This is an archive of past discussions about Macedonia (terminology). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
No author is granted such long quotes, or it is misleading to do so. This looks like a PR job (unintentional no doubt). I still think the Danforth quotes are far too extensive and even though some quotes are pertinent, his 'neutrality' has been seriously disputed. I do not suggest removing but clearly summarising. I suggest replacing it with extracts from the Nimitz summary. Politis15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I only found it in Greek translation: at [1]Eleftherotypia, 13/04/2005. See what you make of it. Does any have the original text? If any Slav Macedonian friends want the gist of it, let me know; or perhaps you have a Makedonski version? Politis15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Quote
The quote is totally out of place, especially for a featured article, for the following reasons:
Biased. Presents "the Balkans" as being exotic, wild, driven by ancient primal forces. Too much history: what does that even mean?
It is not uncontroversial. In 5 seconds I found a paper contesting the sentiment behind it.[2]
Therefore, the reason for this polyonymy, heteronymy and confusion can be summarised in Winston Churchill's words: "The Balkan region has a tendency to produce more history than it can consume."
What information does this convey? "The Balkans have a complicated history, and it's complicated due to the complicated history of the Balkans"? It is tautological and banal.
On the other hand, I cannot see any reason for it to be included, so I'm taking it out until someone makes an argument for the status quo, beyond accusing me of vandalism (aka editing).--Methodius16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As I your main reason is that the quote shows the Balkans in an "exotic, wild, driven by ancient primal forces". Well, I'm a Balkan native and I think the quote is spot on. Even the controversy you are trying to create is just another example of what this quote aims. I'm reverting--Laveol18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then I feel sorry for you I guess. Some of us realise that Balkan problems have concrete causes, nothing to do with "too much history" or other banal meaningless concepts. I am not trying to create controversy, but to have a neutral article. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think, the article should not be presenting as a given something which is not uncontroversial and not relevant.--Methodius19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with deleting the quote. As a native of the Balkans myself, I also think that it is spot on. History is used to back everything: Serbs claim Kosovo, Greeks claim the name Macedonia, Bulgarians claim the Macedonian Slavs, Albanians claim "Greater Albania" etc all making historical arguments. However, none of these arguments are practically relevant in the modern world; they really shouldn't be issues in resolving the Balkan disputes. Who cares if the Albanians are direct descendents of the Illyrians and therefore native in the territories of "Greater Albania" the result supposedly being that their rights to the territory override those of supposedly later arrivals (Slavs, Greeks)? The facts of today should only be relevant: what the ethnic composition of the region is, what potential effects of independence are (persecution of minorities, encouragement of terrorism elsewhere etc). The truth of that quote is best proved on the internet: all Balkan nationalist websites are appealing to history to justify their claims. The quote is certainly relevant enough to be mentioned and let the reader make up his own mind.--Ploutarchos19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'd have agreed with Methodius. The quote is not very useful, it's patronising, and worst of all, we are not just quoting it, we are explicitly endorsing it and editorialising over it ("Therefore, the reason ... can be summarised in Winston Churchill's words:...") -- Won't hurt the article to cut it out. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf.☼19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Ok, I won't insist: I only thought it worth keeping because it reflected quite well the foreign pov on the Balkans. But anyways, I agree that not much will be lost by removing it.--Aldux22:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My my... I feel the vibes of the old days when the violence was ready to explode for the silliest of all reasons. Hell, we can even throw a poll over it. Guys, who cares? Be as it may! Anyway, since I declare guilty for adding it in the first place, I agree with all of you ("is he drunk?"). I agree with Methodius that it makes Balkans sound exotic. I agree with with Ploutarchos and Laveol that appeals to history are the primary ammunition of nationalists in our neck of the woods. I agree with Fut.Perf. that we shouldn't endorse it. I agree that Churchill is irrelevant (Kekrops). I agree it doesn't add as it is (Chris). And I agree with Aldux (reflects foreign pov).
The solution is simple:
Don't make the Balkans sound exotic -> by not endorsing the quote.
Inform the reader that history fuels nationalism -> by just mentioning the quote
Stop endorsing it and editorializing -> by rewording "Therefore..." etc
Show the relevance of Churchill -> by pointing out that Macedonia is in the "heart of the Balkans"
Make it add -> by adding/emphasizing information that nationalists appeal on history within the article
Show foreign pov -> Well, it does on its own.
I'll try to work on these in a couple of days, and come back. In the meantime, please behave! I'd also appreciate a little civility ("load of wank deleted", "feel sorry for you"-over a quote? Jeez!) :-) NikoSilver06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Methodius' "counterexample" actually says that Churchill's quote is half the truth; the other half is that foreign empires export history to the Balkans. Including both (especially since the second is also widely held; compare Black Lamb and Grey Falcon) would probably be a good idea. They would make a nice paragraph, starting with "Macedonia is in the heart of the Balkans; Balkan history is complex." SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Map of ancient Macedonia is WRONG
The ancient Macedonian kingdom extended further north than Niko's CONTRUCTED map suggests. That is why Macedonian region today included RoM and Bulgria, and not just northern Greece .
Niko, i suggest you change that map or I;ll put in a REAL one
In Linguistic Macedonia, Macedo-Romanian is listed as another name for Aromanian. I trust you all know that Macedo-Romanian is an exonym and the Aromanians do not use that name or identify as Macedo-Romanians and so it is not tied in with national identity in that particular case. Aromanians only identify as Macedonian in the context of professing another identity (ROM, northern Greek, or southwestern Bulgarian) and so they are not involved in the dispute. I just don't want people unacquainted with the subject to think this from reading that. Alex 202.10.89.2812:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey Kékrōps Get a Life!!! Should we then to and refer to some Greek websites! Who else would consider the term offensive other than those who are offended!!!
FACT: The Term Skopjan is used by Greeks as a way to deny Macedonians of their Macedonian Identity. It is used with hateful intent. It is no different that using the term "nigger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstatik (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop reverting the preceding comment Kekrops. Take your problem up with me. Don't silence me. I proved Skopjan is pejorative and you are erasing my comment so you can still use the term while telling people you don't believe it's offensive. You know it is. Alex 202.10.89.2823:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Skopjan" is NOT pejorative. It is the common name Greeks call their northern neighbors in everyday speech without even the slightest hint of nationalism. Because simply "Macedonians" for Greeks are (and always were) the Greeks who live in Macedonia. It's a disambiguation issue. Slavomacedonians CLAIM it is pejorative because they want to force the Greeks to call them Macedonians, which for obvious reasons will never happen. At the same time, but no-one really cares about this in Wikipedia, Greeks consider extremely offensive to hear someone refer to the Slavs as "Macedonians". --Avg02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that in this discussion, we should separate derogatory to the subject from derogatory as meant by the speaker, and call something a derogatory term only when it is mean so by the speaker. The subject cannot judge very well if the speaker meant to use the term in a derogatory way, so we should call a term derogatory only when the speaker admits so. I think this is not the case with the terms Skopian and Macedonian. Preslav07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't say the name Skopjan is absurd and don't compare it to calling Georgians Tbilisians. Instead, note that this sort of thing is normal in small states; we use the term Luxembourgers even if they're not from the capital city. Historically Hanoverians were from a large territory in Germany, not just the city itself. I'm not saying Skopjan is right, just that it's in no way absurd. -Oreo Priest11:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a significant difference in meaning between the two examples you give and the case of the RoM. Nobody is denying or has denied the legitimacy of the states of Luxembourg and Hanover. However, the Greek use of "Skopian" does seem to be linked to a more general denial of the legitimacy of the RoM, as in it being dismissed as a "statelet" or "Titoist entity". David E. Sutton comments in Memories Cast in Stone: The Relevance of the Past in Everyday Life p. 177 (Berg Publishers, 1998; ISBN1859739482) that the Greek use of Skopje to mean the country "is a pejorative reference meant to reduce the country to its capital city. It parallels the Greek reference to FYROM as a "statelet" (kratithio) rather than a full state." Sabrina P. Ramet notes in Thinking about Yugoslavia p. 294 (Cambridge University Press, 2005; ISBN1397805218) that "the tendency among some Greeks to refer to the new country as 'Skopje' and to its inhabitants as 'Skopjans' made as much sense as it would have to have referred to Greece as 'Athens' and to its residents as 'Athenians'." The term "Skopian" is clearly used not simply as a shorthand, but as a means of denying the validity of the term "Macedonian" in connection with the people in question (just as with the term "FYROMian", for instance). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well of course Greeks consider the term "Macedonian" invalid in connection with the people in question; that's the crux of the dispute and the reason Skopjan was coined in the first place. But the name issue is distinct from that of their separate nationhood, which concerns the Bulgarians far more than it does the Greeks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
So it's a lose-lose for Greeks. Whether they call their neighbours Skopjans, FYROMians, Vardarians, Dardanians or anything else BUT Macedonians they are nationalists. At the same time, it's ok for the other side to freely call themselves Macedonians and claim that Greeks are "unrelated" to the Macedonians, call the Greek Macedonia "Aegean" and call their language "Macedonian". And that's what is called NPOV! --Avg18:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The ethnic Macedonians only have one autonym - Macedonian. They don't want to piss off the Greeks. The use of the term to refer to themselves and their language is not an attack on Greeks. If it were, they would use the autonym "Greek" not "Macedonian". And "Aegean Macedonia" is not necessarily an irredentist term. It can be used as such, but it is also used just to refer to Macedonia, Greece. You use the term "Greek Macedonia" which is considered offensive by ethnic Macedonians because it suggests that that area is Hellenic, as opposed to only being under the control/jurisdiction of the Greek government. And then comes the dispute about whether Macedonia, Greece is Hellenic or not.
Either way, if you don't want to be labelled nationalist or don't want to offend either side, I propose we use the terms "Red team" and "Blue team" to refer to the two groups of Macedonians - based on the two flags using the Vergina sun. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
And maybe for the 10th time, I'll point an editor from the Republic of Macedonia to the article irredentism - on one side you say that you do not use the term as to claim other lands (Greek, Bulgarian), but on the other you say this: "You use the term "Greek Macedonia" which is considered offensive by ethnic Macedonians because it suggests that that area is Hellenic, as opposed to only being under the control/jurisdiction of the Greek government. And then comes the dispute about whether Macedonia, Greece is Hellenic or not." If you do not like to be offended why do you offend other peoples (Greeks, Bulgarians)? --LaveolT12:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This is really beyond belief. Now you are offended when we call the Greek region of Macedonia "Greek Macedonia"? Do you know that this is our (the Greek editors) compromise to NPOV in Wikipedia, since what Greeks ACTUALLY call it in everyday speech is plain vanilla "Macedonia"? What we were expecting from you is to call your part of Macedonia "Slavic Macedonia" or something similar, but this never happened. This only proves that the only thing we gain when we try to compromise is more intransigence.--Avg21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
When did I say I find anything offensive. I merely told you what ethnic Macedonians think. Do you even know English? I did not state my view at all. If I was irredentist I would have said temporary control. And I said nothing about Bulgarians anywhere. I only mentioned the blue corner, never Blagoevgrad/Pirin (the Green corner if you will). Laveol, you are suggesting that the blue corner is Bulgarian! You are offended because my "irredentism" conflicts with yours. And now, I will, for the first time, point a Bulgarian editor to hypocrisy. Feel free to point me to sarcasm.
And Avg, the ethnic Macedonians call their land, in their everyday speech, plain vanilla Macedonia as well. The only difference is the two versions are written in different alphabets and have different syllabic emphasis. "Slavic Macedonia" doesn't work because the Bulgarians and Serbs and even Poles are also Slavs. My proposal works better (in a discussion) as it is actually neutral. And there has been compromise on both sides - don't mistake this for intransigence just because your views have not been suited to a greater extent. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to lighten up the atmosphere, I do like the blue and red proposal, because, like the blue and red pill in Matrix, only one is real and the other is virtual reality, although admittedly in Matrix redpill is the good one :-) --Avg02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are trying to offend people it doesn't really lighten up the atmosphere. Real vs Fake argument doesn't work on Wikipedia. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, what I think you're doing is "testing the waters". You say you're offended by everything and see what you can get away with from admins and third parties and then push your POV from there. I find extremely hard to accept you are offended by a humorous comment, given the discussion we had before. --Avg03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not offended. If you were insinuating that the red corner is fake, don't. It was actually a humorous comment. Whatever you say, you wont offend me. I'm just telling you what the red team, for the most part, find offensive so that you know what you are doing when you say something. You can do the same with me so that I know when I am (significantly) offending you, or Greeks in general. Greek editors continually bring up that something is offensive, especially the blue team editors. Then the red team has to explain the other side - what is offensive to them. Everybody will always inadvertently offend somebody, but we need to reach a compromise. And by the way, I'm not testing the waters. My POV is that the Balkans are fucked and everybody who lives there will always have some form of problem in terms of recognition of ethnicity or nationality. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually I was telling you why you're being offensive to Greeks (you're offensive to Bulgarians on other levels) and that you tend to be offensive to others, but yet claim that they're offending you - so which one is the true? I'm pretty sure it's yours since judging from your comments, you're always right. --LaveolT15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No. You're just making me repeat myself. I told you what the red team, for the most part, finds offensive. I have also told you about what they think of Bulgarians. That is not my view. Stop telling me that it is and that I am deliberately being offensive. If you can't handle that some people don't like Bulgarians, that's not my fault. Alex202.10.89.28 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It is offensive as shown by ChrisO. Pretty much what is offensive is defined by the people on the receiving end of the term, not on the giving end. This has been demonstrated countless times. - Francis Tyers·21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It has been mentioned countless times that Greeks find offensive that their northern neighbours call themselves Macedonians, this is why the whole Macedonian issue has started. It seems though that Greeks aren't allowed to have sensitivities.--Avg23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Leaving your not so successful irony aside, can you tell me how Greeks should call their northern neighbours if they find Macedonians offensive? They chose Skopjan and the answer was that it is offensive. The same answer is reiterated for ANY other name than Macedonians. So don't try to be simplistic, there is a very real issue here. One side is trying to label all names except Macedonians as offensive, in order to force people to use "Macedonians".--Avg05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, let's go with what you said. When talking to Greeks, you call the Macedonians "Skopjans". But when talking to a Macedonian, and you completely understand that "Skopjan" offends them, what are you going to do? Call them a "Skopjan" and say "No offense, but what you call yourself offends me". Obviously that is if you decide to be at least civil to a Macedonian....<finish this sentence yourself>. BalkanFever10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've done precisely that a number of times, actually, though I find your long-winded explanation of why I use Skopjan unnecessary. I just use it, I don't have to justify it; we all know where we stand. And yes, there were Skopjans who didn't want much to do with me after I refrained from calling them "Macedonians", but there were also those who didn't really care, or agreed to disagree, and in any case didn't consider it a hindrance. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, since they continue to use the name Macedonians, I will continue to use Skopjans and that's about it. When a final solution is achieved, hopefully everybody will abide by the new name. Until then, NOTHING is offensive because there isn't an official name. --Avg16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of free speech, I reserve my right to "offend" anyone I see fit on talk pages, including Skopjans. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
And Macedonians reserve the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to themselves. And everyone else reserves the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to Macedonians. BalkanFever10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is we don't have to bring it up every time someone says Skopjan and FYROM are offensive, because they are two different forms of offense. One comes from being called something, one comes from hearing/reading something. BalkanFever00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly; we don't have to bring it up every time. This whole thread started when a now banned Skopjan editor was "offended" by my use of that word. And then your newcomer пичка felt it had to proffer its "constructive" 2¢ as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a comparison of terms. Do you see how it works? If I live in the hypothetical region of "Greece, Macedonia" and I don't want to call you "Greek" because I'm offended when other people call you "Greek" even though it would be easier to just get over it because it's not breaching on my national identity, apparently I should call you something else ("Athenian" instead of what I said before). So if you get offended, it's your own fault because I just feel you shouldn't have the name that you want to have. That is absurd. Skopjan is directly offensive - by using it, you have chosen to offend someone. It's not Macedonians choosing to be offended. Don't tell me that Greeks don't know it will offend Macedonians - it is obvious that it will. However, Macedonians calling themselves Macedonians is not them choosing to offend you for the sake of devaluing your so-much-more-important-than-national regional identity. It is you choosing to be offended. At the end of the day, "Skopjan" is offensive with the intent of being offensive - pejorative. BalkanFever08:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That is just your humble opinion, I'm afraid. In the Greek view, the name itself was originally chosen in order to promote claims against Greek territory and history, and its (mis)use is therefore deliberately offensive. On the other hand, the intention of Skopjan is not to offend, but merely to avoid the offensive use of a Greek name with an long-established and very different meaning. If you choose to feel offended, then that is simply unfortunate, but you're certainly not alone. By the way, you may call me Athenian if you really must; I for one am not offended by the name of my own capital city, and cannot for the life of me fathom why your lot are. Actually, I can... ;) ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What is unfortunate is the Greek view. The name was not "chosen" to promote claims against Greece. Macedonians called (and still call) themselves Macedonians because they, alone, wanted to. They did not have to justify themselves to Greeks, nor do they have to now. There is no copyright. No-one has to ask Greece for permission. The Greek view ultimately comes down to ego problems. Unfortunately this concept is probably unheard of there, as ego is a Latin word. BalkanFever10:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, "ego" is the Greek word, meaning "I" or "me", and combined with the Greek suffix "-ism", it becomes egoism. Why does this unproductive surreal discussion persist here? NikoSilver12:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The point of the revival is that this term is not offensive and it will be reverted if someone mentions this in the article.--Avg17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
But I think the article already clarifies all this perfectly. See the following two quotes from the intro of "Terminology by group" section:
Despite the fact that these terms may not always be used in a pejorative way, they may be perceived as such by the receiving ethnic group.
and
Any denial of self-identification by any side, or any attribution of Macedonia related terms by third parties to the other side, can be seen as highly offensive.
What we keep doing here is in vein. Both views are presented in an NPOV way. Now, for the words which are intended to be offensive by the speaker, we just label them as such for emphasis. This is the exact differentiation between words merely used for disambiguation such as "Skopjan"/"Egejci" vs words with pejorative intent like "Bulgaroskopian"/"Grkomani". But ALL words are offensive to the ears of the receiver, and we say so in the intro of the section, and we also say why. Now can we close this issue please? NikoSilver18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am born in Skopje and “Skopian” or “Slav” (used mostly by Greeks) or “Slavomacedonian” (used lately mostly by Albanians) are offensive words for a Macedonian because as terms they don’t exit. We don’t use them and we haven’t used them (maybe they exist in some unpopular texts). We recognize ourselves as Macedonians for many generations. The use of “Skopian”, “Slav” or “Slavomacedonian” equals our use (on the Balkans it is common to have a bad word for your neighbor tribe) of “Tartar” for Bulgarian or “Gipsy” (being a “Gipsy” is regarded as offending) for a Greek (that is BalkanFever's meaning and I agree with that). Usually if you say to some Macedonians these words, he will either try to explain you that it is impropriate word or he will just go away and discuss nothing anymore. This dispute for the name Macedonia is quite absurd and easy to solve, using the Ireland experience. Ireland is consisted of Republic of Ireland (with mostly Irish people) and Northern Ireland (with people who feel British). The same is with Macedonia. We have Republic of Macedonia (with people who ethnicaly feel they are Macedonian) and Southern Macedonia (with mostly ethnical Greek people. The Greeks who live in Southern Macedonia have no other national conscience then Greek and they will never feel Macedonian as a part of a tribe or nation. I have Greek friends who feel as Greeks and say that they are Macedonians or Greek Macedonians; because they live in the province Macedonia and that there is no difference between Macedonia and Greece (Macedonia=Northern Greece). But my friends don’t think of Macedonians on ethnic level. @ Nefeligeretis Q: Who the hell are the "Ethnic Macedonians"?? A: Here is the answer. The Macedonians who feel that are different ethnic group call themselves "Ethnic Macedonians" opposite of “Greek Macedonians” ( for example the Macedonian party in Greece “Rainbow” uses this term) Toci 5:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"What we keep doing here is in vein. Both views are presented in an NPOV way. Now, for the words which are intended to be offensive by the speaker, we just label them as such for emphasis. This is the exact differentiation between words merely used for disambiguation such as "Skopjan"/"Egejci" vs words with pejorative intent like "Bulgaroskopian"/"Grkomani". But ALL words are offensive to the ears of the receiver, and we say so in the intro of the section, and we also say why. Now can we close this issue please? NikoSilver 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)"
That is where you are wrong. Skopjan is used with pejorative intent and is no different than Grkomani. There is a consensus here that believes that to be the case!!
Balkan Federation
I see in Eric Ambler's Schirmer Inheritance that a State of Macedonia was projected as one of the components of the Balkan Federation of 1944. We should mention this one way or ther other.
I regret to tell Niko that much of the book (written 1951) is set in Florina, and shows many of the locals as "Macedonians" rather than Greek patriors; in context, this is clearly the same nationality as IMRO. Doubtless things changed over the next quarter-century. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There is definitely a reference to it in 1910, with the First Balkan Conference.[3]
1) A Balkan Democratic Federation was raised as a slogan at the First Balkan Socialist Conference in Belgrade in 1910, in connexion with the growing threat of imperialist aggression on the Balkans. The Balkan socialist parties advocated fraternal understanding of the Balkan peoples, which would enable them to defend their freedom and national independence against the aggressive encroachments of the imperialists. The federation was 'to facilitate the settlement of all outstanding national issues in the Balkans, including the Macedonian question. Macedonia, which was split into three parts, was to be reunited into a single state enjoying equal rights within the framework of the Balkan Democratic Federation (Georgi Dimitrov).
Hello buddy, ethnic group is not a neologism. I did not invent it. But tribe in this context works just as well, as these groups were undoubtedly tribally organized. That, however, is not true of all ancient ethnic groups, many of which were organized by polity, location, or just association. These hill people, though, still had their tribes. So, I am going to let tribe stand. Stet. You could, however, have followed down ethnic group.Dave (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
While reverting I've just realised that in this article there is no mention of the official positions of each country. I'm happy (well sort of) to keep both "nationalist" opinions, but shouldn't somewhere the official positions of the two countries be placed? Aren't the nationalists of both countries given undue weight? Also I completely disagree with keeping Danforth's labelling of opinions as "nationalistic", since he partly describes mainstream opinion in both countries. Unless we also agree that the majority of Greece and fYRoM inhabitants are nationalists. --Avg01:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we can safely say that the majority of inhabitants of both countries are, as would be described by the Wikipedia article nationalist. Note: This is not a value judgement. - Francis Tyers·21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This is all just a reaction to seeing the word "nationalist" next to the word "Greek". Avg thinks it is a personal attack and Wikipedia is calling him a nationalist. Let's not forget there have been many Greeks editing this page that did not have a problem with the usage. And since his edit summary was directed at me I'm pretty sure he was just looking at my contributions, rather than the history of the page - where one can see User:Michael X the White removing the word nationalist, and calling the Macedonian language the "Slav idiom of Slav Macedonia", which is why I reverted all of his edits in the first place. I'm fine with it if anybody decides to go back to previous usage. BalkanFever10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that is exactly why I removed the word nationalist from YOUR paragraph as well... Keep entertaining me.--Avg19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Avg, Danforth refers to nationalism. So do these article sections. They are not "opinions", they are "nationalist opinions". And, no, the Greek "majority" (or "mainstream") does not propagate that "only Greeks have the right to identify themselves as Macedonians" (actually even the official position now only calls for a "composite name", so as to disambiguate), nor does it propagate about the "impoverished linguistic idiom of Skopje".
Francis, an anti-nationalist, would serve the interests of civic nationalism, which is the ultimate form of nationalism (IMO). That makes anti-nationalists worse than the "majority of inhabitants of both countries", who have some sort of excuses (values, histories and customs) to back their nationalism up, at least.
BalkanFever, Michael IX's edits were all bollocks, and you were right to revert them, but kindly do use more elaborate edit summaries in the future.
You're not the only one awake at this time :-) Anyway, as you can see in these three polls [4], the percentage of Greeks who disagree even with a compound name for the country with Macedonia in it is between 62% and 68% (especially in Greek Macedonia it is 73.4%). That's a clear majority. The remaining approx. 30% agrees with the compound name and only 2.4% says let them call themselves as they like.--Avg01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It would make sense that the official position is the most moderate, I guess. Niko, I will use better edit summaries in the future, but to be pedantic, I did say "rv pov" which I believe implies reverting the most recent edits. BalkanFever01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In 1991 95% of the Macedonians voted for Republic of Macedonia as a souveraign state. If we have the vote now I think the number will be 99%. I kind of doubt that the Macedonians will change their opinion of being Macedonian, because as Macedonians we don't know any other alternative. We cant change our ethnicity because 60% of the Greeks disagree???!? Being Macedonian is fact, we are a Balkan tribe as the Greeks and Serbians and Albanians are, sooner the Greeks accept it (and Bulgarian as well), sooner the region will relax and progress. Toci 14:41, 15 February 2008 (CET)
What the figures say is that approximately 98% of the Greeks disagree with you being called Republic of Macedonia. About one third of this 98% are prepared to accept something like Slavomacedonia or Upper/Northern Macedonia, the remaining two thirds believe that even this is too much. There is another interesting figure in these polls which I haven't mentioned, 89.1% of Greeks believe that if you don't change your stance towards the name, Greece should veto your entrance to both the NATO and the EU. By the way these polls are by well known poll companies, so there is no issue whether they correspond to the actual figures. Now regarding you 99% estimates, have you asked the 25% of your country if they consider themselves Macedonian and if they don't want to join Albania?--Avg18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The high number of the polls is dued to the Greek politicians who wage this narrow-minded political war of threats and don't present the true reality for the Greek public. Macedonia is a country (as any Greek that visits Macedonia notices), we are Macedonians and that will stay. I am Macedonian and I have lot of Greek friends who don't mind me being Macedonian (so I doubt your statistics). The Albanians in Macedonia usually don't vote on these issues (I kind of doubt that the 600000 Albanians who live in Greece (5-6%) are included in your figures as well). The veto will only show that the Greek politicians are short-sighted and don't think for the future (we might not enter NATO this year and EU is 10 years, but sooner or later we will). It is not the first Greek veto or embargo and we will survive it. Toci 00.10, 16 February 2008 (CET)
Apparently you're uninformed about the Greek political scene (which is not a bad thing, you don't miss much). Currently the Greek politicians are in disarray with the majority of the population who don't accept the compound name. Almost all political parties do support the compromise of the compound name, with the exception of the nationalist LAOS (they get only about 4-5% of the vote so they're marginal). So it is completely the other way round, the politicians try to soften the stance of the population. Having said that, although Greeks are very passionate about the naming issue, almost everyone I know, including me, believe that Skopje can be Athens' closest ally given our cultural and historical bonds. Now someone has said a new nation needs an enemy in order to be forged. It seems you've found us. Greeks consider you more like a problem child than an enemy. Eventually you will grow up and see who your real friend is. --Avg23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of Greece’s domestic politics (the Greek national feelings are irrelevant for us, as ours are irrelevant to the Greek, we are two states) the Macedonians will not accept compound name (former... is already the temporary compound name). Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia is the name that the Greek politicians and public have to accept (sooner or later). That is what the Greek politicians don't see as fact and present it to the public. Macedonians and Greeks have lot of cultural and historical bonds, you are true there, but they were not as friendly as you think. Macedonians regard Greeks as not trustworthy and backstabbing (especially the older generations). We also think that you undervalue us (speaking of undervalue you wrote: "Greeks consider you more like a problem child than an enemy. Eventually you will grow up and see who your real friend is.") We are no childish at all, especially not problematically childish. We are equal, and in some aspects better state then Greece (personal freedoms, human rights, self-sufficiency (we don’t have yearly 55 billion euros trade deficit)). We, as state, lack strategy then and then, but we are learning quickly. When we are talking about real friends, my real Greek friends address me as Macedonian, rather as a silly Macedonian that often talks too much. But most of my Greek friends have visited Sweden or live in Sweden, where the society evolved over the nationalist issues. So when we speak about growing, you need to grow up as well, over the Greek nationalist interests. We have more in stake then Greece and Macedonia, there is an ongoing climate change that will hit seriously (desertify) the Balkans in the next 50 years. We need to cooperate and we will not be able to cooperate if you put vetoes and embargos on us and don't recognize us as Macedonians. Macedonia is one river basin where all the water sinks in Salonica bay and the future will depend on the negotiations between the three major tribes in this basin, Albanians, Greeks and Macedonians. Toci 02.20, 16 February 2008 (CET)
I very much agree with your last comments, we have to put this issue behind us and cooperate. But in order to reach an agreement we need both sides to take steps. Currently it's only us who accept the compromise of a compound name. Our official position has shifted from "No Macedonia in the name" to "Compound name with Macedonia in it". And that is (as I've shown with the polls) against what the Greek people wants. Your government though is intransigent and it's time you make your step forward as well.--Avg01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Greece's official position didn't shift a bit (I dont know what the Greeks did except threatening to put vetoes). We have a compound name already that Greece recognizes. So we will be waiting. We made the last, with changing the flag (I saw even the Greeks like our new flag; they have made it in a blue and yellow version). That was a poor move from our diplomats, I think, but that was the last move in the negotiations. It is Greek turn to accept our name. Greeks forget that we have nothing to lose. If I am not Todor I am nothing, if I am not Macedonian I am nothing. Lot of Macedonians died in the past 200 years for the freedom and the right to call ourselves Macedonian, we didn't get the name as gift. So we have a strong standing point on our name, without it we are nothing and we spit on the heritage of our forefathers. In the end will you change your name if the Macedonian people want that? Will you change Salonica into Solun and Florina into Lerin because 100% of the Macedonian people call them Solun and Lerin? Of course you will not and it will be rude if I insist that you change it. The Greek requests for changing our name I see as more unfriendly and rude as these malicious requests for changing yours and the cities names. So be polite and friendly and use Macedonia and Macedonians, as we do. Toci 04.00, 16 February 2008 (CET)
Drama will take you nowhere. I could put drama as well if I wanted, you know like defending our history and our name from someone who's trying to steal it from us, fight as we did back in the Macedonian Struggle etc etc. I find these things useless, we have to work together and we both have to compromise. That's how it is. Welcome to real life where Don Quixote is unemployed.--Avg04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please use drama and describe the Greek Struggle for Macedonia. You are putting the topic on the board. We regard the andarts as butchers. If they were not butchers they would have been celebrated in Greece long time ago (the Macedonian Struggle museum in Salonica is from 1980s and it is disgraceful building, it is same if the Serbs erect a museum to celebrate the masacre in Srebrenica). Unfortunately I have heard only the Macedonian side of the dramatic story where Macedonians are being slauthered both by Turks and Greeks (I saw that during the Greek Struggle for Macedonia the bloodiest day was the masacre of 79 villagers). But you are here to enlight me with the Greek side of the conflict. For our name, it is not for compromise, we did our compromise with the flag, if the Greeks don't see it as a sign of a good will that is not our problem. Greece is not prerequisite for the life and progress of Macedonia. We are self-sufficient state as I wrote before and we do what we think it is best for us. Don Quixote is unemployed, you are right there, but he survives on little. Toci 12.10, 16 February 2008 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second... Does anybody seriously disagree that "United Macedonia" and the statement "there cannot be a Macedonian nation since there has never been an independent Macedonian state: the Macedonian nation is an "artificial creation"" (etc) are by definition nationalist?? NikoSilver09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The statement "the Macedonian nation is an artificial creation" sounds genocidal (genocide=deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group) if you are Macedonian (the quotation marks "" describe quote or irony in English language "artificial creation"=opposite of artificial creation=natural creation so I presume that you wanted to write artificial creation). Being artificial creation in political terms means missguided or fake. Republic of Macedonia is reality, it is not missguided exibitionism of 2 milion people as 60% of the Greeks believe. Toci 14:41, 15 February 2008 (CET)
On what do you base your assertion that it "sounds genocidal"? It is just another opinion, one shared incidentally by many theorists vis-à-vis all nations. Many on the other side also consider Greece to be an "artificial nation" invented by Britain in 1830 or whatever. Greeks have no real problem with the country's existence, and in fact probably prefer it over a Greater Albania or Bulgaria; it's the name that's the issue. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is not another opinion, it is the ‘’only’’ Greek opinion, because the Macedonians (as separate ethnic group) are excluded by the Greeks in all the scenarios for the future Balkan (that is genocidal). The Greeks deliberate and systematic try to destroy any trace of Macedonians as ethnic group and as Macedonia as their state. Behind every political threat, veto and embargo and stands a sign “They are Slavs, Fyromians, not Macedonians”. Naming us Slavs seen from narrow perspective seems harmless (and we have a Slavic intermix in the history as the Greek and all the Balkan tribes do), but if you see the whole picture it is a genocidal political strategy and that is why we see the words ‘’Slavs’’, ‘’Macedonian Slavs’’ and ‘’Slavomacedonians’’ offending. These days there is again pressure from the ministry of foreign affairs of Greece for the Macedonian membership of NATO and again with the label “They are Slavs, not Macedonians”, they don’t exist as tribe, they are thieves of history and liars. So it is not a name issue, it is national issue. The Greeks, as the Serbs did in 1944, must evolve their narrow nationalistic view and have an agreement with the Macedonians (excluding any threats on the name which is unchangeable) as the Irish did with the English (British). We are negotiating on the same level today, even though the Greece is an older and bigger state. I already wrote about the Irish experience (Republic of Ireland (Ireland) and Northern Ireland (UK)) and made distinction Republic of Macedonia (or Macedonia) and Southern Macedonia (Greece). Southern Macedonia is populated with mainly Greeks and Republic of Macedonia is mainly with Macedonians. There are no territorial claims on Southern Macedonia by Macedonia as there is no claim by Ireland that Northern Ireland is Irish (they live in peace). The Greeks (with ally help) won all the wars with Macedonians in the last century (the last was the Greek Civil war) and Macedonians have no ground to claim any territory from Greece (on the ground they are Macedonians), but they can claim human rights for the handful of people in Southern Macedonia that remain there and who speak Macedonian at home and feel as Macedonians. It is now all about being progressive (opposite of narrow-minded nationalist) Greek and accept Macedonia and Macedonians as reality. Toci 23:45, 15 February 2008 (CET)
If that is really the kind of attitude that moulds your government's stance towards Greece, we can't be very optimistic about the future. And your careless remarks about "genocide" are highly offensive to a nation that actually hassuffered genocide. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Greeks had and made a genocide to the Turks as well, so you should not be offended by the word. Everyone had its share of genocides in the past. Just check the statistics for Salonica for the 1890. Greece emptied Salonica from all the other nations by resetling and making them Greek. Salonica was a city of mixed cultures, where the Jews and Turks were majority. But that was in the past and we should look to the future. You are still thinking that the Greeks are poor victims of the Turks and are surrounded by unfriendly tribes that want to destroy you. Addressing us as ‘’Slavs’’, ‘’Macedonian Slavs’’ and ‘’Slavomacedonians’’, maybe it is not genocidal physicaly, but it is toward negating us, that is softer political genocide. The domestic politics in Greece changed, you should change as well in these posts. You have a political party of ethnic Macedonians in Greece. If your courts regonized it, you should have to accept the reality of the Macedonian state. Toci 18:00, 16 February 2008 (CET)
That is not the view of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. And the recognition of a political party does not mean that the Greek authorities or people accept the positions it upholds; far from it. The Rainbow Party has the right to its bizarre opinions and the rest of the Greek citizenry has the right to oppose them. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If they haven't reviewed the events, which I suspect they haven't, then how could they come to a conclusion? That's like saying the example you mentioned didn't exist until last year. And since there was a mutual expulsion between Greece and Turkey, how can there only be one genocide? Never mind though, as this is a bit too far removed from Macedonia (terminology). What position, anyway? That there is an ethnic group calling themselves Macedonians? All Greeks know that's true. BalkanFever07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Greco-Turkish population exchange is not normally treated as part of the genocide suffered by the Greeks of Anatolia prior to that event, so I think you're a bit confused about the history. The Greeks of eastern Anatolia in particular suffered a similar fate to that of the other Christian populations of the region, most notably the Armenians and Assyrians. Unless of course you choose to deny those genocides too. As for the Rainbow Party, it has views on the "artificial Greek nation" that are a bizarre mix of postmodern deconstructionism and old-fashioned ethnic nationalism. If all nations are artificial, why the fixation on identifying with one over the other? Or is it only the Greeks who suffer from a lack of authenticity? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If you recognize a political party of Macedonians in Greece and their will to proclaim themselves ethnic Macedonians, opposite of ethnic Greeks mayority, that is a good step toward recognizing the Macedonian nation and state. The Rainbow Party has no bizarre opinions, they are not aggressive or demanding (for example as Greece's foreign politics toward Macedonia). They want to be simply Macedonians, to learn Macedonian in school and keep the Macedonian culture (the language, stories, songs and dances). If you see that as bizarre that is a chauvinist stand where any other culture then Greek is negated (chauvinism is the main cause for the Balkan genocides in the last 200 years and we should uproot it from our Balkan brains). You should learn from Macedonia. If you are Serb, Turk or Albanian in Macedonia you can go to school on your language (Albanians even have few universities), you can have festivals, you can even have your national flag in the municipality (we as Macedonians don't like the foreign flags, but we accept them). It is an age of decentralization, where the central nationalist politics disipate to leave place for the local people. The Rainbow Party could not exist in the 1980s and they would have been sentenced to prison as traitors of Greece. But now Athens has less and less influence on the municipalities and the will of some people in Lerin (Florina) is to return to their roots and live as Macedonians. There is nothing bizarre there. It is chauvinistic to negate that as it is chauvinistic to negate the existance of Macedonia as state. Toci 13:22, 17 February 2008 (CET)
Pardon me, but what the hell does anything of the above have to do with the article? See WP:NOT#FORUM. And also, you seem to confuse negation of existence with negation to a name for that existence. For the last time, we already have Macedonians in Greece, and that's how they are called by us, and that's how they are calling themselves, and that's how third parties call them also! Greece's issue is semiological confusion; not your existence, of course! NikoSilver13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You are true, its a bit forumish. But this is not an article, but talk on nationalist stands to solve the semiological confusion about Macedonia and the use of term Macedonia. So lets talk hard facts. Greece don't recognize Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians who are living there as ethnic group (and names them "Slavs"), because they are allegeable stealing the name from the Macedonians (Greek). Macedonians (Greek) are not existing in the official Greek censuses and that puts in question the Wikipedia term Macedonians (Greek). The only recognized minority in Greece are 481663 Albanian and 43981 Bulgarian immigrants www.statistics.gr. If Macedonians (Greek) or Greek Macedonians are Greeks that live in Macedonia and I don’t understand why there is a claim on the name Macedonians when they are declared as Greeks. It seems that the only Macedonians (by ethnical declaration in censuses) live in Republic of Macedonia www.stat.gov.mk (and small part in Bulgaria and Serbia). If the Greeks feel that Republic of Macedonia and the Greek province of Macedonia are too similar, they should solve their issue themselves. The name Greek Macedonia is used in Wikipedia to describe that province (part of Macedonia where Greeks live) opposite from Republic of Macedonia as state. Why not accept that as a fact. The Greek Macedonia as territory is larger and more populated then Republic of Macedonia, but it is not a state and can't be referred internationally only as Macedonia, whereas Republic of Macedonia can be. The Greek Macedonia is Greece internationally. Macedonia in the article in Wikipedia is firstly a region that is divided on one state and two provinces that are put on the same level. Politically the region Macedonia is divided between Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Bulgaria and Hellenic Republic. These are the actors that should be put on the same level, not Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia (Greek Macedonia is province and Pirin Macedonia is the area of Macedonia under the Pirin mountain). Toci 16:42, 17 February 2008 (CET)
Your whole post above, and especially the deleted bit exactly illustrate why Greece is right in arguing that you are intending to monopolize the term. Macedonia is a region, and that is indisputable. Calling part of that region "Macedonia" alone, puts it on the same level with the whole according to the Greek position. The "levels" you are talking about represent only the political aspect, which is entirely inconsistent with all other aspects. Greek Macedonia has two times as many Macedonians (Greek ones). Greek Macedonia has seven times your economy. Greek Macedonia has 60% more than your territory. Your ill-informed example about Ireland above is exactly the opposite in all those other aspects. So, the political aspect is just a crazy depiction of a false reality. Also, the political aspect should be irrelevant (as you yourselves usually argue): It shouldn't be an issue if one constitutes an autonomous nation or not, as long as the people self-identify and self-determine as such. And again, nobody negates your right to existence and your right to self-governance. It is your "right" to misrepresentation of an irredentist whole that is questioned.[5][6][7]MIA[8][9][10] And that is not a right in my view, as it comes in direct conflict with the right to unambiguous self-identification of all other Macedonians (not to mention the risk to their right of self-governance). It also comes in direct conflict with all mathematical reasoning and logic about sets and subsets, of which I am a great fan. NikoSilver16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't said that as Republic of Macedonia we will monopolize the name. Our irredentist whole is not realistic and it is not even a fantasy. Macedonia is a region and Republic of Macedonia is a part of the region. But the Greeks who live in Macedonia are not Macedonians by ethnicity, and the they are ethnic Macedonians then they are not Greeks. There is not a single census document in Greece that proofs that Greek Macedonians exist. They are fantasy as our irredentist whole. There are no documents for other Macedonians so we can't discuss on them. There is a document of ethnic Greeks who live in Macedonia and we can talk about their advances in economy and their growth, but that is not the topic on this talk. We are talking about Macedonia and Macedonians and I wrote that part of Macedonia belongs to Hellenic Republic and it is Greece today, regardless of the province name. Republic of Macedonia is Macedonia. The Greek national stand (no different then the Bulgarian who say the same) it that the entire region is Macedonia, but Macedonia is Greece, and we are the Slavic invaders and problem kids who steal the history (in Bulgarian national story we are unconscious Bulgarians). Macedonia (where Macedonians used to live) got smaller and parts turned to Greece and Bulgaria. And that is the reality that Greeks should be aware of and respect Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians as equal. (Toci (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
In other words, one can only be "Macedonian" if one shares your ethnic self-identification. The rest of the population of Macedonia, the overwhelming majority, are not Macedonians, they are interlopers and invaders who must be got rid of if Macedonia is to be truly free. Pretty accurate so far? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Kekrops. You understood perfectly Toci's comment. And BTW, Toci, if the Greek Macedonians self-identify as "Macedonians", it's their business, and their business ONLY. Everybody else has to follow suit and call them exactly as they wish. If you do not agree with this simple principle, then everybody can call YOU differently as well from what you would wish. Do you? NikoSilver22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"In other words, one can only be "Macedonian" if one shares your ethnic self-identification." Yes, we are tribe of Macedonians and Greek Macedonians self-identify with the Greeks not with us (I never said they self-identify as "Macedonians", even more I said they are not existing as "Macedonians" in censuses, but as Greeks). The people who live in 51% of the region of Macedonia 100 years ago are predominately Greeks and therefore this territory is Greece today. Just to point out that we are not living in exact borders and countries turn smaller and larger in history. Kosovo was part of Serbia, but today is obviously not. Salonica was part of Turkey 100 years ago, but today is obviously not. It is part of Greece. Armenia was a large state in the history, but not today. In the future maybe there will be no Macedonia or there will be no Greece. It all depends on the ethnic self-identification. If noone feels Macedonian or Greek, there will be no Macedonia or Greece. I don't regard you as a Greeks in 51% of the region of Macedonia, but as Greeks in Greece, so why rid of Greeks in Greece. Behind your border, is your problem. But you as state insist (gentle word for political pressures, vetoes and embargos) that Macedonia is Greece.
On the question were the Greek invaders in the region of Macedonia 100 years ago. The answer is yes. There were then, but not today. Today is 100 years later and Greeks live several generations. The Greeks invaded region of Macedonia, won the war, moved out the non Greek population and moved in Greek population. It was normal then to change the population because Turks and especially Macedonians would have rebeled to their deaths (that was the Macedonian national motto then 'death or freedom'). No one blames Greece for that, the past is past. If the Macedonians would had been in role of the Greeks, we would have also expell all the Greeks. If the Turks would have won the war, they would have done the same.
Albanians took Kosovo from the Serbs, but they don't proclaim themselves as Serbians and make a dispute on the Serbian name. They don't even regard Kosovo as part of Serbia, but more part of Albania. So why do you see the 51% of Macedonia 100 years ago as Macedonia today when is officially and internationally Greece for almost 100 years. I don't understand why is Greeks business, and their business ONLY to call themselves Macedonians in the media and not as ethnicity in the censuses. That looks a bit strange. Poeticaly it seems like you want to put us in a deep shadow using another shadow. (Toci (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
According to the Greek view, they are Macedonians, therefore Greeks, and have been since long before you decided it was a pretty name to call yourselves. In other words, being Macedonian and being Greek are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they are inextricably linked. Your preposterous belief that you are the Macedonians and that the Greeks had no presence in Macedonia until they "invaded" it 100 years ago (is that really what they teach you in school?), is precisely the reason Greece has adopted the stance it has. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You can read it in Wikipedia about Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and Montenegrian invaded Macedonia 100 years ago (First Balkan War). It is not important what they teach us in schools. It is not my preposterous belief that we are the Macedonians, but the censuses show. Please give me a link or point a official document of Macedonians living in North Greece (I will name "Greek Macedonia" North Greece which is the true international name). (Toci (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC))
Kekrops and I are trying to explain the following: The Athenians are also Greeks. The Peloponnesians are also Greeks. The Epirotes are also Greeks. The Cretans are also Greeks. Same, the Macedonians (Greek) are also Greeks. It happens that there are also other Macedonians around. Notably you. Personally, I have no problem with that, as long as each side accepts that the other side exists, and as long as each side finds a way to distinguish which Macedonians are of which part. That's all. So, the question is: Do you persoanlly challenge the right of the Greeks who live in the Greek part of Macedonia to self-identify as Macedonians? NikoSilver14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is a bit late to reply, but, changed whatever was there to "Slav idiom of Macedonia", simply because it is in the column of what Greeks refer to. And I do not think that when any Greek talks about "Σλαβομεκεδονικά", they mean "Macedonian". Also, the world "nationalist" simply because it is not just the "nationalists" who have that opinion, and it is even not a "nationalist" opinion, but it is common, even to someone who is ,say, a communist. I just did not have time to justify those edits at that time. I really wonder to see "Macedonians" or others, what will you say, when you will anyway have to change all articles,re-edit, re-write them, when soon, the name of FYROM will be neither FYROM nor ROM?? We will sure give you a hand at that time, although it will be very entertaining seeing you changing all these. And that will be done within two weeks, or say, a month,for, if not, if FYROM or however you call it does not choose dialogue and get a new name, within two weeks, Veto in EU,NATO and all other international organisations will come, as it is already close at hand.
--Michael IX the White (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to make it clear for this section's title: No, not all positions are nationalist (in the bad sense). There are many moderate positions around. Those two sections in the article, though, try to describe which are the nationalist ones because this is highly relevant to the subject. So, keeping the same title about the nationalist positions, does anybody feel that we should alter/expand/reduce the content of those two sections? Is there anything we missed? Is there something that doesn't sound "nationalist" to you, and why? NikoSilver11:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
When the positions of even the Communist Party of Greece, for exemple, are the same in that matter, so those described as nationalist, how can they really be nationalist?? Almost all the political parties in Greece, from the communist to the far right have these so called "nationalist" positions. So they're not nationalist really.--Michael IX the White (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh?? "There cannot be a Macedonian nation since there has never been an independent Macedonian state: the Macedonian nation is an "artificial creation""?? --- "They speak an impoverished idiom"??? When did KKE say these? When did any other party (including LAOS) deny the existence and independence of that nation?? Why on earth are we still talking about this? NikoSilver22:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, KKE, LAOS and the rest have never accepted that it actually is a nation. Well, if you're Greek, just watch the news these days and it is all clear.If you can't do that, go to all parties websites. Simple as that.--Michael IX the White (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ti les bre Mixahlo? Gia des th selida mou! To the point: Well, actually KKE does accept they are a separate nation, and only wishes their name to contain just a geographic denotation.[11] LAOS, which indeed doesn't, is a nationalist party in my view. Also, according to all academics (and the UN charter), the right to self-determination of a nation lies on its people only. Does anybody seriously doubt that the people have chosen to be a separate nation in that case? Their independence was voted in a referendum for the love of holiness! NikoSilver15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We have confirmation that the PM of FYROM Gruevski is a nationalist abiding by the ideals of Macedonism. Look at the map behind. [12]--Avg19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well... making someone from FYROM accept that there can be other Macedonians or that some kind of a determinant should be used to avoid ambiguity is an extremely tedious task... Well let us for a minute contemplate about the ambiguity of the term "Macedonian" within FYROM alone. In FYROM reside people who identify themselves as Macedonians, people who identify themselves as Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs etc. Now... what is a Macedonian in these cases? Is it only the one who declares himself "ethnic Macedonian"? Is it everybody who posesses a "Macedonian" passport? The Macedonians who declare themselves Albanians are Macedonian Albanians? Are they Albanian Macedonians? Are they Macedonians of Albanian origin? Are they Albanians who reside in Macedonia and hold a Macedonian passport?
Now look up Macedonia, USA.... You will find some towns named Macedonia. Are they Macedonian Americans? US Macedonians? Or are these names reserved by the Macedonians who immigrated to the US and declare Macedonian origin regardless where they reside? Can they call themselves Macedonians? If an Irish immigrant who resides in Macedonia (some town somewhere in the US) says that he is a Macedonian will the Macedonians shout in anger? If he says that Alexander was a Macedonian and pictures him with a tomahawk and colorful feathers, will the Macedonians have a problem?
In Greece there is an area called Macedonia... anybody wants to dispute that? Now this Macedonia is called thus by the Greeks since 1913 and Greeks who reside there (some were there in 1913 others came afterwads, some migrated to Athens to find a good job) have called themselves Macedonians exactly as people in California call themselves Californians and people in Bavaria call themselves Bavarians... At the same time there were people in the broader region who also called themselves Macedonians although they were not Greeks. Some resided in Greece, some in Bulgaria, others in Yugoslavia. These people, less than 20 years ago established a new country and declared that they want to call themselves Macedonians...
So, now we are called to decide who is Macedonian... If Macedonia was a brand name it would belong to the Greeks since they officially used it longer. Unfortunately it isn't... So we have to first decide on what this name means and implies...The Macedonians claim that it encompasses whoever lived in Macedonia as it was geographically defined in the late Ottoman period. Hmm.... Then thousands of Turks now in Constantinople are Macedonians. Greeks, Jews, Bulgarians too... They rethink and say "No! A Macedonian is someone who lived in these lands and does not define himself as anything else than Macedonian alone!" Of course if this was the case then Goce Delchev, Mirsikov, Gligorov etc would not be Macedonians and of course all those people who belong to the Macedonian minorities are also Non-macedonians... "Wait!" they shout "there is another solution! Macedonians are those people who define themselves as Macedonians!" Now the Albanian Macedonians can be Macedonians but then now, so can Greek Macedonians... And then we reach at the final solution..."Macedonians are those people who call themselves Macedonians and are called Macedonians by us!" But even now the term is not completely complete.... "Macedonians are those people who call themselves Macedonians and are called Macedonians by us and those people we call non-Greek, non-Albanian, non-Bulgarian Macedonians regardless of what they call themselves!" Now they can also encompass in this term some hundreds of thousands of Albanians, Bulgarians, about a million Greeks etc... And how about the ancient Macedonians? "Well, they called themselves Macedonians and Greeks so they were not Greeks! They were Macedonians." Why not call Macedonians those who reside in the Macedonia of Phillip alone? Why not call Macedonians those who resided in the Byzantine theme of Macedonia? Why not call Macedonians those who called themselves Macedonians, how about the Peloponessian Dorians? "No they are Greeks" Yes.... but they were Macedonians too... Let's call the Agrianes Macedonians too..."But they were not Macedonians, they were Agrianes!" Yes but they lived in what you call Macedonia. "Yes, but back then it was not called Macedonia.." Aha! And then why do you call the place you live now Macedonia? "Because the Turks said so...????" Ok...
The thing is... all these people defined, define or/and will define themselves as Macedonians. Millions of people who enter disputes and debates as to which part of Macedonia of which timeframe and what part of its history belongs to whom. The Macedonians claim there is no such issue since they call themselves Macedonians and they have the right of self determination. But then so do the Macedonians too!!! And as if that was not enough there are the Macedonians who claim the same... Most of them are in Macedonia, many in Macedonia and some in Macedonia... Are you lost? You shouldn't be for according to the Macedonians there is no need to differentiate since there is only ONE Macedonia and its people are the Macedonians!
People... of course there HAS TO BE some determinant as to which Macedonian we are talking about each time we are trying to make sense... If the people in FYROM feel that any other determinant than sole Macedonia is offensive and should not be used we can achieve nothing and of course this will not be accepted by the other Macedonians who will ask for the same treatment... Why can't you just be Macedonians X and Greeks can be Macedonians Y and then let the historians do their jobs as to the history? What is so bad in calling yourselves North Macedonia or Vardar Macedonia? Greeks would just be South Macedonians or Aegean Macedonians. Why is it a shame to call yourselves Slavomacedonians (minorities inluded)? The Greeks could be Graecomacedonians (minorities also included). If only the governments reached such an agreement, our job here would become sooooooo much easier... (actually rumor has it that there will be a comromise only months after the elections in FYROM, but we will see)
Macedonia is an ancient greek kingdom. Macedonia in modern times is a geografical area. The term "republic of Macedonia" is not recognized by Greece, nor UN, nor the most countries of the world. It's very strange that wikipedia uses this name meaning FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). This name was made to distinguish "Macedonia" from the part of the geografical area called macedonia which used to be part of Yugoslavia. It not a real name, so the two countries have to agree in another one. In Greece and for all greeks (with a few exceptions, part of anarchists and some more) it's unacceptable to use the name "Macedonia" for FYROM, because Macedonia is also a region of Greece and great part of the history of Greeks has to do with Macedonia. People in nothern Greece consider themselves Macedonias as well, but they mean that they are Greeks adn live in the area of the great ancient kingdom. Slavic history has nothing to do with ancient Macedonia, although slavs live in the area for many centuries now, and have every right to identify themselves with a term that includes tha name of the area. Nevertheless, the term "macedonia" will never be accepted by Greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.144.91 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I say we change it to 'Alexandria' :P
In the tradition of Alexander, let's change it to Alexandria when it gets to Greek references, ancient greek, and modern. Pf, like he was even the best example of ancient greek history. the militarist extremist.
ps. it's not a forum but it seems the improvement of such articles requires the use of discussion)
pps. let me add, don't forget what is most important is information, not naming, i.e. if you know what modern republic of macedonia is and if you know what ancient greece was, naming is almost immaterial. what are you gonna lose? a few tourists to uniformed idiots calling the republic of macedonia ancient greece?
Alexandria (disambiguation) is actually a worse example. The Greek mentality, education, and tradition argues that these concepts (information and naming) are inseparable. I had an illustrative quote from a major Greek philosopher about names and meanings, but I can't remember it right now. I don't necessarily agree, but surely we can all see the difficulty of explaining all these to someone, instead of giving a different or partly-tweaked name... NikoSilver01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I appreaciate your commitment on the creative side, I must say, but really, it can't be a solution.Anyway, it is not about Alexander anyway. Many of these "Slavs" accept that they have no relation with the original Macedonian Kingdom or tribe and that they arrived at the 6th century AD. So, Alexandria would be totally irrelevant... You say we has not the best exemple in the Greek history...Oh well, he anyway built up an Empire from Macedonia to India, adn he was just 33 years old... Anyway, it's good having any ideas. --Michael IX the White 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"Many of these "Slavs" accept..." It is a bit offending to use "Slavs" to refer to the Macedonians. In the past we regard ourselves as Christian (usual moderate answer before World War II) or Macedonian (answer for which you could have been isolates, prosecuted and even killed before World War II and usual answer after World War II and after People's Republic of Macedonia was established). Alexander the Great is also part of Macedonian stories not as Alexandar the Great, but as Alexander Macedonian (Aleksandar Makedonski, Александар Македонски) or king Aleksandar (kral Aleksandar, крал Александар). The Macedonian legend is that Alexander Macedonian invented the war. If you think before, Alexandar is the first king in history who masacres the armies. I am not sure, but before Alexander the warfare was more of a show-off nature, where the more richer and more fancy dressed won the war, or the war was of a duel nature. Macedonians were poorly dressed, but they were killing machines. There is a Macedonian poem (in a slavic language) from 1850s about king Alexander who met craftmans that made stone coffins. King Alexander told them to make a completely closed stone coffin for him because the flies and mosquitos are all around him and are not giving him peace. When they made the coffin king Alexander lied there. This 150 years old poem that was sung by a bling singer in Macedonia tells the story of Alexander's death more then 100 years before the theory that Alexander died of malaria. The relation with the original Macedonian Kingdom was a taboo in People's and Socialist Republic of Macedonia where the tendency was to not research the past and the tendency was to emphasize the Slavic in all the former Yugoslav republics as ground for brotherhood. The new research in the folklore archives and the archeological dig outs in Republic of Macedonia shows that there are some links between the antique and todays Macedonians. In the dig-outs in Vardarski rid (Gevgelija) you can see almost no change in architecture for 2500 years. The same building techniques that were used in 5th century B.C. were used in the Macedonian villages of the 19th century (now these techniques are abandoned as backward). The Slavs at the 6th century AD didn't arrived exclusively in Macedonia, they arrived in Albania, Greece and Romania, so all of these tribes have a slavic intermix. We have also other tribes arriving in Macedonia after the Slavs, especially during the crusades. So even if Macedonians want to, we can't be "Slavs", but a mix of many many armies that pass through Macedonia with the local population. But in our heads, we are Macedonians. The Alexandia naming has no reality. Toci February 17 14.22 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 13:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If my aim was to offend I would simply not put "Slavs", but just Slavs. I think you can see the difference clearly. About the architecture, all houses in the Balkans were being built the same way, from the most ancient times, till the 19th century, as you said. There was never a great difference in any region of the Balkans, in terms of building till the 19th century, so the architecture should not be considered as any significant sign. About Alexander, there is irrefutable prrof that he, and his subjects were Greek. 1)He took place in the Olympic Games, in which, till the Roman Conquest, only Greeks who could proove they were Greek took part 2)his mother was Princess Olympiad of Epirus, a Gree Kingdom, and she was descendant of Achilles,the Greek hero of the Trojan War 3)Phillip and his family claimed to be descendants of Hercules,another Greek hero 4)Philip and Olympiad met at the Eleusinian Sacraments, a Greek mystical ceremony in Eleusina 5) Philip, and then Alexander,were leaders of the Panhellenic Coalition, the Coalition Of All Greeks 6) Alexander's teacher was Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, who was student of Plato 7) All writings in Philip's palaces and tombs are in Greek 8)All the writings in Alexander's new kingdom were Greek 9)The language introduced by in Alexander's kingdom to bring his subjects closer to him was the Hellenic (Greek) Common 10) Alexander burned Thebes to the ground for betraying Greece in the Persian wars 11)Olympiad, Philip,Alexander, Hephaistion, Parmenion,etc. are al Greek names and have meaning in Greek, as every other Greek name of the age. Your legend may be that Alexander invented war, but already Thucydides, the first accurate historian of all times (it's a title), described brilliantly battle strategic positions and warfare tactics more than 150 years before Alexander's birth. Flanking,formations, etc. Also, Arion (historian) describes in great detail the flashy armour of the soldiers in the battles in Alexander's campaign. But your were not sure anyway. In fact, the only ones in the time who were poorly dressed, but killing machines, were the Spartans. Also, it is perfectly clear that Alexander and his subjects considered themselves Greek, speaked Greek and believed in the Greek Gods. So, Macedonians are Greeks and if you are Macedonians, you are Greeks and therefore should be one with us. As you mentioned, Slavs arrived in the Balkans in the 6th century. However, touring around the Balkans, you will easily find the old castles and defences againist the "Slavonic Raids" and that the natives were not friendly to the Slavic tribes. The Byzantine societies never accpted the Slavs in them. However, the Emperors of the time gave the Slavs some land, in agreement to defend the Empire. The settlers did not mix with the natives, though. Also, Albania and Romania, which you mentioned, were at the time not even general terms for the regions in which the modern countries are. The Eastern Empire and the Slavic tribes did not become so great "friends" in the 9th century, when Cyrillus and Methodius were sent by the Emperor to preach Christianity. It was then that they gave the alphabet, which you use today. Why, if you are Macedonian, so Greek, would you change your alphabet, to one given by your people to other tribes? Why would you also change your language, when, in every other part of the Balkans, the rest of the Greeks, did not change theirs? So you're most Slavs than Greek, so more Slavs than Macedonian. In his account of the Balkan Wars, as a soldier, Str.Myrivili, who was wounded in Monastiri, that is now called Bitola (I think), he was care taken by a family of your people.They told him that they were more Serbian and a bit Bulgarian, but they hate both peoples for considering them being Bulgarian property.There is no mention of Macedonian ethnicity in that book and account.--Michael IX the White (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ancient Macedonia Map
Your mapBritannica Map
I have noticed that your map of Macedon has an error. The borders of Macedon are covering too much of eastern Greek Macedonia and too little of southern Republic of Macedonia (I hope you didn't do this purposely). According to Britannica Encyclopedia, this is how Macedon looked like before 359BC [13], as you can see, Halkidiki was never originally part of Macedon, and eastern Greek Macedonia was part of Paeonia. I uploaded a map myself that resembles the britannica map very closely, but I want to know your opinion first. Thanks Polibiush (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
At last! A source! We used verbal references to construct that map in Macedonia (terminology) with numerous editors from all ethnicities. I think it was Aldux who had said something about excluding Halkidiki. We had also argued about how much should show within the republic and how much not, and "my" map that you see in the article was the result of the whole talk. It's all in the talk archives. This and the other maps were extensively discussed (not to mention every single word in that article), and it is not a coincidence that this is the only featured article of the whole freakin' region. However, it is the first time that someone actually produces a concrete source. Congratulations on that one, and I'll link it myself in the article. NikoSilver08:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, regarding your other bitter comment, I understand your reservations by my being Greek, but please do not ever do that with me again. Yes, I am Greek, and yes I have my beliefs, but everybody here knows that I don't let them in the way when it comes to writing an article, so I do not take such remarks lightly. All the best. NikoSilver08:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. Its just that this is Wikipedia, and lately I've been seeing a lot of crazy edits from a lot of crazy users. You are obviously not one of them. Again, you'll have to forgive me for my comment. Polibiush (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Accepted and thanks. Do tell me if I ever get out of line, though. I meant just please do not presuppose it. After all, I'm human. NikoSilver15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I already had it in mind. Problem is it needs a lot of time which I do not have right now, and it is too difficult to process without the masks. I don't recall where I've kept the original files. I'll need a little time for that. NikoSilver17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Even the map of Britannica has errors. It places Thessalian borders in Ambracia!. Eastern Macedonia was ethnically Thrace ,full of Thracian tribes Mygdones,Bisaltae,Edoni. If you want only to define the borders of the Kingdom Chalcidice along with Pelagonia,Lynkestis became part of Macedon under Philip II (after 359 BC). Parts of East Macedonia belonged to the Kingdom since Alexander I (East Macedonia was lost during Perdikkas II and regained by Archelaus. What map you want to do political or ethnical? Catalographer (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a map of macedon prior to expansion to thracian territories.Meaning its gonna be chalkidiki,thermaic gulf and a bit around those.Megistias (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I really don't know the details. I think that a political map would be useless (unless we wanna argue if we're gonna include India)... So, what we're after is indeed an ethnic map. I suppose that a map prior to the recent expansions before/during Philip/Alexander will be the best era. Can anyone source this from an academic source please? I'll be happy to modify the map as close as possible to any such sourced image (or text that says the extents/borders). In the meantime, I'm returning the map to the status quo ante. NikoSilver19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Macedon in 431 BC * macedonia prior to expansion is the only acceptable solution along with anything even older.Expansions into thracians and illyrian territories and others is not.Megistias (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Roman province did not include the south.It was this,and someone put the normal macedon state and not the expanded one.Roman provinceMegistias (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Ancient Macedon: Approximate borders of the kingdom before expansion to conquer the whole known world, according to archaeological findings and historic references." This is the expanded state already into thracian territories.Place the actualy macedon kingdom before expansion.Megistias (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was User:Pmanderson who had found a source that the Roman province's borders were extremely volatile during the Empire's long dominion over the territory. The map presented for the Roman province in the article shows "the maximum extent". NikoSilver10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a source for the extents of the Roman Province (or ideally a sourced map) and the dates when these extents were official (to justify "most stable")
We need a source for the extents of the Ancient Kingdom prior to the conquests (again, or ideally a sourced map).
Professor G. Droysens Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas. Bielefeld und Leipzig 1886. p. 17,Roman provinces on Balkan-peninsula. Römische Provinzen auf der Balkanhalbinsel
Student britannica is under no circumstances a specialised sourced on ancient macedon.student.Not a good source we have many and the 431 map is sourced properly and prior to any epxansion.Megistias (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Macedon 356-336 BC Ideal map with dates. Merge that of 431 BC with 356 BC map
The Roman map has one unprecise detail (the placement of Scupi) and can be misunderstood. Scupi is a city on Axius (Vardar) and on the map Scupi is placed on Margus (probably South Morava in Serbia). In the Roman Macedonia map (animated Macedonia map) the border is under Scupi (Skopje today). The river Axius by the Roman map is entirely inside Macedonia Salutaris and Scupi (ancient Skopje) is a city on Axius. To make the thigs more confusing Scupi is inside Macedonia by Tabula Peutingeriana, the road network of the Roman empire.
The second objection is about forwarding maps of Ancient Macedonia that fit more or less only the Greek part of the region Macedonia (for example: the map from the reign of Philip II). There are two highlighted areas, one area as the Ancient Macedonian kingdom (that fits the Greek part of the region Macedonia) and second area as other areas controled by the kingdom. Philip II conquered the Paionans and controled Paionia (in the map presented outside of Ancient Macedonia) which later became part of Ancient Macedonia. Now it is matter of style should the Paionian kingdom be included in Ancient Macedonia during Philip II when it was conquered and controled, or 100 years after, when it merged in Ancient Macedonia. But the spreading of the kingdom and its control reach should be presented in the animated Macedonia map in the article (maybe there is a need of several Ancient Macedonia maps). The Romans faced a kingdom (Ancient Macedonia) that spread over the entire Macedonia (region) and more, not only what is today the Greek part of the region Macedonia. (Toci (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
The article in its current form describes an extreme and a moderate Macedonian position (where it ascribes the latter to "educated Macedonians"), but it only describes one version of Greek nationalism (apparently a more extreme one). Can someone please describe the moderate Greek version? I can't quite believe that there isn't one, for example as held by "educated Greeks".
FWIW, both extreme versions appear totally lunatic to an unwary reader (such as me :)), while the "moderate Macedonian" one as describe here seems rather reasonable. The omission of its moderate Greek counterpart could be seen as POV because it might lead uninformed readers to believe that the Greek position is in general bollocks, which can't be true. Instead, we're apparently not being told the whole story. If possible, please fill in the gaps. Thank you. Anorak2 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The acceptance of the composite name in 2008 is not new stand. fYRo Macedonia is a composite name for Republic of Macedonia and the Hellenic Republic use it from 1995 in bilateral relations. The present solution fYRo Macedonia is not different then any (composite) Macedonia solution. The moderate stand can be the stand of Theodora Grosomanidou, the former ambassador of the Hellenic Republic in Republic of Macedonia. The Greek editors can put her opinion on the topic as moderate Greek version. After she declared her opinion, she was immediately replaced by the Greek ministry of foreign affairs. (Toci (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC))
I have not read her case or opinion.However,her replacementonly means that she does not share the views of the Greek government and the Greek people. This does not mean that her position is moderate, only that it does not much the official one, which is surely not nationalist. I don't think her opinion would be a good one to use here.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if all countries agree that "Macedonia" is the name of FYROM, Greeks will never accept it, because people in northern Greece consider themselves Greek Macedonians, and cannot accept that another country is called like that. I hope you understand that this is not a nationalistic position, as this theory remains unchainged for 24 centuries, considering also that the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia is part of the history of Greeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.144.91 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Confusion in the introduction
In the introduction says: "one Slavic group does so at a national level, while a Bulgarian and a Greek one do so at a regional level."
It is rather wrong to have one Slavic group in the introduction describing only the ethnic Macedonians. The Bulgarians and the Serbians are also one Slavic group of people. In the introduction should be written to make it precise: "Ethnic Macedonians do that on a national level, while some ethnic Bulgarians and ethnic Greeks do it on a regional level."
I also doubt that it could be verified that there are ethnic Bulgarians who regard themselves Macedonians regionally. By the Bulgarian census the only Macedonians are a group of ethnic Macedonians (or of Macedonian ethnic group (Македонска Етническа група) living in Bulgaria as Bulgarian citizens. The distinction that the ethnic Macedonians (Македонска Етническа група) are not ethnic Bulgarians (Българска Етническа група) is very clear by the Bulgarian census. (Toci (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC))
You may have a point there, about that the Bulgarians are also Slavs, but I don't really think the sentence you propose is better either. At least "ethnic Greeks" is a term that is not much used, if it exists at all.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Bulgarians do describe themselves as Macedonian on a regional level - different from the more recent self-identification on a national level. Not knowing this shows a lot about your total knowledge on the subject.--LaveolT21:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I found "ethnic Greeks" in one old edit. It is used several times.
Thank you for the tip Laveol. I am only aware of ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, who are trying to register a political party and get harrased for that. Please do write some references on ethnic Bulgarians (Българска Етническа група) from the census declaring themselves regionally as Macedonians. And Laveol please avoid references like Macedonia is part of Bulgaria or something in that style and please keep to the resent facts, for example statements from the last 10-20 years (after the independance of Republic of Macedonia). Try also to avoid to mention the "Macedonian heroes" like Ivan Mihailov. (Toci (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
????Lol, I have managed to say all that in two short sentences? And I didn't even mean to. Seriously, what are you talking about? And I'm not speaking about the irredentist unconstitutional illegal organization. Bulgarians have identified as Macedonians regionally for more than 100 years - do you have a problem with that? And what's that you don't like about Ivan Mihaylov?--LaveolT22:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Ivan Mihailov is fascist, it is rather unethical to refer to characters like that. It is same if some Germans here refer to Hitler's writings on national issues. Mihailov declared on one side that he is Macedonian (he is not born in Bulgaria, but in Republic of Macedonia) to get support from the ethnic Macedonians, but coverly he was working for fashist groups in Bulgaria (mostly organizing assasinations of people working for the other causes, mostly againt the Macedonian cause). Read more from Dimitar Vlahov on him in Balkanska Federacija or in Makedonsko Delo. This is excerpt from Makedonsko Delo No.9 published on 1st January 1926 (from Vlahov, Dimitar. (1948:84). Chosen Articles and Speaches. Skopje: State publishing of Macedonia): "The helpers of the Cankov's agencies in the all offences and crimes over the inhabitants of that area (thinking of Pirin Macedonia, the Bulgarian part of Macedonia) are Protugerov and Iv. Mihailov gangs. These bandits... (saying in meanwhile how many ethnic Bulgarians they killed all around Bulgaria) ...killed, together with Cankov's agents, in the last two and a half years, 800 Macedonian revolutionaries, peasents, workers, intelectuals and youths." That is why I still ask for references from the last 20 or even 50 years, no "Macedonia is Bulgaria" propaganda and no Iv. Mihailov and alike. The death of fascism caused a more moderate Bulgarian politics toward the Macedonian question that even resulted as you can see in census results where is clear what in Macedonian, what Bulgarian. Unfortunately, the Bulgarian police and secret services still sometimes are following and harrasing the ethnic Macedonians, even more then in Greece. You can read more about these harassments on Talk:Macedonia naming dispute.
Laveol, try to be objective on the issue, see the both sides in the past, but most important see how they are today. You are very familiar with the Bulgarian national interests toward Macedonia. Is there a guideline on promotion of Macedonian regional identity? Maybe we will soon see another flag of Macedonia on a green background. :-) (Toci (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
Sorry, but what you wrote is a bunch of nonsense. I haven't said anything about Ivan Mihaylov, and I don't know why you came up with that long tirade. In my opinion Communism is at least as bad as Fascism since it tried to create not one, but a couple of nations. What exactly do you want? Even the Helsinki committee agrees that the people in Blagoevgrad province have a strong Bulgarian conciousness and another Macedonian regional (or geographic) one. What's the problem with it? Bulgarians have the right to be Macedonians as Macedonians had the right to be Bulgarians till 1913. And that's it. I noticed this is the third time I ask you what you're trying to say since I'm getting the impression you don't really know and just jump from one issue to the other. --LaveolT21:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You asked me why we don't like Mihailov in Republic of Macedonia? I just explained why. That is not a bunch of non sences, those are published words. And you are rather wrong in comparing Communism and Fascism as same btw. The communist writings are background for the welfare state and social democracy and they survived today. Fascism didn't survived for the known reasons, among others the fact that during the fascist Bulgaria rule of the territory of Republic of Macedonia during WW2 98% of the Jews were killed.
Now lets keep it short and add a refence to that Helsinki committee report (I added a fact tag to your statement). And try to make the talk clearer with using ethnic. Ethnic Bulgarians can not be ethnic Macedonians, but can be Macedonian citizens and vice verca, ethnic Macedonians can not be ethnic Bulgarians, but can be Bulgarian citizen. You said as I understood that ethnic Bulgarians in Blagoevgrad province have a strong Bulgarian conciousness and another Macedonian regional (or geographic) one [citation needed] (we are excluding the ethnic Macedonians from the Blagoevgrad province who don't have Bulgarian conciousness, but are Bulgarian citizens). (Toci (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC))
I didn't understand why you started the whole Mihaylov thing, that's it. For fascism and communism we can move it to one of our talkpages. Just a note - ethnic Macedonians can be Bulgarians as Bulgarians can magically become ethnic Macedonians thanks to our one and only beloved leaders. I'll add the ref. :) --LaveolT20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
for 3d Alcove
inferior?????
Dear 3D Alcove, everything I have written is acurate and historical but I guess it is the mentioning of Greek toponymes that you hate.... You have to get over this and present any "altenantive theories" properly instead of maiming historical tetxts... Let us see what you found inferior to what...
1. Macedonian || A dialect of Modern Greek, typically simply referred to as Greek, since its differences with the Greek spoken in the rest of Greece are only a few words, phrases and a deeper accent
Where is the problem here? It does not even have to do with the ancients... What was suggested was that the Greek Macedonian dialect was plainly called Greek and no reasons were given... Don't you agree that the Macedonian Greeks speak Greek as everybody else with only small differences as suggested?
2. Macedonian || A language of antiquity, most possibly a dialect of ancient Greek
What is this??? A blatant suggestion that the ancient Macedonians did not speak Greek??? You know perfectly well that the great majority of the academic community supports that they did speak a Greek dialect (Aeolic or Doric). I even wrote "most possibly" to let room for other less supported theories.
3. The scientific community generally agrees that the language of the ancient Macedonians was in fact Greek, since the vast majority of the literary and the entirety of the archaeological evidence seem to attest to that. (e.g. Hesychius' lexicon, Pella curse tablet)[1] but a certain doubt exists, mainly because of certain, albeit few, literary hints that the Macedonian idiom was not well understood by the Southern Greeks.[2]
instead of
The scientific community generally agrees that, although some sources are available (e.g. Hesychius' lexicon, Pella curse tablet)[3] there is no decisive evidence for supporting either hypothesis.[4]
Actually the second text you like so much is totally wrong. The scientific community does not think that although there are many and of course not just these archaeological and literary testaments of the Macedonian dialect that "there is no decisive evidence..." Whoever wrote this text is totally biased. Like it or not, the scientific community, supports that the Macedonians spoke and wrote Greek. Alternative theories should be presented but disputing mainstream archaeology because of politics is an intellectual crime... What is this about "some sources"???? Aren't there THOUSANDS of inscriptions available?, coins, tombstones, stelae, pottery, weapons, the texts of Polyaenus????
4. The region of Macedonia has been home or a part of several historical political entities, even before the invasion of the Macedonians from the south, as is attested by Herodot; Many non-Hellenic tribes occupied its lands before and after the formation of the first Macedonian kingdoms. The borders of each of these entities were different as well as those of any kingdom or province that through the ages shared this name. The area occupied by ancient Macedon, the kingdom formed by the Argead Macedonians, a Macedonian tribe that according to the Greek historians and the members of their ruling class originated from Argos and boasted to descend from the mythical Greek hero Heracles, at its greatest extent, approximately coincided with contemporary Macedonia in Greece.[5]
instead of
The region of Macedonia has been home to several historical political entities; the main ones are given below. The borders of each of these entities were different. The area occupied by ancient Macedon approximately coincided with contemporary Macedonia in Greece.[6]
??? Do you make sense from this amateurishly written text at the bottom???? "several political entities" when? does it show that there were people there BEFORE the Macedonians??? "Main ones"???? What main ones? Some Roman provinces and a hint that there was only ONE Macedonian kingdom???
What don't you like? The addition that there were non-Hellenic people occupying the area BEFORE the Macedonians? Or is it that you don;t want to mention the claims of the Argeads???? Where is your problem?
5. A common misconception about the Macedonians ignores the fact that the Macedonians were not a single tribe but a number of tribes, each with its own king and ruling class. What was called the kingdom of Macedon was actually the lands occupied by one of this tribes, the Argeads and ruled by the most famous Macedonian kings, the Temenids. These eventually achieved dominance over most Macedonian kingdoms with Philip II and his heir Alexander III. Until then, the Argeads' rule did not usually incorporate upland areas, like Lyncestis. Under Philip II of Macedon, Macedonia expanded markedly, growing to include Chalcidice, parts of Thrace, most Macedonian kingdoms and tribute was extracted by many of the barbarians of the north, like the Paeones and the Agrianes; Philip managed to achieve hegemony over Hellas and was hailed as General of all Greece. After his assassination, his son Alexander the Great led his armies into the vast Persian Empire and Macedon, within a few decades, expanded to an Empire, occupying a huge stretch of lands including the Balcan peninsula up and beyond Istros, the Greek name of the river Danube, the Asian dominions of the Achemenids, Egypt and parts of India and Arabia Deserta. After his death, his empire was contested by his generals and after long wars it was divided into kingdoms that lasted for centuries, initiating what is called the Hellenistic era. Of these kingdoms, Macedonia was not the largest nor the most powerful. After the Roman conquest following the Macedonian Wars, the Roman Senate established a province of Macedonia, which, through the centuries, comprised different lands. Under the Byzantines, the theme of Macedonia, was much further to the east, in what would in the past be called Thrace, excluding even Thessalonica. The Ottoman Empire did not include an administrative region by the name of Macedonia.
instead of
The ancient kingdom of Macedon had more or less definite borders (error) , although the question of whether the upland areas, like Lyncestis, were part of the kingdom or independent states tended to be fought out under most of the Macedonian kings. (badly written and historically error) Under Philip II of Macedon, Macedonia expanded markedly, growing to include Chalcidice, and northward to the Danube(error... the lands to the north were not included in Philip's Macedonia) ; Philip personally controlled much of Greece.(badly written) Under Alexander the Great, Macedon expanded within decades to an Empire, occupying a large swath of southwestern Asia and along with parts of the Arabian peninsula and Egypt. One part of this conquest became the Hellenistic kingdom of Macedonia. (error, Macedonia a PART of Alexander's conquests??) After the Roman conquest following the Macedonian Wars, the Roman Senate established a province of Macedonia, which had various borders in different centuries. (badly written) The Roman provincial system stopped working at the fall of the Roman Empire, (stopped working??? badly written...) and when the Byzantines set up a theme of Macedonia, it was much further to the East, excluding even Chalcidice, to say nothing of Thessalonica. The Ottoman Empire did not use Macedonia as the name of an administrative unit.
"The ancient kingdom of Macedon had more ort less definite borders"?????? What do you make of this statement??? Which Macedonian kingdom? What definite borders? These are all clear mistakes... Where is the problem with mentioning the reality of the Macedonian tribes and different kingdoms? Actually I never even implied anything about the Greekness of the Macedonians here except for the part that I left untouched. I just shaped up the text... So where is the problem here??? The old text is full of errors and misconceptions... "a part of this conquest became the Hellenistic kingdom of Macedonia"????? Come on...
6. The region, as defined above, has a total population of about 5 million. The main disambiguation issue in demographics is the self-identifying name of two contemporary groups. The ethnic Macedonian population of the Republic of Macedonia self-identifies itself as Macedonians, a term it wants to use as its national determinant while the Greek Macedonians self-identify themselves as both Macedonians and Greeks, but rather uses "Greek" as a national determinant, claiming that pre Slav Macedonia was Greek by all standards. This disambiguation problem has led to a wide variety of terms used to refer to the separate groups, more information of which can be found in the terminology by group section.
instead of
The region, as defined above, has a total population of about 5 million. The main disambiguation issue in demographics is the self-identifying name of two contemporary groups. The ethnic Macedonian population of the Republic of Macedonia self-identify as Macedonian on a national level, while the Greek Macedonians self-identify as both Macedonian on a regional, and Greek on a national level. This disambiguation problem has led to a wide variety of terms used to refer to the separate groups, more information of which can be found in the terminology by group section.
Just shaping up things. Nothing was changed. Just added the Greek claim and named it so, so that there wouldn't be any problem with taking sides. This "national" and "regional" level is very misleading if left unexplained. The explanation was anything but provocative...
7. As an ethnic group, Macedonians refersN-[3] to the 64.7% of the population of the Republic of Macedonia. Statistics for 2002 indicate the population of ethnic Macedonians within Republic of Macedonia as 1,297,981.[7][8] On the other hand, as a legal term, it refers to all the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, irrespective of their ethnic or religious affiliation.[7] However, the preamble of the constitution[9] distinguishes between "the Macedonian people" and the "Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romanics and other nationalities living in the Republic of Macedonia", but for whom "full equality as citizens" is provided. As of 2002 the total population of the country is 2,022,547.[8]
instead of
As an ethnic group, Macedonians refersN-[3] to the majority of the population of the Republic of Macedonia. Statistics for 2002 indicate the population of ethnic Macedonians within Republic of Macedonia as 1,297,981.[7][8] On the other hand, as a legal term, it refers to all the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, irrespective of their ethnic or religious affiliation.[7] However, the preamble of the constitution[9] distinguishes between "the Macedonian people" and the "Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romanics and other nationalities living in the Republic of Macedonia", but for whom "full equality as citizens" is provided. As of 2002 the total population of the country is 2,022,547.[8]
Adding the percentage of this majority disturbs you?????? This is getting rediculous...
Dear 3D Alcove... I really fail to see why you prefer badly written and unhistorical texts over my changes. If you want to make the FYROM position more obvious then add an "alternative history" section or something but just wishing to bury what is historical consensus and accepted history because you believe in a theory that is LESS supported by far is insane... Do you dispute that the Argeads (the tribe according to Strabo) that produced the Temenid royal line, among them Phillip II, Alexander I and Alexander III firmly believed that they originated from Argos (NOT Argos Orestikon but Argos of Peloponnesus) and claimed descendance of Hercules? Do you dispute that according to the ancient Greeks (Herodot), the Macedonians came to what was called Macedonia from the SOUTH? What are your objections? Do you dispute that the prevalent BELIEF is that the ancient Macedonians (at least, since the 5th century BC, a century from when we have many original texts in archaeological findings) spoke Greek? Isn't it just a less supported theory that they used Greek for writing but their "non-Greek" tongue when speaking? Isn;t it true that the majority of the academic community clearly states that the Macedonians were considered Greek or (even according to Borza) at the very worst yet another hellenized tribe (as were the Athenians (Pelasgian origins) and others?) You see... I have no problem to mention your point of view but trying to "compromise" history by NOT presenting it is totally unscientific and unworthy of an encyclopedia... Please, make an article about your point of view and then present it as an alternative theory. This is much better than just erasing any improvement. History is not about compromises nor shall there be one here. There can be NO compromise as to how we should refrain from presenting acknowledged historical data in order for you not to feel offended. Again, I repeat, just MAKE A PARAGRAPH (as is for example in the article "Ancient Macedonians", the "hellenic origins" paragraph) name it in a proper way and present the theory you support.
As a courtesy I will not change the texts back immediately. State any objections and (why not?) prepare a paragraph that could be added someplace, to present your point of view.
I agree with 3rdAlcove's edits because what you added does not belong in this article. Its purpose is to briefly explain the terminology involved with Macedonia, and to refer to other articles which are dealing in more detail with these terms, such as Macedon, Ancient Macedonian language, Modern_Greek#Dialects, etc. I'd suggest you add your edits to these articles (if not already included); this article is long enough as it is. Preslav (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't endorse any positions (or ignore the points you make) but as Preslav said, this is a general article. The specifics are better discussed at their respective articles. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
People, what you are saying does not make sense... I nowhere added anything that was out of context nor unneeded. What you are saying is to keep what is clearly wrong and badly written???? I completely disagree, so please comment on the changes instead of vaguely stating that you do not want or like them. I am still not adding them back in expectation of a discussion... General knowledge is exactly what belongs to this article, Preslav. So, I am waiting for real comments and not "general opinions" or else we will have to relive absurdities like reverting and reverting...
Your rewording was quite POV. This article has been discussed to death by other users who tried to make it as NPOV as possible. Your comments on XMK etc. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this your argument? That "other users have discussed to death this subject"? They probably have not... for the errors and vagueness are there. So, I give you one last chance to pose your objections. I try to be civilized here and what you are showing is an unexplained, unsupprted negativity. So, for the last time... please, answer to the arguments and not to your nationalistic fears... Your sense of NPOV is probably very peculiar, since you do not even pinpoint where the problem is in those suggestions...
The fact that what you added boils down to "yes, the ancient macedonians and their original language were Greek beyond a doubt". What errors are you seeing, exactly? 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I already gave you a detailed letter of those points. And I NEVER (although I believe it) wrote or insinuated that the ancient Macedonian tongue was 100% Greek. It is very evident in what I wrote that it is the PREVALENT theory and NOT a CERTAINTY. So, here I go again...
1. Macedonian || A dialect of Modern Greek, typically simply referred to as Greek, since its differences with the Greek spoken in the rest of Greece are only a few words, phrases and a deeper accent
Just a reference to the extent of differentiation between NOWADAYS Macedonian Greek and plain Greek.. Don't you agree that this is something missing from the article, since it says Macedonian Greek is also plainly called Greek. Why? If there was a real difference, why would it be simply called "Greek" Plus... What does this have to do with POV or anything else?
2. Macedonian || A language of antiquity, most possibly a dialect of ancient Greek
Where is the "Greek beyond a doubt" accusation??? A simple mention of "most probably Greek" gives the truth. You accused me of asying yes, the ancient macedonians and their original language were Greek beyond a doubt". Where do you see this? The general academic cionsenus is that they spoke Greek. Archaeology plainly stated that they spoke Greek, I chose NOT to take this position out of RESPECT to your theory. "most probably" just states what it says, that themajority of the academic community think so and is by no means provokative or conclusive.
3. The scientific community generally agrees that the language of the ancient Macedonians was in fact Greek, since the vast majority of the literary and the entirety of the archaeological evidence seem to attest to that. (e.g. Hesychius' lexicon, Pella curse tablet)[10] but a certain doubt exists, mainly because of certain, albeit few, literary hints that the Macedonian idiom was not well understood by the Southern Greeks.[11]
instead of
The scientific community generally agrees that, although some sources are available (e.g. Hesychius' lexicon, Pella curse tablet)[12]there is no decisive evidence for supporting either hypothesis.[13]
The bold section is false. "some" means few. There are thousands of inscriptions and texts surviving throughout Macedonia and her dominions that are ascribed to Macedonians. And again I wrote that "there are doubts". and I clearly said that these doubts DO NOT SPRING FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE because of some (few) texts that speak of a Macedonains tongue or dialect, since the ancient Greek words cannot be translated thus and sometimes hint at a certain difficulty (you would say inability, although it is wrong, just read Philotas' trial incident again...) to be understood by "other" Greeks. The other bold part is also wrong, since it is plainly absurd and claims that there are NO theories after all that are supported by the academic community. This is plainly wrong. The majority supports that they spoke and wrote Greek, some (again few) believe they did speak a different or akin language. As for the "entirety of archaeological evidence, of course it is also correct, since there has just been NO archaeological evidence that they spoke anything else, ALL archaeological evidence is in GREEK. And again, I keep mentioning the "other side" BUT placing things in their true dimensions, as a "major" and a "minor" hypothesis.
4. The region of Macedonia has been home or a part of several historical political entities, even before the invasion of the Macedonians from the south, as is attested by Herodot; Many non-Hellenic tribes occupied its lands before and after the formation of the first Macedonian kingdoms. The borders of each of these entities were different as well as those of any kingdom or province that through the ages shared this name. The area occupied by ancient Macedon, the kingdom formed by the Argead Macedonians, a Macedonian tribe that according to the Greek historians and the members of their ruling class originated from Argos and boasted to descend from the mythical Greek hero Heracles, at its greatest extent, approximately coincided with contemporary Macedonia in Greece.[14]
instead of
The region of Macedonia has been home to several historical political entities; the main ones are given below. The borders of each of these entities were different. The area occupied by ancient Macedon approximately coincided with contemporary Macedonia in Greece.[15]
For this I keep the same comments...
??? Do you make sense from this amateurishly written text at the bottom???? "several political entities" when? does it show that there were people there BEFORE the Macedonians??? "Main ones"???? What main ones? Some Roman provinces and a hint that there was only ONE Macedonian kingdom???
What don't you like? The addition that there were non-Hellenic people occupying the area BEFORE the Macedonians? Or is it that you don't want to mention the claims of the Argeads???? Where is your problem?
5. A common misconception about the Macedonians ignores the fact that the Macedonians were not a single tribe but a number of tribes, each with its own king and ruling class. What was called the kingdom of Macedon was actually the lands occupied by one of this tribes, the Argeads and ruled by the most famous Macedonian kings, the Temenids. These eventually achieved dominance over most Macedonian kingdoms with Philip II and his heir Alexander III. Until then, the Argeads' rule did not usually incorporate upland areas, like Lyncestis. Under Philip II of Macedon, Macedonia expanded markedly, growing to include Chalcidice, parts of Thrace, most Macedonian kingdoms and tribute was extracted by many of the barbarians of the north, like the Paeones and the Agrianes; Philip managed to achieve hegemony over Hellas and was hailed as General of all Greece. After his assassination, his son Alexander the Great led his armies into the vast Persian Empire and Macedon, within a few decades, expanded to an Empire, occupying a huge stretch of lands including the Balcan peninsula up and beyond Istros, the Greek name of the river Danube, the Asian dominions of the Achemenids, Egypt and parts of India and Arabia Deserta. After his death, his empire was contested by his generals and after long wars it was divided into kingdoms that lasted for centuries, initiating what is called the Hellenistic era. Of these kingdoms, Macedonia was not the largest nor the most powerful. After the Roman conquest following the Macedonian Wars, the Roman Senate established a province of Macedonia, which, through the centuries, comprised different lands. Under the Byzantines, the theme of Macedonia, was much further to the east, in what would in the past be called Thrace, excluding even Thessalonica. The Ottoman Empire did not include an administrative region by the name of Macedonia.
instead of
The ancient kingdom of Macedon had more or less definite borders (error) , although the question of whether the upland areas, like Lyncestis, were part of the kingdom or independent states tended to be fought out under most of the Macedonian kings. (badly written and a historical error) Under Philip II of Macedon, Macedonia expanded markedly, growing to include Chalcidice, and northward to the Danube(error... the lands to the north were not included in Philip's Macedonia) ; Philip personally controlled much of Greece.(badly written) Under Alexander the Great, Macedon expanded within decades to an Empire, occupying a large swath of southwestern Asia and along with parts of the Arabian peninsula and Egypt. One part of this conquest became the Hellenistic kingdom of Macedonia. (error, Macedonia a PART of Alexander's conquests??) After the Roman conquest following the Macedonian Wars, the Roman Senate established a province of Macedonia, which had various borders in different centuries. (badly written) The Roman provincial system stopped working at the fall of the Roman Empire, (stopped working??? badly written...) and when the Byzantines set up a theme of Macedonia, it was much further to the East, excluding even Chalcidice, to say nothing of Thessalonica. The Ottoman Empire did not use Macedonia as the name of an administrative unit.
Again the same comments...
"The ancient kingdom of Macedon had more or less definite borders"?????? What do you make of this statement??? Which Macedonian kingdom? What definite borders? These are all clear mistakes... Where is the problem with mentioning the reality of the Macedonian tribes and different kingdoms? Actually I never even implied anything about the Greekness of the Macedonians here except for the part that I left untouched. I just shaped up the text... So where is the problem here??? The old text is full of errors and misconceptions... "a part of this conquest became the Hellenistic kingdom of Macedonia"????? Come on...
6. The region, as defined above, has a total population of about 5 million. The main disambiguation issue in demographics is the self-identifying name of two contemporary groups. The ethnic Macedonian population of the Republic of Macedonia self-identifies itself as Macedonians, a term it wants to use as its national determinant while the Greek Macedonians self-identify themselves as both Macedonians and Greeks, but rather uses "Greek" as a national determinant, claiming that pre Slav Macedonia was Greek by all standards. This disambiguation problem has led to a wide variety of terms used to refer to the separate groups, more information of which can be found in the terminology by group section.
instead of
The region, as defined above, has a total population of about 5 million. The main disambiguation issue in demographics is the self-identifying name of two contemporary groups. The ethnic Macedonian population of the Republic of Macedonia self-identify as Macedonian on a national level, while the Greek Macedonians self-identify as both Macedonian on a regional, and Greek on a national level. This disambiguation problem has led to a wide variety of terms used to refer to the separate groups, more information of which can be found in the terminology by group section.
Just shaping up things. Nothing was changed. Just added the Greek claim and named it so, so that there wouldn't be any problem with taking sides. This "national" and "regional" level is very misleading if left unexplained. The explanation was anything but provocative...
7. As an ethnic group, Macedonians refersN-[3] to the 64.7% of the population of the Republic of Macedonia. Statistics for 2002 indicate the population of ethnic Macedonians within Republic of Macedonia as 1,297,981.[7][8] On the other hand, as a legal term, it refers to all the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, irrespective of their ethnic or religious affiliation.[7] However, the preamble of the constitution[9] distinguishes between "the Macedonian people" and the "Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romanics and other nationalities living in the Republic of Macedonia", but for whom "full equality as citizens" is provided. As of 2002 the total population of the country is 2,022,547.[8]
instead of
As an ethnic group, Macedonians refersN-[3] to the majority of the population of the Republic of Macedonia. Statistics for 2002 indicate the population of ethnic Macedonians within Republic of Macedonia as 1,297,981.[7][8] On the other hand, as a legal term, it refers to all the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, irrespective of their ethnic or religious affiliation.[7] However, the preamble of the constitution[9] distinguishes between "the Macedonian people" and the "Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romanics and other nationalities living in the Republic of Macedonia", but for whom "full equality as citizens" is provided. As of 2002 the total population of the country is 2,022,547.[8]
Adding the percentage of this majority disturbs you?????? This is getting rediculous...
I hope you will now answer to these issues instead of saying " they are POV"...
1 is fine with your addition, change 2 from 'most possibly' to 'possibly', 3 is good as it is (ie the previous version), 4 hmm perhaps a bit too wordy? your version of 5 is ok, though some of the wording doesn't sit OK with me (not a big deal anyway), 6 I like the previous version better but I think that's just aesthetic, 7 is fine with your addition. 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Good... thank you for reading my post. My views are evident but I sincerely try to NOT offend or bury other views.
1 ok
2 ok
3. changed "supporting" to "excluding" The difference is great, since the firsy implies that there is few evidence to even support the Greek tongue of the Macedonians, whereas the latter implies that this evidence is not enough to exclude the other theories. I think, this is OK by any standards.
4 took out the part about the Argead claims, they can find this data out if redirected to this article.
5.changed the wording a bit
6.kept the wording. Added the explanation of the Greek side's problem
7.OK
1. "any" is OK
2. "many" was correct, since there are thousands of inscriptions written by ancient Macedonians in Egypt, Macedon, throughout the Greek cities (we even have inscriptions regarding the Macedonian storage houses of captive cities, written for the Macedonian garisons), Syria, Bactria etc. We have countless Macedonian tombs (of commoners too), weaponry, coins, pottery, formal edicts and decrees on stelae, letters on papyri from Macedonians of Egypt (search for relics from the Ptolemaic Period of Egypt). We also have the texts of Polyaenus and other Macedonian writers, all in Greek. From all these, the lexicon of the 5th century AD Hesichius is less important, although another clear testament as to the way the medieval and late Roman scholars viewed the ancient Macedonians, since the work of Hesychius is a GREEK lexicon. And of course the katadesmos is nothing but ONE of the thousands relics with ancient Macedonian written testament on them. This is exactly why the majotity of the academic community supports that the Macedonians spoke and wrote a Greek dialect. Your conclusion is wrong. The dispute is not based on archaeology but (as I wrote in the first place and did not add eventually) "because of certain, albeit few, literary hints that the Macedonian idiom was not well understood by the Southern Greeks". The ONLY arguments ever produced by those who support the non Greek speech of the ancient Macedonians (except from guesses and comparisons) are the few palces where the "makedonisti" (in macedonian) is hinting at a difficulty to be understood by southern Greeks. In the trial of Philotas for example, the text clearly states that Not speaking in his "native language" makes it MORE EASY for the non Macedonians to understand (of course it is easy to find the text). There is one more instant where Eumenes uses a Macedonian from his army to address his macedonian opponents but there is also no mention of him not being able to get through to them (he surely would know Macedonian by then, even if it was another language, since he served with the Maedonian army longer than (by that time) long dead Alexander). Apart from these, there are virtually very few (and less important) evidence of the Macedonians not being able to EASILY communicate with the rest of the Greeks in their own tongue. 3D Alcove, these are the reasons why even the dispute between linguists (as is also evident from the article itself) is not whether the Macedonians spoke Greek but WHAT FORM OF GREEK they spoke. Aeolic, Dorian, a mix, some barbaric words mixed in their language (not something peculiar for any Greek dialect). This need top present ANY written evidence that the Macedonians wrote anything else but Greek is what led those two FYROMian engineers to compile this absurd and universally scorned theory about the Egyptian Demotic writing being the true writing of the Macedonians, this huge gap of argumentation... I strongly, though, urge you to write an article on this theory, since I might miss some arguments I am not acquainted with, as well as to be able to refer to when addressing this controversy.
To be on the safe side, I would propose removing any numeral expression. A simple "evidence like.." is enough for both arguments.
Apart from all these, though, I would really like you to explain me your position if this is no problem with you. I have worked on the matter rather extensively and I really cannot find any base on the argument that the ancient Macedonians spoke or wrote anything else but a Greek dialect, easily or less easily understood by all Greeks (who had their dialects too...even today I reread Plutarch's Life of Philopemen to translate from the original some passages that were rather erroneously translated in English and thus provoked some confusions about the arms used by the Achaeans in the late 3rd century (for a personal project, not Wiki), and of course again came across a point where he (Philopemen) talks in the Dorian dialect, which is for some reason highlighted by Plutarch, hinting that this was not the accustomed way of speech in the region. This is a direct parallel with the arguments of the "tongue" words). Are you acquainted withy any non Greek writing that has been ascribed to Macedonians? Have you ever read a passage about the Macedonians using interpreters to communicate with the rest of the Greeks? (they used interpreters when addressing Illyrians for example). Ever read of a Roman stating that the Macedonians had their own language? Even the most aggressive academic supporters of this theory suppose that the Macedonians spoke and wrote Greek after they were hellenized, assuming that they were hellenized indeed duing an obscure time sometime in the 6th or 7th century BC. Even if this were true, a theory NOT based on any evidence but on an assumption, then the Macedonians spoke and wrote Greek at least since the time of Alexander I, that is during the Persian Wars, when Mardonius speaking to his king clearly placed Macedonia within Greece (Herodot, some pasage I do not remember the book by heart). Still.. there have to be some plausible archaeological arguments, since you seem to be quite persuaded by this theory. Could you state some or direct me to some relevant bibliography you used? (no challenge or innuendos implied, just curiosity, since what bibliography I found was quite lacking and sites of fanatics are really a waste of time, a horde of fictious absurdities and no history or achaeology...)
If you think the bibliography is "lacking" or made "by fanatics", feel free to revert to your inaccurate version. Any discussion on my part stops here. I've actually reverted to your version and will touch this featured article as little as possible in the future. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You have really misunderstood my meaning. I find the bibliography of the proposed argument lacking not as far as wikipedia or you are concerned but as a whole. I just asked you to give me more information and sources if you know some, since you seemed to have an opinion based on studying the arguments. I never said anything about fanatics concerning you or this effort and I took your comments very seriously after you stopped refusing to make some and take a look at my proposals. I have visited though all those "makedonia.com sites" and found them hillarious. Mine was a sincere question to a person who seems to be interested in ancient literature and you turned it into a general denial with no reasons whatsoever. So, my question remains. Since you seem as iof you have dedicated some of your time on that issue, can you give me some bibliography and sources that can sustain it, or are you just debating for fun? I already told you that this was well meant and did not constitute any challenge but it seems that you do not read my posts, which is really sad,when you nevertheless form an opinion...
The terms "Bulgaroscopian" and "Pseudomacedonian" don't have an obvious pejorative meaning, they are not as common as other terms but they don't derive from an extreme POV, the vast majority of Greeks call the Republic of Macedonia Skopia and many also consider ethnic Macedonians Bulgarians, this is also the idea some official arguements of the greek government are based on (that many self-identified as Bulgarians in the past). It is again widely believed and partially supported by Greek politicians that the Macedonian nation is more or less an invention of Yugoslavian politics. So what remains i guess is in what way they are used, i haven't found any website where these terms are placed in an overall degrading content for ethnic Macedonians and at the same time this content to represent in an obvious way a significant part of their use. If there is a recent balance or consensus between editors based on collective experience i can only add that i've never encountered these terms being used derogatively in Greece. --Zakronian (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on this article
This is the only article I've seen that goes around the Macedonian dispute while it gives a length of information, not just the POV of one side. I suppose it's not perfect or clearly NPOV'ed but at least it radiates to various directions of opinion and information. It is sad since there are dedicated articles on the naming dispute but they are clearly either POV'ed or most often very-very short and uninformative due to excessive editing/vandalism wars. --Leladax (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrongly interpreted reference and forgotten information
In the reference: "Center for Documentation and Information on Minorities in Europe - Southeast Europe (CEDIME-SE) - Macedonians of Bulgaria" there is nothing about ethnic Bulgarian that are regionally identified as Macedonians. The reference above is about the ethnic Macedonians who live in Republic of Bulgaria. Even though the "Bulgarian officials fear that the recognition of a Macedonian nation" (a quote from the reference above) the Bulgarian census recognize the ethnic Macedonians as separate ethnic group in the Republic of Bulgaria. The citizens in the Republic of Bulgaria who are declared as Macedonians are ethnic Macedonians. They are not ethnic Bulgarians who oppose the use of Macedonians because they are the Macedonians as it is case with the ethnic Greece. We need a verified source of ethnic Bulgarians that are declared as Macedonians, not of ethnic Macedonians who are Bulgarian citizens.
The ethnic Macedonians identify themselves as Macedonians both ethnicaly and nationaly (as citizenship). The Greeks oppose any use of Macedonians, whereas the Bulgarian only oppose the use of Macedonians as ethnicity. That is rather forgotten to be mentioned in the introduction. Now it looks like both Bulgaria and Greece oppose on the use of the name of the country. (Toci (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
Nope, read the whole document, please. It states that there is a regional identifier "Macedonian". The majority of the population has a Bulgarian national identity and a Macedonian regional one. It says it so stop insinuating. --LaveolT22:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, they are Bulgarian citizens, but ethnic Macedonians. They are no ethnic Bulgarians and no ethnic Bulgarian declares himself as Macedonian regionally. So we can delete that the Bulgarian ethnic group use Macedonian as regional identifier. After all it says in the reference that: "The main problem is still in the fact that Bulgarians tend to look down upon their fellow-citizens with Macedonian identity. They are considered uneducated fanatics, who are influenced by the nationalistic policies of the new Macedonian state." So no ethnic Bulgarians claim to be regionally Macedonians to be considered uneducated fanatics? Is that correct? (Toci (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
Once and for all - the source states:Besides Macedonians who have strong regional Macedonian feelings and Bulgarian national identity, there are ethnic Macedonians who nationally identify themselves as Macedonians
End of the story. This is the fact. And if you need my opinion on those "fanatics" based on my own experience - yes, they are nothing, but uneducated guys in desperate need of some money. Capable of practically anything (anything bad, that is). That's why the other people don't like them. --LaveolT21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Now I found it. It is explained under. Those are people that claim that the costumes, dances, and songs of the region are Bulgarian and that when you say Macedonian it means Bulgarian. I met people in Varna (and not only there) who told me the same story and they were also saying that they are Macedonians or that the Macedonians are the best Bulgarians. Isn't that a usual story told all around Bulgaria (the San Stefano story)? It is not connected directly to the Bulgarian part of Macedonia and only to there. It is not regional use, but more precise it is nostalgical use of Macedonians by some Bulgarians. (Toci (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
Ummm, it is what it is. People in Blagoevgrad province say they are Macedonians. And Bulgarians. Macedonians regionally and Bulgarians in their hearts and souls so to speak. Those people that told you this in Varna must be descendants of immigrants from Macedonia - a loto of people from the Adrianople and Macedonian regions came to live there since the Serbs/Greeks/Turks expelled/exchanged them. There are no two stories in Bulgaria - only one. If you have to know the people from Blagoevgrad province often view those on the other side of the border (the West one, that is) as national traitors and refer to them as fyRoMians since in their opinion they are not real Macedonians (they don't feel Bulgarian). --LaveolT23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that the terms "fyRoM" or "fyRoMians" is used in Republic of Bulgaria. If it is used it is probably some confrontation line in pejorative sence inspired from the Hellenic Republic politics (same as when the Albanian parties in the Republic of Macedonia use Slavomacedonians). Republic of Bulgaria officially recognizes Republic of Macedonia and has recognized the Macedonians in the census (and few times before) as separate ethnic group from Bulgarians (meaning people who feel Macedonian and not Bulgarian). The problem is that the Bulgarian public likes to oppose it quite unreasonably.
You are true about the people from Varna, they originated from the Greek part of Macedonia and that is why they called themselves Macedonians, but now they are Bulgarians as you say in their hearts and souls because they live in Bulgaria. If you see the reference above on page 9 it says that there were between 150000-200000 Macedonians in the period of the 1940-50s (63% of the population of the Blagoevgrad province), a number that shrunk to around 10000 in the 1960. Seems that the people who felt as Macedonians decided now to become Bulgarians. That is logical, there are Macedonians and Bulgarians who moved in Serbia and they are Serbians now.
But, there are Serbians in Republic of Macedonia who are not colonists from Serbia, for example in the villages of Skopska Crna Gora, but they have lived here for a long time (there are no sources of movement of people) and during the reign og Serbia over Republic of Macedonia they decide to be Serbian by heart and soul. They are living in Macedonia and they are also regional Macedonians, but they are not declared as such. That is probably same story with the Bulgarians of which you speak. They were and felt Macedonian in the past, but they decided to become Bulgarians and they are Bulgarians now. Now they have mixed feelings, to be educated Bulgarians or uneducated Macedonians. It seems the education is the decisive factor, with an accent on the 1950s when the most of the population of Blagoevgrad province got educated. ;-) But I don't know why there is need to accent that they are regionally Macedonians when they are educated as Bulgarians and feel as such. (Toci (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
Good (although presumably the hatching implies a different edition); now do we have a completely different ethnographic map to show the contrasts? Wilkinson prints several, but I don't have access to a scanner. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ummm I don't have any plans to afd this article ;-)... but...
The thing is, this article is about a term... but the wikipedia is about concepts/subjects/topics. An article about a term, and all the uses of it is a dictionary entry, and the wikipedia is not a dictionary.
So I think there needs to be minor changes to redraft and rename the article to be about the concept of Macedonia in all its myriad related forms and then it's fine.
The content is actually pretty encyclopedic, indeed IMO it's an excellent article, it's just wrongly advertising itself right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The name of the article is "Macedonia". Qualifiers in parentheses are usually omitted (hence we have the Help:pipe trick which automatically converts [[Macedonia (terminology)|]] to [[Macedonia (terminology)|Macedonia]], [[Macedonia (region)|]] to [[Macedonia (region)|Macedonia]] [[Macedonia (province)|]] to [[Macedonia (province)|Macedonia]], [[Macedonia (country)|]] to [[Macedonia (country)|Macedonia]] etc etc). In any case, how would you propose we advertise it Wolfkeeper? NikoSilver17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The conventional structure in situations like this is to put a disambiguation at Macedonia and then point to sub articles on the different meanings, politics, geography, ethnicity etc. etc. In other words break this article up into individual articles with one definition each. (grimaces) yeah, I know.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not an encyclopedia article as it stands, so renaming it doesn't really help. It's a structural problem, inherent in the article. In cases like this the normal thing to do is break it up into the separate topics, geography, linguistics etc. etc. and cross-reference everything.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, if the definitions overlap as the article claims then they should be in one article-this one, and SS is entirely right then. But if they're distinct, then they need to be in their own articles and SS is then inappropriate. I think the terminology suffix is wrong if the definitions overlap, because then they are synonymous. For example the article doesn't cover Macedonia, Alabama, but its name currently implies it should, and absolutely nobody is claiming it should be added. I take this as evidence that this isn't a terminology article in fact. Disambiguation pages handle terminology in the wikipedia, not articles, but this article doesn't truly do terminology anyway, it is defining a particular albeit unusually wide (in Wikipedian terms) meaning of Macedonia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
FA Review
Didn't anybody think it would be wise to post here a notification that the article underwent a Feature Article Review on Sept 30? (well, apart from this bot generated cryptic edit...) The link follows:
Hi. I'd like to rewrite this section removing most of the obsolete folk-etymological explanations, taking into account the newest achievements of Indo-European studies, namely the research of the renowned Indo-Europeanist Robert S. P. Beekes, according to whom μακεδνός is Pre-Greek substratum word of non-Indo-European origin[14]. Mr. Beekes is currently writing etymological dictionary of Ancient Greek for the IEED project, which special care to pre-Greek loanwords (which expert like him can spot in a nanosecond). Here you can find a paper of him on Pre-Greek word structure and phonology.
The only non-obsolete piece of information on that section is a reference to Watkins' AHD IE roots lexicon, which does not list makednós among its cognates for post-PIE root *māk- that is referenced from that section (and it would list, given that that root has an indirect reflex in English in the word Macedonia). I'm sure everyone would agree that FA-class article on controversial topics such as these needs the most up-to-date information it can get. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
also referred to as...
This is a bit silly to open a discussion for, but anyway. The point i would expect to be made is whether the term "Slavomacedonians" or "Slav Macedonians" is worth mentioning in the first place. We already have a section about terms used in relevant countries (Greece, Bulgaria etc) ) below, so you must either establish that it's not usefull here and remove it or let it be mentioned with a plain and neutral wording. What's this "more rarely" and "by Greek authorities" stuff doing there ??? [btw that's not even what the source says, it says "some Greeks...", without even being exclusive, and whatever you understand from it it's the writer's view, while i gave four "clean" examples of its use] We're talking about a simple definition box here ! I believe the sources i added are enough to show that the term is notable in English and serves a purpose in that box. And it's ironic, just because you perceive "Slavomacedonian" having a pejorative use today in Greece not to aknowledge the historical value (for the ethnic Macedonian perspective) of its past interchangable meaning, often used as a blanket term for all Slavic-speakers in Macedonia... --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly, anything related to names here on Balkans is not silly :( If you agree (as I can see you are proposing that option too), we can remove those two terms from the definition box. About the "more rarely", I think it is good to have such distinction because Macedonians is the most used term in the English speaking countries (I'm not saying they don't use Macedonian Slavs term at all) and in the same time the self-describing term of the people the definition box is about. (for example: [15],[16] etc). On the other hand, the terms Macedonian Slavs and especially Slavomacedonians are mostly used by Greeks (for the well known reasons) and therefore I think we should clarify the things to the end. If you are searching through Internet to find books and references that use the term Macedonian Slavs in order to justify that those terms are equally adequate to name the people we are talking about, then you can also make similar searches for other Slavic people as Serbs, Croats or Russians (see for example: [17], [18]), yet, nobody claims that it can be used as proof that we should define Croats here in WP as: Croats, also known as Croatian Slavs or Slavocroats etc... I hope you get the point. MatriX (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
No, i'm afraid i don't get your point, the only thing i see is that you don't like the terms and consider them unfair or something. That's not my problem, you'll just have to bridge your views with reality. In every nuanced approach of academic sources either referring to present day specific issues or history for example you'll see "Macedonian Slav" or a variant being used to disambiguate/describe this group, if you ask me that's just a direct consequence of "Macedonian" being also used to refer to completely different groups, not the same case with "Croats", you could use that argument in a different context, where history and scholarly works are not to be given weight, but not in wikipedia, certainly not in this article. I'm repeating, hopefully for the last time, these terms are not used mainly by Greeks or in Greece, if this was the case they should probably not even be there, that was what i meant before. Greece is not to be given weight here, especially when we have a section explaining the terms used in the country down below. The "more rarely" notation is only usefull to imply something that in a neutral encyclopedia we must avoid, a POV that counts their use in absolute terms, what's "more rarely" supposed to mean exactly ? You will most probably find them in the majority of academic sources dealing with relevant topics, or (if not most) in many reports of a range of institutions and organizations, in every source that deals with the details in other words these disambiguatiom terms have a pretty strong use. I think the "also referred to" is enough to imply a lower frequency of encounter, or to put it in other terms it makes less damage than your wording, and to be frank this should not be so important in a definition box !!! In that little frame over there simplicity is what matters the most. I'll leave it to you or someone else to restore to the previous version. The matter doesn't deserve so much discussion.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Confusion"
To clarify: I object to the statements stressing "confusion" in the lead mainly because it's an ugly and silly manipulative ploy to advertise the importance of the article. It is saying to the reader: "Here, look how confusing these things are, you badly need to read this article so we can un-confuse you". That's poor taste. It is also not properly sourced: Wilkinson, as far as I've seen quotes from him, only talks of lack of clear definition, and apparently only of geographical boundaries, not about other aspects. His text is also 60 years old, from a time when even the roots of the present terminological problem had barely been developed, so quoting him to source a statement about the present is highly misleading. And Poulton only says that it is "often somewhat confusing to the casual observer". Nothing about being confusing to the inhabitants themselves (seriously, come on, is anybody claiming the natives themselves have difficulties understanding what the other sides mean? They may be offended by it, but I can't see confusion anywhere.)
The version I proposed is simple, neutral, and contains all the actual important information, so what's wrong with it? Fut.Perf.☼10:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Yannismarou's edit summary when reverting you does not seem to address your points at all. Perhaps the fact that you also improved the style while removing the problematic claims confused him?
One problem with the old version: It's not at all clear what "other" is supposed to mean here. Perhaps those inhabitants of the region who are not "Macedonian" under any of the competing definitions? But then "the region" needs a fairly inclusive reading so that such "other inhabitants" even exist. Perhaps "south-eastern Europe"? But it seems strange to refer to people outside such a large region as "foreigners".
I agree that Wilkinson is way too old, and that it is inappropriate to use Poulton's guarded statement in the way it was done here. (Notice somewhat and to the casual observer, both of which were dropped here.)
If Yannismarou thinks that McCarthy, Danford or "etc." are better sources for this statement, then at the very least he should use them to replace the inadequate sources.
The sentence "Wrong article to advertise the unsourced POVthat Macedonia is unambiguous" doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Both versions use almost the same words to describe the ambiguity, the claim that the ambiguity causes confusion being the main difference.
I imagine that on both sides there are people who claim that they have the only correct definition of the term and that everybody who uses it differently is confused. This would make the "confusion" formulation attractive to extremists on both sides. Thus it seems to push the POV that only one of the extreme positions can be correct. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there is no confusion for the inhabitants; but there is indeed an issue of confusion here for everybody else trying to understand the situation. If there was no confusion, we wouldn't need this article! It wouldn't attract such an interest, and it wouldn't have become the issue of a "hot" FAC! I don't necessarily want to go back to the previous wording, but we should make a mention in the lead; a simple minor addition to the current wording would be fine for mine. In addition to the sources I have already presented, I will conduct further research in order to support my argument.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies things. It looks like we should be able to find language that works for everybody. Avg reverted to your version with the ludicrous edit summary "rv WP:POINT reverts by Fut.Perf." (clearly neither version of the lede represents a serious problem when compared to the other, and if anything is disruptive here then it is the blind reverting without even reading the talk page discussion). I am still not sure why the confusion needs to be mentioned prominently, but perhaps we can tone it down a bit and drop the implication that the locals are affected. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I welcome your constructive comments; I think you really understand my spirit, and I'd be grateful, if you could propose a compromise wording. As you say and I agree, confusion does not need to be mentioned prominently but it needs to be mentioned, and we can tone it down a bit.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid I must go to bed now without a concrete proposal, and I won't be back before tomorrow evening. I think FP's version sounds a bit better, and "since the early 20th century" seems to be important information missing in the other version. (See WP:RECENTISM.) By "prominently" I meant in the lede – I don't see why "confusing" must be mentioned in the lede, rather than just somewhere later in the article. Since you do want it here: I had a German word in mind for a weaker formulation, but my dictionary says the English translation is also "confusing". I think we should stop saying who is confused, and put the emphasis on the confusion-inducing complexity of the situation. Perhaps something like adding ", creating a confusing situation" at the end of FP's version could work; except that it's very bad style and I am too tired to improve it. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I also must go to bed now, Hans, but my WP perversion keeps me awake! What about that:
"The name Macedonia is used in a large number of different, partly competing and partly overlapping meanings to describe geographical, political and historical areas, languages and peoples in a part of south-eastern Europe, and it has been a major source of political controversy since the early 20th century. Ethnic groups inhabiting the area use different terminology for the same entity, or the same terminology for different entities, a situation which often results in ambiguity and confusion."
What's so important to you about "confusion" anyway? In fact, what exactly do you mean by confusion? Confusion is a state of cognitive disorientation. Why would we want to be writing about anybody's cognitive disorientation? You can call the situation "complex", the usages "contradictory"; I'm sure there are other expression that capture it better. Hans, which German word were you thinking of? Fut.Perf.☼07:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant "unübersichtlich", which seems to be a perfect fit. Both Leo and Duden-Oxford translate it with "unclear" or "confusing". I felt that "unclear" has some connotations that make it unsuitable in this context (making it look like a disclaimer that it's not even possible to describe the situation adequately), leaving only "confusing" with its unfortunate emphasis on the state of mind. "Convoluted" also seems close, but it doesn't stress the confusion potential in the same way. How about "abstruse"? As in: "Ethnic groups inhabiting the area use different terminology for the same entity, or the same terminology for different entities, causing ambiguities and an overall abstruse situation." Again, this formulation has some style problems; I am also not sure about the standards for sourcing such a statement in an article of this type. This is just my contribution to this brainstorming session. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You are right, "unübersichtlich" would have fit well, but I can't think of a direct one-word translation either. I've gone for "complicated" in my new proposal. Fut.Perf.☼10:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Early history
The region of Macedonia has been home or a part to several historical political entities, even before the invasion of the Macedonians from the south, as is attested by Herodot; Many non-Hellenic tribes occupied its lands before and after the formation of the first Macedonian kingdoms. The borders of each of these entities were different as well as those of any kingdom or province that through the ages shared this name. The area occupied by ancient Macedonia, the kingdom formed by the Argead dynasty, at its greatest extent, approximately coincided with contemporary Macedonia in Greece.<:ref>Lane Fox, Robin (2004). Alessandro Magno. Turin: Einaudi. pp. 17–21.</ref>
This is tendentious, unEnglish (Herodot? who attests that the royal family of Macedon came from the south, not the same thing), and inaccurate. It is characteristic that it should cite the Italian translation of an English book published in 1973, and which does not mention the present Greek frontier at all. I shall rewrite. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is inaccurate, I can't disagree (after all the focus should be on terminology), but your ensuing ce did not improve much the prose I am afraid!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
^(in French) Dubois L. (1995) Une tablette de malédiction de Pella: s'agit-il du premier texte macédonien ?, Revue des Études Grecques (REG) 108:190–197
^(in French) Brixhe C., Panayotou A. (1994) Le Macédonien in: Langues indo-européennes, ed. Bader, Paris, pp 205–220
^(in French) Dubois L. (1995) Une tablette de malédiction de Pella: s'agit-il du premier texte macédonien ?, Revue des Études Grecques (REG) 108:190–197
^(in French) Brixhe C., Panayotou A. (1994) Le Macédonien in: Langues indo-européennes, ed. Bader, Paris, pp 205–220
^Lane Fox, Robin (2004). Alessandro Magno. Turin: Einaudi. pp. pp. 17–21. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Lane Fox, Robin (2004). Alessandro Magno. Turin: Einaudi. pp. pp. 17–21. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ abcdefghCite error: The named reference cia-mk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdCite error: The named reference mkconst was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^(in French) Dubois L. (1995) Une tablette de malédiction de Pella: s'agit-il du premier texte macédonien ?, Revue des Études Grecques (REG) 108:190–197
^(in French) Brixhe C., Panayotou A. (1994) Le Macédonien in: Langues indo-européennes, ed. Bader, Paris, pp 205–220
^(in French) Dubois L. (1995) Une tablette de malédiction de Pella: s'agit-il du premier texte macédonien ?, Revue des Études Grecques (REG) 108:190–197
^(in French) Brixhe C., Panayotou A. (1994) Le Macédonien in: Langues indo-européennes, ed. Bader, Paris, pp 205–220
^Lane Fox, Robin (2004). Alessandro Magno. Turin: Einaudi. pp. pp. 17–21. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^Lane Fox, Robin (2004). Alessandro Magno. Turin: Einaudi. pp. pp. 17–21. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
![[12]](http://bp2.blogger.com/_2oeLbEhyIs8/R6m_cm3NopI/AAAAAAAABho/io0itv-N-mU/s1600-h/1q.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg)