Talk:Greeks in North Macedonia

You want reference, see here http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml , there is no country in un recognised as republic of macedonia. I respect international law and I call every country as it is recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiros 13 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That list seems kinda odd. Check out the UN name versus the official name (as listed in Wikipedia) versus the name of the article in Wikipedia:

China seems to most notable exception. While listed as "China" by the UN, no one considers it the official name of that country. Also, I'd like to point out the following from the UN (emphasis added):

By resolution A/RES/47/225 of 8 April 1993, the General Assembly decided to admit as a Member of the United Nations the State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over its name.[2]

It doesn't seem to me that this is by any means an official list of country names. That said, there should certainly be mention of its provisional name or conflict over the name. But, by itself, I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is somehow breaking international law by not naming the article as listed by this page on the UN website. (EhJJ)^TALK 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By not recognising UN decisions , you are just breaking intrnational law. Of course when the name dispute is settled, the country of

Last time I checked, calling a country by anything other than its official UN name was not an international crime.

Also, I still find it amusing that you accuse me of deleting your pages. I am not an

WP:Administrator and thus I do not have the ability to delete pages on Wikipedia. I did not delete your articles. (EhJJ)^TALK 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This article was created three times under different names and the other identical versions were deleted because they were considered inappropriate. With modification, this article could probably stand, but it needs a neutral point of view and references! (EhJJ)TALK 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Spiros 13 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's what I said at the top of the page. Note that I said "were deleted" and not "were deleted by me" or "I deleted them" or "Mwahahaha! Goodbye articles!!". I was just answering your question, other users deleted your articles. (EhJJ)^TALK 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be extra clear, here are the logs for the other pages that were deleted: [3] [4] Do you see my name anywhere? They were deleted because they were considered to be

attack pages. (EhJJ)^TALK 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You violeted international law by changing the name of the country to a name thats not been recognised form UN and u requested speedy delition. This is called in my country counterfeiting and "gagging" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.5.51 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this move? [5] I didn't change the name, I changed the case! Bots edited the redirects. (EhJJ)^TALK 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I'm going to consider this discussion finished. If you want to discuss the content of the page, feel free to do so. I have no more interest in demonstrating that I have not done the things you, without providing any evidence, accuse me of doing. (EhJJ)^TALK 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. these reverts: [6]: Yes, of course Apogevmatini is a reliable source - but the source doesn't mention schools. It simply doesn't support what you are claiming. And the other thing: An attack against a foreign embassy is still not an attack against the local minority. The reporters who were injured were presumably attacked because they were identified as foreigners, not because they were identified as some among those 400 local Greeks. Or they were simply accidentally hit by those bottles - in fact, the newspaper report doesn't even say people in the street were individually targeted by the violence, just that people were throwing things at the building. The claim that "any Greeks identified in the streets were assaulted and beaten" seems to be a fabrication, it's nowhwere in the source cited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we reach a consensus and make agreed upon edits afterwards. I will refrain from editing in the meantime.
• The Apogevmatini article states: The Greek children from FYROM and UKraine are learning Greek intensively and...this reveals the substantial work taking place in their home countries". Agreed schools are not mentioned explicitly but learning is. If you feel using the word schools is misleading please ammend to schooling/learning facilities/institutes etc. A rose by any other name etc
• "Local media reported that some Greek journalists were injured as the group" Bottom line if you were Greek you were marked for special treatment, I doubt they checked passports to ensure native Greeks were spared. Nonetheless if you feel the current phrasing is misleading I invite you to reprhase it in a more NPOV. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the schooling: those could be evening classes, private study at home, or whatever. I mean, how many Greek-speaking pupils can there possible be, with 400 Greeks in the whole country? Whatever they are doing there, who organises it? Who does the teaching? How much of it? Fact is, we know nothing at all.

About the incident: The source does not say that anybody was beaten at all. It says people were injured. For all we know, they could have been simply bystanders accidentally caught in the crossfire. The only thing that the source actually says the protesters did was throwing things at the building. If people had been beaten, don't you think the newspaper would have explicitly reported that? And even if they were, this article is not about Greek-Macedonian relations, it's about the minority in the RoM. There is no indication at all that the event was in any way related to the existence of the minority. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said change it to schooling then. But there is no reason to ommit the refrence.
• This is whitewashing. The victims themselves narrated the assaults on their persons in Greek television. The article explicitly mentions Greeks injured. As for relevance I think attacks on Greeks would by Slavs in Skopjie would probably classify as such in an article discussing the Greek minority there. That said please provide what you would consider a NPOV re-write of that passage. I am open to anohter more neutral formulation, eg excluding any Greeks identified as such were targeted etcXenovatis (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the injured journalists told of being individually attacked (rather than accidentally hit by flying bottles or whatever), then by all means find us a source where they say that. The source you brought doesn't. And if there is a significant amount of schooling, in whatever form, then by all means find us a source describing it. The source you brought doesn't. You want a proposal for a rewrite? Sorry, but I have nothing to work on. By the way, in late 2007 there were repeated arson attacks in Athens against property of Turkish diplomatic personel. Would you agree to cite those news reports in the article on the Muslim minority of Thrace, as evidence of anti-minority violence? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Source saying they were attacked: "ούτε σε επιμέρους θλιβερά κρούσματα, όπως ο χθεσινός προπηλακισμός Ελλήνων δημοσιογράφων στα Σκόπια" transl: "the assault on Greek journalists yesterday in Skopje" From Eleutherotypia, a large circulation, mainstream, left-wing daily.
• Not sure what you mean by significant schooling, which policy or guideline says is must be significant as opposed to true, it is a relevant fact and bears mention in relation to its significance, a small referenced phrase is adequate and that is precisely what I included in the text.
• If foreigners were attacked on the street for being foreign then yes I would say that this would be indicative of a certain atmosphere that needed to be mentioned. Similarly if Americans were assaulted during the many protests on the US embassy. Your problem is that these events did not materialize.
• I am sure we can resolve this speedily and amicably. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain the embassy incident is irrelevant. It has nothing apparent to do with the local minority as opposed to the foreign policy issue (just like diplomats' cars in Athens have little to do with the life of the local communities in Komotini), and being a single, one-off incident it does little in the way of documenting a significant pattern of harassment or intimidation, which is what this was originally supposed to be about. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Unless it has significance beyond the day-to-day news business, it just doesn't belong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What about schooling then. The reference is sourced and in proportion to its actual significance.Xenovatis (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If there is schooling we should of course report that, no doubt. My only gripe is, we have too little information right now. On the basis of that one report, the only thing we can say is: some kids in the RoM get some instruction in Greek. From whom, how, where, under what conditions? It's just a little thin if you come to think of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some educational activity among minority members" is fine with me, for now. Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree but the whole subject itself is so thinly attested. To begin with the MFA of Greece makes no mention of a Greek community there, as it does for almost all other countries. This is strange to say the least. Then of those 400 I don't know how many are recent arrivals (post 1990), how many ethnic Greek political refugees from the civil war and how many descendants of native Greeks (in 1912 Monastiri/Bitola had a higher percentage of Greeks than Thessalonica). Of course the figures talking about 10s or 100s of thousands of Greeks today are fictitious. BTW you also removed another source, Joshua project, stating 600 but I don't consider them particularly reliable so I won't object.Xenovatis (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean-time I just emailed the person labelled as the creator of the photographs in the blog asking them to verify, eponymously, the providence and subject of these pictures as well as for their permission to use them here.Xenovatis (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks are mainly settled in the cities of Gevgelija (Greek: Γευγελή, Gevgelī́) and Bitola (Greek: Μοναστήρι, Monastī́ri), capital of the historical region of Pelagonia.

This sentence is quoted wrongly. Can anyone prove it that it is like mentioned? Till then I ll remove this sentence Luka Jačov (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not just removing that sentence, you're replacing sourced text with poorly written and entirely unsourced claims that "most" Greeks are political "refuges" [sic] from the Civil War and attempting to deny them a separate identity from the "Aegean Macedonians", who are not the subject of this article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment: I must say, for all the heat this issue has been generating, I find the sourcing of just about everything in this article still remarkably poor. That goes to both sides. If these people exist, why isn't there more than those few passing mentions of them? The Ethnologue entries, much as I otherwise respect Ethnologue as a source, are hopelessly inexact and self-contradictory on this issue, and apart from that we have almost nothing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are they inexact or self-contradictory? I just don't see it. Ethnologue unambiguously confirms the existence of Greek-speakers in the country (not Greeks), without making any claims as to their numerical size. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, an entry about "Greek" that describes Greek as being spoken "Throughout the country [i.e. Greece], concentrated in Greek Macedonia", and that lists its major dialects as "Katharevousa, Dimotiki, Saracatsan" is not particularly confidence-inspiring. Among the sources for the MK entry, "mainly from B. Comrie 1987, W. Browne 1989, 1996", Comrie is a reference work on "the world's major languages" (which I don't think goes into this kind of detail about small minorities), and the two titles by W[ayles] Browne are missing in the bibliography and I couldn't identify them elsewhere. [7] As for the "Also includes..." entries, they don't say if these are immigrants, autochthonous, second-language speakers, ethnically identified as Greeks, or whatever (I noticed Niko said on another talk page the other day he believed Greek in RoM might also be spoken by members of other ethnic groups), so as a refererence for "... form an ethnic minority" it's a bit thin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Ethnologue shouldn't be the main reference for this article. There is a plethora of sources regarding the historical presence of Greeks in the region, as well as present-tense citations like that of Cowan, who mentions the "Greek-speaking families" of Bitola. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that, again, is just such a passing mention in a single subclause. No explanation who these people are, how many they are, nothing. Why isn't there more? We have browsed together through whole libraries of literature on Macedonian minority issues, and that's all we've come up with? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to being no expert on the matter, but when the census itself acknowledges the existence of a Greek community, however small, who am I to disagree? With all due respect, the literary dearth you lament applies mainly to the non-Greek sources, though even they acknowledge the historical presence of Greeks in the region. I don't know why the Greek minorities in other countries are taboo for researchers; I suspect is has something to do with the perceived mistreatment of minorities in Greece and "disproving" the over-hyped "Greek nationalist myth of racial purity", or simply rooting for the "underdog". We have plenty of Greek sources claiming a substantial Greek minority north of the border, but they of course aren't good enough. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming this page to "Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia" instead? --Local hero 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because none of the other articles about minorities in Macedonia include the word "minority". --Local hero 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must strongly object to the latest attempted overhaul of the article. It is extremely poorly written—ungrammatical, unorthographic, unpunctuated and unsourced in large part. Many of the state-of-the-art sources cited previously have been replaced with a French one written by someone with a Slavic-sounding surname in 1905 who claims that there were only 100 "real" Greeks in Bitola at the time, the rest being "Grecomans", an extremely offensive pejorative epithet for those Vlachs and Slavophones who chose to be Greek. It is a clear case of POV-pushing and I'd like other editors' thoughts on the matter. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar was a bit bad, but I fixed most of it. Could you elaborate on the exact sources that are disputed, as well as the ones you don't consider disputed? I don't know too much about the subject, but I would like to help in keeping this article NPOV :) --GOD OF JUSTICE 08:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I main thing complaint is removed, so I am goin to revert article. Please discuss before any major changes. Luka Jačov (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the onus is on you to discuss any changes that you think should be made to the consensus version. Your badly written piece cannot be the starting point, as has already been explained to you ad nauseam. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder to everyone: When there is a dispute, it is important that it is accompanied by good faith discussion on the talkpage to try and resolve it. Simply edit-warring without discussion is not wise. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, to get discussion going at last, here's my take on the issue:

Problems with Luka's version

• "Greeks were present on the territory of today's Republic of Macedonia when it's southern parts belonged to the Ancient Macedon region": the presence of Greeks in modern times probably has little to do with ancient Macedonia, but a lot with Byzantium.
• "...which became predominantly Slavic after their arrival in the 6th century": grammatically botched up
• "the presence of the Greek Orthodox church was also noted in other areas of Macedonia, especially in urban one": at what time?
• "However, it should be noted...": poor wording. "it should be noted" is almost always bad. Following explanation is too long-winded.
• the term "Grecoman": no problem mentioning it in a phrase like "... were known as"; problematic to use it in our own prose in the next sentence.

Problems with Kekrops' version

• Explanation about Ethnologue usage doesn't belong into main article body; should be footnote at most.
• Ugly amassing of footnotes. Can't those be consolidated into one? (And could somebody please document what they actually say, because the preceding sentence is somewhat vague.)
• Clogg footnote (#4) is talking about Greek-leaning Vlachs, not ethnic Greeks in the sense of this article; doesn't seem to support statement in the text.
• Yucel footnote (#5) renders the Ottoman population figures, which very obviously are figures of denominations (millets); this needs to be explained; "Greeks" cannot be simply used here as if it meant the same as today.
• Knight, Few and Moore footnotes (#8-10): contemporary primary sources, needs explanation based on secondary sources; #7 is too fragmentary in the Google search to be meaningful.
• Cowan reference (#11) doesn't support what it's supposed to support: it says only that there are some Greeks in Bitola, it doesn't say that they are concentrated there, and it doesn't mention Gevgelija at all.
• Repeated double naming ("Monastiri/Bitola") unnecessary; Greek name needs to be given only on first mentioning.

Work it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we stub it (all the way) back until they do? BalkanFever 08:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fut. although your other comments seem constructive, I have an issue with the Grecoman part, nobody "was known as" Grecoman ever, anywhere. It has always been a pejorative term. So should we use pejorative terms for ethnic Macedonians and mention this is how "they are known" now? I have trouble understanding why you are so lenient with an offensive term.--Avg (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve to remain skeptical about all claims about the nature of that term that are made here. My general objections expressed on Talk:Grecomans in mid-2007 remain valid. We know next to nothing about it. For all I can see, it's probably just the counterpart to terms like "βουλγαρίζοντες" or "ρουμανίζοντες" as used by Greek authorities at various times to describe ethnic affiliations of various groups. The claim that it was always offensive and derogatory certainly hangs in the air entirely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already featured in the article. Not adding the estimation in the info box is inconsistent, a major problem I find with wikipedia is the inconsistency of it.

https://balkanstory.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/n-nikolopoulos-the-greek-minority-in-fyrom-is-without-help/

According to the link Kiro Gligorov has made a comment on the Greek population.

http://history-of-macedonia.com/2010/05/18/macedonia-gligorov-admits-interview-cesky-denik-existence-100000-greeks-fyrom/

A news paper article with Gligorovs claim written in Czech language.

Although the number does not reach 200,000 it is important to make an estimate based on the sources that are given, meaning taking a number between 100,000 and the 280,000 as the estimate for the info box.

As already stated, the information is featured in the article.

The number of 422 most likely refers to the number of people having Greek citizenship where as the 200,000 refers to as Greeks by decent. Never the less, Greeks of decent is still appropriate to add to the info box, just as when searching Greeks in America, the number given is not one that reflects Greek by citizenship, but Greeks of decent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.180.67 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After researching the Greek population more, no where does it state at all that the number is only 422. Only in source 1 of this article it is stated that the number is 422 however, it is also stated that "Representatives of other groups also claimed higher figures as well: Serbians, 300 000; Turks, 200 000, Roma, 200 000; Greeks, 250 000; and Roma, Bulgarians and Vlachs by 30 000 each".

The very title of the source "Macedonian census results – controversy or reality?" Implies that the data collected by the census is deemed untrustworthy and controversial, this source is unreliable in determining the Greek population as its main purpose is questioning the census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.180.67 (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 66.222.180.67 (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you have is not a suitable source since it only mentions that Gligorov spoke of 100,000 Greeks in the country but never presented any statistical sources to support it. The second link also is not suitable since it is based on a statement made by Gligorov which may or may not be factually based. The census remains the most reliable source for these figures although it is becoming quite out-of-date. In conclusion, we have nothing to support a number of 100,000 or 200,000 or 280,000. --Local hero ^talk 12:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the Gligorov quote, you will find that he says "The Greeks say that there are 250,000 Greeks here, while according to the statistics, there are only 100,000." Although he does not mention a specific statistical source he does reveal that the information was retrieved by statistics. A for the source regarding the 422 population, its very purpose is to question the census criticizing the census of being a part of political game playing. No where else is it stated that the population is 422 people.

Again as quoted by Gligorov "The Greeks say that there are 250,000 Greeks here, while according to the statistics, there are only 100,000." Here he highlights not only the Greek claim, but the statistical amount. 66.222.180.67 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use something he said at some point in time. We need the actual statistics themselves, but it appears they don't exist or never were released. The census number is staying but it could certainly be complemented with another estimate from a reliable source if it exists - a person's words don't count. --Local hero ^talk 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current source is deemed controversial and unreliable. Its main purpose is to question the census. It is being criticized as being part of a political game. I invite you to search for any other source that states hat the Greek population is only 422 people. This current source is highly unreliable.

Regarding the quote of Gligorov, it is highly unlikely that a political official of a new democratic country would so to say "pull numbers from a hat". In order to state what he said in an interview he had to have sources. When looking what counts as a primary source diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, news film footage, autobiographies, official records are acceptable. Here thee is a interview in which Gligorov states the numbers himself.

Again I invite you to find any other source that states that the Greek population is only 422 people, the current source is controversial and unacceptable. SuperMeunier (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's highly unlikely that he'd pull numbers out of a hat; we don't deal with odds, we only add what is

verifiable. You added 100,000 and 250,000 to the infobox - where did you get these numbers? And your edit summary makes it seem as if we've reached a resolution here which we have not. --Local hero ^talk 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The numbers come from the statistical population of the statement of Gligorov. Since the 100,000 "can not be verified" it is given as an estimation while the 250,000 comes from the general claim of the population. SuperMeunier (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. You don't get to make up estimations. You either add a source to support them or they must be removed. The general claim of the population? Do you at least have a source for this population's claim? --Local hero ^talk 00:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the interview by Kiro Gligorov. Again he quotes "The Greeks say that there are 250,000 Greeks here, while according to the statistics, there are only 100,000."

Also, the tone in your previous comment is highly unappreciated. That being said: No. You don't get to choose if Kiro Gligorov is a valid source being that he already is. Interviews and news count as primary sources. Also, have you managed to find another source besides the disputed one that states there are 422 Greeks in the country?

Being new to Wikipedia edditing, it would be greatly appreciated if you could see if I had added the source correctly.

Kind regards, SuperMeunier (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is important to mention that the number of Sarakatsani alone is 500-1500 according to the Wikipedia page. SuperMeunier (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you have cited in the article is anywhere near a reliable source. Absolutely no way we can use them. Find something better or go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then would you care to explain why you believe the source us unreliable? It is a direct quote from the former president that says directly in the quote that the information has been retrieved from statistics.He also mentions the Greek claim of the population. I believe you are familiar with what a primary source is. Do explain why you believe it is unreliable.

Just because you don't like it does not mean it is unreliable. I find that you are attempting to abuse power so that the information stays how you like it this is unacceptable for Wikipedia. If you dont like it then I suggest that it is you that should go away.

Again, do explain why you do not view this as a reliable source. SuperMeunier (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for an answer. This issue needs to be fixed. SuperMeunier (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, there is absolutely no way we are going to use cheap nationalist propaganda websites like that "history-of-macedonia.com" as a source for anything. If you could cite the actual original Gligorov interview from its original source, that might be a different issue. But even then, that's only a source for the 100,000 figure, certainly not for the 250,000 (and still not a good source at that: you asked me if I knew what a primary source is. Yes, in fact I do, and you will be surprised to learn that here on Wikipedia

primary sources are actually not what we use). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Despite the supposed nature of the website, it does not blindly quote Gligorov. The website plainly holds the interview and reports on it. Yes sourcing the original interview would be a better more neutral way however being held in 1993 tracking down the author of it would be extremely difficult. Also, of course being held in the 1993, there wouldn't be any internet news such as how news agencies report on news today. Recognizing the interview by Cesky Denik, the sourcing should be attributed solely to the newspaper. However a link would be needed to show the paper itself. So in summary, the sourcing should only be attributed to Cesky Denik, but other websites may be used to actually show the quote and article. SuperMeunier (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140306214352/http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r7UPjTaJB4s/SS1Z7Re1O4I/AAAAAAAAAVk/zGgtYb77oXY/s1600-h/laos1.jpg to http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r7UPjTaJB4s/SS1Z7Re1O4I/AAAAAAAAAVk/zGgtYb77oXY/s1600-h/laos1.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Aromanians from R.O.M participate in Pan-Hellenic councils in Greece and considered to be Greeks. Otherwise they wouldn't participate and they wouldn't go to Greece... Dourvakis (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All people identifiyng as Greeks were counted by the last census, whether they speek Slavic, Greek or Aromanian, including these who participated in Pan-Hellenic councils. Those ca. 10.000 caunted as Aromanians, obviously identified as such. Jingiby (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least, they have to be concluded in this article as they have strong links with Greece and Greek people. Dourvakis (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue clearly states Greek language is an immigrant language. It is not native to the RoM. Few hundred people use it. I have deleted the section because of sources manipulation and nonsensical claims. Jingiby (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged as "dubious" the recently inserted claim that According to several researches, the Greek population of North Macedonia in 1996 made up 2% of the total population, consisting of approximately 42,000 individuals., as sourced to "Doudoumes, G.E. (1996). Balkan Developments II. Dodoni Publications. p. 102." Issues:

1. A figure of 42,000 (or 2%) of the population would make Greeks the fourth largest population group in the country, just behind the Turks and even before Romani and Aromanians. This contradicts all information we have elsewhere, e.g. in
   sensational claim that requires exceptionally good references
   ". What exactly does that source say, and what's the empirical basis of its assessment?
2. Who are the "several researchers" (given that the source is ostensibly authored by a single author)?
3. Incidentally, the reference is mis-cited, as its actual title is in Greek ("Valkanikes Exelixeis") and should be cited as such to make it identifiable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section as recently added to the article. I have noticed that every one of those people was dead by the time North Macedonia became a state, with the vast majority of the living under the Ottoman Empire in the region that would come to be encompassed by North Macedonia. As such, I don't know if these people count as "Greeks in North Macedonia", and therefore if they should be included in the article. Antondimak (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose the links about people with article on them on the English Wikipedia to remain, but these with the redirects to the Greek Wikipedia are redundant, because they are defacto red links and may be deleted. Jingiby (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Δημήτρηss, here is an ongoing discussion about your edits on that article, but you did not participate. You can do it, please. Jingiby (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i usually make articles only in Greek wikipedia where really these kind of matters don't matter, i just saw the message you left on my profile. Anyway if the Greek wikipedia redirects are the problem, ill make a page for some in English so i can add them. Δημήτρηss (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally no mention or any addition of any kind about the historical and well documented presence of Ethnic Greeks in North Macedonia but it is instead erased by saying that today Greek is an "immigrant language" while also subtly implying that all Greeks were actually Aromanians which is incredibly inaccurate and misleading. Any mention about Greeks having lived or living in North Macedonia today is portrayed as the exaggeration of right wing Greek politicians which is also used to diminish the history of Greek people in the region further. This is truly unfortunate and it requires substantial changes to make the article present a non-pov, accurate description of the history of the Greeks in the region. 62.74.23.60 (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]