Talk:Macedonia (Greece)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Novemeber 21 2005 and 15 January 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Macedonia (Greece)/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Jkelly 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cut of unreferenced addition to Talk page

The following two paragraphs are being cut here for proper referencing.

Annexation

The region was annexed in 1913 by the Greater Powers with the institution of the Treaty of Bucharest - essentially dividing the spoils of Macedonia among Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece. From 1913 onwards the ethnic Macedonian topographical names accepted by the Turkish rulers were forcibly changed to those sounding more Hellenic.

-

Over the next 90 years a process of assimilating the existing Macedonian population into the Greek culture began. Included in this was the forced population exchange with Turkey a number of years later which populated the region with new immigrants - ethnic Greeks living within the boundaries of present-day Turkey.

I'd suggest that information on the Treaty of Bucharest belongs in this article as does (a lot more) information about the population exchange, but am concerned that the above is oddly worded. Claims of the Ottoman Empire enforcing Hellenization would need to be very carefully referenced. Jkelly 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the diff of the changes by User:Makedon45. I'd like to ask editors to discuss major changes such as this before making them.

User:Makedon45 cut this paragraph from the article:

The official Greek position is that the name Macedonia is Greek and should properly apply only to the region of the historical kingdom of Macedon, which is almost entirely contained within Greece. Thus, Greece uses the term Μακεδονία or Macedonia to refer to that specific part of its northern region.

Is this really the "official" Greek position? It should be cited. Jkelly 03:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians

The majority of Greeks living in Northern Greece are the decendents of Greek (Pontic) refugees who have arrived from Turkey in the 1920's. This has caused major population changes in Greek Macedonia which made the Macedonians a minority in their own land. Although Greeks today argue that the modern Macedonians have no right to use Macedonian symbols because they are the "decendents of Slavs" who have arrived in the 5th century AD, there is no doubt that they inhabited Macedonia before the Greeks.

Ok Jkelly ?

Er, no. The above paragraph is completely unreferenced. It also presents as fact the claim that much of Northern Greece is the "own land" of Macedonian Slavs. I would encourage you, instead of adding more unreferenced material to this article, to instead take the approach of cutting to this page any claims that the article makes that are unreferenced. Jkelly 03:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph appropriately cut by User:Makedon45

The official Greek position is that the name Macedonia is Greek and should properly apply only to the region of the historical kingdom of Macedon, which is almost entirely contained within Greece. Thus, Greece uses the term Μακεδονία or Macedonia to refer to that specific part of its northern region.

The above needs to be cited. Jkelly 03:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

well...

27 November 2005, 1 December 2005 now we know who did it... +MATIA ☎ 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Khalkidiki not part of Macedonia?

I came across a source, citing the book Who are the Macedonians? (Hugh Poulton, 1994), which says: "Macedonia [the geographical region] is not understood to include the peninsula of Khalkidiki". Can anyone confirm this? -- ChrisO 11:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the pov of Mr Poulton. You may also find, other definitions for Macedonia, which include Albania, Bulgaria, Thrace, Epirus etc. The definition that we currently have in WP for the geographical region is a third definition, and there are probably more variations. +MATIA ☎ 12:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

some paragraphs have disappeared here too (the adjective macedonian - greek: makedonas - for example). +MATIA ☎ 12:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Chalcidice lies within the precinct of Central Macedonia periphery, apart from the Mount Athos which has a self-governing system (mentioned in Autonomy, a better word in greek is Αυτοδιοίκητο - there are differences between autonomy and the self-goverment status of the Holy Mountain). I must also point out that the term "monastic republic" is probably very wrong. +MATIA ☎ 13:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia

Is this term used anywhere other than by Republic of Macedonia sources and Wikipedia? Jkelly 02:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on my edit summary, it should either be removed, or placed in a paragraph later in the article (not in the intro) documented and analysed properly (the usage, the "birth" of the term etc). The weasel term "some" must be avoided. It is much worse than the "Macedonians Slavs" term and probably the "Aegean Macedonia" is indeed offensive (see also this about "historical content usage" in .mk domains). +MATIA ☎ 09:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Google returns 14,400 results (see [1]), so it clearly has some degree of usage. I've moved and reworded the sentence to make the context clearer. -- ChrisO 10:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Someday it must be noted in the relavant policy/guideline page that google search can be misleading. I could also provide book sources that use that term. If you want, ChrisO, to include that highly controversial term (if not indeed offensive), add also who created that term, why, when and how it is and was used. +MATIA ☎ 11:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless you don't know the answers to those questions - in that case I apologise (I had presumed that you knew them). +MATIA ☎ 11:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I encourage you though, to check a previous section. +MATIA ☎ 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

See what you think of the current version. -- ChrisO 15:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that ChrisO's version is better in terms of neutrality, but it would be helpful to start working actual citations into this constellation of articles. Referencing where this "Aegean Macedonia" expression comes from and who uses it, referencing an actual objection to it, that sort of thing. WP:CITE goes a long way to helping WP:NPOV arguments. Jkelly 17:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The term Aegean Macedonia , as well as Pirin and Vardar Macedonia, is used by many non Macedonian sources including Britannica and Encarta Encyclopedia. - User:Makedon45

Mention Slavic origin of Macedonian language

I am not certain that the article's current word usage is ideal. I do, however, feel very strongly that this article should not present to a hypothetical uninformed reader the idea that there is a language "Macedonian" that is in some ambiguous relationship to this region. Identifying the language of the Republic of Macedonia as Slavic, I suggest, helps keep it clear to the reader that they, for instance, don't need to learn it to order coffee in Thessaloniki. There is a significant danger that, because the language is called "Macedonian" that we can unintentionally mislead readers into thinking that there is a continuity between the Ancient Macedonian language and the modern Slavic one. A long discussion about this would be an odd thing to include in this article, but simply identifying the language as being part of the Slavic family of languages adds some clarity. To summarize, I want to encourage editors to imagine an uninformed English reader as the audience, not someone well-versed in the history of the region. Jkelly 17:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC) User:ChrisO's editing has once again improved the article. Jkelly 17:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Geographic information cut?

Why was the following cut? "Though mostly mountainous, the region also encompasses the valleys of the Aliákmon, Axiós, Nestos, and Strymon rivers, all of which drain into the Aegean Sea." Jkelly 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm, it's still there, but reworded. I suggest you re-read the geography section! -- ChrisO 23:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Missed it while looking at the diff. Great map, by the way! Jkelly 23:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced addition needing verification

Can the following paragraph be properly referenced?

"Following the 1913 Treatry of Bucharest, the original Macedonian place names that existed in Aegean Macedonia were gradually changed to Greek names, as well as the surnames of all Macedonians, according to the 1927 Greek Government Legislative Edict. The Greek Government Gazette declared that "there are not any non-Greek people in Greece". This was part of a process called "Hellenization" whereby all the names of Macedonian villages, towns, regions, lakes, rivers, mountains, etc. were changed, together with the surnames of ethnic Macedonians, into Greek-sounding names. For example, the village of "Lerigovo", on the Chalcidice peninsula, was later renamed to "Arnaía" by Greek officials in 1927. Although many modern Greeks will argue that the Greek name was its original name before the Slav invasion of the 5th century AD, it is certain villages, like this one, had never existed in Ancient times but were originally established by the Slavs and other invaders." Jkelly 17:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem:

[[2]]

Its a pdf file "Denying Ethnic Identity The Macedonians of Greece". The changing of Macedonian Slavic names into Greek ones is somewhere around on page 5 and 6

I'm going to have to go and actually buy this report, aren't I? Jkelly 18:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No, its free, download the pdf file "Denying Ethnic Identity" try this link [[3]]

Thanks, that worked fine. Jkelly 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

I added in demographics

Before World War I, Macedonians were the largest ethnic group in Aegean Macedonia,10 but between 1913 and 1926 major population shifts significantly changed the demographic make-up of the region. After the region's incorporation into the Greek state in 1913, many Greek civil servants, teachers and military personnel moved north and settled there. Moreover, during the post- Balkan Wars period, thousands of Macedonians and Serbs voluntarily left Greek Macedonia for Bulgaria; the Minority Rights Group puts the number at about 15,000. After the Greek-Bulgarian convention of November 1919, between 52,000 and 72,000 additional Slavs left for Bulgaria.11 Simultaneously, hundreds of thousands of Greeks from Turkey, Bulgaria and Vardar Macedonia were resettled in northern Greece; estimates of the numbers involved range from 500,000 to 618,00012. Thus the ethnic character of Aegean Macedonia changed greatly; Macedonians became a numerical minority, and the number of people in Aegean Macedonia who had "a sense of Greek national identity," rather than Macedonian identity, increased substantially.13

This article is from the HRW, same pdf file I mentioned above (pg 5) "Denying Ethnic Identity"

[[4]]

I am Bulgarian an I personally think this paragraph is extremely POV-ish in stating that the Slavs of Greek Macedonia are Macedonians as a separate people to the Bulgarians. Why would they flee to Bulgaria if they were Macedonians, and not to Vardar Macedonia, where their homeland is supposed to be? It's a controversial topic and preserving neutrality is essential. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 20:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Greece simply "throw-away" Macedonians and Turks, the first ones in Bulgaria, the second ones in Turkey. That's my position of the issue why did they fleed to Bulgaria. Regards, Bomac 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

that is high POV considering you would have to say the Bulgarians "threw out" the Greeks and the Turks threw out the Greeks as well. These were mutual population exchanges mandated by the great powers and League of Nations. DaveHM 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph above concerning the Macedonians as a disticnt ethnic group is from a neutral source, Human Rights Watch International, so stop putting in your pro Bulgarian Propaganda garbage!

What do I have to say... concentrate on the discussion and stop insulting. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 09:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Vardar Macedonia is not there homeland, all of Macedonia is their homeland icluding Pirin and Vardar. When I said they fled to Bulgaria, I ment Pirin Macedonia which has become within the borders of Bulgaria. Most of the Macedonians that fled to Bulgaria were from the Eastern side of Aegean Macedonia thus Bulgaria was closer, while most of Macedonians of Western Aegean M. fled to Vardar M. (if any fled, thats why there's still a large Macedonian minority left in western Aegean M.)

What's important is I don't think so. We have an article about the demographic history of Macedonia, where statistical data (yes, neutral sources) for the region is included and you can clearly see that my point of view is well supported, that's why I'm opting for neutrality.

Independent sources in Europe between 1878 and 1918 generally tended to view the Slavic population of Macedonia in two ways: as Bulgarians and as Macedonian Slavs.

So, you see, don't speak about garbage but rather be neutral, as that's what I'm trying. I'm no nationalist and I consider you Macedonians brothers and one people (no matter how we call ourselves and each other). Just don't try to present things as you would've wanted them to be when your opinion isn't apparently the only one. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 09:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's simply too detailed - and contentious - for this overview article. For this reason, I've removed that paragraph and summarised its content as part of the demography section:

Before its re-incorporation into Greece in 1912, the territory of Greek Macedonia was inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups of whom Albanians, Greeks, Jews, Macedonians and Turks predominated. During the first half of the 20th century, major demographic shifts took place which resulted in the region's population becoming overwhelmingly dominated by ethnic Greeks. Many of the region's Slavs moved north to Bulgaria and Serbia, while hundreds of thousands of Pontic Greeks from Turkey were resettled in the region following the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. Many Slavic placenames and personal names were renamed during this period as part of a government-sponsored process of "Hellenization". During the Second World War, the large Jewish population of Thessaloniki was almost entirely exterminated by the Nazis.

Also, I agree with the decision to link the name Македонија with the South Slavic languages in general; the name is used not just by Macedonian but also Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian etc, so just mentioning Macedonian would be rather misleading. -- ChrisO 00:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions: To what degree would filling in some pre-20th century history be helpful? To what degree would filling in some pre-20th century history be controversial? Jkelly 00:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Oh, and good editing, by the way. Jkelly 00:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

to the admins

Any chance you'll control the RoM and the Bulgarian editor? Does self-identification apply to Hellenes too? +MATIA ☎ 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We can't really "control" any editor, except insofar as we are editors who are also working towards improving articles. Is there something in the article right now that needs special attention? Jkelly 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia_(Greece)#Local_government. +MATIA ☎ 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way: "Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." +MATIA ☎ 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know what are the "rules" that I'll need to know (or others) while editing this article. One may also see Talk:Republic of Macedonia. Do the same set of rules apply here? +MATIA ☎ 23:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It took me a while, but my guess is that you are concerned about the fact that the list of peripheries and prefectures is in an English Name / Slavic-languages Name format. That strikes me as odd, as well. Was this done as some sort of compromise solution to something, or was it inserted by some editor independently? Jkelly 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just edited the article. +MATIA ☎ 23:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Slavic versions of Macedonian cities should stay because it wasn't too long now that the Greek names were in effect (Greek names were enforced in the 1920's - 1950's, while the Slavic version were the official names for centuries before the 1920's) Besides, the slavic names are still being widely used unofficially and by the city's locals

anon that is not serious. Are you going to go through every city listed int he loal governmetn section of all the other Balkan countries and do the same? I don't see the Kurdish or Greek names for the various localities in Turkey here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Turkey

I don't see the Greek or Turkish names for cities in Bulgaria here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgas_%28region%29

This article is being seriously vandalized. A huge amount of material that belongs in Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia-Region is being stuck on these pages.DaveHM 04:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

changes by 72.137.187.99

Before its re-incorporation into Greece in 1912, the territory of Greek Macedonia was inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups of whom Greeks were the largest, followed by a large Bulgarian minority. The rest, in order of population, were Turks, Jews, Vlachs, and Albanians.

Stating that Greeks were the majority ethnic goup in Greek Macedonia before 1912 is false, and besides its unreferenced. Human Rights Watch specifically ststes that Macedonians were the majority [[5]]. Also Hugh Poulton of the Indiana University Press states numbers in his book "Who are the Macedonians" in Aegean Macedonia before 1912 as the following: (under Ottoman Rule)

326,426 Macedonians, 40,921 Muslim Macedonians, 289,973 Turks, 4,240 Christian Turks, 2,112 Circassians, 240,019 Christian Greeks, 13,753 Muslim Greeks, 5584 Muslim Albanians, 3,291 Christain Albanians, 45,457 Christain Vlachs, 3,500 Muslim Vlachs, 29,803 Roma Gypsies, 8,100 others.

Please stop changing the paragraph because Greeks werent the majority until the 1920's during the massive population changes and lets keep it at the original referenced paragraph. -user: Makedon45

Human Rights Watch specifically states that Macedonians were the majority Stop. you have now falsified serveral supposed references. do you think people don't read them?

a) 326,426 of 1,073,549 does not make a majority, it makes less than a third.

b) where are the Bulgarians in these numbers? well? You and I and everyone who has looked at this know they are included in the Macedonians number.

c) why are they included in the Macedonian number? hmmm. Well Human rights wacth is simply statingth claim of a nationalist scholar based in Skopje, Todor Simovski, writing at the height of the cold war (which included a pissing contest between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. ( Simovski denied any Bulgarian nationality, even those who claimed to be Bulgarian.

d) You are forgetting that a huge number of those "macedonians" opted for Bulgarian citizenship and were replaced by Greeks mutually booted otu of Bulgaria.

e) you are also forgetting the Greeks ejected from what is now Republic of macedonia. where do you think they went?

DaveHM 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the relevent part of Poulton's book also available online? Jkelly 01:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Jkelly's use of source

I have added actual numbers and used Wikipedia:Footnotes-style citations. Jkelly 01:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

for goodness sakes Mr. Kelly, you have three sources all of which go to the same original Macednonian nationlist's numbers! simovski, poulton using simovski and HRW using simovski!DaveHM 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That is precisely the case. Jkelly 04:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Other data to consider

• You didn't have to include numbers in the article, i was just trying to prove my point to 72.137.187.99.

Yes, Poulton's book is available online at google book search, only through an existing g-mail account.

Some more data points are provided in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is online here [6]. It includes a fair amount of contemporary demographic data, including the statement that "The purely Greek population of Macedonia may possibly be estimated at a quarter of a million." Do note, though, that the article is about Macedonia as a whole (including parts of modern Bulgarian and RoM territory), not just about Greek Macedonia. -- ChrisO 20:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, the article is about the entire region, half of which is not in Greece but Republic of Macdonia or Bulgaria. Ulness you would use these statistics to show half of the Republic of Macedonia and part of Bulgara are mostly Greek, they are meaningless.DaveHM 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Actual numbers in Demographics

My thinking was that the actual numbers are both more informative and will deter those people who are changing things simply because they think "something must be wrong here". What do other editors think? Jkelly 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, the HRW report does not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim Macedonians. See footnote ten. The new number is not referenced by the citation. Also, there is no need to put "the majority" in parantheses. Our readers can, presumably, compare two numbers. Jkelly 02:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

what? no, i meant the numbers i mentioned above from Poulton, thats what i though you used for "over 300,000 Macedonians, 250,000 Greeks" in the article, you just forgot to add in the Muslims Macedonians which makes the number at around 360,000 Macedonians.

Well, that is not what I've cited, because I don't have the page number in the Poulton book. I've cited the Simovski article referenced by HRW. Jkelly 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Its on page 85 in the Poulton book. (You can find it on google book search by first finding "Who are the macedonians" by Poulton, then on the top type in the search box type "326,426" and click "search this book". This will find pg 85 for you.)

Thanks again. The book is probably a better reference than the "quoted in x,quoted in y, quoted by us" situation we have now. Oh, by the way. Is there any reason you are not signing your comments? Jkelly 02:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. The book uses the same source as the HRW report. It just gives more breakdown. Jkelly 02:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Now we have the 1912 demographics properly cited. The Simovski data is referenced as quoted by Poulton. The numbers combine Christians and Muslim numbers from both Macedonians and Greeks. Pomaks have been removed from the list, because they are counted in the Macedonian number. I also took out the paranthetical majority point because I trust our readers to be able to get that by the fact that one number is bigger than the other, and it looks like a strange editorial emphasis. Are we good now? Jkelly 02:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we're good. Thank you. I just hope it can stay unharmed from vandalizers or propagandists. - user: Makedon45

POV-ish... and I don't intend to leave it this way. You can see the Demographic history of Macedonia, where enough discussion has been conducted - it's clear that many sources (not all, of course) from 1878 to 1918 (which is the period we're talking about) state that the region was populated by Bulgarians and not Macedonians (a nationality that emerged later, and, one might argue, artificially). This includes Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1913). Here you're citing a single independent source and some socialist-time FYROM author, which isn't something I'd personally rely on. We can never be sure what the ethnic breakdown of Macedonia was then, but relying on a single POV is not only insulting, but also wrong according to policies, the real surprise is it's being backed by an administrator. And I'm really keen on understanding what's implied by controlling the Bulgarian editor (me). As I said, I don't serve any propaganda, I opt for neutrality. It might even be better not to include all this detailed historical data, but rather modern demographics, as that's what one might expect to find in the article. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 08:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Todor, only with that you are saying "FYROM", the propaganda speaks itself instead of you. Bomac 17:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry about that, believe it or not... you don't expect me to write the whole Republic of Macedonia phrase every time, right? I don't really think you should focus on such minor details, if you want to discuss the topic as a whole, but what you want is make me look like a nationalist and chauvinist, what I'm not, so you could classify my point about the article as nationalistic. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

First, there are no "former" countries in the world nowadays. It's a undoubted fact (it's stupid even to talk about this) . They all exist NOW. If you want to say the short name of the country, say Macedonia (because that is the constitutional name), and no one will think of the wider region because of the context of the sentence you use. Second, usually nationalistic persons use the ethiquette "FYROM". Cheers, Bomac 12:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bomac that thing that you are personally interested has nothing to do with this article's talk page. I could try to see your comments on RoM as a quest for knowledge, but this is not the case here. And do avoid to label other people, even indirectly, as nationalists. +MATIA ☎ 13:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Todor Bozhinov, the phrase controlling the two editors, was about neutrality. If you are indeed neutral, everything is fine. However the changes in the article by User:Makedon45 and his claims in the talk page are certainly not neutral, and I should not use the proper words to describe them. There's a long list of external links that can be used to verify the article, and if User:Makedon45 continues his way I'll report him following the procedures (it will be stressing for me too, but his claims are absolutely unacceptable). +MATIA ☎ 10:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Matia, that's allright, really, but demanding someone to control me just like that was quite insulting. I hope I'm being neutral, as that's what I want. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear. I have no investment whatsoever in Simovski's numbers, beyond the fact that they are in a book published by Indiana University. I am not arguing that the demographics of the region in 1912 should take up a quarter of the "Demographics" section, and have some sympathy for User:TodorBozhinov's position that its inclusion is questionable. The fact that thousands of words have been written around this point (here and in the article) while Thessaloniki's Jewish culture and its destruction gets one line... bothers me. Regardless, I do suggest that adding sourced citations into the article will, over time, improve both its neutrality and its resistance to being changed around constantly. If Simovski's numbers are wrong, we need an authoritative source that shows that; we cannot just decide it for ourselves. I will examine the Demographic history of Macedonia article in the hopes that it is properly referenced and has material that could improve this article. The questions at hand are:

1. Should 1912 demographic data be in the article? If not, what do we say about the Republic of Macedonia's relationship to Greek Macedonia?
2. If we do include this data, what is a reliable source for it?

Let's address these questions together, okay? Jkelly 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss those questions, and here's what I think.

1. In my opinion, 1912 demographics shouldn't take up this much of the article. Probably just mentioning a significant pre-WWI Slavic population will do the job without harming anyone. Neither we say whether it's Bulgarian or Macedonian, nor whether it's a majority or not.

2. That's the problem with the data. Relying on a single source won't solve the problem, as you can't basically tell what's true or not. Some censuses call the Slavic population Bulgarian, some (especially later ones) Macedonian (as a distinct ethnic group), 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica lists the Slavs in the region as "Slavs, the bulk of which is regarded by almost all independent sources as Bulgarians", a statement referring to the controversy between Bulgaria and Serbia as to the national affinities of the Slavs of Macedonia): ca. 1,150,000, whereof, 1,000,000 Orthodox and 150,000 Muslims (the so-called Pomaks)". So, you see, Britannica is actually an extremely influential source, but I'm against relying on it only either. The whole action of trying to include 1912 data is wrong to me. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Finding one reliable source for that era would be very, very hard, as the numbers in the statistics section of the demographics for Macedonia show. +MATIA ☎ 00:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to try to implement the high-low number solution, but was flummoxed by the numbers. They mostly refer to Macedonia (region). Only the 1904 Turkish numbers are broken down. Am I wrong about this? Can someone help? Jkelly 06:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a wikilink to Demographic history of Macedonia and listing here the present-time figures. +MATIA ☎ 14:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made a few changes. a) The first formal population exchange was overseen by the league of nations, which legitimized the deportation of about 50,000 Greeks to Greek Macedonia and the deportation of about 100,000 Slavs north. Otherwise one would believe that the first large population transfer was of Greeks from far away, when indeed it was of Greeks just north of the border deported by Bulgaria and visa versa. b)The "hellenization" of the place and surnames is somewhat perjorative without noting the context that the inverse was policy by Bulgaria, nascent Yugolsavia and Turkey as well. c) Bulgarian ethnic cleansing of WWII Greek Macedonia cannot be left out if mention is made of the loss of the Jewish population. d) there remains unadressed problems the article but I will discuss them in talk. I think Jkelly is doing a good job, but would like to note that the pages on the various regions of Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria do not hav anywhere near the amount of assetions of minorities issues remaining from the exchanges, which do exist as well.DaveHM 02:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Slavic names once again listed for Greek prefectures

Why does the article list Slavic names for all of the Greek prefectures and provinces? Yesterday, almost fifty edits ago, they were removed. Now they are back. Can someone explain to me why the Slavic names are appropriate in this article? Jkelly 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't. I could imagine some reasons for Turkish names, and the "convention" says we should list the local name after the english one. But that local name would be the greek, wouldn't it? +MATIA ☎ 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Slavic versions of Macedonian cities and prefectures should stay because it isn't too long now that the Greek names were in effect (Greek names were enforced in the 1920's - 1950's, while the Slavic version were the official names under Ottoman rule for centuries before the 1920's) Besides, the slavic names are still being widely used unofficially world wide and by a large number of locals in Northern Greece. -User: Makedon45

Turkish:Selanic Slavic:Solun local name:Thessaloniki - so much for "official names under Ottomans". What about pre-1991 names for fYRoM? Are they recent? +MATIA ☎ 01:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Makedon45, I find User:Matia.gr's response fairly compelling. Are you really suggesting that the Ottomans called Thessaloniki "Solun"? Further, even if it was true that they did, is it Wikipedia policy to retain names used by colonial powers when listing local provincial divisions? My understanding is that we use the most common name in English, and often give a local name. You seem to be arguing that we should give the most common name in English, the local name and then the name used by a colonial power (and also by a nearby country). It is not obvious to me that is appropriate. Jkelly 02:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

comment the greek names are not listed. Thessaloniki or Salonika are english names, Solun is slavic, Θεσσαλονίκη or Σαλονίκη are greek, aka local names. +MATIA ☎ 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What i'm saying is that the Greek and Slavic names are the two names mostly being used then any other name in the world today; and therefore, should stay for the reason of it makes the content of the article better and provides the article with more useful information. - user:Makedon45

Determining which language has the second-highest number of references to place-names is not, I suggest, something that we want to get into. I imagine that if someone were to go through every article on the United Kingdom and enter in all of the Hindi language names for every area, they would be reverted, and it would be appropriate to do so. Jkelly 04:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

the Slavic names are completely out of place. Greek, Slavic, Turkish, Albanain names are a historicd detail relevent I would think in the page on the geographic 'Region of Macedonia' but not on pages for the Greek polity. I am not an ethnic Greek, Bulgarian, Macedonian or Turk, but have spent time in all these countries, been fascinated bythe issues and read quite a lot. This page has become the playground of macednonian nationlists. It is no longer a pov issue but one of serious issues of propaganda as fact. DaveHM 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm scared how far this is going... I don't think Slavic names are relevant enough to be put here either. They could be mentioned in the article for the prefecture, if they're different enough from the Greek and official names (some aren't). And the Slavic names text has been changed to Slavic Macedonian, again indirectly trying to define that Macedonians inhabite(d) the region and not Bulgarians. Shortly, I think this Slavic names thing should be removed too. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 08:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll probably restore later the most parts of the edits by 62.74.112.185 +MATIA ☎ 13:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to have a consistent principle to apply here. I think Poland provides a good example - many of its towns and regions have alternative German names, as they used to be part of Germany. See for instance West Pomerania. You'll notice that only the Polish names are used in the regional list of towns and regions, but the alternative German names are also listed in the individual town articles. This is a sensible approach - Poland isn't a bilingual country, and the German names don't have equal status.

The parallel should be fairly obvious (I hope). I suggest that we mention the Slavic names in the individual town articles, but not in the regional articles, given their lack of any official or equal status. -- ChrisO 23:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

We call ourselves Macedonians (plain vanilla), and that part of Greece, Macedonia (plain vanilla). Here it is called Greek Macedonia and Greek Macedonians. We call our towns Thessaloniki, Veroia, Edessa, etc. Some editors here, had their way, breaking up the Macedonian disambiguation page. Some admins in the past have said the Greeks try to label those people against their will. The thing is that the facts aren't as prescribed here. And weren't in the past. If the people who live in Veroia, Edessa, Kastoria, Thessaloniki, Kozani, Pella, Kavala and I don't know where else used those names I could understand it. We have Vlachs, Aromanians, Arvanites, Arvanitovlachs, Pontioe, and more. Among them very few are, what you would call bilingual. If you could find a bilingual, and told him he is a Romanian, a Bulgarian, an Albanian or I don't know what else, the result would be the same: he would be offended (what would vary is his reaction). Perhaps you can't understand that. I, on the other hand, cannot understand what the slavic names have to do here. It's like adding the chinese names. I also don't understand other things but it's not the right time now. +MATIA ☎ 00:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And if possible please explain why the German names are in the Poland related articles. +MATIA ☎nd 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe one reason is that many of the former German inhabitants of these towns are still alife and know thier home towns by the German name. Visit e.g. Talk:Gdansk to see that the controversy for former German towns in Poland is at least as heated, and a compromise had to be enforced in the case of Gdansk/Danzig. Andreas 22:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's more complex than that - Gdansk has only one official name now, but it was known as Danzig for a long time before 1945. There are quite a few similar examples in the Balkans - for instance, Skopje was known as Uskub for centuries. If a city is widely known in English by another name (e.g. Rome/Roma, Lisbon/Lisboa, Cologne/Koln), it's reasonable to include that name at the start of the city's article. Hence the article on Thessaloniki starts "Thessaloníki or Salonica". If historical names are at issue, they should be included in parentheses after the official name (e.g. "Gdańsk (German: Danzig, Kashubian: Gduńsk, Latin: Gedania)").

You don't need to include all of the alternative names in a city article. If there are multiple alternative names in alternative languages, the place to link to is Names of European cities in different languages. You can scroll down from Names of European cities in different languages#T to see all the variants of Thessaloniki.

When it comes to listing names in articles such as Macedonia (Greece), as far as I know there isn't a specific policy that would dictate whether Slavic names should or should not be included. But precedent and custom suggest that they should not be; the appropriate place for such names would be in the city articles, not the regional lists of cities. On this basis, I suggest that we remove the Slavic names from this article and add them to the city articles if they're not already present there. -- ChrisO 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I can understand the addition at Names of European cities in different languages, but not the addition at the city articles. I gave before an example about Thessaloniki and Selanik. I've seen certain editors adding the slavic version in articles that didn't even had the greek versions of the places. Any explanations about that, would be really welcome. +MATIA ☎ 23:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Restored version issues

Before its re-incorporation into Greece in 1912, the territory of Greek Macedonia had a total population of slightly more than one million people, of which more than 360,000 were Macedonian Slavs – whose allegiance was claimed by Bulgarian and Serbian nationalists.

You don't expect me to agree this is neutral after we've discussed it already, do you? I was clear that you can't doubtlessly prove whether the population was Macedonian Slavs or Bulgarians by 1912. I mentioned the Demographic history of Macedonia article two times already, where this is explained. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think the wording I suggested earlier is much safer - call them Slavs and say that their allegiance was contested three ways (Bulgarian/Serbian/Macedonian). If the Macedonians didn't consistently identify themselves as Macedonians at this time, we can't call them that. If we did we would be anachronistically imposing a modern ethnic identity on them. -- ChrisO 00:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we take the Simovski statistics and add them to the table at Demographic history of Macedonia. After that is done, we rephrase the sentence here to give our readers a sense of both high and low numbers, and what they represent, and make an explicit cross-reference to that article. If there is agreement about this, please make sure that the referencing to Simovski is perserved in this re-arrangement. Comments? Jkelly 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Simovski's inclusion here. I'm unsure where exactly his theory will fit at the other article, among statistics from 1880 to 1920. If the statistics of that time are indeed needed here, then I'll agree with JKelly's suggestion. +MATIA ☎ 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Slavs wording is much more appropriate. One minor issue is that the Serbian claim isn't considered as serious as the other two POVs, but it could stay, since it indeed existed some time ago. The addition of high and low numbers seems fine too. I'm not sure about including my namesake Simovski's data on the Demographic history of Macedonia article, it's modern research and a bit doesn't fit with all those other censuses from a different period. But I'm not firmly contra. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to fix over-reliance on Simovski

I have attempted a carefully-sourced re-write of the demographics section's beginning. I'd like to hear some more feedback, and would be delighted if that happened on this Talk page instead of in edit summaries. Note that the bolding is done because Demographic history of Macedonia is an "explicit cross-reference" per the WP:MOS, and not for purposes of emphasis. Jkelly 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely a serious improvement from what the section used to look like. Keep up the good work! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 08:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Hi. As much fun as having most of our conversation in edit-summary boxes is, I'd like to remind people that the Talk page exists for discussing, and that the world will not end if the article is "wrong" for a little while. We have number of discussions going on here, and the constant changing of the article makes it hard to keep track of what is going on. And, if you must revert, please don't blank half of the article doing it. Thanks. Jkelly 23:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sun image

Should it be in the article or not? I removed it as needing some discussion. I also removed the "Former Yugoslavian" identifier this time 'round, but remain concerned about misleading the unaware reader. Sun or no Sun? Who wants what? Jkelly 23:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much point in including it. The image is asserted to be part of a flag, but the catch is that the flag has absolutely no official status - it's just something that local nationalists ran up in the mid-1990s. We should also bear in mind that the page is already well loaded with images, and it was starting to get a bit messy before you removed the image. Overall, I don't think including the sun delivers much value. -- ChrisO 00:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid the term nationalists, I have a problem when I read it, it's offensive and your guess about '90s is wrong. Unless you have in your mind the fake-banknotes with the White Tower that were printed in that era at RoM. The flag was used since the 1980s (yes before RoM "designed" the same flag in red background) but I cannot verify, yet, it's status. +MATIA ☎ 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Flags of the World has some information - see http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gr-maced.html . -- ChrisO 23:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it few hours ago, today. But I do remember its use from the mid-80s and not the mid-90s. Flags of the world is a good site in general, but it's content depends on the editors (hm that sounds familiar for a wikiholic) :) +MATIA ☎ 23:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some editors at the greek wikipedia are looking into it. I'll let you all know, when we sort it out :) +MATIA ☎ 16:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That's great. Let us know what the research turns up. Jkelly 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

An anon (User:Nestore, I think) keeps adding the Vergina Sun image. Can we wait until our Greek friends have confirmed its status before it gets put into the article? WP:CITE and all that... -- ChrisO 11:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe in google search (I prefer libraries), however we have already found few things related to the Vergina Sun symbol, and while I would prefer to present everything when the search was concluded, I'll give some info of what we have found so far.

ChrisO might remember the Interim Accord - September 15, 1995. At article 7, it is mentioned that RoM will "cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms displayed on its national flag" (aka the Vergina Sun).

The Hellenic Army use the symbol at two (1 2) military insignia (I'm not sure if insignia is the correct english term).

The Greek goverment has requested "requested sole international rights to the Star of Vergina, symbol of the ancient Macedonian royal dynasty ... before the United Nation's World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)"

The three variations of the symbol at WIPO's database:
16 rays - Philip's larnax,
12 rays - Olympias' larnax,
8 rays - in coins of Macedon and as a decorative element
WIPO's acknowledgment of the request - July 3, 1995,
ANA news report - July 31, 1995

Macedonia - a cultural association in Austria: "In the July 5th 1995 the Association filed in the International Organism of Protection of Intellectual Property (World Intellectual Property Organization) in Geneva an application for the international entrenchment of the name (Makedonien, Macedonien, Makedonia, Macedonia, Mazedonia, Macedoine) and the emblem (Sun of Vergina) used by the Association, in 37 countries members of the relative international agreement of Madrid. The name and symbol of the Association, guaranteed henceforth in Austria, were recorded in the International Protocol (Internatonal Register of the WIPO) Geneva with date 26 September 1995 and number 643 898. This high expense was covered completely by the Association." (my rough translation into english) +MATIA ☎ 19:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful info. I think we can add it to Vergina Sun. Are you any further forward in discovering whether it's used as an official flag or symbol by whatever regional authority exists in the periphery? ChrisO 22:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before our search isn't finished, I hope I can find more searching libraries and newspaper archives of the 1980s. +MATIA ☎ 22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I m from the periphery of West Macedonia(Kozani).The Sun of Vergina is used as flag from the 3 peripheries of Macedonia.Apart from that I see it in all macedonian prefectures and municipalities together with the greek flag and the EU flag. After all that I think it is fair to add it in this page.user talk:makedonas .

File:Kozani's prefecture.jpg

File:Prefecture of kozani.jpg

Makedonas let me know that he took two pictures to prove his previous statements. +MATIA ☎ 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What are these pictures of? Are they pictures of government buildings? It's a shame that the flag in question is not more clearly visible. Jkelly 18:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

They are in front of the Kozani Prefecture, the local administration hierarchy is periphery, prefecture and the municipalities. +MATIA ☎ 18:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

These two photos are from the building of Kozani prefecture(the capital city of the periphery of West Macedonia).The first flag (from left) is the EU flag,the second is the greek and the third is the vergina sun flag.These three flags are used from all macedonians municipalities,prefectures and peripheries.Other questions? user talk:makedonas

History section

I note that Makedon45 added a lengthy history section to the article. I don't see much point in including this - it's partly drawn from and partly a POV fork of the history that's already at Macedonia (region). I've added a link from this article to the history section of that article. Rather than create two separate, possibly duplicate and possibly conflicting histories, let's ensure that we have a reasonably good history that we can link to from the other Macedonia-related articles. There may be a need for a post-1912 history focusing solely on Greek Macedonia, but there's surely no need to fork or duplicate the pre-1912 history that we already have. -- ChrisO 00:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, again. An anonymous user and User:Makedonas added many paragraphs, User:Makedon45 repeatedly removed them. User:Makedon45 added the slavic names, the "hellenization", the Simovski guy and the claim that there were MacSlavs (and not MacGreeks or whatever else) in 1912. And I added the tag needed for those fringe views (they are not even minority view). +MATIA ☎ 00:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Name-changes (By who and from what?)

• before and after
  • "On the Slavic side" to "Yugoslav side"
  • "replacing Greek and Turkish place and surnames occurred." to "replacing non-Slavic (mostly Turkish) place names occurred."

+MATIA ☎ 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I need explaining-to again. Wouldn't the Slavic side be Yugoslavia at that point in time? Can we find examples of Greek names being replaced? For that matter, can we find examples of any names being replaced so we can actually WP:CITE this name-changing stuff? Jkelly 22:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Slavic names were attached to some settlements in southern Bulgaria too, not only Yugoslavia. In our case, I think they were mostly Turkish, but there were also a number of Greek ones (Stanimaka is the old Greek name for Asenovgrad and Gotse Delchev was once known as Nevrokop — Νευροκόπι, for example). → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 17:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Todor, There's a Nevrokopi in Northern Greece, but I don't know anything about that place :) +MATIA ☎ 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well many places in Northern Greece and especialy near the borders have two names.The old one is salvic or turkish.example:Florina-Lerin(slavic),Amyntaio-Sorovec(slavic),Ptolemaida-Kailari(turkish=mud),Edessa-Voden(slavic=from water).From the other,the slavic side,we have the same.The old name is greek or turkish.example:in FYROM Bitola-Monastiri(greek),in Bulgaria Blagoevgrad-Dzumagia,Melnik-Melanikos(greek=black house),Ajtos-Aetos(greek=eagle),Nesebur-Mesemvria,Sozopol-Sozopolis,Burgas-Pyrgos(greek=tower). Sometimes the new name is the translate of the old one:ex:Obitel in bulgarian is the monastery-Bitola.The old name of Ammochori(village in Florina which means sandvillage) was Pesochnitsa(pjasuk in bulgarian=sand),Achlada(village in Florina which means pear) was Krushoradi(krusha in bulgarian=pear) etc. Sometimes we have the same name from the two sides.I think that the population in the towns unter the turkish occupation was mixed.After the Balkan wars greeks from the north moved south and Bulgarians from south moved north.So we have in Bulgaria the town Petrich and in Greece some km southern Neo Petritsio,in Bugaria Gotse Delchev or(Goren Nevrokop=Up Nevrokop) and in Greece Kato Nevrokopi=Unter Nevrokop etc.and many many others.user talk:makedonas

"There's no reference..." Let me remind that even himself (Makedon45) said that Bitola was named Monastir. But Monastir is the greek Monastiri, the turkish name was Manastir... His edits make this article pro-RoM and inaccurate. (I still can't believe that we site Simovski here, his fringe theory can't even fit in Demographics of Macedonia, and here certainly has no place) +MATIA ☎ 22:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

MATIA, do you actually refuse here to be mentioned some sources that don't fit you well? Regards, Bomac 22:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the talk page, think about these and then judge, Bomac. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 23:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Slavic Macedonians

This is an article on the Greek region of Macedonia. Accordingly, it is offensive to the majority of Greeks when the subject Slavic ethnic group is referred to as simply "Macedonians". A qualifier is needed, and using "Slavic Macedonians" or "Macedonian Slavs" is the least Wikipedia could do in order to remain at the very least neutral.

Again, this is an article about a modern region of GREECE...Wikipedia should not have any part in provoking Greeks when they want to read about their own country.

If you are writing an article about the country that the United Nations calls FYROM, by all means, refer to their ethnic majority as "Macedonians". Please, however, be sensitive to the Greek POV.

I will continue to edit any reference to ethnic “Macedonians” to “Slavic Macedonians”. Stop offending Greeks! --PrudenceBumpkin 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I stumbled upon this. Prudence Bumpkin has a point there, but I think that they should go and have a look at WP:NPOV just to make sure that their edits are conforming to the neutral point of view. Whilst it is important not to be offensive to others, it is also important not to be offensive to the minority either - and most importantly we must be accurate. If there is some way that accomodates both groups, then that is the preferable way to go about things. Even if they are a minority, they should not be offended either. I think that this is the best way to go about things. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above said. I must remind everybody that Wikipedia:Naming conflict applies here, as well - that means that we should use the ethnic group's self-identifying term "Macedonians". That policy applies to every Wikipedia article, including articles related to Greece (these are not Greek articles, in the sense that Greeks do not own them somehow). --FlavrSavr 16:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Since they are many uses of the term "Macedonian", when need a disambiguation between them. The most accurate term for the ethnic group in question, IMHO, is ethnic Macedonians, which is used by the Greek Helsinki Watch, as well. There are many Macedonians, but only this ethnic group uses it as an ethnic identifier. --FlavrSavr 16:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

However, within Greece, this ethnic group is labeled "Slavs", and within Greece it is almost unthinkable (with the notable exception of the Greek Helsinki Watch) to refer to this ethnic group as "ethnic Macedonians". The ethnic majority of the Greek province of Macedonia is Greek, and they also have a strong regional Macedonian identity, and moreover, they feel they are the only true Macedonians. Some sources, such as Ethnologue, take this Greek sensitivity into consideration when referring to ethnic Macedonians living in Greece, so they seem to avoid "ethnic", and replace it with "Slav" or "Slavic", although, technically - "Slavic Macedonian" could also mean a Bulgarian living in Macedonia (Greece). Should we follow their example? Maybe - that would spare us from intense future edit wars. Is it just, or is it accurate? As a ethnic Macedonian myself, I feel to much involved and biased to answer that question. I'll leave it to neutral editors to decide on this controversial issue. Regards to all, I hope I haven't offended anyone. --FlavrSavr 16:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion - I propose that both terms be indoctrined. Say what they call themselves AND what Greeks call them. Whilst this may make the article slightly longer, it could be done with some kind of a disclaimer once at the top. In this case, I believe that it would be most appropriate to default to what the majority view is, which is what the Greeks view them, i.e. Slavic Macedonians. The disclaimer could say, for example "The country of Greeks refer to these people as Slavic Macedonians, while they call themselves Macedonians. This encyclopaedic article will use the term Slavic Macedonians, as that is the terminology used by the majority". Alternately, we could use both names in every spot in the article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Some of the links pertain to Macedonia (region), or in Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia. These should be removed from here. Andreas 18:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)