Template talk:Ethnic Macedonians

src: g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Video Template talk:Ethnic Macedonians

Error in template

Since when all Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians? There are two links in the template (one mentioning Greece and the other Aegean Macedonians) which both link to the above article. Please remove this irredentist connotation.--Avg (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember when we used to have a seperate article? That is when it was linked. BUT; the terms of the merger (Aegean Macedonians and Slavophone Greeks) was that it still would appear in the templates of both Greeks and Macedonians. PMK1 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:Ethnic Macedonians

Subgroups

Aegean Macedonians, etc are in both regions and subgroups because it was a condition to allow Aegean Macedonians to merge with Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. In the same forms, Pirin Macedonians have their own regional identity (hence in subgroups) but may not be the only Macedonians in Bulgaria (hence Macedonians in Bulgaria). This is applied to Prespan Macedonians and Macedonians in Albania also.

Gorani express their language as being Macedonian in polls and censuses, hence Macedonian language = Macedonian identity. While I agree many Gorani may not express their language as Macedonian, some do. Mactruth (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Try being more encyclopedic, please, since this is an encyclopedia. I'm used to your senseless reverts by now, but I'll still try and explain. Those 3 are duplicate entries - they are already at Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, Greece and Albania. What you're adding is an irredentist nationalistic tiny minor fringe view on the subject. I repeat - these "subgroups" as you like to label them are already in the template. I suggest you read the article Gorani before writing nonsense. They are no subgroup of ethnic Macedonians the same way ethnic Macedonians are not a subgroup of Bulgarians. The only actual subgroup you can claim , cause claim is what you do, is Torbesh or the so-called Macedonian Muslims. That's it. I understand you wanna battle and get me blocked again, but it's not gonna happen. I'll revert you if you don't provide any reasonable explanation as to why duplicate nationalistic entries should be in the template. --Laveol ^T 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

None of them are sub group, they are like us peoples whit same right of self identification! Macedonian muslims are equale to all other Macedonians, no mather in which thing they belive! That is why they should be noted as Macedonians and not Sub group.(That is about Torbe?i), Gorani will show their ethnicety when they will be asked to do so, until then they are just Gorani. Dont be selfish guys.Makedonij (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, you share my view. So, you do agree this section should be removed? The first three are already represented in another section about the ethnic Macedonians in the respected counties. As for Gorani they have not self-identified as ethnic Macedonians (correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't even live in the region). I'm not sure about Torbesh, but I'll try and make-up my incompetence on the subject. And since we have two users that don't share Mactruth's version of the world and there has been no response for 24 hours, I'll revert. And I'll ask Mactruth to refrain from making disruptive edits until he has provided a thorough explanation. --Laveol ^T 20:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, PMK, I hope you'll post here: what exactly is the thing that makes the so-called Aegean Macedonians a sug-group of ethnic Macedonians proper? There must be some diff. And, the fact that they came from Greece is not enough. If I'm not mistaken every Slav in the region of MAcedonia should be an ethnic Macedonian => the once from Greek Macedonia are as much ethnic Macedonians as are those in/from the country. According to the same line of thought (the extreme Macedonistic one that is) they share the same language, religion, culture. There should be some difference between the two to make Aegean Macedonians a sub-group. + Choose one of the entries and remove the other. They link to one and the same article. --Laveol ^T 13:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see that all Muslim Macedonians are mentioned in main article of Macedonians-merged, also Aegeans are Macedonians to, like you say, not the sub group, rather from my view an minorety ore authentic residents(time will show) in Greece, and should be named Macedonians(ethnic) of Greece. There is no sub groups of nations, Laveol that should be for Bulgarian views to, pomaks, shops,.. are Bulagrians and not sub nation or group.

As for Torbe?i, not single of them identifay as so, it is nick used by some Macedonians, i have many pals like them and all of them say nothing more then Macedonians.

