gladly put everything back for now. --Macedonia 01:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Try putting __NOTOC__ in the page. FunkyFly 01:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks FunkyFly, that worked. BTW Latinus, about the vandalism, do really have every Macedonian's user page on your Watch list? Or just mine because its your favourite :-) Macedonia 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia...i do not know about the sacred icons,but Tito was surely the creator of the article i said above.it is mentioned twice...enjoy reading;-):[22],[23] --Hectorian 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya, just pretend that the church doesn't exist or that it was always "Greek" Macedonia 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the law...This is what u asked.the rest belong to another sort of discussion.--Hectorian 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia, please focus on the law. I promise you personally that we are going to talk about the civil rights of the Slavophones/Bulgarians/Macedonians in Greece, so that we can compile the best text for the article, because after all this is our purpose. If you can find it in a library and scan it your contribution will be priceless --Komitata 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the closest headline?

I just thought we all needed that.;-) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

On the question of Bulgaromacedonian

Bulgaromacedonian A little quotation:

"Bulgaromacedonian" is smt. that never existed, nor anyone of Bulgaria, not to mention Macedonia doesn't want's to exist. It is a kind of intention described in the statement of the Greek leftists in user Macedonia's link, and doesn't have any scientific importance. And, you are talking 'bout same people - Greeks. Like it or not, Macedonians are not Bulgarians. Bomac 21:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)"

I have to disagree with Bomac. Blazhe Koneski himself talks about common Bulgaromacedonian language. I am citing the Father of the Macedonian Language himself:

"Parteni Zografaki not only used his mother tongue in practice, but also tried to raise the theoretical question of what the written language which would be used in Macedonia ought to be. He did this in his two articles on the language; the first appeared in the Caregradski Vestnik in 1857 in a few issues starting with number 315 (9th February); the second in the magazine B&emdash;älgarski KniÅæici(Български Книжици, Bylgarski Knizhici - transliteration mine - Bulgarian Papers - translation mine) I,1, 1858, under the title Thoughts on the Bulgarian Language (Misli za Bolgarskijot jazik). With these articles Zografski was the first in introducing, here, a language in common with the Bulgarians, but such as represented a compromise between the Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects. At the time when Parteni formulated this standpoint the Bulgarian literary language was considerably advanced in its development."

Maybe you haven't read him carefully? I think, we deserve an article Bulgaromacedonian. Please, provide us with info --Komitata 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well? What do you have to say about that? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A Greek perspective...

File:Svatanas1.jpg

St. Atanas church near Lerin/Florina, in northern Greece. The original Macedonian inscriptions on this historic religious frescoe were wiped out on the bottom, and forged with new Greek inscriptons on the top for the reason of trying to hide the non-Greek character of Macedonia.

Uh Oh, Greeks didn't do that. Naw, the Greeks are a truthful people with a rich history, they would never have done that. They don't have anything to hide. Mabey it was Tito! Yes! Tito must have done that on the same night he created the Macedonian nation. (yeah right)  ;-)Macedonia 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the Fyromian writing... It's not absurd, considering that a "Macedonian" language did not exist in Greece prior to 1992. It was either called Slavic or Bulgarian and did not use the Fyromian alphabet. Perhaps you should reword it and say "the original Bulgarian inscriptions..." --Latinus 11:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What inscriptions? I'm not taking any sides but you are referring to something that isn't there.

It reads Saint Athanasios, a Greek Orthodox saint.

This is a Greek icon as I see it. The inscriptions almost always are on the top on any Greek icons.

e.g. see this very ancient icon]Image:Menas.jpg

Saying that there was a writing that was wiped out is crazy. It goes like this...

- User:Macedonia: "Greeks erased the original inscription."

- Me: "Sorry I can't see anything."

- User:Macedonia: "That's because the Greeks erased it!" ...Duh?

This is Paranoia. I would propose deletion but then again posting this image is a

wonderful portayal of how nationalists provide proof for their sayings and a sample of why

your other comments, User:Macedonia should be taken seriously or not.87.202.221.164

Here is a close up on the wiped out inscription above for all you blind people out there purposly trying to ignore it [24] --Macedonia 16:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it was impossible to see what you claim in the previous picture so don't tell anyone blind. Don't do

personal attacks. In the closeup you can see some figures but I can't understand what you claim they read. If it is in your

language why not write what the supposed previous inscription is, here, in capital letters so that we can compare it to the pic.

This is still Paranoia as I see it. You fail to answer what I previously stated. On almost all icons of this type the

inscriptions are on the top and left and right of the head. Why should this have been an exception? And then how do you know

If you paid close attention, this is not an icon, its a frescoe on the entrance of a church, and if you ever see an orthodox church, the inscription of the saint is written below the image just above the doorway. Macedonia 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

which inscription was before which? Furthermore how do you know it was the Greeks that did the forging? Is it because that

explanation, among equally possible others is the one that satisfies your agenda and POV? Lastly as User:Latinus mentioned

could there be an inscription (in your language) on that relic writen at the apparent time of making of this icon? Did it exist

then? I still think it is clustering illusion and even if those are letters this shows nothing. Like all conspiracy theories

and other paranoia, this one has also the property of the "bad guys", "leaving clues" behind for you. Tell me User:Macedonia

why did the forgers/conspirators didn't take the time to destroy the icon entirely and thus eliminating ANY proof of the alleged

I can't imagine Greeks destroying another orthodox church, yet again, if they are that inhumane I guess they could have destroyed it all. Macedonia 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"non-Greek character of Macedonia"??? It was however as you claim their intention. This reminds me of alien abducting people

but then bringing them back, for no reason.87.202.221.164 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't write in bold and use the appropriate spacing, because anyone can write as you do, but then this

conversation would be unintelligable. Also please don't write in between someone else's sentence; write at the

bottom like anyone else.Stay cool, this is Wikipedia. Beeing angry or shouting doesn't add to your point.

You still fail to answer to the point, User:Macedonia. I leave this to the reader's discretion whether you

have strengthened your POV any more with you comments. And I didn't see anything regarding the other paranoia

you have put up on this talk page - I mean the photos following 87.202.221.164 11:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Abecedar2.jpg

ABECEDAR school book

Tito must have created that to!

Those are actors hired by Tito, right?

Are you sure they are "Macedonians"? --Latinus 11:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That is right User:Latinus. In my comment above I talked about Paranoia.This is another example.

For purpose of beeing neutral I won't doubt that the photo is from that period. Please answer the following

a) How can you tell that they are "Macedonian" and not Greek refuges? From their clothes???

b) How can you tell they are fleeing across the border? I don't see any border just houses. No soldiers as well

c) Many people flee in times of war or civil war, why show us this picture? Is there a problem?

d) I see 5 people and 2 kids. Is this a big crowd that should historically be mentioned?

Maybe your mind is trying to find facts where there aren't any. See Clustering Illusion

Because I am neutral and I only see a random photo of people fleeing. One of them is smiling too.

No significance. 87.202.221.164

None of this answers the question above. But this is what you people from FYROM do all the time: AVOID ANSWERING. When you answer how a "language" can be created in 5 days, we will respond about the above. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Greece still receives criticism for its treatment of Macedonians". One of the only politically *neutral* source quotable for current criticisms on this is Helsinki Monitor. So far, the most recent criticism ( 2004/5) seem to have been over the Rainbow political party, thus the edit "Macedonian political organisations"..

Indeed, Greece has very strict libel and defamation laws. In Greece, libel, and defamation, or to use the official name "dissemination of false information" is a criminal offence (Article 191 of the Criminal Code). That is how these organisations are caught out - all the prosecution has to do is show that they published something (anything) false (exaggeration of numbers perhaps, or maybe calling all slavophones "Macedonians" while not all are. Fyromian agents (Rainbow party) often get carried away with their fantasies). --Latinus 11:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct Latinus. Unfortunately, wikipedia does not have the same laws. Just don't let our notes here help them avoid answering how their "language" can be created in 5 days... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m wondering how these fascists succeeded to become part of European Union? Makedonec 11:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So all Greeks are fascists.Hmm, or maybe just you ([User:Makedonec|Makedonec]) are racist towards Greeks???

Your comment also implies a collective stupidity for all the EU members...

How awfully nice of you to the readers. Please do everyone a favor and abandon Wikipedia editing. It is

obviously not for you. 87.202.221.164

And I am wondering how you haven't been banned from editing yet for violating WP:NPA repeatedly. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Not Answered Question: How is it possible to create a "language" in FIVE days? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Latinus and User:NikoSilver have been reported here Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, under WP:NPA for personal attacks to Macedonian people. Makedonec 12:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As a neutral obsever, it seems to me that New Macedonians and Greeks will predictably continue to distrust each other until some major issues are resolved. From the Greek side, Greece must accept that the country's name will include Macedonija, and this is now part of its identity, without which they also feel under threat from Bulgaria and Serbia and their (false )claims that their country does not have its own distinct form of cultural identity. From the Macedonijan side, its people really must accept that Greek Macedonia is not part of their country. I do not see much sign of this so far - there is reference from Makedonijan posters to southern macedonia being "under occupation", so no wonder the Greeks are frightened that part of their country is under threat. A part of the solution could be for Greeks to finally accept the name New Macedonia in return for Macedonijans accepting constitutionally that "New Macedonia" does not cover the same territory as Ancient Macedonia.

Svensson1973

I respect your thoughts and your proposal, Svensson. Do you think that the Greek government should initiate that proposal for "New Macedonia" (Slavomacedonia, North Macedonia whatever) or should it be the other (FYROM) side that does so? However, it is certain that it cannot be the Greek or FYROM editors of WP who can propose such a thing...NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks NikoSilver. I think the UN is the only forum for such a proposal, because in my experience so far their mediation on this issue has been poor and uninspired.

Svensson1973

Thanks Svensson, but we DONT WANT another name, we alreade have it! Makedonec 13:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, you do, Makedonec, but you must also realise that if the name continues to contain no differentiation with the larger territory of Ancient Macedonia, in the form of either North Macedonia or New Macedonia, many in the international community will continue to sympathise with a view that your nation has permanent designs on South Macedonia. Why continue with this when a compromise from both Greece and yourselves could stabilise the situation ?

Svensson1973

You seem to have a very constructive position on the matter, given your third party approach. Thank you for your input. Until the issue is resolved by UN, GR and FYROM, how do you propose each of us calls the other side on the talk page? Macedonians, New Macedonians, Slavomacedonians, North Macedonians, Bulgars or Fyromians -and- Greeks, Hellenes, Yunan, Romioi, Berdzeni or... fascists? (see Names of the Greeks) Please point out the names that annoy you the most, for everyone to understand what is an insult and what is not. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou again for your kind words about my contribution, Niko. I see that on Makedonec's page he has taken to calling Greece "FOPOG", an amusing derogatory abbreviation in response to "FYROM". To me both these names sound surreal and offensive, because they imply that the identity of the other is purely a conspiratorial front, with no basis whatsoever. I can see also that Makedonijan posters regard "slavomacedonian" as an attempt to give them a generic rather than a regionally unique Slavic identity, which they understandably reject. However, I would not see it offensive for Makedonijans to call Makedonians only "Greek Macedonians" and the province "Greek Macedonia", because the Greek view is that a generic Greek identity is indeed the most important element, in the history of its part of the region. So to conclude, I would think that both the terms "New Macedonijan/North Macedonijan" ( or Macedonijan) and "Greek Macedonian" (or Makedonian) are reasonable for either side to use, given the historical circumstances.

Svensson1973

On a personal basis I could agree with you Svensson. However, this is entirely NOT my personal matter. Furthermore, I don't think the names FOPOG or FASCIST for the Greeks are accepted by the UN (you mentioned above), IMF [25], EU [26], EBRD, [27] or NATO [28]. I don't think these organisations exist in order to offend Fyromians. I would not equate FYROM with FOPOG or with FASCIST, in that sense. Moreover, I find it very hard to believe that a UN, EU, EBRD, IMF, NATO recognised name can be insulting to anybody (including its receptor). Finally, the official position of my country at present is for them to be called FYROM. I will not deviate from that, regardless if it offends certain editors here with an extremely POVish attitude. (That final sentence excludes you -ofcourse). Please comment my behavior: Inflamatory and biased or neutral and official?NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, Niko, you are certainly free to use that name without being called abusive, in that it's true that "FYROM" was an internationally-devised stopgap compromise , while FOPOG is an angry parody of it ; so the first certainly should not be counted here, for instance, as an automatic insult . However, it does seem to me that if Greece were to recognise the country as "New Macedonija" rather than "FYROM" or "Skopje", it would help to defuse some of the sense of bitterness and humiliation, and anxiety over security and future prospects, which is allowing an immoderate and expansionist agenda to remain popular in your neighbour.

Svensson1973

As I said, on a personal basis I could agree with you, but as an end-result. Let both people from FYROM and Greece notice my personal position on the matter (which I have already posted also in Talk:Republic of Macedonia months ago). I am not perfectly sure, however, if given the present circumstances, the ideal position of Greece would be to initiate such a compromise. This could be taken advantage of. On the other hand, I am sure that my country would gladly accept such a proposal, given that Skopje would completely separate its position from the Ancient GrecoMacedonian History, Symbols and culture. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It would require a degree of trust that is not there yet from Greece , for understandable reasons. In some ways Greece might reasonably view it as something of a risk ; However it seems to me that there is also a greater risk in allowing a constant source of resentment to fester. One must also consider that a large part of the solution must come from the stabilising and moderating influence of regional EU membership, which is being obstructed by the current dispute.

Svensson1973

Makedonec,i saw u complaining and reporting editors accusing them that they made personal attacks to u and your country.U say that each people have the right of self-identification.doesn't this mean that the other people have the right to call u the way they want(without of course including any 'bad' word)?calling u fyromians is not insulting at all!this is how we call u!although mostly we use the word 'Shopjians'.when the greeks say 'Macedonians' they mean the greek macedonians.and this has nothing to do with u!for us your name is,and probably this is how u will continue to be called by us,'fyromians' or 'skopjians'.with respect,but this is how we call u in greece and u cannot change it,i am sorry...;-)--Hectorian 13:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, nobody should call other people in insulting manner. What if I call you Marsians? I'm watching this discussion for a while and I think we should all refrain from using insulting names for each other. Bitola 13:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess u know that u are not calling us with the name we use refering for ourselves.u call ourselves 'Hellenes' not 'Greeks'.not that we are insulted when we are called 'Greeks' of course!;-).but in the case of u,u've got to understand that u are not 'Macedonians' for us.so,we have to call u somehow else.if u find both the terms 'fyromians' and 'skopjians' insulting,tell me another one...U want 'slavomacedonians'?we also use this one,but very rarely.but what i wanna say is that the terms we use are not insulting...--Hectorian 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If we call u 'Macedonians' this will be an insult for the Greeks.--Hectorian 13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - The Above put to archive and concentrate on the issues from the article

• Mutual intelligibility between Bulgarian and Macedonian
• Closeness between the two peoples
• Bulgaromacedonian language - literary tradition
• Discontinuation of tradition between Ancient Macedonians and the Slavic Population
• Totalitarian (Fascist, Rasist, Communist) laws in Former Yugoslavia about self determination of Macedonians
• The ethnic character of Slavophones in Greece - Bulgarian/Macedonian/Local?

Please, focus on the article! --Komitata 12:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about:

• Totalitarian (Fascist, Rasist, Communist) laws in Bulgaria about self determination of Macedonians

Ok, please tell me about such a low, I want to hear about it. --Komitata 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Totalitarian (Fascist, Rasist) laws in Greece and the Genocide of the Macedonians.

Realek 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaromacedonian language. Ha, ha, ha, ha, is there a limit to your inovations? Makedonec 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the citation from Blazhe Koneski himself from On the question of Bulgaromacedonian above. --Komitata 13:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Makedonec,all u have to say is concerning the Bulgaromacedonian language?cause Komitata pointed also to other things,for which,apparently,u have nothing to say...--Hectorian 13:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Republica Nova Makedonija

Yes! In fact that name was almost agreed between Athens and Skopje in the early 90s. but a disastrous Greek politician called Samaras (the then foreign minister) sunk it beyond reach. His disastrous initiative was then followed by PM Andreas Papandreou. It makes sense, the northern neibours keep their Greek name (Makedonija), their Bulgarian dialect (Makedonski) and indicate that it is a New state. - Politis 16:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Politis, here's something with a source! Enjoy... [29] --Macedonia 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view that soumds very unfortunate, Politis. I hope at some point Greece will be able to accept this proposition and recognise the state, in exchange for cast-iron, internationally guaranteed pledges from your neighbour over intentions under the aegis of the EU, and bound to the conditions for EU membership. This will be in the interests of both peoples and the political and economic future of the region.

