Talk:Macedonia (Greece)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 26 2003 and November 21 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Macedonia (Greece)/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Jkelly 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Delirium writes attempt to reword intro a bit to make clearer who holds what view (comments?)

Yeah, it's a bit long, but it's fine. We should be able to remove the NPOV dispute marker now, right? The page seems to have covered all the bases. --Shallot 00:42, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From "Aegean Macedonia"

HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY VANDALISM !!! an rosenzweig:Das kann nicht war sein dass die griechen nach "TITONAMEN" richten sollen ! SIEHE "AEGAEAN MACEDONIA". population:2.500.000 ? WAS SIND DIE 2.500.000 MENSCHEN? SIND NICHT MAKEDONIER ? ODER WOLLEN SIE NOCH BEHAUPTEN DIE SLAWISCHE BEVÖLKERUNG SIND DIE MAKEDONIER ? ist es die ganze Objektivität VON WIKIPEDIA ? IST ES NICHT WAR MIT DEM LANGUAGE STATUS ? und,und und .

MAKEDON,thessaloniki. 62.47.22.6 27.04.2003

This is google's translation: Tuf-Kat

HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY VANDALISM!!! on rosenzweig:Das cannot was to be that the Greeks after "TITONAMEN" to arrange be supposed! SEE "AEGAEAN MACEDONIA". population:2.500.000? WHAT ARE 2,500,000 HUMANS? AREN'T MACEDONIANS? OR WOOLS IT STILL STATING THE SLAWI POPULATION ARE THE MACEDONIANS? is it the whole objectivity OF WIKIPEDIA? ISN'T IT WAS WITH THE LANGUAGE STATUS? and, and and.

Danke TUF-KAT ! MAKEDON,thessaloniki.

Don't thank me too much. This translation doesn't make sense. Tuf-Kat

My translation: John Owens

HISTORY and GEOGRAPHY VANDALISM !!! to Rosenzweig: That can not be true that the greeks should correct "Tito's naming" ! SEE "AEGEAN MACEDONIA". population:2,500,000 ? WHAT ARE THE 2,500,000 PEOPLE ? AREN'T THEY MACEDONIANS ? OR DO YOU STILL WANT TO STATE THAT THE SLAVIC POPULATION ARE THE MACEDONIANS ? is it the entire objectivity OF WIKIPEDIA ? ISN'T IT TRUE WITH THE LANGUAGE STATUS ? and,and and .

Not much better. -- John Owens

Not too much bad - only the first sentence need to be different, as "richten" not only means "to correct", but also "to follow". Thus here is my version - a native german speaker, but then maybe not 100% english :-)

to rosenzweig: It cannot be true that the greek should follow the "Tito naming"! SEE "AEGAEAN MACEDONIA". population:2.500.000 ? WHAT ARE THE 2.500.000 HUMANS? ARE NOT MAKEDONIANS (yes, german grammar is broken here) ? OR DO YOU WANT TO GO AS FAR AND STATE THAT THE SLAWIC POPULATION ARE MAKEDONIANS? is that the whole WIKIPEDIA objectivity? IT IS NOT TRUE WITH THE LANGUAGE STATUS?

andy 13:24 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of figured "war" was supposed to be "wahr", but it's funnier my way. ;) -- John Owens 06:24 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Oops! I did use the "true" translation myself, I guess I meant it's funnier Tuf-Kat's/Google's way. -- John Owens 06:27 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Now, as for the two anons, if things don't cool down in a form that looks like passable English soon, I'm going to protect the page and let you slug it out here until a reasonable compromise is reached, at which time I would unprotect it. -- John Owens 07:41 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure this page is necessary. The Greek prefecture of Makedonia should be under that location, the discussion of the history and geography of the region "Macedonia" should be (and is) under Macedonia and the term Aegean Macedonia is rarely if ever used. --Delirium 07:21 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That doesn't work because (contrary to what this article says) there is no Periphery or Prefecture in Greece called "Macedonia" or "Makedonia". "Makedonia" is simply the Greek language word for Macedonia as a whole. - Efghij 07:28 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In Makedonia are Makedonians !!!

Ah yeah. Being of Greek heritage I suppose I should've known that. :P But still, I think Makedonia is a better place for the Greek portion of Macedonia, and this perhaps could redirect there, because the term "Aegean Macedonia" really isn't used much; even "Greek Macedonia" or "the Greek portion of Macedonia" is used more often. Most Greeks, discounting the wildly optimistic expansionist fringe, actually consider "Makedonia" to only refer to the Greek portion, as this is approximately the same as the historical region of Macedon (prior to that kingdom conquering most of the known world). Of course that's another whole argument over whether FYROM should be called "Macedonia" or not, but we don't have to deal with that here. We already have one general article on Macedonia, so all we need now is one o the Greek portion, which I think should be at Makedonia. --Delirium 07:35 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A clarification -- essentially the Greek position is that Makedonia is Macedonia, and thus they take offense at the term "Aegean Macedonia," as they claim that it makes no sense to talk about the "Greek part of Macedonia," because all of Macedonia is currently contained within Greece. They consider the other regions that call themselves Macedonia to be doing so erroneously, because while they were once under the rule of Macedon, so was Persia and Egypt, and clearly it'd be ridiculous to talk about "Egyptian Macedonia". --Delirium 07:38 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moving this to Greek Macedonia would be fine, but moving it to Makedonia would be a violation of our English naming policy and our NPOV policy (since it would mean accepting the Greek POV that Greek Macedonia is the only real Macedonia). - Efghij 07:47 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The English vs. non-English seems to depend on the issue; there's quite a few articles listed under transliterations. As for NPOV, either side seems POV -- calling it "Aegean Macedonia" accepts the FYROM/Bulgarian POV that the "real Macedonia" extends beyond Greece. --Delirium 07:52 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The policy is to use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)). This is a sticky situation NPOV-wise, but we can't "give" the name Macedonia to Greece any more than we can "give" it the FYROM. The article on Macedonia should be on the region that (A) most English speakers call Macedonia and (B) most residents of that region call Macedonia. - Efghij 08:08 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Upon giving it some thought I agree. I've written up the intro with a summary of both sides, but we really need a page somewhere about the naming dispute (possibly integrated into Macedonia, or possibly at a separate page), which can be linked from here, from Republic of Macedonia, and from anything else that might be related to the dispute. --Delirium 08:10 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia is Josip Broz Tito's propaganda name for the Greek Province Makedonia.

MAKEDON,Thessaloniki. 14.08.2003

In Prefectures of Greece there is no prefecture Makedonia listed. -- andy 10:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a higher-level division than Prefecture, and a geographical rather than governmental division (somewhat akin to New England in the United States). It is comprised of the Prefectures of West Macedonia, Central Macedonia, and the western part of the Prefecture of East Macedonia and Thrace (the eastern part of which forms the geographical area of Thrace/Thraki, which, like Macedonia, doesn't correspond to a Prefecture). --Delirium 08:09, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia is the Yugoslav interpretation for the Greek name Makedonia.

See map United Macedonia: http://www.makedonija.info/map1.jpg

Makedon,Greece 24.8.2003

Repeating the same arugments over and over again are not improving your point. You aren't listening. To change this to the Greek version is to take a position. At Wikipedia, we decline to do so. RickK 20:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand what that is suppossed to prove. - Efghij 20:06, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

We do need to find a good way to resolve this, but I've been thinking it over and thus haven't done anything yet. The fundamental problem is that the two options both seem POV to me -- calling it "Aegean Macedonia" is taking the Yugoslav/Bulgarian POV, and calling it simply "Macedonia" or "Makedonia" is taking the Greek position. Most of the rest of the world is faced with a similar problem, which is why the self-proclaimed Republic of Macedonia isn't recognized under that name by most countries (instead being called FYROM). --Delirium 22:15, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

After some more thought, a tentative solution is to put information on the dispute over what constitutes Macedonia into that article, and link to that from this article, with a note that the name is either Aegean Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, or Macedonia/Makedonia, depending on who you ask. However, that leaves the question of what to title this article. The options are:

• Aegean Macedonia - This will be seen as POV and possibly offensive by Greek partisans, who nearly universally claim the term Aegean Macedonia was invented by Tito.
• Makedonia - This will be seen as POV by Bulgarian and FYROM partisans.
• Macedonia (Greece) - This is possibly close to a compromise; it still fails to satisfy the Greek partisans who claim the region of northern Greece is simply an unqualified Macedonia/Makedonia, but it is perhaps more palatable to them than Aegean Macedonia, and it should avoid offending the Bulgarian/FYROM partisans since it does qualify that we're speaking of a region of Greece.

Any objections to that, or comments, or other suggested solutions? --Delirium 22:23, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

I don't like having an article at Makedonia, because that isn't an English language word. RickK 23:41, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, neither is Macedonia. It's the Greek word Μακεδονια. One way of transliterating it is Macedonia, and another way of transliterating it is Makedonia. The former is an older transliteration system, while the latter is a newer one. The change is similar to the change from Bombay to Mumbai in India. In any case, I'd prefer the last of the three suggestions above, with redirects from the other two. --Delirium 01:13, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

As I stated above, I would support moving this article to "Greek Macedonia" or "Macedonia (Greece)". - Efghij 02:05, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Moving "Aegean Macedonia" and "Makedonia" to "Macedonia (Greece)" and adding what Delirium wrote above about prefectures sounds like a good idea. --Shallot 14:10, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the HRW report, this should be discussed somehow in the wider context of ethnic tensions: it's undeniable that there is discrimination against non-Greeks in Greece (Albanians get the brunt of it), but there's similar discrimination against the Greek minority in Albania, Bulgaria, and Macedonia/FYROM as well, that has caused a good 70-90% of them to emigrate over the past 80 years. --Delirium 02:49, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's a topic for a new page that could be linked from here, or pages about the other countries. And speaking of which, I'll go do the renaming discussed a while ago. --Shallot 14:31, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Unification Proposal

I just discovered that there are half a dozen different articles about Macedonia. I don't even have a complete list of them yet; we need a disambiguation page.

The simmering dispute over The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- which I tried to cool but perhaps have inadvertantly brought to full boil -- might be eased if all discussion about the "naming dispute" could be go on a single page.

Should we create a Wikipedia:Macedonia naming dispute page, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:51, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm working on an article on the dispute for the Wikipedia proper (not the Wikipedia: namespace) so it doesn't have to be reiterated in every article. However, given the delicate nature, I'd like to do a good job on the first draft with reliable sources to stave off edit wars as much as possible before they start. I'm currently planning Macedonian identity dispute, since the dispute is really over identity: is a Macedonian someone from a certain Slavic country, or is a Macedonian a type of Greek, like a Pelopponesian or an Athenian or a Cypriot? This has implications beyond the name, including the heritage (as can be seen from the fact that the Republic of Macedonia tried to use the Vergina Sun on its flag for a time). --Delirium 22:39, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Good idea, both on the namespace and on doing a thorough first draft. See ya Monday! --Uncle Ed 22:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Update: really busy with tons of stuff, so that article's on hold, though I still plan to write it eventually. =] --Delirium 06:13, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to note with my last edit: the reference is also unnecessary because the same information should be able to be obtained simply by clicking the link. --Shallot 18:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(and if you think that the external link belongs there, add it to that page --Shallot)

The Bulgarian term for Aegean Macedonia is Belomorska Trakia. Do not delete it. --Vladko 04:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

odysseas

I am not going to consume in any form of debate with nationalists. The outrageous comment that I deleted expesses the typical FYROM propaganta. The whole subject has been exhaustively discussed in the Macedonia article. Should I also start making similar changes in the FYROM article about how they were naming their country before 1948? Do you think that by creating nationalistic anger between greek and macedonian slav editors you will help Wikipedia?

North Greece we call North Greece, aka Macedonia, Thrace and Epirus, just as Germans call South Germany, South Germany, aka Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. After 1948 when Tito renamed Južna Srbija(South Serbia and in an other name-Province of Vardar Vardarska banovina) into Socialistic republic of Macedonia, Ministry of North Greece was named Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace. I think it's aimless to point out when,how and why Tito did so, go to Macedonia article and read.Odysseas 13:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) Have a nice day

There is nothing propaganda about it, and the text will remain cause it's interesting and important to mention the renaming of "Northern Greece" to "Macedonia".

I am fully aware of the situation and the bad relations between the Greeks and the Slav Macedonians, that's why I'm more carefull when I write in this articles. I think the article is written in a neutral point of view and delating it shows how extream nationalistic you are.

Do you actually resist the fact that "Northern Greece" was renamed to "Macedonia"? I must say, if I'm not forbiden to say this, you are written in a Greek point of view, because of this reason and many more mention above is not worth talking to you and the text will therefore remain as the very fact remains of Greeks renaming of "northern Greece" to "Macedonia". The source of name change you can find on the book: Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, author; by John Shea, page 104.

Tito's name change to Macedonia is worth mention on the Macedonia article. I don't see any problem with that. Albanau 16:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I must also say that I don't consider you relyable and neutral and the ridiculous claim that you say that greece renamed North Greece into Macedonia after 1988 because you read it somewhere causes laughs and wonder about your real intentions. Do you realy insist in that ridiculous claim? No I will not accept this and I will change itOdysseas 18:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way the fact that you reverted the article without using your signature (edits by 213.100.205.98,213.100.205.98) proves enough my stance.

It does not matter if I use my IP-number or account when I post.

This text have not been invented by me. It is not a claim. It is taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, they are legitimate and can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy. Albanau 09:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As i have told you before, a claim not corresponding in reality and used to produce propaganda can not stay even if it is written in a book.Odysseas 13:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odysseas stop it at once, stop being such ultra-nationalist Greek.

There isint any propaganda about this, and your the only one claiming that this is not true when it's true. The text will remain because it's legitimate and can be used, and it will remain in the article according to policy. --Albanau 14:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Northern Greece versus Macedonia

Albanau, you're getting your knickers into a knot here. The MINISTRY of Northern Greece was officially renamed the Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace, well before the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the eruption of the name dispute between Athens and Skopje. As for the region itself, it has been called Macedonia by Greeks since time immemorial. There are countless Greek texts and maps published before 1988 which prove this. Your attempt to suggest otherwise is immature and churlish.

Hate to brake it to you (and hate to cover this for a million time) but the text is taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, they are legitimate and can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy. Read book: Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, author; by John Shea, on page 104. Albanau 11:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that's simply incorrect. The Macedonian Struggle, for example, has been the name for the Balkan wars that resulted in Thessaloniki's capture for a long time; it wasn't named that in the 1990s. --Delirium 17:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

And to add a few data points, among many: The "Macedonian Committee" was the pseudo-official organization primarily responsible for the Greek partisanship in the Balkan Wars (1912-13); the Museum of the Macedonian Struggle opened in Thessaloniki in 1978. --Delirium 20:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen many references to Macedonia in contemporary sources, e.g. issues of The Times dating from the time of the Balkan Wars. The British Library has a variety of pro-Greek propaganda from before 1914 that refers to Macedonia, e.g. "Our Duty to Macedonia" (1903) and "Come over into Macedonia and help us" (1913). So it was very clearly in use well before the Republic of Macedonia was even conceived of. -- ChrisO 20:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone provide the real date when Northern Greece province was renamed Makedonia? I couldn't find it. Luis rib 20:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The terms Macedonia (and Thrace) and Northern Greece have been used almost interchangeably in Greece at least since the incorporation of Macedonia in 1913; they are not mutually exclusive. It is simply not the case that one was abandoned in favour of the other at a specific point in time, as both are still in frequent use. As for the region's "official" name, there has never been a separate political division encompassing the whole of Macedonia to begin with. Like the rest of Greece, Macedonia is divided into 13 prefectures (nomoi) instead. Since Greece's accession to what is now the EU, a new layer of government has been established in the form of thirteen peripheries[1], which effectively act as official EU regions. Peripheral boundaries are fairly arbitrary; two Peloponnesian prefectures, for example, are officially part of the Periphery of Western Greece. Similarly, Macedonia is arbitrarily divided among the three peripheries mentioned in the article.

> PERSIANS NAMING OF THE GREEKS & THE VARIOUS GREEKS TRIBES

There are several types of Yauna in the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions:

(1) Yaunβ in general: the same as the Greeks known as "Ionians", i.e., those living in Asia Minor. They can already be found in the Behistun Inscription, when the Persian rule had not yet reached Europe. This identification is 100% certain.

(2) Yaunβ takabarβ, the 'Greeks with shield-shaped hats'. First mentioned in DNa ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html ), where they are distinguished from the "normal" Yaunβ: an almost certain reference to the Macedonian sunhats.

(3 and 4) "The Yaunβ, near and across the sea": another division, for the first time found in DSe ( http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DSe.html ) and in a slightly different form in the Daiva Inscription by Xerxes (XPh: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/XPh.html ). The obvious reading is "the Asian Yauna and the European Yauna", i.e., -again- Asian Greeks and Macedonians.

On the other hand, Persian inscriptions are fairly stereotypical, and the fact that there is a small difference between the precise wording of DSe and XPh suggests that there is a difference. Perhaps, there is a difference between the "Yauna across the sea" and the sunhat-Yaunβ. If this is correct, the Yauna across the sea must be either Cypriot Greeks (but why didn't Darius, who seems to have subdued Cyprus, mention them?) or the Thessalians, Boeotians, and Athenians - nations that Xerxes could claim to have conquered.

(5) There is a seal from the age of Xerxes ( http://www.livius.org/a/1/greece/yauna_seal.jpg ) in which the great king defeats someone looking like a Yauna. It is unique, because a second man appears to have a hand in the killing, and this man looks like a Yauna. Is this the Macedonian king Alexander who helps killing a Thessalian/Boeotian/Athenian??

Such instances are extremely rare since only a handful of original Persian texts have survived.There are of references by Darius I in the Behistun Inscription to Sardis (OP Sparda), Ionia (OP Yauna) and Cappadocia (OP Katpatuka). There are also a couple of statements concerning the Greeks and their tribes in the Babylonian tablets.

---

The term Macedonia was forbitten in Greece till the 1970s, because they wanted to hide that they held half of Macedonia under occupation. In mean time, they runned more than 250 000 Macedonians away from Greece, with force. My Grand father had to move away because the Greeks burned his house and he was shoot at. Latter, in the 1970s, Greece realised that it is imposible to hide the name Macedonia, which changed their politics. Instead, they started a politics of promoting that Macedonia was actually Greek since ever. In that time they changed the name of the province in Macedonia, made a big monument of Alexander the Great in Thesaloniki, named at least one street Macedonia or Alexander The Great in every single town and etc. Just another new chapter of the Greek and Bulgarian politics of assimilation of the Macedonians, something that happens for centuries. And, unfortunatelly, Wikipedia supports this politics. I sterbinski 13:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Neutral???

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

---

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people. In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town. Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?... A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time. Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case? Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free. Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS??? BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites. I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change. How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia

---

---

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS. WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

---

---

It is with great sadness that history stealers and usurpers of truth (aka Macedonian(SIC)-slav nationals) will go to every extent to undermine the Hellenic nature of the true autochthonous population in Macedonia which according to irrefutable sources (NOT ONLY GREEK) are considered north-western Dorians. Herodotus and Thycidides and including Strabo considered them as Greeks amongst other thousands of sources. The reason we get such nationals becoming so red-hot is because a few of their forefathers were "forced" to leave their settlements... chances are they had a Greek orthodox nationalism about them but thanks to the southern Greeks' ill-informed general Metaxas, they were forced to stop speaking their Bulgarian tongue... in as much this constant harrassment of this sub-population of slavic-speakers (many of whom originally had a Hellenic consciousness) became the ultimate Janisseries... those fighting against brethren in the region (EAM-ELAS for the freedom of Greek Macedonia contained many such slavic speakers most of whom considered themselves Greeks by at large - I know many of their descendants today). Not to mention that 28,000 Greek children were taken ("paidomazoma" = running up of children) to communist Yugoslavia for apparant protection against fascist forces in the region (Bulgarian komitatzides) and many of them were brought up in the Yugoslav provinces and fed their appropriate poison by nationals their. So get over it, the whole world knows the truth about your country - it is frankly a historical farce. You only need to go to Stalin's word's to Tito "That they don't yet have a Macedonian consciousness yet is of no concern. They will develop one in due time"). You should read the Qu'ran or the Torah and Midrash for further classifacation of the ancient Macedonians as belonging to the "Yewanic" tribes i.e., Yewan = Greek. Sanser ha'Maqdon ha'Yewanit ve'Melekh Yewanim. Hovevei le'ziyyon!

A plea for concision

To all interested parties: It would help if people kept their comments as short and concise as possible, and focused specifically on how to improve Wikipedia's article, leaving out as much of the wider political debate as possible. This talk page (and many others on Macedonia-related pages) are getting pretty unreadable. --Delirium 19:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

dopyos

About the unsourced edits by the anonymous editor:
(e)ntopios at LS - perseus project. +MATIA ☎ 17:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)