Talk:Macedonian Canadians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of these claims are false, and are criminal offences under Canadian criminal law, and the U.N, and the U.S

The so called Macedonian Canadians were in fact people with very strong Bulgarian national identity up until the 1960s, when the Yugoslav Macedonians, trained by Tito came in. They started the so called ethnic Macedonian community and started the spreading of Titoist propaganda in the so called Macedonian language, which is in fact a western Bulgarian dialect. Before this, all immigrants from Macedonia called themselves Bulgarians from Macedonia. All documents of their first churches- Sts. Cyril and Methody and St. George are written in literary Bulgarian, as well as the documents of the benevolent associations, MPO, The Macedonian Tribune, etc. Macedonians are not an ethnic nation. Macedonians are a political nation, because Macedonia is a geographic region and even in the country itself (FYROM), there are many ethnic groups- Bulgarians, Albanians, Vlachs, Turks, Serbs... Thry are all Macedonians, because they are Macedonian citizens, but they are not Macedonian as an ethnicity, because such an ethnicity does not exist. The so called Macedonian ethniciy and language were promoted for first time by the Comintern in the 1930s and then by Tito after 1944. Later on, the new Macedonians started to claim Greek and Bulgarian ethnic figures to overcome their inferiority complex due to lack of history and the fact that all their heroes from the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, such as Miladinov Brothers, Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev, etc. had a very strong Bulgarian national identity and they used only literary Bulgarian. All documents of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization are also written in literary Bulgarian. But all these facts are pretty inconvenient for the Skopje authorities and that is why they prefer to re-publish the Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarians by the 19th c. Bosnian folkorist Stefan Verkovic merely as Macedonian Folk Songs. The policy in FYROM is in all possible documents and monuments the word Bulgarian to be dropped or replaced with Macedonian. They also try to do the same in Canada. The so called First Macedonian Church Sts. Cyril and Methody, bult in 1910 is still with its original name that is Sts. Cyril and Methody Macedono-Bulgarian Church, because according to its original protocols, written in Bulgarian, it is built by Bulgarian immigrants from Macedonia. Krum Pindoff, stated as a Macedonian Canadian is actually a Bulgarian Canadian, that has always claimed a Bulgarian identity. The name Krum is the name of the Bulgarian khan Krum, that ruled Bulgaria in its pre-Christian period.

Contents

[edit] Picture

Colorized version, Bulgarian flag clearly visible. [1]. The church is definitely Bulgarian. Mr. Neutron 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's some irony, isn't it --Laveol T 18:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, and the same picture still says first macedonian church in Canada. Uuttyyrreess 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is colorized from the original, so that on can see the "Macedonian" caption is a fake. Mr. Neutron 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


The original caption says it was under a Russian archbishop, so they could be Russian Flags Uuttyyrreess 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They both look the same if Black and white Uuttyyrreess 19:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

False. The blue of the Russian flag is much darker than the green of the Bulgarian flag. The middle band of the Bulgarian flag is slightly brighter than the bottom band, corresponding to the brigntness in the picture. Mr. Neutron 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that they were Macedonians from Macedonia who built the Church under the Bulgarian Orthodox Church with a Russian Archbishop. It might have been a joint church with Macedonians-Bulgarians-Russians, but it was built by Macedonians. It wasn't until later that macedonians built there churches under the Macedonian Orthodox Church after becoming independent, but before that the built their churches under Bulgarian, Serbian, And Russian Churches. Uuttyyrreess 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So you say it was a Bulgarian church now - finally. By the way why did you say you were Bulgarian on my talk page? I've being wondering for some time now and finally got to asking you --Laveol T 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"Russian flag"? It was not in use then. Try the flag of the Russian Empire. . Mr. Neutron 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
it was in use, try Flag of the Russian Empire 1883-1917 Uuttyyrreess 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW you could stop switching accounts now, we already know you're the same person. Uuttyyrreess 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we are different. You should know, because you created 3 accounts in a single day. And by the way, even so, I dont see any "Macedonian flags" being waved, just Bulgarian, possibly Russian. Mr. Neutron 19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


What was wrong with the picture this time, it was according to the caption Uuttyyrreess 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The caption is fake, that is whats wrong. Mr. Neutron 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
even the bottom part? Uuttyyrreess 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it is faked. Mr. Neutron 20:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats what you say though, there is no reliable proof to justify your answer Uuttyyrreess 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Try to find a neutral and reliable source which describes it as "Macedonian" church. http://www.macedonianhistory.ca will not do. Mr. Neutron 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Encyclopedia: Macedonians belong to the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity. They established SS. Cyril and Methody Church in Toronto in 1910. It united immigrants from many different villages into a single religious community. [2] Uuttyyrreess 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

1910? I thought it was 1911. Try again. Mr. Neutron 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF??? You try again, what wrong with the Canadian Encyclopedia?Uuttyyrreess 20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I can present a government source which descibes it as Macedono-Bulgarian church. Labeling it as Macedonian is wrong. Mr. Neutron 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then upload a pic without the label Uuttyyrreess 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

flag of Bulgaria 1878-1944
flag of Bulgaria 1878-1944

Why doesn't the one on the church contain the arms? Frightner 20:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The coat of arms was not in universal use. Mr. Neutron 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I guess they were Russian Flags after all. Uuttyyrreess 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No it was not, read carefully my comment above. Mr. Neutron 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because the one with the arms is the flag of Kingdom of Bulgaria and the other is this of ethnic Bulgarians - what I mean is that the Bulgarian flag changed in time, but what remained was its colours - white, green and red. You're forgetting that we are talking about Bulgarians that emigrated from Macedonia and not from Kingdom of Bulgaria. Actually I,too, found a source that says 1910 as founding year of the church - it describes it Bulgarian though. There is no doubt that this is the same church which as I see it should be called Bulgaro-Macedonian or Macedono-Bulgarian or something of the sort - it would correspond well with the article itself. --Laveol T 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you according to my recent findings. The following sources both claim the church to be "Macedonian-Bulgarian" or "Bulgarian-Macedonian" [3][4]. The second source, even though labeling the church as Macedonian-Bulgarian, specifically refers to the peoples as "Macedonians". I would assume the church was a joint organization between ethnic Macedonians and Bulgarians. Frightner 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The church is Macedonian. When the ethnic Macedonians came to Canada the Macedonian church was not independent yet so they had to make it with an official church so they chose the Bulgarian one, it was only a formality. Anyone that was there at the time will tell you that there was not a single Bulgarian at the church. If it was Bulgarian then why does it have Macedonian in front of its name? If it was Bulgarian then this would not be necessary. In order for the Macedonians to make a church they had to make it with a recognized orthodox church, that’s all that it was. About the flags, they are obviously Russian. Alexander the great1 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
No it was not Russian flag, read carefully my comment above. Mr. Neutron 14:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your picture is fake. You have made a fake picture which shows that they were actually Russian flags.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander the great1 (talk • contribs)
Wrong, the caption is fake. Read comments above for the brightness of the blue in the Russian flag and the green of the Bulgarian flag before saying any more nonsense. Mr. Neutron 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The caption is not fake, your picture is fake and full of nonsense. Here is a more accurate representation of what the church looked like that day. The Russian flag is clearly visible.[[5]]Alexander the great1 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The caption is fake and my sources prove it. As for the Russian flag, you are definitely color-blind. Mr. Neutron 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Alexander the great1, do not fake pictures. You think you can just smear a little blue in the middle in the image and make it appear as if it was the russian flag to begin with? Pathetic. Mr. Neutron 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You obviously do not have a lot of experience dealing with images because it is obvious that the image you provided was colored afterwards. As I pointed out you did not color the flag well enough [[6]]. I simply corrected your picture to make it more accurate. Alexander the great1 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I am not suprised it comes from you, to smear some blue in the true color reconstruction to make it appear as if it was the russian flag. Mr. Neutron 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
So now you are admitting that your image was a “reconstruction”, that is a first step. You provided your “reconstruction” and I reconstructed yours to make it more accurate.Alexander the great1 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You did not reconstruct anything, you just smeared some blue. So, the bushes on the side of the church are also blue in color? Nice vegetation you got there in Canada :). Mr. Neutron 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference between your picture and mine is that you claimed that yours was real and you even said “I have not heard one valid argument as to why the flag shown in the picture is not Bulgarian”. You tried to trick people into believing that your picture was genuine while from the start I said that my picture was only a representation. You have just provided another example of an attempt to fake history. Alexander the great1 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never claimed the picture is real, just "colorized" and "reconstructed", on the other hand your version is blatantly falsified. Mr. Neutron 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
“Colorized version” means color photograph not reconstructed. Mine is not falsified because I never said it was real, it is a correction of your falsified picture. Alexander the great1 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry you seem to have deficiencies in idiomatic English. I am not continuing with your trolling. Mr. Neutron 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms

Can someone explain to me why the Canadian flag of the time is also shown without its coat of arms? Mr. Neutron 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Btw I have not heard one valid argument as to why the flag shown in the picture is not Bulgarian. Mr. Neutron 14:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutron the flag in the picture is the British one. Because Canada was not fully autonomous at the time. But thanks for pointing out the flag because it is proof that your picture is fake. [[7]]
The flag is not the british one, as the segment occupies the upper left corner only. It is a Canadian colonial flag, which lacks a coat of arms. Mr. Neutron 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It is British can you not see the cross going threw it [[8]]Alexander the great1 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, this is the british flag on the upper left corner of the Canadian colonial flag, and the coat of arms is missing in the remainder of the red banner. Mr. Neutron 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The flags are not the same, you did not color them well enough. Your picture is a blue flag with a red dot in the middle. It is obviously not the same.Alexander the great1 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not erase sources which dispute the "Macedonian" church. Even the canadian encyclopedia lists the church as "Macedonian-Bulgarian", Mr. Neutron 16:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed disputed image

According to Bulgarian government sources it is "Macedono-Bulgarian", the caption is disputed. [9]. Mr. Neutron 13:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Also according to the highly cited Multicultural Canada: [10]. Mr. Neutron 13:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MacedoniansProtest.jpg

Image:MacedoniansProtest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

This page should be moved back to its original title of Macedonian Canadians. Macedonian Canadian and Macedonian Candians have many more google hits than this title. BalkanFever 08:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. Köbra Könverse 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Even so, the word "ethnic" (seeing as "Slav" is "offensive") should appear somewhere per the main article location, to distinguish from other groups of Macedonian Canadians. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I double Kekrops and let me turn your attention to the fact that this way you exclude all the people that are from Ethnic Macedonian descent. Most of them are second or third generation of people that emigrated to the country and can hardly be described as pure Ethnic Macedonians. --Laveol T 13:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you two on about? Who, besides you, mentioned ethnicity? Or anything for that fact. Before you go babbling on about whether or not we find the word "Slav" offensive, you should consider asking "why" BalkanFever suggested a move. Capisce? Köbra Könverse 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you on about? If this article isn't about a specific Slavic ethnic group possessing Canadian citizenship, what is it about? Certainly not about these Macedonian Canadians. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There you have it, you just said yourself that the article implies ethnicity, so why the disambiguation? Macedonian Canadians is enough, as everyone except for Greeks, ofcourse, use it as an ethnic term. If I were you, I wouldn't bother contradicting myself anymore. Move the article and if you have no other affairs to meddle in, do some origami or something. Köbra Könverse 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't imply ethnicity; it is entirely about ethnicity, and the title should reflect that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh my friggin' God. If the article is about the ethnic group, which it is, Why have "Ethnic" Macedonian Canadians? If the article was referring to citizens from Greek Macedonia and they weren't "Slavomacedonian", as you like to say, then they would be ethnically Greek, no? Therefore, as the article is specifically about the ethnic group, "Ethnic" should be omitted. Jesus, the people you have to deal with... I have nothing else to say, except; I rest my case. Köbra Könverse 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Laveol, there is no "pure" anything. And no, Kekrops, this is not about offence, or disambiguation even, but about the common English term. The real world calls them "Macedonian Canadians", it doesn't call your friends "Macedonian Canadians", it calls them "Greek Canadians". Back to Laveol, we are not excluding the people who are born in Canada - this term applies to them more than it does to their migrant parents and grandparents. BalkanFever 11:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, and how? You mean they feel like Ethnic Macedonians? --Laveol T 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
First you had Macedonian Slavs moved to Macedonians (ethnic group) because you found the term Slav "offensive". Then you said Skopjans was "offensive", even when used by individual editors on talk pages as an alternative to the self-identifying term which they find offensive. Now you reject even the "ethnic" qualifier in favour of plain "Macedonian". I suppose the natural conclusion is to move Macedonians (ethnic group) to plain Macedonians. And then you say you're not monopolizing the name. Whatever. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm responding to Laveol, because there's no point responding to the troll. Maybe not as much as the ones in RoM, but they do. That's why they are Macedonian Canadians (i.e. Macedonians + Canadians), not just Macedonians living in Canada. BalkanFever 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
How about coming up with a valid argument for a change, instead of your characteristic vulgarity? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
KEKP-Omega-Fork, do you read any comments or do you just skim through them? As far as I can tell, you haven't replied to any "valid arguments" we have made, whereas we have responded to your seemingly nonsensical construction of words above, accordingly. I'm only going to say thing once more, because you still have your head in never-Neverland; as "Macedonian" implies a strictly ethnic term in the title (which you admitted) why make it so obvious as to put "Ethnic" at the beginning? Hey, let's put "Ethnic" in front of Greek Americans, you know, incase people become confused. Better yet, let's create an article about Cretan Americans. Think about it, it's not hard. Köbra Könverse 13:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you read English? I admitted nothing of the sort. My observation that the article is about a Slavic ethnic group living in Canada pertained to the content, not the title, and was in response to your suggestion that ethnicity was somehow irrelevant. In fact, "Macedonian" is about as far from a "strictly ethnic" term as you can get. (Hint: if you can, count the number of entries under the "In demography" section.) That's precisely the point. If you can't understand that, you can't be helped. As for your "valid arguments", you're going to have to help me locate them in the text. So far, all that is visible to the naked eye is an inane invocation of Google, and your WP:OSE observation that Greek Americans lacks the word "ethnic". The Google "argument" falls short at Macedonians (ethnic group), which isn't at Macedonians despite your best efforts, so why should it have any relevance here? As for why we don't need to call Greek Xs "ethnic" Greeks, the answer is simple; there is no group other than the ethnic that uses that name for itself, let alone, as in this case, a group bigger than the ethnic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for simple titles. These people are called "Macedonian Canadians", that's where the article should be. I also think the discussion about in what sense that's an "ethnic" characteristics, or in what sense it covers second-/third-generation people, is a red herring. In these respects, Macedonian-Canadians are no different from Greek-Canadians, Italian-Canadian or whatever. Moreover, in the context of immigrant communities in countries like Canada and Australia, the term Macedonian has come to be pretty much restricted to the ethnic meaning in common English usage, so I see no problem of ambiguity here. The remaining disambig issue (if there really is one and it's not just again artificial POV-flagging) can easily be handled with a simple {{distinguish2|Macedonian [[Greek Canadians]]}} dab mark or something like that.

Not to be confused with Macedonian Greek Canadians.

There is no requirement for article titles to be maximally unambiguous, as long as a competing meaning is not already the subject of an individual article of equal importance. And since we are unlikely to ever have dedicated articles on Greek Macedonian Canadians or the like, the article title is no problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Moreover, in the context of immigrant communities in countries like Canada and Australia, the term Macedonian has come to be pretty much restricted to the ethnic meaning in common English usage, so I see no problem of ambiguity here." On the contrary, it is among the Greeks of the diaspora that the Macedonian regional identity has often been expressed most strongly, given the much greater contact and at times conflict with the "other Macedonians" than would be the case in Greece. In this sense, the expatriate communities "live" the dispute in their own everyday lives, and not just via the talking heads on the evening news. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I said "in common English usage". That the members of these groups may have their own views is certainly true, but they can't dictate what the majority of the native English speech communities do. And it is in this general English usage that the term has in fact been "monopolised". You may regret it, but that's how it is. And the conflicts between the communities are of course irrelevant to Wikipedia article naming decisions. As long as there is no other article to disambiguate "Macedonian Canadian" from, there is not even an issue to debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You're forgetting that the "native English speech communities" include many people who would reject your usage of the term. Considering Melbourne, for example, has the third largest ethnic Greek population of any city in the world, I find your claim that yours is the only "common English usage" to be rather dubious. Of those Australians and Canadians who would actually use the term at all, how many would use it in the Greek sense? I suspect the answer may be far higher than you think. In any case, I must reiterate that I simply don't see why the "common English usage" argument is relevant here but not at Macedonians (ethnic group). Unless you want to move that to Macedonians and ethnically cleanse the disambiguation page. What happened to consistency? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing. "Macedonians" has more than one actual Wikipedia pages that compete for the name, so it gets disambiguated in the title. "Macedonian Canadians" may have competing meanings (for a minority of speakers) in the real world, but it has not more than one Wikipedia page, so it does not get disambiguated in the title. Simple. But anyway, consistency was never Wikipedia's forte. Of course, if you want to move Macedonians (ethnic group) to Macedonians, I'd give some favourable consideration to that... Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, about that. Does it? Not any more, thanks to you-know-whom. The only article allowed to have "Macedonians" in its title is you-know-what, since these Macedonians were unceremoniously relegated to a subsection of the demographics section of another article. Thus, while we can have "Macedonian Americans", "Macedonian Canadians", "Macedonian Australians", "Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria", Albania, Serbia, and São Tomé and Príncipe, the only article to propose an alternative meaning of the term was apparently deemed too much to digest. What a joke. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ancient Macedonians is still there though... Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot to say "the only article that doesn't refer to a group safely dead and buried". (Even so, that doesn't stop us from having an ancient Rome alongside a Rome.) Still, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw them too merged one day into a perfect indivisible whole. After you preside over the page move, naturally. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian Canadians

I'm glad the name of the article has been changed to "Macedonian Canadians" since no Macedonian in Canada says they're "Canadian with ethnic Macedonian origin." Most will say "Macedonian Canadian" so I'm glad the article reflects how these people self-determinate. Also, the portion which states "not to be confused with Macedonian Greek Canadians" is completely out of place since there is NO "Macedonian Greek Canadian" article and honestly how dumb can you be to confuse an ethnic and subgroup? Maktruth (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, citations are needed. Maktruth (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The dablink is the result of a compromise on this talk page. Please don't remove it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please create a correct article or redirect "Macedonian Greek Canadian" to the appropriate portion of the "Greek Canadian" article considering Macedonian Greek Canadian could mean MANY THINGS: 1) an ethnic Macedonian from/in Greece 2) a Canadian who is half ethnic Macedonian and half Greek... Maktruth (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Whereas "Macedonian Canadian" can only mean ONE thing, right? Whatever. You will be reverted in due course. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what else it could mean Kekrops, if a Greek stated "Macedonian Canadian" they would state their regional identity but forget their ethnic marker, and yes most people would presume that you mean ethnic Macedonian, hope that clears things up Maktruth (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think "Macedonian Canadian (ethnic group)" will work, what do you think? Maktruth (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Why re-open the debate about the article title? It's fine as is, it's the overwhelmingly predominant meaning in English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Because Kekrops is claiming that "Macedonian Canadian" can mean Greeks from the geographic Macedonia with Canadian citizenship. I simply stated the portion which states "not to be confused with Macedonian Greek Canadians" is completely out of place since there is NO "Macedonian Greek Canadian" article and its in an article with clearly distinguishes the ethnic group. I also stated "Macedonian Greek Canadians" could mean a Canadian who is 1/2 Macedonian and 1/2 Greek therefore a "Macedonian Greek Canadian" article or a subsection in "Greek Canadians" to include "Macedonian Greeks" should be made so "Macedonian Greek Canadian" can revert there to better clarify things. Maktruth (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It "clearly distinguishes the ethnic group" only insofar as the dablink remains. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence distinguishes it, get yourself together Maktruth (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously does it matter??? Macedonian Canadians or Canadians with Ethnic Macedonian origin?? Who are we to judge whether they identify as Macedonians or Canadians, unless you live in canada and have any experience with these. people please get a grip, how feeble! P m kocovski (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actualy they call them self Macedonian Canadians or Macedonians in Canada,here is a link of one of thear society.
http://macedonianhistory.ca/index.html,--Makedonij (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

[edit] Photos

If anyone has photos they can add, DO IT! Mactruth (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)