Talk:Macedonia (region)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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 wree 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 [shallot] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:
    • [2]
    • [3]
    • [4] (Macedonians wanting to be independant)
    • [5] (In what language is this writing on the stone?)
    • [6] (Some once published territorial plans?)
  • Seems fairly neutrally written (but different conclusions reached):
  • 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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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 [12] 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 wikipedia 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 T/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 T/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 Wikipedia 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 WIkipedia 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 Wikipedia?

Dear Wikipedia administrator

I am writting you about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia 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 (Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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). Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 WIKIPEDIA 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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. WIKIPEDIA 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 WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NEVER FORCE ANY OF THE 3 SIDES!!!

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY HOW WIKIPEDIA 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 Wikipedia.
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia should always include all the versions of the story, present them well and make sure that noone is priviledged. It is not NPOV if Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia shows that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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", Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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. Based on historical evidence, historical consensus, I would bet that the Slavic Macedonians have less ancient Macedonian genes than Greeks. The Slavic Macedonians released flawed genetic research a few years ago to try to claim otherwise, but their claims have been rejected by the genetic experts in the field. ---Tony Starks

-- Just some clarification, alot of Macedonians talk about being descendants from Alexander the Great... he had no children and therefore no one can be directly descended from him... --

HLA Genes research

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 Wikipedia 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 another link, because that Slavo-Macedonian funded "genetic research" has been dismissed by the scientific community as totally lacking in scientific merit. Read this [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/full/415115b_fs.html 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia). 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. Your "genetic research link" that you posted above presented research that has rightfully been dismissed by the genetic specialists. 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 [13]. Pittacus was also Thracian [14] [15], Mantyes was Paionian [16], Plator is Illyrian (not only are all three of the gentlemen named Plator in this link of Illyrian ethnicity [17], but John Wilkes in his book The Illyrians quotes experts on onomastics who affirm it is Illyrian, because it is found almost always among Illyrians and among Delmatae, Liburnians), 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)
Hmmm, I just love it Greece's envious and poor neighbours have an opinion on the Greek language. I remember running into a Slavo-Macedonian article which explained how Koine Greek is actually not a Greek dialect... :D Something tells me that Strebinski is Paletakis from Talk:Macedonian Slavs. Same shit, different day. Miskin 03:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I (i_sterbinski) joined Wikipedia just some time ago, not more than 10-15 days ago. You can see that from many mistakes that I have made, including spamming, using caps instead of bold etc.
And one more thing. Maybe your neighboors are poor, but there is nothing to be envious about. All the world is laughting at you when trying to prove that everything on this world is Greek. Have you wached "My big,. fat Greek wedding"? That is how you are. And not to forget, the author of that movie is Greek woman.
I really would not like to be you. Sorry. I sterbinski 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah the world is laughing at us because of some comedy (which is actually pro-greek) and nobody's laughing at you who have the nerve to want to call your nation "Macedonian"? :) Of course you're not jealous, none of you is, keep saying that over and over and one day you might even believe it. What the hell, you might even believe that you're a Macedonian... Miskin 01:21, 15 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)
What??? Theathenae? Is that a response??? I am calling the admin to react on this. Ivica83 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Please people, give attention to this this comment of Theathenae above. This is how we aretreated by the Greeks. This is happening for centuries and it seems that noone cares. Nationalist like Theathenae and VMORO are the ones that are responsible of the assimilation texts here on Wikipedia and want to keep them.
And, Theathenae, what will I do about it? I would be glad explaining you that, but only in private. Wikipedia is not a place for idiotic conversations.
It will be interesting when you will be forced to pay compensations for all the lands that you stole. There is already law suit in front of the European court for that. And does not seem very good for you, kid. I sterbinski 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.--Theathenae 06:16, 11 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.
People beleived for centuries that Ramzes was the ones who runned the Jews away from Egypt. But, actually, latter it was proven that Ramzes II has nothing to do with that.
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)
Okay Isterbinski. It would be okay with me if Wikipedia termed the People X as Macedonians (nationality) or something similar, but this will always be controversial. However, the fact is that you have brought no evidence for Slavic Macedonians having more ancient Macedonian genes than other people in the area, and no evidence of even one language-element having passed directly from the ancient Macedonians to the Slavic Macedonians. Alexandru 22:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I feel the same way. Actually, I think that the complete issue between the nowday Macedonians and Greeks is senceless, because it appeared only because of the nationalistic minds in both of the countries. Well educated normal person in modern Macedonia or Greece know that non of us can have exclusivity over the Antique Macedonia.
The real problem is between the Bulgarians and nowdays Macedonians, because they ignore the Macedonian nationality, language and culture for centuries, including now, in the 21st century.
And yes, I am aware that the term Macedonia involves far too many sensitive points. That will make it forever contraversial.
Some nationalistic Macedonians are quite not resonable, claiming our exclusivity over the term Macedonia. But, in real world it is not that way. Even if some day someone manages to prove that the nowdays Macedonians are exclusive and only ancestors of the Antique Macedonians, even them we can not have the exclusivity over that term. Simply, that time involves 25 centuries, far too much time. And not to forget that the modern nations did not formed before 15th century (A fact that makes half of this conversation on this discusion page completely irelevant). I sterbinski 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the Slavic Macedonians can claim some genetic descent (as numerous others can) and also symbolic ancestry, but where I draw the line is at the language. I have yet to see an actual linguistic source affirm any connection. I'm not saying "there is absolutely no linguistic element that has transferred from ancient Macedonians to modern Slavic Macedonians"---though this is probably the case. This website [http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/similarities.html is spurious and erroneous, point blank. Those names were gathered not from Hesychius, but gathered haphazardly from various sources, and many of those names (including most of the ones I mentioned) are not even attested among the ancient Macedonians. I'm going to detail its blatant errors on another page in the future. Though we agree on other points, there is no agreement here and it is not a good sign that you believe such pseudo-scholarly internet sites. Alexandru 04:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that many of the things on that web cite are too nationalistic and not always true. I never denied that. On the other hand, there are many other that have a completely reasonable aproach and are supported by the scientific world, especially in last 20 years.
I have to point out that I am not a linguist. So, when the language is concerned, I don't know too much. I just know that the same information (concerning the nowdays Macedonian versus the Antique Macedonian language) can be found in a linguistic book by some Russian guy. I read that book some 3-4 years ago and I don't remeber its name, or the name of the author, but I know that many words mentioned in that book are mentioned on the web page I posted here. I repeat, many, but I can not claim that they were all. Another thing that I am sure about that there are at least 7 linguistic books concerning this issue, and more than half are from non-Macedonian authors.
I repeat. I am not linguist, so I leave this to someone more informed. All I know that this issue is a subject to several books and researches. I sterbinski 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


There is no genetic evidence that the Slavic Macedonians have more ancient Macedonian genes than other people in the area. The Slavic Macedonians most likely (affirmed by historians, based on historical evidence) absorbed a Latinized and/or Hellenized population. It is not a "nationalist claim" that Slavs arrived in Macedonia around the 7th Century AD (very unlikely any ancient Macedonian speakers were still around then). So Macedonian genes would have come from Romanized and/or Hellenized Macedonians in just about all cases (again not "a nationalist claim", but the historical consensus, supported by the evidence; if somebody wants to review the evidence or the evidence ex silentio, they can research and find it). Alexandru 05:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The research was involving selevaral nations, including a Macedonian scientist. The research involves a Spanish scientist that lives in Greece for more than 30 years too. Lets please note that this is a officially publicated and suported research.
Another thing that I want to note is that it only covers the HLA genes and their presence. How they appeared in some nation, we can always only guess.
Dacius, I have to point out that the research says the HLA Mediterinanian genes are dominant in our genes. On the other hand, the Slavic gene is much less seen in the nowdays Macedonians and we have it less than any other Slavic nation living in the area, including the Bulgarians.
The Slavic HLA gene is of same "power" as the Mediterinanian. The research did not assume any conclusion why we have more Mediterinanian than Slavic gene and I won't dare to predict. More Researches will follow, so sooner or latter we will see are we (and how much) or we are not at all connected with the Antique Macedonians, or any other tribe living in the area in the time before Crist.
Whatever will be the conclusion, I will be glad when it happens. It is better to know am I connected to the Antique Macedonians at all and if yes, how much is that, than having endless discutions on pages like this one about my origin. Now, especially after this research, I can not just accept that I am Slavic. Aldough, beeing just Slavic will solve many problems to my country that we have with Greece, I will rather wait for the truth. I hope you understand what I am talking about.
Anyway, I would like to repeat something. Whatever result appears at the end, even if we are 60% Antique Macedonians and 40% Slavic, Macedonians can not have the exclusive right to use the term Macedonia. No one can. Agree? I sterbinski 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes I agree on that last point. Alexandru 02:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to thank Istirbinski for finally publishing the data that the present-day Macedonian Slavs have 60% East Mediterranean genes (which he mistakenly attributes to the Ancient Macedonians). Darling, Bulgarians have exactly 60% East Mediterranean genes, as well (see [ http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html ]), no better proof that we are the same people can ever be provided:-))))))). VMORO 07:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Darling, if you know anything about biology and genes, you will know what difference is there between HLA genes and genes in general.
Actually, the exact research you linked here proves that Macedonians and Bulgarians have nothing in common.
Acording to the research you provided, Macedonians have:
75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean (most common on the coast), 10% Noric and 5% Neo-Danubian (most common in the north) = 15% periphery Nordish types.
Acording to the same research, Bulgarians have:
60% East Mediterranean, 15% Alpine, 15% Dinaric, 5% Turanid, 5% Nordish.
As you can see, your research shows exacly the oposite from your claims: Bulgarians and Macedonians have very little in common.
On the other hand, the research I linked is strictly about the HLA genes. This technique is very new and it is expected to change the world history (it already started). So, before getting a smile on your face, read first the research that you linked well, and then read and learn well about the uniqueness of the HLA genes, and then read the research I linked. Sorry to disapoint you. :)) I sterbinski 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)



East Mediterranean? So, by the decidedly non-Slavic Igor Sterbinski's own admission, the "Macedonians" and Bulgars are really Arabs and the Greeks are really "sub-Saharan savages", to quote from a macadamia nut nationalist website where I first encountered this racist excrement disguised as a "scientific" study.--Theathenae 08:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I will sugest same to you. First learn what is West and East Mediterinanian, and learn what is HLA genes. According to the research I linked, Macedonians are closely linked to other old (before Crist) ethnicities and tribes that lived in Mediterinanian Europe. If you read the survey well, the final result proves that the people that we have origin from arived on the region of Macedonia 2000 years BC. I am not claiming they were the Antique Macedonians. And the same survey found Slavic genes in the Macedonians, but in much lower percent.
On the other hand, the nowday Greeks are closely conected with the Ethiopia's, Sudan's and West Africa's people. This does not deny the close connection between the old Greeks and new Greeks. It actually proves that they were closely related, but (according to this research) the new Greeks are mixure between the old Greeks and Sub-Saharans.
Theathenae, if you read the survey well, you could notice that there is a big posibility of mixing between the old Greeks and the Slavs (the ones that we have origin from), but before the Greeks started mixing with the Sub-Saharans. So, Theathenae, maybe we are even very far cousins. :))
Many surveys about HLA genes are to follow, Theathenae, and till they arive I will not claim anything. But it does not look good for you, at least not for now. I sterbinski 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
How exactly does it not look good for me? I personally see nothing but good in having sub-Saharan genes: great tans, big dicks, and the kind of physical prowess you "whiteys" can only dream of. Not to mention that it was those same sub-Saharan mongrels that gave birth to Western civilisation. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more than "exposing" the Greeks as "African savages" to justify your claim to Macedonia. You're going to have to try much harder than that. Next!--Theathenae 05:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this was the best answer on this discusion page ever (the part about the big dics and prowess). :))) Respect to you, Theathenae.
Just, I got little disapointed with the second part of your answer. I never said any of those words, Theathenae. And, if you read my comments well you would know that the sub-Saharan genes in the Greeks do not show that they are not connected with the old Greeks. The connection between the old and new Greeks is too obvious and can not be denied.
And, let me repeat again. No matter of the past, the whole region of Macedonia, including the Macedonian name can not be monopolized by any of us nowdays Macedonians and Greeks.
Personally, I beleived since ever that the issues we have about the name Macedonia can be solved much easier than it seems. The non-nationalists from both sides (Greek and Macedonian) are aware that no one of us can have exclusive rights on the name of Macedonia and the history which is involved. Actually, I can bet that this issue will be solved in next few years.
I think more sensitive issue is the problem with the nowdays Macedonians who have origin from Greece and don't live there anymore. But, I hope that our goverments will be smart enought to get over this problem too.
We both know that all the problems we have are political and historical. Personally, I do not beleive that the people that live in Macedonia or Greece have problems between them. I sterbinski 00:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


I can vouch for my big dick (no bluff) and a fair amount of physical prowess (here I may be bluffing a bit), but the tan missed me. Alexandru 05:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Well you are half Greek, if I recall correctly. ;)--Theathenae 05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Decius, you don't expect us to beleive that. You will have to post a pic or something. :))) Just kidding, please do not introduce us with the "monster".
Just, it was interesting to know that you are half Greek. It seemed that your comments are too personal and I could not beleive I hear them from a Romanian. But, that is no problem at all. I think we had quite intereting discusion here and we both have one more positive experience. I am glad that non of us took a nationalistic aproach to this discusion.
Yes I. Sterbinski, I have kept my comments as polite as possible in this dispute, and I'll continue to do so. I'm not exactly a "biased" person. In articles, when I see "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", I sometimes change it to "Republic of Macedonia" (see history Dardania (Europe) article), even though I don't "agree", but that is Wiki policy. I guess I have "mixed feelings" here. Lord Marshal 02:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite fair. I wish Greece and everyone else can understand that Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia) do not have any teritorial claims for some Greek teritory. As you know, the cooperation between the 2 countries is quite good.
I agree that there are some nationalists in Macedonia who would like to see Aegean part of Macedonia back in Macedonia, but those people are highly isolated and they do not have enought support.
After the problem we had with the Albanians which live in Macedonia in 2001st, we realise that nationalism has to be left back in the past. But, in the same time no one of us is prepared to tolerate if someone ignores us or denies our existance.
I personaly am an optimist about the issue we have with Greece. I just hope that the politicians on both sides will not include nationalistic aproach to the issue in their election speaches, because we should work on relaksing the crowd, not on fireing it up. I sterbinski 00:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The way the study is phrased in the links [http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf (and the Macedonian Slav names that sponsored it, K. Dimitroski, M. Blagoevska, V. Zdravkovska, not just Spanish names there) leaves no doubt that it is not quite science. This kind of research is easily skewed or even inherently flawed (for example, I recall wide genetic samples used in the 1990's to "prove" a version of OOA theory that have since been discarded as flawed, though once hailed as "proof" by some). But even if the research is valid, every sensible person here realizes that the "East Mediterranean" element in Macedonians Slavs and Bulgarians could as well have come from anybody from the Turks to the ancient Thracians. Putzger's 1905 map below shows heavy Turkish settlement in Macedonia (and some in Crete) for example. Alexandru 10:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Alexandru, the Turks have their origin from Central Asia, or maybe even Mongolia, but they have nothing to do with the old Mediterinanians (we are talking about the time from 2000BC till Crist, and Turks arived in Minor Asia in the 14th century). Thracians might be the reason, but very unluckily, because they have far older genes than the people we are looking for. And, their HLA genes are in the group of Indo-European, not Mediterinanian.
I sugest you to read the survey well. It seems to me like you only read the conclusion, nothing else.
By the way, 7 of 10 authors are non-Macedonians, including a Spanish scientist that lives in Greece for more than 30 years. It is important to mention that the other scientist involved are of so called "neutral nations".
The 3 Macedonians involved were not sponsors. They are respected doctors from the Transfusiology and Tissue Department from Skopje and they were part of the team that worked on the survey. As a matter of fact, they were not included in the analisis of the samples (if anyone understands Macedonian, I can find you an interview with K. Dimitroski for a Skopje newspaper, but which is owned by German publishers).
On the other hand, at the end of the survey you can find a list of 33 references by authors of many different nationalities, but non of them Macedonian.
And please, anyone else who want to coment on this issue, first read what HLA genes represent, their importance, and please read the research completely.
At the end just to mention that this research was officially publicated, but never denied or doubted by anyone (except you guys, the "respected scientist of world class"). I sterbinski 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


I can't really answer where the East Mediterranean genes come from - they can be from the Thracians/Dacians, they can be from earlier mixture of the Eastern Southern Slavs with Iranian tribes, they can also be a result of the Ottoman domination. Not directly from the Turks, though, who were Turanoid, but from the heterogenous population of Anatolia which was Islamized and Turkified even before the formation of the Ottoman Sultanate. Or may be all three. But don't stake too much on the Turkish presence, Decius. The presence of East Mediterranean genes is strong even in the region of Sofia which had practically no Turkish settlements during the centuries of Ottoman rule. On the other hand, it is almost certain that a large number of Pechenegs settled there in the 11th century and were assimilated by the Bulgarians. Btw, why do you use this other name, Alexandru? VMORO 17:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Again, read first before you start talking senceless things. You are constantly talking about the period that is 30 centuries after the one the research talks about. Can anyone who knows anything from this issue read the survey and post his comments, please?
And again: the general characteristics of the genes (that you are talking about) are highly influenced by the "power" of the genes of specific ethnicities. But, HLA genes (the ones that I am talking about) are not influenced by this or similar problems. So, HLA genes research is a relatively new technique and has very little to do with general genes research. Make difference guys.

I sterbinski 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


In fact, if one reads VMORO's Nordish link, it states that Romanians are 25% East Mediterranean, and that this element is mostly along the coast. Note that Turks in Romania were and are mostly along the coast. The Turkish factor appears in all these cases, including Crete, and the conclusion is obvious---there were hardly any "ancient Macedonians" in Scythia Minor. Alexandru 12:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
2 things:
1) I never claimed that this survey proves that I have origin from the Antient Macedonians. It is possible, but not sure.
2)Again, make difference betweem regular genes researches and HLA genes researches. Read about it, you will see how different they are. I sterbinski 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Linking genes with national identities is dangerous. I knew about that HLA genes research all about it, but frankly, I don't believe it proves anything. That is why I have never used as it an argument. The involvement of the Macedonian crew in it, is indeed suspicious to me. The one thing positive that HLA genetic research proved, is, in my opinion, that the national "purity" of modern nations is, and has always been, a myth.
I agree. There is no national purity in any nation in the world. One example... I am married with a Mexican, a country which is on the other side of the world. And I can bet that anyone of us knows at least some person married to someone belonding to different ethnicity. Just imagine how many cases like that were there in 40 centuries. I sterbinski 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Now, what is really dangerous in it, are indeed, the racist conclusions drawn from it "Oh, my nation is more pure than your Sub-saharan tribe". (So Theathenae, that is indeed a racist statement, but I'm still confused why you dislike our faces so much). Such genetic researches or sometimes quasiresearches are always followed by racist sentiments, although they might not be motivated by such sentiments. Just see what the site that VMORO has provided stand for: Essays on a new concept of racial relations that promotes the continued existence, independence and legitimate rights and interests of all races, providing a preservationist alternative to the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism. Destructive consequences of multiracialism?!
Of course, there is this new "ethical racism" (preservation of all races), that tries to avoid (in my opinion), the obvious link, between these guys and Hitler's ideas, but on the site, there are mostly concerns why the "Nordic race" is the one dissapearing. How "serious" these guys are, you can see from map for racial preservation of the US. The website's list of "Estimated percentage genes of modern nations" is composed from god knows what sources. --FlavrSavr 15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
What bothers me more than anything is uncouth and underdeveloped Balkanians thinking they are somehow better than the Ethiopians, heirs to a great civilisation and a proud African nation never colonised by Europeans. If I am sub-Saharan, I am fucking proud of it! Watch me as I contaminate your beloved pristine white Egejska Makedonija with my dirty African genes...--Theathenae 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not better than the Ethiopians. Non of us here is. I never said anything racist. All my respect to everyone, no matter of their nationality.
This is just a pure discusion and (at least) I don't have anything against you all, no matter Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian or anyone else. As a matter of fact, I have Macedonian, Greek and Ukrainian origin. I am married to a Mexican and I have close family and friend to at least 5 other countries.
We are all human. Naturaly, we all need to belong to some group. So, that is why we have our groups (nations, as we call them now). And it is normal for any of us here to deffend his group.
But, I beleive that as soon as we discover any alien life forms on some planet, that are capable for beeing our rivals, the only important thing will be to be a human, no matter of the nationality.
I know that someone will give now some arogant comment on this, but that is how I really feel. Sometimes I can get mad at some of you, but it is just because I feel ofended. Probably I even ofended some of you here.
Peace to all of you. This issues we have, sooner or latter we will solve them, no matter will that be with HLA genes researches or any other method. And no matter of the result. Just, lets try to solve them peacefully and to stop the stupid Balkan tradition to have at least one major war in every 50 years.
Maybe it is unadequate to say this here, but I heared from some US citizen (friend of my uncle) that the Balkan is an ashole of the world and we all (the counties around) are its hemoroids. Damn it, I hated him after this. But, unfortunatelly, he is right. :(( I sterbinski 01:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
We're all going kind of off-topic with this, but some last points, assuming the genetic research is not flawed. If they define East Mediterranean as genes found in and around Anatolia, then I don't see anything "Macedonian" about those genes. They are Anatolian genes. Crete was once populated by Leleges according to Herodotus, and the Minoan language has been compared to the Anatolian languages. The Turks absorbed the Anatolian peoples and would have transmitted a lot (but not all) of the East Mediterranean genes into Europe.
The same genes can be found in the Spanish people. And the Turks can not be the transmiters, because they appeared in the area about 20-30 centuries after the people we are looking for. Acording to the sturcture of the HLA genes that appeared in the research (showed in the tables in the research), we are looking for someone who was on the are of modern Balkany, Italy, Spain, Senegal (very unlickely) or Portugal. Again, me or you making wild guesses can not change anything. The research does not claim any conection between the nowdays Macedonians and Antique Macedonians. It only confirms it is posible, but the same thing was already claimed before. It will take at least 10 more years and at least 3-4 intensive researches to make this issue more clear. But, no one of us can predict the final results. I sterbinski 00:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


That would be very unlickely. The research says that the sub-Saharan gene in Greeks "entered" latter, most possibly after Crist. The research does not say this, but maybe the Greeks that came from Minor Asia brought it. But, this is just a wild guess. As I said before, more research will come, so them we can talk more about it. I sterbinski 00:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I. Sterbinski, it is not very unlikely. The dubious (it is dubious) report itself says, "The conclusion is that part of the Greek genetic pool may be sub-Saharan and that the admixture has occured at an uncertain but ancient time." If it was from Egyptian Greeks after Christ, it should not be so sub-Saharan, because the majority of Egyptians were not of the sub-Saharan type. ---Lord Marshal Alexandru 01:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that bringing that survey in this discusions was not ment for denying anything Greek or what the Greeks feel as Greek. There were 2 things I wanted to point out:
1) The nowdays Macedonians are of mixed origin (not just Slavic), like some people here claim.
2) The nowdays Macedonians have different genetical structure than any other nation in the region of the Balkany.
Another thing that you say that the research is dubious, but no one till now ever doubted it from the scientifical point of view. To build strong conclusions, more researches are needed and much more work. The only conclusions that are certain are the ones given above. I sterbinski 00:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The "research" has been rejected by the experts in the field, because it is flawed. I don't know why you are even still talking about it. Decius 01:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You are talking about a wrong researcvh. See bellow. There are several proofs of how mistaken you are. I sterbinski 06:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Genetic NPOV

Can anyone tell me what are we discussing about here? As I recall, in this discussion, nobody claimed that the HLA genes research was somehow a definite proof that the modern Macedonians (nationality) are in genetical continuity with the Ancient Macedonians, nor does the research give that kind of proof, since this is a really new method in determining historical contingency, and I guess it is not fully accepted as relevant in the scientific community . (Note that the claim of some "uncouth and underdeveloped Balkanians" about the "Greek sub-saharan inferiority" was not brought as an argument by anyone participating in this discussion, therefore its deconstruction is a waste of time).

The HLA genes research claims that the East Mediterranean genes which are to be found in modern Macedonians, are older than than those which can be found in Greeks. From that point on we can either:

1)Refuse its conclusions (HLA genes research is not to be mentioned in the article)
2)Accept its conclusions (HLA genes research is to be mentioned in the article)

If we do accept it as relevant to the article, then we must not speculate about its contents. Tony Starks (:D) as far as I know, you are speculating. "If they define East Mediterranean as genes found in and around Anatolia" is speculating, by definition. "Ancient Macedonians would also have had "sub-Saharan genes"", is also a speculation, because that claim is not supported by any other genetical or historical research. Note that Jews also have "East Mediterranean" genes, so you are actually claiming that Greeks are "older" than Jews. Also note that the same research is used by the Lebanese to claim ancestry from the Phoenicians - [[18]].

If we include the HLA genes research in the article, then we must accept that it claims that Macedonians (nationality) belong to an "older" genetical substratum than modern Greeks, same as the Jews, French, Italians etc., and that, probably Macedonians (nationality) are genetically linked with the Ancient Macedonians and note that this research is used by some Macedonian and Lebanese nationalists as a definite proof for their Ancient Macedonian and Phoenician ancestry, respectably. (that they, those nationalists claim so, is verifiable). The Greek arguments (from the reaction of the nationalists to the response of the scientists and historians) to the research must be supported by citing sources which can be found outside this discussion.(that is something that the NPOV policy requires, cite your sources).

IMHO, this genetical data, could be included with the necessary explanation that it this is a really new method, and it is not fully accepted in the scientific community.

Here's the research in full. [19] --FlavrSavr 22:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This research might result in many conclusions. But one of them is sure... it shows clearly that we are have older origin than Slavic and it shows that we have different genetic structure than any other nation in the area. I know that after this VMORO will post his comment here trying to deny me, but you can not deny the blood and genes that are inside me. As I said, more researches will follow, so let's see. I sterbinski 00:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The report should not be used in the article unless its dubious interpretation is specified. If this was an issue concerning Jews, not Greeks, everybody would agree it is anti-Semitic in tone and not to be given much credit ("The sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks", as the report says; give me a break; if someone thinks that report is not politically motivated, tainted, and dubious, then that someone is naive). ---Lord Marshal Alexandru 01:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Look, the research is deffinitly not anti-Greek. The research never doubts the Greek origin from the antient Greeks. It only gives another link in their origin (sub-Saharan), but does not denies the other links.
The ones that know more about the genetic researches know that bigger mixure of genes results in more sophisticated speciments.
And, it is nonsence to claim that the research is politicaly motivated. The research involves 70% of scientists of Spanish nationality (one of them having also Greek nationality). Their team already started the research when the other 3 scientist got involved, mostly in getting tissue and blood samples. As you know, Spain is Greek partner in the European union. Why would they support Macedonia over Greece?
Another interesting point is that the research was not mentioned or used by any of the Macedonian political parties, including the most nationalistic ones. If they wanted, they could use it to get political points, claiming that this research shows our connection with the antique Macedonians. But they never did that.
I don't think that me, Dacius, VMORO or anyone else here has a right to deny this research, because we are talking about a publicaly presented and quite popular research, publicated in several scientifical magazines, with international team of genetical scientists behing it and, the most important... never denied research, by anyone. I sterbinski 01:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


And I repeat that there is no way yet to tell whether the ancient Macedonians had such a high percentage of "East Mediterranean" (actually, probably Anatolian) genes, so it is not proof of ancient Macedonian genes, as we've all admitted. Lord Marshal Alexandru 01:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
No one ever said that it is prove for our antient Macedonian origin. But it is sure that it is not Anatolian (read the survey, you will see why). Please stop trying to desinform the people with your claims that those genes can come from everyone else except antique Macedonians. Even the scientist that worked on this issue can not give predictions, because they need further researches to be able to do that. I repeat, this survey is not enought to claim exacly where the Mediterranean genes in nowdays Macedonians come from. It is only sure that, whoever they were, they mixed with the nowdays Macedonians between 2000BC and Crist. I sterbinski 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
And again, read the survey well please, not just 1/10 of it. The survey does not make any connection with East Mediterranean, only to Mediterranean. If we are talking about people, they include old Mediterranean who lived in Spain, Italy, Senegal (little percent) and others. I sterbinski
Sterbinski, the survey has been rejected by the experts for good reason, because it was not science. Again, I don't know why you are still talking about it (actually, I do know why, but no need to point out the obvious). Decius 01:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
We don't have to continue talking about this research. I am not trying to keep talking about it, I am just replying to your posts when you try to deny it. As soon as you stop denying it, I won't keep talking about it.
And, erasing this part of the discusion is not fair. That is hidding facts from the other readers and we both know that is not OK. If you have something to say, post it here, but don't erase the parts that you personaly don't like. Othervise, I will have to complain about that to the other, neutral administrators. I sterbinski 02:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


On the other hand, if we want to rewind history to 1930's Nazi eugenics, then by all means let's present the report as un-politically motivated objective science within the article. I'm sure this wonderful new policy will be popular among Jews, African-Americans, Asians, the Irish, and various other groups. ---Lord Marshal 02:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


Well for what it matters, this is what the world actually thought on the Slavo-Macedonian genetics "research" [20]. This is really for the people who were naive enough to not notice how ludicrous this article is by definition. What I still don't see is how would it be insulting for Greeks to have an ancient Egyptian ancestry. Anyway, since Mister whatever-owski likes genetics, I'm allowing him to have a look at a real one [21]. Sleep tight... :) Miskin 03:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

For everyone who read the research I posted it is more than obvious that you are not talking about the same research. The research I posted does not mention anything about the genetic connection of the Jews and Palestinian.
And it is normal some scientist to react at research proving a connection about the Jews and Palestinian. But, that denial does not include any scientifical evidence. Only a denial by 3 other scientists. And, as you can read, the magazine withdraw the research because of "political reasons" as it is said on the web page. Not because of "scientifical reasons". So, there was no scientifical denial involved.
But, let me repeat again. The research I linked to does not say anything about the Palestinian-Jews conflict. And, your denial is exacly concerned with that issue. So, it is more than obvious that you linked to a completely different research. I sterbinski 02:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it is the same research. See below. ---Tony Starks 03:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not the same research. I got proves this time. See below. I sterbinski 04:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever thought that the survey on Palenstinians might have been for practical reasons on a different PDF? Oh, so you haven't... You're lucky you have others to think for you. Take a look at this [22].
I wonder what kind of pathetic excuse you'll come up with this time. Miskin
I linked to the same research below. Anyone who sees the both researches can see are they the same, or completely different researches. I sterbinski 20:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
So it was flawed genetic research that was skewed in a certain direction? What a surprise. Lord Marshal 03:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC) (I've seen this happen in wide genetic studies many times, not just this one, as I've noted)
Sorry to dissapoint you. It is not the same research. I sterbinski 02:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually a person of fundamental historical knowledge doesn't have to seek scientific judgement in order to understand that this article is another racist joke. I've had the article in PDF for a year now (willing to distribute it) and it only makes me feel sorry about how desperate some extremists can get. Half of the articles members have Slavic names (-owski, -ov, etc) and although it is somehow published from a spanish university, the actual genetic research is done in the university of Skopje (yes, it's actually that neutral). It begins with a brief historical introcution which should be a copy-paste from makedonija.org and proceeds with the procto-biology thingie. The article claims that at some undocumented point of Greek history in which the Minoan civilization was still powerful (3rd millenium BC), a huge wave of Egyptians might have crossed into Greece. Based on the assumptions that the ancient Ethiopians are cousins of the ancient Egyptians, this theory is generalised into "Modern Greeks have African genes". From what I've said the author's ignorance basically states that Modern Greek history starts during the Minoan civilization. The propaganda of the article reveals the author's beliefs are that a fictional non-white (in this case black) ancestry is something degrading to a European nation (the only thing that's missing is the word nigger). Basically none of it makes sense and it's comico-tragically stupid, so don't ask for details, I can give out the article to anyone who wants to witness 18th century-style nationalist despair existing in modern times. What also makes me feel sorry is that the editor's of a supposedly neutral encyclopedia don't have the basic knowledge that allows a scholar to smell a fraud, even when it's as obvious as this one. Miskin 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
That is not truth, even funny. Firstable, just 3 of 10 scientist involved are with Macedonian origin.
Another thing. The research is done in Spain and USA. The university in Skopje does not have enought equipment and facilities for HLA genes researches. Actually, the university here is hardly doing any researches at all.
So, please stop claiming senceless things and check your information before you post them here. I sterbinski 02:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it is the same research. See below. ---Tony Starks 03:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not the same research. I got proves this time. See below. I sterbinski 04:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
So much for your 'proves' [23]. Miskin 11:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
We know that the university of Skopje lacks the facilities to perform such a research, hence the fabrication of results. If the university of Skopje has nothing to do with the reasearch, then why the hell is it mentioned in the PDF? Or do you want me to quote it for you?
  • 2Tissue Typing laboratory.

Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. Republic of Macedonia

  • The contribution by A.

Arnaiz-Villena and K. Dimitroski is equal and the order of authorship is arbitrary Oh I know, that must be another conspiracy of those Sub-Saharan Greeks. I just feel sorry for the Spanish people whose names were dragged into this. :/ Miskin 11:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, everything you posted here is your assumption, nothing more. Anyone who wants to see the full text of the research, can get it here: http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf.
Every single claim in the research is supported by scientifical reason, including evidence. And, it was never been scientificaly denied. Only politicaly, as Miskin is doing now.
One more important thing. I read this research in January or February 2005th. If someone wanted to use it in political and nationalistic claims, why they haven't done it in 4 years, since the research appeared?
So, every claim for Macedonian nationalistic connection with this research is absurd, because no one of us (Macedonians) wanted to include it in the Macedonia page here on Wikipedia. But, including it in the page for the nowdays Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs) should be discussed.
And, Dacius, how do you want me to stop talking about the research when I read stupidities like this posted by Miskin? I sterbinski 02:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So let's have a look at the authors of the article which concerns the Palenstinians [24]:

  • Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, Nagah Elaiwa, Carlos Silvera,

Ahmed Rostom, Juan Moscoso, Eduardo Gómez-Casado, Luis Allende, Pilar Varela, and Jorge Martínez-Laso Hmm, no Skopjan names this time, how strange. :/ I suppose mr Dimitroski had been very picky on the topics of his research, Har, Har, Har! :D Miskin 11:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And for those who were too lazy to read the academic opinion:

...Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons. ...The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute. ...We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit. Having said this, I think everyone has got an idea about how seriously can editors like FlavrSavr and sterbinski be taken. This entire section should be removed from the discussio page, not simply because it's extremely rediculous and disgraceful for the encyclopedia, but also because it includes racial discrimination based on the colour of people's skin. Miskin 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, but the publications you are talking about was withdrawn because of "political" reasons (as you can read on the same web site).
And let me repeat that the research that we are talking about does not concern Japanese, Jews, Palestinians etc. You are talking about a completely different research, Miskin.
The only one that can not be taken serious is you, Miskin, because of trying to use a denial to a completely different research than the one we are taking about here. And, the denial that you linked to does not include any scientifical denial. Actually, that denial is completely the same as yours, wrote by someone that didn't like the results and without any scientifical evidence.
And let me repeat again... The denial is for a completely different research. Sorry to disapoint you.
And, if you ever again try to introduce me as nationalist using unsuported claims and links to denials of wrong researches, I will repost that to the neutral administrators, so they will be able to judge about your neutrality. They already know that you are forcing your POV by outnumbering us, but it won't work this time. I sterbinski 02:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Only for political reasons? Can you even read? The "research" has basically contradicted every single science that is known to mankind! :D And besides, this rejection is not just POV judgement passed by "Nature", it's an official document compiled by some of the world's leading universities (mentioned). It can be found in many places all over the internet, "Nature" is only one of them. You honestly make me laugh Sterbinski. Such desperation and denial is rare in the 21st century. Miskin 11:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Decius, if you want us to stop taking about this research, tell to the Greek nationalist on this page to stop making unsoported denials and nationalistic conclusions from the research. As I said, the idea behind introducing this research was not to deny anything Greek... I just wanted to introduce evidence that we (nowdays Macedonians) have very mixed origin, not just Slavic. As you can see from my posts, I never claimed that this research proves any origin we have from the Antient Macedonians. Even without the research, I am sure that we have conection with them, same as several nations on the Balkany. Also, I never claimed that Macedonia has exclusive right over the history and name of the region Macedonia. So, what is that that you call nationalistic in me? I sterbinski 02:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I heard those greasy Greeks smell bad. Is that true? Miskin 11:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And, again, let me repeat... I do not think that we should put several genetic researches on the Macedonia page because of a simple reason: the genetic researches (including about the HLA genes) are not advanced enought to prove or deny some historical point of view. For now we can say that only thing that these researches prove is that the modern nations are not "clear" nations and that the people from the area were mixing between themselves.

On the other hand, I think that we should include a sentence saying something like "the genetical researches proved that the modern population of the region Macedonia, is with mixed genetical structure and the origin of the modern nations in the region can not be tightly connected to any ethnicities that lived in the area in the past". This only says the same that we already agreed about: the modern nations are not directly connected with the ethnicities that lived in the past on the same teritory, including the region of Macedonia. I sterbinski 03:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Isterbinski, you are mistaken. The Nature report clearly mentions the name Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, the same name mentioned in the Slavo-Macedonian report. The Nature report also discusses the Greek-Saharan claim, and rejects it. It is the same research being discussed. Do not be a nationalist and do not be an idiot, I. Sterbinski. Tony Starks 03:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you really beleive that this famous scientist has only one research?
I made an intensive search and it is clear that the research that you are talking about is concerned with the Palestinians and their origin. That is the survey that is contraversial. Here is a link to it:
http://kinoko.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~duraid/stolen_science/The_Origin_of_Palestinians_and_Their_Genetic_Relatedness_With_Other_Mediterranean_Populations.pdf
I found many links that explain the reason why it was contraversial, but they all claim the same: the survey is opposed because of political reasons. Only politics. Here are some links for you, so you can read by yourself:
www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/nature_genetics.PDF
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1377
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/September/19%20o/Journal%20axes%20gene%20research%20on%20Jews%20and%20Palestinians%20Robin%20McKie.htm
http://www.survivreausida.net/a4990
You can find many, many more using google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Antonio+Arnaiz+Villena%22+palestinian
All of them say clearly that the text was withdrawn because of political reasons.
On the other hand, the survey I gave you is concerned with the origin of the nowdays Macedonians and Greeks. It has nothing to do with the other survey. Here is a link:

http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf

Both researches gave the same conclutions about the origin of the today Greeks, so that is why it is mentioned in the link Miskin posted. You can all read the both researches (you have links above) and see by your self.
BTW, Antonio Arnaiz Villena is extremely respected and popular scientist and he was never scientifically denied. All the denials come from people who are motivated by political reasons and who don't like the results of his researches. To be honest, if his research showed that I am 100% Slavic, I wouldn't like that result. So, it is sensitive issue. As I said before, the HLA genes researches are expected to change the history, but that does not mean that people will accept that easyly. According to me, the paper can lie, but noone can change our blood and genes. They have more information than any historical book written before.
Decius, I am little disapointed by your support to this denial, especially because of using terms as "idiot" when you are actually thge one who is mistaken. But, I won't call you "idiot". Respect to you.
To be specific, I was warning you to not be an Idiot. You are still mistaken here, however, not me. And the title Idiot also gravitates to you because you accepted the crap on that site that compared Thracian and illyrian names to Slavic words as "proof" about Macedonian Slavs having words from the ancient Macedonians. Sorry, but I and many others have lost "respect" for Mr. Sterbinski (who is also a liar). ---Tony Starks 05:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Many other Greeks? I don't need your respect, you never gave respect to anyone that does not agree with your nationalism. Probably even the Human Rights Watch are idiots when criticising Greece for the treatments they have towards the Macedonian minority in Greece.
Cry as much as you want, but I gave you the proofs, so now I will take some rest.
And, by the way, why you keep using different names, Decius? You are afraid that someone will see that it is the same person? Or, maybe you want the people to beleive that many share your opinion?
BTW, If you think that there are no Macedonian words with antique Macedonian origin, you are mistaken. There are neutral authors that wrote about this issue. I sugest you to read something more than the books in the local library in back in Greece. I sterbinski 05:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Did I say "Greeks"? I said many others, and this means people from any nation (including Bulgaria, United States, Canada, etc.) not just Greece. Tony Starks 05:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The only people that felt threatened by this survey were the users from Greek nationality. I just don't understand why.
The ones who lost respect for i_sterbinski, can talk for themselves, in private, so we can solve our issue. I don't need a respect from people like you. My work in the field of Human rights for 20 years helped many people whose Human rights were threatened or taken away. They have their complete respect for me. My co-workers have respect for me, people from several different nations (including Bulgarians, Greeks, Americans, Canadians etc.), people who work in the same area for years. Your respect does not worth more than any of theirs.
Probably you are just some 20 + something year old (maximum) kid who thinks that he saw the world after reading few books from the library. You still have a lot to learn. But, after this, I certainly doubt that you will ever get real respect from anyone out of your family.


I hope that now you will see that I am not beeing nationalist. I am just trying to get the truth about my identity and stop everyone who wants to deny it.
Now it is more than sure that we are not talking about the same research. And anyone who decides to post links, please make sure that you have the right link and that the content of that link is exacly what you need. I sterbinski 04:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't waste your time, Sterbinski. If we need to, we can email the editors of Nature itself, or the geneticists in question. In the meanwhile, try not to blatantly lie again. Tony Starks 04:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
E-mail them, feel free to do it. They alone wrote on the page where the research used to be that:"Genetics paper erased from journal over political content". Here is a link:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaCitation.taf?id=N1&jtl=NATURE&cd_year=2001&vid=414&ppf=382
You can get the same by first getting on the page where Miskin linked us (the so called denial) and latter press on the link of the research at the beggining of the (do called) denial.
And, once again. I gave you links to both researches and comments about the removal of the first research, that one that Miskin linked. So you can see alone.
So, you can colclude by your self... the denial is about a different research. I sterbinski 05:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Your latest link does not show what you think it does. You are clutching at straws. Tony Starks 05:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You can get to that page through your so called denial. It says clearly: "because of political content". But, even that is not important, because simply: We are talking about different researches.I sterbinski 05:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep telling yourself that Sterbinski. Write it on a little piece of paper and staple it to your shirtpocket. Tony Starks 05:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This kind of comments I hear everyday, from my children when they fight who owns some toy ("If it is yours, write it in a paper and stick it on your head").
You just proved that you do not deserve any respect. Including from your fellow Greek, my co-worker Christos, right here next to me. I sterbinski 06:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, excuse me for trying to make clear that what you are offering as a "scientific paper" has in fact been rejected by the scientific community. For a person claiming he works for "Human rights", you seem to be quite anti-Greek and anti-Bulgarian. Tony Starks 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Now it is obvious that you haven't check any of the links I posted here. They clearly show that you are mistaken. Anyone neutral would do that, so I don't care that you didn't. Refusing to educate yourself will only harm you. Not me.
I will sugest you to stop acusing me for beeing anti-Greek or anti-Bulgarian. In this moment I have both, Greek and Bulgarian person with me in the office and I am working with them for many years. They read every comment I posted here, because we work on this project together (as representors of all 3 nations concerned).
On the other hand, I have Greek origin too, my grandmother from my father's side is half Greek (her name was Elefteritsa). So, beeing anti-Greek would be same as beeing against myself.
And, by the way, the last case I was working on was about a Bulgarian person who was centenced to 7 days in jail because of having the Bulgarian flag open in his own home, in Tripoli, Lybia. By The Way, we won, so he will get a compensation from the goverment.
Life has no limits, kid. Only limits are in your mind. Bulgarian, Greek or Macedonian, everyone is same for me. Only thing that matters is to have an open heart and free mind... something that you (as far as I could see) really lack. I sterbinski 06:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Isterbinski, a kid is one who mass deletes the entire page, as you just did using an unlogged-in ISP. Tony Starks 06:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I am using the IP address 62.162.198.123. The page was vandalized by IP address 65.48.193.80. The administrators can check was I using that IP. Stop making unsuported acusations. I sterbinski 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You're right. It was probably that Martian sitting on your shoulder. Tony Starks 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you trying to be funny? Because you are not. You are just making and ass of yourself. I sterbinski 07:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Isterbinski, you made an ass out of your self when you first added false claims into the text (see below). ---Tony Starks 07:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Are they false or not, you are the last person who can judge them. With this last couple of posts that you added today, even my respected friend Christos lost his hope in you. From moderate Greek patriot, you sudenly turned into hidden nationalist (his words, I swear in his friendship). I sterbinski 07:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm still moderate Isterbinski, but I don't know about you. I do not say that Wikipedia must call your people Macedonian Slavs. That is up to others to decide. On the other hand, you suddenly turned from a semi-reasonable person (on the points we were discussing at least) into someone who is in denial and insists on claiming that a rejected genetic paper is still accepted. But enough about that paper for today, that will be detailed later. I do not see an actual reasonable person like User:FlavrSavr still defending that paper in absence of proof that it is considered valid. Tony Starks 07:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
If you want to deny something, first read it. I left enought proves and links here, so anyone can judge by himself.
Of course I will support the research, because no one here gave me a reason not to. You tried to deny it, but with false information, linking to a completely different research which is dedicated to the Palestinian origin.
Do you really expected me to suport Decius over a world famous scientist with his publicated and scientificaly undenied research?
I am sure that FlavrSavr supports the research too (the research that I linked to, not the one that you tryed to deny without any proofs), but he is obviously too busy to waste time on educating people like you. And I am sure that every neutral administrators who is interested about the issue will see how you wanted to trick the people here.
Look, I am slowly ending my report on this day. And because I don't see anything worthed to mention that you added today, I will spend some more time on the other cases I am working on. I sterbinski 07:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Pending actual verification, the report (that you support) is not scientifically accepted, plain fact. You can claim that it is, but not in a Wiki article. ---Tony Starks 07:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
With you saying that it is not scientifically suported, nothing will change. The people who are interested will search for it and see by themselves is it or it is not suported. Internet is full of informations about it.
If you really want to know how popular is Mr. Arnaiz Villena, please visit this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Search&term=%22Arnaiz%2DVillena+A%22%5BAuthor%5D. It gives (more less) every research he was a part of. More than 200. This is taken from the website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, based in USA which represents a national resource for molecular biology information in the USA.
Instead of wasting your time on kid responces, spend some time searching the web and reading something useful. I sterbinski 08:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite interesting. Those papers of his (which we are discussing, not whatever else he submitted) were dismissed, not just disputed, that's how excellent they were. ---Tony Starks 08:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
That is just your words. Put here any link which says any of the research of this guy was denied scientifically. He has more than 200 papers which he is author of and which are accepted in USA. And, the "mastermind" Decius found a proof that his theories are fake. So, if you did, can you please share it with us?

If anyone can submit his work in the NCBI of USA, why they do not have any of your works, Decius? I sterbinski 08:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You do seem to be in denial, and it is almost shocking (but not quite). Read that link from Nature again, and the names appended to it. His paper was even dropped from the Journal in which it was published (by the way, that's what that link is talking about, if you haven't noticed, not that the paper against it was dropped from Nature, as you mistakenly claim). Villena's conclusions will remain in the fringe of genetics, because there is no indication that the general community of geneticists agrees with him. ---Tony Starks 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Villena was a guest writter for that issue. His claims were having certain political content (concerning Jews and Palestinians, not Greeks and Macedonians), so that is why that was withdrawn. Even the newspaper clearly states that the withdraw was because of political content. All that can be found on the links that I posted up, so let the people see by themselves.
On the other hand, that is not important for this issue, because completely other research was withdrawn. It is not the same research.
Concerning Villena's researches, he has more than 200 (there is also a link about this somewhere above). Do you really beleive that your words are more powerful than his scientifical work?
Any neutral administrator will see the truth. So, if you are right, they will see that. So, let's stop this idiotic corespondence and use our time for something else. This issue has enought text and links for anyone to be able to judge by himself. I sterbinski 19:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


This is getting monotonous. When will someone block the troll so that we can proceed with more serious edits? Miskin 11:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
When you grow up and understand that the world might not be the same as your wishes. I sterbinski 19:19, 15 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? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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.

Good that you mentioned this VMORO. You can not (no one can) ignore that there was a period when there were 2 countries that Bulgaria claims are theirs. Why would that be that way? Is there any other example in the world when the same ethnicity (if we can talk about ethnicities in 10th century) had two kingdoms?
Another interesting point is why Samuil got his crown from the Roman pope afte the death of the last member of the Bulgarian royal family.
I hope you know how Byzantine appeared on the map and all the history of confrontation bewteen the eastern and western part of the Roman empire. Why you did not mention that when given the crown, Samuil had to promise his loyality to the Roman pope that he will fight Bysantine till its end? When the Bulgarian Preslav based kingdom ended, the Western Roman empire lost their influence over the region. So, they needed Samuil for that. It was a fair deal.
In the same time the pope had to find a official reason for this move. So, Samuil was claimed to be related with the Preslav kings, a claim that was denied by everyone, including the Bulgarians.
You mentioned Ivan Vladislav. Interesting. After the death of Samuil, how do you think he could get his place (over the other potential candidates) and convince the Roman pope to give him the crown?
And why you never mentioned the denial of that document, written by Gavril Radomir, claiming the non-Bulgarian origin of the Samuil royal family, a document which was kept in Skopje, in St. Bogorodica (St. Marie) church? You know, the same church that the Bulgarian army burned when running away from Skopje after the World War 2. A church that is getting reconstructed now, but more than 6000 documents were lost in that fire.
For those who don't know, Gavril Radomir was a son of Samuil, killed by the hands of Ivan Vladislav, which shows what all Ivan Vladislav could done to get the throne. Ivan Vladislav was a son of Aron, the brother of Samuil. Another interesting thing... Gavril Radomir once saved Ivan Vladislav's life. I sterbinski 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Which exactly was the period when there were two countries which called itself Bulgaria, Istirbinski? Because the first time the "westerners" were mentioned was around 973 (if I remember exactly) when they appeared before the German emperor as representatives of the Bulgarian Empire and were admitted as such. I.e. after the fall of Preslav:-))) And a better proof than that this was a case of civil war can simply not exist. The Macedonian people rises against the dreadful Bulgars and calls its country Bulgaria, hahaha... Let's not become ridiculous, Istirbinski. And let's not quote mysterious documents that burned mysteriously in some mysterious monastery. The next thing you could say is that the Macedonians flew to the Moon but due to the dreadful Bulgars who burnt this and that document... VMORO 08:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

That what you are talking about is just one of 3 theories of how the Samuil kingdom appeared, the one that has the least support. The theory I am talking about is the 2nd theory, which says that in 969th a part of the Bulgarian kingdom got separated, which latter was a base of the Samuil kingdom. The third theory is too complicated for explaining it here. Actually, this third theory actually is the newest and is fast getting the most support. Shortly, the third theory implies that non of us (Bulgarian or Macedonian) can not claim conection with Samuil, because in that time the nationalities were not even developed. So, my friend, we are probably both talking bullshit here, while the historians have other ideas. If you didn't know, there is even a theory of Samuil's origin from Armenia.
Concerning the "misterious" documents... read some history books of the Bulgarian ocupation of Macedonia in World War 2. How documents and historical subject found in Macedonia between 1920th and 1940th appeared in Bulgaria in the 1950s and 60s? Why subjects and documents kept together with the ones that latter appeared in Bulgaria were never found? Why 100s of Ortodox churches and monasteries were burned, when the Bulgarians are Ortodox too?
Look, Vatican has copies of some of those documents who were "lost" during the World War 2. They are still kept secret, but Vatican already gave some hope that they will make them public in the next decade. By the way, you can check these information in your national library and museum, they have to have the year of transfer and origin of the documents and other historical subject taken from Macedonia to Bulgaria. I think that those information were made public by Simeon Sakskoburggotski's goverment, but I am not sure.
On the other hand, the same Vatican gives the same importance and honors to both (Bulgarian and Macedonian) delegantions when celebrating the St. Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius days in Rome? Both delegations have the honors of meeting with the pope in every single year. And we both know the close ethnic connection between Ohrid Archbishopric and Samuils people (if you can talk about ethnicities in the 8-10th century).


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)

Maybe we left you for more than 50 years to convince the world that everything on the region of the Balkan is Bulgarian, just because we were not allowed by the strict Yugoslav goverment and Tito. Everyone that was deffending the Macedonian history was inprisoned as separatists. But now, no one can stop us to say the truth. It is interesting that you got the biggest support from the Russians in doing that, because you were their first deffence line from Tito. But, it is even more interesting that these theories that I am talking about now are nowdays mostly supported by the Russians. Who would thought, ha?
And, this assimilation Bulgarian politics is happening for centuries. And, maybe you should search for more maps, maybe some books concerning the Istambul and Vatican libraries, at least the parts open to the scientists. Don't just keep your lazy ass on internet, you can not find that online. I don't know why, ask the pope and Bartolomeo why they do not allow that.
Even the Ecumenical Patriarchy of Istambul (whose leaders are Greek) recognizes the Macedonian origin of the The Ohrid Archbishopric (which was formed in Ohrid in the same period of time as Samuil), despite the fact that they do not recognize the Macedonian Ortodox Church. Interesting, isn't it?
This is claptrap. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has never recognised the Ohrid Archbishopric as "Macedonian" and will never do that. And no one else will do that. The Catalogue of Ducang and the charters of Basil II explicitly state that the archbishopric was established on the basis of the reduction of the rang of the Bulgarian patriarchate. VMORO 08:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't notice, but they already did. There is pararel Ortodox church in Macedonia (besides the Macedonian Ortodox Church) with that name, "Ohrid Archbishopric" whose conection with the old Ohrid Archbishopric is written in their canonic laws. That church has no support from the Macedonians at all, but has officially been recognized from the Serbian and Greek Ortodox Church, same as The Patriarchate of Constantinople. I sterbinski 00:22, 14 August 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: [[25]].

2) Simple explanation. I am talking about the Slavs from the region, not Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, the term Wikipedia 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.

You wish this was truth. But it is not.
If you know anything from the field of History, you would know that the modern nations are not formed before the 15th century. So, in all that period in the 10th century, Bulgarian can not (in any circumstances) be used for describing someones nationality. And, don't forget that the Byzantines started using this term in the same time when they stoped using the term "Sklavines", which means Slavs. Please read any book concerning this issue. Try to find something from neutral authors. Maybe finally you will understand what NPOV is.
Here is a list of several books, documents and maps that show your lies. Please find any of them and read/see:
-The writtings of the 15th century travel-writer Betradon de la Broquier: "And there are many Christians who perforce serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians . . . Serbians . . .".And Angiolelo, whom I have already mentioned, says of Mt. Athos that: " . . .here are to be found many monasteries of Christian monks, of whom some are Greeks, others Macedonians . . ."
-D. Angelov, Prinos k'm narodnosnite i pozemelni otnosheniya v Makedoniya (Epirski Despotat) prez prvata chetvrt na XIII v., Izvestiya na Kamarata na narodna kultura, seriya Humanitarni nauki, II, 3, Sofia, 1947, 11-12 ff. Just to remind you that the author is Bulgarian, but not a nationalist as you are VMORO.
-F. Papazoglu, Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba, Skopje, 1957, 4; A. Shofman, Istoriya Antichnoi Makedonii, I, Kazan, 1960, 1960, 177, ff.; ibidem, Ocherki po istorii Makedonii i makedonskogo naroda, I, Kazan, 1960, 32 ff. The author is Greek, but he says that
-"Sketch of the Territory of Macedonia" (rezsm-i memleket- Makedonya) published on page 277 of the well known work of the equally well known Turkish historian, geographer and travel-writer of the mid 17th century, Hadzi Kalfa Mustafa or Katib Celebija (Katib Celebi, Cuhannuma, 277)
Also, please try to get any book which has maps held in Istambul's or Vatican's libraries. The biggest part of this contents are protected, but there are several that can be found in some Russian books.

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)

I already explained that VMORO. Don't play dumb. "Slav Macedonian army" is bad construction of the sentence. All I ment was that after that, many Macedonians (including Bulgarians) from the area of Kukush joined the Bulgarian army, so they were a part of it.
When concerning Kukush, please see the map bellow and see where Kukush is.
By the way, it was confirmed by my family members (the ones runned away from Kukush) that some of the people they knew from Kukush were Bulgarians, even in 1960s, when they runned away from there, same as the Macedonians. Ask your family too, if they are realistic at all, they will tell you the truth. Maybe we even were neighboors, who knows. :)
VMORO, I am not here to deny your or anyone elses nationality and history. But, you are doing that to me and to all the other Macedonians.
And, I am not inventing any personal stories. I have quite large family, including part that stayed in Greece. I even have a little of Greek origin (my gran-grandmother Elefterica was completely Greek). I have origin from Kukush and Lerin (Greece), Zaporozje (Ukraina), Bitola, Stip and Skopje. I have family in USA, Canada, Australia, Ukraina, Greece, Serbia and UK. Quite big family.
Luckily, my family is full of patriots who fighted for Macedonia against assimilators like you are. I have 4 national heroes in my family, another 3 that were inprisoned in ex-Yugoslavia because of their scientific work for defending the Macedonian history again from assimilators like you are. I am proud of them and your senceless words can not take that away from me. I sterbinski 02:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for the "touching history of your family", Istirbinski but I am not concerned with it. I have IMARO members in my family both from my mother's side (1/4 from Bitola) and from my father's side (Kukush) and they have always fought for Macedonia and they have always called themselves Bulgarians. The simple difference is that my family has not been brainswashed for 60 years with made up stories about "anti4ka Makedoniya" and the Macedonian people whose history stretches to eternity.

I already mentioned that Macedonians were under great presure for 60 years to leave the Macedonian history behind. It was completely the other way around, VMORO, we were inprisoned even because of having Goce Delchev's picture on the wall. So, Tito was trying to weeken the Macedonian identity, not to streghten it.
And, if all that "60 years brainwashing" shit is truth, how would you explain the Macedonian that live in USA, Canada and Australia, that runned away from Greece and Bulgaria directly in those counties and never have been in Yugoslavia? Did maybe John F. Kennedy wash their brains? If your theory is truth, how did they still feel Macedonians, decades latter?
And, why Bulgaria did not let Macedonians to register their political party till 2 years ago, when the European Court ordered Bulgaria to allow that? Don't tell me that you don't know what all was happening to those poor people there because of trying to keep their Macedonian identity.
VMORO, don't start the issue of brainwashing, because you know well how Ivan Mihajlov, Todor Zhivkov and the other clowns treated the Macedonians. Did you maybe read the book from Zelju Zelev?
If Yugoslavia was brainwashing us, they would force us to be Serbians, same as the Macedonians in Bulgaria were forced to be Bulgarians if they wanted to keep their houses and lands. And, same as the Macedonians in Greece were forced to become Greeks or leave their homes.


There is no Macedonian Slav army, those who joined the Bulgarian army fought as Bulgarians against the Turks and later against the Greeks and Serbs. The whole population of Kukush fled and settled in Sofia during the Balkan wars, the majority of the peasant population also moved after the Balkan Wars to Bulgaria - mostly to the Black sea coast and to the valley of the Maritsa. Do you have any idea that all the seaside villages on the coast from Burgas to Varna are settled with refugees from Aegean Macedonia? No, you evidently do not - but this is very well documented. The 7,000 people who left Kukush and settled in Bulgaria have always declared themselves as Bulgarians - hence the Bulgarian population. Don't entertain me more with stories about your family and how I was a traitor. Or should I start calling you a titoist clown?:-))) VMORO 08:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I never said you were traitor. You feel Bulgarian and that is all what matters. Same as I feel Macedonian.
Kukush is good example, because both Macedonians and Bulgarians lived there. Just, the Bulgarians left it after the Balkan wars, and Macedonians stayed there till the 1950s and 60s. Acording to them, even in the 1960s there were still little Bulgarians left in Kukush, but they all left not latter than 60s and now mostly Greeks live there.
Again I will tell you not to mess with my family and origin. You might give me links to 1000 pro-Bulgarian pages, but you can not take my 94 year old grandfather. He is a patriot, but he never was nationalist, so I trust him 1000%. I hope god will give him health, because he is not in good health lately. So, do not mess with it, OK?
Just to tell you that with all the assimilation you made over the Macedonian people, I won't be suprised that those 7000 refugees you mentioned are asimilated Macedonians. I don't claim this, I just give it as posibility.
Just, have on mind that no matter what we say here, non of us (me or you) will change his feelings of belonding to some nation. Personally, this discution we are having is senceless to me, because nothing will change in my or your mind. And, more or less we both have right to all the topics we are discussing. I sterbinski 02:45, 13 August 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)

Stjepan Verkovic, the same person who was constantly charged by the Serbs to have anti-Serbian ideas, supporting the rise of the Croats? Of course he would say this, because it was not in his (and Croat) interest Serbia to take a part of Macedonia.
By the way, the same material from your link can be found on http://knigite.abv.bg/en/ib/i_banac.html, which is a pro-Bulgarian web site. And, these 2 links are half of the 4 links on the whole internet that mention Stjepan Verkovic. The other 2 are forums. Nice going VMORO, can you give us something more relevant?I sterbinski 02:39, 11 August 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)
That only proves how inacurate the old historians can be. And, as I read today, "the Bulgar-Slayer" nickname of Basil was first time mentioned many years before the Belasitsa battle. I sterbinski 03:09, 15 August 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 Wikipedia 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)
Maybe, but only or a nationalistic mind as yours. Do you maybe expect the people to beleive the famous historian VMORO, or I_sterbinski? Or the pro-Bulgarian and pro-Macedonian links and ideas that we both are posting here? They have their own minds, thanks god they have internet, so they can search and read by themselves.I sterbinski 03:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, I beleive that finally you understand why Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, so I will stop now.

We (Bulgarians, Macedonians and Greeks) will never deal what Wikipedia 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)
Yes, but your version included a part saying that he was Bulgarian at the same beggining of the page. That is the main characteristic of every page that you ever touched in your hands. Can please anyone of the other neutral administrators put his oppinion about the VMORO writting here, please?

Well, we seem to be waiting for opinions but may be in vain, Istirbinski? Why don't you start writing to them and asking them questions about me? You seem to be spending all of your time on the net anyway, so you might as well do something useful. About GD - nope, not at all. Or can't you read, Istirbinski? VMORO 08:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Latter, when the Macedonians got involved started saying the truth, you were forced to erase that and leave the part talking about his ethnicity. So, now it is NPOV, but this is not your version. I sterbinski 02:39, 11 August 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)

You are so full of crap. Smartech 21:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Another Bulgarian close-minded nationalist. Welcome, my friend.
Read the text well. I never said that any of your Bulgarian claims should be ignored. They are assimilative and offensive towards the Macedonian people, but they are still your POV and they should be acnowledged. But I won't let you, VMORO, or anyone else to deny all my nation, culture and history. Maybe it worked for you while we were under the strict rule of the comunism and not alowed to deffend ourselves, but not now. That time is over, together with the fall of the comunism. I sterbinski 02:39, 11 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.
I sterbinski 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You are extremely pathetic. The Bulgarians are the guilty ones for all the misery which has come over the Macedonians. And the only reason why you lack any documents is because we burnt them all - bollocks. Neither have we burnt 150 churches! The article will be written according to the established scholarly opinion and evidence. Fringe opinions may follow or may not - this is not what concerns me. What you though have to learn, Istirbinski, is to lead a civilised discourse - quoting sources and arguing viewpoints - NOT whining all the time how the Bulgarians burnt everything and how your family (all of them heroes) did this and that. VMORO 08:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

You need to learn little more about your (Bulgarian) newest history VMORO. It is obvious that you can not accept the truth. I am here, I am Macedonian, get used to it. And history has records of what happened in World War 2. Why did the whole Macedonian population organized against the Bulgarian ocupator? Do you think you were only sitting and eating burek for whole 4 years?
And all documents are not lost and burned. Don't forget, it is just 14 years since we got out of Yugoslavia. You presented your history and evidence to the world for more than 1 century. We are just starting and for now we are getting quite good support. Recognized historians will decide what is truth and what is not after they see our side of the story and after the Vatican and Turkey open their archives for explorations.
No matter of anything, one fact can not be changed. We are here and our nationality is Macedonians since we know about ourselves (not Antique Macedonians, especially because that was not a nation). Get used to it, or cry as much as you want. That will stay unchanged.
Concerning the Macedonia page, we have 2 choises:
1) To include all the versions (no matter if pro-Greek, pro-Bulgarian or pro-Macedonian), without forcing any of them
2) To improvise and to block the page and then have this endless discutions every 10-15 days, till option 1) is accepted.
It is generarly accepted by the Ortodox churches that the Ohrid Archbishopric is originally Macedonian, which is confirmed by offering us that name for our church. Should I start denying the pro-Bulgarian position that that church was Bulgarian?
I don't agree with your version, but I respect your position. Isn't it better both versiones to be presented?I sterbinski 03:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Go and dig in Istanbul, the Vatican and wherever you want. When you find something worthy of consideration, come and talk about it. Until then, don't occupy us with wish-wash talk. The Wikipedia has a clear policy that POV opinions should be included when there is a discussion/debate about something and I have nothing against that - but they are included as fringe opinions. Go and check out the Mars article, it explicitly mentions a scholar who thinks that Mars is populated by an extraterrestrial race and it also explicitly mentions what reviews and opinions his theory has among the rest of the scholarly world. The Macedonian POV - which is not supported by documental evidence - can certainly be added, but only as the extraterrestrial race living on Mars. This is the real Wikipedia, this is the real NPOV, the rest is just raving in your sleep. VMORO13:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem, because it is real Wikipedia and anyone can edit it, including nationalistic minds as your. And you can deny as much as you want, try to assimilate us till the end of the world. But I am here, I am Macedonian and nothing can change that.
And don't tell me that Bulgaria has more right over Samuil (or any other historian person you tried to present as yours) and his people, because they were based in Ohrid, which is in Republic of Macedonia. So, the only way you can prove that you are more connected to Samuil than I am is if you find me a prove that whole population of Ohrid decided one day to move in Bulgaria and left Ohrid empty, without any population. Or if you take Samuils DNA sample and find a strong conection between his DNA and DNA of some Bulgarian.
Until then, you can preach as much as you want. No matter when the Macedonian nation formed as separate nation (before Crist, Midle Ages, 18th, 19th or 20th century), it was not a decision taken by someone. It was a feeling that grew in us, something that noone can deny. Macedonian nation is reality today and only a fool can deny that. I sterbinski 03:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the Vatican libraries... if you didn't know, they are closed for everyone outside the Vatican leaders. Only the popes and high members of the Masones are alowed to get in there. +
Same happens to the Turkish documents from the Ottoman period, biggest parts of them are still not made public. +
When the Russian documents are concerned, the publications of them are strictly controled by the cominist party till the breakup of the Soviet Union, until when Russia was close allies with Bulgaria, in the "fight" against Tito and his Yugoslavia. Until now, those "protected" documents are still not made public, but it is confirmed by Boris Yelcin that they exist. He did not confirm what is written in them, but I am sure we will see that in the following decade. I sterbinski 03:26, 15 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 Wikipedia, the result would definitely be more favorable for the "Macedonians" option. But that simply isn't what Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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.

File:Bigmkd2.jpg

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)

What you fail to mention is that German makes an essential distinction between (ancient and Greek) Makedonien and (modern Slavic) Mazedonien', yet you reject any such distinction in English.--Theathenae 06:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
So not truth. The intensive use of the "Macedonia" terms in Greece started in the 1960s and 1970s, after the most of the modern Macedonians and some Bulgarians runned away from Greece. Then you built that big monument of Alexandar the Great and started calling the streets with that name and names of other Antique Macedonian kings. Then the first Greek Macedonian appeared. And, even today, no one would identify his nationality as Greek Macedonian.
Not to forget that the Germans are one of our biggest supporters for our fight for our history and rights. Do you forget that Germany's parlament already voted and recomended to their goverment to recognize Macedonia under that name, Macedonia? Same as US did couple of months ago.
Look, maybe in that time the modern Macedonians were dominant in Aegean Macedonia, but now all that is completely changed and the Greeks are the ones that are dominant. No one can change that now, so Aegean Macedonia will stay as Greek teritory most probably forever.
No one wants to deny you your ownership ove that part, but do not even try to uncover the history and all what happened in that area in the last 100 years. Your contrymen were working for whole 50 years to hide that from the world, so I don't think it is good for you to uncover it. Why every second modern Macedonian has origin from the Aegean part of (the region) Macedonia? That includes me, from Lerin (Florina) and Kukush (Kilkis). Why the modern Macedonian minority in Greece is not allowed to have registered political party and why they are not allowed to open a Macedonian (Macedonian Slav, like Wikipedia reffers to us) culture centre anywhere in Greece? Why Greece is the only country in European Union that is criticized by the Human Rights Watch and many others human rights organizations for their treatment of the minorities? I sterbinski 02:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Mazedonien, Makedonien

Theathenae, your lack of arguments is amusing. Guess what, I don't speak German, but I asked a German friend about this "essential difference". Here's what he responded: "Yes, Mazedonien and Makedonien are definitely the same. the difference, if any, is just formal resp. in writing. I am 100% sure about that."
I also googled a bit, and I found out that Mazedonien/Mazedonier and Makedonien/Makedonier are used simultaneosly to refer to the Macedonian state/people. Here's a glipmse [[26]] (the most explicit, Bevölkerung: ca. 66% Makedonier, 23% Albanier, außerdem Türken, Serben u.a.), [27](Republik Mazedonien (Makedonien)), and if you're still not convinced, here's a brief sentence taken from [28] - "Der Name Makedonien und/oder Mazedonien ist politisch neutral/egal". Egal = same.
Got more of your Spartan wisdoms, or will you finally admit that the your main argument for the "Macedonian Slavs" designation is that you don't like them? --FlavrSavr 16:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Take it up with the administrators of the German Wikipedia. They are the ones who appear to enforce the distinction rather studiously: [29], [30], [31]. You claim that Makedonien and Mazedonien are interchangeable; au contraire, our German colleagues write that Mazedonien is "seltener auch in etymologischer Schreibung Makedonien". Seltener doesn't sound quite egal to me.--Theathenae 06:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
They are saying that Makedonien is used less frequently when referring to the Republic of Macedonia. Obviously they have established a consensus that makes a formal difference between the Republic and the wider region (geographically and historically). You can see that even in the same articles bearing the name Mazedonien, Makedonien is often used: "einer makedonischen Nationenbildung", "Dialekte Makedoniens", "makedonischen Nation" etc. Then again, the German Wikipedia is also subject to Greek editing pressure.
Outside the world of the German Wikipedia, Makedonien and Mazedonien have basically the same meaning, and are not at all "essentially different". There is a small page specifically treating the problem here - [32], the one stating that ::::::"Der Name Makedonien und/oder Mazedonien ist politisch neutral/egal". As far as I can ::::::understand, the difference is between Cyrillic/Greek/Slavic pronunciation and the Latin ::::::pronunciation. There are numerous sites that are using the terms simultaneosly - [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. Also, see the German version of Encarta [41]-
"Ehemalige Jugoslawische Republik Makedonien, auch Mazedonien". Essential difference?
Perhaps you are the one who should take it to the admins of all of these sites and accuse them for ignorance. --FlavrSavr 07:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
It is interesting to know this, that FlavrSavr and VMORO both were involved in Goce Delchev's page. This is quite encouraging, because that page is maybe the most neutral in the whole Macedonia issue. So, why we don't do the same with every other sensitive issue? Put everything claimed in one text and explain very carefully to the reader which people and why they support some claims? Goce Delchev is wonderful example.
And I would ask if someone can explain me shortly were the solutions: Antique Macedonians, modern Macedonians and Greek Macedonians taken into account? And if yes, why were they refused?
The search "Macedonians" can lead to a page where the reader can pick from these 3, which are pretty clear and less confusing. In my opinion, maybe even better than Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (people) (with all my respect to you, my friend FlavrSavr). Just wanted to know. I sterbinski 03:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Since we are gonna add maps.... Let's add some maps... VMORO 08:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

1861
File:Mackenzie.jpg
1867




ca. 1870
1878




1905
1923



















Firstable, all this maps can only be found on pro-Bulgarian web sites, such as www.macedoniainfo.com.
And putting maps here, with pro-Bulgarian ideas will only show how long the Bulgarians work on denial of the Macedonians.
It is almost imposible to find the maps mostly kept in Vatican, Istambul and Moscow on internet. I hope that someone will be more interested on this issues and look for old maps on paper, of the period of the beggining of the 20th century.
On the other hand, there were several neutral statics from the same period showing the Macedonians in the region:
1)German Dr. K. Ostreich 1905: 1,500,000 (neutral statistics)
2)English Andrew Rousos: 1,150,000 (neutral statistics)
3)Austrian K. Gersin 1903: 1,182,036 (neutral statistics)
4) Greek C. Nikolaides 1899: 454,000 (Greek statistics)
On the other hand, the Ottoman statics were based on religion, but not nationality. In that time, there was no separate Macedonian Ortodox Church, so the Macedonian populaton was separated between the Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek Ortodox Church.
Instead of putting assimilation maps here, I would put just 2 maps, so the people can see the assimilation politics of the Bulgarians:
1) Ethnographic map of Macedonia from the point of view of the Serbs: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_serbs_1914.jpg
2) Ethnographic map of Macedonia from the point of view of the Bulgarians: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_bulgarian_1914.jpg
The both maps are from the 1914th. Both, Bulgarians and Serbs wanted to take Macedonia for themselves. Even though, the Serbs are not denying the existance of the Macedonians. The Bulgarians denies us.
The both maps are at the web page of the University of Texas at Austin. i_sterbinski

Yes, Istirbinski, the only thing is that on the website where I am taking them from, there are around 20 more of them - all by neutral publishers - and all of them portray the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. And this is only a fraction of the maps produced until the 1920s which have all (with minor exceptions) again depicted the Slavic population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. The ones which you are quoting use "Macedonian Slavs" (=the Slavs inhabiting Macedonia) because they don't wanna take a stand as to whether these "Macedonian Slavs" (a name which is not meant to be the name of a people or an ethnicity but just a geographical denomination) were Bulgarians or Serbs. In the same way, for example, Brailsford, uses initially the name Macedonian Slavs and later says that they are Bulgarians ("The Slavs of Ochrida are as definitely Bulgarians as the Slavs of Pleven"). The maps you are quoting are from Carnegie Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Assimilation is a word which you don't know the meaning of at all. All the contemporary writers say that the vast majority of the Macedonian Slavs regarded themselves as ethnic Bulgarians (see Durham or [Brailsford). And even Krastyu Misirkov says in "On the Macedonian matters" that the Macedonian Slavs call themselves Bulgarians. In his later works, however, he not only says that the Macedonian Slavs are Bulgarians but also that the Macedonian Slavs are better Bulgarians than the rest of the Bulgarians. Go and educate yourself and don't repeat Macedonian ideological propagandism which has nothing to do with real life events. VMORO13:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

We already discussed the issue of Macedonians proclaiming as Bulgarians. I beleive in the version that they were doing this regarding Bulgarian to be same as Slavic and because they wanted to obbey the powerful Greek and Serbian assimilation politics of that time and because of the fact that the Bulgarians were pretending that they are supporthing the Macedonian. I did not read this theory, I was introduced to it by my grandfather who was born in the beggining of the 1920s (he don't know the exact year) and who was raised as a Macedonian by his parrents. And that was far before Tito.
VMORO, you never answered... if you theory is truth, how will you explain 100.000s of Macedonians who now live in Canada, USA and Australia and who never were in Republic of Macedonia when it was a part of Tito's Yugoslavia? Those Macedonians who lived in Greece and Bulgaria until they had to move over the ocean. What about those who live in Bulgaria and Greece... how do they feel Macedonian, when they were never influenced by Tito?
And you never explained why the Macedonians in Bulgaria were not allowed to registered a political party till 2 years ago?
And, how they managed to keep beeing Macedonian, aldough surounded by people like you, supporting the Bulgarian assimilation? I sterbinski 03:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


It seems that the only real assimilation that took place on a massive scale was that which turned erstwhile Bulgarians into "Macedonians" within the last century.--Theathenae 13:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Read the above post that I gave to VMORO and stop playing dumb. You are alone aware that there are 1000s of nowdays Macedonians that still live in Greece and that were never influenced by Tito or anyone like him. Actually, they were constantly denied by Greece (even today) and runned away from their homes. How did they managed to keep their Macedonian identity? Did you force them to become Macedonians? Because, as far as I remember, you did exacly the oposite, but they could not just forget their Macedonian roots. I sterbinski


To FlavrSavr who gets angry with me when I use the word "Macedonian Slavs" - I am just quoting the authors (Misirkov also uses "Macedonian Slavs" and NOT Macedonians). These beginning-of-the 20th century Macedonian Slavs have nothing to do with the modern Macedonians in terms of ethnic affiliations. VMORO13:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Misirkov makes clear in "Za Makedonckite raboti" that we are different ethnicities. Don't play dumb.
And of course he was making clear that we have Slavic origin, as an answer to the Greek assimilations, in order to show that the Macedonians don't have Greek origin. Don't forget that he was living in the centre of the Greek propaganda in Macedonia. I sterbinski 03:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

VMORO, I have asked you a simple question above, will you please answer it? --FlavrSavr 16:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Where? There is so much shit on this talk page it will take me days of searching to find it. VMORO 18:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the Macedonians (people) thing - I have never objected to this, if you mean something else, so name it. VMORO 18:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
That is the one. OK, that means that I will go further in this discussion, but not that intensively (I haven't got the time). I hope will we work out a more NPOV approach to this article, that will include all POVs. (Note that the NPOV policy guarantees the inclusion of all views, and that the same policy is non-debatable). Regards. --FlavrSavr 22:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course. We must distinguish between Macedonians (people) and Macedonians (sub-Saharan savages).--Theathenae 09:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Theathenae, as far as I could notice, you are the only person here that uses the word "savages". I hope you will take the time to read the survey. The survey is not nationalistic at all, it is completely scientific. And, please stop making arogant semi-nationalistic comments. We all like the constructive Theathenae more.
I personaly think that "nowdays Macedonians", "Antique Macedonians" and Greek Macedonians might be clearer than Macedonians (people) and Macedonians (nationality).
If I am wrong, can someone please explain me? I sterbinski 00:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is so "scientific" that in the opening paragraphs of a "genetics" study we read: "Herodotus wrote that ‘‘Macedonians’’ were ‘‘Dorians’’ and were never admitted to the Greek community. They did not speak Greek but another language presently unknown and of which only proper names remain..." See Dorian and ancient Macedonian language if you don't already know what is woefully wrong with this sentence. Nonetheless, it does have its light-hearted moments, like its hilarious conclusion that "the cultural, historical, and genetic identity of Macedonians is established according to our results". I wonder if the Spaniards wrote that line too! :D Poor-quality science, perhaps, but great comedy. Well done.--Theathenae 06:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
If you ask me, there is no issue between Greece and Macedonia about the antique Macedonians. We both have some origin from them, but non of us can have a right for exclusive rights over the history of the region of Macedonia.
And, any historian you would ask will comfirm you that the modern nations were formed after the 14th century. So, all the issue we have has no sence, especially because we (nowdays Macedonians) do not have any claims for the Greek teritory which you decided (in the 1960s and 70s) to call "Macedonia". I sterbinski 03:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Theathenae, do you have any useful arguments to add to this discussion? --FlavrSavr 22:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
"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." So why are you still here?--Theathenae 08:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
To stop your assimilation attempts. I sterbinski 03:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Truth hurts...

The Fallmerayer Thesis in the Light of Genetic Evidence Jacob Fallmerayer stirred quite a controversy in the 19th century by proposing that the Hellenic nation had perished in the Middle Ages by admixture with Slavs and Albanians.

We are now in a position, through genetic evidence to evaluate this thesis, at least with respect to the question of Slavic settlements.

Slavs are distinguished by having a specific Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, or HG3, or Eu19. This reaches frequencies of higher than 50% in Poles and decreases significantly in non-Slavic populations. The "Macedonians" of FYROM, the Slavic population immediately to the north of Greece have frequencies of R1a of 35%.

We must warn that R1a itself is not a Slavic marker. This means that any particular R1a sequence could, or could not be of Slavic origin. But, a population that has mixed with Slavs is likely to show this in relatively high levels of R1a.

Ornella Semino published a study in Science 290: 1155 in which the levels of R1a (which she calls Eu19 are given in various populations. Greeks have 11.8%, that is about 1/6 that of the Hungarians, who top the list at 60%. The Hungarians are not Slavs, but from the genetic standpoint they could very well be of Slavic origin, converted linguistically by the Asiatic Magyars. The Poles at 56.4% are the highest Slavic population.

We must note that ancient Slavic groups at the time of the Slavic dispersals probably had even higher levels of R1a. After all, Poles and Hungarians are themselves only partly Slavic in origin, and the result of admixture of a predominantly Slavic element with indigenous pre-Slavic ones. As a result, it is likely that at the time of their migrations, the Slavs had even higher frequencies of R1a.

R1a did not originate with the Slavs (that is why it is not a Slavic marker). Its origins in a Eastern European refugium after the Last Glacial Maximum means that it has had plenty of time to spread across the continent even to places where Slavs were never present. For example, its frequency in Syrians at a frequency of 10%, close to that of Greece, in the Saami of Scandinavia at 10%, Turks at 6.6% and in Albanians in 9.8%. It is even found in the Dutch, at a frequency of 3.7%, a population that has been largely unaffected by any Slavonic incursion. Given that Greece is closer to the area where R1a probably originated, it is very likely that R1a lineages would have been part of early population elements of the Balkans.

Thus, we know that at least a part of 11.8% of R1a in Greeks is of pre-Slavic origin. We also know that the ancient Slavs had frequencies of it in excess of 50%. It's hard to quantify the exact percentages, but I will give an educated guess, that 5% of R1a lineages in Greece are of Slavic origin, while the ancient Slavs had it in frequency of 75%. The picture is not much different if we change these numbers, but they will do for now. As a result, the Slavonic influence in Greece turns out to be about 7%, an almost exact match for the figure given by Vasiliev in his History of the Byzantine Empire based on demographic considerations.

This figure might turn out to be less, or slightly more. Better resolution using markers distinguishing R1a chromosomes might provide us with additional information. But, the conclusion seems unavoidable, that the contribution of Slavs to the Greek gene pool (if any) is very limited, certainly not enough to extinguish the noble Hellenic nation as Fallmereyer had proposed.


It seems that a certain cystic fibrosis mutation is of Slavic origin (in other words, the original population who became the Slavs came up with this gene). The intersting thing is that Serbs, Croats and Bulgarians don't carry the gene. What does this mean? It might mean that the gene is not really the Slavic gene. Or, as the authors of the report below say, southern Slavs lost the gene when they mixed with other populations. I'm not saying they're right in making that assumption. But who knows?

"Our results indicate that this mutation is particularly common in Czech, Russian, Belorussian, Austrian, German, Polish, Ukrainian, Slovenian, and Slovak patients. It is the second most common CF mutation to be identified in Central and Eastern European CF patients. By contrast, it was only sporadically detected in Western Europe and was absent in Bulgarian, Croatian, Romanian and Serbian CF patients. It was not found in diverse other populations of non-Slavic origin. The geographic distribution of the mutation is similar to the spread of Slavic populations during the first millenium."

Y Chromosomes

The most comprehensive study of Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe thus far is Rosser et al., [1]. The human Y chromosome is passed on from father to son. One can thus study one half of a population's ancestry (along the paternal line) by studying the Y-chromosome. Greek Y-chromosomes belong to haplogroups HG1, HG2, HG3, HG9, HG21 and HG26. None of the 35 Greek Y chromosomes are of non-Caucasoid origin.

A second Y-chromosome study including Greeks have also shown similar results. Helgason et al., [2] reports one HG16 sequence of North Eurasian provenance in a sample of 42 Greeks (at least 97.6% Caucasoid). To put this in perspective, eight HG16 chromosomes occur in 110 Swedes (at least 92.7% Caucasoid) and three HG16 sequences in 112 Norwegians (at least 97.3% Caucasoid) were also found. HG16 is shared by many populations ranging from Europe to Mongolia. Its origin has been placed by [7] in the Eastern range of its current geographical distribution.

A third Y-chromosome study, by Malaspina et al., [3] which included a sample of 28 continental and 83 Cretan Greeks (total sample size of 111) found no evidence of the presence of non-Caucasoid Y chromosomes in Greeks.

A fourth Y-chromosome study, by Semino et al., [4] included 76 Greeks and 20 Macedonian Greeks. One Eu6 lineage, corresponding to HG10/HG36 [5] is probably of East Asian origin. One Eu17 lineage corresponds to HG 28 which is frequent in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent [6]. In total, admixture of 2.1% is detected (if we label HG 28 as non-Caucasoid).

A fifth Y-chromosome study, by Weale et al., [8] included 132 Greek students from Athens. The same haplogroups found in [1] were detected in this study. No non-Caucasoid chromosomes were found.

The most recent and comprehensive study of Greek Y-chromosomes, by Di Giacomo et al., [9] included 154 individuals from continental Greece and 212 from Crete, Lesvos and Chios. In total, Greeks from thirteen separate locations were examined, thus giving the most complete picture of variation so far. A single haplogroup A chromosome was found (in Lesvos) which is usually found in Africa. The remainder belonged to haplogroups found in Caucasoid populations. The breakup (in percent) of the haplogroups observed) based on the set of markers typed is as follows.

P*(xR1a) R1a DE G2 I-M170 J2(DYS413≤ 18) J2*(xDYS413≤ 18) J*(xJ2) A Y*(xA,DE,G2,I,J,P) 12.8 9.8 20.2 6.6 14.8 20.2 4.9 2.7 0.3 7.7


A newer study by Semino et al. [10] has studied two samples of Greeks of size 84 and 59 (Macedonian Greeks). The focus was on two specific haplogroups E and J which are frequent in the Mediterranean region and can be used to detect population movements between Europe, Africa and the Near East. 2.4% of Greeks belong in haplogroup E-M123 and 21.4% in E-M78. Clades of E prevalent in Northern or Sub-Saharan Africa were not found. According to Cruciani et al. [11] most Greeks and other Balkan people belong to a specific cluster Ξ± within haplogroup E-M78 that is found in lower frequencies outside the Balkans and marks migrations from the Balkan area. E-M123 and its daughter haplogroup E-M34 originated in the Near East in prehistoric times. As for haplogroup J, most Greeks (22.8% Greeks/14.3% Macedonian Greeks) belong to J-M172 and its subclades which is associated with Neolithic population movements. Only 1.8%/2.2% of Macedonian Greeks/Greeks belonged to haplogroup J-M267 which could potentially (althought not certainly) reflect more recent Near Eastern admixture.

Thus, at present, in a total of seven studies, in which 925 Greek males were tested, one HG16, one HG28, one HG10/HG36, and one haplogroup A chromosomes have been found, for a total of 0.4% possible non-Caucasoid contribution to the modern Greek male gene pool. Additionally, the latest studies [9, 10] with a more refined version of the Y chromosome phylogeny indicate that influences from the Near East and North Africa in historical times are unlikely (perhaps in the order of ~2%). Additionally, Y chromosome haplogroup R1a which is very frequent in Slavic populations (>50%) is found in only around 9.8% of Greeks, and is also found at comparable frequencies further East (10.8% in Iraq; Al-Zahery et al. [12]) indicating that its presence in Greece need not be associated with medieval intrusions by Slavic speakers. The emerging picture of Y chromosome variation in Greece indicates genetic continuity, with slight influences from neighboring Caucasoid regions and virtually no influence from non-Caucasoids.

Future studies with larger samples and more detailed founder analyses will allow us to obtain a better pictures of Y-chromosome variation in Greece, Europe and the world at large. At present, it appears that modern Europeans share many of the haplogroups, while there is also geographic structure in the distribution. With the exception of the Northeast corner of Europe, all other European populations have very small traces of extra-Caucasoid genetic input(a).

[1] Rosser et al. (2000) European Y-Chromosome Diversity. Am J Hum Genet 67:1526-1543 [2] Helgason et al. (2000) Ancestry of Icelandic Y Chromosomes. Am J Hum Genet 67:697-717 [3] Malaspina et al. (2000) Patterns of male-specific inter-population divergence in Europe, West Asia and North Africa. Ann Hum Genet 64:395-412 [4] Semino et al. (2000) The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective [5] Zerjal et al. (2002) Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia. Am J Hum Genet 71:466-482 [6] Qamar et al. (2002) Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan. Am J Hum Genet 70:1107-1124 [7] Zerjal et al. (1997) Genetic relationships of Asians and Northern Europeans, revealed by Y-chromosomal DNA analysis. Am J Hum Genet 60:11741183 [8] Weale et al. (2001) Armenian Y chromosome haplotypes reveal strong regional structure within a single ethno-national group. Hum Genet 109: 659-674 [9] Di Giacomo et al. (2003) Clinal Patterns of human Y chromosomal diversity in continental Italy and Greece are dominated by drift and founder effects. Mol Phyl Evol 28:387-395 [10] Semino et al. (2004) Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area. Am J Hum Genet (to appear) [11] Cruciani et al. (2004) Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa. Am J Hum Genet (to appear) [12] Al-Zahery et al. (2003) Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms in Iraq, a crossroad of the early human dispersal and of post-Neolithic migrations Mol Phyl Evol 28:458-472

The alleged "Sub-Saharan" theory that FYROMian "scholars" (damn it, am I funny or what) have manipulated to prove their point

In numerous recent studies, the mitochondrial DNA of Greeks was examined and was found to be predominantly Caucasoid with only infrequent presence of "erratic" sequences from non-Caucasoid sources. Mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") is inherited from one's mother and is thus a good way to establish the maternal ancestry of a population.

The most comprehensive European-wide study of mtDNA is [1] in which 125 Greeks were sampled among thousands of Europeans. The Greeks and the Albanians appear in the "Mediterranean-East" category of the study. Greeks tested belonged overwhelmingly to the Caucasoid-specific haplogroups ("Seven Daughters of Eve" popularized by Bryan Sykes' book).

The "erratic" sequences include a Sub-Saharan African (L1a) sequence, which was derived from the Albanian part of the sample [2]. The other two sequences non-attributed to a European founder are members of haplogroups prevalent in Asia, M and D. Thus, the total percentage of erratics in the Greek sample was 1.6%. The Greeks, like most Europeans are fairly pure in terms of their maternal ancestry.

It is sometimes argued that the Greeks absorbed large numbers of Negro slaves or immigrants. There is no evidence of such an event in Greek mtDNA. If it ever took place, it was so limited in scope that not a single sequence in a total of 125 could be found.

"Elefteritsa"

User:Isterbinski, speaking of your grandmother and "assimilation" - by the way, her unassimilated Greek name would actually be Eleftheritsa, with a th - would you care to explain to us whatever happened to the once thriving Greek community in what is now the FYROM? Monastiri (modern-day Bitola) for example was once a major centre of Greek culture and learning, but the Greeks have since been forcibly assimilated into the dominant "Macedonian" national(ist) project. There is no free expression of Greek identity, and the Greeks are not even included in the census. Where did they disappear to? Seeing as you work for "human rights", as you say, you should be more concerned with the situation facing minorities within your own country, should you not?--Theathenae 08:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is even funny and senceless to read. Firstable,my Greek origin was from my grand-grand mother and I never met her personally, because she died when she was about 55 years old. My grand-grand father, who was married with her runned away from Greece because their house was burned by the Greek hunta and their were shoot at.
After that they moved in Macedonia (the town of Bitola). No one changed her name. Elefteritsa (or any version of it) is not a Macedonian name. If they wanted to change her name, it would be something like Marica, or maybe Letka. Those are the closest Macedonian names to Eleftheritsa. If someone wanted to assimilate her, they would give her some of those names. If you write Eleftheritsa on Macedonian (with h in the name), it is hard to read it. Anyone who knows any Macedonian can confirm what you are saying is completely senceless.
No one ever tried to assimilate the Greeks in Macedonia. My wife has a employee in her school of languages of Greek nationality, who works there as teacher of new Greek language. She is about 30 and born in Macedonia. But, she never was anything else than Greek (mother and father both Greeks). Her surname stayed Cilimingas and her nationality Greek.
Greeks are included in the census. Everyone is. In the Macedonian census, you write your nationality by yourself. You are free to write whatever you want, you do not have options that you must choose from. Inform yourself before claiming senceless things.
Don't you preach about minorities in Macedonia. With the new constitution, every minority in Macedonia can use his own language even in the national parlament.
I am not some free lance human rights worker. I work for one of the biggest organizations in the world. And if you want, I can post you here more than 70 reports about breaking of Human rights in Greece just in the last 4 months. There is no Human rights organization which did not criticise Greece. From all the countries in Europe, you are in top 3 with most breakings of Human Rights.
On the other hand, you have changed every single name that sounded Macedonian. My co-worker Christos (again, from Greek nationality, living in Macedonia) has full drawer of examples like that. And he laughted out loud when he read this post of yours.
In this moment there are about 3000 Greeks in Macedonia, but 2000 of them are here because of work (there are many Greek firms in Macedonia). It is interesting to say that we do not have any report of breaking human rights in Macedonian from a person with Greek nationality in the last 11 years. The Greek firms here are even allowed to have the Greek flag in front of their offices. Do you know what would happen to anyone who tries to put the Macedonian flag anywhere in Greece? I sterbinski 08:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The Macedonian flag (Vergina Sun) flies proudly throughout Greece. As for foreign firms flying their national flags, there has never been an impediment to this. As soon as firms from the FYROM start investing in Greece rather than the other way around, there will be no Greek objection to flying the Japanese naval ensign. When I refer to the Greeks in the FYROM, I am not talking about the recent arrivals who are there on business. I am talking about the indigenous Greek population that has been forcibly assimilated as ethnic "Macedonians". The official census figures [42] recognise no Greek or Bulgarian ethnicity (what a joke), and the category Other amounts to a meagre 20,993 souls, just over 1% of the total population. Are we seriously supposed to believe that the ethnic Greeks, Bulgarians and all other ethnic groups combined amount to one per cent? Pull the other one, mate.--Theathenae 12:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
There are only two facts about this issue:
1)Macedonian census was not criticised by any Human Rights wach organization in the world.
2) There is no Greek census that was not criticised by some Human Rights Watch organization. Just the organization that I am part of has criticised every census since 1950th.
If you ever were in Macedonia, you would be sure that the human rights here, especially after 2003rd and the new constitution gives more rights for the monorities than most of the countries in European Union. This what you say here is completely hilarious.
Anyone who is interested, can check this information online. 62.162.195.235 18:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah we know the story already, all your family and friends have personal experiences with the people you hate so you don't need to bring up any documented evidence. Your wife is Greek, your grandfather was killed by Greeks, your best friend is a working as a transvestite in Syggrou etc, etc. If you people don't break any human rights then what is this all about [43]? Desperate nation that kills innocent people in order to kiss american ass? Or more Greek lies? Miskin 12:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
My wife is mexican, not Greek. But, I would not have anything against even if she was Greek. For 20 years of working for human rights, you meet a lot of people and you help a lot of them. That brings you a lot of friends. And about my family... it is quite big. There were cases in the past of even more than 7 children in my family.
If you really want to know, my organization (including me) was the one who was loudest in this case asking for a trial for everyone who was a part of this incident. I will not talk further about what happened latter, because I don't have any clue or pictures from the scene. But I know that even the 'War Crimes Tribunal' in Hague droped the charges on thic case. I am not a lawyer or a judge, so I can not say anything about it.
For those who don't know, just to repeat that this incident happened in the middle of the war in Macedonia, so it is hard to prove any human right breaking in that situation. Aldough, we (as a Human Rights organization) supported those doubts of breaking the Human rights, we can not confirm were they terorist or ilegal imigrants. Only the court can confirm you that. I sterbinski 18:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Human Rights on the Balkan"

For anyone who wants to learn more about the human rights in greece, here is google's results on the issue: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2Bhuman+%2Brights+%2Bgreece&btnG=Search

For anyone who wants to learn about the human rights of Macedonia, here is google's results on the issue:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2Bhuman+%2Brights+%2Bmacedonia

For anyone who wants to learn about the human rights of Bulgaria, here is google's results on the issue:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2Bhuman+%2Brights+%2Bbulgaria

For anyone who wants to learn about the human rights of Albania, here is google's results on the issue:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2Bhuman+%2Brights+%2BAlbania&btnG=Search

For anyone who wants to learn about the human rights of Serbia, here is google's results on the issue:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2Bhuman+%2Brights+%2BSerbia

For anyone who wants to learn about the human rights of Romania, here is google's results on the issue:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%2Bhuman+%2Brights+%2BRomania&btnG=Search

Compare by yourself. Every single country in the world has been criticised for violating human rights, but now you can compare by yourself and build an oppinion for the human rights in both countries. I sterbinski 18:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And now for some REAL genetics research

You know I was wondering, since according to some people genetics are as important as to mentioned in the article, then why don't we all bring up everything we can? Mr Sterbinski brought something up but unfortunately it was proved to be a fraud. Now it's the turn of other people to put their cards on the table. What do you think of a research conducted by Oxford university [44]?

Cry as much as you want Miskin, but you haven't proof that the research I posted here is a fraud. You were talking to a completely different research and you tried to represent the link you posted here as denial of my research. Unfortunately for you, I found links of both researches and I found several other links that proof that even the research that you tried to deny (which is different than the research I posted) were pulled back because of political reasons. Even the Nature magazines admits that.
So, stop playing dumb and check the links I posted up here.I sterbinski 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan lies in a region that has witnessed multiple invasions and migrations over the centuries. Alexander the Great invaded the Indian sub-continent in 327-325 B.C. and three northern Pakistani populations, the Burusho, the Kalash and the Pathan claim descent from Greek soldiers who were left behind in this region. The Burusho reside in the Hunza and Nagar valleys, which are located in the Karakorum Mountains and speak the language isolate Burushaski. The Kalash have been isolated for centuries in the Hindu Kush mountain ranges of northern Pakistan and speak Kalasha, an Indo-European language. The Pathan tribes inhabit the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan and the southern and eastern parts of neighboring Afghanistan. They speak Pushto, also an Indo-European language. To investigate the male-line genetic relationship between the extant Greek population (assuming that modern Greek are representative of Alexander's armies) and the three Pakistani ethnic groups, 16 binary unique event polymorphisms, and 16 multiallelic, short-tandem-repeat (STR) loci, mapping on the non-recombining portion of the human Y chromosome were typed in 910 individuals. The combination of the biallelic markers identified 7 stable Y chromosomal lineages in the Greek, Burusho and Pathan populations and 5 in the Kalash. Haplogroups 1, 2, 3 and 9 were present in all four populations. The M20 A to G transition (haplogroup 28) was found in all three Pakistani populations but was absent in the Greeks. This polymorphism probably originated in or near Pakistan as it has not been found at a significant frequency except in this area. Haplogroup 21 was frequent in the Greeks but in these Pakistani populations was found only in the Pathans. Based upon haplogroup frequencies, 65-88% Greek admixture was estimated for the Kalash, consistent with a Greek origin for a significant proportion of Kalash Y chomosomes. However, the Kalash lack haplogroup 21 chromosomes and appeared distinct from the Greeks based upon principal components analysis of haplogroup frequencies and weighted population pairwise FST values based on STR variation within Y Haplogroups. They clearly contain a substantial proportion of Pakistani Y chromosomes, illustrated by their high frequency of hg 28, and the true Greek contribution remains uncertain. Estimates of Greek Y admixture for the Pathans were about 10%, and for the Burusho were close to zero. Median-joining networks of STR haplotypes revealed considerable sub-structuring of Y variation within the Kalash and Burusho, and in particular the haplogroup 21 network showed that the Pathan chromosomes were closely related to the central Greek cluster. Thus a small Greek contribution to the Pathans seems likely, the contribution to the Kalash is unclear and no contribution to the Burusho could be detected.

This research proves at least two things:

  • Before the research: The academic society considers Greeks as the main ancestors of ancient Macedonians.
  • After the research: The above consideration has been enforced on a scientific basis due to the results of the research.

Note that this research has a completely neutral character, irrelevant to Greeks or any politics whatsoever. Its purpose is to study the ancestry of the Kalash, Burusho and Pathans, 3 peoples of Northern Pakistan who are assumed to be the ancestors of ancient Macedonian colonists. Unless the Slavic crowd (FlavrSavr, Isterbinski) have some valid academic document which rejects its validity (similar to what rejected theirs), I don't see any reason to not mention it in the article. Remember, I'm only using your own logic. Miskin 12:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You obviously read only your own posts, Miskin. When will you finally learn the difference between the HLA genes and genes in general?
In the same time, I would point out that this is your own conclusion. I don't see the scientist from Oxford making any conclusions like yours. But the "mastermind" kid Miskin is more reliable than any scientist in the world, so we have to listen to him. Right? I don't know should I laught or cry at this nonsence, can not decide is it hilariously funny, or extremely sad because someone so young as you can be so closeminded and.
And, in this moment no serious scientist would say that there is not any connection between the antient Macedonians and nowdays Macedonians. There is connection between the Greeks and antient Macedonians too, no one denies that. But, it would be completely idiotic if anyone claims that the Greeks stayed completely clean nation, without any mixing.
The Balkany is very small area and many different nations and people with different origin live here. During the last 2500 years there was mixing between all of them. So, again, please stop playing dumb. People here can always read you. And with this aproach, I don't think you will get anyone listening to you.
Personally, I do not care what origin Greeks have. You can be anything you want to be. I just know that there is a proof that we are not just Slavic and that our Macedonian origin is quite mixed.

And if you have any mind that you still use, you would finally understand that the modern nations don't have direct conections to the antique people, no matter Macedonians or Greeks. I sterbinski 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A simple question

If the modern "Macedonians" are the product of an admixture between ancient Macedonians and Slavs, as "Macedonian" nationalists claim, what is wrong with calling them Macedonian Slavs? Is that not what they are?--Theathenae 18:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I will try to explain you, but let's try to keep it down, without any 'fights'. Me and you Theathenae can not solve this issue.
Now I will explain you why it can not be acceptable for us.
1)The name Macedonian Slavs is not what we are. We are mixure, which includes Slavs, but Slavic is not the only origin we have.
2) Slavs got here 15 centuries ago. Any relevant scientist will confirm you that the modern nations are formed latter than the 14th century and they can not be connected directly with ethnicities that lived in the same area in the past.
3) Macedonians is the only name we know, only name we have and the only name that we used. We identify only with that name. Using the name Macedonian Slavs is nonsence, because noone would write that his nationality is "Macedonian Slavs". They would say that their nationality is "Macedonian". So, what kind of nation "Macedonian Slav" is when noone identifies with it?
4) Belonding to some nationality is a personal feeling. If I feel as Italian, it is my basic human right to be Italian. Maybe I won't have Italian nationality and passport, but I should be treated as Italian anywhere I go. So, if I feel Macedonian, it is my basic human right to be one. If I do not identify with the name Macedonian Slav, no one can force me to be one. That would be violation against the basic human rights. Wikipedia is in a funny situation now. It claims that there is nationality Macedonian Slavs, but there is no one who identifies himself as Macedonian Slav. On the other hand, Wikipedia does not include the nationality (Macedonians) which is identifier of 2,5 million people. I agree that there should be clear difference between the "modern Macedonians" and the "Antique Macedonians" (maybe even using these names), but it should not deny the name we have. Especially because that name is highly supported all over the world.
Greece and the Greeks should understand that us beeing Macedonian can not be denial of their conection with the Antique Macedonians. Also, they have to understand that they can not have exclusivity ove the Macedonian name and history. But, we both (Greeks and Macedonians) have to understand that non of us has a right to claim direct conection to Alexander the Great and his people. The science does not allow that and denies any direct connection of modern nations with some ethnicities that lived in the antique time.
Also, Greece should understand that Macedonia can not claim and ask for the Aegean part of Macedonia. That teritory is Greek and the population there nowdays is dominantly Greek. So, it is clear and simple: Aegean Macedonia's teritory is Greek teritory and it will stay that way.
In the same time we should both understand that nationalistic politics and claims should be left in the past. Nationalists like the ones in Macedonia who wants the Aegean part of Macedonia back in Macedonia and like the ones in Greece who deny any Macedonian minority in Greece and their rights should be isolated.
I hope I could help. I sterbinski 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced.--Theathenae 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Theathenae, I will write this comment, but please first read it till the end before making any conclusions.
This is not about convincing you and asking you a aproval for using the name Macedonians. That is simple reality. We don't know any other name that we identify with and that can not be changed. We simply have no other option. We changed our constitution, we changed our flag, but it is imposible to change our identity. That is not something that you or me can decide. That is something that was beeing shaped and developed for centuries.
I wrote this explanation because Ijust wanted to explain you that Republic of Macedonia and the modern Macedonians have nothing against Greece and we don't have any claims to teritories of Modern Greece, including the Aegean Macedonia.
Of course, no one is prepared to quit about the rights of the minority in Greece, but all those people are asking for is to have the same rights that any other country in the European Union gives to the minorities.
I will repeat again. In my opinion, the problem between Macedonia and Greece is not realistic. It is simple politics. As you can confirm, as far as I remember, we never were in war, or anything similar to it. Actually, we are 2 of the rare nations on the Balkany that never were fighting against each other (excluding the Balkan wars, but then the Macedonian people were not your real target).
All the problem is based on the fears of the Macedonians of the Greek politics towards the Macedonians from the time of the hunta on one side, and the fears of the Greeks of some hidden plans of Macedonia to ask for the Aegean part of Macedonia back. But, I am 100% sure that non of those fears are based on valid grounds. You know that 1/3 of the tourists in Greece are comming from Macedonia. I hope you had a chance to see that those people have nothing against you.
I give this problem 2 more years, maximum. Of course, all the problems will not be solved, but the main issue will be closed. I sterbinski 02:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem could easily be solved if Skopje dropped its intransigent stance and accepted the UN proposal as a basis for negotiations, as Greece has already done. At the moment, Skopje's insistence on using Macedonia without any qualifier is the problem. You yourself have admitted that nobody can monopolise the name, but that is exactly what Skopje has been doing for years. What you need to realise is that you are not the Macedonians; you are just one third of the total population of Macedonia as defined in modern times. Most Macedonians are Greeks, and their rights and interests must also be taken into consideration.--Theathenae 07:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The UN proposal was supporting the Greek side. If we accepted the proposal, we would have to change our name, which was actually what Greece want. You missed to say that Macedonia already changed its constitution and made it in the way Greece wanted and plus we changed our national flag, which we see as our national symbol. We already made step back, but Greece used our good will to make even bigger presure.
Yes, I claim that no one can monopolize the Macedonia name. But, Macedonia is not doing that. No one asked from Greece to drop using the name Macedonia for a part of its teritory.
Actually, it is the other way around. Greece is actually the one that asks Macedonia to drop the use of its name. Something imposible, because that is the only identity we have.
A part of the antique Greek teritory is now a part of Turkey. What would you do if they asked you to change your name from Greece to "Former Ottoman Province of Greece"?
And one more thing. The Greeks that want to use the name Macedonia for themselves do not say that they are from Macedonian nationality. They claim their nationality is Greek. Actually, the only people who say that are from Macedonian nationality in Greece are the members of the Macedonian (Macedonian Slav) minority in Greece. I sterbinski 02:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Caution:A genetic research

To all: I think I have explained my view on genetic researches and ethnicity quite clearly, 4 days ago (Before Miskin was a part of this "genetic" debate), so for those who don't read my posts (and are putting words in my mouth), here it is again:

Linking genes with national identities is dangerous. I knew about that HLA genes research all about it, but frankly, I don't believe it proves anything. That is why I have never used as it an argument. The involvement of the Macedonian crew in it, is indeed suspicious to me. (I, FlavrSavr actually said that, and I still mean it, though I don't believe their involvement is a proof that they were necessarilly politically motivated) The one thing positive that HLA genetic research proved, is, in my opinion, that the national "purity" of modern nations is, and has always been, a myth.
Now, what is really dangerous in it, are indeed, the racist conclusions drawn from it "Oh, my nation is more pure than your Sub-saharan tribe". (So Theathenae, that is indeed a racist statement, but I'm still confused why you dislike our faces so much). Such genetic researches or sometimes quasiresearches are always followed by racist sentiments, although they might not be motivated by such sentiments. Just see what the site that VMORO has provided stand for: Essays on a new concept of racial relations that promotes the continued existence, independence and legitimate rights and interests of all races, providing a preservationist alternative to the racially destructive consequences of multiracialism. Destructive consequences of multiracialism?! (I said that, as well)
Of course, there is this new "ethical racism" (preservation of all races), that tries to avoid (in my opinion), the obvious link, between these guys and Hitler's ideas, but on the site, there are mostly concerns why the "Nordic race" is the one dissapearing. How "serious" these guys are, you can see from map for racial preservation of the US. The website's list of "Estimated percentage genes of modern nations" is composed from god knows what sources. --FlavrSavr 15:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm again confirming that until the Genes or HLA Genes Research are fully or generally accepted in the scientific circles as relevant in describing historical events and migrations, I suggest that a giant CAUTION:A genetic research! sticker should be put on them, especially because they can cause serious distortions in the (post)modern concept of nationality, by putting purely racist, "nationality by blood" arguments into play. So, until I get some strong proofs of the contrary, I strongly believe that national/ethnic identity is a complex phenomena, that cannot be, explained by genes. --FlavrSavr 04:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As a citizen of RofM, I wish you would comment on Sterbinski's bizarre claims that the research is "unquestioned" (To quote Sterbinski: "Put here any link which says any research of this guy was denied scientifically"---that can be found in the Nature link), and his continued denial to accept what the Nature report implies. His subsequent links do not show what he claims (or thinks) they show. Not addressing this can be seen as tolerating his claims, and that can be seen as an indirect way of supporting his claims and his viewpoint. ---Alex 04:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Alex, I'm writing several paragrhaps, It is possible because of a software mistake, to accidentally erase some of your posts. Also, please don't rush in, I have several other issues to add. --FlavrSavr 05:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That, however, does not mean that we couldn't or shouldn't include those genetic researches in a Wikipedia article, given the fact the Wikipedia includes articles or parts of them regarding different beleifs or religions, that are not only just scientifically dismissed, but are also quite odd. The genetic issues are already added in the Palestinians (not Palestinian Arabs) article. Our mission here is not to prove whether or not the same Genes or HLA genes investigations are true or false, we should only describe, not prescribe, in accordance to the NPOV policy: "The research A, conducted by X,Y,Z is claiming A,B,C, because of C,D,E. The research B, conducted by M,N,O is claiming, bla bla. People P,Q,R believe that the research A is proving bla bla, People, T,U,W, on the contrary state that ETC." --FlavrSavr 05:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, please watch out for those software "mistakes". Alex 05:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I certainly didn't erase your posts if that's what you're implying. KissL suggested that what you viewed as Isterbinski erasing posts, could indeed be a deletion caused by a software mistake. And, again, I'm adding several other points, please be calm :-)--FlavrSavr 05:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is better that to be done (if it is done, at all) in the current Macedonian Slavs article (which should be soon renamed in to Macedonians (people)), because that is the article that specifically discusses the identity of Macedonians. --FlavrSavr 05:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The comparison with religious beliefs would not apply, because we are dealing with science, but the comparison with the Palestinians article shows how Wikipedia will basically handle it (detailing the controversy and the standings of the conclusions, problems with it, etc.). I agree it should not be included in Macedonia. Alex 05:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Detailing the controversy and the standings of the conclusions, problems with it, etc. But, of course. --FlavrSavr 05:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


I_sterbinski, you are formally right when you are saying that Miskin's link does not refer to the Macedonian/Greek HLA Genes research, however it's the same Arnaiz-Villena geneticist and it's probable that he's using the same methods. So, I_sterbinski, I do beleive that you are actually wrong when you say that this research hasn't been disputed in the scientific community. It is indeed disputed. However, some Decius and Miskin, you have rushed in, because some parts of the scientific community actually support Arnaiz-Villena (Note that I mentioned my personal POV about the issue),and the links are to be found in the Palestinians article. An explicit support can be found here - [45]. Also, note that the same Arnaiz Villena is not some clown in the scientific community, in fact he was a member of the editorial board of "Nature" until he was dismissed from the editorial board. --FlavrSavr 05:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't rush in too much, I'd say. Your link, from my cursory reading, does not "explicitly support" his research, just says that expunging it from the literature is too harsh, that it should still be made accessible (not that its conclusions should be seriously considered). Am I wrong? I'll re-read it. ---Alex 05:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you're wrong, however it appears that political/ethical arguments indeed prevailed over scientific and genetical arguments. See the Observer opinion about this - [46] --FlavrSavr 06:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
And you accuse Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, one of the greatest geneticists of the 20th century; Alberto Piazza, Genetics Dep. University of Torino; Neil Risch, Genetics Dep. Stanford University; as well as the majority of geneticists around the world to have acted unethically on political grounds, not scientific grounds. I do not agree that political issues prevailed here. HLA genes, like other such antigens, are found in different populations largely due to natural selection. There are other types of genes that follow this pattern, and I'll give examples later. Note that the Nature article affirms that natural selection mostly accounts for the distributions. I do not believe that political factors determined this, it just added to the outrage. ---Alex 11:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not accusing anybody. See the Observer article which led me to my statement, which again, is my personal POV. And in my statement I'm only saying that the political and ethical arguments prevailed over scientific and genetical arguments. That, on the other hand does not mean that the scientific and genetical arguments were not valid. It simply means that they were possibly considered secondary. Also, I didn't any how insinuate that those famous geneticists were reacting on political basis. I also said that, the whole HLA Genes Research is suspicious to me, and I do not plan to defend it scientifically (Which I cannot do, even if I wanted, because my knowledge of genetics is minute) nor ethically (I'm concerned over the ethical issues of genes research as a method of determining ethnicity, as I already mentioned above). I'm only saying that there other arguments that seem to think that the research was dismissed primary because of political reasons (maybe the research itself was motivated by such reasons, I really don't know) So I would like to ask you, Miskin and I_Sterbinski not to put words in my mouth, and to drag me in to this genetical mumbo-jumbo, again. I don't like to participate in proving something about the research itself: There are people saying this, and there are people saying that about it, and all views should be included. --FlavrSavr 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You gave a judgment, "it appears that political/ethical arguments indeed prevailed or scientific and genetical arguments". I don't think this is totally accurate. The political dimension brought attention to it, but the bad science dismissed it. Alex 13:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have just heard about the terrible airplane tragedy that happened near Athens. (I rarely watch news). Guess this wasn't the right day to react against Greek nationalism. My condolence to the victims. --FlavrSavr 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And why do you keep mentioning this, unless to take pleasure in it? (see User talk:Bogdangiusca) Alex 13:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

However, Alex, I am concerned about your somewhat tacit support of Miskin's bombastic "REAL genetics search". I can not be sure of your intellectual integrity when you don't apply the same skepticism to his example of research, especially when names such as M. Papaioannou appear in it. Again, I'm suprised how come you didn't notice the obvious logical and historical flaws, as vigorously as you began to deconstruct the HLA genes research. The research shows us that they were looking for Greek genes in Pakistan, because Greek soldiers were there some centuries ago. However, the presence of Greek soldiers in Alexander the Great's army was never a matter of doubt. But there were Macedonian soldiers, as well. So, the research can be a some kind of proof that Ancient Macedonians were actually Greeks, only with the assumption that the Ancient Macedonians were in fact Greeks, as the research puts it - assuming that modern Greek are representative of Alexander's armies. We both now that this assumption is still debated in the scientific community. What is more interesting, the same research doesn't make a parallel between those Pakistani tribes and the representatives of any other modern nation - Macedonians, Albanians, etc. Furthermore, its summary is somewhat incoclusive - "Thus a small Greek contribution to the Pathans seems likely, the contribution to the Kalash is unclear and no contribution to the Burusho could be detected".

Again, I'm still very suspicious of Genes research and ethnicity. --FlavrSavr 06:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Flavr, I do support the research (that Pashtun/Pathan have an amount of genes from ancient Greek or ancient Macedonian soldiers in Alexander the Great's army), even though I do not assume that ancient Greeks were genetically identical with ancient Macedonians, nor do I assume that Spartans were genetically identical with Athenians. My own point of view is that there was a genetic variation among ancient Macedonians and neighboring Greeks, but not that much, because of long cohabitation and probable common origin. ---Alex 06:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
How about this conclusion: The above consideration (Ancient Macedonians=Greeks) has been enforced on a scientific basis due to the results of the research. So, they went there, assuming that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks (even genetically identical), they found Greek genes (not considering the representation of other ethnic grupation's genetic characteristics), and according to Miskin, that enforced that Ancient Macedonians=Greeks. How come, knowing that the Alexander the Great's army was composed of Ancient Macedonians and Greeks (and given the fact that their historical, not to mention genetical kinship is disputed), this link provides that enforced, or definite proof? And what about Mr. Pappaioannou? Isn't his apperance suspicious for the very same reasons that you provided above. Or you are somehow, indirectly supporting his thesis that we are a Slavic crowd, these intelectually and morally inferior creatures? --FlavrSavr 06:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I do not view this genetic research as proof that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks. Pappaioannou being involved is not to be ignored, but I don't make any allegations on his scientific ethics or competence. I do make allegations concerning the ethics and competence (in terms of genetics) of all the geneticists (or whatever the case may be)---Slavo-Macedonian, Spanish or what not---who were involved with the HLA gene research. Namely, my allegation is that they were unethical and incompetent. I never used the phrase "Slavic crowd", and I don't have the same views about Slavs that Miskin may or may not have. ---Alex 06:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I also do not suspect that Greeks within Alexander's army managed to reach Pakistan. However, I think that you should have dismissed his "definite proofs", especially when he seemingly accepted a racist stereotype, (as well as false accusations against me), with the same vigour that carried your dismissal of Isterbinski's arguments (who on the other hand, didn't claim definite proofs). Bad arguments are bad arguments, regardless which "side" puts them into light. However, this might be my own personal POV of the whole debate, I might be wrong. Regards. --FlavrSavr 07:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Bad arguments are bad arguments, but Sterbinski was in denial to the point where I was wondering whether he was insane or a chronic liar. Alex 11:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Genetics should not have entered this debate at all, especially in regards to Macedonia, a region of the world where the ethnicity and nationality of the overwhelming majority of its Christian inhabitants was decided on entirely arbitrary grounds within the last century. That genetics should have been invoked by someone who claims to be a human rights activist is particularly appalling.--Theathenae 11:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I led him to bring whatever he felt was evidence against the historical consensus that practically all if not all the ancient Macedonians were Hellenized or Romanized before the Slavic arrival. He brought what he may have felt was evidence, but it in fact turned out to not be very good evidence at all, according to the majority of genetic authorities. He denied and perhaps still denies that most geneticists have dismissed that paper, but he is the only one on this talk page who seems to claim this. I'm glad he brought what he brought (what he felt was the best evidence) because now we see how shoddy it is. Alex 11:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I eagerly await the psychotic rant that he will entertain us with tomorrow. ---Alex 15:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

protection

why is the reason for protection not announced here? Why is an edit such as this [47] possible while the article is "protected"? Who protected it today, since apparently there were edits between 11th and 16th August? I will unprotect it now, and if you want to reprotect it, put it on WP:RFP. Why did admins "rv+protect"? This is a content dispute, and we don't know which is the "right" version. Miskin is wrong in calling a content dispute "vandalism", of course, but that isn't sufficient to "rv+protect". dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

and for pity's sake remove the Alexander statue from the intro. This article is about "the geographical and historical region", not about Alexander's conquests. If both sides could stop droning on about Alexander, things would already lighten up. So Alexander had an empire for a couple of years? Big deal, it crumbled almost as soon as it was established. He basically just wrecked the Persian empire. This has nothing to do with Macedonia, the topic of this article. So "Macedonia" is used for two regions in two countries today? Big deal. "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" for inhabitants of the FYRoM is not a racial slur for god's sake, it's a disambiguation, just like "Greek Macedonians", referring to the inhabitants of the Greek province. In an international context "Macedonians" is usually enough, because there is only one contemporary nation called Macedonia, but when disambiguation is required, like here, "Macedonian Slavs" is a perfectly good term. It's not that non-Greek non-FYRoM people lack understanding of the case, it's that they simply don't care about that stupid naming dispute (not territorial or anything), and think that both sides are just making fools of themselves. dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more strongly with you, that "Macedonian Slavs" is a perfectly good, neutral and descriptive disambiguation term and not in the least a ... racial slur (!). Now how does this make me, for one, a fool? Chronographos 12:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course you would agree, because that name satisfies your assimilation claims and politics. I don't understand how can someone even dare to try to change someones nationality? Who do you think you are, god? Why you think you are better than me, so you can dare to change the name I will identify with? As soon as you let me to change the names of your own nationalities, then we can talk. But till then the nationality that you are talking about will have one name only: Macedonians.
Making difference between the modern Macedonians and antique Macedonians is completely OK, but taking the right of self-identification away from 2,5 million people can only be described with one word: assimilation. I sterbinski 00:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
What do you suggest, dab, in order Macedonians to stop "making fools" from themselves? Change their name and identity? You can not change someones identity by negotiations. It takes centuries to build national identity. How can anyone expect us to change it over night? I sterbinski 03:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't it take you 14 years? Miskin

Only a completely uneducated person can beleive in that. You can not form a nation in less than a century. Especially not on the Balkan, with so many nations on so little teritory.

Did you maybe skip classes in your primary education, Miskin? Can you ask to get in some night school?

And how will you explain the 1000s of Macedonians who are completely aware of their ethnicity, that still live in Greece and never were a part of Yugoslavia? How did they "become" Macedonians? Especially because they were not even allowed to speak their mother tongue in their houses and without having even the basic human rights for education and organizing culture events in Greece. I sterbinski 04:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The article was protected by User:Kim_Bruning after s/he apparently shed a tear over User:I_sterbinski's hysterical rants (see his gushing comment above: "I'd be angry too"), even if Mr Sterbinki's spamming had previously earned him a volley of hot words from irritated admins.--Theathenae 13:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You call it tear, but the rest of the world calls it common sence. And yes, I was criticized for spamming. But, it was my first day on Wikipedia and my boss wanted to bring him results. So, I had no time to waste and I did not know that is a bad way to draw attention to some issue. More people will infrorm better about the issue, sooner they will understand how idiotic is the Greek position in the naming despute between the two countries.
Example: Till now, there were 2 votings in the European parlament on the issue "Recognising Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name 'Republic of Macedonia'". The first time, just 21 parlamentary members voted "For". The seccond time the number was more than 160. The goal is still far, but the neutral people will understand your hilarious position as soon as they inform themselves well about the issue.
Don't these numbers scare you Theathenae? Especially because Macedonia has no members in that parlament, and Greece, as a member of EU has many. I sterbinski 03:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Do you know how many Greek companies have colonised FYROM? I'm sure that number will scare you more than the votes of some parliament. If Greece pulls another embargo, FYROM will find itself another 200 years away from joining the EU. I was against the first one, but after meeting more brainwashed haters like you on the internet, I'm beginning to think that it might be the only way to settle scores. Miskin
Yes, I do know (but, learn first what colonization is, then use the word). They are here only because of lower taxes (15% in Macedonia, 35% in Greece) and better conditions for their work (less expensive working force). Read the "Elefterotipia" issues from 2-3 days ago, they have an article about it.
It is truth that Greece now is one of our biggest economic partners, but now is not 1994th anymore. We are going to get the candidate membership of the European Union till the end of this year and invitation for joining NATO in 2006th. We are getting more and more investments from other countries, especially Russia, USA, Germany, Slovenia etc. With embargo Greece will lose more than we will, including all the investments that your companies did lately. A move like that will close many Greek companies and lead many Greeks into bankropcy. It is a lot of money and only a brainless nationalist can allow that to happen. Not to mention the reaction of the world, especially now, when your authority is lower than ever.
You only bring problems to the EU. Minority rights, Cyprus, now Macedonia... how long you think you will be tolerated? USA already gave you a sign. Same happened with the parlaments of Italy, Germany and Great Britain. They already recomended to their goverments to recognize Macedonia under our constitutional and real name. Better understand that this politics did not bring you anything good, before you lose any respect from your own partners.
And just as a note. With this issue that we have, do you think Greece will invest any money in Macedonia if they didn't know that the naming dispute will be soon over and there won't be serious problems between Greece and Macedonia?
And for the end... in the following period another world power, your partner from Europe will do the same as USA did. I won't tell you any name, because that is against the politics of the organization that I am working for. Just, remember my words and when it happens (soon), you will know that I am not just talking bullshit. Cheers. I sterbinski 04:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
You seem to harbor some strange ideas about the strategic and financial importance of your country, both of which are exactly zero. It's time to wake up and smell the roses.
Furthermore, you quite obviously know nothing about how the EU works. Allow us, being a member for a quarter century, to know just a wee bit more. Your country will never join the EU. Neither will Turkey, and even Romania and Bulgaria are in deep trouble. This has nothing to do with you, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, or Greece. It is about the EU itself, the euro and the Common Agricultural Policy. The EU will completely halt its expansion for the foreseeable future because of internal, not external reasons. Sorry to crash your dreams, but Frau Angela Merkel and Herr Wolfgang Schüssel have other plans. Chronographos 12:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
When this issue is concerned, beleive me... I have much better information that you can ever have. Give me couple of days, so maybe I will be allowed to explain you why is that.
Putting this comment here shows how little you are informed about the present issues and problems in the EU. The comments given above are here for you and anyone who disagrees to remember them. Just 4-5 monhts from now, you will slowly see how they will start happening. After every next step, you will remember my words more and more.
And this words that I put here will not happen because I want, or I choosed them. They will happen because they are already dealed. Just remember all the changes that happened in the last 4-5 yeas around the Balkan, so you will see where is this all going.
BTW, you mentioned Turkey. Another issue that was already closed. It is only matter of time, no matter does Greece like that or not. Have you ever tought how dangerous is if Turkey leaves the European option and start forming its own union with the middle east countries? That is something that will be a disaster for both, EU and USA. Do you think something like that will be allowed?
You will be even more suprised of the role that some of the persons that you mentioned will have. But, you did not predict their role well.
Greece is actually the one who will fight a lot for the entrance of all Balkan countries in EU and NATO. Maybe the Macedonian minority in Greece is calm and quiet, but there are other bigger minorities in Greece that are not so tolerant. Think about it, you will figure it out. The development of the Balkan countries will be high in the list of priorities of Greece and other EU countries. That is the only way how they can protect themselves from waves of people comming in their countries from the non-EU countries.
That is how much you know about politics and the present issues. Cheers. I sterbinski 01:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid my information only comes from the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Monde Diplomatique, the Guardian, the Independent, the Times, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the Corriere della Sera and the International Herald-Tribune, all of them rather lowly publications of poor record. I am sure they lack the insight and analytical powers of your local papers, with their superior access to information and influence over the minds of the powerful. Chronographos 10:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I won't comment on the list of newspapers and magazines that you listed here. I will just say that those are just a little of the sources used for my posts. Please try to avoid giving future comments about this just for day or two more. I beleive that soon you will be suprised and confused. Soon, I will post my final comment, please leave any comments that you have for after you read it.
In the same time, I would like to point out your senceless try to give a wrong impresion to the other readers of this page concerning my sources. Again, please spare everyone and wait some day or two more. I sterbinski 02:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
So far, the only "source" that "human rights" crusader User:I_sterbinski has provided is a discredited "genetics" paper that "proves" that Greeks have sub-Saharan (what the "Macedonian" "scientists" really mean is sub-human) genes. Macadamia nuts on the other hand are white, of course, which means that they have a God-given right to the entire length and breadth of Macedonia, if not the entire empire of Alexander the Great.--Theathenae 03:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
That are your words. Quite dull, though. There is no god-given right to anything that concernes the Balkan. I will repeat this for the 100th time: no one has exclusive right to that part of history, including many other things. Cry as much as you want, but that will stay unchanged.
No one called you sub-human. Your words, not mine. If that is what you feel you are, maybe you should check your mental condition and see what problem you have.
If you really insist, the nowdays Macedonians generarly have quite lighter scin and hair than anyone else on the Balkan. But, no one ever used that in any kind of corespondence. That is something that even the most nationalistic Macedonian web pages won't write, because even they are not racists. Only you Theathenae are the one who gives racial comments, which I think is quite idiotic. I sterbinski 18:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Really? You're probably confusing them with the Albanian majority of Araçinovë, where you happen to be, and which if I'm not mistaken is the same Araçinovë whence Albanians shelled Skopje back in 2001. The people around you may indeed be fair, but they are not "Macedonians". The "Macedonians" I've seen look rather like Roma. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.--Theathenae 06:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

maki-kedones

Another suggestion is that the name means "highlanders", from a Macedonian bahuvrihi maki-kedones "of the high earth", cognate to Greek khthon "Earth".

Is maki-kedones attested?--Theathenae 15:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it's just etymological phantasy. μήκος/μάκος has only been used to denote height (as opposed to length) when it refers to stature of humans, and in one instance (Aristophanes, the Birds) to refer to the imaginary wall built around Nephelococcygia. It is quite plain that μήκος can be used to mean height or depth only if one dimension of a three-dimensional object is relevant. LSJ quite matter-of-factly states that μακεδνός is a form of μηκεδανός. Homer mentions a tall poplar tree, not one that ... grows on high ground! Chronographos 11:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I also do not see much likelihood for "maki-kedones". I fully agree that Makedon has a clear Greek etymology. But apparently, so has the name of this Thracian tribe: Trausi. ---Master Killer 15:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Really? Trausi also has a "clear" Greek etymology? Your article says that this etymology you mention is merely "more probable" than another, and that "thrauô ... would be a cognate". There you quite rightly qualify possible etymologies, which are far from "clear". Furthermore, the Greek derivatives of thrauô are thrausis (breakage, comminution); thraustes, one who breaks; thrausma, shrapnel, etc. If those skullcrushers did have, or were given, a Greek name, they would be Thraustai, not Trausi. Not much of a dagger, then: easy to dodge, and dull-bladed too  :-)) Chronographos 16:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (Not even a skullcrusher, for that matter)
Chronographos, the inflections thrausai and thrausoi are mentioned in the Perseus entry for thrauô. I didn't say that the ethnonym Trausi has exact Greek inflection, but its most probable etymology is very close to those Greek forms (a clear correspondance, one might say). ---Master Killer 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I know. Thrauo is a regular (i.e. easy-peasy) verb, therefore I can conjugate it backwards and forwards from memory. Chronographos 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but is that what they called themselves or just what Herodotus and the Greeks chose to call them?--Theathenae 16:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought about that, but linguists/Thracologists such as Duridanov that I've referenced consider it to be from the Thracian vocabulary. There are other close cognates known between Thracian and Greek, and some linguists even propose a common branch for them. It's always possible that Makedones was originally an exonym as well. ---Master Killer 16:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I sterbinski

He wrote various things but I couldn't help making these notes:

Macedonians is the only name we know, only name we have and the only name that we used. We identify only with that name.

What about the 2.500.000 Macedonians (that's the population of Macedonia (Greece) according to the 2001 statistics) who are self-identified as Greeks? Don't they have the right to be called Macedonians? Why people of FYROM didn't try to find an original name? Using just the term Macedonian is wrong like it was wrong to use the Vergina Sun for FYROM's flag. But you couldn't think that this is like stealing other's history.

The population of Macedonia (Greece) does not identify their nationality as Macedonian. They identify themselves as of Greek nationality. And, you are forgeting that it is well known that that part of Greece is called Macedonia in 1960s and 1970s. Before that, people were sent in jail if they identify themselves as Macedonian. After that, you encouraged the Greeks to use that term and the modern Macedonians were still sent in jail.
We identify our nationality as Macedonian. We did not pick that name. This was that way since we know about ourselves. I will say again... only a fool can beleive that someone can pick a name of its nationality in a meeting or by a decision. Nationality is something that is formed for centuries, a process that can not be controled.
About the Vergina sun (The sun from Kuklish)... that simbol can be found on Macedonian houses, churches and gates which are centuries old all over Macedonia. Same as for the Macedonian name, Greece can not claim exclusive rights over that symbol or anything else that happened 25 centuries ago. I sterbinski 02:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

And yes, I was criticized for spamming. But, it was my first day on Wikipedia and my boss wanted to bring him results. So, I had no time to waste and I did not know that is a bad way to draw attention to some issue.

So is he paid to write those things?

Apparently, if you consider "Macedonian" denars payment. Or maybe he is paid with eggs or something. You know, "WILL WORK FOR FOOD" placards, etc. If this is the case, then I'd rather argue with his boss directly. "Cut out the middleman", that's what I say. We western capitalists are efficient, ruthlessly efficient. Now where's my whip? Chronographos 00:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Wait for day or two more. You will see what I am talking about and you will swallow your words back.
And, by the way... thank you for this comment. This is exacly what I need to persuade my boss to let me reveal all the story behind i_sterbinski. Wait for day or two, you will see what I am talking about. I sterbinski 02:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
So, your Wiki-edits are subject to approval by your ... "boss"?!? Wow, he seems to be very, er, bossy. How is "capo di tutti capi" in your language? Chronographos 09:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they are. As a matter of fact, they have to be aproved by whole bunch of people of 11 different nationalities.
Finnaly, I got an aproval to explain you the story. I will post it very soon here or on the Village Pump, because this concernes the rest of the Wikipedia much more than it concernes the Macedonia talk page. Be patient, kid. I sterbinski 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way I've just seen that Vergina has collected a lot of facts showing that ancient Macedon was greek. I 'm reading comments by people of FYROM that they don't claim ancient Macedonia for themselves. So, I'm guessing they wouldn't object for example adding info about Isocrates on Alexander. MATIA 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It is completely idiotic to claim anyone to have a direct connection to something that happened 25-30 centuries ago. There can not be a proof of someones Greek, Macedonian, Bulgarian or any belonging for something that happened so long time ago. The modern nations formed after the 13th century, even a primary school kid can tell you that. Any attemt to prove something different can only be a nationalistic dream, no matter does it come from Macedonian or from the Greek side.
Many Macedonians claim connection to the Antique Macedonians, same as the Greek claim it. But, objectively, no one of them (Greek or Macedonian) can have exclusive right over the Antique Macedonia and its history and culture. Get used to it. Modern nations can not ever have a direct link to any antient people. Anywhere in the world. I sterbinski 02:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, they can. The Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Jews, us Greeks, and probably others too, can and do claim such a connection, most legitimately. It depends on when they formed their language and "produced culture" Chronographos 14:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
That is showing your knowledge about the human history. Direct connection is non sence. Connection yes, but limited. Especially on a teritory as the Balkan, where at many nations live next to each other for very long time, on a very little teritory. I sterbinski 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep characterizations like idiotic for yourself.

That was ment just for provocation. It already worked on other user, but you kept it quite calm. That is what I wanted to see.
I will explain the reason for this soon, on the final post. Sorry for any offensive words that I used. I sterbinski 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Spamming, insulting other people, and deliberately telling lies or should I say promoting propaganda. Keep up the good work and you shall earn a permanent ban. MATIA 12:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.livius.org/greece.html go and read if you care about historical facts. I think that the anonymous user on the edit war (see history of the article) is Mr "I sterbinski" and that would be one more reason to get him reported. MATIA 12:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I know that site. Talks about Antien history. Antient. I sterbinski 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW your edit summaries are masterly! Chronographos 20:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
That is something called "Neutrality". Maybe you should learn little more about that. Soon you will be explained how can I claim a complete neutrality for myself, no matter that I introduce as Macedonian. That is truth, but just partly.
Only one mistake was intentionaly made, concerning the period of the Balkan Wars. I sterbinski 20:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Notice the "anonymous editor's" edit summary title: "02:37, 17 August 2005 62.162.196.20 (I saw that the talk page is full of complaints from the Macedonians, but no one reacts. So, I decided to react and help those poor people.)". So who is this Good Samaritan who is trying to help "those poor people" out of the infinite kindness of his gentle heart? A Canadian? A Frenchman? A Swede? Noooooooo, his IP resolves to .... "Makedonski Telekomunikacii A.D.". Indeed this person did 11 (!) reverts on August 17th, 2 on Aug. 18th and 2 on Aug. 19th. The August 17th reverts (all of them done within one hour and ten minutes) were re-reverted by admins, who did not even bother to report him for a 3RR violation, let alone block his IP. Chronographos 13:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Officially anouncing: I am connected to those reverts. But, you still don't know who am I, so keep your comments till you learn this.
The exact comment that you mentioned left when reverting the Macedonia page was done by person who actually has Greek nationality and lives in France. Seems little confusing, but I will say again... wait, it will be explained to you. I sterbinski 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
At least he wasn't a Martian. That was quite a relief! Chronographos 19:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

To User User:62.162.193.198

User:62.162.193.198 write: WARNING: Greek propaganda follows!!!

What is here Greek propaganda?
Vergina 08:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This "Greek propaganda" exists his head. His is a country that has next to nothing. It is therefore in need of a history and an ideology to keep it together. What better way to create both a history and an ideology (i.e. glue to hold it together) than by creating enemies? So enemies they do create: in their heads ... Chronographos 09:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

During the last week the Greek nationals are constantly working on changing the Macedonia article in a way how to aprove the Greek position about this issue. Some politic facts are added that are not truth at all. Anyway, even without this edits the Macedonia article was a true Greek propaganda and Bulgarian propaganda. Anyway, it won't work. The Greeks would like the Macedonians to disappear, but it doesn't work that way. Saying that we are creation of Tito and that we are actually "confused" Bulgarians won't change the fact that 3 million people feel as Macedonian and are proud to be Macedonians. Chronographos, you only may wish your words are truth. We don't want any enemies. But, it is hard not to hate you when you deny the existance of my nation and culture. We are reality and you can not change that with your bullshit. 62.162.193.198 12:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You will stop your vandalism or you will be blocked. The choice is yours.--Theathenae 13:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware how empty your words seem like? I have about 11000 different IP addresses that I can use only on one server. Not to mention the other servers.

Actually you have been using the same IP range, a dynamic IP from the same ISP. All it takes is a block on 62.162.*. Miskin 14:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
That way you are actually blocking about 50000 people who are using that ISP. And, it won't work again, because I have free dial-up from 4 different providers. Blocking all Macedonian providers will be exacly what Wikipedia does not want: Taking sides, by blocking the whole country. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Please block me Mr. Theathenae. But, that won't change the fact that you are a nationalistic propagator and liar. 62.162.193.198 13:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram (868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) by then Secretary of State E. Stettinius: “The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. “This Government considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland” or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece”.
Vergina 13:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Just note that Mr. Edward Stettinius was also of Greek national origin, same as you.
Then USA wanted to stop forming and further growing of Yugoslavia, which was a close ally of the Soviet Union (in that time).
Same USA today recognizes Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name, no matter of the Greek protests. They understand how senceless is this Greek propaganda and politics of "all the world has Greek origin, just they are not aware of it". 62.162.193.198 13:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Really? Let's see:
Edward Reilly Stettinius, Jr.
Born: 22-Oct-1900
Birthplace: Chicago, IL
Died: 31-Oct-1949
Father: Edward Reilly Stettinius, Sr.
Wife: Virginia Gordon Wallace
Greeks who migrated to America in the 19th century, named Edward Reilly Stettinius Sr. and Virginia Gordon Wallace? It seems to me that Secretary Stettinius (a typical Baltic name) was a partly a German from Stettin and partly of British/Irish extraction. It seems that there is no limit in the amount of lies and misinformation you are willing to put forward as "arguments". You even have this naive idea that members of the US Administration can tilt such a formidable diplomatic and military machine towards their ethnic sympathies, whatever those may be.
Don't dream. US was scared of Tito and its power same as they were scared of Stalin in that time. Of course they wanted new Yugoslavia not to have a part of the Aegean sea, which was and still is quite strategic.
And, do you maybe forget which side US supported in the Greek Civil War?
So, Edward is Baltic name? Good thinking. Whatever he was, and no matter which were his motives. From his report, it is obvious he did not wanted Tito to put his hands on Aegean Macedonia.
Changing your tune, eh? Now it's not Secretary Stettinius' non-existent Greek ancestry, it's geopolitics. Well, I have a surprise for you: everything is geopolitics Chronographos 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Truth, everything is geopolitics. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And why you never mentioned that till the civil war in Greece, Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like Wikipedia offends them) were dominant in Aegean Macedonia? What about the 300000 Macedonian and 100000 Bulgarian refugees from Aegean Macedonia?
And do you think the Macedonian partizans were fighting the Bulgarian nazi army in order to join Bulgaria? Why would they. Bulgaria already had most of Macedonia during the World War 2. But still, Macedonians decided to fight against them.

62.162.195.17 02:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence, please? Chronographos 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The last posts were truth history facts, worvide accepted. Do you maybe need me to send you a proof that the world is going around the sun? So, you won't have doubts. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

US recognition of your country by its constitutional name is strictly conditional upon the continuation and resolution of the UN-sponsored talks, and in no way does it preclude the outcome of these negotiations.

The official recognition does not have any condition written. US announced that they are supporting the negotiations after the Greek presure, but no conditions were made. Of course, republicans need a part of the Greek wotes too, so they have to keep balance. But the fact stays... 3 of 5 permanent members of the UN Security council (US, Russia and China) recognize Macedonia under its real name: Macedonia. The parlament of the 4th member (United Kingdoms) already recomended to their goverment to do the same. And, it is interesting that both govermental and non-govermental parties in the UK support this recomendation. Same did the parlaments of Italy and Germany. Should I mention that the last 3 are Greek partners from Eu and NATO? But, obviously they can not support nationalistic politics like the Greek one.
Beleive me, if you had good sources, you will see that more "suprises" will follow for Greece.62.162.195.17 02:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I just hope they are geopolitical surprises. I like geopolitical surprises. Chronographos 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
You can sort them in any cathegory you want, but you won't like them 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
What is obvious is that it is you who is imagining Greek propaganda and politics in whatever contradicts your position, even to the extent of ascribing non-existent Greek ancestry to an American Foreign Secretary born a century ago. Greece is not your enemy.
I know that and I am happy because it is that way. I see Greece as our friend and neighboor, but I can not close my eyes at the all "traps" that you put for us. If you do not recognize my ethnicity and deny my name, culture and general existance, then don't expect me to trust you. Even the best friend can stuck a knife in your back.
I have to mention that me, same as most of the Macedonians included in Wikipedia does not claim exclusive right over the term and teritory of Macedonia. But, no one can deny our right (that we share with you) to Macedonia and our right to keep our identity. As soon as you understand that we have no ambition to get Aegean Macedonia back, better for you and for us. Concerning Aegean Macedonia (the western part of it), you will have much bigger problem than Macedonia. You know what I talking about, so I won't specify. 62.162.195.17 02:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
More geopolitical surprises? Chronographos 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Not exacly. Another minority in Western Aegean Macedonia, but someone that know what is the only way to get the human rights they supposed to have in Greece. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
You can't possibly be talking about the Çamëria Liberation Army, can you? You are in Araçinovë, after all. Does User:Albanau know about this? I'm trembling at the knees...--Theathenae 15:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Firstable, I am not in Araçinovë. The ISP server that I am using in this moment is located in a building of the ISP provider near that village. So, that is why you get that message.
I won't keep talking about this issue, because I have nothing to do with it. I just mentioned it that it happened in Macedonia. And Macedonia was giving much more rights to the minorities than Greece is doing now. Actually, as far as I know, Greece is officially and completely denying any minority in Greece except Turks.
Now, the minorities in Macedonia have more right than minorities in most of the European Union countries. We learned our lesson. But, Greece still didn't change anything. What will it take for you to learn your lesson?
I hope the price that you will pay will be far less than the price that we paid. Actually, I would be happiest if you pay no price at all and solve the minorities problems much easier than we did.
I will repeat... ÇLA is not my worry, so I won't continue talking about it. I have problems by my own and I won't involve in someone elses problems. 62.162.194.4 15:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Fear not, it won't happen in Greece. The Albanians are a shrewd breed and know not to bite the hand that feeds them.--Theathenae 15:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I would tell you the same if you asked me 5 years ago. Especially after Macedonia gave shelter to 300000 Kosovo refugees with Albanian origin while the Kosovo crisis was going on.
I would not generalise... most of the Albanians I know are wonderful people, many of them better than myself. All I am saying is that not everyone would ask for his rights and accept to keep suffering... there are people who would do much more to get what they deserve.
I wish I am wrong, but...
Lets' stop this talk, it is not a part of the Macedonia issue. Maybe on some other discussion page. 62.162.194.4 16:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
You are comparing incomparable situations. I'm sure the Albanian insurgency in your country had less to do with ethnic rights and much more to do with basic bread-and-butter issues like poverty and unemployment. A well-fed person with a decent standard of living is less likely to engage in guerrilla warfare. These of course are problems facing the Slavic majority too, but in the case of the Albanians they were exploited by nationalist politicians on both sides. I'm sure they will ease as your country develops, with Greek investment and assistance.--Theathenae 16:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
You are right for many of the things. But also, partly you are wrong. The worst thing you can do is underestimate the situation. That is what we did. That is what the Serbians did before the Kosovo crisis. It is not so simple like it seems.
Before the incident started in Macedonia, their economic situation was exacly the same as of the majority Macedonian population. Most people (including the Albanian side) beleive that the crisis was caused by Kosovo criminals. To be honest, all that incidents that happened looked highly suspicious... they look like they were already dealed and set up. Politics is a bich. Unfortunatelly, all our world is moved by the politics.
I would like to hear your honest oppinion... Don't you agree that the minorities in Greece (including the Macedonian, or Macedonian Slav if you prefer) have far less rights than the minorities should have? 62.162.198.232 01:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
What "minority"? Slavomacedonians have their own political party, the "Rainbow Party". It hasn't really done too well in recent elections. As a matter of fact they didn't even stand in the last parliamentary elections at all, from fear of ridiculously low vote returns. Even in the European Parliament elections, where voting tends to drift away from party loyalties, they did abysmally badly: In Greater Thessaloniki they managed to drum up ... 370 votes out of more than half a million votes cast. In Western Macedonia, they managed about 900 votes out of 400,000 votes cast. In Florina alone they did just a touch better: 1200 votes in 40,000. Overall, the Rainbow party got six thousand votes in a country of eleven million people. You call this a "minority"? I'd call it a joke. Even frank joke parties like the Vergis Naturists, the party of a madman who runs on a ... pro-nudism platform, and Enosi Kentroon, the party of a crackpot, managed to get between them more than ten times the votes Rainbow got. Trust me, when it comes to their rights, Greeks know how to defend them, and better than you think. This is what kept us around for 3000 years. Chronographos 02:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
No reply yet, huh? Thought so. It just occurred to me that the "Rainbow Party" is using a version of the Rainbow Flag, a well-known symbol of the gay rights movement. It seems to me that Macedonian Slavs have this thing about "borrowing" other people's symbols as their own. Oh, the irony .... Chronographos 10:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I posted a reply, but probably you did not see it. You can find it right after this comment (it was posted yesterday). And, did you hear that after the rain, a rainbow appears because of the sun? Those people there are in rain now, without the basic rights they deserve. So they are waiting for the sun, when they will get their rights. That is why they use the Rainbow.
Somewhere Over the Rainbow, way up high,
There's a Land that I heard of once in a lullaby.
Somewhere Over the Rainbow, skies are blue,
And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.
Judy Garland aka Chronographos 10:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Good to know the place where your dream come truth. Not on mother earth, because here there is something called "reality". 62.162.198.232 11:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
And about the Vergina star... you discovered and promoted the star during the last 70-80 years, when you saw it in those Antien Macedonian thombs. For your information, there are Macedonian houses and monasteries which have the Vergina (Kuklish) star that are older than 2 centuries and well preserved. Yes, irony... who would tought? I invite you to visit Macedonia, to see that your hi-school history book is hiding many facts. The comment you looked for is right under, posted yestereday. 62.162.198.232 10:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The Vergina Sun was a well-known Macedonian decoration motif since "Antien" (sic) times. What was not clear was that it was a heraldic symbol or the Argead dynasty: this was clarified after the discovery of the gold larnax of Philip II (or Alexander IV) by professor Andronikos. Chronographos 10:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Still the fact stays... we were using that symbol for centuries. And another fact stays... you started intensively presenting the Antique Macedonian history, symbols and the Macedonian name just some 40-50 years ago. Then you changed the name of the region in Macedonia, you built the monument of Alexander the Great, you put many streets to have names conected with Antique Macedonia, you even formed a separate minestry in the goverment for Macedonia region. I repeat, all that in the last 40-50 years.
Anothe fact stays, clearer than anything... you can not keep the Antique Macedonian history and simbols exclusively for yourself. We both (and probably couple of nations around us) have connection to those people. But, if you learned any history, you would know that there is no dirrect connection between the Antique population and the modern nations and ethnicities. Any historian who has at least 2 grams of brain will confirm you that. So, how can Kuklish (Vergina) star be exclusively your simbol? 62.162.198.232 11:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This was not very neutral. Yes, Rainbow got low per-cent of votes. But Macedonians (or Slavomacedonians, if that suits you better) still fear that they will be penalised, fired from their jobs or similar, things that happened very often in the past. Actually, most of the official members of Rainbow party that worked in govermental institutions lost their jobs since they joined the party.
Hello, knock-knock, anybody home? Voting is secret': voters are given their ballot papers and an envelope, they go into this little booth where noone can see them, insert the party ballot of their choice in the envelope, seal the envelope, exit the booth, and drop the envelope in the ballot box. Secret voting is a must in all Western democracies. I guess you are not familiar with democratic procedure. Chronographos 10:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I know very well democratic procedure, we are not so uncivilised as you think. If you want to keep any conversation, stop underestimating the others. This kind of comments give me impresion that you are some hi-school kid or something.
Voting is secret, but everyone knows who is Macedonian. If they even appear voting and the voting results are good for Rainbow party, then they would know who could voted for them. Even showing on the voting place for the Macedonians in Greece is risky, because they might have problems because it is obvious that they will vote for Rainbow.
And why would you think that every Macedonian would vote for Rainbow? Why if they like the other candidate more, no matter he is Greek? We are not blind of nationalism to vote only for Macedonians.
Democracy was born and it died in Greece. That is a comment that I heard from a ex-director of the US peace corps in Macedonia. I wonder why he tought that way? 62.162.198.232 10:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Chronographos, even the Greek constitution on the oppening sections clearly says that in Greece live only Greeks. Any minorities in Greece are ignored, saying that there is no any. And, you can see alone that there is no serios human rights organizations that did not criticized Greece for the treatment they have towards the minorities.
I saw that someone posted here some links about human rights in the countries of the Balkan. You can read by yourself.
Personally, whenever I go to Greece, I always find someone to talk on Macedonian with. Even Greeks, who happened to have many Macedonian neighboors. I agree that their per-cent is not very high, but it is far far higher than 1% that Rainbow got on the elections. 62.162.198.232 02:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Not very good at math, are you? It's not "1%", it's more like 0.1 % Chronographos 10:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, mistake. But that does not change the fact that I can bet my life that there are much, much more Macedonians in Greece. Give a right to everyone in Greece to state his nationality and ethnicity as they want, without any bad consequences and you will see. Till your constitution says that in Greece live only Greeks, till then you did not even started the way towards the truth. And that is just the first step. 62.162.198.232 10:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Greece is the best and most valuable friend you can have in the region. It is the wealthiest, stablest country in the Balkans, and its interests firmly lie in stability and the creation of wealth. You too should strive towards those goals.Chronographos 14:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I can not trust someone who denies even my existance and sais that I am an artificial product of Tito. And do you know who is our real friend in the region? Turkey. They recognized our existance and country just months after we got our independence. They do not deny my nation, language or culture. Actually, they support it.
Turkey has a long and noble tradition of supporting different languages and cultures. Except they do it in their own, special way Chronographos 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
As a Greek, you don't have any right talking and criticising anyone in areas concerning minorities and their rights. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we all should work towards the stability of the region and its well-beeing. But, Greece is doing exacly the opposite for us. Our development would be much easier and faster if you didn't stand on our name and force us to use a name that we do not identify with. Luckily, the support you had is fading away, so finally we have a chance for going forward.
How very true. In the past, whenever someone came across a FYROMian product, they just soured their faces and refused to buy. Whereas now they come across the same "Macedonian" product and their faces just light up with joy. This explains your country's recent prosperity, I guess Chronographos 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite arogant comment. Still, truth stays... the recent surveys show that No. 1 problem to an average Macedonian is the economy situation. Right after that are the problems that Greece makes to us. That is bigger problem to the Macedonians and Albanians living in Macedonia even from the ethnicity relations between them, the corruption, the law system etc. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
But, be sure that keeping our national identity and name is more important for us than the European Union membership. After this long fight for centuries for our recognition, only an idiot and traitor can accept anything else than our basic human right of self-identification, language and culture.
It is strictly up to you will you decide to be our friends. Not just prettend to be one. You have our friendship, that was never a question.
Are you afraid of us and those stupid nationalists who want Aegean Macedonia back? Because, as far as I remember, Macedonia and Greece never were in war. Actually, modern Macedonia never attacked any teritory. We are peaceful people, but do not use that. 62.162.195.17 02:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I had to report the repeated vandalism by the anonymous user. Hopefully the admin's will check if he/she already has an account but didn't sign in. I must remind vandal's quote "Vandalism is what you are doing for the last 5 days". MATIA 16:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The "vandal" is just trying to inform the people about the real idea behing the text. You are aware alone that all the crap on Macedonia page support the Greek and Bulgarian position about Macedonia. And, the Greeks support the Bulgarian claims, because they would like the idea Macedonian nation to disapear. But it does not work that way.
Macedonians are presented with Bulgarian origin and as artificial creation of Tito. How is that possible when they fighted against the Bulgarian occupation during the WW2?
Also, the complete Macedonian history is devided between Greece and Bulgaria. I understand that they both have claims toward specific parts of that history, but Wikipedia completely supports those claims and does not even mention the Macedonians in those issues.
Not to mention that centuries of assimilation, presure, attacks and killings against the Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece (same as in Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the beggining of the 20th century) are denied or just shortly mentioned. On the other hand, the only incident that happened against the Bulgarian nationalities in Macedonia is described till the details.
Also, the exodus of the Macedonians out of Greece is supported because of their "involvement" in the Greek civil war. Why would they ever fight for someone else? Why Wikipedia does not mention the number of people who were runned away from Greece? Why it does not mention that every seccond modern Macedonian family has origin from Aegean Macedonia? Why Wikipedia does not mention that there are more than 500000 Macedonians who live in USA, Canada and Australia (combined) who never were living in Tito's Yugoslavia, but they still feel as Macedonians and educate their kids as Macedonian nationals?
Do not tell me that this text is Neutral. It is everything but neutral. Exacly the way you and the Bulgarians want it. 62.162.195.17 02:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
So the vandal has been exposed as User:I_sterbinski. What a surprise! I think it is time for him to be runned away from Wikipedia...--Theathenae 04:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. Anyway, does my identity really matters? 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Let me summarize our friend's style of argument: "traps", "knife in the back", "stupid nationalists", "crap", "idiot", etc etc etc. What else is new ... Chronographos 11:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably that is all what matters to you. The language I use. I am not a politician and not planning to be. If I want to say something, I won't "sweeten" my words for you. I am not your lover to give you loving tender. What can I do when the crap written on the Macedonia page diserve nothing but that word... crap. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

answer to the vandal and a question for the admins

For the vandal: Vandalism, offending and using hypocritic phrases in the line of help me, I'm a poor guy are just the top of the iceberg. Greeks dont want to take or steal anything from you, nor deny your existence.

This does not change the fact that they actually do that... deny my name and existence. I don't see myself as poor guy. You are not strong enought to force us to forget who we are and our identity. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You have your culture, history etc - be proud of it but respect the others too. Greece is not trying to take the name Macedonia from you but is trying to defend her rights.

I do not remember any right that I took away from you. But I know many that you are or are trying to take away from me.
And, I do respect your culture, history and civilisations. I see it as one of the most interesting and interesting in the whole world.
I said many times that I don't have any wish to fight Greece and ask anything teritory from it. Only a crazy Macedonian nationalist can do that. All I want is you to understand that the Macedonian name is the only thing we have. That is the reality, presence. Something that we won't give a way even if we have to die for it. The past should be left where it belongs... in the past. That is the only way to get where we should go... in future. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

FYROM's thesis are already present in the english wikipedia and anyone can read those wikis' sections too. Learn how wikipedia works and show respect to wikipedia's principles.

I know exacly how it works. I can even write that the earth is with a form of a triangle if I manage to outnumber the opponents of that thesis. Everything is possible here on Wikipedia, and the most of the administrators know that. That is why I give this comments... because you outnumber the Macedonians and push your thesis. Just check the names and nationalities of Wikipedia users who edit Macedonia page. 80% of them are Greek and 15% Bulgarian.
Any edit made by an Macedonian user is reverter by a Greek user. Anyone neutral would know that something is wrong. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

And try to love your neighbors or at least not to show (and have) such hatred from them (I don't have to quote you, do I?). People of your land and people of Greece should try to find what they have in common, and explore new ways of co-operation.

I do not have anything against my neighboors. But I know that some of them would prefer we to disapear. And Wikipedia is just another proof of that. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


For the admins: I 've left a report on the noticeboard. This doesn't have all the details, the history of the wiki must be examined for more. It is clear after his latest responses (secret sources, and wait to see what'll happen in 2-3 days) that a sockpuppet investigation should be done to show which user account (or accounts) he has. He will understand then, that avoiding to sign in and his use of more offensive language is not such a big decoy. MATIA 17:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Message to the administrators by the vandal:
I do not have a account here on Wikipedia because I see that having one will not change anything on this issue. I know couple of my friends that spend a lot of time on Wikipedia trying to show how much Wikipedia is wrong and what all is done from the Greek users to stop any edits we want to make on the Macedonia related pages.
This seems the only way how to fight against the assimilation, ignorance and denial from Wikipedia (and its users) towards the Macedonian people. 62.162.194.4 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear 62.162.194.4, first of all I must say I'm glad for the cool style of your latest response. To understand how wikipedia works read the manual. It's not a matter of bigger numbers of people but of facts.

That is right. The problem here is just that the facts that go in favor of the Greece and Bulgaria are included and the facts that go in favor of Macedonia are excluded.
And yes, majority decides. Because most of the neutral administrators do not have why to involve in someone elses problems and take sides, the Macedonia page is left mostly (or maybe even entirely) to us: Macedonians, Greeks and Bulgarians. And, we Macedonians are always highly outnumbered by the Greeks and Bulgarians. Always when a Macedonian gives a fact, his statements and edits are simply denied by the sides that don't like it (whether Greek or Bulgarian). Read this discussion page, you will see how many opposite POV's you can find. And, every neutral administrator will tell you that ALL sides have rights. 62.162.198.232 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest you remove the tag you placed, again, on Macedonia, and then read Talk:Macedonia thoroughly, to see if any of your objections are already answered.

I agree not to constantly put warnings of Greek and Bulgarian propaganda. I know that is not right and I am not proud of what I did.
As you said, before I started doing this, I read all this talk page. I even met some Wikipedians who were highly involved in editing and discussions.
I can not agree to remove the NPOV tag. Simply, every neutral person will agree that this page is too full of discussions and issues thatare not solved, issues when several sides have opposite thinking and interests.
Everyone who visits the Macedonia page should know that many people do not agree with its text. That is why the tag itsef has a link to the talk page and advices to visit it. So, anyone who is interested can read and form his own oppinion.
NPOV tag does not mean that the text in Macedonia page is wrong. It means that is disputed. And, it is in fact disputed.
I did not put the tag saying that the fact's accurance is not accepted. I only put a tag saying that maybe (not for sure) this text is not neutral. It seem quite fair deal. 62.162.198.232 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

After you do that check Macedonia find what phrases or section that you believe are POV or NPOV, and present here the reasons that justify your tag. Neither Earth nor Macedonia is a triangle, and wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tries to be verbatim to the facts on controversial or not subjects.

Reading this talk page, it is obvious that someone already tried that. Actually, several people did. Wikipedia stills presents the Macedonians as Macedonian Slavs. As far as I could read, Macedonian (nationality) or Macedonian (people) was proposed as a sugestion which is suitable for boths sides, but nothing changed. Also, Wikipedia says that Tito was the reason why part of the Bulgarians turned into Macedonians. But, the fact that the Macedonians were fighting against the Bulgarian occupation during the WW2 since the first month they arrived here. If that is truth what Wikipedia says, why would a Bulgarian fight against its own army? Why the 200000 lives were lost on our side? Simple answer: Because they were not Bulgarians. They were separate nation far before the WW2. The partizans that fighted Bulgarian occupation were not born in 1940th. They were grown people, born at least 20 years before, some of them even 60 years before. If they born as Bulgarian and raised as Bulgarian, they would not fight agains the Bulgarians.
They were communists fighting an totalitarian, military regime allied with Nazi Germany, and they were aspiring to a Stalin-inspired, "international workers' paradise". It seems that realism is a pervading national quality among you all. Chronographos 02:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The communist party got in Macedonia in 1941st. Do you think the first month they appeared in the region they got the complete support of the people?
Actually, the communist got the support exacly because they fighted against the Bulgarians. Macedonians saw that we have the same enemy, so they joined them. That is actually why whole Yugoslavia became communists, because they were leading the fight against the Nazists. Before the WW2, the communist party was completely illegal and had extremely little support, mostly in Serbia.
Before 1941st, there was no single Macedonian who was known for having communist ideas. Actually, Goce Delchevs ideas were far pre-dominant. That is actually why we had so bad time under Serbian occupation.
That time was just 65 years ago. More than 7% of the population in Macedonia is older than 65. Do you think you know better than the actual partizans who took a part in the fights in WW2? 62.162.198.232 02:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
He said, she said .... You don't need a nationalistic pretext to fight against Hitler and Mussolini. If you are a half-way decent person, it happens sort of automatically. Chronographos 08:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
That does not come automaticaly.
When the Bulgarian came, we were under Serbian occupation. At first we hoped the Bulgarians will give us freedom (they always were pretending that they are our friends). But, as soon as we saw that they are actually just another occupator and that they are not our friends, we started fighting them. One occupator left, another arived.
The Bulgarians from Bulgaria, and those few in Greece and Macedonia were fighting for the Hitler and supporting him. They were a part of the Bulgarian Nazi army. If we were Bulgarians, we would do the same, support the Bulgarian army. But, as non-Bulgarians we fighted their occupation.
Chronographos, that is why I say that this page is full of nationalistic claims and edits that are always against the Macedonians. This last comment shows that you would even claim something which is completely out of any logic, only to deny what I say. And, this is something that happened just 65 years ago and it is completely logical, there are even many people alive who were a part of that war. What would happen if we start talking about something that happened centuries ago? You would deny whatever I say, call you friends to bombard me with comments and at the end nothing will change... "your" version will always be on, a version that is denying anything that is connected with us and presenting us as artificial product. I know my history and culture, I know what I am and how I feel. I have a right to feel anyway I want, and I can not allow someone taking that away from me.
Think about it. 62.162.198.232 10:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
That is just 2 examples. I can write here till 5 days from now. But, most of that is already written or at least there was an attempt to present that here. Those attempts all ended up in the same way: Denied, most often without any realistic explanation. I won't play that game and beg for someone to listen to me. Obviously, you do not do that. You take actions and that is why Macedonia page has exacly the text that you completely support.
You have to have understanding for our complaints. You are lucky you are Greek. But, if you were Macedonian (or Macedonian Slav, like Wikipedia addresses us), I can bet my life that you would do exacly what I am doing in this moment: Trying to prove that you are not imaginary and artifficial ethnicity. 62.162.198.232 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that you meant deaf and not dead or death, and I'm not in the mood of pointing out other insults you might used in the past. But the matter of sockpuppetry or not, must be checked by admins. MATIA 16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am very sorry for that "death". I just wanted to say that some people are "deaf" towards our complaints, they do not want to listen to them and they do not care. I swear in my children that it was a spelling mistake.
Damn, I hate what I did. I have nothing against you guys. I do not want bad to anyone. Sorry again.
About the insults... they are not ment to insult anyone. They are just a kind of strong protest agains someones position. I pointed our before, I won't try to "wach my language" because I hate politicians and their way of "solving" our problems.
I personally, same as many Macedonians do not exacly understand why we have this problem. I beleive all this problem is artificial, based on fears and untrust we have towards each other. But, it is especially hard for us, seeing that the only ethnicity we have is denied. All our identity is based on that (no matter did we appear 30 centuries or 30 years ago). The important thing is that now we are reality and nothing can change that. And we can not give up the only identity we have.
As I said... if you were Macedonian (instead of Greek) you would feel the same. Simply, we would prefer to be able to obey Greeks wishes and claims, it would be much easier for us. But, we can not, we absolutelly have no other choise. 62.162.198.232 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

-npov of anonymous

Dear 62.162.etc please create an account, or sign in if you already have one.

What for? This page is full of comments of users who already did that. But, that did not change anything... the Macedonia page stayed anti-Macedonian. Why would I waste time like they did? Actions, my friend. Same as you do, take actions. 62.162.198.232 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You removed "(Greek:ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ)", please don't do such things, it's considered vandalism. I can show good faith and accept your apologies for before, but you have to prove with your actions that you "don't want to bad anyone". Cool is good and Wikipedia:Neutrality is better. The english word Macedonia derives from the Greek language.

Same as the Macedonian word for Macedonia (Makedonija) derives from the English (Macedonia). But, whenever someone put that fact there, it was erased.
So, explain me why should the Greek word for Macedonia stay and the Macedonian word to be erased? Are the Macedonians worst and less valuable people than the Greeks?
This is just one more example of how much pro-Greek is this page. 62.162.198.232 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The other phrase you changed is "The region is divided between Greece, with just over half the area and population," we could check the geografical numbers if you wish.

I did not change that. That change was made by someone from Australia (I checked the IP). I agree with that fact that you quoted because it is clear reality. 62.162.198.232 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting back the first and leave as is for the time being the second change you made, and I remove the NPOV tag. MATIA 13:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Matia... I accepted stop putting the "WARNING: Greek and Bulgarian propaganda follows". But, especially after reading this talk page, it is clear to everyone who reads this that the neutrality on the page is disputed.
I am not saying that the page has lies. I respect your POV and what is written on the page. But, I demand the Macedonian POV to be respected. There are many facts and evidence that support this POV, but any try to explain that here on the talk page ended up with organized denial of the Greek users, most often without any valid grounds. So, I won't waste my time proving something here. The history you and me learned and supported are different and we can not deal about it.
So, NPOV tag has to stay, or the Warning will keep appearing. It is up to you to decide. I personally would like to keep the NPOV tag, it seems much more resonable for boths sides.
Anyway, I keep claiming that the page is pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian, but the NPOV tag is enought for me because it will say to every user to look on the talk page. So, anyone can see that there are different oppinions about this page. They should be informed about that.
That is all what I want... the users to know that there are several issues that are not clear and that the concerned nations do not agree about.
I think it is fair enought. 62.162.198.232 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that reasoning isn't working

First of all if you want to answer don't fragment again my comment, answers are supposed to be at the buttom, so people can easily see what's new.
You said "Same as the Macedonian word for Macedonia (Makedonija) derives from the English (Macedonia). But, whenever someone put that fact there, it was erased. So, explain me why should the Greek word for Macedonia stay and the Macedonian word to be erased?"

 I'll answer that and I'll stop trying to reason you. This is the english wikipedia. The english word Macedonia comes from the greek language. You say that in your language it is called Makedonija and it comes from the english. So according to you it is Makedonija < Macedonia < Μακεδονία. The greek word ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΑ is mentioned because it's the source of the english word. If Makedonija comes from Macedonia, then go to your homeland's language version of the wikipedia and on the Makedonija article write "Makedonija derives from the english Makedonia, which in turn derives from the Greek language".

1)"Many discussions were already made and nothing changed. Why keep wasting time on that?" "Why would I waste time like they did?"
Wikipedia is an open project, open like in open source. If you don't like the rules, at least stop destroying other people's work.

2)"I am aware that the talk page contains a lot of bullshit,"
Offending language once more. It seems that I wasn't smart when I believed that you'd quit doing that.

3)You said: "I did not change that. That change was made by someone from Australia (I checked the IP). I agree with that fact that you quoted because it is clear reality. 62.162.198.232 17:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)" And "I sterbinski" had said: "Officially anouncing: I am connected to those reverts. But, you still don't know who am I, so keep your comments till you learn this. The exact comment that you mentioned left when reverting the Macedonia page was done by person who actually has Greek nationality and lives in France. Seems little confusing, but I will say again... wait, it will be explained to you. I sterbinski 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)"
This is not the first similarities between you two. I don't know if you are his sock puppet or someone's else but enough is enough.

4)You said: "We will never deal, because the history that I know and the history that you know are very different. And, they both have valid facts as a support" "I keep claiming that the page is pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian" "the users to know that there are several issues that are not clear and that the concerned nations do not agree about." Claims are NOT facts. I will tell you again to read the manual, this time Wikipedia:Cite sources, but I 'm guessing you "won't waste time like this", as you didn't care to read the rules before.


This situation is going on for too many days. An admin should show you that not signing in doesn't mean you won't get caught. I need to remind your quote "Are you aware how empty your words seem like? I have about 11000 different IP addresses that I can use only on one server. Not to mention the other servers." and the report of your actions. All the IP's of anonymous vandals must be cross-checked, at least for the last 8 days. And I would like to know if Mr "I sterbinski" (his contributions) is related too this. Perhaps this was what Mr "I sterbinski" meant when he said "Wait for day or two more. You will see what I am talking about and you will swallow your words back. And, by the way... thank you for this comment. This is exacly what I need to persuade my boss to let me reveal all the story behind i_sterbinski. Wait for day or two, you will see what I am talking about. I sterbinski 02:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)"
I repeat, this time dont split my answer. If you have to say something write it at the buttom. And you didn't provide NOT EVEN ONE answer about the reasons for your NPOV tag. Just your vague claims about your disagreement. MATIA 19:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"The English word Macedonia comes from the Greek language..."... This simply proves that you have same thinking as the father of the bride in the movie "My big, fat, Greek wedding". I read that someone already mentioned this movie, but I yhink is worth mentioning again. And let's mention that the whole world was laughting at him. BTW, do not forget that the complete author of the movie was Greek.
Another fact is that the Greek language that you are talking is not the one that was been talked 20 centuries ago. Actually, it is very, very different.
Stop flying with your mind and understand: Greece is nothing more valuable than Macedonia or Bulgaria... or anyone else. Stop forcing your own facts and denying someone elses.
Answer to 1): I am not estroying people's work. I am destroying people's vandalisation of the history, culture and ethnicity of 2-3 million people.
Answer to 2) I was trying for very long time, but the only words that I could find for a text like this is: bullshit, idiotism, crap and nationalistic propaganda.
Answer to 3) Maybe you should stop comparing i_sterbinski and me. I_sterbinski is a friend of my brother and as far as I know, he was on Wikipedia for only 1-2 days. Latter he said that he won't waste his time on this shit, but that was at least 10 days before his last comment on this page appeared. I do not know did he change his mind and did some edits in meantime.
And if you want to know what was he thinking with saying that he will explain the truth behind I_sterbinski, ask him, not me. I am not going to be your postman to send him your messages.
Comment on your words: "enought is enought"... I know, that is why you should stop your nationalistic propaganda, borrow some money from your parents and travel a little, see the world. A 18 (more less) year old kid just started his life, you should learn a little about the real world before you try to change the history.
Answer to 4) As I said... whenever the Macedonian side wants to present some facts, you all get together and deny and ignore them. You regularly outnumber us and even texts published on web pages of famous universities are not enought for you. Why to bother and search all those books and web-pages to present you something here and you latter just to refuse it wiyhoutany explanation.
The situation will change. As open-source, Wikipedia will always be full of nationalistic blind people as you are, but the world will know the truth. And it won't be very similar to the pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian Wikipedia page about Macedonia.
Closing statement... I don't know will Wikipedia administrators trace me, but it does not matter. I am sure that many of them know about this problem that happens here and aware that you monopolise the Macedonia issue. So, I beleive that they are not sure what is more "evil": Nationalistic claims as yours or anonimous edits as mine.
If you were hoping to "reason" me in a way how I will accept this anti-Macedonian text of Wikipedia, you are so wrong. This is just the beggining. If you don't want to listen to any facts except the ones that go in Greek's favour, I will present them as a proof of how dangerous is to livethe histrory to be edited by anyone who wants, especially nationalists. Many blogs and newspages already mentioned this Wikipedia's weakness and it is more than obvious they are aware of that.
If you ahven't notice, all the world calls us "Macedonians". Only Wikipedia supports the Greek wishes and calls us "Macedonian Slavs". For me, this is a clear proof that the Greek propaganda already nested itself here.
After the senceless explanation that you gave me about my question why to mention the Greek name for Macedonia and not to mention the Macedonian and Bulgarian, I will kind of begin to give you less answers and comments. I am not planning to waste my time dealing with a blind nationalist as yourself. When you read something more than your school book and the books that are "allowed" by your goverment, then call me. Till then, you are just one more kid who just started discovering the real world.
Cheers. 62.162.198.232 04:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your inability to understand my explanation shows that you didn't even bother to read Macedonia, you were to busy vandilizing it.
"bullshit, idiotism, crap and nationalistic propaganda", "As open-source, Wikipedia will always be full of nationalistic blind people as you are", "I am not planning to waste my time dealing with a blind nationalist as yourself". Insults, insults, insults and absence of arguments.
I don't know how you concluded that I'm more or less 18 years old, but I can tell you that you were wrong, once again. What I do know, is that if you learn to read modern Greek, the next easy step is classic Greek. The New Testament is a very cute example of Greek language as was talked 2000 years ago. And btw there is not even one evidence that ancient Macedonians spoke a different language than their kings, a dialect of the ancient Greek language.
I don't have to give you more links about the rules and principles of wikipedia. You won't waste your time reading them, since you are too busy pushing pov and vandalizing.
MATIA 10:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I read the Macedonia page. Actually, I can tell you all the text in my sleep. That is why I oppose that text.
When I said about the difference between the new and old Greek language, I was presenting to you the knowledge I got about this issue by a English profesor that teaches at University of London Old Greek language. I had a chance to meet him during my vocation in Egypt. I do not know much about your language, so I beleive the only expert in this issue that I personally met. He said clearly that the old and new Greek language are 2 different languages. The new Greek has origin from the old Greek, but it is same as Italian has origin from Latin. And a 5 year old kid knows that the Roman empire can not be directly with modern Italy. Then, how come you claim the direct connection to the antien Greeks?
You are right, there is not even one evidence that ancient Macedonians spoke a different language than their kings, a dialect of the ancient Greek language. But, there are also no specific evidence that they did. Also, the evidence that the antient Macedonian kings spoke Greek before the 338th BC are very, very weak. After 338th BC, the antique Greece and its states was occupied by the antient Macedonia and there are (also weak) evidence that after that the Macedonian kings used the Greek language in their private life.
Greek language was dominant in that time. As you know, a great per-cent even of the modern words have origin from that language. On the other hand, the evidence that the language used by the antient Macedonian kings was close to the Greek are very little and weak, all written by Greek people. So, there is no neutral evidence on this.
On the other hand, we use English now between us to comunicate, because English is dominant these days. Doesn't that give you any smart tought? 62.162.198.232 16:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

People interested in classic Greek can check Rosetta Stone. The majority of the words on the greek part of Rosetta Stone is used in modern Greek too.MATIA 11:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong... the majority of the words in the modern greek language have origin (are not the same) as the words in the old Greek languahe. 62.162.198.232 16:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Mr Igor Sterbinski, you have once again entertained us with your ignorance. If you knew anything about the subject, you would know that all living languages change and evolve. Only dead languages stay the same. The Slavic language you speak today has changed from the language your Slav ancestors spoke, just as the Greek language of classical Athens had changed from the earlier Greek language of Homer. Furthermore, there was no such thing as a single uniform language called "Ancient Greek"; a multitude of different dialects and idioms were spoken across the length and breadth of the Greek world, all of which changed and evolved over time. The language spoken by the Greeks today is the Greek language as it has naturally evolved over the centuries. At the end of the day, the Greeks still speak Greek, a continuation of the language the ancient Greeks, including the ancient Macedonians, spoke. That is our connection to the ancient Macedonians. What's yours?--Theathenae 17:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Firstable, Sterbinski is not here. As far as I know, he haven't posted anything for a while. Because of your text, it is obvious that you refer to me and not to Sterbinski, so I will try to answer.
The part that you are talking about the old and new Greek language... there we agree. The languages change. I told you that I personally can not judge about this subject. To be honest, I even don't care about this issue. That is your own language, Greek language. Not mine.
I only said what I was told. If you have some problem with that, I can tell you what I know about the guy, so you might try to find him. His name is Tim, he is about 50-55 years old and he teaches old Greek language at some college of the University of London. He is divorced, but has 3 kids. Little bold guy, not very tall. Almost completely white hair. We were in the same hotel for 10 days, so that is all I know about him. If you want to talk to him, try to find him. I repeat that I do not have any knowledge in this subject, I only know there are differences between the old and new Greek language. So I can not express my oppinion.
Concerning the Antique Macedonians, the whole idea of them speaking Greek is because of one book, written by a Greek person. And, even in that book just less couple of hundred words are mentioned.
The modern English has 1000s of words similar to the French ones, with French origin. That does not make the English to be French language.
And you do not mention the fact that the Antien Macedonians had a completely different culture than the Greeks. They got Hellenized after Alexander the Great, same as we got cristianized through the time (the Hellenic was clearly a culture, not ethnicity. A culture that was dominant in that time).
My connection with the Antique Macedonians... I would be stupid to claim if there is direct connection, same as there is no dirrect connection between any modern nation and antique people. But, one fact that is ignored, but well known... the modern Macedonians are only nation of so many in the area that are concentrated entirely and strictly in the region of Macedonia. No other nation is. And as far as I could see, I am not the first one who mentions this here.
This is not a claim that we only have origin from Antique Macedonians. I agree with some comments that I saw before on this page, that the modern Macedonians and modern Greeks have both origin from those people. Even the modern Bulgarians and probably modern Albanians can claim some little origin from the Antique Macedonians. But non of us can claim dirrect connection and exclusivity over the issue. 62.162.198.232 18:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. I studied ancient Greek at university in an English-speaking country, and my Irish lecturer could understand modern Greek almost perfectly well, without ever having studied it formally. And it goes without saying that I had a huge (some would say unfair) advantage over the non-Greek students in my class. Most linguists would agree that Greek has changed astonishingly little over the past two thousand years, considering the huge time span involved. You're right that Hellenism is a civilisation, not an ethnicity in the narrow Balkan sense with which you're all too familiar. What you're completely unfamiliar with is the language of the ancient Macedonians. To say that there is only "one book" that claims they spoke Greek shows your ignorance, and I would suggest you read up before engaging in further discussion on the matter. Whether the ancient Macedonians were "Hellenized" or Greek from the beginning is irrelevant: they were Greek when and where it mattered, which is why Alexander and his successors spread the Greek language and culture throughout the Macedonian empire. Your implication that invaluable ancient sources like Herodotus or Hesychius of Alexandria should be ignored because they happened to be Greek is ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration. As for your "special" geographic connection to the ancient Macedonians, you forget that the ancient kingdom of Macedon before Alexander's conquests was almost entirely contained within present-day Greek Macedonia, while most of what is now the FYROM was Paionia, not Macedonia. Skopje, your capital city, was in Dardania, which roughly corresponded to present-day Kosovo. If you were from Ohrid or Bitola, your geographic claim would carry slightly more weight, even if these areas were only annexed to Macedon as late as Philip's reign. Still, I have a friend from Ohrid who says you Skopjani pejoratively call people from the south grkomani. I wonder why. :)--Theathenae 19:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Please avoid misunderstanding me. I have no interest in the Greek language, I do not deny it, I do not claim anything connected to that issue. I heared something by someone which I beleived is well informed, considering his proffesion. But, again... I am completely neutral at this point. You Theathenae are Greek and I am sure that you know much more about the Greek language than I do. So, whatever you say about your own language, I won't deny it.
About the Antient Macedonians... it is true that Alexander spreaded the Hellenic (not Greek) culture and civilization between the Macedonians. And, we already agreed that Hellenic is culture, not ethnicity. And we agreed that it was dominant in that time. Actually, to be Hellenized ment to be civilised.
We both have our "proofs" that the antique Macedonians were or were not Greek. We both agree that in the time of Alexander the Great they started getting completely Hellenized, abandoning their original culture and customs.
To be honest, I do not care much about Alexander and his moves. I see him as one of the biggest murderers in the history of the world, which was motivated only by greed and his wish to become a god. Aldough I beleive that I have origin (more or less) from those people, Alexander will never be something that I would be proud of.
About the teritory of the Macedon Kingdom... you forget that till the Turkey-Greek exchange of population and the Greek civil war after the Greek Macedonia was not dominantly Greek. Actually, till the Balkan wars that teritory was never called Greek by anyone out of Greece. Not even a little part of that kingdom was a part of the original teritory of Greece which was till the beggining of the 20th century.
Again, my comment are not ment at any moment to deny your connection with the Antique Macedonians. As I already said, we both have it.
The non-sence that we call the people in south Macedonia "grkomani" is horible twisting of the truth. I never heard anything like that. And, my family has origin from Lerin (Florina) and Bitola. Actually half of the Macedonian population (in modern Macedonia or abroad) has origin from Greek Macedonia (Aegean Macedonia). Actually, the most common nickname in Macedonia is "Egeec". If you don't know what that means, ask you friend from Ohrid. To be honest, after the "grkomani" thing, I am not sure that that person even exist. If he really exist and he said that, I swear my kids that is not truth.
Here is a fact that you would be interested in... Many Macedonian weddings sometimes include 1-2 tipical Greek songs. And, we are all dancing on them, most often in original way, the way you do it. But that does not mean that we are "grkomani". We play English pop songs too, same as Serbian. But, that is only because we respect your Greek culture and we acnowledge the good and quality things that you have.
One more fact... Greek is in 5-6 most learned languages by people in the language schools here in Skopje. But, again that does not make us "grkomani". We also learn English, German, Spanish etc. Again, that is because we respect the Greek culture and we acnowledge the language. Also, anyone who knows Greek will always have advantage for getting a job in a Greek firm based in Macedonia. :) 62.162.198.232 09:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User 62.162.198.232 and NPOV

You can NOT explain an article as a "NPOV" to express without characteristic proposals!

Vergina 13:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Vergina, this page is absolutely full of proposals from the Macedonian side. Not even one was accepted. Whenever a Macedonian makes some proposal, the Greeks are all together working on denying him. Most often without any valid grounds.
Even if we decide which version to put... just a week latter someone new can come and change everything we worked on. And, I am sure you won't revert him if his changes support the Greek POV.
Many discussions were already made and nothing changed. Why keep wasting time on that? We will never deal, because the history that I know and the history that you know are very different. And, they both have valid facts as a support.
So, I have to keep insisting for the NPOV tag. So any user who is interested about Macedonia issue will be advised to visit the talk page.
I am aware that the talk page contains a lot of bullshit, but it also has very interesting points from boths sides. So, any user who visits it will be aware that there are different POVS about the region. And any of those users can decide will he take sides or stay neutral. Important thing is that he will have a choise... And with this text on Macedonia page he do not have any choise except to accept the Greek side of the story as truth. 62.162.198.232 17:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

ОК I'm macedonian,i don't consider my self lake that,i fell it.Ind i cant understand how population can be forsed to recognise it self as macedonian in The Bulgarian state after world warr II(when more than 250 000 macedonians expresed their free will) and latter stoped doing so.the forsification was before and after till today,it's logical.there are no puzzels to solve exept to axept the facts.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(region)/Archive_1&oldid=1042041378"