Misplaced Pages

Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:19, 25 February 2014 editJingiby (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers62,415 edits Rv. not an improvement. Out of date← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:25, 8 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA
(917 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Calm}}
{{afd-merged-from|Slavic dialects of Greece|Slavic dialects of Greece (2nd nomination)|22 August 2011}} {{afd-merged-from|Slavic dialects of Greece|Slavic dialects of Greece (2nd nomination)|22 August 2011}}

{{calm talk}}
{{Old AfD multi|date= May 16, 2008 |result= '''No Consensus''' |page= Aegean Macedonians}} {{Old AfD multi|date= May 16, 2008 |result= '''No Consensus''' |page= Aegean Macedonians}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=Start|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Republic of Macedonia|class=Start|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Languages|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=|class=Start}} {{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=High|class=Start {{WikiProject North Macedonia|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Serbia|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Greece|importance=High
<!-- B-Class parameters --> <!-- B-Class parameters -->
|politics-task-force=yes
|B-Class-1=no
|B-Class-2=yes
|B-Class-3=yes
|B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-5=yes
|politics-task-force=yes|needs-infobox=yes
|topic=people}} |topic=people}}
}} }}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|b}}
{{Archive box|

* ] <small>(2008)</small>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
* ] <small>(January–July 2009)</small>
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 11
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|search=yes}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Origins) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Origins","appear":{"revid":91465881,"parentid":91421262,"timestamp":"2006-12-01T21:55:19Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":328231581,"parentid":328230947,"timestamp":"2009-11-27T16:59:47Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}} }}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{Clear}} {{Clear}}


== Previous consensus on not including "Bulgarian" in the list of languages ==
==Macedonian template==
Give me one reason why should not be included that template?--] (]) 14:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
:Because it is not related to the article. Since I have now provided you with a reason, I'll do ahead and remove it in due time. It's a shame, though, you do not use talkpages when there's a valid discussion on them. I'm talking about another revert you made earlier. Ignoring is not a good practise in some cases, you know. --'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Have you seen the template? Have you been to Lerin and Voden? Have you read the article? Please do not delete the template since the Bulgarian should be deleted too. Do I see double standards?--] (]) 14:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
::::Pfff, I thought that one was removed as well. Well, I'd prefer them both gone, but that'd be hard now, wouldn't it?--'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, you really did not see the BG template?--] (]) 14:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::Well, I had got the impression both templates were removed some time ago. What I saw was the diff in which you added the mk template. Since I'm not willing to engage in stupid edit-wars with you, I'm not removing any of them again. When you're through with your revert spree I might try and discuss it with someone willing to do so. --'''] <sup>]</sup>''' 14:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Since the article includes Greek template, it should includes templates of other Slavic people that live in Greece, in other words BG for the Pomaks and Macedonian for the Macedonians.--] (]) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
As Laveol suggests, we could just remove both templates. After all, the article is clear that their identity is controversial (even among themselves) so slapping "BG for the Pomaks and Macedonian for the Macedonians" in the relevant sections transparently serves to negate the sourced information on their identity and is POV-pushing.--] (]) 15:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Do you work together, since if it is the case it is against the rules of Misplaced Pages. I am just curious.--] (]) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

== Question about Arvanitika ==

The chart in the article shows that Arvanitika (old Albanian) is still spoken around Attiki (the area around Athens, to make things simple). But I've never met anyone who speaks Arvanitika anywhere near Athens and the surrounding towns/cities. I mean all the folks I've met around here in my whole life speak Greek. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
: That's off-topic for this page, so you might want to take this to a more appropriate article. But the short answer is: Arvanitika is only spoken by the older generation in most places; all speakers are bilingual in Greek, and they speak Arvanitika only at home, if at all. There is no doubt the language is on its way out. Literature on the topic, including surveys of how and where it is still spoken, are cited at the ] and ] articles. ] ] 20:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above and I have met older people who speak Arvanitika in Aspropigos and somewhere in north Athens, but is it not 'old Albanian' as we would say old English or German, we do not call Swiss German 'old German', it is a spoken though disappearing Albanian dialect. ] (]) 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

::Keep in mind that the map shows Arvanitika in its maximum extent in 18th century and early 19th. At that time the population of Attica was roughly around 15 - 30 thousands. The Arvanitika speakers were no more than 50% (roughly 7 - 15 thousands). After the war of independence Attica was more or less destroyed and the population was diminished. It would be quite impossible to actually find many descendent of Arvanites today even in known old Arvanitika vilages.
] (]) 11:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

== edit warring ==

Rather than blocking the disputants, I've reverted to the July version before this started and protected the article. If you are unable to work together as colleagues, then go to dispute resolution and have somebody babysit. Meanwhile, if there are non-contentious edits that need to be made, tell me here and I can add them in. — ] (]) 10:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:Okay, per request, I've unblocked and restored the latest version, with one exception per the ARBCOM ruling on the word "Macedonian". I'll copy my comments from my talk page:

:''It's not just Macedonian–Bulgarian, but it can be offensive to use the word "Macedonian" to mean Slavic in an article on Greece, where "Macedonian" just means "of Macedonia", and "Macedonian dialects" can just as easily mean '''Greek''' dialects. Given the arbitration ruling on not using the term "Macedonian" for Slavic in such situations, I don't see how the wording can be defended, and edit warring to include it is AFAIK still a blockable offense.''

:''I just scanned the article and purged it of "Macedonian" when that word was not used to mean "of Macedonia". I'm not claiming the words I chose to replace it are the best, and in some cases they were arbitrary (sometimes "Slavophone", sometimes "Slavic-speaking"; sometimes "Slavs", sometimes "Macedonian Slavs", etc.), though I hope the result is coherent. There are probably other instances I missed that need to be changed. There was a long ARBCOM battle between Greeks who insisted that we shouldn't use the word "Macedonian" even in the case of the RoM (that they speak "Skopje language" or some such nonsense), and Slavs insisting that we should use the word to mean "Slav" even within Greece. The result was that it's fine to use it to mean "Slav(ic)" in the case of the RoM, following common English usage, but not within Greece, nor when speaking of Macedonia as a whole (Greek Macedonia + the RoM), for then the term is truly ambiguous. Given the protracted and acrimonious nature of battle, I don't think there will be much tolerance for people using "Macedonian names" to mean Slavic names of villages within Greece, and this was one of the things I changed.''

:When "Macedonian" is part of the name of an organization or publication, it should of course be left in regardless of what it means. I hope that's clear, and if I've misinterpreted the Arbcom ruling, please let me know.

:I should add that as an English speaker with no Greek or Slavic connections, this is purely a clarity-of-language issue. When speaking of the RoM, we call it "Macedonia", and the word "Macedonian" obviously means "of the RoM". However, when speaking of Greek Macedonia, or historical Macedonia, the word "Macedonian" is *not* understood to mean Slavic; it's generally understood to be Greek. Thus much of the latest version of this article called Slavs "Greeks" and Greeks "Slavs", an entirely untenable situation even if it weren't for all the political nonsense that surrounds this issue. — ] (]) 14:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:::I agree there were a few instances where "Macedonia" was used, whilst "Republic of Macedonia" should have been used. I have nothing against these changes.
:::There were a few instances where you have changed "Macedonian language" to "Slavic language", and "Macedonian speakers" to "Slavophones". I do not believe that there can be any confusion with ''Greek dialects'' in this instance, given that there is only form of "Macedonian language", and this is applied consistently across Misplaced Pages.
:::"Macedonian dialects" is unlikely to be confused with "Greek dialects" for the reason above (namely, "macedonian dialects" refers to 'Dialects of the Macedonian language' and "Greek dialects" refers to 'Dialects of the Greek language').
:::In this instances where simply ] was used, I have no issues linking to "]" instead. ] (]) 14:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not revert even administrator. You do not have reached consensus. ] (]) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:My edit was explained here . Please explain your revert. ] (]) 15:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with 1920-s or 1930-s. The Slavic dialects of Greece were regarded as Bulgarian language then and the population had predominatly Bulgarian sentiments. Nor Macedonians or Macedonian language were recognised as distinct entities or existed as such, excluding some Communist circles. ] (]) 15:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:The majority of the changes I made related to the issues post-1920, so I am at odds at how you have used this to justify your revert. I have just had a look at the edit I made, and all of the changes related to post-1920 circumstances. Am I to assume, given your response, it will be acceptable to revert back to the previous edition? ] (]) 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they should be real after 1943. As you perfectly know prior to their ] in ], ] were for the most part classified as Bulgarian<ref name=foreigners>Mazon, Andre. ''Contes Slaves de la Macédoine Sud-Occidentale: Etude linguistique; textes et traduction''; Notes de Folklore, Paris 1923, p. 4.</ref><ref>Селищев, Афанасий. Избранные труды, Москва 1968.</ref><ref>K. Sandfeld, ''Balkanfilologien'' (København, 1926, MCMXXVI).</ref> and some linguists consider them still as such, but this view is politically controversial.<ref></ref><ref></ref>

:The Macedonian language is almost unilaterally recognised as a seperate language, and the only group of linguists which consider it to be Bulgarian are the Bulgarians themselves. This is considered to be a WP:FringeView. The Macedonian language did not simply appear overnight in 1944, but attempts at codification were begun in the late 1800s. Before this time the language existed yet in an non-codified form. I have appealed to you numerous times, please recognise the distinctiveness of the Macedonian ethnicity and langauge, which was not simply "created" in the 1940s as you allege. Unless this can occur you will continue to edit war based on your own personal beliefs, which at this stage do not appear to be WP:NPOV. ] (]) 15:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is not a science-fiction forum. ] (]) 15:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:Lunch, AFAIK the language *did* simply "appear" ca. 1950: language is not just reality, but the perception of that reality. Why Scandinavian is several language but German just one is perception, not the languages themselves. AFAIK there was no common perception of Macedonian as a separate language before ca. 1950. If 50 years from now everyone in the US says they don't speak English but "American", people will say that English and American are two different languages. But that doesn't mean that today they are two different languages, even though the language is about the same as it'll be 50 years from now. I may be wrong re. Macedonian, but this has been discussed elsewhere numerous times. — ] (]) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:Also, if the dialects are transitional between Mac. & Bulg, why are we IDing them all as Mac? Do they all self-ID as Mac rather than Bulg? And if they do, isn't it just as unambiguous to say 'Slav'? The title is "Slavic speakers", after all, and is presumably that way for a reason. (I'm moving to correct the punctuation.) — ] (]) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

]
::A good example explaining the relationship between Macedonian and Bulgarian, is the relationship between Portuguese and Spanish or Dutch and German. They are related, but they are innately different and this is reflected in the fact that the seperateness of the languages is almost universally recognised as real (except for in Bulgaria since 1958, before that the Macedonian language was recognised). People have been writing in the Macedonian dialects for several hundred years now, an efforts to codify the language have been since at least the 1890s.
::There is only one transitional dialects of all the dialects spoken, and that is at the very end of Greek Macedonia. The rest are also universally seen as uniquely Macedonian dialects. Take the ], which is widely spoken in Florina, Greece, yet also forms the basis for the ].
::From what I am aware there are no people that identify as Bulg., however there is a large population that identifies as Macedonian, and this is discussed throughout much of the article (Recent History, Media, Education and Language, etc.) ] (]) 03:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

'''.''..People have been writing in the Macedonian dialects for several hundred years now,..''.''' Yeah, and the Macedonian identity has been existing since then! Please, Misplaced Pages is not a forum or a place for jokes. ] (])

==Notes==
{{Reflist|}}

== Merge with Slavic Dialects of Greece ==

Any opinions regarding this merge? Most of the content already overlaps, so hopefully it wont be too controversial a process. ] (]) 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

== Fix redirect ==

{{edit protected|Ethnic Macedonians of Greece|answered=yes}}

Please fix the double redirect on ] present to the following:

<pre>#REDIRECT ]</pre>

Thanks. Cheers, <span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-weight:bold;">—] (]/])</span> 03:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

== Merging ==
Lunch for Two, merging does not mean pushing cheap nationalistic propaganda over the article and changing it drastically. Do not rewrite it. You are not authorised from the communiry. Only merge, or you will be reverted. ] (]) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

: Huh? He doesn't need "authorization" to edit an article. If you find something objectionable, the usual rules about dispute resolution and edit-warring apply. ] ] 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Authorization for drastical rewriting = consesus after discussion on the talk page + reliable sources. ] (]) 06:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
: ] applies. If you object to something, the onus of initiating discussion is on you. Name specific points you disagree with, not blanket assertions of overall bias. ] ] 06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am objecting this article to be rewritten drastically and this to happen simultaneously with mass deletion of content and sources, without consesus was reached or discussion was held. ] (]) 06:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
: Your objection is not actionable as long as you don't say what ''specifically'' you object to. ] ] 06:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol! What about this passage:

''Members of the group have professed a range of ethnic and linguistic identities since their incorporation into Greece in 1913. Before incorporation into Greece the speakers generally espoused either a ] or ] identity. Various academics of the time also generally had conflicting views on the topic of self identification during this period. ] for example writes in ] that ''"The local Bulgarians and Vlachs who live in the area of Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and the surrounding nations also call them Macedonians."''<ref>V. Kanchov, Orohydrography of Macedonia, 1911, p 1.</ref> ''The community is today split between those with an ethnic Grek and an ethnic Macedonian identity. Of those that left Greece as refugees or immigrants following the civil war, almost all have an ethnic Macedonian identity.''<ref>Cowan, Jane K. (2000). Macedonia: the politics of identity and difference. Sydney: Pluto Press. pp. 93.</ref> Within most contexts these people are known as ''Aegean Macedonians'' ({{lang-mk|Егејски Македонци, ''Egejski Makedonci''}}) both inside and outside Greece. These people refer to themselves as ''Dópia'' ({{lang-el|Δόπια}}) or ''Tukašni'' ({{lang-mk|Тукашни}}), which translates to ''Locals'', as distinct from the ] immigrants which arrived in the region in the 1920s.

