Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Against the move - revert it now

The issue is simple: one additional click does no harm. One additional click clarifies the term. One additional click facilitates the meaning of each user.

On the other hand. One less click directs every user to one-sided version of the term. Why? There is no reason for that. It is clearly leading to prevailance of a POV for an issue which is currently under negotiations under the UN between the two parties. Why would Wikipedia take sides now?

Revert it now. Antibaro (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has issued a statement saying that any attempt to move the page while the case is pending resolution will be reversed, to prevent a revert war. On that basis, I don't see anyone moving the page anytime soon. But as soon as the case is resolved I think we may see the article move to some other name. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ok. when is it estimated to have a resolution? Antibaro (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Will probably take weeks, in the worst case months. Arbcom slowness can be a pain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me check if I get it: there is an introductory page on the term in order to avoid ambiguity for at least 8 years and one day a user comes and changes the content of an article, not only without asking anobody else, but also sporting his partiality (as I have shown in a comment above, by the use of the term "Macedonia" without quotes twice in a single sentence, thus taking sides). From that day an ArbCom is formed which will take ...months(!) to decide whether to revert it or not. Is that common procedure? I don't think so! I thought that a discussion/debate/arbitration should occur 'before' a major change, not 'after'! Isn't that unique? Was that the right person to do it? Was that the right procedure? Was that the right sequence of events (first: action, then: discussion)? Let the wikipedia experts talk. I am a bit confused. Please enlighten me! Antibaro (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case Chris move really made facts on the ground. That's disrespectful and pretty disappointing coming from an administrator. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO made no "facts on the ground". Macedonia is the name of the country in the vast majority of English-language references and in common usage. ChrisO's move created no facts, but only recognized the facts as they exist. The whole issue is in arbitration and the end result will come from there, not from anything said here. (Taivo (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Until now, you don't realize that we're not dealing with the name of the country, but with the ambiguity of a term and the underlying issues, as several arbitrators said. ChrisO's move clearly tried to prepossess what was meant to happen. Instead of leaving things the way they were, he did what he did, collaborated off-wiki with FP (check evidence; in their own words, not mine) and tried to influence the outcome by establishing his own terms. That's foul play, by any rulebook. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely why such unilateral reproductions of one side's arguments are not productive. All opinions and evidence have been recorded and will be evaluated by the Arbitration committee. No need to try and create impressions in favor of either side. Your opinion is known and well respected. Stating it as an undisputed theorem does not make it more right or wrong. Regards,Alfadog777 (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The countries short name should be used. Just like the majority of other countries are called. I think the same should apply for every country, use the countries short name. Also 9/10 in English Language media, the country is referred to as Macedonia, wikipedia is a type of media. Lets be sensible and call the country Macedonia. The majority of people in the English language world don't know the country as Republic of Macedonia/ FYROM, they just know the country as "Macedonia" and they will search for that first. Also the majority of people in the English language speaking world are not aware of a Greek province called Macedonia. "Macedonia" is the correct name for this article. PERIOD! Ijanderson (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't capitalize on that. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, SQRT, "Macedonia" should always be capitalized since it is a proper noun--the name of a country in the Balkans. (Taivo (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes, yes; what life would be without pet peeves? But moi is the wrong person to pick on. Dobra nok ;) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Ijanderson, do the majority of people in the English language world are not aware of an ancient awesome empire also called Macedonia either? That's why they come to Wiki-pedia, to learn things. It's an encyclopedia, not a catalogue of countries or other things. Would you expect to be redirected to Alexander (movie) and Alexander the Great (song) too, when searching for "Alexander"? Shadowmorph (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

People are aware of many empires, but those empires are often located at "x Empire", or "Ancient x" see, examples like Egypt, Greece, Britain, Rome, Mongolia, Spanish what else?... chandler ··· 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Type in "Rome" and see where you go--the modern city with a note about the ancient empire. Type in "Mongolia" and you go to the modern country and not to the continent-spanning khanate. But you will surely bring up counterexamples, as you always do, then I will bring up counterexamples, etc. That's why this is in arbitration. (Taivo (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Type in Ireland and you go the island. Type in China and you go to a cultural region. Type in Britain and you go to a dab page. But according to your rationale, Ireland should go straight to Republic of Ireland, China to People's Republic of China, Britain to the United Kingdom and Internet to the World Wide Web, because that's what the glorified "lay reader" wants. Please... As for the arbitration case, certain parties tried to prepossess ArbCom's decision by moving the article in advance. I would accept their logic only if they left Macedonia where it was and then made a case about it. As it stands, they crossed the line. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, all been said before, yawn. The case is in arbitration now and the arbitration committee will decide. (Taivo (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm glad that you found no arguments against that. Btw, there is a little thing called ethos. If there is a disagreement with the linesman, you don't go to the referee after punching your opponent in the eye. But even if that's the case, you know what comes after hubris. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said I didn't have arguments against your assertions of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's just pointless to discuss anything here since the issue is in arbitration. The Arbtrators will decide. Why waste time here? (Taivo (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Interesting article

Also notice how the Republic of Macedonia is referred to. http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/region/86704.html Reaper7 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is referred as "FYROM". Little surprise there, considering that the source of the report is the Athens News Agency. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is not how a news agency calls the country, but a bigger problem of an unresolved dispute. Wikipedia by looking just the statistics is wrong, because the importance is not counted by the number of hits. Wikipedia has to stay neutral. Wikipedia can't take any side if it wants to be reliable. Wikipedia is a worldwide source of knowledge and not any political puppet of Greece, Republic of Macedonia, USA, or any other country. --xvvx (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And part of what determines that is if there are any other entities with the same or similar name, and whether those other entities are "popular" enough so that the same naming guidelines and policies apply to them, and how to resolve the problem if they are remotely equivalent. In this case, that is not necessarily going to be easy to do. And I find the article in question no more "interesting" than I would an article about Ethiopia in an Eritrean newspaper or Palestine in an Israeli newspaper. You expect prejudicial comments in publications coming from the "other side" in any sort of conflict. Although it is "interesting" to see that they spell "Committee" two different ways in two subsequent sentences. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What News agency is this from, Athens also?: http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/region/86651.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you Google the headline of that news item you'll find it elsewhere without the "FYROM" prefix. It appears that the emportal site is adding "FYROM" to the start of news headlines as a way of categorising them by country. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cartographic usage

Following Taivo's earlier look at maps to see how cartographers treat Macedonia's name, I've done a systematic survey of British, American, Australian and continental European maps and atlases to get some more data on usage. These are the results:

I found around 20 separate maps of the world, maps of Europe and maps of south-eastern Europe. A handful, all published by continental European, did not use country names at all, but instead used the international vehicle registration codes to represent the country names. The renamining 17 broke down as follows:

• 15 used "Macedonia". Almost all were published by British, American or Australian publishers.
• 3 used "Makedonija" (other countries are also given their native names). All were published by continental European publishers.
• 2 used "Republic of Macedonia". One was published in Hungary, the other in the UK.

I also found around 30 atlases (though many were alternative-format editions of essentially the same atlas, ranging from coffee table sized to pocket-sized). All were published by British and American publishers. Of these:

• 24 used "Macedonia".
• 3 used "Macedonia" with "(FYROM)" underneath.
• 1 used "FYR of Macedonia".

So, to summarise:

• Of the 50 cartographic works surveyed, 39 (78%) used "Macedonia" by itself.
• 3 (6%) used "Makedonija" by itself.
• 3 (6%) used "Macedonia (FYROM)".
• 2 (4%) used "Republic of Macedonia".
• 1 (2%) used "FYR of Macedonia".
• None used "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM".

It can be concluded from this that "Macedonia" by itself is the term used by an overwhelmingly majority of the cartographic publications surveyed. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you check Ireland and China also, if you still have access to these maps and it's not too much of a hassle? Thanks. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not interested in Ireland or China. It took several hours to do this work and I don't see any point in repeating it to address different naming disputes that aren't related to this one. One problem at a time, please! -- ChrisO (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I understand that your time is limited. But if you made a list with these sources and you feel like sharing, could you please post it? SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if I did make such a list, but I've never had any involvement (or interest, frankly) in either of those naming disputes, so it's not likely to happen any time soon. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be helpful, since posting "I found X on Y maps" and not listing the maps, is a bit problematic. I believe that our usernames do not constitute reliable sources. Now, I had this story on Obama... :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you provide evidence on the "common name" based on maps. Although it is questionable whether the maps represent the "common name", (a question highlighted by the differences from a map to another, if it was indisputably the common name, every map would use it ) let us suppose that they do, for the sake of the argument. A counterargument is how about the name used by international organizations? (and don't say that this is old, it is as valid as it ever was) The reality there is different, with most of them using FYROM. It is widely accepted that Wikipedia takes all the available evidence into consideration. The article had the constitutional name of the country on top. You changed it. Of course there is evidence supporting the change, as there is evidence against it. Thing is, you only choose to assess the evidence supporting your actions, when you should have assessed them all. Regards, Alfadog777 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Common English names are what Wikipedia uses, not those legally used by international organizations. Atlas usage is overwhelmingly in favor of "Macedonia". When you add this to the name used in media reports, the most commonly used English encyclopedias, etc. there is no other common name except "Macedonia". The U.N. may govern usage within its walls, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia or common English usage. But, of course, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT prevail whenever common English usage is the subject here and we continue to hear "the U.N. doesn't use that" as the persistent counterargument. (Taivo (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Macedonians (ethnic group) or just Macedonians

Dear fellow wikipedians, I am coming back to an old topic that was opened several months ago, and was decided to leave it open until the necessary time comes. As all of us are aware that for native English speakers the term Macedonians refers to members of the Macedonian ethnic group, I believe it is time to change the title of the article from Macedonians (ethnic group) to simply Macedonians (as it is commonly accepted in the English speaking world). The disambiguation page Macedonia will remain in order to distinguish the modern Macedonians from the inhabitants of Ancient Macedonia. Regards to all. --Revizionist (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No chance to get this done right now, because we're under an Arbcom injunction not to move pages until the current Arbcom case is finished. Let's first sort out the Arbcom case, then the country article, and then the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Revizionist. Contrary to what some editors might argue, there is no ambiguity in the western, Engish-speaking, world as to what a Macedonian is Hxseek (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only that we all know what Macedonian IS, but we all may see who WAS Macedonian in the past. Look at the BBC - how they refer to the capital of Macedonia in 1963 ([1]), and you may look at many NY times about the Macedonian uprising against Turks in the 1902 and 1903.

Everybody go here in order to centralise the (moot) discussion. BalkanFever 04:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed?

The part Yugoslav Macedonia in World War II is dubious. Here is an example: Harsh rule by the occupying forces encouraged many Macedonians to support the Communist Partisan. This creates the idea that people embraced Communism because they wanted to fight against the army which is non-sense. Please read [[2]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.200.193 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Desicion

When will finally wikipedia decide about the name of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1111tomica (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Samuel's Fortress

Could please the (dominantly) Greek editors refrain from ambiguous editing. The fortresses' name is Самоилова тврдина (Samoilova tvrdina) in Macedonian. If that doesn't suffice you, do some Google research. Thanks, Bomac (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the actual article is at Samuel of Bulgaria. --Laveol ^T 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, but I keep that in mind long time ago. This is not about the Tsar himself, but the fortress. Bomac (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Republic of Macedonia

Why is "Socialist Republic of Macedonia" not mentioned in the intro? That is the former official name of the republic before the independence, and worthy of mention in "bold text. Even though the intro has "It is one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, from which it declared independence in 1991.", readers would be curious about the name. If my question was already discussed some times ago, just direct me to related archives. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not in the lead paragraph and bolded for the same reason that "Republic of Zaire" is not found in the lead and bolded in at Democratic Republic of Congo. Former names are not included or bolded, just contemporary names and appellations. (Taivo (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Although, personally, I must say I wouldn't find a mentioning and link to the socialist republic amiss. Not in the lead sentence and in bold, because this is not actually the article that deals with it (it has its own), but a link somewhere in the passage where the relation with Yugoslavia is described. I'm just too lazy to think up a good wording right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My two cents

I know I'm jumping into the fire here, but I thought I'd post what I thought about how the Macedonia articles should be organised. A disclaimer: I'm British.

Basically, we should follow the precedent regarding (partially recognised) countries/regions that share names. I did a quick search for "Ireland", "Palestine", "Kosovo", and "China". In three of the four cases, we had the region at the main article, disambiguated to the country/countries claiming the name, and other things claiming the name on a "(dismabiguation)" page (Kosovo has both the region and the partially recognised country on the same page). Thus, my preference would be for this set up:

• Macedonia deals with the region encompassing the entirety of the RoM and parts of Albania, Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria. (currently at Macedonia (region))
• Republic of Macedonia deals with the RoM, rather than Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. (currently at Macedonia)
• The resultant Macedonia (region) redirect would be retargeted to Macedonia (terminology).
• I would personally move Macedonia (Greece) to Macedonia (Greek region) or Macedonia, Greece.

I know this isn't perfect, but I feel that it would be the least controversial. ROM/FYROM should be discussed on the ROM talk page, but personally, I think that the current solution is a false compromise. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that COMMONNAME is deliberately and explicitly weak as a guideline because of examples such as this where the "common name" is too ambiguous. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the obvious choice in my opinion however there are certain editors who will do all they can to not allow it. Reaper7 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre I support 100% your proposal. Do you think it would make sense to post it in the Evidence page of the Arbitration? (WP:ARBMAC2)--Avg (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best place to put it. However, if ArbCom create a taskforce to settle the dispute, I'd post it there. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistics and hits are irrelevant of truth and history

FYROM is only a small part of the region of Macedonia, thus the article's title is totally misleading and false. Furthermore, it is clear that wikipedia should be free of political bias but saying that Macedonia is the country "Republic of Macedonia" is politically biased. Not to mention that it doesn't respect many people's feelings and opinions on the matter. Finally, wikipedia's primary goal is to provide reliable information and not to comply with statistics and practicality. The truth should always be above all. I propose that Macedonia should redirect to Macedonia (region). Braindamaged (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

macedonia should refer to the geographica area of macedonia

if wiki wants to be neutral then the name macedonia shoulbe redirecte to the geographical area of macedonia.this would show that wiki doesnt take part of the political disputes that both countries have . wiki should react as with the case of ireland where if you search the word irelandt in wiki then the page is redirected to the geographic area of ireland. now few thoughts the region of macedonia in greece is the largest,and most poulated that the 3 other in fyrom,bulagria,albania.moreover is the most wellknown due to the fact that greeks have a rich history because of alexander the graet and his ancient macedinian empire which literaly change the ancient world and that period of worlds history is named alexanders years by him. so logicaly if wiki wants to choose an area for the word macedonia this would be the area in greece for the above reasons.85.72.169.160 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC) ares85.72.169.160 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would make a lot of sense. The same convention applies to China, Ireland, Georgia and even America (even though in English the word America is most frequently used to refer to the U.S.). But common sense is too much to expect from some people sys < in (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: For details please see previous discussionS, I can not be bothered explaining myself time after time. Ijanderson (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an analog here: Luxembourg, which borders the Belgian province of the same name: Luxembourg (Belgium). No dispute (that I'm aware of) in that case. A²Kafir (and...?) 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Points:

• The name Macedonia should be a directed toward the article on the region or the disambiguation page. Like Ireland, Britain, China, Georgia, and America for at least as long as long as the naming dispute is unresolved.
• The name Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia (Country) should be the primary name of the Country's article.

Justification:

• The Republic of Macedonia gets it's name from the Region of Macedonia. The Region of Macedonia is not only older, it encompasses the Country and should therefore have naming primacy. Having the reverse implies that the Country has a more legitimate claim to the name.
• The only thing that can override this logic is an international agreement that resolves the dispute in favor of the Country. That is something to be decided by the involved countries, not anyone in Wikipedia.

EDG161 (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts about Macedonia to help ending this dispute.

This is not going to change anything. Closing... J.delanoygabsadds 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok here are some facts: 1. For I (Alexander I) myself am by ancient descent a Greek, and I would not willingly see Greece change her freedom for slavery." (Herod. IX, 45, 2 [Loeb]) 2. Thousands of items , including columns, inscriptions,pottery, paintings, etc. can be found throughout the museums of Macedonia. All without exception are of the Greek culture beyond any doubt. In any case, all historians admit that by Roman times the ancient Macedonians were fully homogenized with the rest of Greeks, and that Macedonia stopped existing as a separate socio-cultural entity some 600 years before any contact with the first Slavs in the Balkans. FYROM citizens speak a bulgarian-serbian language, nothing to do with ancient Macedonians. 3. Here are some links to view: History Channel Alexander the Great - BBC History About the ancient macedonian language GRAECIA PARS SEPTENTRIIONALIS ALITER MACEDONIA THESSALIA & EPIRUS THRACIA. A map engraved by E. Smith showing the region in ancient times. 4. FACTS THAT PROVE THE BULGARISM OF SAMUEL EMPIRE The Bitola inscription of tsar Ioan Vladislav in which he explicitly declares himself "Bulgarian by birth". The fact that Simeon's grandson Roman was the nominal ruler of that state in Skopje, where he built the "Sveti Georgi Brzi" monastery, until 991, when he was captured in battle by the Greeks; Samuil proclaimed himself a tsar only in 997 AD, when Roman died in the Byzantine dungeon. The fact that the state organization exactly copied the organization of the 1st Bulgarian empire from the pre-Christian times, i.e. the high officials had proto-Bulgarian ("Tartar") titles; the same was in Petar Deljan's state; the same was during the Georgi Voiteh's and Konstantin Bodin's uprising of 1072. The fact that on account of vanquishing Samuil Basil II was called "Bulgaroctonos" - Bulgar slayer and not Macedonian slayer. The fact that the conquered lands of Samuil's empire were designated "theme Bulgaria" whereas the Northern Bulgarian lands were called "Paristrion" - Danubian region. The fact that Basil II granted autonomy to the Ohrid archbishopric under the name "Archbishopric of Bulgaria" as it was known until 1767. The fact that later Bulgarian royal family members of the 2nd Bulgarian empire claimed lineage from Samuil's dynasty. The fact that Samuil and his state were named Bulgarian by all contemporary and later chronographers and historians. The fact that the act of the assimilation of the proto-Bulgars by the Slavs had already finished by the beginning of the 10th century, so the Slavs can't have rebelled against the Bulgarians. Nevertheless, no historian describes those people as Slavs, everywhere they are presented as Bulgars. 5. Letter of Gotze Delchev-a "macedonian" hero":Действително жалко е, но що можемъ да правимъ, когато си сме българи и всички страдаме отъ една обща болѣсть"It is hard indeed, but what can we do, when we are all bulgarians and we all suffer from a common dicease". Letter of Gotze Delchev 6. Ancient macedonian coin shows that ancient Macedonian language is a Greek language 7. A History of Macedonia Volume III: 336-167 B.C. N. G. L. Hammond and F. W. Walbank, Oxford University Press 8. Nicholas Hammond, one of the world’s best authorities in Macedonian history, stated the following in an interview with the magazine “Macedonian Echo” in February, 1993: (Q): Who were the Macedonians ? (A): The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who was the grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks. This we may infer from Hesiod’s genealogy. It may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek since Macedon, the ancestor of Macedonians, was a brother of Magnes, the ancestor of Thessalians, who spoke Greek. (Q): What was the geographic location of the Macedonian Kingdom ? (A): It should be emphasized that Macedonia occupied only the area of Pieria, as is characteristically mentioned by Hesiod and Thucydides. It had to wait until Philip II ascended to the throne and expanded his kingdom by occupying, among others, the Thracians and the PAEONIANS. The Paeonians were allowed to keep their customs, which was a sign of liberal policy of Philip after each conquest. From Homer we learn that the Paeonians had their own language and that they fought on the side of the Trojans. THEY LIVED IN THE AREA AROUND SKOPJE, and this is the reason I suggested to Patrick Leigh Fermor to suggest in his article in the Independent the name of “PAEONIA” AS THE MOST SUITABLE FOR SKOPJE. (Q): Given your experience as a liaison officer in German occupied Macedonia, do you believe that there may be a Macedonian nation ? (A): NO. Macedonia was under Ottoman occupation until the beginning of the 20th century. With the decline of the Ottoman empire, the Great Powers began to seek spheres of influence in the Balkans. The result was the emergence, during the latter part of the 19th century, of the Macedonian revolutionary movements.The Serbian IMRO, the Bulgarian VMRO and the Greek “Ethniki Etairia” were formed with the support of certain Great Powers with the goal of organizing revolutionary units in the area. After the Balkan wars, the Macedonia (the geographical region) was divided between Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria. The movement for the creation of a Slav-controlled Greater Macedonia continued until 1934, when the Yugoslav government declared IMRO illegal, as a good will gesture to Greece. Therefore, given the struggle of the three ethnic groups (Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians) for the control of Macedonia AND THE ABSCENCE OF ANY LOCAL NATIONAL MOVEMENT, we can talk of Macedonia only as a GEOGRAPHICAL ENTITY AND NOT as A NATION. 9. 2,300 years later, 'Alexander-mania' grips Macedonia I believe that the above information is enough for wikipedia to decide whether Macedonia is a region or a country. I should state here that I am not trying to make propaganda or take sides. I tried to find reliable information and resources, which will help everyone decide what is right in order to fulfill the most important of wikipedia's goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindamaged (talk • contribs) 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Macedonians identify as Macedonians, and they are. You identify as Braindamaged, and you are. BalkanFever 08:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC) The guy here tries to give us some facts to understand that Macedonians1=Macedonians2!=Macedonians3... as you can see we have a major name dispute here and the name is the less. You can say anything you want (we have a freedom of speech), but some things can't change. 1. Macedonians (Greeks) 2. Ancient Macedonians 3. Macedonians (ethnic group) --xvvx (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC) As always, when a user brings forth evidence or argues against the pro FYROM (or RoM) side, he is personally attacked by members of that side. This practice, which is a DIRECT VIOLATION of Wikipedia's standards, only exposes the BIASED POV of the attacker. It has happened countless times, and I am sure they will continue, despite of repeated contemn by many users. Gentlemen, stop advertising your allegiance so much. Your lack of counterarguments and evidence as well as your disrespect towards Wikipedia's guidelines and other users alike, are evident to anyone but you. Alfadog777 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not trusting an SPA on the topic of Wikipedia guidelines. Nice try though. BalkanFever 11:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Well known facts indeed, well known even to those who beg to disagree. Just a factual point; the quoted Nicholas Hammond stands corrected as IMRO (= VMRO) was not Serbian at all, they did operate in Serbian Macedonia (then Vardar Banovina, currently Republic of Macedonia) but lacked due legal registration :-) Apcbg (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Braindamaged certainly wasted a fair amount of time compiling his "facts". It was wasted because the only measurement in Wikipedia of what to call something is common English usage. All that history and politics don't count for anything when it comes to Wikipedia names (and here too). (Taivo (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)) Do you even believe what you are saying? Your arguments are not coherent at all Taivo! Please, show some maturity, grow up and get over it! If it is proven that Macedonia is Greek, then what the people from Skopje are doing is shameful, a terrible mistake and has to be fixed immediately. Hiding behind the so called rules of wikipedia is no excuse to do the right thing and rename the whole thing once and for all and leave all this mess behind!!! 87.221.5.178 (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Here is a qoute from American Chronicle, the tekst has copy rights, sory.Makedonij (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Here is yet another one in Greek language[http://www.iospress.gr/ios1997/ios19970112a.htm Similar arguments can also be found in the printed proclamation Ellinomakedonikou Association of Athens in 1905, written in Macedonian with Greek characters and decorated the cover with the currency of the famous army. The completion of the recruitment propaganda "Golemis Alexander will come two years later, however, the Macedonian Organization of Thessaloniki. "I remember that I had written something` Prophecies of Alexander the Great, with explanation of the 'monk Athanasius' which evoithousan any intelligent man to understand that Macedonia could not be released rather than Greece, we read the memoirs of the leader, Athanasius Souliotis-Nikolaidi ( "The Macedonian Struggle, Thessaloniki 1994, p.44). "Localized makedonoslafika in the 'Prophecies of Alexander' the emoirazame sparse and secrets to the peasants. Stachomeni skin with one of the 'Prophecies of Alexander' I brought in 1911 by a priest in the town of Derkon as curiosity and mysterious. " The ruse was successful. A prophecy of Alexander the Great Venice A foreword for the translation During the excavations in Babylon, inside a golden box, it was found an old manuscript from long past times. This manuscript was translated in all languages, since this is a prophecy of Alexander the Great, who predicted without all the great things that were done from that time until now, and also tells what else will be done. Since this manuscript is a prophecy of Alexander the Great and speaks most highly about his beloved country Macedonia, I a servant of Jesus, being from the same country as this great man, decided, with the help of the Holly Spirit, to make a translation on the languages that are spoken in my homeland, and make it as understandable as possible. I pray to God so this book will bring mercy to all that have our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen I wrote this in 1845 Yeromonah Atanas Macedonian,Ιεροµονάχου Αθανασίου Μακεδόνος» (Α.Σ.Ν.), Προφητείαι του Μεγάλου Αλεξάνδρου - Πρεσκαζάνιε να Γκόλεµ Αλεξάντρ, δίγλωσσο χειρόγραφο, 32 φ., και έκδοση ελληνικού κειµένου, 18 σ., φ/τ How were Macedonians noted in Greece:β) —, Πρεσκαζάνιε να Γκόλεμ Αλεξαντρ, Βενετία (το προηγούμενο φυλλάδιο, μεταφρασμένο στα σλαβομακεδόνικα) γ) Σουλιώτης, Αθανάσιος, Η Μεγάλη Ιδέα. [Αθήνα], 1908 (18 αντίτυπα).[http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/archives/athanasios-souliotis-series-v b) - Preskazanie to Aleksandr Golemis, Venice (in the previous booklet, translated in slavomakedonika) c) Souliotis, Athanasios, Great Idea. [Athens], 1908 (18 copies)] Why they dont use references from books like this,are they afraid?Makedonij (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC) ??? "American Chronicle" is an open to all "gazette", where everybody can play journalist... but I guess you knew that... GK1973 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Explain this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_calendar

87.221.5.178 (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to the Ancient Macedonian(Greek) calender so it is not confused with the unrelated slavic country whose name is still in negotiation. Reaper7 (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was in the "Ancient Macedonian(Greek) calender", it then means that there is a "Ancient Macedonian(Slavic) calender", which of course there isn't since the Slavic groups came 1000 years after the ancient Macedonian kingdom. --xvvx (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove the last words that you writte? Becouse i havent find one source(3.party) that proves that?Makedonij (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That there is no "Ancient Macedonian(Slavic) calender"? If there is, where is it? We are talking about history here and not fantasy. The Slavic language and the Slavic tribes were not in this area when ancient Macedonians lived, they came after. And the ancient Macedonians have nothing to do with the Slavs. It's like trying to prove that the ancient cities in Ionia, have a cultural connection with the Turkish people. --xvvx (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to edit things here Fut, just interesting note, Greek editors are confronting Name of the country in article Republic of Macedonia, while the Bulgarian editors are confronted on Macedonians (ethnic group) article!

Can someone explain that to me becouse i'm to stupid to understand third party?Makedonij (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it so hard to understand what the Ancient Macedonian calendar was? It means that this calendar was an ancient Greek one, just like these Hellenic calendars. --xvvx (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians as ethnic group

In the section on Demographics, the use of the word Macedonians is unambiguous in the context of Macedonia here. There is a hatnote at the top of the section that refers to Macedonians (ethnic group). There is no need to repeat that qualification throughout the section. (Taivo (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

The term is Macedonians (ethnic group). This is the official term of Wikipedia. If you want to use this, use it as it is. There is no need to change it every time you use it. That's why Wikipedia has specified the term as: Macedonians (ethnic group), for all uses. (Pyraechmes (talk)Chrusts 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "offical Wikipedia term". The bracketed string in the article title is never meant to be displayed as part of the running text. The name as such is just "Macedonians". However, I'll disagree with Taivo on one point: there is a remaining disambiguation need, namely between "Macedonians" in terms of ethnicity and "Macedonians" in terms of citizenship. I've added an explanatory qualifier in front of the term; I hope that's okay with you guys. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. (Taivo (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Eminently reasonable. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The hat link

Shadowmorph, we've discussed this before. The simplest hat link is the best hat link. Adding "unrelated" to the hat link about "ancient kingdom" is simply POV. It's simply the ancient kingdom--no comments about the modern country and its relationship or non-relationship to the ancient kingdom. Simple, straightforward, NPOV. (Taivo (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

We can compare this to Rome's hat link: "For the civilization of classical antiquity". An equivalent Macedonian hat link would be "For the kingdom of classical antiquity". But, personally, I think that's a bit much. "Ancient" = "classical antiquity", thus "For the ancient kingdom" says the same thing, but more economically. Interestingly, Greece doesn't even have a hat link for the ancient civilization. There is simply a hat link to Greece (disambiguation) and from there you go to Ancient Greece. The same is true at Israel. So the pattern is for simple, plain hat links. (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Greece doesn't have a hat link for the ancient kingdom for the same reason that France doesn't have a hat link to 19th century France, or 18th century France... there is a natural continuity. I can not say the same about the Republic and Macedonia (ancient kingdom). The hat link in this case is a disambiguator. --Radjenef (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hit "Save page" before I could finish writing my "edit summary": No, "unrelated" is not POV. Are you suggesting that there is another POV whereby it is "related"? Furthermore, are you suggesting that POV to be NPOV? --Radjenef (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all the kingdom is not a country, it's wrong to say "ancient country". Second i agree with the examples of France and Israel. There is no reason to have double links about the ancient kingdom, there must be only in the Macedonia (disambiguation). So my proposal is to change the above to: "This article is about the modern country. For other uses, see Macedonia (disambiguation).". Simple, clean and without double links. --xvvx (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections against that version from my side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I have some objections. The reason we need the disambiguator is to explain that there is no historical connection between the ancient kingdom and the modern-day country. Otherwise, the viewer won't know why he might want to click on Macedonia (disambiguation), especially if they don't know that the modern country and the ancient kingdom are "unrelated". Similarly, I object to Future Perfect's version. When two people (Taivo and Shadowmorph) are having a content dispute, you don't intervene by choosing an even more extremal position... this is not helping things and certainly doesn't help us reach consensus. I propose something between what Taivo and Shadowmorph were advocating:

This page is about the modern country. For the unrelated ancient kingdom, see Macedonia (ancient kingdom). For other places with the same name and other uses, see Macedonia (disambiguation). For an explanation of related terms, see Macedonia (terminology).

--Radjenef (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If the issue has simple the hat link would be simple. It is important to note and describe any confusion and redirect accordingly. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This way the note is just dysfunctional. The first priority for a hat note is it must be short. Anything that a reader cannot take in at a single glance just doesn't fulfill the purpose of such a note. "Unassociated" is both poor English and unnecessary; "the greater region with the same name, other places and other uses" is far too wordy; the link to the "terminology" article is quite unnecessary (that article has extremely few readers). The only article that may warrant an extra entry is the ancient one, and the only wording issue to solve is how to avoid the ugly repetition of "for the ancient kingdom, see ... (ancient kingdom)". As for necessary complexity, it can hardly be more complex than, say, Israel, can it? The complexity is not for the hat note to solve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

Not to be confused with macedonia (ancient kingdom) or macedonia (Greece).

This page is about the modern country. For the greater region with the same name and other uses, see Macedonia (disambiguation).

...or better still, this:

This article is about the modern country. Not to be confused with macedonia (ancient kingdom) or macedonia (Greece). For the greater region with the same name and other uses, see Macedonia (disambiguation).

--Radjenef (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Still redundant. A hat note is just to notify the reader that other meanings exist, not to enumerate what they are; otherwise it ends up duplicating the dab page itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We are hardly suggesting a duplication of the dab page here; merely the addition of a small note. The crux of the matter is that many readers, if they didn't know that macedonia (ancient kingdom) or macedonia (Greece) are unrelated to this article, would not realise it's worth clicking on Macedonia (disambiguation), they might even think that it's merely referring to Macedonia (food), etc! This is exactly why Template:Distinguish was created in the first place. --Radjenef (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Futs last edit is fine.Makedonij (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to change it to this?

This article is about the modern country. Not to be confused with the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia or Macedonia (Greece). For other uses, see Macedonia (disambiguation).

--Radjenef (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

too long... simplicity and brevity are necessary.... drop the ancient... lol GK1973 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I will accept it, when you will prove your claims about Greek kingdom with real 3. party references. :)Makedonij (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad I went to bed while the rest of you did the work ;) This version of Future Perfect's is acceptable. (Taivo (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I changed "uses" to "places" (all of the listings in the dab page are places except the salad and 1 or 2 hardly readed articles). Besides most users looking for something else will be looking for a place. Now I can live with that dab link, until the page is moved somewhere else than the primary topic. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess Makedonij would not accept Herodotus or any ancient Greek literature as a valid source (!) But why need sources when you can see facts??? Coins, epigraphy, pottery ... just go to the Museum at Thessaloniki once and you will see. If you find any fact that hints something different than Greek (cannot think of any non-imaginary alternatives), please tell me so.

No serious historian contests that since at least 600BC or before it was a Greek kingdom where Greek was spoken, the kings were Greeks, they had an a Greek calendar, they minted their coins with Greek text, it's religion was the ancient Greek religion, they fought in unity the enemies of Greece along side with all the rest of ancient Greeks. And of course Macedonians spread Greek culture all around the world, putting the foundations of what is now Western Civilization that ancient Rome continued until Byzantine Greeks took it from there. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here are some third party academics (about 200 of them not including the Greek academics) signing a letter to Obama about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia. Be open minded and read it. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

quick fact: coin epigraphy. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No linguist seriously disputes the fact that the Ancient Macedonian language [ISO 639-3 xmk] was closely related to Greek. But putting Greek kingdom in the hat link is simply inflammatory and POV pushing. Leaving it out is NPOV--the Macedonians can think what they think and the rest of the world can think what they think. The truth is that until those "barbarians" conquered them, the Greeks usually considered the Macedonians to be little better than wild animals. Then the Macedonians adopted Greek culture full-on and spread it around the known world. But leave the details and the POV out of the hat link. (Taivo (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

So you say that we should put "Greek" outside the link because it is inflammatory even though the rest of the world thinks it is accurate. I actually agree. I have never used "Greek" in my disambiguation edits, but "in ancient Greece", which is not inflammatory, otherwise let's just leave the article descend into pseudohistory. However you also advocate to use the name "Macedonia" in Wikipedia (and not "Republic of Macedonia") and do not worry about igniting anyone with that. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 18:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what the problem was with the way it was before. Right now, it sounds incredibly awkward, to the point of being embarrassingly difficult to understand. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, J.delanoy. The previous wording was crystal clear and had been here for a couple of months undisturbed and doing its job. I don't know why Shadowmorph started trying to insert "unrelated" and "Greek" into it (again). Both are POV edits and were rejected weeks ago. (Taivo (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I didn't insert "Greek". And it wasn't ok because you agreed to it. Since we now hold this at the primary topic name Macedonia the top dab link is even more important. Funny thing you say that thing about "undisturbed and doing its job", I thought the article at Republic of Macedonia name was "crystal clear" for many years not one month. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway Fut.Perf's version is better than yours. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually I can quote Wikipedia "Following the archaeological discoveries of the 20th century, numerous modern scholars now advocate the opinion that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek origin which to this day remains the most common consensus." Thus, according to the most valued argument these months seems to be prevalence of opinion, it should be enough for the kingdom to be characterized as Greek. Although I only wrote what I wrote to challenge the argument about "brevity", I think that your input is correct and we should act in accordance to what you seem to advocate in the name issue. Yet it is very interesting to see how people's opinion change and how "inflamatory comments" suddenly become an argument over scientific fact and academic consensus. GK1973 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about what I put there now? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Simple, direct, NPOV. (Taivo (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Compare this with what you find at Rome, Greece, Israel, etc. and you will see that simpler wording is far superior. (Taivo (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't like it. Well, I am reverting it to previous simpler and better wording. J.Delanoys was not bad, but it leaves room for misconceptions. I will not revert anything again after a while. See the below:

1. Wikipedia template that is certainly applicable to this case HAT#other places
2. Wikipedia template that is also applicable since we are dealing with two unrelated things with the same name and confusion is not only possible but actually advocated officially by that country HAT#distinguish

All wording is from there, are you saying the templates themselves use awkward wording? Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

About Rome and ancient Rome, Greece and ancient Greece, Israel and ancient Israel, they are ultimately connected. "Macedonia" and ancient Macedonia are ultimately distinct and unrelated. VERY different case. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There was never a problem with the older wording, Shadowmorph. You have demonstrated (with facts) absolutely no problem. (Taivo (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I am saying your wording is bad. You are combining two completely different templates, and the result is extremely awkward and difficult to understand. The purpose of a hatlink is to provide easy links to terms that have the same physical name. I am going to revert you, because your rationale, namely that "people will think that the two are related" is absurd. All they have to do to find out whether they are related or not is click the damn link. Sheesh, what the hell is wrong with you? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe Taivo already did. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I put it back to the original, but you (Jdelanoy) can move it back to what you had and I won't feel bad. I don't know what's up with Shadowmorph. I've forgotten how many times I've changed this today, so I'll let you change it again if you think best. If people want to find out whether modern Macedonia and ancient Macedonia are related, they shouldn't rely on a hat link to tell them--let them read the articles. What comes next? "Welcome to Wikipedia (we're not Britannica and ancient Macedonia is not the same as modern Macedonia" (Taivo (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict) So the whole purpose of having the distinguish template and its wording is absurd since the people have to just click the links on anypage that it can be used. Let's then include only one link at the top: "For other uses see Macedonia (disambiguation)", that is what you like, that is what you believe is NPOV according to policy and helpful to the readers. Well just do it then. I cannot do anything to stop you.

Checkout how not "simple" the hat link at Ancient Israel is because of various historical meanings, just like Macedonia. But if you just want to erase everything that could even remotely suggest any Greek meaning then be my guest. Your good faith edits push a "delete Greece, hide Greece"-POV even if you don't want them to. Be my guest. Fut.Perf. was at least being constructive. Do what you want. Just remember that instead of a hat link we had a whole disambiguation page right here for 5 years and only a month ago. I am leaving this hat link editing for now - I don't think I own it. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well.. this is why disambiguation pages are for, isn't it? I always thought that putting the adjective "ancient" before a noun, then I ultimately connect them... So, can it be that inaction here is as much a content decision as action? Anyways, as Makedonij suggested, if we agree that academic consensus stands for Macedonia ultimately being an ancient Greek kingdom, then we could just put in "Greek" before "Macedonian" and avoid all this awkwardness. GK1973 (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear--the hat links are just to move people, not educate them. It doesn't matter if ancient Macedonia was Slavic or Greek or Chinese or Martian. As far as the hat link goes, it is simply another meaning for "Macedonia"--period. The reader clicks on that link to get to the ancient kingdom--whatever they think the ancient kingdom is or if they just want to find out what it is. It's not a statement of connection in any way, shape, or form. It's just a label for a link! But since its function is simply navigation, then its label needs to be as absolutely neutral as possible so that anyone can go there--whether Macedonian reader or Greek reader. And remember that these links are not for Macedonians or Greeks, but for English speakers--the majority of whom are neither Greek nor Macedonian--nor do they want to be. (Taivo (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

What does that have to do with education? It is an ancient Greek kingdom, isn't it? Why put in "ancient" if we deem that any adjective used is unnecessary? Why put in "kingdom"? Just write "Macedonia"... Why put in anything? Just write "for other uses"... It seems that you are overly ready to delete any reference of the word "Greece" in Wikipedia Taivo... Why shouldn't we just follow your advice and write what, according to Wikipedia and to the academic community is Macedonia.. (sorry.. I mean ancient Macedonia...oopsss... sorry again, I mean the kingdom of ancient Macedonia)? This would halt any arguments regarding POVs, awkward phrases, style, boredom that lengthy sentences can cause to a regular reader etc... Why should we stop because some nationalist POV would find such a statement "offensive" appearing in this article? Come on... "Neutral"? What is neutral about refusing academic consensus in favor of a nationalist POV? GK1973 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with "ancient kingdom with the same name". At least to me, that implies that at least they are not directly related. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your version, J.Delanoy is better than Taivo's and doesn't repeat "ancient kingdom" twice. I would prefer Fut.Perf's (with the only replacement of "other uses" to "other places"). Better still I would prefer my own version, since "in ancient Greece" is in the lead of the kingdom's article. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you also have a problem with "ancient Greek" Delanoy? People... we are now in an arbitration where we are supposed to argue that nationalist POV cannot supersede academic consensus and scientific knowledge. What better place to prove that we mean it, when we state that we do not care about nationalist POVs but strive to bring NPOV inside every article! Unless a good argument against my proposal is presented, I will stand by it. It resolves every issue addressed to by all parties here and is completely NPOV. GK1973 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't care less. I personally think it is an unnecessary clarification, as there is only one ancient kingdom named Macedonia (at least that I know of). J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you do not have any real problem with this wording. Good... By the way, there were many ancient kingdoms of Macedonia but only one called thus, so actually there is an ambiguity here too... As for unnecessary, well, it will address all issues presented here and is NPOV too... Thanks!GK1973 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposal GK is good. Only issue is that it would definitely put into the routine of editors the reversion of nationalist vandals that would delete the word "Greek" every day after you add it. Like it is routinely done with the lead of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if they do it too much then they know (after everything that has happened in other articles) that the whole article might be protected by admins as was and still is the case at Greece. Nationalist POVS should be as intolerable here as in any other article. GK1973 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object against the addition of "Greek". You guys know perfectly well that the ethnic character of the ancient kingdom is contentious (and no, I'm not going to explain here why this is so; just read the articles). There is not the slightest need to make a commitment to this controversial claim here, where it totally off-topic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I think that the way that the hatlink was for about a month prior to now was much better than anything else that has been proposed. I don't understand why Shadowmorph out of the clear blue sky decided that it needed to be changed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Contentious, FP? No, there is a strong academic consensus regarding its Greekness and you know that. We renamed "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" because it is thought right by the majority of English speakers and now we cower from a strong academic consensus because there are other theories? I don't exactly find that right. Can it be that there are other problems you wish to avoid? Are we, as Wikipedia, afraid of any nationalist reaction? I am sure we can persuade them that nationalism has no place here in one way or another. GK1973 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as authors like Borza or Badian are part of the mainstream bibliography on the topic, no claim about ethnic identity of that kingdom is academic consensus, period. We have anough work getting this situation represented fairly in the articles themselves; spreading the issue to unnecessary places like here is out of the question. No way. By the way, your analogy is specious: naming decisions are made according to "common English usage"; content claims are made according to academic consensus, and if there is no definite consensus in the literature, then we don't make any such content claims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, now Future Perfect, please try not to misquote Borza, will you? Anyone interested can go read page 80, where he clearly states that that the Macedonian royal house claimed Greek descent. In any case, however, I hope we all understand that anyone can publish a book. It is not books but peer reviewed publications that actually carry serious academic weight. After all, let us not forget that Ernst Badian was ridiculed by his peers for not being able to read ancient Greek. I believe we have entered fringe theory territory. --Radjenef (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't call a low-caliber theory (not bexause its proponents are unworthy, but because they are the clear minority in the academic community) a contest to an overwhelmibly supported one. Of course their objections should be noted (and I have to say here that Borza is NOT dismissive but clearly also calls the established theory the most prominent one) but this hardly counts as contest. We have worked through countless of articles about history where we have of course inserted theories of established scientists but this does not mean that we deem the major theories (a mainstream theory is one thing and a mainstream scientist another) contested. GK1973 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to your whim to decide which scholarly opinion is negligible and which isn't. This one isn't, period. End of discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To side with Future for one of his points, since "Greek" might hint ethnic identification that might be contested, why not put "in ancient Greece" which is a time period and rather an accurate cultural term and get done with it? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing is for sure the ancient kingdom is unrelated to this country and this article. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

None of this is even remotely necessary. "Ancient kingdom" alone is perfectly sufficient to establish the referent, and that's all that counts here. Everything in addition to that must be cut away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

hey guys if we look for consencus that we are so searching for it... the word GREEK in the Ancient kingdom should be removed... by me here are the reasons... First Macedon has been realesd by lots of Historians and they have different opinions. Some of them think that it was not a Greek kingdom, some of them think the different. So the first reason is that... Second even today we (Macedonians) speak Slavic Language in our genes there is Ancient Macedonian blood too (Instutions of genes like IGENEA have proved that) ... Sorry guys but how can there isn't Ancient Macedonian blood in our genes when on teritory of our republic was found the oldest man in South-East Europe .. He is 7000 BC years old ... I am for deleting the word Greek... my proposal is : "For the Ancient kingdom see Macedonia (ancient kingdom). -1111tomica (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)1111tomica-1111tomica (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The above post is my answer to all about why my version is more accurate than the vagueness they support. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was having déjà vu with this whole mess. Tell me, Shadowmorph, why is it that you edit-warred here, and then stopped pursuing it, only to begin again now? That makes no sense. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You and Fut. are willing to compromise. Taivo is more concrete to his own opinion. Like I said I only reverted once and some additions I made and had the support of at least two other users here. Anyway we would all like a hatnote that is good, not too vague, and that will stay. I will compromise with either Fut's "not to be confused" or your own "for the ancient country with the same name" even without mentioning Greece (don't know why you all oppose that so strongly). Like I said vagueness is just the ethnic Macedonian POV (see above). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What's next? omitting "Slavic and "non-Slavic" from Macedonian language hatnote and "unrelated" from ancient Macedonian language hatnote? The same for ancient Macedonians and ethnic Macedonians? You all sound like it is a simple matter and no qualifications are needed for the reader. We have to assume the reader knows next to nothing on any of the uses. This is an encyclopedia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait... Now I'm confused. I thought Taivo said something about not minding "For the ancient (?:kingdom|country) with the same name, see...", and apparently, you don't either. If that is so, what are we arguing about? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I reverted your version only once because I think Fut's and mine were better. Since mine is not accepted I'm willing to compromise with yours but I still thing that Fut's "not to be confused" is shorter and more clear. I don't know what the other editors will say though. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Shadowmorph accepts JDelanoy's long version with the (totally unnecessary) "with the same name", I can go along with that. (Taivo (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

It's obvious Taivo that the kingdom has the same same, so it's wrong to write "with the same name". Now if you don't want to put the word "Greek" (though i can't understand why), since the modern Macedonia and ancient Macedonia are unrelated and the only common they have is the name, i believe the best version would be "This article is about the modern country. For the unrelated ancient kingdom, see Macedonia (ancient kingdom). For other places, see Macedonia (disambiguation)." That way we don't use too much information and we clearly separate things. You said that by using the word "unrelated" it's POV, but my opinion is that by not mention it, we actually mean that the country have connection with the ancient kingdom, which it's obvious wrong and POV of course. That way with the add of only one word, we clear things. --xvvx (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sakis, you are wrong about "unrelated", sorry. (I agree that "with the same name" is redundant, but Shadowmorph, for some reason, isn't happy without it.) There are three sets of readers for Macedonia--Macedonians, Greeks, and everyone else. Many Macedonians believe that there is a connection between ancient and modern Macedonia. Greeks know that there is not. The rest of the readers don't really care so much, although they'd most likely agree with the Greeks. But this is just a hat link, not the article. The hat link must be as neutral as possible. Putting the totally unnecessary "unrelated" in the hat link, we simply push the Greek POV and alienate the Macedonian POV. Whether "unrelated" is true or not is 100% immaterial to the text of the hat link. The hat link serves its function as a sign post better without "unrelated" since it is more neutral. Obviously, the article will clarify the issue, but the hat link must be neutral. When I am travelling, I look for signposts to direct me to my destination. I want to see a sign that says, "Santa Fe →", I don't want to see a sign that says, "American, not Mexican, Santa Fe →". Leave the politics out of the hat links and signposts. (Taivo (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

First of all the politics have nothing to do with historical facts. If you read the articles related the ancient Macedonian kingdom and it's kings, you will found out what you are looking. The way it is now, it's a POV, pointing the views of the Republic of Macedonia. We actually confuse the reader that has no clue. Let's say for example a reader that is not ethic Macedonian or Greek, reads the first line, he would assume that the country have a connection with the ancient kingdom. How many people that enter to read the article about the country, click the link for the kingdom? What would be the opinion about the kingdom for them? Don't we have to clarify that it's one that not belongs to the Republic of Macedonia antiquity? If we don't it's a POV, because we mislead the people, believing something wrong. --xvvx (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. What is POV here is the ridiculous idea that the ethnic connection or non-connection between these entities is relevant or interesting either way. It just isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cripes almighty! Sanctimonious comments are never out of fashion. The problem stems from the title of the article. If title remained as was originally agreed, Republic of Macedonia, then there would be no need to have a link at all to Ancient Macedonia, just to the Macedonia disambiguation page. Politis (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just eliminate the problematic hat link to the ancient kingdom and treat this article like Greece and Israel, with just the second half of the hat link ("For other places see...")? I would completely agree to that. But if you want a specific link to the ancient kingdom, then it's got to be totally neutral. Sakis, you just aren't getting it. The hat link is not educational. It doesn't matter one bit what the reader thinks about whether or not there is a connection between the modern country and the ancient kingdom. It doesn't matter. The hat link is only there to guide, not to instruct. The article on ancient Macedonia will educate the reader, not the hat link. (Taivo (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

It is always interesting to see how the fiercest proponents of NPOVness can suddenly devise arguments about why we should refrain from being NPOV. Of course I knew that you would invent a series of argumens as to why the adjective "Greek" would not be appropriate (ranging from style to contesting theories, from pretended concern of edit warring to anger and irritation). We are all beating around the bush and it is the same thing we are doing in anything that pertains this issue. It is noteworthy to compare everyone's stance regarding this and the name issue. Although there is disambiguation, although there was a stable status quo, we fiercely advocated that the name of the country should change to simply "Macedonia" because most English speakers used this word, because most official maps in English used this name. Arguments about ambiguity issues were treated as nationalist babblings... Now, we are talking about a hat link, something of minor importance indeed, and we are pretending to want to help users understand that the article about Ancient Macedonia is somewhere else and not in here... The whole contest was about the word "unrelated". One of the arguments had to do with style, as if the addition of one or two words has anything to do with style. Another had to do with brevity... Both are just arguments to "support" an adamant position against any disambiguation and are of course very easily challenged. Then comes the argument of other examples of hat links. We have seen that there are simple, short hat links with few information and others longer, with much more info than we want to put in here. Then comes need to disambiguate... some say there is none... "whoever is interested can find for himself whether the ancient Macedonian kingdom has anything to do with RoM" but they fail to take into consideration the fact that such an article IS DEFINITELY going to be connected by the unaware user with "Macedonia". Why? Because to him, "ancient" Macedonia cannot be anything else than what the term suggests... Macedonia in the ancient times. So, to address this misunderstanding issue, Greek "nationalists" want to insert the word "unrelated". Gods! The humanity! Fierce opposition by all "neutral" editors, who think that this world has no place there!!! Examples that have nothing to do with this issue are immediately offered! (Israel, Rome...), as though there was a danger of anyone misinterpreting ancient Israel or ancient Rome... So, then... I propose that to address ALL THESE PROBLEMS, we should just write "ancient Greek kingdom". First, there was a spell of silence. Then JDelanoy (at least he proved his neutrality), said he doesn't care, understanding that this WAS a valid (yet unorthodox?) proposal. Then FP comes in to dispute the "theory", yet he knows, as we do all, that the dominant theory about the ancient Macedonians is that they were Greeks. We acknowledge that in the respective articles... Suddenly, a mildly disputed theory, an alternative proposed by a small portion of the academic community was a strong enough reason to challenge this wording! Everyone knows that IT was NPOV but there are other issues at hand aren't there? It was said that it was OK but it would provoke an edit war. So what? We can lock this article, if some nationalist POV pushers get irritated by NPOVness (haven't we already?). Others claimed that it would not help... of course it will help. It will help the reader understand that ancient Macedonia is not Macedonia in ancient times and it is also perfectly descriptive of the kingdom. The real reson here is that we do not want to irritate the eyes of the nationals (not nationalists) of this page and the POV of our admins and editors, who think that content decisions are only when you add words but not when you remove them "to enhance style and brevity". This, people, should not be (and as far as I am concerned IS NOT) the spirit of Wikipedia. We want to provide knowledge and information as best as we can and I agree that there is no reason to disrespect whole communities when it can be avoided by simple rewordings. But seeing this principle being implemented so one sidedly from crusaders of logic makes me as adamant. Maybe Arbs could give us some guidelines here too? Because, you see, name is one issue, but the disambiguation problem has little to do with Macedonia (Greece) and much more with Macedonia (ancient kingdom), which is unrelated to Macedonia (country), yet by not stressing it we make it related. Why? Because of the English language, as it is understood by most English speakers.

It's not up to your whim to decide which scholarly opinion is negligible and which isn't. This one isn't, period. End of discussion.

This is FPs opinion. It is not up to us to decide which scholarly opinion is negligible yet it seems to be up to him to decide which is prominent or important... Well, we didn't but we all know how low caliber this theory is. An alternative theory proposed by a few historians can hardly be called a dispute of academic consensus. We know that FP knows that, many times we (editors) have gone through this kind of arguments (as to whether Alexander in reality beat Porus at Hydaspes, whether the Athenians were Greeks or barbarians, whether Black Athena is a valuable academic position). Citing two historians, one of which does NOT dispute the Greekness of the Macedonians, clearly proposing it as the most possible theory cannot "end this discussion". Period! Should I also comment on the "style" of this sentence? Anger is evident and I cannot but wonder why.

To side with Future for one of his points, since "Greek" might hint ethnic identification that might be contested, why not put "in ancient Greece" which is a time period and rather an accurate cultural term and get done with it?

Here we have a "Greek POV pusher" playing down... interesting for an editor who has been accused of nationalism multiple times.

None of this is even remotely necessary. "Ancient kingdom" alone is perfectly sufficient to establish the referent, and that's all that counts here. Everything in addition to that must be cut away.

Not even remotely necessary? FP, it seems some editors disagree with your logic that this is enough. It seems that they are worried about what an English speaker will understand when reading some words in English. Was the name of the said kingdom "Emathia", there would be no problem, but writing in Germany "for the ancient German kingdom" and expect from readers NOT TO MAKE THE CONNECTION is of course strange...

hey guys if we look for consencus that we are so searching for it... the word GREEK in the Ancient kingdom should be removed... by me here are the reasons... First Macedon has been realesd by lots of Historians and they have different opinions. Some of them think that it was not a Greek kingdom, some of them think the different. So the first reason is that... Second even today we (Macedonians) speak Slavic Language in our genes there is Ancient Macedonian blood too (Instutions of genes like IGENEA have proved that) ... Sorry guys but how can there isn't Ancient Macedonian blood in our genes when on teritory of our republic was found the oldest man in South-East Europe .. He is 7000 BC years old ... I am for deleting the word Greek... my proposal is : "For the Ancient kingdom see Macedonia (ancient kingdom).

A very good argument about consensus. I do not want to judge the rest of the information given to us here but he speaks out the word consensus, which is thought to be vital in Wikipedia policies. Yet, of course, we all know that consensus among editors does come after consensus among the academic community.

You and Fut. are willing to compromise. Taivo is more concrete to his own opinion. Like I said I only reverted once and some additions I made and had the support of at least two other users here. Anyway we would all like a hatnote that is good, not too vague, and that will stay. I will compromise with either Fut's "not to be confused" or your own "for the ancient country with the same name" even without mentioning Greece (don't know why you all oppose that so strongly). Like I said vagueness is just the ethnic Macedonian POV (see above).

Again, the big bad Greek nationalist is trying to compromise. I really do not understand why. You all know we have a good solution here, addressing to stylistic as well as content issues. I am sorry Shadowmorph but I disagree. How can we ever reach academic excellence in Wikipedia if we keep compromising with nationalistic POVs? As I have already mentioned, we should either be tolerant or intolerant, not tolerant to the RoM POV and intolerant to the Greek POV (even when it admittedly is NPOV).

Many Macedonians believe that there is a connection between ancient and modern Macedonia. Greeks know that there is not. The rest of the readers don't really care so much, although they'd most likely agree with the Greeks. But this is just a hat link, not the article. The hat link must be as neutral as possible.

Taivo admits that the world most likely agrees with the Greeks and we all know that the academic community does so almost unanimously. Yet he deems it important to be "neutral". What does neutral mean here? Side with one POV? I always thought that neutral meant being NPOV!

I want to see a sign that says, "Santa Fe →", I don't want to see a sign that says, "American, not Mexican, Santa Fe →". Leave the politics out of the hat links and signposts.

Again.. if there is a Mexican Santa FE and an American Santa Fe and we wanted a hat link to lead to only one of them, don't you think that we should write "about Santa Fe (US)..."? Don't forget that Lyncestis was an ancient Macedonian kingdom, that Paionia was a kingdom located in ancient Macedonia as defined today, etc. So, which kingdom of ancient Macedonia are we reffering to? Of course we could claim that the user will find out once he pushes the link, but isn't there a big ambiguity problem? Not to me or to you, people who know their ways about ancient Balkans, but to the average user?

Wrong. What is POV here is the ridiculous idea that the ethnic connection or non-connection between these entities is relevant or interesting either way. It just isn't.

Of course it IS relevant, when we have a single name defining two states. If we had two countries called Macedonias, we would be obliged to write "for the unrelated Macedonia (country)...", we night even give some more info, like a continent or something. Now we have at least TWO ancient Macedonias (the state and the ancient history of the country of the same name, although there are even more), so we should disambiguate in the hat link too.

GK1973 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

:Why don't we just eliminate the problematic hat link to the ancient kingdom and treat this article like Greece and Israel, with just the second half of the hat link ("For other places see...")? I would completely agree to that. But if you want a specific link to the ancient kingdom, then it's got to be totally neutral. Sakis, you just aren't getting it. The hat link is not educational. It doesn't matter one bit what the reader thinks about whether or not there is a connection between the modern country and the ancient kingdom. It doesn't matter. The hat link is only there to guide, not to instruct. The article on ancient Macedonia will educate the reader, not the hat link.

So...now we have strict stylistic guidelines about the hatlink, which again only seem to be implemented regarding anything that has to do with this issue only? No. When there is ambiguity, this should be evident in the hat link also. GK1973 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, GK1973, but nothing you have written here is relevant. If Future Perfect, JDelanoy, and myself were arguing that ancient Macedonia was not part of the ancient Greek cultural sphere, then you would have a point, but we're not. Are you seriously trying to argue that people looking for Ancient Macedonia are confused by the current hat link? The only relevant argument for changing the current hat link to the ancient kingdom is if users come here when they type "Macedonia" and are then confused by the hat link and don't go to the ancient kingdom. That's the only thing that matters. Users looking for Alexander's kingdom are not confused by a hat link that says "go to the ancient kingdom". Therefore you have no argument. And in that last sentence, GK, are you actually, seriously, suggesting that "ancient kingdom of Macedonia" is ambiguous? Is there another ancient kingdom of Macedonia that no one else in the world knows about? You cannot have ambiguity if there is only one of something. (Taivo (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

GK1973, "unrelated" is, like "Greek", not neutral. (Taivo (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

My arguments are strong Taivo. I do not say that you are arguing about that, although FP does. I am saying that there is a multi-level ambiguity in this hat link. First, unaware users would very easily think that Ancient Macedonia is indeed the country at the ancient times, and that there are lots of ancient Macedonian kingdoms, so we have to somehow clarify which one we are talking about. Taivo, I have already written in a post to you that there are other ancient Macedonian kingdoms in many texts, so I am once again clarify this. Macedonia was only the Argead kingdom called thus by the Greeks and themselves. But other Macedonian kingdoms were Lyncestis, Pelagonia etc, for even the Macedonians were NOT a unified people but many tribes with their own hereditary lines. Then we have to consider Macedonia as a broader term. Ancient Macedonia can also be used to describe the ancient peoples/states etc of Macedonia (country) and Macedonia (region). So, any ancient kingdom in these places could be called an "ancient Macedonian kingdom". Paionia, Dardania etc. And of course, the question here is why do you oppose the terms "unrelated" or "Greek"? Is it a problem for you to let the UNAWARE reader know that this kingdom is unrelated or that it was Greek (consensus among the academic community and thus NPOV)? Your insistence to omit this only shows that you find it problemaic if someone DOES understand the ambiguity. Again...you use the word "neutral"... So now neutral means respecting all POVs? Not being NPOV? GK1973 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GK1973, in order to have ambiguity, you must have two or more of something. There is only one "ancient kingdom of Macedonia", so your ambiguity argument is incorrect from the beginning. I ask you the question again--will a reader looking for Alexander's kingdom be confused by "ancient kingdom"? No. Your arguments about Lyncestis, etc. are flat because those kingdoms were not "the ancient kingdom of Macedonia". They may have been ancient kingdoms in the region of Macedonia, but they were never called "Macedonia" and no reader looking for Alexander's kingdom is going to be confused by the current hat link. The one reader a year who might be looking for Lyncestis won't be searching "Macedonia" to find that information, so that issue is moot. And readers looking for Alexander and Philip's kingdom will not be confused by the current wording. (Taivo (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

We don't have ambiguity, we are doing something worst here, we give false information to the reader of the article. An unaware reader that wont click the ancient Macedonian kingdom, gets the information "current country" <--> "ancient kingdom". Do you believe this is a NPOV? --xvvx (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The hat link says nothing and should say nothing. It is just a signpost. Nothing more. If you want information, you click on the link and go to the article. The hat link makes no such assertion, Sakis. (Taivo (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Are you a hat link expert now? I provided you with a completely NPOV solution and you refuse it why? Because it has one word more than the one you want and 3 words less than the one standing now? You keep repeating that the hat link should not say anything yet you strive to make it say what you want it to say. Why don't you agree with the phrase "Ancient Greek Kingdom"? It is direct, well worded, admitted by the academic community as NPOV and addresses amon your comments about style also any arguments regarding history and possible misinterpretation. So is "unrelated" but if we are to add one word, I would prefer it to be more descriptive, like the one I am proposing. So, apart from just being negative, can you bring forward any argument? A reader looking for Alexander's kingdom will, most probably, do it through this article as it stands now and YES, he will relate it with the country of the same name, even at a subconscious level, if not straightforward. Most (or many) users are unaware of the name dispute and therefore will immediately make the connection between the two articles regardless what is written there. A student searching for information on ancient Macedonian history, because Macedonia (country) is his assignment for school will make the connection. It seems that everybody makes the connection except academians, who are informed and know the clear differences. So, if you and I do not, we are not the regular unaware readers of Wikipedia and we (as editotrs) should make sure that this problem (whose existence you deny) will NOT arise. Taivo, your "don't put in any information" policy is not helping. It would be better to make sure that any information inserted is as NPOV as possible. As I have already mentioned, oversimplicity, sometimes obviously leads to assumptions, so the addition of ONE word, accepted by the academic community should not be a problem to you. In the end... why all this fuzz? Do you disagree with the meaning this word conveys to the kingdom of Macedonia? GK1973 (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And of course... the Ancient Macedonian Kingdom of Lynkestis did exist and consists an ambiguity to any other Ancient Macedonian kingdom. And we should not forget that since Macedonia nowadays is also Macedonia (region), and thus a geographical region, any user could talk about it in terms of antiquity, thus the Ancient Kingdoms of Macedonia would comprise many more choices... (from the Bryges in the South before even the Macedonians settled in the region to any kingdom in the broader geographical region.) Thus we cannot say without ambiguity "the Ancient Kingdom of Macedonia" since first this was NOT the name of the kingdom (it was plainly Macedonia) and secondly it could be understood as any of the above. Actually I could offer some ways out (as far as the ambiguity is concerned and not the connection the unaware reader will inadvertantly make once he goes to the said article from Macedonia (country)), like "Argead", which would solve any possible ambiguities, but the acceptance of this adjective would just show that the real problem here to some of us is not the real issue of historical veracity but any word which might make the UNAWARE reader of Wikipedia AWARE that this ancient kingdom is unrelated to Macedonia (country). So again... what is your problem with the insertion of a little 5 letter word which will not stylistically affect the hat link and is considered NPOV by the academic community? GK1973 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop ranting please. This is no longer even worth reading, let alone responding to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I deserved that for thinking that I could debate using something more than self acclaimed authority. Sorry FP... yet, your input as an admin would be welcome regarding the veracity of my and everybody else's arguments... Especially on the questions on NPOVness, neutrality, style and the purpose of the hat links. Do you still think that the word Greek would be POV? Is it our (the editors) responsibility to protect the unaware reader of a potential mistake due to language use? I have been watching this game for months now and I really advocate that whatever our approach, it should be equally applied to all sides. So, I ask again... where is the problem with using "Greek" before "kingdom"? GK1973 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are still not getting it, GK1973. There is no confusion because there is only one "ancient kingdom of Macedonia". It doesn't matter what culture it was. There was only one. There is no ambiguity. The only reason you want "Greek" there is to push your nationalist POV against Macedonia. You have offered not one single drop of proof that users are inconvenienced by simply being directed to the "ancient kingdom" (of which there is only one). What "potential mistake" could possibly happen to a reader who is looking for the ancient kingdom of Macedonia and sees the link at the top of the page that says "for the ancient kingdom of the same name [click here]"? There is no mistake possible because there is only one possible place to go. The problem with using "Greek" is that it is pushing Greek POV against Macedonia. Macedonians are entitled to their POV, Greeks are entitled to their POV, but Wikipedia should push neither POV. The hat link says neither "the ancient Greek kingdom" nor "the ancient Slavic kingdom", therefore it is NPOV. The article can correct the error of the Macedonian reader because that's where it should be addressed. The hat link is only a signpost to Macedonia (ancient kingdom). (Taivo (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Flag link goes to disambig page

I hope this doesn't start another fork in this interminable debate, but the link below the flag goes to Flag of Macedonia, which is a disambig for two pages: Flag of the Republic of Macedonia and Flag of Macedonia (Greece). I was going to change it to a direct link to the republic's flag page, but I can't figure out how to (it's buried in the template, and I'm way out of practice with anything but relatively simple wikiedits). Does someone here know how? A²Kafir (and...?) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This has something to do with the renaming of this article or with the template code. Anyway one way to solve this would be deleting that dab page there and then redirecting "Flag of Macedonia" to "Flag of the Republic of Macedonia" since flags usually give the contextual clue that we mean a sovereign state. A hat link "flag of macedonia redirects here" can be used in that article then. Even though I am very much against the current name of this article I would personally not oppose such a redirecting of flag of Macedonia since there are only two entries in that dab page and the flag of the country is more common. I can't speak for others though.

Only That can't happen now since there is a current WP:ARBCOM injunction prohibiting any messing of the articles related to the notion of Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The link is obtained automatically by adding the parameter common_name to "Flag of". I changed common_name to 'Macedonia (country)' and created the dab pages Flag of Macedonia (country), Coat of arms of Macedonia (country) and Demographics of Macedonia (country). See Georgia where the same mechanism is used. No page was moved, and no visible change on any page, do this does not fall under the injunction.  Andreas  ^(T) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Good work. A²Kafir (and...?) 02:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

nice workaround. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

I must confess that I have not yet had the opportunity to read the entire voluminous material presented on the Talk pages of the articles Greece and Macedonia. Due to time limitations, I wish to make a proposal that could solve the WP dilemma for the period of time until the name problem is actually solved in the real world. I take the risk that this may already have been proposed and discussed previously, in which case this submission can be ignored.

I have seen the edit war between the names "Republic of Macedonia" and "F(f)ormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" in the article Greece and the effective renaming of "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" in the current article Macedonia. Before I formulate my proposal below, I wish to express my POV on the WP naming of "Macedonia" by simply stating that "Macedonia" is intrinsically unsustainable and incompatible with wikipedia standards per Talk:Greece/Archive 6#Uniform naming policy vs. disambiguation vs. Arbcom work.

The above leaves me, as a wikipedian, to consider two, and only two, available names for the country to the north, in the interim period until a single name is agreed by the two countries concerned and/or accepted by the international community. I understand that WP may not be used as a medium to solve/promote this external dispute in either direction. The only thing that WP could do (always in my opinion) is to verily display the existing problem. There is a relevant "naming dispute" section (next to the former Vergina Star flag) but this is not enough. The best solution would be by displaying both disputed names in the article title simultaneously, namely, "Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", alternatively, "Republic of Macedonia/FYROM", and which constitutes my proposal herewith. Sure, it is wordy and cumbersome, but this is a small price to pay for the big problem that exists. It may look ludicrous but this is the real situation. Therefore, I put forward this as a new (?) way to solve the WP dilemma (not the real-world dilemma as some WP editors may have attempted to do). Wikipedians are not responsible for this mess, nor is it the onus on them to make the name look brief or tidy. I guess neither side may be happy with my proposal but they should ask themselves what better alternative there is in the interim period. I also realize that it is a bit less than even-handed proposal since it places one name before the other, but I hope the second side may demonstrate some generosity for the sake of WP.

If an ensuing discussion could come to a reasonable agreement on this idea soon, then the work of ArbCom is lessened. Otherwise, the ArbCom may be burdened with devising means ("country naming rules") that may facilitate an agreement further down the track and the logistics for enforcing those rules should an non-ending edit war ensue. The latter logistics is already being suggested/offered for implementation by User_talk:Horologium/May_2009#Greece, except in favor for one only of the two names.

I draw this discussion also to the attention of the ArbCom for consideration, if possible. I may be late and not invited to submit it. I regret but I cannot devote too much time nor do I feel qualified or inclined to get involved too much in detail on this issue. However, I will be happy to see a nice outcome whereby all sides feel they gained something at the end of the day. (Note: Please restrict your comments only to WP related needs and not to the content of the external Macedonia naming dispute per se). Esem0 (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing this both for the page title, and for reference in text elsewhere? Both is unacceptable, in my view, but the latter certainly even more so than the former. I appreciate the thought you put into this, but your proposal goes directly against our Wikipedia naming policies, which demand that we go by (a) what the majority of English speakers commonly use and can most readily recognise, and (b) what the entity calls itself. And nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing else. The issue is not about balancing out political opinions about the name held by third parties; those are entirely negligible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming explicitly deprecates the use of double names as a way out of a naming dilemma. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You exaggerate the "problem". BalkanFever 06:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Esem0, Wikipedia should facilitate lay readers, double names cannot be used. About Future's (B), the entity calls itself "Republic of Macedonia" in its constitution. However there in policy there is also (d) How neutral sources refer to the subject; although note that Wikipedia's naming policy is not governed by the naming policy of any entity (e.g. the US, where its servers are, the UN etc.) as ARBCOM points out. The previous apply to all other Macedonias too. About the name of the article the policies for disambiguation are also applicable. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Esem0, any form of "former Yugoslav" is unacceptable for Wikipedia general usage since it is neither the common name of the country in English, nor a self-identification. "Macedonia" is the common English name and should be used nearly everywhere unless there is a legitimate disambiguation issue, in which case "Republic of Macedonia" can be used. But the whole issue is in ArmCom now so such discussions are generally moot. (Taivo (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

Of course the case is not as simple as Taivo suggests it is but yes, there is an arbitration going on at the moment, although it will most probably not decide on content. Despite the fact that I am against the use of FY in most articles, I, and many others, share many of your fears and points. GK1973 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has existed for most of the time named "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", followed by about 2.5 years as "Republic of Macedonia" and recently as "Macedonia". The seriousness of this controversy can be seen by the voluminous Talk history of these and related articles. No Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming rules or any other WP policies on an "English proper name", I assume, can explain this protracted dispute following the name changes. My proposal essentially states that the choice of any single name may not be NPOV, although it may also be seen as unfair to the first name having prevailed stably for most of the life-time of the article. Browsing through the history of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other WP policy pages, they appear to be edited to evolve like any other WP article, which demonstrates the beauty of WP (being a dynamic entity). It is with this understanding that I made my proposal for the particular case of an article having reached an impasse. By my first query Talk:Greece/Archive 6#Uniform naming policy vs. disambiguation vs. Arbcom work, I asked if there are any WP policies that could sort out this dilemma, inferring that there might be none. I have essentially proposed for WP to work out a special ruling to solve the problem. If the WP rules are evolving and adapting to the needs of reality, then something has to change and adapt. I could not think of anything other than a double proper name on an interim basis. If this is not allowed and if any single name (including the longest surviving name) is thought to be NOT NPOV, then what is the outcome going to be? Esem0 (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The existing general policies/guidelines are at WP:COMMONNAMES, WP:NCON and WP:NCGN (sorry for the many jargon abbreviations, but I can honestly never remember the full page titles for these.) They may, in principle, still be "evolving" as you say, but along general lines they have been quite stable for years, and the Arbitration Committee is just now confirming that any solution to be sought for the Macedonia case will have to be based on them. The process of how to reach an authoritative decision on how to apply them to this case is currently under deliberation by the Arbitration committee. A current draft of an applied guideline is here. When the decision process envisaged by Arbcom gets under way, you will be very welcome to provide your input to it. – Just one factual correction, the country article was at Republic of Macedonia for much longer than the last 2.5 years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it here the only draft so far worked out for ArbCom? Is it the sum total of positions arising from the voluminous discussions over years? Is this draft going to be the basis for ArbCom? Is it here a NPOV? Can someone present the factual chronology (summary) of name changes of the article Macedonia since its inception at "F.Y.R.O.M."?

I hereby re-iterate my proposal calling for a special interim WP ruling as the best outcome. In its totality, this article has no other precedent, in my view. I perceive a serious difficulty for WP in order to safeguard its ultimate goals. Esem0 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain about the entire history of the article, but you should consult the respective page-move logs for the various related pages for title changes. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Esem0, I think you are confused. That draft was worked by user:Future Perfect at Sunrise not by ARBCOM (arbitration committee). Since you are new, I was confused about what ARBCOM is at the start too. If you want to see there is an ARBCOM discussion —but it is near its closing now so please don't bother to contribute there to an already very loaded case. The ARBCOM has three very long pages and the talk pages of those. They are Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2 — Evidence page — Workshop page. The Arbitration Committee's proposed decision is on the other link that Future gave to you somewhere above, here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision and that is the only official draft of a proposal (now in voting phase). But PLEASE TRY NOT TO start any new long discussions at the talk page of the proposed decision, as there is no point, it's all been said more or less before.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good reading! :) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re. to Esem0: The draft guideline I pointed you to is, as of now, just my personal draft. I expect that once the Arbcom case concludes, we will start a more structured process of discussing various competing proposals and this one will be used as input to that process. If somebody wants to draw up a counter-proposal, we can coordinate the two in such a way as to make them more easily comparable, for instance by separating out those parts that are actually contentious and those that aren't. If you want to participate in the process, I recommend you make yourself thoroughly familiar with the guidelines and policy pages I pointed you to, because anything that isn't clearly based on those will likely be dismissed outright in the process. As for the page move history, some of it is lost in the mists of time, but apparently the article was at Republic of Macedonia for most of the time since 2002, except for brief bouts of move-warring. This timeline might also be of interest to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Macedonia (Wikipedia articles)

For another timeline, Macedonia was about the region, at times in 2004, for most of that year[3], [4], in 2005 for most of that year [5], [6] ...see more at the Archive.org before it became a disambiguation page with the title "Macedonia". Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (region) article's history might show some light in this net archaeology question. I speculate that it was titled "Macedonia" at first since it included both a disambiguation list and the geographical definition in a structure that included a little bit of everything in one page back in 2001.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Apparently the region article was moved from "Macedonia" to "Macedonia (region)" twice, in July 2004 [7] and September 2005 [8]. I cannot tell what happened in the meantime; probably parts of the editing histories were re-merged at some point so it's difficult to reconstruct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(-edit conflict-) Let's take it from the start. At some time the page was split and the country page was created separately with the title former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, here in 2002

Back then people used common sense, some guy figured out that "Macedonia" is ambiguous and fixed the links about specific topics[9]. The constitutional name was suggested[10],[11]. Yet never did anyone of those Wikipedia "primitive" editors thought that Macedonia had a primary topic. The Macedonia article tried to cover all things it could[12],[] (there weren't any strict rules). Good faithed people who knew next to nothing on the subject, made obvious mistakes when trying to contribute to the article. E.g. a guy named User:Fonzy ( not Fonzie :D ) didn't even know what the name was[13],reverted.

Vandalism was apparent from the start (even with the prices for dial-up connections back then!): pseudohistory, nationalism.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record and from a quick survey of the "history" pages (including the "mists of time", or I may be properly corrected), I found that from 2002 we start with "F.Y.R.O.M." and then move to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (or variants of capitalization) with short moves to "Republic of Macedonia" (or variants of capitalization) in the same period, and then to "Republic of Macedonia" since 2006. From this history alone, it is clear that the WP rules have not sufficed to avoid this unprecedented article history, and the polarization of views.

Sure, I will watch with interest the outcome of this WP work, and I may or may not provide my little lay inputs. Since it is impractical for me to follow all the protocol involved, I would like to informally or indirectly submit my proposal of the "two parallel names" (seriously) through any one or more of you Editors (if ArbCom can see the impasse), at any stage for consideration. It is the most NPOV as demanded for this particular case. The proposal includes any of several variants of the two names (including initials and combinations thereof). I hope Mr. Nimetz does not rely on WP outcomes. In the meantime, I should thank you all for the hospitality and guidance. Good luck and a good outcome! Esem0 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

EsemO, do you have the links for the above references from 2002. If it's a hassle, dont worry about it, Mr Nimetz and I take your word for it and look forward to your not-so-lay inputs :-) Politis (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Politis, Do it this way: type F.Y.R.O.M. in the search box which will redirect you to "Macedonia". At the top (under the title) you will see "re-directed from F.Y.R.O.M." link, on which you click to be taken to the F.Y.R.O.M. page. Then click "history" of FYROM. Do the same procedure for other names like "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to track down their histories, and the same again for any name that redirects to "Macedonia". If you still have a problem, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Title template

The title of the article is disputed. The ARBCOM has not closed. The subscript text is important to notify the good faith editors and help avoid disruption. Anyone can use the talk page and contribute to the resolution process (like Esem0 above did). There is a temporary injunction forbitting page moves so the template explains why this title is right now sticking. When whatever process is followed after ARBCOM and if and when it produces an accepted result about this title and the temporary injunction lifted, ONLY then we can remove the template and say the title is not disputed any more. This is not a matter of consensus. It is clear the template is appropriately used and has to stay. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to make up a new template that explains that the article's name is subject to an ArbCom injunction, then please do so, but the template that was there did not say that. It made no reference to ArbCom and said that relevant discussion will take place on the Talk Page. That is not the case. Part of the decision of ArbCom will be to set up a separate discussion on policy (only) and be arbitrated by three admins a month or so after the ArbCom closes and the final decision is published. This policy discussion will not take place on the article's Talk Page and I doubt that any Tom, Dick, or Harry will be invited to attend or contribute just because they registered a user name in the last two weeks. So the template is not accurate in any stretch of reality. Like I said, write a new template that is accurate ("Comments on the Talk Page are not going to be part of the process"). But the template that was there is not accurate. (Taivo (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't know how to write a template. I've learned enough already. The template is appropriate. If you say this is not the place in Wikipedia to put that template then maybe propose it as Template for Deletion.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the "title disputed" tag

I find it disingenuous and disrespectful to the ongoing Arbcom process that attempts have been made to remove the "title disputed" tag. There is an arbcom case going on for this disputed title. If that is not a dispute please tell me what it is. I just can't believe this discussion is taking place. Dr.K. logos 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, great minds think alike, but now you put your customised box underneath my own. Did you notice mine? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, now seeing that you were actually faster than me. Whoever wants to choose one of these boxes, choose one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I just did. That was a surprise! I chose yours. It was nicer. But feel free to revert me if you like ;) Thanks for the nice comments BTW. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 06:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, gentlemen, for addressing the template issue. (Taivo (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

Guys sorry but the template you made is no good. It misses to say crucial things that the previous template said in the small (subscript) text and contribution in the talk page is not pointless but very much according to the wiki model. Besides directing hundreds of people to an arbcom case they can't contribute with the ease of this talk page is beyond me. That's why I have proposed a new temporary injunctinon about the previous standard template to stick at the Arb PD page. I'm sorry for ChrisO's and Taivo's dismissal of a perfectly good standard template.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to address these points. Dr.K. logos 06:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The small print is back and there is a link to the discussion at the proposed decision talkpage. Dr.K. logos 06:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, nobody can help. The probability of any outside reader saying something that hasn't been said before is close to, if not, nil. So why direct people anywhere? BalkanFever 06:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Great point Balkan Fever. That's why I keep my contributions to these topics at a minimum. There is no point to adding any more to such a bloated and all encompassing discussion. But since Taivo objected I tried to accomodate. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 07:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I agree with balkan fever (I have said it before replying to Esem0) but we can't should not stop them. That's why we should direct people to this talk page (rather than the ARB one) to express themselves freely. That is exactly what the standard template did before.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point in people "expressing themselves freely" here when what they say will be of no particular help to anything? A talk page is meant to be for editors (both new and established) to discuss how to improve an article. Sometimes that includes discussion on article naming. Not here though, because everything that can be said has been said already. No 'improvement' is possible. I see no reason to direct anybody to this talk page. It ends up wasting their time. Probably more so than ours. BalkanFever 07:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Talk Page is not for "blowing off steam" about an issue that the editor can do nothing about. There is no place (nor should there be) for blowing off steam. And that's all any discussion at this point about changing the name of the article would be. Just more repetitive nationalistic propaganda. Nothing new has been said in months on this issue and there is zero probability that anything new will be said in the next month. (Taivo (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

(ec)There is a probability that we'll get the same things in new packages though, for example some more colourful proposals on how to solve all this. And if they're not nationalistic or propaganda, then we actually have to think about entertaining them somewhat, before disregarding them completely and going through the same boring cycle of explanation. So I would suggest that we don't 'advertise' any discussion in an article template. BalkanFever 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet the talk page is also about requesting things, especially when a page is for any reason locked, thus making it impossible for any editor to edit according to his views and then debate if his views are disputed. GK1973 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't locked, people can edit normally, the only thing they can't do is move the page. Besides, people who have things to say on talk pages usually find the talk page just fine, they don't need extra links in boxes for that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I messed up! I was also answering at Greece...GK1973 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Back to template discussion) I tweaked the wording to remove the link that I didn't like and keep the "non-endorsement" wording that Shadowmorph liked. (Taivo (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Excellent. Great. Hopefully this chapter can now be closed. Thanks Taivo. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 03:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Help on proposal requested

I wish to complete my previous Talk:Macedonia#"Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" proposal as follows: Any survey on the history of all the "Macedonia" articles conclusively shows at least one fact, namely, that there has been article name changes and disputes since 2002. This is indisputable evidence that either (a) the WP rules have not been implemented properly, or (b) they are inadequate in some, even minor, respect. However, the very length of this dispute points rather to the second (b) possibility having as a consequence the first, i.e. non-applicability. Someone in the Talk pages mentioned the Gordian knot, which can be cut as follows: WP may incorporate an amendment in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names, where "Macedonia" is already short-listed as controversial. At the end of the first paragraph, I propose to simply add:

Since the "Macedonia" article naming, in particular, has been the most intractable case to resolve, with disputes lasting seven years, a temporary exception to the naming policies has been ruled to allow the name "Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)". This article name will remain protected until the countries concerned end their naming dispute, whereupon this exception will become defunct.

As in every language the grammar book has invariably some exceptions to the rules, so by such a simple action, the WP dispute will end, the ArbCom will have much less work and the Editors will get back to constructive wiki work. The sky will not fall, everything to gain, nothing to lose. The name even looks tidy.

Can some Editor, please take it to the ArbCom or where appropriate for consideration/implementation, as I am not in a position to do so myself. Thank you very much.

In fact, with a similar idea as in Talk:Greece/Archive 6#Interim solution, the "protection" status of Greece can be immediately lifted, without even having to wait until WP naming policy is amended per above. Esem0 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's too late to formulate a proposal there, most of the case has already been decided. Also ARBCOM will not decide what the names should be, but only about the process that the community should follow to reach an agreement on the names. It is also decided that no current titles shall be changed until then. When that process begins (probably not long from now), and if it is an open process, we are all invited to continue there. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words save it for later on.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my worry is that my proposal involves a "double name" and who is to make a special ruling to make my proposal eligible for discussion when the time comes? Esem0 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No way. The only reason we were having this long and "intractable" dispute over the years was because people kept bringing their politically motivated demands into the project, and the only reason we had the big Arbcom case now is that the project is finally coming to the decision that it is no longer going to cave in to them. No exceptions to policy just for the sake of appeasing political sensitivities of national editing factions. The Arbcom decision (which will be finalised shortly) is very explicit about the idea that the solution will have to be within our existing policies. "Solutions" that, as you yourself say, go directly against the existing policies will not be considered, that's the whole point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, only that my proposal is the opposite from being political. I bring no politics. The is the most NPOV. By this, I am taking all politics out. Also, the wiki rules are evolving... We discussed all this. The ArbCom can't even see it informally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are of course free to post it on the Workshop page of the Arbcom proceedings. But I doubt it will gain much traction. As for its being NPOV or not, this is a misunderstanding: the NPOV policy about using politically contentious names here at Wikipedia is not to try to balance between the political positions, but simply to ignore them, and instead to follow whatever the majority of English usage does, without giving any consideration to whether that's politically acceptable to whoever. By proposing that we should diverge from majority English usage, for no other reason than to appease the political views held by a third party, you are not taking politics out, you are bringing it back in through the back door. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, except that you just re-iterate your clear POV on the very naming issue. The other side may do the same. Thanks again. Esem0 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The process that has already passed the ArbCom vote is that the dispute will be resolved based solely on the application of Wikipedia policy. That leaves any such plurality in the title out in the cold. FYROM will rightly be left out in the cold as any part of the title of this article. (Taivo (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Plural titles have been proposed before in other naming conflicts but have always been rejected. We don't use particular terms just because one side or the other prefers or rejects them, but simply on the basis of which term is commonly used in English. As has been said many times before, neither "Republic of Macedonia" nor "FYROM" are common terminology for the country. Your proposal is pointless, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You hereby admit that you do not endorse two of the disputed names. Did I hear correctly that you locked the third disputed article name without any prior discussion? If that is so (I am new here), then I request ArbCom to block you indefinitely out of Wikipedia for misusing your tools. Esem0 (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is already on the case. They are currently voting, but a block, let alone an indef one, is not going to happen. As I said earlier, if you really think you have some important proposals to make that Arbcom should consider, you need to go to the workshop page and submit them there; everything else is just hot air and will have no other effect than to create more ill-will. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks FP, for the advice. Can you please tell me if this is in the right place for the submission? Esem0 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the formally most correct place would have been this, but I guess the page you chose is as good as any. Don't be disappointed though if you don't get much of a response; the chances they'd even consider it at this stage are close to nil. Your proposal "that the Wikipedia naming policy regarding disputed names be amended" runs directly counter to a basic principle of the arbitration policy, which states that the committee cannot rule on content and cannot create content-related policies. It would be, as it were, "unconstitutional" for them to try to decide such a thing. The committee can only judge people's conduct, and sometimes regulate processes of how existing policy should be applied. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again it seems that people here do not want to accept that something here (the name used as a header) is disputed and that is what the ArbCom is trying to help resolve. So, stop referring to the name you imposed as the only solution "we" will accept. As Taivo can point out to you, consensus is what is needed, the ArbCom is helping towards that end but in the end it is the community which will decide and not you. GK1973 (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The "people here" that you attack are members of the community. In fact, they're the sane members of the community with whom a consensus can actually be reached, people who don't have some moronic political stake in the title of this article. Unlike the large amount of trolls and naive new users who repackage their nationalism into "compromise solutions" citing policies they don't even understand (e.g. WP:NPOV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalkanFever (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 June 2009

The people here, dear unsigned friend, are people here like me and you who write their views as does everybody else. Now some of those people do in fact disregard the fact that a certain issue is arbitrated (disputed) and choose to propose their views as Wikipedia rules, while they know that they are not. I did not attack anybody, me the "possible" nationalist scum, while you, the "civil, neutral unnamed outsider" are directly calling people "morons" and assert that some (of course not you, the great scientist...) are the great upholder of Wikipedia policies... Thx for clarifying your position... whoever you are... GK1973 (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FYROM is a humiliation for the Macedonians. Please revert the first paragraph, because OUR NAME is NOT commonly abbreviated to FYROM. Only Greeks do that, and their ally when they want to humilite us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.244.93 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Regional reference deleted

I had deleted the text mentioning "It comprises approximately the north-western third of the wider geographical region of Macedonia...". Dont want to delete again for now. Just to repeat that it seems futile and unlike Wikipedia practice to contextualise a country within a region that has never had official status, has never been agreed upon and, especially which adds nothing. Now one or two of you can jump to the article to see if it has been deleted :-) Politis (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that text. (Taivo (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Found it. I was looking in the logical place for the comment, in the Geography section, not in the Introduction. I removed the comment from the Introduction as it is overly prejudicial and clearly a case of pushing an anti-Macedonia POV there. I placed a similar comment (without the comment about relative size) in the place where it really belongs--in the Geography section. The comment about relative size is not a very accurate comment since "regions" are not really measured. (Taivo (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

Not a good idea. Now that "Macedonia" leads directly to the country, mentioning the international and Greek regions is important exactly because the term "Macedonia" very often refers to the country in English texts. The uninformed user may easily be misled to think that the term is unambiguous. Not everybody reads hat notes.  Andreas  ^(T) 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia practice? The Federated States of Micronesia are located in the region known as Micronesia, which consists of hundreds of small islands divided in eight territories. The term Micronesia may refer to the Federated States or to the region as a whole. Quoted from the lead paragrpah of Federated States of Micronesia.  Andreas  ^(T) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already a hat link that users can use to find the region, if necessary. Such information is better in the geography section and not in the primary discussion of what the country is (capital, population, language, etc.). Just because it is done at Micronesia doesn't make it the best practice. (Taivo (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

We shouldn't bury those references, the reader might think that the whole territory is associated with the country.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 04:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with AndreasJS here (in fact, I think it was me who reinserted the description last time Politis removed it.) I find this basic piece of terminological clarification important enough to go in the lead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with putting it in the lead, I'll compromise as long as the relative size comment is left out. (Taivo (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, I wonder what you mean by the comment that it is "clearly a case of pushing an anti-Macedonia POV there". I just thought that no other state has a similar regional contextualision. We might as well say that Turkey covers 70% - or whatever - of Anatolia; or that Bulgaria covers 30% of Thrace, or Albania 70% of Illyria. Perhaps you meant something else? Just wondering. Politis (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I must have not written clearly. I agree with you that the regional contextualization of Macedonia is not appropriate, IMHO. I believe that the whole disambiguation argument against simple "Macedonia" here is simply a Greek nationalist ploy to minimize Macedonia and to bolster their argument against the name "Macedonia" for the republic. That's my personal opinion, but rather than fighting to keep the reference to the region out of the introduction, I am willing to let it in as long as the previous statement about how much more of "Macedonia" is in Greece than in Macedonia is removed. (Taivo (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

That's okay with me too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we proceed and move this to the lead section now?  Andreas  ^(T) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Provinces" is wrong: a "province" ("επαρχία") is defined differently in Greece. These are Peripheries. Moreover, they are not three, but two and a half. "A region within Northern Greece" does not sound like an official political subdivision.  Andreas  ^(T) 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed "provinces" to "regions" (that seems to be the usual English translation of "peripheries" at Peripheries of Greece). I still don't like mixing administrative units with a non-administrative (and therefore not regularly bounded) units. (Taivo (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, why are you editing things for which you have no idea?! Greek Macedonia is not three regions. It is one region. Administratively, it is divided in 2 1/2 peripheries (because in Greece administratively we have no "regions"). Because again one of the three peripheries comprises both Thrace and a part of Macedonia. But geographically speaking it is one region! Administrative divisions change all the time; but this is not what matters! Why don't you read the lead of the article about Greek Macedonia: "[Greek Macedonia] is a geographical and historical region". This is the truth, this is what matters, and please try to understand it. AndreasJ's edit was much more accurate than yours, but you have to insist on something that is obviously wrong! Unfortunately, and despite your edit summary, you mixed apples and oranges, and the worst thing is that you cannot understand that! Do you know the Greek expression "σηκώνω ψηλά τα χέρια"? Well, this is the only thing I can do here!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

To use a "geographic region" when the other parts of the equation are administrative divisions clouds the issue. Greek Macedonia is just a nebulous label compared to the Bulgarian and Macedonian parts of the equation in this sentence. So deal with administrative divisions when administrative divisions are being listed. That's my sole point. If I got the administrative divisions wrong, then fix them. But my point is not to mix administrative and nebulous "regions". "Macedonia" as a region is nebulous to begin with, no need to make the Greek part of the issue nebulous as well. (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

• NATIONALIST PLOY? With comments like, "the whole disambiguation argument against simple 'Macedonia' here is simply a Greek nationalist ploy..." - no wonder editors claiming linguistic expertise choose wiki anonymity :-) But seriously, perhaps those 'Greeks' have a reasonable knowledge of the history school books and maps of the 'Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Macedonia' and know that, in this context, the stand-alone term 'Macedonia' is a continuation of such policies. So, if you can possibly theorise that 'Greeks' are not promoting a 'nationalist ploy', Taivo, but a reasonable disambiguation to current concerns, how can you put to rest such 'Greek' concerns with your editorial skills?
• When the article was called 'Republic of Macedonia' and I used to remove references to the region, it was 'Macedonian' editors who reverted me[14]. A case of concuring 'Greek' and 'Macedonian' nationalist ploys? At that time, when 'Macedonians' were reverting, FutPerf seemed to keep out of the debate...
• As for the Greek region of Macedonia, it is an official Greek region, [15] and has been so, and not only for marketing purposes - for instance, you cannot sell the notion 'come to Central Macedonia, land of Alexander the Great' - even though geographically it is true. Politis (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We can assume good faith whenever elementary knowledge of someone's own country is given by an editor. Let's first sort out what is what. For instance check out Britannica's article on the Greek region of Macedonia.

Taivo, in case you are confused, consider how large that region is as a hint to why it was divided administrative into smaller parts in 1987. It is not 3 provinces that are collectively called Macedonia, it's one region that is administratively handled divided into 3 parts, 2 of them stand-alone and the remaining 1/3 merged administratively with Thrace. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to have a read of regions of Greece, peripheries of Greece and Prefectures of Greece to get a grip of the geographic and administrative divisions of Greece.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick info: only Prefecture local goverments are elected by the people. Administration at the level of peripheries are only bureaucratically assigned. Furthermore there is a Minister for Macedonia–Thrace (Greece) for the two regions that have major geopolitical importance in Greece and also demographic significance, since Thessaloniki is the second largest city and a Muslim minority exists in Thrace near the border with Turkey. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys are spitting into the wind now (and I'm not confused about the issue). The way that Yannismarou worded the section yesterday is perfectly acceptable to me and I made no changes and no further comments after I read it. It manages to talk about both the region and the administrative units it comprises. (Taivo (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok, sorry just trying to give out some info. Yes, Yannis wording is Ok. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, if anyone, such as myself, was "spitting in the wind", presumably the wind was blowing your way... Hope it cleansed you eyes dear chap. But I was merely asking for verbal clarification from a self-declared linguist. Dear, dear old boy, language and manners matter, remember?Politis (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

section missing obvious facts

Macedonia#Macedonia_naming_dispute I was considering tagging this with {{POV-section}} but I thought we could discuss this in talk first. I think the reason that the summary is extreme POVish is immediately apparent: there is absolutely no mention of the existence of a Greek region with the same name anywhere. That is true for the whole article but the problem is with the section that should cover exactly that very first.

The section instead skips directly to the Vergina symbol controversy, misleading the reader that the objection about the symbol was the only problem or that it was out of the blue.

The name Macedonia being also that of a region of Greece (that territorially also corresponds to the heart of the ancient kindom) was the main problem and the cornerstone of the naming dispute, is there any objection to the previous fact?

To cover the above, I tried correcting the intro with some editing.

Before anyone says the following excuse, please understand the argument "reader can click the link for more" does not apply in this case since there is no obligation for the reader to click it. A summary should be accurate to at least the basic facts contained in the summarized article. I wouldn't have a problem with the summary being smaller. Stil the cornerstone issue of the naming dispute which is the existence of the Greek region of Macedonia (Greece) and and Greece objected to what considered an aspiration to that regions territory and a false association to its history. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We are covering the naming dispute in more than enough detail in all sorts of places. I'd be opposed to having its coverage expanded here yet more. If you find the section imbalanced, I'd prefer to see it shrunk than to see it extended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, the wider region of Macedonia is mentioned in the Geography section. Otherwise, this is not the article for another extended discussion of the naming dispute--there's a separate article for that. This article is strictly about Macedonia and not Greece or Bulgaria or Alexander's realm. (Taivo (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

@Future, like I said: I wouldn't have a problem with the summary being smaller. still the existence of the Greek region should be stated in naming dispute section however small that would be.

Here is how the media summarize the dispute in one paragraph, e.g. from the BBC[16]:

"Ever since Macedonia seceded from Yugoslavia in 1991, Greece has objected that the name implies a territorial claim on its northern province, which is also called Macedonia.".

It's not a question of lenght.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

@Taivo, Of course it is. Still if we are mentioning that the region of Macedonia covers some parts of Greece and Bulgaria why (for what non-POV reason) should we be restricted in mentioning the names of the provonces themselves? They are only two of them, Blagoevgrad and Macedonia! Is it such a burden that we should be vague? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, "Macedonia" is not a province of Greece. It is the cover term for a group of three Greek provinces, each with its own name (West Macedonia, Central Macedonia, and East Macedonia, as I recall). There is no Greek administration for a combined "Macedonian Region". So, AFAIK, "Macedonia (Greece)" is no more a political unit than "Macedonia (region)" is. So if we're mentioning administrative units, then Blag... should be matched with the wording I put in the article--"three Greek provinces collectively called 'Macedonia'". (Taivo (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I know. Never said the opposite. Your edit is factually accurate. However it does go into detail since province seems good enough a description too. But anyhow it seems better now.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the section should be removed and the main facts mentioned in one or two sentences (including the name of the Greek region). There is no need to duplicate the article on the dispute.  Andreas  ^(T) 12:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic

I spent the past hour changing links from Dachau to Dachau concentration camp except in cases where the town is meant. My opinion is that the town is the primary topic, in spite of the fact that the camp is mentioned far more often in the English media. After all, the camp is named after the town and not vice versa, just as the country Macedonia is named after the region. This is relevant here just because statistics have been used as a justification for the primary topic. I would like to know the opinion of the community.  Andreas  ^(T) 16:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point, but I don't think the analogy really captures it. The camp isn't named after the town in just the same way as the country is named after the region. The camp's name isn't strictly speaking "D." at all, it's "D. concentration camp"; the convention of calling it plain "D." is not a matter of using a different name for it, but a conventional metonymy. That is not the case with M., the country M. is not just a metonymy for the region, but actually possesses that name in the full sense. I agree that a metonymic use, even if very common, should not shift our practice of what we consider the primary use, but I don't see that applying to the M. case. But we should probably discuss this elsewhere, since it's now time to get the new centralised discussion going (see next section). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to make exactly the same argument! M. is the country's own self-identifying name for itself and moreover, it's the only political entity calling itself that - Greek Macedonia is of course merely a geographical region, not a political entity (unlike, say, Belgian Luxembourg). As for primary meanings, this is determined by external usage in reference sources (not just the media). If you look up "Dachau" you will be told, correctly, that it is a town near Munich where a concentration camp was located. If you look up "Macedonia", on the other hand, you will be told in the great majority of cases that it is the name of a country - see WP:MOSMAC2#Documentation of usage. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Centralised discussion

So people, now that that ordeal of an Arbcom case is finished, it is time to get the centralised discussion going. First question: where? We will probably need a place with several sub-pages. Shall we re-use the good old WP:MOSMAC location? We could move the old draft to WP:MOSMAC/OLD or something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave WP:MOSMAC where it is, since it's referenced by a lot of pages now. I think we should go through Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, with a subset of pages under there - e.g. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia and sub-pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what discussion we are supposed to have when Future makes an edit like this: diff. In the edit summary he calls "Macedonia" "standard naming" for the country. Before and during the Arbcom case it was decided that no renaming would take place. Now as soon as the case is over the renaming starts in earnest. This is not a good omen for a fair and drama-free discussion. I am very disappointed. Dr.K. logos 07:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It was agreed way back in the original WP:MOSMAC that the term "Macedonia" by itself should be used where the meaning is unquestionably clear, which obviously it is with reference to national football teams. Note that FPAS's edit removed yet another instance of nationalists disruptively inserting the term FYROM. The Arbcom has already ruled that such disruptive editing is unacceptable and has directed to the community to find technical means to prevent nationalists inserting FYROM in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I did not object to the removal of FYROM. My objection was to the term "Macedonia" being called standard naming. If your MOSMAC explanation is correct, then I guess the edit can be justified. Thank you for the clarification. Dr.K. logos 07:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Tasos, it's been standard practice for a long while that in mere lists of countries, where naturally there is no disambiguation problem, plain "Macedonia" is preferred. If you insist, feel free to change it to "Republic of" in that article. But "FYROM" is, of course, totally out, and has always been; in fact, the arbitrators have even suggested edits like the one I was reverting should be automatically blocked out by the abuse filter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the clarification Future. I see. Dr.K. logos 07:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yea, we shouldn't change WP:MOSMAC let's put a tombstone template there and leave it to rest. As I saw clicking the Centralized discussion is seems more like a place only for policy discussions,isn't it? I noticed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration for the Ireland names, maybe something like that?

Anyway any place would do. _{If it was a real place, alcohol should definitely be served there :)} Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In good old MOSMAC tradition, Cardhu should generally be the beverage of choice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm creating a page at the place suggested by ChrisO then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we start with very short paragraphs of the basic facts.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 07:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Issue in the "ancient history of the territory" section

People, we have a very interesting issue here and I would like to know if there is any Wikipedia policy for that. Do we have some tag to add where the disambiguation between Macedonians as the people of the current state are disambiguated from the people of ancient Macedonia or should we note that in the section? I tried to correct some problems with the Lyncestis and Pelagonia regions, who in the ancient times were regarded as Macedonian (I actually was the one who USED the word and did not try to avoid it) but then it became evident that readers will have a problem understading the information, since in the rest of the text ethnic Macedonians are always implied when using the word. How should we better handle this issue? The reader should understand that these Macedonians have nothing to do with ethnic-modern Macedonians and just saying ancient Macedonians will not suffice, since any reader would just understand "the ancient forefathers of the Macedonians". Can we insert a tag in the beginning of this section or something stating that fact? GK1973 (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Population of northern Upper Macedonia - Lyncestis and Pelagonia

OK, lets begin a discussion abouth the ethnic character of the tribes in northern Upper Macedonia, i.e. today RoM. According to one from the added in the chapter about the ancient history sources: the Greek tribes in Upper Macedonia become intermingled with Thracians, Peonians and Illyrians. See: Who are the Macedonians? by Hugh Poulton, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655340, p. 13. Jingby (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The tribes of upper Macedonia were Macedonian(ancient) and thus (according to my opinion) Greek. Of course they intermingled with other tribes, both Macedonian (ancient) and non Macedonian, but they remained Macedonian (ancient). Athens for example had a huge percentage of resident aliens and many prominent Athenians were of mixed breed (like Demosthenes for example, who was half Scythian from his mothers side). This genetic mixing was not usually done in the form of intermarriages but in the form of assimilation of slave/alien/captured individuals and did not change the "ethnic"/cultural identification of the said kingdoms. There are many instances in the ancient literature (for example Strabo), where these tribes were clearly called Macedonian (ancient) and we have many prominent Macedonian figures from these tribes. What you and your source are suggesting is the fact that they were not 100% pure blooded which of course is the case in all tribes of the era and of our era. Alexander the Great's mother was a Molossian, but he was a Macedonian. The Lyncestians and the Pelagonians were never deemed anything else than Macedonian (ancient). So is the case with Romans, Spartans, Persians, Jews, Germans etc. GK1973 (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We do not need your POV, dear Greek friend. This is not a forum, but encyclopedia. We need sources. Thank you! According to another source the inhabitants of Lyncestis and Pelagonia had more in common with Thracians, Peonians and Illyrians than with Macedonians. See: Macedonia and Greece: the struggle to define a new Balkan nation, By John Shea, Published by McFarland, 1997, ISBN 0786402288, p. 50. Jingby (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all you should remain civil and understand that phrases like "we don't need your POV" are inflammatory. Secondly, I will give you sources, although you could first have checked the articles of the said kingdoms to see whether they do have sources or not. Thirdly you should also understand that arguments and theories about intermingling populations have nothing to do with the characterization of "ethnic" groups and last but not least, I hate tagging people. I never said that I am Greek, yet you make this assumption because I support that the ancient Macedonians were of Greek stock as does the vast majority of the academic community and then use this as an argument against me... Friend, I don't know how well versed you are with history, but I would like you to also give me some examples where these tribes were characterized as non-Macedonian. Writing that "the Lyncestae", for example, "were not pure Macedonian but intermingled with other tribes to an indefinite degree" is not the same as "the Lyncestae were a Thracian or an Illyrian tribe". I hope you understand the great difference. GK1973 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, what about the situation that Lyncestis even was ruled by Illyrians in 436 BC. See: The Cambridge ancient history: The fourth century B.C. Cambridge University Press, D. M. Lewis, John Boardman, Cyril John Gadd, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, Edition: 3, Published by Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521233488, p. 436. Jingby (talk)

Ruling has nothing to do with "ethnicities" of the time. Later, the Paeonians were ruled ny the Argeads. You should look for "ethnicities" and not who ruled over whom.

For example. Herodot says (VI.184) .."the land-force which was supplied by the Thracians, Paionians,Eordians, Bottiaians, the race which inhabits Chalkidike, the Brygians, Pierians, Macedonians, Perraibians, Enianians,Dolopians, Magnesians, Achaians, and all those who dwell in the coast-region of Thrace, of these various nations I estimate that there were thirty myriads."

You can see here that Herodot is counting subtribes (I don't speak about the Macedonians but the Magnesians and the Achaians, for example ,were indisputably Greek). He does not say "Hellenes", but gives Hellenic tribes. Yet, he treats Thracians and Paeonians collectively and also offers other tribes. Of course there are arguments as to otherwise read this passage, but I hope you can see the questions it raises as to what Herodot considered Thracian.

"Assembling in Doberus, they prepared for descending from the heights upon Lower Macedonia, where the dominions of Perdiccas lay; for the Lyncestae, Elimiots, and other tribes more inland, though Macedonians by blood, and allies and dependants of their kindred, still have their own separate governments.", Thucidides, VIII.

Thucidides of course lived in the 5th century BC and his opinion was that the Lyncestae and the Elmiotae were Macedonians by blood. GK1973 (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I believe much more in scientific secondary references then in ancient primary sources. Regards. Jingby (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many more quotes on those places and I do not disagree on the importance of current scientific studies as long as they are "read" correctly. For example, the sources you provided do not name these tribes Thracians or Illyrians. They just hypothesise/argue on their "ethnic" consistence. This is not the same. And of course there are some scholars who have proposed such theories but then one has to prove how not fringe these theories are to be able to use them accordingly. Cheers!GK1973 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

This note was left like a ,,lonely monument in the middle of a desert" in the History section:

In the following passage, the term "Macedonian" is used to refer to the ancient people with the same name and not to the ancestors of the citizens of the modern country.

Do you really think it's necessary and why? Bomac (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And Xenovatis, have in mind that people came in North America (as well Australia) from across the ocean. Let me make an analogy here with evolution - a new species can occur most likely if an organism from a continent inhabit a nearby island. Bomac (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument was baseless and you are of course not going to admit it. Though the fact that you didn't use it again is proof enough that you think so too though won't admit it obv.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bomac, I'd use another metaphor: a diamond amidst a nationalistic cesspool. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is as self righteously ignorant as it is wide off the mark. Another case of point missed.18:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merely my opinion. Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I made my point perfectly clear - why do you put this really unusual note? Name me at least one example where such note is used here in Wikipedia? Since we've started to psycho-analyze ourselves, have in mind that your fears are in contradiction of creating a good quality encyclopedia. It is very well stated in the article that the modern Republic of Macedonia was established in 1945. So I see no damn reason why this (product-of-fear) note should be left there. It's really ugly. Bomac (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What did I say? You are employing the red herring fallacy, your point was not "Why use the comment" but rather that the comment was in itself wrong "All people are descended from previous inhabitants." Well I showed you that this is not true. --Xenovatis (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You did not showed me anything, like to give me an example of at least one article where this unusual note is used? Bomac (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There you just did it again.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the note does appear to be unnecessary and, frankly, bordering on POINTy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I inserted that note because I didn't know how else to handle the problem of disambiguation between "Macedonian" as a noun and adjective used to describe people and things of the Republic of Macedonia in contrast to those having to do with "ancient Macedonia". There is no real Wikipedia policy on this matter yet, this is why we had an ArbCom just days ago, and the problem has to be addressed. "Macedonian" in the article of RoM should be used to denote anything that has to do with the country, yet in this case, the southernmost part of RoM were parts of a totally different and alien entity which we call Macedonia (ancient kingdom). By simply using "amcient Macedonian", the reader will erroneously understand that we are talking about the Macedonians (ethnic) of the ancient times, so a disambiguation has to be given. I posted my question as to how to handle it above (Disambiguation Issue in the "ancient history of the territory" section) and I would like us to work out something to be able to incorporate Macedonian (ancient) within the article Macedonia (country) properly. The header of the section reads "Ancient history of the territory" and this has been done to disambiguate between all other Macedonians of the region (Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (Greece)). Pelagonia and Lyncstis are parts of this history, but their "Macedonism" has to somehow be disambiguated. I think that a tag in the beginning of such sections (as we usually do with articles) would do the job much better that disambiguate every time we speak of something Macedonian (ancient), a long explanation instead of a tag in the section or just avoiding any mention to anything Macedonian (ancient), as was the case until now. Please, give your suggestions but do not speak about POVs and "nationalisms". This is a very important disambiguation problem and the core of the issue. GK1973 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The ancient Macedonians are mentioned only once, and the term is wikilinked. That article explains it. There isa hatnote at the top of this article saying that it is about the modern country not the ancient kingdom. There is a hatnote at the article on ethnic Macedonians explaining that they are not related to ancient Macedonians. That's plenty of clarification. BalkanFever 11:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep.. now that most instances of the name "Macedonia" disappeared, there seems to be no problem BF... The text was different yesterday. GK1973 (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits that were done yesterday only prove the disambiguation problem we have here. In order not to mention the term "Macedonian" and avoid "problems", we just do not allow any information other than the most basic to appear in this section. If this is how you people think we should handle the issue, it is fine by me, but mentioning the states that lied within nowadays RoM borders, their rough history, the Gaulish invasion and some more info on the history of the territory looks quite important to me. BtW, The Paeones are mentioned by Homer, so their state is indeed the first reported state that can be linked with the area (although, Homer could have in mind only the Southern Paeonian tribes). GK1973 (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First you need to come to an agreement on what you're actually going to put in that section, since obviously there is some disagreement among you, Jingiby, Polibiush and Athenean (looking at the page history). Disambiguation can be solved once the text in that section stops changing every few hours. BalkanFever 12:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jingby and I came to an understanding yesterday. I liked much of his input. I guess that the later changes were made to not have to disambiguate, for much was just removed, not rewritten in a more appropriate way... sad.. I won't pursue this further. Should we try to expand this section, I will help in. Should we think it is too much trouble with policies, I will also understand. GK1973 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

...Ohhh.. and of course another issue crops up with the use of the term "Upper Macedonia", which to the unaware reader would mean "North" or "mountainous" Republic of Macedonia... So, if we are going to use this term also, something should be said... (too many ambiguities in this frigging section, should we try and expand it...) Should we write "....Upper Macedonia in the southernmost part of the Republic"? Do not forget that we are trying to compile an ancient histyory section for the territory of the Republic, so modern geography should be used for precision purposes. We are not writing the history of the Paeonians nor of the Lyncestians or the Pelagonians.GK1973 (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to start editing and changing things again. Instead, I think that discussing here the content of the text is better, this is what discussion pages are ther for after all... So my proposal as a start is

"In antiquity, most of the territory that is now the Republic of Macedonia was covered by the kingdoms of Paionia, which was populated by the Paionians, a people of Thracian origins,[6] and parts of Illyria[7][8] and Dardania,[9] inhabited by various Illyrian peoples[10][11]. In the southernmost part of the Republic lay parts of Lyncestis end Pelagonia, independent ancient Macedonian kingdoms, which were annexed by Philip II of Macedon along with southern Paionia. [12] Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the territory, reaching as far north as the Danube and incorporated it in his empire. Under Roman rule it became a part of two Roman provinces. The greater part was within Macedonia Salutaris, while the northernmost regions were administratively incorporated into the province of Moesia Superior.[13]"

I think that this text addressed most if not all problems. I didn't use "Upper Macedonia", "Ancient Macedonian" appears only once and it is very clerar that we are talking about the territory and nothing else. I still think it can be expanded, but we should start from somewhere... GK1973 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. BalkanFever 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I want it reverted back to my version. It was much nicer. FAUoFPaS (Ж) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fauofpas, your version lacked WP:MOS#Internal consistency. Perhaps you should make a sandbox to work on in your own time, and then try and come to a consensus with other editors on whether your version can be included. BalkanFever 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Future please drop by the Greek Embassy to collect this month's stipend. The consul is worried about you and the ambasador's wife has made dolmadathakia and diples that are your favorite. See you at the Ekklesia!--Xenovatis (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I don't like diples. Too sweet. But I wouldn't say no to the dolmadakia. The Macedonians have only Tavče Gravče. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We have other food, but it's not for foreigners. BalkanFever 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I propose we set up automatic archiving of this talk page with a time delay of two weeks. Thoughts? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - go for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)