Talk:Macedonia naming dispute

Talk Archives:

• /Archive 1

Well, let's get it off our chests everyone, shall we? :-) NikoSilver 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Map Published by US Government

Hello I am new to Wikipedia. Wouldn't this map be relevant to the article? Floridapanter (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have many maps showing the same thing, and they look a lot better than this one. Not to mention Skopje is spelt incorrectly and Titov Veles became Veles in 1992. BalkanFever 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this particular map was produced and used by the US government. Floridapanter (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The same government which said that the map was incorrect. And this source is pretty questionable:

• it states that although flag of 'FYROM' has been changed, it still resembles the symbol of the ancient Macedonians.
  • I bet that massive yellow thing in the sky is ripping of the Greeks as well
• says that Greece, Greeks and Philhellenes are justifiably suspicious.
  • so to be a philhellene you must never disagree with the Greeks.
• they also admit that Greece and Greek American groups applied pressure to American airlines
  • that's about the TRNC, but still
• "the interests of Greece and Hellenism are under stress"
  • not even going to comment

Also note the title, "Macedonia is Greece" BalkanFever 03:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, but makes you wonder, why the USA will make such a map in the first place. Floridapanter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily good evidence. The suggestion that the US government came close to recognizing northern Greece as "occupied" Macedonian territory, even in error, is so outlandish we'd need a lot more evidence than this story from a second-rate nationalist advocacy website. So, what's the background? Where, when, in what context was that map used? Who put it there? Who made it? The map is so amateurishly designed (just look at the graphics) it's highly unlikely it was actually made by and for the US government. Whole story is fishy.

Of course, even if the map is authentic (as in: some clueless intern in the US administration found it on the internet and then mixed up its filename with that of the real map that was intended to go there when they prepared the document for the printer), we'd have to assess the actual impact that story had, outside the professional lamentations of those advocacy groups, in order to assign it its proper place. Hardly at the top of three or four different articles, as you have been trying to place it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Google image search for "occupied macedonian territory/territories" returns many images of United Macedonia, but the only one as crappy as this (although not identical) comes from the aforementioned second-rate nationalist advocacy website. This seems suspiciously similar to the White-Tower-on-the-bill "controversy". BalkanFever 07:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The story did make some noise in the Greek media at the time, and there was no suggestion the map was not genuine, though I'm inclined to agree it was far likelier the work of a "clueless intern" or perhaps even a junior United Macedonia enthusiast within the department, rather than an expression of any real desire on the part of the US government to wrest control of Macedonia from Greece. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

YOu know, if it came from the US government, then you can scan in the part of the map that says so. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg

Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Greek atlas

I think it should be noted that Greece did not have a problem with the fact that SR Macedonia had the name "Macedonia". Niko, you say that Greece did not have a problem because SR Macedonia was a sub-national entity, but you're going to need a source, otherwise the reader must decide. What I am actually more interested in, however, is the fact that the language was referred to as "Macedonian" as well. Languages cannot be sub-national, so if Greece did not have a problem then, but has one now, then something is going on... BalkanFever 02:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When has the language ever been referred to as "Macedonian"? Source? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in one of those scans from schoolbooks or that children's encyclopedia we were discussing some weeks ago. I think it was a work translated into Greek from a western source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right, a privately published children's encyclopaedia by Denise Weissman, if memory serves. Hardly an expression of the official Greek position, though I don't think BF was here for that discussion. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction: ,,Macedonia" and ,,Macedonian language" were mentioned in the Geography schoolbook from Ευστρατιου Π. Παπανι. That's what the newspaper says. Bomac (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record: This one [2] Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. Definitely not the official school textbook. That would be something. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

,,Not the official schoolbook"? Do you have any sources? Bomac (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm... I actually own the "Για σας παιδιά" encyclopedia, all 12 volumes of it, in my paternal house. My parents had bought it for me when I was 10, and I kept it as a reference and as a supplement. It is definitely not a schoolbook. Any questions? NikoSilver 15:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I know less about the source than any of you do...BalkanFever 10:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See threads #Answer to DL1977-2's attacks and #Greek encyclopedia further up on this page. This comes up every now and again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

To close this subject (again):

1. Those Greek atlases and such were not representing the official Greek sources
2. The ethnic Macedonian position does not include any such argument. It has never been brought up officially. If it has, cite it.
3. The fact that Greece acknowledges that the country is situated within the wider region of Macedonia makes this a non-argument (ergo that's why it hasn't been brought up officially), simply because -according to the Greek view- a subnational entity (as SR Macedonia was back then), cannot "monopolize" a region (same as the subnational entity of Greek Macedonia can't either).

Anybody who is willing to post this back, will have to cite the first two points above, and then also explain how this can be relevant. For the record, all points included in the Greek position are cited by the official Greek position to exhaustion. No Greek nationalist sites are ever used as sources, no pamphlets, no WP:OR of photos of ethnic Macedonian books etc. NikoSilver 12:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo Map

The map should be modified to display the official boundaries of the Republic of Kosovo.--Arber (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nimetz proposal

In all news networks in Greece there were news that Nimetz proposed 5 different names, with the US favouring "New Macedonia". Should we include this somewhere or it's too early yet?--   Avg    19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you know if it is somewhere on the net yet? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Still searching. Although the proposal is top news in every single site, e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], no site mentions specific names. I guess reporters find easier to say more things when it's not in writing (or perhaps distribute unconfirmed information?). Anyway, I remember the Mega Channel reporter mentioning that New Macedonia is a proposal that Dora Bakoyianni has already agreed to in her meeting with Condoleezza Rice and Greece will not object this name.--   Avg    21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Skai (En translation) does not reveal the content of the proposal, but quotes Nimetz "that it does not meet 100% of the positions of the two sides, but as he said, "and it is difficult for both sides to accept certain points"", and Dora commenting that it is "a more elaborated proposal". I suspect it will be some kind of double name and composite name combined: A composite name for bilateral relations with Greece and International organizations, and RoM for everybody else (if they wish). Those were said to be Condoleezza's views a few days ago when Dora visited her, and the UN is practically owned by the US. Or isn't it? :-) Anyway, for Greek speakers, check the video with the complete commentary by Alexis Papahelas and Nikos Konstantopoulos here. NikoSilver 23:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Same on kathimerini.gr. I don't know what the proposals are, but none of them seem to be to the Skopje government's liking, as the way it communicated [[8]] its apparent displeasure shows. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vreme says nobody knows what the proposals are, and A1 (not the Greek newspaper ;-) ) says they will stay a secret until they are analysed and thoroughly considered by both sides. BalkanFever 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL@anything being kept "secret" from or by the Greek media. According to the Lambrakis press, "Nova Makedonija" seems to be the frontrunner, while another proposal is "Democratic Republic of Macedonia" - what a wank. On the other hand, the Alafouzos press claims that the "New" option is not amongst Nimetz's proposals at all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kathimerini (Alafouzos group) says there are five proposals, while denying that "New Macedonia" is among them. However, this article here [[9]] only lists four: "Democratic Republic of Macedonia", "Independent Republic of Macedonia", "Constitutional Republic of Macedonia" and "Republic of Upper Macedonia". I'm guessing the first three are unacceptable to the Greek government, while "New Macedonia" and "Upper Macedonia" would probably work, but it is an almighty guess how the government in Skopje will react (probably with more stone throwing). --Tsourkpk (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done; I didn't pick up on that discrepancy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Skai supposes (again) thst it is a compound solution of a double name and a composite name, "as evident from the reactions of the political leaders of the other parties", after their briefing by Dora.par.4 I think every reporter has an opinion or supposition on the issue. Wasn't it Dirty Harry who said "opinions are like assholes; everybody has one"? Fits like a glove... NikoSilver 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Going back to my initial comment, I've finally found a link: in.gr (Lambrakis group) says [10] that among the proposals is "New Macedonia" which is what Washington favours.--   Avg    23:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: To Vima claims to have the full text of the Nimetz proposal. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems it is the real deal. Dora apologised for the leak.[11]--   Avg    19:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic political talk removed. Please mind WP:TALK. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

News: At least 5 out of 9 points of the Nimetz proposal are unacceptable by the Macedonian government, especially the point 8. These points will be unacceptable even if Greece uses the veto. Only the points 1 and 2 are acceptable for sure. Menduh Thaci (PDSH party deputy leader) gave unconditioned support to the Macedonian position (Source A1). (Toci (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Real news is that both countries accepted the framework and will meet in New York. --   Avg    23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't wrote that the framework is unacceptable, just that the points are. The negotiations are ongoing. Point 1 and 2 are good ground for negotiation for example, 8 is not. The Macedonian media don't expect any more news before the negotiations in New York. (Toci (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

I didn't write why is there is big objection to point 8. The point 8 says that Macedonia and Macedonian can't be used by the two sides, meaning that both Greeks and Macedonians must delete everything that has that attribute. You will not be able to call yourself province of Macedonia, and we will not be able to call ourself Macedonians. We have to delete the Macedonian from our language and ethnicity and Greeks need to delete Macedonian from Greek Macedonians. It is Macedonian POV that Greeks try to delete Macedonia as name from the history and exchange it solely with Greece. That is why the people complain on point 8. They see it as Greek POV. Deletion of Macedonian from our language, ethnicity and history is seen as unacceptable by everyone in Rep. of Macedonia, but it seems that the Greeks are eager to delete Macedonia from their and our culture.

(Off topic or symbolicaly on the topic. I am great fan and collector or old stories. I will write one. One man was asked by God (In the old times God was often walking among the people and talking to them) to do some deed and he did it exactly as God ordered. God, very satisfied of the man's work offered him an award. He told him: "I will award you anything that you like, just I will give double to your neighbor". He also gave him one night to think about it. The whole night the man could not fall asleep. He was thinking. If I ask for a burden of gold, my neighbour will get two, if I ask for a castle, my neighbour will get two. So he was very worried. In the morning God came and ask him. What do you want. Then the man said: "Pull out one of my eyes and pull the two eyes of my neighbor). (Toci (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Once more you mix Nimetz POV and Greek POV. Greek POV is that the name Macedonia/Macedonian is of Greek descent, but today is only a geographical identifier. However, in order to save our name from your monopolisation, we agree to the compromise that it is not be used by anyone as such and that a qualifier should be used in all cases. For you it will be Upper/New/Slavic/Northern/Vardar/whatever Macedonian and for us Lower/Old/Greek/Southern/Aegean /whatever Macedonian. Do you really think Greeks are happy? This is why it is called a compromise. --   Avg    23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote that the ":Real news is that both countries accepted the framework". If it was real news, and not common news I assumed that the Nimetz proposal is what the Greeks want and are eager to accept the proposal (Greek POV). As I wrote we see both the complete deletion of Macedonia and Macedonians (deletion and negation of Macedonians is of outmost interest of both Bulgaria and Greece) as well as the Greek anexation of everything that is Macedonia and Macedonian as Greek POV (Nimetz POV is Greek POV, and your personal POV is "Greater Greece", probably something from Lebanon to Italy). By Nimetzes proposal you will not be able to use the word Macedonia for your province and and delete everything official with the attribute Macedonian. You will not lose anything there, because the atribute Macedonian is only used in media (there is no ban to that), not in the official Greeks documents and you will probably need to rename your province in Northern Greece. We will have to use compound name and delete everything with the attribute Macedonian and Macedonians as well. In the end we will exist as a mass of people without ethnicity that speaks a "slavic" language. Making our state without ethnicity that speaks a "slavic" language is not our wish. We even see "slavic" a bit offending, because we don't use it. So without Macedonians, Macedonian language and culture in the future "Upper/New/Slavic/Northern/Vardar/whatever Macedonia" and without Greek Macedonians in "Lower/Old/Greek/Southern/Aegean /whatever Macedonia" (probably Northern Greece), you will have only ethnic Greeks (Hellenes) and no ethnic Macedonians to give you headache. That is what we think the Greeks want and therefore the proposal to delete the attribute Macedonian we see as a Greek POV. (This statement is Macedonian POV). (Toci (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

We, Shops say: Не е важно на мен да ми е добре, а на Вуте да му е зле; I don't care if I'm doing well, it's important that Vute (my neighbour let's say) is doing worse. Btv did you hear about the Tourism exhibition in Sofia [12]. Interesting that most Macedonian companies stayed and didn't object. I might go and take a look if I have time. And something else [13] - talking about official positions. --Laveol ^T 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. The Republic wants to join Greece? And Greece is scared? WTF? BalkanFever 11:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some sort of a mismatch I guess. Youknow what they mean :) --Laveol ^T 11:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's an article published today by former minister Andreas Andrianopoulos in Kathimerini[14], google translation [15]. He basically says why don't we recognise them as Macedonia with the disclaimer that this is only a geographical term, just like Bulgaria did, and if they ever claim there is an ethnic "Macedonian" minority or occupied "Macedonian" land in Greece then Athens should reverse the irredentist claim and say well in that case, Greece should annex FYROM. Andrianopoulos says this is the official Bulgarian position, is that true Laveol?--   Avg    22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Our position has been very delicate (a friend of mine has a 1000 pages on Bulgarian diplomacy - not sure if it was an encyclopedia) and remains delicate. I have to look what our conditions were when we recognized the country, but as far as I remembered everybody were surprised by the hatred coming from the country towards Bulgarians. The decision was taken before anyone in Bulgaria became aware of the situation. From what I've read everybody thought that Bulgarians still lived there and would like some day in the near future to re-join Mother Bulgaria. In that context I'd say there were no such conditions regarding the Bulgarian recognition. People here thought the sooner the Republic gets recognition the sooner it'd be part of Bulgaria again. You might not even say that it (what Andrianopoulos suggests) is a common view among Bulgarians cause the common view is very well known (no language, no nation, no history). I've never heard of such consensus even amongst Bulgarian diplomats, but it is a policy I was trying to suggest as useful for Wiki guidelines etc. I mean the idea that this is a geographical term and has nothing to do with countries and every suggestion in another direction should be labeled as irredentist. --Laveol ^T 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your latest remark is also the official Greek POV. Beware you might be accused of being a Greek agent :-) --   Avg    00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Those "other directions" are much more frequent than they should be, and the Greek mentality is that a subject and a name have necessary and sufficient relationship (remember I had said again? It was Thoukididis.). The Bulgarians assumed WP:AGF back then when it was too early. I guess the Greeks have watered the Macedonist watermill too with their stance since... NikoSilver 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the name of a sovereign nation is political by definition; it can never be purely geographical. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

News: No agreement in the name talks, but the negotiations continue. Nimetz will probably come this week in Skopje.

Talk: I see that some of the Greek and Bulgarian editors agree on Nimetz's proposal about deletion of everything Macedonian. I checked several articles in Wikipedia these days and Macedonian is deleted from many articles in Wikipedia, and our Ilinden Uprising is blended with the Preobrazenie Uprising in Thrace even though the uprising in Thrace begun later. There is the answer on the question why Macedonians hate (I would not use hate, but rather distrust) Bulgarians. Bulgaria occupied the territory of the Republic of Macedonia two times in the last two world wars. People as my grand grandfather called these periods First Bulgarian (Prvo Bugarsko) and Second Bulgarian (Vtoro Bugarsko). In every occupation they tried to delete everything Macedonian. Bulgarians will write they have "liberated" Macedonia two times and they have "educated" the people there that they are Bulgarians. Some Bulgarians even today refer to the Macedonians as "uneducated" Bulgarians. That is the reson of the distrust. If you see the censuses from the Bulgarian occupation in 1941-43 you will see that everyone was Bulgarian (my granfather was teacher in Macedonian language and he was signed as "unprospective Bulgarian" (neblagonadezen Blgarin)), but after 1944 and every consus after that almost all of the "unprospective and prospective Bulgarians" were written as Macedonians. Why they are Macedonians and not Bulgarians. Very simple. In every census after 1944 you had freedom to declare your ethnicity. If you feel Bulgarian you write Bulgarian, if you feel Vlach, you write Vlach. In Republic of Macedonia only 66% of the people are Macedonians ethnically and their number was never more then 75% in these 50 years. So you can not talk about repressive politics where everyone was pushed to write himself Macedonian (the Bulgarian explanation for why Macedonians exist), when ~75% felt Macedonian and ~25% felt other ethnicity. Nimetz can write proposals about the name, but he can not limit our freedom to be Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia. It is our basic human right (read Article 15).

Off topic, but connected to point 8 of the proposal: I live currently in Sweden. Swedish recognized the Norwegians hundred years ago and since then they live in peace and prosperity. The deletion of Macedonians is not possible, so you will have to accept us for what we are. So be good big brothers as the Swedish are to Norwegians. If you deny our rights we will always be distrustfull to you and your doings (meaning toward Greeks and Bulgarians, the Serbians recognized the Macedonians 54 years ago). We are Macedonians officially for 54 years and some of the people who declared themselves Macedonians in 1944 were at least 80 years old. Our nationality is not recent event. (Toci (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

In Ottoman elections of 1908 Macedonians declare Bulgarians (see results) . In 1870 they chose the Bulgarian exarchate NOT the Greek or the Serbian . Past cannot be removed Maqedan (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TSO1D's edits

With all due respect, I reverted one of them (and BalkanFever -admirably- reverted the other). Reasons:

• First of all, all these are indeed completely un-historical, and pseudoscientific, as cited by numerous reliable sources in this and related articles. There's no question in the academic community that the modern ethnic Macedonians are not related genetically to the Ancient Macedonians. Period. (Nor that the Greeks are not of ...Sub-Saharan descent for crying out loud!)
• Second (to defend BalkanFever's revert), there is no doubt that showing your country triple in size by attaching provinces from other countries is "extreme and irredentist". See the definition, but also see (the pro-ethnic-Macedonian btw) Danforth's quotes in the featured Macedonia (terminology) (and here, all cited, all citations included).
• Third, it would be seriously wrong to accuse all ethnic Macedonians that they believe this bull****, by not attributing those crazy theories to their "extreme nationalists" only. Being Greek, I'd be tempted, but BalkanFever is a live example. NikoSilver 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To be pedantic :-) aren't we all technically of sub-Saharan descent? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've never understood why the nationalists on the other side of the fence use it in a pejorative way. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Vardar Banovina

How is mentioning the region's previous official name "irrelevant" in an article on the naming dispute? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kekrops on that one. I'll post it myself. NikoSilver 08:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Kékrōps reverted an edit by a WP administrator. 2) "Vardar Banovina" was neither a country nor a region, but rather a province of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, whose borders were greater than that of the Republic of Macedonia and encompassed a portion of Central Serbia and almost all of Kosovo. This is the point at which Serbia tried to denationalise Macedonia, rendering it 'non-existant'. Köbra ⁸⁵ 10:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is your POV; it doesn't change the fact that the region was officially called something other than "Macedonia" before the 1940s. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to deny the fact that that particular part of Macedonia was called Vardar Banovina. What I'm saying to you is that, at that time, Macedonia was officially part of Serbia and that specific province of Serbia was called Vardar Banovina. So, technically speaking, Macedonia (under any name) did not exist between 1913 and 1941. If anyone upholds a certain degree of personal perspective, it is you; still referring to it as a "region". Let's not try and excuse the fact, as well, that you reverted an administrator's edit. Köbra ⁸⁵ 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In the words of the offending administrator himself, being "an administrator's version" is nothing that confers a version any special degree of authority. And the region was just a region before it was made a republic. What's your point? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is an irrelevant piece of information. If you are going to mention what occupier that region was under in the past and what other names that region was given, then I ask you to do the same for all previous occupiers including the Ottomans and going back even to the Romans and ancient Macedonian. Also, if you happen to do this I would like it to be done in the "History of the country" section and the same to be added to every country's history. Therefore, I ask you to simply remove information that is irrelevant in the "Controversy and conflict" section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 14:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is Banovana's were administered during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1929 until the end of WW2. Understand that under Serbian occupation, Serbs gave no rights to Macedonians and CHOOSE THE NAME FOR MACEDONIANS. That is the difference! Macedonians did not CHOOSE the name "Vardar Banovana" rather, it was forced down their throats. Also, there was NO Serbia, NO Montenegro, NO Bosnia, NO Slovenia no nothing. Banovina's were geographic (river) names given to regions of Yugoslavia to try to erase past ethnicities and force a new one - in the case of Macedonians, force Yugoslavian or Serbian with the name. Also, if you are going to argue that Republic of Macedonia was "Vardar Banovana" then it should also be argued that Macedonia and Trace were "Northern Greece and Trace." Maktruth (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In summary, Vardar Banovana was a forced name and was not chosen by the Macedonians, that is why its irrelevant, also it opens up the "Northern Greece" argument. Maktruth (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What "Northern Greece"? Haven't we told you a zillion times that the region was officially called Macedonia since 1913 that it joined Greece? It was NEVER called Northern Greece. Northern Greece was (and still is) what we call Macedonia AND Thrace. --   Avg    01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maktruth, see here in this talkpage the section #Northern Greece misconception. NikoSilver 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Due to the many opposing and unsettled points of view, and lack of references in the article to support them, I've put the disputed POV tag. Crnorizec (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit has been reverted by Kapnisma. Kapnisma, please discuss here why you think that the content of this article is not disputed. Crnorizec (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Crnorizec I find this surreal. It's a page about a dispute, it obviously presents both POVs, why are you tagging it?--Avg (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I, too, think you need to provide some more info, Crnorizec, otherwise reason suggests you should be reverted. --Laveol ^T 22:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does not contain all POVs, as you can see here in the discussions.If you do not want to look for yourself, I will give you few examples:

• here it says that "Slavs inhabited Macedonia for more than a millennium before the name "Macedonians" was first used to distinguish a specific Slavic ethnic group in the first half of the twentieth century", however, here is a different information.
• Here it says "The issue of the republic's name immediately sparked controversy with Greece over concerns that it presaged a territorial claim on the Greek coastal region of Macedonia ", however ther is ambiguity in this and the reference is about "Aegean Macedonia", not about the name of People's Republic of Macedonia (that was the first name).
• the list of countries recognizing Republic of Macedonia under its name has been reverted several times.
• The "Self-determination and self-identification" section for Macedonia is complete mess, and does not reflect the actual situation and has been reverted many times.

In general, if you look at the history and the discussions of the article, you will find so many reverts and disputed facts, that it must be obvious that its disputed. Or doesn't it? Crnorizec (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I object your first objection. It is actually in the first half of the XXth century that the term was introduced. And the very first mention (but not in the same sense - to distinguish a separate ethnic group) was Slaveykov's. And aren't all the others from the first half of the XXth century? --Laveol ^T 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please read this for yourself? Crnorizec (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read it a number of times already presented by different editors. And so what. Do you take Pulevski's words alongside the ones for the unification with Bulgaria? And let me remind you you're about to break WP:3RR. Why don't you put fact tags on the places you don't like. And only because a section was reverted a lot of times does not provide you with a reason to put a POV tag. It might have been reverted because of obvious vandals and POV-pushers. --Laveol ^T 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments:

• Even if some essays were speaking about SlavoMacedonians in the 19th century (which is debatable by itself), that is still "more than a millennium" after Slavs inhabited Macedonia.
• "Greek coastal region of Macedonia" is not ambiguous. Perhaps with your red glasses.
• If there's a reference from an official source on the subject of recognition with a specific name, nobody will revert.
• If it's a mess, try to help clearing it up.

Still no reason to tag the article.--Avg (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the bogus tag. The article is stable for months, with input from users of all nationalities. Every single sentence is cited with reliable sources, and the sections mentioned above represent the opinions of the two sides, and it is stated so clearly. Those sections are bound to bear each side's POV, and that's exactly what they do, and that's exactly what they say they do, and they do it for both. NikoSilver 10:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter what Pulevski wrote in 19th century, or what other people object to, it only matters what you & Co. write. This is why you scare off "users of all nationalities". I will have to ask for mediation. Crnorizec (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that :-) Check WP:ARBMAC --Avg (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

359 map

This map is after expansion the regions taken are thracian and even some illyrian.Its not about date but about having a map of ancient Macedon prior to any expansion.Megistias (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is prior to any expansions to thracian and illyrian territories.

Macedon in 431 BC

Megistias (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Student britannica is under no circumstances a specialised sourced on ancient macedon.student.Not a good source we have many and the 431 map is sourced properly and prior to any epxansion.

I agree that the 431 BC pre-expansion map is more appropriate. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the post-expansion map is also relevant, because remember, Wikipedia is not trying to "win" this godforsaken bureaucratic dispute but to explain it. Once you see the post-expansion maps of Macedon it begins to make sense how the province could have been called that much later as the Ottoman Empire was failing, and how then the appellation of "Macedonian Slavs" could have been thought up, especially by someone with an interest in parting them from the Bulgarians. I suppose the moral of the story is that if you don't want people to use the name of your country sometime in the future, don't conquer their lands... ;) Wnt (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! I made some tweaks in the map caption. A +1.2 million of Anatolian Greeks in the area changed the composition dramatically. NikoSilver 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The RoM/fYRoM list

Regarding Niko's edits, does anyone actually use RoM for international relations? That wouldn't make sense, because international relations are through the organisations, hence using their terminology, aren't they? I don't think Slovenia or Croatia or China use RoM in UN documents or any other international relations. It doesn't change the fact that they recognise the country under its constitutional name, as does the UK. With the US, isn't the federal government what we are talking about here? The senate or the congress do not deal with other countries, so their positions aren't important. With Bulgaria, the popular ethnolinguistic view is irrelevant here. They use "Republic of Macedonia" as the name of the independent country, regardless of the population or official language. BalkanFever 02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right that "for all purposes" may not be the best choice of words, but I think Bulgaria's position regarding the people and language is notable; it is a special case and not unrelated to the subject of this article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't give it a "mixed position", and it has its own article already. BalkanFever 07:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a mixed position with regard to the diplomatic recognition of the political entity, but certainly when it comes to the existence of a "Macedonian" nation. Actually, come to think of it, Bulgaria should probably be in a section all on its own. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the name of the country. That has to do with the demographics of the country, and that argument would still be had with or without "RoM", "FYROM" or a naming dispute at all. BalkanFever 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand BF's concerns. "Mixed" isn't the correct term, since in essence they are all mixed (due to referring to it as FYROM within international organizations). Bulgaria's and USA's (congress) issue is notable, and I suggest a text reference is sufficient. So this is what I'll do:

• I'll merge the mixed section to the RoM section.
• I'll rename the RoM section to something both descriptive
• I'll let the comments for USA and Bulgaria.

Revert me/correct me etc. NikoSilver 11:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Economist mentions this bitter name dispute on their magazine

About the Macedonia name conflict, The Economist magazine wrote:

"If the Olympic games featured an event that measured stubborness and prejudice, the partisans from the Wikipedia talk page dealing with the name wrangle could form a world-class joint team."

Link to the article: http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10879850

I've posted this News elsewhere too, I think the people involved in this dispute should read the article to get some trully unbiased view on this issue. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Truly unbiased? The Economist? It was good for a laugh, as the magazine's 5-minute-coffee-break analyses almost always are. It's not "irridentism" [sic] Greece should fear, it declares, but "instability, or worse". Wouldn't they be kind of related, actually? Or should Greece care more about the stability of its neighbours' borders (except Serbia's, of course) rather than its own? The frequently regurgitated promises of "benefits" for Greece if it simply forgets the name issue are also a tad abstract for my liking; what exactly would Greece stand to gain that it doesn't already have? "But a resentful and isolated neighbour will be worse for Greece, not better." How so? Is that when the "irridentist" passions will be unleashed in their full glory? Will the Albanians again attempt to secede? And why is that a bad thing when it comes to "Macedonia", but not elsewhere? I don't think anyone would deny that the issue should be settled, but Greece can't do it alone as the article's author appears to be suggesting. Perhaps The Economist should try directing its energies more constructively if it really wants the matter resolved, as Greek capitulation can hardly be considered a viable solution. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Macedonia

It would shed a little more light on the subject if someone could provide a map of the Balkans before the Balkan Wars (1912-1914). The Ottoman Empire had the Balkans divided into provinces of some sort. When the Ottoman Empire was collapsing, Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria expanded into the vacuum, and Albania became independent. Though province divisions can reflect administrative convenience, and sometimes are designed to "divide et impera", it would be nice to know where the Ottomans thought the boundaries of Macedonia (and Albania and Kosovo) were.  Randall Bart   Talk  00:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Randall. The Ottoman's didn't have such small administrative subdivisions. There was Rumelia, which covered all of these territories you mention, and there were the much smaller administrative units, few of which coincided with any of the above. See Subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire for more details on that. Specifically for your interest in Macedonia, it was the locals (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Turks mostly at that time) who would call the area as such. Western scholars of the early 19th century were described to define the region "in terms of Strabo" (that early). The modern Macedonian ethnicity started to distinguish itself from the Bulgarians in the late 19th century (see Krste Misirkov for an early enlighter). See the featured article Macedonia (terminology) for more details on Macedonia's "confusing" definition over the ages, where there are maps showing it jumping around like a bean within the Balkan peninsula. NikoSilver 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? You're saying the Ottomans had no administrative subdivisions of Rumelia above the county level. That's not a great way to run an empire, but maybe that's why the Ottoman Empire collapsed. That explains why I can't find the map I'm looking for. I suppose I'm not going to find any kind of census with ethnic distribution data either.

I knew the Macedonian ethnic identity only dates to the mid to late 19th C, but I thought it was named for an Ottoman province. The Bulgarian ethnicity is less than 100 years older than that. The Bulgarians are named for the Bulgars, a race long ago assimilated by the Slavs they once ruled, but in the mid 18th C no one identified himself as a Bulgarian or a Bulgar. The modern Greek ethnic identity is also from the late 18th century. Serbs and Albanians are older, though it would be interesting to know when those ethnicities arose. The Albanian language is not Slavic, which is the primary reason the ethnicity was distinct. Ethnicities are often quite arbitrary and political. Israelis often point out that there was no Palestinian ethnicity 60 years ago. That's true, but they sure exist now.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. They had smaller ones. Just not anyone called "Macedonia". See the article on subdivisions. NikoSilver 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern ethnicity dates ara quite right as you list them. But ethnos is a different notion from modern state. There were Greeks all along since Homer, just with different names (heh, not to talk about the language). The same goes for the Bulgarians of Tsar Samuel. To confuse things even further, the Byzantine Greek guy who kicked Samuel and went down in history as Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer, was a... member of the Macedonian dynasty! I'm not very familiar with Albanian or Serbian history. NikoSilver 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) covers most of what I was looking for. (Why didn't I read that before?)  Randall Bart   Talk  00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect use of "FYROM"

I have a couple of objections to this article. On one hand it says that under UN regulations the county Republic of Macedonia will be referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, not “FYROM”, ”F.Y.R.O.M.”, “FYR Macedonia”, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)” or any other change to the name [16]. On the other hand this article constantly uses the term “FYROM” or “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)” to refer to the same country. This is incorrect and very offensive. Either use the reference or don’t. If you insist on modifying the existing reference, then please clearly state that in this article the reference has been intentionally modified and that the article is subjective.

“1.5.6 List of countries/entities that have not yet granted recognition as either RoM, or FYROM”. I really don’t know how to respond to this. No country or entity has recognized the country by RoM or FYROM.
They have either recognized it by its constitutional name Republic of Macedonia or by the reference the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

I’m a newbie at this Wikipedia stuff and it is the reason why I write this in the discussion place and not just simply modify the article. So please, take the necessary steps to ensure that Wikipedia provides objective information. [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Noompsy, welcome! "FYROM" in this article is used only when referred to as such by Greece or others. Which particular case did you spot where it isn't so? Please copy it below.

For those who haven't granted recognition yet, it's normal. Some countries simply don't have any diplomatic relations yet, so they haven't used either of the two names. NikoSilver 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He meant as "RoM" or "FYROM", as opposed to "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". I'm pretty sure "RoM" was first used here in Wiki....BalkanFever 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. I saw your edit. It was I who had deleted "RoM" (which is never used if I am correct), and I only left the acronym in the heading of those who use f...y...r...o...m... so as to repeat it below where the title would be otherwise huge. Now that you made it huge (for which I don't mind if it annoys you), I'll remove it also from the previous heading. NikoSilver 00:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I had was specifically with the use of the word “FYROM”. The reason why this is, is because it constitutes a word by itself that is rather easy to pronounce. It being such would imply and give people the wrong idea that the name of the country is simply the word FYROM. Also in this whole article, the reference “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is used 12 times and FYROM 11 (after the change). You can clearly see my concern as to the possible confusion that might arise regarding which is the proper reference to the country in question.

Another thing is that I would like the complete reference to be used when needed which means “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The reason why this is such is because:

1) The UN resolution states that "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the reference and not "FYROM".

2) Abbreviating it or modifying it in any way would be offensive to either side because it violates the agreement. In this case, using FYROM implies taking the Greek position in the dispute because like I said before it becomes a word of its own and there is no mention of the word “Macedonia” anywhere which is the Greek intent in abbreviating the name. On the other hand you can choose to use the name “Macedonia”(and discard “the former Yugoslav Republic”).

EXAMPLES:

In the beginning of the article there is a line

“The provisional reference "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM) is currently always used in relations when states …” - I don’t see the point in putting “(FYROM)” in here. What should that imply? That the country is referred to by either “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” or “FYROM”? That by itself is incorrect. The country can be referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” or “Republic of Macedonia”. Therefore maybe the better choice in the brackets would be the constitutional name and not a “word” that doesn’t exist.

Under “Current situation” section:

“Only 8 per cent supported accession under the "FYROM" reference” - Again, this is incorrect because the reference is not “FYROM” but rather “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. The people that supported accession under a reference, clearly did not mean “FYROM” but rather “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

Still under “Current situation” section:

“instead calling it ΠΓΔΜ (Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας), the Greek version of FYROM…” - FYROM is already a Greek version of the reference. It should be noted that the reference is “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” but the Greeks refer to it as "FYROM" (which is incorrect and breaks the agreement).

Under NATO and EU accession talks , and the Greek veto:

“The Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis had initially denied ever committing himself unequivocally to exercising Greece's right of veto, stating instead that he would only block the neighbouring country's application for EU and NATO membership if it sought to be admitted as the "Republic of Macedonia",[46] but on 19 October 2007, he stated that without a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue, FYROM could not join either NATO or the EU” - If the use of the word FYROM in the sentence is meant to portray a statement given by the prime minister then please use appropriate quotations to indicate that the use of the word FYROM is exactly as it was used by the prime minister and also include a footnote stating that the use of the term “FYROM” is politically incorrect. If you are paraphrasing and using the reference then please use the correct reference which is “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” or state that he used “FYROM” when he should have used the correct reference.

All other instances of “FYROM” are quotes from other people. If you could specify somewhere in the article that the use of the word FYROM rather than “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is politically incorrect (and breaks the agreement) and when referring to the country, the UN reference should be used properly, which is “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

I realize that the length of the reference is inconveniently long, but that is the reality of the situation. If you want to have an objective article, you have to waste a couple of keystrokes.Noompsy (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no answer to Noompsy's request to change and properly use the reference given by the UN for referring to the country. I would also like to request the particular change as I see that the reference has been modified to agree with certain biased intentions when "abbreviating" the name. I would appreciate a response and/or the change requested to be made. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was already fixed in three steps. First by BalkanFever,[18] then by me,[19] and then by BalkanFever again.[20] Missing something? NikoSilver 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a page search and "FYROM" is used only once in Wikipedia's own voice, to introduce the acronym. Perfectly legitimate. The other instances all occur in quoted material. Are you suggesting we should deliberately misquote these people? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't suggest to misquote people. Please read my post above. What I wanted to point out is the following: The reader should be able to make a clear distinction between "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM". The first one is a reference to a country that exists while the second one is a word that is not a referrence to that same country. So when you introduce the "acronym" (in wikipedia's own voice), you are suggesting that the reader can use either one and that there is no distinction between the two. That is simply wrong. Noompsy (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the Manual of Style on Macedonia-related articles, you will see that we are actually required to introduced the acronym: "In such cases, the first use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should always be followed by (FYROM) if the abbreviated term is to be used later in the article." We are not required to enter into long-winded discussions about how ostensibly inappropriate or offensive it is every time we use it, much less when we quote someone who uses it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John Shea the medical doctor

What are the John Shea tracts doing in the source section of this article? "Dr" John Shea is in fact a medical doctor at an obscure university with scarcely any books to his name even in medical matters, not a historian and not even a journalist. They should be removed as non compliant with WP:RS and the info they are used to support removed as well as unreliable in the extreme. Any thoughts?Xenovatis (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a tract, it's a book published by McFarland & Company, a major US publishing house. This source clearly meets our requirements for reliable sourcing under Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are John Shea this is not a personal attack and you will not refer to it as such. This is the full quote from WP:RS:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

In this caser there are numerous works available by academics and not partisan laymen like Shea. These tracts should be removed as they are obviously biased.Xenovatis (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your personal opinion of Shea's worth simply isn't relevant. We use sources on the basis of whether or not they meet Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria. I'm not Shea, by the way, but personal attacks on people aren't allowed under Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It’s not propaganda. Like you said: “In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses;”. That piece of literature is published by a respected publishing house and thus falls in the category of reliable sources. If you don’t agree with John Shea’s point of view, that doesn’t mean it is propaganda.

This article tries to portray both sides of the same story. Thus when you try to explain one side of the story and you use reliable sources that confirm your position, you cannot disregard them simply because they go against the opposing side in the argument. If that was so, then there wouldn’t be a need for an article explaining both positions, but rather just the one position would be regarded as the true one and that is precisely what is being debated here. Again, just because the author does not share your view on the issue at hand does not mean that it should be excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP policy states that academic sources should be prefered and there are a great number of those to use in this issue which means that propaganda pieces by non-expert and partisan laymen like Shea have no place in this article.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available

Shea is a medical doctor who and not a historian or journalist as he is presented. This is obviously misleading and intented to deceive. Hence propaganda.

Xenovatis (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This quotation referencing Shea as a historian or anthropologist is clearly misleading and indicative of bad faith editing and intent to deceive since he is neither.

Multiple organisations and scholars of history and anthropology have stated that there is a minority within the Slavophone community in Greece which self-identifies as ethnic Macedonian.[170][171][172][173][174][175]

Xenovatis (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's purely your opinion. You're entitled to it, but we can't use it as a basis for excluding Shea. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You certainly can't present Shea as a historian or anthropologist or any other kind of academic specialization relevant to this discpute. Reference removed.Xenovatis (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisO reverted my changes without discussing in the talk page even though a clear and compelling rationale is set out above. This is a clear case of edit-warring.Xenovatis (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Your link to well poisoning does not point to any policy and is misleading.
• Shea is not a scholar on anthropology but a medical doctor, to claim otherwis is misleading since most people understand scholar to mean relevant academic as opposed to partisan layman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar#Scholars
• If you persist in your edit warring you will be reported for it as well as your attempts at intimidation.You should take this warning seriously.
• There are no multiple references to individuals but two. Again this should be spelled out.Xenovatis (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Further to the above see the following:

• John shea is at the university of Newcastle Australia

• This is the only John Shea in that institution.

• Xenovatis (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously he is neither a "historian", nor an "anthropologist" (neither an ..."organization"). He is into hypno-sexo-psychology, for what I see. Moreover, most reviews (no, no peer reviews here - I mean in Amazon's link above), speak about a "macedonian viewpoint". Not to mention that from what I read he tries to connect the ancient Macedonians with the Slav Macedonians (which is completely un-historic and shows he must be biased). I recommend this source be removed entirely from all controversial citations. The one that Xenovatis noted included. NikoSilver 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

He is into hypno-sexo-psychology

Probably got interested in Macedonia when he heard about Vergina.Xenovatis (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because he portrays a point of view that YOU happen to disagree with does not make him BIASED. This article exists so that both points of view may be presented (whichever they might be) and that is what is going on. The fact that you don't like the arguments presented that oppose your view does not give you the right to say that they should not be included. It is BECAUSE they oppose your point of view that they should be included. After all, the whole article is ARGUMENTATIVE and because it is such one needs to see arguments from both parties. And for the record, he would not be the first person to suggest that Slavic people were present at the time of Ancient Macedonia. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that would be irrelevant to you at this point. The fact of the matter is, the sourse qualifies as a reliable one and should stay present as one. Just because he is not a "historian", nor an "anthropologist" as you say, doesn't mean that he cannot write a book on that matter after doing proper research and citing proper sources. Plus, the publishing company was said to be a reputable one so would you please LET IT GO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bojancho (talk • contribs) 02:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Shea is obviously biased and his book could be easily removed as a source from a section that is already supported by five other sources but it's not that big a deal, is it? Funny that the people who responded above seem to think that it's simply a case of "disagreement", though. It is possible that Xenovatis did notice those five other sources, yes? 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear about this. "Bias" is not a valid reason to disregard a source. As WP:NPOV says, we are required to "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Clearly the publisher, a major publishing company, is a reliable source. "Bias" is not a criterion for judging reliable sources; the criteria are that sources should be "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (note that this applies to the publisher, not the individual author). As for Shea's credentials, his list of publications shows that he has written a number of books and papers about Macedonian issues, all published by reputable publishers and academic journals (see [21]). The fact that his day job is as a medical researcher is irrelevant. It's perfectly possible for a person to have expertise in more than one area. The bottom line is that you have a POV disagreeement with what Shea says, so you are trying to impeach his credentials. That isn't acceptable - our criteria for inclusion aren't dependent on personal politics. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But after you reverted him, Xenovatis did not delete the source. He merely described that he is a medical, which is correct, and highly relevant. The article now lists him as one of the "multiple historians and anthropologists", which is entirely false (or at least entirely unsourced). Isn't it? And you had to revert him twice as "blatant POV-pushing".[22] (and then warn him for ARBMAC, and then report him in ARBENF, and I don't know where this intimidation ends). Why Chris? NikoSilver 10:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Crucially in the link Chris gave us John Shea himself does not list Macedonia, anthropology or history as being within the scope of his expertise.

Expertise:personality assessment, Cancer control and prevention, psychology, Human influence processes, including in particular suggestion/hypnosis phenomena, links between suggestion/hypnosis and personality; physical and psychological benefits from psychological interventions with cancer patients

Xenovatis (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Let me be clear about this. "Bias" is not a valid reason to disregard a source." I hope you weren't responding to me since I agreed that it should be included in the particular section despite his obvious bias (that comment has nothing to do with my personal bias since for all you know my take on the dispute could be similar to his). After reading parts of the book, I could see why Xenovatis would react to the inclusion of a highly partisan source by a medical doctor (his publications notwithstanding). Shame that you responded to everything (even to my imaginary 'bias' -that is, if you were responding to me-) but my last question, though. "The bottom line is that you have a POV disagreeement with what Shea says" -did Xenovatis remove the five other sources supporting the same section, yes or no? We're simply discussing, don't be so hot-headed. :) 3rdAlcove (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed the fact that Xenovatis originally created this section with the title "John Shea excrement" and posted a vitriolic personal attack on Shea [23] (which I removed). I don't think there's any doubt about where Xenovatis stands. Two other issues: yes, of course Shea's position could be considered partisan, but other pro-Greek sources are equally partisan. This isn't a relevant consideration. As WP:NPOV says, the neutral point of view policy "requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." In other words, we have to represent partisan opinion on both sides, not exclude one side because the other side doesn't like it. Removing sources on those grounds is a fundamental breach of NPOV. Secondly, the fact that Shea is a medical doctor is likewise irrelevant. Albert Einstein was a patent clerk; Charles Lyell was a lawyer. The professional status of a person isn't a consideration in terms of assessing whether their writings are a reliable source. Our criteria for assessing reliable sources are clear (see WP:SOURCES) and I note that nobody in this discussion so far has identified any criteria that exclude Shea's published works. Dismissing him as a "medical doctor" is a rather obvious attempt to bias the reader against the source by impeaching his credentials - a violation of NPOV - and certainly isn't acceptable. Would we refer to "According to patent clerk Albert Einstein..."? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO. Arguments could perhaps be made against the above but I declare myself sufficiently intimidated not to dare. I retract all my objections.Xenovatis (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel intimidated. For the record, I've withdrawn the arbitration enforcement request in the light of your positive engagement here. In future, please bear in mind the neutrality requirements that I've explained above - they're non-negotiable and we all have to abide by them, even if that isn't compatible with your personal point of view. (You might find Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy useful.) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference with the nationalist Greek sources used is that we state they are so (and if we missed some, then let's fix them). Shea's position is partisan, and it should be noted so also. And yes, maybe we shouldn't even say that he's a psycho-sexo-hypnologist, but on the other hand including him deliberately in a sentence about "multiple historians and anthropologists" is plainly false, and misleading. That is the "excrement". NikoSilver 23:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the wording to "Some organisations and academics", which looks fine to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ager reference

As I can't view page 19 of the Ager reference on Google Books, I'd like someone to provide the precise wording of the passage that mentions the attacks on the Greek churches in Melbourne. Until then, using loaded terms like "retaliation" isn't helpful. Simply reporting the incidents should suffice. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The passage in question says: ""[T]he problem of identity this conflict encouraged remains a major difficulty today. For example, it has led to violence in such far-away places as Australia where 'Greek' and 'Macedonian' communities burnt each other's churches in 1994." The other source, Shea, describes arson attacks against Macedonian churches and cultural institutions in Melbourne "less than a week after Australia recognized [Macedonia]", which would have been 1994. Doubtless it was covered by the media at the time, so further sources shouldn't be hard to find if needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess that falls on me, then :-). Haven't found any articles from that time period yet, but all articles (from 2000 onwards) that I found mention burning and bombing churches, but not who started it. BalkanFever 03:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was in the context of large angry demonstrations (presumably by large angry Greeks?) against Australia's decision to recognise Macedonia. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I know the (nationalist idiotic) Greeks started it. I'm just trying to find references to back me up. BalkanFever 09:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet you do, but unfortunately this nationalist idiotic Greek won't have a bar of it until you cough up the goods. As for the "large angry" demonstrations, ChrisO, they had nothing to do with the arson attacks and were entirely peaceful expressions of the right to free speech of a group of Australian citizens. There are no "Macedonian" churches or "cultural institutions" in the centre of Melbourne where the rallies took place. The minor skirmishes among hotheaded youths, the real context of the attacks, occurred well out in the suburbs. Interestingly, my sources in Melbourne inform me that the office of the Pan-Macedonian Association continues to have its windows smashed on a quasi-regular basis by Slav extremists. Check your sources again, or find better ones. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You know I was referring to the specific group of Greeks who were (are) nationalist and idiotic, don't you? BalkanFever 09:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pan-Macedonian my ass. Monopolisation, anybody? BalkanFever 10:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pan-Macedonian in the sense of encompassing immigrants from all of Macedonia. Being a Greek organization, it is perfectly clear which Macedonia is meant. I also get the feeling that no Slav organization would be inclined to use a Greek prefix such as "pan" in its name, your penchant for Greek ethnonyms notwithstanding. It is really no different from the Slav organizations which go around calling themselves "Macedonian" or even "United Macedonian" with not one iota of disambiguation, but you wouldn't dream of calling that monopolization, would you? By the way, are you condoning acts of vandalism? Or is smashing windows a perfectly legitimate form of protest against "Greek oppression" and "monopolisation"? You're not in Melbourne by any chance, are you? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I am, which is why I know who started it. Are you? I thought you knew already: type in my ip. The point is I am trying to find sources even though it is quite obvious. Oh, and, just last week a Macedonian Orthodox church near me had its windows smashed. I don't condone any vandalism, but don't try to put some sarcastic spin on this. BalkanFever 11:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought so. Still, being in Melbourne doesn't mean you can be everywhere all the time or know everything that happens in a city of 4 million people, to be able to claim with certainty that "the Greeks started it" without solid evidence. I'm sure that's what your community leaders and activists — you sound like one of them — have said in order to perpetuate the well-worn myth of "Macedonians" as "victims" of the dirty "cigani", among others, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. I know there are plenty of Greeks in Melbourne who would beg to differ. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, no. I have talked to Greeks in Melbourne. I am friends with Greeks in Melbourne. Many condemn the attacks. The nationalists try to argue that the Australian government started it by recognising the country (under the provisional reference, btw) and that they were right in attacking the "Skops". Not one has told me that they attacked the churches and properties in retaliation for church burning/bombing. That was later, when the ethnic Macedonians retaliated (which was wrong). Again, I will try to find references for this. And seriously, don't spread this bullshit about me calling Greeks sub-Saharans or gypsies. That guy isn't me, nor do I know him. BalkanFever 11:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So you know the perpetrators personally, and they've even discussed the rationale behind the attacks with you? Now there's a revelation. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The nationalist Greeks I've talked to may have done it, or they may have just been defending their fellow "patriots". I'm sure you know plenty of them personally, although that's not really a revelation ;-). BalkanFever 12:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the vandals, no, but I do know members of the Pan-Macedonian Association of Melbourne and Victoria who have related the attacks they have suffered as an organization from extremist elements in your community. Do you know any of the "Macedonian lions" who attacked Greek churches and continue to attack the Pan-Macedonian Association? In any case, it is a matter for Victoria Police, not Wikipedia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite probable that I do know them, but I'm not aware of it. I don't discuss politics with every member of the ethnic Macedonian community that I interact with, so in many cases I wouldn't know if an individual is extremist or not. BalkanFever 12:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Compared to some of the epithets you've levelled at me in the past — "racist" casually springs to mind — "nationalist" and "idiot" are almost affectionate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say you were one of those nationalist idiots who burnt down churches? Well then I would have been right.... BalkanFever 10:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I am sure some of yours and Chris' best friends are Greek.Xenovatis (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All my friends are Greek. Not that there's anything wrong with that... ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but Kerkops you are forced to. You see you are a Greek so normal people won't hang out with you.Xenovatis (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure to be your friend, Xenovatis, one would need to take an elaborate Hellenism test. BalkanFever 10:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your refraining from further ethnic and personal attacks might be advisable. I will not be following you in escalating this and I strongly urge you to remain civil in the future.Xenovatis (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. BalkanFever 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that Shea fails to mention the attacks on Greek churches and properties that occurred at the same time. Maybe Xenovatis has a point after all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If the omission is due to a desire to portray the Macedonians as the victims of Greek oppression, that would merely reflect a rather common Macedonian POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It does cast doubt on his academic rigour, if nothing else. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we drop the antihellenist-not antihellenist discussion and concentrate on finding evidence on the condemnable attacks on Greek and Macedonian property that are in fact reliable. Since BF has suggested that he has personal knowledge of these events I am convinced they are true although some sort of reference would be nice.Xenovatis (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I will keep looking for newspaper articles from the time period. As I said, newspaper articles from this millennium that mention the attacks do not specify who started it. If I cannot find anything, I am fine with leaving the passage as it is. BalkanFever 12:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, matey. It will be pretty hard to prove unless the oldest article you can find definitively describes the attack as unprecedented. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well in the Greek case there was some form of precedent, but I get your point. We'll see how it goes. BalkanFever 12:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus! Is this whole discussion here over the word "retaliation"? Is it any excuse if it was a "retaliation" or not? I think that we should not include that word even if it were proved that "the X started it". We are not in the third grade. NikoSilver 23:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't excuse it. It's disgusting, but it would seem important to know who started it, yes. One was the provocation which resulted in the other. Just like Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia and Poland was the provocation for WWII. Or do you think that for WWII we should just say that Britain also attacked? So, I'm gonna say that as soon as it is confirmed, it should definitely be included. Bojancho (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Northern Greece misconception

I've never used this part of Wikipedia before so I apologize ahead of time if I've erred in any way.

I do not want to get deeply involved with any debates, however I wanted to bring something to the readers attention. While the article mentions that, as a part of Yugoslavia, the region of present day Republic of Macedonia (as it is recognized in my home country of Canada) was known as Vardar Banovina before it became the Socialist Republic of Macedonia, does the author of the article not owe it to the reader to also mention that the Macedonian province in Greece also went through two name chanegs: North Territories and Northern Greece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.251.213 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have any sources to back up your claim that the region in its own right, i.e. without Thrace and the rest of "northern Greece", has ever been referred to as anything other than Macedonia since its incorporation into the Greek state in 1913, you're welcome to provide them. If. Hint: The renaming of the Ministry of Northern Greece to the Ministry of Macedonia-Thrace doesn't count, as the name of the region per se has never changed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. Macedonia (Greece) has been an official region of Greece since annexation in 1913 and until 1987.^[24] After that it was split in three and merged with Thrace, to become: West Macedonia, Central Macedonia, and East Macedonia and Thrace. NikoSilver 11:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Macedonians (Greek) had a strong regional identity all along, even before annexation. NikoSilver 11:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Macedonia in its own right was never called "Vardar Banovina". BalkanFever 11:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because it never existed in its own right before the 1940s. Macedonia, on the other hand, did. We're talking about official regional names here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To have "your own right", you have to be partly autonomous or autonomous. Before that she was under Yugoslavia's right, and Yugoslavia called its province as such. BTW, if you have a source of how it called itself before Y named it, you're welcome to place it here. NikoSilver 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The first modern region to be called Macedonia officially was the Greek region, in 1913. So even in that sense it is the "Old" Macedonia. Before that, its official name was whatever the Ottomans called it, of course. The same goes for Vardarska, naturally. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

My POV.

To the Macedonians

You should just change the name of your country to "Macedonia (Skopje)" or "New Macedonia" or "Fyrom" or "East Nicaragua" or whatever and get this over with. You shouldn't screw up your EU membership over a little spat with your neighbors.

To the Greeks

You should just let them call their country "Macedonia". Hey it's their country. If you had a next door neighbor named Fred would you go up to him and say "You can't call yourself Fred, because I have a friend named Fred"?

To both

Do you people realize that the whole rest of the world laughs at you for engaging in this silly quarrel? We see you like a pair of kindergartners, just whining for the sake of whining. Life must be pretty good in the Balkans if this is the only thing you can find to complain about.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks. What would you suggest to... (see heading below) NikoSilver 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fictional secession of Baja California from Mexico as a new country, the "Republic of California". Would the United States accept them in NATO as "California", with no disambiguation? Especially if they openly taught their schoolchildren "United California" irredentist scenarios, i.e. that California historically belongs to them and should one day be liberated from "US occupation"? If they named themselves "Californians" and didn't accept any form of disambiguation as e.g. "Hispanic Californians" because... "it is offensive"? If they called their language "Californian"? If they claimed a minority of 800,000 "Californians" in your "US-occupied" California, while in reality there were only 3,000 to 30,000 in a total population of millions of proud Californians who were also proud US citizens and resented the other side's suggestion that they were not Californian because they had a US identity? If their prime minister bowed in front of this map here? ([1])

So you're from California, how about having the Mexicans say that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were Mexican heroes? That the Statue of Liberty is the symbol of Mexico? How about calling their country "Republic of California" and denying you the right of being called Californians? How about you compromised to this absurdity and told them okay, but guys, at least accept there are some other Californians, please call yourselves "Mexican Californians" and they said "no, we're Californians and only Californians, you won't dictate how we'll be called"? How about they decide that they don't speak Spanish any more but "Californian"? Oh and if you think this is too ridiculous to be true, welcome to the Macedonia naming dispute! --   Avg    22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a very good analogy Avg! Huxflux (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be well cool to have a Republic of California. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, same it would be cool if we had the United Macedonia too. Just look at the population stats to see that the Greek Macedonians would be a majority. I wonder if they are stupid or if their scheme includes some sort of cleansing though (or both). That wouldn't be cool. NikoSilver 01:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You told us that we weren't Macedonians. You told us that Macedonia is Greek. You led the UN to give us a provisional reference, which you don't accept by the way, saying "fyrom" of "FYROM" ([faıɹom] or [fiɹom]), because you don't want to utter the last word. Then, you decided that since you were looking stupid, you would try and get us to disambiguate. The last proposal for disambiguation was rejected by you, because there are no limitations on the word "Macedonian". Essentially, you want us to stop calling ourselves Macedonians; for that adjective to be solely for you. "I'm Macedonian, he's Slavomacedonian". You say you're concerned about United Macedonia, yet you dismiss it as impossible. If it can't happen, why are you so scared? Because us calling ourselves Macedonians can somehow be offensive to you. Are you seriously that stupid? And no, we never said that we were the only Macedonians. That is some more bullshit from you. Avg, we were speaking Macedonian long before we were independent, and you didn't give a shit. Macedonian language is one of the clearest of all terms with containing "Macedonia/n". Well, that and Republic of Macedonia. BalkanFever 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Greeks were indeed wrong (and "stupid") to tell you that you are not Macedonians. You are Macedonians, (a) because you live within the modern Macedonia (region), and (b) because you call yourselves that. You're just not the only Macedonians. NikoSilver 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• The adjective must be for all Macedonians. Any subgroup should have a qualifier IMO. NikoSilver 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• The Greek Macedonians never opposed to any sort of disambiguation for their own name. They never rejected the "Greek" qualifier, nor did they even reject the "Aegean" qualifier (see article), despite that it has been used in an irredentist way. NikoSilver 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Your size is indeed small, but that does not diminish any secessionist danger, because (a) times change, and (b) allies change. How do you expect to enter a military alliance when you openly threaten one of its members? That's a little crazy. NikoSilver 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Your language was first called such after the works of Krste Misirkov in the late 19th century. Before that, it was "Western Bulgarian". The abstand (distance) of your language from Bulgarian is very small, but modern linguists do not consider that a serious reason for classifying it as "dialect" or "language". "Language" it is, if the speakers themselves say so (through their politicians). And yours do. Again, however, you do not have the only Macedonian language. We also have the irrelevant ancient Macedonian language and the irrelevant modern Macedonian dialect of the Greeks. We also have Macedo-romanian, but this is the only one with a ...non "insulting" disambiguating portmanteau. NikoSilver 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We became independent in 1991, Niko. Greece did not dispute the name of the language between it's standardisation and our independence, so Avg is completely and utterly wrong in his analogy - insinuating that we "decided" we speak Macedonian along with our independence and everything that it entailed (or was perceived to entail). You know very well what "Macedonian language" refers to these days, overwhelmingly so. We don't know if XMK was actually separate from Greek, and we will probably never know, but it isn't really talked about much. Neither is your dialect. It actually seems that you decided you speak "Macedonian" (as a dialect of modern Greek) after our independence. Maybe that's a misconception, as with the 1980's province renaming thing, but whatever, I don't really care much for that. As for "Macedo-romanian", apparently it is insulting to some Aromanians, who like it as a language rather than a dialect of Romanian. But that is a different issue altogether. BalkanFever 08:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, your opinion is not the reality. The Greek government only wants disambiguation for the others. Even the (milder) nationalists as a group want "We are Macedonians, they are Slavomacedonians". The idea is for "Macedonia/n/s" to refer to one concept only - the Greek concept. But alas, I'm just an Antihellenic Slav (tautology), so why should you listen to me. BalkanFever 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You took the Macedonian province of Yugoslavia and you named it a "Republic of Macedonia". You took the Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian and you named it "Macedonian language". What was used as a regional term you converted it to a national term. This way you deny everyone else in the same region their name. It's so simple. I won't even go to Ancient Macedon, this is beyond ridiculous and the greatest proof of the extent of propaganda that can be found in abundance in FYROM schoolbooks and other texts. This has even gone as far as for you to deny now that you are Slavs! In terms of what the Greeks want, they made it perfectly clear, while almost everybody believes that Macedonia is almost synonymous to Northern Greece, they will compromise in simply using a qualifier and you using another. However, you don't even entertain the sense of compromising and of course you now reap what you sow. Oh and Greece's best friends are Slavs (the Serbs), so no tautology there.--   Avg    12:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BF, those that I stated are not "my opinion". They are "the reality", and they are cited by numerous references. Except bullet #2, which is a rational conclusion of my own, based on the theory of subgroups (in logic and math at least, where a name refers to one thing only). And I don't know where you got that "the idea is for "Macedonia/n/s" to refer to one concept only - the Greek concept." See my bullet #3 and its sources that claim otherwise. Even when it came to the irredentist Aegean qualifier. NikoSilver 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all in your head. We don't deny you anything. We don't have the ability to deny you anything. And we did not convert the term, we just used it in a different way, for ourselves. Not for you. We don't give a fuck what you call yourselves. Be "Macedonians" as a regional group of Greeks if you want. We have called ourselves Macedonians in an ethno-national sense for a while now, and you didn't complain. In Yugoslavia we were Macedonians. Not just regional, ethnic. We spoke Macedonian in Yugoslavia, and you didn't complain. SR Macedonia was a sub-national entity, but we were the same people we are today. We spoke the same language we speak today. And you did not complain. But now you choose to complain. Then you look stupid, and decide to go for disambiguation. Except we hardly ever come up with you. It's not our fault, that's just the way it is. BalkanFever 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say you deny us anything? Where did I say you converted the (which?) term? Where did you get that Greece did not complain? (It actually did, through Constantine Karamanlis (uncle of today's PM), but indeed it wasn't as important for the Greeks as long as you were a "subnational entity"). I admitted Greeks looked stupid when they refused your Macedonicity [sic]. Don't do the same mistake now that the Greeks accepted the inclusion of "Macedonia/n/s" in your name(s). We are not far from a solution BF. Just help it become a popular idea. I did my best for my part well before it became Greece's official position, and pushed it against my compatriots (here, and outside). You can succeed too. NikoSilver 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a reply to you. I know how to indent ;). BalkanFever 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but you do give a fuck. You only say you don't in order to score brownie points with outsiders, who gullibly buy your "but all we tiny, poor, harmless eternal victims want is the right to self-determination" bullshit. The more honest among you have no such qualms. A perfect example would be my vain attempts on another talk page to get through User:Toci's thick skull that one can be Macedonian and Greek at the same time. "But how can you be Macedonian if your passport says you're Greek?" That is the reality, crap aside. Your claim that you are the Macedonians does imply that anyone who isn't "Macedonian" (in your sense) simply isn't Macedonian (in any sense). And in case the implication weren't enough, we are explicitly reminded that we can only ever be "Greeks" who happen to live in (or occupy) Macedonia, never Macedonians per se. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how that translates to the history, territory, etc. We all know who is trying to monopolize the name, and it isn't Greece. If it were, it wouldn't accept "Macedonia" in the name of a neighbouring country at all. Of course, that was the official Greek position until a few years ago, but not any more. Skopje, on the other hand, has consistently refused to accept any form of meaningful disambiguation. It is glaringly obvious why: doing so would require you to recognize the existence of other Macedonians, and that would require a thorough revision of the entire national raison d'être. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, it's a little odd that what was once called California is now Baja California, while the area north of there is now called California. If the Mexicans got really upset about that, I would say we should take it to a neutral arbiter (the International Court of Justice or Judge Judy), and if the court then said we had to call the place Alta California or choose a new name, I would be okay with that. We could call it TSFKAC, except that's too hard to pronounce. We might choose the name Fyrom. That's good easily pronounced name with a cute story behind it, and it's clear that the Fyromese don't want it.

The big difference between the Macedonia naming dispute and the Budweiser naming dispute (or the iPhone naming dispute) is that for the latter we have the rule of law. Country names should go through a similar process. There should be an international trademark office with final authority to say who can use what name where. The absence of any such authority has allowed this dispute to fester for all these years.  Randall Bart   Talk  01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

lol, we got the UN for that. We also have international law, but it's a little vague. It should be, I think. Can you imagine, for example, if we had ..."international patents", along with those "international trademarks"? Greece wouldn't let anyone else use democracy on these grounds! :-) Anyway, I just want to note that it's getting increasingly frustrating for the Greek Macedonians when the use of the name "Macedonian" becomes gradually to refer automatically to someone other than them. They certainly do not deserve this violation of their self-identification rights, not more than the Californians do. I can also understand the ethnic Macedonians in that respect, so I wouldn't mind if the Greek part was forced to also adopt a qualifier if it ever seceded (because now we can always call her Macedonia, Greece, just like we were calling the Yugoslavian province/republic "Macedonia, Yugoslavia" -even in Greek earlier sources). NikoSilver 18:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To outsiders

A question by a Greek: [Justifiably/unjustifiably] a homonymous [country/ethnic group/language] or a [province/regional group/dialect] [was before you/emerges] next to your border. Were it needed, would you resent the addition of a [geographic/chronological/ethnic] qualifier in your name[s] in order to distinguish yourselves from others in your region? NikoSilver 16:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The View From Athens

In IHT (http://iht.com/articles/2008/03/31/opinion/edbakoy.php), Dora Bakoyannis wrote an article today about the naming issue. Can I edit the "Greek View" section from the article? 79.103.159.50 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.159.50 (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. (But mind WP:BRD) Also, see WP:WHY and create an account. NikoSilver 23:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the article and well done spotting the link. Since Dora's article is today's news, it might deserve a mention in "current situation" section since she explains why Greece will veto FYROM's entry.--   Avg    00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And another one from Dora from the Wall Street Journal [25].--   Avg    23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

PM Nikola Gruevski's picture placing a wreath to the statue of Gotse Delcev with the flag of the United Macedonia on top[26] is mentioned as an example of the country's widespread irredentist propaganda by the Greek FA Dora Bakoyannis in her article on the Wall Street Journal.WSJ NikoSilver 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Death Threats

The International Herald Tribune on March 27th 2008 published an article: Macedonia police examine death threats over name dispute, about death threats made against FYROM journalists and academics who publicly favor reaching a compromise in the dispute with neighbor Greece over the former Yugoslav republic's name. I believe something definitely ought to be mentioned about this in the article here, because these are criminal forces with considerable if not massive sway in FYROM, and would account for the fact that FYROM "has not budged ONE INCH" in its negotiations with Greece, as Dora Bakoyannis has said. This is a critical point. Such Supra-Nationalists (And whatever external powers and interests are backing them), if allowed to continue, and if heard and believed abroad, regrettably, threaten to engulf the entire region in a new massive war, the likes of which Western powers (who are ridiculing this dispute) cannot even imagine (or on the other hand, in a strategic sense, they may be actually counting on it - time will tell the truth). "You Shall Know them by their deeds" (NT). Melodramatic perhaps, but with very real potential for a future scenario. And the FACT is, they are operating now. I agree some research into this needs to be done first beyond the IHT article. Regards, 216.254.163.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really; the IHT is a reliable enough English-language source, and the matter has been widely reported by the media in both countries. Go ahead, WP:BE BOLD and add it to the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New section

Ive added a new section about possible future names for FYROM. Its well sourced and is rather interesting. I hope everyone is ok with it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up. That information is already in the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i didn't see it haha Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Greek) Macedonia having to use a qualifier as well

Although it hasn't been brought to the foreground of the internal political discussion, Greece may need to adopt a qualifier for her Macedonia even today to settle the naming dispute. Personally I'm comfortable with any of Lower, Old, Aegean, Greek or Southern. The question is, are the neighbors comfortable with any of the respective antonyms (Upper, New, Vardar, Slavic, Northern)?--   Avg    00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am NikoSilver the "rampant nationalist", the man "with an axe to grind", the "POV-warrior", the "member of the Epsilons", and I approve this message! NikoSilver 16:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, isn't Greek Macedonia enough of a qualifier? --Laveol ^T 20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

She won't and the only qualifier for Greece is "actual" Macedonia.Ancient macedon is all in Greece,the kingdom of Macedon is most in Greece and the region (rom) is in is Paeonia and Dardania.Part from other facts.Megistias (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean as was "Yugoslav Macedonia", before it became non-Yugoslav? NikoSilver 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, good question -- if the Greeks pull through with having a qualifier for the country's name, then the region's name needs a qualifier, too... —Nightstallion 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really , the (rom) is a neoterism.Megistias (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For qualifiers, I believe Greek Macedonia should be called "Southern Macedonia" and Republic of Macedonia "Northern Macedonia", that would be the BEST solution. The problem is Greece wants to call Greek Macedonia simply "Macedonia" while Republic of Macedonia has to change its name to "Northern Macedonia"Maktruth (talk)

The problem is "Macedonia" allows Greeks to call themselves "Macedonians" while "Southern Macedonia" may be a precedent to forcing ethnic Macedonians into calling themselves "Northern Macedonian." Please understand forcing ethnic Macedonians with a qualifier and not having a qualifier for Greek Macedonia implies to ethnic Macedonians that it is an ethnic qualifier also, and we fear a change in our name means a change in our ethnicity. That is why BOTH having qualifiers would calm our minds about the issue. Maktruth (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neolithic MKD

The newest Vasil Iljov book regards the inscription (neolithic alphabet) found in Republic of Macedonia. He was showing the preview of his new book on MTV (Macedonian TV) few days ago. In one of the artefacts was clearly written 3 letters MKD one above each other. Since the neolithic period is around 7000-6000BC to 2000BC (in the world 11000BC to 2500BC, to the foundations of the first cities) that is probably the oldest MKD inscription. The book with the inscription will be published soon by a printing house in Strumica, Republic of Macedonia. For those who wonder how we can know that is MKD, these letters in Greek, Cyrillic and Latin alphabet are very alike (M and K are same in all the three, where D is written with triangle in the three alphabets, just rotated). (Toci (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

So in the Neolithic Age the ancient Macedonians were living in Paeonia and wrote in Cyrillic even though the Greek and Phoenician alphabets didn't even exist yet. Hmmm...--Dexippus (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow that's all very nice and scientific (the usual FYROM way). However it can only be fair that you change your name to "Paeonians". I'm 100% sure no one will object to the name and it accurately reflects geography.--   Avg    17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep to the Wiki rules. Without forumish and undergrading comments. This is dispute of two sides, not of one. Present facts or don't write.

The archeological artefacts are physical evidences. Archaeology is respected science regardless if its in Republic of Macedonia or in Hellenic Republic. You will see the artefacts soon and you can judge yourself.

What is the present obsession with Peonia? Even if we want to be Peoonians, we can't be. There are no factual evidences. We can only prove that we are Macedonians, unfortunately. No one among the common people has even heard of Peonia in the Republic of Macedonia. (Toci (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

You can prove that you are Macedonians? Cool... please prove it to me! :-) Dexippus (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly written in my passport that I am Macedonian under ethnicity. In Sweden I am officially "medborgare i Makedonien" (citizen in Macedonia). There is also distinction "medborgare i Grekland" in Sweden, but it is exclusive to "medborgare i Makedonien" (they mean different things). You can also read the censuses in Republic of Macedonia or in Serbia or in Bulgaria and you will find the Macedonians next to a number that says how many of them are declared as such. (Toci (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

You mean that just because someone declares as something they should become that something in the eyes of everyone? Why then do you reject the self-identification of the other species of Macedonians?--Dexippus (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read my posts on the other species of Macedonians. I wrote a lot. There are no offical Makedones (as nationality, or in censuses) in Hellenic Republic except in the Rainbow political party. Take the Greek Wikipedia and search for Makedones. You will be send to the article Makedonia. Macedonians (Greek) are Greeks who live in the provinces of Macedonia. We are Macedonians (an ethnic group with Macedonian language and culture) who live in Republic of Macedonia. We have Greeks (an ethnic group with Greek language and culture) who live in Republic of Macedonia that are named Greeks in our censuses and renamed Macedonians (Greek) minority in Wikipedia. I don't reject anyones right (everyone has the right to choose nationality) to be Macedonian, but it seems that Macedonian (belonging to the the historical region of Macedonia) is wrongly attributed to Greek (it does not fit any censual facts). (Toci (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

This guy denies us the right to call ourselves Macedonians but supports his right to do so... go figure...--   Avg    17:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get back to the evidence. Do you truly believe it? It is important to me: Do you truly believe in what is written in that book? It's an important question (for me at least, but I guess for everybody else as well)--Laveol ^T 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Name dispute or ethnicity dispute

Republic of Macedonia did not enter NATO on the last summit and Nikola Dimitrov commented "We are punished for being Macedonians" [27]. The negotiations are not about the changing of the name, but are about changing of our ethnicity (a basic human right). (Toci (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

• wikisource:Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which basic human right?--Dexippus (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Article 15 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am Macedonian (written in my passport) and no one can deprive me of my nationality (ethnicity=nationality) or change it. My grandfather was also Macedonian as well and he teached me that his ancestors were Macedonians as well. How can anyone dispute that? (Toci (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

I think you are confused. Nationality (nacionalnost) is citizenship and Article 15 basically means that your citizenship cannot be arbitrarily revoked (arbitrarily = without rule of law). You are thinking of ethnicity (narodnost) which is a different matter altogether. Ethnicity is a state of mind which cannot be legislated upon and thus is covered by Article 19, this means that you can call yourself what you want and I can call you what I want (freedom of speech works both ways).--Dexippus (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For the zillionth time, we don't deny your right to have a country an ethnicity and a language as you sneakily imply. That would be absurd. We deny (and will deny for as long as it takes) your irredentist efforts to name it Macedonia or Macedonian. Hope it's clear now. If it's not, we can make it even clearer (see 4th of April). --   Avg    17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With the name dispute, the plan is to agree on euphemisms for the country, language and people to use in international settings, no one is going to criminalize Toci calling himself a "Macedonian". The EU may want to refer to you as a "New Macedonian" and not a "Macedonian", does the EU (or rather its officials) not have freedom of speech?--Dexippus (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He can call himself what he wants, up to the point where he's not becoming offensive. If he can't understand why he's offending us, then he must realise that he lives in a society of nations where you don't only have rights but obligations as well.--   Avg    17:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he can call himself whatever he wants. Depending on the extent of use of the new name to be agreed, his own government may even have to start referring to him as a "New Macedonian" (or whatever name is agreed). No one can stop him referring to himself as a "Macedonian". This is what freedom of speech is all about! The point of all this of course is Greece defending itself from the all too evident irredentist appetites of our neighbour. If you discredit their claimed monopoly on everything Macedonian, you discredit their claims against Greece.--Dexippus (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be prepared to agree that easily with what you say. It's a slippery road. That's the whole issue of a name erga omnes as Greece supports, versus name only for bilateral relations as FYROM supports. They support that since this is only an issue between them and us, then they should only have a different name for our bilateral relations only. Of course I'm now referring to a country-level setting. He, as a person, he can call himself even a Martian, I couldn't care less.--   Avg    18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It won't be for just bilateral relations. We already have a double name for just bilateral relations (the name FYROM), if they want to convince Karamanlis, they'll have to offer him something more than what he already has.--Dexippus (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why they don't like the idea of changing their name. We (Greeks) did it, it's no big deal. We used to call ourselves Romii and now we call ourselves Ellines; one of the resons for the change was to reassure the world that the proposed independent Greece project was not going to be an irredentist destablilizing state with the goal of re-creating "Romania" (Venizelos's stated dream). Other reasons included catering to western philhellenism and that the name Romii had become a synonym of a rayah, not a good name for a modern free nation. Of course despite the rename, the Megali Idea persisted; shame we never got Constantinople. ;-) --Dexippus (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the crux of the matter is simple. By calling their country Macedonia they monopolise a name with huge historical significance to Greece and we won't let that happen.--   Avg    18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please cut out the political debates everybody, again. Wikipedia isn't interested in what "we" will or will not let happen. Go get yourself a blog. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Future, this is a reply about understanding the meaning nationality in regard to the constitution of Republic of Macedonia.

Our terminology was inherited from the one in former Yugoslavia up to the Ohrid Framework agreement in 2001. The common expression in former Yugoslavia was nation and nationalities (narodi i narodnosti) [28] Nationality (narodnost or nacionalnost are synonyms) was commonly used for the smaller ethnic groups in former Yugoslavia. Macedonians with the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Muslims and Montenegrins were the nations (narod-i) in former Yugoslavia, whereas Albanians, Hungarians, etc. were nationality (nacionalnost or narodnost). Narodnost or nacionalnost turned into offensive term in the last years of Yugoslavia, especially by the Albanians. Albanians officially were nationality (nacionalnost or narodnost) even though they were a big ethnic group.

In the constitution of Republic of Macedonia firstly is written Macedonians as nation or people (narod) and the other nationalities following the former Yugoslavia tradition, but after the Ohrid Framework agreement all the nationalities (Albanians only fought for it) received also the nation or people (narod) status. The preamble was replaced with new amendment saying Macedonian people (Makedonski narod), Albanian people, Vlach people etc. Since we don’t have nationalities (nacionalnosti) anymore, now we use nationality as translation for people (ethnic groups). Macedonian nationality is Macedonian people, Albanian nationality is Albanian people

Officially now in the constitution all the ethnic groups (narod=nation=έθνος) are nationalities that have equal status and constitute the Republic all together. Therefore nationality in Republic of Macedonia can be Albanian, Bulgarian, German, Macedonian, Serb, Rhoma, Vlach, Greek, Bosniak and they have passports from the Republic of Macedonia. So the passport (and citizenship) is from Republic of Macedonia, but the nationality is not connected to the citizenship, but it is written inside as your personal choice (complete freedom as human right for nationality as it is written in article 15). Our constitution-makers have read the human right declaration very literally (and is done in regard to the Ilinden Uprising’s Krusevo Republic where all nations were seen as equal). Macedonians are nationality (narod in original=έθνος) that as majority constitutes Republic of Macedonia together with other nationalities (narod-i=έθνος) Albanians, Serbs, Vlachs, Rhomas, etc. It is rather wrong to say to a Vlach or Albanian that he is Macedonian only because he has passport from Republic of Macedonia. Vlach is nationality (=έθνος) of Republic of Macedonia and it is written Vlach nationality in the Republic of Macedonia passport. You are choosing your nationality (=έθνος) freely.

(a reply to Avg) Greeks are objecting not only about the use of Macedonia in Republic of Macedonia (a name issue that is the reason for this talk), but Greeks are objecting more on the use of Macedonians as people and nationality (in Nimetz’s first proposal the 8th point was no one (neither Hellenic Republic or Republic of Macedonia) to use Macedonia and Macedonians, but our state name will be with Macedonia). Greeks will accept any name that includes renaming of Macedonians. So Nikola Dimitrov is right that Greeks object to our nationality (not much to the name of the state) and you affirm that is absurd thing to object to. You can’t object to something that is connected with personal freedoms and rights. It is non objective and absurd demand to change (or to forbid to) how 66% of the people in Republic of Macedonia and 0.something% in Serbia and Bulgaria declare themselves. I saw the event on the 4th of April. The Greek politicians are using their credit in international politics on absurd objections as you point out and sooner or later that credit will run off. The Macedonians as nationality (Macedonian people) will be Greek neighbours for a long time. The nationality will not change even if Republic of Macedonia changes its name to former Yugoslav Slav Upper New Democratic People’s Independent Socialistic Republic of Macedonia (Skopje) (Bitola) (Vardar)) under all the political pressure. (Toci (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

As I said before, "nationality" within the meaning of Article 15 is totally irrelevant to names; Article 15 it is to to with revokation of citizenship. Self-identifying names are covered to the extent that you as an individual should be able to call yourself whatever you want (freedom of speech). However, it is also my basic human right to not refer to you as "Macedonian" or a "Martian" or whatever it is you have chosen. That the name dispute in some way violates human rights is total bullshit spread by internet fanatics (the failure of your governments to have ever acted upon them demonstrates that sufficiently I think).--Dexippus (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state."

You can't say that the Scots can't be of Scotish nationality because they have British passports?!? In Republic of Macedonia the Rhomas and Vlachs are nationalities without states. You can't say that they are not nationality because they don't have a state. The article 15 includes these people as well (the smaller nationalities inside other countries can have the right to be what they are). Try to think open on the issue.

Of course that this is more a dispute about the Macedonian nationality then the name of Republic of Macedonia (read the 8th point of the first Nimetz proposal of not using the attribute Macedonian (including for nationality and language) by the both sides). So it is not about what you think, it is about what is negotiated between the two sides. Please be objective. (Toci (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

You are missing my point, I am discussing the scope of Article 15; Article 15 is mainly designed to protect people against statelessness. Attempts to present the name dispute as a human rights violation are ridiculous and offensive against victims of real human rights violations.--Dexippus (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Greeks couldn't give a hoot about the legitimacy of the "Macedonian" nation or lack thereof; that's something you need to sort out with the Bulgarians. The issue here is the name and nothing else. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Article 15 is mainly designed to protect people against statelessness, but also it can be used for protecting stateless nationalities (as it is case in the constitution of Republic of Macedonia where the Macedonians, Albanians, Vlachs, Rhomas, Serbs, Turks and the other nationalities are all nationalities of Republic of Macedonia). Having a narrow view on the nationality as citizenship is probably the cause of human rights violation in Greece. Here is a preview of forcing one nationality: "In August, the speaker of the parliament stated that the "Muslim and Christian population" of Thrace should be "homogenized.""

The Macedonians are negated by Greeks and Bulgarians (by official politicians, I have Greek friends that don't mind me being Macedonian), so please don't be naive. Again I will refer to the report from 1999 [29] that speaks about human rights violations in Greece, among other on the negation of declared Turks and Macedonians.

If our nationality is not discused in the name negotiations how do you explain the point 8 of the first Nimetz's proposal in these 2008 talks that deals with no use of the attribute Macedonian or Macedonians by both sides?

POV, forumish: As I remember that Nimetz's proposal was glowingly accepted by the Greek politicians with the name Upper or New Macedonia where we and the Greeks would have been denied the right to use Macedonians. We would have been obliged to use Newmacedonians or Uppermacedonians (another version of Slavmacedonians) whereas Macedonians (Greek) would have been obliged to use only Greeks. The interesting thing is that Macedonians (Greek) are officially Greeks in the censuses (and everywhere else) due to the citizenship=nationality, so there is no factual compromise from the Greek side. Since we are officially declared in censuses as Macedonians for 50+ years and unofficially for much longer in the struggle for authonomous Macedonia I don't see how this nationality issue (change of nationality) can be possible. (Toci (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Please stop these discussions, now. WP:TALK. These political opinion posts are clearly inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland has recognized "Republic of Macedonia"

I will change Ireland's status to a country that has recognized Macedonia's constitutional name. Here is the link: http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/893/1/ Ireland - Macedonia sign agreement under constitutional name - Foreign Minister Antonio Milososki met Monday in Dublin with Irish Minister of State for European Affairs Dick Roche, reads Ministry press release. Talks focused on Macedonia's Euro-integration process, and Ireland's support in this regard. Milososki and Roche initialed the Macedonia-Ireland treaty on elimination of double taxation, which is the first bilateral agreement concluded under Macedonia's constitutional name, thus making official Ireland's position of recognizing Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. Later today, FM Milososki will also attend a meeting of the European People's Parties, attended by European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other renowned European politicians, reads the press release. Maktruth (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the personal interpretation of the biased ethnic Macedonian journalists who wrote that piece, based on one bilateral agreement. The official position of Ireland is mentioned by the Irish government itself in their MFA site here. NikoSilver 09:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

However, there is also this. There does seem to have been a change of terminology recently here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if it is true that the bilateral agreement was concluded using RoM, what more official confirmation would you expect? There is no standard act of how states "officially" recognise each other's names; it's not like the act of recognising each other's statehood, which is sealed through exchange of diplomatic notes and stuff. Recognising another country's name is done by simply beginning to use it, and if that's what Ireland has just done, then that's it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to be backdating the pages on their MFA's website? Isn't that a bit WP:OR? Couldn't we just ask them?--Dexippus (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am 99.99% sure Ireland has recognized "Republic of Macedonia." Not only did Ireland sign an agreement using "Republic of Macedonia" but its foreign affairs also state "Republic of Macedonia." Niko, the site you have used will be updated shortly, after that we will officially change their position. Italian sources also state they may recognize "Republic of Macedonia" within the coming months. http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=25061 http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/893/1/ Maktruth (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see if more "official" instances of usage of the name turn up, on that website or elsewhere. There's no hurry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the Macedonian government also reports the fact, including the interpretation that it constitutes recognition, on its official site [30]. The Greek press has noted the event as a "first step" towards official recognition [31]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus error - No recognition and FYROM recognition

It is stated that Cyprus recognized Macedonia as "FYROM" only later to state it does not recognize Macedonia period. Please correct this with a source Maktruth (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus was double listed. There are numerous official sources by its MFA. One is listed in the article. NikoSilver 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations = recognition?

I am troubled by the fact that this article claims that if a country doesn't have diplomatic relations with FYROM, this means that they haven't recognized them at all. This can't be true, are you saying all those countries still recognize Socialist Yugoslavia? An example: the USA has no diplomatic relations with Iran, this doesn't mean they don't recognize them.--Dexippus (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, we should investigate the matter. I believe the article is a bit biased in terms of Greece's arguments for the name issue. The article does not do a great job stating the Macedonian argument nor does it do a good job stating which countries recognize "Republic of Macedonia." An example, over 120 nations recognize Republic of Macedonia, but the article won't be updated to state this. Maktruth (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another fallacy, look at the picture "Ancient Macedon prior to expansion into Thracian and Illyrian territories." In the past, the picture was "Ancient Macedon after expansion by Phillip II" but since that included territories of the Republic of Macedonia, it was changed to make themselves look like they have an argument? Is that even an argument? "Macedonia was this 2,500 years ago, but we are ignoring Phillip II expansion, Roman expansion, Ottoman statements etc" foolish argument if you ask me. Also, the article does not include Greek territorial claims on Republic of Macedonia (ie: Greek priests stating Macedonia needs to be divided). It only states Greek media sponsored sources of "Macedonian territorial claims" which is bullshit in my opinion. Yes, I stated it BULLSHIT.Maktruth (talk)

It is funny how Greeks use GREEK sources to constantly back their arguments on wikipedia, while Macedonian sources are biased, ohh yea and neutral sources towards the name issue aren't even used.Maktruth (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

@Dexippus, this is because the previous wording of all the lists was something along the lines of "countries that recognise "Republic of Macedonia"" and "countries that recognise "former Y......"". We changed "recognise" about a month or two ago, because it wasn't the right word. I guess we missed that list out. Feel free to change it. BalkanFever 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

creating new article

hi, would it be alright if i was to create a new article which had a list of all the countries who recognise -Republic of Macedonia, -FYROM and a list not recognising yet.

And it would have a link onto this page??? that way all of the information could be documented on this page.P m kocovski (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Obviously, each individual country needs to be sourced. BalkanFever 12:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I remain skeptical of new Macedonia-related articles. We have too many already to be meaningfully maintained. Of course, this article here is very long and some might say it could do with summary-style factoring out of stuff. But my preference would be for condensing it, not for spreading it out even further. Supposedly this article is in itself only a subarticle of a subarticle of a subarticle anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh i know what you mean, but this would just be a table of countries recognising and not recognising. So i guess i would need to source every single country, that will just take time though. P m kocovski (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

UK opinion source

Re this reinsertion [32]: That wasn't "U.K. diplomats". It's from a parliamentary debate, and the speaker is a random Labour backbencher of limited notability. That opinion of his is not relevant to this article unless you are going to quote any opinion ever expressed on the issue by any foreign politician. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. NikoSilver 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fix in Demographic Macedonia

The table cell that says "Macedonians c. 2.0 million[179] - Citizens of the Republic of Macedonia irrespective of ethnicity" refered to the census should be deleted. There is no mentioning of 2 milion Macedonians in the document. There is a mention of population "that consists of: - Persons who have place of usual residence in the Republic of Macedonia, regardless of whether at the time of the Census they are present at their place of usual residence or elsewhere in the Republic of Macedonia; - Foreigners who have a residence permit in the Republic of Macedonia and they are temporarily present in the Republic of Macedonia at least 12 months (one year), but who have a place of usual residence outside the Republic of Macedonia; - Persons who have place of usual residence in the Republic of Macedonia, who at the time of the Census, and for a maximum of 12 months (one year) prior to its conduction, are working abroad, as well as the members of their households; - Persons who have place of usual residence in the Republic of Macedonia, and during the time of the Census are working abroad at the diplomatic and consular representative offices of the Republic of Macedonia, the United Nations and its organizations, representative offices or being representatives of the Chamber of Commerce abroad, business offices abroad, military representatives of the Army of the Republic of Macedonia, and citizens engaged on the bases of international, technical and other kinds of co-operation, education, as well as the members of their households who are staying abroad with the aforesaid persons; - Persons who have place of usual residence in the Republic of Macedonia, but are not in possession of the documents pursuant to Article 39, item 1 from the Population Census Law, if they present the documents stated with Article 39 item 3 from the Population Census Law." (pg.16) In that population there are foreigners, temporary workers and only 1.2+ milions are declared of Macedonian nationality. (Toci (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

The table does not list "nationalities". The table in this particular line lists the "Macedonians" as a legal term, i.e. as all citizens of a country called "Macedonia". BTW that table has been peer-reviewed here, and it's been accepted as featured content in the Macedonia (terminology) article, and is (of course) perfectly cited. Now if you feel that those exceptions you listed are significant, then we can tweak the number to -say- 1.9 million. But I'm sure that was not what you were after, was it? NikoSilver 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And listen, Toci: Get rid of that silly idea that "nationality" is uber alles in defining a name and nothing else goes! It's bad. NikoSilver 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

I haven't actually read the whole article (because it's really getting on my nerves) but this article can't be more biased than it is (I haven't read the whole thing so maybe it could be more biased). This is why I would suggest we do the following: Split it into three different articles. The first article will be written from an objective point of view (by somebody that is not greek or macedonian). It would describe the conflict (interim accord, NATO, UN negotiations, etc but it should be done so that it would only state the facts of the case). The second article would portray Greek possition in the dispute(written by Greeks). And, of course, the third one would be from Macedonian perspective(written by Macedonians). Now, in order to convince you why I think so little of this article, I would take a couple of extracts from the article and comment them a little bit.

Section: Controversy and conflict “Formerly part of Vardar Banovina, the territory of the present-day Republic of Macedonia was delimited ...” - I don't see the point of stating that it was part of a province in Yugoslavia. That piece of land has more than 2500 year history. It was also a part of the Ottoman empire and also part of the Macedonia 350 B.C (at least part of it). But somehow that is not stated there. Well ok, I'm fine with that. Leave that in. But If you do then I would also like for the following fact to be mentioned: Formerly “Greek Macedonia” wasn't part of Greece (check out Greece from 1820 – 1913 you'll see that it was a part of the Ottoman empire). Why should you put this in? Hint: Follow the same line of reasoning the people that wrote :”Formerly part of Vardar Banovina, the territory ... “ used. This way you'll represent the history for both pieces of land :)

Section: Greek position “The constitutional name of the country "Republic of Macedonia" and the short name "Macedonia" when referring to the country, can be considered offensive by most Greeks, especially inhabitants of the Greek province of Macedonia.” - Please look at the wikipedia article for Greece. Greece has three provinces in the geographical region Macedonia. Those are “East Macedonia and Thrace”, “West Macedonia” and “Central Macedonia”. I guess for some people it's hard to see the difference between a province and a geographical region.

Section: NATO and EU accession talks “According to the press in Skopje[74] Nimetz now limited his proposal to three names of the five that were proposed in his original framework:[48] "Republic of Upper Macedonia" "New Republic of Macedonia" or "Republic of New Macedonia" "Republic of Macedonia-Skopje" Of the three, Greek media have reported that the only serious ...” - In the first sentence you have “press in Skopje” and in the last you have “Greek media”. Come on, I'm sure there is press in other towns/cities in Macedonia that have published the same thing. So I think that sentence should be “According to press in Macedonia”. The second thing I want to mention (laught at) is the following: If you follow footnote/link [74] (the one right after Skopje) it will lead you to a Greek news paper. So, you are taking Greek newspapers as the source of what Macedonian newspapers said/published and then stating “According to press in Skopje”. Are you f***ing kidding me? If it's according to press in Macedonia then give me a link to a Macedonian newspaper that acually published that thing. Otherwise, the sentence shoud be “According to Greek press, Macedonian press bla bla bla” :)

Section: NATO non-invitation “A major concern cited by Athenian officials was a number of maps that have circulated by nationalist groups based in Skopje depicting parts of Greece (including Thessaloniki, Greece's second largest city) as being part of a future expanded Macedonian state, and the country's prime minister photographed laying a wreath under such a map just a few weeks before the summit.[94][95][96] Also a poster displayed in Skopje just days before the Bucharest summit by a private organization replacing the white cross on the Greek flag with the swastika[97] and caricatures of Greek PM Karamanlis depicted wearing an Nazi SS uniform,[98] led to vigorous Greek diplomatic protests and international condemnation,[99][100] although the government disassociated itself from the depictions and expressed its regret.” - Don't you think that this should be in the “Greek position” part of the article? It's about the Greek point of view on some events that happened. :)

“According to media reports, the Greek position was strongly supported by France and Spain. Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, Iceland, Belgium, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Netherlands also showed understanding to the Greek concerns.” - I did a little research and the only country that strongly supported the Greek stance was France (at least they were the only country to announce it publicly). For Italy that is a non-sence b/c the following day(April 3 or 4) the Italian embassy in Macedonia sent a note to the Ministry of Foreign affairs stating that they were not supporting the Greek position. (I'll try to find the link and post it here afterwards). Thus if you can't find a reliable information from NATO I think it would be best if this part is deleted from the whole article. The reason why I don't think that Greek news are reliable is because they mentioned that Italy was supporting them when they actually weren't.

Section: “List of countries/entities using “Republic of Macedonia” in bilateral diplomatic relations” - The first thing I want to object to is regarding the Bulgaria entry. “recognizes the republic as a separate state by its constitutional name, but considers the primary ethnic group to be Bulgarians, and the language to be a dialect of the Bulgarian language”. The section clearly says that it refers to the list of countries that use “Republic of Macedonia”. How, and whether Bulgaria recognizes the people of the country and/or its language is superflious and not at all part of what the list is about. If you are mentioning this fact, then palce it properly in the section that would correctly correspond with the theme of that very section and remove this information from the section “List of countries/entities using “Republic of Macedonia” in bilateral diplomatic relations.” A relevant piece of information that should be included here is that latest agreement that Ireland and Macedonia signed used the constitutional name of the Republic.

Section: “Bulgaria and the naming dispute” - Again, I have no idea why this part is in the article. Who cares what Bulgaria thinks. There are 120+ countries that recognize the Republic of Macedonia by it's constitutional name and 80 that don't. If you write about Bulgaria, I think that the least you can do is write about the other 189(i'm not quite sure if this is the exact number) UN members and their thoughts/positions on the name issue. :)

Section: Macedonian perspective: Historical perspective “Greek scholars and lay people alike believe that there is an obvious continuity between the ancient Macedonians and modern Greeks, given that Greek is the closest living language to ancient Macedonian.” - Totally absurd. I don't care what Greeks, Macedonians, Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians, anglo-saxsons BELIEVE. When you write an article you base it on FACTS, not beliefs. If it was up to beliefs, then please change all the articles about earths history and tell everybody that the earth is 6000 years old and that we all have common ancestors, Adam and Eve :) While you're at it, delete everything about dinosours! Also, this is the Maedonian perspective not the Greek. Therefore, what Greek scholars and lay people alike BELIEVE should go in the, yes you guessed it, Greek perspective. “This notion that the ancient Macedonians were Greeks has been accepted by many Western scholars.” - First there is a distinction between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks. Don't even try to link ancient Macedonians to modern Greeks (no western scholar has linked ancient Greeks and modern Greeks even less ancient Macedonians to modern Greeks). If you want to link ancient Macedonians with ancient Greeks then that is another matter. For example, one Western scholar, Borza, has written a book in which he claims that ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks are different. So if you can find sources that link ancient Macedonians and ancient Greeks then please fix that sentece and also write that other “Western” scholars believe otherwize! [33]

same Section: “Nevertheless, there has been a continuous Greek presence in Macedonia since antiquity, with the Greek refugees that arrived in the first half of the twentieth century complementing the indigenous Macedonian Greek population of the region” - Can you please get some sources on this. This is like saying “Greeks lived on that piece of land for 2500 years (i.e. there is a family in Greek Macedonia that are direct decendants of ancient Greeks)”. In the Greek position of the article you have stated that slavs populated these areas and here you claim that these areas were always populated by Greeks. It's kind of confusing.

When describing the positions of the two countries: In the Macedonian position you state an argument that the Macedonians are using and then right after you try to dispute it. For example the sentence above is written right after the argument that Macedonians use, that is “the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey”. But in the Greek position, the territorial claims section, there is no mention that Macedonia removed any “irredentist” claims from it's constitution. So please, either write opposing arguments in a country's position or don't.

After sooooo many “mistakes”, I think that it would be best if this article is split in three other articles that can be modified by certain groups of people.Noompsy (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No chance. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Noompsy. I share a lot of your concerns about the neutrality of this article, but splitting it up as you said is definitely not a solution. Condensing it would be. (BTW, like you, I also cannot bring myself to reading the whole thing in one go. My mind stops working somewhere after a few paragraphs.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ·, thank you for explaining why not. Said in the true spirit of Wikipedia. Bojancho (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply but you still haven't really explained why this article can't be split up. Anyways, since a lot of people (2 out of 3 :) ) are strongly against it I would stop suggesting that idea although I still think it would be the best and fastest solution to the problem. In the past I have tried modifying a couple of sentences in an article (Republic of Macedonia). It was a really nerve-wrecking process even though I suggested change in just a couple of sentences. In this article there are whole sections that need to be changed. I guess I'm gonna have a great summer :) I'm still waiting on the comments for the changes I proposed.Noompsy (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We simply can't have separate articles for every possible POV; that would be a violation of WP:POVFORK. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is not to please everyone. It's to write well-referenced, neutral point of view articles. What you are proposing here is not neutral point of view at all, but sympathetic point of view. Superm401 - Talk 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vardarska Banovina in relation to Republic of Macedonia should be taken out of the article. It is a time period of 12 years (1929-1941) and secondly it is a period of Serbian occupation (the Serbs choosed the name on their own will and without any history). Before and after that period (during the two World Wars) the territory of Republic of Macedonia was part of the Kingdom of Bulgaria for several years as well and the term was abandoned. Among the Macedonians people these periods are named first Serbian time (prvo srpsko vreme) (1912-15), first Bulgarian time (prvo bugarsko vreme) (1915-18), second Serbian time (vtoro srpsko vreme) (1918-41) and second Bulgarian time (vtoro bugarsko vreme) (1941-44). These periods are regarded in our history as tries to assimilate the Macedonians into Bulgarians and Serbians. In these periods the word Macedonian was forbiden and any use of Macedonian was punished. My grandfather (this is part of his written and published memoirs) went in a primary school in Skopje in the 1920's and he was taught in Serbian and taught to be Serbian (he always mentioned the Serbian songs that they had to learn and he always ironically joked on that). In my granfather's primary school class they asked one kid "What are you?" one kid answered, "Macedonian!". The kid was expelled from the school the next day and the kid was never accepted in any other school. That was around the time when Vardarska Banovina was enacted, since my granfather was born in 1918 (he died this New Year) and that is a time of hardship in our memory. It was time of negation of the right to be Macedonian (South Serbian was used in the assimilation process for Macedonians since they were somewhat different in language and customs). So it will be rather unpropriate to write "Republic of Macedonia that was formerly Vardarska Banovina" because it is emphasize on a period of assimilation of Macedonians. It is same as if it was writen "Republic of Macedonia that was formerly Bulgaria" because it was under the Bulgarian kingdom during the two World Wars.

The short-termed attribute Vardarska (along the river Vardar) is rather geographically wrongly used for the former former Yugoslavia banovina (province), since the river continues to flow up to Salonica bay. The Greek province of Macedonia can use the name Vardar and attribute Vardarska as well, like it was used in Giannitsa/Enidzhe Vardar in the past.

The term Vardarska (Republic of Vardarska=Vardarska Republic) on the other hand was used by the Greek side [34] [35] [36] [37] in the name dispute as preferable soluton for Republic of Macedonia. It is rather unpropriate to use the history of assimilation in Macedonia to make wikipedian consensual background for abandoned Greek nationalism. (Toci (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

The point is not to justify or to argue why the information should remain or be removed. The point by noompsy regarding the "Vardarska Banovina" was to suggest that Wikipedia should be consistent. Yes, I agree that the information is irrelevant as I had expressed it before, but the valid point given by noompsy, and one that I support, is one of consistency. I am not trying to comprehend the thought process of why this is included, but rather to apply the same train of thought to Greece or rather the Macedonian region of Greece which had many different names in the past whether forcefully or voluntarily chosen. You may ask why would someone deem it necessary to include the past names of parts of Greece. Don't ask me, ask the person that included Vardarska Banovina as a past name of the territory of current Macedonia. So my requiest, again, is to remove the information or rather include information regarding names that referred to parts of Greece. Consistent and simple I think. 99.231.28.63 (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people are forgetting that it is the name of the former Yugoslav republic that is a matter of international dispute, not the name of the Greek region, which, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been challenged thus far. Macedonia was officially called Macedonia as soon as it was incorporated into the Greek state in 1913; the same was simply not the case across the border. That in itself is notable in the context of the naming dispute and the official use of the name in modern times. Before 1913, both regions were divided among various Ottoman vilayets, none of which was called "Macedonia". You can add that if you think it's relevant, but I don't see how. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not the idea to add as much names as there were conquerers of Macedonia. We will make a big list and add confusion in the article (as it is the case with Vardarska Banovina). Therefore the text should be lightened.

There is consistency in the use of Macedonia on the Macedonian side as well and it dates before 1913. There was a national movement for liberation of Macedonia with forming of IMRO and the idea of authonomous Macedonia (Macedonia for Macedonians). The Ilinden Uprising in 1903 was fought for liberation of Macedonia and under a flag that clearly in cyrillic is written Macedonia. The survivers of the Ilinden Uprising were declared as Macedonians after 1945 when ethnicity was freely choosen.

The population of Macedonia faced various assimilation politics. The Serbs tried to change the identity of the Macedonians and the use of Macedonia was forbidden because it didn't fit their propaganda, whereas the Greeks kept the name Macedonia (with additon that "Macedonia is Greece"), but moved out or helenized the Macedonian people or any other ethnic group like Turks and Vlachs and settled Greeks. The Serb assimilation in Macedonia failed almost completely (there are still few villages in Republic of Macedonia who regard themselves Serbs), the Bulgarians had good success in their part (there is ongoing try to register Macedonian national party, but with lot of problems), but the Greeks had the best result in the assimilation game (changing or expelling the majority of the population and helenizing the minority that left). My cousin cousins (my generation and earlier 1970's) born in Greece of 100% Macedonian (ethnic) origin today do not speak Macedonian language, speak only Greek and regard themselves to be purely Greek. We have situation that people from same family that live in two different states speak two completely different languages. Now people might say that Macedonians were invented. My uncle (generation 1940's) and his cousins in Greece speak Greek and Macedonian and they regard themselves Macedonians, even though they are officially declared as Greeks. My uncle's father (generation 1910-20's) who was born in Greece and could not even speak Greek also regarded himself as Macedonian as everyone in his village. This long introduction is about the terms as Vardarska Banovina and South Serbs, Slavs, etc. that were used in this assimilation game. Even though they are historical facts for their use, refering to them in a manner of the name dispute is opposite of polite and opposite of in good faith talk. (Toci (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not prescribing, it is describing. Your country was once named Vardarska Banovina. It is a fact, it should be mentioned. End of story really.--   Avg    21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above I really don't understand why should you mention that there was a province on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia between 1929-44 under Serbian kingdom that was called Vardar Banovina. Between 1929-44 that territory was under “uccupation”. Just like the territory of the Macedonia region in Greece was under “occupation” by the Otoman empire before 1913. Thus I can't really see why would anybody mention that one piece of land was formerly under occupation and it's name. But since it's mentioned in the article only for the Republic of Macedonia, I think that the normal thing to do is mention the same thing for the other part of the region.

To Avg: I'm hoping that you have a better explanation as to why “Formerly part of Vardar Banovina” should be included. If the only explanation is “because it's a fact” then I will tell you another fact that should be included just because it's a fact! For example “Formerly Greek Macedonia was not a part of Greece”. :)Noompsy (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] To this deleted comment of your IP, the reply is: So was the whole geographic region at that exact same time and most of the Balkans (including the newest Republic). Point? NikoSilver 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To NikoSilver. Well I'm not quite sure what do you want me to explain. If a relevant piece of information is that "The territory of Republic of Macedonia was occupied from 1929-1944 and that there was a province on that territory that was called Vardar Banovina", I think that also the fact that "Greek Macedonia wasn't part of Greece from 1821-1913" is a very relevant piece of information. It's part of the history of the whole region including Greek MacedoniaNoompsy (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you do. That latter piece should be "The whole region of Macedonia was once part of Rumelia, an Ottoman eyalet." (which is absolutely redundant information for "your cause", not to mention harmful -see Names of the Greeks#Romans (Ρωμαίοι) and Romioi (Ρωμιοί) and the first two sentences of Rumelia) NikoSilver 23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW I am not contesting that there were people living in the region who didn't want to identify neither as Bulgarians, nor as Serbs, nor as Greeks; indeed there were. Their ethnogenesis began in the late 18 hundreds, notably with Krste Misirkov around 1900. They just weren't brainwashed to think they descend from Alexander's left testicle, nor were they ever so damn passionate about not adding qualifiers in their name. His excellence Misirkov himself in his On Macedonian Matters calls his people "Macedonian Slavs".^[38] I bet he was wiser to know there were other Macedonians around too. NikoSilver 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever; in any case the article is way, way, way too long, and trying to be POV fork of "History of Macedonia" and any number of other articles (whether they exist or not). Don't tell me that little bit about "Banovina" will still be there when the article will have been cut back to a healthy size, like, say, one third of what it is now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First off “my cause” is for this article to be objective. If you don't share that then please say so! Like I mentioned above (more than once) this article is selective in describing the history of a region. The history of the territory from 1900:
1.Part of Ottoman eyalet called Rumelia
2.Part of Serbian kingdom called Vardar Banovina
3.A state in Yugoslavia called Peoples Republic of Macedonia (later changed to Socialist Republic of Macedonia)
4.An independent nation called Republic of Macedonia.
Now somehow, only the second fact was written to explain the history of that territory. I really can't see how that can be objective! If we are selecticting pieces of information that we include in the article I would suggest that we write in the article that in the 200 years of history that Greece has as an independent state, we say that geographical Macedonia was not included in it's borders from it's independence up to 1913. It is also selective and it states facts (same as above).

This way we'll have a 50-50 split. We included a selective piece of info that will contribute to the Greek argument and also a piece of info that will contribute to the Macedonian argument. But I really don't want for this article to be written this way. So instead of writing the whole history for the region I would suggest that we only delete that part and be done with it.
As for the other comment (by NikoSilver): If you think that Greeks are decendants from Alexanders right testicle then by all means prove it. Just because he spoke Greek is not a valid argument. (I speak English and I'm not English :) ). Also just because Slavs came to that territory that doesn't mean that they couldn't “fork” with the ancient Macedonians at the time and adopt Slavs customs. So please, proof :) Noompsy (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the whole article. You'll find that all four points are included. If not, then by all means lets add them. As for Alex's private parts contributing to the genes of the Greeks, I don't give a rat's ass. Where did you get that crazy idea? Judging from thyself maybe! (lol, "adopting Slavs customs" and "forking with"... an already assimilated to the Greeks ancient tribe??^[39] - so they "forked" with ...Macedonians? Not with Greeks? How?) NikoSilver 01:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why stop there? I'm sure that that piece of land had a different name/ruler in the 10th century, or maybe 8th, etc. Also include the history of "Greek Macedonia" while you're at it. As for Alexander and his decendants: Are you saying that the ancient Greeks "forked" with the Slavs? Noompsy (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See the featured article called Macedonia (terminology) and go as far back as you wish. You'll be enlightened, especially if you note the name of the dynasty where the guy who kicked this other "Macedonian's" (lol) ass belonged. The ancient Greeks did a lot of forking until 300 AD, but not with Slavs, because there were never any "ancient Slavs" in the Balkans to begin with. Slavs started descending in the 6th century AD, well after the Greeks were done with forking one another, Macedonians (ancient) included.^[40] So the Slavs forked themselves, or they forked Greeks who had previously forked Macedonians (ancient). Curiously, the Greeks are not mentioned as a fork in your valuable schoolbooks (see last sentence) though. NikoSilver 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh there is a whole article that describes the history of that region. So instead of copy/pasting the whole article here (so that we can inform the reader), delete the selected part of the history from this article and just put a link to Macedonia (terminology). I can't see the link between the ancient Greeks that forked with the ancient Macedonians and the modern Greeks. The ancient Greeks somehow disappeared before 6th century (when the slavs came) and the miraculously appeared on the Balkan again? Or maybe they were there but didn't fork with the slavs? Noompsy (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Greeks disappeared before the sixth century? Really? Sure? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim anything. I just asked. But since my first question is answered the second one is still open. Noompsy (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That was precisely the point Nikos was trying to make. Your official historiography claims you are a hybrid of ancient Macedonians and Slavs, ignoring the fact that the former had ceased to exist as a distinct people by the time of the arrival of the latter, if they were ever distinct from the Greeks to begin with. So your "forking" can only have taken place between Greeks and Slavs, whichever way you look at it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion again. We concluded the following: ancient Macedonians forked with the Greeks who forked with the Slavs. So in order to support Greek argument that todays Macedonians (from R. Macedonia) have nothing to do with the ancient Macedonians the following thing must have happened: Slavs forked amongts themselves and now we have (R. Macedonia, Bulgaria, etc) and the Slavs forked with the Greeks and now we have Greece meaning there is no chance in HELL that the Greeks could fork with the slavs and be assimilated :) I'm sorry but I have to challenge that kind of claim. As for the official histography claims: I really don't know if that is what Macedonian history books say. Even if they do, don't think that I would believe/support everything I read. Noompsy (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, "Byzantine Greeks" is such an awful historiographical term (Ρωμαίοι και πάλι Ρωμαίοι ;). I won't even comment on Noompsy's 'arguments' since they border on the ridiculous. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While on the topic of school books, maybe this one is more valuable [41] Noompsy (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Denise Weissman strikes again! We've been over this a zillion times; it's not a Greek schoolbook, it's a Greek translation of a foreign children's encyclopædia printed by a private publishing firm. And "Macedonia" was the name of one of the republics of Yugoslavia, so what? Greece never objected to the term "Yugoslav Macedonia"; what it objects to is the use of plain undisambiguated "Macedonia". While you were still part of Yugoslavia, that disambiguation was automatic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the link takes you to a website where you can see pictures of 2 different books both showing the same thing. The country is referred to as Macedonia (no Yugoslav "signifier") and south of that it simply says Elada. The very translation of the book (in Greece) at that time showed exactly, that there are no concerns (at the time) of the country being called Macedonia. Why was that not an issue then, but it is now? The country was called Macedonia at that time, was a republic and part of a federation? The only thing today, that is different is that it is no longer part of that federation, and yet there seems to be a problem identifying that country with the same name used as before. (The country was not Yugoslav Macedonia as you seem to imply, but rather the People's Republic of Macedonia, and then the Socialist Republic of Macedonia)99.231.28.63 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT:I must correct myself. There are 3 different books shown on the website. The first one a Geographical Atlas, the second an Encyclopedia, and the third a Geography school book for high school. So I guess you're referring to the 2ns one that it is published by a private firm. What about the other 2?99.231.28.63 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, tell us what YOU think changed 'the Greek perception' (or position or whatever floats your boat). 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It matters not what I think. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform (especially in a issue which is debatable) the public of all possible information for the user to be able to make an objective conclusion (if one is possible). Therefore, information such as "Greece had no objections to referring to the country as Macedonia in school books, atlases, and encyclopedias prior to its dissolution from the federation and its independence" is information that either sheds some light, or adds to the confusion. Either way, its information that is relevant. Bojancho (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"The country was called Macedonia at that time." Urgh, what country? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Urgh, what country?" Urgh, this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Macedonia). Constituent country = (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_country). Just as the United Kingdom has its constituent countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom). Bojancho (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that "Macedonia" was ever considered a "constituent country" within Yugoslavia before its dissolution, on a par with with the status of, say, Scotland within the United Kingdom. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you an idiot or do you just want people to think you're one? I provided you with a wiki page identifying Macedonia as a constituent country before its dissolution from Yugoslavia and the same definition is applied to Scotland and yet you ask for a source that those 2 are at par? You are the most ignorant, arrogant, oblivious person I have ever met. I realize I might get banned for a comment like this, but it is worth saying.

To say what you said while at the same time having the answer stare at you in the face is beyond my comprehension of stupidity. Wikipedia is by far the most biased encyclopedia there is because of users such as yourself who regard themselves gods for having the status of an administrator on an imaginary web. (Answering questions and concerns of users arrogantly and without explanations just because they don't align with how you think?) How pitiful. I pity people that use wiki as a reliable source and now I know why none of my professors allow using it as a source. Bojancho (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Calm down, pumpkin. I checked your "sources", only to find that it is described as a "constituent republic" in the first article, the pipe to constituent country notwithstanding. In that article, the source linked to describes the former Yugoslav republics as constituent countries only in the context of the dissolution of Yugoslavia: Yugoslavia: From 1992 onwards, no longer exists as such. Its constituent countries are Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Macedonia. No shit. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of your position, is it? I'm afraid you're going to have to try harder than that. As for my being an administrator, where did you rip that one from? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your style points to a specific editor with some recent past of abusive history who "surprisingly" has not edited since your Noompsy/Bojancho guys and your IP appeared. Let's see... Toronto, Canada anyone?--   Avg    07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Help up my memory please. Which other recent abusive account from Toronto? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, how do three books prove that "Greece had no objections to referring to the country as Macedonia in school books, atlases, and encyclopedias prior to its dissolution from the federation and its independence"? The whole "atlas matter" seems to have been answered plenty in the past by editors. I guess it'll be brought up as long as no naming solution is reached. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

@FP: Meh, I'm not a fan of blurbs myself either. The article is very elaborate in many sections. About the Banovina text, I'm not sure it wouldn't survive in some form. I guess we could apply a "more through less" logic when this mess ends in the real world. For now, I'd call this article an endless "Tantric sadhana", without the fucking actual orgasm! (or a simple "malakia", depending on your viewpoint). NikoSilver 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on any of the other objections that I had. Does that mean that everybody agrees that they should implemented ? Noompsy (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of your objections are rather trivial and others are ammended easily by just moving text around. You may have a point with some but personally I'd wait for NikoSilver and Kekrops to discuss them, since they've extensively edited the article (out of courtesy if anything). 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason? Noompsy (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a summary of the history of Republic of Macedonia starting from 1890s. It was rather unpropriate to start from Vardar Banovina. Now there is more text, but the picture is wider. (Toci (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)) PS: I was not sure if the reference will work so I will put the reference text here as I think it is logical "the third congress in Vienna in 1926<ref>Mala enciklopedia (Small Encyclopedia) {{cite book |language=Serbo-Chroat |year=1978 |title=Mala enciklopedia (Small Encyclopedia) |publisher=Prosveta ([[Beograd]])}}</ref>". It can be corrected if its wrong and can be put in the article. (Toci (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, but I think this goes in entirely the wrong direction. Please please please, somebody go and cut this article back to one third of its length. This article has a fatal tendency of growing into a fork of every other Macedonia-related article we have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a point there, but it is important for a reader to see the whole history of Republic of Macedonia at least in the last 100 years (the national movement and creation of the Macedonian nation and state). The shortened version before presented Republic of Macedonia as former Vardarska Banovina and the Macedonian nation and People's Republic of Macedonia as creation of Josip Broz Tito. The history can be shortened, but the important facts that include the name Macedonia should not be deleted. They are important facts in the naming dispute. (Toci (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Back to the point

Focusing on Bulgaria: We shouldn't care what Bulgaria thinks. Well, not more than we care about Albania, or Serbia, or Turkey. The section isn't very useful. BalkanFever 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some observations by an „All Seeing I“

User:Noompsy (talkpage — contributions) appears to be a sockpuppet. If I was an admin I would nvestigate. User:3rdAlcove (and User:Dexippus — check it hey?) had disappeard a week or so ago and now here he is! Where have you been, mate?! Missed ya. Greetings from Vegas! 76.164.196.162 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins are more than welcome to investigate. While doing so, they can evaluate wheather my arguments/objections (to this article) are valid or not. Noompsy (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Noompsy has edited talk space only, so far, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Noompsy (talk · contribs) and Bojancho (talk · contribs) sure look like socks of each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the "All Seeing I" who started this thread was an open proxy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't write my IP in this discussion page. There is a reason why I created a user on wiki. Noompsy (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you Fatmanonthehorse?--   Avg    18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry can't understand this thing about IP privacy, do you also want someone to oversight your edits as an anonymous IP? --   Avg    19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I don't want other people to write my IP address on this discussion page. Is that sooooooo f***ing hard to understand ????? Noompsy (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying your IP will stay in this discussion page since you made an edit without being logged in. Also please try to be civil per WP:CIV. Thanks. --   Avg    19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't want other people to write my IP addess on this discussion page. Are you Fatmanonthehorse? - Keep your remarks to yourself! Noompsy (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So I presume you're not User:Fatmanonthehorse? --   Avg    19:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To Aigos100

This is already an overburdened article, and your edits seem simply to add to the confusion (to say the least). Don't you think it would be better to discuss them here first? --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrections to the article

Making a Macedonian (modern Greek) language is wrong (it is original research). The Greek in the province of Macedonia speak Demotic Greek or plainly Greek. Macedonian is not even listed as Greek dialect. I know that the speakers of Greek language in Macedonia have local way of speaking (I have speak with my Greek friends about it), but that is not separate language as it is the Macedonian who is in a group of the Slavic languages, subgroup South Slavic. The idea to put on a same level Macedonian and Macedonian (modern Greek) language is absurd and it is biased. The idea is to show to the Wikipedian readers that Macedonian could mean Slavic of modern Greek (Greek POV). The factual situation is that there is Macedonian language in Republic of Macedonia and modern Greek (Demotic dialect) in the Greek province of Macedonia. The second objection is in use of Slav Macedonian. As the Greek editors confirmed in the Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group) there is anti-Slav hysteria in Republic of Macedonia about emphasizing Slav or Slavic. We find it pejorative and offensive. Try to avoid the use of it. (Toci (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Actually, Macedonian is a Greek dialect, and the article clearly refers to a dialect of Greek, not a language. Furthermore, according to WP:MOSMAC, the ethnic group may be referred to as "Macedonian Slavs or Slav Macedonians in contexts where there is need for disambiguation". Next? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find Macedonian dialect in the table of official dialects and therefore it is original statement. I can see only Demotic dialect there. The Macedonian dialect is only mentioned inside the Demotic dialect factually, but there is nothing unique (Demotic is the official modern Greek dialect, Demotic should stay in Wikipedia, without original interpretation of Demotic as Macedonian). If it stays Macedonian instead of Demotic it is Greek POV. Original statement to confront Macedonian (Greek) language vs Macedonian (Slavic) language (to promote Greek and Slavic). If the Macedonian language as name is challenged it should be only by Ancient Macedonian. XMK is with probably included in the ancient Greek dialects. There are no complains on that. The statement that the Macedonian Greek dialect is the closest to Ancient Macedonian is also not sourced. XMK is probably Greek, but noone can write surely as is in the article. Please be objective.

Thank you. I will put my complain for correction there as well. (Toci (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Have you actually read the text you're complaining about? Where is the "statement that the Macedonian Greek dialect is the closest to Ancient Macedonian"? What the passage actually says is that Greek is the closest modern language to ancient Macedonian, which is indisputable whichever way you look at it, even if you take the view that the latter was a separate language. By the way, Demotic isn't a dialect of Greek; it is the vernacular form of the language, in constrast to the archaizing Katharevousa which used to be the official written language of the state. In other words, Demotic is but a group of vernacular dialects, one of which is Macedonian. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, Toci's complaints are a bit confused, but still, there really is an OR/POV problem with that particular passage. The current wording, " ... given that Greek is the closest living language to ancient Macedonian..." (my emphasis) implies validity not just of the factual claim of that phrase, but also its status as a valid argument for the rest of the sentence. Incidentally, it isn't even a valid argument (being the closest surviving relative is not proof of continuity, clearly a non sequitur). If it was worded ...arguing that..., it would be somewhat better. But then again, do they actually argue that? Citation needed. I'm not familiar with that particular argument from the literature; the only argument that I've ever heard a Greek make is that Ancient Macedonian was Greek, full stop. The "even if" version implied in the text and repeated above by Kekrops strikes me as OR. Somebody noticed that the real argument used by most Greeks might be targeted as unconvincing; instead they substituted a weaker but more secure claim in its stead. A subtle act of tendentious POV-pushing. I'm not going to correct this passage; the article seems to be full of problems like this, I'm not touching it with a ten-foot pole. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem changing it to the common Greek argument. The part about Greek being the closest surviving relative of ancient Macedonian is a statement of fact and was initially confined to the linguistic section; it doesn't need to be mentioned twice. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mentioned at all, unless it is used somewhere by somebody as an argument for something. In the context of this article, there is no such thing as an innocent neutral statement of fact. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is used as an argument, whether implicitly or explicitly. It is the same argument that links the modern Greeks to the ancients based on language. In the Greek view, if the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek, and the ancient and modern Greeks are linked by language, then it follows that there is a connection between the ancient Macedonians and modern Greeks. I'm not sure I quite understand your point. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you source the argument that "even if XMK was not Greek but only related, Greek is still its closest relative, therefore Greek claims to historical continuity are correct"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving out the last bit, isn't that what all the literature on XMK says? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But the "therefore" is the only thing that makes it relevant for this article. You need to source the "therefore", or it stays out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No need. I'm still not convinced that the text of the article says what you claim it does. The "even if" argument was a personal one used by me on the talk page; it doesn't appear in the article itself. As for the Greek argument that the modern Greeks are connected to the ancient Macedonians based on language, that is well documented enough, isn't it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I always found that part of their reasoning peculiar. As I think Evangelos Kofos put it, if the ancient Macedonians were not Greek, this makes them automatically free-for-all to be appropriated as ancient national ancestors by whoever first thinks of it. Their ancestry claims can be compared with Russia staking a claim to the Arctic.--Dexippus (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Future for accepting my remark on the OR (non source of the statement). The name of the Macedonian language can be disputed in regard to the Ancient Macedonian language. There are ongoing dig outs and probably they will find more sources on XMK and we will have more clear distinctions. For now noone can claim that XMK was surely a Greek language (there are words that are not Greek in XMK as well there are non Greek Ancient Macedonians first names). Lets stay to that fact (XMK was probably a Greek language, but it is not a sure fact).

There is also no need to push the Greek language (under heading Macedonian dialect) next to the Macedonian language in the article, especially not with the unsoursed claim above that that is the closest living relative to XMK. (Toci (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Oh please...

Re Tsourkpk's most recent edits: [42] "The main problem with this view is...": don't you notice how blatantly POV/OR such a phrase is? Please, people. The article is already full of that sort of stuff. This whole article needs to be scrapped and rewritten. It's just terrible. I don't know where to start cleaning it up. Reading it hurts. This article has been around for over a year, I must admit I never read it, I didn't realise just how ugly it has become. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about the following weasel-worded sentence

Some also argue that the current Greek population of Greek Macedonia, consisting to a large part of post-WWI refugees from Asia Minor, may possess even less actual continuity with antiquity in comparison

which conveniently ignores the fact that there has been a continuous Greek presence throughout the Greek portion of Macedonia from antiquity to the modern day (although restricted to major cities in the northern part). I also find it strange that no mention at all is made of the Paionians in a section claiming to be a "historical perspective". This section reads more like an presentation of "Macedonism" than an actual objective "historical perspective" and needs to go in its entirety. Most of its contents are redundant, which is one reason the article is so damn long. That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that the article is unreadable and needs to be re-written from scratch. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, that section is supposed to present the (ethnic) "Macedonian position". Present it, not argue for it, but that includes presenting a rough idea about what kind of arguments it's based on. Anyway, I eagerly await you showing the same amount of determination in cutting back the corresponding "Greek position" section. If you like, I'd also not be averse to blanking the whole article and starting from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with that last sentence of yours. Although there are bits and pieces we can salvage and recycle, this article is way too long and cluttered for its own good. Considering the advanced state of decay, re-writing from scratch seems like an excellent idea. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Block quotes, again

I removed one big glaring block quote again today [43], the Borza one added back by The Cat and the Owl. Just to clarify: I have no particular problem with the content of that quote. In fact, it's probably as fair a description as any (and I'd be glad if Greek users were equally enthusiastic affirming the validity of Mr Borza as a reliable source when it comes to certain other matters). I object to the use of block quotes as a matter of principle. It's bad academic writing. We should never use extended quotations just as a pretext for us to speak through the voice of another author. Block quotes should only be used where a piece of text is itself the object of our own encyclopedic discussion, never just its vehicle. Come on guys, we are the authors of this text, we do all the talking ourselves, we don't need to employ proxies to do the talking for us. – By the way, in this respect extended quotations are pretty much like non-free images. To be used only where absolutely necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading articles

News: The Macedonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued complain to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs due to the incidents involving violence toward Macedonian citizens in Greece [44]. These last three days three cases of violence toward Macedonians happened. On the May 10th three drivers were beaten in front of the Greek police by a crowd of 50 people. They were pushed to remove with knife the MK sign from their trucks. On the May 11th a driver was stopped and the MK sign was crossed with a spray. Yesterday night, on May 11th a Macedonian driver was tortured by a group of 30 people in Larissa again in front of the police.
Talk: I was receiving bunch of pushy emails due to my writing in Wikipedia last week. All of them were referenced on Wikipedia as a proof that I am Slav and I am not Macedonian and that in Wikipedia the Macedonia is Greece. I was wondering how big proof Wikipedia is that the Macedonia is Greece and that we as Macedonians are Slavs. I was wondering also are these articles misleading to a point that can cause violence and abuse, even in the “cotton” form of violence, the spamming. The Greeks in the past and today denied any right of the Macedonians to exist as ethnicity and they name us Slavs or Slavomacedonians and they have named our language only as Slavic. The term Macedonians (Makedones) does not exist in the Greek Wikipedia as parallel term to Slavomacedonians (Slavomakedones). Now Slavomacedonians (as Macedonian Slavs, Slavic Macedonians and Slav Macedonians) it is also term that is pushed to exchange the ethnic Macedonians in the English Wikipedia. Macedonians is avoided by any possible means, for example in the manual for Macedonia related articles and it is hoped to be exchanged with a new term after the name dispute is finished. My dear spammer was making the reference Slav and Greek Macedonians, Slavs and Greeks, pointing that I am "blind" (he didnt used exactly "blind" but for the politeness of the talk it will do) to see that I am Slav, not Macedonian, when is clearly written in Wikipedia? (Toci (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Toci, dear, may I kindly ask what you're on about? 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)