Jump to content

Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 2

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

International Reactions

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

I'll start with a quote.

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

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

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

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

Featured?

I don't know whether it'd be a featured list or a featured article, but whatever it is, it's really great at what it does (summarising the various terms and terminologies), and is good enough to be featured in my opinion... —Nightstallion (?) 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Want to put it through a Wikipedia:Peer review first? - FrancisTyers · 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you think it's about time we posted all external references in this article too? They exist in the daughter articles and the talk section "#Links". About peer review, yeah, why not. :NikoSilver: 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Submitted for PR. You mean the citations, sure we can add citations, how do you suggest we do it? (Personally I think it would be better if they weren't lumped in with the notes but i'm open to being proved wrong). - FrancisTyers · 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You should already know I prefer them separately. :-) Especially for articles like this one. I think we should use the old system for citations to separate them, until the bugs are fixed. Ok? :NikoSilver: 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great :) - FrancisTyers · 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we add {{fact}} tags for stuff that needs citing? - FrancisTyers · 13:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Naaah, let's see what we got first and then we decide. Care to do the honours of creating the new section? I'll show you my refs if you show me yours! :NikoSilver: 13:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Haaaa ha ha ha! [1]!!! :NikoSilver: 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
^__________^ - FrancisTyers · 14:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, does this == this? (The similarities are uncanny — oh and do we have a better source for that?) :) - FrancisTyers · 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ain't we supposed to show that these terms are used by irredentists? How can you expect a "non-partisan" source for that? :-) (Jesus, did I just put WP:BEANS in my ndose?):NikoSilver: 14:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps you are right. Well, I suppose we can keep this one until a better one (if a better one exists) is found. - FrancisTyers · 14:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Right about the beands?:NikoSilver: 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
o____O - FrancisTyers · 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Anything else you'd like citing? I certainly can think of a few...:NikoSilver: 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Shall I mark them with {{fact}}? Or would you like to proceed before I do it?:NikoSilver: 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, thats probably the easiest. - FrancisTyers · 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

  • Macedonistics (Македонистика) - refers the study of the Macedonian language.[citation needed]
  • Macedonist (Македонист) - refers to a person studying the Macedonian language.[citation needed]

- FrancisTyers · 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me also explain why I need citations for footnote #6:

The name "Slavomacedonian" in reference to both the ethnic group and the language can be considered pejorative and offensive by ethnic Macedonians.[citation needed] Historically the term has been reported to have been used in a discriminatory way by the Greek authorities.[citation needed]
  • The word "can" in the first sentence is not enough. I am personally aware of many cases where it is not insulting, pejorative or offensive for the said ethnic group. I can't see any reason, other than 1)insisting on the short name, 2)self-id being disregarded. For the first one, nobody should care. For the second one, there's the counter arguement by Greeks that their self-id is disregarded without a disambig element in the name. A lot of people find that logical, even among the said ethnic group, making that "can" work the other way around. Please notice how smoother the relative phrase is for Greeks in fnote #4:..."The term can also be offensive for Greeks under certain contexts, since it contains the word Macedonia."
  • Second phrase: It would be logical to cite "discriminatory" (beans). Also, please illustrate how this "discriminatory" way was in any sense enhanced by the name, or how it would matter in not discriminating the said group, had it been called simply Macedonian. I can't see a connection.

:NikoSilver: 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. - FrancisTyers · 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

From your source:

Although the stumbling block for the recognition is the name of the new country, with Greece refusing any ‘Macedonian’ name and the Republic of Macedonia refusing any ‘non-Macedonian’ name, Greece continues to be adamant in its refusal of the existence of a ‘Slav’, or a ‘Slavomacedonian’ or, even worse, a ‘Macedonian’ minority in its territory.

I still can't see why any alleged discrimination would be connected with the name. I only see that with any name, it'd be the same, even by sources who support this alleged discrimination. The whole thing sounds to me more like:

"We don't like being called "Slavomacedonians" because we hate Greeks (who would like it) due to the (alleged) fact that they were/are discriminating against our people."

So the correct phrasing, maybe, should be more in the lines of:

"One of the reasons for the general negativity that prevails in the ethnic Macedonians for all Greek positions (the name issue included) is the alleged discrimination of what they identify as "Macedonian minority" in Greece (under any name)."

And not that any name itself would reinforce or weaken any discrimination practice. Do you see my point? Now, if you definitely want to include discrimination, then do it elsewhere, but don't connect it with any name issue, because there is no logical connection. :NikoSilver: 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look hard enough :P
"To overcome this confusion, towards the end of the interwar period and during World War II and the ensuing Civil War, it seems that the term Slavomacedonian was introduced and was accepted by the community itself, which at the time had a much more widespread non-Greek Macedonian ethnic consciousness. Unfortunately, according to members of the community, this term was later used by the Greek authorities in a pejorative, discriminatory way"
The next bit goes on to say "hence the reluctance if not hostility of modern-day Macedonians of Greece (i.e. people with a Macedonian national identity) to accept it" — We could change our wording to make it specifically ethnic Macedonians in Greece, but personally I don't think that is necessary. We could also change the wording from "Historically the term has been reported to have been used in a discriminatory way by the Greek authorities." to "Historically the term has been reported to have been used in a discriminatory way toward ethnic Macedonians living in Greece by the Greek authorities." if you would prefer? - FrancisTyers · 17:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait. I read that, but still can't figure out what the author implies. At first it says it was ok. Then it says that Greeks discriminated. Now why the hell wouldn't they do so if the name was different? I really see no logical connection between name<->discrimination. Couldn't they discriminate against "Macedonians" if they wanted, without touching Greeks? My point is, we sure can include the discrimination bit, but not connected to the name being offensive or not. Also, read the source carefully: "...according to members of the community...", i.e. there is no real proof, just allegations. Why can't these allegations be lies, if the Greek-identifying Slav majority thinks otherwise? Do you disregard the fact that this discrimination largely took place during the civil war? We even had discrimination among Greeks back then... :NikoSilver: 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats why we have reported to have been, not has been. Is this a big sticking point for you? If it is we can discuss it more, but I don't think it is a big deal, I mean, we know that Macedonians don't like being called "Slavomacedonians", we have a source for that and we have plenty of users who object to it. We could of course go with their wording, "according to members of the Macedonian identifying Greek community, the term 'Slavomacedonian' has been used in the past by the Greek authorities in a pejorative, discriminatory way". I would have no problem with prefixing this suggestion with "The Greek Helsinki Monitor reports that..." - FrancisTyers · 18:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In short, the connection between name<->discrimination is thus, "the name was used in a discriminatory and pejorative fashion" ergo, "they do not like the name to be used". - FrancisTyers · 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're wondering "how" the name was used discriminatorily, I have no idea, there are plenty of ways, but that is outside the scope of this. You could do some further research maybe? ;) - FrancisTyers · 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a slight problem with your current wording, it goes against what I just quoted, we have a source that says "Historically the term has been reported to have been used in a discriminatory way toward ethnic Macedonians living in Greece by the Greek authorities." I don't see a problem with just quoting that as is. I've had a better idea... - FrancisTyers · 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