Svensson1973

Svensson1973, I dont doubt your neutality and well intentions. However you seem to be missinformed on some issues. Macedonia has already given guarantees that it will not have territorial claims towards Greece. Also Macedonia already changed its constitution in that direction. Furthermore, even the Greeks in this discussion dissmis the possibility that the Republic of Macedonia is even remotely able to threaten Greece in this way. Let me also point out that there are few examples of one country having the same name as a neighbouring countrie's province. Nobody suggests that this countries have territorial claims nor that they should modify their name. --Realek 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Realek, from my point of view and many other independent observers, there is a still a strong sense that many Makedonijans are still basing their identity not only in a justifiable sense of separate, differentiated culture, which the Greek official position still appears to me to deny, but also on the realisation of territorial gains. If I click on the page of the user:Macedonia's above, for instance, there is a map of both Greek Makedonia and Macedonija as a single entity. Similarly, many Macedonijan posters and cultural websites will repeatedly refer to "51 % of unredeemed territory", or "occupied territory". In fact I think as the bitterness and war of words with Greece has continued and become an entrenched stalemate obstructing political and economic progress, so this hardline and exapansionist view has also become stronger and more entrenched in reaction . The only future for both Macedonija and Greece will be in the EU, under their current borders. I do not believe most Macedonijans have yet faced this, just as most Greeks have not yet accepted that their neighbour has its own separate identity, and its final name will include Macedonija.

Svensson1973

Since 1913, Greece has never demanded territorial gains from southern Yugoslavia or from its successor states. That is why the 1930s terrorist and autonomous clashes took place between Serbia, Bulgaria and the then south Serbia (currently RoM/Fyrom). The slavophone Macedonian Greeks are Greeks; their cultural similarity/dfifferences to the Macedonian citizens of RoM/Fyrom can be compared to the cultural links uniting/separating Rom/Fyrom from Bulgaria. The uncompromising nationalistic dogma of the communist party in Skopje after WWII, flattened all cultural differences and denied the Slavophone Macedonian Greeks their individuality, including the individuality of the civil war refugees. They all had to conform to the Skopje line. That is normal because the imposition of a central line is all part of the nation-buidling process.- I and many Greeks accept the individuality of Slavophone Macedonian Greeks, but some of our contributors (from Skopje?) do not.- Politis 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For the whole nine yards, see User:Macedonia's page. He makes land claims to Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Albania... of course the possibility that those claims will ever be implemented will not be explored even in science fiction. Fyrom and its unrecognised church are in the deep end - making too many enemies is a bad thing. They tortured Albanians and discriminated against the Serbian Orthodox. The Bulgarians in Fyrom are repressed - (according to Greek sources), the Greeks in Fyrom are denied their ethnic identity and are called Aromanians. Luckily, the Vergina Sun is now copyrighted as a Greek national emblem (entry), so Fyrom officially can't claim that. It's a pity that Bulgaria can't copyright the Miladinov brothers and all their other history which somehow now is called "Macedonian". The UN has stated that the final compromise will include the name Macedonia - but we'll have to be creative to imagine what'll happen :-) --Latinus 18:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:User:Macedonia. It is impossible to judge if a contributor is Greek, Bantu, Scottish or what. Anonymous sites can easily be used by people who have nothing to do with the are they claim to represent. So that user could be, for example, an Anglo-Saxon PhD student from London, or an embassy employee from Canada, etc... having a bit of fun, testing reactions, etc... Wikiedia should have a term for provocateurs: 'zizanio' (apologies to user:macedonia if he/she actually is bona fide contributor with provocative ideas). Politis 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the above link: [30]

the question of course is whether he will be re-elected as a deputy after that statement 87.202.221.164 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A Greek minister had once proposed to legalise marijuana. Miskin 15:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

and what does that have to do with anything about the Macedonian ethnic group? 87.202.221.164 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry I guess you meant that politicians will propose just about anything they want. I agree. 87.202.221.164 20:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

I have a question - why is the translation of "Macedonian Slavs" (Славомакедонци) being removed? A Google search in the .mk domains [31] shows that it can't be offensive to everyone. As I can't speak Slav, I have no idea what the results are for the translation and whether they are 100% complaints or not. I would like to hear your input on this. Thanks. --Latinus 23:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant, since no Macedonian reffers to him/her self as "Славомакедонци", thus the translation of the term in Macedonian is not needed (its an irrelevant word in the Macedonian language) --Realek 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Google test proves otherwise. --Latinus 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This article by the way is not made for the sole consumption of Macedonians, so other names should stay. FunkyFly 23:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your "Google test" doesnt proove anything!

• First of all we must translate the greek term (but we dont reffer to ourselves as "славомакедонци" so its use in the article is missleading)
• A lot of the sites containing the word are not Macedonian
• Let me translate the first two mentions of the word on Macedonian sites: 1. www.vest.com.mk slavomacedonians - a fantom noun used to negate the macedonian people; 2. www.civicworld.org.mk The Nederlands stopped using the term slavomacedonians;

Cheers ;) Realek 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't - look. There are .mk websites that use the words Славомакедонци or Славомакедонец but don't include the words македонци and македонец [32]. How do you explain that? --Latinus 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You dont dispute what I said but are trying to propose another thesis. Since you understand Macedonian language you can translate what they are saying. Things like: who and why is trying to rename us; and things I already translated above; Plus you use a small trick in your search so you still get results where Macedonian is mentioned in a different gramatical form. --Realek 00:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The definite article ;-) Well, I didn't include Славомакедонците in the search either, so it's fair. --Latinus 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It isnt really because we wouldnt use Славомакедонците much, and anyway your "trick" is the smllest problem with your thesis --Realek 00:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see complaints in this newspaper article. It refers to you as Славомакедонци! --Latinus 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, Latinus, that's VEST quoting Eleftherotypia! --FlavrSavr 00:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you claim to understand the Macedonian language, I must conclude that you are deliberately lying about what it is written in "Vest". The newspaper doesnt reffer to ourselves as "Славомакедонци" but translates what the Greek newspaper Elefterotipia wrote. Also, what the Greek newspaper wrote is pretty disgusting, hypocritical and far from the truth. --Realek 00:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to understand it - I said so in my first post in this section. --Latinus 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on Latinus, sure you understand it. Youre even spying(for a lack of a better word) what users on the Macedonian Language Wikipedia are saying to each other. You responded to so many messages in Macedonian. Realek 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you busted me - OK I admit it: јас сум гркоман! --Latinus 01:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this one? --Latinus 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! What about that one? Did you even bother to read it before claiming it is an argument in your favour? Again it doesnt do what you say it does, but It is a translation from a greek newspaper about 169 prominent Greeks (3 members of the parliment, academics, journalists, archeologists...) from 1992. These 169 are making a declaration against Greek policies and are declaring that 1. There are opressed minorities in Greece 2. Are making a demand for an unconditional recognition of the constitutional name Republic of Macedonia by Greece 3. Blame Greece for murdering Albanians. You really should check what you are claiming before posting... --Realek 00:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I bet those MPs never got elected again... --Latinus 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Elinikos Voros! :-) Latinus, modern Macedonians simply find that term offensive, anachronistic, imposed by Greece and do not use it as a self-identifying term. I really don't know what you are trying to achieve? --FlavrSavr 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this one? --Latinus 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the law professor Gjorgji Marjanovic, using some sarcastic verbose. The text is about the Albanians in Macedonia, and it is written in obvious irony. In the times of the conflict Albanians sometimes referred to us as "Slavomacedonians" or "Slavs", just for the sake of annoying and demonstrating "rebel" spirit. Now, I should really go to bed. --FlavrSavr 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This was really interesting....Albanians refer to u as Slavomacedonians...Greeks refer to u as Slavomakedonians,maybe the Bulgarians refer to u as Slavomacedonians(or even Bulgaromacedonians) and u still claim that such a word is not used and u are reverting it from the article about your language...--Hectorian 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I have to explain the obvious: only greeks refer to us in that way. And the word being reverted is the irrelevant translation in Macedonian language --Realek 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As i saw above my comment,Albanians also refer/-ed to u this way.and as many have said before,the bulgarians do not consider u distinct...That was my comment: that it is a word that is used,no matter by who,but it exists...--Hectorian 13:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)