Jump to content

Talk:Macedonia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Ancient Macedon

Why it is stating on Wikipedia that it is a kingdom of ancient Greece? Sakis stated to view the Ancient Macedonian language, Argead dynasty and Pella curse tablet... but he ancient Macedonian language is disputed as to whether it had Thracian or Illyrian origin, and whether it was Hellenized. The Argead dynasty is the royalty of Macedonia and it was well known that at a point Greeks ruled non-Greeks. The Pella curse tablet shows errors in its writing, proving that the language was being LEARNED and was not native to the Macedonians. I still fail to see how, without POV pushing, Macedon is an ancient Greek kingdom? Mactruth (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You only need to read the first sentence of Macedon to see that that statement is perfectly sourced. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I donno about that. Different sources state "North of Greece", while others state "in Northern Greece"... so shouldn't the article reflect that (ie: "Macedon was the name of a kingdom centred either North of Greece or in the northernmost part of ancient Greece.") Mactruth (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I made a minor change. It sounded as if Thrace
is part of Greek Macedonia, in reality Thrace pertains seperate
”diamerisma” of Greece (Greek for compartment)and is a geographical term.
There is the administrative term "perifereia" which indeed includes East Macedonia
and Thrace together. Sorry for the pedantry.

Written by an anon.
Fact:
24 February 2000: In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM'S Ambassador to Canada, admitted, "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian." He also commented "there is some confusion about the identity of the people of this country." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb1992 (talk • contribs)

History

Aristotelis, Platonas, Arhimidis, Evripidis, Eshylos, Odysseas, Ahilleas, Alexandros o Megas and i can say more names until your end of existence. These names are Hellenic, all these men were Hellenes descendants of Hell or Hellenas. When their hobbies were Mathematics, Astronomy,History, Anatomy, Theater, Athletism, e.t.c. the word slav did not exist or maybe Slavs were monkeys on the trees eating bananas. Moreover Skopia (Fyrom) is a crossbreed of Slavs and Albanians not even Slavs like Serbia, Poland, Russia, Czech, Slovakia, Slovenia,... Slavs generally were called by Byzantium as Sclavines which means something like slaves and barbarians. They first united and came from Karpathian Mountains. Their first historical appearence was near the 2nd century (after Christ of course) and they want now to touch with their tongues the word Macedonia which exist 30 centuries before Christ of course!!! Shame on you monkeys!!! Lets continue history... Byzantium's wealth magnified Slavs and they started raids and pillages. These continued for 500-800 years until they adopted Christianity from Byzantium. They did not even had an alphabet. Cyrillus and Methodius, Byzantine missionaries - monks, created the Slavic language. The Cyrillic alphabet is used today by modern Slavs (Russians, Ex-Yugoslavians, Bulgarians,...). Only Czechs and Polish are using Latinic language. Read and learn History, now all Slavs are friendly and must be friendly with Hellenic nation (not Greek, Greece is a bullshit modern West name), Hellas is the Country. And Hellas watch Slavs like brothers. But you are disgrace yourselves and your history when you are even talk about names like Alexander and Macedonia, because the nation which you disturb today, has offered you civilization and culture. Who created that poll? There is no subject to talk about... All these are created by US, UK, EU Governments in order to create problem and unstabilize political status in Balkans. You Slavs know this well. You were killing yourselves for ten years.

Enlight Yourselves!!! Search and Learn!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.120.85 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Descriptions

Why cant the descriptions for each article show the full story, "Macedon" identity is argued yet on Wikipedia it is "in nothern Greece" (even tho many state it is north of Greece), "Ancient Macedonian language" is argued between Illyrian, Thracian, and Greek... yet it states "closely to Greek" (even though its close to Illyrian and Thracian also). Stop the propaganda Greeks

Mactruth (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pella curse tablet, Ancient Macedonian language, Argead dynasty, what more do you want, to convince yourself? Why do you want to eliminate the word "Greek" and "Greece" from the ancient Macedonia, when we all know that it was a part of the ancient Greece? --xvvx (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I never stated I wanted to eliminate, I simply state that some authors state "Macedonian is Thracian" others state "Macedonian is Illyrian" while others state its Greek, yet it is not reflected in the Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral and show all sides. Mactruth (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Simply looking at the Wikipedia page it states:
  1. an Indo-European language which is a close cousin to Greek and also related to Thracian and Phrygian languages, suggested by A. Meillet (1913) and I. I. Russu (1938),[12] or part of a Sprachbund encompassing Thracian, Illyrian and Greek (Kretschmer 1896, E. Schwyzer 1959).
  2. an "Illyrian" dialect mixed with Greek, suggested by K. O. Müller (1825) and by G. Bonfante (1987).

I don't have time at the moment, but this proves authors disagree as to what ancient Macedonian is, whether it is Greek, Thracian, Illyrian (etc) and should be shown in the page Mactruth (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to convince the people from your profile that the Macedonians are not Greeks! Are the Epirotes not Greek, the Creatans not Greek, the Peloponnesians not Greek, the Euboeans not Greek, the Thessalians not Greek... etc??? From the ancient times the Greeks defined their origin not only ethnological, but georgaphical too, just like the Greeks do nowdays.

I wont say more but why are you using a Greek symbol (Vergina Sun) in your profile, that is forbidden for use by your country and it was discovered by Manolis Andronikos in 1977 in Greek Macedonia?...

From the Vergina Sun article...

"The Vergina Sun (or Star) is the intellectual property of Greece and a state emblem of the country [1][2] under the World Intellectual Property Organization, as well in its differen variations."

What would the reactions from the Americans be, if suddenly the Greeks start using one of their symbol? Why did your country do that?

You are talking about propaganda, but your profile is full of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakis79 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Flag of Malaysia, the Flag of Chile, and the Flag of Liberia. Even the Greek flag was probably influenced by the American flag. No Americans have started crying yet. --Local hero 19:32, 19 March 2009
All off-topic, people. Please go elsewhere. This is the discussion page of a dab page. The only purpose of a dab page is to pass a reader on to the real articles as quickly as possible, and the only purpose of this discussion page is to work out how best to do that. Take your POV gripes elsewhere, everybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) should be up front in this article.

It was a featured article too. I added it on the top and then someone said "Sorry it's also on the 'see also' section". I know, but the 'see also' section is not really part of the main article, or it's not that apparent. This is a very important article (terminology) that provides a length of information not found in this one. --AaThinker (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just what the "see also" section is for. It just doesn't fit into the logic of the main list. "'Macedonia' can refer to 'Macedonia (terminology)'" is simply not a true statement. 'Macedonia' refers to a real entity out there, and the Macedonia (terminology) article is not about such an entity, but about a discussion on a lingustic meta-level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate names & Geographic terms

There is really no reason to add the so-called geographic terms on this disambiguation page as User:Fireleaf did. I've seen he had repeated this discussion here for the same edits. Now he/she is trying to slowly and secretly re-feed those terms for both the Bulgarian part and the Greek part, with two edits separated by some days apart :). I'm joking, but strangely what is missing is an edit to add the other geographic term: Vardar Macedonia
I assume good faith, please Fireleaf explain why to add these terms. If we do for reference purposes, wouldn't there be logical to add alternate names like FYROM for the Republic too? After all it is an official name used by many international organizations. Wouldn't that lead to an editing mess? Let's keep it simple then.
This page is to help someone who doesn't know which Macedonia article to read about. References to these terms belong to the Macedonia (terminology) article or elsewhere, not here
If the edits were meant to inform the reader on the geography, in my opinion the geography of the regions is pretty clear from the text. Besides there is a link for the geography right on the top. A "region in northern Greece" and "a western province of Bulgaria" makes everything crystal clear, no need to add anything else. Since we are begging this discussion I must mention that the geography of FYROM is not so clear from the text. Should we add northern Macedonia, as in "the northen part of the Macedonia region"? I'm not in much favor of doing this on this page. What do you think?
Please discuss before doing these edits again. By the way I'm sure that you understand that both Pirin Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia are controversial terms as stated in the respective articles. Is it really helpful to disambiguate a term using other controversial terms? Let's go for simplicity.Shadowmorph (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The "new sections" added to Macedonia dis. page

If you are going to add subgroups of an ethnicity, why not add Aegean Macedonians and Pirin Macedonians? Obviously, they are a subgroup of Macedonians and contain the word "Macedonian"

  1. Macedonians (Greeks) - We already stated subgroups would not be added to the dis. page
  2. Macedonian dialect - the page does NOT even give a description of a so called "Macedonian dialect" but rather the speakers are talking a Northern dialect, where an example of a Northern dialect is "Macedonian." The problem is this statement is a modern dialect based on modern political divisions, not historical date (ie: There are no documents stating in the middle ages or ottoman empire of "the greek dialect of Macedonian")
  3. Macedonians (Bulgarians) - again, we already stated subgroups would not be included (ie: Aegean Macedonians also), and the page does not even direct you to an appropriate page, but rather a list?
  4. Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia (Slav-Macedonians) - pure politics. First off, you include in the historical section, ignoring that Greek Macedonia was not created until 1913. Second, you write "Slavic Macedonians" but there is already a redirect for that! Again, this is a SUBGROUP, not an ethnicity.
  5. Macedon or Macedonia, the kingdom in ancient Greece - Again, I have added sources showing Macedon was regarded NORTH of Greece by several historians, but instead you Greeks DELETE the data... ignoring what doesn't suit your agenda. I'm sorry but if you want data Future Sunshine just ask, but some authors state "Northern Greece" others state "North of Greece" and ignoring that shows bias.
  6. The Ancient Macedonian language, an extinct Indo-European variety close to Greek - Again, I showed sources stated authors stated the Macedonian language was Thraco-Illyrian, but again you DELETE and IGNORE the date. Why are Greeks so reluctant to show ALL the data, and instead focus on their point of view only? Again Future Sunshine, if you want the data just ask but don't make Wikipedia bias.
  7. Socialist Republic of Macedonia - How is this a historical concept? It was a republic within Yugoslavia only 20 years ago, not the middle ages or Ottoman Empire. It is also the predecessor of the Republic of Macedonia

Mactruth (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it all back to the last version of Future Perfect. The users adding stuff can discuss it here prior to adding it again. --Laveol T 09:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Mactruth please discuss this. Why are you reverting good faith edits, marking the revert as minor. I don't think that is ok to do. I don't understand the reason we have to hide all other ethnic groups in the region. What does it mean that they are subgroups? Wikipedia has info on other Macedonians too. Should we hide that information by suggesting that no other people call themselves Macedonians? This is a disambiguation page! Everything that could be referenced with the name Macedonia (or adj. Macedonian) should be mentioned here. Also, the argument about the subgroups is wrong. There is no rule against subgroups. Aren't the Macedonians (ethnic group) also a subgroup, that of peoples of Macedonia region? Why don't we have that article like Peoples of the Caucasus that mentions all ethnicities? Why is there no problem with other Wikipedia disambiguation pages like America, American, Caucasus, Caucasian. They have links to all subgroups involved. Maybe we should split the disambiguation page into noun + adjective like it is standard practice in Wikipedia. If we serve all the links for the noun why should we not do the same for the adjective? Sorry but it makes no sense. Since the adjective is used in English to refer to other peoples like here and here the information should be in this page. So to quote Metallica nothing else matters! Shadowmorph (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So I guess according to some editors 2.5 million Greeks being called regularly Macedonians isn't notable. And Macedonian referring to the a specific a dialect of Greek (one of the Northern dialects) isn't notable either because there isn't enough info in Wikipedia. That can't be an excuse. I'd be bold and create the article, but there is some effort involved and I'm not the definative expert.

In favor of disambiguating to Macedonian dialect of Greek: Here are some sources on the Macedonian dialect explicitly referring to the dialect of modern Greek quote from a book on Greek phonology

Now in modern Greek the dialects are divided sharply on this point. The dialects of Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly have "σε δίνω", those of the rest of of Greece "σου δίνω", in the sense of "I give you"

quote from just one linguistics book

THE MACEDONIAN DIALECT (note: a whole chapter) : The Greek language has come down to us, like the old Teutonic language, in a number of dialects and sub-dialects

quote from a book about the Greek Testament

the dialect spoken in most of northern Greece ...the Macedonian dialect uses accusative clitics

In the Bible. Here is [3] just one book I could find that specifically mentions that passage]

Why were you called Timotheus by the Thessalonians? he replied : "In the Thessalonian dialect Timotheus meant the same as leader or bishop.". Note that the meaning of the word Thessalonian at that time transcended to Macedonian Shadowmorph (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
How about we include disambig entries only if and when an actual target article has been written? Nobody denies we could have some encyclopedic treatment of, let's say, modern Macedonian Greek dialects. But right now, we don't. Nobody has taken the trouble of writing any. Not even our survey articles on Modern Greek and Varieties of Modern Greek have anything. So, what's the use of having links to articles that don't exist?
By the way, before somebody endeavors to write one, I would first want to check if "Macedonian" today is a linguistically relevant dialectological category at all. Of course there are Greek dialects in Macedonia, but is Macedonia a distinctive dialect region? Are there any linguistic features that are characteristic of Greek Macedonia as such, rather than, say, of the whole of northern Greece, or of only a sub-area of Macedonia? Do linguistically relevant dialect boundaries coincide, even roughly, with those region boundaries between Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus or whatever? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've checked out the American disambig. page here is what is used there
I agree with you on some extent. I hope this won't be just an excuse. You see above (as in many other disambiguation pages) that there is no requirement for an article to exist, rather that a reference exists that may be used with the term. In that case a wording like for the dialect of Greek spoken in the region see Modern Greek is what should be used
Articles do exist on all "subgroups" of people (and all of them were or are self-identified as just Macedonians now or in various times in history). We should include all of them. Actually I find the term "subgroup" rather ugly, aren't all ethnic groups in the region logical subsets ("subgroups") of the Peoples of Macedonia region? It isn't a matter of whether the cover article exists, its a matter of logic. We shouldn't include one and not the other.
Why do we have to discuss weather there is an Elephant in the Room when -funny enough- other pages like Caucasian have links even to one-line orphan articles like North_Caucasian_(pig) :D
It absurd enough that these people appear in their own lists but have no respective articles.
I have went on and sourced Modern Greek#Varieties and enriched Varieties of Modern Greek to reflect things that were written in the first but not the second.
You can read the 2nd of the sources or take my word for it, there exists a Macedonian dialect of modern Greek. It is a common anecdote among all Greeks and a source for some teasing among Athenians and Thessalonians about which form of speaking is the correct. All of the Greek speaking people of Macedonia (most of them in the capital Thessaloniki) speak this "dialect" (it is actually an idiom). People from Kozani to Katerini and Kavala speak the idiom but people south of Katerini or East of Kavala almost never do. The boundaries are of course blurry, but the fact is that this idiom is characterized naturally by Macedonia (thus the usual connotation he speaks Thessalonian after the capital of Macedonia). If you go in Athens and order something saying "δώσε με" instead of "δώσε μου" (both meaning "give me") they will say, Oh, are you from Thessaloniki? But no one will ever think you are from Volos or Alexandroupolis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In the Macedonian dialect other things difer as well, many words - like this funny difference for the word of a popular food, explained here Souvlaki#Kalamaki. There are countless examples for differences in the vocabulary for foods, outside Macedonia in the rest of Greece, the food named Bougatsa is different thing. Also in Macedonia the "L" is pronounced thicker, at times written with double "L"
To lighten up a little, here is a guy from Thessaloniki (In Macedonia called Salonikios, but elsewhere in Greece called Thessalonikios) speaking with the Macedonian idiom: [4] :) Shadowmorph (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, we need a bit more than your personal anecdotes here. Of the sources you cited above (excluding the one from 1903, which hardly counts as a serious linguistic treatment as far as I can gather, but I couldn't read it on google books), every single one was mentioning Macedonian only within the same breath as other northern dialects. All actual dialect features that have been quoted from reliable sources so far, including most notably the syntactic dose me, are shared between Macedonia and its neighbouring regions. There may very well be some distinctive Macedonian dialect, but we haven't yet heard anything reliable about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I provided what I could find for now. Why does it matter if it's features are shared with adjacent regions? Aren't features of the Slavic Macedonian language also shared with adjacent Bulgarian dialects? Does the area that it is spoken coincide exactly with the Republic? My point is that "Macedonian" is used as a term to refer to a Macedonian dialect when it is in a context about modern Greek.
Besides isn't "Macedonian" (or Slav-Macedonian) another name given (in some contexts) for some of the dialects spoken by some Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? They are different from standard language spoken in ROM but people even from ROM sometimes refer to them as "Macedonian".Shadowmorph (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, some of the sources you have shown are written by Greeks and are modern, while others do not show a difference in dialect between Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly dialects (meaning it is not distinctive). You claim there must be a Macedonian dialect because articles state Thessalonian, but you fail to realize that Thessaloniki was predominantly Jewish before the World Wars came along. Any Thessalonian dialect that came along after the World Wars was not historical, and most likely adopted by the mass influx of Pontic Greeks that arrived in Macedonia during the 1920s. The Macedonian language is an internationally recognized language, which has been historically associated and classified as being spoken throughout the Macedonia region. You don't see me adding "Aegean Macedonian dialect" do you? Or Pirin Macedonian dialect? There is no point to it because even though it may exist, it is a modern context that evolved after the division of Macedonia. The Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia is classified as speaking the Macedonian language by many historical sources, and was even taught after the Macedonians and the Communist defeated the Greek armies for a brief period during the Greek Civil War, and there are also documentaries which show Macedonians will not express their language openly due to Greek discrimination. Mactruth (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now about your arguments one by one
  1. You say some of the sources are writen by Greeks. Actually only one of the four and not some of the sources is co-writen by Greeks and Geoffrey C. Horrocks. And it is an international University publication not a Greek one. Please don't disregard me as someone that would babble with only Greek sources in hand. Do you have any reason to say that it isn't good?
  2. You say do not show a difference in dialect with adjacent regions. I have answered to Fut.Perf. about that, you are just repeating the question. Even if it is a shared and not a distinct dialect (a thing that you don't know but just saying it) there is no problem in that. I mean that the idiom of modern Greek we are talking about is indeed referred to as "Macedonian dialect", or "Thracian dialect" etc. according to the regional context. I have assumed for the sake of argument that they are one shared dialect, which is not the case. Even then we would have to add a link in this disambiguation page - all other info about shared features belonging to inside the article, not here
  3. What you call Aegean Macedonian dialect, I think the reason you are not adding that is because Wikipedia calls it by another name like "Aegean Macedonians" too, which redirects. I would suggest not using controversial terms, unless they are stated as such and all other terms appear likewise (I tried that, didn't work out). Does a Pirin Macedonian dialect exist? I couldn't find it, is it a Bulgarian dialect?
  4. You say all those are in a modern context. So what? Are all other things here historical? Isn't the whole top section about Modern period? I did state it is about a dialect of modern Greek
  5. you fail to realize that Thessaloniki was predominantly Jewish. Did I say it never was? What do you think I am, silly? I didn't say "Thessalonian", Paul did (not McCartney - the apostle) in the Bible. Check the Epistles. This was before becoming predominantly Jewish. The sources are about Thessalonian Greek which at that time transcended into Macedonian Greek, the passage is about the name Timotheus which is Greek from τιμή (like in timology) and θεός (like in theology). The rest is unrelated. If anyone has a link to the epistle text please share it with us. Modern Greek that is spoken today in Macedonia (Greece) has inherited features from that Thessalonian or Macedonian dialect of Greek spoken in Paul's time. Anyway I just wanted to show that a distinct dialect did exist back then and does exist now. At least Paul though it did.
  6. No comment on the rest you say, which are more or less correct except the thing you say about discrimination. Just for the record, I don't agree on that (but it's off-topic to talk about).Shadowmorph (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
about argument #1 a correction: Springer is an ademic publisher not a university, and a respectable an outside source Shadowmorph (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"FYROM"?

ChrisO said in an edit summary: "we should at least mention the FYROM acronym to catch searches for this term". Sorry Chris, I don't quite see your logic here. Why would we want people who search for "FYROM" to be directed to this page? They should (and will, of course) be taken straight to the Republic of Macedonia page. Why would we want them to see this dab page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

People who type in FYROM in Wikipedia do get redirected correctly. It might be the case that people coming here in one way or another have never heard of the name Republic of Macedonia but will recognize only FYR.Macedonia or FYROM. For example if one has ever heard of the country only from the Olympics or from the Eurovision Contest. Republic of Macedonia would be an unknown term for him/her to click. Not everybody in the world knows ROM with it's constitutional name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see your logic here Shadowmorph, the statement that Macedonia is referred to as "FYROM" is within the article Republic of Macedonia, and most likely people on the Macedonia page are wanting to goto the region or country therefore it seems like its unneccassry information since "Republic of Macedonia" - an independent European nation and "Macedonia (Greece)" - a region of Greece will discriminate by themselves. Mactruth (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well Ok, I aggree. I guess the words "sovereign state" make it clear that this is the country even if someone (e.g. from Micronesia) is not familiar with the name. So lets omit it. I was against alternate names in here to begin with.
Lets also omit "Pirin Macedonia". Using your own words:
the statement that Blagoevgrad Province is referred to as "Pirin Macedonia" is within the article Blagoevgrad Province, and most likely people on the Macedonia page are wanting to go to the region or country therefore it seems like its unnecessary information since "Republic of Macedonia" - an independent European nation and "Blagoevgrad Province" - a region of Bulgaria will discriminate by themselves.
Those discriminate even better since they aren't homonymous Shadowmorph (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
On top of that "Pirin Macedonia" is controversial

Ancient Macedonian

in another section User:Mactruth has said:

Macedon or Macedonia, the kingdom in ancient Greece - Again, I have added sources showing Macedon was regarded NORTH of Greece by several historians, but instead you Greeks DELETE the data... ignoring what doesn't suit your agenda. I'm sorry but if you want data Future Sunshine just ask, but some authors state "Northern Greece" others state "North of Greece" and ignoring that shows bias.
The Ancient Macedonian language, an extinct Indo-European variety close to Greek - Again, I showed sources stated authors stated the Macedonian language was Thraco-Illyrian, but again you DELETE and IGNORE the date. Why are Greeks so reluctant to show ALL the data, and instead focus on their point of view only? Again Future Sunshine, if you want the data just ask but don't make Wikipedia bias.

pasted here for convenience by Shadowmorph (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is the better one

  1. "the kingdom in ancient Greece" is better (it even avoids describing it as Greek), I believe because ancient Greece is an area and an idea; that encompasses Macedon in any case, as shown in Macedon's history. Classical Greece or Hellenistic Greece could be an alternative referring to the either the culture or the time period. "during the times of ancient Greece" is just a sentence to avoid saying Classical Greece or Hellenistic Greece that both correctly associate to the time and the culture of Macedon. "during the times" also creates a kind of POV aura that Macedon just happened to have existed then and has no other affiliation to Greece. It's like the argument about the language that follows the same suit. To sum up "In ancient Greece" is the simplest solution
  2. Saying the language is of unknown affinity only leaves room for being mistaken as an ancient form of the Slavic Macedonian language. Again the POV aura. It is also wrong, it's affinity is not unknown, it's just not fixed to one exact scenario. "close to Greek" sums up nicely the majority of classification scenarios without even saying anything about classification. It just says that it is close to Greek, a fact, regardless of classification or the "original" origin of the language. Also, confusion with the modern language is thus avoided. The arguments of some editors are like creationist arguments about "teaching the controversy" about evolution in schools. The fact is that it is close to Greek. Shadowmorph (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Bravo, Shadowmorph, I think you hit the nail on the head this time. Good work. --Athenean (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Peripheries of Greece

Macedonia can also refer to one of three peripheries of Greece

West Macedonia
Central Macedonia
East Macedonia and Thrace

I believe nobody objects to adding them. Besides if we have added salads and songs, administrative divisions are more important things and they are different things from geographical regions. With the current structure I have categorized them under Macedonia (Greece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to mention and the University of Macedonia http://www.uom.gr/index.php?newlang=eng in Thessaloniki. It was on the list in the past, but i guest for some reason, the salad, the frigate and the football team are more important :p --xvvx (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right, this page was a bit clean of Greek things. Of course the university should be added, Greek poeple say I went to "Macedonia" like they say I went to "Cambridge". To add to that the university is also known as "Macedonia University" even internationally like in conferences[5], academic projects[6] and interships[7] etc. I went on to add University of Western Macedonia -established in the West Macedonia periphery- as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to these additions. None of these things is simply called "Macedonia". There is no sense of the word "Macedonia" in which it refers exclusively to West Macedonia or Central Macedonia alone. West and Central Macedonia are always only parts of what Macedonia refers to. Thus they don't belong here. As for the university, it can be included if you can show that the usage "I went to Macedonia" is current in English. Which I doubt. Otherwise, please refer to the manual of style (WP:MOSDAB): things that are simply named after something and carry that word as part of their name should not be included in dab pages.

You guys are misunderstanding the purpose of a dab page. Whether or not to include something here has nothing to do with how "important" it is. The only criterion is whether or not it is called "Macedonia(n)", pure and simply. If it is only a part or an aspect of a Macedonia topic, or if "M." is only part of its name, it goes out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:MOSDAB states: If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does. That's what every other editor in Wikipedia is doing in other places.
Well, sorry my friend but I'm not misunderstanding the WP:PURPOSE, are you? You say to not show the universities because of a technicality. Are you sure we aren't creating exceptions only for the Greeks? Does the manual of style apply only to Greek things?
I challenge you to find one article about a university, that doesn't appear in the disambiguation page of it's homonymous region. And how exactly did some of the universities articles have proven common English usage of the one word variant? You are assigning me with an impossible task. I say it's just an excuse to delete the Greek things.
I just checked some articles for the famous ones
University of Oxford states in the article "or simply Oxford" and appears in Oxford (disambiguation). Correct.
University of Cambridge states "often Cambridge University" but doesn't state "simply Cambridge" - But it appears in Cambridge (disambiguation). The page even includes Cambridge University Press which is never stated as "simply Campridge"
(On our case, I have already provided sources for "Macedonia University" form being used, but they are not really needed, see below)
Now let's get to the tricky ones
"Minnesota" can never be used solely for University of Minnesota (the old one) because there also exists a bigger one, the University of Minnesota system. In the article it doesn't say that it is referred to as simply Minnesota. Still, it appears in Minnesota (disambiguation)
University of Washington nowhere states that it can be referred to simply as Washington, but it appears in Washington (disambiguation)
I want to make a point so I am going to paste some colleges from there, take look at Washington (disambiguation)
Central Washington University, in Ellensburg, Washington, Central Washington University-Lynnwood, in Lynnwood, Washington, Eastern Washington University, in Cheney, Washington, George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., Lake Washington Technical College, in Kirkland, Washington, Trinity Washington University, in Washington, D.C.,University of Mary Washington, in Fredericksburg, Virginia ...
about 50 entries of colleges and universities etc, all of them NOT AT ALL following the WP:MOSDAB
And we are making fuss about two universities in Macedonia (Greece)? :D
WP:MOSDAB is not the Bible
I concur that referring to a University by stating only the name of it's region is common in English for most of the Universities in the world. When answering the question which university did you attend? - I went to Minessota (no confusion). Can you prove the above is wrong?
As long as Western Washington University, in Bellingham, Washington is included Washington (disambiguation), 'so shall the University of Western Macedonia be included here
Now about the peripheries, I've seen these disambiguation pages
Irish includes Northern Ireland which is never stated as simply Ireland and is also a part of England politically, or Ireland geographically.
Caucasus (disambiguation) includes North Caucasus, South Caucasus
Luxembourg (disambiguation) includes Luxembourg (district) even though its just a part (southwestern) of the state. Deeper still, includes Luxembourg (canton) that is just a subdivision of the division of the country.
Iberian includes things like Northeastern Iberian script and Southeastern Iberian script
Catalonia (disambiguation) includes Northern Catalonia event though it is "Northern Catalonia" and not just Catalonia that is also a sub-region, that of Southern France
That's because a geographic identifier can always be omitted in simple English and the word will retain the meaning. West Macedonian, and Central Macedonian citizens of the respective peripheries all being referred to as simply Macedonian. Also, other words are trivially omitted like colours, the words language, dialect and script for speaking/reading/writing almost always are omitted (thus Northeastern Iberian script is referred to as Iberian, Macedonian language as Macedonian), the words Old (Old English) and New (the New Testaments are referred to as Testaments - and Nova Makedonija as Makedonija) and of course administrative and demographic divisions like ethnic group, regional group, county city,town,state and periphery in our case
I hope nobody tries to find excuses to make this page as Greek-free as possible
According to WP:PURPOSE, in my opinion the above additions should remain like all those examples
This shouldn't be the most restrictive strict disambiguation page just to scare of the Greeks
To sum up for our case e.g. West Macedonian', simply Macedonian can refer in English to a person or a thing related to the West Macedonia periphery of Greece. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
tl;dr. So, the short answer is: no, you are wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
So we should remove from the Oxford (disambiguation), Aristotle (disambiguation), Cambridge (disambiguation) (the list is actually endless), any reference about the universities (amongst other things)? My question is... why only in this page? --xvvx (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Right on the point, "Oxford" being the only University in that long list deserving its appearance in a dab page (according to WP:MOSDAB). But WP:MOSDAB says about universities refered to with one word: "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does".
Fut.Perf. sorry for the long previous very long post. Yet, I would like to hear your opinion on these things. By the way, introducing separate dab pages was probably a good idea. Shadowmorph (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, it's simple. Oxford university is often referred to simply as "Oxford" in English. "I studied at Oxford". "He graduated from Oxford". Now, show me one example where this is done, in a decently reliable source in good English, with those Macedonian universities. "He graduated from Macedonia"? If people say that, no problem. Show me. - As for "West Macedonia", of course "Macedonian" can refer to people or things from that periphery, since it's obviously part of Macedonia. But that is already covered by our entry on Macedonia (Greece). Nobody would ever say simply "Macedonia" when they mean West Macedonia specifically and alone. That's all that matters here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Some useful statistics