How is that? - FrancisTyers · 18:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfect.:NikoSilver: 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree with your change. Now how about those two below? --v - FrancisTyers · 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The question remains though: How can you act in a discriminating way by means of a term that has been accepted? You can use guns, propaganda, police, even bulldozers, but how can you use the term that the group itself has accepted? Go figure...:NikoSilver: 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Beats me, maybe something was lost in the translation? - FrancisTyers · 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
...or maybe the whole paper just tries to find reasons to support something which is just baseless...:NikoSilver: 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
now now... :P - FrancisTyers · 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tedious

But with the recent referendum, the images now don't reflect the political geography of the area. Who wants to go and add in another line? - FrancisTyers · 18:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Look what's infront of me: My finger!
Not very effective in hiding me, huh? I'll try to find some time...:NikoSilver: 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Haha ok :) I guess we'll see if some kind benefactor gets there first ;) - FrancisTyers · 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now if these borders change ever again, it'll be another finger I raise! :NikoSilver: 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool thanks :) Although its probably only a matter of time... - FrancisTyers · 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You must be desperate for that finger, reminding me this! :-) And then probably there will be more changes shortly after... :NikoSilver: 19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Haha, lets not talk about that! :)) - FrancisTyers · 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that last part, as someone will not be happy about this and might think about retracting certain offers... —Nightstallion (?) 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can't speculate, but in this case, or even that case, they would probably like to include an adjacent piece of that...:NikoSilver: 12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Another language

Should we note that another name for Aromanian is Macedo-Romanian ? - FrancisTyers · 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the language you should also mention the people maybe? :NikoSilver: 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They're called Macedo-Romanians too? Well, is this widely used enough to be notable? If so which section should we put it in ? - FrancisTyers · 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use also the non-frequent terms here (and specify so). I really don't know if they are called as such. The article about Aromanians starts like "Aromanians (also called: Arumanians or Macedo-Romanians; ...", but then again, it has a POV tag right above it...:NikoSilver: 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Added both language and people. Is anything else still missing from our salad?:NikoSilver: 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but I think it should be contextualised as an early XXth century reference (I might be wrong here). Politis 15:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, but why don't you try inserting that where applicable? :NikoSilver: 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The FA nomination (bitchin')

This article is generally great, however there are some troublesome sections:

The region borders, as defined in the map above, as well as the relative terminology, exactly coincide with maps produced by ethnic Macedonian nationalists, who have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (Greece), "Pirin Macedonia" (Bulgaria), "Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo" (Albania), and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (Serbia) despite the fact that ethnic Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians and Serbs form the majority of the population of each region respectively. These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia since 1995 when they agreed to remove all territorial claims to neighbouring countries' territories from their constitution.

  • The country's constitution never had any territorial claims to remove, they simply added an ammendment to it stating that "the RoM does not have any territorial claims". That was made to ensure the Greeks that the territorial claims really did not exist, and they had no reasons to fear. As I've already stated, irrendentist claims are still held by fringe groups but they are regarded as somewhat comic, like the prospects that Canada will invade the US, or that the Greeks will attack Constantinople.

--FlavrSavr 02:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The exact lack of the phrase "does not have territorial claims", which evidently exists in most constitutions of most civilised countries, can be considered an official indirect expression of territorial claims, or at least, an expression of non-contempt against such claims. Especially when this lack is combined with articles regarding "protection and well being" of ethnic minorities in neighboring countries. As per fears and such, I agree that it is somewhat comic, however the Balkans are full of similar comedians and every insignificant spark can create a holocaust.:NikoSilver: 10:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia since 1995 when they agreed to remove all territorial claims to neighbouring countries' territories from their constitution.

We could change that to:

These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia since 1995 when they added a constitutional ammendment stating that they did not have any territorial claims on neighbouring countries'.

I'd like to see a citation for groups receiving "official encouragement" from the government though. - FrancisTyers · 10:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed rephrase. If you feel that "official disencouragement" is not required (like in most other constitutions) in order to maintain stability, then feel free to add "especially" like this:
These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia, especially since 1995 when a constitutional ammendment was added stating that there were no territorial claims on neighbouring countries'.
Thoughts?:NikoSilver: 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The country I'm living in doesn't have a [written] constitution, so I'm not sure :) I'm not sure we can put especially after no, How about, "These fringe groups have received no official encouragement from the government of the Republic of Macedonia, and have been politically marginalised since 1995 when a constitutional ammendment was added stating that there were no territorial claims on neighbouring countries" — again, I'm kind of making it up, but what do you think? - FrancisTyers · 11:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Your country may be the worst example for this. :-) They weren't marginalised, and there are reports of political parties with claims for United Macedonia. Read the article and you'll see a nice example of state-sponsoring in the form of a banknote! I thought the pound didn't ever include the Eiffel tower, did it? This is not marginalization, it is rather indirect encouragement. Like not having a law for the traffic red lights and advertising how some people made it to cross them... :NikoSilver: 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit suggestions

Busy day here, but I'm going to try to pop in and out with my suggestions, as a complete outsider, for text revisions: feel free to disregard, as I know nothing of this area. I know some of the text is nuanced, and you all must have a reason for it, but I hope my ideas may help confuse less readers like myself. I think I've said the same thing here, deleted redundant words, and made shorter and more clear sentences. Maybe not :-))

In the region traditionally referred to as Macedonia, the various terms used to describe different (and frequently overlapping) the geographical, political and historical areas are often a source of confusion. for people from other parts of the world, and seemingly for the inhabitants of the region themselves. The purpose of this article is to explain the meanings of and inter-relationships among those terms.
The term "Macedonia" itself can have one of many meanings, depending on context. (add deleted text from above) The terms frequently overlap regions and confuse people from other parts of the world, as well as inhabitants of the region.

Back later to look at more, and see what you think. Sandy 12:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, one more for now ... this sentence still has punctuation problems, and is redundant and wordy:

There are many other terms which include "Macedonia", the terms with technical meanings are: Other terms with technical meanings which include "Macedonia" are:

Sandy 12:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Time for one more:

The region is described as borderless (i.e. historic), since its borders had been loosely defined to include different areas in the wider region, according to the administrative requirements of its conquerors throughout history.

I don't know what the i.e. historic is doing there, or trying to say? The sentence could be made more clear, but I can't do it without understanding what the i.e. historic is saying. Sandy

  • It's saying that the use of the term has to do with history rather than with contemporary politics. Hence the four historic maps on the right. The argument is that such "borderless" vague region names are used to signify historical and cultural heritage, rather than definite a position. For example, a resident of Mexico can definitely be an American (since it is perfectly clear that Mexico falls within the borders of the Americas), but no group populating the broader area can be considered "Macedonian" based on the fact that they reside there (where?). So the argument continues that those who can be called "Macedonians" are the ones who seemingly have greater connection with the most part of the history of the area, and hence define its borders by their presence. Many modern Greeks consider that the connection of the Ancient Macedonians with the Hellenes is indisputable, and therefore the modern day Greeks are the descendants of both, thereby having the exclusive historic right to claim the name of the region, and to define its borders according to the present day Macedonians (Greek) populated areas (i.e. within Greece). :NikoSilver: 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-work the following sentence to:

The mere name Macedonia had disappeared from most maps, under the Ottoman conquest for a period of four centuries, since it was not an administrative division.[1]
The mere name Macedonia had disappeared from most maps during four centuries under the Ottoman conquest for a period of four centuries, since it was not an administrative division.[1]

Administrative division of the Ottoman empire?

Sandy 12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, deleted "mere", added clarif about administrative division, but didn't have the time to delete all four centuries! (I think it is a significantly long time interval and should be kept). :NikoSilver: 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In demographics, why does only one have a hyphen, while the others don't?

Macedonians - collectively referring to the inhabitants of the region.

Sandy 12:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it so far !

More ...

when a constitutional ammendment was added stating that there were no territorial claims on neighbouring countries'.[3]

What is the wayward quote mark after countries? Sandy

Having a hard time with this sentence, as it switched style mis-stream ... rewrite to:
Both tGreece and the Republic of Macedonia each consider this name a compromise: it is opposed by Greece for containing the Greek self-identifying name Macedonia, and by Republic of Macedonia because it does not use the short self-identifying name, as insisted.
Each gGroups in Macedonia will use various terms in often conflicting ways. There follows a list of how each group generally uses the terms. General usage of terms follows. Sandy

Bulgarian terminology - some of them use hyphens for starting each section, some don't.

Sandy 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Macedonia reminds me of Wikipedia :-) Trying on the "ie historic", but it's a bit complex for me ... maybe you could add more of the explanatory text you provided above, since some FAC comments relate to the lack of text? How about:

In a historic context, the region is described as borderless (i.e. historic), since its borders had been loosely defined according to the administrative requirements of its different conquerors. to include different areas in the wider region Sandy 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bugaro-tatari?

Thought that's a derogatory term addressed to all Bulgarians and referring to their 'purely non-European Tatar and mongoloid origin of Central Asia' that is undisputable by the modern science. AFAIK, it seems just like sort of an ethnic slur, not exactly a term to describe pro-Bulgarian ethnic Macedonians. I'd have removed it, but would like to ask first, because I might be wrong. Todor→Bozhinov 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the word should be kept, lest people think that the Macedonian Slavs are more tolerant than everyone else. If it's a slur for Bulgarians, then it should be kept and described as such.--Tēlex 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I'm cool with keeping it, but it has a different meaning from Bugarofil and Bugarash, so it should be separate. Todor→Bozhinov 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, since they are allowed to self-identify as they wish (i.e. Macedonians), they are also allowed to call other nations the way they want (i.e. Bugaro-tatari for the Bulgarians), but, for God's sake, noone is allowed to call them the way he/she wants (i.e. Skopjians, as the Greeks call them, or Western Bulgarians, as Bulgarians do)!!!:ppp --Hectorian 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, what you fail to understand is that all people in the "historical" region of Macedonia who have a Slavic language as their mother tongue are ethnic Macedonian. There are two groups of these people: there are those who acknowledge their ancient Macedonian heritage and declare as Macedonians, and there are those who deny it and declare as something else; they are what we would call οι εν υπνώσει Μακεδόνες. There are four main categories: Bugarofili (most Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia declare as Bulgarians), Grkomani (most Macedonians in Greece declare as Greeks), Srbofili (most Macedonians in Pohor Pchinski declare as Serbs), and Albanofili (most Macedonian Muslims declare as Albanians). --Tēlex 20:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, i know what they think! but if someone calls them 'Western Bulgarians', 'Southern Serbians', 'Slavicised Greeks', 'descendants of Paionians' or just 'Skopjians' or 'Fyromians' they will accuse him of making personal attacks! There have been users (as u probably know) that accused Greek editors (me included) for personal attacks cause we name them by the last two terms! so, i guess that we do not have the right of identifying other groups... They have the copyright of self-identification and of identifying the others:p. Do they also have an equivalent of Epsilon Team, cause i am sure that they have plenty of conspiracy theories? --Hectorian 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Serbian, Albanian terminology

BTW does anyone know if there is any terminology used by the Serbs or the Albanians. I know that nationalistic Serbs directly deny the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity, call them Torlak-speaking Serbs, and demand the incorporation of FYROM into a Greater Serbia. --Tēlex 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but I'm sure there are some around, same goes for Greater Albania. - FrancisTyers · 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Serbian nationalists used to deny a Macedonian ethnicity's existence, AFAIK most don't today (except for the extreme nationalists, of course). They would also call them 'South Serbians', but since this type of propaganda proved unsuccessful, the Serbs shifted to persuading the Slavic population of Macedonia to adopt an ethnicity of their own after WWII — it's better than having most of them having a Bulgarian national and ethnic consciousness, you know :) I don't know anything about Albanian terminology, though, but I can assume there exists some sort of it. Todor→Bozhinov 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I either do not know if there is an albanian terminology, but i know that in nationast albanian cyrcles the people of RoM are regarded as descendants of Illyrians (for them this means Albanians). to take it a bit further, they believe that also the Greek Macedonia is inhabited by greek-speaking Albanians and that Alexander was also Albanian-there are many sources like that on the net. --Hectorian 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Po, Leka i Madh ishte shqiptar. Maqedonët antikë ishin Ilirë dhe gjuha e tyre ishte Ilirishtja. Don't forget that this is what they claim in Skopje: they prefer the ancient Macedonians to have been Albanians than Greeks. Don't ask me why; Greeks are more friends to them than the evil Muslim Albanians who are tearing their country apart. --Tēlex 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I won't ask u, cause i think i know: they cannot challenge the Greeks over the ethnicity of Alexander (the thousands of ancient references make every single of their claims seem ridiculous...). so, they think it is better for them to achive divide et impera over Alexander, if they can... --Hectorian 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to object to this one, Bugari-tatari is also used to refer to people originally from the Republic, living in Bulgaria and identifying as Bulgarian, as ridiculous as this is.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Like Vlatkoto? --Tēlex 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he does not identify as Bulgarian, at least not in wikipedia.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Like he says on his userpage: he is a MACEDONIAN. --Tēlex 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm Thracian :).   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
U have more evidence to be Thracian than he has to be Macedonian:) --Hectorian 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this term used by Serbs too, and how exactly is it relating to the terminology of Macedonia, more Macedonian slang, no? - FrancisTyers · 22:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, is this term used specifically for "Macedonians who identify as Albanian"? If not, why is it here — this isn't an insult-fest - FrancisTyers · 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's about as legitimate as anything else there, and more commonly used. Albanians are more of a headache to the Macedonian Slavs than the Grkomani. I know you like whitewashing the Macedonian Slavs, so I'll try to accommodate you. --Tēlex 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point, are there Macedonians who identify as Albanian? It would seem to me to be a rather difficult thing to do, akin to me identifying as Jewish — different language, different religion etc. with Bulgarian as we know the issues are small (language very similar, religion same), Greek (religion same, can claim language is Slavic language (Greece)), Serbian (religion same, language similar). Albanian (different religion, different language). I'd be interested to be proven wrong. - FrancisTyers · 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Many Macedonian Muslims identify as Albanian and declare themselves Albanian in the census, both in FYROM and in Albania. The Muslim community in FYROM is becoming Albanized, and the Roma are known for identifying as Albanians, according to the Helsinki Federation. They gave a reason, but I can't remmeber it. --Tēlex 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I should have remembered that, considering I wrote it on the Albanisation page. It is kind of different from the other insults as it isn't specific for Macedonians who identify as Albanian, but rather used for any Albanians. - FrancisTyers · 22:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they have taken for granted another "unification" scenario and perform a logical leap in giving them the same pejorative term in advance...:NikoSilver: 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Shiptari is a general insult directed at Albanians, it's used in Bulgaria and Serbia too. Oddly, it doesn't seem to have any offensive etymology — it comes from shqiptar, the endonym, AFAIK. I don't think it's used to refer to Macedonian Muslims who identify as Albanian. Todor→Bozhinov 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
So do we include this or what? :NikoSilver: 11:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, make it Macedonian then: Shiptarot. --Kiro Gligorov 11:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That, while it would make the word recognizably Macedonian, is not appropriate, since ethnic groups are usually in the plural and not used with a definite article when treated as terms. Shiptarot means 'the Albanian' (i.e., male person). Todor→Bozhinov 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Despite a history of use by Bulgarian nationalists, the term "Pirin Macedonia" is today regarded as offensive by certain Bulgarians [citation needed], who assert that it is widely used by Macedonists as part of the irredentist concept of United Macedonia [citation needed]. However, many people in the country also think of the name as a purely geographical term, which it has historically been. Its use is, thus, controversial."

Can we get a citation for this please? - FrancisTyers · 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"(FYROM — IPA: [ˈfajˌro̞m])"

Where is this IPA from? I'm not aware of the term being pronounced like that, I for one pronounce it F-Y-R-O-M (eff-why-are-oh-emm). Can we have a citation for this or remove it please. - FrancisTyers · 23:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it like that... —Nightstallion (?) 07:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In the Greek media it's always pronounced as a word. Not FAIROM, but FYROM (like gyros or Mythos).:NikoSilver: 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard it pronounced like that in English. Could we make this clear? - FrancisTyers · 09:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd remove it alltogether. Let the readers pronounce it as they wish.:NikoSilver: 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the name didn't catch on ;) can you imagine saying EFF-WHY-ARE-OH-EMM outloud? :)) - FrancisTyers · 10:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel for the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team supporters — they'd have trouble chanting their homeland's name!
As for the citation, I can cite use by Bulgarian nationalists, I can cite use by Macedonists, but that public opinion about the term thing seems like a problem. By the way, we may need citations for note 3 (Aegean Macedonia name) too, since it is of like nature. Todor→Bozhinov 11:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think the Aegean thing has been sourced somewhere else before, I can't remember, but if we could dig up those citations it would be good. No need to cite the use of the term by Macedonians, as that is a given, but it would be good to cite the fact that "regarded as offensive who assert that it is widely used by Macedonists as part of the irredentist concept of United Macedonia", basically some Bulgarian nationalists taking exception to the fact that Macedonian extremists use it in the concept of United Macedonia. - FrancisTyers · 11:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Former" or "former"?

I have the impression that terminological nitpicking extends even into the question of whether or not to capitalize the first word of FYROM, right? At least, I've seen editors change from one version to the other here on WP many times. Is that just individual editors' preferences, or does it correspond to different naming practices out in the real world? If the latter, would it be worth mentioning? Who uses "F", who uses "f"? We should really do our best to present the intricacies of this case to the reader in all its gory detail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The original UN Security Council resolution used "f". The CIA World Factbook uses "F". --Tēlex 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I advocate "f" as that is what appears on the UNSC and UNGA resolutions [2].

this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.

Perhaps we could separate the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (a name that some people call the Republic of Macedonia) from "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (a term of reference that the UN and other countries/international bodies use when referring to the Republic of Macedonia). - FrancisTyers · 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that distinction in Greek: πΓΔΜ vs ΠΓΔΜ. --Tēlex 11:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there an official acronym used in the UN, or is it decided arbitrarily ? - FrancisTyers · 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably random - compare [3] and [4]. I'll see if I can find anything on a government site. --Tēlex 12:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. The Greek government use πΓΔΜ (lower case) in Greek [5] and FYROM (upper case) in English [6]! --Tēlex 12:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Olympic Games parade, the country appear under the letter, 'F', or 'Π' in Athens. This means a capital F. But I think the UN has it in lower cap. Politis 12:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But does the UN actually use an acronym or does it always use the spell out form in the resolution? - FrancisTyers · 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes [7]. --Tēlex 12:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
End of story then. Use all caps from now on for abbreviation[8], and use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for spellout[9]. :NikoSilver: 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Jesus! We all deserve a block for ommission and lack of intelligence! [10] :NikoSilver: 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How to not work on a page

This is a huge addition with no citations. I'm removing it so we can discuss... - FrancisTyers · 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, it isn't necessarily wrong, but it is clearly written from a strong Greek point of view and is likely selective in the sources it it using. - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In other words unless it confirms the cornerstone of Macedonian Slav nationalism - the existence of a historical Macedonian region - it is incompatible with your pro-FYROM position. I think it's a fact that there is no such thing as a "historical" Macedonian region. --Tēlex 12:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your words taste bad, stop putting them into my mouth :( In case you couldn't see it all the way up there, what I said was, "This is a huge addition with no citations. I'm removing it so we can discuss...", I then followed it up with "Just to make it clear, it isn't necessarily wrong, but it is clearly written from a strong Greek point of view and is likely selective in the sources it it using." - FrancisTyers · 12:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Irridentitist name

The term Aegean Macedonia[1] is an area in the south of the Macedonia region. The borders of the area coincide with Macedonia in Greece.

  1. ^ The name "Aegean Macedonia" is considered by some Greeks offensive when used to refer to northern Greek region of Macedonia as it can be used by irredentist organizations in the Republic of Macedonia who support a Unified Macedonia, contrary to the desires of the people living in the area.

The term ‘Aegean Macedonia’ was officially introduced by Tito, on 11 October 1945, in a speech he made in Skopje, in the build up to the communist backed civil war in Greece. He stated, “…today, there are Macedonians outside Macedonia. They are our Macedonian brothers of Aegean Macedonia, but we believe that they will unite with us…”. On the same day, the official newspaper in Skopje, Nova Makedonija wrote, "Now, Vardar Macedonia is the defender and initiator of a united Macedonia" and called on the people in Bulgaria and Greece to take up arms. On 20 Octover 1945, on a visit to Sofia, the president of the new Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Lazar Kolisefski, re-iterated the intention to "unite all of Macedonia". With the start of the Greek civil war, the term Egeska Makedonija was made into a front page article by ‘Nova Makedonija’, on 27 August 1946; it included a map of Greek (Aegean) Macedonian which the authorities claimed had to be united with the new Socialist Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In June 1947, the Greek Ministry of Information published a book (H enantion tis Ellados Epivouli), pointing out that the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, but also “Pirin Macedonia”, were introduced as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia.

I can see there is a case for removing such a long paragraph, but I really think that we need to include how it was introduced in Octover 1945 as part of a territorial claim that played a huge part in the ensuing Greek civil war, the refugees question and the legacy of mistrust by the Greeks towards that name. Remeber that it is still officially used in school books printed in Skopje. Politis 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see some citations from non-partisan reliable sources before we continue. I'm not denying that it is plausible, but it certainly needs referencing. - FrancisTyers · 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

:See book, I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis, June 1947, printed by the Greek Ministry of Press and Information. The book consists of translated documentation and a number of pictures - including the front page of Nova Makedonija. All the quotes are dated and there are accompanied by no commentaries. This makes all the information sourced. I will reduce the paragraph.

