This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"After the war, in a 1951 census conducted by the Yugoslav authorities, that figure was put at 158,000"
This is an UTTERMOST nonsense. I challenge everybody to show me the official Yugoslav data that puts the number of ethnic Greeks in their southern Republic at 158.000, from the 1953 (and not the non-existent 1951 census).Skoplje with vicinity did not had more than 150.000 population, while Monastir/Bitolj did not had no more than 70.000, the others being less than 40.000 (Kumanovo, Tetovo, Prilep, Strumica, Ohrid), again with rural vicinity covering several hundreds square kilometers. This would indirectly brought up to an absurd conclusion that Greeks were either an over 30% population in several towns and their respective areas or a major, more than, say 60% or more of the population in the one or two of the towns (presumably Bitola and Krusevo, perhaps Prilep also).This claim is ridiculous and against all available statistical data published on the internet regarding the 1953 census in SFR Yugoslavia.
All post WW II Yugoslav and later FYROMian cenuses mention no more than one thousand ethnic Greeks in FYROM, period. This is nothing more than a lie, disguised as a non-substantiated opinion, reminiscent of Bulgarian/FYROMian claims of 300.000-1.000.000 strong minority of theirs in Greece.
The bottom line is: the 1953 census doesn't contain such enormous data that would make ethnic Greeks being c. 12% of the population in mid-20th century FYROM.I dare anybody to point to a reference from Yugoslav and successor states (or authoritative bodies like UN etc) about the ethnic circumstances states in that (and several other) censuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.46.165 ( talk) 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This contains a long winded discussion between two users. While sprinkled with information, it is mostly an argument.
(EhJJ)
TALK
00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE THE FIRST COMMENTS BELLOW ARE MINE AND NOT OF SPIROS 13...NTOU7'''
Stop attacking this article..there is no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.16.114 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 April 2008
1)It was created 3times because the username "ehJJ" (no personal attack, just telling the facts) deleted it everytime it appears! 2) This article contains only facts and not opinions, like the one on the upper text of the username "ehJJ". Speaking of neutral point of view, someone should go change that "Republic of Macedonia" wiki-article to "Republic of FYROM" because the name "Republic of ""Macedonia""" IS NOT RECOGNISED by United Nations! Wikipedia, by having FYROM with the name "Republic of Makedonia"is breaking every sense of international law. UN official name for that country is FYROM and Wikipedia has it as Republic of Macedonia without respecting some sensitive cases around that name. Naming FYROM as "Republic of Macedonia" is promoting FYROM(slavic Skopjian) propaganda to steal this national name of Greece. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.49.5 ( talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-CIA Factbook is NOT an international neither official source. Using CIA factbook as a source shows that you are not compatible with international laws. CIA is a U.S. organisation and its information is just the US point of view, which of course is not neutral. Please, the username EhJJ must stop attacking this article and propagandism.
-UN is the official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.37.133 ( talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Please , stop attacking this article , its only true states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.47.250 ( talk) 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is not any country called republic of macedonia recognised by UN. Wikipedia is now falling to disripute and its breaking every sense of international law. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Spiros 13 (
talk •
contribs)
19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
United Nations [1] | WP Official Name | WP Article Title |
---|---|---|
China | People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China |
Cuba | Republic of Cuba | Cuba |
Democratic People's Republic of Korea | Democratic People's Republic of Korea | North Korea |
Mexico | United Mexican States | Mexico |
Not on list | Republic of China | Republic of China |
Thailand | Kingdom of Thailand | Thailand |
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)
By not recognising UN decisions , you are just breaking intrnational law. Of course when the name dispute is settled, the country of
F.Y.R.O.M. will be recognised with its new name. We must respect UN desicions if we want to live in harmony and peace. You deleted the article for the greek minority in Fyrom without letting us first put the references. This is an example of fascism.
Spiros 13 (
talk)
22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How about renaming this page to "Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia" instead? -- Local hero 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. -- El on ka 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, to get discussion going at last, here's my take on the issue:
Work it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
According to the link Kiro Gligorov has made a comment on the Greek population.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I am still waiting for an answer. This issue needs to be fixed.
SuperMeunier (
talk)
20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a separate article Aromanians in the Republic of Macedonia. They are a separate community. Jingiby ( talk) 05:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"After the war, in a 1951 census conducted by the Yugoslav authorities, that figure was put at 158,000"
This is an UTTERMOST nonsense. I challenge everybody to show me the official Yugoslav data that puts the number of ethnic Greeks in their southern Republic at 158.000, from the 1953 (and not the non-existent 1951 census).Skoplje with vicinity did not had more than 150.000 population, while Monastir/Bitolj did not had no more than 70.000, the others being less than 40.000 (Kumanovo, Tetovo, Prilep, Strumica, Ohrid), again with rural vicinity covering several hundreds square kilometers. This would indirectly brought up to an absurd conclusion that Greeks were either an over 30% population in several towns and their respective areas or a major, more than, say 60% or more of the population in the one or two of the towns (presumably Bitola and Krusevo, perhaps Prilep also).This claim is ridiculous and against all available statistical data published on the internet regarding the 1953 census in SFR Yugoslavia.
All post WW II Yugoslav and later FYROMian cenuses mention no more than one thousand ethnic Greeks in FYROM, period. This is nothing more than a lie, disguised as a non-substantiated opinion, reminiscent of Bulgarian/FYROMian claims of 300.000-1.000.000 strong minority of theirs in Greece.
The bottom line is: the 1953 census doesn't contain such enormous data that would make ethnic Greeks being c. 12% of the population in mid-20th century FYROM.I dare anybody to point to a reference from Yugoslav and successor states (or authoritative bodies like UN etc) about the ethnic circumstances states in that (and several other) censuses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.46.165 ( talk) 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This contains a long winded discussion between two users. While sprinkled with information, it is mostly an argument.
(EhJJ)
TALK
00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE THE FIRST COMMENTS BELLOW ARE MINE AND NOT OF SPIROS 13...NTOU7'''
Stop attacking this article..there is no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.16.114 ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 April 2008
1)It was created 3times because the username "ehJJ" (no personal attack, just telling the facts) deleted it everytime it appears! 2) This article contains only facts and not opinions, like the one on the upper text of the username "ehJJ". Speaking of neutral point of view, someone should go change that "Republic of Macedonia" wiki-article to "Republic of FYROM" because the name "Republic of ""Macedonia""" IS NOT RECOGNISED by United Nations! Wikipedia, by having FYROM with the name "Republic of Makedonia"is breaking every sense of international law. UN official name for that country is FYROM and Wikipedia has it as Republic of Macedonia without respecting some sensitive cases around that name. Naming FYROM as "Republic of Macedonia" is promoting FYROM(slavic Skopjian) propaganda to steal this national name of Greece. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.49.5 ( talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-CIA Factbook is NOT an international neither official source. Using CIA factbook as a source shows that you are not compatible with international laws. CIA is a U.S. organisation and its information is just the US point of view, which of course is not neutral. Please, the username EhJJ must stop attacking this article and propagandism.
-UN is the official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.37.133 ( talk) 11:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Please , stop attacking this article , its only true states —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.47.250 ( talk) 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is not any country called republic of macedonia recognised by UN. Wikipedia is now falling to disripute and its breaking every sense of international law. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Spiros 13 (
talk •
contribs)
19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
United Nations [1] | WP Official Name | WP Article Title |
---|---|---|
China | People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China |
Cuba | Republic of Cuba | Cuba |
Democratic People's Republic of Korea | Democratic People's Republic of Korea | North Korea |
Mexico | United Mexican States | Mexico |
Not on list | Republic of China | Republic of China |
Thailand | Kingdom of Thailand | Thailand |
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)
By not recognising UN decisions , you are just breaking intrnational law. Of course when the name dispute is settled, the country of
F.Y.R.O.M. will be recognised with its new name. We must respect UN desicions if we want to live in harmony and peace. You deleted the article for the greek minority in Fyrom without letting us first put the references. This is an example of fascism.
Spiros 13 (
talk)
22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How about renaming this page to "Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia" instead? -- Local hero 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. -- El on ka 21:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Now, to get discussion going at last, here's my take on the issue:
Work it out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
According to the link Kiro Gligorov has made a comment on the Greek population.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I am still waiting for an answer. This issue needs to be fixed.
SuperMeunier (
talk)
20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a separate article Aromanians in the Republic of Macedonia. They are a separate community. Jingiby ( talk) 05:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)