Here are web hit statistics (from http://stats.grok.se) about what our readers are actually reading. All figures from March 2009:

Articles
article hits
"Macedonia" entries
Republic of Macedonia 119,905
Macedon 22,845
Macedonia (region) 12,827
Macedonia (Greece) 11,660
Socialist Republic of Macedonia 1,972
Macedonia (Roman province) 1,873
Blagoevgrad Province 1,707
Diocese of Macedonia 296
Macedonia (theme) 603
Macedonia, Alabama 365
Macedonia, Georgia 317
"Macedonian" entries
Macedonian language 15,863
Macedonians (ethnic group) 9,547
Ancient Macedonians 4,739
Ancient Macedonian language 3,934
Macedonians (Greek) 289
dab pages
dab page / redirect hits
Macedonia 34,752
redirects to dab page
Macedonian 1616
Macedonians 945
Makedoniya 10
Ancient Macedonian 207
other redirects
redirect hits
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 2,239
FYROM 1,958
FYR Macedonia 583
Macedonia (country) 539
Greek Macedonia 414
F.Y.R.O.M. 71
Makedonija 672
Makedonia 734
Ancient Macedonia 433

I've proposed a re-grouping of the dab page a bit more in line with our readers' interests. Incidentally, it also makes the wording more efficient, because it is much easier to describe what the region is when you have already previously mentioned the country and the Greek part, rather than the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this "keep it simple and hierarchical" logic, is just fine... and i hope to stay that way, for a long long long time ;-) --xvvx (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Confused

The more people mess with this page, the more confused it gets. This represents the most convoluted version I've seen in a while. Somebody has again been trying to turn this into an abbreviated clone of Macedonia (terminology). That's not what a dab page is for. A dab page is not for teaching people about the meanings of the term in its various aspects. I'll repeat this another million times if necessary: a dab page is only, ever, exclusively for catching people who have already entered the term M. in the search box, with a specific target in mind that they thought that would take them to, and present them with the quickest possible way of navigating to that target. The less time a user spends at a dab page, the better.

Come on guys, do you know what "simple" means? It's what a dab page should be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% percent on simplicity. I'll try to be more efficient on that. I believe the more people mess with a page, the better it gets. Did only few people write Macedonia (terminology)? What is wrong with making an abbreviated version as long as it follows some guidelines already followed elsewhere? I ask, have you seen America / American (there is also an American (word) one). Strange though there is no America (terminology) article.Shadowmorph (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You guys being here for some time maybe have forgotten WP:Purpose. People don't always search with something in mind. You would be right if the dab links appeared on a main topic page, but here? I once searched for Iberian with nothing in mind. I learned that there was a Greco–Iberian alphabet I never knew !!! Isn't that also the purpose of Wikipedia? To present knowledge?
Imagine being from Micronesia and arriving here, how would you know what to click? Do you think Wikipedia is just for reference? People use it to learn too. I only wanted to add all things that do get referred to as Macedonian or Macedonia, nothing false, how is that POV? You removed the University of Macedonia, why did you care to, if this is just a dab page. Let it be there, almost all other dab pages list the universities. And on the peripheries of Greece again common Wikipedia practice would be to add them? Why did you care to remove them?
I suggest spliting this page just like America/American , Iberia/Iberian, Caucasus/Caucasian , Britain/ British (check out the language section there by the way)
Why be original, and have it all in one page? That's why it is convoluted, let's follow the others Shadowmorph (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The present version is not bad; if you are looking for more simplicity though, why not try the pattern of the quoted America dab page, starting with "Macedonia usually means either: etc. etc."? Apcbg
The only way to keep this dab page clean and simple is to keep it minimal and strictly to the rules of what a dab page is for. We have the "...(terminology)" article for everything else. The reason the noun and adjective lists are currently merged is simply the alternative wouldn't be shorter or simpler: Since each of the major noun entries has its associated adjective use, plus the separate adjective uses we are already listing, a standalone adjective dab page would contain exactly the same list of entries as this one does now. "Macedonian" can refer to 1) anybody/-thing from the region; 2) ditto from the country; 3) ditto from Greek M.; 4) ditto from ancient M.; 5) the modern language; 6) the modern ethnic group; 7) the ancient language; 8) the ancient ethnic group. Nothing gained by listing all this another time elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm
  1. We would surely remove the US places (the adj. is never use for those) and the food and stuff in the adjective dab page... would be very short
  2. We would remove the languages from the noun page
I'd like to see it tried out Shadowmorph (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but the principal entries (at the top of the list) would still be doubled. And pray, remind me, what problem would the un-merging solve? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
For one, we would solve the problem of having the only merged dab page against all others (additionally it's the only dab page with a "(disambiguation)" in parenthesis that doesn't have one main article)
Secondly, it's helpful. People do search with different terms for the noun and adjective (they think likewise too :-) )
Thirdly, no one of them weill be longer than this. No harm done. Got to go right now, catch up later :-) Thanks for the help Shadowmorph (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
None of this answers the question. Your splitting proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The page is now split. All talk about Macedonian, fore example language,dialects etc should be done there now. There appears to be a very long talk page there. Was it about the same article? Can it be archived? 94.68.163.28 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Page name modification

I've made a minor change to the page naming, adding the standard "(disambiguation)" terminology that we commonly use for disambig pages per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't sound minor at all to me. I happened to read the guideline and Mercury is not redirected to Mercury (disambiguation). What exactly are you trying to do here? The guideline mentions that you should change the title if there is a "primary topic" and it specifically mentions "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". If this is a sneaky way to push your POV, please revert this controversial move now. --Avg (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, we haven't had an "extended discussion" about which article is the primary topic so far. Of course, we might well do so. It would probably pretty easy to show which it is (see above statistics for a first hint). But as long as we don't change the names of the actual articles, the naming of the dab page is pretty irrelevant anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well statistics can easily get manipulated (and are) since people here redirect the viewers to fYROM when typing Macedonia. So the stats case is not so valid.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If it is irrelevant and all articles remain the same, then ChrisO is falsely stating that he moves it "per guideline". The only way it could be moved "per guideline" is if there was a primary topic. There is no other provision in the guideline for moving the disambig article. So you see, this is an extremely controversial move that ChrisO sneakily labelled "minor".--Avg (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (disambiguation)

My opinion is that it's wrong to leave the article Macedonia empty, that redirects to Macedonia (disambiguation). I have the feeling (actually i am sure about it) that in the near future, there will be a proposal to put a redirect to the article Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia (Greece) to Macedonia and move the contents there. By having the article Macedonia as the main disambiguation article, this possibility, will never happen or be proposed ;-) --xvvx (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course we all know that is the real reason it was done :). But it's hidden it under the carpet. Just like the link to Macedonia (terminology) had no text to it to direct anyone there (I'm sure it was done because of a technicality too).
The articles American doesn't have (disambiguation) in parenthesis. Neither do Iberian, Caucasian, British not even Irish. The same for all for historic regions as with adjectives. I still had no reply on that. Is anyone saying American is against the WP:MOSDAB? Shadowmorph (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You people see Macedonian ghosts everywhere, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.166.5 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"You people" have no sense of humor :) Shadowmorph (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no ghosts (for now :p ). I am trying to see the reality... i am watching this article for about two years and believe me i know very well both sides. The contents are o.k by me, but the redirect, was a huge huge mistake and i hope it will change, because we will have problems in the near future. --xvvx (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It was not a mistake, it was intentional. The policy stated by ChrisO reveals it all. The only reason to move the disambig article toMacedonia (disambiguation) is if there is a "primary" article. In all other cases, the guideline instructs that the disambig article should be left to Macedonia. If he moves it, he makes space for the "primary" article to be moved to Macedonia. If this isn't the case, then per the guideline he himself states, he should revert immediately. And anyway, labelling a change with such huge implications as "minor" is an extremely sneaky way to push a POV.--Avg (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Since there is no main topic this should be moved back according to WP:DABNAME. I can't move it so I'm requesting one of the other editors to remove the "(disambiguation)". Shadowmorph (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a main topic now. No sneakiness - all completely above board, though I dare say some people may not like it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see through you ChrisO. I think actually making this controversial move without any prior discussion clinched it. Clear abuse of admin tools, say hello to desysopping.--Avg (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. It's time for some people to hit the road.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Map in the dab page

I found the map in the dab page not actually reflecting the content of the page. I have made a mockup map to show you my preference for the map.

Are there any other opinions of whether a map should appear in a dab page at all? Shadowmorph ^"^ 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as the map and the dab page itself have no inscription/entry identifying Bulgarian Macedonia, they remain essentially crippled. Apcbg (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have been bold and included my version of the map — the newer version without all the text and with a legend — like in Congo that is mentioned in Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Images. I have tried my best to have the most NPOV version possible. All the countries in the map and not only RoM include the long form of the name with the common name CAPITALIZED so as to justify the long form "Republic of ..."
I also have included the Bulgarian part because people there do self identify as "Macedonians" and that land as "Macedonia" also known as Pirin Macedonia. It could be either POV or against the spirit of the policies about self-identifying names. Shadowmorph ^"^ 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It is a totally good faith edit and as NPOV as I could possibly imagine it. I have omitted all the text from the map so that the text can be edited and reverted by anyone. I cannot imagine any objections about the actual map. Shadowmorph ^"^ 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems well done, informative and and user-friendly. Apcbg (talk)