The rest of the changes is rich on the same pseudo-scientific and nationalistic biases. The stabile version bevore that POV above has stated:

''Predominantly identified as ] until the early 1940s'',<ref>.</ref><ref></ref> ''since the formation of a Macedonian nation state, many of the migrant population in the diaspora (Australia, America and Canada) have a strong Macedonian identity and have followed the consolidation of the ] ethnicity.''<ref></ref> ''However, those who remain in Greece, now mainly identify nationally as ethnic Greeks'',<ref></ref><ref></ref> although, it should be noted, that though the Macedonian region is overwhelmingly inhabited by ] including descendants of ], it is ethnically diverse (including ], ] and ]).

And more. Up until about one hundred years ago, the Slav population of Macedonia was universally considered to be Bulgarian. Since then, however, a number of different theories have been advanced, theories which are mutually exclusive but which have as their common denominator a desire to convince the Macedonian Slavs and the world at large that they are not Bulgarian, but something else. Since, however, contemporary sources make it unequivocally clear that, during the period untill 1940-s, the Slavs of Macedonia both regarded themselves predominantly as Bulgarian and were regarded as such by the world at large, the term 'Macedonian' is not used here only in the general geographical sense, but to push here the pseudo-scientific ideas of the ]. ] (]) 07:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

:Firsly if you only object to that passage, why add a whole string of reverts to it. And Secondly, what I wrote only condensed the section down and made the wording less complicated. Furthermore what do you object to the edit itself? It mentions that some people identified as Bulgarians and some as Macedonians, even V. Kanchov mentions that people identified themselves as that. The rest simply goes on to mention that now there are those identifying as ethnic Macedonians and those as identifying as ethnic Greeks and the terms used to refer to themselves were also listed.
:Your conduct across various articles makes it apparent that it is not the words being used to express ideas which you opposed to (which would bring in WP:OR, WP:RS, etc.) but it is the whole concept being discussed that you cannot fathom and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason for senseless reverts. Maybe you ought to click "edit" and better the articles rather than simply "undo" all the time. ] (]) 07:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
::*Don't forget Jingiby, I opened up a comment section here a week ago asking users interested in the merge to put their input in and to generate the "consensus" you so often use. You chose not to comment and have neither did you assist with the merger between the two articles. ] (]) 12:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

::::I agree with Jingiby that the latest edits are problematic. There is a strong "Ethnic Macedonian" POV running throughout. For example, gone is the (sourced) sentence "However, those who remain in Greece, now mainly identify nationally as ethnic Greeks", which we all know is the case, and it is replaced with "Many who have remained in Greece now an ethnic Greek identity or have rejected both ethnic affiliations. Nonetheless many still living in Greece have retained their ethnic Macedonian identity." Rather than acknowledge the fact that the number of those with an ethnic Macedonian consciousness nowadays is tiny (~10,000 by most estimates, witness the dreadful performance by Rainbow in elections), we get vagueness and "many". What's many? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Also gone is "and the smallest group is made up of those who have a clear ] ].", even though again this is sourced. Also gone is any reference to the Bulgarian language, instead we get "Various ] are spoken in the region of Greek Macedonia." All of a sudden it's Macedonians this, Macedonians that, even though most members of the group this article covers do ''not'' identify as ethnic Macedonians. I think what's going on is an attempt to slowly re-write the article a way so that it is all about ethnic Macedonians, then once that is achieved go for renaming it to "Aegean Macedonians". In other, an attempt to re-create the deleted ] by the back door. Then there is the question of how these edits were implemented. They were rammed through in a single edit without so much as an edit-summary . Fine, ] maybe. But ] does not call for avoiding edit-summaries and then edit-warring . In such instances, WP:BOLD rapidly turns into ]. We all know this is a highly contentious subject. Ramming through major changes is bad enough, doing so without an edit summary is completely unacceptable. Lunch for Two, it is quite clear that several editors have issues with your changes. Trying to impose them by force is hopeless. The sensible (and only) thing to do is propose your changes in the talkpage. And please no false claims of consensus in an attempt to justify relentless slow-revert warring as here . ] (]) 17:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::Athenean, I am happy to discuss the changes made. Maybe instead of a simple revert constructive editing will provide some benefit to the article (and this is not in reference to you). Elections do not replace censa, which tell us the true number of people wishing to be identified as such. Claiming that there are only 10,000 Macedonians because thats how many voted for Rainbow is like saying only 1% of Canadian are interested in the Environment because that is how many votes the Green Party got. There is no way of identifying the exact number of people with this identity and with that identity, people can estimate (and that is what all of these figures are) and the estimates have to be reflected, however to used words such as "there are X number of people with an ethnic Macedonian identity" is misleading as we don't really know how many there are (neither do the researchers). I would be keen to see an estimate from these researches pertaining the 2010s and not the 1990s, I suspect that the estimates would be somewhat different.
:::::In regards to the merge with ] and the supposed omission of the Bulgarian language, this is due to the fact that Bulgarian was spoken by the ] in Thrace (not "slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia"), and I merged the relevant section across at Pomaks#Greece. My edit in this section reflected linguistic classification and underneath the wide variety of terms Slavika/Dopia/Makedonski/Po Nashe/Starski etc. were all listed. To assert that only the word "Macedonian" was used doesn reflect the next paragraph where the issues regarding local identification with the langauge were highlighted. Furthermore, you have attacked me for the merge, yet I have not seen you take any interest in merging the two articles.
:::::As for the discussion at ], me and PB92 reviewed all of the sourced I mentioned and highlighted the flaws and acceptable parts of what was previously written. The text was then modified to provide some form of consensus between the 2 parties involved, nonetheless it was still reverted. You are more than welcome to participate in the dicussion pertaining the usability and validity of the sources at ]. ] (]) 03:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::Regarding the number of people that identify as ethnic Macedonians, while there is no census data, there are estimates in the literature. All of these estimates hover around the ~10,000 range, so there is good reason to believe that figure. It's not perfect, but it's good enough. Claiming "there is no data, so we have to be as vague as possible" is disingenuous and is not going to work. Before anything else, I want this issue closed. Your refusal to accept this figure and insist on vague language and innuendo is a big part of the problems we're having, and makes it very hard to assume good faith. ] (]) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::: The assertion "there are X number of people with an ethnic Macedonian identity" is of course wrong, and i haven't seen anyone inserting or explicitly supporting such a thing. Lunch is right when describing the situation as volatile, and that's primarily because of the "middle group", which is more open το cultural and ethnic incentives from the other side of the border and at the same time is not caught inside the highly polarized national perspectives of any of the two (or three) countries. That said, if there were researchers doing fieldwork right now in the area how do you expect they would estimate the number of ethnic Macedonians ? The current estimate is an upward projection of the Rainbow's votes, it is clearly stated in the sources. These figures haven't risen at all. What would be the other option for them ? Summing up memberships to local cultural associations with an ethnic Macedonian agenda included in their activities wouldn't produce a higher result i think, and its accuracy wouldn't be better anyway, as, pertaining to the aforementioned polarization, we are talking about a conscious sociopolitical choice, which is better reflected through affiliations to a clearly political institution. To give an example so that i'm better understood, the frontman of Rainbow, Voskopoulos, is a first cousin of the former head of Florina prefecture, who has made it clear with his statements relating to the issue that he espouses an ethnic Greek identity. The comparison with the Green Party in Canada is of course not representative (following Lunch's Spanish-Portuguese example in a previous discussion relating to the Macedonian-Bulgarian differences which was even worse, try Danish-Norwegian or Russian-Belarusian and you're close), the obvious difference is that almost all parties in Canada have, to some degree, an environmental protection agenda, which is high in the country's priorities. On the other hand, no other Greek party except from Rainbow, has a Macedonian ethnonational agenda, like most Canadian parties don't support a greater autonomy or secession of Quebec. --] (]) 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with you also Ip. It is hard to judge how people define their ethnicity especially given the lack of recognition/assistance the Greek state provides to those identifying as non-Greeks (and I extend this to the manner in which Greek censa are conducted). However a lot has changed in the past 20 years, especially regarding greater freedoms which have been extended to people living in Greece. Unlike in the time during which the estimates were made, there are now numerous ethnic Macedonian organisations (there are groups for example which have split off from Rainbow and now conduct their own affairs, publish their own newspapers, etc.), classes have been started at a local level to teach the language, ethnic Macedonian folkloric groups from Greece now tour the R. of Macedonia and the diaspora, several newspapers exist (the most succesful of which prints 20,000 copies and is reportedly widely distributed) and there are now elected officials who declare themselves to be Macedonians and promote the recognition of ethnic minorities. You only have to look at ] to see expression of identity in action (something which in the 1990s polarised communities such as in ] , however is now much more mainstream). Furthermore from what I have read there is now a greater discernable distinction made in Greece between someones "ethnicity" and "nationality" which perhaps didn't exist before (from what I have read). ] (]) 11:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
:Well, thank you for agreeing but where are you going exactly with what you're writing ? Are you proposing a shift of framework in which we deal with this article's subject ? These reports on the manifestations of the Macedonian ethnonational movement in Greece don't point to anywhere, unless we are already practicing wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your own personal opinion in the matter. I have already checked your sources in ] and produced a revised version there, which i think is more balanced, if others agree maybe it could be placed here as well, unaltered or with less detail. But what are we to suppose in general based on them ? You have a newspaper (a journalistic leaflet according to the editor's note) being distributed free of charge in 20.000 copies every month and supported mainly by foreign capital and another one in 1000 copies with probably local circulation in Kastoria. These numbers are logical, if we take into account a "target group" of more than 100,000, but do not lead to any conclusion about the readership. You have a report of 30 students attending unofficial language lessons in Thessaloniki and another class in Kastoria which did not have enough attendance to continue in the proceeding year. You have the Rainbow party, some activities in Meliti and a local organization in Kastoria. Please fill in the gaps if i have forgotten something important or correct me, but what do all these tell us about a change of attitude, and more importantly, about a change of scale ? These are all qualitative references on ethnic Macedonians in Greece, which are already acknowledged as a subgroup here. And a note on your last sentence, differentiating ethnicity and nationality would be very easy if Balkan states weren't build on an ethnic-nation ideology (Greece did not start like that exactly, but "had" to follow the trend). Some day, being a Greek and being an ethnic Macedonian might not be two mutually exclusive identities, and by that i'm not by all means supporting the essentialist view that there existed a Macedonian ethnonational identity/consciousness before the late 19th century, but rather that all modern nations in the area share a common heritage to some degree. Today, being an ethnic Macedonian in Greece is primarily a political/national issue, and the "local ethnos" that identify as Macedonians are distinct enough with the ethnicity that is expressed by and evolves around the neighboring nation. They are the leftovers of a past that legitimizes all views.--] (]) 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

==Ethnic rant==

Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the ] had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th,<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> up until the early 20th century.<ref></ref> It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later.<ref>], ''On the Macedonian Matters'' (''Za Makedonckite Raboti''), Sofia, 1903: "And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?"</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Sperling | first1 = James | last2 = Kay | first2 = Sean | last3 = Papacosma | first3 = S. Victor | title = Limiting institutions?: the challenge of Eurasian security governance | year = 2003 | publisher = Manchester University Press | location = Manchester, UK | isbn = 978-0-7190-6605-4 | pages = 57 |quote=Macedonian nationalism Is a new phenomenon. In the early twentieth century, there was no separate Slavic Macedonian identity }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Titchener | first1 = Frances B. | last2 = Moorton | first2 = Richard F. | title = The eye expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman antiquity | year = 1999 | publisher = University of California Press | location = Berkeley | isbn = 978-0-520-21029-5 | pages = 259|quote=On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians. ... The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Kaufman | first1 = Stuart J. | title = Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war | year = 2001 | publisher = Cornell University Press | location = New York | isbn = 0-8014-8736-6 | pages = 193|quote=The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. ... According to the new Macedonian mythology, modern Macedonians are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great's subjects. They trace their cultural identity to the ninth-century Saints Cyril and Methodius, who converted the Slavs to Christianity and invented the first Slavic alphabet, and whose disciples maintained a centre of Christian learning in western Macedonia. A more modern national hero is Gotse Delchev, leader of the turn-of-the-century Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), which was actually a largely pro-Bulgarian organization but is claimed as the founding Macedonian national movement.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Rae | first1 = Heather | title = State identities and the homogenisation of peoples | year = 2002 | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | isbn = 0-521-79708-X | pages =278|quote= Despite the recent development of Macedonian identity, as Loring Danforth notes, it is no more or less artificial than any other identity. It merely has a more recent ethnogenesis - one that can therefore more easily be traced through the recent historical record.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Zielonka | first1 = Jan | last2 = Pravda | first2 = Alex | title = Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe | year = 2001 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford | isbn = 978-0-19-924409-6 | pages = 422|quote=Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighboring nations (Greece being the most intransigent)}}</ref> However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed.<ref>Loring M. Danforth, ''The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World'', 1995, Princeton University Press, p.65, ISBN 0691043566</ref><ref>Stephen Palmer, Robert King, ''Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian question'',Hamden, Connecticut Archon Books, 1971, p.p.199-200</ref><ref></ref><ref name="Woodhouse"></ref><ref name="macedonians"></ref> Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed.<ref></ref><ref></ref> According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and ] sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed.<ref></ref> After 1944 ] and ] began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new ] and stimulating here a development of distinct ] consciousness.<ref>Europe since 1945. Encyclopedia by Bernard Anthony Cook. ISBN 0815340583, pg. 808.</ref> With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population.<ref name="Djokic">{{cite book
| last =Djokić
| first =Dejan
| title =Yugoslavism: Histories of a Failed Idea, 1918-1992
| publisher =C. Hurst & Co. Publishers
| year =2003
| pages =122 .</ref> In 1969 also the first ''History of the Macedonian nation'' was published. '''The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation.'''<ref></ref>
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: What is this rant supposed to be? A proposal of text for the article? Or just a bit of the usual talkpage soapboxing prettified with footnotes? ] ] 13:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:: Jingiby, how does this adress the issue? ] (]) 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of the history as well as manipulation of the presence, must not be placed in any article. ] (]) 14:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

All sources I have added are reliable, i.e. University Press' publications and they have countied around 50,000 Slavophones (10,00 to 100,000). Most of them, or nearly all are with Greek self-identification. ] (])
: Nobody has "counted" anything. All these sources are merely citing each other's estimates. Do you know what the difference between counting and estimating is? ] ] 17:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I did not understand you. Check here, please. The total estimate data ranges from 10,000 up: , , and so on. ] (]) 18:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

== References ==
{{Reflist}}


is the previous discussion on the matter of including "Bulgarian" in the language infobox that includes extensive linguistic references on the subject. The conclusion was that the vast majority of linguists do not include the Greek dialects in Bulgarian, but entirely in Macedonian. --] (]) 08:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
==Recommendation concerning the title of this article==
:All of the arguments that you have were made and shown to be insufficient at that time. Please don't drag this up again. It will end at the same place and we will have wasted time saying the very same things that were said two years ago. --] (]) 09:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Macedonia in Greece is not commonly referred to as "Greek Macedonia". If you exclude Misplaced Pages there are only 369 Google hits for "Greek Macedonia". I recommend that the title of this article is changed to ] or ]. <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 19:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:This article reflects the common usage in English. ] (]) 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
::The common usage is "Macedonia" and not "Greek Macedonia" and it has been so even before the English language became a dominant language. The usage of "Greek Macedonia" is scarce-at-best and as the Google hits show above. <small>] <sup>]</sup></small> 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


== May 2021 ==
== Request to change the offensive name of the article ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


Hi, without any consensus or discussion on the issue, an attempt is made to unilaterally change the title of this article and to start a biased review of the topic lead itself. This is undesirable and unacceptable. These issues have been discussed many times and raising them again does not mean that anyone can dispose of the article.] (]) 11:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: '''No move'''. There's no agreement that the proposed title is preferable to the current one. The split discussion should continue separately from the RM. ] ]/] 16:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello. I added content with reliable sources. Why has it been removed? Unexplained removal of sourced content is unacceptable.
----
This article should reflect the view point of academics and human rights organizations, who recognize the ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece. It’s unacceptable that this article is trying to call them by anything other than their accepted name, and parrot the viewpoint of the government. ] (]) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


:This issue is addressed in the topic, but not in the introduction. It is revealed in the relevant section called Past discrimination. This topic is extensive and covers a period of a century, not of several years, which is suggested by such biased changes with which I do not agree. It is clear that this is ]. ] (]) 14:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
----
] → {{no redirect|Slavs in Greece}} –


Given that this article is about the Macedonian minority of Greece, I think there should clearly be a sentence in the lead describing the human rights situation, given that it is encompasses something as serious as denying their existence. It is not in the past, but continues to this day, unless you can provide sources that state otherwise.
In the way I see it ''Slavic speakers'' is only a translation of the Greek ''Σλαβόφωνοι'', a nationalist Greek word that denies the existence of minority people in Greece. The word means that the indigenous Slav population of Northern Greece does not exist and that it is Greek "but with a Slavic language" as it's described by many Greek nationalist politicians. Maybe under the eyes of Greeks the title of the article is just fine, but under the perspective of the Bulgarians and also Macedonians it's a provocation. It's a fact that Slavs have always settled here, we can see that from many ethnographic projects made over the history till today, we can see that from the separate cultures, languages etc.


You didn’t address the naming issue. All the reliable sources I provided refer to this minority by their name. There is agreement in academic and human rights circles that they speak the Macedonian language, which is even acknowledged in this article itself. There is therefore no reason to not refer to them as “Macedonians.” I find it unacceptable that this article seems to deny their ethnic identity, in agreement with the Greek government. ] (]) 15:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has not got a goal to be provocative, and that's why it should be not. I'm sure that other "Wikipedians" share my opinion for this article to be changed into a different name (like the one I have recommended ''Slavs in Greece'') that would not have offensive words like "Slavophones", "Slavic speakers" etc. in the title.
:What the rticle states at the moment differs sharply from your claims. The text is well sourced: ''Members of this group have had a number of conflicting ethnic identifications. Predominantly identified as Macedonian Bulgarians until the early 1940s, since the formation of a Macedonian nation state, many of the migrant population in the diaspora (Australia, United States and Canada) now feel a strong Macedonian identity and have followed the consolidation of the Macedonian ethnicity. However, those who remain in Greece now identify themselves mainly as ethnic Greeks.'' ] (]) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:There is no consensus in academic circles that Macedonian Slavic is even a language, and not a dialect of Bulgarian. What is generally agreed is that South Slavic traditionally forms a dialect continuum, and that Macedonian Slavic and Bulgarian (and occasionally Torlakian) are part of Eastern South Slavic, either being considered different languages within that group, or different dialects of the same language. There is no clear definition of the term "language", and similar issues exist, for example, regarding the categorisation of Galician. Any other more specific claim, without the introduction of a new framework where a clear definition of language is made, is only political. Members of the minority self-identify either as Greeks, Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, or simply "Macedonians"/locals in the geographical sense. The current title of the article is the most inclusive one and the one used most often outside Misplaced Pages. The Greek government usually uses the term "Slavic-speaking Greeks", not "Slavic speakers of (Greek) Macedonia". --] (]) 16:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


The citation used for the claim that they identify as ethnic Greeks clearly states that this minority speaks the Macedonian language, specifically “The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World” in page 116. It refers to the population as speaking Macedonian, and referring to themselves as Macedonians. It also states that many identify as Greek and Macedonian, and that some only identify as Macedonian. Nothing here contradicts the claim that they are Macedonians. So I can add this source to my list of sources.
--- ] ] 10:16, 05 January 2013 (CET) 11:16, 05 January 2013 (UTC)
Either way, that they had conflicting ethnic identities decades ago is not very relevant Macedonians right now, who identify as such. If a minority of the group doesn’t identify as Macedonian, this only supports the claims of human rights organizations that the Greek government is attempting to erase their identity. But we ought to call them by their proper name, as stated in all the reliable sources I provided. There is consensus that the language (or dialect, if you wish) they speak is called Macedonian, and even the Greek government has recognized the Macedonian language, while continuing to deny the existence of this minority. ] (]) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:Please stop trying to interpret the sources completely contradictory or exactly as it tells you. Many of these people have never felt themselves as ethnic Macedonian. Neither in the past nor today. ] (]) 16:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:I will add that "Macedonian" doesn't necessarily mean "ethnic Macedonian". Many Greeks identify as Macedonian, while having nothing to do with Macedonian Slavs. The fact that they are plainly called "Macedonians" in Misplaced Pages only intensifies this confusion. --] (]) 18:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


Jingiby, I am not giving a crazy interpretation of the source, and I don’t want to copy the sentences word by word as I can’t do that on Google Books. But still, you implied that the book “The Macedonian Conflict” contradicted my claim that they are called Macedonian, by saying that it calls them Greek. The reality is that page 116 of the book explicitly says that many identify as both Macedonian and Greek, and that some only identify as Macedonian. In either case, they identify as Macedonian. Please read page 116 of the book, and also all the sources I provided. The claim that many of them have never felt Macedonian is just wrong.
*'''Oppose''' the title has, IIRC, been debated to death, and the present article covers a very specific set of people, not all Slavs who ever lived in Greece (] and ], anyone?). In addition, the nominator's account positively screams of ]... ] ] 09:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::: {{comment}} Can you please define those specific kind of people, please? Because I don't understand you, your giving me a denial of my earlier assertion without arguments, you don't have arguments. What is this, some Slavic tribes that don't exist and God knows if they ever existed or not. We're talking about the Slavs as a whole, no matter where they are, and since there are a very little living in Southern Greece they made an article about Slavs in Macedonia (where they are mostly concentrated, thats why there is not other article about Slavs in Greece). In order for this article not to have nationalist, irredentist elements from both sides I asked for a move. ] ] 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::: Your proposal would make sense if a) Slavic presence in Greece were confined to Macedonia and hence "Slavs of Greece" would be coterminous with "Slavs in Macedonia" (it isn't) and more importantly b) if the Slavic-speakers of today felt themselves demonstrably to be Slavs and Slavs alone (i.e. Serbs, Bulgarians, "Macedonians" or whatever else). As it is, this was not the case in the 19th and early 20th century, when nationalism was running rampant (just check any of many dozen studies on the fluidity of "national" self-perception at the time, or simply the case of ]), and is not the case now. Similarly, a ] doesn't have to have Turkish origin or even identify as a Turk. Equating "Slavic-speaker" with "Slav" might ''seem'' straightforward, but these are the Balkans, and nothing like this ever is around here, and 99 out of a 100 times anyone who proposes getting rid of nuances in ethnonyms has an agenda of his own. BTW you would help your case if you did not utter complete nonsense like "some Slavic tribes that don't exist and God knows if they ever existed or not" for the well-attested Slavs of S. Greece, as well as the incredible "It's a fact that Slavs have ]". ] ] 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::: Well if we can't say that Slavs were always on the Balkan, I guess we must say that ] - Hahahahaha. Firstly, I would like to point out that Macedonians Bulgarians and Serbs are Slavs together, and since the Greek Government does not recognize and does not reveal the true numbers of those separate Slavic ethnic group we can only call them Slavs as a whole. Secondly, I would point at the recognizion of Slavs by the Greek Government in ] with the printing of the ]. Yours truly] ] 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::::And how does any of this refute what I wrote above? We are not discussing the morality of the Greek government's policies towards minorities here, but the best, most accurate and neutral way to refer to a very specific group of people. The point is that you equate "Slavic speakers" with "Slavs" in terms of an ethnic identity, and that in itself is unacceptable because it obliterates all the finer nuances and distinctions of self-identification among them. ] ] 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


And Antondimak, I don’t know much about ethnic Greek Macedonians, or if that is even a real, distinct Greek group with a distinct culture. If they are, then if you’d like we can distinguish the Macedonians in this article from them by calling them a South Slavic group. ] (]) 19:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm not sure I follow the proposer's logic here, and wonder if he really isn't reading something into the article title that isn't there. If it's good enough for ] and ] (a self-chosen title), wouldn't ] be equally acceptable in this case? Nobody ever suggests that the Swedish/Finnish title is the result of nationalist or xenophobic bias, and I fail to see how ''Slavic speakers'' can be classed as ''offensive'' (quite the contrary, ''Slavs'' would probably be more offensive as it suggests ethnicity rather than a linguistic minority, which some members of that linguistic minority may not wish to be labelled with). ] (]) 09:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:That's the problem you seem to not be well versed in this topic, which is notoriously confusing, with state actors purposefully promoting this confusion in the past. I haven't read the source, but when somebody is said to identify as "both Macedonian and Greek", it most probably means they identify as ]. --] (]) 21:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
:::{{comment}} The fact is, my friend, that all of these communities you have carefully selected for us are officially recognized by their governments by those names under agreement. The Slavs of Greece are '''NOT''' recognized by the Greek Government (as if they don't exist) and the name that is chosen for this article is leaning on the provocative given name to the Slavs by the Greek nationalists. When theres no official name we just have to call them ''Slavs of Greece''.] ] 10:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Slavs of Greek Macedonia? Greek Slavs? — ] (]) 09:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::{{comment}} Just like there are ]s, ] etc. They are Slavs but citizens of Greece. What's so hard to understand? ] ] 10:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This article is not about the Slavs in Greece in general, but about the Slav-speaking (non-immigrant) inhabitants of (Greek) Macedonia (whether they self-define as Slavs or Greeks or "locals" or whatever). --] (]) 16:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::Agreed that the proposed name is the wrong topic, but the current title suggests that topic. I doubt one reader in a thousand is going to understand that "Slavic" doesn't mean "Slavic". — ] (]) 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' or -- ] This is a highly politically contentious subject, because the Greek government seems to deny the possibility that theri country contains this ethnic minority. It also seeks to dney the eixistience of the independent Republic of Macedonia, insisting that its name is Skopje. This seems to be an unresolved dispute, arising form the Balkan wars about a century ago. The nom seeks to imply that this is about Slavs in Greece generally (which would include migrant workers), but that would blur the subject. ] (]) 16:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


I am well versed on the South Slavic ethnic group known as Macedonians. You can tap on the source, which is , and see what he himself says on page 116. He is obviously not talking about Greek Macedonians, he is referring to the minority that speaks the Slavic Macedonian language. He divides this group of Macedonian speakers into two groups: those that identify as both Macedonian and Greek, and those that identify only as Macedonian.
== Splitting ==
{{Split-apart|Slavs in Greece|Slavic dialects of Greece|Slavophones}}


It is, of course, not surprising that minorities will often refer to their nationality as that of the country they live in, like Chinese Uyghurs, African Americans, Azeri Iranians. In any case, this and all the other sources I provided refer to this minority by their proper name: Macedonian. And as I said, if you wish to distinguish them from the ethnic Greek Macedonians, we can simply refer to them as South Slavic in the article. Is this agreeable to you? ] (]) 21:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
This article has been a matter of controversy from the beginning. We have a mixed situation where we can't find an END of the discussions that are made. The name ''Slavic-speakers'' as it is given doesn't give a real picture what does the article tell. Are ''Slavic-speakers'' just ''Slavophones'' (''{{lang-el|Σλαβόφωνοι}}'') the Greek word used to describe those who have the Slavic as a mother language as Greeks who have accepted the Slavic language, are forced to speak Slavic etc. All in all Slavophones in Greek politics means Hellenes by heritage that speak the Slavic language for some strange reason. Also there are a number of Slavic people with Greek self-awareness that proclaim themselves as "slavophones". Σλαβόφωνοι in translation means "speakers of Slavic", so (as you can apparently see) the name of the article lies on a Greek nationalist ethnic provocation.
:Everything important and basic on the topic has already been written. Attempts to interpret it in a new way, after 15 years of discussing and reaching a compromise, are simply provocative and one-sided. The lack of balance and neutrality by this attempt is obvious. I strongly oppose its next politicization. ] (]) 02:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
::Page 116 of source 96 isn't available to me (the preview only goes up to 90). Regardless, as I said there are four identities in the region, Bulgarian, Greek, ethnic/Slavic Macedonian, local Macedonian/dopia. The name you are proposing, either with the explanation or not, isn't inclusive enough, not now and especially not for the whole history of the region, which the article describes (in the past there was even a not insignificant Serbian identity). --] (]) 08:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
:::], you can try to check the content . You will see that our statements are much closer to the opinion of the author, than the claims of the editor who is trying to change the title of this article. ] (]) 08:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


Dear Wiki Users, I admire your thorough research and ardent contributiion. But beware - be objective and keep the encyclopedism of Misplaced Pages. There are no correct readings of historical events, we shall try to present all points of view and let the reader decide especially today when general speaking is outdated. I propose that this Talk: page shall be summarized and added to the article itself as it also shows effective points of view of empathetic people and is valuable to tracking data change. Best regards,] (]) 10:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
First, we can't just call the Slavic residents of Greece ''Slavic-speakers'' when there existence in denied by the Greek Government and their community doesn't even have an official name for which to call on.


Jingiby, a compromise cannot deny a minority its recognized name and existence.
Second, we can't call all Slavs in Greece ''Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia'', because there's a large number of Slavs that not reside in Greek Macedonia, but in the other regions of Greece as well.
There is no lack of balance my friend. You seem to be hostile to this, but I provided numerous sources, which I encourage you to consider!


Antondimak, you say there are four identities, and that this therefore isn’t “inclusive enough.” But why should it be inclusive to people who don’t identify as Slavic Macedonian? Obviously, this group isn’t inclusive to ethnic Greeks, Serbians, or Bulgarians, who are different ethnic groups. This group speaks, as the article says, a language that is known as Macedonian everywhere else. I’ll quote the book mentioned before:
We need to split this abnormal article into three totally different articles to achieve order. We need to have one about the Slavs in Greece (no matter from which region of the country they live), the Slavic dialects of Greece (dialects of the Slavic language, sometimes considered dialects of Macedonian, sometimes of Bulgarian), and one about Slavophones the Slavic people with Greek self-awareness.] ] 12:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
“Of the 53,000 inhabitants of the district of Florina, 65 percent according to one Greek estimate, refer to themselves as ‘locals,’ or ‘local Macedonians.’ In addition to Greek, most of these local Macedonians speak Macedonian.” It goes on the say that they identify as Macedonian, and if you keep reading the next few pages, it describes the efforts of local Macedonian human rights activists in raising awareness for the Macedonian minority and getting recognition from the Greek government. Given that there obviously, indisputably is a self-identified Macedonian minority that speaks Slavic Macedonian, which is backed by various sources, we must call them as such in this article, and reserve a sentence in the lead about human rights concerns, since that is a big issue that continues to this day.
*'''Oppose'''. This article isn't about Russians in Athens or Poles in Salonika. It is about the non-immigrant community in Greek Macedonia that speaks Macedonian/Bulgarian. It is about one specific group of Slavs in Greece. Do we need an article that covers Slavic immigrant communities in Greece? No. We don't have articles on the many tens of thousands of immigrant communities scattered around the world. An article on the Slavic diaspora might be appropriate where Slavic immigrant communities throughout the world might be covered, but having a separate article for each immigrant community in each country is ridiculous. --] (]) 13:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::{{comment}} Still Slavic-speakers doesn't identify nor Bulgarians, nor Macedonians.] ] 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


*'''Oppose'''. The Pomaks, who are the another native Slavic speaking minority in Greece are excluded. ] (]) 14:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) And Litev, thanks for your input! I agree with you that the view of them and the Greek government should also be mentioned in the article. ] (]) 17:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
: What the source say is something different and is as follows: ''The majority of these local Macedonians have been fully Hellenized and have a Greek national identity. They say that they are Macedonians and Greeks, they are Greek Macedonians.'' Moreover this article clearly and simply states: ''"Slavic speakers" or "Slavophones" is also used as a cover term for people across the different ethnic orientations. The exact number of the linguistic minority remaining in Greece today, together with its members' choice of ethnic identification, is difficult to ascertain; most maximum estimates range around 180,000-200,000 with those of an ethnic Macedonian national consciousness numbering possibly 10,000 to 30,000. However, as per leading experts on this issue, the number of this people has decreased in the last decades, because of intermarriage and urbanization; they now number between 50,000 and 70,000 people with around 10,000 of them identifying as ethnic Macedonians.'' In this situation, trying to push the idea that these people are mostly ethnic Macedonians is, to say it mildly, incorrect. It is obvious that 80-90% of these people are Greek conscious. The term ''Macedonian'' also means Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, etc. All of these meanings are older then ''ethnic'' Macedonian, which gained poularity after WWII. Thanks. ] (]) 02:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
:::{{comment}} I would not like to think of the Pomaks as such a distinctive ethnic group, all in all they're still Bulgarian.] ] 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:Just adding from another source. On page 142 in Clogg (ed.) ''Minorities in Greece'' (2002) , it says {{tq|Today, most of the school children no longer speak Slavic, and the vast majority of the Slavic-speaking (and formerly Slavic-speaking) population identify themselves with the Greek national collectivity.}} --] (]) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Taivo and Jingiby. In addition, the proposed article "network" will be completely confusing to the users who want to learn something from wikipedia. --] (]) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::I might be redundant at this point but I'd add that I also find any attempt to move the page to "Macedonian minority/people/etc" -- anything that implies a ''Macedonian'' identity on the model of the state identity of North Macedonia as applied to ''all recently Slavic descended individuals in the region'' -- to be problematic. "Slavic speakers" is problematic too but it's the least awful option presented thus far. --] (]) 22:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
:::{{comment}} In what meaning would you describe that "confusing"?] ] 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Confusing in the sense of "Where do I find what I am looking for among all these articles?". --] (]) 16:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::That's not a good enough reason for this maze of an article not to be divided that tells about the Slavs in Greek Macedonia, then somebody says it doesn't tell about the Slavs it's about Greek Slavophones, then someone has writen about Bulgarians, Macedonians,................. If this isn't confusing as it is...WHAT IS?] ] 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Jingiby, you have not contradicted anything I said by quoting the book. In other words, these Slavic Macedonians also identify as Greek. Yet, they are STILL Macedonians. The author clearly states that this group of Slavic Macedonians is divided into those that identify as both Greek and Macedonian and those that only identify as Macedonian. Either way, there is undeniably a self-identified Macedonian minority in Greece.
:::Just my point, this article is about ''Slavophones'' thats why we need to make a separate article on Slavs in Greece.] ] 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


It’s funny that you quote Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Have you looked at the sources? To quote from source , “Greece denies the existence of a Macedonian minority within its border, despite evidence that there is a small number, perhaps 50,000, whose linguistic and cultural aspirations are repressed.”
Slavic Macedonians of Greece? I agree that "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" doesn't really say what the article is about. A Russian immigrant would qualify for that description. — ] (]) 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Dawisha, Karen; Parrott, Bruce (1997). Politics, power, and the struggle for democracy in South-East Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 268
:The problem is that "Slavic" is what the language continuum Macedonian-Bulgarian is called in Greece (). Calling it Macedonian runs the risk of the "FYROM" nonsense from Greeks and the fact that the eastern end is more "Bulgarian" than "Macedonian". Calling this language "Slavic" in Greece simply bypasses all those problems as well as being based on a reliable source in Ethnologue. It's actually specific. --] (]) 05:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
::Citizens of Macedonia are Macedonians, aren't they? Doesn't matter which language they speak. Not calling the language anything.
::Since when do we go by what the Greeks call these things? The normal English meaning of "Slavic speakers" is speakers of Slavic languages. Not specific at all. Maybe "Slavic inhabitants of Greek Macedonia"? Something that specifies who we're talking about. — ] (]) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
:::This isn't a new discussion here and that issue has been brought up before. "Slavic speakers of Macedonia" isn't "what Greeks want to call these things", but the result of discussions among participating editors at the time. "Slavic" satisfied many more problems than any other option and since it is based on a reliable source, it was deemed the most neutral solution. And in the context of Greece, it is specific. "Slavic inhabitants" doesn't address your objection any better. Ethnicity in the Balkans is much more intimately tied to language use than it often is in other parts of the world. --] (]) 07:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


Another reason Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, because what is written is often contradicted by its own sources.
:"Slavic speakers of Macedonia" is inaccurate in that it excludes Slavs who don't speak "Slavic languages" and now just speak Greek. Don't we also actually have Greeks who speak one of the Slavic languages without being Slavs? Are these included or excluded? I.e. whoever doesn't speak the language, is no more an ethnic minority, but is just Greek? This is what "Slavic speakers of Macedonia" actually means. For clarity, we should also specify "Greek Macedonia" as there is another "Macedonia" as well. Same would apply for when we say "Turkish speakers in Greece". There are Turks in Greece who don't speak Turkish but speak just Greek. There are also, as odd as it may sound, ethnic Greeks who speak Turkish. There are Kurd Greeks who do speak Turkish but are not Turks. So "Turkish speakers" (Turkophones) is biased just like "Slavic Speakers" (Slavophones). We have Slavs, regardless of whether they speak one of the Slavic languages or not. I support the title '''Slavs in Greece''', with obviously a clear and extensive section consecrated to the Slavs in "Greek Macedonia" discussed within that general page. The present page can be expanded to include all Greece. probably that way it will be less contentious for everybody. ] (]) 10:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 10:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::This article isn't about "Slavs in Greece", it's about one clearly-defined ethnic minority in Greek Macedonia only--those who speak dialects of the Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum that is called "Slavic" in Greece. Your attempts to broaden the scope of the article simply show that you don't know what the article is about and don't really care as long as your attempts to defocus attention from a single group defined by the language they speak are successful. --] (]) 19:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I know exactly what the article is about. But the way the article is developed till now, it is riddled by so many idiosyncracies that boggles the mind. So let me get this straight. We are speaking about a rigid set of people that you narrowly want to identify, in a rigid (limited) plot of land (specified very clearly in the article). The moment they move into some other provincial Greek region, out of necessity or practicality, suddenly their identity disappears or is none of our, or the article's concern, right? Even further, they are clearly identified as "Slavic SPEAKERS" and no integration is involved and none (I am thinking about their newer generations) has lost or will be losing their ability to be "Slavic speaking" to become let's say for argument sake "Greek speaking"... (though still keeping keeping their "ethnic Slavic origins"... This is about a type of a static people who lack mobility or never ever can or want to move and are just stuck in this specific area with this specific language (so to speak).... Furthermore, it is their "proximity" to Bulgarian or Macedonian lands is what is actually being discussed and focussed upon ... This is what your defense of the present very rigid and puzzling terminology leads to, for any general reader. Unless that is that one has so much expertise in this, he/she probably never even needs to read the Misplaced Pages page to further explore... Again, I come back to my proposal. I suggest a broader less rigid concept, with sections more area-specific developed within such a general article. The way the article is now doesn't allow for such a flexible approach and thus all the cautionary comments you are getting from so many other colleagues as well. ] (]) 09:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) ] (]) 10:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Agree that there's nothing to split, but this illustrates the problem with the title. Hardly any English speaker is going to understand the idiosyncratic use of "Slavic" by Greece. The normal reading is that this article is about speakers of Slavic languages, and that isn't going to change. — ] (]) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Again we come back to a topic that has been discussed here before. The language is called "Slavic" in Greece, not "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian". --] (]) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::And if we were Greek WP, that would be fine. But we're not in Greece. And outside of Greece, that's not what "Slavic" means. It's a misnomer. — ] (]) 22:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::It's not a "misnomer". It is a word that has a different meaning in one context than it has in other contexts. Using "Slavic" here is based on a long-standing consensus between Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks as to what to call this language in this article. And the last time I checked, consensus trumped virtually everything else in Misplaced Pages. If you want to initiate another discussion on what to call this group of Macedonian/Bulgarian/Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia, go right ahead and we'll see what comes out the other end. --] (]) 06:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::And in the right context the Sun is a planet. But we'd hardly want to name an article "Sol (planet)". This title is just as confusing. I'm not requesting a move, but it should be obvious that as long as we say this article is about Slavic speakers, our readers are going to misunderstand us to mean Slavic speakers. — ] (]) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Life, and especially Misplaced Pages, is full of things we don't particularly like, but have to tolerate. The suggestion that you initiate a (separate) discussion about what to call this language in Greek Macedonia was a serious one although I sense that you took the suggestion as facetious. There are other interested editors just sitting on the sidelines watching this discussion without commenting specifically. They might have some useful input. Right now, this whole discussion about moving and splitting the article isn't going anywhere because the number of "Oppose" votes will serve as an anchor. --] (]) 11:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
'''Comment'''. This article isn't about Russians or Poles or Czechs in Greece. It is about Macedonians in Greece, the vast majority of whom live in Greek Macedonia. After rereading ], two things become rather apparent.
:*1. Misplaced Pages's manual of style concerning Macedonia is clear that "Macedonian" is the name to be used in all cases when talking about the Slavic people or language of Macedonia.
:*2. #1 applies except when "Macedonian" is ambiguous, as it is in the case of Greek Macedonia, where "Macedonian" refers both to the inhabitants who are Greek and live in Greek Macedonia and the inhabitants who are Slavic and live in Greek Macedonia, both of whom also speak "Macedonian"--one a dialect of Greek, one a Slavic language.
Those two issues are part of the problem here. That is really why we used the term "Slavic speakers" here--to avoid the ambiguity of using "Macedonian" for any group of people living in Greek Macedonia. So the key is to find a term that avoids the ambiguity of using "Macedonian" to refer to a group of people who principally live in Greek Macedonia, but aren't Greek or Greek-speaking. --] (]) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


As my sources and these additional ones above show, there is an ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece. Their existence cannot be reasonably denied, and every given source given by you and I support this.
::Yes, I agree that it's not an easy problem to address. "Slavic", however, is similarly ambiguous. Agreed that "Macedonian" alone would be completely inappropriate. My suggestions above may also be problematic, though some of them seem less ambiguous to me. — ] (]) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


And I’ll repeat once more: identifying as Greek does not mean that they can’t be ethnic Slavic Macedonians. As “The Macedonian Conflict” states, they identify as both, and some only as Macedonian. ] (]) 09:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
== Images in infobox ==
:Sorry, I do not understand any of this nonsense.] (])
A newly registred sock created an infobox for ethnic group called Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Such ethnic group did never exist. I recognized several ] born in the Ottoman Empire, who died there or in Bulgaria. They are not directly related to Greece. I recognized also several ethnic Macedonians born in Yugoslavia, who live in the Republic of Macedonia. They are also not directly related to Greece. More, part of the images are copyright infringement, without proper license and date. The are with a false author. I disagree with such way of action. P.S. It is futile to argue that the current Prime Minister of Macedonia must have a picture here. In the same way we must include a photo from the current Bulgarian President Plevneliev. He is descended from Bulgarian refugees who resettled from today's village of Petrousa in Drama regional unit, Greek Macedonia, in 1913. The Plevneliev family name refers to the Bulgarian name of the village, Plevna. ] (]) 14:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::I am afraid I have to agree with ], ], ] and ] here. The sources confirm that there is not 1 group but multiple ones. I also do believe that the current article title is the most inclusive and allows for all the groups to be covered. I am against changing the article title unilaterally like that, especially when the current article title is achieved 1) through debate, 2) by taking in account all the varying sources on the matter, 3) and with ]. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 11:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


:::{{comment}} I am not trying to suggest that they are an ethnic group. Just like in the articles of ], ], ] who are not distinctive ethnic groups but have articles I wanted to create a "memorial" that Slavs existed in Greek Macedonia in the history and so do now. I would like to apologize to ] who, by the way, has no arguments for what he's doing and promise to never put images of Slav Macedonians that played a such a great role in the Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Greek history. ] ] 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I've never understood why this article isn't split into "Bulgarians in Greece", "Ethnic Macedonians in Greece", and "Slavophone Greeks". All three groups exist and are certainly notable enough for standalone articles. The systemic discrimination against Slavs in Macedonia by the Greek government has muddied the situation to where I sort of understand why we handle all three in one article, though I do not find it to be the ideal way to present these groups. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:There was a . The question was: Should the article "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" be turned into a disambiguation page containing the following new articles?: 1. Macedonians in Greece; 2. Bulgarians in Greece; 3. Slavophone Greeks. The answer was: No! ] (]) 17:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


::I'm aware there have been discussions in the past. The only argument I see there in favor of the current situation is a supposed content forking if we were to split. The very intro sentence of this article states that the people covered in this article are a linguistic group. What about in the ethnic sense? The lead does not even mention ethnicity at all. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I think, we need a third opinion. Could anybody from other editors discuss this issue here? Thank you in advance. ] (]) 16:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::This can be fixed by mentioning all the groups on the lead. It is a must. How else readers are supposed to know what the rest of the article is about? --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 23:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:I am opposed to putting pictures of people "belonging to the group" into infoboxes at all. A quick look at other articles shows that it tends to end up in eternal fights about who belongs to the group and who is important enough to put in. --] (]) 16:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
::I would oppose any editor who is arrogant enough to put their username in bigger letters than anything else on the page just for the sake of his/her arrogance. But, I also think that photos are rather silly, unless there are actual famous people to include that English speakers in the US or Britain might recognize and say, "I didn't know X was a Greek Macedonian!" Such is not the case here so an array of photos of unknown people who played some infinitessimal role in history is really pointless. I have been involved in those debates over "Who belongs here?" and the anon editor above is quite right--they quickly devolve into "Is X really a Macedonian?", "Just because X has Macedonian parents and speaks Macedonian is s/he really Macedonian because s/he lives in New York?", "Is X really Macedonian just because s/he was born in Y town?", "Is X really famous enough to include?", etc., etc., etc. --] (]) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
:::I agree with the IP, Taivo & Jingiby. Infoboxes have this unfortunate tendency to generate controversy. In general, it is a) hard to generate a generally acceptable "representative" gallery of people for a specific group and b) in this particular case, despite its large historical section, which is necessary to understand the article, the article itself seems to focus on the Slavic-speakers ''after'' southern Macedonia came under Greek rule. Representative figures of the Slavic-speaking community would be those that have lived and acted within Greece. Including figures like Gruevski who did not grow up under Greek rule are hence irrelevant to the topic of the Slavic-speaking community in Greece, just as a German-speaker whose parents emigrated from Belgium to Germany is irrelevant to the affairs of the German-speaking community in Belgium. ] ] 21:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


::::{{ping|SilentResident|Local hero|Jingiby|TU-nor}} To be honest, if this discussion has done any good, it is elucidating the difficulties with this page's scope. I think in the future we should consider a split. Here's a few things to consider.
== Possible Changes ==
::::#. As TU-nor noted, many ''ethnic'' descendants of Slavic speakers do not speak any Slavic idiom whatsoever. Are they in scope, or not?
::::#. The page seems to include the descendants of Bulgarian and Macedonian nationals whose ancestors lived in the area? What about Turkish nationals with the same origins? Yes there are these too. The infobox lists them, as well as the analogous cases in Australia and other Western countries. If we go by the infobox's numbers, the diaspora outnumbers those in the homeland. Many of these speak neither Greek nor Macedonian (''if'' we can call the dialects of Aegean Macedonia "Macedonian", a statement with no positive or negative support in linguistics, only in politics).
::::#. ''Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia'' includes migrants into the region and their descendants. There are Bulgarian and to a lesser extent Macedonian ''immigrants'' especially in Thessaloniki . Are their children in the scope of the page?
::::#. The page excludes the Slavic speakers of West Thrace, but this seems POV -- namely, it reflects a view that subtly asserts that the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian-like while those of West Thrace are Bulgarian-like or some separate group, Pomaks, since a large percent are Muslim (however, there were once many Muslim Slavs in Greek Macedonia too -- their descendants live in Turkey). This is a valid viewpoint, but it is not the only one. It is POV.
::::#. Are we asserting that Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia constitute a ''single'' group? This seems dubious. Take the analogous case of Southeast Slavic speakers in Albania -- they are not a single group. The Gorani are different from the Gollobordas who are in turn quite different from the Slavs of Mala Prespa, to say little of the smaller but also quite distinct (if now vanishing) communities near Lin, in Boboshtica, in Vernik, and near Maqellare/Makelari. While the Slavs of Mala Prespa homogenously identify as ''Macedonian'' and those of nearby Vernik are mostly the same, this is not true elsewhere. In Gora, where they are all Muslim, most prefer to identify as Gorani, while only a minority identify as Macedonian, and others identify as Bulgarian or Albanian. Bulgarian and Albanian identities are correlated (in perhaps the same way that Romanian and Albanian identities are correlated for Vlachs in Albania -- because the more non-bordering state is not an irredentist threat.), and are strongest in the central region i.e. Golloborda; in Boboshtica and Drenova (the birthplace of the man who wrote the Albanian national anthem!) there is evidence nowadays that the Albanian identity is strong, and when non-Albanian identities were embraced in the past, the ones at play were Bulgarian and ''Polish'' (due to some local descent from Poles in the Middle Ages according to local oral history). On wiki it is largely acknowledged that Albania's Southeast Slavic speakers are not a single group -- no doubt in part because Albania itself has recognized both a Macedonian minority and a Bulgarian one. But the reality in Greece is that there are multiple identities at play there too, even if nationalists on all sides would prefer to say they are all (Slavic) Macedonians or all Macedonian Greeks -- the majority today clearly identify as Greeks, a small but significant minority identify as Macedonian, like in Albania there is also a large number of people with specific local identities akin to Gorani and Gollobordas identities, and although Bulgarian identity is largely missing today, this is not the case in the not-too-distant past. So why should we speak of a single ethnic group ''at all'' if there is no internal consensus on identity?
::::Overall, it may be more accurate in the long run to have an overarching page for rural populations of Slavic origin in northern Greece, and specific pages for each community -- like what you see (imperfectly implemented) in the Albanian case, where the Gora, Golloborda and Mala Prespa cases are quite appropriately treated as distinct, but within a broader framework. It makes little sense to artificially lump together the Slavs of Florina and Serres while excluding those of the southern Rhodopes.--] (]) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


:::::These are all highly valid points, thanks for articulating it all so well. I think your idea of treating the topic with one overarching page covering the Slavs of northern Greece (including Thrace) and then specific pages for each community is probably the best solution. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I have only recently created a Misplaced Pages account and have looked up this page. I have several "issues" with it but I do not know how to change some of the stuff/don't know if my edits would be controversial.
::::::I am in favor of a split into ], ], ] (these articles already exist in one form or another, as redirects), and so on. A split would address not just the problems Calthinus has pointed out, but also the problems the other editors also have also pointed out. If I understood right, someone here mentioned that the old discussion concluded with no consensus for split, due to POV Fork concerns, but that can't be a problem if all editors work hard to make sure that all POV concerns of all parties are addressed adequately during the split. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 16:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I'd have something in the vein of (if not exactly) ''] communities of Northern Greece'' {i.e. East South Slavic as referring to the subfamily which includes the Bulgarian standard variety, the Macedonian variety, and many other varieties which may or may not be considered "languages}. "Slavophone Greeks" seems vaguer -- it could also mean a Greek person of Soviet Greek origin who likely speaks Russian, perhaps even as his or her mother tongue. That group could comprise nearly 100,000 people. I understand that ''Slavophone Greeks'' is what is used in a (Northern) Greek context, but it can be a bit ambiguous looking at the big picture.--] (]) 16:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::That's a good point, Calthinus! I'm fine with your proposal.
::::::::Also we should not forget to add ] to the disambiguation page ]. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::As Jingiby has remarked, the current article structure has been decided in a RfC two and a half years ago, see . Before anything is done with that structure, it will need a new RfC. --] (]) 19:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


::::::::::Fair enough. I can start the process sometime in the next couple of days. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
There is one image featured in the article that shows a group dancing. My grandparents are from the Kastoria/Florina region and I am familiar with allot of the dances of Greek Macedonia, I however do not know this dance. As well as that the picture depicts a vergina sun on a red background. This alludes to the "Flag of Sovereign "Macedonia" (FYROM)" I find this quite offensive and incorrect to be portrayed as a banner at a Greek festival. Seeing as the flag for the region of Greek Macedonia is the vergina sun on a blue background.
Also in the information box on the right, under the flag of FYROM it says "Macedonia" I don't believe that to be okay as the article is on Greek Macedonia and is quite offensive to refer to FYROM as solely Macedonia.


===RFC: Splitting this article===
Please someone help me to edit this page legitimately. ] (]) 03:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
<!-- ] 04:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1624507278}}
:Macedonia is not called "FYROM" in Misplaced Pages, it is called by its own name, "Macedonia". Please read ] before you get yourself into trouble with your politics. --] (]) 09:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Should this article be split into ''Bulgarians in Greece'', ''ethnic Macedonians in Greece'', and ''East South Slavic communities of Northern Greece''? See rationale discussed just above by {{ping|SilentResident|TU-nor|Calthinus}} and myself. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Background''': The current version is the result of the discussion in November–December 2018 at ]. --] (]) 06:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''No'''. As simple is that. There is no clean delineation between those categories even in real life, let alone in the available literature, so that the proposal is a non-starter. ] (]) 08:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::I don't struggle to find separate sources for Bulgarians in Greece, ethnic Macedonians in Greece, and Slavophone Greeks. The delineation is indeed not clean, I understand that, but I still do not believe the optimal treatment is lumping everything into an article about a linguistic group. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sorry, I can see the motivation behind this, but I don't think it's a good idea. These would always be in danger of being little else than POV forks of each other, with almost their entire contents overlapping and dividing criteria extremely unclear. Generally speaking, it's a frequent tendency among Wikipedians to resort to article-splitting in order to evade the POV difficulties inherent in competing conceptual divisions of things, but it's not generally a reader-friendly solution. Readers don't want to read three articles when they could get the same information from a single one. ] ] 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support''': Like how I have stated in the previous discussion, (diff here: ) we have to {{tq|make sure that all POV concerns of all parties are addressed adequately during the split}}. I believe the splitting of such a sensitive topic will require the broadest consensus as possible and for that, the editorial concerns on POV Fork problems must be taken into account and a discussion should open on how to address them. I will support the split once a thorough discussion is made to address the POV Forking concerns as expressed by others, such as ], and the issues related to delineation are addressed adequately. If we are here to improve Misplaced Pages, then an article split should be beneficial to the content's quality, not detrimental. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 11:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''No way'''. Last time this was discussed, the title option for the non-Bulgarian and non-Macedonian category was "Slavophone Greeks", which is more or less synonymous with the current article title. The current proposal, "East South Slavic communities of Northern Greece", is imho completely clueless. With that title, the article would also have to include Pomaks. Grouping the Muslim, formerly mostly Bulgarian-speaking (and nowadays also more and more Turkish-speaking) Pomaks of Rhodopi and Xanthi together with the bilingual Macedonian-speaking (and more and more Greek-speaking) population of Slav ancestry in Macedonia in order to avoid having those with Greek and Macedonian identification in the same article, that is just nonsense.
:The suggested article "ethnic Macedonians in Greece" would in any case just be a subgroup of the "Esat South Slavic ..." group, so it would constitute a clear content fork, and as for the suggested article "Bulgarians in Greece" ... Well, either it would have to be about the modern Bulgarian diaspora in Greece (75,915 Bulgarian citizens according to the 2011 census) or it would have to be about the ethnic 'Slavophones' (for lack of a better word) with Bulgarian identification, which would probably add up to a total of 0 after WWII. In the first case, it could be made into an article with no relation to the current discussion. In the second case, it would all belong in the history section of the current article, where it is already prominently discussed. There is, of course, a third option: to group them with the Pomaks, in which case the mess would be complete. --] (]) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::Yes, I suppose the Bulgarians and ethnic Macedonians articles would be subgroup articles of this one (whatever it may or may not be renamed to), but I'm not sure why that automatically makes it a content fork. There is a distinct subset of this group that today identifies ethnically as Macedonian, whether in Greece or outside it. The Bulgarian subgroup would be more historical but also include information on the, as you point out, over 75,000 Bulgarians in all of Greece. I mean, we have an article for the 872 ], but not far larger community of Bulgarians in Greece? --] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
:::This. Agree with what ] said. I was worried that the lack of proper articles ] and ] had somehow to do with the Macedonian Question, and I had the personal impression it was influencing Misplaced Pages somehow. I really don't want this to be the case here at all, and that the POV concerns others have expressed above, are just the only reasons this wasn't split so far. While it is understandable that the editors have POV forking concerns, still I am not sure why there can't be an article about these other ethnicities living in Greece while there is for the ]. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 10:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
::::That's a great example. We somehow manage to have articles for both ] and ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::Yes... exactly. --] (]) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{re|TU-nor}} Imo, your distinction between Pomaks being Muslim and the communities further West being Christian is a bit misled. The majority of this article's referents live in diaspora. Part of that diaspora is in Turkey. Much of the diaspora in Turkey is Muslim Slavs ''from Macedonia''. The entire region surrounding the Moglen, for example, was once Muslim Slav. Cutting off Pomaks historically from their nearby linguistic and religious historical brethren just a bit west is really quite contrived... and seems to reflect a dubious POV that these Pomaks are somehow "Bulgarian-esque" while Muslims further west are "Macedonian-esque" ... with zero support in sourcing for this whatsoever. They were both even once called "Pomaks". --] (]) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::I did not mean to make Muslim/Christian an essential distinction, and I frankly cannot see how my comment could be interpreted that way. My intention was just to illustrate that there are deeper variations within the group "East South Slavic communities" than between "ethnic Macedonians in Greece" and the rest of the group, which imo makes the suggested split unnatural and artificial.
::::::I have not forgotten the diaspora of Muslim Slavs from Macedonia in Turkey. (I have even met some of them.) But it seems that the article has forgotten them. They are currently not mentioned at all in the article, which is rather strange. By the way, the Moglena region was not entirely Muslim Slav. There were also a significant number of Megleno-Romanians in that region. But that is an aside.
::::::As for the Pomaks, I will not be entering any discussion of Bulgarian-ness or Macedonian-ness. There are, however, good reasons for having a separate article about Pomaks, given their history the last 100 years is different from all other subgroups. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)</span>
::::::::<small>Sorry about forgetting to sign. --] (]) 22:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)</small>
:::::::You should probs sign your post {{u|TU-nor}}. And yea this is why I said ''surrounding'' the Moglen. But I see no justification whatsoever for totally artificial distinctions like Slavs in Turkey from West Thrace versus from near Moglen/Almopia, or why the latter are somehow supposedly more like Muslim Slavs from Kastoria or Florina. You're not entering any discussion about the supposed Bulgarian-ness of Pomaks yet you seem to be accidentally asserting either that or a religious distinction, as there is no clear other distinction ''at all''. Then theres the fact that "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" include tens of thousands of *immigrants*, who although not covered are somehow supposedly changed the second they buy property in Greek Macedonia as opposed to anywhere else in Greece. For neither the Aromanian nor Albanian speaking populations do we have such an insanely contrived distinction as policy.--] (]) 18:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with ]. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 20:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


*{{replyto|Local hero}} This is ]. Please use the templates and process described at ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 20:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
::Apologies, I only went this route because of the previous RFC. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It will provoke a mess and new scandals. ] (]) 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


{{comment}} Seeing how so many editors are firmly against splitting the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, and so few are seemingly in favor of it, maybe it is that the POV forking's severity is eluding me. I will try read the archived discussions and I won't try convince the editors into agreeing to split the article. However, everyone should bear in mind that the article ] may be a necessity regardless of the RfC's outcome, since Bulgarian migrants have settled all over Greece and they can not be covered by the present article, whose scope is only the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Good day. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 23:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
::Agree. It seems really weird in particular that we have this implication, with this articles title that ''Bulgarian immigrants to Greek Macedonia are somehow different from Bulgarian immigrants to any other part of Greece''. Nobody has engaged with this yet, but it is a ''really'', really bizarre policy.--] (]) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


*'''Oppose'''. Splitting this article is far beyond a trivial task in my opinion. ] (]) 03:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay politics being put aside, there is one change I would like to make about the language itself. I have been brought up listening to Greek Macedonian and arguably it could be my first language. To distinguish it from other Slavic languages I would like to add a section that explains its roots in Doric (Ancient Greek) I have an example however I am not sure how to source it.


{{comment}} Hi all, sorry I'm late, it's been a really crazy week... I guess we ended up having an RfC on a split? This wasn't exactly my intention... I think. There is something awkward about this because, you see, this page doesn't actually ''cover'' Macedonians or Bulgarians in Greece currently. It ''should'' they are a notable topic, but it doesn't, yet. Even though they are technically within its topic scope. The sole way it is covered is with the infobox ''Bulgarian diaspora''. So... it feels a bit awkward to treat this as a "split" proposal...in fact what I was proposing originally felt more like a ''merge'' proposal... --] (]) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
e.g. In Greek Macedonian the word wolf is pronounced "lysitsa" whereas in other Slavic languages it is "volk" and the Ancient Greek term is lycan or lycern. (Hence the name of the mountain in Athens lykavittos mountain or "the mountain of wolves"). ] (]) 23:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
:DarkLord, you have found a borrowed word in Greek Macedonian. There are hundreds of borrowed words in every language on the planet. That does not give Greek Macedonian "roots in Doric". It is a dialect of Macedonian, a Slavic language. If you want to provide a selection of borrowed words, then you need to find a ] on Greek Macedonian that discusses borrowed words. --] (]) 00:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


:So by "merge", do you mean to keep this one article but expand the topics that are currently lacking? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
==Funniest thing==
::Merge with Pomaks I guess. This was half cooked on my part. It would be a split if this article included info on Bulgarian and Macedonian nationals in Greece. But despite the fact that Bulgarians are the second largest immigrant group in Greece after Albanians (or were last this was measured in the 2011 paper I can access), we somehow don't, so it's I guess also an embryonic split. --] (]) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


Not very helpful of the Oppose folks to just drop in for a single comment each and not actually contribute to the discussion. I guess coverage of this topic will just remain in its mediocre state. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
is, that all of them (slavic speakers in greek Macedonia) are originaly Serbs, All that lands were part of former serbina lands empire, kingdoms and dukes before Maritsa 1371 and Kosovo 1389 and Ottoman turkish ocupation. Noumerous monasteries are made or renovated by rullers from Nemanjić dynasty like monasteries near Kastoria or Florina...Over centuries and main influence of Constantinople patriarchy church, helenization was in progress. As witness of that are noumerous villages with slavic (serbian) names which are renamed in after ww1 period in greek way as common translation or renamed with names of greek historical persons from mithology to Macedonian struglle till 1912. "Bulgary" in Egeian Macedonia are just historical sadness and heavy life of people there under Turks. Instead of turkish government and greek popes, they try to find a peace of freedom, over good wishes from Bulgaria over churches (egyarchy schizm) and schools with favorite slavic language and lithurgy after centirues, but then bulgarization started even whole world knows how many conection name bulgar, bolgar, volgar or vulgar have with anything which is slavic. Another mess made newdays state of Macedonia with "macedonians by nation" splited by horrible neighbours Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks, propaganda with hugh comunist help over 50 years...That is terrible history of this losted people called by every different names exept the right one. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Agree, but what can we expect, we all have lives. One way to improve this all given time on someone's part is to actually write the material for Bulgarian immigrants in Greece. Maybe in mine or someone else's sandbox at first. --] (]) 18:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


We should have an article for the Macedonian minority of Greece, then, Jingiby. Fine, I’ll give you that some or many in the Slavic speaking community of Greece may not identify as Macedonian, they may identify as Bulgarian or something else. Fine, then let’s create an article for these minorities, because it is clear that they exist, there is no doubt that a Macedonian minority of tens of thousands of people if not more exists in Greece, as attested by every reliable source in this article. ] (]) 14:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
== Split proposal ==


Calthinus, you find problematic “anything that implies a Macedonian identity on the model of the state identity of North Macedonia as applied to all recently Slavic descended individuals in the region.”
I think that this article would almost necessary require ], because it has a large proportion of material, in terms of content, piled up in it. It would seem very much reasonable that it would be given a change to be split in the form of other “sister articles”, as the ones mentioned, in order for the content to evolve, because it surely has its notability. In that way, the neutrality of the article would come to a right balance, taking in fact that the different articles would cultivate different areas of official opinion(s). ] (]) 13:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:Your proposal to have one article on Macedonians and one article on Bulgarians is ridiculous. There is only one Slavic language spoken in Greece, not two, and the ethnic identifiers within the borders of Greece for people who speak one language, are far from NPOV. --] (]) 16:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::You must understand that I'm proposing a split to create separate "sister articles" to this one, one about Greek citizen that identify as Macedonians, and the other about Greek citizens that identify as Bulgarian, to work on themes like their settlements, organizations, culture, etc. I didn't specify anything about the usage of language. ] (]) 18:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::I oppose. This proposal is not constructive. ] (]) 18:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::: Mmm. Can you specify a reason? ] (]) 18:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::Because it starts from an incorrect presumption that those people can be conveniently classified into "Macedonian", "Bulgarian" and "Slavophone Greek" drawers, then counted, then a separate article about each group can be written. In reality, such classification does not exist, because it is personal and cultural, and borders are blurred, even on an individual level. Taken one by one, many people who are subject of the article will have Greek ethnic affiliation, many Macedonian, yet others Bulgarian, and some would be just Slavic... and many of those would be all of that at the same time. I fail to see necessity for split along these lines. A case could be made for splitting the history per ], but I don't think it is currently too long to present an obstacle for navigation. ] (]) 11:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


Now, I wasn’t trying to say that all Slavs in Greece are Macedonian, there may be Bulgarians, Serbs and others. But reading this article, it seems plainly clear that it is dealing with those Slavs that speak the language we know as Macedonian, many of whom have a Macedonian identity. This article is talking about them, but refuses to call them “Macedonian.” Are you saying that many of these Macedonian speaking Slavs are actually Bulgarians? ] (]) 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s pretty much as constructive as it gets. It would devote and split contradicting positions in this article to different related articles to this one thus this article wouldn’t have a problem being neutral. ] (]) 18:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


:Their language is not uncontroversially designated as Macedonian, especially as the criteria for determining what is a Macedonian dialect still have to be worked out. Why are Macedonian and Bulgarian the only two options? Simply forcing these populations to be "Macedonians" is hardly any different from forcing the inhabitants of North Macedonia to be "Bulgarians", which is beyond ironic. --] (]) 14:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Plus, it would give a chance for the opposing contexts to evolve and upgrade in their separate articles. ] (]) 18:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::This article is close to NPOV. The eventual split will give a good chance for biased POV. ] (]) 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


== Unnecessary diminishing language ==
Apparently I'm not suggesting a complete split, but the titles already mentioned. These articles would have the role of reinforcing the material of this article. Thus this article's NPOV would remain intact, but on the contrary it would have a larger support on the context. In my opinion. ] (]) 19:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
::::If there are Greeks that don't speak a Slavic language, then they don't belong in this article anyway--whether their ancestors are ethnically Slavic or not. Notice the title of the article: '''''Slavic speakers'''''. It's not about anyone who speaks Greek as their first language. It's only about the people who speak the '''''one''''' Slavic language spoken in Greek Macedonia. --] (]) 22:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::That's exactly the reason I proposed of creating separate articles about Greek people with ethnic Slavic (Macedonian/Bulgarian) descent. You proved my point. ] (]) 09:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::Setting up a new article for Greek speakers of Slavic ethnicity is different than splitting '''''this''''' article. This article is about people in Greece who still speak Slavic and their history in the country. So you still don't understand the point--this article isn't about people named Stepanovich who speak Greek. It's about people who speak Macedonian who live in Greece. --] (]) 17:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Then, why isn't it called Macedonian-speakers of Greek Macedonia rather than Slavic speakers? ] (]) 18:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Because in Greece, Macedonian is called "Slavic", not "Macedonian". It is the result of a ] a couple of years ago. --] (]) 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::It is quite confusing, though. The world isn't Greece. Silesian is a "Slavic dialect", but that's not what we're talking about. In the box, "Slavic dialects" should be changed to "Macedonian" (or "Slavic Macedonian" or whatever), with an appropriate link, and in the very first line "Slavic" should be defined, so people aren't under the impression that it means "Slavic". — ] (]) 02:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::That's the whole problem, though, Kwami, and it's been discussed here before. Macedonian speakers are called "Slavic" in Greece. The lead probably does, however, need to make that clear. --] (]) 16:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


The introduction states that this group "...are mostly concentrated in certain parts of the peripheries of West and Central Macedonia..." Peripheries is the Greek term for "Regions", but in English it has the connotation of being "the outer limits or edge of an area or object," giving the reader a very different sense of where this group lives, which is reinforced by the words "concentrated" and "certain parts of...". This wording of this sentence strongly, unnecessarily, and without citation, conveys a particular image about the size and make-up of this population. The rest of the sentence also contains similar unnecessary language that invites the reader to infer uncited claims about the population in question. A recommended edit for the opening sentence, which conveys the same factual information, without any loaded language is:
== Bulgarian diaspora ==


"Slavic speakers are a minority population in the country of Greece, who live mostly in the regions of West and Central Macedonia, which border the state of North Macedonia. ] (]) 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tonimicho: You seem to have misunderstood the scope of this article. If you read it carefully (and also take a look at the talk page), you will see that it is an article about a Slavic-speaking indigenous linguistic/ethnic population group. They are or have been called Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slavomacedonian, Slavic or, most commonly, just "local". For lack of a better name (or rather: for lack of consensus about a better name), they are in Misplaced Pages called "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia". That is "of", not "in", since it covers a group that is indigenous of Greek Macedonia. It does not cover other Slavic speakers in Greece, like the Pomaks, and it does not cover the 43 981 Bulgarians (not "declared Bulgarians", but registered citizens of Bulgaria)) who live and work all over Greece, not only in Macedonia. Bulgarian diaspora is therefore not relevant to this article. Regards! --] (]) 10:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:25, 8 March 2024

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Slavic dialects of Greece was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 22 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on May 16, 2008. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconLanguages Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBulgaria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNorth Macedonia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSerbia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGreece: Politics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Politics and politicians task force.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11


This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Previous consensus on not including "Bulgarian" in the list of languages

here is the previous discussion on the matter of including "Bulgarian" in the language infobox that includes extensive linguistic references on the subject. The conclusion was that the vast majority of linguists do not include the Greek dialects in Bulgarian, but entirely in Macedonian. --Taivo (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

All of the arguments that you have were made and shown to be insufficient at that time. Please don't drag this up again. It will end at the same place and we will have wasted time saying the very same things that were said two years ago. --Taivo (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

May 2021

Hi, without any consensus or discussion on the issue, an attempt is made to unilaterally change the title of this article and to start a biased review of the topic lead itself. This is undesirable and unacceptable. These issues have been discussed many times and raising them again does not mean that anyone can dispose of the article.Jingiby (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I added content with reliable sources. Why has it been removed? Unexplained removal of sourced content is unacceptable. This article should reflect the view point of academics and human rights organizations, who recognize the ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece. It’s unacceptable that this article is trying to call them by anything other than their accepted name, and parrot the viewpoint of the government. Veritaes Unam (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This issue is addressed in the topic, but not in the introduction. It is revealed in the relevant section called Past discrimination. This topic is extensive and covers a period of a century, not of several years, which is suggested by such biased changes with which I do not agree. It is clear that this is WP:Undue Weight. Jingiby (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that this article is about the Macedonian minority of Greece, I think there should clearly be a sentence in the lead describing the human rights situation, given that it is encompasses something as serious as denying their existence. It is not in the past, but continues to this day, unless you can provide sources that state otherwise.

You didn’t address the naming issue. All the reliable sources I provided refer to this minority by their name. There is agreement in academic and human rights circles that they speak the Macedonian language, which is even acknowledged in this article itself. There is therefore no reason to not refer to them as “Macedonians.” I find it unacceptable that this article seems to deny their ethnic identity, in agreement with the Greek government. Veritaes Unam (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What the rticle states at the moment differs sharply from your claims. The text is well sourced: Members of this group have had a number of conflicting ethnic identifications. Predominantly identified as Macedonian Bulgarians until the early 1940s, since the formation of a Macedonian nation state, many of the migrant population in the diaspora (Australia, United States and Canada) now feel a strong Macedonian identity and have followed the consolidation of the Macedonian ethnicity. However, those who remain in Greece now identify themselves mainly as ethnic Greeks. Jingiby (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus in academic circles that Macedonian Slavic is even a language, and not a dialect of Bulgarian. What is generally agreed is that South Slavic traditionally forms a dialect continuum, and that Macedonian Slavic and Bulgarian (and occasionally Torlakian) are part of Eastern South Slavic, either being considered different languages within that group, or different dialects of the same language. There is no clear definition of the term "language", and similar issues exist, for example, regarding the categorisation of Galician. Any other more specific claim, without the introduction of a new framework where a clear definition of language is made, is only political. Members of the minority self-identify either as Greeks, Bulgarians, ethnic Macedonians, or simply "Macedonians"/locals in the geographical sense. The current title of the article is the most inclusive one and the one used most often outside Misplaced Pages. The Greek government usually uses the term "Slavic-speaking Greeks", not "Slavic speakers of (Greek) Macedonia". --Antondimak (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The citation used for the claim that they identify as ethnic Greeks clearly states that this minority speaks the Macedonian language, specifically “The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World” in page 116. It refers to the population as speaking Macedonian, and referring to themselves as Macedonians. It also states that many identify as Greek and Macedonian, and that some only identify as Macedonian. Nothing here contradicts the claim that they are Macedonians. So I can add this source to my list of sources. Either way, that they had conflicting ethnic identities decades ago is not very relevant Macedonians right now, who identify as such. If a minority of the group doesn’t identify as Macedonian, this only supports the claims of human rights organizations that the Greek government is attempting to erase their identity. But we ought to call them by their proper name, as stated in all the reliable sources I provided. There is consensus that the language (or dialect, if you wish) they speak is called Macedonian, and even the Greek government has recognized the Macedonian language, while continuing to deny the existence of this minority. Veritaes Unam (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop trying to interpret the sources completely contradictory or exactly as it tells you. Many of these people have never felt themselves as ethnic Macedonian. Neither in the past nor today. Jingiby (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I will add that "Macedonian" doesn't necessarily mean "ethnic Macedonian". Many Greeks identify as Macedonian, while having nothing to do with Macedonian Slavs. The fact that they are plainly called "Macedonians" in Misplaced Pages only intensifies this confusion. --Antondimak (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, I am not giving a crazy interpretation of the source, and I don’t want to copy the sentences word by word as I can’t do that on Google Books. But still, you implied that the book “The Macedonian Conflict” contradicted my claim that they are called Macedonian, by saying that it calls them Greek. The reality is that page 116 of the book explicitly says that many identify as both Macedonian and Greek, and that some only identify as Macedonian. In either case, they identify as Macedonian. Please read page 116 of the book, and also all the sources I provided. The claim that many of them have never felt Macedonian is just wrong.

And Antondimak, I don’t know much about ethnic Greek Macedonians, or if that is even a real, distinct Greek group with a distinct culture. If they are, then if you’d like we can distinguish the Macedonians in this article from them by calling them a South Slavic group. Veritaes Unam (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's the problem you seem to not be well versed in this topic, which is notoriously confusing, with state actors purposefully promoting this confusion in the past. I haven't read the source, but when somebody is said to identify as "both Macedonian and Greek", it most probably means they identify as Macedonians (Greeks). --Antondimak (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am well versed on the South Slavic ethnic group known as Macedonians. You can tap on the source, which is , and see what he himself says on page 116. He is obviously not talking about Greek Macedonians, he is referring to the minority that speaks the Slavic Macedonian language. He divides this group of Macedonian speakers into two groups: those that identify as both Macedonian and Greek, and those that identify only as Macedonian.

It is, of course, not surprising that minorities will often refer to their nationality as that of the country they live in, like Chinese Uyghurs, African Americans, Azeri Iranians. In any case, this and all the other sources I provided refer to this minority by their proper name: Macedonian. And as I said, if you wish to distinguish them from the ethnic Greek Macedonians, we can simply refer to them as South Slavic in the article. Is this agreeable to you? Veritaes Unam (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Everything important and basic on the topic has already been written. Attempts to interpret it in a new way, after 15 years of discussing and reaching a compromise, are simply provocative and one-sided. The lack of balance and neutrality by this attempt is obvious. I strongly oppose its next politicization. Jingiby (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Page 116 of source 96 isn't available to me (the preview only goes up to 90). Regardless, as I said there are four identities in the region, Bulgarian, Greek, ethnic/Slavic Macedonian, local Macedonian/dopia. The name you are proposing, either with the explanation or not, isn't inclusive enough, not now and especially not for the whole history of the region, which the article describes (in the past there was even a not insignificant Serbian identity). --Antondimak (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Antondimak, you can try to check the content from here. You will see that our statements are much closer to the opinion of the author, than the claims of the editor who is trying to change the title of this article. Jingiby (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Users, I admire your thorough research and ardent contributiion. But beware - be objective and keep the encyclopedism of Misplaced Pages. There are no correct readings of historical events, we shall try to present all points of view and let the reader decide especially today when general speaking is outdated. I propose that this Talk: page shall be summarized and added to the article itself as it also shows effective points of view of empathetic people and is valuable to tracking data change. Best regards,Litev (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, a compromise cannot deny a minority its recognized name and existence. There is no lack of balance my friend. You seem to be hostile to this, but I provided numerous sources, which I encourage you to consider!

Antondimak, you say there are four identities, and that this therefore isn’t “inclusive enough.” But why should it be inclusive to people who don’t identify as Slavic Macedonian? Obviously, this group isn’t inclusive to ethnic Greeks, Serbians, or Bulgarians, who are different ethnic groups. This group speaks, as the article says, a language that is known as Macedonian everywhere else. I’ll quote the book mentioned before: “Of the 53,000 inhabitants of the district of Florina, 65 percent according to one Greek estimate, refer to themselves as ‘locals,’ or ‘local Macedonians.’ In addition to Greek, most of these local Macedonians speak Macedonian.” It goes on the say that they identify as Macedonian, and if you keep reading the next few pages, it describes the efforts of local Macedonian human rights activists in raising awareness for the Macedonian minority and getting recognition from the Greek government. Given that there obviously, indisputably is a self-identified Macedonian minority that speaks Slavic Macedonian, which is backed by various sources, we must call them as such in this article, and reserve a sentence in the lead about human rights concerns, since that is a big issue that continues to this day.

And Litev, thanks for your input! I agree with you that the view of them and the Greek government should also be mentioned in the article. Veritaes Unam (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What the source say is something different and is as follows: The majority of these local Macedonians have been fully Hellenized and have a Greek national identity. They say that they are Macedonians and Greeks, they are Greek Macedonians. Moreover this article clearly and simply states: "Slavic speakers" or "Slavophones" is also used as a cover term for people across the different ethnic orientations. The exact number of the linguistic minority remaining in Greece today, together with its members' choice of ethnic identification, is difficult to ascertain; most maximum estimates range around 180,000-200,000 with those of an ethnic Macedonian national consciousness numbering possibly 10,000 to 30,000. However, as per leading experts on this issue, the number of this people has decreased in the last decades, because of intermarriage and urbanization; they now number between 50,000 and 70,000 people with around 10,000 of them identifying as ethnic Macedonians. In this situation, trying to push the idea that these people are mostly ethnic Macedonians is, to say it mildly, incorrect. It is obvious that 80-90% of these people are Greek conscious. The term Macedonian also means Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, etc. All of these meanings are older then ethnic Macedonian, which gained poularity after WWII. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Just adding from another source. On page 142 in Clogg (ed.) Minorities in Greece (2002) , it says Today, most of the school children no longer speak Slavic, and the vast majority of the Slavic-speaking (and formerly Slavic-speaking) population identify themselves with the Greek national collectivity. --T*U (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I might be redundant at this point but I'd add that I also find any attempt to move the page to "Macedonian minority/people/etc" -- anything that implies a Macedonian identity on the model of the state identity of North Macedonia as applied to all recently Slavic descended individuals in the region -- to be problematic. "Slavic speakers" is problematic too but it's the least awful option presented thus far. --Calthinus (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, you have not contradicted anything I said by quoting the book. In other words, these Slavic Macedonians also identify as Greek. Yet, they are STILL Macedonians. The author clearly states that this group of Slavic Macedonians is divided into those that identify as both Greek and Macedonian and those that only identify as Macedonian. Either way, there is undeniably a self-identified Macedonian minority in Greece.

It’s funny that you quote Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Have you looked at the sources? To quote from source , “Greece denies the existence of a Macedonian minority within its border, despite evidence that there is a small number, perhaps 50,000, whose linguistic and cultural aspirations are repressed.” Dawisha, Karen; Parrott, Bruce (1997). Politics, power, and the struggle for democracy in South-East Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 268

Another reason Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, because what is written is often contradicted by its own sources.

As my sources and these additional ones above show, there is an ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece. Their existence cannot be reasonably denied, and every given source given by you and I support this.

And I’ll repeat once more: identifying as Greek does not mean that they can’t be ethnic Slavic Macedonians. As “The Macedonian Conflict” states, they identify as both, and some only as Macedonian. Veritaes Unam (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand any of this nonsense.Jingiby (talk)
I am afraid I have to agree with Jingiby, Antondimak, Calthinus and T*U here. The sources confirm that there is not 1 group but multiple ones. I also do believe that the current article title is the most inclusive and allows for all the groups to be covered. I am against changing the article title unilaterally like that, especially when the current article title is achieved 1) through debate, 2) by taking in account all the varying sources on the matter, 3) and with WP:CONSENSUS. --- SilentResident 11:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've never understood why this article isn't split into "Bulgarians in Greece", "Ethnic Macedonians in Greece", and "Slavophone Greeks". All three groups exist and are certainly notable enough for standalone articles. The systemic discrimination against Slavs in Macedonia by the Greek government has muddied the situation to where I sort of understand why we handle all three in one article, though I do not find it to be the ideal way to present these groups. --Local hero 16:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment on the issue. The question was: Should the article "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" be turned into a disambiguation page containing the following new articles?: 1. Macedonians in Greece; 2. Bulgarians in Greece; 3. Slavophone Greeks. The answer was: No! Jingiby (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware there have been discussions in the past. The only argument I see there in favor of the current situation is a supposed content forking if we were to split. The very intro sentence of this article states that the people covered in this article are a linguistic group. What about in the ethnic sense? The lead does not even mention ethnicity at all. --Local hero 17:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This can be fixed by mentioning all the groups on the lead. It is a must. How else readers are supposed to know what the rest of the article is about? --- SilentResident 23:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@SilentResident, Local hero, Jingiby, and TU-nor: To be honest, if this discussion has done any good, it is elucidating the difficulties with this page's scope. I think in the future we should consider a split. Here's a few things to consider.
  1. . As TU-nor noted, many ethnic descendants of Slavic speakers do not speak any Slavic idiom whatsoever. Are they in scope, or not?
  2. . The page seems to include the descendants of Bulgarian and Macedonian nationals whose ancestors lived in the area? What about Turkish nationals with the same origins? Yes there are these too. The infobox lists them, as well as the analogous cases in Australia and other Western countries. If we go by the infobox's numbers, the diaspora outnumbers those in the homeland. Many of these speak neither Greek nor Macedonian (if we can call the dialects of Aegean Macedonia "Macedonian", a statement with no positive or negative support in linguistics, only in politics).
  3. . Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia includes migrants into the region and their descendants. There are Bulgarian and to a lesser extent Macedonian immigrants especially in Thessaloniki . Are their children in the scope of the page?
  4. . The page excludes the Slavic speakers of West Thrace, but this seems POV -- namely, it reflects a view that subtly asserts that the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia are Macedonian-like while those of West Thrace are Bulgarian-like or some separate group, Pomaks, since a large percent are Muslim (however, there were once many Muslim Slavs in Greek Macedonia too -- their descendants live in Turkey). This is a valid viewpoint, but it is not the only one. It is POV.
  5. . Are we asserting that Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia constitute a single group? This seems dubious. Take the analogous case of Southeast Slavic speakers in Albania -- they are not a single group. The Gorani are different from the Gollobordas who are in turn quite different from the Slavs of Mala Prespa, to say little of the smaller but also quite distinct (if now vanishing) communities near Lin, in Boboshtica, in Vernik, and near Maqellare/Makelari. While the Slavs of Mala Prespa homogenously identify as Macedonian and those of nearby Vernik are mostly the same, this is not true elsewhere. In Gora, where they are all Muslim, most prefer to identify as Gorani, while only a minority identify as Macedonian, and others identify as Bulgarian or Albanian. Bulgarian and Albanian identities are correlated (in perhaps the same way that Romanian and Albanian identities are correlated for Vlachs in Albania -- because the more non-bordering state is not an irredentist threat.), and are strongest in the central region i.e. Golloborda; in Boboshtica and Drenova (the birthplace of the man who wrote the Albanian national anthem!) there is evidence nowadays that the Albanian identity is strong, and when non-Albanian identities were embraced in the past, the ones at play were Bulgarian and Polish (due to some local descent from Poles in the Middle Ages according to local oral history). On wiki it is largely acknowledged that Albania's Southeast Slavic speakers are not a single group -- no doubt in part because Albania itself has recognized both a Macedonian minority and a Bulgarian one. But the reality in Greece is that there are multiple identities at play there too, even if nationalists on all sides would prefer to say they are all (Slavic) Macedonians or all Macedonian Greeks -- the majority today clearly identify as Greeks, a small but significant minority identify as Macedonian, like in Albania there is also a large number of people with specific local identities akin to Gorani and Gollobordas identities, and although Bulgarian identity is largely missing today, this is not the case in the not-too-distant past. So why should we speak of a single ethnic group at all if there is no internal consensus on identity?
Overall, it may be more accurate in the long run to have an overarching page for rural populations of Slavic origin in northern Greece, and specific pages for each community -- like what you see (imperfectly implemented) in the Albanian case, where the Gora, Golloborda and Mala Prespa cases are quite appropriately treated as distinct, but within a broader framework. It makes little sense to artificially lump together the Slavs of Florina and Serres while excluding those of the southern Rhodopes.--Calthinus (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
These are all highly valid points, thanks for articulating it all so well. I think your idea of treating the topic with one overarching page covering the Slavs of northern Greece (including Thrace) and then specific pages for each community is probably the best solution. --Local hero 15:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I am in favor of a split into Bulgarians in Greece, Ethnic Macedonians in Greece, Slavophone Greeks (these articles already exist in one form or another, as redirects), and so on. A split would address not just the problems Calthinus has pointed out, but also the problems the other editors also have also pointed out. If I understood right, someone here mentioned that the old discussion concluded with no consensus for split, due to POV Fork concerns, but that can't be a problem if all editors work hard to make sure that all POV concerns of all parties are addressed adequately during the split. --- SilentResident 16:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd have something in the vein of (if not exactly) East South Slavic communities of Northern Greece {i.e. East South Slavic as referring to the subfamily which includes the Bulgarian standard variety, the Macedonian variety, and many other varieties which may or may not be considered "languages}. "Slavophone Greeks" seems vaguer -- it could also mean a Greek person of Soviet Greek origin who likely speaks Russian, perhaps even as his or her mother tongue. That group could comprise nearly 100,000 people. I understand that Slavophone Greeks is what is used in a (Northern) Greek context, but it can be a bit ambiguous looking at the big picture.--Calthinus (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point, Calthinus! I'm fine with your proposal.
Also we should not forget to add Ethnic Macedonians in Greece to the disambiguation page Macedonians in Greece. --- SilentResident 18:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
As Jingiby has remarked, the current article structure has been decided in a RfC two and a half years ago, see here. Before anything is done with that structure, it will need a new RfC. --T*U (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can start the process sometime in the next couple of days. --Local hero 04:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Splitting this article

Should this article be split into Bulgarians in Greece, ethnic Macedonians in Greece, and East South Slavic communities of Northern Greece? See rationale discussed just above by @SilentResident, TU-nor, and Calthinus: and myself. --Local hero 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't struggle to find separate sources for Bulgarians in Greece, ethnic Macedonians in Greece, and Slavophone Greeks. The delineation is indeed not clean, I understand that, but I still do not believe the optimal treatment is lumping everything into an article about a linguistic group. --Local hero 01:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, I can see the motivation behind this, but I don't think it's a good idea. These would always be in danger of being little else than POV forks of each other, with almost their entire contents overlapping and dividing criteria extremely unclear. Generally speaking, it's a frequent tendency among Wikipedians to resort to article-splitting in order to evade the POV difficulties inherent in competing conceptual divisions of things, but it's not generally a reader-friendly solution. Readers don't want to read three articles when they could get the same information from a single one. Fut.Perf. 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional support: Like how I have stated in the previous discussion, (diff here: ) we have to make sure that all POV concerns of all parties are addressed adequately during the split. I believe the splitting of such a sensitive topic will require the broadest consensus as possible and for that, the editorial concerns on POV Fork problems must be taken into account and a discussion should open on how to address them. I will support the split once a thorough discussion is made to address the POV Forking concerns as expressed by others, such as Fut.Perf., and the issues related to delineation are addressed adequately. If we are here to improve Misplaced Pages, then an article split should be beneficial to the content's quality, not detrimental. --- SilentResident 11:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No way. Last time this was discussed, the title option for the non-Bulgarian and non-Macedonian category was "Slavophone Greeks", which is more or less synonymous with the current article title. The current proposal, "East South Slavic communities of Northern Greece", is imho completely clueless. With that title, the article would also have to include Pomaks. Grouping the Muslim, formerly mostly Bulgarian-speaking (and nowadays also more and more Turkish-speaking) Pomaks of Rhodopi and Xanthi together with the bilingual Macedonian-speaking (and more and more Greek-speaking) population of Slav ancestry in Macedonia in order to avoid having those with Greek and Macedonian identification in the same article, that is just nonsense.
The suggested article "ethnic Macedonians in Greece" would in any case just be a subgroup of the "Esat South Slavic ..." group, so it would constitute a clear content fork, and as for the suggested article "Bulgarians in Greece" ... Well, either it would have to be about the modern Bulgarian diaspora in Greece (75,915 Bulgarian citizens according to the 2011 census) or it would have to be about the ethnic 'Slavophones' (for lack of a better word) with Bulgarian identification, which would probably add up to a total of 0 after WWII. In the first case, it could be made into an article with no relation to the current discussion. In the second case, it would all belong in the history section of the current article, where it is already prominently discussed. There is, of course, a third option: to group them with the Pomaks, in which case the mess would be complete. --T*U (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose the Bulgarians and ethnic Macedonians articles would be subgroup articles of this one (whatever it may or may not be renamed to), but I'm not sure why that automatically makes it a content fork. There is a distinct subset of this group that today identifies ethnically as Macedonian, whether in Greece or outside it. The Bulgarian subgroup would be more historical but also include information on the, as you point out, over 75,000 Bulgarians in all of Greece. I mean, we have an article for the 872 Bulgarians in Croatia, but not far larger community of Bulgarians in Greece? --Local hero 21:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
This. Agree with what Local hero said. I was worried that the lack of proper articles Ethnic Macedonians in Greece and Bulgarians in Greece had somehow to do with the Macedonian Question, and I had the personal impression it was influencing Misplaced Pages somehow. I really don't want this to be the case here at all, and that the POV concerns others have expressed above, are just the only reasons this wasn't split so far. While it is understandable that the editors have POV forking concerns, still I am not sure why there can't be an article about these other ethnicities living in Greece while there is for the Albanians in Greece. --- SilentResident 10:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
That's a great example. We somehow manage to have articles for both Arvanites and Albanians in Greece. --Local hero 17:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes... exactly. --Calthinus (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@TU-nor: Imo, your distinction between Pomaks being Muslim and the communities further West being Christian is a bit misled. The majority of this article's referents live in diaspora. Part of that diaspora is in Turkey. Much of the diaspora in Turkey is Muslim Slavs from Macedonia. The entire region surrounding the Moglen, for example, was once Muslim Slav. Cutting off Pomaks historically from their nearby linguistic and religious historical brethren just a bit west is really quite contrived... and seems to reflect a dubious POV that these Pomaks are somehow "Bulgarian-esque" while Muslims further west are "Macedonian-esque" ... with zero support in sourcing for this whatsoever. They were both even once called "Pomaks". --Calthinus (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I did not mean to make Muslim/Christian an essential distinction, and I frankly cannot see how my comment could be interpreted that way. My intention was just to illustrate that there are deeper variations within the group "East South Slavic communities" than between "ethnic Macedonians in Greece" and the rest of the group, which imo makes the suggested split unnatural and artificial.
I have not forgotten the diaspora of Muslim Slavs from Macedonia in Turkey. (I have even met some of them.) But it seems that the article has forgotten them. They are currently not mentioned at all in the article, which is rather strange. By the way, the Moglena region was not entirely Muslim Slav. There were also a significant number of Megleno-Romanians in that region. But that is an aside.
As for the Pomaks, I will not be entering any discussion of Bulgarian-ness or Macedonian-ness. There are, however, good reasons for having a separate article about Pomaks, given their history the last 100 years is different from all other subgroups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TU-nor (talkcontribs) 11:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about forgetting to sign. --T*U (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
You should probs sign your post TU-nor. And yea this is why I said surrounding the Moglen. But I see no justification whatsoever for totally artificial distinctions like Slavs in Turkey from West Thrace versus from near Moglen/Almopia, or why the latter are somehow supposedly more like Muslim Slavs from Kastoria or Florina. You're not entering any discussion about the supposed Bulgarian-ness of Pomaks yet you seem to be accidentally asserting either that or a religious distinction, as there is no clear other distinction at all. Then theres the fact that "Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia" include tens of thousands of *immigrants*, who although not covered are somehow supposedly changed the second they buy property in Greek Macedonia as opposed to anywhere else in Greece. For neither the Aromanian nor Albanian speaking populations do we have such an insanely contrived distinction as policy.--Calthinus (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Calthinus. --- SilentResident 20:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I only went this route because of the previous RFC. --Local hero 21:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Seeing how so many editors are firmly against splitting the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, and so few are seemingly in favor of it, maybe it is that the POV forking's severity is eluding me. I will try read the archived discussions and I won't try convince the editors into agreeing to split the article. However, everyone should bear in mind that the article Bulgarians in Greece may be a necessity regardless of the RfC's outcome, since Bulgarian migrants have settled all over Greece and they can not be covered by the present article, whose scope is only the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Good day. --- SilentResident 23:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It seems really weird in particular that we have this implication, with this articles title that Bulgarian immigrants to Greek Macedonia are somehow different from Bulgarian immigrants to any other part of Greece. Nobody has engaged with this yet, but it is a really, really bizarre policy.--Calthinus (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Hi all, sorry I'm late, it's been a really crazy week... I guess we ended up having an RfC on a split? This wasn't exactly my intention... I think. There is something awkward about this because, you see, this page doesn't actually cover Macedonians or Bulgarians in Greece currently. It should they are a notable topic, but it doesn't, yet. Even though they are technically within its topic scope. The sole way it is covered is with the infobox Bulgarian diaspora. So... it feels a bit awkward to treat this as a "split" proposal...in fact what I was proposing originally felt more like a merge proposal... --Calthinus (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

So by "merge", do you mean to keep this one article but expand the topics that are currently lacking? --Local hero 16:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Merge with Pomaks I guess. This was half cooked on my part. It would be a split if this article included info on Bulgarian and Macedonian nationals in Greece. But despite the fact that Bulgarians are the second largest immigrant group in Greece after Albanians (or were last this was measured in the 2011 paper I can access), we somehow don't, so it's I guess also an embryonic split. --Calthinus (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Not very helpful of the Oppose folks to just drop in for a single comment each and not actually contribute to the discussion. I guess coverage of this topic will just remain in its mediocre state. --Local hero 03:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree, but what can we expect, we all have lives. One way to improve this all given time on someone's part is to actually write the material for Bulgarian immigrants in Greece. Maybe in mine or someone else's sandbox at first. --Calthinus (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We should have an article for the Macedonian minority of Greece, then, Jingiby. Fine, I’ll give you that some or many in the Slavic speaking community of Greece may not identify as Macedonian, they may identify as Bulgarian or something else. Fine, then let’s create an article for these minorities, because it is clear that they exist, there is no doubt that a Macedonian minority of tens of thousands of people if not more exists in Greece, as attested by every reliable source in this article. Veritaes Unam (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus, you find problematic “anything that implies a Macedonian identity on the model of the state identity of North Macedonia as applied to all recently Slavic descended individuals in the region.”

Now, I wasn’t trying to say that all Slavs in Greece are Macedonian, there may be Bulgarians, Serbs and others. But reading this article, it seems plainly clear that it is dealing with those Slavs that speak the language we know as Macedonian, many of whom have a Macedonian identity. This article is talking about them, but refuses to call them “Macedonian.” Are you saying that many of these Macedonian speaking Slavs are actually Bulgarians? Veritaes Unam (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Their language is not uncontroversially designated as Macedonian, especially as the criteria for determining what is a Macedonian dialect still have to be worked out. Why are Macedonian and Bulgarian the only two options? Simply forcing these populations to be "Macedonians" is hardly any different from forcing the inhabitants of North Macedonia to be "Bulgarians", which is beyond ironic. --Calthinus (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary diminishing language

The introduction states that this group "...are mostly concentrated in certain parts of the peripheries of West and Central Macedonia..." Peripheries is the Greek term for "Regions", but in English it has the connotation of being "the outer limits or edge of an area or object," giving the reader a very different sense of where this group lives, which is reinforced by the words "concentrated" and "certain parts of...". This wording of this sentence strongly, unnecessarily, and without citation, conveys a particular image about the size and make-up of this population. The rest of the sentence also contains similar unnecessary language that invites the reader to infer uncited claims about the population in question. A recommended edit for the opening sentence, which conveys the same factual information, without any loaded language is:

"Slavic speakers are a minority population in the country of Greece, who live mostly in the regions of West and Central Macedonia, which border the state of North Macedonia. 66.71.89.72 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: