Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia/Archive 1

International Reactions

These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles. I'll start with a quote.

«ἡ κυβέρνησις τῶν Η.Π.Α. θεωρεῖ, ὅτι συζήτησις περὶ «Μακεδονικοῦ ἔθνους, Μακεδονικῆς πατρίδος καὶ Μακεδονικῆς ἐθνικῆς συνειδήσεως» ἰσοῦται μὲ δημαγωγίαν, ποὺ δὲν ὑποκρύπτει ἐθνικὴν ἢ πολιτικὴν πραγματικότητα, ἀλλὰ ὑποκρύπτει ἐπεκτατικὰς διαθέσεις κατὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος».

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."

- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

http://www.sartzetakis.gr/points/makedonia16.html

Propaganda & linking

ChrisO - I guess it's ok if you wanna remove the links (though I don't understand why, they do not in the way for reading). However, I don't think POV is a good substitute for propaganda here. The point of view is clear: The Greeks thought the population of Macedonia was Greek, the Serbs - Serbian, the Bulgarians - Bulgarian, and that is mentioned before listing all propaganda efforts. What the author talks about is the effort to prove this to the world, as well as to attract more of the Macedonian population to its side; that's propaganda. I just checked Encyclopedia Britannica where I think the author has borrowed the structure and the details and the encyclopedia also used the term 'propaganda'.

I'll take your word for it regarding propaganda. However, on linking, it's not necessary and it's against Wikipedia policy to link every single iteration of a term. Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context states: "Avoid duplicate links on a page. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, link the first occurrance of a term, and always link when directing to a page for more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series"." -- ChrisO 15:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yap, I read ur note on linking and agree. So you can revert and de-link them again. But I think propaganda should stay. Cheers. VMORO

Kapnisma - In the section 'Greek propaganda' someone edited that greek armed guerillas 'terrorized the "Exarchist" Bulgarian population and even committed a wide-scale massacre at a village near Kastoria in 1905' this is not only inaccurate, but also a sign of pure propaganda since this claim is only made by macedonian slavs in FYROM and by Bulgarians.Be more careful and ask for evidence before accepting any claims like this one.

Kapnisma -I will not accept macedonian-slav propaganda

First of all, this is neither Slav, nor Bulgarian "propaganda", as I have written it and I am neither Slav, nor Bulgarian. The massacre of Zagorichani (April 1905) is very well described in pages 216 and 217 of Brailsford's "Macedonia, its races and their futures". Some 60 unarmed peasants were massacred, including women, elderly people and children. The news of the massacre also hit the front pages of all major Western papers. I can certainly understand why you do not want this fact to be included in the article (as it is clear you are Greek) but your desire or lack of desire doesn't make the massacre less real. Birkemaal

Kapnisma -The fact that this so called massacre is written in ONE book and that western newspapers wrote about it IS NOT evidence.

It certainly IS evidence.

Since you like histrory I URGE you to read some of the following sources: 1)H.R. Wilkison, Maps and Politics.A Review of Ethograghip Cartography of Macedonia, Liverpool 1951 2)Duncan M. Perry, The politics of Terror.Macedonian Revolutionary Movements 1893-1903, London 1988 3)Basil Gounaris,Steam over Macedonia, 1870-1913, New York 1993 4)Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913. I think that this place is supposed to offer information,NOT TO PROMOTE PROPAGANDA

Maps and politics is on the list, you can check. As for the choice of sources - I have taken good care of including only sources contemporary for the time as information tends to get "lost" or "transformed" with the course of time. As for the list you are quoting, any Macedonian or Bulgarian can put out a similar list of new books which defend their own ideas of Macedonia, and that's exactly what I have tried to stay away from. Birkemaal

Kapnisma -It's also my belief that these informations must be given from an INDEPENDENT point of view.The whole article claims that Greek efforts resulted in terrorizing the "Exarchist" Bulgarian population

Certainly IMRO terrorised the Greek priests and teachers, as well, information on it will be added as soon as I find time.

when it is obvious that this was also happening from the other side too.The sentence i've deleted must either be deleted of written again in an NEUTRAL way.You also claim that the greek military units were guerillas,

I have called the IMRO units guerillas, as well, in the section "Bulgarian propaganda", there is no case any opposition between "guerilla" and "detachment", at least not intentionally.

and that they were fighting detachments of IMRO I want to ask you: 1)against who was fighting IMRO,against the Turks only or also against those macedonians that declaired they were greeks even if they could not speak greek?

an unnecessary question, as I said I am gonna add some info about it as soon as possible

2)who supported economicaly IMRO locals, or Bulgaria?

Both

3)they were peaceful local peasants being slaughtered by vicious Greeks or something else?

They were peasants who were unarmed and among them were women and children, it's you the one who chooses to add the word "vicious".

4)the socalled greek guerillas were also local greek macedonians or just greek officers from Athens?

The majority of them came from Greece proper.

Please i want an answer

I have made the addition about IMRO you requested. I hope we can all have a good night's sleep now. Birkemaal

Kapnisma -my problem was that the whole article was written in a way that presented the greeks killing and bulgarians being innocent for everything.I thank you for adding informations about IMRO,but i must sadly comment that this happend after my involvement, not by you alone.

Also,question number 3 was refered to IMRO supporters, not to those peasants that were killed by Greeks. If your intention is to present all the massacres that were made from all parts, I personally don't have any problem to do so.My intention was to avoid these references about killings for all, bulgarians and greeks.

Finally, you are implying that that the sources i have quoted are supporting greek opinion on this matter.I must tell you that i've red those books and you'll be astonished by their altitude for greeks,if you read them too. Among academics, Douglas Dakin is considered to be the most recognisable for the whole Macedonian question, in Europe, (not in Greece).

I hold on with agony for the infomations you promished.

The Ancient Macedonians

Obviously, Abel, Hatzidakis, Hoffman, Kalleris, Muller, Sturz, Keramopoulos, Svoronos, Weigand, Blass, Blumental, Buck, Fick, Hirt, Krahe, Kretschmer, Lesny, Meyer, Meillet, Nehring, Pedrizet, Pisani, Solmen, Thumb, Beloch, Bengton, Bury, Droysen and many,many,many other disagree with you.

The fact is that in reallity, as I said before, the majority of historians and linguists agrees that Macedonians were Greek or at least Greek tribe which separated from the others early.This is based in simple, rational thoughts:

As you already know, when some researcher of history phrases a theory, must have evidence not only from ancient quotations, but also from archaiological findings.

For examble, if I say that the native Americans (Indians) were of Greek origin (apart from being ridiculous) I am clearly wrong.An academic will respond that my theory is not correct because ,1) we know from past and contemporary sources that their language is not Greek but something else 2) their archaeological findings(pottery,buildings,tools) have nothing in common with Greek ones 3) their folklore (music,clothes,etc) also have nothing in common with Greek ones.

But lets return to Macedonians, the academics who consider Macedonians as not Greeks are only based on ancient quotations(Demosthenes,Isocrates,etc). Is this a rational thought? Thucydides writes that Aitolians were canibals and barbarians, is this also right? Aristofanis writes that Thebans(like Epaminondas and Pelopidas) were pigs,barbarians and no Athenaean can understand what they are saying were they also not Greeks? In Greek literature there are many similar exambles which prove that we must not rely only to ancient sources.

Consequently, if the Macedonians were not Greeks, and they were just influenced by them, then why: 1) Many ancient Greeks wrote that they were Greeks. 2) All,(when I say all,I mean ALL) the inscriptions found in the area of Macedonia are written in Greek? 3) All their vocabulary (700 words)saved to us, is without any doupt, Greek? 4) All archaeological findings, (pottery,buildings,arms,tools,temples) are of Greek style?

I remind that for the above 4 reasons, academics know that Illyrians and Thracians were not Greeks, but just influenced by them.(For example archaeologists have foung inscriptions in Illyrian and Thracian languages which are clearly not Greek-see J.P. Mallory The Indoeuropeans 1989,Thames and Hudson Ltd, London- and archaeological findings are different from Greek ones) Kapnisma 02:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important point here. There are (roughly speaking) three theories here: that the ancient Macedonians always were Greeks, that they never were Greeks, and that they originally weren't Greeks but became hellenized over time. Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we shouldn't try to state which theory is correct. We should confine ourselves to describing each of the theories. -- ChrisO 11:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. As you can see the changes I've made CLEARLY display the theory that Macedonians weren't Greek. I haven't changed a thing.If I wanted to make propaganda or if I was extreme nationalist I would have altered the opposite arguments. But it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics.I also erased some false sentences such as Hellenized aristocracy and clearly exceptional cases which are arbitraries, with lack of evidence and distinctly not NPOV.

Kapnisma 12:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kapnisma, stop trying to qualify which theory is supported and which is not - besides what you say is not true as the intermediate version has the most followers, may be I should point out - OUTSIDE Greece. Remember that is not a Greek encyclopedia and its content should correspond to what is accepted in the world, NOT in Greece. As for the arguments you quote - about the pottery and inscriptions: All inscriptions and pottery in the lands of the Thracians were of Greek style and written in Greek, that's why almost all of our knowledge of the Thracian and Illyrian language is based on toponymical data as they are the only true source of evidence about the language of the Thracians and the Illyrians. Birkemaal

What exactly is your problem, Birkemaal? Above I gave you common academic believes about Macedonians with bibliography and sources. Well, I must say that what YOU say is not true. Outside FYROM and Bulgaria most acadenics support the first opinion.You have LACK OF INFORMATION about Illyrians and Thracians.I suggest you see that book I mentioned above (or whatever else you want about Indoeuropeans, if you imply that the writter is Greek supporter).The Illyrian and Thracian inscriptions are written in greek alphabet, but NOT IN GREEK. Well you didn't said anything about the vocabulary, the archaeological findings, etc.Pottery in the lands of the Thracians naturally is greek cause of commerce, but their tools,jewels etc are CLEARLY OF NOT GREEK STYLE. Both opinions are well balanced in the article as it is now so I really don't understand what is your problem.I repeat :it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics.I also erased some false sentences such as Hellenized aristocracy and clearly exceptional cases which are arbitraries, with lack of evidence and distinctly not NPOV.

Oh, and something else, certainly wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, that's why opinions must be WELL SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES.But it's also not YOUR international encyclopedia to write whatever you wish without rational arguments.

With comprehension,Kapnisma 22:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kapnisma, the ruling opinion on the ancient Macedonians outside Greece is that they were closely akin to the Greeks and were gradually Hellenized over time. What have FYRMacedonia and Bulgaria have to do with that and with the discussion here is something I don't quite understand. ChrisO (who - like me - is neither a Macedonian Slav, nor a Bulgarian) also advised you against making qualifications (wrong as far as international opinion is concerned, on top of it) which theory is best supported by evidence and which is not. Birkemaal

What do you mean by this "Outside FYROM and Bulgaria", Kapnisma??? We don't have anything to do with all the crap around Alexander the Great, it is of no interest to us whatsoever. Bulgarian books contain the same information about the anc. Macedonians as all other books outside Greece. It is, however, appalling that the Greeks are trying to impose their opinion on the rest of the world yet again. Quite reminiscent of the suggestion of Bakoyani that henceforth the Olympic Games should be held only in Athens... All the people I talked to afterwards (from all possible countries, not from Macedonia and Bulgaria) said that it was unbelievably arrogant and they wanted to smack her in the face. I really think there is no limit to how self-centered you are. And by the way, the Thracian inscriptions in Bulgaria are written in Greek, not in Thracian VMORO

What is wrong about you people? Do you want to deliberately falscificate history? What is your problem? Where exactly did you see that I want to impose my opinion? I just wrote down the theories.I repeat :it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics.I also erased some false sentences such as Hellenized aristocracy and clearly exceptional cases which are arbitraries, with lack of evidence and distinctly not NPOV.

Dear, Birkemaal. If your problem is the qualification, erase it.But the arcticle shows the theories in an equal way.When on the first part we present the theories,IT'S NOT NPOV to write later that they were hellenized.If you see what VMORO writes in this discussion you will understand what my problem is.Some people here want to falscificate history and they write down whatever they want.Take as an example VMORO.He writes thatever he likes without evidence and he continues to alter historical reality.As I said before, read whichever book you want about Indoeuropeans and you will see that what I said it's correct,still he denies it... An other example, of some people writting whatever they want: go to the article Bulgarians they write that in Greece exists a Bulgarian minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They even figured out the number(105,599) and the year of cencus (1981)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that all theories must be presented with their arguments,so that the reader decides on his own.But when I read something which is not NPOV, or AGGRAVATING I will change it. Kapnisma 23:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kapnisma, the last edit testifies to what all non-Greeks think about your little statement. And don't throw around accusations you cannot substantiate - I can substantiate each one of my edits. I saw just now what is going on in the article you mentioned (I have never edited it). It is very nice someone eventually ventured to write extensively on that topic though the article needs a lot of work the way it is right now. VMORO

And Kapnisma: don't you think it is a little bit cheap of you to write some crap in the discussion page of Bulgarians and sign it with my name? Or should I blame it on the fact that you are only 20? VMORO

Please VMORO, for once stop warping what I say.What I wrote is that all theories must be presented with their arguments,so that the reader decides on his own.And I presented some examples of people doing the opposite.

Ì am certainly not "warping" your comments. You pointed me out as a prime example of bad editing (in opposition to a "prime example" of good editing - you) and afterwards you quoted as an example an article which I have never edited?!! I might be harsh and biting at times but I sure know what I write about, I can substantiate everything I say and I stand behind all of my edits. You demonstrated the same attitude a couple of days before when you embroiled the name of Bulgaria in something we have nothing to do with and which concerns only Greece and FYROM. Do you just throw random accusations when feel pressed, Kapnisma? VMORO

And VMORO: Don't YOU think that is really,really cheap for you to refer on my age as a factor of me making wrong about this? Or should I blame it on the fact that you have no other arguments?

I remind that this discussion started about the neutrality of the article.Because some people in here want to impose their opinions or perhaps because they can't tolerate other views, does not gives them the right to accuse all the others. And for once more I repear:it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics(internationally) Kapnisma 13:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I can see the old Greek-Bulgarian feud has erupted yet again... You two should calm down, there is no point in barking at each other. But, Kapnisma, instead of suspecting all editors of an anti-Greek conspiracy, why don't you consider the option that you yourself might be wrong? The international supporters of the view that the Macedonians were Greeks initially are indeed few and far between. And if you look at the reactions which edits to that effect have produced among non-Greek editors, especially while this section was part of Macedonia, you can clearly see how "positive" they are towards this idea.

Anyway, the qualification - whether right or wrong, I am tired of discussing that - should go. It is ok with the erasing of the "Hellenized aristocracy" if you wanna keep a balance between the two opinions. And in that connection - what exactly is the second opinion as I have never heard of it before. There is pretty much an understanding that the language of the Macedonians was closely akin to Greek and some have argued that it was even a dialect of Greek (the position you are defending) but I have never read a position denying any connection with the them. And even if such an opinion exists, it is probably too marginal to deserve a mention here. But I might have misunderstood you. I'll look forward to yoúr answer. Cheers, Birkemaal

Dear Birkemaal,try to understand what I say: the fact that there is a belief that the macedonians were a mixed tribe,later hellenized doesn't mean it's right or that it is supported by the majority because it seems politicaly correct to you.And please,don't regard as wrong from the beginning my opinion just because I'm Greek.It is very well supported by most historians.Unfortunatelly,the way some articles are written here is anti-Greek.Try the section Greek propaganda.You only wrote for example what crimes Greek did and only after I reacted you became neutral.I'm sorry to tell you, but history is not written in such a way. The opinion that macedonians were not greeks,nor mixed with them but a separate indoeuropean tribe is supported by FYROM historians but it's so ridiculous that it's unworthy of annotation Try to understand that I am not nationalist when I support with evidence my opinion and instead of rejecting it from the beginning, appraise it. The Greeks are not furious nationalists,with denial of other opinions,after all what you support (that macedonians were a mixed tribe of Greeks,Illyrians and Thracians speaking a form of Greek) is also supported by a great greek historian, Kordatos. Please,visit this site:http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/ it's from a greek univercity,I'm sure you will find many interesting things Kapnisma 09:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) Bob: ...-As you already know, when some researcher of history phrases a theory, must have evidence not only from ancient quotations, but also from archaiological findings. -Yes and that archeological findings have linked Macedonians and their culture to Trebenishte culture,Phrigians(Brigians) and Tracians.New findings have given picture of wider Pelasgian tribes dweling from early megalitic times in these areas.Macedonians are part of them-Pelasgians.Yet I cant find nothing of this on your web.And this is what archeology is saying.

Zagorichani massacre

File:The Balkan Troubles, Jun 13, 1905.png

Zagorichani Massacre in the Times, Jun 13, 1905

This is a warning to the anonymous user who erased the note about Zagorichani - in view of the facts I have, I would recommend you refrain from further deletions as they can be viewed only as vandalism. And in this case I'll proceed towards banning you from the website VMORO 14:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pro Bulgarian anti-Greek frenzy

Everybody (apart from you) understands that during a guerilla fight as between the bugarians and the greeks EVERYBODY commits crimes.Mystiriously, only a greek crime is presented and none bulgarian.Is this NPOV according to you?If you want to turn wikipedia to a monument of hate presenting crimes of both sides I have no problem,it will be your fault,but my opinion is different

The anti-greek frenzy of some people in here is incredible!!!! Mystiriously again it comes from editors that their origin is from the Balkan area.Since, as I have mentioned,some want to turn wikipedia in their personal monument of hate in the following days I will edit crimes and massacres of the Bulgarian side.I will wait with agony to see if those editors that changed my edit will do the same again.

There was no "guerilla fighting", the people were massacred in cold blood. I have half a dozen other articles, again from the Times, about several other massacres committed by the Greek bands in the Kastoria and Serres regions. This is not a "monument of hate", it is an objective representation of the facts - and everyone should take responsibility for what they have done. And I'll remind you that the one with foam on his mouth is you, not me. May be you should take some sedative, ha? VMORO 18:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

You don't want to understand,right?Your nationalism is incredible!Since you challenge me, I wonder what are you going to say when you will read what your Κομιτατζιδες did.You seem to have a great collectionsof articles of that period,mystiriously although you are so objective you seem to forget(?) those articles about the bulgarians,but that's ok,I will remind them to you myself.

All articles relating to Macedonia

Is there a list anywhere on Wikipedia of all the articles relating to Macedonia and Macedonians? If not, can we start one? Maybe put it in a template? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

C L E A N U P

Hi, my name is Prince Miskin and I have a question. Who the hell is writing all that bullshit on the article? I know that some people are just biased and want to have their propaganda on public view, so that's perfectly ok. What's not ok, is the fact that the supposedly "neutral" people (there must be a few) just sit by and watch. I mean, there's not even any need to make a specific remark on this article. Besides the fact that 90% of the information provided is irrelevant to the region of Macedonia, this information is also FALSE (in caps). I'm going to clean up this joke of an article and replace it with some actual facts, you know, of the kind that's written in history books and actually took place, yeah that's the one. Miskin 3 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

So, is there actually a valid reason for this article to exist separately from Macedonia, Macedon and Macedonian and all the relative articles? From what I see here, the current article was created by a nationalist Bulgarian (sad Balkan War losers) who almost indirectly quotes ex-commie propaganda. What really sad here is that nobody has noticed, which implies that nobody is familiar with the region's history. The logical question that comes into my mind, is what the heck would people who are ignorant to the history of region be doing in this article. Even if there really is a good reason for this article to exist (apart from VMORO's) ethnic insecurities, there's no way in bloody HELL that those individuals's edits will stay in this article. People who don't see why, should not even bother to give me an answer. Miskin 3 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

To VMORO

Turkish census of Hilmi Pasha in 1904, on the Ethnic groups in Macedonia:

Vilaeti of Thessaloniki Greeks: 373,227 Bulgars: 207,317

Vilaeti of Monastiri Greeks: 261,283 Bulgars: 178,412

Santzaki of Scopje Greeks: 13,452 Bulgars: 172,735

Turkish census of Hilmi Pasha in 1906, in the area of Macedonia:

423,000 - 41.71% Muslims (Turks and Albanians)

259,000 - 27.30% Greeks

178,000 - 18.81% Bulgarians

13,150 - 1.39% Serbs

73,000 - 7.72% others

After the defeat of Bulgaria in the Balkan Wars, after the population exchanges between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, after two World Wars and after 40 years of Greek domination in the area, are you telling us that suddenly Bulgarians were more than Greeks in Greek Macedonia?? What's next? Are there more Palestinians in Israel as we speak? Nevermind, I've heard this story before as well. So what on earth are you on about encyclopedia Brittanica? 1,200,000 bulgarians?? :D Are you lying on purpose or are you actually _that_ brainwashed? We don't even know whether "The Times" article on the "massacre" is authentic. Either way, it's ludicrous, Bulgarians and Turks are known for their atrocities during the wars, it's almost ironic seeing them blame someone else on that matter.

Let's get some things clear:

• The sections you wrote have nothing to do with Macedonia. It's POV information on people who are ethnically alien to Macedonians (such as Serbs and Bulgars). If you want to start an article on the political problems of Macedonia during the 20th century, that's a whole different story, which definitely has no connection to the article title "Macedonians".

• Bulgarians have nothing to do with Macedonia (assuming that Macedonian Slavs are not Bulgarians).

• Your additions are plain propaganda and falsification of Greek history. You're obviously lacking fundamental historical knowledge on the current topic.

• You should stay away from all Greek history related articles. You're a brainwashed nationalist whose only purpose is to hide his propaganda behind an encyclopedic mask.

• There's no reason for this article to exist. That is none other than the ethnic complexes of the person who created it. Macedonian, Macedonia, Macedon etc provide more than sufficient information on the subject.

Miskin 3 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

Miskin, I agree that most of what you deleted was hopelessly biased. however:

• you should calm down
• you should edit, not blank
• you have to carve out exactly what belongs on "Macedonians," and what belongs on Macedon.

It is not advisable to have an article "Macedonians" at all, because the term is too ambiguous. If you ask me, "Macedonians" should redirect to the Macedonian dab page. Otherwise, this article will mostly consist of material already covered elswhere, and keepin stuff consistent will be a nightmare, seeing the controversial nature of the topic. So take this as one vote for merging+redirecting this article. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

I was gonna say the same thing: I don't like the same info being repeated in various articles.Decius 3 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

ok, so I suppose we can basically agree that this article covers too much ground already treated elsewhere. When you do break it up, make sure that no information is lost, i.e. when blanking check that you export stuff to the pertinent article. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

How can I calm down Dab after knowing that this page had been exactly like that for months now. It is not advisable to have an article 'Macedonians' at all, because the term is too ambiguous. If you ask me, 'Macedonians' should redirect to the Macedonian dab page. Thank you very much, cos if you ask me I'll say the same thing. This why I'm blanking instead of editing, there's no point to edit. Why change something which doesn't even belong there in the first place? The thing is, that the sections which are indeed related to Macedonians, have been already addressed in other articles. The sections that haven't got to do anything with Macedonians (such as the modern Bulgaro-Slavic propaganda) has also been addressed in Macedonia. Basically there's absolutely no point on keeping this article. If you want to find a reason for its being, then just notice which individual has practically started and finished it. This article was created by a Bulgarian nationalist who supports that Slavo-Macedonians don't have the right to think of themselves as a distinct ethnic group and Greeks have never set foot on the region of Macedonia. I rest my case. Miskin 3 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

The majority of information however has to be lost as it is false. Most of it is just summarising the other Macedonia-related articles in a biased way. Miskin 3 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)