Naming discussion

First of all im wondering why you delete my concerns and remove my talk, while is based on facts and truths. However Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonija, is a dead term for you, i respect your opinion but you have to respect others also. Of course "you" can use any name you really want as long you don't offend or steal from others. However here are my concerns for all to read. You can't write shorter something that you right already very short. Besides is a talk page. Please don't delete opinions of others.
Here is what i wrote before and deleted. Is based on facts, history and the entire Macedonian background, not the background of the last few years. Go with facts. I thought we have free speech. About Indus river as i mention and of course you didn't read, this is a history for less than 50 years comparing with the whole history of Macedonia. Take notes and facts. Read below. If you find anything wrong you can put it by presenting facts, not by delete my talk.
Macedonia first of all is an ancient kingdom and then everything else. To what you refer as macedonia boundaries in this page, you refer only the last 100 years. I guess we miss some thousands years of definition. This page lack of information, facts, and education. What you call boundaries of Macedonia todays, you refering to the Turkish Vilayet of Thessaloniki, Monastir and Kosovo. However due the Ottoman Empire period, nowhere is reffering to the area as macedonia. However Turks make their vilayets not according to geographic term or ethnic groups areas, but they make vilayets according to the mix of population, because this cause less revolts and plus the local nations fight each other. Also in all Ottoman censuses, nowhere is mentioned any "macedonian" nation. So where was located Macedonia the previous centuries? Macedonia due the Byzantine period referred to the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia (which located in todays East Macedonia and Thrace. Evidence of that we can find into the Bulgarian Nationalism in the first and second wars and in the some previous years. VMRO, an originally Bulgarian organization which claims Macedonia to unite it with rest Bulgaria, was set mainly by Bulgarians, which Greeks and Albanians join in common goals of sending Turks away. Bulgarians refer to Macedonia as it was the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia, plus the Shopluk area. In Byzantine period Macedonia Thema was in the area of Adrianople, which VMRO claims also as Macedonia (See Bulgarian Nationalism and maps related to VMRO). VMRO exist as organization till today with claims over Vardar region due the high Bulgarian population in Shopluk area. Also there is another new VMRO of Skopje origin created the last decade and is the current political party and government in Skopje (FYROM). For the record, Bulgarians and Slavs came in the region of Balkans in the 6th century AD according of what they say and their history. Macedonia thema was relocated in late Byzantine period for strategic reasons and mainly due of the came of Bulgarians and Slavs in the area of Balkans after the 6th century and the wars between Byzantines and Bulgarians. In Roman period Macedonia was a cross road and located mainly from Durres in Albania all across the "Egnatia Odos". Is impotant to mention that Skopje city is all that period, never was part of Macedonia. However the City of Skopje original name was Scupi (Roman), Shkupi(Illyrian) and proof of that is the even latest period of Ottoman Empire which the City of Skopje known as Uskup, the name Skopje is recently invented and name it. Before even the Roman period, was the Hellenistic Era, even in that time Skopje city was not into the Macedonia's borders. There are questions such, why Alexander the Great spread Hellenism and not Macedonian stuffs if he spoke another language? Why he order Athenean Greek ships to explore red sea and find a route to India? What for was the Oath of Alexander in Opis? Why left no evidence of "Macedonism" instead all left are Greek if Macedonia and Greece was two different things? Probably because Macedonia is nothing more than Greece. What about the Kingdoms after Alexander's the Great era? Why Alexander had Greek teacher and not macedonian if it's different language? How they communicate? And for those who believe that Philippos does not like rest Greeks, why he teach Greek to his son and why he had Greek name as he and his son? Let's go to some definition. In ancient Greece there was no single thing called Greece, but there was region cities/states which fought each other and make alliances for glory and power. Notable is the Peloponnesian war which keeps for 50 years between Sparta (Lakaidemonians) and Athena. Each side had other Greek region cities/states as their alliances. For example Macedonia was with Sparta and Thebes with Athena etc. However when the so called Barbarians came in the area, Greeks stop fight each other, they form all together an army and send away the Barbarians, after that they continue their internal wars. Alexander the Great wanted to lead a campaign to Asia against Persians, however the rest states doubt if he can lead that due his very young age. For this reason he had to proof his self against the opposite alliance and did it. Note that areas such Epirus or Sparta was not set foot because they came from same alliance. After he prove his self to the opposite alliance he recruit army, which not include Spartans as respect of their legend in their epis battles of Thermopulai against Persians. The main reason of Alexander the Great of his campaign to Asia, was to take revenge for all Greeks about the wars of the previous centuries and of course as dreamed a free world. Greeks are all those which came from same nation and share same language, gods, tradition and civilization. A state or kingdom does not make the nation. Nation is people of same origin, and doesn't matter if they have one or more states. Example is the Albanians, are spread in Albania, Kosovo and FYROM, they have two states, they mainly are spread to another one, but they are from one nation. About the Vergina Sun, the sun of Vergina has been found to various Greek locations and is a symbol that represents the Olympian Gods mainly, the four elements etc. Actually is a Greek symbol and have found centuries prior Alexander's era in various locations within the Ancient Greece regions cities/states. About the language, Makedonia, Alexandros and Filippos has a meaning in Greek language. What it means in Skopski language? In Skopski language all those words has no meaning and is some plain words. And if all is different with Macedonia and Greece, how can those words has meaning in Greek language but not in Skopski language? What about the Skopski names and traditions, language? How can be related with Macedonia? And if you tell me that all change from time to time. Still how can be everything completly change? And if we speak about the Slav-Macedonian. Slavs came after 6th AD in the region of Balkans, they came 1000 years after Alexander's the Great death. Bible reffers also to the Macedonia. There are more problem to consider about the new State of Macedonija, the 35% of the total population are Ethnic Albanians which Skopski republic want to name them "macedonians" by force. Is important to know that all those Albanians who makes the 35% of the total population of FYROM, they didn't migrate there recently, but this place was their natural home before even the slavs came to the region. We mention about the city of Skopje for it's original name etc. earlier. Also there are more minorities groups in FYROM who are not refer to their selfs as "macedonians" Another issue is the Shopluk area and the Bulgarian population. More notes, into the FYROM parliament there are two official languages, Albanian and Skopski, anyone can speak whatever want, also Bulgaria issue passports to Skopski people because it decides that Skopski people are Bulgarians, passport issued to them just by fill up one form in the Bulgarian embassy. Is very known that FYROM people can understand better the Bulgarian subtitles than the Serbian one. Other remarks, the VMRO never claimed the Greek name of Macedonia or Alexander the Great, but they claim territory as due the centuries they lived and spread to that territories as outcome of the wars between Greeks and Bulgarians and they call the region Macedonia, as they learned from Greeks when they appear in Balkans in the 6th century. Today Bulgarians has no intentions to the historic Macedonia, but they have to Vardarska region (FYROM) which Shopluk located and many Bulgarians live. After VMRO failed to accomplish it claims, Yugoslavia turn that propaganda into it's own favour by renain the regions to sosialistic internal republics with extension views against Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians. This change happened due the communist changes, as same happened to Communist Russia at that time. After the second world war, a civil war comes in Greece between the communists and democratics. Communist take their supplies from Yugoslavia which aims to expend to Macedonia by using the communism as an excuse. Yugoslavians of the Vardarska commited genocide against Greeks and they mess into internal matters. Prior that it had followed the plan of Yugoslavias extension to Bulgaria, Greece and Albania, and for this reason happened the renames of the regions to socialistic republics, to fullfill that plans and to create claims from nowhere. However and this propaganda failed. After the break up of the Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonija (FYROM) born. The only way to survive while is landlocked, is to take from others and to invent history if wants to survive. The first part, of adopt Bulgarian language and tradition it was already there as also the name, as given to the communist era. Now that communism in Yugoslavia collapse and the break, the area was landlocked and with no major population. However the first President of Republic of Macedonija (FYROM), make it clear that they are Slavs and they have no connection with Alexander the Great and his Macedonia (check videos). We can continue very much more further. Mention also that in the Ottoman Empire, even in 18th century was newpapers in Greek language, with names "Pharos" and "Makedonia" ... based in Thessaloniki. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Great post Goran, but sadly you don't stand a chance

As you can see from the entry above mine where a whole new topic was deemed necessary just to respond to you, this is a dead issue and you have written on a area of wiki that is not yours. If you want to build a page or edit a page that is neutral, avoid anywhere 'Macedonian.' Many Greek and neutral editors were buried here, respect their graves! Reaper7 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted this elsewhere, but it bears repeating: This is not a question of neutrality, this is a question about whether the English Wikipedia is going to cave in to what is solely a Greek political concern, and one that is either totally ignored or openly opposed by literally every nation on the planet, and is basically ignored by all (and I mean ALL) English-language media. And please don't find a few articles that do use the Greek-supported term, because a few exceptions do not invalidate a practically universal condition. J.delanoygabsadds 20:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Since it is such a universal and unanimous condition, I don't see why you feel the need to shout it.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
And, of course, Wikipedia cannot "cave in" a solely Greek political concern, but it can with great ease cave in a solely Taiwanese (and —what a coincidence&mdsash; anti-Chinese) political concern. But, as you say, Wikipedia has nothing to do with politics. No! No! No!--Yannismarou (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course i know that i don't stand a chance when in fact i see that in all Albanian, Greek, FYROM, Shopi and Bulgarian related topics there is edits only by same nick-names which deface the facts by their personal believes. However, Macedonia is NOT a greek political concern. Macedonia is a Kingdom in Ancient Greece, is a reality. Is important to see facts and the whole things, for those who see just the recent page of a book, is important they see the whole book. And as i said, maybe i don't stand a chance here as somebody says, but this does not means that i will not speak of truth and i will not defend the facts. Skopje, can name their selfs as they really want! There is no problem as long as they don't stealing from others and they don't force and pressure the other ethnic group of Albanians. We can go on with thousands facts and realities, such the revealed propaganda of skopje against bulgaria which admited by the government. Also in 2001 we had a civil war in skopje between Albanians and Slavs, Albanians fought for their civil rights as they get pressured by the modern "macedonijanism". And as you can read in my previous text above (is someone not deleted again), i mentioned that all those Ethnic Albanians in FYR Macedonija, are not migrated there lately, but they are the original inhabitants of the area. They lived they long ago before Slavs came in area of Balkans. We really have to consider their opinions in this topic also if we want to speak for the modern new-born Macedonija state. As you can understand is not only Macedonia of Greek name of Macedonia which is used by Skopje, or the Bulgarian traditional and language used also by skopje. But mainly is first matter of Ethnic Albanians in the state, as original inhabitants of the place. Why you try to limited the Albanian rights and voice? NLA Freedom Museum. As a result of the conflict (civil war between Albanians and Slavs in 2001), Albanians of Čair Municipality in Skopje established in 2008 a 'Museum of Freedom' presenting what they consider battles of the Albanians in the region from the period of the Prizren League in 1878 until the 2001 insurgency. It is also known as the NLA Museum and commemorates those who died during the conflict. Items include paramilitary clothing and insurgent flags used in 2001. Many Albanians see it as a non-military continuation of the uprising. Former NLA leader turned politician, Ali Ahmeti stated at the opening ceremony “My heart tells me that history is being born right here, in Skopje, the ancient city in the heart of Dardania. Our patriots have fought for it for centuries (yes Albanians they foughtfor their homelands for centuries with proofs and facts, what about the slavs?), but it is us today who have the destiny to celebrate the opening of the museum. Fighters from Kosovo are here to congratulate us...”.--ГоранМирчевски (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Minus NATO, FIFA, UEFA, the UN and EU using FYROM etc etc etc... I agree, we should call Macedonia, Macedonia. Every time I read an English newspaper the country is usually referred to as Macedonia since they gave troops to the US lead war on terrorism and that is good enough for Wiki and good enough for me. Countries like Spain, Netherlands, Italy, France, Japan, Albania, Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Australia not recognizing the name 'Macedonia' and using the term 'FYROM' mean absolutely zero. These countries are not important. America, UK and China recognise Macedonia as Macedonia and that is who wiki should back in the dispute. Wiki should not stay neutral by using the UN brokered term 'FYROM.' Macedonians hate this term and they should not be made to suffer at the hands of the EU and UN. They should control their own destiny, esp on wiki and that is correctly what has been decided upon. Debate closed. As for historical concerns, correctly the word 'Greek King' used to describe Alexander the Great's, Philip II's opening paragraph has been removed and we are working hard to make sure the world knows that 'Greek' is too loose a term on such a precise encyclopedia, especially as we are not 100% sure the Ancient Macedonians are not the true descendants of the modern Macedonians. Greece never existed besides Thucydides, Plutarch and other contemporary histories using the world 'hellenes' 24/7. Athenians were not Greek, they were Athenian. Thebans were Theban, not Greek and Macedonians were Macedonians, not Greek. There is no place for umbrella terms in wiki. Yes these states shared some small things like language, religion etc and if the reader has the time to read a 1800 line article he will discover these links in his own time. However we are not going to destroy wiki by teaching new readers lies about this 19th Century invented Greece! Reaper7 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Timeless

I removed Macedonia Timeless. Nobody will look for this organization by just typing "Macedonia". Not every page who has the word "Macedonia" in its title should appear in this disambiguation page, only pages about things that can be referred to by the single word "Macedonia".  Andreas  (T) 14:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thessolaniki Airport, Macedonia, and the square of Skopje, Macedonia

Both articles should either be included, or removed from the page. The square in skopje is simply known as "Macedonia", while the Airport of Thess is also known as "Macedonia"... even though their articles are not representative of this. Mactruth (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess you can add the square since the airport is already in the list. --Laveol T 18:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem for the inclusion of the square, but check Fut.Perf.'s argument in his edit summary when reverting Mactruth's edit. It is delicate, but based on guidelines and he seems to be right.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Although, reading again, I am not 100% sure!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, sorry, I wasn't aware of the whole reverting business that had been going on prior to my comment. I just thought it'd be fair, but I'll take a look at Fut.Perf's comments. --Laveol T 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this is the criterion I suggested and the question I asked on my talk page earlier today: is the square ever called plain "Macedonia", rather than "Macedonia Square", in English? I can hardly imagine that. Would our readers find sources out there that write "he met his friends at Macedonia", or "the demonstrators assembled at Macedonia", when they mean the square? That's hardly English. As long as it's called "Macedonia Square", like any other well-behaved square or street out there, why would there be a reason to have the article anywhere else? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that and think you're right here (especially liked the "well-behaved" part :)--Laveol T 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That is my point, the same argument is valid in regards to the Macedonia airport. That is preciously why I state either both should STAY, or both should GO. Mactruth (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the airport could go, but did you really think you could piggy-back this little bit of POV-pushing [8] totally unnoticed? --Athenean (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macedonia (terminology)/archive2

FYI YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Kingdom wording

Drakolakkos is objecting to my removal of "a kingdom of ancient Greece" following "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)". The phrasing seems completely unnecessary since there was only one ancient kingdom that can possibly be referred to. (We could also remove the phrase, "a province of Rome" after "Macedonia (Roman province)" for the same reason.) The other comments following "Macedonia (X)" are non-repetitive and can actually clarify, such as "Macedonia (theme)" (which is fairly opaque without the comment). But the comment about ancient Greece seems to be a bit POV pushing and the comment about Rome is just plain repetitive. The ancient sources are fairly divided about whether the ancient Greeks thought Macedonia was Greek or not (but this is not the place for that debate). Why stir the POV pot unnecessarily? The question here is very specific: Does the comment help the reader in finding the page they want? I think not because there is only one ancient kingdom called Macedonia (or, as the actual helpful part of the comment says, also called Macedon). But what do others think? (The other part of my comment is about whether there is something useful to say after "Macedonia (Roman province)" other than repeating "Roman province". It looks bare without some comment, but the comment that is there is just kind of silly-looking.) (Taivo (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I still mourn for my old proposal of "... in Greek antiquity". What the reader may find helpful is a specification of the historical domain and period, much more than a characterisation of the geographical area. "Greek antiquity" is what helps the reader for a first historical orientation; whether the country itself was strictly speaking part of anything that could be called "Greece" is (1) pretty irrelevant to this page, and (2), actually, not necessarily answerable with "yes" in any straightforward and unambiguous sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"in Greek antiquity" is preferable to me since it makes no commitments on ethnic identity or anything else. It is, as you say, an identification of historical domain and period. (Taivo (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
More or less the same commitments if we follow these terms. Better off not adding anything back, so that we can all sleep with a clear conscience, having done our duty facing the nationalists.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, readers looking up Macedonia will do so based on 1) name 2) time period. Macedonia (ancient kingdom) alone covers the name and the time period. Macedonia (Roman province) also does the same thing, adding more is unadditional. Should we shorten the Roman Empire portion? Or specify, like "a province in the early periods of the Roman Empire" to differentiate it from the Macedonia of the late Roman Empire? Mactruth (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tying "Macedonia (Roman province)" to a time period as suggested by Mactruth seems more informative. (Taivo (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
But "Roman province" is completely self-explanatory, there was only one Roman province called Macedonia, we don't need a comment at all. Also, that "formerly part of Yugoslavia" stuff from the first entry must go, it seems a bit POV-pushing, it's like a weasel way of saying "FYROM".--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could say "a modern country in South Eastern Europe"? Mactruth (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's informative and strikes out any "FYROM" insinuations.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"...in Greek antiquity" seems fine to me per the reasons Future mentions. --Athenean (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
So how about this:
(Taivo (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

I am also in favor of "Greek antiquity". The kingdom of Macedon was not in ancient Greece and do not get me wrong here. You all know where I personally stand on the issue of the Greekness of the ancient Macedonians, but "Greece" in antiquity was the land below Thermopylae (although Strabo includes Thessaly and Macedonia in it). Greeks thrived in many places outside "Greece" as was Hepirus, Macedonia, Pontus, Mysia, Cilica, Southern Italy, Sicily, Marmarica etc. This is a common mistake and should be well understood that "Greece" does not mean "the only lands where Greeks lived and prospered". GK1973 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Taivo's proposal is fine by me, except that I find the describing the ancient kingdom as a "coutry" a bit odd. "country" has too much of a modern ring to it. I would prefer something along the lines of "Macedonia (ancient), a kingdom in Greek antiquity". Other than that it seems fine. --Athenean (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"Kingdom" is fine. (Taivo (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC))
I disagree with Taivo's second and third proposal per my previous rationale, " in Greek antiquity" makes commitments on ethnic identity and the comment about the Roman province is unnecessary since the name of the article is completely self-explanatory.
GK1973, "ancient Greece" has an open use in modern literature, an attempt to define it by concluding how "Greece" was most often applied in antiquity is only one approach. The point of using it was to give a straightforward historical and geographical direction to the reader, but Taivo saw a special weight attached to it, having to do with the academic debate of the kingdom's "Greekness" on one side, and how he probably perceives Greek editors' actions here based on the political dispute on the other, he thinks that should bother us here. I'm accepting that and extending it to the other solution as well, which is part of his suggestion now. So based on the argument that started this discussion and for the sake of saving its logical concreteness can someone explain to me why "Greek antiquity" (which is treated as a redirect of ancient Greece in wikipedia) doesn't touch this POV line ?--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
How about "in the time of ancient Greece" ? BalkanFever 08:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "in the time of ancient China"? No, a timeframe is given through "ancient" and for more details one can just look up the article, so I would have to disagree with this. Dear Δ., I know that ancient Greece can nowadays encompass all modern Greek territory (you would never call Byzantium or Dyrracium a city in ancient Greece for example), but this path is real dangerous and unacademic, since then, Paeonia would be a kingdom in ancient Macedonia or Bithynia a kingdom in ancient Turkey. We have to be very careful when mixing up modern with ancient placenames. On the other hand, "Greek antiquity" is more suitable, since it supports the undisputed cultural and linguistic proximity of the Macedonian kingdom with the rest of Greece (both within and without the territory of Greece as was perceived by the ancients and most Byzantines). I would not condone the use of that phrase regarding the Celts of Galatia for example. It allows for the existence of the non-Greeknes theories, yet in a subtle way I find appropriate. Anyways, this is my personal opinion. GK1973 (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe i didn't make my self clear, i'd normally have no hard way accepting both solutions or BF's proposal right above. But i want someone who undestands Taivo's perspective. that made him so conscious as to reach 3RR and start a discussion, to explain the difference. I thought i had it, but according to what i understood it seems he changed his mind now, so i'm a little bit confused here.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't reach 3RR. I deleted the reference after Drako and another editor were warring over two different wordings, both of which I felt were POV. Then Drako reverted twice and I reverted twice. Just to be clear. Now, my initial problem was with "a kingdom of ancient Greece", which I feel is still too focused on placing ancient Macedonia within the realm of Greece. It thus seems to be a subtle dig at Macedonia that "Macedonia" is part of the Greek realm. It implies that some sort of unified Greek state existed and that Macedonia was a part of it. The difference between "Greek antiquity" and "kingdom of Greece" is that "Greek antiquity" simply places Macedonia within a time frame (the Greek part of antiquity and not the Roman or Sumerian part) while "kingdom of Greece" makes a statement of ownership or ethnicity, both of which are subtly POV. My position isn't different, I still object to "kingdom of Greece", but "within Greek antiquity" is a much better way to point the reader at a time period and a general region. I don't have much of an issue with "in the time of ancient Greece" either. My concern is to point the reader at a time period. Antiquity is quite regularly divided in the English-speaking world into periods related to where "history was most active" at the time. Thus, we have Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, etc. periods of antiquity. That's the way we study history in the U.S.--by linking periods of history to the principle movers and shakers during that period. Thus, "Greek antiquity" includes events in Greece proper, Macedonia, Ionia, Sicily, Thrace, etc. from about the time of Pericles through the Peloponnesian Wars up to and including Alexander and his successors at which point "Roman antiquity" begins, which covers events in Italia, Carthage, post-Alexandrine Greece, Judaea, Egypt, Gaul, Germania, Britannia, etc. It's an artifact of how the majority of English speakers (Americans) learn history. (Taivo (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
I rephrase, you made 3 reverts in 24 hours and 3 minutes on the same issue and for the same reason, to remove any POV, that was only to point out that you were quite sure you were doing the right thing, cause every experienced and good-faith editor knows to avoid such behaviour otherwise. Also my last edit was on the 28th of July, i wasn't edit-warring when you came in. I appreciate the info about the educational system in the US (which BTW represents the majority of native speakers and not English speakers as a whole) but by common definition Greek antiquity is a part of Greek history, which deals with Greek people and the lands they occupied, so i still cannot imagine how could "no ethnic commitment" apply to it and at the same time not apply to "ancient Greece". As for implying a unified ethnic state, why should we even care if a naive reader sees an entity that never existed, with or without Macedonia ? Those references are there to help people that have a basic understanding of the topic. The clueless can read all about it by clicking the respective article, or should we care that in the case a reader is not interested he will leave the page with a wrong impression ? That's not what dab pages are for.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Drakolakkos, I didn't revert three times ever on this--not within 24 hours, not within 48 hours. My first edit was not a reversion, it was an edit to a form that neither of the two sides in the issue were considering. That's not a reversion to a previous form. (I notice now that it was Athenean that made the last reversion before I deleted the POV reference and not you, my apologies for thinking it was you.) You understand now that "Greek antiquity" is not an ethnic term, but a temporal one. Do you object to "Greek antiquity"? Or would you prefer "in the time of ancient Greece"? (Taivo (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
While "ancient Greece" is ? To the imagination of the clueless ? Is that what this is about ? Attaching notions of modern ethnic states to terms about antiquity ?--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a fundamental difference between "kingdom of ancient Greece" and "kingdom in the time of ancient Greece". (Taivo (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
So I ask you again, do you have a preference between "A kingdom of Greek antiquity" or "A kingdom in the time of ancient Greece"? Both equally express the same neutral temporal aspect to me. (Taivo (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
Sorry but you haven't answered my question. If your only problem with "in ancient Greece" is that an imaginary construction that's not part of a given POV in any serious academic debate can be attached to it, than i'll go for "in ancient Greece" as it's geographically more informative. "Rough-and-ready" as FP said to one of his edit summaries when tha last stable version was formed, although he always preferred "in Greek antiquity" for different reasons. The way i first understood your position all phrases had the same problem, strictly speaking.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, what's this quarreling supposed to be good for? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Drakolakkos, I didn't ask you if you preferred "in ancient Greece". That is a geographical reference that carries some POV with it. I asked you whether you preferred "in Greek antiquity" or "in the time of ancient Greece". The geographical reference "in ancient Greece" implies a specificity that did not exist in the ancient world, but carries POV wording in the modern interpretation. We're looking for a temporal reference here (to match the temporal references for "Macedonia (Roman province): a province of the early Roman empire" and "Macedonia (theme): a province of the late Roman empire"), not a geographical one. A geographical reference is completely unnecessary since this particular section of the dab page (where "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" occurs) is a listing in temporal order from a single geographical region. The geographical reference is completely unnecessary. (Taivo (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
Who made you coordinator of this discussion to dictate what my choices are ? I don't know if you noticed it but the only persons discussing POV pushing here are me and you, so don't act like you're in alignment with everybody else and you're expressing consensual conclusions about what is POV. Both phrases contain a geographical direction, the difference in "ancient Greece" is that it's more prevailing to that term's meaning and more confined in space. For the rest i stay to what i've said in my previous post. If the majority decides something different i don't have a problem with it, since we've got our facts straight here discussing it further won't lead to anything, indeed.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed to be "the coordinator". I just asked you a question, which you didn't answer. Here is a reiteration of what I posted above and everyone but Drakolakkos seemed to feel comfortable with:

(in the top section based on modern geography)

(in the next section based on a time progression)

(Taivo (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

My only problem is that Macedon existed through many "hot spots", including Greek and Persian. Macedon was a province of the Persian empire at one point in its lifetime, so its POV to simply state "of Greek antiquity". The most neutral statement would be its location or time:

Since the geographical location of "Macedonia" has been established in the preceding set of articles ("Republic of", "(Greece)", etc.), the detailed geographic reference is not really necessary (perhaps) and just "a kingdom from 800s BC to 146 BC" or "a southern Balkan kingdom from ..." would be sufficient. (Taivo (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
I had already given you my answer Taivo, if you didn't accept it on your own reasons that's not my problem. No matter how you phrased your question that was a legitimate answer based on the options we had from the start, unless you were expressing the consensus of what our choices were, which you weren't doing.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Drakolakkos, but your phrasing doesn't make any sense to me and I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The dab page starts out with two very clear sections--the first section has options that deal with the differing modern geographical interpretations of Macedonia--the Republic, Greece, the region. The second section then deals with the temporal interpretations of Macedonia, in order from the times of ancient Greece to the Yugoslav province. A geographical reference to Macedonia ("of Greece") makes no sense in the temporal chain other than to push a particular POV that asserts that ancient Macedonia must be called a part of Greece. That geographical assertion is irrelevant in a temporal listing. The only relevant information is the time frame of the ancient kingdom relative to the other temporal periods (early Roman empire, late Roman empire, Byzantium, etc.). The wording "Greek antiquity" only has a temporal function to American speakers of English (I can't say how British speakers interpret it). But any wording that emphasizes the geographical location of Macedonia and not the temporal placement is not appropriate in a temporal listing. (Taivo (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC))
That wasn't the answer i was talking about Taivo, that was commenting on your remarks after i gave you my answer, which doesn't change a lot anyway. Just noting that both terms direct to a geographical domain, "in Greek antiquity" carries a "Greek world" connotation as well. I've nothing more to add against your repetitions. Thank you.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted comments by banned sockpuppet Ridm and followup comments related specifically to them. (Taivo (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
A few comments. Personally, I can and do see that the phrase "Macedonia (Roman province)" is pretty much self-explanatory, and probably doesn't need any additional phrasing for disambiguation purposes, although, as I indicate below, some indication of the period of its existence might be useful. I am not however similarly convinced that some sort of additional terminology to define to new editors Macedonia (ancient kingdom) wouldn't be useful. We should remember that wikipedia is intended to be understandable by people who don't know much about the subject. Considering how bad some of the geographical understanding of the world by even some college students is, that's a sizable percentage of the population. I think it may be a bit of an unwarranted assumption to believe that simply saying "ancient kingdom" is enough to make it clear to someone seeking that article that it is the one s/he is looking for. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica article here gives it the summary description of "ancient kingdom, Europe". For all we know, someone might be just remembering the name from some vague memory of Alexander the Great being associated with it, and possibly for some part of the kingdom as it existed under him which is not in the immediate area of Greece. If this person is as historically illiterate as a lot of other people, they might believe Alexander was from the Roman province and go to that page, not finding what they are looking for. I do like the fact that Socialist Republic of Macedonia has information on it's period of existence in it, and think that might reasonably be useful for the other entries as well. Even that might not be particularly useful to someone operating on just a vague memory of what they're looking for though. Considering that (I think) probably the single item most frequently associated with the ancient kingdom is Alexander the Great, I do think that adding some text, maybe saying something like "an ancient kingdom of the eastern Mediterranean (or of Greece, whichever) app. 800-170 BC, which under the reign of Alexander the Great extended to the Indus River." Something like this, particularly with the dates and an idea of how big it at one time was, would probably help someone who really has no clue other than a vague memory of the name of what he was looking for. And, again, I think adding the periods of existence for each of the historical entities might be useful, because these same theoretical people with minimum understanding of what they're seeking might not immediately know whether it is the Roman province, Roman administrative unit, or Byzantine province they're seeking, so some sort of indication as to when the entity existed might be useful to them. John Carter (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion, John. I already think that "province of the early Roman empire" should be the text behind "Macedonia (Roman province)" to distinguish it from the later "Macedonia (theme)" and "Macedonia (diocese)". I don't think that change is controversial. Mentioning Alexander is also a good idea, I hadn't thought of that. How about: "Macedonia (ancient kingdom): an ancient kingdom of southeastern Europe, app. 800-170 BCE, which, under the reign of Alexander the Great, extended to the Indus River"? (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
That sounds good to me, although Indus River would probably be linked. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In order to have a good measure, I'll quote the opening paragraph from Macedonia (ancient kingdom):
  • Macedonia or Macedon (from Greek: Μακεδονία, Makedonía) was a kingdom in ancient Greece, centered in the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula. The homeland of the ancient Macedonians, it was bordered by the kingdom of Epirus to the west, Paionia to the north, the region of Thrace to the east. and of Thessaly to the south. For a brief period, after the conquests of Alexander the Great, it became the most powerful state in the world, with borders including the whole of Greece and as far as India; at that time it inaugurated the Hellenistic period of history.

Carter, you are a genius. Most people link ancient Macedonia with its most famous leader, Alexander the Great. Mentioning him will ensure the reader pick ancient Macedonia, if that is what they were looking for. The only problem is the ancient kingdom of Macedonia is different from the Macedonian empire. How about "Macedonia (ancient kingdom): an ancient kingdom of SE Europe, which rose to power under Philip II and Alexander the Great"? Mactruth (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia never included all those lands people... the Empire of Alexander was never called Macedonia nor were the states of his Succesors. Not even Paeonia or Epirus were ever considered Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Again, the "in Greek antiquity" sounds OK since "a Greek kingdom" sounds to some of you too POV... GK1973 (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But, Gk1973 and Mactruth, there's no article on the "Macedonian empire"--the article on "Macedonia (ancient kingdom)" includes this period as if it were a simple continuum from the earliest Macedonian king through Alexander and his successors to the Roman conquest. The majority of readers are not so subtle as to think that the empire is something different than the kingdom. And Alexander never called himself "emperor", but "king". (Taivo (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
Since Ridm has been determined to be a sockpuppet of SQRT and indefinitely banned, I've deleted his last comment. Other comments of his have further discussion following, so they should remain unless all followup comments are also deleted. (Taivo (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
Note: Ridm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) as a sock of SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs). J.delanoygabsadds 19:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I feel Macedonia (ancient kingdom): an ancient kingdom of SE Europe, which rose to power under Philip II and Alexander the Great" explains that the kingdom of macedon became an empire due to phillip and alexanders leadership, and most wikipedia users will be able to choose the correct Macedonia because Alexander and phillip are mentioned. Mactruth (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a preference between John Carter's wording and Mactruth's wording. Both are equally informative. Mentioning Philip II might be a bit of overkill since no one who is looking for Philip's kingdom will be ignorant that it was Alexander's as well, while the reverse is not true. (Taivo (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Order of pages

Hi, I was just wondering, why is FYROM (Republic of Macedonia) first on the list and for example the Greek Macedonia? ItsMeAthan (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons: First, Macedonia gets more hits than the Greek province, so it should be first. Second, they are in order of prominence--sovereign states come first in importance, then subdivisions of states, then nonpolitical geographical descriptors. (Taivo (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
Compare with our disambiguation page for Georgia, which also mentions the country first and the US state second. - Ev (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does Macedonia redirects to a disambiguation page instead to the Republic of Macedonia

I think that is odd that when typing Greece in the search tag, we ain't redirected to a disambiguation or an explanatory page... Crazy wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.40.76.226 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question is explained in detail in our naming conventions for Macedonia. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Macedonia/Macedonian

So ... what is the difference between these two? I don't get why we have separate disambiguation pages for Macedonia and Macedonian. Mike Peel (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I, honestly. In fact, I once merged the two pages [9], but somebody else split them up again some months later [10]. In between, the page had seen an insane amount of obsessed, ideologically-driven tinkering, because people apparently couldn't stomach the idea that in a combined "Macedonia"+"Macedonian" dab page there would be naturally more entries dealing with the Slavic Macedonian "side" than with the Greek Macedonian side. Maintaining this page used to be a nightmare. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They are two different things. "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" are two different words. Treating a noun and an adjective as separate entries is the norm in WIkipedia. See American/America, German/Germany, Greek/Greece, Chinese/China, French/France, English/England, Spanish/Spain, Indian/India, Russian/Russia, Egyptian/Egypt etc. It has nothing to do with any ethnic fervor as FP maintains. Exceptions exist like Canadian/Canada, Sudanese/Sudan, Swiss/Switzerland. GK (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean Mike Peel. Personally I find nothing especially disturbing in having two pages. User Shadowmorph, who had re-divided these words, had given a reasonable, acceptable and until now, forgettable explanation why he did it. Once-upon-an-acrimonious-time, users, including an admin, had lost their status over their handling of Macedonian related articles and then came back to the fold. A solution was established defining R.Macedonian and Greek Macedonian references. Since then some vandals and the odd new editor have intervened but the whole thing works rather nicely; the 'Greek', 'Macedonian', 'Greek Macedonian', 'Slav Macedonian', 'German', 'British', etc, editors involved in the polemics seem happy now :-). All we might need for these 2 disambiguation articles, Macedonia and Macedonian, is a bot to automatically reverse anyone editing in FYROM or its lengthier version, or lock the articles for established users. Well, that's my take. Politis (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the issue here. Stay on topic if you must insert yourself into discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To set the record straight. To the best of my knowledge and for this leg of the debate (division between Macedonian and Macedonian), I declare that:

  • After having followed the exchanges on this 'division', I made my first comment in the 'Macedonia' talk page on , 13 July 2010: 20:39, 13 July 2010 Politis (talk | contribs) (1,373 bytes) (not sure about 'different things') (undo)
  • You Fut.Perf, 'inserted yourself' after me on 14 July 2010 in this page: 12:42, 14 July 2010 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) (36,051 bytes) (→Macedonia/Macedonian: re) (undo).
  • Of course, in wikipedia most of editors don't consider such occurrences as insertions; we view it as a normal encounter of editors following similar articles, so don't worry I am not about to accuse you of shadowing me :-) (only joking). I am just putting down this response as I understand it in case it is needed in future developments. Politis (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Did someone call "shadow"? :-) Ok, jokingly still, Politis you need to chill out a bit. I take it that the Greek crisis is pushing you down Wikipedia in the midst of summer rather than a Greek island resort :D -no offense- Anyway, I have to agree with Future that we must keep it to the subject. Naming conventions aside, Mike Peel asked a reasonable question. And it happens that it has a very reasonable answer: in the lines of what GK replied. That is a complex geographical situation down there in the Balkans, Mike, so splitting into adjective/noun pages is totally justified. Previously there wasn't much agreement on the structure of the dab page so it also is a matter of consensus building. Besides I take it the current structure is much better readability and usability-wise. If you care about the differences of the two as you asked I'll redirect you to Wikipedia's adequately informative Macedonia (terminology) article. Of course you can try speedily reading out the main links at both Macedonia and Macedonian pages. I'm glad that you did on first glance get the fact that there are differences in the connotations of the nouns and the adjectives, something that wasn't so apparent before. Hope I helped; and thanks for the input. Regards to all. Shadowmorph ^"^ 06:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ordering of Macedonias

There has been a manageable difference over the ordering of the different Macedonians. However, it is clear that a recognised country takes priority over an administrative province. But we can probably have the wider geographical region leading the list. I suggest the following order:

Politis (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The list should start with the entity that receives the most user hits. When we did ARBMAC2, Future Perfect provided data that showed conclusively that the majority of readers are looking for the country. Which entity is logically going to receive the most hits? That entity that is of interest to the widest possible group of fields. The country is going to fit that definition. The region is only going to be of interest to those looking at physical/cultural regions from a geological/historical perspective. People interested in current affairs, students in high school geography or social studies, people looking at comparative economics, etc. are not looking for the region, but for the country. The evidence was, and still is, quite clear--the majority of people looking for Macedonia don't care about the region, but about finding the country. Therefore it should lead the list. To convince me otherwise, you're going to have to produce hard data showing that the majority of readers are looking for the region. There are other arguments favoring placing the country first, but readership data is hard, objective evidence. --Taivo (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If we are talking solely about utilitarianism, the order should be Republic of Macedonia, Macedonia (Greece), Macedonia_(region). Picking months at random before 2010/09, this pattern of pageviews seems to be quite consistent. J.delanoygabsadds 15:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

'Readership data' statistics as used by wikipedia editors, including myself, are far from an exact science. Results depend on the parameters and, in my experience, when these vary so do the results. Wikipedia works by consensus and I am happy with the order confirmed by utilitarian user 'J.delanoy'. Politis (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia / FYROM name change ?

If and when the name dispute between greece occurs ... (At current time Greece, backed by the USA, is pushing for 'Vardar Macedonia', or 'North Macedonia' as a resolution)

Who will be responsible for the changes that will be required on wikipedia and how will they be implemented?

For example, the current blanket use of the term 'Macedonian' when referring to people from 'Republic of Macedonia' would no longer be good faith if the name changes.

for example.. 'Person XYZ is from Macedonia' would better be defined as 'Person XYZ, from North Macedonia' , or 'Person XYZ from Vardar Macedonia' ... This also would finally put to rest much of the confusion and disambiguation required by People from Greek Macedonia, and Greek Macedonians...

just as we say 'Person XYZ, from North Korea', and not 'Person XYZ, from Korea'

The other question is what would happen of the term 'ethnic Macedonians'. Editors of that page have argued that it should fairly point and refer to the slavic (albanian?) people living in 'Republic of Macedonia' since the name is so familiar. But if RoM/FYROM officially change their name, this argument would no longer hold. In that case, it seems that 'ethnic Macedonians' would more fairly point to a disambiguation page, as clearly not only Slavic people from RoM/FYROM consider themselves ethnic Macedonians. people who consider themselves ethnic Greek Macedonians and ethnic Albanian Macedonians also exist. The argument up until now is that since the Slavic Macedonians managed to call the land they live in 'Macedonia', that they should therefore hold monopoly on the term 'ethnic Macedonian'. If their names changes to 'North' or 'Vardar Macedonia', they will be giving up this self-determined monopoly, and it would be in good faith to other non-slavic ethnic Macedonians to have a disambiguation page for 'ethnic Macedonians'.

Unless RoM/FYROM decides to never have aspirations to join NATO or the EU we should assume this name change will occur at some point.

So why don't we start the discussion now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.97.72 (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is premature, especially since the final resolution is unknown. WP:MOSMAC is sufficient for now. --Taivo (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

redirect

this page should link to the greater region with a disambiguation link on top (as well as the country for most common use). This seems an accomodation and it includes both the Greek and FRYOM versions.Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:MOSMAC for instructions. --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
"Nope" doesnt constitute a discussion because WP:Consensus can change. Furthermore, that is a wikipedia guideline.Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Three things. The use or non-use of "former Yugoslav" is guided by the principles of WP:MOSMAC, which is the result of a special Arbcom-enforced consensus procedure and as such binding, in the absence of a substantially revised consensus. The thing about the relative ordering of entries on this dab page is a different issue, and not covered by that guideline. This keeps coming up every now and again. The present arrangement was chosen for two considerations: primacy of use, in terms of frequency of use in present-day English, which (as was conclusively demonstrated through multiple kinds of data) has the country meaning leading far and away over all the others; and simplicity of wording. It is just much easier to give a simple one-sentence definition of what "Macedonia (region)" is when you have already mentioned the other two ("a region comprising both the above"), than the other way round. Third thing, I'm not sure about the wording of your initial suggestion here: by a "disambiguation link on top", do you mean a WP:Hatnote? That isn't done. This is already a disambiguation page; it's all about disambiguation; we don't do yet more disambiguation on top of it besides its own content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Ancient Macedonia's map is wromng

The map of ancient Macedonia (with the yellow color) is totally wrong. The territory was 10 times larger. Please use a verified reliable map. 688dim (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was tens times larger only after Philip's expansion. This map shows the core of ancient Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, I think it was meant not to show the territory at all, because it changed so much, but only the two capital poleis. That's what the two yellow dots are. I previously tried to do one with a rough indication of the territory once, but I can't vouch for its correctness (don't remember where I had the data from at the time, probably just from some other Wikipedia map.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. The page history of commons:File:Macedonia (disambiguation).png has another version showing a territory, from an earlier draft by Shadow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The best thing to do would be to post a series of maps showing Makedonia's growth from its original core. jaknouse (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be fine for Macedonia (ancient kingdom), but is really not very relevant for this page, which is a mere disambiguation page. Its only purpose is to provide a first, rough approximation showing the reader how the four "Macedonia"s relate to each other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Simpler, more readable map

Guy who doesn't bother to have a proper username in the English Wikipedia, two of us agree that the simpler version of the map is preferable to your complicated non-improvement. Read WP:BRD and you will see that when an editor reverts your edit, you don't go ahead and put it back in, you come to the Talk Page here and build a consensus. Your addition is neither informative, nor easy to interpret. Leave the simpler, older version in place. --Taivo (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Make that three. Athenean (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

User:Σογδιανος appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Macedon-40 and a sockpuppet investigation has been initiated. --Taivo (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result of this sockpuppet investigation was that it was "Highly Likely" that User:Σογδιανος is a sock of User:Macedon-40. --Taivo (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Macedonia-disambiguation.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Macedonia-disambiguation.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New map

New map is better since it has ancient Macedonia on it, we should keep it. Macedonian (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean this map, it is a superior map--cleaner, more professional-looking, and carrying all the disambiguation information necessary. The map which editors keep placing without gaining consensus is simply muddy with so many different shades of this or that. It is also misleading. The boundaries of "ancient Macedonia" were never so fixed as that map implies. --Taivo (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I would support the new map with modifications as outlined here. Also in improving the map please lose these yellow dots which overlap each other and look like ugly splashes. I just now realised they are meant to designate the capital cities of Macedon. Just increase the resolution. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The new map is simply poorly constructed, confusing, and "muddy". It tries to show too much information in too small a space and does it poorly. The current map is far superior, cleaner, more professional looking, and doesn't try to show every single bit of information. The borders of ancient Macedonia are not necessary since they were never really fixed as conquests moved the northern borders up and down regularly. Highlighting the capital cities and "center" of Ancient Macedonia, as we've done for the last year or two on this page, is much superior to having multiple overlapping, shaded regions on a confusing and poorly executed map. --Taivo (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The link I provided above shows that I made many of the points that you are making about the new map which I called "unprofessional" and I actually reverted it. That doesn't mean that the current map is ideal. A reasonable point can be made that Bulgaria and Greece are visually rendered as partitioned, although RoM is shown with full boundaries within the Macedonian region. Sure the legend explains that the yellow colour is Greek Macedonia, but this is not the issue here. The visuals of the map are misleading because the names of Greece and Bulgaria are not within the Macedonian region. I know it is a small point but in a region with such ethnocultural conflict it may be significant in addition to being visually misleading. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The new proposed map provides no real advantages over the current SVG map. Indeed, the only practical difference in the map content proper is the inclusion of the "boundaries" of the ancient nation-state which, as someone alluded to, is of questionable validity, but I think that is beside the point. In terms of presentation, the new map is, in my opinion, inferior to the SVG version.
Furthermore, the SVG version is simply a cleaned version of File:Macedonia_(disambiguation).png, which was used in the article for several years. The new proposed map is nothing more than a slightly better copy of the original (IMO, inferior) map, with the addition the ancient boundaries, and, crucially, the addition of "FYROM" for no practical reason. In WP:MOSMAC, it stipulates that the modern sovereign nation-state shall be referred to as either "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia", depending on whether there is any possible confusion. The new map being proposed is, in my own opinion, a thinly veiled attempt to shove "FYROM" into the article some place.
If it is decided that we want to include boundaries of the ancient kingdom to the map, I can (probably) add them to the SVG image without too much trouble, if other people than me think that that map is better. J.delanoygabsadds 18:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The proposed map is so dirty and murky I hadn't even noticed "FYROM", but had I seen it, I would have added my objection over that as well. Personally, I don't think we need to add the ancient Macedonian boundaries. The map is already at the maximum level of information and Dr.K's reservations about showing boundaries, etc. are valid, but probably not fatal. Information overload is always a concern when dealing with such graphics. The only really valid option for what we have here is to have more than one map, but that's probably not optimal either. That's why the current map works better even though it is at the upper margin of presentable information while still being professional-grade. --Taivo (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Taivo that the proposed map is unprofessional and very murky in its current version. I also agree with removing the term FYROM and in fact I just reverted a FYROM addition today. I also want to thank Taivo for agreeing with my point of the country names within the boundaries of the region. Maybe we can tweak the existing map to include the names of Greece and Bulgaria in the region. Other than that, Season's Greetings to all. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A very simple way to make sure the eye incorporates the Macedonian regions of Bulgaria and Greece into the larger states is to move the labels "Greece" and "Bulgaria closer to the boundary of regional Macedonia. That way the eye will automatically associate the different shades of green and yellow as constituents of the whole. --Taivo (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree to include boundaries of the ancient kingdom to the map as J.delanoy suggests above and I also agree to include the names of Greece and Bulgaria in the region as Dr.K. suggests. By leaving the names of Bulgaria and Greece out of the region borders, the map misleads to what is the nationalistic United Macedonia map. Macedonian (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
The names of Bulgaria and Greece are already on the map and should not be repeated. They can be moved closer to the region boundary, but to repeat them is simply to clutter the map and make it absolutely unreadable and unusable. Perhaps the real problem is that a different shade of green and yellow were used inside the region of Macedonia rather than simply using the same shade used for Greece and Bulgaria. Repeating the names of the countries in such a small area is graphically impractical and will simply make the map completely and totally unreadable by being so cluttered. As I have stated above, what boundaries of "ancient Macedonia" are you going to put there? There was no fixed boundary, so putting in any boundary for "ancient Macedonia" is a lie. Look at Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and tell me which of those maps you're going to choose. There are three maps there--the main one has no boundary at all, and the other two have different boundaries. So if you repeat the names of Greece and Macedonia, and add the some fictional boundary for ancient Macedonia, then you completely and totally make the map unreadable in any sense of the word. Take a class on graphics and you'd fail with that suggestion. The present map can be tweaked for better clarity, but the map you've tried to insert looks like it was drawn by an 8-year-old with crayons. It's certainly not up to Wikipedia's quality. And then there is the additional problem that it doesn't follow WP:MOSMAC. It's simply unacceptable. --Taivo (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course I don't mean to repeat the names but to be included on the boundaries, more or less as they are on this map, otherways the map will mislead to what is the nationalistic United Macedonia map, as I mentioned above. On the borders of the ancient Macedonia, we can add the borders as they are on this map, since this is more or less the boundary of the actual kingdom, that is before the expansions. Macedonian (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
If you look carefully, you'll notice that's not a "border" on this map, but simply a rounded place to stop the color because the border was fluctuating. And what makes that "border" any more valid than a later border? It was simply a fluctuating northern periphery, not a stable border. Any artificial line you attempt to draw is a lie if it implies any kind of a stable "border" between Macedonia and the northern reaches. Why choose that map and not the other map at Macedonia (ancient kingdom)? Both are equally valid maps of ancient Macedonia. No. Adding one more line to an already complicated graphic violates every principle of graphic readability. It is unacceptable. We show the heart of ancient Macedonia and that is enough complexity on that graphic. Choosing at random some ill-defined "border" for the fluctuating northern border of the ancient kingdom is a lie and is misleading to our readers rather than enlightening. --Taivo (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted the originator of the current, professional quality map to see if he can make a couple of tweaks to clarify that the Macedonian portions of Bulgaria and Greece are part of those countries. --Taivo (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Macedonia term and modern usage - Compose of a neutral map

Now let's back to wiki, a neutral map must not lay only to one side, but to show all sides. A neutral map must write in english or local language the name of the area according to what each state call the area. Then the map must write the names of the countries as it's nation wall it self and as others call the other nations. This will represent all sides and names in one and is very enough fair. Also the boundaries of Macedonia must be dotted, and within the dots and rest area to mention the name of the country, inside dots must be written all countries related to Macedonia region. Colors must be the main national colors, blue, red and green. Map must present also the ancient Macedonian kingdom and it's capital cities. Also additional can be a light line of the expand of Macedonia during Alexander's the Great time but remember that was a time of few years only according to the whole Macedonia's Kingdom period. This will be a very neutral map which will respect everyone.

NOTE: FYROM 35-40% of population are ethnics of other nationalities and they don't consider their selfs as FYROM claims or anything similar. All those populations aren't came there by migration, but where they live is their natural home. Meed to consider the opinion of the Ethnic Albanians and rest minorities groups. Then we can talk about good faith and neutral. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Write short and and concise paragraphs, Goran, or we will all ignore you. "FYROM" is a dead issue. Don't even start there. Read WP:MOSMAC. It's a finished discussion. In Wikipedia, we use "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" where there might be (as here) ambiguity. We don't use "FYROM". Period. That will not change no matter how much you don't like it. The map is at the upper limit of complexity right now. Nothing more should be added without ruining readability. The borders of ancient Macedonia were not fixed so drawing them is ridiculous. Which year's borders are you going to choose? 400 BCE? 350 BCE? How about 323 BCE, when the eastern border was on the Indus River? Look at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). There's no borders on the main map there, just a focus on the region of northern Greece where the capital was, but 'no borders. No ancient borders on this map either, nor should there be. --Taivo (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


First of all im wondering why you delete my concerns and remove my talk, while is based on facts and truths. However Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonija, is a dead term for you, i respect your opinion but you have to respect others also. Of course "you" can use any name you really want as long you don't offend or steal from others. However here are my concerns for all to read. You can't write shorter something that you right already very short. Besides is a talk page. Please don't delete opinions of others.
Here is what i wrote before and deleted. Is based on facts, history and the entire Macedonian background, not the background of the last few years. Go with facts. I thought we have free speech. About Indus river as i mention and of course you didn't read, this is a history for less than 50 years comparing with the whole history of Macedonia. Take notes and facts. Read below. If you find anything wrong you can put it by presenting facts, not by delete my talk.
Macedonia first of all is an ancient kingdom and then everything else. To what you refer as macedonia boundaries in this page, you refer only the last 100 years. I guess we miss some thousands years of definition. This page lack of information, facts, and education. What you call boundaries of Macedonia todays, you refering to the Turkish Vilayet of Thessaloniki, Monastir and Kosovo. However due the Ottoman Empire period, nowhere is reffering to the area as macedonia. However Turks make their vilayets not according to geographic term or ethnic groups areas, but they make vilayets according to the mix of population, because this cause less revolts and plus the local nations fight each other. Also in all Ottoman censuses, nowhere is mentioned any "macedonian" nation. So where was located Macedonia the previous centuries? Macedonia due the Byzantine period referred to the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia (which located in todays East Macedonia and Thrace. Evidence of that we can find into the Bulgarian Nationalism in the first and second wars and in the some previous years. VMRO, an originally Bulgarian organization which claims Macedonia to unite it with rest Bulgaria, was set mainly by Bulgarians, which Greeks and Albanians join in common goals of sending Turks away. Bulgarians refer to Macedonia as it was the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia, plus the Shopluk area. In Byzantine period Macedonia Thema was in the area of Adrianople, which VMRO claims also as Macedonia (See Bulgarian Nationalism and maps related to VMRO). VMRO exist as organization till today with claims over Vardar region due the high Bulgarian population in Shopluk area. Also there is another new VMRO of Skopje origin created the last decade and is the current political party and government in Skopje (FYROM). For the record, Bulgarians and Slavs came in the region of Balkans in the 6th century AD according of what they say and their history. Macedonia thema was relocated in late Byzantine period for strategic reasons and mainly due of the came of Bulgarians and Slavs in the area of Balkans after the 6th century and the wars between Byzantines and Bulgarians. In Roman period Macedonia was a cross road and located mainly from Durres in Albania all across the "Egnatia Odos". Is impotant to mention that Skopje city is all that period, never was part of Macedonia. However the City of Skopje original name was Scupi (Roman), Shkupi(Illyrian) and proof of that is the even latest period of Ottoman Empire which the City of Skopje known as Uskup, the name Skopje is recently invented and name it. Before even the Roman period, was the Hellenistic Era, even in that time Skopje city was not into the Macedonia's borders. There are questions such, why Alexander the Great spread Hellenism and not Macedonian stuffs if he spoke another language? Why he order Athenean Greek ships to explore red sea and find a route to India? What for was the Oath of Alexander in Opis? Why left no evidence of "Macedonism" instead all left are Greek if Macedonia and Greece was two different things? Probably because Macedonia is nothing more than Greece. What about the Kingdoms after Alexander's the Great era? Why Alexander had Greek teacher and not macedonian if it's different language? How they communicate? And for those who believe that Philippos does not like rest Greeks, why he teach Greek to his son and why he had Greek name as he and his son? Let's go to some definition. In ancient Greece there was no single thing called Greece, but there was region cities/states which fought each other and make alliances for glory and power. Notable is the Peloponnesian war which keeps for 50 years between Sparta (Lakaidemonians) and Athena. Each side had other Greek region cities/states as their alliances. For example Macedonia was with Sparta and Thebes with Athena etc. However when the so called Barbarians came in the area, Greeks stop fight each other, they form all together an army and send away the Barbarians, after that they continue their internal wars. Alexander the Great wanted to lead a campaign to Asia against Persians, however the rest states doubt if he can lead that due his very young age. For this reason he had to proof his self against the opposite alliance and did it. Note that areas such Epirus or Sparta was not set foot because they came from same alliance. After he prove his self to the opposite alliance he recruit army, which not include Spartans as respect of their legend in their epis battles of Thermopulai against Persians. The main reason of Alexander the Great of his campaign to Asia, was to take revenge for all Greeks about the wars of the previous centuries and of course as dreamed a free world. Greeks are all those which came from same nation and share same language, gods, tradition and civilization. A state or kingdom does not make the nation. Nation is people of same origin, and doesn't matter if they have one or more states. Example is the Albanians, are spread in Albania, Kosovo and FYROM, they have two states, they mainly are spread to another one, but they are from one nation. About the Vergina Sun, the sun of Vergina has been found to various Greek locations and is a symbol that represents the Olympian Gods mainly, the four elements etc. Actually is a Greek symbol and have found centuries prior Alexander's era in various locations within the Ancient Greece regions cities/states. About the language, Makedonia, Alexandros and Filippos has a meaning in Greek language. What it means in Skopski language? In Skopski language all those words has no meaning and is some plain words. And if all is different with Macedonia and Greece, how can those words has meaning in Greek language but not in Skopski language? What about the Skopski names and traditions, language? How can be related with Macedonia? And if you tell me that all change from time to time. Still how can be everything completly change? And if we speak about the Slav-Macedonian. Slavs came after 6th AD in the region of Balkans, they came 1000 years after Alexander's the Great death. Bible reffers also to the Macedonia. There are more problem to consider about the new State of Macedonija, the 35% of the total population are Ethnic Albanians which Skopski republic want to name them "macedonians" by force. Is important to know that all those Albanians who makes the 35% of the total population of FYROM, they didn't migrate there recently, but this place was their natural home before even the slavs came to the region. We mention about the city of Skopje for it's original name etc. earlier. Also there are more minorities groups in FYROM who are not refer to their selfs as "macedonians" Another issue is the Shopluk area and the Bulgarian population. More notes, into the FYROM parliament there are two official languages, Albanian and Skopski, anyone can speak whatever want, also Bulgaria issue passports to Skopski people because it decides that Skopski people are Bulgarians, passport issued to them just by fill up one form in the Bulgarian embassy. Is very known that FYROM people can understand better the Bulgarian subtitles than the Serbian one. Other remarks, the VMRO never claimed the Greek name of Macedonia or Alexander the Great, but they claim territory as due the centuries they lived and spread to that territories as outcome of the wars between Greeks and Bulgarians and they call the region Macedonia, as they learned from Greeks when they appear in Balkans in the 6th century. Today Bulgarians has no intentions to the historic Macedonia, but they have to Vardarska region (FYROM) which Shopluk located and many Bulgarians live. After VMRO failed to accomplish it claims, Yugoslavia turn that propaganda into it's own favour by renain the regions to sosialistic internal republics with extension views against Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians. This change happened due the communist changes, as same happened to Communist Russia at that time. After the second world war, a civil war comes in Greece between the communists and democratics. Communist take their supplies from Yugoslavia which aims to expend to Macedonia by using the communism as an excuse. Yugoslavians of the Vardarska commited genocide against Greeks and they mess into internal matters. Prior that it had followed the plan of Yugoslavias extension to Bulgaria, Greece and Albania, and for this reason happened the renames of the regions to socialistic republics, to fullfill that plans and to create claims from nowhere. However and this propaganda failed. After the break up of the Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonija (FYROM) born. The only way to survive while is landlocked, is to take from others and to invent history if wants to survive. The first part, of adopt Bulgarian language and tradition it was already there as also the name, as given to the communist era. Now that communism in Yugoslavia collapse and the break, the area was landlocked and with no major population. However the first President of Republic of Macedonija (FYROM), make it clear that they are Slavs and they have no connection with Alexander the Great and his Macedonia (check videos). We can continue very much more further. Mention also that in the Ottoman Empire, even in 18th century was newpapers in Greek language, with names "Pharos" and "Makedonia" ... based in Thessaloniki. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Goran, read the notice at the top of the page. This Talk page isn't for the expression of your personal opinion about the name of Macedonia. It's about improving this article. It clearly states that irrelevant discussions concerning the name will be rapidly archived. I did not delete your POV ramblings. I archived them. --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, once again, this is not my personal only opinion. Here are facts, facts which can help for the improvising of this article. We see a lot of your POV Taivo, below, which you make the page as forum and you just put comments of your personal feelings. This post are facts. Let the talk be talk by facts. Archived it? You mean delete it! If you edit the post and you remove opinion of others, this is called removing/deleting, not archiving. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand English so well, Goran, and you certainly don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy since you are new here. Here is where your opinion was archived. It was not deleted, it was moved to the archives. This is not a forum for you to write an essay on your views of Macedonia. Read the notices at the top of the page. The discussion was about the map and your POV rant was pretty worthless for improving the map. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, once again, here i present Facts about Macedonia to improve this article. You post so many comments without any facts on this page and you seem to act like you are on a forum. Here is a talk page to speak with facts. Taivo, don't write unless you don't present facts, or have nothing to post related to improve this article. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Great post Goran, but sadly you don't stand a chance

As you can see from the entry above mine where a whole new topic was deemed necessary just to respond to you, this is a dead issue and you have written on a area of wiki that is not yours. If you want to build a page or edit a page that is neutral, avoid anywhere 'Macedonian.' Many Greek and neutral editors were buried here, respect their graves! Reaper7 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted this elsewhere, but it bears repeating: This is not a question of neutrality, this is a question about whether the English Wikipedia is going to cave in to what is solely a Greek political concern, and one that is either totally ignored or openly opposed by literally every nation on the planet, and is basically ignored by all (and I mean ALL) English-language media. And please don't find a few articles that do use the Greek-supported term, because a few exceptions do not invalidate a practically universal condition. J.delanoygabsadds 20:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Since it is such a universal and unanimous condition, I don't see why you feel the need to shout it.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
And, of course, Wikipedia cannot "cave in" a solely Greek political concern, but it can with great ease cave in a solely Taiwanese (and —what a coincidence&mdsash; anti-Chinese) political concern. But, as you say, Wikipedia has nothing to do with politics. No! No! No!--Yannismarou (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Of course i know that i don't stand a chance when in fact i see that in all Albanian, Greek, FYROM, Shopi and Bulgarian related topics there is edits only by same nick-names which deface the facts by their personal believes. However, Macedonia is NOT a greek political concern. Macedonia is a Kingdom in Ancient Greece, is a reality. Is important to see facts and the whole things, for those who see just the recent page of a book, is important they see the whole book. And as i said, maybe i don't stand a chance here as somebody says, but this does not means that i will not speak of truth and i will not defend the facts. Skopje, can name their selfs as they really want! There is no problem as long as they don't stealing from others and they don't force and pressure the other ethnic group of Albanians. We can go on with thousands facts and realities, such the revealed propaganda of skopje against bulgaria which admited by the government. Also in 2001 we had a civil war in skopje between Albanians and Slavs, Albanians fought for their civil rights as they get pressured by the modern "macedonijanism". And as you can read in my previous text above (is someone not deleted again), i mentioned that all those Ethnic Albanians in FYR Macedonija, are not migrated there lately, but they are the original inhabitants of the area. They lived they long ago before Slavs came in area of Balkans. We really have to consider their opinions in this topic also if we want to speak for the modern new-born Macedonija state. As you can understand is not only Macedonia of Greek name of Macedonia which is used by Skopje, or the Bulgarian traditional and language used also by skopje. But mainly is first matter of Ethnic Albanians in the state, as original inhabitants of the place. Why you try to limited the Albanian rights and voice? NLA Freedom Museum. As a result of the conflict (civil war between Albanians and Slavs in 2001), Albanians of Čair Municipality in Skopje established in 2008 a 'Museum of Freedom' presenting what they consider battles of the Albanians in the region from the period of the Prizren League in 1878 until the 2001 insurgency. It is also known as the NLA Museum and commemorates those who died during the conflict. Items include paramilitary clothing and insurgent flags used in 2001. Many Albanians see it as a non-military continuation of the uprising. Former NLA leader turned politician, Ali Ahmeti stated at the opening ceremony “My heart tells me that history is being born right here, in Skopje, the ancient city in the heart of Dardania. Our patriots have fought for it for centuries (yes Albanians they foughtfor their homelands for centuries with proofs and facts, what about the slavs?), but it is us today who have the destiny to celebrate the opening of the museum. Fighters from Kosovo are here to congratulate us...”.--ГоранМирчевски (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Minus NATO, FIFA, UEFA, the UN and EU using FYROM etc etc etc... I agree, we should call Macedonia, Macedonia. Every time I read an English newspaper the country is usually referred to as Macedonia since they gave troops to the US lead war on terrorism and that is good enough for Wiki and good enough for me. Countries like Spain, Netherlands, Italy, France, Japan, Albania, Egypt, Germany, Mexico, Australia not recognizing the name 'Macedonia' and using the term 'FYROM' mean absolutely zero. These countries are not important. America, UK and China recognise Macedonia as Macedonia and that is who wiki should back in the dispute. Wiki should not stay neutral by using the UN brokered term 'FYROM.' Macedonians hate this term and they should not be made to suffer at the hands of the EU and UN. They should control their own destiny, esp on wiki and that is correctly what has been decided upon. Debate closed. As for historical concerns, correctly the word 'Greek King' used to describe Alexander the Great's, Philip II's opening paragraph has been removed and we are working hard to make sure the world knows that 'Greek' is too loose a term on such a precise encyclopedia, especially as we are not 100% sure the Ancient Macedonians are not the true descendants of the modern Macedonians. Greece never existed besides Thucydides, Plutarch and other contemporary histories using the world 'hellenes' 24/7. Athenians were not Greek, they were Athenian. Thebans were Theban, not Greek and Macedonians were Macedonians, not Greek. There is no place for umbrella terms in wiki. Yes these states shared some small things like language, religion etc and if the reader has the time to read a 1800 line article he will discover these links in his own time. However we are not going to destroy wiki by teaching new readers lies about this 19th Century invented Greece!

PS Taivo please remove this ГоранМирчевски's post to the archive for the 3rd time where no one can read it. It does not agree with our views and i like you want no one to be able to read it. Please hide it archives again. Reaper7 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the archives, Reaper, but I'm sure you can't wait to post my name in WP:3RR. I don't for a minute believe that you have any interest in improving this Talk Page or this article at all. --Taivo (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Those two issues (ROC, Macedonia) are not even remotely similar.

Addressing the (lack of) relationship between the Macedonian dispute and the status of the ROC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The status of the Republic of China is widely disputed in the international community, even in nations which nominally support the People's Republic of China. Many nations even go so far as to tacitly recognize the ROC's position, maintaining what amounts to embassies on Taiwan, and it is unlikely that most nations would support moves by the PRC (i.e. a military invasion) to act on its position. The PRC has no political control over the island of Taiwan - its territorial claims are unenforced. In short, there is widespread disagreement in the global community on the status of the Republic of China, especially in English-speaking countries, and it would be a violation of neutrality for this project to support either side of what is decidedly not a one-sided issue.
In contrast, there is no real dispute in the international community regarding the Macedonia naming issue. Approximately two-thirds (130/200 = 65%) of the world's nation-states recognize the Republic of Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia" (although some more consistently than others - the article really isn't very clear what it means with that column). In addition, the positions of another ~50 countries is stated to be "unclear", leaving 18 (~10%) nations explicitly (and consistently?) recognizing the country using its provisional UN designation. (source) Furthermore, just three weeks ago, the International Court of Justice found in favor of the Macedonian position.

And really, this is all beside the point. I should not have said what I did about "caving to the Greek demands", since Wikipedia is not a political entity. Wikipedia is not supporting any position in its stance on either issue. As stated before, to support either side would be a violation of neutrality. Refusing to use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" has nothing to do with "supporting" or "opposing" either side. It has to do only with following common English-language usage for referring to a specific entity. In the common English press, "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are used to refer to the modern country. Therefore, your entire point about Taiwan is both false and a red herring - completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Wikipedia mentions the dispute in the lead for Republic of Macedonia, linking to the lengthy article with details about the dispute. This is exactly how the issue should be handled. The Manual of Style states that "[Wikipedia] prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and the article follows the convention, using Republic of Macedonia rather than the more-common Macedonia because it was determined that there is no primary topic for the term "Macedonia". J.delanoygabsadds 01:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well stated J.delanoy. --Taivo (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
J.delanoy, please watch facts and comment based on facts. I understand your position, but we talking here about a website that want to call "Free Encyclopedia" and not false Encyclopedia, for this reason facts are presented. It has nothing to do with politics or countries. But with the people within the state also. Please consider the Albanians and rest minority groups which are the original inhabitants of the area. They don't recognize either the term. Also please look national geographic maps for the area prior 1970 and after. We can discuss about press. Is wiki press or a Free Encyclopedia? Does want wiki to support false and unstable without facts informations? Or want to improvise by facts and stability to articles? If wikipedia will put a note that we the wikipedia, we deny the facts and we refer to Macedonia as just and mainly to the FY Republic of Macedonija, which indicated the last century years only and has no connection with the prior times of Macedonia. Then of course it will be a respectfull decision and there is no problem with that. But by trick the users and use the site as propaganda, then this not sound good. For maps, you should respect all views as i give guidelines before on house can compose a neutral map and also by presenting facts of the Macedonia's background in all periods. We are here to improvise with facts? Or to make propaganda without facts? Is a rhetoric question, which need no answer of course. Look the point, the facts! Unless FYROM can't connect their selfs with ancient Macedonia, then it should be a note in all FYRoMacedonija pages about the issue to make clear that this is how wikipedia prefers to call the state by following the press, without facts, by don't respect others and that state has no connection with ancient times. Because Albanians, Greeks and more native minorities groups has proofs of their connection to the ancient times. Plus consider the today situation and Ethnic Albanians of the state, the 35-40% of this state population are native inhabitans of the area and belongs to other Ethnic-Groups and they don't recognize the situation of the state. First of all the Ethnic Albanians who compose the 26-35% of the state's population. The state of FYROM reports that the total Albanian population is the 26% of the state's population and the Albanian political parties report that the 35% of the total state's population are Ethnic Albanians. If you put the truth in the middle, we are talking about the 30% officially, plus other groups which compose the 10% of the population officially according to the state. Why to offend all those people inside the state when facts exists. If somebody has to answer please answer by facts, so we can improvise here. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:MOSMAC, Goran. That is Wikipedia policy and it is to be followed no matter what your personal opinion is or what you consider to be "facts".
Agree 100% with J.delanoy and this is why it was so important the 3 neutral referees who decided the famous Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia) thus ending all debate on the matter were all American citizens. America was the first major country to take a side openly in this debate and correctly recognise Macedonia under its true name. It even encouraged other nations like the UK to immediately recognise Macedonia also. I hate to think what would have happened if the referee's in this Arbitration Committee had been from countries that backed the Greek argument. Goran, everything about this decision was neutral, it is just a coincidence that this neutral position agrees with the Macedonian side. Don't take it personally and learn where to fight your battles. This I repeat is not the place. Reaper7 (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

This is Not a Forum

This Talk Page is not the place for crying about WP:MOSMAC. These POV complaints are irrelevant here. --Taivo (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes Taivo is not a forum, but a discussion talk page which everyone can place his/her opinion according to the wikipedia policy. Why you delete posts of others and you try to close tha Albanian rights, voice and concerns over the FYR Macedonija? You delete my posts for 2-3 times in order to avoid other to see the facts and the whole book of Macedonia, while you represent just one page by deleting. Let the talk page use for it's purpose. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Goran, you need to read Wikipedia policies and understand how Wikipedia works. Your posts were not deleted, they were moved to the archives because they are not relevant for the discussions on this Talk Page, which is for improving this article, not for the issue of what to call Macedonia or Albanian rights or Greek politics or anything else other than the specific issue of improving this page. When you write a page of rambling political diatribe, no one will read it. That's just the facts. I simply expressed the reality to you. Get over it. Your opinion on the nature of Macedonia isn't relevant for this page. Read WP:NOTAFORUM. Find an Albanian or Greek or Macedonian web site that will allow you to ramble on about the nature of Macedonia if you feel compelling to complain or push your POV. This isn't the place for it. --Taivo (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
As you said TAIVO, is not a forum here, why you make it forum as by adding comments only?! Above there are facts. This facts are placing, to improve the page. Maybe the info is not relevant for you personal, but that does not make you to decide if you will put opinion of others in the archive. If you have something to say, speak with facts, above there are facts. So as long as wikipedia is free as it says, it must consider all opinions and not to denny the free speech. So my opinion on this page is very relevant and detailed to the topic. Probably you have to get over it and start concerning all sides, not only your personal feelings. Your personal feelings Taivo does not improvising the wikipedia. We are here to present facts and to improvising wikipedia, with facts. Once again as i said, you talking that you expressed the reality to me, probably you express your personal reality to me, because your reality is not the only one. So get over it. So as i see your POV, you present nothing to improve this article. I represent facts. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Talk Pages are not for you to express your opinions or to engage in "free speech". Write a blog for that. Wikipedia's Talk Pages are specifically for improving articles. This is not a page for your POV about Macedonia. This is a disambiguation page. You don't seem to know that that is. It is a page to take a word, in this case "Macedonia" and to direct readers to other articles that cover various aspects of that word. Your rant is utterly irrelevant to this article. This article is a signpost of sorts, not a place for you to rant about whatever you have on your mind. Find someplace else to vent your frustrations or your opinions (which you call "facts"). --Taivo (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, is a disabiguation page that's why we present Facts here about Macedonia on the current article. Taivo, stop with your POV, if you want to comment do it somewhere else, keep the importance, the FACTS as i wrote above, which you delete it for several times. What is not clear? For comments and complains go to related pages, not here. Here is about FACTS to improve this article.--ГоранМирчевски (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Goran, I didn't "delete" your POV rant, I moved it to an appropriate place. You seem to be completely ignorant about what this page is. This article is a disambiguation page. It is a signpost, not the place for your POV "facts". Actually take two seconds to see what this article is. It's not even an article, actually--it's a signpost. We are talking about how to format the signpost, not about "facts". Wake up and pay attention to your surroundings. You're sleepwalking through Wikipedia. You're standing outside the building and thinking that you're in the main hall. Go to the article where you think your rant about "facts" is appropriate. It's not here. This page is only a signpost. I notice that you have also ignored User:Jd2718's comments on your own User Talk Page. He said exactly the same thing I did, he just moved your comment to another possible place. Pay attention to what we're telling you, Goran. You're a new editor and need to actually open your ears and eyes and hear and see what we're telling you--this is not the place for your POV comments about Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved to a discussion page, didn't archived. Please read all over if you don't understand something. Once again and again Taivo, you POV, your personal feelings and comments, is not a Forum here, Taivo, post anything related to the article by facts, and please Taivo don't POV anymore here unless you have to offer anything related, because between your comments at the end we will lose the importance of the posts. So Taivo, pay attention to the topic. The topic here is about Macedonia and we put facts related the article to improve the page. You Taivo has confused. Please read again before you post or comment, and if you do so, post facts or related things to improve the article. Don't comment without reason. --ГоранМирчевски (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia/Archive_3&oldid=1147985893"