Talk:Macedonia (region)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

No title

I have never read anything more fundamentalist than that on this site yet. What was Macedonia called when it was part of Yugoslavia? Just MACEDONIA

What is Macedonia’s constitution name? Just MACEDONIA, and over 100 countries recognize it.

As a Macedonian I consider being called a “Yugoslavic” a prejudice and derogatory term, as there are over a million self identified Macedonians in RoM, they are the third largest ethnic minority in Australia, yet you still seem to believe that they want to be called Yugoslavs. They want to be called what they are MACEDONIANS.Alexander the great1 13:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though it is possibly in vain to answer to people that show all the characteristics of POV-warriors, ultra-nationalists, cranks or trolls, here are some quick points:
"What was Macedonia called when it was part of Yugoslavia? "
1912-1918: it was called Southern Serbia
-1918-1929: it was called Vardaska banovina (Vardar Banovina) when the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created.
-1929-1945: it was still called Vardaska banovina when the the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was renamed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
-1946-1963: it was renamed to People's Republic of Macedonia within the People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
-1963-1991:it was renamed to Socialist Republic of Macedonia within the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.
"What is Macedonia’s constitution [sic] name?"
Its constitutional name is: Република Македонија as is, i.e. using Cyrillic characters and as a whole. As far as I know there is no provision within the constitution or elsewhere for the name transliteration (e.g. using Latin characters for "Republika Makedonija") nor for it's direct translation e.g. in English for "Republic of Macedonia". Nevertheless, let's just say, for now, that its constitutional name is "Republic of Macedonia." --172.215.89.25 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but by that logic the Peoples Republic of CHina should be some bunch of asian words —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 11:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

International Reactions

These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles.

I'll start with a quote.

«ἡ κυβέρνησις τῶν Η.Π.Α. θεωρεῖ, ὅτι συζήτησις περὶ «Μακεδονικοῦ ἔθνους, Μακεδονικῆς πατρίδος καὶ Μακεδονικῆς ἐθνικῆς συνειδήσεως» ἰσοῦται μὲ δημαγωγίαν, ποὺ δὲν ὑποκρύπτει ἐθνικὴν ἢ πολιτικὴν πραγματικότητα, ἀλλὰ ὑποκρύπτει ἐπεκτατικὰς διαθέσεις κατὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος».

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."

- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

http://www.sartzetakis.gr/points/makedonia16.html

WARNING: pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian propaganda... why?

Just look at a section of this page: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Macedonia#not_NPOV

A tipical dealing between 2 administrators of Greek and Bulgarian origin to get together and ignore the Macedonian side.

After this, I feel like I do not need any fact... nothing worth more than the reveal of your own assimilative plan.

I won't try to give any further comments on this. That correspondence shows every point I would like to make.62.162.198.232 05:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone left some information (edits) during the night on the Macedonia page, which were reverted (with a right reason). Anyway, it had interesting point. I read one of these 2 books, very interesting one. So, maybe you should read them too, especially because they are both by Greek authors. After this, I am sure that 1000 Greek users will get together and try to deny the authors... but do not forget, they are from Greek origin, having PhDs and beeing proffesors at famous world universities. And, obviously, they are not nationalists, as most of the users here are. 62.162.198.232 07:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The text of the edit made by an Australian IP address follows:

"Read the Anthropologic/ cultural studies done the Aegean region of Macedonia done by Anastasia N. Karakasidou called 'Fields of wheat, Hills of blood' published by the University of Chicago press. The book goes in depth about the change of the nationality of the aegean Macedonians during and most dramatically after the 18th century, This book unravels complex social, political and economic processes through which the Macedonians have become culturally amalgamated within an overarchingly Greek national identity. OR 'Ourselves and others: Development of a Greek Macedonian Identity since 1912' by Peter Mackridge and Eleni Yannakakis. A collection of essays by experts of several nationalities which examine historical, linguistic and anthropoligical perspectives."

If anyone wants to learn more about this 2 books (and many other similar), please use google or any other search engine. Get informed by yourself, pick up your link and source. Do not let anyone point you a link that they prefer, which supports their POV. Build your own neutral POV. 62.162.198.232 07:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

answer to Mr 62.162.198.232

You wrote "Matia, you can not hide your identity by not logging in. Anyone can trace you." Once again you are wrong. I'm a man, and that means that I'm not hiding behind numbers of IP. You were the one who threatened before that you won't get banned because you have dynamic IP on many servers, your wording was I have about 11000 different IP addresses that I can use only on one server. Not to mention the other servers. They say you shouldn't judge the others with your own actions as a criterion. So don't accuse me of doing the same things you do.

Ps, when I first saw that reverse I thought you were the one who removed the NPOV tag, because the other user with anonymous IP also starts with a 62. MATIA 19:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong. I had to provoke you to see your reaction "man". :) I remember that you were insisting on removing the NPOV tag and also your edits are in close time to the edits made by this IP. Sorry if I am wrong.
BTW, you said "I'm a man, and that means that I'm not hiding behind numbers of IP". Exacly this kind of comments make me think that you are a kid with 18 years tops. Again, maybe I am wrong, but this looks like a kid fight: "I am the man... No, I am the man, not you... So wrong. I AM THE MAN!!!". No offence, just kidding, neighbour. :))
It is evident that you are kidding Chronographos 19:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I traced the IP that removed the tag. It starts with 62, but it is from a Greek server. More preciselly, Athens. As far as I remember, it mentioned some area "Atika" or something like that. I am not sure about the last one.
Sorry again if I made mistake. Next time I will try to trace directly the computer of the user. Cheers. 62.162.198.232 19:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Your computer must be faulty. Atika is not in Athens. Are you sure you are virus- and spyware-free? Chronographos 19:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
My computer is completely spy and virus free, don't worry. I said that I am not sure about the last one. I will trace the guy the next time when I get him online, so I will tell you which server he uses. Maybe even some private info, depends on the leght of the time he will be online and how protected is he. But, when you think about it, it is not so important. I am sure it was Athens or Athens area, I double checked that. 62.162.198.232 19:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"That was ment just for provocation. It already worked on other user, but you kept it quite calm. That is what I wanted to see." Guess who wrote that to me few days ago. Mr "I Sterbinski 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)". What should I say now Mr "62.162.198.232"? Should I ask you again to sign in? MATIA 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
He knows that lack of identity comes with lack of accountability, and milks it for all it's worth. For example, if something he wrote as 62.162.198.232 is embarrassingly refuted, he can always claim that it was a Frenchman of Greek origin, whereas he himself was logging in on 62.162.198.231.
Sometimes the tardiness and incoherence of his responses make me think that his ISP uses Carrier pigeons to perform TCP/IP. Of course there is nothing that would a priori preclude error correction protocols and built-in redundancy in CP/TCP/IP. Such a hardware configuration would be uniquely susceptible to avian, rather than regular, viruses, which would then require the professional skills of a Cyber-Vet, such as the renowned Dr. Ifixit Cybervetski.
Other precautionary measures include surveillance and inspection of pigeon resting stations, as there have been instances of suspected sabotage reported: namely quantities of poison-laced millet, illicitly deposited there. Since then the state has cracked down on clandestine millet trade, as it was feared that it was the work of the Greek secret services. This has given rise to the Skopjan proverb: "Beware of Greeks bearing millet."
Indeed they routinely operate a fall-back system using Smoke signals during pigeon mating season, when TCP/IP packets tend to get wet, or sticky, resulting in data corruption and checksum mismatch. I understand that diesel-powered industries get frustrated when such smoke-based backups are being deployed: they report high levels of transmission noise.
And let us not forget that our friend Sterbinski promised that the exact nature of the mysterious international organization (you know, the one with the bossy-boss-who-demands-"results"-ASAP) would have been revealed a few days ago. No such luck. One should tell him that movie scripts need plot twists to keep audiences interested. Especially since the movie he's playing lacks major box office attractions.
Chronographos 00:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I won't keep wasting my time to explain that I am not Mr. Sterbinski. I told you I know the guy, he is friend of my brother. I asked him what is the catch, but he said that he has nothing to do with any posts in last 20 days. I personally do not beleive him, because his nickname appears in this page often in last 20 days.
Look, I know quite a lot about computers, same as him. As far as I know, he is studing computing at some university in UK. I finished the same career here, in Skopje. And anyone who knows anything more about networks knows how to trace an IP. Depending how good he is, that is how much information he can get.
So, give me a break about Sterbinski. Concerning him, I even do not agree with some of his positions.
From now on, I will ignore any further provocation in me conecting to Mr. Sterbinski. I do not have time to waste over that issue anymore.
If he promised you a post where he will explain you everything, talk to him. Not to me.
And I won't create my identity and sign in. I am aware that I won't change much eighter way. The text on the page will stay the way the Greek users want it. 62.162.198.232 09:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
What petty nonsense! You are not Sterbinski, you are his friend's brother. Or maybe his mother's lover. Or a millet merchant. For all I know, the next person you'll claim to be is Dr. Ifixit Cybervetski. Chronographos 10:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
How big you think is the internet comunity in Skopje? Just 5% of the Macedonia population use internet for more than 1 hours daily. I used to work with his brother for 3 years and we still have often contact. And you know what? Why would I even care about the identity you think I have. Maybe I am him, maybe I am not. Maybe I am Hugh Hefner. Even if I have a nickname, I can put any name I want. So, if I make a nickname HughHefner, will I become him? :)
BTW, I REALY do not have any wish to be his mothers lover. :) 62.162.198.232 10:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Your statement about Internet usage in Macedonia is grossly inaccurate. There are several hundred thousand regular Internet users in Thessaloniki alone. Chronographos 10:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Than you for revealing that Thessaloniki (Solun) is Macedonian city. But, these days it is Greek teritory and I don't expect that to change soon. Even the population became dominantly Greek in the last 100 years. If I am mistaken, why did you change the name of that city from Slavic to Greek?
I actually was refering to the teritory of modern Macedonia, the one that lived its independence. :) 62.162.198.232 11:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes, masks coming off at last. Thessaloniki was founded in 315 BC and named after Thessalonike, a daughter of Philip II born on the day he won a victory (nike) over the Thessalians. It has been a predominantly Greek city for most of its continuous 2320-year long existence. And should you refer to your country only, which is the minor part of Macedonia, you should use an appropriate qualifier so that people know what you're talking about, Mr. Sterbinski (does your name derive from German sterben?) Chronographos 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The Slavic form Solun was a corruption of Greek Saloniki, itself abbreviated from Greek Thessaloniki. For a similar change of Greek -a- (Salon-) to Slavic -o- (Solun), see Greek karabion ---> Slavic korab' (see Proto-Slavic language). ----Decius 13:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Decius, how can you explain the corruption of the Greek word democracy (δημοκρατία) into the Macedonian Slav word "utopija" ? Chronographos 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
All of you guys... whole world knows that you changed the names of almost all rivers, towns, mountains etc. in the Greek Macedonia (Aegean Macedonia) in order to make them Greek. That is a history fact placed in any history book.
You arbitrarily draw the line of "originality": where it suits your POV. After Macedonia was liberated from 500 years of Ottoman rule, such place names as had changed were reverted to their original state. Chronographos 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Now probably you will write me 100 lines of text, denying what I said, but all that will be without without any worldwide support.
I already quoted 2 famous books written by independent Greek experts, concerning Aegean Macedonia. There is very clearly explained what happened in Aegean Macedonia in the last 100 years. Read and learn a part from your own history that your goverment hides from you.
Having grown up in an ex-Communist country, it's understandable why you think that governments actually control people's minds. Here in the West, though, this is not the case. Chronographos 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is the link: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Macedonia#WARNING:_pro-Greek_and_pro-Bulgarian_propaganda..._why.3F 62.162.198.232 15:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
No need, I'll summarize what happened for you: after the Balkan Wars and WW I, when Macedonia was liberated from Turkish rule, Muslims were exchanged with Asia Minor Greeks, a part of the Slavs fled (or were driven off) North and the remainder were hellenized, and Greeks from the North fled South. So? Chronographos 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is protected

I have protected this page due to an ongoing content dispute. Please post any comments about the procedural aspect of the protection here. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

At last .... Thanks, Ryan. Chronographos 15:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Since the admins are here they can read 41 To User User:62.162.193.198 on this talk page (and perhaps above it), the WP:ANI report, check the history, etc. Thank you in advance. MATIA 15:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as I could see, the same happened some 20 days ago. Some neutral administrator blocked the page hoping that we, the "educated" Balkan people will finally deal. Soon after that, you (Greek users) gathered and pushed even more pro-Greek text at the Macedonia page. So, nothing changed, it only got far worse.
Non of us here can solve the history. Especially not the one on the Balkan. With emphacising everything that is in your favor and ignoring the things that are in someone elses favor, Macedonia page will never have NPOV.
So, what will this situation change? You will organize again, outnumber your opponents again and push your own POV once again. Same will happen on and on and on... until you realise that you are not the only one who matters in this world. 62.162.198.232 16:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I recomend to the administrators to read all the complaints that the Macedonians sent here, including all the dealing between the Greek and Bulgarian users how to adopt the page so it will suit them both. 62.162.198.232 17:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The page is still locked in the "wrong" version, which is something that I don't understand since it contradicts wiki-rules, but I suppose it's better than nothing. Irbinski you had the chance to back up your claims and you ditched it by providing us with ridiculous material such as genetic propaganda of the type "Greeks have Marsian ancestry", so stop whining already. Miskin 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know how this will go, don't you. First they got their language called Macedonian, plain, with no qualifications, as though it was the only language spoken there, then they got "Republic of Macedonia" as the Wiki-name for their state (in the name of NPOV), now they are trying to get rid of "Slavs" in Macedonian Slavs (in the name of NPOV), next they will just be going to articles like Alexander the Great and innocently put brackets around "Macedonian". And whoever objects will be branded as a POVer. Typical Communist tactics: when there is no food, feed them some ideology. Chronographos 17:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Please re-read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as the last line of the previous post could easily be construed as such an attack. Comments such as those do not contribute in a productive way to the discussion here. – Friejose 17:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with the guidelines you mention, therefore I do not plan to re-read them soon. I am astounded that you disagree that what I described was how Communist regimes dealt with public discontent: trying to sate their hunger with badly-cooked ideology. I contend that this is exactly how the post-1991 leaders of FYROM have dealt with the country's immense problems. And the non-minority population have largely swallowed it whole. You may or may not be aware that there are still UN peacekeepers stationed there, protecting the Albanian minority from oppression and preventing a slide into civil war. You also may or may not know that a few days ago the Prelate of the Serbian Orthodox Church in FYROM, Archbishop Jovan, received an 18-month sentence for performing a baptism. Archbishop Jovan is imprisoned with minimal visitation rights and is forbidden to wear his vestments and keep a Bible. Does the "Communist" connection look any clearer now?
You may consider my critique as a "personal attack". You may also believe that there is a little man living in your thumb. These are your First Amendment rights. Allow me to safeguard my own freedom of speech as best as I see fit. Chronographos 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a whole etymological section about the origin of the name of Macedonia, the existence of this (from Greek tra-la-la) is totally superfluous and I'm sure that

all non-Greek editors are aware of the fact why the note was put there. The name should be given either only in English, or in all languages which are spoken in the region - which includes besides Greek, Macedonian and Bulgarian. As for the complaints by the Macedonian editors - the history of the region is given precisely in the way it´'s given in history books and encyclopaedias. Pushing up POV and screaming that someone else is pushing NPOV is called hypocrisy. VMORO 18:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)~

Albanian is also spoken in Macedonia: by 600,000 ethnic Albanians in FYROM. Chronographos 19:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
VMORO the etymology reflects the fact that it's a Greek word, not that the current Greek-speaking population of the region (which is the majority anyway). The Bulgaro-Macedonian languages have no connection to this definition, hence they are irrelevant to the etymology of the word. If the etymology was in Hebrew then that's what it should be written in. As for you tra-la-la argument about the name, all you have to do is cite scholars who have a different version of the story, and all we have to do is cite the ones who have supported tra-la-la. In this way the matter will be settled. Miskin 18:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Let's ignore the Greek etymology of the name but let's not forget to post 23 maps proving that Macedonia was always Bulgarian all along. Right.--Theathenae 18:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me folks, but it seems to me that VMORO is not deriding the Greek etymology, just the intent to place it (redundantly) in the opening sentence when the etymology is already fully detailed below. I have agreed since the dispute on this sentence began that we should, in the opening sentence, have it only in English or in the several languages of the region. If I'm not mistaken, User:Theathenae (a Greek) had also agreed to this earlier.
See Skopje as an example of a name given in many languages, without the intent to give an etymology in the opening sentence. ---Decius 18:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Decius (only a half Greek) is right. Stating the obvious, namely that Macedonia is Greek, is redundant in the opening sentence. It should stay English-only.--Theathenae 18:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Decius (a Romanian) agrees that English only would be better, because too many languages are spoken in the region. ---Decius 18:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Skopje is a city, not a province that's (supposedly) divided between various nations. The most reasonable thing would be to write it in Slavic. Miskin 18:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Here, a region: Dobruja. This is a commonplace in Wiki. ---Decius 19:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Where's the Aromanian version? That's where most of them were sent by Bucharest.--Theathenae 19:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is how come you people didn't object to this prior to Irbinski's vandalism? Miskin 18:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to it but I don't think it's essential either. The etymology section sets the record straight quite nicely.--Theathenae 19:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Prior to Sterbinski's vandalism (or, to be more gentle, eccentric edits), the stable version of the article gave Macedonia only in English in the opening sentence. So I'm not sure what you mean by "prior to Irbinski's vandalism". ---Decius 19:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Sterbinski's hysterical insistence on including a warning of "Greek and Bulgarian propaganda" was clear vandalism. No need to be diplomatic about it.--Theathenae 19:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it was vandalism, I was joking. Repeated blatant vandalism that continues to go on unchecked. But this is Wikipedia. ---Decius 19:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
If that wasn't the original version then I rest my case. I just had the impression that it was, because I remembered of Irbinski's initial edits had that swept it under the rug. Miskin 20:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Look through the history, and you will see that a version such as this [1] (pre-Sterbinski) is representative of the pre-Sterbinski formulation in the opening sentence (Macedonia in English only). ---Decius 20:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The article looked so much prettier with the statue of Alexander, don't you think, Alexandre?--Theathenae 21:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I am secure enough of my heterosexuality that I can say: yes, I liked the image being placed there, but it was impractical I guess. ---Decius 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
How was it impractical, big boy? It was only removed because User:Dbachmann didn't like it. Then again, User:Dbachmann is also entirely dismissive of the international dispute for which negotiations are continuing at the United Nations. Read below.--Theathenae 06:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
A satellite image of Macedonia would be a useful image to put at the top of the page. ---Decius 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
So, it already started. Atacks, denial of any comment that I will make, even denial of comments that I will make in future.
You can easily check that our language was and is called Macedonian in any reliable source. And, I do not remember who gave you right Chronographos (and anyone else) to change someones identity?
I won't use my chanse to give my reasons why I do not agree with this text. I do not beleive that anything will change. You will organize again and deny it, so the text will stay the same.
The present text is clearly assimilative and POV pushing. Therefore, people should be warned that there are many people who disagree with this version of the text. Leave the NPOV tag and write whatever you want. Write that we have smaller brain than yours, so that is why we can not reason the truth you know and support. Or, that the absence of hair on my head is clear punishment by Zevs because of my choise to keep my Macedonian identity. I don't care. Anything that suits you. But that won't change the fact that I am reality and I am Macedonian.
I said I won't comment on my real identity (Sterbinski, Hugh Hefner, John Lennon or anyone else). My ignoring on this issue should not be recognized as admitment that I am Mr. Hugh. Aldough I wish I was. :) 62.162.198.232 19:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, Jovan is inprisoned because of promoting national hate, which after the 2001st conflict is strictly forbitten in Macedonia. Also, he is charged of stealing about 200000 Euros.
All Orthodox Christian Churches say otherwise. Chronographos 19:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I will have to point out that only the Greek, Serbian and Patriarch of Constantinople reacted. Patriarch of Constantinople is lead by a Greek priest and the Serbian is the closest friends of the Greek church. Interesting point is that the Serbs offered us recognition to our church if we drop the name "Macedonian". Here in Macedonia everyone beleives that the Greek church is behind this problem, because we had very close relations with the Serbs.
On the other hand, the Russian Church did not protest against Jovan's inprisoning. He just sent a letter to both (Macedonian and Serbian) church to continue their dialogue and ask our prime minister to release Jovan as a act of good faith. No critic on the decision were given, and both churches were called "saint". 62.162.198.232 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, what a fine conundrum this is! You keep the Archbishop in jail, and the international outroar continues. You release him, and poof, there goes the notion of an independent judiciary. And of course you haven't touched the core of the issue yet: how come a religious leader gets a jail term for performing a religious ceremony, and why is he denied basic human rights even in prison. 05:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
An international wach at his trial is allowed, so let's see. 62.162.198.232 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The man was tried and jailed already. Chronographos 19:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Wach is aproved on his next 4-5 trials for stealing money from the churches where he used to be priast at. Money that supposed to be used for building new church and helping poor. I personally do not agree he to be in jail for spreading national hate because he did not have any support from the people, so no-one will follow his words. Anyway, I beleive that all that church thing is politically motivated, including Jovan's work. 62.162.198.232 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
A basic tenet of Western democracies is that all trials are public by definition. I am surprised that a special "aproval" was needed for "wach". Does this mean that the previous trial was done in secret?!?!? Chronographos 05:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
This is just a proof how the Greeks easily push his POV here on Wikipedia. 62.162.198.232 19:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"Promoting national hate"? Is that the official designation of the thoughtcrime of daring to contemplate the notion that not all Slavs in the FYROM are "Macedonians"? Perish the thought.--Theathenae 19:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
No national hate here. Just a note on my thinking that you really use chanse to promote your POV, no matter of the accuracy of the information you have. 62.162.198.232 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

tfd, the term et al (subsection title added 28 August 2005)

While some people contribute and try to talk and negotiate, others try to hide the problem under the carpet, or actually VfD it. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Macedonian_naming_dispute. MATIA 23:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The naming despute is reality and I personally think it should stay, no matter it is not in favor of Macedonians. 62.162.198.232 00:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


the official naming dispute is over, has been over for 10 years now,

The sanctions were lifted in September 1995 after the Republic of Macedonia changed its flag to an eight-ray sun and not the Vergina Sun, and changed the constitution to state explicitly that "The Republic of Macedonia has no territorial pretensions towards any neighboring state".

that's what politicians do, compromise. The naming dispute is now only continued by simpleminded patriots who cannot get a life. Nothing that should bother Wikipedia, so let the silliness stop already. How childish can you be? They state in their bloody constitution that they have no territorial pretensions to Greek Macedonia. It is undisputed that their territory is part of what was Ancient Macedon. So why the hell should they not be called Republic of Macedonia? Give us a break, ok? The dispute is very well documented here, and that's as it should be, but that's where the matter should be put to rest. dab (ᛏ) 06:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Or else?--Theathenae 06:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
dab you can find out that the official naming dispute is not over ten years ago.MATIA 07:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
the name Republic of Macedonia is recognized by more than 100 nations, and Skopje has shown ready to compromise on all fronts. So the Greek government uses FYROM, that's great. That still doesn't impinge on the self-designation of the RoM, and common use in English. The naming dispute, and continuing Greek sulking, should of course be fully documented here. On Greek Wikipedia, I suppose, FYROM should be used throughout. But it is not warranted that every mention of the RoM on English Wikipedia is accompanied by Greek point-scoring along the lines of "the Republic of Macedonia (which is a name that is absolutely hated by Greeks, just so you know)". As long as there could be concern that the name implies territorial ambitions, I could fully understand the Greek position. After the RoM explicitly forgoes territorial claims, and showed the good grace to join the UN as FYROM, I really don't see what the hell the Greeks still want from them. The PRC doesn't like the term Republic of China, and that's still the title of a Wikipedia article. God forbid that a billion of Chinese start spamming us the way the Greeks seem to think it necessary. I fully agree that "Macedonia" should be used for the geographical region, just like "Republic of India" is not identical to "India". But "Republic of Macedonia" is completely unambiguous, since Greek Macedonia is not a republic, but a conglomerate of three prefectures (i.e. "Macedonia" isn't even a term used in the political division of Greece). This is all childish nationalism, as evidenced by the endless droning on about Alexander the Great. Of course "Makedonia" has a Greek etymology. So does Naples. And Istanbul. Why don't the Greek nationalists get their panties all knotted over the Italians daring to name their Italian, non-Hellenic town after a Greek colony, or worse!! the Turks naming their capital, which they stole from the Greeks (the bastards!! just like that rogue Alexander stole it from the Thracians) after a disfigured Greek phrase, I wonder? dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Dbachmann I 'm glad you are more familiar with the facts than other people involved. Wikipedia is first of all for reporting the facts. Facts: 1) Macedonia is a wide geographic region. 2) You said the RoM explicitly forgoes territorial claims, I suppose you refere to their constitutional change: before that change they were talking about unredeemed Macedonians and in this talk page you can see that some of them still believe that the Greek perfecture Macedonia is enslaved. 3) Anyone who studies history can give many examples of two big forces starting wars to help minor forces. Since you referred Alexander you'll probably remember that Philip had acted this way once. 4) Even if FYROM is recognized as RoM or even Macedonia by the UN, that won't change the fact that there are also other guys who are called "Macedonians." MATIA 10:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

sure, "Macedonia" is a geographical region, like "the Balkans", "the Alps", or "Scandinavia". the "Republic of Macedonia" is a political entity whose territory is not identical to "Macedonia", much like with India. "Macedonians" are people inhabiting said region, which at present is divided between two sovereign political entities, and they speak various languages, predominantly Greek and Slavic, with an Albanian minority. If we replace this emotionally charged terminology with terms like "red" and "blue", it would all be very elementary set theory. I see the problem, of course. While Greek Macedonians will be Greek citizens, Slavic Macedonians will be RoM citizens, and the common adjective will more likely be simple "Macedonian" than "RoMian". Much like Pakistani avoid calling themselves "Indians". This is not a logically 'deep' problem, however, since it will be mostly clear from the context what is meant (much like with Georgian), and in cases of misunderstandings, disambiguation is easy. I cannot help the impression that the debate is not really about possible misunderstandings, or factual stuff like territories, but pure and simply about people on both sides of the Greek/RoM border disliking each other. I'm sorry, but that is really their personal prerogative; They can dislike each other as much as they like as far as I'm concerned. We can even write an article about it. But let not these emotions paralize English Wikipedia, which is simply reporting the state of affairs. dab (ᛏ) 14:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I would find it hard to disagree with you about how Wikipedia is reporting the FYROM/RoM affair per se. What I would like to hear from you is your opinion about the Macedonian/Macedonian Slavs dichotomy, and the usage of the adjective "Macedonian", plain, no qualifications, in FYROM/RoM-related matters. What this comes down to is popularity vs. accuracy. Some editors and admins evoke the "Google test", as a reflector of common usage. If we can imagine a 17th century Wikipedia, Galileo would have been a POVer and his original research would have been unacceptable. A simple "Googlius" test would have destroyed him. Chronographos 14:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
After the RoM explicitly forgoes territorial claims, and showed the good grace to join the UN as FYROM, I really don't see what the hell the Greeks still want from them.

You're well informed but you're missing some crucial episodes. It was the Greek opposition which forced FYROM to change its flag from the Vergina star and drop its land claims. The same opposition forced the UN to come up with the temporary name of FYROM. You think that RoM and "macedonian nationality" has no land claims just because Gligorov said so? Prior to Greek opposition the Macedonian Slavs were priting money and stamps with the White tower of Thessaloniki on them, do you think that changed overnight because Greeks decided that they didn't like it? It was only last year that CIA (or some other international affair US body) changed its maps in the Balkans from marking Greek Macedonia as an occupied region. Greek politicians are in general incapable and stupid, but they're not retarded enough to think that FYROM has no land claims. If Greece accepts the name RoM and the nationality "Macedonian", then it will have to accept an ethnic group (no matter how small it is) that's ethnically "Macedonian" in a Greek region named "Macedonia", which would make Greece a country of phenomenal stupidity. I mean how more obvious can a land claim be? And what about the Bulgarian position? "Hey those people are Bulgarians and speak Bularians, but we recognise the name Macedonia anyway, not because we want a share of FYROM and the Aegean sea or anything like that, but only because we're very nice". And apart from that, what makes you think that FYROM compromised on its name? The new proposition "Rupublika Makedonija-Skopje" was rejected, Macedonian Slavs are actually trying to monopolise the name. Give me a break dab, international affairs are not as simple as to be solved in the discussion page of a wiki-article. The fact is that most non-Greeks don't give a crap about what FYROM calls itself, so they prefer to just frown upon the whole issue and think of it as the nationalism of two undeveloped Eastern European countries. As for the example of Naples (Νεάπολις), that's about a Latinized name of a Greek colony and I don't see what's wrong with it. And as for Constantinople (which happens to be my birthplace), you won't find any Greeks in the world calling it Istanbul between each other, but that's also irrelevant for obvious reasons. Ancient Byzantium by the way was founded as a Greek colony, it wasn't stolen by any Thracians. The Macedonian naming issue is not simply about Greek nationalism as most people find easier to think. Miskin 18:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's always easy to pontificate on how others should deal with their problems, especially when you don't have to live with the consequences. I myself do it all the time. Τι να πει κανείς για το μουνί της αλληνής;--Theathenae 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Miskin is partly right: FYROM has rejected not only the "Republic of Macedonia - Skopje" compromise, but also the "Republic of Nova Makedonija"/"Republic of New Macedonia" and the "Republic of Upper Macedonia" ones, all offered to them by UN mediator Matthew Nimitz and preliminarily accepted by Greece on the condition that the other side accepted them too. Chronographos 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to solve international disputes, and I accept that Greece will probably refer to the country as FYROM till kingdom come. I also have no doubt that manuy FYROMian nationalists are incredible imbeciles who want to march on Thessaloniki, and believe that Alexander was a Slav. So some reservations from the Greek side are probably warranted. The fact is, though, that the rest of the world doesn't care shit about how many rays the sun on the RoM flag has. As for the RoM annexing even one foot of Greek land, I guess they know that half of Greece will march on Skopje with pitchforks if they do, not to mention the international scandal, Greek delegates throwing hysterical fits in Brussles until full EU boycott --- it just won't happen, RoM leaders cannot be that stupid, and have shown they are not that stupid by amendin their constitution. Or, if RoM does annex a couple of acres at some point, it will at least be a dispute about real territory, not just about something lame like the number of rays on a flag. All I am saying is that "Republic of Macedonia" is commonly accepted as unambiguous and unproblematic the world over. As for the adjective, while mostly clear from context, I do believe that the Greek concerns should be honoured on Wikipedia by allowing disambiguation of every occurrence of "Macedonian" referring to times after 1991. I.e. every use of "Macedonian" that really refers to "RoM territory", "RoM citizenship" etc., should be so disambiguated. How is that for a policy proposal? Wikipedia will call the country "Republic of Macedonia", but all RoM citizens etc. will be referred to as "citizen of the Republic of Macedonia" vel sim., rather than merely "Macedonian". dab (ᛏ) 20:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Try this for starters: "Culture of the Republic of Macedonia" redirects to "Culture of Macedonia" (!), which actually refers to the "Culture (sic) of the Republic of Macedonia" (!!!), which in its turn is a horrid article chock-full of people and institutions noone has ever heard of. Chronographos 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab I think you misunderstood, it wasn't just Macedonian Slav extremists who wanted to march into Thessaloniki or anything like that, it was the actual FYROM state that printed bills with the White Tower of Thessaloniki on its currency [2]. Miskin 16:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand. There is a slight difference between depicting a tourist landmark (and I must say that shabby old tower is not really worth an invasion :p ), and ordering a tank batallion to the border. And the White Tower business ended in 1995, together with the Vergina Sun and stuff. I recognize the dispute was heated 1991-1995, but that's over now, isn't it. dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I am 68 years old and I never had that bill you are talking about in my hands, although every bread I ate and every milk I drank in the last 15 years was bought with Macedonian money (or US dollars, before the 1991st, while I lived there). I can not be sure that no-one ever suggested it, but I can bet my life it was never accepted for using.

All I read on this web page is full of nationalism and fake information. The Greeks say they are afraid of Macedonia attacking them, but actually Macedonia never attacked anyone… ever. We were 500 years under the Turks, longer than any other nation in the region, just because we like no wars. Not because we are afraid… because we wish no bad to anyone, not even to Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs who occupied and separated our land and made very bad to our people.

Talking about the names suggested to Macedonia as compromise… do not forget that Macedonia made a compromise just by starting this negotiations. No other land in the world negotiated about their own name. And do not forget that Macedonia accepts Greece (and eventually Cyprus) using any name they pick for our country. But, no-one can expect us to change our name just because someone objects it.

I will not die till I see my land finally free of all the nationalistic claims towards its territory. I will not die till I see that the rest of the world finally sees the truth about this piece of land and these people. Our neighbors who supposed to be our brothers turned into our gravediggers. But, I won’t just die and fall in that grave just because you wished for.

You mentioned CIA. Of course they will mark Aegean Macedonia as occupied territory, because that is what it is. Things changed now and Greece will probably keep that territory forever, till the end of times. But, the fact stays that they got that land by occupying it.

I lost my father and brother defending our land and identity from the Bulgarians. I lost my home in Voden (which is now Edessa in Greece), being run away because my family didn’t wanted to accept a Greek name and speak the Greek language. This summer, after 55 years I was finally let to enter Greece and see my cousins and nephews that left living in Greece. Even now, in 2005th there was a police at our family reunion and they did not let us sing Macedonian songs. They only let the music to be played, only because we had several journalists from US, Taiwan and Sweden with us, but they did not allow us singing.

Old and weak as this, I would fight anyone who wants to change the truth about us. God is great and he won’t let us lose our national identity. He won’t let lies being spread around. The old Macedonian saying says: “The lie has short legs”. The legs of your lies just started to show how short they are. This is just a start towards the truth and the world will see by itself what truth is. Besides all the lies you spread here, you can see that smart people seek for the truth. Saying something illogical won’t make it become truth, and they know when something has no logic.

God help us to get out of this mess and become good and respectful neighbors. Real neighbors close as brothers, as we should be. Amen.

The Sterbinster strikes again. Where's my violin?--Theathenae 04:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
See FYROMIAN nationalistic map of Florina!
Florina als YUGO land:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/macedonian/specials/1317_mac_minority/
Vergina 06:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If this Of course they will mark Aegean Macedonia as occupied territory, because that is what it is. Things changed now and Greece will probably keep that territory forever, till the end of times. But, the fact stays that they got that land by occupying it. isn't teritorial-claim then what is it? It's very interesting to see the wolf who has disguised himself as a sheep. MATIA 09:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am from UK and I just can not believe that Greeks are so ignorant :) You are far far away from western europe, let alone UK :) I have been to Macedonia,Bulgaria,Greece,Serbia.. and Greece is by far the most unwelcoming place to be. Regarding history, stop reading your own books and see how many people there speak the language of you northern neighbour.

Fullstop.

white.s

I think comments like above of white.S are almost racial generalization, and should be deleted. Maybe the unwelcoming experience were just reflecting your atittude. I surely agree with UK being very far away from western europe:) Maroxelois 17:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article

The boundary of the region are unclear

  • This TEXT must be changed:
    • Macedonia is a geographical and historical region of the Balkan peninsula in south-eastern Europe with an area of about 67,000 square kilometres and a population of 4,76 million. The territory corresponds to the basins of (from west to east) the Aliákmon, Vardar/Axios and Struma/Strymon rivers (of which the Axios/Vardar drains by far the largest area) and the plains around Thessaloniki and Serres.

Vilayet of Kosovo never belonged Macedonia

Macedonia has not this boundary as well as Fyrom indicates! Cities FYROMs as well as Skopje ace Uskub(Capital of Vilayet Kosovo),Kratovo, Kocani, Stip, Tetovo,Kumanovo, and others belonged to the Kosovo Vilayet. Vilayet Kosovo never belonged Macedonia. Therefore, FYROM cannot possess 40% Macedonian territory.

  • The vilayet of Kosovo:Demographic
    • Serbs
    • Turks
    • Albanians
    • Greeks
    • Jews
    • Gipsies
    • Had on no case Macedonian Slavs
    • I avoid numbers to indicate!


Who told this kind of stupidity.Macedonia land in Ottoman Empire has tree Vilayets.Vilayet of Skopje, Vilayet of Bitola and Vilayet of Solun(Thessaloniki).By the way.Read somthing for God sake!

Macedonia divided is incorrect

1912, is divided the osmanische zone, which bordered at the existing countries Yugoslavia, Greece and Bulgaria. To write a "Macedonia divided", is therefore incorrect.

Demographics

Until 600 after Christ Greeks.From 600 after Christ, also slavic peoples appear at the edge Macedonians. Slav peoples:Serbs and Bulgars.Before 1945 did not give Macedonian Slavs.

Within the text they have to be diffirentiated though. Ancient Macedonians is proper for Greko-Macedonian period, as for later Macedonian Slavs are correct. We cannot use "Macedonians" though whole the text without confusing absolutelly difient cultures and languages. Armancho 01:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning history of Macedonia

Vergina 10:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, dear friend, your English is so atrocious that I cannot even follow the thread of your thoughts. I doubt anyone else can, for that matter. You are not doing your views any justice by writing in indignation either. I suggest you run what you want to write by an accomplished speaker of English. Greek translation of the above follows: Ειλικρινά, αγαπητέ φίλε, τα αγγλικά σας είναι τόσο φρικτά, που να μη μπορώ να ακολουθήσω το νήμα των σκέψεών σας. Αμφιβάλλω και αν κάποιος άλλος μπορεί. Επίσης αδικείτε τις απόψεις σας γράφοντας με τόση αγανάκτηση. Σας προτείνω να ελέγχετε ό,τι γράφετε με κάποιον που μιλά καλά αγγλικά. Chronographos 11:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
φρικτος "Schauer, das Aufschaudern od. Wassergekräusel einer Meeresfläche, das Sträuben der Haare (ep. poet. seit Il., auch Hp.; vgl. Leumann Hom. Wörter 62 A. 30 mit Lit.). Thematisch erweitert φρίκη f. `ds.', auch `Frostschauer, Frost, Schauder vor Furcht' (ion. att.; zur Bed. bei Hp. Strömberg Wortstud. 80f.)." [3] :) dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a far easier way to translate is: ask me. It literally means "what makes your hair stand on end". A meaning-based translation in German would be "ungeheuerlich". Chronographos 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights Servey on Wikipedia (The final post of I_sterbinski)

[copy paste of text on User:I sterbinski removed by dab (ᛏ) ]

I sterbinski 23:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't laughed this hard since the last time I saw the "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. Of course, Jon Stewart, unlike you all, has lots more substance than meets the eye. I am, like, so disappointed you will not keep posting. Shame, shame, shame, cryin' shame .... Chronographos 01:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC) (May I suggest a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal where your cutting-edge "researches" will be right at home?)
omfg, you really do get all sorts, on Wikipedia, don't you :) this is part of why it is so entertaining.
We will now reveal that behind the humble pseudonym "Dbachmann" is a secret board of Noble prize laureates working undercover to reduce over-awing effect that revealing our true names would have. We must say that we are pleased with the debate culture on Wikipedia, and we think we are allowed to hint at the possibility that Jimbo Wales and certain other Wikipedians will be mentioned favourably in our report to the Noble prize committee. dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I will need to print this thing and frame it. I have a golden picture frame I can use - all I need to do now is find a printer that can print on parchment. Because ordinary paper is just not good enough. Epson, Canon, Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, where are you you pitiful two-bit amateurs? Chronographos 14:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC) (Dab, does WP have a section on all-time-wackiest contributions? This "secret human rights organization" really takes the cake!)
We have BJAODN... --cesarb 15:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean I have managed to make it into an international human rights report? This is the most excitement I've had in years! Will my crimes against humanity earn me a free flight to The Hague soon?--Theathenae 07:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, except it'll be a one-way flight, buster, so say your prayers! Chronographos 14:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Till the day before I thought it was only a bunch of school kids, fooling around. Now I'm wondering if I've just read the English teacher who caught them. MATIA 09:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
He is copy-pasting it everywhere despite the fact that he was criticized for spamming before. He really likes grafiti. MATIA 09:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Who in the hell is I sterbinski and why did he contact me ???? And why is he (or should I say they) so obsessed with the NPOV of Macedonia ?? — Moe ε

Because that's what he is being paid to do? (just a thought) Chronographos 22:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't think so. Probably MATIA is right it seems more like "bunch of school kids, fooling around". Let's return to discussion over Macedonia. Armancho 01:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

It's been weeks, no ongoing discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say as Greek that if the still call that territory Makedonia, then our endovour as Greeks is to take back what is ours and expell those Slavs from our land. So war upon them. Obliterate them! Wipe'em off the face of Earth!!! NOW and in the name of god, we shall see a clear Έλ-λας, aka, Land of light.

Any time, bitch. It would be a pleasure to kick some idiotic nationalistic ass as yours (All the respect to the rest of you, guys).
What a loony-bin .... Chronographos 01:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that's 2nd degree material. Miskin 11:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I really didn't expected so genocidic words to be said from a person who belongs to a nation from where the SOPHIA comes from. I think that is not very clever. On the contrary - it's totally s t u p e d and f o o l i s h.

SOPHIA is now the Queen of Spain and should be referred to as such. She may be a nice person but her birth family was nothing of the sort. Chronographos 19:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is the SOPHIA I'm talking about. It's more like WISDOM, like in PHILO-SOPHY.

Well, isn't that special ... Chronographos 09:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I see you know the english Wikipedia well, Timewriter. But, what I cannot understand is what connection has the Church lady with this?

Prima vista none whatsoever, dear "anonymous". Chronographos 12:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you don't want to talk, dear Nonanonymous.

We will get Solun for our capital!1945 we were stoped,but we'll det it.One Deuchland sentens sad ,,Langzam,langzam, uber zucker.-Slowly,slowly but for sure!

Relax, my friend. It is truth that the Aegean part of Macedonia was dominantly Macedonian till after the Greek Civil War, but now the things changed there. We all know that Greece won that part in a war, signing a treaty that last just for some couple of years more. But, as I said, we should not use the same non-human methods as they did in the past.
The nowday reality is that Aegean Macedonia is dominantly Greek. But, there are also several ethnic minorities that live there, but that have no basic human rights.
The modern idea od the European Union is Europe without borders. Greece will have to (sooner or latter) acnowledge the minorities living there (between all, the Macedonian minority too), but one fact stays... Aegean Macedonia will stay Greek teritory and is worthless to spill blood for that. If some of them used those methods to get that part, we should not get on their level. God will judge the sinners (he already does)...
NOTE: All my respect to the Greek people who have no conection to the brutal assimilation process of the Macedonians in Greece. Macedonian 01:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I Sterbinski

I am so glad to have someone like you around here...

Well, I see that you can't handle with so many ,,propaganda boys and girls", so I thought you might need some backup :-) --Bomac 10:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm tired of my links being called propoganda and being deleted

http://www.mhrmc.ca/ Macedonian Human Right Movement International http://www.mhrmc.ca/publications/ Macedonian History Literature

I don't see any reason for these links to be deleted as they are informative...

The first link is redundant. +MATIA ☎ 09:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. You are obviously trying to supress certain facts. I suggest that we also add the following links:

They are very informative and give an accurate picture of the status of the Macedonians in Greek Macedonia. REX 10:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is since it points to the SAME site. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
REX, copy-pasting the same links repeatedly on various pages, apart from proving your circular logic (did you read what was this sub-section about? I doubt that), it is also on the edge of wikispam. +MATIA ☎ 10:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
MATIA seems to think that by accusing me of circular logic that he will change the truth. He is sadly mistaken. REX 11:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Also somewhat circular logic =p Tev 08:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute?

There seems to be a long protracted edit war of the NPOV tag here... what are the issues? I tried to read the talk page but its a jumble and I don't understand a lot of it to be frank. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear RN I don't know about the tag, and I don't know how Macedonia was moved to Macedonia (region) during the last days, while this is not how it used to be (check ChrisO here). Macedonia related articles are somewhat controversial. See also Talk:Macedonian Slavs and Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict (the sections with comments regarding these issues). +MATIA ☎ 10:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
One should also read Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll. +MATIA ☎ 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

According to you MATIA, why it is controversal? What is the thing that makes you think that these articles are controversal? Bomac 13:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is controversial because the Greeks are seeking to strip their northern neighbour of their identity. Greece is never likely to accept the fact that other nations have a right to the name Macedonia as well, so they are coming up with artificial name like Macedonian Slavs, Skopyani and FYROM. I just hope that this thing will all end soon. The UN is useless in that respect; I thought that they were supposed to solve disputes! REX 14:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I have mentioned some wiki-links that any neutral might check to understand these issues. During April 2005, Nimitz (UN envoy) proposed the name Republic of Makedonia-Skopje for official use. Greece accepted this proposal as a base for negotiations. The goverment of FYROM rejected the proposal after few days and proposed (the same proposal FYROM did before) that the international community should use Macedonia and Greece could use Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) (these can be confirmed by searching any news agency, I remember having mentioned it somewhere before but no link right now). Today I've read in the newspaper (that can be read in greek at the Macedonian Press Agency) that mr Buckovski had a meeting with mr Tony Blair during the last days. Blair (who has proven in the past that he is not pro-Greek, and for sure he is not a far right greek extremist), told Mr Buckovski that "η εκκρεμότητα της ονομασίας μπορεί να μην επηρεάσει την απόφαση της ΕΕ για την απόδοση προς την ΠΓΔΜ, καθεστώτος υποψήφιας προς ένταξη χώρας, θα έχει όμως αρνητικό αντίκτυπο για την περαιτέρω προσέγγιση της ΠΓΔΜ με την Κοινότητα, (σ.σ. εννοεί την απόφαση για ημερομηνία ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων, εφόσον η ΠΓΔΜ λάβει καθεστώς υποψήφιας προς ένταξη χώρας), αν τα Σκόπια δεν δείξουν εποικοδομητικότερη διάθεση για την εξεύρεση λύσης στο θέμα της ονομασίας." and in (roughly translated) english: "the absense of result about the name negotiations may not influence the decision of EU to give to FYROM, status of candidate, it will have however negative impact for the further approach of FYROM with the European Community, (meaning the decision on date of negotiations to become a EU member, provided that FYROM becomes a candidate), if the Former Yougoslave Republic of Macedonia does not show more edifying desire to solve the naming issue." +MATIA ☎ 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I have mentioned some wiki-links that any neutral might check to understand these issues. Err no Matia, you haven't. I cannot find any. Your link is just something irrelevant that you are trying to pass off as evidence. As far as I can see it's none of the Greek government's business what this country is called. The Republic of China disputes the People's Republic of China's legitimacy and vice-versa; why aren't they controversial issues? Just because Mr Blair doesn't agree with your government's goals, that doesn't mean that he is anti-Greek. I think that you should not try to mislead people. No good can come of it. GrandfatherJoe 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
A note: life is not binary, facts are not yes and no. When I wrote about Blair that he is not pro greek, I didn't implied he is anti-greek. My characterization of Mr Blair not being pro greek, could also mean that he is neutral. But my personal opinion is that Mr Blair is pro-UK, and that doesn't mean that he is pro-greek. +MATIA ☎ 13:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Guess what! REX and GrandfatherJoe resemble even in their arguments. The links GrandFatherREX, I meant Joe, were posted on my first post (10 hours ago) on this sub-section, the hot-word you should search for is "see also". PS using a sockpuppet account while in 3RR block is bad. +MATIA ☎ 21:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the links were decent enough. What about "Greek Macedonians" and "Slavic Macedonians" instead of the current way, or is that the whole problem? Maybe "Greek speaking Macedonians" and "Slavic speaking Macedonians"... :)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I support this proposal.--Wiglaf 14:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the proposal?--Theathenae 14:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I support Ryan Norton's proposal, but only with these small modifications: Macedonians and Greek Macedonians or Macedonian speaking Macedonians and Greek speaking macedonians. Bomac 14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, another neutral engages in this debate! People, we really need you! :) I support RN's proposal, but I disagree with the Slavic Macedonians label (isn't this the same as Macedonian Slavs?). RN, please see the Talk:Macedonian Slavs and Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline for the reasons why I made the previous claim. You can also see the Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Naming for a great overview of the dispute (a bit vandalized in the "options" and "resources" sections) - there (at the "resources" section) you have a list of all of the encyclopedias that refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians (all of them, except MSN Encarta), all the international organizations that refer to it as Macedonians (actually all of them refer to it as Macedoinans), and the review of the major media outlets as well - they tend to use Macedonians when referring to this ethnic group (BBC officially apologized for using the Macedonian Slavs, and similar terms for it). To avoid ambiguity - my proposal is to move the article Macedonian Slavs to Macedonians (ethnic group), Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (people) or a similar options - this acceptable even to some Greeks, and there were a number of neutral proponents for this at the relevant talk page. That would my proposal for the name of the article. Within text, if the meaning is visible, we can use the Macedonians, or the ethnic Macedonians term (this is the only group that uses this term in ethnic terms, the Greek Helsinki uses this term as well). If there is really a need to disambiguate, we can use "Slavic speaking Macedonians", or "Macedonian speaking Macedonians", although, I must admit, the latter formulation sounds a bit strange, although it is a valid fact. So what's your opinion about this? --FlavrSavr 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal with the exception that the term Slavic Macedonian is inaccurate because there are more than one Slavic ethnic group in Macedonia (region) and therefore it is misleading. I accept the terms Slavic/Macedonian speaking Macedonians and ethnic Macedonians. The vast majority of sources and Wikipedians engaging in this debate seem to be agreeing with it. Why isn't it being used then? REX 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

speaking

While this proposal was in good faith, it can't be used. According to Macedonian Slav perspective (the links are on the buttom of the wiki), the Macedonian Slavs have nothing to do with Greeks. The proposal ("Greek speaking Macedonians" and "Slavic speaking Macedonians") can't be used because someone will think that they are the same ethnic group, some of them hellenophone and the rest slavophone, and it's obvious that this would be misleading. +MATIA ☎ 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be better the Greek Macedonians to stay as is, and to change only the other. +MATIA ☎ 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't mentioned it before and I apologise about that: one should also read Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll and have in his/her mind the comments and the result. +MATIA ☎ 21:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The newest proposal of the United Nations

I would just like to inform you that the United Nations gave another proposal for the naming dispute.

The proposal includes these topics:

1) "Republic of Macedonia" for any country that chooses that name (despite the Greek presure, in this moment about 110 countries already use this name).
2)"Republic of Macedonia - Skopje" for Greece (and maybe Cyprus)
3)"Republika Makedonija" for the international organizations, but just until 2008th. After that the use of the natural name "Republic of Macedonia" is promoted.
4) No one has exclusive rights over the term Macedonia.

This is an official proposal of the United Nations, but Greece refused it only couple of hours after receiving it. This shows how serious they are.

On the other hand, the Macedonian side organized intensive meetings and forums and today they accepted the proposal as a base for the final deal.

It is very easy to negotiate about someone elses name and someone elses identity. How would any of you feel if your whole identity and existance is denied by someone more powerful than you?

Just read the page of Macedonia. Anyone would assume that the modern Macedonians are creation of Tito, but they are basically Bulgarians. Just a reminder to all of you... Year before Tito got in power, in 1941st, when Nazi Bulgaria occupied Macedonia, the Macedonians organized and fighted against the Bulgarian occupation. Why would they fight the Bulgarians, if they were Bulgarians? The claims on the Macedonia page about this part of the history are completely senceless and supported only by the Bulgarian and Greek nationalists.

Another interesting fact. The Bulgarian prime minister, Mr. Serge Stanishev recognized and again confirmed his Macedonian origin. Just few days ago, during his meeting with the Macedonian prime minister Vlado Buchkovski he said that except Bulgarian, he also has Macedonian, Russian and German blood in his vains. He also said that his grandparents (the Macedonian part of the family) runned away from Kukush (today Kilkis, in northern Greece) in 1913th and setled in Dupnica. I know that someone will now try to change this fact and say that Mr. Stanishev was talking about the regions. So, it is necesary to explain that Mr. Stanishev did not reffer to the regional origin, because he mentioned another nationalities (Bulgarian, German and Russian) in the same context.

I will sumarise... the present text of Macedonia and Macedonia related topics is clear Greek and Bulgarian POV push, all in favor of denying the existance of separate Macedonian nation and history. It is a discrase for Wikipedia and its NPOV to promote so strong nationalism and denyals.

These Greek and Bulgarian extremist denyals and POV pushings are not new and they are happening for centuries. But, slowly the truth will come out. Just to mention the newest book "Macedonian Knot" by Hans Lothar Stepan (the former German ambasador in Macedonia), where for the first time some of the hidden German documents concerning the Macedonian division during the Balkan wars are revealed. Those documents clearly show the truth about Macedonia and the Greek/Bulgarian assimilation of the region. Macedonian 19:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to mention the only example in the world where some nation is denied to use its historical name. Wikipedia is clearly used by some Greek extremist to promote their position of not recognizing the Macedonian nation.
Whatever the history is and whatever is the way you interpret it, it is a fact that the Macedonian nation and ethnicity are reality in todays world and the name "Macedonians" is the only name they identify with (A name supported by every goverment (except Greece and Cyprus), international organizations, encyclopedias etc.)
Can any neutral administrator explain me why Wikipedia is supporting the Greek nationalistic claims, despite the world accepted facts? Macedonian 19:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


One clarification: the new proposal of Mr Nimetz (United Nations) has not been made public. So it's only leaks we hear. It was however a complete flip-flop, as the previous proposal was accepted by the greek side and rejected by FyroM only a few month ago. Furthermore the 9 of november being close makes the timing suspicious. One very strange thing about the non exclusive use of term macedonia: is that it would create havoc for products from greek macedonia (appelations) being confused from the ones from vardar macedonia (posession is 9/10 of the law..., and (greek) macedonians have product appelations of the region. Why people from FyroM want to be "plain / The only and true" macedonias is quite offensive to negate the identity of others. I sure belive God deslikes stealing the identity of others, even if it's for stabilizing your country. BTW I see the vardar macedonia on wiki is redirected to "Republic of Macedonia", why is it undesireable/offensive to be Vardar ( = North)(geographic term) Macedonian? Did Mr Nimetz ever tried that? Finaly it's not the only example of this kind of dispute: China and Taiwan (past), also Luxemburg (state and province in belgium) is mentioned, but the analogy is poor, as Luxemburg never conquered the known world nor tryed to deny the identity of the belgian province. The name macedonia brings to my mind the story of King Solomon and the two mothers claim of the same child... but this time it's not a material dispute. if only : Macenians and Donians :) Bar the very emotional arguments of citizens of RoM i don't see this article waranting POV! I haven't seen any material argument against the current Macedonia entry. Maroxelois 19:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The text is made public. Actually, my neighboor (door to door) who is a leader of a smaller political party in Republic of Macedonia was a part of the meeting where the Macedonian political parties together with the goverment and the president were talking about the proposal, with having it on their hands. Anyway, the proposals can be seen in most of the major newspapers in Macedonia and Greece.
Another thing that I must react at is the senceless statements which say that the adjective Macedonian is used by Greece on their products. That is complete lie. The Greek products have to clearly say "Made in Greece", which is a part of the law that has to be respected by anyone who exports good from Greece.
No one is stealing your identity, because your identity is Greek. Maybe you are born in Macedonia, but there is no Greek in the world who will say that he is Macedonian. Actually, all the lies about Greeks using the name Macedonia started just some 30 years ago. Untill then the name "Macedonia" was even forbiten to be used. Even the region Macedonia in Greece was called "Northern Greece". The world historians know that and you can not hide that from them.
Please see this, neighboor: http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Macedonia_%28Slav%29#What_is_the_real_deal_behind_the_naming_problem.3F
On the other hand, the Macedonian identity is the only identity we had (no matter did that start 2500 years ago, in the 6th, 10th, 15th or 19th century, or even in 1945th). That is the only truth that everyone knows and noone can avoid it.
And just to remind you... Macedonia NEVER asked Greece to change the name of its northern province. Macedonia NEVER asked Greeks to stop using the name Macedonia. Greece was the one who started all the problem. And, after the things that happened in the last 14 years and especially after what will happen in the following 3-4 years, it should be very clear to you that the world is not so stupid to swallow the Big Greek Fat Lie!!! Macedonian 00:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that the majority of northern greece DO identify themselfs as macedonians AND greeks (or vice-versa: the order is doubtful). and thus there is a naming problem. By claiming the opposite you are deduling yourself (?) or wiki reader I am not sure.

You are obviously wrong. This what you say actually makes me beleive that you do not live in Greece (because you are very wrong). Am I right? Macedonian 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

ok pick your choise about the century... of your alledged macedonian nationality... but you see it does matter, to be what you claim to be, not just because you WANT it. Expediency is a very dangerous mortgage of a states' life.

Funny you mentioned the middle ages. if you watch less "big fat stupid movies" and read a bit wikipedia, you will come across Basil II[4], emperor of (greek cultured byzantium) inogureur of the Macedonian dynasty, who as you know expelled bulgarian AND serbian domination of macedonian province in greek lands. Must be strange to have the macedonian dynasty expelling your alledged macedonian ancestors... from macedonia no? (rhetorical question [sic]). I am not surprised you claim an iffy link to Alexanders' macedonia (too long ago, more chanche to pass your lies), but I am surprised why the greeks forget their direct lineage to the macedonian and greek byzantium, of not so far back: in the midlle ages. This romantic antiquity is really so permeable...

Talking about history which was written and latter read by great influence of Greece. Having on mind all the problems that you make to the modern Macedonians nowdays (in 2005th) and all your tries to assimilate or ignore them makes me wonder what all was happening in the middle ages that you mentioned. Macedonian 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A small point is for product nameing: there are reconganised "appelations" in EU refering to the place of origin, being a region in a state. So confusion is possible. And I think the current EU attitude here in brussels, considering the naming issue a bi-latteral problem, is at least irresponsible.

If the greeks pose their veto very few will be happy... Am not sure if they actually can apply a veto on the preadmission procedure 9/Nov.

They can not. They can only make us get in EU by the name of "Former yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but they are obligated not to make problems in the EU integration of Macedonia. Any breaking of the deal that we made 10 years ago will automatically put Greece in position of no escape, because (just to remind you) that more countries reconize Macedonia under its constitutional name than under the name that Greece of forcing (including the biggest world powers). Macedonian 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

btw I'm not your neighbour thankfully. And of course Fyrom never asked greeks to change the name of greek region of macedonia, this would only water down your outlandish dreams of annexing it (being true to your true ancestors traditions). Your constitution I believe forbids it, but it allows for accomodating constitutional changes in the future I see.

I already doubted that you are my neighboor. That is why you know so little about the real situation. Do you really think you can learn enought about this problem by reading books or newspapers? Macedonian

A final thought about the reccuring theme of the exchange of populations in the 1920's and later 1940's actually the idea of it created stable nation states like bulgaria greece and turkey. and it provided a norwegian national with the Nobel prize for peace. So the feeble minoriry of slavs in greece should be considered lucky to survive and not be the object of bogroms and expaltions like the greeks suffered in turkey 1955. A similar ouranio-toxo in turkey would be crashed in a day. Excuse my relativism above, but a disloyal minority is something you can easily relate to ... probably no? (hint Kosovo) Maroxelois 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Macedonians living in Greece already proved its loyality to Greece and keep proving it. The Aegean part of Macedonia is Greek for almost 100 years and it will obviously stay thay way, probably forever. And I do not object it. Only thing I want is my identity not to be ignored anywhere in the world (including Greece). The history of my nation (no matter did it start 15, 60, 100, 1100 or 2500 years ago) can not be seen as threat to Greece. Especially having on mind that a Balkany is not so big teritory, but many nations live here. Therefore, a big part of the history of these nations have to be shared because of a simple fact: the forming of the modern nationalities, including Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian was much latter than we would like to accept.
Please read "To Vima"'s comment about this issue from 2-3 days ago. The problem that we (Macedonia and Greece) have is enormously stupid and based on unrealistic fear of each other. Macedonian 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK Im macedonian ,i feel that way i always felt.I have never iinsoltet any other about its national beliving.SO i want that to stay with me.I dont know and it can never be proven wather there are macedonians,greeks or bulgarians if we just put a question mark by the name.SO let us just live inpeace and stop makeing the life a holywood movie

Agree. But, how? I can not stand still until my identity is denied. Macedonian 01:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Since just having a nickname macedonian is obviously not enough I would like to suggest you to get a tatoo with macedonian sun on your forehead. Then there will be no doubts. Come on, get a life, drink your macedonian rakia and stop wasting bytes on the wikipedia servers.

Edits by 62.162.240.87 (talk · contribs)

I've reverted the following by the anonymous user 62.162.240.87 (talk · contribs):
"In many years Macedonians were genocid in Aegean Macedonia.From there we can find great Macedonian diaspora in Australia (about 1.000.000 people),Canada(800.000 people),U.S.A(700.000 people).Who was most of them born in Macedonia but by the end of the Greek civil war(1946-1949) they were reffugied in many states in the World.This was Great Genocid after the World War 2.But by the Greak propaganda the world public opinion did't know anything abot that.Until these days they can't see his villiges,towns,cities were they born.The Greak autorities don't allow to them to enter in Greece just becouse they are Macedonians.In some statistic by the year 1902 in the town of Solun (Tessaloniki)made by the Turcish autorities in that time in Solun lived 250.000 Jewls(they were genocid under the German occupation in the World War 2),300.000 Macedonians,150.000 Greeks,200.000 Turks, and others."
Sources and comments, at least for some parts? +MATIA ☎ 15:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That IP is from Skopje, Macedonia. REX 16:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The numbers are obviously overreacted a lot. But, it is a fact that most of this things are close to the truth (aldo, as I mentioned, quite enlarged).
I completely agree that this article has to include informations about the genocide made after the Balkan wars and after the Greek Civil war. Anyway, this is not a way. The article should be realistic, but it should not promote national hate. Macedonian 01:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The numbers of ethnic Macedonians in Canada and the USA are ca. 30,000 for each of the countries, I would suspect that the number in Australia is pretty much the same (if not smaller). So what's your point? VMORO 23:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You would cry when you see the numbers of Macedonians out of Macedonia. There are some estimates from neutral European universities that show even 200.000 Macedonians only in Australia. More than 40.000 Macedonians live in Australia who still have the Macedonian nationality (according to the agency for diaspora of Macedonia). Can you imagine the number of the ones who quited the Macedonian nationality in order to get the Australian?
I will present those sources soon, as soon a I get enought time to get them all together. Macedonian 02:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Make me cry, Macedonian, make the tears roll down my cheeks, haha:-)))) 30,000 in the U.S. according to the latest census, 30,000 in Canada according to the latest census, I guess the same number will be in Australia. You are getting ridiculous - 200,000 in the U.S., 1,000,000 in Australia and 5,000,000 on the Moon. Sure, baby, sure. VMORO 22:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Those numbers you have said can be found as registered Macedonians who have Macedonian passport and live in those countries. Also, I am getting some estimates from several European universities.
Another thing that might interest you. I am also checking the numbers of Bulgarians in other countries according to the censuses. It is unbelivable how far these numbers are from the numbers given on the gave of the Bulgarians. I wonder how will you deffend yourself on that issue.
Wanna play that game? You got it, babe. Macedonian(talk) 00:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

~~ I have met "Slav speaking Macedonians" in Australia - and they are from FYROM or yugoslavia they are not from Macedonia of Greece, so how can you accuse Greece or deporting them? I don't see the connection. Besides, Greece fought against the Bulgarians over Macedonia and not the Slavs of Yugoslavia or FYROM. It sounds like either the Bulgarians decided to change their nationality or the name was altered to "Slav Macedonia" or that there is something else is going on. I don't get it. Who are the old Bulgarians (Greco-Bulgarian Wars) now, if it's the FYROMs or "Yugo/Slavo Macedonians" that are now accusing Greece of genocide? Ancient and Byzantine Macedonians were of Greek stock - hence the history, the names of places and found archaelogical inscriptions - even the culture of the Macedonian Empire. So, who deported the "Slav" Macedonians? Greeks deported Bulgarians - they would claim to be Bulgarians themselves. Greek Macedonians migrated, they weren't deported. Many still live in Greek Macedonia. The slav Macedonians in Australia are not from Greek Macedonia. I've asked the ones I know. Can someone explain what's going on? ApplesnPeaches ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.195.135.34 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

about tags

tottalydisputed= POV + disputed
When we add a tag, we should add a new subsection on the talk page and say, I've added this tag for those reasons. It has been said by various wikipedians before, that Macedonia related articles are POV every time someone changes something, but you should clarify it anyway.+MATIA ☎ 22:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Matia, the tags were added many times before and a conversation was started. Anytime the Macedonian side gives some sources or examples, they are argued without any support, or at latest they get ignored. I repeat, I am talking about something that is supported by relevant evidence.
You can find really many examples like these through the talk page and the archives.
Therefore, any discusion that we start now will end up in the same way.
That is actually the reason why these tags are here for a while, because the involved sides can not deal. I am sure you would put the same tags if the Macedonian side outnumbers you and change the text according to their sources. Macedonian(talk) 02:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I suppose all agree at some time (edit) for +POV. I've noted that POV is included in totallydisputed (The neutrality of this article is disputed = 2 times) and I've asked clarifications for the "factual accuracy" part of the tag. +MATIA ☎ 02:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Even if we put 100 tags with POV here, it will be not enough. Bomac 11:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Verify what I've written with an admin you trust. +MATIA ☎ 11:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, probably the 2 tags are too much. But, the neutrality and factual accuracy have to be disputed. No matter which version we put, there will always be someone who will completely disagree. Macedonian(talk) 02:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The identity disputed

I would be interested to see a source that many Bulgarians dispute the identity of Macedonians.

Being Bulgarian myself, and communicating with many other Bulgarians I have only heard those people being called Macedonians. In Bulgarian language the term usually means "Bulgarians from Macedonia region", and may apply to people from Pirin Macedonia, expatriates from Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, and citizens of Republic of Macedonia. The term generally is not used for Greek inhabitants of Greek Macedonia provinces, and they are referred as Greeks (or Byzantians when derogatory). The meaning is just the same as Londoners or Californians will be for an English-speaking person.

Only the Greeks oppose that term and I have removed Bulgarians from the text. OTOH Bulgarians generally consider that Macedonian language was just a dialect of Bulgarian which was artificially separated as far as possible from Bulgarian by Yugoslavian Communist Party.

Of course, one can accept my perception as a POV as well, and/or claim it as irrelevant. it seems to happen quite often in Wiki :-/ Regards, Goldie (tell me) 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How you want me not to react on a post like this?
Whatever you, Bulgarians call the Macedonians, that is your own thing. The actual fact stays: Macedonians are a separate nation and are not a part of the Bulgarians. As a fact, Tito was the one who was represing the Macedonian wish for independance. Without him, we would be independant country since 1945th.
Simple: Tito was not the one who created this nation. For your information, I already posted here list of documents which show that the Macedonian separate ethnicity was present at least since the 15th century. And not one document... several.
You can spread your propaganda as much as you want... that will not the change the truth that 2.5 million Macedonians puke on the idea that they are Bularians. Including me. Macedonian(talk) 11:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
ha-ha! :) I am bulgarian and I don't give a damn how the people west of Blagoevgrad call themselves. If you think of yourself as macedonian, that is fine - I don't care. It is actually funny to see how this tiny country and young troubled nation is full with feeling of self-importance.
I, on the other hand, I'm glad to know about their usage of the exonym Byzantians, even if it is derogatory. +MATIA ☎ 13:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to correct the wrong claim about Bulgarians, regardless whether Macedonians like it or not. Dispute about it being propaganda or not can be held at a forum or chat room, and it not within the goal of Wikipedia. I was not trying in any case to hurt the self-esteem of Macedonian people or to suggest that Maconians should accept Bulgarian position. It is sad that my words were misinterpreted.
Matia, I am glad to make you glad :-). Feel free to consider this as endorcement of whatever you may dream but it is more a manner of speach, and is irrelevant to inheriting any empire. Greece is having as many rights as Italy, Egypt, and Syria for example.
Unfortunately all this does not give any facts, and I am going to delete the text again after the blind revert by overzealous editor. Regards, Goldie (tell me) 22:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry if I missinterpreted your words. I am sure you guess how sensitive is this question for us, so I hope you understand my reaction. Sorry again. Macedonian(talk) 13:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Bggoldie your phrase "as endorcement of whatever you may dream" is offending me and I don't think I have offended you. The phrase "most Greeks and Bulgarians oppose their use of the term Macedonians" you changed looks, perhaps, to you as a weasel term but it looks to others like "people of RoM do not have exclusive rights over the usage of that term" and as I have written before, they have used plain Macedonian for the last decade, Bulgarians may have used, perhaps, for the last centuries, and Greeks for the last milleniums. Instead of (mis)guessing what I think, read my contributions on various Macedonia-related-articles and talk-pages. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 23:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Decade? Are you trying to be funny? Because you are not. We used the term since ever. Have you checked the links that I posted that show that the term is used to describe us since the 15th century by other, neutral sources? Macedonian(talk) 13:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Matia.gr, could you accept my apologies for offending you. There was no offence meant. However I disagree with you, and am not questioning "weaselness" of the term but contribution of dispute to Bulgarians. You may speak on behalf of Greek people as probably you meet many of them every day. How many Bulgarians have you met to claim a position on behalf of them? Also I am not a scholar researching your contributions, so am unaware of big part of them. If you have proofs of your statement, please present them. Otherwise you seem to defend your pro-Greek POV. Regards, Goldie (tell me) 02:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
What I write is my personal opinion, I do not represent the greek pov. I still believe that the phrase in question, doesn't mean that people of RoM are considered as Greeks, or as Bulgars, or as Serbs or as whatever else, but that they don't have rights for exclusive usage, just like the example you gave about cultural rights of Greeks, Italians etc to the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantium). And the problem in wikipedia is that they need a good and fair disambiguation term... +MATIA ☎ 18:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Question: How come you do not consider what the third side, the Macedonian side thinks about this? Macedonian(talk) 13:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
To speak about "ethnic Macedonians" in 15th century is... let's say scientificaly risky. The same applies to many modern nations that were formed during the previous two centuries. I haven't seen your "documents" but they'll probably talk about people (who may or may not be related to "Macedonian Slavs") who lived in the Macedonia region. I could give you quotes from scholars near 15th century who refer to Albanians or to Arvanites as Macedonians, using the geographical term Macedonia. Try to think about it, and compare it with your example (or POV?) that Tito "awakened" your people (or something like that, I don't remember your quote exactly). +MATIA ☎ 18:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The documents that I presented include sentences where several nations are mentioned. A particular document from the 15th century says: "there are many Christians who are forced to serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Albanians, Esclavinians, Rasians and Serbians". So, you can clearly see that in that time there were people regarded as Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Slavic (Esclavinians)... and also Macedonians. So, Macedonians were not regarded (at least not from this source) as a part of some other nation.
I also agree that in that time the modern nations of the todays Balkan were still not formed, but at that time we can clearly speak about ethnicities.
As you can see, almost all nations from the region are mentioned. You can "guess" that he was tought of regions, but then he would not mentioned Esclavinians.
BTW, this is a "impresion" of a complete neutral guy (Bertrand de la Brocuiere), especially because in that time there were no registered assimilative actions and "problems" between the Balkan nations. They all were under the Turks.
I hope that you would visit my page and check the links. They are clear on this question.
Matia, I think it is about time you to open your mind a little more. I regard you as one of the people from the opposite sides that is quite reasonable and realistic. But it is not fair to make quessings, all in favor of supporting some claim that is completely disputable. You can show your arguments, but it is not OK to try to undervalue someone elses arguments before you investigate about them little more. Especially because we are not talking about one sourse. Macedonian(talk) 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Avoid refering to my name, if you use again such terms against me. Continue diging (I've seen you've reached 6th century AD) and you'll find Alexander the Great, then Herodotus, yes there were Macedonians a long time ago... +MATIA ☎ 00:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I did not imagine anything of this. They are documented sources. Macedonian(talk) 01:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Balkan war cleaninsing POV issues

I just came across this: The region suffered heavily during the Second Balkan War. During its advance at the end of June, the Greek army set fire to the Bulgarian quarter of the town of Kukush (Kilkis) and over 160 Bulgarian villages around Kukush and Serres driving some 50,000 refugees into Bulgaria proper. The Bulgarian army retaliated by burning the Greek quarter of Serres and by arming Muslims from the region of Drama which led to a massacre of Greek civilians.

There are some serious problems here. If one reads the Inquiry as well as Toynbee, other sources, and even memiors of activists in Ilinden, one can trace persecutions starting easily in 1903 and especially during the Balkan wars per se . Leading with one and then explaining the other as a "retaliation" is is a POV issue and inaccurate.

I think it is better to note that villages all around were attacked by various forces based on ethnicity.DaveHM 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

we also have in the followign sentence refering to WWII: During the Bulgarian admininstration of Eastern Greek Macedonia, some 100,000 Bulgarian refugees from the region were resettled there and perhaps as many Greeks were deported or fled to Greece.

this points to a glaring ommission: the population exchange between Greece and Bulgaria in 1915, which is actually a very importnat event. 1) it need serious exposition to give context to the raising of mention of 100,000 Bulgarian refugees since they had been exchanged 22 years earlier for a huge number of Greeks expelled from Bulgaria in 1915; and b) since in 1915 this big exchange/mutual deportation was aimed ostensably moving self declared Slavs fromo the area to Bulgaria and self declared Greeks to northern Greece.

I realize a lot of the discussion on this topic is contentionious. I do not ascribe it to squabbling, but to a natural collision of competing historiagraphies. but I will work some changes on these sections over the next few days based on accepted history.DaveHM 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Real meaning of the word MACEDONIA

It has come to my attention that some people think the word Macedonia is comming from the Greek meaning "tal trees", that is false infact.The real meaning has a meaning in Macedonian. Using Macedonian key to decipher Macedonia, it would seem like this:

All Slavonic speakers can have vary similar language as they all originally coming from Macedonia, one example is when Macedonians hear Serbians they can have accent but still understand them.i have a polish friend and when he is speaking polish to hisfather i can understand vary much of the words like Macedonian.


(in ancient Macedonian language and older Medievil Macedonian language, Macedonian tradition and oral poetry, it was pronounced Mat'edonia, where t' is pronounced as softened English diphthong ch.)

Mat'e, Mat', from MAK. mati, mat' (feminine noun) - mom, as shortening from MAK. mater - mother (also: majka, mama, matera). Oj Makedonijo, mila mati - Ahoy Serbia, dear mother (a 19th century song). M'T'R also being a common root in I-E, like eng. mother, germ. mutter, ital. madre, lat. mater etc.

Donia (feminine adjective) - lower, in geographic sense. MAK./slav. don'i, don'a, don'e - lower, as a masculine, feminine and netral adjective (n' is pronounced as a softened n, like in English new). Also as doln'i, doln'a, doln'e, Macedonian Latinic script: donji, donja, donje. Etymologicaly connected to dno - bottom, dolina - valley, bezdan (meaning: without (bez) bottom) - abyss, dole - down. Also related to eng. down, which, depending on contest, can mean don'-i/a/e.

Mat' and don'a are coherent in gender, giving Mat'edonia - lower motherland, southern motherland.

POV people,this is going to be added as soon as posible to the macedonia Page Risto Stefov 12:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Risto Stefov. Please give us a reference to a reliable source that discusses this etymology of the word "Macedonia", and it can then be worked into the article. Jkelly 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


This is not only a fantasia, but you insult the name of Macedonia and the history of this region! This is a name with some thousands years history, how can you say that don comes from the slavic dolina etc. when the slavians came in the rerion on 6th century A.D., while Greeks live in Macedonia more than 3000 years? Have you ever read history or ancient texts?

"Greeks live in Macedonia more than 3000 years". I don't know if this is the first time you are going to find out about this but there were no Greeks 3000 years ago. There were Macedonians but no Greeks. In what today we call Greece there were tribes who lived sepretly and fought each other. If we should be putting a ? mark we should be putting it on todays Greece.

February 26, 1992: The FYROM's President Kiro Gligorov, at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe, stated: "We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians - From user:vergina. Because you live in this region, does't means that you have anything common with its history.

I am shure President Kiro Gligorov would of said and done a lot of things to get the so called Greeks of his back like changing the flag with out asking the people. If he really thouth that this was true that Macedonians are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians it would not have made a difference of what Macedonia is called today.

Using this way of thinking, you can find an etymology of the word Macedonia even from the Chinese language!

This is rediculus.If wikipedia starting to adopt such a thoughts I don't think it continue to be serius and reliable.--Makedonas 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sceptical of Risto Stefov's claims as well, but we should at least give him a chance to provide some evidence. -- ChrisO 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Ancient Macedonians were a separate people at first. You should start to understand the (true) matters outside of the Greek "historical" influence. Bomac 19:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As we've said, the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians is currently unknown. All we know for sure is that they were hellenisised and that they are not related in any way to the modern ethnic Macedonians. To quote Kiro Gligorov: We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. :-)))) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I have 3 new etymologies and I DEMAND everybody to start searching for a reliable source that proves them true:
1.The word is split in 3:
Ma- meaning "but" in Italian
-che- meaning "what" in Italian
-Donna meaning "woman" in Italian
All together: What a Woman!
The historic facts behind this story: The Romans had conquered Macedonia, before they came into existense. There was a beautiful woman there, called Grande Alexandra, who had made them crazy, hence the name of the land.
2.This etymology, is more modern:
Mac- from the Apple Macintosh
-edo- from the Greek word "εδώ"/"edo" meaning "here"
-onia modern Greek slang plural of "όνος"/"onos" meaning "donkey"
History says that the Apple Macintosh was first invented on the saddles of 2 tied donkeys that were running across the land.
3.The house alternative:
MC (not as in McDonalds but as a dj)
Edony (a famous song of house music)
The story is that the composer of the song was obsessed by this land in the Balkan Peninsula and therefore gave it his name.
GET REAL, PEOPLE --NikoSilver 16:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Your are ALL wrong. Macedonia is an Anglo-Greekish compound: 'Ma Sedonia' = 'My Sedonia' = 'My sheets'. The original inhabitans were Africans from Botswana who emigrated to northern Greece in the 3nd century BC. Their language is the ancestor of today's English, Latin and Greek and their religion consisted of hanging their sheets to prove their innocence - hence the black pronounciation of 'my' as 'ma'. They were exterminated by the villainous Greeks who then stole their bla-bla-bla-bla... (Professor?) Risto Stefov of the Wikipedia Academy of Truth knows the full story. Any other alternatives to start the week in good humour? Politis 10:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I got one new from another super reliable source: Masochism+Sadism+onia (ending). I definitely think this one describes what all of us around here are, still dealing with this!  NikoSilver  (T)@(C) 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reference Needed

This statement obviously needs a reference or needs to be deleted. Could someone please show a reference? It is a highly subjective statement; clearly no offical documentation showing that this was the position of "Bulgaria" or the "Bulgarians." "The Bulgarians were hoping that the independence of the Republic of Macedonia would reduce Serbian influence in the country and would eventually lead to the "re-Bulgarisation" of its population." This is located in the "Independence of the RoM" section. Macedonian876 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This statement should be revised for clarity purposes - "Although there is no controversy that some of the area occupied by the modern Republic of Macedonia was indeed part of the ancient Macedonian kingdom, the antecedents of the Slavic people that populate it did not arrive in the Balkans until 1000 years after that period."

The "Slavic Migration" theory is simply that, a theory. Therefore, the concept "Slavic Migration theory" should be incorporated into this statement. For example, a clearer version could read much like the following - "Although no controversy exists in regards to whether or not parts of the historic region of Macedonia are incorporated in the modern Republic of Macedonia, as indeed part of the ancient Macedonian kingdom is, there is controversy in regards to the slavic people who currently populate much of the region. Some believe in a so called "Slavic Migration theory" which states that the slavic people who currently populate much of the region of Macedonia did not arrive in the Balkans until approximatlly 1000 years after the fall of Alexander the Great." This statement is clear and neutral and allows the reader to futher understand and comprehend the issues and concepts at hand. Macedonian876 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, this statement is also subjective and needs reference - "where huge demonstrations took place in Athens and Thessaloniki in 1992 against the new state." The use of the term "hugh" is very subjective and leaves much room for imagination. "Hugh" should be eliminated allowing the statement to be less subjective and more clear - "where demonstrations took place in Athens and Thessaloniki in 1992 against the new state." Macedonian876 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A reference is also needed for this statement - "However, the Bulgarians refused and have refused so far to recognise the existence of a separate Macedonian language and a separate Macedonian Slav nation." It seems to contradict the statement right before it - "Bulgaria was consequently the first country to officially recognise Republic of Macedonia independence." If a country recognizes the "independece" of another country, it recognizes the people as being seperate. Look at the Former USSR countries and Russia - are any of the former USSR people known as Russian? I dont think they are? Macedonian876 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You should consider going through the article and adding Template:Citation needed (by entering {{fact}}) to anything that is lacking a proper reference. Jkelly 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Independence of the Republic of Macedonia

I call into question the character of the “Independence of the Republic of Macedonia” section in this article. I have repeatedly asked for credible citations for subjective information that was written, yet, still, after a sufficient period of time, no citation has been added. The section, furthermore, seems to focus more on neighboring “nationalistic feelings” rather than on what the section states – the “Independence of the Republic of Macedonia.” Therefore, to improve the quality, accuracy, and parallelism of the information and the section, a departure from “nationalistic feelings” and un-cited material will be made. The account of the “Independence of the Republic of Macedonia” that I have posted is citable and is from a third party. Macedonian876 18:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

?

Politis, I would like you to explain to me how some of your changes represent anything close to a neutral point of view? I would also like to understand why you deleted important information? I would ask that wikipedia freeze this article or ban you from editing if you continue to incorporate your extremist views in this article -

The article said – “In the Byzantine empire, there was a number of different themas (provinces) dividing the geographical region of Macedonia.”

You incorporated – “In the Byzantine empire and for the next 1,700 years, there was no Macedonian region.”

The key words that you are missing in the first statement are “geographical region of Macedonia.” The article itself is “Macedonia (region)” and contains information regarding the region during this timeframe?

The article said – “the name of Macedonia disappeared as an administrative designation”

You incorporated – “the name of Macedonia disappeared for good as an administrative designation”

There is no need for the addition of this terminology? Because, as a matter of fact, both in the Republic of Macedonia and in Greece there are administrative designations including the term “Macedonia.” Please keep nationalism to yourself.

The article said – “Some believe in a so called "Slavic Migration theory" which states that the slavic people who currently populate much of the region of Macedonia did not arrive in the Balkans until approximately 1000 years after the fall of Alexander the Great. As a result, the appropriation of what Greece considered “ancient Greek symbols” by the people of Macedonia fueled nationalist anger in Greece. This anger was reinforced by the legacy of the Civil War and the view, in many quarters, that Greece's slavic-speaking populations were a "disloyal" minority. The Republic of Macedonia's status became a heated political issue in Greece where demonstrations took place in Athens and Thessaloniki in 1992 against the state under the slogan "Macedonia is Greek", referring to the name and history rather than the modern region as a whole. The Greek government objected formally to any use of the name Macedonia (including any derivative names) and also to the use of symbols such as the Vergina Sun.”

You incorporated – “The Slavic people arrived in the Balkans approximately 1000 years after the death of Alexander the Great. As a result, the appropriation by the Republic of Macedonia of what Greece held as its “ancient Greek symbols”, raised concerns in Greece as well as fuelling nationalist anger. This anger was reinforced by the legacy of the Civil War and the view in some quarters, that Greece's slavic-speaking populations presented a danger to its borders. The Republic of Macedonia's status became a heated political issue in Greece where demonstrations took place in Athens while one million Macedonian Greeks took to the streets in Thessaloniki in 1992 against the irredentism of Skopje; their slogan was, "Macedonia is Greek", referring to the name and history and not to the territory of their northern neighbour. Initially, the Greek government objected formally to any use of the name Macedonia (including any derivative names) and also to the use of symbols such as the Vergina Sun.”

Please tell us what was wrong with the initial terminology? You make no discussions? Your extremist attitude is obvious – “Some believe in a so called "Slavic Migration theory" which states that the slavic people who currently populate much of the region of Macedonia did not arrive in the Balkans until approximately 1000 years after the fall of Alexander the Great.” This statement is very neural, expressing that people believe in an academic theory which states that the Slavic people migrated into the region one thousand years after the fall of Alexander? Your version is nationalistic and makes no reference to the theory at all.

The article said – “Outside Greece and international diplomatic settings, the country is usually simply called "Macedonia". About 40 countries, notably the United States, People's Republic of China and Russian Federation, have recognised it by its constitutional name, while the remaining majority of countries, the United Nations and other international organisations recognize it as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", often abbreviated as "FYROM".”

Why did you delete this? Actually, the number is around 110 now but I will not make that change until I find the exact number.

Please, before you make significant reverts, discuss them with the rest of us. You cannot just make changes for nationalistic reasons. Macedonian876 18:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to make you acquaintance because it brings me into contact with people like you who, no doubt with the best of intentions, mistake their objections as signs of nationalism and make wikipedia a problematic reference tool.
I cannot understand what you mean by nationalistic. Do consider the changes as proof of nationalsm emanating from Athens, Skopje, Sofia, Tirana? Or are you just an outsider from the region, sticking pins? Wilkinson is quite clear regarding the complexities over Macedonia. Also, the perception of a Macedonian 'region' emerged in the late 19th century and was consolidated in the 20th with the creation of a Republic of Macddonia nation-state. This upsets some Greek Macedonians because it gives validity to the existence of a Macedonian state (and long may it exist). It also upsets some Macedonian Slavs because they are concerned that without a history streching back to Alexander, and without the invented existence of a continuous Macedonian region, they loose credibility. Of course, that is rubbish. I suggest you open your eyes to the Republic and you will see that it is very real without all that surplus. Those are the facts my dear correspondent, and I am sorry if this upsets your Greek/Bulgarian/Macedonian/Albanian (?) sensitivity.
If you have a point, then I will gladly - as I always do - incorporate it in my text. You only have to point it out in my talk box. Merci, efharisto thank you and blagodaram Politis 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of 'which countries recognised ROM and which FYROM', in my estimation, I was originally the one who introduced the names of the SCUN countries that recognised ROM under that name, but in the ROM entry, and I further justified the term 'most'. So whoever you are, be very, very vigilant before you come out with heavy artilery qualitatives, such as 'extremist', etc; because you are only sullying the nom-de-plume you have borrowed to sign your contributions. Do we really want the world to associate the term 'Macedonia' with 'unreliability'? I don't.Politis 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
“I am pleased to make you acquaintance because it brings me into contact with people like you who, no doubt with the best of intentions, mistake their objections as signs of nationalism and make wikipedia a problematic reference tool. I cannot understand what you mean by nationalistic.”

I am, likewise, pleased to incorporate you in my circle of acquaintances which I attribute the groupname “wikipedian schalors.” First, I would like to say thank you for actually contributing to the discussion page. My first question geared to you is if you “cannot understand what I mean by nationalistic” then how can you say “people like me” “mistake their objections as signs of natinalism?” For, if you have no understanding with reagard to what context I use the term “nationalistic” or “nationalism,” you are unable to correctly come to the conclusion that I “mistake objections as signs of nationalism.” Straightforwardly, the statement itself makes little sense as you are not referencing who “their” objections may be as “their” should relate to “people like me” yet it makes no sense that “people like me” mistake our own ojections as nationalistic? Either way, you are erroniously classifying me into a group of people which you believe exist on this “discussion forum” when the evidence illistrates that my actions are none of the sort.

“Do consider the changes as proof of nationalsm emanating from Athens, Skopje, Sofia, Tirana? Or are you just an outsider from the region, sticking pins?”

My comments with regards to nationalism relate to you, as an individual who hold allegience to a certain state, not the state itself at this point. Evidence exists as I can clearly illistrate the idea: You incorporated into the article – “The Slavic people arrived in the Balkans approximately 1000 years after the death of Alexander the Great” when the article said to begin with – “Some believe in a so called "Slavic Migration theory" which states that the slavic people who currently populate much of the region of Macedonia did not arrive in the Balkans until approximately 1000 years after the fall of Alexander the Great.” It has to do with framing the statement. Your statement clearly says for fact that the “Slavic people arrived in the Balkans approximately 1000 years after the death of Alexander,” while mentioning nothing that this is an academic theory with regards to the origins of the slavic people. You are misleading the reader who would cleary and correctly ration from your statement something that is not so fundamentally clear and correct. Through your use of framing, you eliminate the neutral point of veiw and solidly create misunderstandings of great porportions. The theory itself favors one point of view over the other, namly “Greece,” but that is besides the point; to show both points of view, not simply one or the other. Through illistrating both points of view, the reader can solidly make a concious decion with the information that is available but you must represent the information in full with accuracy which you are eliminating. Thus, the theory of “nationalism” is born.

"If you have a point, then I will gladly - as I always do - incorporate it in my text. You only have to point it out in my talk box. Merci, efharisto thank you and blagodaram Politis 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)"

As so I have above – not in your “talk box” but on this discussion page as what you incorporate in the article relates to this page and many people around the world, not only you.

"Regarding the removal of 'which countries recognised ROM and which FYROM', in my estimation, I was originally the one who introduced the names of the SCUN countries that recognised ROM under that name, but in the ROM entry, and I further justified the term 'most'. So whoever you are, be very, very vigilant before you come out with heavy artilery qualitatives, such as 'extremist', etc; because you are only sullying the nom-de-plume you have borrowed to sign your contributions. Do we really want the world to associate the term 'Macedonia' with 'unreliability'? I don't.Politis 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC")

No, we don’t, and that’s why I will stay completely active on this site for as long as it exists. Thank you for understanding. Macedonian876 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All the sources I have read, from Greek Byzantine authors, to Russian historians, Bulgarian ethnologists, ROM press releases, Greek academics... they all concure very clearly that the Slavs started arriving in the southern Balkans from the late 6th century. So that makes it around 1,200 after Alexander the Great. I cannot really understand what the problem is with that, or the implecations. Also, if nationalism is an indication of someone's state allegience, then I stand indiscriminately for the prosperity and economic harmony of all southeast European nations (including Turkey).


On a different level, some ROM authors like to trace their roots back to the Hellenic kingdom of Philip, down the Byzantine centuries, the Ottoman conquest, to today. Others dream of a greater Macedonia. To this effect, many of them make use of the geographical map of Macedonia whose boundaries were outlined in the early 20th century and whose history was establishe with hindesight from the 1950s. But with their arguments and skewed logic they still fail to persuade even half-serious historiography (which, in my opinion, does not exclude the possibility it may well be possible to claim a ROM and Macedonian Slavo-Hellenic heritage to Philip).Politis 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are being somewhat hypocritical? The original boundries of "Greece," which mind you did not include Macedonia, were outlined in the early-mid 19th century? The original boundries of "Serbia" were outlined during that period too? The current boundry of "Bulgaria" and "Greece" was outlined in the 20th century as well, actually, ten years or more AFTER Macedonia was liberated and defined by the Macedonian people? Macedonian876 15:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

? for Moderators

Does wikipedia allow people to add and subtract as they please without discussing the information on the talk page? Should we all follow the rules, or do the rules only apply for some? Macedonian876 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that administrators are not that different from any other editor. I can gently encourage people to behave with civility, or follow other guidelines (and, yes, in extreme cases enforce those guidelines), but none of us should ever take ownership over a page. Also, we're often very busy; I haven't even looked at this article since the major revision discussed below. Discussion here seems to be progressing relatively smoothly, and I'm reluctant to interfere when things seem productive. Jkelly 03:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Djassus entry

Macedonian876, I hope you gave Djassus an explanation for removing his contribution. He certainly deserves one with such a large entry; but its strength is in the argument rather than in hard information. Encyclopedias are not grounds for debate, but for sound and cohesive information on particular topics :-) Politis 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The information provided by user Djassus, as I stated in the "edit summary," constituted original research, as he did not provide any references for the information he included - that is number one. Number two, this is an article with regards to the "Region of Macedonia" and should not be a battle ground for political uses and issues - for example - I can reference many authors that state that "Macedonia was never part of Greece" and that "Macedonians are a seperate ethnic group unrelated to the Greeks" but I do not add that information because that type of information does not belong in an article that discusses the "Region of Macedonia." Macedonian876 19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So we both agree. I hope Djassus gets to read this also.Politis 20:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Politis, I think this is a GREAT day! I hope we will be writing "so we both agree" more often on this site! lol Macedonian876 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remove argument

In my opinion, the chapter 'A general view', needs to be removed; I do not mean to disagree with the contents but this burst of theoretizing is misplaced. Sygonomi Niko, I hope you understand. Politis 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly the point of my revert. There may be PARTS of the Djassos' edit that are misplaced or need correction or need citation. However, we cannot throw the WHOLE version in the bucket. Sorry, Politis, I will not participate, nor express opinion on any specific correction (I leave that to the rest of you editors), BUT I will not agree in TOTAL removal of Djassos edits on the grounds of on Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages & Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Please proceed in adding/removing/correcting etc PART-by-PART. NikoSilver 17:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is me, but I cannot get much sense out of this entry. One phrase where you are not theorizing is when you say that, Macedonia has been the apple of discord between the Balkan states especially at the end of the Ottoman sovereignty. First, there was no geographical, political or economic 'Macedonian region' to fight over because a 'Macedonian' entity was not identified until the late 19thC (I am not denying the right of the Macedonian Slavs to claim a special and separate identity). Second, it was not the apple of discord, because the entire region was fought over between Constantinople and the Latins, followed by the Ottomans. We had themes, villayets and the geographical area of Roumelia, embrassing Thrace and Greek Macedonia - and even that had no definite boundaries. Third, there were no Balkan states before the 19thC to fight over the 'apple'.

In fact, the entire article is flawed, especially the chapter 'Controversy: Republic of Macedonia and Greece', so I suppose this is a real Macedonian salad of an article. Axion Esti those who debate. Politis 17:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to correct the article according to your comments. Just, please, discuss it with all other editors and try to find and keep those paragraphs, sentences EVEN words of Djassos version that may be of value. Sorry, again, for not participating in that discussion. NikoSilver 17:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I think I saw that the controversy chapter was there in the first place. So, as you see, it is not only Djassos' entries that may need modification. My 'debate' is STOP shooting the newbee. NikoSilver 17:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you people that "chapters" are for books, not an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia should be concise not ambiguous? In my opinion, this was a great effort by Djassos, but, I feel that it belongs in a book not an encyclopedia. Open up an encyclopedia and tell me how long the entries are? There is so much inforamtion and nothing is cited? Give me a break - Clearly original research. I am with politis on this one. Macedonian876 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Point noted. However, as per Wikipedia:Long article layout there are other houmongus articles here (of 180Kb) like Origins of the American Civil War. Actually, this article is not even in the TOP-500 in size list. Check 1-500 List. The current article size is 71.1Kb. However, if one still feels that it should be divided, then according to Wikipedia:Article size one must do the following:
Breaking out a controversial section.
A relatively trivial fact may be appropriate in the context of the larger article, but inappropriate as the topic of an entire article in itself. In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary. Consider other organizational principles for splitting the article. Be sure that both the title and content of the broken-out article reflect a neutral point of view.
  • A rule of thumb.
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages (tables, list-like sections and markup excluded):
>50KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
Thanks for the remark, but Wikipedia:Long article layout explicitly says that it can be in the same structured form that it has now (hence the example of Origins of the American Civil War) or it can be divided in more articles like e.g Medieval History of Macedonia, like it is done in the History of the English penny and History of Brazil. In NO case, however, does Wikipedia say that you need to DISCARD information. NikoSilver 17:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, also, for your remark. But, as you should understand, his entire addition is original research. He cites nothing. Again, I do not believe this is the place for original research. Must I pull up Wikipedia rules for you to familiarize yourself with? Or, do you understand this? Macedonian876 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. No, I do not need you to pull up the Wikipedia:No original research because I know that it says the following:
Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
The added paragraphs mention: Strabo, Sfetas, Plutarch, Herodotus, Stardelov, Martis, Andriotis, minutes of the Constitutional Assembly of Athens, Bramos, Misirkov, Glenny, Kiro Glogorov, The United States Department of State and others as sources. I suggest you read the additions. I consider this source based research. However, there may be parts of the text that need citation. I suggest you locate those parts and do the following:
a) provide the citation needed
b) if nobody can find such references, delete those parts.
Thank you. NikoSilver 20:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear editors,

I would really appreciate you dealing with the article. Please feel free to post your changes on the previous/newer versions of the article, since it may contain:

  • (new or older) parts that need citation
  • parts that may be POV (where we should adequately include the other POV) and
  • argumentative parts (which need to be removed).

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Five Pillars, probably all of us do not disagree in what the final form of the article should be. There were some disagreements on whether we revert the newer additions in whole -or- we deal with them part-by-part, in order to ensure that we retain whatever may be of value. Let us put that behind us because the article has remained unchanged for more than two days. Also, the article may need the eye of an expert historian. In any case, some of us need to work on the article more than we work on the talk-page. Thank you. NikoSilver 12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Having seen this I think Djassos (is it dj Ace?) did a very good job. Perhaps some details need to be worked out, but the article is much better now and I'm really glad because someone took the time to write down all these things. talk to +MATIA 12:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This change should not Stay

I still believe, as Politis agrees, that the change by "Djassos" have more to do with politics than anything else. For example - "Macedonians were a Hellenic tribe" - "Philip had a Greek conscience" - "Unfortunately most of these authors, if not all, do not give any proof" - etc. etc. etc. Do you want me to give you proof? Is that not why this is debated? Do you want to make this article a battle of politics? This is pathetic? Djassos's changes do not belong in the article. If you want to talk politics go on a blog - this is not the place for it. This is an article about the region of Macedonia not about the conscience of Philip. Macedonian876 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as I agree with the statements, I should seperate politics from this article. I must agree with Macedonian and Politis on this one. Information about the ethnicity of Macedonians etc do not belong in this article. Djassos's changes are all about that. Andropolus
Make proposals for changing parts of it - if we really need to do so. I believe that most of Djassos edits should stay. talk to +MATIA 16:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

About the recent reverts

I reverted the article to the last neutral version.every change that anyone wants to do,i think that it should be discussed here first...or else we are getting in another edit-war.In the articles about the ancient roman provinces(in the category Macedonia(region) also belongs),there are references about the origin of the inhabitants,e.g.Bithynia.The article about the region of Macedonia does not only have geography section,but it is also history,as all the articles about historic regions.there is no way that someone can make an article about Macedonia(region) without mentioning Philip or Alexander,or the ethnic consiousness of the people they ruled.thus,specific facts should be mentioned.not only the greek side.But they should be all followed by contemporary historic references and not someone just ask 'citation needed'.--Hectorian 14:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What ever happened to all of the above talk? Are we not being hypocritical now Hector? Oh wait, I am deeply sorry, how foolish am I?; that only applies for pro Greek information. Not only does your deletion of sourced and cited information not make sense, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy? Read above? Or, wait, that must only work in theory? Or, maybe only if information is pro Greek? Today is a sad day for the Greek people if your ideas represent the whole. Do you have any idea of the implications of deleting contrasting, vaild, and sourced information? I’ll tell you the implications – it illistrates that the Greek ideal, your ideal,which should be the only represented information in this article, is not only solidly contested, but that it is contested in such a strong manner that the Greek people are even afraid to have it posted where people can see and read it. Why are you so affraid? Why do you show weakness? This is a clear victory for Macedonia and the Macedonian people. Fear of the contrasting arguement has strong implications my friend! Oh, but dont worry, even if the moderaters on this site dont do there job to let all relevent information be part of the article, the Macedonians will make it happen where it counts - and guess what and who really counts? Not biased Wikipedia and not wikipedian "scholars." Andropolus 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Andropolus, I'm going to be frank with you. I believe that you are a sockpuppet of Macedonian876 (talk · contribs · block log) and therefore have requested an IP check. --Latinus 23:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Macedonian876 - he lives in my household. Cannot more than one user from the same houshold visit and participate in the site? Please Andropolus 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll let the administrators decide that... --Latinus 23:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Do as you must and the moderaters do as they must. I'm not worried about you nor am I about them. If they unreasonably block my account or my sons accout you just remember what I said - "Oh, but dont worry, even if the moderaters on this site dont do there job to let all relevent information be part of the article, the Macedonians will make it happen where it counts - and guess what and who really counts? Not biased Wikipedia and not wikipedian "scholars." Andropolus 23:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your nationality? You indicate "Greekness" on your userpage - do you know that fraudulent sockpuppetry has gotten all accounts banned? This happened to Bonaparte (talk · contribs · block log). --Latinus 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationality and ethnicity are two different things my friend. You must seperate the two. Andropolus 23:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you evaded answering! More evidence to go on your file :-) Pes mu, ti milas tin glosa mas i milas to Bulgaro-Skopianiko idioma ton Skopion? --Latinus 23:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA - Then I get this message -

"Vandalism Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Moe ε 00:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"

Alright people - Jkelly - Moderaters - there are just too many Gerkies, Gerkomans, and Greeks (Turks) to compete with on this website. In order for a contesting viewpoint to be added to a page, you must have numbers. This site has been infested with too many "Greeks" who will not allow any other viewpoint but their own to be on the page. What is a man to do? Play these petty revert games? I don't have the time to do this - Therefore, I would like to say a few things that will get me and Macedonian876, AS WE ARE THE SAME PERSON, banned from this site - as, it is not worth it for me to be on this site anymore. We cannot infiltrate cited information; We cannot keep this page neutral; We cannot add any information at all; UNLESS IT IS GOOD FOR THE GERKI? Bye you Turko-Gerks - I suggest you report me at this time. Thank you..... Andropolus 01:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please eliminate MACEDONIAN876 TOO - just incase you forget...Andropolus 01:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case your wondering Andropolus, I am neither Gerkie, Gerkoman, Greek, Turkish or anything mentioned above. All I am is an editor reverting damage done by a sockpuppet, which is what you now admit to be. Moe ε 03:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Listen you stupid fuck! (Are you going to ban me yet you Turkonopolus?) Whether I wrote that shit with Andropolus or Macedonian876 or Jackass101 - it does not matter? The information is the same! Like I said Gerki, you and your Gerkoman friends remember - "It is not Wikipedia nor is it you wikipedian "scholars" who make important territorial, historical, and international decisions." While you dumb asses may have numbers here, which is allowing you to keep the article Pro-Gerkoman and only Gerkoman, the Macedonians will make it happen where it counts. I shouldnt have even started here to begin with - rather than discussing issues online with you Prosphigi and Gerkoman pigs, who only allow, as I stated above, only Gerki points of view, I could be focusing more time on the very important situations me and my Macedonian conterparts are working on. Again, ban me off this fucking site already - Macedonian876 too because WE ARE THE SAME PERSON. Thank you Andropolus 16:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the evidence, my friend :-) see also WP:CIV and WP:NPA. --Latinus 16:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just informing u,Andropolus or Macedonian876 or whatever,that i had reverted the article to the last version made by a non-greek and not-'macedonian'.i could as well reverted to my own last version or to someone greek's version.and i did this cause the 'citation needed' thing was clearly an attempt to provocate the greek position.who ever is the user who added the 'citation needed' in any phrase concerning the greeks,should do the same to the pro-'macedonian' sentences if he wanted to be neutral.so,skipping your personal attacks to other wikipedians and racist comments against the greeks,i am telling u that if u will be blocked(permanently or not) is a result of your own attitude and will maybe make u think a bit...if propaganda has not turned u into a blind person...(something that i doubt it will happen).bye Macedonian876...--Hectorian 16:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Well, I am just informing you that you seem very ignorant. How is entering "citation needed" provacative? Do not such bold statements like "Alexander is Greek" and "therefore, Macedonians must be Greek" and the "official position of the Republic" need citations? Are you stupid? First of all, professors at top universities debate the origins of Macedon and Macedonians and are unable to make a clear decision regarding this issue? Now, please tell me how wikipedian "scholars" have it figured out? You, and the rest of you Gerkoman idiots, are pathetic! Not only that, the statement "therefore, Macedonians must be Greek" in and of itself is a conclusion? CITATION PLEASE! You dumb asses think you have it all figured out which, also in and of itself, shows your competence. In order for this to be a neutral page, you must add passages that allow the reader to forumlate an opinion, not you forumlate an opinion for the reader. Only then can this pathetic page be neutral. At this point, this page is a Gerki infested sad excuse for informitive neutral history. A statement "Some historians believe that there is not enough evidence for claiming a Greek origin of Macedon and Macedonians. The following passages are used to support their conclusion:" and then a list of supporting passages from ancient texts. No conclusion is drawn for the reader as he is able to decide if the passages support the claim. But dumb statements like "Alexander is Greek" form the conclusion for the reader. It is clear, hectorov, that you are as pathetic as the Gerki on this site. Get a life, an education, and.......fuck it, I'm not waisting any more time with you stupid asses. Punk ass Prosphigi.....Andropolus 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you keep saying that, but you keep coming back for more :-) Hey, you remember what Kiro Gligorov said: We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians. So I don't get something - even if the Ancient Macedonians weren't Greek, that still doesn't make them Macedonian Slavs... --Latinus 23:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To Andropolus,Macedonian876 or whatever...:if u have sources,cite them youself,instead of asking someone else to do it for u!but i can understand u...u have got pissed off cause there are so many ancient sources stating that ancient macedonians were greeks and u have nothing to say in order to support the opposite claim...But what can i say?this is history,and neither u,nor me can change it!btw,do not call me 'hectorov' cause i come from a place that the slavs never inhabited...and as far as i know,the -ov in the end of surnames is a bulgarian (and to a lesser extent generally slavic)characteristic...So,since u are a bulgarian or generally a slav,add it to your username:Andropolov...(this way u will show that u have nothing to do with ancient macedonians)--Hectorian 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hectorian, Maz^ogradov would be more appropriate for Andropolus
(Maz^-=Άνδρας=Man, -grad-=Πόλις=city, -ov=Bulgarian origin).
And then, ofcourse, we have:
  • Maz^obran
(Maz^-=Άνδρας-=Man, -obran=Άλεξ-=-proof => Maz^obran=Αλέξανδρος=Manproof=Alexander)
and
  • Ljubokonj
(Ljub-=Φιλ-=-fan, -konj=-ίππος=horse- => Ljubokonj=Φίλιππος=Horsefan=Philip).
Those were the true names of the anchient slavs who conquerred all known world, didn't you know?!!! Give us a break, please!!! NikoSilver 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh and Andropolus, just for this immature, little rant of yours, I'm going to see that your blocked. Moe ε 02:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Concentrate on the 25,713 km² of ROM

How do the IMF [5], EU [6], EBRD, [7], NATO [8] handle ROM (fyrom to the UN)? Thank god they do not confuse the so-called 'Macedonia region' with the actual country! They analyse the 25.713 km² of ROM. That's it.
- The problems in Wiki begin when addressing a Macedonian region. Perhaps some contributors write as if they desire to identify the borders of the Republic (its ethnography, its history) with those of a huge region. Perhaps they want the world to believe that before 1913 there existed an ethno-geographical Macedonian entity; perhaps some contributors may wish to include that they descended from the ancient Macedonians and that they are the fathers of the Greek and Slavic languages, but that pre-1913, mythical Macedonia was torn apart by its neighbours. They write with that imagined injustice in mind.
- Others may pretend the Republic does not exist. It does. Its relations with Greece and Bulgaria are very healthy. Athens was a strong ally to Skopje - and its VMRO government!- during the 2001 civil war.
- Article 134 of the ROM constitution: “…the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs.” Politis 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and Original Research

This particular extract convinced me to add these tags.

This chapter aims is to explain the evaluation of the Slav-Macedonian identity in contrast to the Macedonian identity; put differently, it will show how valid are the various arguments because both sides approach the history in a different way. This chapter is significant because examining such a long historical period it shall define the historical facts from the claims of the adversaries.

Wikipedia should not be trying to "show how valid are the various arguments". - FrancisTyers 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

Conversely to Slovenians, Croats, Serbians and Albanians that beyond the lack of a state tradition, in favor of Protestantism, Enlightment or Napoleonic policy they kept their lingual and Slavic identity, someone would have objections to accept the ethnic identity of Moldavians, Bosnian Muslims and Macedonians [citation needed]. The latter’s identities were shaped basically for political reasons of external factors which are analyzed below; the Moldavian nation was serving the Russian-Romanian competition; the Bosnian Muslim nation was serving the Serbian-Croatian competition; and the Macedonian nation was serving the Serbian-Bulgarian competition [citation needed].


Wikipedia sucks big time with things like this. I think wikipedia should be ashamed, what kind of an online encyclopedia is this, complete rubbish. I was told at university that if we quote from wikipedia, we will be marked down, so much for wikipedia's credibility huh?

Macedonian History

How can pure history be disputed? Do the Greeks still claim that Macedonia is Greek, or have they realized the truth? --serbiana - talk 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only ones disputing history, or rather trying to change it for their own nationalistic views, are the Skopiani who can't admit to the fact that so far the majority of the evidence, i.e. literature, archeological finds, statements by many ancients, etc., points to the fact that Macedonia was Greek. Before I end my post I would like to close off with a statement made by one Polybius also written as Polyvius: "How highly should we honor the Macedonians, who for the greater part of their lives never cease from fighting with the barbarians for the sake of the security of Greece? For who is not aware that Greece would have constantly stood in the greater danger, had we not been fenced by the Macedonians and the honorable ambition of their kings?" (Polyvius 205-122 BC).[9] ;p Makedonoula 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the above quote from Polyvius indicate that the Greeks saw the Macedonians as a distinct and different ethnicity from themselves?

Replace the word "Macedonians" with the word e.g."Athenians" (to remove bias or fear of bias) and read it again to see if it indicates anything toward that (or the opposite) direction...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite true; it works equally well if we replace "Macedonians" by "Romans". In short, it proves nothing either way. Septentrionalis 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The birth of nationalism and of the Macedonian identity

This part of the text seems to me quite one-sided.

1) "The birth of the Modern Greek state in 1830 disappointed with its small borders the Greeks of northern Greece (Epirus and Macedonia)[citation needed]." Its hard to find a (neutral) citation about that.

2)"The important here is that for Greece, Macedonia was a region with mass Greek populations expecting liberty to come." id like to see a citation about this.

3)"Russia would maintain an occupying force in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia until May 1979." ???

4)"the ‘Macedonian’ identity was invented" ( i have the impression that this is the whole point of the article. i think there are two problems with this expression. a) regardless of whether it is true of false it is quite offensive for citizens of macedonia. b) what is exactly is meant by "invented". according to some authors (anderson, hobsbawm) almost all national identities are invented- however i do not think this is what the article means. if on the other it means that there were no indices of national identity/awakening before the communist regime i think this is not true. one can argue about the characteristics of the macedonian national feeling prior to the 1940s(or earlier than that) but the idea that "the ‘Macedonian’ identity was invented to serve the effort of Bulgaria and Serbia to control these lands" is simply inaccurate. - i would also like to know why "Macedonian" and not simply Macedonian)

--Greece666 04:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Practically every neutral source I've read in Balkan history, refers to the Slavs of the period as Bulgarians, who speak Bulgarian and are generally affiliated to the Bulgarian Church. VMORO's fliers did not propagade on a "Macedonian ethnic group", it invited "anyone who feels Macedonian", whether Slav, Greek or Jew. I have cited a source in Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group) which should cover your question sufficiently. It explains the difference between "established" ethnic identities such as Serbs, Bulgars and Greeks, as opposed to unstable, non-established ones, created usually in contested regions (such as the "Macedonians" of "Macedonia" for instance). On the other hand the Britannica article says the people who call themselves "Macedonians", so there's no reason to pretend that people don't raise an eyebrow at this claim. Miskin 03:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


SOME CORRECTIONS TO THE HISTORICAL VIEW

1. Nearly all Nations on the Balkan are inventions . The greek Language is a reavoken language as the became independent they spoke a greek slavic mixture witch was far away from todays greek or the ancient greek.

2.Still the realationship between Bosnien Croats and Serbs and Montenegrian are very unclear and they are called nations too. So why it is allways the Macedonians witch are rejekted the term Nation.

3. Often nations are names after landscapes witch existed befor. The Arabs in Egypt are not Egyptions nore are the Syrien real Assyriens ( only some Thausend) nor the romanic Hispanic iberian ore phonician, the French are not German franconian and the british are not british at all. So that is no argument.

4. disputes about names and places witch are claimed by two people are often existing. I never have heard that Georgia is arguing with the USA about Georgia even in resent history you have Pommern and Pomerce in Germany and Poland ore you have Luxemburg as the state and Luxemburg as the province of Belgium till now Belgium did not attac Luxemburg because of this.

Johann

unbalanced article

I think the article is somehow unbalanced. it seems that it devotes a lot of space to ancient and byzantine macedonian history and comparatively fewer to the two medieval bulgarian empires and ottoman macedonia. actually almost nothing is said for the ottoman period especially if ones takes under consideration that the ottoman rule of macedonia was particularly long. --Greece666 04:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's history itself that is unbalanced in this region. However, feel free to cite your medieval/bulgarian/ottoman sources of significant historic events for these periods...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

greek involvement prior to 1903

"For a first time and in order to protect the Greek Macedonians and interests, Greece sent officers to train guerrillas and organise militias".if what is meant is that greece had not "organized militias" before 1903 this is simply not true. it also represents the greek macedonian struggle as purely defensive (i have some doubts about that too.)--Greece666 04:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have two non-Greek sources which state that Greek guerilla groups were organized by approximately 1904, so it must be simply true. There's no offensive/defensive scenario, there's only expansionist policy against the Ottoman Empire, period. Miskin 03:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Everyone Here Macedonian? or are there some greek people trying to hide that Macedonia is an independent country and has its own history. example: Alexander the Great was Macedonian not Greek. He conquered Greece.

Yup, we're Macedonian and proud of our Greek heritage. ;p Don't know what you are, though..... other then just delusional that is, finding conspirators everywhere you look because most of the archeological/historical finds so far support the Greek point of view that Alexander the Great and the Macedonians was/were/and are Greek. Isn't it funny that the period after Alexander is known as the Hellenistic period. WoW, now that makes sense...lets spread the culture, identity and history from one end of the world to the other of the people I've "conquered" instead of my own. Yeah, nice agruement there dude....NOT. ;p Mallaccaos, 18 May 2006

MAKEDONIA

Rants moved to Talk:Macedonia (region)/rants Telex 10:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
For space consuming provocative rants, see Talk:Macedonia (region)/rants.

Below is what was written by somebody who knows EVERYTHING what had happened before 2300+ years, but that is the same who can not remember what happened 50 years before. How MANY greeks appeared in Macedonia in 1920-1970 period from Turkey and how MANY Macedonians were made refugies from their homes, and had to go to north Maceonia, but also: Canada, Australia etc etc.

I don't trust such persons and their ill teories. Also, mentioning that because the language of the Greeks-who-came-to-Maceodonia-from-Turkey is simmilar to the language that Alexander the Great Macedonian spoke is so stupid teory, according to which Nigerian people are British, just because they speak English. Or Brasilian are Portugiese. Or better - Brasilian are Romans - Roman empire succesors: some Brasilian tribe from Amasonia.

And one more: Alexander was NOT Slav. You are right. There were NO slavs at his time. Slavs is the name which Romans gave to their biggest enemy here (i.e. Maceodnians). Slaves, Le sclaves - do you understand? 62.162.14.13 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC) ________________________________

I really do feel sorry for not only the uneducated slavs who have no idea of history but also the non Greek/Slav outsiders who try to weigh in on this issue with their half-assed theories. The truth is very simple, if anyone ever bothers to actually look at the history of the whole situation. How can anyone doubt the Greek identity of Alexander? How do you justify that anything he every said or wrote was in Greek? It's because he was Greek! I do feel sorry for you Skopjians that you have zero ethnic or cultural identity. It must be awful to hate your history so much that you invade and steal your neighbors. And as for you non Greek/Skopjian "historians" with your thoughts on the issue, why don’t you take a history class or maybe take your head out of the sand before you go and proclaim your worthless theories that only give hope to the Skopjian minority. There is no chance and there never was of Alexander the Great being a Slav. I am sorry I know you close your eyes at night at wish really hard that its true, but it isn’t. It’s just the way it is and there isn’t anything any of you can do about it. MAKEDONIA will forever be Greek, because that’s what it always has been. And as far as the war mongers of your countrymen who claim they will have reunification of "Makedonjia" or whatever the hell bastardized name you have invented I am sorry but that also will never happen. IT’S GOING TO STAY GREEK NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO. So instead of continuing these futile attempts why not look to your own rich slavic/serbian heritage than stealing your neighbors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRMAKA (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not helping man. Miskin 10:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hah, proof that when you type in caps you argument becomes immediately more effective. - FrancisTyers 13:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been reading too many !WARNING! signs. FunkyFly 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories

There seems to be an edit-war going on, which I really don't understand, about "miscategorising" or not the article. To my knowledge, and according to the article itself, the contemporary Macedonian region is NOT officially defined by any international organization or state. That means, that it could be as small as the ancient kingdom of Macedon (which approximately coincides to present day Macedonia (Greece) to as large as from here to India. Furthermore, the name "Macedonia" appears to have ancient Greek roots. Same goes for the language of the ancient people there, and for their self-identification as well. These points constitute enough reason for categorising the article in Category:Ancient Greece for historic purposes (hence the word "ancient" which sufficiently, if not excessively, disambiguates from "modern" Greece) since the regions borders are historic rather than official or actual. I will re-add the category and expect arguementation for the contrary. Thank you.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Article Itself

I realise a lot of talk and ranting goes on between Greek and presumably non-Greek editors about this page, but maybe it might be nice for people to take a time-out and direct some attention to the page itself. It's very long, with large expanses of unbroken text. Large sections have few or no citations. Still other sections are in desperate need of severe copy editing for poor English. I've just deleted a whole section on 'History - A General View' because it was completely pointless. If anyone disagrees with that I'm more than happy to discuss it.

I'm willing to go through and copy-edit the article for good English, but it'll take me a long time as it's huge and I'm busy. It would be good if others would give some thought to this kind of thing too. It would nice to make this article accessible to people who just want to know about Macedonia and don't care a fig for age-old Greek/Slav disputes.

When I'm copy-editing I'll flag or edit blatant NPOV. I'm British and have absolutely no background or prior knowledge of the current situation, so my edits should be reasonably free of POV, since I don't have a POV to give. Trent 900 17:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I've copy-edited the article down to "Macedonia in Balkan Wars, World War I and II". I may have made some mistakes since quite a few sentences made literally no sense, but at least it's readable now. I deleted a couple of statements that sounded very POV. Trent 900 18:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you delete the entire Roman/Byzantine history section on purpose? Jkelly 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. The next section dealing with mediaeval history dealt with Byzantine history also and was rather better written so to stop duplication I copy-edited the Roman/Byzantine section and slotted it in with mediaeval. There's no Roman history now, but then if you read the preceding versions there wasn't before either, beyond stating a date for Roman conquest. Seemed like the best option to me until someone fancies writing a Roman history section. Trent 900 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Article is being vandalise

New or soch puppet contributors are vandalising an agreed article. Suggest blocking unhelpfull contributors. Please check, 62.162.188.110 and user: Andrej Machkovski Politis 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that newcomers or annonimous users can't make the article better. I urge admins to react however they can. --Bomac 15:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Aldux, care to explain your little enterprise? That JP it is not RS is your POV - JS is about as reliable as Ethnologue, as they both do the same thing (missionary work), so I'll be requiring you to remove Ethnologue as well (from everywhere). The general rule is cite the source by name and let the reader make up his own mind. You seem to be censoring the article according to your double-standards POV on what a reliable source is. --Tēlex 20:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ethnologue also is quite mediocre, even if at least it does make an attempt to source its numbers. Anyways, yes, I'm for unfliching censoring of POV-pushing, and I will not let statements running on thin air. Period.--Aldux 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
How does it source the Greece claim. By citing a census that never took place? I'm removing that as well. Tell me your opinion. --Tēlex 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I certainly won't object.--Aldux 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that no Greeks (nor Bulgarians) are mentioned in the census. They are not mentioned in the final report of the census (they are put in the "others" category), but if one gets the CD version of the full results (Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Macedonia 2004) - the official number of people who declared themselves Greeks and Bulgarians in the 2002 census is 422, and 1487, respectively. As far as I know, there were no objections to the accuracy of these numbers from any international observing organization, nor a Greek minority rights organization. --FlavrSavr 03:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Flavr. Now we can put an end to this boring no-census story.--Aldux 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh no. the census of RoM won't be used as the only source here. if someone removes JP, i will remove JP and Ethnologue, regarding the number of 'Macedonians' or slavic speakers in Greece, and i will put the greek census in their place, id est 'none':) Regards --Hectorian 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the RoM census was monitored, so JP no more reason for staying, on no ground, apart from the reasons said before; and BTW, since the Greek census isn't linguistic or ethnic, I would also be forced to conclude that Greeks don't exist in Greece!

(now, that would be quite a find...;-)--Aldux 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Greek census recorded 962 citizens of FYROM. Also given that we have FYROM politicians' estimates on the number of "Macedonians" in Greece, maybe we should add Tjitjikostas' estimate of at least 200,000 Greeks in FYROM. He used to be minister of Macedonia-Thrace. --Tēlex 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. The claim of 230,000 and 270,000 Macedonians in Greece is not in this article. It's in the Macedonians (ethnic group) article. Let's leave it out then. --Tēlex 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A number (962) mentioned at Macedonians, as you'll certainly remember. As for the minister, I think we should at least pretend a Prime Minister...

Also not mentioned (much stranger) are the estimates of the Greek Helinki Monitor.... --Aldux 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If in this article we are about to edit regarding only citizenship (and not ethnicity) and censi (and not estimations), then we should write that in Greece there less than 1,000 'Macedonians'. we will deal with each group in the same way, and this means NPOV! btw, i did not know what Tjitjikostas had said. i only knew about Theodoros Pangalos saying publicly that there is a 200,000 Greek minority in FYROM. the tv stations at that time asked from the government to make steps towards their recognition. lets don't fool ourselves, there are many Greeks in RoM (noone here wondered if he was lying or not, but why the greek government does nothing concerning them). (i am willing to dispute the number, but not their presense). --Hectorian 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
A somewhat update on this:
"SOFIA - With just months to go until it is due to join the European Union, Bulgaria is being flooded with citizenship applications by Macedonian and Moldovan nationals claiming Bulgarian origins to obtain a European passport. “Since 2001, Bulgaria has been attractive for its Euro-atlantic prospects, its stability and the travel opportunities that Bulgarian passports offer. Applications have increased exponentially,” Stefan Nikolov of the Agency for Bulgarians Abroad told AFP. Valid claims of ethnic Bulgarian origin presented by Macedonians, Moldovans, Russians, Israelis, Ukrainians and Serbs increased from 5,495 in 2001, to 29,493 in 2004, with another 23,200 in 2005. “The administration is overwhelmed but still conducts severe checks to prevent unlawful claims,” according to Nikolov. Some 50,000 claims are still to be considered, while “a large part of these might be based on documents with dubious validity,” he added. “Every file is reviewed by experts from the Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, the Interior Ministry and the Justice Ministry to prevent abuses, but this happens at the price of delays in taking decisions,” Nikolov said. Bulgaria is scheduled to join the EU in 2007, although it is still awaiting September 26 and the European Commission’s final ruling on whether accession will go ahead on time or be postponed with another year. Some 20,000 people have acquired Bulgarian citizenship since 2001. In 2005 alone, 2,425 Macedonians, 2,455 Moldovans, 160 Russians, 152 Israelis, 245 Ukrainians and 128 Serbs were granted a ”facilitated naturalisation procedure.” Unlike other applicants, they enjoy all the rights of Bulgarian citizens, including that of attending Bulgarian universities for a token fee, without having to renounce their other nationality. Among those who profit the most from gaining a Bulgarian passport are the descendants of Bulgarian emigrants in Besarabia, a region between Moldova and Ukraine. Some 20,000 of them have already registered in the north-east of the country. The issue however is especially delicate with applicants from Macedonia, a neighbouring Balkan country of about two million inhabitants with which Bulgaria has historically had a dispute over the origin of its Slavic population. Bulgarian historians say Macedonians are of Bulgarian origin and their language developed from a Bulgarian dialect, which Skopje denies. But Sofia was also the first country to recognise Macedonia’s independence from the former Yugoslavia in 1991 and now favours its joining the EU. “Every Macedonian national who does not claim Albanian or Serbian origin has the right to declare a Bulgarian origin. This is an individual act in accordance with the historical reality of our common ethnic origin,” according to Nikolov. A scandal broke out recently in Macedonia over news that the former prime minister and current deputy Ljubco Georgievski had also acquired Bulgarian citizenship. Since 2001, some 25,000 passport claims have been deposited by Macedonians in Sofia, according to official data. The authorities in Skopje refuse to give any comment or present any figures. “I do not want to be a second-class citizen anymore. My husband and I, we love travelling, but the procedure for obtaining Schengen visas is a real torture. This is the only reason I am applying for a Bulgarian passport,” explains Gordana Sonevska, a 43-year-old Macedonian lawyer. Legal procedures granting Bulgarian citizenship are neither simpler nor stricter than in EU member states, according to Nikolov. But the procedure for ethnic Bulgarians is much easier than for other foreigners. Every year, only 100 of the latter are granted a Bulgarian passport"[10] ;)~Mallaccaos, 14 August 2006

I don't think there is any significant Greek minority in ROM/FYROM, nor do I think there is any significant Macedonian Slav minority in Greece. The Dopii of Xiro Nero (all five of them) are experiencing an identity crisis: the Greeks are claiming they are ethnic Greeks, the Macedonian Slavs are claiming they are "Macedonians" (this is the line promoted by their agents), and the Bulgarians are claiming they are Bulgarians (this is the line promoted by their agents). --Tēlex 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, Telex. It would be a lot easier if the Greek government did conduct a census on ethnic affiliation, as well. Hectorian, those numbers in the RoM census are based on ethnic affiliation., not citizenship. BTW, Joshua claims there are 192.000 Macedonians in Greece. --FlavrSavr 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

References

The last change I made was to add the < references/> to make the inline link work. Is the other reference (H.R. Wilkinson, author of Maps and Politics (a Review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia)) used for anything outside of the first paragraph? --Small black sun 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC) I have fixed the reference to use the correct format (both Harvard-style and wiki refs)

Tags

The references to Wilkinson and McCarthy are quite simply misunderstandings of what they actually say.

IMRO

Speaking of Bulgarian-inspired groups, McCarthy does date the formation of IMRO to 1893 pp.87-8. T%his version should at least be mentioned. Septentrionalis 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

The map actually shows the underwater relief... and Greek Macedonia is so pale looking that it seems closer to the bottom of the sea than above it ;-) Politis 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, reedit the map - now it includes a good deal of Western Rhodopes and the corresponding corresponding part of Western Thrakia (in Greece) which are definitely not in Macedonia (region). Macedonia to the west goes as far as the Mesta river. Koliokolio 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Added two new links under MACEDONIAN perspective. Valid and should be left alone.

These links are valid to the topic and should not be repeatedly removed and labled spam.

Please stop edit warring to include these links. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research they could never be used to reference an article. They're not even useful for referencing a point of view, as one is a strange travelogue posted on Yahoo!, and the other is misapplied genetics. Please spend your time tracking down useful secondary sources that discuss the point of view you would like to see better represented. Jkelly 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"All townsmans of Thessaloniki speak pure Slavonic"

A citation from Slavic "Vast passional of St. Methodius" - words of the Byzantine Emperor Michail to St. Cyril: "You are from Thessaloniki and all townsmans of Thessaloniki speak pure Slavonic." The whole text of this passional in contemporary Bulgarian academic publication here. The passage in Bulgarian:

Случи се по онова време, че славянският княз Ростислав и Светополк изпратиха от Морава [пратеници] до цар Михаила, които казаха така: “Ние, с божия милост, сме здрави. При нас са надошли мнозина учители християни от романците, от гърците и от немците, които ни учат различно. Но ние, славяните, сме необразовани хора и нямаме човек, който да ни настави в истината и да ни обяснява смисъла [на Писанието]. Затова, добрий господарю, изпрати ни такъв мъж, който да ни направлява във всяка правда”.
Тогава царят каза на Константин Философ: “Чуваш ли, Философе, тези думи? Друг освен тебе не може да свърши тази работа. Тъй че ето ти много дарове и иди, като вземеш със себе си и брата си, игумена Методия. Защото вие сте солунчани, а всички солунчани говорят чисто славянски.”
Тогава те не посмяха да откажат нито на Бога, нито на царя — според думите на апостол Петра, който казва: “Бойте се от Бога, почитайте царя” (1 Петр. 2:17), но като изслушаха височайшето слово, отдадоха се на молитва заедно с други, които бяха със същия дух като тях. И тогава Бог яви на Философа славянските писмена и той, като устрои буквите и състави [евангелската] беседа, пое пътя към Морава, взимайки и Методия. И той отново започна покорно да се повинува и да служи на Философа и да поучава заедно с него. И като изминаха три години, те се върнаха от Морава, след като изучиха ученици. [PLEASE SIGN BY TYPING IN 4 ~]

This is a hasty statement. We can find most things from the past to justify a quick comment such as the one you are proposing. But the overall evidence does not justify such a statement. I have pre-18th century quotes whereby the Macedonian language is the purest of the Greek dialects, but such quotes need to be contextualised, they must not be interpreted according to contemporary aspirations. Inevitably, slavonic was spoken in Thessaloniki; but by 'all townsmen'? The evidence is not there, the dominant language was Greek (koione and ecclesiastic). If the Slavic element prevailed in any way, you would have expected at least some Thessalonikan churches to hold the liturgy in the newly structured Slavic idiom... Politis 12:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Politis, I agree, this citation must be contextualised and of course it must not be interpreted according to contemporary (especially political) aspirations. It doesn't deny the historical place or importance of Greek culture in Thessaloniki during 9th-10th centuries. But it has importance in Slavic researches, it could be the key to the answer of the question how it was possible for two persons, St. Cyril and Methodius, who probably weren't Slavs, to create Slavic alphabet and especially to develope Old Church Slavonic language.

That is a very good question. What were the criteria for the standardisation of Slavic? Can we find traces in the southern Balkans (Bulgaria, Greece and FYROM/ROM) of the proto-Slavic language that was moulded by Saints Cyril and Methodius? But, unfortunately (though understandably) wikipedia is not a place for original research or for speculatations. As for the ethnic background of the two brothers, there is no evidence that this was an issue at the time; the main issue was Constantinople and the Orthodox east, versus Rome and the Latin west, with extra actors the rising Germanic and Bulgarian aspirations. Politis 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Geographical Macedonia" Map Table

Good morning to all - I am Red_White_and_Blue and I am new to Wikipedia. I am American and hold an undergrad in Business Management. I, currently, am a graduate student and am employed at a major corporation in the United States. I do enjoy the study of history - Macedonia specifically - and that is why I am here. My goal, on Wikipedia, is to intellectually contribute - to the best of my ability. I represent no group and no corporation - nobody but myself. I will focus on technical aspects of pages, such as structure and parallelism, as well as on content. I intend to be balanced and focused and I intend to make changes for the better of Wikipedia. It will be a pleasure to work with all of you.

The "Macedonia (Region)" page is okay, but could use some work. Let's take it slow - one issue at a time. Let's begin with the "Geographical Macedonia" map. I find the usage of terms, explaining the map, inconsistent. For example, I find the labelings "Aegean Macedonia," "Pirin Macedonia," and "Vardar Macedonia" consistant but not the discriptions that follow. If you explain one in terms of location, like "in Albania" or "in Serbia," then the other parts should also do the same. Hence, it should not read "Aegean Macedonia-[1] (or Greek Macedonia)" but rather should read something like "Aegean Macedonia-[1] (in Greece)" for example, or "Pirin Macedonia-[2] (in Bulgaria)" for example. This would keep parallelism in play. Because I am well aware of the "political nature" of Macedonian matters, I will propose two different versions for the edit of the picture's discription - and both changes follow the principles of clarity and parallelism:

Version 1)

Major sub-regions:

Aegean Macedonia N-[1] {or Greek Macedonia} - [in Greece]

Pirin Macedonia N-[2] {or Bulgarian Macedonia} - [in Bulgaria]

Vardar Macedonia - {or the Republic of Macedonia} - [independant]

Minor parts:

Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo [in Albania]

Gora and Prohor Pchinski [in Serbia]

Version 2)

Major sub-regions:

Aegean MacedoniaN-[1] (in Greece)

Pirin MacedoniaN-[2] (in Bulgaria)

Vardar Macedonia - (in the Republic of Macedonia)

Minor parts:

Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo (in Albania)

Gora and Prohor Pchinski (in Serbia)

Both of the above versions follow the basic principles of the English language - and one of these versions should replace the old version. My preference is version one because it is clear to the reader and follows the basic principles of parallelism better than the second. Red White and Blue 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement Doesn't Make Sense

The following statement doesn't make sense: "In the Byzantine Empire and for the next 1,700 years, there was no Macedonian region. There was a number of different themas (provinces). A thema under the name of Macedonia was, however, carved out of the original Thema of Thrace well to the east of the Struma River during the Middle Ages."

It does not make sense to say that there was no "Macedonian region" and then to say a Macedonian province existed? Do you people mean to tell me that the "northern Greek" province of "Macedonia" is not a region? Of course it is a region - hence, it is unrealistic to say that the thema (province) of Macedonia during the Middle Ages was not a region. I understand what was meant, so I didn't change the meaning of the statement, but the way it was presented needed to change. Red White and Blue 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a load of rubbish which I just removed. The Byzantine Empire has always had a province called Macedonia, and for a couple of centuries it had two. The section still reeks of OR. Miskin 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the following mentioned twice?

The following should not be mentioned twice - one right after the other: "With the gradual conquest of southeastern Europe by the Ottomans in the late 14th century, the name of Macedonia disappeared for good as an administrative designation for several centuries and was rarely displayed on maps.[citation needed] The name was again revived to mean a distinct geographical region with roughly the same borders as today by European cartographers in the 20th century.(dubious assertion—see talk page) With the conquest of the region by the Ottomans in the late 14th century and its incorporation into the Ottoman Rumili Province, the name of Macedonia disappeared as an administrative designation for several centuries and was rarely displayed on maps. The name was again revived to mean a distinct geographical region with roughly the same borders as today by European cartographers in the 19th century."

Hence, I am getting rid of one - there is no need to repeat the same statement twice. Red White and Blue 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

.... the first image in this article has been vandalised ....

This site is under attack! Some Vandal has destroyed the site. Please react.

You are all crasy.

Question for Greeks. Why you do not want to call your neighbor Macedonia? Question for Macedonians. Obvious Greeks do not like you, so why you go on holiday in Greece?


Bomac in non-political literature, including prominent encyclopedias like Britannica, 'Slav' is very frequently used in order to add precision. It is not just used in Greece as you would like to think. Miskin 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia is NOT greek

I do not dispute that anceient Macedonia was part of the Hellenic world. That was 2000 years ago !!

Face it greece, those days are gone

Since then that area was conquered by the mighty slavic tribes. The inhabitants of Macedonian region are mostly Slavs- whether you wanna call them Macedonians or Bulgarians. (Even after Greece forcibley removed and/ or Hellenised Slavophiles after WWII.

You may argue 1) The name macedonia should not be monopolised 2) the ancient kingdom of Macedonia was centred in Greece

However, Greeks are "Greeks" -whether they live in the Macedonian region or not. They have never been known as macedonians, and never will.

Stop living in the past please[UNSIGNED COMMENT]

The name is obviously not monopolized, it's used by Greeks and Slavs alike. The term refers to a -loosely defined- geographical area that has been inhabited by both poeples over the last centuries. However, the concept of a Macedonian nationality is relatively recent.Zambetis 14:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to be the best example of online racism. It seems to allow whining Greeks to have their way. What I find so amusing and ridiculously sounding is the whole 'Macedonian, do you mean Greek?' thing that Greek members seem to have going in Wikipedia. Us Macedonians (as in yes US pertaining to those in the Republic, the actual REAL country) have no sway or proper saying in these articles, it's pathetic. No wonder we're told by my university professors that we'll be failed if we quote from Wikipedia.

You mean by professors like these [11], [12] ? Kapnisma 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And the biggest joke is here, [13], hilarius! Kapnisma 08:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kapisma you are going off in tangents

Note

Hi Kapnisma and friends

Obviously you have become acquainted with my recent edits to the Macedonia region article. I take it you did not receive them well , since you reverted them.

I will take the opportunity to explain why i have added them. I hope you will try to hear me out, and are not merely a hardline nationlist.

I made a couple of changes to the history

  • a couple of grammatical changes, especially in the arrival of the slavs part,. I found it to be a little verbose, taking too long to get to the point. It is more effective now, as it says the same thing, but without the confusing confabulation. (note that I am a native english speaker, so i feel that it is not unreasonable to do this)
  • there was an error in the history, After discussin about the arrival of the slavs, it then states that the Hunns and Goths came and raided. Actually they came before the Slavs, and left without establishing permanent settlement, whereas the slavs obviously settled permanently.
  • my major contribution was in the controversy section. Now I understand that you feel strongly about this, and fair enough. If you note I DID NOT CHANGE ANY of the greek perspectives, I respect them. I merely added perspectives from slav side. Now this matter has no PROVEN right or wrong answers. It is merely opinion. I found that the greek POV was predominant, I felt obliged to add the slav POV to make it balanced.


I would appreciate and look forward to your opinions. I do not want to have an edit war, but i think there is no reason that we cannot present the matter from both sides. This is the only way to deal with a matter like this.

Regards Hxseeker 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

An other typical example of how some people think of Wikipedia... First they edit the articles they don't like, without ofcourse bothering to provide sources for their claims [14],[15], using the old POV trick (i.e mainstream history is considered by them POV, true history is what they believe or have read in articles like this one [16]), then they attack [17],[18] those other editors that ask them the obvious thing: provide sources before accusing others for POV. Kapnisma ? 20:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read my comment, you will notice that I am not attacking you. I didn't even dispute any of the content. All i did was attempt to make the article more balanced in the 'controversy' section. You cannot deny that whole part is POV, not you alone but everyone. THis is obvious since the issue is contentious and cannot (has not) been proven any way 100%. So it is not unreasonale to add some further arguements for one side. The greek perspective is many paragraphs long whereas the slav perspective is 2 lines saying "people also demonstrated in skopje". Yes, that's balanced. NOT Hxseek 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I keep having to edit the medieval part. As i've written before: the goths and hunns raids occurred around 300 to 400 AD. The vandals did even raid Macedonia (the closest they got was an abortive attempt to raid the Peloponessus from their base in Nth Africa). The previous version of the article placed the sentence after the slav arrivals, making the paragraph imply that the goths and huns raided after the slavs arrived.

So stop attacking my edits when such basic errors are made in this article (that reflect poorly on the editors' intelligence). Instead embrace my brilliance and the positivity i bring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 13:51, 23 July 2007

If you cannot source your edits, they may be removed. Your repeatedly restoring them can get you blocked per WP:3RR. --Ronz 20:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS UNSOURCED. IT IS TOTALLY ONE SIDED AND GREEK POV. IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK, YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PARAGRAPHS ARE UNSOURCED. SO DON'T ACCUSE ME ALONE OF BEING UNSOURCED.

MY BIGGEST OBJECTION IS THE NAMING CONTROVERSY SECTION. KAPNISMA HAS PROVIDED ABSOLUTELY NO SOURCED FOR HIS CLAIMS, IT IS ALL NATIONALISTIC GREEK RHETORIC. OK THAT'S FINE, BUT YOU MUST THEN ALLOW SOMEONE TO WRITE AN ALTERNATIVE VEIWPOINT.

KAPNISMA CANNOT WRITE THIS ARTICLE TO INFLUENCE THE READER INTO TAKING AWAY ONLY A GREEK POV. THAT IS NOT JUST, AND I WILL NOT ALLOW IT. SO HE ACCUSES ME FALSELY BECAUSE HE CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ! ! Hxseeker 09:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And you're making it worse. Please stop. --Ronz 17:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Every now and then, an ultra nationalist Macedonian Slav appears, screaming about Greek propaganda, Greek POV, etc and reproduces varius ludicrous claims , historical and genetic pseudoscientific fringe theories (see Arnaiz-Villena controversy among others, and Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism (Extreme and moderate)) to support his claims (that Ancient Greece had differrent civilization from modern so contemporary Greeks do not have any right on their heritage, that some Slavs absorbed Ancient Macedonians to produce modern Slavomacedonians, that Tsar Samuil was Macedonian Slav and not Bulgarian, only trying to equate irrelevant things like: Macedonia (country) = Macedonia (region) = Macedon = Bulgarian Empire (called "Macedonian Empire" by them), and like Macedonians (ethnic group) = Macedonians (regioners) = Ancient Macedonians like this editor has tried to do here many times [19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24], [25], [26]

Of course, if you ask for relyiable sources they usually call you rascist or ultranationalist Kapnisma ? 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an ultranationalist. Quite the contrary you obviously are. I simply object to the one-sided nature of the article, and will not stand for it. I made no such assertions that modern Rom = region of MAcedonia and I never said the old Bulgraian empire is Macedonian, or that Tzar Samuil is Macedonian, but he was centred from Macedonia (difference) ! You just cannot swallow my points, becuase you know I;m right

Again, to the contrary it is you that made the ludicrous assertions that 'Greece owns macedonia'.

Anyway at least i have highlighted this fact, and we are attempting to make this article half reputable. Hxseeker 07:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if you ask for relyiable sources they usually call you rascist or ultranationalist

Kapnisma ? 08:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I made no such assertions that modern Rom = region of MAcedonia [27]

I'm not an ultranationalist [28],[29],[30]

Kapnisma ? 09:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Whats your point? those changes do not represent nationalist ideals, rather fact that is not highlighted in this article as it is. But i remain hopeful that this article can be improved Hxseek 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requested

Given the edit-warring here I've requested full page protection. That means no one will be able to edit the article.

Hopefully this will give us time to discuss what we want to do with the poorly sourced material in this article. My opinion is to remove anything that is poorly sourced, controversial, and not something we will able to source. --Ronz 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Hxseeker has a point about much of the article being unsourced - we should seek to source the existing material and get the article onto a better footing before adding anything new. -- ChrisO 22:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Although the article in this form is a result of many debates and talks, I also agree, first thing to do is to see which parts

are considered controversial, by whom and for what reason, ensuring also the relyability of the sources. Kapnisma ? 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, the 'controversy' section. Currently it is totally one-sided. It must be balanced.

Maybe it should merged with the naming dispute page. Maybe we can create a totally new page on the whole macedonia controversy- name, icons, etc, etc- where it must have BOTH greek and macedonian perspective. This way this article and RoM article can be freed of this editing troubles and concentrate on history , present and future Hxseek 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not need to be balanced. Please read WP:NPOV. It only needs to be properly sourced to satisfy WP:RS and WP:NPOV. --Ronz 18:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronz I;m not gonna bother with you. All you do is brandish 'WP:NPV'. I am acqainted thanks. If you are happy to leave articles one sided, AND unsourced that's fine. But i reiterate this article needs improving. With controversial articles where there is no established correct solution, it is NOT satisfactory to leave the article totally one-sided. Hxseek 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Change requested

Please change IMRO to Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization or link it to that article. 67.165.155.235 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Borders of Macedon

This bit "Its recorded history began with the emergence of the ancient kingdom of Macedon centred somewhere between the northern part of Greek Macedonia and the Bitola district in the south of the present-day Republic of Macedonia", appart from being unsourced is also incorrect. Hammond gave a more precise geographic definition, in Connotations of 'Macedonia' and of 'Macedones' Until 323 B. C.", The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 45, No. 1, (1995), p. 122 "To summarize, 'Macedonia' was the name of the homeland between the lowest reach of the Haliacmon and the southern foothills of Lower Olympus both before and after the pre-Temenid era. When conquests followed, 'Macedonia' became the name of the whole area ruled by the king. That area naturally varied from time to time. But within it some distinctions continued in use: 'Macedonia' as the homeland, and 'low Macedonia' or 'Macedonia by the sea', and 'inland Macedonia' (usually called 'Upper Macedonia' by modern historians), which were units of their own and did not include for instance Chalcidice and Paeonia". --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Then that's what should be used. Go ahead, WP:BE BOLD and change it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Leaving the relevant stuff about the borders of ancient Macedonia? Written by a historian that was in the Greek army during WW2 and who in a interview even promotes the name Paionia(?!?) for Skopje(?!?) out of clear sky? Sorry, it is still a promotion of the Greek POV (Greek POV=making difference between the homeland Macedonia and the land like Chalcidice and Paionia that was ruled by the ancient Macedonian kingdom, but was never called Macedonia).
The excavation on Kale in Skopje revealed a ritual pit and bronze coin of Alexander III. This is rather recent fact on the influence of the ancient Macedonian kingdom in the Skopje valley. (Toci (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
1) Hammond's credentials are impeccable and your effort to discredit him rather clumsy (to say the least) 2) The quote comes from a highly respectable scientific journal 3) It cannot (or at least should not) be read as having any implications on the modern conflict (although I can think of people on both sides who would eagerly subscribe to the idiotic view that ancient "borders" -if any- and modern political entities can somehow be related) 4) It tells us nothing about the ancient Macedonian ethnicity 5) It tells us nothing about the modern Macedonian ethnicity 6)Your conclusions on the Kale excavation is OR and totally irrelevant, but I find it quite interesting. Is there any forthcoming publication on the results of the Kale excavation? (If you know anything about it, I think that my talk page would be a more appropriate place). Respectfully--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hammond made a ethnical mistake as scientist (I was doing some courses on what you should do and not do as scientist) and gave that interview that can discredit his work. He uses his authority as scientist and historian to promote political idea and he refers to Republic of Macedonia (or he could have used fYRo Macedonia or fYRoM) as Skopje (Skopje is pejorative term that does not exist nor has existed as state term in history).
You are absolutely true that the ancient borders have nothing with the today's situation and should not have implication on the modern conflict, but they do. Greece claims that Greek Macedonia is 95% of the ancient Macedonian kingdom and that the homeland of the ancient Macedonians is delimited only to that area in modern Greece (meaning it is Greek) +5% of Republic of Macedonia (Bitola, Ohrid and Gevgelija) excluding the rest of the spreading of the kingdom during Phillip II. This is rather frozen look only on the early ancient Macedonian kingdom (the kingdom before Phillip II) in the search for the ancient Macedonian homeland and it is promoted in Wikipedia ([[:File:HistMac.gif|example in the map of ancient Macedonia in the animation]} according to the the map of ancient Macedonia shows homeland and conquered territories). The term homeland in a way tangles the issue of the ancient Macedonian ethnicity and can be misguiding especially with the claim that 95% of the homeland is in Greece. The sole idea to search for the homeland and then make distinction between the homeland and the controled land of the kingdom as shown in the maps above is unnecessary, especially when in the period after the controled land becomes part of the kingdom as is the case with Chalcidice and Paionia.
The excavation on Kale is rather interesting because no one from the archeologists really expected to find ancient Macedonian findings so far north. Albanian archeologists were included in the excavation because they believed that on Kale are possibly hidden artefacts from Dardanian culture.
About the publication. I am not sure. I will try to find time, go to the museum and ask, but I am sure that it will be published as book, if it's not already published. For now I can only recommend you if you live in Greece and have time and money to travel to drop in in Skopje and check the Kale exhibition in the Museum of the City of Skopje. It is small exhibition, but lovely ad rather rich walk through the history of Skopsko Kale. If I have news on the publication I will write on your talk page.
I have the publication from Vardarski Rid in Stockholm. Here is the excavation webpage. It is interesting archeological site of Ancient Macedonia and fun to read publication. You can order it and it has both Macedonian and English text. I am architect and the settlement shows the entire evolution of the building technology from the neolithic to the classical period (which didn't really evolved afterwards and lasted until the 1950s, at least for some of the buildings in Skopje). (Toci (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC))
Thanks a lot for the information on the Kale excavation and hopefully, I will be able to visit the interesting Kale site , the Museum and maybe the rest of your country sometime in the future (preferably when this ghastly debate is over and things have cooled down). I still disagree with the way you interpret the Hammond quote but this is just my opinion and you are certainly entitled to believe ohterwise. I really hope that the official Greek (or the Macedonian) position is not based on such circular argumentation but again that would (or should) have nothing to do with this article. I think that our purpose is to describe the geographical evolution of Macedonia and in this respect I find the Hammond quote useful and illustrative (leaving dubious political connotations aside). Thanks again for the interesting information--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Balkan wars

Someone should correct the mistake written here that "Greece and Serbia attacked Bulgaria in her moment of weakness". In reality it was the Bulgarians who launched simultaneous (and unsuccsessful) surprise attack against Serbia and Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.1.45 (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Medieval History section

I have wished to upgrade this section, to the concerns of some other editors that i am performing 'drastic changes'that require discussion first. Very well

I am merely tweaking the paragraphs in this section to read better and correcting a few details. As a matter of fact, i did much of the writing of the currect version, so it is not as if my intention is to change the slant of the article. Every good article requires houskeeping to keep it fresh and up to date. The couple of fact details that need clarifying are

(1) Slavs did not settle "some parts" of Macedonia, but nearly in entirety. They even populated large parts of GReece itself down to the Peloponessus, although the further south one went, the lesser concentration of Slavs

(2) Continuing from point (1): It should be mentioned that many "áboriginal" balkaners joined the the Slavs ranks. This has not been mentioned in the article. Even in Greece herslf, Greek and Slav villages co-existed and often fused. The locals tended to adopt Slavic language. Only along Aegean cities did Greek remain as the dominant language during these migration times.

(3) Regarding Emperor Justinians campaigns. The reports of capturing hundreds and thousands of Slavs and forcibly removing them to Anatolia etc is viewed by Balkanalogists such as John Fine and Florin Curta as an exaggeration by Byzantine chroniclers (as is likely the reports of hundreds of thousands of Slavs besieging Thessaloniki). In all likelihood, the Byzantine attempts to pacify the Slavic tribes was less than succesfull. Yes some were militarily pacified. But most remained ethnically independent, especially in Macedonia region. Even in the deep south, pockets of Slavic tribes remained until Ottoman times ! Some tribal leaders were 'bribed'into accepting the Byzantine system. The Slavic tribes were far too divided and disorganised - which proved an advantage against Hellenization becuase the Byzanntines could organise a concentrated military effort.

(4) There is no evidence that the so-called Khan Kuber is related to Asparuk . This is at best a theory.

Cheers.Hxseek (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


1. In the texts there is no mention of "some parts" but of "various parts" which is not the same. If you want change it to "most". No problem.

2. This "mixture of Latin and Greek speakers" is also problematic since it overstresses the latin speaker numbers and clearly minimizes the importance of the Greek language. At the time, most Greeks and non-Greeks of the Balcans spoke Greek. And of course it should be mentioned that Greeks were the majority in most coastal cities of the Balcans and not just of Greece if you are to mix Greek geography in this. By your words one could misunderstand the numbers of Greeks populating the Byzantine Empire at the time. "The locals tended to adopt Slavic language." Many did and many became bilinguals and many stayed Greek speaking. This is not correct if applied to rural non Slavic populations

3. This removal of Slavs from the region is not something extravagant. And of course disproving it is not wise. Your "reportedly" characterization is OK with me. Slavic population remained in the region for centuries as were Greeks. There is no problem with that.

4. This I cannot attest for I currently have not studied this information. If I find something in favor or against this I will say my opinion but for now I simply cannot say, so I will not dispute this.

Your tetxs are not the main problem, The fact that you omit most of the older text regardless of these arguments are the main problem. For example you found it proper to omit the whole text about culture in the 9th century, all reference to Cyrillus and Methodius, all reference to Bulgaria and most that has to do with Greece. I also find the text lacking in many parts. If you add things, we can reword and check them but if you do it while at the same time deleting other texts we have to revert the whole addition regardless whether there is a major disagreement with your additions or not. Rewording is one thing and taking out information is another. I also did not like your changing "slavic origin" to "slaving speaking". Leave it for our next conversation.

Thanks for your patience

GK1973 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intetntion to remove the stuff on C & M. Not aware i even did it. I agree its important stuff and should stay.

By stating the region comprised a mixture of latin and Greek speaking is to describe the reality of the situation during early medieval times and not an attempt by myself to minimize the importance of Greek, in anyway. You would be an indiot to deny the importance of Greek. However, i wanted to point out that many people spoke latin, especially north of the Jirecek line: in the dalmatian coast and dacia - where Roman was dominant over greek. In macedonia obviously Greek was preeminent, but there was certainly an attestable latin-speaking presence - as what are Aromanians today.

Lastly, i referred to ethnic macedonians as "Slavic-speaking", as opposed to Slavic origin, because they are of mixed origin (as are all peoples). Paleo-genetically, they are only about 20% Slavic in origin. The remaining majority of their genetic heritage is derived from the original inhabitants of Macedonia - whoever they might have been (Thracians, Greeks, etc). Hxseek (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What do Dacia and Dalmatia have to do with Macedonia? If you wish to add such information, you have to be absolutely clear for you know the sensitivity of this issue. As for the 20% Slavic origin, I really cannot tell. These people have been predominately called Slavs by every organised institution of the times, whether they were called Bulgars or Serbs (Byzantium, the Ottomans, the Europeans, the Church (any church), Bulgaria, Serbia, everybody, so 20% Slav would be somewhat little, it cannot just be the Slavonian culture that was so captivating... there must have been great numbers.) Or maybe by this 20% would you mean those who can boast purity in Slavic descenadance, for "origin" can also be partial? Anyways.. The populations were universally acknowledged as Slavic in origin, which would incorporate those who were completely assimilated by them. If we start dfferentiating races like that then there are absolutely NO pure races worldwide and we would call everybody by the language they are speaking... which we do not. Why don't you say : "of Slavic origin and language"? This would incorporate all and still make clear that the Slavic element is predominant.

GK1973 (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don;t mind. To keep things simple, Slavic origin is fine. Every race/ ethnicity is mixed, and it will get far too complicated, i agree. 203.41.143.148 (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


About the recent edits, i'm reverting once more, i believe most of the information added are irrelevant and the rewordings contain inaccuracies .

For example the statement "By 580 AD, the Slavs had settled not only Macedonia, but most of Greece as ..." is wrong and not backed by the provided reference, the conclusion from the source is in accordance with the previous version.

"Many non-Greek autochthons remained also (Such as Thracians, Illyrians), some of whom fled to remote mountains or fortified cities, but many others were assimilated by the newcomers whereby they adopted the Slavic language and in turn passed on their ancient customs."

No reference is provided for the above sentence, it would help decide if this information should be added and the wording we sould use to mention it.

"Despite intermittent uprisings, the Slavs of central greece were gradually assimilated. The process of Hellenization was threefold. In central and southern Greece, where Slavic presence might have been lighter and Greek presence heavier, the process primarily required the inclusion of the Slavic archonts into the Byzantine socio-economic sphere, effectively bringing back centralized rule [1]. This was augmented by Empire's bringing in of Greek speakers from more peripheral terrtories such as Syria, Armenia and Anatolia (which were steadily being lost) [2]. Although this was achieved in Greece proper, the greater concentration of Slavic settlement in Macedonia prevented the Byzantines from achieving their aims."

This statement is redundant, most of the information is irrelevant, this "details" are not even mentioned in the history of Greece article.

I could go on if i had more time, i believe the previous version is better with neutrality, accuracy and overall quality in mind. Since noone else takes action, for the time being this is the best choice, when i find some time i will make more specific changes instead of reverting.--Zakronian (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"However, i wanted to point out that many people spoke latin, especially north of the Jirecek line: in the dalmatian coast and dacia - where Roman was dominant over greek." And according to the Jireček Line, the entirety of (the modern definition of) Macedonia lay within the Greek sphere of influence. You simply cannot equate the importance of the two languages. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Curta
  2. ^ Hupchik

Macedonia (region)

Macedonia (region) does not cover whole Republic of Macedonia (obviously!). Respect the NPOV that wikipedia has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.27.80 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slavic origin of the Macedonians

This article needs some fixing. IGENEA published some genetic findings on their forum saying that in Macedonia only 15% have Slavic genes. Therefore the sentence: "They are primarily of Slavic origin forming the majority of the population in the Republic of Macedonia." is rather wrong. (Toci (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Slav Macedonians have 15% R1a. This doesn;t equate with 'Slavicness". Although, certainly, such studies suggest that they are primarily of 'Balkan", rather than North-Eastern European (ie Ukrainian) genotype. Hxseek (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Add similar homonymous name of states and regions in the world refference

examples:

Alex Makedon (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Irredentism has something to do with Macedonia Region?

Plz state the paralell between an article about a geographical and historical region and concepts like Irridentism thank you. in the contrary i will delete Irridentism from the See Also since has nothing to do with this geographical and historical region article. Alex Makedon (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps

Hello everyone, I wanted to explain the additions of the maps. I looked at all the maps and only saw maps that verified the whole "Macedonians are Bulgarians" arguments. I had maps from the same time periods showing different situation, and I thought it would be appropriate to post it on Wikipedia, in order to keep it NPOV. Initially there were 4 pro-Bulgarian maps. I removed two, and added two maps which showed Macedonian ethnicity, thus evening the ratio of 2 to 2. After it was reverted back to a 4 pro-Bulgarian and 0 maps showing Macedonian ethnicity, the member stating not to remove maps. So i decided to not remove and pro-Bulgar maps, and added 4 showing Macedonian ethnicity. Hope its understood. Mactruth (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok, but you still added a bunch of ugly, non-readable maps. The urge of adding some dubious content is understandable given the ridiculous issue, but still some quality must be sought. And you broke your 1RR besides. --Laveol T 21:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Mactruth's suggestion is disproportionate i.e. POV pushing. NPOV would mean in this case having a proportion of maps representing various points of view that reflects the actual proportion among the existing such maps; I doubt if that ratio was 50:50 with half of the maps showing 'Macedonian Slavs' (as the presently proposed ratio 4:4 would presume). Apcbg (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Early 20th century Serbian Macedonist propaganda should be represented by not more than one map: we don't want people thinking that it's the real deal, per WP:Undue weight. I've undone an edit accordingly. Todor→Bozhinov 14:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha sure, and the ,,god-given" Bulgar truth is the one. Little boy (Todorcho Bozhinov), do not be so over-confident in Bulgar history. You've got a lot more to learn. BTW, have you got any sources about serious claims that the maps are ,,Serbian Macedonist" propaganda? Or does your Bulgar national pride speaks instead of you? Let me remind you - this is Wikipedia. Bomac (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Medieval History

I keep trying to highlight that Emperor Constans' campaigns had virtually no effect on the Slavs in Macedonia / northern Greece, rather they were more effective against the Sklaviniai in Thrace, central Greece and Peloponessus. The Byzantines virtually had no authority in Macedonia until 1018 AD . Hxseek (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Really ? that was the only info you were trying to include ? Cause a more appropriate title/intro to your version could be "Medieval Slav Party in Macedonian Land, doors open at 580 AD, be there !".
Why did you open a new discussion again ? Anyway, in case you make any new attempts, i advise you to use a decent format when adding a source. If what you add is not your intepretations then you should include a page number, it will help other editors verify. Otherwise i will raise an issue on that, the inaccuracies i presented in the discussion above is good enough reason.--Zakronian (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


Because the information in the article needs correcting, and out of courtesy I am discussing it first prior to changing it

From Barbarians in Dark Age Greece: Slavs or Avars, Florin Curta. pages 532- 533.

"In 783, an army led by . ..Stauriakos, moved from Constantinople to Thessalonika and Hellas, "against the Sklavinian tribes", and forced them to pay tribute to the Empire. .. At that time, at least three important Peloponesian centres were already under imperial authority (Corinth, Monemvasia and Patras). Stauriakos campaign, however, had no impact on the Sklaviniae of northern Greece."
Well you can search more but i don't think you will find anything backing it, there were no clear or long standing frontiers between any land controled by the Slavs and Byzantium in Macedonia, it worked more or less as a pillow. There are some indications only in relation with the First Bulgarian Empire. No other Slavic political entity or sovereign territory can be defined. The term Slaviniai itself was used by the Byzantines to describe the segregated Slav communities they tried to have under control with various means, probably some degree of autonomy existed in those isolated and not so organized groups, nothing to conclude about a total lack of Byzantine control over the area. But there's really no point in chatting if you don't state what exactly you're going to add or alter. I can accept your first statement as a personal point of reference, but as to what specific proposal ? --Zakronian (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


"Backing it ? " . Is that aimed at the author of the published book or me ?

I;m stating that the article needs a little tweak. It reads

In the late 7th century Justinian II organized a massive expeditions against the Sklaviniai of the Greek peninsula, in which he reportedly captured over 110,000 Slavs and transferred them to Cappadocia. By the time of Constans II (who also organized campaigns against the Slavs), the significant number of the Slavs of Macedonia were captured and transferred to central Asia Minor where they were forced to recognize the authority of the Byzantine emperor and serve in its ranks

What does "the significant number of Slavs in Macedonia were captured and transferred" mean ? It suggests that the Slavic speaking units in Macedonia were effectively removed from Macedonia, when this is clearly not the case. The Macedonian Sklavinias lasted until the mid 9th century, when the Bulgarian khanate expanded into Macedonia. Hxseek (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Backing the " Byzantines has virtually no authority in Macedonia...". The last time you moved away from the article's perspective , a tweak means slightly change the wording or add a new sentence.
"In the late 7th century Justinian II organized a massive expeditions against the Sklaviniai of the Greek peninsula, in which he reportedly captured over 110,000 Slavs and transferred them to Cappadocia. By the time of Constans II (who also organized campaigns against the Slavs), the significant number of the Slavs of Macedonia were captured and transferred to central Asia Minor where they were forced to recognize the authority of the Byzantine emperor and serve in its ranks. There are no Byzantine records of "Sklaviniai" after 836/837 as they were absorbed into the expanding Slavic First Bulgarian Empire. Slavic influence in the region strengthened along with the rise of this state, which incorporated parts of the region to its domain in 837 AD. In the early 860s Saints Cyril and Methodius, Byzantines born in Thessaloniki, created the first Slavic Glagolitic alphabet in which the Old Church Slavonic language was first transcribed, and are thus are commonly referred to as the "
Your tweak has to do with the text above, an edit to clarify that after the expedition Slavs continue to emerge and from that time on there wasn't a period long enough if at all they weren't an important or prevailing element in Macedonia. Even the modern views that favour so much the old theory about the great extent of Slavic settlements in Greece don't deny that the two emperors' campaigns to regain control can be considered successful. What you did the last time was overfocusing on the Slavic settlement question in whole of Greece, those details on views only fit a Slav history perspective, cause from a Greek perspective the picture is that of a more or less dark period with little archaelogical information, implying some degree of general decline and a foreign settlement/invasion connection. This is a specific region's medieval history section, needing a balanced and breef presentation. Meaning you can't give less weight to an empire's constant efforts to maintain its sovereignity, either way the regional history of Slavs gains importance (in terms of the region and not specifically about the Slainformation) only as part of the history of the Byzantine and Bulgarian empires. Bear in mind when talking about details relating to the Slav presence outside those two political entities in Greece we're only talking about theories, not clear facts. Was there a Slavic settlement in Peloponnesus for example ? most probably. We can even discuss off-topic about a forgotten village with a Greek speaking population i came across and my speculations about their farming system of common ownership. But the consequences and the extent of that presence along with how it evolved depends on how much value a researcher will give to the limited amount of evidence, and it's not this article's purpose to deploy such a thing let alone only mentioning the view that gives more weight to it, making any attempt to have a POV-pushing character.--Zakronian (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is an article about the region, not specifically about the invasions. But the Slavic and Bulgar incursions are pretty darn relevant about this time period. Moreoever, a closer look a Stauriakos' so-called 're-Hellenization' campaigns is warranted given that doubt exists as to their success and impact. I have provided 3 (three) sources casting doubt. This has not been selective, POV, choosing, but simply 3 consecutive books which i read all concluded the same. So now, why don't you give some sources which posit a contrary view, rather than dismissing my edits as an attempt by me to somehow enhance the weight Slavic presence in the region during the period.

Hxseek (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In brief :

"Engaged in other wars, the Byzantines held little authority in the Balkans, instead tactically withdrawing their defensive line south along the Aegean coast" This refers to what period exactly ? It's close to absolute in meaning, but vaguely placed in time. What about cities like Thebes and Kastoria ? You need a source which states explicitly that or a better wording.

What period? The early medieval period -obviously. It is from Curta's excellent and descriptive archaeological survey of the Danube limes. The 3 successive lines were along the Danube, Mt Balkan range and Istranca Daglar range. The latter was most actively fortified. This was a tactical pulling back by the Byzantines to defenc Constantinople and Thessaloniki in particular.Hxseek (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"It would not be until the time of Constans II that another Macedonian campaign was launched. Led by his capable general, Staurakios, the offensive attacked Sklaviniae in the the hinterland of Thessaloniki, then into Thessaly and the Peloponessus." Your changes here, only to add the previous sentence that fitted your POV, made what was a structured description open to misintepretations a clear misinformation, presenting this campaign as happening after the one by Justinian II. And btw, Staurakios has nothing to do with these expeditions, you are mixing things in your mind to find what you are searching for.

Yes, you're right. Oversight by me. Constans was before Justinian, and long before Stauriakos campaigns.

"In essence, the Byzantine campaigns had little effect on the Sklavinias of Macedonia, which remained independent, yet politically disorganized" Independent in what sense ? It's not directly taken from your source, is it ? No need to analyze it, just quote a source (give the exact page number or at least the chapter) which mentions some sort of independence in a collective treatment, for all of those groups/tribes.

Indepedent as in not under Byzantine rule/ fielty/clientship. I have provided ample direct quotes. Another: The arguement (about the timing of Bulgaria's expansion into Macedonia) assumes Byzantium restored its authority over western Macedonia at some time in the ninth century. Such a recovery, though often assumed, is not documented. Thus, possibly western Macedonia remained Sclavinias up to Bulgaria's acquisition. In this case, Bulgaria would simply have asserted control over various independent tribes - an act which being unrelated to a war with Byznatium, could have occurred at any time in the 9th centuryHxseek (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion and the one above shows how unreliable you are, so i repeat, use a decent format for your sources in general. I already know you are extremely arrogant and far from well educated in this field, i don't have any reason to show more good faith than the minimum required. --Zakronian (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aside from your breaking the 3RR, you are now making personal attacks. Hxseek (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources about the effect on Sklaviniai are focused on one historical event, Staurakio's expedition, while your statement is conclusive, especially this "independent, but politically disorganized" is higly controversial, removed as a whole, clear POV pushing.

see above Hxseek (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I also moved Constans II campaign above Justinian's and changed the sentence to the previous one to avoid misinformation. If you want to add Staurakios seperately, do it, and BTW a source there speculates that the campaign did not involve Macedonia but only Thessaly.

Yes Constans' belongs prior to Justinian's campaign.

As for the "held little authority..", i said it again it's conclusive and arguable so quote a source with such a conclusion and the period it's placed. I'll check again if i need to but the Thessalonian theme for some time in that period (i think in Justinian's rule) extented to Strymon, with the help of many subdued Slavic tribes if i may add ! Constantine V also made significant campaigns and re-established rule in various parts west of Thessaloniki in the mid 8th century. So don't just add something like that only to correlate it with the "independence" of Slavs, defining a loose border that never existed, at least never existed long (or notably) enough to be documented, either political or cultural.

You mean inconclusive? See above for the view that some tribes remained independent even until 850s. I didn't document any border's. Rather, there was little centralized rule in Macedonia. Hxseek (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) --Zakronian (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"What period? The early medieval period -obviously. It is from Curta's excellent and descriptive archaeological survey of the Danube limes. The 3 successive lines were along the Danube, Mt Balkan range and Istranca Daglar range. The latter was most actively fortified. This was a tactical pulling back by the Byzantines to defenc Constantinople and Thessaloniki in particular."

So you spread the conclusive statement " ...the Byzantines held little authority..." from 5th to 10th century ? This is really tiring. We are not here to add our OR, we're trying to build a narrative of notable facts. From around 610 AD when the Slavs made a strong comeback until 800 AD there have been at least four major expeditions against them and the Bulgars for example, it was also a common practice for instance for the emperors to make "loyalty" agreements with Slavic tribes which when not kept sometimes produced measures against them. I already said that at some point the "Thessalonian territory" (denoting strong Byzantine control) reached Strymon with the help of the imperial army and some loyal Slavic groups. That's not to prove the opposite of the sentence you added but to show how disputable its meaning can be. Of course it is more than safe to conclude that there where periods the Slavs in the region where largely uncontrolable and blah blah blah. But what am i so shameless to ask ? a freaking reliable source that contains such an absolute conclusion as the above (and obviously if one can be found it would refer to a smaller period). Frankly i believe this to be meaningless or at least controversial, your own source Curta tells us that there are very few information about Slavs in the 7th century (if i remember correctly), so, just give a source and don't expect me to discuss producing a conclusion on exclusion factors.

"Indepedent as in not under Byzantine rule/ fielty/clientship. I have provided ample direct quotes. Another: The arguement (about the timing of Bulgaria's expansion into Macedonia) assumes Byzantium restored its authority over western Macedonia at some time in the ninth century. Such a recovery, though often assumed, is not documented. Thus, possibly western Macedonia remained Sclavinias up to Bulgaria's acquisition. In this case, Bulgaria would simply have asserted control over various independent tribes - an act which being unrelated to a war with Byznatium, could have occurred at any time in the 9th century"

You haven't provided something usable as a reference, all three sources refer to the effect Staurakios' campaign had on the Slavs of northern Greece (which BTW only in rare definitions includes all of Macedonia) , no conclusive statement to spread in 2 centuries again ! Since we (at last) "went" from "The Sklaviniai of Macedonia" to "some Sklaviniai" , which is pretty vague, we need not draw anything, again provide a source that makes a collective treatment and arrives to such a decisive conclusion. Even the possibility you mention about the transition from Byzantine to Bulgarian rule needs to be sourced directly. The Sklavinias were not states or anything concrete politically, they were groups of people with some notion of rule over an area, they were significantly helped by the plaque that inflicted losses on the native population and the absence of imperial troops due to constant wars in other parts, sometimes even the locals benefited from their resistance to imperial rule avoiding to pay taxes and blah blah blah. They often made compromises to survive and many didn't survive (at least didn't survive free), we're talking about a constant struggle, a real "mess", and you are trying to present it as something discrete. "Some Sklavinias" can also be applied to those still existing in Peloponnesus even after the 10th century (not even touching the degree of "independence" there). I don't want to continue discussing this, my request is very simple.

Lastly i did not break the 3rr rule and the personal comments are largely justified from our previous encounters and the quality of the content you add, if you want proof i can provide it. --Zakronian (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep muttering OR and POV although direct sources a there and clear. I do not have any agendas, you're just being intentionally difficult. Anyway, i think it reads better now. I see your last edit took on board the new knowledge you gained Hxseek (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No, i prefer the previous version personally, but i thought it would be more fair to focus on the changes i was raising objections about and spend some time figuring out how to remove only those without harming the structure instead of reverting as a whole to the stable version. You have a brain of your own to understand it, but you can also ask any experienced editor: if it's not OR, it's borderline OR, definitely unencyclopedic. Don't care to discuss any personal agendas, it's just that you seem to search only about what you already "know", at least in Macedonia topics, and you can only find what you're looking for, it's obvious now. So don't present yourself as an expert of NPOV, this is not the best case scenario here. Just look at the comments in the previous discussion you conveniently avoided addressing in past attempts to insert your POV. One should know by now that you can only contribute something usefull here only working in a pair, lol. On the other hand it's conceited persons like you who contribute a lot of work in this project, in a sense you are of a higher value. Bye. --Zakronian (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


Although you continue the P.As, I welcome your cooperation. I never present myself as an "expert". I am always learning, and only hope to continue to improve the quality of my contributions.

Now, whilst we are talking about history, the ancient history section needs to be expanded. It starts off with ancient Macedon without mentioning the Bryges, Illyrians, and Thracians.

It should start with something like:

At the beginning of the last millennium B.C., the inhabitants of Macedonia were probably the Brygi....believed to be the European branch of the Phrygians.

From 800BC, in the east and west of Macedonia, including Pelagonia and Eordaea, new people appeared. These people were likely to have been Illyrians (who came from what was recently central Yugoslavia). There was a great expansion of Illyrians, south to Thessaly, east to the middle Vardar valley, ...western Bulgaria and Romania, west to northern Epirus. Other Illyrians took control of the middle Strymon valley and the coastal plain including the site of the Amphipolis.

In the first millennium BC, the mountainous area of Orestis, near present-day Kastoria, and the valley of the Heliacmon river, were settled by a people called the Macedons. About 700BC, this clan had migrated eastward from Orestis looking for arable land. Lower Macedonia was ruled by Macedonian chiefs who subjugated or expelled the earlier Illyrian and Thracian inhabitants, while upper Macedonia was ruled by independent tribes. . There were many different tribes that Phillip II welded together to form the Macedon nation.

The continue on with Macedon

The ubiquitous Celts also warant a mention- their raids in c. 300 BC, etc

Hxseek (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(region)/Archive_2&oldid=1147985738"