Gorani will express them self in national census when it comes, there should be also noted Unmik report of ethnicetys in Kosovo, which shows large number of peoples who express like Macedonians, mostly in Gora region. Have to be noticed that in Goras part of Albania Macedonians did express them self like Macedonians with islamic religion.Makedonij (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Leveol, you speak of irredentist nationalism by myself, yet look what your fellow Bulgarians are posting in multiple pages, and I might add that I see no complaints from yourself:

1. Bulgarian dialects, look at the "dialects" in the right column, which shows all Macedonian dialects as being Bulgarian dialects, hence trying to state the Macedonian language is a Bulgarian dialect
2. Macedonians (Bulgarians), and I quote, "However most researchers agree that the bulk of the Slavic population in the region had a Bulgarian national identity until the early 1940s" further supporting your case to create Bulgarians out of the Macedonians here on Wikipedia

Don't get me wrong, I understand your goals are purely to make us look Bulgarian to the world. Hence, the consistent racism towards our people, and you believe you have a right to do so. I wouldn't be angry if there were sources, but the fact of the matter was Balkans was confusing to the Western countries. Also, Western countries were motivated by the case that would benefit their empire, hence the consistent irregularities about the Balkans in the 1800s. But the worst part of it is, you only show sources which support your side, but ignore I sources I consistently present here on Wikipedia. Your excuses range from "nationalistic website" even though the books would be sourced on the website, to other excuses like "we know what you're trying to do. You and the Greeks here on Wikipedia are the same. The funny thing is we are treated like the bad guys, when we are the ones who suffered, it surely is Europe's tragedy.

Anyways, getting back to your fruitless claims of "since I didn't respond in 24 hours, you can revert it." Since when is time a factor? Sorry but I have a life here, I'm not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day bathed in my obsession of trying to suppress a different ethnicity like yourself.

The article Gorani contains sources and states "many Gorani state their language is Macedonian", and Gorani are located in Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo. Let me explain this again, when Aegean Macedonians was incorporated into Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, it was agreed it would be in both subgroups and regions, comprehend? The same is used for the other subgroups, since the subgroup doesn't necessary represent all the Macedonians of that country. Mactruth (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief as possible. Two editors agreed on this including one ethnic Macedonian. You have provided no good reason for this inclusion besides the usual "othercrapexists". I'll revert you again since we can't allow the whole project to be run around by such inconsistent POV-edits. ince there is consensus on this and you should be expect to provide some reasons for your edits. I hope, though, you'll rather stop with this lame unreasonable behaviour. Thank you.--Laveol ^T 18:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am indifferent to the issue. Aegean Macedonians comprise a subgroup because of their historical circumstance, unique dialects, geo-political situation, frequent distinction from Macedonians from ROM. As for the Gorani, they too are considered to be a sub-group, but I dont have time to edit war over them. The Macedonian Muslims are also a sub-group due to their religion, dialects, history etc. I would be happy to settle with the page remaining the way it is now.

Possibly a title, say, "Related groups" could be put their similar to the "Closely-Related nationalities" section here. Under the related groups, "Aegean Macedonians", "Gorani", "Macedonian Muslims", "Pirin Macedonians", "Shops" and "Torlaks" could be added, just a suggestion? But it is ok at the moment. PMK1 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

PMK, i agree partly for Gorani, but i would never agree for Macedonian muslims, becouse it is rasistic, so would we insert Macedonian catholics and protestants also as a sub group? As for sub group it is wrong, Aegeans are Macedonians, their tradition is same as ours, they are noticed just like regional destinction not like sub group!

Are Macedonians from Eastern, southern and other regions from Macedonia sub group of Macedonians? Title sub group should be replaced with related people or something like that....Makedonij (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the Macedonian muslims speak their own dialects and tend to keep to themselves. This isolation has consolified them as a sub-group of ethnic Macedonians. They consider themselves different from other ethnic Macedonians, but are still ethnic Macedonians. As for the Aegeans, they have many customs and traditions which are unique to them and not to other ethnic Macedonians. Despite the fact that they speak their own dialects, have many of their own songs etc. The Greek-Macedonian border has also, sadly, divided our people even further. But hey, I am not going to argue with any one here. PMK1 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, can't the same argument be said for the other Macedonians? You state Aegean Macedonians have their own dialects, geo-political situations, and history after the division of Macedonia... can't you state the same thing about Pirin Macedonians, or Prespan Macedonians? They too have lived outside of Republic of Macedonia since the division of Macedonia, and even today have their own political parties and use different flags to represent themselves. It is well known that Macedonian dialects are complex and very simply between villages, the same is true for customs and etc. But its not like Pirin Macedonians and Prespan Macedonians, along with Aegean Macedonians, are being taught standard Macedonian in Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece. In fact, the situation of the Pirins mirror that of the Aegeans, in which both subgroups were denied recognition from their respected state. In fact, they continue to fight for human rights recognition.

Leveol, those examples are a side note from the argument at hand. YOU stated I am nationalistic, then why don't you ever challenge your own peoples' edits. You are completely happy with Bulgarian dialects showing the Macedonian language is a Bulgarian dialect, and with Macedonians (Bulgarians) stating we were "invented" from communism in the 1940s, even though a wealth of evidence contradicts your statements. Like I stated several times, the Balkans was a confusing place for the Western World, and was politically written to support one empire or another. The problem is the sources used in the two examples, along with many others throughout WP, are POV used, in which only your "Macedonians are Bulgarian" thesis will be maintained while excluding evidence which suggests differently. You know its true, and your only argument is to ignore it, or push it aside. Look at Bulgarian dialects for example, the sources used to show all Macedonian dialects are Bulgarian dialects is "Bulgarian Dialectology". A single source is used, which is incorrectly sourced, but purposely presented to look like 14 different sources. Let's look at Macedonians (Bulgarians):

1. "However most researchers agree that the bulk of the Slavic population in the region had a Bulgarian national identity until the early 1940s, when the Bulgarian troops, occupying most of the area, were greeted as liberators.[10]" - One source is used but the quote state MOST RESEARCHERS, and ignores all the contradicting evidence of the past in which Macedonians expressed individuality from Bulgarians, and etc. Also, it ignores to mention the Bulgarians were treated as liberators due to Serbian torture, and Bulgarians in fact ended up treating Macedonians WORSE, hence the Macedonian partisans.

1. "After the Second World War and the Bulgarian withdrawal, practically the rest from this people were eventually macedonized, hellenized or albanized." - No source, in fact Bulgarians tried Bulgarianizing Macedonians during WW2

1. " In addition, the inconsistent policy to the Macedonian Bulgarians led from Communist Bulgaria at that time has thrown most independent observers ever since into a state of confusion, as to the real ethnicity of the population even in Bulgarian Macedonia." - The statement alone is showing that Bulgarian Government has politically chosen to call the Macedonians one thing or another (ie: Stalin split). Worse off, the statement "real", because of these wording in the article, it is presented that the REAL ethnicity is Bulgarian. Ohh yea, no sources again. Mactruth (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Leveol, you are lucky I am a busy man in my life at the moment. In a couple of months though I will make your life hell, I will upload source after source and show just how POV these sources are. You have no idea. Mactruth (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, refrain from threats to "make my life hell". You still didn't add anything substantial to the article. And you have 3 users against your view now. I'll revert you again until you seem ready to discuss and then revert. And I ask you again to say why these entries should be duplicated? They are already represented in the very beginning of the template. I don't care what view you're trying to push up, but it won't work (I hope) since this, I repeat, is an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Laveol ^T 17:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly against the title of sub group. PMK are you Egeec? What about Pirin Macedonians and Prespanci, are they sub group to, then? And why they are not on the tempalete?Makedonij (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with last edition of FPS.Makedonij (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

They are on the template - at the very top - ethnic Macedonians in Greece, Albania and Bulgaria. --Laveol ^T 22:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mactruth, if you have a problem with Macedonians (Bulgarians), go and raise the issue there! Nothing you say here will be read by anyone, so... Nothing will change. but back to the topic. Laveol is saying that we should only have one link to the people. He claims that there is already a link to Macedonians of Albania, Ethnic Macedonians of Bulgaria and Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, to which there already are links. Laveol is saying that we should only have ONE link from the template to the article. "Shopi", "Torlaks", "Gorani" and "Macedonian Muslims" fall outside of this, while the "Aegean Macedonians", "Pirin Macedonians" and "Prespans" are already linked to. I would not object to that. I dont mind the current position state of the article, however I will be adamant that the "Aegean Macedonians" link remains, as it was talked about before the merger. I will proceed with this change.

Now!, :). Mactruth, you may consider creating the articles Prespan Macedonians, to talk about the Macedonians from the Prespa region (Prespa, Prespes and Prespa ë Vogël) ; I am sure that this would be able to fall under the subgroup section. You may also consider creating the article Macedonians of Golo Brdo, I am sure that this too would qualify to be counted as a Sub-group. I would also consider adding Torlaks and Shopi to the article, but not yet, just until all this hype dies down. PMK1 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, please try to comprehend what I am trying to state my brother. It was agreed Aegean Macedonians would be in both locations on the template before the merger occurred, but why on Earth would we discriminate between subgroups? I'd rather have the article in the subgroup section if we had to choose. Also, about the Bulgarian Macedonians and Bulgarian dialects pages, why is there no argument from you if you also see this occurring? Mactruth (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Leveol, I comprehend your argument, but my worry is representation. Aegean Macedonians used to be its own article, and it is slowly turning into another POV article that supports the whole "Macedonians are Bulgarian" core agenda. Aegean Macedonians went from being its own article, to being its own section within Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, and the Macedonian representation is slowly being shrunken down. Mactruth (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

src: wikitravel.org

Title tweaked

I've tweaked the display title of the infobox, removing the "(ethnic group)" addition. It's ugly - these bracketed disambig qualifiers are really only technical additions for page titles and should never be displayed inside an article page itself. Also, there's no need for disambiguation within the infobox. Everywhere the box appears, the context of the article of which it is part already makes it clear which "Macedonians" are meant. Fut.Perf. ? 05:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD? I can see a whole lot of reverts approaching. ;-) PMK1 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised? Probably it is becouse the weather. :)Makedonij (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Symbol

Yesterday, I changed the symbol at the top of the template with the national flag of the Republic of Macedonia. User:Mactruth has now restored the lion banner with the reasoning "the symbol was chosen a long time ago". I can see further up this page that the topic has been discussed extensively and that there is indeed considerable evidence that the lion banner is used. I do, however, think that the national flag is more appropriate for this setting. The lion seems to be primarily used by ethnic Macedonians of an ultranationalist persuasion, and it also appears on the logo of the VMRO-DPMNE party. I think that, if a symbol absolutely must be used, it would be better to use the national flag, which is more representative. I suppose we all agree that it is used more often than the lion banner in any case.--Ptolion (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it from me, Ptolion. If you want to get anywhere with these Macedonian Wikipedians, it's best to discuss any and every edit you intend to make to delicate articles such as these. Otherwise, a well-meant revision of what is considered a "consesus" will just lead to a shitstorm. ['k?b?a]? 20:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been a month since I was reverted and Mactruth still hasn't joined the discussion. I'll restore the flag per WP:SILENCE and see if it holds.--Ptolion (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That lion flag is not an ultranationatlist symbol. That's real nonsense. The flag of the R. of Macedonia is not appropriate for this template, because it is a multiethnical symbol, that means it represents the country and the people living in Macedonia, not just the ethnic Macedonians. The ethnic Macedonians primarily use the red Vergina Sun flag and seconde the lion flag. Plus, this version of the lion is not the VMRO party lion. Habel (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered how do we know what a symbol a certain group of people use. And especially how they use it. Do they wear it on their head, tattooed somewhere, or have a T-shirt with it, or maybe a piercing. I've never seen an ethnic Macedonian with the lion or with the Vergina Sun. What I've seen is the national flag. And, yes, it is primarily a party symbol and yes, it is primarily used by ultranationalists (if by used you mean flying flags and having a T-shirt with it etc.)--Laveol ^T 09:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the flag of ROM is indeed an multiethnic symbol, then why is it used to represent the Macedonian language on government websites and pretty much everywhere else? The ROM's leadership have made perfectly clear that they consider their country the nation-state of the Macedonians (ethnic group) and all other ethnic groups in the country are ethnic minorities - in other words they are the same as all other Balkan nation-states (Greece, Bulgaria...). However, even if we were to accept that the ROM's flag is unsuitable for the template, the suitability of the lion banner has still not been demonstrated. The lion has no official status and is still relatively poorly attested. If you don't want the flag of the ROM, I propose that no symbol be used.--Ptolion (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was the previous consensus, but a strong POV-pushing effort pretty much stopped any proper discussion on this. --Laveol ^T 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try that then.--Ptolion (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a guess that'd happen. They come and go end edit and call others nationalists and don't care about any discussions. --Laveol ^T 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To talk about solved issue?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Never solved. Just pushed into the template. --Laveol ^T 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For people to be disputing it now, it is clearly not a solved issue - there is no consensus. This is ridiculous. No discussion, just fly-bÿ reverts claiming that the fact that it has been in place for a long time means it is somehow now entrenched. I suppose every cloud has a silver lining though: blatantly obvious POV-pushing makes readers doubt the accuracy of whole articles.--Ptolion (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not solved for two users, only. I think the lion is great solution.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so we're two on 1? And it will continue to be like that until you call someone for help. --Laveol ^T 14:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Playing games?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy, even if that's the case, it means nothing, there is still no consensus. Are you capable of submitting anything more than trollish one-sentence "that's that" remarks and actually move onto explaining why it's a "great solution"?--Ptolion (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant when I asked you to take part in discussions. If you do not intend to write something useful, then why bother writing anything at all? We had a pretty straightforward discussion until you showed up on the wiki, made a fly-by revert and now start the usual anti-discussion here. We've had eonugh of such behaviour, thank you very much.--Laveol ^T 14:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it went good since there is no Macedonian users that will tell you or stop you to push your pov. I cannot see anything bad in the current flag with lion, or put the proposed COA with the lion on shield. That's fine for me. But removing pictures is far from "normal working on Wikipedia", or it is?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand how Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general operate. Information has to be sourced and there is no source that the lion flag, or any other flag, is used more than the nation-state's national flag. The fact that you're even suggesting using a "proposed COA" demonstrates how out-of-touch you are with "normal working on Wikipedia".--Ptolion (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am Macedonian and I know which flags we use on protests, weddings, sport celebrations, music events etc. If you are not familiar with it, learn more about Macedonian culture. I will provide you sources anyway.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a strong source, take a look at this Macedonian lion gallery and you will understand why the lion is symbol used in the template. The gallery contains images of Macedonian coats of arms, on which this flag is designed. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this already. Wikipedia does not care, when it comes down to article content, what you as an editor think. We work on sources, reliable sources that is. No nationalistic mumbo-jumbo and the sort. You should've understood that by now. --Laveol ^T 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

History section

This is a template, dealing with topics on an ethnic group. It should not be a copy-paste version of the template on the country. I've removed the history section and added the link to the article to Other topics. That's how all other templates deal with it. --Laveol ^T 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia