Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Names

A suggestion for naming. Linked name = name of the Wikipedia article, followed by names in relevant official languages sorted in alphabetical order. Its a start, argue below. - FrancisTyers 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. But only relevant languages? We must find a way to sneak in the UN and the other int'l organizations...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, the whole fYrOm thing or whatever will be covered, just not in the introduction, in the politics section. It will be explained exactly in what circumstances the term is used and what it refers to. Above I was talking about the names of the rivers, towns, etc. - FrancisTyers 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your question has a simple answer: We use all local self-identified official names.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But is the Latin alphabet biased in favour of the Greeks? - FrancisTyers 16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ΔΕΝ ΞΕΡΩ ΕΣΥ ΤΙ ΛΕΣ; (=I don't know, what do you think?) :-) NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Is this ok for the "geographical Macedonia" representation?

Can we agree to use new maps, created for the express purposes of this article, in order to provide a consistent appearance? If no-one else volunteers I will create them. - FrancisTyers 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

New maps it is. I browsed all relevant articles trying to match the maps but there is great inconsistency and it's impossible. The map thing is a complicated issue, as we must include:

• Present borders and region
• Ottoman/Byzantine/Roman/Macedon borders of the region, compared with the present borders. Why? A lot of arguements arise from such questions:
  • Macedon was almost today's Macedonia (Greece), (one of the reasons for some Greeks to feel nervous about the name issue)
  • Roman/Byzantine/Ottoman regions were wider, including most of present countries

I was also trying to create some Venn diagrams like in British Isles (terminology), but was puzzled with that too.

Q.What will be the names on the maps?

A1. Self-identified (Macedonia everywhere)

A2. Wikipedia

A3. UN

I think we should better repeat this conversation in a couple of days after we sleep on it... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A4. Self-identified with disambiguation note in parentheses. e.g. Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia), Macedonia (Greek Macedonia) etc.

A5. Self-identified with language in parentheses. e.g. Macedonia (Македонија), Macedonia (Μακεδονία) etc.

A6. No names on the maps, instead letters. A, B, C, D. or colours, blue,green,yellow etc. with a Key.

Agree. In fact, I've had an idea. Give me a day or so... - FrancisTyers 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See right for my first bash at creating one for the geographical region. I took Image:Macedonia(R))(BWS).jpg and Image:Macedonia greece overview.png and tried to munge them together. Any suggestions, make them below. feel free to upload your own versions in its place. I created new higher res ones for the others too. Feel free to mess with them aswell. - FrancisTyers 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Voivodina drawn as a separate country? FunkyFly 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No idea, the map I got it from originally was Image:Europe_location_BG.png. This should be fixed. Thanks for spotting that :) - FrancisTyers 02:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess you can just erase the border between Voivodina and the rest of Serbia. Or what the hell, erase all borders, right? FunkyFly 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:)) — good sentiment, although you may have a point, for a geographical map, would that be appropriate, or do you think the borders are useful in this case? - FrancisTyers 02:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's OK, although I would support using the caption at Talk:FYROM#Map offensive. Telex 12:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary as we are showing the region of Macedonia, not pointing out the Republic of Macedonia within the larger region. - FrancisTyers 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK then. Telex 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This image still has that problem: Image:LocationMacedonia-HEL-1-z.png

 /FunkyFly.talk_   21:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok Funky, I corrected it to the new version. Hit refresh and you'll see the new one! Sorry for not getting rid of that inherited handicap in this map too.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you've become an expert at this already, can you fix this one too Image:Europe_location_BG.png?  /FunkyFly.talk_   21:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version without the border at commons, but couldn't replace the old one coz I am newbee there! I requested they do it themselves, where I was directed to. If you can't wait until they do it, hit the same filename with a -1- ending. Like this: Image:Europe_location_BG-1-.png. Ok?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks a bunch.  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll edit the maps to zoom in on the subject a little bit. I think the territories concerned are unproportionately small, and that ie Switzerland is unnecessary. I'll also try to see what I can do on the historic borders animated .gif map. Any thoughts on the names/letters/asterisks/crosses/punctuation marks/bullets/vergina suns? :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We should probably avoid crosses and that symbol for religious and ethnic connotations. Names will probably turn out to be a clown parade. Personally I think numbers, or letters, or numbers and letters, or colours would be best. If its colours, it might look better if they were based on the red used in the map. Or if the red is too like the Macedonian flag, perhaps change it to green, and then use shades of green? - FrancisTyers 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Green seems to be the distinctive color of the Bulgarians, better go for blue (so as to show that Macedonia is Greek). Telex 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn, exposed as a Bulgarian sympathiser! - FrancisTyers 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro also have blue, how about we go for a different shade of grey, or brown? FunkyFly 14:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about purple, with orange heart shapes ;-) Telex 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean like some distinctive flags from the more colorful parts of town? FunkyFly 14:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I just hit refresh! Too bad, I already did it red, but Telex has a point. I'll change it to something non-red, non-blue, non-whatever. Proposals (btw orange I tried, was more like the flag, since it also has yellow!)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Red, Green and Blue are out (all the fun colours) -- how about a tasteful brown, or perhaps purple? or maybe Grey? - FrancisTyers 15:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw FunkyFly's comment -- grey and brown seem fairly innocuous — although perhaps not Grey for our Greek friends? - FrancisTyers 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Aww, gosh. I was thinking of something like this or this ;-) Telex 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Those guys! - FrancisTyers 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done! Uploaded too. I'll include in the article soon. Check it please... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed on brown, those look like the other colour to me! - FrancisTyers 16:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially with those white borders... FunkyFly 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Green? Too Islamic. Yello? Colour of jealousy. Brown? Looks like parched earth. Black? Ooh, deadly. No colour is best, just a dotted line... (if map is necessary at all) Politis 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yellow is the color of the rays in the flag of fYRoM. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Darker/lighter shade of grey? FunkyFly 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called Deep Purple in Corel PhotoPAINT. Purple is defined as the combination of blue and red (rings any bell?). Also, the grey you see is actually not gray, but extra-light purple too! I only darkened the existing color. Seriously, is it ok? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yeah thats ok... Maybe we should make a note at the top of the page "if you're here to complain about the colour, it was the ultimate compromise" :)) - FrancisTyers 17:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The immediate problem that springs up is one of reliable sources for the maps. Feel free to add to the sources below... - FrancisTyers 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/macedonia_1849.jpg - this one appears to have ancient macedonia ?
• http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_balkans.html

Greek Macedonia

Is the name "Greek Macedonia" self-identifying? Would Greeks use this to talk about Greek Macedonia? Furthermore, when Greeks talk about "Macedonia" do they ever use it to refer to the wider geographical area? - FrancisTyers 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

When Greeks refer to the whole of Macedonia (which is usually specified by saying the "whole region"), they refer to the Greek part as Greek Macedonia (Ελληνική Μακεδονία). Telex 17:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Check Google test results:

• Greek Macedonia
• Aegean Macedonia (Aegean Macedonia with the words "propaganda" and "wikipedia" excluded - they're all forums discussing the naming dispute or the geocities propaganda magazine of the Bulgarian minority's ultra-nationalist political party [1] - my favorite of their articles is how they prove that the Macedonian ethnicity is Tito's invention at the expense of Macedonian Bulgarians [2]).

Telex 17:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So, for Greek purposes:

• Macedonia = the region in Greece
• Whole region Macedonia = the whole region
• Greek Macedonia = the region in Greee

Would that be accurate? PS. Wow, geocities, you've really outdone yourself! You might enjoy this one, or maybe not. I didn't read it. - FrancisTyers 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In Greece, people never specify, i.e. 'I come from Greek Macedonia', or Greek Chios, or Greek Thessalia. It is always just Macedonia, or Chios or Thessalia. When Greeks refer to ROM/FYROM, they say, 'I am trading with Skopia', 'I am visiting Skopia', 'my girl friend is from Skopia'. In this case, Skopia = the whole country. Politis 17:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we should be using Macedonia to refer to Greek Macedonia. Sorry is this seems picky, but I really want to get the self-identification right. - FrancisTyers 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the term Ελεύθερη Μακεδονία (Liberated Macedonia) is used, but in encyclopedias, when they are discussing the whole region (I remeber this), the terms used is "Greek Macedonia". Of course, this was back in the 80s (the state of Skopje didn't exist then and I have no idea what they called the Blagovegrad Province). Telex 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point Francis. I would say that it seems reasonable that the term 'Macedonia' should, first and formost undergo a disambiguation process. Then, ideally, as with every other civilased European country, for the portrayal of the republic, we should be guided by the republic's constitution which states clearly its boundaries and its state symbols. Politis 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I think I've managed to get all the possible meanings of "Macedonia" on its own into the first section. I'd welcome any further additions within the same format. I checked to see if there was an Ottoman province, but there wasn't. - FrancisTyers 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include both Greek Macedonia and Macedonia on its own to describe the disambiguating term for the administrative part of Greece. They are both used. The second one can be explained (Politis): When the guy speaking to you is Greek, (a) he is not using Macedonia to describe the country and (b) he couldn't be from Skopje. If it was in another language (or evidently non-Greek), personally I'd disambiguate (for Greece or region only and emphatically omitting the country option though).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming dispute

How much space should the naming dispute take up? I mean, its imperative that we provide either both sides or none, but it seems like this is just going to be a carbon copy of the section in the Foreign relations article. My initial suggestion is that we just have what the term is, why (pointing to the naming dispute) and the countries / organisations that use it. We can have a separate section of the article for "Related terminology" where we include "Republic of Skopje", "Skopia", "Skopjan", "Slavomacedonian" etc. - FrancisTyers 19:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What is Skopjan? All possible words you could find in Greece are Σκόπια (Skopia - the country), Σκοπιαν-ός (Skopian, a person), Σκοπιανικ-ός (Skopianic, the adjective), Σκοπιανικά (Skopianika, the language), Σκοπιανιστί (Skopianisti, a different name for the language). What is all this "Skopjeans" and othr creative innovations? Telex 19:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW good thing you remembered to mention the dialect; that dialect is important to the etymology of the name Florina. Telex 19:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Skopjan", seems I spelt it wrong. I am of course referring to "Skopian", I note some of your countrymen have done the same. - FrancisTyers 19:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How come you didn't use your familiar portmanteau Skopyawn instead? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha :)) - FrancisTyers 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote 3

I posted the text from the Greek Foreign Ministry site as is (and linked some words for clarif). I am not sure if it should all go there, but I wouldn't want to be the one who shortens it. Please see it and comment.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Other terminology was Greek only

...so I renamed it to Greek terminology. I added the meaning of each word, wikified. Discuss.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a few changes - hope you don't mind. Telex 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problems here, it was more of an incomplete list, but this works well for now. - FrancisTyers 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer it this way, so that each country's pov is isolated. Ofcourse we can have Macedonian Slav terminology and even Bulagarian terminology if necessary. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is "Grkomani" (what Macedonian Slavs call Slavophone Greeks in addition to traitors) legitimate terminology? Telex 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's illegitimate enough to be legitimate for wikipedia.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Bulgarians use it as well, see bg:Гъркомани. They spell it differently though, Garkomani, and is used in the same context (it was used a lot during the Greek Struggle for Macedonia, when the Slavophone Greeks sided with the Greeks and not the Bulgarians). Telex 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Aww, you removed "slavobulgar" :( That was one of my favourites... - FrancisTyers 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See the explanation in the edit summary. Telex 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no results for "Slavobulgar", you'll have to make "Bulgaroskopian" you new favorite - it's used by the ultra-nationalist magazine Ελληνικές Γραμμές [3]. I haven't found anyone use the term "Slavobulgar" (it may be made up). I daren't think what they call Greeks over there. Telex 21:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this definately articulate accusation when I searched on google for the term: "... BULGAR!YOU ARE WHAT YOU SPEAK! YOU ARE A MONGOLIAN SLAVOBULGAR!. " — but you're right, it seems to be seldom used :( Bulgaroskopian is pretty funny too :)) - FrancisTyers 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like quality sites you visit. Having a good time? FunkyFly 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, on a superficial level its pretty funny, I mean, presenting the accusation in capital letters makes it even more so... often it makes me laugh out loud, but then I realise that yes, actually some people do think this. That can make me pretty dispondant. - FrancisTyers 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW FF, you should try reading this. It's from the online magazine of the ultra-nationalist political party of the Bulgarian minority in Greece and is about how and why the Macedonians became Macedonians. It's in Greek, so you'll have to run it through babelfish, but it does make a good read. Telex 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it involve Titozilla? I sure hope so! - FrancisTyers 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Awww no mention, but it does have Steadfast historical elements ! :)) - FrancisTyers 21:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for them, except they're also anti-Greek, look at their main page ;-) Telex 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha,ha! this site is sooooo funny! i recommend it for anyone who would like to lol by reading a fictional version of history:). especially this part [4] which says that Alexander the Great was defeated by the tribes of Asia Minor... --Hectorian 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I won't be won over by the watertight argumentation and skilled rhetoric tonight... The GeoCities web site you were trying to view has temporarily exceeded its data transfer limit. Please try again later. :( - FrancisTyers 22:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not know such things exist, maybe because I rarely google in greek. Lots of maps, text and stuff, looks very familiar somehow, yet different. FunkyFly 22:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the best one so far, where they discuss the Laz and Kurdish origin of the Pontian Greeks, who unjustifiably claim to be Greeks. Telex 22:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic stereotypes can definitely be very powerful and appealing, especially when they are grossly exagerated. FunkyFly 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's a historical maps page. Telex 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It says data transfer limit exceeded. Check your linkage. FunkyFly 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The site seems to have gone off now - they say "try again later". Telex 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(3 edit conflicts later) Gee! I thought Greeks were African blacks! I guess we are Laz Afro-Kurds after all... (and to think that these theories aim to undervalue Greeks, ie African blacks, Kurds etc are considered lesser people by the theorists...)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Haahaaaah. Just look at the names of those researchers, claiming that greeks (as opposed to the entire human race) have sub-saharan genes. My God, the things that get published... FunkyFly 02:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just understood now. In their official site, they are complaining about the Greek government bringing "Georgian" refugees to settle in "Aegean Macedonia" to disrupt the ethnic composition and make the Bulgarian (the Macedonians allege it was Macedonian) majority a minority. I just realised they meant the Pontians - see this series, where they discuss the ethnic Caucasian/Georgian origins of the Pontians. This propaganda is ridiculous. Telex 22:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW the historical maps are working now. Telex 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This one is also good, they discuss how the Greek "secret police" infiltrated the Rainbow party and made some worrying discoveries about their United Macedonia ambitions. These conspiracy theories are getting better and better ;-) Telex 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! It's amazing! I was wondering if we could create Anti-Greek nationalistic propaganda and include all those links and maps and theories... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Unified Macedonia or United Macedonia? Or the blindingly obvious Anti-Hellenic discrimination :) - FrancisTyers 23:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All three, and then we merge ande redirect (if Wikipedia:Article size allows us to)! This is getting more and more interesting. I am really curious if there are as many Greek falsifications of history etc on-line... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See anti-Hellenism. Telex 23:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See the intro:

However, the degree to which actual anti-Hellenism exists is disputed. When compared with apparently similar phenomena (like Anti-Semitism), anti-Hellenism seems to be, at least in its contemporary form, more of a deliberate misperception or a sort of conspiracy theory than an actual hate movement.

Comments?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

HAHA Priceless! "While such stances ostensibly include the desire to rid Greece and Cyprus of Greeks, they apparently do not call for a worldwide "Greek Holocaust"." — that kind of writing makes Wikipedia great :)) A far superior article to such others as Anti-Romanian discrimination, Serbophobia. - FrancisTyers 23:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't have to be a worldwide holocaust, so it wouldn't be important if it was a Balkanic holocaust or a Macedonian holocaust instead... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Greek falsifications... There was something I heard about the alphabet, about it not being based on phonecian or something. I'm sure there are more, its like a hobby for you guys. - FrancisTyers 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, check this, apparently it demolishes crushingly and definitely the false theory that Greeks took the alphabet from the Phoenicians. More on this story later... - FrancisTyers 23:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I really don't care, but please answer if you know so that I am not misinformed: Is it a fact that Phoenicians didn't have vowels? Also, pitty if they had such a great tool for so long and did so little with it! (Like owning a Ferrari and observing speed limits in Greece...)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hah, I think they definately had vowels, there are no languages without them. From the article it seems to suggest that their writing system did not include vowels though, It is difficult to evaluate sound-changes in Phoenician dialects over time because writers continued to use archaic "book-spellings" that did not mark vowels in any way. - FrancisTyers 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

M' g'ss 's th' d'dn't. It ws a pioneering thought for the time. Can you check it? Do we have a reliable source? Come on! You're the one taking linguistics classes! (oh, and... languages existed even before writing at all)... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been speculated that "language" as a human faculty is around 200,000 years old. PS. I think you're missing a word or at the least a consonant... o___O - FrancisTyers 15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but is it accurate to say: "Greeks invented the symbolising the vowels and incorporated those symbols to the Phoenician consonants to create the first alphabet"? Or would it be a Greek POV push by an illiterate map-maker who strives to find positive things for what he considers his ancestors, but may as well be a Fallmerayed bastard?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

HAHA! I just looked up Mr. Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, funny chap. See the Greek alphabet page, I'm not sure if the Greeks invented symbolising vowels. To be honest all this "first to invent" stuff is kind of silly. Like who invented the television or jet engine, or steam locomotive, does it really matter? Seems the people who celebrate the "glorious past" probably feel they would be better off there... rule britannia etc. - FrancisTyers 15:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody see my sandals? I have to go to the Ecclesia, at the Pnyx! (is it true that Greeks invented the TV, the jet and the locomotive?)...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it so reported... along with vaccination, the power loom and the typewriter. - FrancisTyers 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Greeks invents the frappé and discovered that you can keep your packet of cigarettes tucked behind your belt. Everything else is artdzi-bourdzi-kai-loulas. Politis 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Frappé — the one Modern Greek invention I think we all benefit from :)) - FrancisTyers 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

If you'll humour me, I'd like to keep any links out for the moment.

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

- FrancisTyers 20:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I "humoured" you 3 sections above.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whay are there references to websites by what might be labelled extremists / ignoramuses? Each country has its official websites and we also have UN, EU, IMF, CIA and some academic websites; that should be enough. Politis 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I removed them because I don't think we need to source anything quite yet. Lets just go on what we know for now, keeps the references clean. - FrancisTyers 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary geographical Macedonia

Does anyone have a good source for the borders of the region as it is understood in geographical terms today? - FrancisTyers 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we imposing a 'Macedonia region' on Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia? None of those countries recognises a province or a region under that name on their territory, and none ever claimed to have such a region within their frontiers. Only Greece and ROM/FYROM make use of the name. Admitedly, Skopje can claim they have 'Macedonian Slav speakers', but then, western ROM/FYROM is mostly Albania, but no one claims it to belong to the Albanian region. Politis 16:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about Macedonia in terms of geographical usage. We have 'British Isles', but the Irish wouldn't like to be called British (at least not some of them). We aren't imposing the term on anyone, just defining its geographical usage — as distinct from the political usage. - FrancisTyers 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Really, if anyone has a source of what geographical Macedonia is, I'd like to see how ..."contemporary" that'd be... I mean, are we defining it from Telex's examples of well-sourced maps above? Is it all based on propaganda?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that it isn't a contemporary geographical region? - FrancisTyers 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Close. I am saying it may not be a contemporarily defined geographical region, in respect to its frontiers. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Macedonia is a historic region, and as such, it does not have comtemporary borders, but only historic borders (depending on the extend that the ancient Greeks, the Romans, Byzantine Greeks, Ottomans, etc gave to it throughout the centuries). the Greek POV is that Macedonia refers only to the ancient kingdom's area (almost equal to modern Greek Macedonia), and not to the administrative divisions of the roman, byzantine or ottoman empires. on the contrary, the Skopjian POV is that the region of Macedonia is what was called Macedonia during the ottoman period (not what in ancient times was Macedonia, neither what was in roman times-the whole area from the Danube to Thessaly-, nor what was in the byzantine times-i cannot remember of a thema named "Macedonia"-). --Hectorian 22:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So this is incorrect?

• Macedonia (as a current geographical term) refers to a region of the Balkan peninsula in south-eastern Europe. The territory corresponds to the basins of (from west to east) the Haliacmon (Aliákmon, Bistritsa) Vardar (Axios) and Struma (Strymónas) rivers, and the plains around Thessaloniki (Solun) and Serres (Serez).

- FrancisTyers 23:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you could stretch that to India, or shorten it to more or less present day Macedonia (Greece) -(see the Macedon map). In-between solutions appear to be fabricated. I am starting to feel sorry about creating the region map too... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If we were about to make such additions in every historic region (at least of europe) ? (as a current geographical term) refers to..., it would be fine. i would prefer something like : During the Ottoman period the region of Macedonia included parts of bla bla bla... cause this is the only correct thing;-) --Hectorian 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So it isn't a geographical term like say the Caucasus or indeed the Balkans? - FrancisTyers 04:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a non-partisan source?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I'd like to find :) - FrancisTyers 10:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would suggest that we alter the wording to signify that there is no officially determined boundary. Then, possibly, we may need to cite official sources from the implicated sides defining such boundaries. Ultimately, we will need to do that also to Macedonia (region). I'll try to find smthng official from Greece. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0830891.html
• http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9049697

is a start, perhaps there isn't anything more specific... - FrancisTyers 10:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Macedonia_(region)#Boundaries_and_definitions -- discusses the problems of definition. I'll see if I can dig up Wilkinsons paper. - FrancisTyers 11:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The first one defines it under land and people link[8] as follows:

Corresponding roughly with ancient Macedon, it extends from the Aegean Sea northward between Epirus in the west and Thrace in the east and includes the Vardar, Struma, and Mesta (in Greece, the Axiós, Strimón, and Néstos) river valleys. The region is predominately mountainous, encompassing parts of the Pindus and Rhodope mts.

You missed out: Greek, or Aegean, Macedonia (c.13,000 sq mi/33,670 sq km) includes the Khalkidhikí (Chalcidice) peninsula, the site of Thessaloníki (Salonica), a major industrial and shipping center. As a result of population movements after World War I, Greek Macedonia has a largely homogeneous Greek population. Bulgarian, or Pirin, Macedonia is largely coextensive with the Blagoevgrad (formerly Gorna Dzhumaya) province of Bulgaria (c.2,500 sq mi/6,475 sq km) and is largely populated by Macedonians. The inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia are largely Macedonian, but there is a sizable Albanian minority.

Although how accurate that is is questionable, "Bulgarian, or Pirin, Macedonia is largely coextensive with the Blagoevgrad (formerly Gorna Dzhumaya) province of Bulgaria (c.2,500 sq mi/6,475 sq km) and is largely populated by Macedonians". - FrancisTyers 11:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The second one [9] states in p.2:

Macedonia's traditional boundary on the east is the lower Néstos (Mesta in Bulgaria) River and the western slopes of the Rhodope Mountains, which straddle the Greek-Bulgarian frontier. On the north the boundary is marked by the Široka, Skopska Crna Gora, and Šar mountains, bordering southern Serbia. On the west the boundary is marked by the Korab range and by Lakes Ohrid and Prespa, which straddle the Albanian-Macedonian border. The region is bordered on the southwest by the Pindus Mountains and on the south by the valley of the Aliákmon River, which reaches the Gulf of Salonika near Mount Olympus. Including the Chalcidice Peninsula, this stretch of land covers about 25,900 square miles (67,100 square km). About 50 percent lies in Greece, with its centre at the port of Thessaloníki, and 10 percent in Bulgaria, with its centre at Blagoevgrad. The Republic of Macedonia, with its capital at Skopje, occupies the rest.

The Macedonian region ranges from the high plateaus and mountain peaks of Bulgaria and the Macedonian republic to the wide, flat, and almost treeless floodplains of the lower Vardar and Struma rivers in Greece (where the rivers are known as the Axiós and Strimón, respectively).

Apparently they are contradicting... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like the Britannica one is more precise and doesn't make the Bulgarian/Macedonia mistake. Does it have a bibliographic reference? - FrancisTyers 11:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nada.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, for now I think we can consider Britannica to be authorative. Their information seems to coincide with what we already have:

Macedonia (as a current geographical term) refers to a region of the Balkan peninsula in south-eastern Europe. The territory corresponds to the basins of (from west to east) the Haliacmon (Aliákmon, Bistritsa) Vardar (Axios) and Struma (Strymónas) rivers, and the plains around Thessaloniki (Solun) and Serres (Serez).

Although we can certainly afford to make it more specific. Thoughts? - FrancisTyers 11:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking we still have to find a sourced source. We should also mention the local povs on the boundaries, anyway. I'll check for the official Greek one (if there's any)... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Resoundingly agree regarding mentioning local POVs of the boundaries. I think a sourced source would be nicer (to make sure Britannica aren't just peddling REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR propaganda) but this seems reasonable for now. FrancisTyers 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian in English usage

I took the liberty of looking up "Macedonian" (I couldn't find "Macedonia") on the Oxford English Dictionary, quotations follow:

Regarding a group of people:

• 1. a. A member of an ancient people inhabiting the kingdom of Macedonia (see MACEDON n.). Now historical.
• b. An inhabitant of the region of Macedonia. In later use: a person from any of the geographical entities called Macedonia, esp. the administration general of Macedonia in modern Greece or the (FY) Republic of Macedonia (...). Also with preceding adjective specifying ethnic origin or country of residence.
• c. A member of a people of Macedonia distinguished by their Slavonic language and culture. Also: a person identified with this ethnic group, whether or not a native or inhabitant of Macedonia.

Regarding a language:

• 2. a. The South Slavonic language of the Slav Macedonians, closely related to Bulgarian and written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Also in Macedonian-speaking adj.
• b. The language of ancient Macedonia, recorded in fragmentary remains, and usually regarded as a variety of Greek. Now historical.

- FrancisTyers 11:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

well, i didnt know anything about macedonian as a dialect of modern greek- could somebody elaborate? in which areas of maceodmnia is it spoken? what are the differences of macedonian with thracian greek (i was unaware of its existence too)? is it a dialect in terms of vocabulary,grammar or accent? --Greece666 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncertain - I know that it is relevant to the etymology of the word Florina. Telex 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha, found a reliable source by Peter Trudgill (your professor, Francis :p). Dialectology. Specific characteristics for northern Greece include loss of unstressed /i/ and /u/, and /i/ becoming /u/ before a labial consonant. Of course there are just general - the Greek phrase "δικός μου" is pronounced "θκόζιμ" in Macedonia and "θκόσιμ" in Thessaly. Telex 17:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that Macedonian is not just Greek dialects, but Albanian, Bulgarian and even Romanian (and probably even Turkish). There are Tosk Albanian speakers in Greek and Albanian Macedonia and Gheg speakers in R. Macedonia. Aromanian (also called Macedo-Romanian) is a form of Romanian (Vlach) spoken in Macedonia, but also in Thesaly and Epirus. There are also numerous Bulgarian dialects spoken by the Bulgarians in Macedonia and these are almost identical to Macedonian Slavic. Telex 17:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

telex: yes there are tosk albanian speakers in greece (rather few now and all bilingual). aromanian is a form of romanian and aromanian and romanian speakers can understand each other. there are some ppl who speak slav dialects/languages in northern greece (rather few and all bilingual). (to avoid misunderstandings, the above is my personal opinion and i do not say what i say as a greek but as a student of history) your remarks are, in my opinion, correct.--Greece666 19:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Aromanian (Macedo-Romanian) should be mentioned in addition to Greek Macedonian, Macedonian Slavic and Ancient Macedonian in the linguistics section. If we find sources saying that there are "Macedonian" (we need the word Macedonian, not Torlakian or Tosk) dialects of Albanian and Bulgarian, we should speedily add those as well. Telex 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

telex: well, this is an article on the various meanings of the word macedonia(n). im not sure it would be useful to add sthg on the languages spoken in macedonia- this maybe should be add to the macedonia(region) article.--Greece666 19:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

telex: well if as you say above you can link these languages with macedonia (macedo-romanian) maybe its useful at least to clarify that macedonian when referring to languages is a highly controversial term and has a wide variety of meanings.--Greece666 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a terminology article, so we are compiling a list of all languages and dialects which can be referred to as "Macedonian". In such an ethnically diverse region, there are many. The fact that the term "Macedonian" is controversial is already mentioned. Telex 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

telex: in this case we also have to mention sefardim jews, who spoke a dialect of spanish.--Greece666 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that dialect of Spanish is called Ladino. If it were called Macedonian, then we could mention it. What exactly are you proposing, what would you do? Telex 19:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

well i had misunderstood the criteria for entrance in the article.a) i agree with you about aromanian, as long as it is also called macedo-romanian it should enter the article. b) u are right, theres no reason to put ladino in the article

--Greece666 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

change in the article

avg made a new contribution to the article "It [ancient macedonian kingdom] was located in what today is Greek Macedonia."--Greece666 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is roughly (but not completely) true up to the 4th century BC. An exception is Pelagonia. --Aldux 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

yes, i ve also heart that some minor changes took place during the 4th cent. BC (LOL). well, i think the expression has to be qualified, because as you said it is not a completely accurate statement.--Greece666 20:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about saying "roughly coinciding with present-day Greek Macedonia"? Telex 20:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

this is what is written in the macedon article: "Prior to the 4th century BC, the kingdom covered a region approximately corresponding to the province of Macedonia of modern Greece"--Greece666 20:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I added a novelty. The only thing a user has to do is click on the Ancient Macedon link and look at the map. I'm not sure that the area of the Macedonian Empire at Alexander's times qualifies as Macedonia. --   Avg    20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex: macedon existed as late as 148 BC. in my point of view, what you wrote, if it is not specified a) to which period it refers to and b) that this is a rough description, is misleading.--Greece666 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ok Greece666, tell us, what is your POV about the area that ancient Macedonia(Macedon) covered? did it stretched northern of Skopje? archaeological findings and ancient historians' works clearly show that it was made up by the area of Greek Macedonia. roughly or not, that's the truth. word-games are amusing, but i do not think they have anything to add in this discussion. --Hectorian 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

hectorian: if by word-games you mean the ability to be precise, word-games are part of writing, if on the other hand, you mean that the change that avg did is unimportant, i simply disagree."did it stretched northern of Skopje?" i never said that do not invent things up pls. " it was made up by the area of Greek Macedonia." to give but one example, during the second macedonian war (200-196 BC) Philip V controlled parts of Illyria. Is Illyria part of the greek province of Macedonia?--Greece666 02:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

after the 2003 Iraq War, the United states controlled parts of Iraq. Is Iraq part of the USA?. pls... --Hectorian 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, but the Americans occupied did not conquer Iraq. I agree that the example i gave above might not be the best one, however the substance of my argument remains the same, borders change (especially in ancient times, when they were particularly unstable and especially concerning macedonia, which was a state with a very long history). --Greece666 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Borders in ancient and medieval times was not what it is today-noone can say the accurate area by sq.km of an ancient or medieval kingdom. thus, when people refer to an ancient state's area, they talk about the places where archaeology has brought to light findings and to where ancient historians say that this state streched to. when people talk about ancient Athens or Sparta, refer to the respective kingdoms'(in the case of Athens later a democracy) 'original' area, and not to the cities and islands and provinces they had conquered/occupied/set under their econimical dominance/etc. the same goes for ancient Macedonia. --Hectorian 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If someone points me to a map that everyone agrees is "Ancient Macedon" I'd be happy to make one in the standard format... It would be good to have a map for each "Macedonia" anyway. - FrancisTyers 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

good remark- thats precisely the problem: the borders of macedon changed many times throughout history so you cannot talk about macedon in general without stating the time period you refer to. there is not one "macedon"but many, in the same way that there is not, say, one "russia" but many- it all depends on the time period.--Greece666 02:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about the extent of Macedon prior to its collapse/defeat? - FrancisTyers 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

so, in its first stage, the ancient Macedonian Kingdom of the Argeadae, was established in what is today western and central-western Greek Macedonia(the place where Vergina is located). for centuries, during the classical period and until the reign of Phillip and Alexander, it covered exclusively the area of the Greek Macedonia (with the addition of Pelagonia, as Aldux correctly said). now, if some people tend to see the areas conquered by Alexander the Great and his succesors, as parts of Macedonia, it is like saying that there was not one England, but many (including India), or not one France, but many (including Moscow!). make a choice... --Hectorian 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)"

i think you misunderstood what i said. Avg wrote about the "macedonian kingdom". the kingdom's borders did change with time. the geographical region is another story. To give one example : geographical spain is one thing, the borders of the state of spain is another. these two do not necessarily coincide- to continue my example, spanish kings considered the indigenous population of South America as "their subjects". by that they did not mean that south america is part of Spain (geographical region), but of the kingdom of Spain. the issue here is not whether ancient macedonia was greek or not. the issue is if what avg wrote is a correct description of the reality of the kingdom of macedon. --Greece666 02:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What Avg wrote is ok. i will give another example: the Queen of England is also Queen of Austalia and Canada (among others...), but these countries are not 'England'. the ancient Macedonians occupied/conquered/etc many lands, but the macedonian kingdom was made up by modern day Greek Macedonia: all its rulers were coming from that part, the capital was in that part, the people speaking the dominant language were coming from that part, archaeology and ancient and modern historians support my claim... i cannot see why u insist that this addition should not had been made by Avg... --Hectorian 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

At least in my opinion, your example on englang is invalid. you do not understand the distinction between England/United Kingdom/British Empire.You have the same misconception about the difference between macedonia (geographic region)/kingdom of macedon.--Greece666 04:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is double standard logic. By the 4th century BC, the so-called ancient Macedonian language was replaced by Attic and Koine Greek in an official and popular level respectively. Yet we always state that it was the native language/dialect of Macedon, despite the fact that it gradually ceased to exist after Philip II. That simply means that our representative point of reference is the post-Philippic period. I don't see why we should use a different logic when we talk about the borders of Macedon, i.e. the areas settled by ancient Macedonians. The so-called Upper-Macedonia which was inhabited by Thraco-Illyrian tribes, was incorporated into the kingdom by Philip II, and is therefore part of an expantion which was irrelevant to the cultural status of Macedon altogether. In other words, we can't just say "ok, we'll use the 3rd century to define Macedon's borders and the 6th century to define its language". Therefore it is widely agreed that the representative period of Macedon is the post-Philippic era, where the Kingdom was inhabited by Macedonians, and used the Macedonian language. In that respect, the Kingdom was smaller than and contained within today's Greek Macedonia. And I hope this answers Greece666's query. Miskin 15:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this sums it up.

The language and land of "Macedonia" at different points though time
	pre 4th century BC	post 4th century BC
Language	Ancient Macedonian language	Koine (Attic) Greek
Land	Roughly Greek Macedonia	Later perceptions of the region*

*Includes the Roman Province and today's perception. --Telex 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. But default scholarly use of the term "Macedon" refers to its post-Philippic era. Therefore anything added beyond that will fall under original research. Miskin 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So according to my friend Greece666 or whomever wants to disassociate Macedonia and Greece, Rome is located in Egypt, Israel or the UK, since these were the limits of the Roman empire.--   Avg    18:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ave Imperia Romana

Or something... I can't speak Latin for shit, but what I can do is create maps. Check out the map of the Macedonia province of the Roman Empire. I created it from [10], which seems to be non-partisan. As always, suggestions, comments, improvements all welcome. - FrancisTyers 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-partisan? This is a serious Roman POV push on the issue! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :)) - FrancisTyers 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Serious aesthetic POV push!

From Francis' talk: Re this, I think mine was better, since the contemporary region map (even if unofficial) is more important to ancient/roman definitions -so it should be bigger-, plus the contradicting images of Μακεδονία and Македониа were exactly where they should be (politics section). Ofcourse, this is a matter of aesthetics, so feel free to disagree with my aesthetic POV! :-)

PS: That includes this attempt!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I agree that it would be nice to have each kind of map in its own section. I'm currently editing on a 1024x768 screen (not the luxurious 1600x1200 I have at home) and 386px is like over a third of the screen (too much). I'd like to keep the maps to between 250px and 300px. Regarding placement, I have no problem with adjusting it, I put them in the order they appear in the initial disambig. - FrancisTyers 14:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the captions btw? - FrancisTyers 14:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My screen is 1280x1024, but I guess everybody should be able to see it. Even those who don't belong to the bourgeoisie:-). I'd worked a ~360px version before posting. Mind giving it a look? We can make it 340 or 320 or even 300 if you want...

Captions: I think I preferred the previous, as they were more directly illustrating the conflict, without raising arguements from either side (like your attempted nationalistic POV push of promoting long vs short forms!) :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I made a 346px version, plus altered Macedonia/n "in Greece" per your proposal everywhere.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. How about making the maps in the politics section smaller? (actually I just did this) - FrancisTyers 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine province

The north border of the province suspiciously follows the present Bulgarian border. Is that really the case?  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, these are the maps I've found:

• http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/HellenicMacedonia/media/original/a221a.jpg
• http://img53.exs.cx/img53/6537/ThemesintheByzantineEmpireunderBasilII.jpg

Unfortunately the first one doesn't mention Macedonia and the second one is illegible from a border point of view, although it has the name of the theme as "Macedonia" not "Makedonikon". If you don't mind, I'd like to standardise on "Macedonia" for the intro. - FrancisTyers 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis and Funky, a Thema (neutral) cannot be Macedonia (not even in English - Macedonia is a noun, and here we need an adjective). A Thema can only be Makedonikon in Greek syntax (neutral adjective of Macedonia). Now call it Makedonec if you want, but syntax is syntax. For the border point you are right. The information I had is from the relevant link (Byzantine army#The Themata and Themas_of_Byzantine_Empire). The borders are arbitrary (hence the approximate in the wording). However, the following things seem to be clear:

• Makedonikon Thema, included Eastern Thrace (Eastern from the present border of Greece) but NOT Constantinople. In fact, there was also the Thrakikon Thema in between the two.
• It didn't include Thessaloniki, which had its own Thema.

I tried to create a map that shows that Macedonia (Makedonikon Thema) was defined somewhat eastern than today (or during Roman/Macedon times). Now if you want to include Southern parts of present Bulgaria or Northern parts of present Greece, or both i think it's besides the point, but I'll be glad to do it if we have some source. In the meantime, i propose the following options:

• We exclude the map altogether (but that would fall under WP:NPOV#Undue weight for the other two periods)
• We make the border look like it's fading to signify more the word approximate

Suggestions?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If it has never been called Macedonia then I'd like to leave it out of the intro. We can have have a "Related regions" section maybe?

Regarding the two suggestions, leaving it out wouldn't violate UDW as if we don't know about it, we can't write about it, but I'm happy to leave it in. Could we give a time period, e.g. These were the borders for 1CE to 400BCE or something (I have no idea about the dates -- I'm making it up). I would prefer not to have the borders shaded, we could add "approximate" to the caption maybe? - FrancisTyers 22:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to shade it/fade it tomorrow. I'll ask around for sources about dates and more borders too. I think that UDW would apply, coz it shows relatively equal (or shorter) time periods during which it was defined somewhat westward. This point by itself explains whay there is not a such definite region as some want to call it. The region is indeed historic and borderless as Hectorian said. That will be even more evident if we see the Ottoman map, for which I request sources too... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hit refresh or better ctrl-F5 (in MS IE) to bypass cash and see updated map in article. Now, anybody with an Ottoman source too?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring is in our blood with this kind of articles!! Even for trivial things like tables! I like Fran's format. Let's not all break 3rr over this! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody help me with the Ottoman sources? I hate that empty box! Also, some more specific sources on Byzantine borders are welcome... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this help? --Telex 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It was part of Rumelia, wasn't it - they didn't use the name "Macedonia". --Telex 16:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that. It's even included hidden inside the new table. It clearly says Macedonia, centered right above Thessaloniki. Also, I think the Ottomans (like the Byzantines?) were a little pequliar in their subdivisions and sub-sub-divisions and sub-sub-sub... Do we have any sort of info on it?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this non-partisan?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know where they got their info, but I don't see anything about Ottoman borders, it just reiterates what Telex said... PS. Feel free to screw around with my recent formatting adjustments. - FrancisTyers 16:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This one also says:

The Turkish province of Macedonia was divided into three administrative districts or vilayets----Monastir/Bitola, Skopje/Uskub, and Salonika/Thessaloniki.

Is it correct? Is it non-partisan?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC) THIS is definitely non-partisan! Gina Lolobrigitta... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the balkananalysis link. Although they have neither a map or description of boundaries... and I don't like the look of the map on that other link. - FrancisTyers 16:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I hit the jackpot: Most pro-Greek sites (like this one) specify something like:

Of the region of “historic Macedonia” — i.e. of the Macedonian Kingdom of the 4th century B.C. — approximately 90% lies within present day Greece. Of the “geographic Macedonia” — as it has come to be known arbitrarily in our times — 52 percent consists of the Greek Macedonian province, 37 percent of the FYROM, 9.5 percent of the Pirin district of Bulgaria and 1.5 percent of a strip of land in Eastern Albania.

While most pro-Skopjan sites (like the above) say that it was what we have selected as a Macedonia region in Wikipedia! So the precision of the region borders is clearly under dispute!

My point is, that if it is a historic (borderless) region, then it goes along with the inheritors of that history. It is undisputed that Greeks are the inheritors (not offsprings) of that history, so the region is defined within the Greek borders. Is this a partisan rationale?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Just because the Western world generally agrees with Macedonia instead of Greece doesn't make the Western world "pro-Macedonian". No more than the Western world agreeing with Greece instead of Macedonia makes it "pro-Greece". - FrancisTyers 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

i agree with francis. since this is a particularly hot topic, i think we should try to avoid commentaries that might be considered as offensive or irredentist by either side.--Greece666 20:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Western world generally agrees with Macedonia". That's some generalisation Francis. Care to elaborate?--   Avg    22:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gladly, here are two examples, of the first: 1. People generally think that the name of the Republic of Macedonia is Macedonia. and of the second: 2. People generally think that Alexander the Great was Greek. The former is a Macedonian position, the latter is a Greek position. Hope that clarifies it. - FrancisTyers 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the key is self-identification. FYROM self-identifies as Republic of Macedonia and Alexander the Great self-identified as Greek. --Telex 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny thing Francis, I was watching a documentary on BBC Two today (perhaps you watched it as well) with Kirsty Wark and Simon Davis, which finished just a few minutes ago. It was called "Tales from Greece" and they paid a visit (and I quote) to "the capital of Macedonia, Thessaloniki" to interview a Greek director, Tasos Boulmetis. After that, they went to (again, I quote) "the borders of Macedonia with former Yugoslavia" to interview a Greek wine-maker, Yiannis Boutaris. What do they know there at BBC? Again, this was TODAY ([11])--   Avg    23:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't have a television, 2. You don't have to convince me, you don't have to convince them, you have to convince all the other English speakers. Good luck ;) - FrancisTyers 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fran: I seriously doubt #1. Fmore, I am not certain if it is the key to the solution what people may think. Brittanica says so, and that is a non-partisan source. There is, however, a more detailed source that states otherwise. I didn't invent the wheel, and I think you should all do the same. I quoted before the link to the WP article of the region for boundaries and definitions. Now I am quoting the text:

According to H.R. Wilkinson (author of Maps and Politics (a Review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia)), "Macedonia defies definition for a number of reasons. Hardly two authorities can be found to agree on its exact delineation, although many agree on its general location. The name itself is the Latin form of an ancient Greek place-name, one of many which has persisted right down to our own day, for describing this part of Europe. This persistence has largely been due to the effect of the Turkish conquest. Ignorance of Balkan languages, difficulties of transliteration, lack of topographical survey, all combined to restrict the use of contemporary place-names so that the opening of the 19th century still found western European scholars thinking of Balkan geography in terms of Ptolemy and Strabo. Macedonia to them meant the Roman province, framed by a natural boundary of mountains marching with geometrical precision on all sides - the Pindus, the Scardus, the Rhodope. These somewhat oversimplified interpretations may be the root-cause of the modern tendency to define Macedonia as a ‘natural region,' a tendency apparent in the works not only of Bulgarian, but of British, American, French, Italian and German geographers."

Wilkinson also identifies problems with defining it as a single geographical area.

”The use of the name ‘natural’ boundaries and ‘natural’ region in connection with these definitions is highly misleading in view of the diversity of structure, relief and climate found within the prescribed region, as well as the debatable nature of the so-called limits. On examination of a detailed orographical map the natural framework is found to consist of complicated systems of mountain ranges which achieve only here and there a lineal form, and within which prevails a diversity of land-forms and a complex drainage system. Of all the attempts to define Macedonia, that which makes its appeal to physical geography is the least profitable, and also the easiest to refute.”

The difficulty also affects the identification of a historical continuity of boundaries: “Perhaps equally facile are the attempts to define Macedonia, historically, by invoking its past political boundaries […]. Historians less concerned with the propagandist value of their researches have revealed the traditional, ephemeral character of Macedonian political boundaries. From being reduced to the confines of Salonika at certain periods of its classical history, Macedonia has at other times reached the Adriatic, the Haemus and the Danube. No useful purpose therefore is achieved by insisting on the hypothetical stability of the historical boundaries of Macedonia. [...] The Osmanli Turks, who inherited so much from their Byzantine precursors, never recognized any Macedonian administrative unit. It is not unreasonable to conclude that history no more sets its seal upon the boundaries of Macedonia than does physical geography.”

In the Byzantine empire, there was a number of different themas (provinces) dividing the geographical region of Macedonia. A thema under the name of Macedonia was, however, carved out of the original Thema of Thrace well to the east of the Struma River during the Middle Ages. This thema variously included parts of Eastern Rumelia and western Thrace within its shifting boundaries and gave its name to the Macedonian dynasty, whose founder, Emperor Basil I, was probably of Armenian descent and born near Adrianople. Hence, Byzantine documents of this era mentioning Macedonia and Macedonians actually refer to the thema by that name. The region of Macedonia (ruled by the First Bulgarian Empire throughout the 9th and the 10th century) was, on the other hand, incorporated into the Byzantine Empire in 1018 as the thema of Bulgaria.

With the conquest of the region by the Ottomans in the late 14th century and its incorporation into the Ottoman Rumili Province, the name of Macedonia disappeared as an administrative designation for several centuries and was rarely displayed on maps. The name was again revived to mean a distinct geographical region with roughly the same borders as today by European cartographers in the 19th century.

According to the above higly non-partisan, well documented and more importantly to the point quote:

1. Macedonia region is borderless
2. Sources based on Ottoman Empire are moot, coz they didn't have the name

For what I know, WP has chosen to include partisan sources (many links above) in order to define the region. I will seek that this changes.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, Wilkinson makes a lot of sense. However, we mustn't overstep the mark here. Britannica does define it as a geographical area, and it is used to mark a geographical area. This doesn't mean it is "true" per se, but there is this usage. The point of this page is not deciding which definition is true, but rather reporting (describing) as many of the borders, regions, admininstrative units etc. that have been called "Macedonia". Personally I'd tend to agree with Wilkinson, Macedonia is no Iberia, Hibernia or Britannia, but we have to report conventional usage. Perhaps there could be a section of the article dealing with the difficulty of geographical definition? In fact, I think that would fit in very well to the "In geography" section. Care to do the honours? - FrancisTyers 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Wilkinson is indeed much more sophisticated than Britannica in this (which doesn't cite any sources btw). I am in Marakesh right now, so I won't be able to deal seriously with it till next weekend. I would invite Telex to do it in the meantime. If not, I'll get on to it next week. Oh, and btw, whenever you change "all" to "some" or "most", be ready with a source of at least ONE int'l org. (don't make me paste here again all those links from Talk:FYROM/Comments to FYROM name support position... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

True, Britannica would give sources if someone were to subscribe. But I'm not about to do that. I was going to go looking, but I see Aldux already hit us up with a source. - FrancisTyers 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone must notify Dora quickly! I think I had subscribed, but it's a messy procedure. I'll try to check on it, but I am sure that the sources would be for anything else in the article, than the region borders...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've registered in Britannica and there's no citation whatsoever. Actually the article is quite similar (if not same) to the article available for non-subscribers. I don't know if I'm violating any copyright if I paste all info here for verification, that's why I only sent an exact copy-paste .doc to Francis by e-mail. I suppose we should follow his advice above and create "...a section of the article dealing with the difficulty of geographical definition." There should be equal if not greater emphasis on that point, since the map may be based on hearsay, whereas Wilkinson is very accurately sourced. We should also illustrate that the region map coincides with partisan sources.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Or that partisan sources coincide with the region map. :) - FrancisTyers 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! No, the partisan sources definitely precede the region map, so it would be a logical falacy to let people assume that they got it from there... (although the verb coincide is more like math "<=>", rather than "=>")  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedon

Just a small note on the map of Ancient Macedonia; I don't think we should add the Chalcidic peninsula, as it wasn't controlled by Macedon before Philip II, but by free Greek city-states, united in the Chalcidic League.--Aldux 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Aldux is right. this is history, thus Chalcidic peninsula should be excluded from the map. i do not know how to do it, so pls someone else may correct it. --Hectorian 01:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The French article provides some nice maps of the pre-Philippic era [12]. Miskin 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can do whatever you want with the maps, just decide what it is that you want me to do, so that I don't work in vain.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

International organisations

i think the World Bank uses macedonia--Greece666 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Sure! Check it by yourself... Ooops! What is this? FYR of Macedonia, oh sorry for spoiling the fun...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The organization is the CEI. See [13]. I didn't tell it immediately because I just wanted to see if anyone reacted to me making an unsourced statement ;-)--Aldux 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Had no idea. Just don't play with my nerves again please, Al... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic etc.

Is Old Bulgarian just a name for Old Church Slavonic, the article would seem to suggest so. Or was there another language? If so I guess we should have an article on it. - FrancisTyers 23:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Bulgarian was used in the Ohrid Literary School, where republicans claim Old Macedonian was used. It does not mean that OB is the same as OCS. It means however, that Old Macedonian is encompassing both OB and OCS  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I had a German friend who had a special experience in the matter, and he told me that they were different names for the same thing.--Aldux 10:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They are the same languages. See the article on Bulgarian Wiki, bg:Старобългарски език. BTW, everywhere else, the article is entitled only as ,,Old Church Slavonic", not Old Bulgarian. Why? - Funny question. Bomac 10:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So we should modify it accordingly like this:

• Old Macedonian is the name Macedonians give to the Old Church Slavonic language used in the Ohrid Literary School, referred by Bulgarians as Old Bulgarian "language.

and then we must add in the Bulgarian terminology:

• Old Bulgarian is the name Bulgarians give to the Old Church Slavonic language used in the Ohrid Literary School, referred by Macedonians as Old Macedonian.

I think that would solve it. I'll go through it right now.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) - FrancisTyers 23:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, I didn't know that we refer to it as "Old Macedonian". It's "Old Slavonic" (Старословенски), or "Church Slavonic" (Црквенословенски) as far as I know. I don't know why Bulgarians refer to it as "Old Bulgarian". --FlavrSavr 23:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just presumed (bad start I know) from the Old Church Slavonic article. It doesn't sound terribly unlikely, but does anyone have a reference? - FrancisTyers 23:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused now. In Macedonian, does Старомакедонски refer to the Ancient Macedonian language or to Old Church Slavonic? --Telex 00:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Then we should also add how the Greeks call that!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Старомакедонски as a phrase is rarely used, but it is more likely to refer to the Ancient Macedonian language, which is also called Древномакедонски јазик and Антички македонски јазик (both meaning "Ancient Macedonian language"). I might be wrong, but this is the first time I hear someone referring to the Old Church Slavonic as Старомакедонски. It's certainly not a common phrase. Here's the curriculum of the Skopje philological faculty - in Macedonian [14], and in English [15]. Old Church Slavonic = Старословенски. --FlavrSavr 00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, since Bulgarians don't recognize "Macedonian" as a language, but only as a dialect, then presumably Old Church Slavonic for them, would be equal to Old Bulgarian. I may be wrong, ofcourse, but if I am not, then we should probably include it only in Bulagarian terminology, as follows:

• Old Bulgarian is the name Bulgarians give to the Old Church Slavonic language used in the Ohrid Literary School, since Macedonian is only recognized as a dialect of Bulgarian. In contrast, OCS is rarely referred by Macedonians as Old Macedonian.

Please notice "rarely" above, or consider removing the last phrase. Thoughts?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And in any case we should add the dialect/language conflict (since it is also the official position of Bulgaria) as follows:

• Macedonian is considered officially by Bulgaria as a dialect of Bulgarian, rather than as an independent language.

I'll add that now. Still waiting thoughts for OCS.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian is considered officially by Bulgaria as a dialect of Bulgarian, rather than as an independent language. Not true. [16] Not officially, however. --FlavrSavr 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. The article you cited indeed states that it was to be done. Your modif in the article is also very acceptable. I'm not argueing over this, but can you please provide some official source that it has really happenned? Just for the record, coz articles (especially about future events) aren't exactly reliable source. NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Regarding the last change in the article",i.e. the addition of the word "pseudo-science: in the balkans everybody considers the history of his neighbour as pseudo-science. i think the term should be removed. best--Greece666 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, it is clearly labeled as Bulgarian terminology. Plus think again about your country's history (Republic of Macedonia) and the Serbian history.  /FunkyFly.talk_   03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I understand that the word pseudo is derived from the Greek word ψευδο, and the word science from the Latin world scientia but how is the English terminalogy of "pseudo-science" Bulgarian again? Not saying you should remove it from the article, 'cause I agree with you 100% that Macedonism is "pseudo-science". Just wondering how an English terminology is Bulgarian. Regards. ;) ~Mallaccaos, 25 May 2006

[17] The Bulgarian article.  /FunkyFly.talk_   05:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

a)I am not from the Republic of Macedonia

b)It is not correct simply because it is "labeled as Bulgarian terminology". Thank you--Greece666 04:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The article does make claims for correctness, just reports usage of terms in different countries, which you should have noticed.  /FunkyFly.talk_   04:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"just reports usage of terms in different countries": then pls specify that this is simply a term which is in use in Bulgaria. the way you wrote it seems as a fact. thank you --Greece666 04:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

All the terms under Bulgarian terminology.  /FunkyFly.talk_   04:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. im sorry.--Greece666 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In politics

I've cut the "FYROM" bit down somewhat to prevent unnecessary duplication. It is covered in full detail on the naming dispute page. This has the added benefit of not screwing up the politics box. - FrancisTyers 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem now. You could put it back, only the duplication thing would still stand. :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

New reference style

FrancisTyers - You stated that my conversion to the new style of references didn't work. If you mean Template:Geographical Macedonia, I fixed that separately. I made the reference in that template a footnote instead of a reference, and included the bottom footnote in the template itself. That way, even if you put the template in an article that doesn't have that reference, it will still have the footnote. I chose to use a letter rather than a number to avoid complications the article having the same footnote somewhere else. Armedblowfish 23:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't that. The problems were the following:

1. [enter] instead of [br] within notes
2. Comments to editors within notes

Fixed em both manually from scratch. If you see smthng I missed, just tell me and please don't revert...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ps the workaround with the fnb footnote was cool. Thanks!

What is/was: UNIQ126375835454764e-HTMLCommentStrip4e8a75b36800eea700000002 - FrancisTyers 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It was machine language for: "leave the f***ing footnote free of f***ing editor comments and carriage returns." Someone should file a WP:NPA for the ref engine...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. I don't think there's much the program can do about 1, but 2 may be fixable. In any case, I'll try to look out for those problems in the future when I use Cyde's Ref Converter. (Basically, the way it works is it makes the conversions for the given article, gives me the results, and then I insert the new version into the actual edit box and check the diffs to see if there are any problems.) Armedblowfish 01:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Macedonia (terminology). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060708044400/http://www2.mfa.gr:80/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/FYROM/FYROM+-+THE+NAME+ISSUE.htm to http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/FYROM/FYROM+-+THE+NAME+ISSUE.htm

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).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Macedonia (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090513004551/http://www.mathra.gr/default_15.aspx to http://www.mathra.gr/default_15.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723084106/http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-macedonians.PDF to http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-macedonians.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101013051103/http://www.macedonianembassy.org.uk/history.html to http://www.macedonianembassy.org.uk/history.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic%2BRegions/South-Eastern%2BEurope/Balkans/Bilateral%2BRelations/FYROM/FYROM%2B-%2BTHE%2BNAME%2BISSUE.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonia (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902165216/http://www.e-grammes.gr/article.php?id=59 to http://www.e-grammes.gr/article.php?id=59

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonia (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/organizations/ghm/ghm_13_03_02.rtf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901194242/http://www.e-grammes.gr/article.php?id=1932 to http://www.e-grammes.gr/article.php?id=1932

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Macedonia (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20050117041112/http://cfi.hit.bg/bulgarian/b_5_3.htm to http://cfi.hit.bg/bulgarian/b_5_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029080659/http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IELBA to http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IELBA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606091027/http://www.osce.org/item/58530 to http://www.osce.org/item/58530
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002044531/http://www.skai.gr/master_story.php?id=74004 to http://www.skai.gr/master_story.php?id=74004
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921145406/http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/macedonians_old.pdf to http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/macedonians_old.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109180430/http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.asp?VestID=10713 to http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.asp?VestID=10713
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109180257/http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.asp?VestID=22918 to http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.asp?VestID=22918
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416194855/http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/free-speech-macedonia-forum/805-fyromians-faq-version-1-0-igor-malinovski.html to http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/free-speech-macedonia-forum/805-fyromians-faq-version-1-0-igor-malinovski.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonia (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708044400/http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/FYROM/FYROM+-+THE+NAME+ISSUE.htm to http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/FYROM/FYROM+-+THE+NAME+ISSUE.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonia (terminology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710203717/http://www.tribune.eu.com/articles/1344.html to http://www.tribune.eu.com/articles/1344.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)