![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The pictures of Edeesa is from my family album,and is showing Macedonians in Greece!!! All the pictures are my own from my albums!!And i dont think that pictures needs to be sorced?!!! I did'not see that others pictures has sorces!!!!
Makedonij 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is and if you can't prove otherway,stop POV!!! The picture is private and it's showing Macedonians(ethnic)in Greece!!! You can allso find picture in a book of Helsinki right wach-Macedonians in greece!!!ISBN:960-86206-1-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makedonij ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't add any of the controversial ones. Btw do you want me to upload some pics from the Republic to commons? I found some the other day.-- Laveol T 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that every minority can have a flag.Here is a link where all of flags of minorites can be seen. http://eurominority.org/version/eng/minority-state2.asp?id_states=9 Makedonij ( talk) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The figure in Semino is for GREEK Macedonians-not Macedonians in The Republic of Macedonia...for that group, the number is 15%. Unless we absolutely sure that the sampled people identify as Macedonian Slavs or Greek Macedonians, this should be altered. 72.168.20.187 ( talk) 22:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that i'm greek dosen't matter for this one and what i believe about the naming issue also doesn't matter.Now i want to say that this article is wrong in the part famous Macedonians as Apostol Petkov wasn't a Macedonian.He was one of the ringleaders of the Bulgarian militia and gangs formed with the purpose of terrorising the Greek minority in order to make it easier in the long run for Bulgaria to conquer today's greek Macedonia.He didn't belong to this Slav-Serb-Bulgarian ethnicity that nowdays is called Macedonian.That's why he was also the main enemy of the greek militias formed to protect the greek minority.The Turks and that time Ottoman Empire also recognized him as bulgarian criminal.I believe it should be removed. TheJudge0791 ( talk) 18:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed any controversial names and added a few-non controversial Macedonians into the gallery. Hope you like it! Mactruth ( talk) 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"Macedonians are genetically closely related to the other Slavic people. The Slavic Haplogroup R1a1 has varied among Macedonians based on study. According to Semino et al., the frequency of the proposed Slavic Haplogroup R1a1, formerly Eu19, ranges to 35% in Macedonians. [49] But, according to Percic et al., the frequency ranges to 15% in Macedonians..."
Macedonians are slavs culturally, but to a lesser extant genetically (as some studies suggest). I suggest we specify which group of slavs (South) and not be ambigious or misleading. The highest estimate of r1a in Macedonia is that 35% sampled in Semino et al., this is still low relative to other slavic peoples (West and East slavs) who have frequencies of r1a in excess of 50%. The Balkan/South Slavs are characterized by a significantly reduced amount of r1a, 35% in Croatians, around 15-20% in Serbs and Bulgarians, and 15-35% in Macedonian. 9-12% in Albanians and Greeks at-large (35% according to Pericic et al. for Macedonian Greeks). Judging from the large discrepency between the sampled estimates of Macedonians, they seem to be an amalgam of Balkan and Slavic groups...if you average the r1a low of 15% and the high of 35%, I think would more accurately reflect the Macedonian population as a whole-which would give 25%-which isnt far from the norm in other Balkan populations. From the studies ive seen, like Percic et al, Bosch et al [2], etc, South Slavs have more affinties with Balkan populations than to the traditional Slavic populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation is too simplistic. R1a is not the "slavic gene" . You make a common mistake repeated by people who do not really understand the complexities of genetic analysis. No ethnos or tribe was mono-genetic. R1a is not Slavic, E3b is not Thracian, I is not Illyrian. These haplogroups are thousands of years old, far outdating the origins of Illyrians, Slavs or any other 'ethnic' group.
Hxseek (
talk) 05:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Macedonian academy of sciencies may states whatever it wants but what is written in the section "origin" in the article is a bad interpretation of historical facts. Certainly there was slav population in Macedonia in 6th century as in most of the Balkans but in 680 AD a Bulgar tribe let by khan Kuber settled there which in the beginning of the 9th century merged with Danube Bulgaria. The slav population in Macedonia as all other slav population in Bulgaria mixed with Bulgars and this is how modern Bulgarian ethnos has been formed. What today is known as FYROM in Middle Ages was part from either Bulgaria or Byzantine empire (Serbian rule during the reign of Stefan Dusan was too short to be of any significance)and there is absolutely no evidence that Macedonian people had the conscience to be a separate people. Having in mind that today the population of FYROM is predomonantly Slav and speaks language which is VERY similar to Bulgarian ( I am a Bulgarian and can assure you that there are some dialects in Bulgarian language which are more difficult to understand than the so-called "Macedonian" language) the origin of FYROM's population is therefore Bulgarian. FYROMs have today the consciense to be a separate people. So be it. But don't try to change history in order to look older than you are, please. Gur4eto ( talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that is your imagination and part of the BUlgarian propaganda.I think you should care where the Bulgars came from.In fact every Greek and Bulgarian usually have some hateness towards the Macedonian people.I wouldnt be bothered explaining everything to you,but really there is no point.The Macedonians are Macedonians,you cant change it and deny it,I better suggest you to research who are the descendants of Bulgarians,and where does the term Bulgarian comes from,rather than harassing the Macedonian nation and claiming thats in fact Bulgarian.Thats a typical Bulgarian nonsense and propaganda.You should really care about the people who live in your country,and stop claiming that Macedonians are Bulgarians.Even if I give you a lot of sources contradicting the fact that you wrote,you wouldnt understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 ( talk) 07:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, I have nothing against Macedonians at least because I personally have a certain Macedonian descent both on my mother's and father's line. I just want the truth not to be denied. And the truth is that before 1945 most Macedonians had Bulgarian consciensness and the 'ethnic Macedonian'-concept as well as the 'Macedonian language' are results of Serbian propaganda aiming to split you from us. If you were under Serbian rule 50-80 years more, probably you would consider yourselves Serbians - thank God this didn't happen. My grand-grandmother (who died at age of 94 and I remember her) was a Macedonian and believe me she considered herself a Bulgarian. I repeat myself - since Macedonians have the consciense to be a separate people - then so be it. But I want the truth about your origin not to be denied. Tell me something - why should Bulgarians claim that Macedonians are Bulgarians if this wasn't true? Isn't it more likely Serbians to have such claims since you were one and the same state? Think about this. I don't want to offend neither you nor any Macedonian. I am just trying to open your eyes. That's all. Gur4eto ( talk) 13:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Also: Kuber's so called "Bulgars" were actually the descendents of Roman Christians captured by the Avras in 600AD, that were moving back to their homeland in region of Thessaloniki. Certainly anthropologically and genetically , there are defining fetures between Macedonians and bulgarians. Bugarians have a lot more Turkic influence.
At any rate, the Slavs in Macedonia have been described as an "amourphous mass of archaic Slavs" which failed to form any consolidated state. Yes, they were a central paert of the Bulgarian Empire in the 900s , but they were also part of the Byzantine Emprie and Serbian Empire. So what does that prove ? See the identities section for the discussion at length
Hxseek ( talk) 22:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Genetic studies on populations are still considered to be much controversial ( see
Genetic history of Europe ) and cannot be a serious evidence for a distinct Macedonian ethnos. It is possible that people in Macedonia show some insignificant genetic difference with Bulgarians (because of the different geographical location) but I am sure that Bulgarians living near the Danube river also show some genetic difference with those near the southern border (by the same reason). As a whole Europeans are quite homogenous genetically with some relatively significant differences between northern and southern peoples and to a lesser extent between eastern and western ones. As to the antropological evidence. . . I know about anthropological differences between Europeans and Chineses but between Bulgarians and Macedonians?
You are right by saying that we don't know what was in the minds of medieval Macedonian's peasants. But being "an amourphous mass of archaic Slavs which failed to form any consolidated state" it is quite reasonable to claim that they were absorbed during the centuries by the peoples that ruled them. By the way in the Bulgarian ethnos during the Middle Ages were absorbed significant populations of many other peoples (Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, even west-Europeans) that were not slavs at all - so how Macedonian slavs remained separate without mixing with Bulgarian ones and what is more important - what evidences are available supporting this theory? Gur4eto ( talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, genetic evidence is not the be all and end all. It only illustrates ancient migrations from when Europeans were still being 'formed'. All the later Slavic and Bulgar arrivals did very little to change the genetic composition and proportions, except to maybe increase the level of Y Haplogroup R1a. What i was specifically referring to was that Bulgarians have a high level of J2 (circa 25%), which is more like Greeks, Turks and Sth Italians, whereas other South Slavs have < 10% . This represents an old , Neolithic migration from Anatolia to Southern Europe. As for the latter migrations, the Turkic peoples definitely were more restricted to the eastern balkans (ie Bulgaria), because of the routes they took to enter Europe. Pechenegs, Cumans, all steppe nomads came via Moldavia, Wallachia , and were often placed by the Romans as merceneries and border guards along the northeastern Bulgarian Danube front. Macedonians, one could argue, are a more pure mixture of Slavs and pre-Slavic Balkan peoples (Illyrian, Thracians, Greeks). Not that this really matters.
When you say they were absorbed by the people they were ruled, there is no evidence for this. Ethnicity is a modern, social construct. It mattered not whether they were ruled by Greeks, Serbs or Bulgarians - this would have hardly changed any aspect of their life. All that was replaced was the ruling structure, which themselves weren't too different anyway, all being Balkan Orthodox states.
What really is the issue is that although being a vital geographic area, Macedonia (esp northern macedonia), was never consolidated as the core region of any one state , it always kept changing hands. This is what is unique about it. This is why it is not Greek, nor Serb, nor Bulgarian. If it had remained part of Bulgaria since 850, then definitely today's macedonians would consider themselves as Bulgarians. But a period of rule from 850-1018 (less than 200 years) + a few even shorter periosds in the 13th century is not long enough to cement a Bulgarian identity to Macedonia.
Another arguement used by Bulgarians that Macedonians are Bulgarian is the so-called settlement of "Kuber's Bulgars" - the 5th son of Kubrat. Firstly, these bulgars were predominantly greeks previously taken hostage by the Avars, that rebelled under Kuber's lead, and returned back to Macedonia. Secondly, it is only a theory that Kubers is one of Kubrat's sons. Thirdly, there is absolutely no evidence that there was a 2nd Bulgar khanate in Macedonia in parrallel existence with that in Bulgaria. Fourthly, the apparent wide-spread Bulgar culture in Macedonia which some describe as identical to bulgaria and the land north of the Black Sea (where "Old Great Bulgaria" supposedly was) is not a uniquely Bulgar archeology. This is an over-simplification. It actually represents a culture which spanned many of the nomadic groups in the Ponto-Caspian steppes and was traded over a vast area of eastern Europe.
Hxseek ( talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Whether Kuber was a son of Kubrat or not - this is not so important. I don't know the exact composition of the people in the Kuber's state but I know that Byzantines at least considered them Bulgars - it is mentioned in a Byzantine chronicle that in 688 AD Bulgars let a campaign near Solun which took Romans by surprise ( so obviously these were not Danube Bulgars ).
The theory about the 'unique mixture of peoples in Macedonia' is nice but there is no evidence about it. On the contrary - there are a lot of evidences that it is not true. Here are some of them: 1) "Serbian component" can easily be eliminated because Serbian rule over Macedonia under Stefan Dusan was too short (for less than one generation). If there were Serbian contributions to the macedonian population they were during the existence of Yugoslavia. 2) Thrace also switched between Bulgaria and Byzantine empire but there is no 'thracian ethnos' nor a state called "Thracia". 3) If medieval Macedonians had the feeling that they were unique certainly there would have been Macedonian rebellions against the Bulgarian rule. Byzantines at least would have encouraged such uprisings - they did so with Serbs when the latter were under Bulgarian rule and surely they would have done the same with Macedonians. But there is no mention neither of Macedonian rebellons nor of distinct Macedonian people in Byzantine sources. 4) Macedonian slavs were under the influence of the Ohrid literary school and the Ohrid archbishopry which were Bulgarian institutions. Even if they didn't consider themselves Bulgarians they were quickly bulgarized - by state doctrine the state name was Bulgaria, its subjects were called Bulgarians and the language spoken and used in clergy was also Bulgarian. And for a writingless people like Macedonians before 850 AD century and a half is not so little time. 5) According to the Treaty of San Stefano (look at it) by which the Russian-Turkish war ended liberated Bulgaria had to include all territories with Bulgarian population - Macedonia also belonged to these territories. However, the Great Powers decided that so large Bulgaria was no of their interest and Macedonia remained within the Ottoman empire.
So the conclusion is that the Macedonian ethnos has been formed only recently as a result of not being within the Bulgarian state and Serbian propaganda during Yugoslavia's time. But I am glad to see that nosenses like "Today's Macedonians - descendants of Alexander the Great" and "Tsar Samuil - the Macedonian tsar of the Macedonian state" were abandoned. Gur4eto ( talk) 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Bulgars settled at their arrival on Balkans in Moesia (the region between the Balkan mountain and the Danube river). The other parts of today's Bulgaria ( more precisely - Thrace) were added to the First Bulgarian Empire later just like Macedonia. So the Bulgar influence in Thrace was comparable with that in Macedonia ( provided that we accept your theory that there were no Bulgars in Macedonia in 7th century - but what was the people that emperor Justinian II fought against in 688-689AD near Solun, which Byzantines considered Bulgar?) And Thrace just like Macedonia was an arena of many battles between Bulgaria and Byzantine empire and wasn't a permanent part of the territories of neither of the two states. And there is no state called "Thracia" today and "Thracian ethnos" different from the Bulgarian one. Simply southern Thrace is in Greece and inhabited by Greeks and northern - in Bulgaria and inhabited by Bulgarians; southern Macedonia is in Greece and northern. . . is a separate state?!
If we follow your logic we should divide each Balkan state into its geographical subregions (Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia etc.) because of some hypothetical slight ethnic differences. Take for example the region of Belgrade ( and the city itself) - it became under Serbian rule for the first time in 1284. Before that the local slavs were in Bulgarian, Hungarian and Byzantine states and were all but not serbs. Quite a good reason to create a "Belgradian" ethnos, don't you think? Let us not mention the region of Vojvodina.
The truth is that all modern nations are not "biological products" but rather more political formations. And what is today known as FYROM or just Republic of Macedonia is a political formation on what once was considered to be a Bulgarian ethnic zone. That's it.
Gur4eto (
talk) 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Look. I do see your point, but I'm just telling you that other theories do exist. Hxseek ( talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Lazar Kolishevski.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone change that first picture of the "Ethnic Macedonian girl in traditional folk dress." It's in black and white and the colour version is much more appealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 ( talk) 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have you changed the previous picture in the infobox? -- MacedonianBoy Oui? 10:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
i hate to ruin this article but it already is.
some of the most vital parts of this article aren't backed up by serious scholars and sources...
"Slavs absorbed the native culture"? how? when? evidence? or just a hypothesis? and particularly what cultures? Greek, Thracian, Illyrian? but then that wouldn't make them Slavic+Macedonians, but Slavic+Greek+Thracian+Illyrian (with Slavic dominant of course). by the time the Slavs came in the area, didn't the native people already belong to groups of Nations such as Greeks, Romans, Armenians etc? and if they have the Macedonian National identity from those native people, this means those natives must have identified as Macedonians by race and nation, but did this happen? was it recorded? as far as i know, absolutely not. the Ancient macedonians had been long belonging to the Greek nation by then, and the only mention about Macedonia was through the Byzantine province
Macedonia_(theme) that was in 800AD and really in Thrace and the
Macedonian_dynasty that was
Byzantine of course and has been recorded that it was made by Armenian and Greek Emperors......
"Slavic-Byzantine culture"? how? by when? ..
and this whole sentence has a wrong source: "the genetic studies support the theories that Macedonians genetic heritage is derived from a mixture of ancient Balkan peoples, as well as the relatively newly arrived Slavs with deep European roots. They share"the genetic contribution of the people who lived in the region before the Slavic peoples expansion" ... i don't know... it's really confusing, don't you think? 150.140.225.175 ( talk) 10:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I really am sorry that you are not intelligent enough to grasp simple concepts.
As i already said, there were no nations in the Balkans in the 500s and 600s. You either don;t speak English well enough or you have no understanding of history / anthropolgy. "Nations" , as in political countries, are different to the medieval empires. There were ethnic groups, yes, but even these were interchangeble. Your entire arguement is full of basic errors that totally undermines your arguement, and if I were any lesser person, I would not even respond. But out of good will, I will edicate you. We are only talking about Macedonians here, not Turks or Albanians or whatever.
When the Slavs came, the territory of Macedonia (ie the whole region, Greece and modern RoM) was part of the Eastern Roman Empire, by that time , already becoming "Byzantinised". Going back further, when the Romans came, only the cities became "Roman" in language and culture. Outside of Greece, the native peoples (whether you call them Illyrians or Thracians, or whatever) most likely retained their own ways and language. They did not belong to any federation. Whilst they were nominally part of the Byzantine empire, they were actually independent. Back then, nothing was systemetized like modern countires are now. Into the 500s, the Empire was declining more and more. Cities in ther interior of the Balkans were getting smaller, and eventually all fell to the Avars and SLavs. Only coastal cities like Thessaloniki , Corinth, Constantinople did centralized, Imperial control remain in place. In the countryside, some villages and semi-nomadic shepherds also survived. Most of these were Greek-speaking by this time, although some were Vlachs- Roman speakers. (In addition, there were probably other people living in the Balkans also, such as Germanics who had invaded earlier). So the Slavs would have had contact with all these people, and eventually fused. Naturally only one language can be dominant, but ideas and cultures can be transferred both ways. So what were these people that the Slavs fused with ? Its too complicated to go into, because no one except the Greeks had a sense of greater regional/ national unity (and even they were fragmented). We can call them palaeo-Balkan peoples. It is certainly recognised that by the 500s, much of Thrace and southern Illyria was Hellenized, culturally and Linguistically. But it is impossible to state exactly who and what they were, despite attempts to call them Illyrians or Thracians. And no one denies that the kingdom of Macedon had long ago ceased to be an independent political unit, and its people largely Hellenized.
The old theory that the Slavs came in hundreds of thousands is outdated and incorrect. On the contrary, Slavs only occupied some parts of the Balkans, although it was over a wide area ranging from Austria to Peloponessus. Archaeological finds show that the Slavs interacted with native peoples, adopting some of their techniques, as well as some words. It just so happened that Slavic became the lingua franca in most of the Balkans (there are some interesting theories for this).
You statement about R1a, only shows your lack of understanding. R1a is not the "Slavic gene" which lay people like yourself call it. It is just a haplogroup marker which arose in Ukraine c. 15, 000 years ago. Scientists theorize that it was brought into the Balkans ages before the Slavs arrived. After the last 'mini' ice age in Europe (12, 000 years ago) and perhaps by the Indo-Europeans (4,000 years ago). Lastly, if there were the "massive Slavic migrations" as reported by the Byzantine chroniclers, they too could have brought R1a into the Balkans from Ukraine, the postulated homeland of Slavs (however, many scholars do not agree that Ukraine really is the Slavic homeland).
So it is far more complicated than you think. The ancestry of Macedonians is quite mixed. The Slavic component was merely the latest layer. Just because the language is Slavic, it does not mean that's all they are.
Hxseek ( talk) 05:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Chinese, Greeks, AngloSaxons, Armenians, Romans, Visigoths, Vandals, Slavs etc. All that i am saying are sourced and common historical facts. what you are saying is baseless and OR. find me a source that says "there were no nations in the Balkans in 500AD"... and of course i know about R1a, i mentioned it as a not only Slavic haplogroup explicitly. anyway now you specify those Balkan people as "Illyrians or Thracians, or whatever". cool. then why isn't that in the article?? source it and put it in there. what i'm saying is the article should be more specific. your irrelevant ORing is unneeded and won't be put in the article anyway because it's unsourced. 150.140.227.137 ( talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC) and lol you fail to recognise that culture has nothing to do with genes. they may have mixed with natives (Illyrians, ghost nations you make up) but what is important is to mention what has remained from the "cultural mix" you refer to. and that as far as scholars know is zero. Slavic and Slavic only. having mixed genes but only Slavic language/culture doesn't make them mixed cultured. .. and the article seems to ignore your side. "Their linguistic and cultural origins stem from the 6th century when various Slavic tribes migrated to, and settled in, the region of Macedonia." and agrees with me. 150.140.227.137 ( talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL it seems like editors agree with me. in the article>>>>"including Greeks, Thracians and Illyrians"
nice. that's what i wanted to be added in the article. Specific people. not ghost "palaeoBalkan people" . thanx peeps who edited. sorry for pissing you off Hxseek that's what i meant. Bye.
150.140.227.137 (
talk) 14:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
If you actually read the article, all the information you are seeking was there to begin with. There is no OR on my behalf. You just lack to faculties to grasp simple concepts. Educate yourself about the difference between ethnic groups in Medieval times and modern nations. There is little point in coming here and arguing baseless points which have no thesis. You simply lack the English capabilities, as well as general neuro-cognitive capacity, I'm afraid.
All i was saying is that Illyrians and Thracians are very broad and oversimplistic terms (see the Illyrians article). There was never some unified people called Illyrians, who were aware of being 'the same' as each other- politically, ethnically , culturally. The Illyrians were but one tribe, whose name the greeks then used to refer to all other tribes in the province which became known as Illyricum. In reality, however, all these tribes were independent, even had different languages. Some were more venetic or Celtic than 'illyrian'. But sorry for confusing you, I shouldn't assume that people are as intelligent as me :)
There is ample evidence of cultural borrowings from the pre-Slavic peoples, eg plowshares etc. There are plenty of references in my talk page in discussion with another editor. This is not OR, its just common sense. When people mix, one group's customs doesn't just evaporate into thin air just because their language disappears.
Hxseek ( talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What part of "claims" are "Points Of View" don't you get Hxseek? Illustrate. CuteHappyBrute ( talk) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Historical claims should nevertheless be based on historical fact. I am not trying to neither minimalise the Greek stance, nor enhance the Serbian or Bulgarian one. As it was, the article presented all 3 sides succinctly and fairly enough.
There is no need for you to come along and abduct the section, needlessly elaborating it with subjective and emotive allusions to 'true inheritence', whilst removing the 'claims' of the other parties
Additionally, the 'claims'- contrary to what you beleive- should represent the official standpoint of the Greek government, not your personal POV.
That is why you were, and will continue to be, reverted. Hxseek ( talk) 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I am really sorry, but i just cannot understand what you two fellas are ranting on about.
As it was, beofre CHB made his own edits, the section on "Historical claims" was succinct and good enough. It states that Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia all had , in their eyes, a historical claim upon the region of Macedonia. That is all that it intends to communicate. It does not atempt to judge which country was more right or not.
In contrast, CHB cut out the other claims and launched into an a philosophical thnk-piece as to why greece is the rightful claimant on Macedonia. This is not the prupose of the article, nor the paragraph,. Just a quick outline on the opposing claims, That's all. I really fail to see why you have to try and hijack and distort the perfectly acceptable version which has been for over a year just becaue one editor wants to push his own perspective. Period. Reverted
Hxseek ( talk) 04:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not my fault your writing abilities are so poor, and you wish to pollute the article with your comical style, or lack thereof. You do not have to counsel me ad nauseam about what a "claim" means. My point is that your edit adds nothing to the understanding of the matter, and is in fact, inferior to the previous version.
In addition, you follow a flawed logic. Your aim is intent on proving that now all modern greeks are descendents of ancient macedonians. Whilst one can accept that the Macedon's became Hellenized after they easily conquered your greek ancestors (in a similar fashion that the Goths accepted Roman law), i do not understand now how Cretans are descended from macedonians. The cultural inheritence was in the opposite direction, and the gene flow would be negligible between such distant regions.
That aside, your paragraph reads ; ancient macedonians became Byzantine Greeks who became modern GReeks, therfore the region of Macedonia is Greek. Primary school logic. Hxseek ( talk) 07:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
CuteHappyBrute requested that I review the section and provide a general assessment. Upon reviewing both the section and its (lack of) references, I can safely state that I am 100% confused. At this point, I am starting to get a headache just trying to read this long-winded POV-induced shouting match.
Let's all take a deep breath and scrutinize the section sentence by sentence.
1) Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece all had, in their views, "historical rights" over the territory of Macedonia.
2) Greece promoted the view that modern Greeks are linguistically the closest living relatives of the ancient Macedonians, and are therefore the rightful inheritors of their legacy and territory.
3) The Bulgarians claimed Macedonia because it had been a part of the Bulgarian Empire, and had even been granted Macedonia in the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano.
4) Likewise, Serbia also invoked its medieval legacy; the city of Skopje served as the capital of Stefan Dušan's 14th century Serbian Empire.
5) The dispute continued in the period between 1878 and 1912 when the rival views succeeded in engaging the Slavic-speaking population of Macedonia into three distinct parties, the pro-Serbian, the pro-Greek or the pro-Bulgarian one, at the expense of development of a unique Macedonian identity.
Conclusion: This section needs to be fixed as soon as possible. Otherwise, it should be removed without the typical shouting match drama. Deucalionite ( talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The only document there is stating Macedonian Slavs is the Krste Misirkov "On Macedonian Matters" text written back in the days when there was no Macedonian State, so he needed to use a qualifier to distinguish the Macedonians from the rest of the inhabitants of the Macedonia region. Since there is evidence that the terms Macedonian Slavs or Slavomacedonians have a pejorative and discriminatory connotations and that the Macedonians (ethnic group) do not use the Slav qualifier, the presence of the term should be reviewed . Alex Makedon ( talk) 19:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
LOL "other Macedonian ethnic groups" where is that from!? There is just one and only Macedonian ethnicity, you are making confusion with the unofficial and mainly unevidented Regional Macedonian Identity (the regional identity of the inhabitants of the region Macedonia).
There are no other "Macedonian ethnic groups", so the "slav" qualifier besides beeing imposed, inaccurate, unofficial and often considered offending is obsolete too, read documents on Macedonians (ethnic group) :UN [9] [10], CIA fact book [11], Ethnic Macedonian diaspora AU [12], USA [13], Canada [14] etc, etc... Alex Makedon ( talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The intro could be: "The Macedonians are a South Slavic ethnic group who are primarily associated with the Republic of Macedonia", it could even stand as Avg stated it above, no harm done since the article states clearly that we are talking about an ethnic group. There are no other "Macedonian ethnic groups" so where is the confusion? Zarko what is "refering to other Macedonians in the same contex" there are no other Macedonians in the same context (ethnic groups). In addition to the negative connotations, the term (slavomacedonians) introduces a confusion with an unproper disambiguation since the single term - Macedonians (ethnic group)- is clearly not associated with more than one topic. Alex Makedon ( talk) 10:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You are the one that is making confusion distinguishing the terms ethnic and regional identity. The article states clearly: Macedonians (ethnic group), is clearly not associated with more than one topic, so where is the confusion? About the The Greek Helsinki Monitor reports over the discriminatory and pejorative use of the term read here [15] so much for the POV accusations. What non Greek (what do the greeks matter here any way?), contemporary sources we have that the Macedonians (ethnic group) are referred to as Slavo Macedonians, if not why keep "Slavo Macedonians" points of view POV on the page? Alex Makedon ( talk) 11:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, one more time, the term should stay because :1) it's not perceived as pejorative in Wikipedia, as clearly shown from the naming guideline, 2)this is the main article about ethnic Macedonians, a) the alternative reference serves to give a meaning to the disambiguation inside Wikipedia space, b) mentions the notable present need to disambiguate in English bibliography 3) regardless of the general need to disambiguate in Wikipedia content or outside sources the (present or past) use of "Slav Macedonian", "Macedonian Slav" and "Slavic Macedonian" is notable enough to be mentioned here anyway ! Alex Makedon, try searching for sources yourself, i'll only add some if you have the nerve to start edit-warring again, one for every revert, untill this dispute starts to seem ridiculous to you also.-- Zakronian ( talk) 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Repeating the same fallacious POV arguments over and over again does not make them more convincing, you are just wasting mine as well as your time
You do realise that it comes down on how Macedonians call themselves and how the world referrs to them, not on how some Greek editors have decided to call them. Alex Makedon ( talk) 13:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Macedonians are the only Macedonian ethnic group, politically speaking. Other inhabitants of the region of Macedonia have other ethnicities - Greeks, Albanians, Aromanians, etc, etc. Simple. This is not a discussion about the naming dispute issue Hxseek ( talk) 23:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are 'Americans' the only people to be called so in America ? Because the others are 'Mexicans' , 'Canadians'. Athough they are not the only people which inhabit nth America, and are not 'more American' than the others, they are , politically identified simly as Americans. No need for qualifiers. Hxseek ( talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops, i rly hate to ruin your hopes and dreams... but the Macedonian ethnicity exists, the whole world acnoledges it, it is officially recognized (UN [23] [24], [25], Ethnic Macedonian diaspora AU [26], USA [27], Canada [28]) Too bad, do continue your argumented talks. Alex Makedon ( talk) 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
With the only difference that I quote official UN and Goverment Documents and you state an unclear reference quote by scholar.google.com, hey look what I found in google scholar.com Hellass, we d'better edit WIkipedia accordingly. Alex Makedon ( talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The term Slav Macedonian is pretty anti-Macedonian and pejorative hate talk [29], the term Hellass was just an example to show the relevance of the information found on "scholar.google.com" , dont get too upset over it. Alex Makedon ( talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I never compared a thing with Greece. As you see you can find all strange an inaccurate things on www.scholar.google.com, you cannot dispute the official name of the Macedonian ethincity, recognized by UN with things you find on the internet. Alex Makedon ( talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
As you'll see if you look ten or so sections above, you'll see my comment that pictures of "controversial" people should not be added. I think we've discussed it thoroughly, but it might be somewhere in the archives. Especially the likes of Pulevski that repeatedly self-identified as being nothing of the sort. Thank you. And again, Mactruth, you're supposed to participate in discussions and give reasons for your edits and reverts.-- Laveol T 12:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is not important to put ,,undisputable‘‘ Macedonians only. The pictures should contain people which are important in Macedonian history, and Pulevski certainly is. Bomac ( talk) 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add Tose Proeski and/or Aleksandar Sarievski as well? Bruka ( talk) 12:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Friends, I am going to replace the portrait from Pulevski from the colage into the same article as for example is placed the portrait from Misirkov as compromise. I agree that Pulevski as Misirkov is very important for the Macedonians, but his ethnicity is clearly disputed. He has had slso a lot of strong pro - Bulgarian activities. Just read the article about him. Regards. Jingby ( talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"The following interview with Edmond Temelko, president of the Macedonian organization “Prespa” in Albania, outlines the precarious position of the Macedonian minority in Albania. It appeared in the Macedonian weekly, “Makedonsko Sonce”, on June 15, 2001.
"The plight of the Macedonians in Albania is already known. Macedonians in Albania are discriminated against and the government continues to unrealistically present their numbers. Albania recognizes that on its territory live only 5,000 Macedonians. But we alone, as Macedonian organizations in Albania number 120,000 Macedonians who are members of our organizations, or if we investigate there are perhaps more then 350,000 Macedonians in Albania."
http://www.macedoniansinalbania.org/news/osce_albania03.html
So please put the 120,000-350,000 number in the Macedonians around the world section for Albania. Thank you. Makedonija77 ( talk) 02:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I propose that the name of the article be changed to Macedonian people. Thus it will be clear that the article is about a modern people (ethnic group), and not a ancient historical community. I think that the proposal is decent and fair. Thanks in advance. Regards. -- Revizionist ( talk) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
They will all be included in the Macedonians disambiguation page, but my preposition is:
All of them will be included as Macedonians, but the Macedonian ethnic group which use the name in a ethnic sense will be included as Macedonian people, thus distinguishing it from those that use the name in regional and geographic sense. I think that the proposal is the best compromise solution. Regards to all. -- Revizionist ( talk) 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Macedonian people
- Macedonian Greeks
- Macedonian Bulgarians
Just an idea. Regards. -- Revizionist ( talk) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can see how "Macedonian people" would solve any problems better than the current title. On the other hand, there will probably come a time when we should in fact move this page right to Macedonians, this meaning being the overwhelmingly most common one in present-day English usage (per WP:DAB#Is there a primary topic?). Predictable furious howls from our Greek friends notwithstanding. But probably not right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not Ethnic Macedonians? Macedonians and Macedonian people are simply too broad and ambiguous. As for the "people" bit reflecting convention, not really. We have English people but Greeks, Scottish people but Germans as well as Ethnic Germans. And what does "not right now" mean? A way of circumventing all your Greek "friends" will have to be devised first? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Makedonci? · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"This article is about the South Slavic ethnic group; for the unrelated ancient people, see Ancient Macedonians and Macedon; for the modern Greek regional group, see Macedonians (Greek). For other meanings, see Macedonian."
Who says the modern Macedonians (ethnic) are not related to the ancient people? Mactruth ( talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it depends what you mean by "related". There is considerable, non-nationalistic, non-Macedonian theories and evidence supporting the view that modern Macedonians have always lived in Macedonia. That they arrived in the 6th century is a over-simplification which has been propagated by editors that are either not knowledgeable enough, or intentionally trying to push a particular point of view.
Politically and culturally, yeah, the ancient Macedonia ceased to exist long ago. One cannot propose a clear political continuity between anceint Macedon and the modern namesake.
At the same time, no one seems to see the weakness in the greek arguement, largely lying on the premise that because the ancient macedonians possibly spoke a language either Greek, or closely related, then they are the true cultural inheritors . There are many aspects to culture and identity, not language alone. Although some would like to think so, there were no consolidated 'nationalities' in 300 BC, just ethnies and empires
Hxseek ( talk) 04:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, it depends what you mean. Biologically speaking, yes, it is possilbe. These genetic 'proofs' , as you sarcastically refer to , suggest that the genetic make up of all nations stem from ancient times. This is not a secret. So yes, macedonians probably are directly related to people who have lived in the region of macedonia since the ages. Of course this isn't evidence of direct relationship to Alexander. But neither does this exist for modern Greeks. In fact, genetic studies show immense similarity between Ethnic macedonians and northern Greeks. It seems that geography dictates genetic relationships to a far greater degree than linguistic and cultural bounderies, for the most part. This again illustrates that the 'biology', the bulk of an area's population, was essentially already created by the Neolithic.
Although the Argeads aspired to a Hellenic identity, we ultimately do not have any proof of what the average anceint Macedonian saw himself as. Most likely as an ancient Macedonian, not "Greek". Hxseek ( talk) 08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There is none. That's what I am saying. But going from some scholarly theories about concepts of ethnicity and identity in pre-modern times most had just a very regional affiliation. Some even think that only the societal elites actually aspired to an 'ethnic' identity Hxseek ( talk) 09:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, elites were the ones who formed identity Hxseek ( talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed Hxseek ( talk) 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to such a micro-regional extent. I know this might ruffle a few feathers, but northern greeks, are genetically more similar to "Slav" macedonians than to cretans. Now I know its language, culture and common history, etc which is more important. But its a fact. just has to do with the patterns how Europe was colonized in the prehistoric years. For example, northern GReeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians and Serbs have very similar proportions of R1a, J2, E1b1b, R1b. All this means is that they all come from a common "biological pool". It just so happens that historical and political circumstances caused divergent linguistic affinities. We have no DNA data from ancient Macedonians, so we do not know if today's genetic make up is the same as back then, but likely ancient Macedonians, Dardanians, Paionians all had similar biology. Another thing, As you probably know Europeans are the most homogeneous people of all. The one country of India is more diverse than all Europe is. However, of all Europeans, the Balkan people are most diverse - a testament to the importance of the Balkan region in the migratory processes in Europe Hxseek ( talk) 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Not 'clutching at straws' but merely illustrating that the case is not so straightforward. But yes, the Hellenism associated with Macedon is not disputed. Macedonia is not a genetic island, never said it was. Not did I claim there was no Greek element , in fact, Greek language and culture was of course the dominant element in macedonia until the 'Slavic invasions'
Hxseek ( talk) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I must dispute - or at least strongly querry - this entry of the article, "for the modern Greek regional group, see Macedonians (Greek)." There are Greeks in the 17th century signing their name as Macedonians because they were born in what they considered Greece and Macedonia. Do those Macedonians belong to 'the modern Greek regional group'? I think not. They belong to the traditional group of Greeks who considered themselves Macedonians, as others considered themselves Chians, Athenians, Cretans, Smyrniots, etc... Politis ( talk) 17:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I see that Hxseek is interested in the genetic origin of the Balkan people and I recommend he read the article in http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_200306/ai_n9288054/pg_5 - it is written that today's Macedonians (the Slavomacedonians as Greeks call them), Bulgarians and Iranians are genetically close - this is because Bulgars (or proto-Bulgarians) were of Iranian origin as the latest theory states. I think that this article unintentionally but plausibly illustrates what the origin of Macedonians is. Gur4eto ( talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst an interesting study. The HLA system is only one of many genetic data we can use. Some geneticists argue that a pan-autosomal analysis is better, whilst other prefer Y-DNA or mtDNA data. Nothing is proven to be better, but we certainly cannot make any conclusions abut Macedonians' origins from a study focusing on a few HLA loci of Chuvash people. According to the analysis of this study, yes, macedonians and Bulgarians cluster with Iranians becuase they have eastern Mediterrean HLA-genetic make up ( ? whatever that means. It is a bit of a surprising finding given that Iran isn;t anywhere near the Mediterranean ?? ). Clustering does not imply origins, nor does it establish temporality or direction of movement. Although it might fit nicely with the Iranian origin of Bulgars theory, it doesn't represent proof, nor does the study claim it to be so. The Bulgars, whether 'Turkic' or 'Iranic' were probably mostly "European", anyway. Hxseek ( talk) 22:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Very well - this aricle is not a proof, I agree with that. But at least it contradicts to your theory of the genetic similarity between peoples that are geographically close ( see figure 3 in the same article - unfortunatelly it is not shown in the link I gave above but see it in http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Genetichni%20izsledvaniya/Chuvash%20-%20origin.htm - it is the same article although translated into Bulgarian) - it is strange that Bulgarians and Macedonians are so close to Iranians but differ quite a lot from, for example, Romanians, don't you think? As to the genetic similarity between northern Greeks, Macedonians, Bulgarians and Serbs - it can be quite easily explained by the considerable Slavic admixture of all of them (yes, northern Greece descents from these parts of the Byzantine empire which were inhabited predominantly by Slavs, moreover these territories were at times a part of the Bulgarian empire). The prehistoric genetic background of modern Balkan peoples is disputable - some historians believe that the local Balkan populations (Thracians, Illyrians, etc) were at least significantly reduced by the numerous barbarian invasions (and Slavic also) if not slaughtered completely. Gur4eto ( talk) 10:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hxseek ( talk) 07:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There are no "proofs" whatsoever about the modern Slavs being "connected" in some special way to the ancient Macedonians. That is ridiculous. As for the argument that Macedonians cannot be Greeks because the Greeks have already a Greek nationality, in the same way a Londoner cannot be British and a new nation can call their ethnicity Londoners. Let's be serious. Macedonian ethnicity can only refer to the ancient Macedonians and their descendants, who spoke Greek - not Slavic - and used Greek for administration as long as a Macedonia existed as an administrative district of the Roman and Byzantine empires. Finally, that the ancient Greeks considered themselves an ethnos, indeed Herodotus spoke of etnicities, is nothing new. Wikipedia is not an instrument of nationalistic propaganda from FYROM against Greece.( Skamnelis ( talk) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC))