Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:31, 10 August 2005

Macedonia (region)/Archive 1 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Article lock

I noticed an edit war going on here. Can we discuss having this article locked like Macedonian Slavs? Why do Greek people object to the historic Slav name Solun? Vladko

History of Macedonia

2.4 Independence of the Republic of Macedonia

2.5 Controversy: Republic of Macedonia and Greece

2.6 Controversy: Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria

2.7 Macedonia and the Yugoslav Wars

This history, is history of FYROM! Not history of article "Macedonia"

Vergina 20:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Get a psychiatrist, Philareth

Get a psychatrist, Philareth, you are in a desperate need of one. Did you actually have foam on your mouth when you wrote that crap above? Because you behave as if you have rabies. And learn my name, it is not VMRO but VMORO. I'll go to the marshes when you pack your bags and go to Asia Minor. I am sure the Turks will organize you a gracious welcome for you, haha... VMORO

Yeah, and something else - if that (meaning the Sad lot piece of prose) is a manifestation of Greek intellect, then Greece is in deep shit. Enjoy. VMORO

Your calling me names will not deter me from continuing to oppose your VMRO propaganda until it is completely removed from this Macedonia article. You may be a paid agent of the VMRO or of FYROM or I don't care who, but I don't need compensation other than the truth. I have no agenda to occupy or expand (like you and your buddies trying to invade Greece all the way to Thessaloniki). I just will not allow you to spread your filth here. Philaleth 12:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CAN WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!?!?!?! MACEDONIA IS AFRICA! FOREVER!

I am a Macedonian, and i think writing this "get a psychiatrist" text is very pointless and does not represent Macedonian Opinion (its completly individual opinion)

Macedonians at the Olympics

Vergina has contributed the following text but putting it at the end of the article is clearly inappropriate, so I've moved it here for discussion. The content appears to have been lifted from http://www.helleniccomserve.com/olympicmacedonians.htm (so it may also be a copyvio); perhaps it would be more appropriate to link out to that web page. I feel that it may be an unnecessary level of detail to go into in what is supposed to be an overview article. -- ChrisO 16:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Macedonians, who participated in the Olympics at Olympia, were as follows:

1.King Alexander I, in the 80th Olympics, in 460 BCE. He run the “Stadion” and was placed very close second.

2.King Arhelaos Perdikas, competed in the 93rd Olympics, in 408 BCE and won at Delphi the race of the four-horse chariot.

3.King Philip II was an Olympic champion three times. In the 106th Olympics, in 356 BCE, he won the race, riding his horse. In the 107th Olympics, in 352 BCE, he won the four-horse chariot race. In the 108th Olympics, in 348 BCE, he was the winner of the two colt chariot.

4.Cliton run the Stadion in the 113rd Olympics, in 328 BCE.

5.Damasias from Amphipolis won in the Stadion in the 115th Olympics, in 320 BCE.

6.Lampos from Philippi, was proclaimed a winner in the four-horse chariot race in the 119th Olympics, in 304 BCE.

7.Antigonos won in the Stadion race, in the 122nd Olympics, in 292 BCE and in the 123rd Olympics in 288 BCE.

8.Seleucos won in the field-sports competition in the 128th Olympics in 268 BCE.

9.During the 128th Olympics, in 268 BCE and in the 129th Olympics, in 264 BCE, a woman from Macedonia won the competition. Pausanias mentions that: “…it is said that the race of the two-colt chariot was won by a woman, named Velestihi from the seashores of Macedonia”.

Forever the Macedonians will be named Greek, Bulgrarian or Serbian.. and so the land.. Open your eyes, there are 2 million people who believe that they are Macedonians despite the propaganda from 3 countries.

Relocation

As a matter of fact, the relocation of some of the article suggested by User:Vergina is not such a bad idea. Those parts relocated by Vergina actually fir much better the article on FYROM than that of Macedonia

Not exactly, a main country page must not have tens of paragraphs of history. Most of it would fit on History of the Republic of Macedonia but it needs to be integrated, not just evacuated in order to censor, which is what Vergina did.

And in any case, fact remains that this part of Macedonia is what determined the history of the region in the last fifteen (or fifty) years and it definitely needs some amount of mention on the main region page. --Joy 18:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't care where it is. It just seemed as a good idea - at least yesterday VMORO. (I seem to have forgotten to sign yesterday)

On the contrary I care, and I would object moving the part relating to ancient Macedonians participating in the Olympics (if I've understood correctly and that's what we're talking about) in History of the Republic of Macedonia, which starts in the 20th century. Prior to that, there's the history of Macedonian Slavs, but moving this to such an article would directly associate the ancient Macedonians with the Macedonian Slavs. Etz Haim 16:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Etz.Haim, you don't know what you're talking about. The whole question regards the history of FYROM after 1945 AD and as far as I can remember there were no ancient Olympics after that date but if you insist...VMORO

You have to have on mind my friend: I have a grandfather who is born in the 1920s. That is quite before the 1945th. And he feels all MACEDONIAN. Actually, if you were here with us now, he would cut your lying tongue off (his words, not mine) I sterbinski 13:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, thanks for being so kind to point this out to me. It's always nice to have such a gifted person around, whose memories span centuries and that's so willing to assist. Etz Haim 00:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is it that ChrisO moved so swiftly to remove from the article evidence of Macedonians having participated in the Olympics, rather than move it to a more appropriate place in the article? And why did he not at the same time remove the claims to the contrary? Because it would not support the revisionist POV and that would not be convenient to the VMRO and FYROM propaganda machine. Gentlemen. That is not NPOV. One of two things will happen here: Either

1. We will all work together to tell people that there are multiple points of view on the history of Macedonia and present ALL of the facts for the reader to make up their own mind - or
2. This article must be removed from here. I repeat myself and take this seriously: I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO BECOME A PROPAGANDA ARTICLE FOR FYROM AND VMRO.

I recommend that the VMRO agent and ChrisO and everyone else cease and desist from wholesale removals of mine or others' contributions which oppose the VMRO/FYROM propaganda POV and start to collaborate or this will become a permanent war of removals and reversions. I will take this to the full extent of the procedures available within Misplaced Pages and beyond if necessary. Philaleth 12:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Macedonia around 450 before Christ

Macedonia=Macedonia in Greece+ Bitola (FYROM)

FYROMs citys ,Ohrid,Prilep,Strumica,Kicevo, Tito Veles,Stip,Gostivar,Tetovo,Skopje,Kumanovo are not Macedonia! The borders of Macedonia are to see clear.

See Map:http://www.freeeliterature.com/AtripThroughTime/Files%20and%20Maps/athenian_empire_450.jpg

Vergina 16:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

not NPOV

This article clearly cannot be considered to be NPOV. There are too many facts ommitted and too much spin and propaganda such that it constitutes a revision of the history of the region as of the rule of Tito in Yugoslavia. His attempt to occupy Greek territories by creating a Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and by manufacturing a "Macedonian" language out of Bulgarian was intitially supported by the Soviet Union and is well documented. Many of the claims made in this article to appear as "history" stem from those revisions. This article will have to remain marked as non-NPOV until such time as it presents facts and not propaganda. In the least, it will have to present two points of view: The FYROM propaganda and the Greek and Bulgarian positions that FYROM has co-opted historical and cultural figures and adopted the revisionist history that was produced by Tito's "scholars." Until this article meets NPOV standards I will insist that it remains marked as NPOV and I will recommend to VMORO to refrain from removing the mark.

Philaleth, what you say is true but it has been included in the article - you can clearly see it in the "Controversy" sections and in "Macedonia after 1945" (and in fact I have contributed to writing some of the things). However, you don't seem to understand that the language and the style that you want to use DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA SET BEFORE ANY INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Yours VMORO (not VMRO)

Philaleth 22:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear VMRO (pun intended),

According to various tests my IQ is in the genius range. However I fail to understand your CAPITALIZED sentence. Independent sources of information don't set criteria for language and style. They provide information. Period. Now let's assume that you meant that the language I propose cannot be supported by any independent source of information: For your statement to have any merit, we would have to establish a clear definition of "independent source of information" and when it comes to history there is no such thing. So whereas your statement would be true, it would also be a truism, and therefore pointless (other than as a personal attack on me by you).

The search for the truth is no simple endeavour. It requires a complex process of painstakinigly accumulating information and "grading" the information according to the source, the period, the intended audience and a million other contextual parameters. Then it's necessary to establish if any of the information can be cross-checked and verified by all sources, if any of it can be shown irrefutably to be fallacious and the remainder of it has to be presented carefully, with proper context and its weight of probability of veracity. When I characterize the contents of this article as "swill" it is because I can prove, logically and verifiably, that it is. There is no way that you can possibly present some point of view (that did not exist until Tito was ordered by the USSR to expand to the Mediterranean and they agreed that the best way to lay the foundation for that is to manufacture a history, a language, a peoples and a culture that would allow for them to proceed with claims to Thessaloniki) and not present the opposite, which is documented as of 3,000 years ago by multiple, verifiable sources (whose context at the time is perfectly known and therefore appropriate weighing can be applied.) Case in point: The article contained some claims that Macedonians were not included in the Olympics. This claim cannot be shown to have existed before 600AD. I doubt it can be verifiably shown to have existed pre-Tito and the invention of Yugoslav Macedonia. However it is prominently displayed in Misplaced Pages as a fact. On the other hand, attempts to include information that undermines that claim, by ancient sources, verifiable (some in the original to this date!) have been maniacly opposed by you and a couple of others. It is blatantly clear that Misplaced Pages is a bunch of swill at the mercy of demagogues and charlatans and I just don't have the time or the inclination to clean up this clusterfuck. Have at it. In the end, by its nature, the whole thing is going to unravel into some sort of prolonged internal war between the incompatible agglomeration of tribes that are pretending to be "Macedonians" - so who gives a sh... (BTW VMORO was first established in 1893 under the name of Bulgarian Macedono-Odrin Revolutionary Committee and later renamed VMORO and then to VMRO (aka IMRO). Update your alias and stop hiding behind your finger.)

Dear Philareth,

you have been very sweet today. I liked especially the remark about the Bulgarian Macedono-Odrinski Revolutionary Committee after which I have actually named my profile. You can find more about the history of the name of IMRO (VMRO) at IMRO - as a result of the last edit I made a couple of days ago.

As for the rest: I cannot figure out yet as to why you insist on the version that the ancient Macedonians originally were Greek. This is a position, which is almost impossible to defend as all evidence points that they were probably of Thracian/Illyrian stock and were gradually Hellenized with time. But pretty much everyone here agrees that by the 4th cent. BC the ancient Macedonians were completely Hellenized (=they had become Greeks). So what's the problem really??? If you drop your over-nationalistic claims (which are not supported by anyone outside Greece), we can actually have quite a nice co-operation and continue the struggle against the FYROMian thieves of history together (which can actually make things a lot easier). Your VMORO

Discussion and Blocking

I increasingly start to think that the only way this article has any future is if it is put for discussion and possibly blocked for further editing. I appeal to all sane people who have contributed to writing it to take joint measures in that direction. ~~VMORO

The region took its name from the inhabitants, the Macedonians or Makednoi

I,56. By these lines when they came to him Croesus was pleased more than by all the rest, for he supposed that a mule would never be ruler of the Medes instead of a man, and accordingly that he himself and his heirs would never cease from their rule. Then after this he gave thought to inquire which people of the Hellenes he should esteem the most powerful and gain over to himself as friends. And inquiring he found that the Lacedemonians and the Athenians had the pre-eminence, the first of the Dorian and the others of the Ionian race. For these were the most eminent races in ancient time, the second being a Pelasgian and the first a Hellenic race: and the one never migrated from its place in any direction, while the other was very exceedingly given to wanderings; for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Pthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called Dorian. See Herodot I,56 http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_herodotus_1.htm

Vergina 12:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mythology is not worth much in the field of facts, Vergina VMORO

Demographics

Kapnisma - Who wrote The question of whether the ancient Macedonians were in fact Greek is controversial, as the ancient Greeks themselves explicitly regarded the Macedonians as non-Greek barbarians ? What are you talking about?Are you serious?The only one who said Macedonians were barbarians was Demosthenes on his speeches Philippic Orations against Philip.Isocrates,Polybius,Strabo,Arrian,Pausanias,Plutarch wrote quotes in which the say that Macedonians were greeks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Do you want me to write down what they have said?

Kapnisma Sources

Herodotus (V 22)

Herodotus I, 56

Herodotus VIII-43

Herodotus VIII,136-138

Polyvios (VII 11,4, V 103,9, XVIII, XXXiV 7,13 , VII 9,1 IX 37,7) :

Plutarchos(Flam. XI)

Isocrates. Philip. 154

Article starting to get bigger, especially the history section

Hi. I've done some formatting of the history section. Mostly adding sections to make it easier to follow chronologically, and also added some info (included sources as comments in the text). I'm not completely sure if any of it is disputed, if it is, please do add opposing beliefs in order to keep it NPOV, but please don't remove anything preferably as I have included sources. At some point I suspect the article may start to get >32Kb, so when that happens, I'll split the history section off into a "history of Macedonia" article. Regards, --Rebroad 23:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes...don't forget to leave a history summary behind. This article is lacking a geography section, for anyone interested--Jiang 01:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I must stress at this point, that the majority of the sources I have used have been Greek. I am aware that Greek's and ROM disagree on which side is speaking propaganda (at least it looks that way from what I have read so far). I will be back in a few days to include info from ROM sources. In case you are interested, I will be making select choices from these web sites:

• Misc
• Biased against Greece:
  • (Macedonians wanting to be independant)
  • (In what language is this writing on the stone?)
  • (Some once published territorial plans?)
• Seems fairly neutrally written (but different conclusions reached):
  • ]http://www.macedonian-empire.cjb.net/] (Saying Macedonia was not Greek)
  • (UN agreement between Greece and "FYROM")
  • (Saying Macedonia was Greek)
• Pro-Greek:
  • ]

Hope this gives you an idea of some proposed things to come. I will try to keep it as NPOV as possible! Regards, --Rebroad 10:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The language of Macedon

The article in its current state includes a distorting POV, overemphasizing in the linguistic differences between the Macedonians and some of the other Greeks. The ancient Macedonians spoke Doric Greek, the same dialect the Spartans used to speak. That was somewhat different from the Attic Greek language of Athens, but still Greek and still intelligible by the rest of the Greeks. Furthermore, in the statement:

"The Hellenistic character of Macedon grew over the next century until, under the rule of Philip II of Macedon, Macedon extended its power in the 4th century BC over the rest of northern Greece."

the word Hellenistic is an anachronism, misplaced in time and space. Etz Haim 08:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, linguists agry that what is left to us from ancient quotations about macedonian language(about 700 words) is greek, not to mention personal names, names of gods,etc.So, I think that the phrase King Alexander I of Macedon (died 450 BC) was the first Macedonian king to play a significant role in Greek politics, promoting the adoption of the Greek language and culture., should be changed into King Alexander I of Macedon (died 450 BC) was the first Macedonian king to play a significant role in Greek politics, while others -especially king Archelaos (died 399 BC), founder of Pella- promoted the adoption of the Attic dialect and culture.Kapnisma 10:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Nonsense etymology?

"According to ancient Greek mythology, Makedon was the name of the tribeleader of the Makedones, that was the part of the protohellenic tribe of Makednoi that spread throughout the area of Western, Southern and Central Macedonia. The name Makedon comes from the name Makednos which derives from the Greek word Makos (that is the word Mikos in the doric dialect) meaning length. The Makedones (or Macedonians) were regarded as tall people, and that's why they acquired that name." This is not up to Misplaced Pages standards. --Wetman 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The etymological analysis is fine (maybe the phrasing quality is lacking). Makedon (Gr. Μακεδον), Makedonia (Gr. Μακεδονια) derives from makos or makeos (Gr. Μακος or Mακιος) which is the Doric type of mikos or mekos (Gr. Μηκος), meaning length. Makedanos or Makednos, in Doric, is the adjective meaning of " the long"," the tall "; hence the characterization of the ancient 'Makedons - Makedonians' as the tall people or the highlanders (see: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Macedonia). Actually, the word 'people' should not be part of the translation. Later Romans -although retaining the letter 'k' in the Latin alphabet- transcribed the Greek letter "K" (kappa-καππα) as "C", hence the modern spelling of the words 'Macedon' , 'Macedonia', 'Macedonian' etc.

It's quite surprising and alarming that you tag as "nonsense", such a widely (and easily) certifiable/verifiable case, from any random text book-etymologicon. Ninio 05:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read this

My intention is not to bring back the old debate whether Macedonias where Greeks or not, but to clear up things, as I can. As anyone can see from the article Macedonians, it's talk page and history sources above all, two are the main views. The one regards them as isolated Greeks, speaking a doric dialect and the other one as a mixed tribe of Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians, speaking a form of Greek. Those views are being debated from the 19th century when the German historian Droysen first called the period from Alexander till the rise of Rome, Hellenistic. There is also an other view, that Macedonians where a separate from Greeks tribe, speaking a separate Macedonian (sic) language, which is supported by FYROM historians. This view was created during and after WW II when Tito created the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in the territoty of Yugoslavia for the well known reasons. (to detract Macedonian-Slavs from the Bulgarian influence and to claim Greek and Bulgarian areas. Which one approaches historical truth better has been very well discussed and there is no need to repeate again and again.

Consequently, when the editors are reffering to Macedonian-Slavs as Macedonians and to their state as Macedonia this is not only wrong from historical aspect, but also dangerous. Dangerous, because it seems like you are acclaiming terittorial claims against Greece and that you are falscificating history of Greece. No one denies the right of the Macedonian-Slavs to call themselves and their state as they wish, but they must respect others history and culture.

So, it's wrong to call this state Republic of Macedonia instead of former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia the same time that ALL international organisations are accepting it and negotiations in UN continue.

It's wrong and dangerous to call Macedonian-Slavs, Macedonians.If you do so, then the inhabitans of Macedonia (in Greece, like me) how are they going to call themselves? And if tommorow an other state decides to be called Attica, does this mean the Greeks in Attica will lost their right to be called Athenaeans?

It's wrong, offensive and aggravating to call Greek part of Macedonia Aegean Macedonia because it seems like modern Greeks are not the heirs of its history and culture.

It's wrong in this article to exist a paragrath entitled Republic of Macedonia and the Yugoslav Wars, this is history of FYROM only, not of the whole Macedonia region.If this continues it means you are accepting what I mentioned above. I will not move it right now because I want to hear other opinions first. Kapnisma 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except with one thing: It is as wrong to call these people "Macedonian Slavs", as it is to call them "Macedonians". I (as well as some 800,000 people in Bulgaria) am also technically a "Macedonian Slav". I am a Slav from Macedonia but this does not mean in the slightest degree that I have anything to do with their abominable ideology and their stolen history. It is extremely offensive to me, as well as to the other 800,000 Bulgarians of Macedonian descent to call the FYROMians "Macedonian Slavs". VMORO

I totally agree that the so called Macedonians (the inhabitants of FYROM) have nothing in common with the macedonians of Alexander the Great (who are undoubtedly a greek tribe) so it is not correct to make any comparison between modern greeks and modern macedonians. All facts and documentary point out that macedonian slavs (modern macedonians = slavs + albanians)are bulgarian descendants. Modern Macedonian nation is artifitially created by the former legendary leader of Yugoslavia - Tito. By giving the Slavs in the geografical region of Macedonia their own national identity he strived to deprive them from their real origin - Bulgaria.

The easy part: I acknowledge myself that the section titled "Republic of Macedonia and the Yugoslav Wars" is more relevant to the History of the Republic of Macedonia, an article that seems somehow neglected, perhaps in favor of this one. It should be moved.

The hard part: As I've said before, a nation, in its modern sense and viewed through the nation-state perspective, is more of a social construct than a legacy of the values it claims to represent. Many Greeks, unaware of this, view Greek history as a straight line spanning 3000 years, and think that the Greek nation and the Greek national identity have been unaltered through millenia. These common misconceptions, although from an alternative point of view, trouble the minds of the people of the Republic of Macedonia too.

When it comes to the "Hellenic identity", it was certainly something very vague during the era of the Greek city-states. Common language and common religion were there, but these weren't enough, as the social construct hadn't been established. The Persian wars were probably the first occurence of a Hellenic national identity, comparable to that of a modern nation, as the Greeks were united against someone perceived to be a common enemy by the majority. This larval national concept matured later with Philip's and Alexander's campaigns and pan-Hellenic advocacy, who were the ones to "hellenize" the Greek city-states, and not vice versa. Etz Haim 17:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I have said above I decided to move this section, because it presents the history not of the whole Macedonia region, but only FYROM history.

Kapnisma 00:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stuff deleted with no reason given?

Please could someone provide an explanation why some content was removed? Thanks, --Rebroad 11:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. What FYROM theorists are reported to believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Macedonia&diff=8739877&oldid=8739493 - I've put this back (the source is mentioned). Although what is claimed may not be fact, it is the fact that it is claimed that is important to the article, isn't it?
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Macedonia&diff=8783064&oldid=8748464 - All these changes have really confused me! I can't tell what is where any more! :-S
3. Treaties: of Neuilly, of Trianon, of Sevres. Were these not useful additions to the article?

VMORO changes

When I first saw all the changes I was a little taken aback as it looked like a lot of stuff had been reverted, but after reading through a lot of it, most of my contributions seem to still be there but rephrased in places, so thanks to VMORO for your efforts there. I did kinda prefer the maps I'd uploaded showing the before and after 1913 maps, but certainly the now current map has some extra info. My only gripe would be the heading changes - I think it helps to have the dates in the titles, making it easier for people to see where to insert any additional information. A minor point though, I'm sure. --Rebroad 12:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The reason why I removed most of the stuff regarding the opinion of FYROM historians:

1. It is not supported internationally, all evidence is against their "theories". But the more important reason is that: 2. You had constructed the text as a dialogue in which you first gave the opinion of FYROM and then the official Greek position proving that the FYROM position was wrong. It is certainly not to the benefit of the readers if the article is written from the viewpoint of the controversy of FYROM and Greece. And why write something and then deny it right away in the first place???

• The timelines you give are not especially exact. The first one is ok but it is really difficlut for me to connect the division of Macedonia which basically happened in 1913 with a period of almost 60 years. And with the numbers we get two "holes" - between 146BC and 395AD and from the 15th to the 19th century.
• Why are the three treaties mentioned in the article when none of them really concerns Macedonia??? Macedonia was divided effectively in 1913, the changes after WWI were all but cosmetic... The previous information about the population movements in the 1920 was quite useful - however, if you manage to isolate only the data which regards Macedonia. VMORO

Actually, the first division of Macedonia was made with the Berlin Treaty of 1878! Vladko

VMORO, you have acknowledged that these theories exist. Although most evidence may be against them, my worry is that many people will have heard of them, and will wonder why there is no mention of them in the article. If there is evidence (or lack of evidence) either way - I think the opportunity to mention this evidence (or lack of) should certainly be mentioned in the article - otherwise the article is in no way complete. We should be reporting fact. It is a fact that these theories exist, so their existence should be mentioned, shouldn't it? --Rebroad 20:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"rvt Greek vandalist act"

This is VMORO's edit summary as he reverts an anonymous edit. See here how much of a vandal anon was. Etz Haim 14:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Treaties

I have given the reasons, may be you haven't read them. The treaties have no reference whatsoever to Macedonia as the only territorial change was the transfer of the town of Strumitza from Bulgaria to Yugoslavia. Eastern Macedonia had been given to Greece as early as 1913. VMORO

As far as I know there was no pre-war agreement between Bulgaria and Greece on teritorial claims. The reason is that Greece was considered to have second class army and the Bulgarian generals believed that the Greek army could not advance fast. Thus the pre war agreement between Greece and the other Christian States of the Balkans was that everyone "holds what he gets". Newcomer 22:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but there was a pre-war treaty between Serbia and Bulgaria which the Serbs broke. VMORO15:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then it should be written in the article the whole truth.Newcomer 22:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have the time to do that yesterday:-) VMORO 09:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Generally we agree on the way the things happened during the second Balkan war. I do not understand why you are deleting certain frases which are totally true. Although you try to be objective you also try to avoid the reference of certain things which might "spoil the Bulgarian image", like the advance of the Greek army inside Bulgarian territory or the fact that Eastern Macedonia was a present from nazi Germany to Bulgaria for its participation in the axis alliance. Sometimes you also delete things which are not against Bulgaria and are totaly true like the attack of the Turkish army against the Bulgarian forces during the second Balkan war. If you do that in order to save some kilobytes then maybe we could create a new link. I edit a few things and wait for your answer.Newcomer 22:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph about the "Serbian and Greek troops" duplicates something that has been already stated. The Turkish advance in Thrace doesn't really have anything to do with the article as it was not decisive for the course of the war as, for example, the Romanian was. But if you insist so much on it, you can add it.

The "present": eastern Macedonia was handed over by the Germans to Bulgaria for "administration" not as a "present". Plus this kind of phrases are not advisable in encyclopedia articles - it sounds so tabloid-like that it hurts.

Where have I tried to save the "Bulgarian image"?:-)) The Greek army was stopped in the Kresna gorge - well, after it burned all Bulgarian villages from Kukush to Kresna... VMORO 23:20, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Turkish advance was really important on the military field and its reference shows that Bulgaria was fighting against one more enemy, so it had to divide its forces sending less troops at the Macedonian fronts. This is the only reason for my insistence.

As for the Bulgarian image I was refering to the alliance with nazi Germany.

You are right the Greek army stopped at the Cresna gorge and was very close to destruction due to false military decisions And the Serbo-Bulgarian ceasefire. I believe you that the Greek army commited attrocities when entered the Bulgarian territory. In Greek history books you will read that these atrocities were commited because the soldiers were angry by the attrocities commited by the retreating Bulgarian army specially at the city of Drama. There was a lot of hate between Balkan nations at the beginning of the century. Every nation believed that it was the "chosen" to dominate the others. In our history books we read that the Bulgarians considered themselves as the "Prussians of the balkans" and believed that they should dominate all neighbours.

If you think that such mentions should not be incorporated in a[REDACTED] article then maybe there could be a reference that during these wars the result of the nationalisms and the commitment of attrocities against civilians by all created a lot of hate between nations. Something like that. Newcomer 23:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the remark about the Ottoman advance then. But I'll have to correct you on the atrocities - the Greeks set fire to Kukush first and it was because it was an absolutely pure Exarchist town without any patriarchists. The burning of Serres came afterwards. And I think you are confusing the burning of Drama either with WWII or with the burning of Serres, Drama was not burned, there was, however, a massacre at Doxaton. And I don't need to tell you what is said in the Bulgarian textbooks about the Greeks. VMORO 23:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hello VMORO it's me again. I deleted the term Bulgarian on the town of Kilkis. It was never a Bulgarian town. It was Ottoman and now it is Greek. I could accept your claim of tottaly pro exarchic town if you can provide some contemporary Ottoman figures on the various nations in the area/town. I would be really interested to hear what the Bulgarian books say about the Greeks. I assure you we do NOT feel superior race.

As for the "superiority feeling" that you have, look again at your writings. At the second Balkan war Bulgaria was defeated. It choose to fight against it's 2 former allies and it was later attacked by 2 more neighbours. This is agoog excuse for defeat for any nation. You are not satisfied with this. You feel that you must present it as a victory. So you mention only the possibility of a Greek defeat the last 2 days of the war, trying to avoid the fact that the Bulgarian army was in full retreat in all fronts and only the last 2 days managed to achieve a defensive victory against the advancing Greek army. The Serbian army chose to stop its operations when achieved ALL its goals and only then the Bulgarian army took a breath. You continually delete this fact although it is the major reason (along with the military stupid decisions of the Greek King) of the Bulgarian defensive victory.

I also think that there should be a link to an article that talks generally about the nationalisms at the begining of the century. Newcomer 18:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation text

At 14:17, 30 Apr 2005 I (Ninio) said : For other uses is enough. No need to mention every other alternative in the opening section. That's why the disambiguation tag and page is for.

At 14:43, 30 Apr 2005 Jonathunder said :great many readers are looking for the country here. primary disambig of that does the reader the courtesy of not having to go thru two DAB.

The equal amount of users may looking for the historical region of Macedonia (Macedon) and the Greek region of Macedonia, since the majority of the western world at least, ever heard about before the 1990s, were these "regions-definitions". By using the Republic of Macedonia wiki, in the opening section, is like granting some form of exclusivity of the whole geographical region to the republic. This may lead the lay user to believe that the country is somewhat synonymous to the whole region.

There is nothing wrong with the Republic and its name, commonly used, of course but we all know how delicate this matter is. Besides, the greater part of the geographic Macedonian region is Greek, why not mention For the Greek Macedonian region see wiki X  ?

I think it's wise to avoid this "trap", and just use the disambiguation page for the purpose of which it was created. It's fair and exact for all "parties" involved. -- Ninio 04:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The Republic of Macedonia is refered to as Macedonia often enough that readers not familiar with the country will be looking for it under the name. Now you and I understand that is confusing, but many readers will not, and we want to educate them, As it stands now, the means of educating them that the region is NOT the country is buried well into the second paragraph. Having a primary DAB alerts them right off. I am not trying to push a POV; I just want the page clearly disambiguated. Lumping a country in a disambig page (in the middle of that page, BTW) is NOT the best solution for the casual reader. Jonathunder 04:55, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

But *every* country in this modern geographical region is "buried" (even though I disagree with this characterisation) in the second paragraph. That's the whole point. Not to unwillingly, deliberately or spuriously grant any form of exclusivity of the wider region --in its modern sense, since there is also the (avant) classical sense, but that's another issue -- to any country. By using the name Macedonia in a country's name, does not (and should not IMHO) imply any form of exclusivity to this region, *especially* when we are aware of the "taxonomy" of the land and more importantly of the past and current concerns of all parties involved. The lay user is clearly presented with the disambiguation facts of the article, the uses of the name Macedonia and can read accordingly. BTW users do not need to go through two DABs but only one (?) -- Ninio 05:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not a pissing contest; it's an aid for our users. In this case, as the country is often called Macedonia, and thus many people will be looking for the country, it makes sense to make it easier for them. --SPUI (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Using the same logic many people are or will be looking for Macedon or other countries of the region as Greece. Why exclude those from the text? In the DAB all forms are included and clearly presented in a "fair" manner. -- Ninio 06:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It would be very common for English-speakers to look up the Republic of Macedonia by "Macedonia." The very first item in the America disambiguation page is the United States--not because that's synonymous with America but because it's often called that and lots of people will look for it there. Demi /_C 06:10, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. This is not the disambiguation page; it's the article of the wider (broad) geographical region known in modern times or referred to as Macedonia. This is clearly and easily presented to the user as such, providing also easily accessible aid about the uses of the name, the country, the Greek region, the historical region etc. -- Ninio 06:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• This is known as "primary disambiguation," and it's used when such a usage is very common. Let's not play tricks on people trying to find Macedonia. A decent alternative, if many of the uses you refer to are roughly equivalent, would be to make Macedonia a disambiguation page and move this to Macedonia (region). Demi /_C 06:24, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Propaganda FYROMs is not the neutral point of view

All articles over Macedonia do not correspond the neutral point of view!The articles are carriers of a propaganda FYROMs

Vergina 07:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstable: DON'T YOU FYROM ME!!! Call me by my name: Macedonia.

Now, my friendship to you Vergina. You have to understand that noone wants to take a part of the history away from Greece, or the Aegean part of Macedonia. This is 21st century. Aegean Macedonia is now Greek and it will stay forever.

Another thing. I agree, nowdays Macedonians are not exclusive owners of the term Macedonia. That means that we are not the only ancestors of the Antique Macedonians. That is a history that we share, we are both (Greeks and nowdays Macedonians) ancestors of the Antique Macedonians. That is a fact. Search for some genes research and you will see that the nowdays Macedonians have a lot of Mediteranian genes in us, much more than Slavic genes.

We are talking about 2500 years of history. Are you aware how many generations are that? How much mixing happened in this teritory, especially because most of us are Ortodox Cristians?

Relax my friend. I am NOT claiming that I have the exclusivity over the Macedonian name. But, you can not take my Macedonian identity away. That is how I was born, that is how I will die.

Yes, you have a right to a part of the name Macedonia, but same as me, as Macedonian. But NON OF US hase an exclusive right.

I sterbinski 14:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Title changed and locked

From Macedonia to Region of Macedonia.

Macedonia is a geographical and historical region - intro says so

I did this. If anyone objects, please say so. There is no move log, so this is the only way I can find you! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:46, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Macedonian Slavs)
I'm not sure it was an improvement, to be honest - it makes it sound like a disambiguated page when it's not. Consider "region of Epirus", "region of Thrace", "region of New England" etc. I don't think adding "region of" really adds anything. It's a region by definition; calling it "region of" seems rather like a tautology. -- ChrisO 22:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Region of Macedonia?

How can someone just prance in and move the article like that? We just had a 2-week poll on whether to move Macedonian Slavs, and that failed.--Theathenae 22:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And what are the reasons and the arguments for this move? I think it should be reverted. MATIA 23:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree - we need to have more discussion before making this move. I've moved the article back to Macedonia to restore the status quo while we discuss it. Please note that this doesn't mean that I'm forcing this name on anyone, but we should discuss the matter before we rename it again. -- ChrisO 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say about this, I think that it should stay Macedonia as it is - a geographical and historical region. Not sure, though. --FlavrSavr 11:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There you go. If people X and people Y actually agree on something, stick with it.--Theathenae 12:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae, "people like FlavrSavr" are not exclusive representatives of people X. Moreover, there are other interested readers/contributors to this article, so Misplaced Pages does not need any "approval" of people X or Y. --FlavrSavr 18:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the Dutch wikipedia, typing "Macedonia" leads to where it should in my opinion: a disambiguation page from which you can choose what Macedonia you are looking for. It's actually so obvious that I wonder why it isn't like that here. The last edit was August 24, 2004 which added Macedonia as Roman province (as to show that it is not subject to political wars).

I agree to the Dutch idea. I am Macedonian, but I am aware that the historical region of Macedonia has to be shared between several nations living in the area. Can you just imagine how much mixing happened in 2500 years? Especially, when generally all of the nations around are Cristian Ortodox. Every nation around has a part of the Antique Macedonians inside them, especially the Greeks and nowday Macedonians. I sterbinski 14:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Avars

This article mentions the Avars but[REDACTED] has two articles about Avars: Caucasian and Eurasian. To which does this article refer? Jaberwocky6669 21:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Eurasian, surely! -- ChrisO 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely as in: "I would think so" or "Absolutely positively!!!"? Jaberwocky6669 22:15, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Vardarska banovina

• 1) This was a temporary territorial division for a total of 12 years during a period when Vardar Macedonia was practically occupied by Serbia, the name and the borders were given by the Serbian administration.
• 2) The "banovina" included also southern Serbia and southern Kosovo, it was aimed to be a "supranational" territorial unit, so as to curb any nationalistic movements of the Albanians and the Bulgarians/Macedonian Slavs. Considering that Vardarska banovina was twice the size of modern FYROM, how can you claim that FYROM was formerly known this way???
• 3) It is never said in literature that FYROM was known before as VB, it is said only that it was made PART of it.
• 4) Now, the most sensitive part - this is pretty much like me putting brackets behind East Macedonia and Thrace saying that it was "formerly known as Belomorska Makedoniya" because this was the official name of the province between 1941 and 1944 when it was part of Bulgaria. I doubt any of you is gonna be too happy with that.
• 5) I had previously thought that you, Theathanae, and Ninio were moderate enough not to allow such bullshit. We all protect our national interests here (at least all on the Balkans), this is perfectly normal and understandable but an understanding that there are different viepoints and a will not to allow offensive comments is a prerequisite for the normal functioning of articles which have mutually overlapping interests like this one. VMORO July 8, 2005 07:44 (UTC)

Your current edit recognises the reality that "Vardar Macedonia" is redundant now that it is an independent state. But if you're going to include it as an historical name, you should also find room somewhere for Vardarska banovina. As for Belomorska Makedoniya, I have no problem with including it as "the official name of the province between 1941 and 1944 when it was occupied by the fascist Bulgarian régime/Nazi collaborator". Cheers.--Theathenae 8 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

PERSIANS NAMING OF THE GREEKS & THE VARIOUS GREEKS TRIBES

There are several types of Yauna in the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions:

(1) Yaunβ in general: the same as the Greeks known as "Ionians", i.e., those living in Asia Minor. They can already be found in the Behistun Inscription, when the Persian rule had not yet reached Europe. This identification is 100% certain.

(2) Yaunβ takabarβ, the 'Greeks with shield-shaped hats'. First mentioned in DNa ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html ), where they are distinguished from the "normal" Yaunβ: an almost certain reference to the Macedonian sunhats.

(3 and 4) "The Yaunβ, near and across the sea": another division, for the first time found in DSe ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DSe.html ) and in a slightly different form in the Daiva Inscription by Xerxes (XPh: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/XPh.html ). The obvious reading is "the Asian Yauna and the European Yauna", i.e., -again- Asian Greeks and Macedonians.

On the other hand, Persian inscriptions are fairly stereotypical, and the fact that there is a small difference between the precise wording of DSe and XPh suggests that there is a difference. Perhaps, there is a difference between the "Yauna across the sea" and the sunhat-Yaunβ. If this is correct, the Yauna across the sea must be either Cypriot Greeks (but why didn't Darius, who seems to have subdued Cyprus, mention them?) or the Thessalians, Boeotians, and Athenians - nations that Xerxes could claim to have conquered.

(5) There is a seal from the age of Xerxes ( http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/yauna_seal.jpg ) in which the great king defeats someone looking like a Yauna. It is unique, because a second man appears to have a hand in the killing, and this man looks like a Yauna. Is this the Macedonian king Alexander who helps killing a Thessalian/Boeotian/Athenian??

Such instances are extremely rare since only a handful of original Persian texts have survived.There are of references by Darius I in the Behistun Inscription to Sardis (OP Sparda), Ionia (OP Yauna) and Cappadocia (OP Katpatuka). There are also a couple of statements concerning the Greeks and their tribes in the Babylonian tablets.

Neutral Misplaced Pages?

Dear Misplaced Pages administrator

I am writting you about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Misplaced Pages calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Misplaced Pages is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Misplaced Pages most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Misplaced Pages says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Misplaced Pages is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Misplaced Pages.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Misplaced Pages, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Misplaced Pages? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Misplaced Pages says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Misplaced Pages says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Misplaced Pages says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Misplaced Pages ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Misplaced Pages claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Misplaced Pages wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Misplaced Pages are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Misplaced Pages simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Misplaced Pages says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Misplaced Pages claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Misplaced Pages? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Misplaced Pages NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Misplaced Pages takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Misplaced Pages calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Misplaced Pages as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Misplaced Pages) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Misplaced Pages as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Misplaced Pages claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Misplaced Pages claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Misplaced Pages does NOW). Then, Misplaced Pages claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Misplaced Pages says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Misplaced Pages claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Misplaced Pages says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Misplaced Pages completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Misplaced Pages says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Misplaced Pages later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Misplaced Pages even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Misplaced Pages says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN[REDACTED] IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Misplaced Pages is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

protected

I'd be angry too , but with your help we can make the article more neutral. That's how it works. We write an article as best as can, and then someone comes along and says "Wait a minute! From my point of view this article isn't neutral at all!" and helps fix it. Just stay cool! :-) (and don't type IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS, it's considered impolite, feel free to re-add your comment formatted properly)

Ok, the rest of you folks, The page is protected on The Wrong Version (it always is), please discuss, and take it step by step. Apparently there were several glaring inaccuracies. See if you can fix them. Kim Bruning 12:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the caps Kim. I am quite new at Misplaced Pages, that is why I make mistakes like this.

And again thanks for the interest that you show on this issue. I know it is quite complicated and probably you are very bored reading all our claims and ideas, which very often oppose each other. It might be quite confusing for someone who is just starting getting to know this issue (I don't know if you have some previous experience).

I know that there is a lot of work to be done, by I beleive that we might get a text for this and other issues when we will all be OK with.

It will be hard to get to a real NPOV, but I beleive that we are on the right way.

I just wish more Greek and Bulgarian administrators and users can include, but someone realistic, who is prepared to open its mind. And I hope we will have a mature and non-nationalistic discutions.

I sterbinski 01:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's finally SOLVE this issue...

As you can see, there is real "writting war" for the issue of Macedonia which lasts for very long time.

Reason: there are 3 versiones of the history of Macedonia: Greek, Macedonian and Bulgarian. ALL 3 versiones are supported by respected scientists and historians. BUT, THE PROBLEM IS: THESE 3 VERSIONES HAVE SEVERAL ELEMENTS THAT ARE OPPOSING EACH OTHER.

There are 2 general issues: The History of the Antique Macedonia: where Greece and nowdays Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia) oppose each other.

The History of Macedonia after the 6th century, when the Slavs arrived in the region: where Bulgaria and nowdays Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia) oppose each other. Especially the history since the 9th century.

Also there are serious opposings between Bulgaria and Greece about this teritory.

SO, IT IS AN ENDLESS CIRCLE.

That gives us a conclusion: ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION IS TO INCLUDE ALL 3 SIDES OF THE STORY.[REDACTED] SHOULD CLEARLY SAY WHAT GREEK VERSION SAYS, WHAT BULGARIAN VERSION SAYS AND WHAT MACEDONIAN VERSION SAYS. IN THE SAME TIME, THE VERSIONES SHOULD HAVE RANDOMIZE ORDER OF APPEARANCE. NO OF THE 3 VERSIONES CAN BE NATIONALISTIC. AND[REDACTED] SHOULD NEVER FORCE ANY OF THE 3 SIDES!!!

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY HOW[REDACTED] CAN STAY NEUTRAL. And the only way how all 3 sides can be satisfied and noone to feel ignored or offended.

SAME SHOULD HAPPEN TO ALL HISTORY RELATED TOPICS AND PERSONS WHICH ARE OPPOSED BY 2 OR MORE SIDES!!!

I think that there should be a public voting for this. I think that this can solve this SUPER SENSITIVE issue for all 3 sides.

So, I beg some of the administrators from a neutral country to get a lead in this.

And one more thing please. When posting comments on this page, ALWAYS put your nationality. That is how we will know which version you are supporting.

I sterbinski 13:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC), Nationality: Macedonian (Republic of Macedonia)

so, WP:NPOV, in a nutshell? But what is wrong with the present article? it certainly makes more sense to put the events in chronological order than to 'randomize' the account. Also, npov of course means that only views that are backed up with academic sources are represented. Givin equal weight to mainstream views and to random crackpot theories is not npov. dab (ᛏ) 13:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So read through WP:NPOV, present all the issues in chronological order with attributions for who thinks what on the contentious bits, and stop spamming. - Omegatron 13:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you do not understand enought the issue of Macedonia. There is no possible POV in the world which will be Neutral enought. Only if you mention all the sides of the story. And, the text present doesn't. For example, it completely ignores the Macedonian side of the story. Actually, it is even assimilative for the Macedonians (Republic of Macedonia). (Please just read the comments of VMORO, you will see who is actually supporting this version of the page)

If you remove the assimilation elements, probably some Greek or Bulgarian will comment that he does not agree. So, WE HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL.

The elements are in chronological order. But, different nations claim different parts of the history and the persons involved. For example: How will you resolve the issue of the town Ohrid (and related elements) in the end of 10th and beginning of 11th century? Both, Bulgaria and Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia) claim this part of the history and persons related as their own.

Just don't forget. You can find Valid and very well supported Proves for ALL THE SIDES of the story. EVERY side has valid and reasonable points. But, when together they are opposing each other. Picking any will result in not NPOV by Misplaced Pages.

I sterbinski 13:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"There is no possible POV in the world which will be Neutral enought. Only if you mention all the sides of the story. And, the text present doesn't. For example, it completely ignores the Macedonian side of the story." NPOV says report the different point of views as being claimed by the people holding that viewpoint. If you have something you can sourc that shows the Macedonian POV has a different interpretation of history, then you should include it in the article, as the Macedonian point of view. i.e. "These people say this. Those people say that." FuelWagon 17:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I already tried that. I was editing the page for Macedonia for several days. I never erased or hided anything that was already written, but I tried to put the Macedonian POV, which was completely ignored. Always when I was making any edit, my edit was been erased within hours.

Another problem is that not everyone should be allowed to edit issues so sensitive like this one. It would be great if Misplaced Pages can be the place where we can solve our issues that last for centuries. But, life is not so simple. Unfortunatelly.

And this is just the start. Whole Macedonian history after the 6th century, until 1945th, including all historical events and people are presented as Bulgarian here on Misplaced Pages. I understand that Bulgarians beleive that part of that history is theirs and I will never ignore their POV. Maybe I feel offended by it, maybe I see it as assimilation, but I never will ignore it. Because it is someones POV.

But, what will happen when I try to add the Macedonian POV to those texts? I beleive that my edits will always be erased. So I will be there, wasting hours and hours and latter someone will just erase all my work. Just because they do not respect the POV of 2,5 million Macedonians around the world.

That is why Misplaced Pages should always include all the versions of the story, present them well and make sure that noone is priviledged. It is not NPOV if Misplaced Pages ignores someone, no matter Macedonian, Greek, Bulgarian or Marsian. I sterbinski 01:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the article is far far from NPOV. The very naming of Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs" (which they consider offensive) is a direct violation of the NPOV policy and it is a priori giving a distorted view of the entire dispute. Please see these resources provided by the neutral administrator (Zocky). They are vandalized a bit by Greek users, but they still do provide a striking evidence how every major media outlet, encylopedia, international institution refers to Macedonians as Macedonians (not Macedonian Slavs). The mainstream view does not refer to them as "Macedonian Slavs", and therefore the current article is actually accepting random crackpot theories on fundamental questions (the identity of the inhabitants of RoM). Ironically, there is a sentence in it claiming that "Macedonians Slavs are sometimes referred to as Macedonians". That is how much the article is accurate.

I would quote ChrisO, who recently won a barnstar for his work on NPOV in passionate national disputes: Misplaced Pages has become seriously inconsistent with common usage and other reference sources by not using the Macedonians' own term to describe themselves. Of course, we both agree that difference between them, Ancient Macedonians and the other Macedonians that use the term as a regional identifier (Greeks, Bulgarians), by dissambiguating names such as Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nationality) etc. Why Misplaced Pages still refers to Macedonians as "Macedonian Slavs", after a poll that was obviously decided on ethnic lines, is a great mystery to me. --FlavrSavr 14:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with FlavrSavr. The whole "state of the (F)art" idea to name the Macedonians Macedonian Slavs here in Misplaced Pages shows that Misplaced Pages is weaker than the nationalistic propaganda of the Greeks.

Do not get me wrong. I support the idea that NOONE of us (nations on the Balkany) has the exclusive right on the name Macedonia. Both (Greek and nowday Macedonians) have origin (more or less) from the Antique Macedonians. But, searching the internet and other encyclopedias, it is hard NOT to notice that 90% of them reffer the nowdays Macedonians with that name, Macedonians. As I could see, CIA Factbook is very often reffered here as a good prove of some "theories". As a matter of fact, there they use the real term, Macedonians. I sterbinski 17:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Proof that the term Macedonian Slav is not a racial slur and it's being used by Slavo-Macedonian politicians:

“We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century AD ... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35).

and:"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia… Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century" (Toronto Star, March 15, 1992).

• Ambassador of FYROM to USA, Ljubica Achevska:

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great … Greece is Macedonia’s second largest trading partner, and its number one investor. Instead of opting for war, we have chosen the mediation of the United Nations, with talks on the ambassadorial level under Mr. Vance and Mr. Nemitz." In reply to another question about the ethnic origin of the people of FYROM, Ambassador Achevska stated that "we are Slavs and we speak a Slav language.”

• On 24 February 1999, in an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM's Ambassador to Canada:

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented, “There is some confusion about the identity of the people of my country."

I hope we're done with this naming issue. Miskin 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point. Just, there is one problem. Ljubica Achevska, the ambasador you mentioned is my aunt, sister in law of my father. She claims that she said that we are not the only ancestors of Alexander the Great and that there are several nations who have origin from there. Another thing she said is that we are mostly Slavs, but our (partly) Antique Macedonian origin can not be denied.

Damn, I am so happy I am here to deny this LIE, LIE, LIE!!!

Try something else Miskin. I agree that there are some (Macedonian) politicians who would say that we have nothing to do with the Antique Macedonians. But, POLITICIANS, just in order to calm the problem we have with the Greeks, so they won't make us problems with the international comunity.

And one more thing. Why Misplaced Pages doesn't use the terms Bulgarian Slavs, Serbian Slavs, Croatian Slavs, Polish Slavs, Slovenian Slavs etc.? (With all my respect to the Serbians, Croatians, Polish and Slovenians. Bulgarians will get my respect when they stop daydreaming and realise that we are not their brothers... mostly we can be their far cousin)

I sterbinski 17:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are the ancestors of Alexander the Great, then either you are several millennia old or have a time machine. I presume you mean descendants. And I presume that you are not claiming that each of you is individually descended from him.

As for the terms: we don't say, for example, "Serbian Slavs" or "Croatian Slavs" because there is no significant body of non-Slavs who claim to be "Serbs" or "Croats", so there is no confusion in using those words. That's all there is to it: it's a matter of language and avoiding ambiguity. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. All we can be is descendants. Sorry for the wrong term, English is not my mother tongue. And Yes, non of us (Greek or Macedonian) is individually descended from Alexander. That was almost 2500 years ago. With so many mixings, resetelments, wars etc, noone can claim direct origin from someone who lived in the same teritory 2500 years ago. That is why I always say "at least partly", when talking about our non-Slavic part of the origin.

As far as I understood, Misplaced Pages uses Macedonian Slavs in order to avoid mixing us with the Antique Macedonians. Aren't the terms Macedonian and Antique Macedonian different enought? It is very easy to set the things in a way how when you search for the term "Macedonian", Misplaced Pages to take you on another page when you chose from 2 options: 1)Antique Macedonians and 2)nowdays Macedonians (concentrated mostly in Republic of Macedonia).

The Macedonian Slavs name is completely ignoring the non-Slavic part of our origin that we have (proved by genes researches). And, it is not the name that we accept. Everyone (except Greece and Cyprus) calls us Macedonians.

I agree that there should be difference between the present Macedonians and Antique Macedonians. I completely support that idea, because we are not the same and we (same as the Greeks) do not have the exclusive right over the term Macedonia. But, why you have to deny me and the other 2,5 million Macedonians the only name that we identify with (Macedonians)? Not very NPOV. I sterbinski 02:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, no one is confusing the modern Arabic speaking Egyptians with the builders of the Pyramids, and yet the using of the term Macedonians could cause that confusion. Neither does the United Nations, the European Union, and every other relevant international institution, government (except Greece and Greek Cyprus), media outlet, encyclopedia (except MSN Encarta). The common word for referring to Macedonians is Macedonians, and this can be seen by Zocky's Google test. Please see the vast amount of neutrally provided evidence here.

Then again, how come the term "Macedonian Slavs" doesn't create a confusion with other Slavic speaking people inhabiting the region, such as Bulgarians and Serbians? Disambiguation is a great thing, but in this case the disambiguating term seems to seriously violate the NPOV policy, and a bunch of international documents guaranteeing self-identification human rights. It is quite obvious that "Macedonian Slavs" isn't the proper disambiguating term, in times when we have plenty of other options, such as: Macedonians (people), Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (nation), and so on. (which are also accepted by some moderate Greeks, as well) --FlavrSavr 03:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians (nationality) or something like that might be acceptable in Misplaced Pages, but not necessarily acceptable in real life. I view this problem as a big mess: the People X seem to have made up their minds to identify themselves by a term which should not be monopolized by them, even as a nationality. I once again bring up my comparison: I would not agree with Albanians calling themselves Illyrians, even if they preferred that term. As for Misplaced Pages, we already had a vote. For People X, it is not a matter of their human rights, more a matter of their vanity (just as it would be vanity for Albanians to wish people to term them Illyrians). Decius 03:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it is nothing to do with vanity. As far as I could see your nationality is Romanian. What would happen if the Humgarians decide that their history involves a part of the history that happened in Romania, so they decide to name their south part of the country "Romania" and they do the same to you, as the Greeks are doing to us?

Macedonians did not decide to name themselves that way. There was no meeting (or voting) to that. It was a feeling that was developing for centuries. Feeling of belonding to some ethnicity. Macedonian, in this case.

On the other side, that is what Misplaced Pages actually did. They named us Macedonian Slavs because someone decided to do so. They even organized a voting for our ethnicity and name. Isn't that kind of arogant?

And how did anyone of you expected to be a fair vote, when there are more than 20 million Greeks around the world and just 2,5 million Macedonians? Especially when the internet usage in Greece is more than 50% and in Macedonia is about 10%.

Think about it. Do you expect to change our feeling which was developing for centuries in one vote?

Now, Misplaced Pages claims that there are "Macedonian Slavs" in Macedonia. Let's organize a new vote with a question: "How many of you feel Macedonian Slavs?" It will be interesting to see the results of that.

When you mentioned the Albanians... have you ever met one? I am meeting them every single day, we have 450 000 of them living in Macedonia. They all feel that they have origin from the Illyrians. But the Illyrian teritory covers just 1/5 of the teritory where the Albanian live nowdays.

On the other side, nowdays Macedonians (or, how you call us Macedonian Slavs) are strictly concentrated inside the borders of the region Macedonia.

It is interesting to know that from more than 10 nations living in the region, only we are concentrated entirely in the teritory of the region Macedonia. I sterbinski 15:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Romanian, and I'm not 100% biased against the Slavic Macedonians. But for Macedonian Slavs to claim special descent (as many claim) from the ancient Macedonians is dishonest and it is vanity. I would bet more money that most of the ancient Macedonian blood (that is to say, Macedonian genes) went into the Greeks and into the Romanized people than into the Slavs. According to historical sources, the ancestors of the Macedonian Slavs called themselves Bulgarians, not Macedonians.

Guess what Decius... you would lose your money. The first and the only research of the HLA Genes of the Balkan region led by Spanish scientists showed that the genes caried by nowdays Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like Misplaced Pages addresses us) are closely related to the genes of the oldest populations on the region of the mediteranian. Here is the link of the research: http://www.mymacedonia.net/links/email.htm

You can find several other links by google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=macedonian+greek+HLA+genes

Read it well, think about it and all you who beleive that we are artificial project of Tito.

This is my answer to all your assimilation claims and doubts. You give me claims and nationalistic claims, and I give you scientific research of HLA genes (hope you know what HLA genes represent).

So, Decius, I hope you did not bet a lot of money. More researches will follow, you might lose everything you have. :) I sterbinski 02:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are talking about this link:[http://www.mymacedonia.net/links/email.htm, you need a more scientific link. I haven't put any money on the table, but I don't see any proof that I would have lost the bet. I said that most of the ancient Macedonian genes probably passed into Greeks and Romanized peoples: the study does not show that the Slavic Macedonians have more ancient Macedonian genes than Greeks or Aromanians, for example. So you need another link.Decius 02:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Decius, the link that I specified is pro-Macedonian web page, that is clear. That is the first link that appears in google, because is very popular. And, the survey is very well organized. That is why I put it there. And, that is the reason why I put the other link to google, so anyone of you can pick which link he prefers. They all show the same survey. It lasted for several years and it finaly finished some 4-5 months ago. It is getting very good acceptance through the world, as you can see.

Yes, I agree, this is just a start in HLA genes research and it can not be a sure proof about the conections with the antique Macedonians. But, having on mind the intensiti of the survey and the number of DNA samples included, same as the leading neutral scientists (from Spain), it proves 2 things:

1)nowdays Macedonians (the ones Misplaced Pages names Macedonian Slavs) have older HLA genes than anyone else in the area of the region Macedonia. These genes are very similar to the ones of the other old Mediterinanian people. So, we are very nearly conected to some old people who lived in the area of the Mediterinanian sea which might be the Antient Macedonians or any other that lived in the same time in this area.

2)The modern Greeks have HLA genes which are far closer to the Sub-Saharan people, than to the ones in the Mediterinanian sea area. As far as I understood, only the people in the area of Athens have more Mediterinanian HLA genes than a regular modern Greek, but still less than average Macedonian (or Macedonian Slav, as refferer to in Misplaced Pages). The ones who know about the HLA genes, woulc understand that this does not say that the modern Greeks have nothing to do with the old Greeks, but it says that they have more to do with the old Sub-Saharan tribes than with anyone that lived in the area of the Mediterinanian sea in the time before Jesus.

In order to understand this survey well, please first read what HLA genes are and their importance. Pick the link that suits you the most from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hla+genes

Of course, this survey can not be a 100% proof, but is far far more acurate than any document or historical claim. You can always rewrite the history, but you can not change your genes.

Again, if you read more about the HLA genes, they are expected to significantly change the history as we know it, as soon as the methods get advanced and the surveys get bigger in number. The only problem is that every survey takes a lot of time and money. I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And now about language: are there any words that are found only in the Macedonian language that any credible linguist has said, "This word is from the ancient Macedonians" (and the claim being accepted by general linguists). If not, you can see why some people cannot accept the term Macedonian to be applied to the Slavic Macedonians. Decius 00:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope you know that there are just couple of hundred words known from the Antique Macedonian Language. And that is from the period when they already started accepting the Hellenic culture.

And even with so few words, there are many words in the new Macedonian language similar to the Antique Macedonian language.

I won't write here a lot of text, I will just link you so you can see by yourself. When you take all the examples, search for similarities between the nowday Greek language and the Antique Macedonian. You will see that actually, both (nowday Greek and nowday Macedonian) have respectative number of words that are similar to the ones of the Antique Macedonian.

So, here is a very nice link:

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/similarities.html. Try to read it all. It is quite long because there are many interesting points.

One more thing. Why you never mentioned the Antique Macedonian names. How many times you heared about some Greek people with same (or similar) name as the antient Macedonian kings?

Republic of Macedonia is completely full with Alexandar's, Philip's, Macedonka's etc. Not to mention that Greeks use all these names with 's' on the end of the name. All the rest of the world uses the forms of these names without 's', same form used in the nowdays Macedonian language. 62.162.199.17 03:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And actually, Albania covers most of the territory of the original Illyria (which did not include Dalmatia, Pannonia, Dardania, etc.). You are thinking about the Roman Province of Illyria, which was gigantic and included most of the Balkans at one time. Decius 00:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I was not talking about the Roman Illyria province. I was talking about the old Illyrian teritory and saying that the teritories populated with Albanians in present days are much, much larger than the original Illyrian teritory. 62.162.199.17 03:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't erase any of your posts, so don't erase any of mine. Whatever connection I may have with "Greece or Bulgaria" does not change the fact that I am not 100% biased. I criticized your latest link about genetic research (see above). That doesn't mean I'm "biased". And I guess I will also be viewed as "biased" when I point out that your new link about ancient Macedonian elements in modern Macedonian is not from a linguistic source, and I'm sure linguists would reject 99% of it. It even includes Thracian and Illyrian elements as "Ancient Macedonian": Myrcinus (Murkinos) was a Thracian city of the Edonians, not a Macedonian name . Pittacus was also Thracian , Mantyes was Paionian , Plator is Illyrian, etc. etc. There are errors throughout the text. Decius 04:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The text that I gave you, on the link above is taken from a Russian book from the 1960s. This issue is very popular lately and just in last 10 years there are more than 7 lingistic books that work on it. 3 of them are from Macedonian linguists, but the other 4 are from Chech, Russian and 2 Polish linguists.

All words given as example in the text are a part of the lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria, or words that could be found on the Antient Macedonian Coins (from which Republic of Macedonia possess significant part). Some of them were maybe used also in the Thracian or Illyrian language, but they can be found in the Antient Macedonian too. Same as you can find the word "antena" in several new languages with different origin. Again, let me repeat that there are just about 500-700 words that are seen as a part of the Antient Macedonian language, but do not forget that all those words can be found in Greek books and lexicons (the Greek culture was superior in that time), which might mean that their original transcription is changed to be able to write them using the Greek alphabet and rules. Another thing that you should not forget is the enormous difference between the old Greek and the new Greek language. My wife has a language school here in Skopje and I was able to get many information from her employee, a Greek teacher from Greek nationality. I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If anybody thinks this debate is irrelevant to Romanians and Aromanians, read this quote, from Andre Du Nay History of the Romanian language (1996):

"The fact that Romanian belongs to the Balkan languages of the first grade can only be explained if one considers that they lived in (parts of) Macedonia and adjacent areas."

I have heard of that and personaly, I agree. Once I even read some article about the origin and similarities between the modern Romanians and modern Macedonians. The book was on modern Croatian language, so I didn't understand everything in it. This is ocourse something that is not proved, but it is interesting point and something that we should not ignore. I will repeat again, the genes researches might prove many things in the future, including this. I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, I don't necessarily agree with Du Nay, but if he's right, I would not want another people to monopolize the name Macedonian. ---Decius 06:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Only people that monopolize the name Macedonia are the Greeks. Noone of us ever claimed that the name Macedonia belongs only to us, modern Macedonians. The history of the region is so complicated that noone can ever think of monopolizing that name. But that does not mean that someone has a right to change my identity with a vote. Identity is something that you can not choose, it is a feeling that develops for centuries. I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Décie, I don't know why you're even bothering to try to reason with a macadamia nut.--Theathenae 07:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Define "reasoning of a Macedonian nut". Does that mean the "Macedonian nut" to accept to artificially change his name and to give you an exclusive right over the term Macedonia?

And, when you already got a part in this conversation, explain why Greece runned away 300000 Macedonians and 100000 Bulgarians from Greece during the last 50 years, people that are still not alowed to enter Greece? Why did you burn my grandfathers house and shoot at him?

I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't like his face. What are you gonna do about it?--Theathenae 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You might be right. He'll probably just come back and make accusations instead of addressing my simple, honest question (I actually am asking you this): what words are there in the Macedonian language, that credible linguists have stated are words from the ancient Macedonians? If there are none, then all the People X should think about what that implies. That link you provided that lists the spurious similarities is not scientific, nor does it present information that is accepted by any specialists in the field. One of the few correct items in the list is that Brygian (Phrygian) Zemela is cognate to Slavic Macedonian zemja (dial. zemla): this is correct, but that is a Phrygian, not ancient Macedonian, cognate (it is also found in all Slavic languages). I am not asking for cognates, I'm asking for words that are considered to be from the ancient Macedonians (a cognate is something totally different and does not concern us here). Decius 12:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I already told you about this above. All words in that list are in that lexicon. And if you anything about linguistic, you would know that you can not ever talk about antient origin of some language (2500 years difference). Maybe only for the Basque and the Georgian language. You can only talk about words, one by one. Read something more, search, ask... The modern Macedonian language is definitly of Slavic origin, but there are many words that have origin from some of the 500-700 known words of the Antique Macedonian language. I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You brought claims here, not facts. You brought no ancient Macedonian words and no proof that the People X have "the most" ancient Macedonian genes. Just claims. Decius 13:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

After this I seriously doubt your neutrality. I never claimed that we, Macedonians (Not people X) have most of genes from Antique Macedonians. I was saying that several nations in the region mixed with those people and have part of their genes. And it is more than obvious that you have no idea what HLA genes are. I know about 2 more researches like that (one of them involving a Greek scientist) that have similar results, but are still not publicated. Modern science is not based on claims, only on facts. And the facts already started ariving and they will keep ariving.

Again, no one of us (Greeks or Macedonians) can claim exclusive rights over the term Macedonia, but you can not take my ethnicity and culture away (which again, no one claims is 100% conected with the Antuque Macedonians). I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

General fallacies of Isterbinski's edits

• 1. The following text: At the end of the 10th century Macedonia turned into the political and cultural centre of Bulgaria as Byzantine emperor Basil II conquered the eastern part of the country, including the capital of Preslav, in 972. A new capital was established at Ohrid, which also became the seat of the Bulgarian Patriarchate. After several decades of almost incessant war, Bulgaria fell under Byzantine rule in 1018. The whole of Macedonia was incorporated into the Byzantine Empire as the province of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Patriarchate was reduced in rank to an archbishopric. is substituted with At the end of the 10th century Macedonia turned into Slavic political and cultural centre as Byzantine emperor Basil II conquered the eastern part of Bulgaria, including the capital of Preslav, in 972. A new regional capital was Ohrid, which also became the seat of the Ohrid Archbishopric. After several decades of almost incessant war, the whole of Macedonia fell under Byzantine rule in 1018. the obvious attempt being to erase the name of Bulgaria and create the impression that there was something else than a Bulgarian state in this 10th century Macedonia. Unfortanutely for Istirbinski, everyone in the scientific world except the Macedonians themselves are convinced that there was. Links to: The Encyclopedia of world history, 2001, The Encyclopedia of world history, 2001,

Encarta, History of Bulgaria, The Columbia Encyclopedia 2001 edition, Concise Encyclopedia Britannica, Hutchinsons Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, History of Bulgaria

VMORO, have you maybe read the part of History of Macedonia in part of these links? You won't like it much. I sterbinski 22:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

1) Yes, I presented that part of the history as Slavic. Macedonins beleive that Tzar Samoil's state was Macedonian, and Bulgarians beleive it is Bulgarian. Same happens with the Ohrid Archbishopric, we both beleive it is ours. The difference VMORO is that I did not put that they are Macedonian, as you put that they are Bulgarian. I Put that they are Slavic. NPOV, not Bulgarian POV, not Macedonian POV.

And, yes, many your links say that Samuil was Bulgarian. Guess what? Misplaced Pages was saying the same just 2 days ago. Promoting your assimilation politics led to this.

The Samuil kingdom was a result of a rebelion led by 4 brothers (David, Moses, Aaron and Samoil) against the Bulgarian kingdom that was getting weaker at that time. I will not make any links here, leading you to sites that are supporting my POV (like VMORO did). That way, I will just try to lead you. Just search the web by your own with google.com, you all can see how many different POVs you will find.

According to all encyclopaedias and history books Samuil was a Bulgarian Tsar, Istirbinski, and I have provided enough examples of that. There is a case of Macedonian POV against NPOV. Discussion closed. VMORO 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It is quite confusing why there were 2 states in the same period of time that the Bulgarian see as Bulgarian. Why would there be 2 if they felt only Bulgarian?

Another thing that you forget is that the Byzantine documents use the word Slavic for a while, but not all the time. The term Bulgarian appeared in their documents when they stopped using the terms Sklavines (Slavics). Before that they never used the term Bulgarian. Only Bulgars, which is completely different thing. Another prove that Bulgarian in that time ments Slavic.

Another interesting fact is that Byzantine documents describe Samuil's kingdom as rising kingdom, which might make them more problems than the Bulgarian.

Why the other encyclopedias are describing him as Bulgarian? Because of people like you, which were doing the same thing as you are doing here in Misplaced Pages, writting everything they can think of, just to assimilate everything that appears to be Macedonian. On the other hand, anyone who wanted to deffend the Macedonian origin of Samoil in time of ex-Yugoslavia was inprisoned as separatist, because of promoting the national feelings of the Macedonians. Have you heared of Goli Otok?

NPOV does not mean ignoring Macedonian POV and promoting Bulgarian POV. Maybe you were doing this for years, but it is enought now.I sterbinski 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You are beating around the bush, Istirbinski - and not saying anything to the point. Apart from the Byzantine records, we got the correspondence of Samuil with the Roman pope - affirming that he was officially crowned in 997 - after the death of Tsar Roman, the brother of the last tsar who resided in Preslav. There are also the German records of Oton and, of course, the Bitola Inscription of Ivan Vladislav where he called himself Bulgarian by birth. Either everyone in Europe suffered from mass delusions at that point - or there is something which Hugh Poulton very properly called "regressive nationalism" - the attempt to claim everything that happened in Macedonia as Macedonian Slav.

The reasons which I enumerated are the reasons why Samuil is internationally regarded as a Bulgarian tsar and the Macedonian claims as a bunch of nationalistic claptrap. And strangely how the Byzantines never used that synonym "Bulgarians" to any other Balkan Slav - the Serbs were called Serbs, the Croats were called Croats. It's about time you, the Macedonians, called yourselves for over 10 centuries nothing else but Bulgarians. Nationalism can make up theories beyond one's wildest imagination but the facts remain facts. I recommend you stay away from the middle ages, the results which you can get there are below zero. VMORO 07:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• 2. The following text: the Greek army set fire to the Bulgarian quarter of the town of Kukush (Kilkis) and over 160 Bulgarian villages around Kukush and Serres driving some 50,000 refugees into Bulgaria proper. The Bulgarian army retaliated by burning the Greek quarter of Serres and by arming Muslims from the region of Drama which led to a massacre of Greek civilians. is replaced with: the Greek army set fire to the Slavic Macedonian quarter of the town of Kukush (Kilkis) and over 160 Slavic Macedonian villages around Kukush and Serres driving some 50,000 refugees into Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia. The Slavic Macedonian and Bulgarian armies retaliated by burning the Greek quarter of Serres and by arming Muslims from the region of Drama which led to a massacre of Greek civilians.

What Slavic Macedonian army in the Balkan Wars are you talking about Istirbinski, are you out of your senses? And what immigration to Vardar Macedonia occupied by the Serbs when the Bulgarians from Vardar Macedonia were themselves fleeing to Bulgaria? And something more, a great deal of these 50,000 refugees did not settle in Pirin Macedonia but in Sofia (over 10,000 people) and Plovdiv. Link to the report of the Carnegie Commission of 1914: ].

2) Simple explanation. I am talking about the Slavs from the region, not Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, the term Misplaced Pages uses). Macedonian POV claims that those refugees were Macedonians, Bulgaria claims they were Bulgarian. In both cases they are Slavic, living in the teritory of the region Macedonia.

After this, the people living in the area supported the Bulgarian army and many of the joined it (because Greeks burned their vilages). I definitly agree that this part is not well explained and it should be worked on. But do not forget the NPOV.I sterbinski 22:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The Carnegie commission report (a book which for obvious reasons is abhorred in Skopje along with many others) clearly defines what they were - Bulgarians. Practically the whole population of Kukush settled en masse in Sofia after the war, among them my grandparents. These people have always declared themselves as Bulgarians (one of them is Alexander Stanishev, who is again abhorred in Skopje), again a case of an evidence-supported NPOV against Macedonian POV. VMORO 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You know exacly why is Alexander Stanishev hated in Macedonia. And I do not think that it is good for you to present that issue here.

And as I can see, maybe you are another assimilated Macedonian, because you have origin from Kukush. :)) Just kidding, don't worry. I don't question your nationality. But your situation is another prove that this is much more complicated than you think. As a matter of fact, I have family which runned away from Kukush, but 30 years later. Now, they live in USA and they are bigger Macedonian nationalists than anyone I know. One of them even has a help-fond for supporting the separatistic Macedonian party in Bulgaria which fights for getting back Pirin Macedonia into Macedonia. As I said, too complicated issue.

Again the same thing. I can find you 10000 documents describing the Macedonians, Serbs, Croatians etc. as Yugoslav. Because, that is how they were identified at that time. Same happens to the term Bulgarian before the 1930s.

One more thing. You can find 1000 maps saying that the Macedonian teritory was populated with Bulgarians, another 1000 saying that it was populated with Macedonians, and even several saying it was populated with Serbs, Bulgarians... even Ermenians. I sterbinski 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Again beating around the bush. No, you cannot find 100 maps that do this and that - I suggest you read Wilkinson's "Review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia" and then you can see that with the exception of one map by Amadore-Virgili, which represented the religious distribution of Macedonia (Patriarchate, Exarchate, Muslims), all other maps by non-Serbian or Greek authors portrayed Macedonia as predominantly Bulgarian until WWI.

Yes, and let's not slap around personal stories - which can be true, but which can also be easily made up. My grandparents also come from Kukush (and they and their forefathers have always regarded themselves as Bulgarians, but I don't slap it in your face all the time - I use sources. And again a "Slav Macedonian army" and "refugees into Vardar Macedonia" are figments of your imagination. VMORO 07:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• 3. The note that "Bulgarian was the synonym of Slavic until the 1930s". Curiously how the Serbs of Kosovo did not use that "synonym" and nor did anyone else except the people in the present-day RoM and Bulgaria. Anyway, this is an idea propagated only by the Macedonian Slavs and this should be rephrased in the proper way: According to the Macedonian Slavs.... tra-la-la, tra-la-la.

3)The Serbs are quite big nation, which set their own state much before us. Not to mention the Russion support they had.

On the other hand, Bulgaria and Greece were the main assimilators of Macedonia at the time. Greek assimilation politics was much harsher, so the people needed to identify with something non-Greek, something Slavic (what actually we mostly are, but not completely).

Same was in the time of the Yugoslavia. We (Macedonians, Serbs, Croats etc.) all were Yugoslavs, but non of us ever lost our ethnicity and nationality. If Gotse Delchev was Bulgarian, why would he give his life for independent or authonomous Macedonia? Isn't it natural a Bulgarian to fight for Bulgaria?

And at the end. The theory of "Bulgarian was the synonym of Slavic until the 1930s" is supported all around the world, not just in Macedonia. Just, in order to keep NPOV, it is maybe better to write: "Bulgarian is sometimes claimed to be a synonym of Slavic until the 1930s".

Evidence, my dear, evidence is the key word. No encyclopaedia or a Western history book has ever claimed Bulgarian to be a synonym of Slavic, most of them actually start talking about Macedonians first thing in the 20th century. The line you are talking about has recently started pushed by the Macedonians with no evident success. You can certainly include that statement in the article but qualified in a proper way: The Macedonian Slavs claim that... and so on. VMORO 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not exacly as synomim. But many Macedonians were using it, same as they were using the term Yugoslav. Especially because you always presented yourself as our friends. But always your friendship ended with sticking a knife (literaly) in our backs. Same as the fact you were the first who recognized our independence, and now you are trying to deny our existance.

Luckily, we learn our lesson and we know that the devil can be better friend than you can.

When it is about the encyclopedias... Many encyclopedias use the term Yugoslav without identifying that it actually was covering more than 8 nations living in ex-Yugoslavia. I sterbinski 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:. Stjepan Verkovic, a Serbianized Croat and a former Franciscan friar who adopted Orthodoxy and entered the Serbian service in Ottoman Macedonia, entitled his collection of Macedonian folk songs (1860) The Folk Songs of Macedonian Bulgars, and noted in the introduction that the title was chosen because "should somebody today ask a Macedonian Slav, 'What are you?' he would immediately get the answer, 'I am a Bulgar and my language is Bulgarian.' " This is from Ivo Banac, who is regarded as one of the greatest authorities on the minority problems of Yugoslavia. Again, no real answer - just Balkan drama:-))). Let's be serious, Istirbinski, and not waste each other's time. VMORO 07:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• 4. The rest of the edits are purely cosmetic (phrasing) and can easily be worked out. The things which I have pointed out should, however, be immediately reverted when the article is deblocked unless some serious evidence is being presented (and which, I know, is absent). VMORO 08:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You would like that because it completely supports the Bulgarian POV. The thing is that I never ignored your POV. Ever. I never claimed something to be Macedonian, as you claim that is Bulgarian.

The difference between me and you is that I respect you, and you don't. All I want is Misplaced Pages which will not have assimilation parts towards the Macedonians. But, your Bulgarian POV is of same importance for me as my Macedonian POV and same as the Greek POV.

The problem is that in Misplaced Pages the Macedonian POV is or ignored or just mentioned in the last line of the text. I sterbinski 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It is more than obvious that VMORO is defending the Bulgarian POV on Misplaced Pages, the same POV that we (Macedonians) feel as a assimilation over us. What about the NPOV, VMORO?

I was just wondering... when will you stop using Misplaced Pages as your tool for your nationalistic assimilation of my people?I sterbinski 16:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's talk business, Isterbinski, and not just throw around claptrap, densely covered with semi-hysterical shrieks about assimilation and lack of respect. There is a vast chasm between Macedonian historical narrative and the way history around the world views the history of the region of Macedonia. And it is not because someone is trying to assimilate you or lacks any respect for you - it is just extremely hard for a scholar to start describing, for example, Samuil as a Macedonian tsar, when all the contemporary sources (Byzantine, German, the Vatican, as well as the Bulgarian ones) describe him as a Bulgarian one (The name of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer is enough as a first-hand proof). I can quote international and respected sources with regard my edits, whereas you cannot and that's why you have resort to hystery and genocide charges. VMORO 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Basil the Bulgar-Slayer... someone of the scolars should have explained you the difference between Bulgar and Bulgarian.

There was no difference between Bulgar and Bulgarian until the mid-20th century, it was actually Bulgar which was mostly used in English. Now, for the sake of convenience, Bulgar is used for the old Bulgars (until the 8th cent.) and Bulgarians for the fusion of Bulgars and Slavs after that. The Bulgar-Slayer is just a preserved older form, although it is inexact. VMORO 07:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Too bad that this is just business for you. Why wouldn't it be? You don't lose anything, you can only win.

Why instead we don't talk about the Bulgarian power, conections and support they had around the world? Winners make the history. And we were certainly not winners in all this. We ended up with half of our history beeing claimed as someone elses.

Explain me all the killings did by the right Bulgarian wing of IMRO towards the Macedonians fighting for independence (including 3 brothers of my grandfather, as I mentioned before), all the killings they did during the Balkan wars to anyone who didn't wanted to fight for their goals, killings that Vancho Mihailov did, the destroyed and burned churches, national houses and murdered people during the World War 2, when you occupied Macedonia etc. And explain me why the Macedonians in Bulgaria were not allowed to register a political party until 2 years ago? And why they are still not allowed to take a part in the elections? Then I will stop mentioning assimilation and genocide. And by ignoring everything that is Macedonian, you are doing the same, just in a modern way.

No Bulgarian political party has ever been allowed to register for elections in RoM, kid. Or should I remind you the smoke bombs at the Radko conference? Or the thousands of people who died in Idrizovo in the 1940s and 50s because they did not want to stop calling themselves Bulgarians, kid?

This issue is too complicated for a nationalistic mind as yours, kid. I never said that anything of your POV should be erased. Put it on Misplaced Pages as a version that the Bulgarians support. That is the right thing to do. But do not ignore anyone elses POV. Not mine, not Greek, not Turkish or anyone elses. Respect, kid!!!

And explain please to this people here how can 2,5 million people, with a very weak economy and just 10% of the people who have access on internet have more web sites supporting our (the truth) POV, than you, more than 20 million Bulgarians with more than 40% people with access to internet?

People, just search the web with any search engine you want. Read the both versiones, read the facts. Learn the truth by yourself, not by me or VMORO. I sterbinski 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your attempts to be condescending are ludicrous. VMORO 07:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, I beleive that finally you understand why Misplaced Pages should take care to present all the sides of the story (not just mine or yours). Enought with the lies which are and which are not supported by the world historians. As a matter of fact, the most respected modern historian concerning the region Macedonia is with Macedonian father and Bulgarian mother, living in USA. He completely supports the Macedonian POV. As a matter of fact, he lives completely isolated now, trying to work without any presure by Macedonians, Greeks or Bulgarians. But, including him in these conversations will have very bad influence over the NPOV of Misplaced Pages, so I will stop now.

We (Bulgarians, Macedonians and Greeks) will never deal what Misplaced Pages should say. Just give the history in chronological order and say that there are several versions of every "sensitive" issue. After giving the version, it can say: "This version is supported by the Bulgarians/Macedonians/Greeks etc.". But, again, with no support to any of them. We can all take a part in the editings, but in order to protect from nationalism, anyone who ignores someone elses POV should be baned from editing Macedonia's page. Just read the Goce Delchev's page. That is real NPOV. Why not to solve all the issues we have in a similar way?

I am one of the three people who has written it, my little kid, Istirbinski. VMORO 07:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. I hope that you are aware that many of the things in history can not be confirmed 100%, and we should all always have that on mind. Maybe me, or you or anyone else here is unconceously "lied", without even knowing. I sterbinski 22:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The modern proposal of Istirbinski

A quick look at the other major encyclopaedias shows that no precedent of such an approach exists. Below this article, there is a long list of Greek and Macedonian Slav nationalist websites which give their own versions of the history of Macedonia, whoever is interested in the different versions can easily dig into them and read for hours. Therefore, the proposition of Istirbinski is contraproductive and useless. The only reason why he puts it forward is because the Macedonian version of the history of the region suffers from tremendous lack of documental evidence and is kept together by white threads and a solid portion of imagination. Articles in this encyclopaedia should keep to fact, evidence and sources and not turn into a free flight of the imagination. VMORO 08:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem VMORO. Misplaced Pages claims its NPOV all the time. And the Macedonian POV is mentioned only at the bottom of the page. What kind of NPOV is that?

Why is my proposal useless? Because it will stop you from spreading your Bulgarian POV, which is just a part of the real NPOV? Because it will stop you from ignoring 2,5 million people, their history and culture?

Our POV does not lack documents and sources. The problem is that many of them were destroyed when you (Bulgarians), supported by Hitler occupied Macedonia. They used whole 4 years for destroying. Why you burned more than 150 Ortodox churches around Macedonia, when you are Ortodox too? Why Ohrid now has just about half of the 365 churches it had at the beggining of this century? (For those who don't know, the Macedonian Ortodox Church was the biggest protector of our identity and the one who kept all the historical documents until 1950s)

Luckily, the Turkish archives are quite big and anyone who ever read just a part of them knows the truth.

I won't be suprised if you were the actual writter of the text of Macedonia, the version that completely ignores us as a nation and presents us as artificial ethnicity made by Tito. But you will never take away my feelings and what is in my head.

You can daydream as much as you want. I have a grandfather older than many of the events listed in Misplaced Pages. He dedicated half of his life for the Macedonian freedom. 3 of his brothers were killed by the Bulgarians because they were a part of IMRO and because they were fighting for the freedom of the Macedonians.

No one like you can take that away from us, no matter which metod you use: killing, occupying or assimilation, like you do on Misplaced Pages.

I sterbinski 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Roman Imperial Provinces, 120 AD

This is not CORRECT! Achaea ? See Map of the Roman Empire Vergina 07:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOVism

Hello, I'm not planning to engage further in this debate until the participants of this discussion start referring to the name of the ethnic group - that is, Macedonians.

Decius, you are speaking as if Macedonians decided to call themselves that way just for egoistic needs, (despite knowing that they would cause them troubles), and as if that happened through a period of one day. And isn't the region when they have lived a natural choice for their name? They have been officially declaring themselves as such for at least 60 years, and nobody give a damn about that, until RoM got its independence. The name "Macedonians" was never seriously questioned, and in real life, nearly everybody (every major media outlet, encylopedia, international institution and government), refers to them as "Macedonians". Perhaps, you should address your concerns to the United Nations, they don't think that Macedonians are calling themselves like that because of vanity.

As for the poll, you are an intelligent person, I guess you have already concluded that it went to some explicit ethnic lines, and that it cannot be a serious decisive moment. If I had made contact with the Turkish Misplaced Pages, the result would definitely be more favorable for the "Macedonians" option. But that simply isn't what Misplaced Pages is all about.

VMORO, the progress we have made on the Goce Delchev article is an excellent example of a NPOV. I respect your constant references to encyclopedias, but I really don't know why you are still referring to Macedonians as Macedonian Slavs, given the fact that all encyclopedias refer to them as "Macedonians" (except MSN Encarta). Therefore, I cannot understand why a compromise solution such as Macedonians (nationality) is a problem to you.

We might have a part, or even an entire article dealing with this naming controversy, where arguments that Macedonians are these dumb, vain and ignorant Gypsies who are trying to steal everybody's history could be opposed to other arguments. Meanwhile, Misplaced Pages must stick to the most common, consensually and internationally accepted name for the nationality in question, and, what is more important, to its NPOV policy. IMHO, Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (people) are the best solutions.

In addition, I give you this map of these dumb Germans, who are referring to Macedonians as Mazedonier even in 1912! I mean, how could they - Tito didn't create the Slav Macedonian "nation" until 1945!

Au revoir, I have some studying to do. No it's not "How to destroy Greece in 1000 ways", it's an economic book. Peace to you all. --FlavrSavr 17:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review