The whole article is funny!!! Find me someone in Greece who speaks slavonic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.228.229 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging this page, Slavophone Greeks, with Aegean Macedonians, under a third, neutral title. First suggestion: Slavophones of Greece, open for better suggestions.

Rationale: These two articles are effectively POV forks of each other. Their subjects are not really two distinct groups in the real world, but two POV perspectives on what both sides in the real world perceive of essentially a single group. It is true that some members of this group perceive of themselves as ethnic Macedonians and others as ethnic Greeks – but people of both convictions seem to nevertheless perceive of those of their neighbours who have a different persuasion as being still part of the same group as themselves. I have never seen a reliable source that treats these as two different minorities. People out there either think that all of these Slavic-speakers are Macedonians, or that all of them are Greeks. Therefore, they should be treated together in one article, which must neutrally present both POV perspectives. Our current two-article solution seems to be a purely Wikipedia-internal invention. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavs of Greece won't go down too well, I assume? BalkanFever 11:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, because it presumes non-Greekness based solely on language. Isn't that what the whole debate is about? The rift between those who live in/come from Greece but don't want to be Greek, and those who (feel that they) are Greek despite their Slavic mother tongue (or that of their grandparents)? And, to be fair to FP, we're not only talking about a single group split into two camps, but in many cases the very same family. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Don't want to be Greek? Those (ethnic) Macedonians living in Greece are Greek. The problem is your government's (coincidentally the nationalists') stance that you have to be an ethnic Greek to be Greek. To be ethnic Macedonian and to be Greek is not impossible. An ethnic Serb can be as Hungarian as the next guy. An ethnic Georgian can be as Russian as Stalin (oh wait). BalkanFever 12:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But hang on. Isn't the whole point of being an "Aegean Macedonian" the negation of the Greekness of both "Aegean" (rather than Greek) Macedonia and its "indigenous" population? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. BalkanFever 12:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hear of many of them going around waving Greek flags when the football's on. Being an "Aegean Macedonian" is the antithesis of being a Greek one. By the way, when did the Greek government ever say you had to be an ethnic Greek to be Greek? Isn't it always accused on here of doing the exact opposite, namely considering all its citizens to be Greek even if some of them feel they're not? Which is it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's either/or. Considering everyone ethnic Greek is the same as not allowing anyone to be anything else, which is why you wont let the non-ethnic Greeks that you kicked out see their homes. BTW fans carrying Greek flags are the same idiots that call for expulsion of ethnic minorities, so I wouldn't use that as a measure. Or is racism the bare minimum over there? BalkanFever 13:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game interrupted for two minutes so police and stadium security can take care of those fans shouting political slogans who have sneaked onto the playing field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Your colourful rhetoric aside, the Greek government has never said everyone's ethnic Greek, as far as I know. It says everyone's Greek, full stop. The same way the French government says everyone's French. In other words, ethnicity should be irrelevant in the eyes of the state and the law. Those diaspora "Aegeans" agitating to "see their homes" also seem to be the ones calling for the end of the "Greek occupation" of their "homeland", waving placards saying "Solun will be the capital of Macedonia again" (with a map of United Macedonia thrown in for good measure), burning Greek flags in the centre of Melbourne, defacing the Greek flag with the swastika, etc. Hardly model Greek citizens. And did you just call all Greek football fans idiots and racists? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Fut.Perf.'s proposal (Slavophones of Greece) as a descriptive title with no inaccuracies (although, on the other side, not absolutely truth, because these people are Greeks [in terms of citizenship] and most of them self-identify themselves as such [in terms of national identity]; but in a compromise all sides should make some steps forward). I cannot support BalkanFever's alternative, because we cannot ethnically identify people in a way that the majority of them does not choose. Their common element is tha Slav language (in a bilingual population); not the Slav national identity.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but what is a "Slav national identity"? There's no such thing. "Slavic" is a linguistic unit, nothing else. A Slav is, by definition, somebody who speaks Slavic. But sure, I too still prefer the "Slavophones" wording, it just strikes me as clearer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia: "Modern nations and ethnic groups called by the ethnonym "Slavs", Britannica: " member of the most numerous ethnic and linguistic body of peoples in Europe". So, besides the linguistic issue there is also an "ethnic" or "national" one. So, where is the inaccuracy of what I said? Anyway, since we reach the same conclusion ...--Yannismarou (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. FP is right; this is about two antithetical POVs, not two fundamentally distinct groups. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people think it was ever a suggested alternative? It was just a question. A simple "no" would've done fine, but Kekrops obviously can't resist labelling the ethnic Macedonians Anti-hellenes every chance he gets. Oh, and I'll give the Greek fans a break for now. How long will the embarrassment last do you think? BalkanFever 00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider for a moment Slavophones of Greece = Aegean Macedonians + Slavophone greeks + The Pomaks? Way too confusing. Keksops, we are not talking about recapturing macedonia to kavala and greven, the point is Aegean Macedonians HATE being called greeks i will tell you now. From the ones i have met they will kill you if you call them greek! This has got to do with, the persecution and discrimination of people who identify as ethnic macedonians in greece. This started in the 1920's and much of it continues today. That is a major distinction between the two groups. Aegean Macedonians believe the Grecophiles to be traitors, while the Grecophile's believe the Ethnic Macedonians to be disoloutioned bulgarians who speak serbian.

• Also another difference is that greece accepts that some greeks may speak a "local idiom with greek, slavic (mainly bulgarian), vlach, turkish and albanian" in it. What is does not accept it the Macedonians living in Greece, despite SNOF, National Liberation Front (Macedonia), the widescale teaching of the Macedonian language in the 1940's, Rainbow (political party), the Decata Begalci (child refugees), ethnic macedonian newspapers, theatres etc. which operated in the 1940's, and the numerous diaspora organisations. Despite this they still claim their is no ethnic macedonians in Greece. Anyway the label "Slavophone" implies you speak a generic slavic language eg. "latinophone", wouldn't macedonian language speakers be "macedonophones"?, bulgarians => "bulgarophones", serbs => "serbophones"? Simply Slavophones of Greece implies that there are no Ethnic Macedonians in Greece and that they don't actually speak macedonian but the bizzare "slavic dialects of greece". PMK1 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you make up your minds amongst yourselves on the question of whether the "Aegean Macedonians" are Greeks (or would be if only the evil Greeks would let them), or will kill the evil Greeks for calling them Greeks, let us know. I think PMK1's version is closer to the mark, though. As for your glib reference to Euro 2008, I'd rather be an "embarrassed" defending champion than a smug nobody. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not support - How is it that modern Macedonians cannot have a drop of blood that is ancient Macedonian, yet people who have Slavic culture and language can be Greek! I don't understand it. Honestly, are Greekophones of Turkey Turkish or Greek? Anyways, Aegean Macedonians are in fact simply called Aegeans and they don't like being associated to the word Greek or Greece, so I think it should be kept separate. Aegean Macedonians are a subgroup of Macedonians... they should be merged into Macedonians or not merged at all. And besides, this article would make the Slavophones of Greece article too long. Mactruth (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done: Write Slavophones of Greece with a topic "Aegean Macedonians", explain them briefly, but have the main article: Aegean Macedonians at the topics beginning. Mactruth (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe if Slavophones of Greece were created, there would be edit wars between Greeks and Macedonians... in which Greeks attempt to claim Aegean Macedonians as Greeks, and Macedonians try to attempt to claim all Slavs of Greece are Aegean Macedonians. The reality is some identify as ethnic Macedonian (Aegean Macedonians in West and Central Macedonia)... others identify as Bulgarian (Thrace) and still other identify as Slavophone Greek, even though modern Macedonians cannot identify as Macedonian... people who speak and have Slavic culture can identify as Greek, the truth being if RoM were part of Greece, then Greece would back up the claim that we are ancient Macedonians with some bullshit propaganda they use on Slavic (Macedonian/Bulgarian/Serbian) speaking Greeks. Mactruth (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be jovial, but many aegean macedonians are the "irredentist's" behind United Macedonia. oh, and kekrops do you mean "Aegean Macedonians believe the Grecophiles to be traitors, while the Grecophile's believe the Ethnic Macedonians to be disoloutioned bulgarians who speak serbian." is this closer to the truth? PMK1 (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant your assertion that the "Aegean Macedonians HATE being called Greeks", which contradicts BF's claim that they "are Greek". My personal opinion is that you're only Greek if you feel you are. By extension, the diaspora "Aegeans" in particular shouldn't expect the Greek government to treat them gingerly when they express such hostility towards Greece. In any case, FP's proposed merger wouldn't label them "Greeks", but rather outline the opposing POVs on the identity of the Slavic-speaking Orthodox Christian community of Macedonia. Regarding your point about the Pomaks, they can easily be excluded by the addition of Macedonia to the future title: Slavophones of Macedonia (Greece), for instance. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, contraction is they are NOT greeks, they are in the same way albanians are serbs, and turks are macedonians, they are Greek by citizenship only. Not in identity. What is wrong with their chosen titles either "Aegean Macedonians" or "Ethnic Macedonians of/from Greece"? PMK1 (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with them is that they apply only to a small section of the community in question. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and pigs can fly, too. But thats another discussion. Basically if you are going to merge slavophone greeks with Aegean Macedonians, these are the facts. You are going to have to split the two Ethnic Macedonians with an Ethnic Macedonian identity (Aegean Macedonians) and Ethnic Macedonians with a Greek Identity (Slavophone Greeks). I think this is what fut perf. was hinting at they are all ethnic macedonians but some identify as greeks, some as ethnic macedonians.PMK1 (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wasn't hinting that at all. It is your POV that they are all "ethnic Macedonians", some of which are "traitors" due to their self-identification as Greeks. FP's point, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that, objectively, there is a single community, namely the Slavophones of Macedonia, split into two opposing camps vis-à-vis their identity. Calling them all "ethnic" or "Aegean Macedonians", or Slavophone (ethnic) Greeks, would be ascribing to a particular POV, and simply won't do. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling anyone a traitor. If they are all a single community then they must have the same history, the same language and the same customs. Now forget about ethnic identity, if aegean macedonians speake Macedonian then so must the Slavophone Greeks? if the Aegean Macedonian celebrate and have slav macedonian customs then logically, so do the slavophone greeks (i'm not talking about nationalistic or historical customs, eg. Ilinden). Also do you forget that most slavophones were involved with the National Liberation Front (Macedonia), and nearly 20,000 people were taught the Macedonian language at school. You see, they are not as greek as you think they are. PMK1 (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slavophone Greeks are not traitors. They are either afraid to state their ethnicity due to the economic and social discrimination that comes with it, or their ancestors forced assimilation has caused them to become ignorant of there past. Greece actually states, "You are Greek, but the Bulgarians forced you to speak Bulgarian during their empire." In other words, they try to convince people that Greece isn't forcefully assimilating them, but their ancestors were forcefully assimilated by Bulgarians/Serbs/etc.

This is a reason the two articles should be kept separate. Let me repeat: There would be edit wars between Greeks and Macedonians in which Greeks attempt to claim Aegean Macedonians as Greeks, and Macedonians claim all Slavs of Greece as Aegean Macedonians. Mactruth (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Future: I can't exactly understand why you're proposing a merge (the talk about their being perceived as a "single minority"(?), notwithstanding). Numbers about/and "who identifies as what" are mentioned in both articles and are reliably sourced (for the time being, at least). What's the exact problem? I probably missed the point with all this completely irrelevant chatter (courtesy of even blocked users, no less. wee). 3rdAlcove (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously forget that in the Aegeans Macedonians' AfD you also proposed the deletion or the merger of the article. And, if you think that especially the Aegean Macedonians' article is well-referenced and well-sourced, then ok! We have a strange definition of the "reliably sourced" article. And there is always Mactruths' rationale, according to which there is a minority brave enough to state its national identity against the "bad", "evil" Greek government, and the majority of the poor "Macedonians", who because of the terror excursion and the unique in the world oppression of the Greek authorities, they do not have the courage to express freely themselves, and speak about their "true" national identity. And, that is why we should have to separate articles! Until of course the terror is one day over! Πάω πάσο!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't put words in my mouth. My comment was precise and clear. Btw, where and when did I support Mactruther's shenanigans? 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read also carefully what I say. I did not say that you supported Mactruth's shenanigans. But you did supported a merge in the aforementioned AfD. And by the way, about Mactruth, when we say "banned from all pages that relate to Macedonia for two months", do we mean that talk pages are not included?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although banned he is still a wiki user, is he not? This is the same dispute (basically) as the "slavic dialects of greece", everyone but greeks and bulgarians calls it macedonian or macedonian slavic, but we still have this bizzare language. No, mattter how many linguists consider it macedonian, apparently linking it to macedonian equals irredentism. Is this really what wikipedia has become? PMK1 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too sure if I were you. In any case, his block is irrelevant. Would someone be so kind as to tell me what Future meant up there or otherwise stop replying for the sake of replying? As for 'This is the same dispute (basically) as the "slavic dialects of greece"', how come? This is about the 'self-identification' of the speakers, which is not necessarily determined by language. Also re the "Macedonian" appellation to the dialect(s), yes, obviously we should use it since it's the academic standard (it is, right? don't pretend you don't understand why it might be opposed, though; your comments make that clear). How about some constructive comments on Future's proposal (whose usefulness I still don't quite understand), instead? 3rdAlcove (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) To 3rdAlcove: Neither of the two articles currently manages to define the two "groups" in relation to each other; in fact, neither of them even mentions the other except in a "see also". Neither of them contains a discussion of the fleeting and variable nature of self-identification in both camps (like in, variable within single families and within the biographies of individuals and so on, well documented in sources such as Danforth). The "Slavophone Greeks" article has a lead definition that very much implies all speakers of the language in Greece belong to that group, as if the other didn't exist. Treatments like Danforth make it pretty clear that these are, in fact, a single community, despite the political division between its members. If we were to discuss these things within the article, that discussion would have to be duplicated in both, making them effectively copies of each other. Plus, what prompted my proposal, the duplicate articles create an artificial problem whenever we have to link from elsewhere. Check the incoming links, most places that link to either article really mean both sides together, and in cases of individuals we often cannot (and should not) decide which of the two sides would be more representative of how that person would define themselves. Do you have a reliable source deciding whether Kostas Novakis, for instance, is a "Slavophone Greek" or an "Aegean Macedonian"? For how many other people do we have such sources? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly the heart of the problem. Nobody can with accuracy (presenting specific and well-baked data) define the "limits" that differentiate the two ethnic groups (if we accept that there are two different ethnic groups and there is a separating line between the two of them). The Kostas Novakis or even the Tsarknias articles are characteristic examples. I'll comment a bit on the argument that "numbers about/and "who identifies as what" are mentioned in both articles and are reliably sourced", trying to see if this is absolutely accurate and enough for the current situation (which even 3rdAlcove who articulated this argument did not support it in the aforementioned AfD, and proposed a "deletion" or "merger" instead). I searched almost all the sources of the Aegean Macedonians article (about the 30,000 population), and these are some remarks: 1) 1st (presented as the main one in the article!) source speaks about the use of MAKEDONSKI, BUGARSKI, BALGARSKI (Slav-Macedonian) language. Where is the "Aegean Macedonians'" definition? And do we add together these linguistic groups to sum up the total number of the 30,000 ethnic Aegean Macedonians? Is this a reliable source? Let's continue. 2) 2nd source, UCLA: Again a linguistic analysis for the use of the "Macedonian" language in Greece. Where is the basis for those self-identified as "Aegean Macedonians"? 3)Britannica: I read the note 4 next to the "Macedonians" statistics, and it says "unofficial source". Are we going to base our arguments on unofficial sources?! Which is something like ours ^{[citation needed]}. Where is the verifiably sourced reference, as we demand it here in Wikipedia? Just because it is Britannica, even without a verifiable source, we are going to take a figure as definite and accurate? 4) Other sources: "Ethnologue" is about languages again, Euromosaic the same, in Eurominority I see no figures, and the only source stating the "magic number" of 30,000 is Helsinki Monitor, with the explanation that ok 7-10,000 voted for Rainbow, but we estimate (how?!!) that "ethnic Macedonians" are 30,000.

And do you know what is my other problem: I see nowhere in these sources the term "Aegean Macedonians" used. Therefore, if we have such big problems to define how many are the Slavophones in Greece with a "Macedonian" self-identification, isn't it more logical as Fut. proposes to have a "Slavophones of Greece" article, with a neutral title, and there in a special section analyze in details the problems we have to define how many are these Slavophones self-identified as "Macedonians" (or "Aegean Macedonians"), and expose all our sources with accuracy and attention (not mixing cultural, linguistic and ethnical data) about how many these people are and which is their history and their other characteristics? And, of course, a valuable and necessary addition would be this analysis of "the fleeting and variable nature of self-identification in both camps" proposed by Fut.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as for your critism of Britannica, that is the source. Here we are using information present by Encyclopedia Brittanica, therefore we are using encyclopedia britannica as a source. Generally information is given on the ENTIRE ethnic group, sub-groups are counted as part of the entire ethnic group. So eg. Pontic Greeks are counted as greeks in the georgian and russian censa. Any simply slavophones is not specific enough, what about Macedonophones of Macedonia (Greece), the linguistic opinion is that their language is macedonian. To me Macedonophones of Macedonia (Greece) seem more sensible? If you have a problem with Aegean Macedonians, Ethnic Macedonians of Greece is also another commonly used term, hey helsinki Refers to them just as "Macedonians of Greece", seeing as you like helsinki so much use that name?. Anywaiz, even if the Greek government said there were 200,000 Macedonians, as if you would believe them. What is funnier turks can claim up to 120,000, when there is only supposed to be 50,000, Aromanians up to 200,000 and Roma up to 350,000, when there is only supposed to be 15,000. But when some puts up an estimate for Macedonians in greece, only 30,000 is the maximum. Then users go and question encyclopedia britannica? Talk about double standards, from the page which claims up to 250,000 greeks may be in ROM. Greek Diaspora. PMK1 (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just about that issue of "reliability" of "unofficial" sources on demographics: It's nobody's fault. There are of course no "official" sources, and never will be, as long as Greece refuses to include ethnicity and/or language in its census. In the absence of that, even the best of reliable sources can only give informed estimates, and the only thing we can do is to report on these estimates. Obviously, just because we don't have more official figures doesn't mean we cannot or should not be talking about the group (otherwise, every government in the world could stop us from reporting about minorities it doesn't like, just by refusing to publish census data about them!). Thus, the issue is pretty much irrelevant for this discussion of what articles we should have. Please get back on topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is another issue, Fut., an "official" source, and another a "credible" source. I never asked for "official" sources. And the mixture of relevant and irrelevant sources is not irrelevant to this discussion.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(un)"Neither of them contains a discussion of the fleeting and variable nature of self-identification in both camps (like in, variable within single families and within the biographies of individuals and so on, well documented in sources such as Danforth)." -Good point.

"Do you have a reliable source deciding whether Kostas Novakis, for instance, is a "Slavophone Greek" or an "Aegean Macedonian"?" -No (well, I haven't looked ;) but that's simply a problem of sourcing rather than of "fleeting and variable nature of self-id", which I doubt is applicable anymore -today- since members of the "group" have developed a strong ethnic consciousness, correct? Obviously, he, an individual, self-identifies as either (and not, say, "an Orthodox Christian from Macedonia, 'Macedonian' for short").

An article merge might work: discussion of all possibilities, representing both POVS; statistics -Helsinki etc.- that represent the "N"POV (well, as much as is possible); mention of your first point. It's possible that the two articles could stand on their own with some fixes but I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. It seems that Republicans aren't opposed to "Slavophones of Greece" but what will you do about "Aegean Macedonians"? 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, any objections to Macedonophones of Macedonia (Greece), that is the language they speak. Also doesnt "Slavophone" just give information to the language family which their native language belongs to, and that they reside in Greece? You might as well have slavophones of albania, and slavophones of turkey, becasue apparently their is a lack of stable ethnic conciousness, (albania =>bulgarians, macedonians, turkey=>pomaks, turks). It is bizarre. If we have Slavophones of Macedonia (Greece), will it be included Here, or here?. PMK1 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Macedonophones" is hardly common in English (that would be "Macedonian-speakers", if at all). "... of Macedonia (Greece)" is cumbersome. What's this obsession with over-precision in article titles? An article title is just a convenient handle, it does not need to comprise all details of the topic's definition within itself. – About the other thing, I don't see why linking from the other Macedonian-related lists would be a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neither do I. But the greeks do have problems, because as soon as you link it to something like Slavphones of Greek Macedonia, you imply that all slavophones are ethnic macedonians, and that is apparently irredentist. PMK1 (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, folks, what's shakin? Merge happening after all? 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Futperfs. question from further up? Do we have any evidence that Kostas Novakis is either Aegean Macedonian or Slavophone Greek. People have looked no one has found anything conclusive, what they have found though is that he basically is Aegean Macedonian. He refers to the Macedonian folklore[1] and not the greek folklore. He also says I sang these on the dialect of the Aegean part of Macedonia[2], he does not use terms such as dopia, entopia or idiom which many slavophone greeks use, instead he refers to it how an Aegean/Ethnic Macedonian would. He calls his wife a Grecian and then says she has learnt our songs, by our he refers to either the macedonian slavic language or another term used by both Aegean Macedonians and Slavophone Greeks to refer to it, Naši [3]. This source clearly states that he is a member of the "Macedonian House of Culture"[4] which as we all know is the Ethnic/Aegean Macedonian organisation. Greeks dislike this group (don't forget they ransacked the office), it is highly unlikely a slavophone greek would take part in the association. He was also a guest at the "Meeting of Refugess from Aegean Macedonia"[5]. Greeks deny that these people even exist, so i doubt a greek would attend. Greeks also find the term "Aegean Maceodnia" offensive. His album title's use the Macedonian language and alphabet, slavophone greeks supposedly use either Greek or Latin alphabet and do not identify their language as the same in ROM. Here are clear facts, if he isn't Aegean Macedonian, then he must be Albanian. PMK1 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic! Next! 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the comment further above. Now back to discussion, unless a few issues are smoothed out then the merge can't happen. Ie. The article has to say they speak Macedonian etc. PMK1 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.Future perfect is correct. I have to add that extreme care should be taken in the use of sources! We need to have sources with the paragraph and page. I do have the feeling that various sources are used to back up POV claims while in fact the source probably says otherwise or nothing about the specific subject. Editor Yannismarou made a good point by checking some sources.Seleukosa (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to demonstrate how sources were used in this article lets see some examples.

The KKE expressed its intent to "fight for the national self-determination of the repressed (ethnic) Macedonians".

The above text is supported by this source. “KKE, Πέντε Χρόνια Αγώνες 1931-1936, Athens, 2nd ed., 1946.”

Can we see the specific paragraph from this book? I somehow doubt that in 1931-36 KKE had any idea about the Slav-Macedonian plans of Tito.

And another passage :

Owing to the KKE's equal treatment of ethnic Macedonians and Greeks, many ethnic Macedonians enlisted as volunteers in the DSE 60% of the DSE was composed of ethnic Macedonians. It was during this time that books written in the Macedonian language were published and ethnic Macedonians cultural organizations theatres were opened.[21] According to information announced by Paskal Mitrovski on the I plenum of NOF on August 1948, about 85% of the Slavic-speaking population in Greek Macedonia had an ethnic Macedonian self-identity. It has been estimated that out of DSE's 20,000 fighters, 14,000 were Slavic Macedonians from Greek Macedonia.

The above paragraph is backed by these sources : "Η Τραγική αναμέτρηση, 1945-1949 – Ο μύθος και η αλήθεια. Ζαούσης Αλέξανδρος" (ISBN 9607213432).

Simpson, Neil (1994). Macedonia Its Disputed History. Victoria: Aristoc Press, 101,102 & 91. ISBN 0646204629. Both sources are used to back up more claims in this article. Can we see the paragraph that suggests the above? (Especially from the Greek book?)

And this

”However the situation deteriorated after the Communists lost the Greek Civil War. By 1959 several 'language oaths' had been introduced whereby the inhabitants of certain villages would "renownce their Slavic dialect and speak only Greek"

.[39] referenced by “ Denying Ethnic Identity: the Macedonians of Greece: the Macedonians of Greece, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki, New York, 1994” Again the reality is different. Acording to Vlassis Vlasidis - Veniamin Karakostanoglou [[6]] in their article “Recycling Propaganda:Remarks on Recent Reports on Greece's "Slav-Macedonian Minority” things were completely different :

“ Peasants in Greek Western Macedonia were forced to take a public oath, declaring they would never use their mother Slavic tongue again. Whitman says (p. 8) that such ceremonies took place in "several" villages and (p. 40 note 59) "in the villages around Lerin, Kostur and Kajlari the inhabitants were asked to confirm...". MRG-GR says in "many" villages, and Poulton that "villagers were asked to make public declarations" (p. 6). MRG-GR is drawing information from Greek newspapers, Malcolm from Poulton, Poulton from Andonofski (who also talks about "several" villages)25, Whitman from Danforth, Danforth from Stoyan Pribichevitch26, Pribichevitch from the American Consul General in Thessaloniki, and the last one most likely from the Greek newspaper Ellinikos Vorras (July 8, 1959, August 5, 1959, August 11, 1959). In fact such oaths were indeed taken by villagers after church service under yet unknown circumstances, probably at the initiative of local officials. Apparently they were discontinued once they became known to authorities in Athens. But the villages were definitely no more than three out of a total of 2,500 communities scattered in Greek Macedonia27."

And my favorite. The article says :

“Their native speech was banned in everyday use and even within their own households while personal names were also forcibly changed from Macedonian to Greek ones”

The reference given by the author is this : “Law No. 87 of 1936 Ordered all Macedonians to change their names to Greek names”. Unfortunately for this reference there was never a law for changing Slavic surnames to Greek ones. Acording to Vlassis Vlasidis - Veniamin Karakostanoglou [[7]] in their article “Recycling Propaganda:Remarks on Recent Reports on Greece's "Slav-Macedonian Minority” they are very clear :

Lois Whitman took for granted (p. 6 note 15) an undated report by the Association of Refugee Children from "Aegean Macedonia" which said that by Law No 87/1936 Slavic surnames had to be changed. Similar references are given by Popov and Radin. Still, all of our attempts to trace state laws calling for the change of surnames were in vain. And certainly the law cited is quite irrelevant to the subject mentioned.”

Seleukosa (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to your comments on the Aegean Macedonians talk page. PMK1 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Law No 87/1936 (that supposedly forced people to change Slavic surnames to Greek ones) is actually a law about the social security of the lawyers of Greece (free translation)

(here it is in Greek : “ν. 87/1936 περί ιδρύσεως ταμείου προνοίας παρ’ εκάστω δικηγορικώ συλλόγω”).

Seleukosa (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly hope Seleukosa is wrong and 3rdAlcove correct, because, otherwise, we'll have another proof of the huge problems the Aegean Macedonians article has. I'll not further comment for the time being, waiting for PMK1 response.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is considerate of you. I have left comments on the other page. I have tried to stay away from Ethnic macedonian sources. If there is a problem verification i have used the exact sourcing from the HRW-HELSiNKi report. If selekousa is accusing me of lying i reject that notion. I have provided numerous sources and the context it was given in on the Aegean Macedonians talk page. Your reliance on one Greek website is also questionable, i have tried to stay away from any balkan media/print. PMK1 (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to you with the full text of the law of 1936, which is completely irrelevant. So, until you mention any indication of a Greek legislature's discrimination against the Slavophones (which I'll check in the legal basis NOMOS), the respective edit of yours in the main text is OR. Please, provide the proper law you say that introduced the forcible change of surnames.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems more and more information that circulate even among the "independent organizations" is based on fabrications.

Seleukosa (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, the "factual accuracy" problems of the Aegean Macedonians article are getting more and more obvious; something some users regarded as "irrelevant" for our discussion here (and I expect comments in the Aegean Macedonians talk page as well). In the aforementioned talk page, you will also see one of the problems I mentioned here above: Mixture of terms in the sources; confusion if we speak about the "Slavophones" in general or the "Macedonian" language in particular; a discussion about Slavic surnames in general (and not in particular "Macedonian" or surnames of the "Aegean Macedonians" in particular); oaths taken in three Slavic-speaking villages against their language (was the population there "Aegean Macedonian"?). For me, the merge is the only way the treatment of our topic to get at last a bit encyclopedic.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the best solution for this article is to merge with ethnic Macedonians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.50.241 (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean a merge will be only best option. Your main objective is to remove the article which clearly talks about Macedonians in Greece. An issue which the greek government claims does no exist. Well here is the truth, there are ethnic macedonians in greece. A more appropriate solution would be to have a chapter in the Aegean Macedonians page for the aegean macedonians who identify as greeks. PMK1 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The proposal makes a lot of sense and its rationale is well articulated. I also don't see any clear arguments against the merge, only stalling and off-topic rants. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against- no need of ill Greek names, let the article Slavophones to be replaced with this aegean macedonians. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is not a valid argument. We're talking about merging into one article here. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually yes it is. He believes in mergin "Slavophone Greeks" into the Aegean Macedonians Article. Now, that is a good merger. PMK1 (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not, because it automatically assumes that all slavic speakers in greece are ethnic macedonians and identify as such, which is just nationalist POV. And in any case, "no need of ill greek names" is not even coherent (what does that even mean?), so the above comment should be disregarded as nonsense. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Dont greeks refer to both slavophone greeks and aegean macedonians as "Slavophones"? PMK1 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• They usually refer to them as either Slavophones or Slavomacedonians. That's why "Slavophones of Greece" as a title makes perfect sense. In any case, the issue of the exact wording of the title is secondary. First we need to decide if the merge should happen in the first place. So far I see considerably more support for it than against it. As for the disingenuous proposition of "merging" this article with Aegean Macedonians, that just doesn't make any sense because it would be more like a deletion of this article than an actual merge. Out of the question. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition, there can be no replacement of that sort since "Slavophones" implies all Slavic-speaking Greek nationals and not just those of an "ethnic Macedonian" persuasion (who are actually a small percentage). PS: Is this actually a voting process that will be taken into account? I thought FPaS simply threw the idea on the table. 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this seems to make sense, sorry not to have time to expand on my choice. Politis (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian speakers of Greece would also be a viable alternative would it not? I mean that is the language they speak after all, isn't it? PMK1 (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. FP is right. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before merging some serious issues will have to be sorted out. once again i propose, Macedonian Speakers of Greece. Will the page show up on the {Ethnic Macedonians} template? Will the [Slavic Dialects of Greece] page be kept? What is to be done. Are we going to say they are "Macedonian speakers" or mereley "Local slavic speakers"? Come on people, or am i the first one to have thought about these issues? PMK1 (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are good questions and they need to be addressed. Here's my 2 cents. For the title, I'm sure the article will mention they speak "Macedonian" somewhere, but I don't think it needs to go in the title. I think "Slavophones of Greece" is more neutral sounding. The page should should show up in both the "Greeks" and "ethnic Macedonians" templates. As for [Slavic dialects of Greece], this proposed merge shouldn't affect it. The would-be merged article deals with the actual population, the dialect article deals with the language. Entirely separate. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agree with me. Slavophones of Greece can sound neutral but Macedonian speakers can also sound neutral. Definately the article can appear in both of the templates. I do believe that if the article mentions that they speak the Macedonian language their will be no need for the [Slavic dialects of Greece] article. I mean if the [Slavophones of Greece] are speaking Macedonian and the Pomaks speaking the Pomak Dialects there will be very little if any need for the [Slavic dialects of Greece] page. Do you agree? Also as for the dialects there are many pages dealing with the various Macedonian language dialects spoken in Greece, eg.Lower Prespa dialect, Solun-Voden dialect, Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect, Prilep-Bitola dialect and a few which have not yet been created; Nestram-Kostenar dialect etc. PMK1 (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Greece doesn't recognize ethnic minorities, Slavophone Greek means person that speak slavic language and has Greek citizenship. This includes people that have Macedonian, Bulgarian, Russian ethnic feelings, also people that belong Orthodox or Muslim religious group and in same time speaks slavic language. Aegean Macedonian is totally different concept. Aegean Macedonian are people that originate from Aegean Macedonia (Now Greek part of Macedonia) and have Macedonian national feeling (Many of them don't even have Greek citizenship). So, those two concepts are very different. The only thing in common is that some of Aegean Macedonians also belong to Slavophone Greeks group. Based on these arguments the two articles can not be simply merged since they talk about different subjects and subject types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.78.19 (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. These articles refer to the same group of people. The Aegean Sea has nothing to do with the landlocked slavic people. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Against. There are Greek citizens who recognise that they are Slavophones and they consider themselves to be nothing but Greek. They call their language Nashte (ours) which they do not label either is Bulgarian or as Makedonski. 'Aegean Maceodnians' is a term that originates outside of Greece and is not used inside it, even by (Slav) Makedonce autonomists such as the Vinozhito/Ouranio Toxo party. We might as well merge New Democracy and Pasok articles on the ground that together they form the leading parties. Politis (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Against To merge means to accept that all Slavophone Greeks have some ethnic Macedonian consciousness or belonging. This isn't a fact. Beside this Slavophone Greeks lives not only in Macedonia. One of the questions is - if we merge the articles - which would be the new title? It is impossible to be "Aegean Macedonians" becuse it is clear, that this is smaller term. In this case we must accept "Slavophone" Greeks" and define - Bulgarians-chistians and muslims, Greeks, Etnic Macedonians, Slavophone Greeks from former USSR...It would be complicated, because there are many claims to same people. --AKeckarov (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Against merging, or at least against the use of the generic linguistic term "Slavophone" for describing an etchnicity. Native language family of languages appartenance is one thing etchnicity is another.
• The term "Slavophone" describes a generic group of a family of languages appartenance, the Slavic languages, it does not specify a single language and even less a single etchnic appartenance of a population, hence referring to one etchnicity with the generic term "Slavophonic ethnicity" not even that is offensive its incorrect and unprecise. Its like refering to the different European etchnicities as "Latinofonic ethnicity".
• The term Aegean Macedonian indicates a clear etchnic identity Macedonians (ethnic group) and a specific lingustic one Macedonian language, so it fully describes the population. Alex Makedon (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support FPS's suggestion makes sense and is relevant to the ethnicity of the groups the articles describe. Walnutjk (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Against merging. The two texts are totally different. As a person with Aegean Macedonian heritage, I really disagree with FP because there is nothing Greek in the Aegean Macedonians. In my long family tree NOBODY speaks Greek mainly because they were exiled in the 50s. There were too many Aegeans slaughtered just because they didn't want to declare as Greek. Its not fair to them to merge these texts. Talking about Alexander or other political issues is not the topic of the text, so please don't mix this issue with other Macedonian-Greek disputes. There is no such thing as Slavophonic Greeks, because they were not bi-lingual, which I am living proof of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.244.249 (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you claim to be a so-called Aegean Macedonian, yet the IP address in yout signature is from Skopje. I would take your argument seriously if you were living in Greece, i.e. you're a slavophone speaker resident of Greece. But obviously your argument isn't for the group of people this discussion is about. Walnutjk (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. "Aegean Macedonian" also seems to have forgotten the alleged "persecuted"... were communists that murdered thousands of Greeks to spread their glorious righteous system... just before they (and many ethnic Greeks) were kicked to the curb. Let no good deed go unpunished. --Crossthets (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Against merging. The vast majority of Slavaphones in Greece identify as Greeks... not Aegean Macedonians (a irredentist term mostly used by groups like United Macedonia to describes a small minority of Greek citizens that identify with FYROM (based in mostly Florina. See Rainbow party election numbers for some concrete numbers of how many slavaphones actually relate to FYROM (c.3000 in Macedonia). Calling the average Slavaphone Greek "aegean Macedonian" is roughly equivalent to calling the average FYROM citizen "Northern Greek". Highly offensive. You can't change the ethnicity of someone through a Wikipedia vote. (on the positive side at least for once the vote isn't split along "sides") --Crossthets (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (update - Found video of a national broadcast of a number of Slavophone Greeks identifying themselves as ethnic Greeks... not "Aegean Macedonians". (again... self-described "Aegeans" only represent a tiny tiny minority of self-identifying Macedonians in Macedonia (Greece).--Crossthets (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The two articles are clearly a good example of what is to be avoided according to WP:POVFORK, and I think nobody has argued to the contrary. Is there a specific reason to override this guideline? I don't think so, since the guideline explicitly says: "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." It seems to me that if the articles are kept separate, it is specifically to avoid consensus building. Moreover, there seem to be overwhelming pragmatic reasons not to split the merged article into one for speakers of Macedonian and one for the Pomaks (and no compelling reason to do it). --Hans Adler (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be able to give me a link or website to a Slavophone Greek organization or group? Just out of curiosity? PMK1 (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.florina.org/ the political party of the etchnic Macedonians in Greece. They describe themselves as Macedonians and not as "Slavofones" Alex Makedon (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice website. Seems important. However the last time Rainbow Party ran... they had a whopping 3000 votes in Macedonia. Apparently the other 2,500,000 Macedonians don't agree with the 0.2% of the population amongst them (that relate to FYROM) on the issue of who are more representative of being Macedonian. Rainbow didn't run last election. Apparently they didn't have enough support or funds to do so. Perhaps the FYROM government will help them this time around with financial contributions? --Crossthets (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just something to add on the issue... if Rainbow totals represent all Slavaphones in Greece... then that would mean there is somewhere in the ballpark of 7000 or so Slavaphones in all of Greece. This seems unlikely since the Slavaphone population estimates from both Greece and FYROM sources suggest a number several multiples greater. Thus it seems a fairly straightforward deduction that the vast majority of Slavaphones in Greece do not relate to FYROM and a small minority do. We both seem to agree for once "Alex of Macedon". Merging the articles so as to make two distinct groups represent one group is a bad idea and insulting to both groups. --Crossthets (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A political party vote as a valid ethnic census... this is a new one; after inventing the "Language family Ethnicity" and a "Religion Ethnicity" now we count the Ethnic Macedonians by the votes some political party had. "the other 2,500,000 Macedonians..." i would really like to know where is this information from, given that Greece does not permit an ethnicity expression (since ofc they are all ethnic Ancient Hellens, by default) so there has not been a single census on the matter, there is not a single document where this Macedonian Identity of the Greek inhabitants is stated, and no one has specified what category this identity is under, not to mention official criteria on having this identity ...Alex Makedon (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]