Talk:Macedonians (Greeks)/Archive 1

Dab notice

I think that Macedonians (ethnic group) are not necessary, since they are included in Macedonian dab page. For the same reason, we excluded them from the respective slavic article. If you really have to include them, though, then they must be mentioned as their wiki article name (and not without the "ethnic group" dab parentheses) and they clearly are not ...majority (wow! 2.5 million Greek Macedonians vs 1.6 million Slavomacedonians). NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, two things, 1. I thought we agreed to include Greek Macedonians in the Macedonian dab. 2. They are a majority in the Republic of Macedonia, which is what I put. - FrancisTyers 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings. While syntactically correct point, it sounded otherwise. You really need the dab? I am not a WP:DICK, so feel free to keep it, but I think it is redundant (given the ethnic group precedent). Also, give a look at my response to your "I seriously doubt that" comment in the above talk... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, ok, I must admit I'm a little behind on the ethnic group page. Its filling up like a latrine in a dysentry epidemic. I've removed it and we'll keep it out, same as the ethnic group page. - FrancisTyers 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It's like the <sewer> I presume... And, Fran, you know you don't need to wikify Greek words for us Greeks to understand... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! :) - FrancisTyers 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki links to FYROM

In Greek related articles there will be no mentioning of Republic of Macedonia, as it is insulting since it tries to acquire and monopolise the Greek self-identifying term. We will follow the Gdansk/Danzig precedent (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote) where users voted with a smashing majority that the name would be identical to each side's views in each side's articles. If you need to specify RoM, then it must follow fYRoM and it must be unlinked and in parentheses. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy if you'll stick to this "the name would be identical to each side's views in each side's articles". - FrancisTyers 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on though, how could I not change it ;) Any page dealing with Macedonia without a little naming dispute edit conflict isn't dealing with the problem at all :)) - FrancisTyers 11:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we are following your rules, so we follow them all the way... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See it this way. Most Greek Macedonians would self-identify as being from a region just south of a state called FYROM. --Telex 11:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! Maybe we should create a redirect to this article in South-of-Fyromians!!! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

Whether or not the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or not is unknown and a matter of dispute among historians today, so I don't see how wikipedia can pick sides and have an unneutral comment made unnoticed. Therefore I am adding a tag to let the reader know that there are unreliable POVs in the article. Macedonia 02:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people included in that article are very well historically documented (go and read Herodotus or whatever ancient historian you wish). If you continue breaking WP:POINT, you 'll probably get an RFC. talk to +MATIA 08:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Macedonia, as I'm sure you're well aware, the Argead dynasty declared themselves Greeks, respect their right to self-identification. --Telex 09:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just trolling guys. - FrancisTyers 09:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is the risk of being repetitive. We already have a List of ancient Macedonians, so probably it would be more reasonable to concentrate on expandind that and putting in this article a "see also" link. Tell me your opinion.--Aldux 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have apoint here Al. What I'd do is shorten these lists here (both contemporary and ancient) to the most prominent 4 or 5 members and then include all the rest in the separate lists, with the note: "See List of ancient Macedonians and List of Byzantine Macedonians for the complete list..." (provided the latter link will not be red anymore). Guys? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Niko. talk to +MATIA 09:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A List of Byzantine Macedonians seems problematic, first for the few names that are on wikipedia, and second for the ambiguity of "romaios", meaning both Greek and Roman, that as such could be used for non-Greeks. But for the first part, I agree.--Aldux 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Argead dynasty in which Alexander III and Philip II belonged, officially recognised itself and was recognised by others as Greek (and participated in the Olympics). Period. Miskin 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please read the full discussion, Miskin? There's a list of ancient Macedonians; and there's no point making a double list.--Aldux 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The List of ancient Macedonians is already problematic, the Kings of Hellenistic Kingdoms were not recognised by anybody as "Macedonians", that's just a clear POV. See the citation in Koine Greek as an example of ancient account. Miskin 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sts Cyril and Methodius

Were they, in the modern sense of nationality, Greek? They were born in Thessalonica; they spoke Greek. They also spoke Slavonic. Methodius may well have learnt this as a job requirement, but it is difficult to make the same argument for Cyril.

This raises much deeper questions:

Did "nationality" in the modern sense exist in the 9th century?
- Did Greekness then mean something different from "obedient to the Byzantine Patriarch"?

I would evade these questions by reducing this page to its proper purpose: listing the numerous Greeks of Macedonia in modern times, when the Greek national movement had come into existence, and Macedonia means, as it now means, the Ottoman administrative district.

No; I am not pro-FYROM. The Greek frontier is justified, and fully justified, by the ethnographic and military balance as of 1912. Ptolemy and the Byzantine Emperors have nothing to do with it, either way. Septentrionalis 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What is Leo the Paphlagonian doing on this page in any case?

I am not surprised by your POV Pmanderson... A former discussion in Talk:Greeks has convinced me that u believe the Greeks suddenly came into existance in the 19th century... Strangely, u do not support such claims for other nations... --Hectorian 02:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you should have failed to understand what I was saying either there or here: the Greeks discovered nationalism, in the modern sense, when everybody else did. Septentrionalis 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a quote! why haven't u still removed Dante Alighieri from the list of Italians? or William Shakespeare from the list of English people? or Miguel de Cervantes, Gjergj Kastriot Skanderbeg, Mehmet II, Margrethe I, Louis IV from respective lists? u are attacking greek-related articles in order to push your POV... It can't be more obvious... --Hectorian 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek = native Greek-speaker and Macedonian Greek = Greek born in Macedonia, it's as simple as that. If Pmanderson thinks that Greek = Greek national or holder of Greek passport, then that's just his POV. Hectorian made a point, Pmanderson's only issue is with Greek continuity and history in general. His views are not applied in wikipedia nor in any academic circle. The examples of Dante, Newton and Descartes being described as Italian, English and French respectively, sufficiently proves this. According to pmanderson's logic we have to change literally all pre-19th ethnic descriptions. Miskin 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Artistole was born in the Ionian city of Stageira, which was at the time part of Chalcidice, an independent political and geographical entity. Miskin 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he was; he was a Greek who went to live in Macedon. Septentrionalis 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revealing your POV once more... Let me give u some advice: keep it for yourself, or edit sources that support it (more reliable than those who say the opposite: that Macedonians were Greek)...I am sure that no matter how hard u try, u won't find... --Hectorian 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these do you find PoV?

Aristotle was a Greek.
He went to live in Macedon.

Septentrionalis 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Macedonian monarchs Pmanderson? Do you deny that the Argead dynasty claimed royal Greek descend? Miskin 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did so claim; as Herodotus records. The nature of that claim should be discussed if it is to br mentioned; including the fact that it did not include the people of Macedon.
I am willing to compromise on what Telex suggested: to move all references to ancient Macedonia to that article, with a cross-reference; but others are not.
And what, again, is Michael the Paphlagonian doing here? does anyone claim he came from Macedonia? Septentrionalis 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only Herodotus who says it, it's also Thucydides, Phillip II, Alexander III etc, basically it was common knowledge in antiquity. I'm going to add them back and remove Aristotle. Miskin 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin, can't you tell a source from subject matter? or do you mean to claim that writings of Philip and Alexander survive?
Of course the text should state that the Argeads claimed Greek descent; and it always has. (So did the Romans.)
None of this justifies calling the Ptolemies and Seleucids Argives. Septentrionalis 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, no...!!!, Pmanderson, do not try to drag me i word-games. u said he was a Greek who went to live in Macedon, implying that Macedon was not Greek. if u meant something else, u would have said: he was from Stageira and went to live in Macedon (or Pella, Aegae, Vergina...). your past edits have revealed your POV numerous times... this was just "once more". --Hectorian 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then do not try to read my mind; your telepathy is failing. My only concern is to keep this piece of nationalism out of ancient history. It is acceptable to move this to ancient Macedonians if and only if the ancient Macedonians are also moved. Septentrionalis 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no telepathetic abilities:). Your aim was as clear as it always is... btw, it seems that your only concern is to push your POV in ancient history related articles (particularly, if not only, to ancient Greece related ones...) --Hectorian 02:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Herodotus was obviously pushing Greek POV :-) I'm sure back then the naming conflict was top priority in their agendas. It's appalling and unscientific that we only use sources from Ancient Greek historians and never mention sources from Ancient FYROMian historians :-) -- Avg 09:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson I'm having difficulties to believe that you were being serious about those last edits of yours. Miskin 11:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was trying to illustrate that the pov of the article as it is, is equally extreme to the one he added. Usual tactic. The next step will be a POV tag, and then the tag will be removed because there are no arguements for it. Remember the article Greeks? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This story was occasionally repeated in antiquity, although it was the practice of most sources to distinguish between Greeks and Macedonians; as Arrian does, in writing out the history of Ptolemy I Soter. Modern Greek nationalists also consider this significant; although it is as irrelevant to the northern frontier of Greece, as the undoubtedly Greek foundation of Syracuse, Naples, and Marseilles is to the western frontier."
If that edit was done by an anon I'd categorise it as sneaky vandalism. But the guy was serious about it. Miskin 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Macedonians

Telex's revision consists of the note that the following people self-identified as Greek, and are from Macedonia.

This would be improved by sources that

Seleucus and Antipater self-identified as anything, in any surviving evidence.
Clarification whether Ptolemy's "self-identification" consists of anything other than the claim that he was Philip II's bastard.
- If so, it would also be nice to have a source that he himself made this claim.
A source that Michael the Paphlagonian was from Macedonia. Septentrionalis 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this page?

I propose merging this page into Macedonia (Greece).

There's no reason to have a separate page for the inhabitants as opposed to the region they inhabit. There's nothing in this page that couldn't just as well be said (or indeed has been said, and better) on Macedonia (Greece)#Demographics or the various other Macedonia-related pages.
We don't normally do separate "inhabitants of X" pages for subnational regional entities when we already have an "X" page and the inhabitants do not have at least a separate ethnic identity. There's no New Yorkers, no Texans, no Californians, no Yorkshire people, no Lancashire people, no Glaswegians, no Hamburgers (people), no Berliners, and for good reason. There is no Athenians, no Roumeliotes, no Cretans, no Thessalians, no Eptanesians either (check, all the ones that come up blue are just redirects to their respective geography article).
This page was apparently just created for wiki-political reasons, in order to drive home the point that "Macedonian" is ambiguous and that the (Slav) Macedonians must always get some disambiguating term to accompany their name. Okay, point taken. But we still don't need this page.
In fact, there is very little evidence that this term, in the meaning of this page, is ever used in English (except by Greeks). I couldn't find a single attestation on Google Scholar and Google Books where the term "Macedonians", alone, is used by a non-Greek author to refer specifically to modern Greek Macedonians. Of course, "Greek Macedonians" occasionally is used. It never seems to have any conceptual content beyond "Greek inhabitant of Macedonia"; as such, it carries no meaning that couldn't be treated in the geography articles.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ojection to move this information within Macedonia (Greece)#Demographics and to redirect this page there. The redirect will suffice for the evil propagandistic aims outlined above, and the section there will be expanded by the present information. :-) Niko Silver 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea would be to merge the List of Macedonians (Greek) here. Niko Silver 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article serves a useful purpose in the context of understanding the naming dispute. Like it or not, the Macedonians' regional identity is more distinctive and vigorously expressed because of it. Besides, it is not the only such article; Maniots is in a similar vein, contradicting FP's thesis that we don't do regional non-ethnic demographic articles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know some Greek editors have been inexplicably fond of such articles and have created a few. That doesn't make it a good idea. If you look at Talk:Maniots, the consensus actually was that the page is not currently where/what it ought to be. It's not a precedent to follow.

As for the "usefulness", I don't accept that just because the inhabitants of a region have a "distinctive and vigorously expressed" identity (as have Texans, Berliners and Yorkshiremen) we need an article on them. There still is nothing interesting to say about this group of people that couldn't just as well be said in the article about the region. The region is what defines this group of people, after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we read the article, the content doesn't give reasons for a separate article about Greek Macedonians. It should include more details about the culture of these people, in order to exist as a distinct article from the Greek Macedonia. But I am, for one more time, suspicious about the motives of them who called for the merger. - Sthenel 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]