Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 13

Macedonians

((HLA genes of the macedonians-This work was supported in part by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Education (PM95-57, PM96-21 and PM99-23) and the Madrid Regional Government (06/70/97 and 8.3/14/98). We are grateful to Alberto Garcia for his help with art design work on the computer. Copyright c Munksgaard 2001 Tissue Antigens . ISSN 0001-2815) link:http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.226.234 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but seriously? Then maybe we should also include this hilarious "paper" on how Macedonian is enscribed on the Rosetta Stone. Absolutely not. --Philly boy92 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

hilarious indeed. it sounds like aromanian to me. but no one got closer to the text before them. time is the greatest historian so go ahead and decipher the text better and the linguistic community will decide. in time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.225.11 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

James Sperling, Sean Kay, S. Victor Papacosma, Limiting institutions?: the challenge of Eurasian security governance, Manchester University Press, 2003, 0719066050, 9780719066054, p.57

• Macedonian nationalism Is a new phenomenon. In the early twentieth century, there was no separate Slavic Macedonian identity: Macedonian villagers defined their identity as either ‘Bulgarian’. ‘Serbian’ or even ‘Greek’ depending on the affiliation of the village priest.29 The separate Macedonian nationalist mythology and national identity are essentially a post-World War II phenomenon, a product of Tito’s post-war nationality policy. According to the Macedonian mythology, modern Macedonians are the descendants of the subjects of Alexander the Great. Macedonian cultural identity stems from the ninth-century Saints Cyril and Methodius. who converted the Slays to Christianity and invented the first alphabet for a Slavic language. Macedonians trace [he roots of their nationalist movement to the turn-of-the-century Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO) — actually a pro-Bulgarian group — and celebrate the anniversary of the Ilinden uprising against the Ottoman Turks in 1903 as a national holiday. Unlike the Serbs, however, the Macedonians do not typically associate Albanians with the Ottoman Turks of history.

--Anothroskon (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Frances B. Titchener, Richard F. Moorton (ed.) The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, University of California Press, 1999, 0520210298, 9780520210295, p.259 Chapter: Macedonia Redux by Eugene N. Borza

On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians. One need understand only a single geopolitical fact: As one measures conflicting Serb and Bulgarian claims over the past nine centuries, they intersect in Macedonia. Macedonia is where the historical Serb thrust to the south and the historical Bulgarian thrust to the west meet. This is not to say that present Serb and Bulgarian ambitions will follow their historical antecedents. But this is the Balkans, where the past has precedence over the present and the future.

The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one.

--Anothroskon (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuart J. Kaufman, Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war, Cornell University Press, 2001, 0801487366, 9780801487361, p.193

The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either “Bulgarian,” “Serbian,” or “Greek” depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was the most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during World War cured most Macedonians of their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them open to embracing the distinct Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war.’ According to the new Macedonian mythology, modern Macedonians are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great’s subjects. They trace their cultural identity to the ninth-century Saints Cyril and Methodius, who converted the Slavs to Christianity and invented the first Slavic alphabet, and whose disciples maintained a centre of Christian learning in western Macedonia. A more modern national hero is Gotse Delchev, leader of the turn-of-the-century Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), which was actually a largely pro-Bulgarian organization but is claimed as the founding Macedonian national movement.

--Anothroskon (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Heather Rae, State identities and the homogenisation of peoples, Cambridge University Press, 2002, 052179708X, 9780521797085, p. 278

Despite the recent development of Macedonian identity, as Loring Danforth notes, it is no more or less artificial than any other identity. It merely has a more recent ethnogenesis - one that can therefore more easily be traced through the recent historical record.

--Anothroskon (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jan Zielonka, Alex Pravda, Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe: International and transnational factors, Oxford University Press, 2001, 019924409X, 9780199244096, p.422

Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighbouring nations (Greece being the most intransigent).

--Anothroskon (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Goce Delchev

Goce Delchev is part of the article Bulgarians, in the section Bulgarians through history, in Macedonia he is a national hero, why we couldn't put in our gallery with a reference that he is considered Bulgarian in BUlgaria!?! Or we put him in ethnic Macedonian's gallery or the Bulgarian editors delete him from theirs!Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's like asking was St. Paul a Christian or a Jew. At the time when he lived the two groups were not sufficiently differentiated for one man not to be able to belong to both.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, Christians and Jews in the context of St Paul were not ethnicities but religions. In this respect, St Paul was a Christian. As for Delchev, his body was handed by the Greeks to the Bulgarian because they both agreed he was a Bulgarian national hero. Then the Bulgarians, under Dimitrov, gave it to the Yugoslavs. When the region settles, we might well see the (Slav) Macedonians giving him back to his birthplace in Greek Macedonia. There is an argument that he was above all a humanist fighting against the oppresion of the Ottoman Turks and the freedom of his region. He was not flying an ethnic banner. Politis (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look at his WP page it says both. He was obviously a Christian but it also labels him as a Jew. The reason being that most Christians in his time were in fact Jews who, and this is the important part, saw themselves a such since Christianity was simply another branch of Judaism at the time. So the two weren't incompatible. Similarly Macedonism in Delchev's time was still a tendency within Bulgarian nationalism. That is why he and others seem to vaccilate between the two. To them they weren't incompatible, as they have become today.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mother Teresa also "was above all a humanist" and "was not flying an ethnic banner", which does not mean she didn't have her own ethnicity. Same for Gotse Delchev whose ethnicity is well documented. Apcbg (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but by the context u say, both of us can use him as national hero !!! But some Bulgarian editors don't let up that happen. I know that he is controversial, but we are gonna put him in the both sections, or he will be deleted from the Bulgarian one! 1111tomica (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to our Bulgarian friends, Goce D is a central figure in the historical identity of the Republic of Macedonia. In theory, even if we all agreed that he is Bulgarian, never-the-less, in practice he has a place in RoM's gallery of heroes. Just to point out that Greece has national figure heads who are Vlach, but they have a place in the Greek pantheon. Saint George, a Greek-speaking Syrian is central to English identity and Charlemagne is central to French and German identities. But I am not taking active editing sides. Politis (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right! Totally agree with you! :D ... I am putting a picture of him! Greetings! 1111tomica (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet he never exposed ethnic Macedonian feelings. He does not belong to the section "Macedonians through history" (if by "Macedonians" you mean the ethnic ones, i.g. the topic of the article). Any formula of the sort He's regarded a Bulgarian in Bulgaria is simply incorrect cause he himself self-identified as exclusively Bulgarian. Foreign sources regard him as one as well. You could put a picture of think somewhere else in the article and mention he's a national hero in both countries, but do not put him under an ethnic Macedonian label, cause he simply was not one. Or if you do not intend to mention in the caption (not in a note) that he was Bulgarian. --Laveol ^T 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not 100% sure that he was BUlgarian! In Macedonia he is considered as Macedonian, but not just in Macedonia - Serbia, Croatia, BIH, Slovenia, Montenegro and others! His picture should stay there and there is note that in Bulgaria he is considered Bulgarian and Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia! 1111tomica (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat. He self-identified as Bulgarian and is regarded as such by most scholars. It's not a question of Bulgaria versus the Republic of Macedonia, but the Republic against science, scholars and Gotse Delchev, himself.You cannot have him in this section. It's like having Samuel of Bulgaria in there despite the fact that he definitely regarded Macedonia only as a region around nowadays Edirne. A simple note is not sufficient. Put a picture and state he was a national hero in Bg and RoM, but not in this section, cause it would be a hoax. --Laveol ^T 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OMG! I can't understand you!!! Man listen, in our country he is regarded, as Macedonian (not just in our, in many countries), in some like Bulgarian... The history is different is some regions and is different understood, it can't be understand just like you want. You have it in your section like a Bulgarian, you even don't have a note that he is considered a Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia, it's ok to have him here with a note of course just for you our east neighbors. I would like to hear the thoughts of other editors (non Macedonian, neither non Bulgarians) and together to decide about this issue! 1111tomica (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you're gonna read it if I write it for the third time. He, himself, Gotse Delchev, Gotse (you must know who I'm referring to by now) has never self-identified as anything else besides an ethnic Bulgarian. Full-stop. You cannot put his picture in the section "Macedonians through history" with a simple note that he's regarded as a Bulgarian in Bulgaria. Either mention his thoughts (and that of the world) in the caption or don't put it there. --Laveol ^T 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And I should write too that i (Macedonians too and other nations) believe that he considered him for Macedonian and the IMRO Organization wanted to create autonomous MACEDONIA!!! So I see I can't talk with u! 1111tomica (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no adequate reasons for the revert and yet you continue warring. It's not nice, you know. --Laveol ^T 20:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just mind the Three revert rule and read carefully what is regarded as a revert and how many times you can perform such an action per 24 hours. Avoiding structured discussion is no excuse for pushing your version.--Laveol ^T 20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can say now is ok, not perfect, but ok! 1111tomica (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support Tomica. Also, all 'bulgarized' pages about Macedonia should be rechecked since the propaganda is too obvious to avoid. However, we the Macedonians are not trying to push the propaganda as somebody here does, so we will wait for that since we have many more useful things to do. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the cavalry has finally arrived. I expected it would happen a little earlier. Team POV-pushing effort again :) --Laveol ^T 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Laveol. ... the cavalry has arrived, LOL. And on such a beautiful mazga/moule :-)Politis (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if he was a Bulgarian, by virtue of advocating an independent (as opposed to a within Bulgaria) Macedonia, then he essentially created an independent Macedonian identity, both, for himself and compatriots. Hxseek (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Rumelia ringing a bell? --Laveol ^T 09:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your point ? Hxseek (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Autonomy, followed by unification. Why change a working model? Haven't you read anything on that? The autonomist wing of the organisation eventually fueled the creation of an independent state, but this happened much after Gotse's death - certainly after Yugoslavia seized those lands. --Laveol ^T 07:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the (Bulgarian -driven propagandorous) article here on Wiki, maybe you're right. However, a large body of scholarly works would support my original statement. And what Yugoslavia are you talking about in 1900 ? Have you not read the idiots guide to Balkan history 101 ? Hxseek (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha. How about this one. Post-WW1? When the last of Vardar Macedonia became a part of Yugoslavia? --Laveol ^T 08:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To stick to the topic at hand, we should not let our personal dreams or feelings interefere, although it does not seem feasable. For all you know, I could personally beleive that we are all practically the same and would be better off as one country, however, sticking to the sources, eg Conflict and chaos in Eastern Europe By Dennis Hupchick, what you have written above about Delcev is entirely incorrect Hxseek (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahha and what do you say now Laveol. We have a non-Macedonian source that says that Goce was Macedonian? =) Tomica1111 (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

And? Does it say he did not actually express such feelings (Bulgarian)? I've read some of Hupchick's works on Bulgarians (including this one) and I know what the book says. Do I need to provide you with 10 google book sources, claiming the opposite right now? I think you should be able to find them yourself. I think another book'd be useful - it'd tell you a ton about the revolutionary movement in Macedonia (albeit being a fictional work, it does follow real events and real people). Try Dimitar Talev really.

Oh, and HSeek, stay on the right side and comment on comments not on editors, please. --Laveol ^T 21:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

With what is actually sourced the idiotism with Goce Delchev in notable Macedonians? There is only one source after it where is written the following -(Delchev, openly said that “We are Bulgarians”(Mac Dermott, 1978:192, 273, quoted in Danforth, 1995:64) and addressed “the Slavs of Macedonia as ‘Bulgarians’ in an offhanded manner without seeming to indicate that such a designation was a point of contention”.) and what interpretation you got from it?? If you put in notable Macedonians at least give a source that claims it is Macedonian not that claim it is absolutely other than Macedonian beacause this view has no OR and nothing saves it from deletion. --Pensionero (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should mention the universally accepted fact that the ethnic macedonian ethnogenesis took place in the twentieth century as per above sources. I will not revert for now as per WP:BRD but will eventually do so unless WP:RS are brought forward that place the slav macedonian ethnogenesis before the 19th century. Also note that the two sources supplied above are from university presses and one of them (Borza) is widely considered an authority on the Macedonians.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care when the ethnogenesis of the Macedonians was. It doesn't need to be in the lead. Take a look at Romanians. It doesn't say "Romanians are a nation and ethnic group who emerged in the [insert century of ethnogenesis here]". That's because it's something you read about further down the article in a section like 'History' or 'Identities'. The idea that Macedonians emerged in the 20th century and other related topics are discussed in the 'Identites' section on this article. --Local hero ^talk 17:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead should ba a summary of the article's content. As the identity is treated extensively it needs to be mentioned there.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:lead

The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

--Anothroskon (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. "Brief introduction, reiterating title of article and given a basic one-paragraph introduction to the group." The time of ethnogenesis is not basic introductory information. What should be included is already there (where they live, how many there are, what they speak). --Local hero ^talk 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it but still don't see how adding two words violates the brief suggestion.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus there is no time of ethnogenesis except the words "newly emergent". And these do constitute basic information.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Newly emergent" could mean lots of different things. "New" to one reader may be last year. "New" to another may be since WWII. Both of which are incorrect. The wording isn't clear and does not belong in the lead. --Local hero ^talk 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the subject of the entire identities section and present in the origins and history sections as well. It should be included as per WP:Lead to ensure an accurate summary of the article. If you think "newly emergent" alone is not enough then it could be amended to "newly emergent (19-20th c.)", that is similarly to how I had originally phrased it.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For the time being until someone else wants to join the discussion, how about adding at the very end of the intro: "It is generally believed that ethnic Macedonians emerged in the late 19th century." As for the stuff you're trying to add into the body, you're pretty much restating what is said all over the article. --Local hero ^talk 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The qualification is fine by me as far as the intro is concerned.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss, I and all Macedonians don't accept the sentence in the main part. It's idiotic, unclear and of course isn't true. Tomica1111 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

That is neither true nor a helpfull attitude. You don't represent ethnic Macedonians to begin with and even if you did it still wouldn't alter the truth value of the sentence. I have brought several sources that support this sentence as is that is to say they prove that it is indeed generally believed that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged only in the late 19th century.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Take some time to read the academic sources cited in full in the section above.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - lack of consensus Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Macedonians (ethnic group) → Macedonian Slavs — Or, alternatively, Macedonians (South Slavs). The South Slavic Macedonians inhabiting the Republic of Macedonia, which covers only the northern part of the greater Macedonia region, are by no means the only ethnic group, current of otherwise, to claim a Macedonian identity. The Ancient Macedonians, the Bulgarian Macedonians, the Arman-Macedonians and the modern Greek Macedonians have equal claim to being recognised as Macedonians. City of Destruction 22:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider Macedonians (modern ethnic group) as a possible destination? — kwami (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has already been discussed. If you just look at the top of the page, you'll notice the link to Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll and Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 2. --Local hero ^talk 01:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I did see that poll, but that was from five years ago. If "Macedonian Slavs" is percieved as offensive, then I would happily consider the alternative Macedonians (South Slavs). This ethnic group is just one of many claiming a Macedonian identity. City of Destruction 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it's actually the only ethnic group claiming a Macedonian identity. The Greek/Bulgarian Macedonians claim a Greek/Bulgarian identity. So that leaves us with Ancient Macedonians and Macedonians (ethnic group). With those two titles, I don't think there's any ambiguity between which one is a living ethnic group and which one existed in ancient times. Let's not forget that we also have a disambiguation page that clarifies things pretty well. --Local hero ^talk 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Macedonians" is most widely and commonly used for this ethnic group and not the others listed in the nomination. The hatnote to other pages takes care of any confusion. And, as User:Local hero notes, please review Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll where this issue has already been discussed at length. Not much seems to have changed since then. — AjaxSmack 02:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose since the common English usage of the term "ethnic Macedonian" is to denote the newly emergent Slavic ethnic group described in the article. This is a good example of the reasons behind the Naming Dispute but it is so nonetheless.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a pertinent argument if the article were titled ethnic Macedonian. But as it is, it is ambiguous, as there are at least two ethnic groups called "Macedonian". — kwami (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By two groups you mean modern and ancient Macedonians? If that is so I guess I can see your point. But what would be an NPOV alternative?--Anothroskon (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't see why "Macedonian Slavs" would fail NPOV. The only meritorious opposing argument I've seen is Ajax's, per CommonName, but that could be resolved by moving to Macedonians (modern ethnic group). That does seem a slightly better choice to me. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name of the article is good and distinguishes well the ethnic Macedonians from Greeks and others. There is no other Macedonian identity nor ethnic group; other Macedonians are Greeks and so on. --Bomac (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You do of course understand that your statement "There is no other Macedonian identity" represents only your point of view... A Macedonian (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of other identities; no other modern ethnic groups. 'Modern' is the key word missing from the dab. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, there are other identities, but Ancient Macedonians were not a nation, rather a conglomerate of tribes, so there is no need of disambiguating a conglomerate of ancient tribes from an ethnic group. --Bomac (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know about the other groups (are Macedonian Aromanians a distinct ethnic group? Are Macedonian Greeks a distinct ethnic group? I suspect not.), but there are two ethnic groups which go by the name "Macedonian" in WP:English: The Ancient Macedonians and the Macedonian Slavs. A previous argument against this move was based on the silly claim that there were no ethnic groups in the ancient world!

Ajax says the current title is justified by Primary Topic. However, it's difficult to justify that: Yes, it is the primary topic when discussing current events, but not when discussing history. It seems that both are highly frequent and highly topical. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As an ethnic group Macedonians are just Macedonians whether they are Slavic or Ancient. The name of the article is just fine. Tomica1111 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

By that logic, this article should cover both of them, which it does not.

At the very least, we should move it to "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)". — kwami (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@Tomica1111: Do you claim that Slav Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians are the same people?? A Macedonian (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can move you Macedonians (Greeks) to Macedonian (modern Greeks) if you like so. We don't feel like a modern nation. And what I think I said in my upper text. Tomica1111 (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

I can't tell what you said above. Remember, this isn't a vote, but a chance to present a rational argument. — kwami (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move, if perhaps not to the proposed name. The "ethnic group" part of the title is a disambiguator, which ought to distinguish the meaning of "Macedonians" covered in this article from other meanings of "Macedonians". But it can't do that, because every meaning of the word "Macedonians" is for an "ethnic group"—or at least, a group of people, and at least for the Ancient Macedonians I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that we have an ethnic group. Therefore, the current disambiguator is inadequate, and should be replaced with a better one. The argument that this is the "primary topic" is baseless; we don't do primary topics for disambiguated forms, and if this is a primary topic, it should go to Macedonians. Ucucha 00:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to "Macedonian Slavs" or even better "Slav Macedonians". Ethnically, historically and politically correct, and also prevents confusion between the Macedonians of the RΟM and the Greek Macedonians who constitute the majority of Macedonians. Eugene Borza, an expert on Macedon, said:

"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called Macedonia for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation Macedonia and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival." (Eugene N. Borza, "Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999)

Additionally, Denko Maleski, former Minister of foreign affairs of the ROM said:

"The creation of the Macedonian nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the Macedonian historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the Macedonian identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made. In a case which that was not possible, the persons from history were proclaimed for Bulgarian agents who crossed into some imaginary pure Macedonian space. But when we had to encourage the moderate Greek political variant and move into a direction of reconciliation among peoples, our nationalism was modelled according to the Greek one. The direct descendants of Alexander the Great raised the fallen flag on which the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia was written and led the people in the final confrontation with the Greeks, the direct descendants of Greek gods. This warlike attitude of the "winners" which was a consequence of the fear of politician from heavy and unpopular compromises had its price. In those years, we lost our capability for strategic dialogue. With Greeks? No, with ourselves. Since then, namely, we reach towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seek in the depths of the history and we are angry at those which dare to call us Slavs and our language and culture Slavic!? We are angry when they name us what we -if we have to define ourselves in such categories- are, showing that we are people full with complexes which are ashamed for ourselves." (Utrinski Vesnik newspaper, October 16, 2006) A Macedonian (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• There is no confusion between the Greek Macedonians and the ethnic Macedonians. With the current titles [Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (ethnic group)], it's obvious which one is about the Greek Macedonians and which is about the ethnic Macedonians. And what are you trying to prove with those quotes you've posted? --Local hero ^talk 14:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps not confusion to us, however an ignorant reader would easy be confused. The quotes above are there exactly to prove that it is nothing wrong for the Macedonians of the ROM to be called what they really are, and that is Slavs. A Macedonian (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• For the ignorant reader, there are disambiguation pages, hatnotes, intro paragraphs, etc. to clarify things. And I don't think anyone here disputes that they're Slavs. --Local hero ^talk 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no confusion if you see both titles. But this one on its own is ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Many people arrive at this page (or Greek Macedonians, or Bulgarian Macedonians, or Ancient Macedonians, etc.) after typing in 'Macedonians' and ending up at Macedonian, a disambiguation page that explains what each article discusses. But let's say someone typed in 'ethnic Macedonians' intending to end up at an article about the ancient ethnic group. It would take them here. But on this page we have a hatnote that explicitly communicates that this article is about the modern ethnic group and offers a link to 'Ancient Macedonians' and 'Macedonian'. So, would it be incorrect to have this article titled 'Macedonians (modern ethnic group)'? No, but I don't think it's necessary. --Local hero ^talk 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You make a valid point about people being able to figure it out. But any name could be excused by that argument. For example, suppose the title space "Greece" were occupied by the article now at Greece (town), New York, with the dubious reasoning that an American topic is more appropriate for WP-en. When you argue for a move, saying that when people enter "Greece", they're looking for the country, a defender of the status quo could reply, "But we have a hat note that will redirect such people, so a move, while not incorrect, is not necessary."

The problem here, IMO, is not that people can't find the article they are looking for, but that the title is incorrect. Macedonians are not "the" ethnic group except in the modern context. In a different context, Macedon Macedonians would be "the" ethnic group. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The current name is quite good.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- [[Корисник:Тиверополник|<font color="blue">'''TIVEROPOLNIK'''</font>]] [[Разговор со корисник:Тиверополник|<font color="blue">'''(разговор)'''</font>]] (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The current name is quite good --Dalco26 (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose with reservations. The terms 'Macedonian Slavs' or 'Slav Macedonians' is often used by some historians in the Republic of Macedonia, it is often used in texts from the late 19th century, and it is used by western media [1]. But so is 'ethnic Macedonians'. The reason for this debate here is that, many 'ethnic Macedonians' are offended by the term 'Slav', and many Greeks, especially Greek Macedonians, are offended by the terms 'ethnic Macedonians'. However, we have this article title and a debate to change it will not be useful. As long as we, as editors, understand that no one intends offending anyone if, in our communications to each other, we use 'Slav' or 'ethnic'. Politis (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "ethnic Macedonians" is fine as long as the context is the modern era, which it is in cases where this phrase is used. However, a WP article by itself does not have that context. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some ultranationalist groups among modern ethnic Macedonians reject the Slavic appellation does not imply that WP should not use it, per WP:CENSOR. Ditto for the Greek side and use of the term Macedonians. Wikipedia cannot be censored. Kwamikagami makes a valid point, if I understand it correctly, that the title itself does not, as is, provide context enough to differentiate between the two ethnic Macedonian groups, ancient and modern.

Yup, that's my point. As for nationalism, we even have WP:ARBMAC, a policy decision for all of the Balkans and recently applied to Croatian, that was decided by the fight over Macedonia. All you have to do is look up "Macedonian Slavs" in Google Books from the last 20 years to see how the phrase is used. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support per nom and Kwami. Also, "Macedonian Slavs" is commonly used in the literature, while "Macedonians (ethnic group)" is not. Athenean (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The parenthetical is a disambiguation tag, not part of the name, so the only question is whether it's an accurate and sufficient tag. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I have asked for input from WP:ARBMAC. I don't know if anyone there will chime in. The reason I did was that we appear to have nationalist nonsense on both sides of the debate: "support" because Greek Macedonians are a distinct ethnic group (they are not), and "opposed" because Macedonian Slavs and ancient Macedonians are the same ethnic group (they are not). Such nonsense will make it more difficult for whoever decides on this request to work out if there is consensus among the reasonable voices, or if one side is more rational than the other, and the people at ARBMAC have had a lot of experience with this kind of thing. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to some input from uninvolved third parties like yourself lest this degenerate into another Slav Macedonian vs. Greek affair.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what the Mac & Greek opinions would be. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Macedonians without any qualifiers or the current qualifier at most for the first group and Slavomacedonians or Slav Macedonians at most for the second. Personally I would be happy with Macedonians (modern ethnic group) since the Slavic part is dealt with in the lead. Slav Macedonian nationalism wants to de-emphasize the Slavic heritage of ethnic Macedonians as it makes problematic a direct link with the ancient Macedonians (Slavs settled the area several centuries after Alexander's time). Greek nationalism wants to stress it for the same reasons.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. If we had Mac nationalists chronically vandalizing the article to deny that they're Slavs, then I could see moving this to Macedonian Slavs and freezing it there to stop such nonsense. But we don't seem to be having much problem, and it any case moving it for that reason would be pointy. Also, Macedonians (modern ethnic group) makes the same point, if more subtly. I'd think that, like the current title, it would also please the Macedonians, as it calls them just "Macedonians" per common name. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Always the same opponents, always the same conversations. The people have a name and don't need godfathers--R ašo 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "godfathers"? It is not on the face of it an intelligible argument. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In Orthodoxy a godfather is someone who sponsors a child's baptism and hence naming. But you are right, it is not an argument, rather a statement.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. If I were evaluating this move request on the merits of the arguments, I would ignore Raso's opinion as unintelligible. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't understand what would be wrong about calling this "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)". That would change nothing but to clarify that we don't mean "Ancient Macedonians", which were also an ethnic group called "Macedonians". — kwami (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(One argument against the title Macedonian Slavs, though a minor one: There are ethnic Bulgarians from Macedonia. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

• Support: I support the move to Macedonians (Slavs or South Slavs), because this is how they are mainly called in modern historiography to be distiguished from Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (Bulgarians). The fact that they consist a separate ethnic group under this name as opposed to the other Macedonian groups which are part of the Greek and Bulgarian nations, doesn't mean that they are not part of the South Slavs and that they don't need any other "ethnic" designation. I can't find any reason to call them Macedonians, while the other are called Greek Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the United Nations to form their own policies. - Sthenel (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The term Macedonians is the most common term used about that nation. The proposed title isn't the most common term, but in fact most times I have encountered that term it was used by Greek authors as a translation of the term Σλαβομακεδόνες used in Greece.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"about the nation" which one? The modern or the ancient? Usually it is a matter of context which is absent in an article title.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting, but Ancient Macedonians were not a nation, but a conglomerate of tribes, so there is no need of disambiguating. --Bomac (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic group not nation. As per their WP article it is not clear that ancient Maceodnians before the 4th century BCE were Greeks.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So? It's the same... Even the article on Ancient Macedonians says that ...they comprised numerous tribes... A conglomerate of tribes is not the same as nation nor ethnic group. Please read this. --Bomac (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction. Lots of ethnic groups consist of tribes, such as the Pashtun or Somali today. Before the advent of the modern nation state, most did. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. We list what is, not what should be. Regardless of whether or not this name is being "rightfully" used (whatever 'rightfully' means here), it is being used. DS (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree but the point is about supplying context. Usually, in the uses you have in mind, that is available but in a titile, by itself, it is not apparent that this is about the ancient or modern group.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The article should be at Macedonians (Slavs). We already have Macedonians (Greeks). Macedonians of Slavic origin are only a quarter of the region's population. P34ch (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reject. Contrary to Atheneans unfounded statement, general literature and common usage in English speaking countries without confusion and/or need for further clarification use "Macedonians" as those natives of the Republic of Macedonia. Greeks are "Greek", whether from the north or not, Albanians are Albanians, and Vlahcs- well, no one's heard of Vlachs in Australia. THe only need for ethnic clarifiers (which I can think of) is for Cyprus, ie Greek Cypriot vs Turk Cypriot. Hxseek (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as that goes. However, that is only true for books dealing with current affairs. In the classics and history, "Macedonians" does not mean the topic of this article. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Last seven days of when this discussion was open. I think it should be close and of course the result as I can see is Oppose. The article name should stay the same. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

The closing admin may consider things differently, as they should look not only at the numbers but also at strength of argument; several oppose arguments give preciously little arguments for their opinion. Ucucha 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. We are not here to decide what English should call this ethnic group, but what English does call them. We are not here - at least according to policy - to make polemical points about ancient history in article titles. The nation inhabiting the Republic of Macedonia are called Macedonians in English - whatever the politicians speaking Demotic may call them; they have been since Gladstone spoke of "Macedonia for the Macedonians." When someone gets around to writing an article on the ethnic group which inhabited Macedon (and where are the sources?), we can then consider disambiguating the two of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What Britannica says about the early populations of the area

Macedonia (present region): History – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Macedonia owes its name to the ancient kingdom of Macedonia (or Macedon). Centred in the southern part of the region, (i.e. present-day Northern Greece) this kingdom seems to have been largely Greek-speaking, with Thracian and Illyrian admixtures. By the 4th century bc, it had extended its rule northward into the Balkan Peninsula and throughout the Mediterranean. In the 2nd century bc, Macedonia was made into a Roman province. When the Roman Empire was divided in the 4th century ad into eastern and western halves, Macedonia became part of the eastern half, which became the Byzantine Empire. By this time the population of Macedonia had been largely Christianized. Macedonia’s Greek ethnic composition was overturned by the invasion of Slavic peoples into the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD.

Paionia (historical region) – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Paeonia, the land of the Paeonians, originally including the whole Axius (Vardar) River valley and the surrounding areas, in what is now northern Greece, (Republic of) Macedonia, and western Bulgaria. The Paeonians, who were probably of mixed Thraco-Illyrian origin, were weakened by the Persian invasion (490 bc), and those tribes living along the Strymon River (in western Bulgaria) fell under Thracian control. The growth of Macedonia forced the remaining Paeonians northward, and in 358 bc they were defeated by Philip II of Macedonia. The native dynasty, however, continued to be highly respected: about 289 bc, King Audoleon received Athenian citizenship, and his daughter married Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. Under the Romans, Paeonia was included in the second and third districts of the province of Macedonia. By ad 400, however, the Paeonians had lost their identity, and Paeonia was merely a geographic term

• Note: It is incorrect citing Britannica in this article biased, i.e. only the article about the history of the area, what is today Northern Greece, ignoring the other article, which points to the history of today R. of Macedonia (Paionia). It is obviously, that this part from the article have to be changed. Jingby (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia (The Ancient world) – Encyclopaedia Britannica

During the 1st millennium bc the Macedonian region was populated by a mixture of peoples — Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians, Celts, and Greeks. Although Macedonia is most closely identified historically with the kingdom of Philip II of Macedon in the middle of the 4th century bc and the subsequent expansion of that empire by his son Alexander III (the Great), none of the states established in that era was very durable; until the arrival of the Romans, the pattern of politics was a shifting succession of contending city-states and chiefdoms that occasionally integrated into ephemeral empires. Nevertheless, this period is important in understanding the present-day region, as both Greeks and Albanians base their claims to be indigenous inhabitants of it on the achievements of the Macedonian and Illyrian states.

At the end of the 3rd century bc, the Romans began to expand into the Balkan Peninsula in search of metal ores, slaves, and agricultural produce. The Illyrians were finally subdued in ad 9 (their lands becoming the province of Illyricum), and the north and east of Macedonia were incorporated into the province of Moesia in ad 29. A substantial number of sites bear witness today to the power of Rome, especially Heraclea Lyncestis (modern Bitola) and Stobi (south of Veles on the Vardar River). The name Skopje is Roman in origin (Scupi). Many roads still follow courses laid down by the Romans. Beginning in the 3rd century, the defenses of the Roman Empire in the Balkans were probed by Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Avars, and other seminomadic peoples. Although the region was nominally a part of the Eastern Empire, control from Constantinople became more and more intermittent. By the mid-6th century, Slavic tribes had begun to settle in Macedonia, and, from the 7th to the 13th century, the entire region was little more than a system of military marches governed uneasily by the Byzantine state through alliances with local princes.

• Note: Now I propose to change the paragraph in accordance with all three articles from Britannica. Does anyone have a good reason not to support my proposal? Jingby (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a small change according to Britannica's passage on the region. Keep in mind that the second paragraph in this artcicle's Origins section is about the arrival of the Slavs in the region of Macedonia, not just Greek Macedonia or RoM. A Macedonian (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.227.89.95, 12 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Please change "[[HLA]]" to "[[human leukocyte antigen]]" because it is not useful to have an undefined acronym or to link to a disambiguation page.

96.227.89.95 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Local hero ^talk 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This Aricle is disgusting, Racist, and hightly offensive. There will be another war soon if the Macedonians are not given the due respect they deserve, we are an ancient culture, and yet are not allowed to use our proper flag, we are bullied concerning our name by other nations, and will not stand for it much longer. If Wikipedia can leave this article in such an offensive state, I am very disapointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What Macedonians are you taking about? Greek Macedonians? Albanian Macedonians? or Bulgarian Macedonians? Or, are you referring to the Ancient Macedonians? 174.117.97.72 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

More Language

sv:Makedonier I've added it. --Laveol ^T 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro

The last two sentences are not typical of an article intro and appear misplaced. Two sentences cannot adequately describe the origin of any people. Furthermore, the origin of the people depicted in this article is far too complex to be summarized in a few sentences. Evidence for this is the extensive coverage here, here and here. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No one seems to disagree. I'll remove the sentences. --Local hero ^talk 21:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't just remove reliable sourced material. I agree not to have in the lede but I added it in the appropriate Origins section instead. A Macedonian (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Macedonians are people with a unique identity derived from an influence of different cultures.

It was rather 'cultural influences', not a mishmash of cultures as is suggested.

The concept of a distinct "Macedonian" ethnicity is seen as a relatively new arrival to the milieu of peoples that is the Balkans.

Considering the time-line for the national revivals itself is short (Ottoman period), it would be misleading to group Macedonians with Bosniaks, Ashkali and Egyptians and Montenegrins, for example. The Macedonian Renaissance which is alluded to in the section ("intellectuals", etc.) occurred during the same period as the other revivals.

Modern ethnographers consider that, until the early 20th century, the Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia were by and large Bulgarian.

This is also misleading and it's more proper to speak of the Slavic-speakers of Macedonia as divided along religious and political lines which was either Bulgarian, Serbian or Greek. Remember that the awakening of the other peoples was still in full swing.

However, in the late 19th and early 20th century some intellectuals began to propagated that the Slavic-speakers of Macedonia compose a separate ethnicity, which is different from their neighbours.

What were their arguments for doing so? There is a huge gap here.

the idea of belonging to a separate Macedonian nation was further spread among the Slavic-speaking population.

How? Wasn't it those kingdoms attempting to impose their own identity which then led the Macedonians to reject them all? This is one of the most important factors which is then alluded to in the following sentences without any back-story ("On the question of whether they were Serbs or Bulgarians").

the Comintern which issued in 1934 a declaration supporting the development of the entity.

What is the text of the declaration? Did it 'support the development' or did it support their rights?

supported the national consolidation

This is misleading. If an organization supports something's consolidation, it endeavors to do so with programs. If an organization supports something's right to open expression, it facilitates their inclusion.

The sense of belonging to a separate Macedonian nation gained credence during World War II

Where? If a people are already calling themselves something else, where did it 'gain credence' where it didn't have it before?

ethnic Macedonian institutions were created

By the communist party or by the Macedonians themselves?

So much of the wording is deceiving and doesn't explain the order of events. --203.59.151.102 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Macedonians in USA / Canada?

I would love to hear explonation of 200 000 Macedonians in USA or 200 000 in Australia. From US census there are 57,000 Macedonians and from, what? some Word document, without any explanation, there are 200,000 Macedonians? Yes, number of 57 000 in USA is not final, sure some of them have Macedonian origin and don't know or don't want to tell, but you can't multiply with 4 that number. If everybody do that, USA would have 970 000 000 people (you could write - up to 2 000 000 - its still true, its is "up to"). Im sorry Macedonians, but there is as much as Macedonians as census said. Add some 15%, but please, not x4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.120.28 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be reasonable

• If the sources speak of 100,000-300,000 then that's what we should use (though I need to check that that's indeed the case). Substituting 200,000 is OR.
• If only 10,000-30,000 out of 100,000-300,000 Slavic speakers identify as ethnic Macedonians, that easily means most of them do not identify as ethnic Macedonians. Using "not all" is major weasel-wording. Sorry, but there is no way I can accept "not all".
• I'm really sick and tired of seeing partisan websites used as sources. Enough. It's not about quantity, but quality. I don't care if you can come with 50 such websites. If Nova Zora really does have a readership of 20,000, it shouldn't be that hard to find sources on it. There are reliable sources on topics such as these out there (e.g. BIRN).
• Rainbow hasn't participated in national elections since 2004. That is important and should not be hidden from out readers.
• How many individuals identifying as ethnic Macedonians have been elected to local political positions, and have they been elected on an ethnic Macedonian platform, or did they just get elected anyway and just happen to be ethnic Macedonians? Again, sources please. Athenean (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't get the point about the 100,000-300,000 people. Thats slavic speakers not ethnic Macedonians that live in Greece. The two are irrelevant in this article. Also, the fact that a Macedonian newspaper in Greece has a readership of 20,000 (which is currently not referenced) proves absolutely nothing; again, language is NOT nationality OR ethnic identity. Also, I am not aware of any politicians who self-identify as "ethnic Macedonians" in Greece; perhaps the person who wrote this can enlighten us? If you ask me, the section on Greece is ripe with OR, unreliable sources and plain nationalism. --Philly boy92 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It should indeed be sufficient to mention that according to GHM, there are an estimated 10,000-30,000 people in Greece who identify as ethnic Macedonian (maybe also mention Rainbow) and leave it at that. Athenean (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the rainbow party should definitely be included; however it should be mentioned that it is a nationalist party when it comes to the treatment of Greece by that particular party. Also, since when does Florina, Edessa and Thessaloniki constitute "across northern Greece"?! "Across" means from Florina to Alexandroupolis and even further. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• 200,000 is good middle ground between both of the other estimates.
• 10-30,000 according to whom? Helsinki Monitor. Since when is this figure the be all and all of the matter? Saying "not all" is not weasel words because you are basing your beliefs on a source which itself is acknowledges it is not a concrete figure. The figure is merely an estimate, and is fine to be quoted as such, however it should not be treated as a definate figure (as you have been treating it).
• The newspapers cited are run of the mill newspapers in R. of Macedonia. The sources are considered WP:RS. If you do not like the figure, then the onus is upon you to find sources reflect your belief that readerhsip is less. As far as i'm concerned 3 realiable sourcces have been provided for this.
• Re: Rainbow Party. Why don't you just click Rainbow (political party) and scroll down to 2009 European Elections. Maybe that will finally change your opinion.
• The mayor of Meliti, Pando Aslakov, was elected last year on an ethnic Macedonian platform. Have the sources not been provided for this?
• If you dont like "across" then "in parts of" is fine. Lunch for Two (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• 200,000: again, speakers of Macedonian not ethnic Macedonians.
• Since when is this figure the godsend?: Its not; its a reliable source though.
• The newspaper cited are run of the mill newspapers in R. of Macedonia: completely irrelevant; the article says "several newspaper" and provides absolutely no references as to the plurality of the Macedonian media within Greece.
• Re: Rainbow Party: in 2009 it got 0.09%, in 2004 0.1%, in 1999 0.08%, in 1996 0.05% and in 1994 0.1%. What's your point?
• The mayor of Meliti: actually no, sources have not been provided for this. If they had, I wouldn't have flagged it as "citation needed". Also, one mayor is not several ethnic Macedonians.
• If you dont like "across": it's not a matter of "liking" it or not, Macedonians are concentrated at the north-west part of East Macedonia and the north-east part of Central Macedonia. Northern Greece is made of of East, Central, West Macedonia and Thrace. "Across" as used in that sentence is a WP:PEACOCK word. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Agree with Philly boy on this. Not only that, but I can't find 300,000 anywhere, the highest estimate I see is 250,000 in Ethnologue.
  • This is sophistry of a high order. Even if the 10,000-30,000 figure is an estimate, this group comfortably represents a small minority of the Slavic-speakers, i.e. it is not anywhere near ambiguous over whether they are a minority of a majority. If it were say 50,000-100,000 I could agree with you, but it's not. GHM is a reliable enough source, and is moreover a "pro-minority" source, so their figure is likely at the high end of the spectrum. Don't try to spin your way out of this one, it's not going to work.
  • I've been hearing some rude noises about the state of media freedom in RoM. How independent are these newspapers? There is a problem with exclusively and unreservedly relying on such sources. My guess is they are quite far from neutral.
  • Rainbow didn't participate in either the 2007 or 2009 national elections, and in any case never even came close to electing anyone. Also agree with Philly boy.
  • Ditto. And is he a member of Rainbow?
  • Seems like most of this activity is entirely concentrated in a handful of villages in the prefectures of Florina and Pella. No major cities, and not anywhere near "across" or even "parts of" (which would be weasel wording). More like "a tiny part of". Athenean (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I have no issue with the figure being downgraded to reflect the sources. Most sources are at the 180-200,000 mark. PB, at no stage did I write that there was 200,000 ethnic Macedonians on the article.

2. Some reliable sources list the number at 200,000. Some put it at 10,000-30,000. I have reflected the latter (in the hope that it would not lead to edit warring). Therefore to reflect the other viewpoints words such as "not all" and "some" should be used given that some identify as X, others as Y and others as Z.

3. The newspapers are simply recording happenings of events, which are unlikely to be mentioned elsewhere. If there is Greek language media on the issue (which there is, as I have read it), then I dont see why this cannot also be used to support the written information (So long as terms such as "filoSkopianos" which feature in the Greek langauge articles are not used) PB, If you want evidence of other Macedonian newspapers I will be happy to add them, I personally didn't realise that an abnormally high standard was required in these matters, however I am more than willing to back up what I have written.

4. My issue was only that you were adamant that they had not participated. I feel that this has been shown, and is therefore a non-issue now.

5. Yes, the mayor of Meliti is a member of Rainbow. There has been a Macedonian on the Florina prefecture council for the past 9 years (if I remember correctly), and I have also read numerous reports that other Macedonians have been elected in Neochoraki, Achlada, Pappagiannis and Vevi (however I have not posted this, per WP:RS, as I believe that these assertions should be corroborated).

6. Also a non-issue (hopefully) as I have changed the wording.

Although we may disagree on some points, I appreciate the discussion. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is not nationalistic forum. If there are reliable neutral sources, the personal opinion of the editors is not important and when POV is pushed here, it will be reverted or removed. Jingby (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby, unlike the other users you have been less than reasonable. Please engage in constructive dialogue. I do not understand why you simply revert everything either, is there a problem with everything in the edit? Surely this cannot be so. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem with everything in the edit. Jingby (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What Jingby means is that your sources should be listed and reviewed here first, so that we can decide whether or not they are reliable and then edit the page and remove the "citation needed" tags. I saw your edit, and I believe that the best thing to do would be to list your sources below my comment, with a translation for the Macedonian ones, so that we can review them and reach a consensus. --Philly boy92 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have 2 comments about your edits:

1. This article cannot be used as it requires the consent of the author to be cited. It says so on every page.
2. Articles from Macedonian newspapers (which, I believe, are mostly Government-aligned) are not verifiable. Please provide translations as well as the original Macedonian text for review by others.

--Philly boy92 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is impractical/unessecary for me to translate the entire source, so I will only post on here what the relevant information to the source is. I will post the links, if people wish they can use Google translate for the entire article.

• "Since then several Macedonian language newspapers have been established"

[2] - Втор весник на Македонците во Грција...Весникот се вика „Задруга“...За нецел месец во Грција излезе уште еден весник на Македонците/A Second Macedonian Newspaper in greece...The Newspaper is Called "Zadruga/Koinothta"...Barely a month ago in Greece another newspaper for the Macedonians was released.

• "the most successful of which, Nova Zora, has a readership of over 20,000."

[3] - „Нова зора“...печати во 20.000 примероци/Nova Zora...is printed in 20,000 copies'

[4] - Весникот е наречен „Нова зора“ и треба да се печати во 20.000 примероци/The Newspaper is called Nova Zora and 20,000 copies are printed.

[5] - „Нова зора“ - прв весник на македонски јазик во Грција...При печатењето на тиражот од 20.000 примероци се појавиле само мали технички проблеми/Nova Zora - the first Macedonian language newspaper in Greece...There were only small technical problems with the printing of the circulation of 20,000

• "Several ethnic Macedonian organisations including the Rainbow Party have been established."

[6] - Ова го најавува новоформираната невладина организација на македонското малцинство во Грција „Образовно и културно движење на Воден“/This has been anounced by the newly formed Macedonian minority NGO organisation the "Educative and Cultural Movement of Voden/Edessa

[7] - Меѓутоа, со формирањето...на фондацијата „Крсте Петков Мисирков“, повторно се овозможува зачувување на македонскиот јазик и културна традиција во Грција...Професорот Кристиан Фос од 2000 до 2005 година работел на студија за македонскиот јазик во Грција./With the formation...of the Krste Petkov Misirkov foundation, once again the preservation of the Macedonian language and culture in Greece has been enabled...Professor Christian Voss from 2000-2005 worked on a study of the Macedonian language in Greece - Quoting the Proffesor on Deutshe Welle (I tried looking for the English version however was unable to find it).

• "However, Rainbow hasn't participated in national elections since 2004 due to lack of funding" - This is not true, as has been shown above and at the Rainbow page.
• "In recent years several ethnic Macedonian have been elected to local political positions"

[8] - Панајотис Анастасиадис, или според неговото родено име Панде Ашлаков, е претседател на селото Мелити (Овчарани)...На овие избори уште четворица Македонци станаа претседатели (слично на нашите градоначалници) на селата: Неокази, Крошодари, Баница и П’пжани /Pangiotis Anastiasidis, or known by his birth name as Pando Ašlakov, is the mayor of the village Meliti (Ovčarani)...at these Elections another four Macedonian presidnents (similar to our mayors) were elected in the villages of Neokazi, Krušoradi, Banica and P'pžani (This second half though should be sourced further if it is to be used)

[9] - English language source with more elected candidates listed.

• "and the language has once again begun to be taught at an unofficial level in parts of Greek Macedonia including Florina, Thessaloniki and Edessa."

[10] - Македонците од Леринско и Воденско ќе можат да го учат македонскиот јазик во приватно училиште, кое наскоро треба да се отвори во Северна Грција...селото Баница веќе има повеќе фамилии што тајно ги носат своите деца во куќа каде што се учи македонскиот јазик./The Macedonians from Lerin and Voden/Edessa will be able to learn the Macedonian language in a private schools which is set to open in Northern Greece... In the village of Vevi (Banica) there are already numerous families who secretly take their children to Macedonian lessons

[11] - Ολοκληρώθηκε με μεγάλη επιτυχία το πρόγραμμα μας για εκμάθηση της γραφής και ανάγνωσης της μακεδονικής γλώσσας για τους ομιλητές αυτής. Το πρόγραμμα συμπεριελάμβανε μαθήματα του κυριλλικού αλφάβητου και κάποια στοιχεία γραμματικής, ώστε οι άνθρωποι που ήδη ομιλούν την τοπική διάλεκτο, να μπορούν να διαβάζουν και να γράφουν σε αυτήν. Λόγο του μεγάλου ενδιαφέροντος για τα μαθήματα, ελπίζουμε να μπορέσουμε να επαναλάβουμε το πρόγραμμα μας την ερχόμενη άνοιξη. Τα προγράμματα των μαθημάτων έχουν δίμηνη διάρκεια και είναι δωρεάν. (Discusses the success of the above classes)

[12] - Во Солун се учи македонскиот јазик...Во Солун е формиран клас од триесетина ученици што го изучуваат македонскиот јазик/In Salonika the Macedonian langauge is taught...In Salonika there has been a class of thirty students formed who learn the Macedonian language

Do these sources back up what was written on the page? I cannot see any factual basis which to claim that that which was written on the page did not in fact occur. Lunch for Two (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

[13]"Првиот број на месечникот „Нова зора“ беше испечатен во 20.000 примероци." >> "The first issue of the monthly "New Dawn" was printed in 20,000 copies." >> Where exactly does it say that it has a readership of 20,000? The fact that it was printed in 20,000 copies does not mean that 20,000 people read it monthly.

[14] "Уредникот на „Нова зора“, Димитри Јованов, кој, исто така, учествуваше на расправата, соопшти дека весникот излегува еднаш месечно, се печати во 20.000 примероци и се разделува во 731 села од Костур до Драма." >> "The editor of "New Dawn", Dimitri Jovanov, who also attended the hearing, said the newspaper published once a month is printed in 20,000 copies and is distributed in 731 villages from Kastoria to Drama." >> again, does not address the readership issue, just that it is printed in 20,000 copies. How many people actually subscribe to Nova Zora?

[15] and [16]; again the same issue as above.

[17] and [18]; no problems there, but I seriously doubt that Mr. Voss is an impartial observer and, in any case, his words alone are not enough to support any "200,000 Macedonians are in Greece" claim. Also his representation of Greece as an apparently opressive country is obviously exaggerated. The articles are good for the organizations though.

[19] and [20]; you are confusing National Elections with Regional Elections. Regional elections are for municipalities (which is what your sources claim), national elections are for the parliament. Rainbow has not participaged in national elections recently. Just regional.

[21]; Yes, this shows that there are some people in Greece who learn the Macedonian language. It does not say how many people attended, it just says many people attended. Very dubious, how much is many? 100? 1000? 10000?

[22]; Again, it does not say how many people are actually studying Macedonian.

These questions need to be answered thoroughly; the topic is sensitive enough as it is. --Philly boy92 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My rough proposal for the second paragraph, i didn't get into the task of citing every sentence since i have changed the structure of the narrative a bit, but it is based on the produced sources witch i, individually, checked.

Since the late 1980s there has been an ethnic Macedonian revival in Northern Greece, mostly centering around the region of Florina. Ethnic Macedonian organisations including the Rainbow political party have been established. Rainbow has seen limited success at a national level, its best result being achieved in the 1994 European elections, with a total of 7,263 votes. Since 2004 it only participated in European Parliament elections, but a few of its members have been elected in local administrative posts. Rainbow has recently re-established Nova Zora, a newspaper that was first published for a short period in the mid 90's, with reportedly 20,000 copies being distributed free of charge. Other Macedonian language newspapers have seen circulation occasionally as well. Lately, there have been reports of unofficial Macedonian language lessons, at a small scale, in Florina, Thessaloniki and Edessa.

I don't support the recent changes in the first paragraph, they were not an improvement. Any questions, please ask.--IpProtected (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: [13], [14], [15] and [16]. I understand your point and agree with you. The wording can easily be changed to reflect "printed" or "published" as opposed to specifically "readership".

Re: [17] and [18]. I think the purpose of the source (as quoted on the page) has been fulfilled. I feel that this has now been resolved. (ps. I don't remember using Voss to support the statement you made "200,000...")

Re: [19] and [20]. You are right on this point, it was an oversight on my behalf (re: national vs European or local), it can easily be fixed by either writing both (ie. they havent participated in national elections since 2004, but have in European/Local) or removing the mention to this altogether (Both options are equally as acceptable).

Re: [21] and [22] they were simply supporting the quote "and the language has once again begun to be taught at an unofficial level in parts of Greek Macedonia including Florina, Thessaloniki and Edessa." (I think that this has been demonstrated), the issue regarding how "many" learn it (as raised by yourself) is not covered in the articles, and until further clarification is found should probably be left alone. I think that the relevant information it was citing is still valid.

If you revert back to my original edit, but change the parts regarding the "national election" and the "readership" issue to a more acceptable wording, the issue is likely to be mutually acceptable. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop edit war. You never has reached consensus here. On a contrary, you are a single POV-pusher and nobody support your extreme views. Do not ignore reliable sources added here and do not delete them. Do not push here biased, partizan or nationalistic issues. Jingby (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Right then, after some thought and some waiting, I think the version for the second paragraph proposed by IpProtected is by far the most reasonable of what I've seen so far, so since I don't see any objections, I will move to implement it. Athenean (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets not be hypocritical here, Lunch for Two, you are not mixing, you are essentially reverting back to your own version of the second paragraph. Just get our facts straight.--King of Fluid (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationalistic agenda

Recently in this article was pushed some nationalistic views from sockpuppet of an editor, who was blocked indefinitely long ago. It is interesting that this views are supported by an administrator. What do it mean? For several years this article was relatively neutral, but it become recently a focus of extrem nationalism. At the moment, there is added a number of 180,000 to 300,000 Slavophones in Greece, who were predominantly with ethnic Macedonian consciousness. Let's see what the prestigious University's publishers think on this issue and what is their point of view on this question. The data and sources below are now deleted from this article.

1.Culture and rights: anthropological perspectives, Jane K. Cowan, Marie-Bénédicte Dembour, Richard Wilson, Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0521797357, pp. 167-173. On page 168 is mentioned that the data for the number of the Slavic-speakers in Greece varies from 10,000 to 1,000,000. It is mentioned also, that a number of the ethnic Macedonians is around 10,000. Under line, look at the note #10, which refers on page 173, where is much more precise data about the number of Slavophones - at a whole between 50,000 and 70,000 people.

2.The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0691043566, p. 78. The number of the Slavophones is counted off - 20,000 to 50,000 with around 10,000 of them with Slav Macedonian consciousness.

3. Denying ethnic identity: the Macedonians of Greece, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki (Organization: U.S.); Human Rights Watch, 1994, ISBN 1564321320, p. 13. Human Rights Watch denies to determin any number of this people, but the only reliable neutral source citted in the research is of the US Departament of State. It estimated at 10,000 to 50,000 Slavophones with a small number of them identifying as ethnic Macedonians.

4. Historical dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810855658,p. 4.</ref> The next source, I had added counted the number of the Slavic-speakers between 50,000 and 100,000, though only a fraction of them with Macedonian self-identification.

5. Politics, power, and the struggle for democracy in South-East Europe, Karen Dawisha, Bruce Parrott, Cambridge University Press, 1997, ISBN 0521597331, pp. 268-269. This source claims there are around 50,000 Slavic -speakers in Greece.

Conclusion: The data in the article now claims: The number of people speaking Macedonian dialects has been estimated at somewhere between 180,000 to 250,000. (Clear manipulation. The reliable data is 50,000 - 70,000.) Not all of these people however have an ethnic Macedonian national consciousness, with many choosing to identify as ethnic Greeks or rejecting both ethnic designations. (Again manipulation. Most of this people or nearly all of them are with Greek self-identification). Jingby (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources generally place the number at somewhere around 200,000 (give or take), this does not need to turn into a source war.

Your logic is flawed. You rely on the Helsinki Monitor Source that says there are up to 30,000 persons with an ethnic Macedonian identity, then you assert that there are only 50,000 Macedonian speakers. By this logic wouldn't the majority or a substantially large proportion in any case have an ethnic Macedonian identity?! Lunch for Two (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on the Greece section

There has been some edit warring going on on the Greece subsection of the article, despite the discussions above. Therefore I suggest that no further change be made to that section until both paragraphs have been rewritten on the talk page and agreed on by all participants. Thoughts? --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, the main problem appears to be Lunch for Two's slow but relentless reverting back to "his" version, using misleading edit-summaries. This [23] is not a "mix" between IpProtected's version and Lunch's: It is a straight revert to Lunch's preferred version. There is a relentlessness here, as well as an intent to deceive. I find it extremely hard to assume good faith. It's always nice words from this user in the talkpage, but then back to sterile reverting in the article after a while (WP:CPUSH). Most indicative is the refusal to get the point about "Most" vs. "Not all". The sources clearly attest that the number of Slavic-speakers in Greek Macedonia number in the low hundreds of thousands, and they also attest that the number of people identifying as ethnic Macedonians is in the low tens of thousands. In other words, it is quite clear that the number of individuals with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness is a minority with this linguistic community. Yet, this user obdurately insists on using "Not all of these people identify as ethnic Macedonians" instead of "Most of these people do not identify as ethnic Macedonians". Attempts to discuss this in the talkpage are met with sophistry, evasion, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, followed by reverting in the article. As for the second paragraph, I find IpProtected's proposed version far preferable to Lunch's version. Athenean (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Another technique is to use an edit-summary that is correct, but at the same time changing several other things at other places in the article, even re-introdicng misprints that someone else has corrected. Very annoying, to say the least. As to "Most" vs. "Not all": "Not all ..., with many" gives an impression that it is a majority of ethnic Macedonians vs. a fairly large minority. Definitely wrong! But also the "Most ..., with most" solution is a bit misleading. It could mean 40-60 or even 49-51, which is far from the truth. It is also not very good English to repeat the "most" in this way. I think Danforth 1994 [24] gives the solution. Why not use his expression "vast majority": "Most of these people do not identify as ethnic Macedonians, but the vast majority ..."? Regards! --T*U (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess "Most of these people however do not identify as Macedonians, with many either identifying as ethnic Greeks or rejecting both designations", is an acceptable compromise at this stage. As for the second paragraph, I think that PB92's revision here is a satisfactory one [25], and I think that it should be reverted to this version. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not surprising, since that version is after Lunch made the so-called mix. --T*U (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider this hypothetical sentence about the demographics of RoM: "Most of the people however are not Albanians, with many being ethnic Macedonians." Not quite acceptable?? Nor is the so-called compromise. Another suggestion for a compromise: "Not all of these people however do identify as Macedonians, with the vast majority either identifying as ethnic Greeks or rejecting both designations". Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Some quick remarks, the sources set the start at 1989, so it's "late 1980's" or "early 90's". How many are the ethnic Macedonian organizations ? 3 ? 4 ? Why do we need the "several" to introduce their existence ? How many are/were the newspapers ? They are basically two in circulation today. What makes Nova Zora relatively "successful" and not just relatively "noteworthy" ? Note that this is a partisan publication that the editors themselfs call "monthly newsletter" (the literal translation is "monthly information leaflet"), why is the fact that it is printed in 20000 copies important but the fact that it has no subscription and it's distributed free of charge isn't ? How many are the members of Rainbow that have been elected ? Correct me, but again i don't think they are more than 5, so the qualifier should be "few". About the lessons, what's wrong with "small scale" ? they are clearly of small scale, if you think they are noteworthy enough to be mentioned then they should be described as what they are, a small scale phenomenon. The connection with the partisan schools in the civil war is misty, put them next to each other if you want with clear description of each and without synthesizing. All this vague wording only points to a false impression of plurality and "great extent" when most institutional activities center around one entity, Rainbow. And that's why i generally chose it as a point of reference in my version's structure. That's it for now. --King of Fluid (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I also get the impression that every effort is made by some editors to use wording such that this "revival" appears to be on a far more massive, extensive scale than it actually is (e.g. "several hundred villages across Greek Macedonia"). Athenean (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is Alexander the Great?

Why isn't Alexander the Great pictured in this article at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.45.226 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I presume this is some kind of a joke, since it comes from a user from Greece. If nobody objects, I proceed with removing it in a couple of hours. --Laveol ^T 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying the Macedonians in Greece don't use the Internet, Laveol? --Тане (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously a kind of Greek joke. Geolocation Information of 94.71.45.226 - Country: Greece, State/Region: Attiki, City: Athens. Jingiby (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)