  • But I find the current divisions in the article as Aegean, Vardar, Pirin, misleading since they are hardly ever used and especially not in EU, UN, Greece and Bulgaria. Also, we need to know their source, and it is irridentist. Naturally, as a historian, all proofs to the contrary greatly appreciated. Politis 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I will wait for an answer and respectfully proceed with the additions and alteration regarding 'sub-regions' if no new information forwarded. Politis 13:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, printing 1947 by the Greek government, doesn't exactly sound like a non-partisan source. Wasn't the civil war going on then? I'd like to see a non-partisan source about this. - FrancisTyers · 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A brief search [11] shows that it is used by Bulgarians. Furthermore, it is used by non-Macedonians, although Greeks describe it as "FYROM's terminology". So, a non-partisan source on the origin of the name please. - FrancisTyers · 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Was the term used by Greeks supporting the communists during the civil war? - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Bulgarians do use it in an irridentitist context. The whole world knows that due to the site www.macedoniainfo.com. --Tēlex 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure macedoniainfo.com counts as a reliable source. - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Since when are examples of nationalism supposed to be reliable sources? --Tēlex 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL, those guys! Well, I don't think that it is on the same level as the United Macedonia, but do we have an article on Greater Bulgaria yet? :) - FrancisTyers · 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You have pointed out where it is used. That is good. But it is not used by the EU, UN, etc or, for that matter, by Bulgarian officials and institutions. So here we need to weigh the frequency of usage. Giving those terms such proeminence is quite disproportionate. The 1947 source is a source and simply mentions the origin of a term and quotes the person, the place and the date. I have transcribed sourced information. There is no partisanship in transcribing sourced information which is explicit in its references. It is easy to use the qualitiative 'partisan' as a hammer rather than appropriately. To delete sourced information goes against wiki (user:Telex had admonished me for deleting sourced information and I had to go along with re-including it). I will respectfully take into consideration observations made and come back to it. If someone wishes to place a 'disputed' header, that might be a temporary solution to anotherwise sound piece. Politis 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are no mistakes deliberate or otherwise in translation? And where is your source for this being the first use of the term? I think we can safely say that Tito used it, I will draft a compromise and post it below. - FrancisTyers · 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone once told me:

Putting two Greek words together - Aegean and Macedonia - should not offend Greeks just because 1,3 million people from the poorer end of Europe without an army and 600,000 Albanians and a resident UÇK used it for propagandistic purposes.

--Tēlex 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote [sigh!], the Greek Ministry of Information published a book (H enantion tis Ellados Epivouli), pointing out that the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, but also “Pirin Macedonia”, were introduced as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia. Politis 13:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


How about this:

"The book, I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis, printed by the Greek Ministry of Press and Information in 1947 reports that the term Aegean Macedonia was officially introduced by Josip Broz Tito on the 11th October, 1945 in the build up to the Greek civil war. The book claims that the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, and also “Pirin Macedonia”, were introduced as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia."

We can have that in a footnote. - FrancisTyers · 13:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey I reverted your edit, there is no problem with having a discussion of the origin of the term in a footnote, but these defintions are used by a wide range of people, not just Macedonians, so please don't unilaterally label them "controversial" - FrancisTyers · 13:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What he means is that because he used that nomenclature in his essay, he doesn't want people to think that he's a nationalist ;-) --Tēlex 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that goes as just as a footnote, then we can headline the article as 'disputed'. I suggest in the main text.

"Regarding the genesis of the term 'Aegean Macedonia', the publication, I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis (Greek Ministry of Press and Information, Athens 1947) consists of translated documents and speeches, mostly from Yugolsav officials on Macedonia. It quotes Josip Broz Tito using for the first time the term Aegean Macedonia on the 11th October, 1945 in the build up to the Greek civil war. The book indicated that the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, (also “Pirin Macedonia”), were introduced as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia." As yet, there are no earlier known sources with the appelation 'Aegean Macedonia'." Politis 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Telex: Who was that guy above? :-) Also, I agree with the new rewording by Politis. Add it please.:NikoSilver: 13:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The origin of the geographical terminology is unknown. During the Greek Civil War, the Greek Ministry of Press and Information published a book entitled I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis (translation here in English), which consists of translated documents and speeches, mostly from Yugolsav officials on Macedonia. It quotes Josip Broz Tito using the term Aegean Macedonia on the 11th October, 1945 in the build up to the Greek Civil War. The book claims that the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, (also “Pirin Macedonia”), were introduced as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia. As yet, there are no known earlier usages of that term, especially at official leverl.

And it should be in a footnote not in the main text. The terms today are not used "as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia" but as generic geographical terms. - FrancisTyers · 13:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added it in, feel free to suggest changes to the wording. - FrancisTyers · 14:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we get a full citation for that book too, and an English translation of the name. - FrancisTyers · 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
2 edit conflicts: No, not by them, but by them. :NikoSilver: 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Niko, is my version, and the footnote acceptable? - FrancisTyers · 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Included the translation. We all agree on text, that is what discussion is all about, and this is such a key issue that it cannot be lost in the footnote. Politis 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about having what could be construed as "Greek propaganda" in the main body of the article. I would much prefer this to be in a footnote unless reliable sources can be found (no, a publication by the Greek government entitled "Designs against Greece" does not count — similarly, a publication by the Turkish government entitled "Designs against Turkey" giving a selection of translated speeches published by leaders in the region would not count). Essentially, consider the placement in the article disputed and unless we can come to an agreement I cannot consider the article neutral. I am however pleased with the compromise wording. - FrancisTyers · 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the footnotes are lost in any way, but this paragraph seems to continue the logical historical flow of events. I mean, first we have Macedon, then Roman, then Byzantine, then Ottoman, then the maps by that Greek guy and the Bulgarians, and finally the Tito s*** which completes the historic background of the area. After that, we are fully informed to read the politics. In that sense, I mostly agree with the text, but I disagree with it being in a footnote.:NikoSilver: 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The book gives names, places and dates, direct quotes. There are no other sources for Aegean Macedonia before that date, at least official references (if you have them present them). We can include this qualitative in the text, in the main body. Personally, I have greatly (but willingly and respectfully) compromised in accepting those contravertial terms Aegean, Pirin, Vardar standing on their own. I hope that is fair. Politis 14:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with it being in the article body. Not with the current citation. The source is not reliable. - FrancisTyers · 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We should be presenting it how we present the other government and non-governmental sources, in a footnote. - FrancisTyers · 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fran, I understand your concern about Greek POV, but this is the only info we have so far. I suggest we enrich it with the other side (if there is one).:NikoSilver: 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the other side the region of Macedonia has always looked like this, and has always been inhabited by Macedonians, who were Slavicized at some time after the 7th century. In 1913, this region was divided against the will of the Macedonians and the Macedonians in the area known historically as Aegean Macedonia were expelled and Greeks were settled in the region (this is the first time in history Greeks appeared in the region). I think this sums it up. What they don't realize is that a historical Macedonian region looking anything like that didn't exist before the 19th century, the ancient Macedonians were Atticized long before the 6th century (this means they can claim to be the descendents of Slavicized Atticized Ancient Macedonians if they want :p), and that the Macedonian ethnicity is the product of the 20th century. --Tēlex 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you happy about the objectivity of the book, on p.89, it mentions 1930 statistics whereby 81,984 people speak Makedoniki (Macedonian) as opposed to 5,759,523 Elliniki (Greek) - though in other pages it mentions it as Slavomakedoniki. Besides, by indicating the publisher readers can make up their minds. Politis 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Some of them even participated in the so-called “First Aegean Macedonian brigade” which, in the beginning of 1945, was active in West Yugoslav Macedonia – an account of Kosta and Angel Levandov from Bobi_ta/Vergas and of Argir Vâl_ev from Bâmboki/Makrochori, Kastoria area (CPA, F. 1, OP. 32, A.E. 803, L. 39-40, 42)."

Your source is disputed [12], I'm removing it. - FrancisTyers · 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. How is it disputed? --Tēlex 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hah, my apologies, I was confused, I thought we were still using Politis' version "It quotes Josip Broz Tito using for the first time the term Aegean Macedonia on the 11th October, 1945" — that is disputed. Looks like I got ahead of myself. :) - FrancisTyers · 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the whole thing would be complete if we included Telex's other side above too (provided we can adequately source it). :NikoSilver: 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime (until Telex sources it) can you (Fran) add that darn R-1 and renumber the rest please?:NikoSilver: 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "sources it"? Check http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/, http://www.makedonija.info/, http://www.maknews.com/ etc. --Tēlex 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You know what to do then...:NikoSilver: 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No I don't. --Tēlex 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Write it, cite it, and state the conflict with scientific consensus. Appropriate?:NikoSilver: 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading lessons

Your source is disputed [13], I'm removing it. - FrancisTyers · 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

DISPUTED? Allow me to kindly suggest that I think we concur. The Greek source gives 1945, and, as I indicated, it concerns the officialisation of the term. The source you so kindly provided, also gives 1945: Some of them even participated in the so-called “First Aegean Macedonian brigade” which, in the beginning of 1945, was active in West Yugoslav Macedonia.... I mean, we are talking 1945. So since, we concur and I utterly respect Francis' concerns, I suggest we include the footnote in the main text. Politis 15:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now why didn't I say that before you did, Politi? Maybe I need a vacation...:NikoSilver: 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course my source is as unreliable as yours ;) Maybe we should just stick a {{disputed}} on the article, but it seems silly for a small thing like this. My complaints have been adequately expressed above. - FrancisTyers · 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New sources

As explained previous I am not happy with the "In geography" section. - FrancisTyers · 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You understand ofcourse that your source is a third-party source in this (as regards the Aegean-Macedonia issue)...:NikoSilver: 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I mean, if we had to support the "Pirin Macedonia" name, I would consider it partisan. Same goes for the Greek source vice-versa. Seriously, have the Tito records been openned? :NikoSilver: 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fran, I am changing this title here, and I assure you that I will not accept anything unless we all agree in it. Leaving the article as is for now, and we can keep discussing. No 3RR will stop us from making it perfect. Agree? :NikoSilver: 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok Fran, you want war, you'll have it. I offered peace. I request a decent response in the above, not a POV tag. :NikoSilver: 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, having moved the discussion into Aegean Macedonia. I suggest we work on it there, and if we can come to an agreement then we can possibly merge it back in. I don't want this little dispute to harm the page any more than you do. - FrancisTyers · 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you specified what exactly your problem is? --Tēlex 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

POV?

Before I delete that unexplained tag, could Francis please explain why it's there. What is the problem? That the article doesn't toe the Macedonistic line of the concept of Aegean Macedonia preceding Tito. The sources are given; let the reader make up his or her own mind on whether they are reliable. --Tēlex 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I substituted the tag with pov-because to show how silly all this is:
  1. I have no objection to add any third source if available.
  2. I don't think that the status of an inclusion in an article is upgraded if included in the body-text, rather than in a footnote. Foot or body are both body-parts.
  3. We are talking about flow of events here, and that's what we have so far.
  4. The Bulgarian source is third-pary in a dispute between Greece and Yugoslavia.
  5. Same goes for the Greek source in a dispute between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Greece and Bulgaria didn't have the best of relations back then.
  6. The text is very NPOV, stating all concerns. I wouldn't object discussing proposed modifications though.
  7. Francis provided the source himself and defended it until it worked against his pov.
:NikoSilver: 16:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed. The Bulgarian side is hardly a third party, they were toeing the comintern line, the United Macedonia line. Which is why it is a bad source :) But no worse than your Greek government at the height of the civil war source. - FrancisTyers · 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Include the refs in your newly created Aegean Macedonia article and we go on from there later. However, I was just a click away of adding a pov-because tag myself for missing content and historic gap: We jump from Ottoman Empire breaking apart, directly to today. :NikoSilver: 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Iwas just looking at the history of mk:Егејска Македонија and it's funny. Asteraki/GrekoMakedonski is active again. It's really really funny - see for yourselves. --Tēlex 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Geographically split"

By whom is the region geographically split into Aegean, Pirin and Vardar Macedonia? It's not an undisputed fact, yet the article presents it as such. According to Greeks, it isn't - the only Macedonia is this Macedonia. Francis keeps reverting to the version which says that the existence of such a region is a fact and there subdivisions are a fact. According to the lead though, the region is not officially defined and appears as such in only certain contexts (it's interesting that the region described here is identical to that appearing in Macedonian Slav nationalist websites). I know you have a strong pro-FYROM agenda, however, it's a fact that the region currently described in the article appears only in certain contexts. What;s wrong with pointing that out - the Macedonists will get upset? --Tēlex 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. I have added a "commonly" so it isn't presented as fact. In the "According to the Greeks" section you can put that, but we're talking about English here, a fact that I suspect some of you forget from time to time. - FrancisTyers · 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The term ‘Aegean Macedonia’ was officially introduced by Tito, on 11 October 1945, in a speech he made in Skopje on its national day. He said, "there are Macedonians outside Macedonia. They are our Macedonian brothers of Aegean Macedonia, but we believe that they will unite with us…”.
  • On the same day, the official newspaper in Skopje, Nova Makedonija wrote, "Now, Vardar Macedonia is the defender and initiator of a united Macedonia" and called on the people in Bulgaria and Greece to take up arms.
  • On 20 Octover 1945, on a visit to Sofia, the president of the new Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Lazar Kolisefski, re-iterated the intention to "unite all of Macedonia".
  • With the start of the Greek civil war, the term Egeska Makedonija was made into a front page article by ‘Nova Makedonija’, on 27 August 1946; it included a map of Greek (Aegean) Macedonian which the authorities claimed had to be united with the new Socialist Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
  • In June 1947, the Greek Ministry of Information published a book (H enantion tis Ellados Epivouli), pointing out that the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, but also “Pirin Macedonia”, were introduced as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia.
It really is touching how much you trust your government publications to not omit anything and tell the story straight. I could give you countless counter-examples, but I don't think I need to. - FrancisTyers · 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, see the very first thing I wrote about this, "Just to make it clear, it isn't necessarily wrong, but it is clearly written from a strong Greek point of view and is likely selective in the sources it it using. - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)" — do you see how I acknowledge that it isn't necessarily wrong. e.g. you could well be right! But note how I am concerned that the source is quoting selectively. We can already see that "The term ‘Aegean Macedonia’ was officially introduced by Tito, on 11 October 1945" this is incorrect, how much else could be? Why not just find a reliable non-partisan source? Its that easy. - FrancisTyers · 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am British you racists person, there are many of us in the UK, irrespective of our ancestry. I suggest you move on to another site preferably backed by the National British Party. I would be greatful if you could email me your remarks with your full name and address (you do not have to, of course). Thank you.Politis 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, just a moment Politis, this statement seems entirely unnecessary, and your insinuation of "racism" against Francis is plainly ridiculous. You have clearly been arguing from a Greek perspective throughout this debate, so no matter what your legal nationality is, for Francis to address you as a Greek was hardly unreasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thak your FPS, but please allow me to disagree. No one in the UK , no British subject is judged by their ancestry. That is why we call ourselves British and multicultural. No one would say, you argue lilke a Pakistani or a Jew. You could be taken to court, or at the very least reprimanded. If you disagree (and I suspect that if you go over it you will see it differently) try telling British (or US) contributors that they argue like their Jewish or Pakistani or whatever government. I am afraid I cannot let this one down and will return to it, this week, next or whenever. Politis 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to mention. My detail are on my front page and as a Brit in a university that has fought for human rights and racial equality, I think Francis knew exactly what he was saying. Politis 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I really hate wiki-drama ;-) I think the article's OK now though. --Tēlex 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the article is looking ok :) - FrancisTyers · 18:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, almost there, no major changes. Now for the other, more serious point, will get back to it. Politis 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fran: Are you saying that the term Aegean Macedonia had been officially used before Tito's speech? If not (which I suspect) isn't it technically an "introduction" of the term? And if yes (which again I suspect) aren't you a little unfair in judging the reliability of the source from this isolated issue? I am not saying the source is as pure as Virgin Mary, I'm just saying you can't judge by that. :NikoSilver: 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that the book is an adequate source for saying "Tito used this term on this date", it isn't an adequate source for saying "this is the first usage of the term" or "the term was officially introduced". - FrancisTyers · 20:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
And I still don't understand how I am supposed to prove it. Can there be sources before that that say "Aegean Macedonia" ...does not exist as a term? I think the burden is on you, to provide a source that proves there was an official introduction of the term prior to that date. :NikoSilver: 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You aren't supposed to prove it at all, nor are we, because either activity would be OR. You are supposed to find a reliable statement by a reputable historian who says: The term was introduced around the year so-and-so. As long as we don't have that, the natural thing is not to push around "burdens of proof" either way, but simply not to write anything about the matter. Fact is, we as Wikipedia editors don't know when the term was introduced, period, and we shouldn't be passing off our lack of knowledge as if it was a lack of knowledge out in the real world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

When you have a non-partisan reliable source that states something along the lines of "The term 'Aegean Macedonia' was first introduced by Josip Broz Tito in 1945" we can't have it. Just finding a source and saying "this is the earliest reference we can find" is not enough. As Fut. Perf. points out, that is the very definition of original research, you are taking a primary source and extrapolating new information from it. - FrancisTyers · 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It could have been introduced 50 years ago for what I (and the Greeks) care. Fact is, that it was first used in the ears of the Greeks, under a nationalistic context (unite with brothers etc). My problem is that Fran considers the source unreliable just because it says so, without bothering to disprove it. He could just say the source is unreliable coz it's Greek. Then, we have a Bulgarian (third party or even opponent) one which concurs. Ergo? :NikoSilver: 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to make it more clear...

  • Fact A = Josip Broz Tito used the term "Aegean Macedonia" in 1945 in a nationalistic context.
  • Fact B = The term "Aegan Macedonia" was also used in 1944.
  • Proposition F = "The term was first introduced by Josip Broz Tito in 1945"
  • Proposition G = "The term was first used in 1944"
  • Proposition H = "The term was first used in the ears of the Greeks under a nationalistic context"

I'm not sure how you get either F, G or H from A + B. Sorry if this isn't presented in formal logic, but I hope it makes the argument slightly clearer. - FrancisTyers · 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but what happened to C,D,E? Are you letter-racist too? :-) Anyways, I don't get F,G,H. I have a question how you get Omega, though:
  • Proposition Ω: The fact that a source mentions something Francis cannot disprove makes it unreliable.
Really, I won't object in saying that the source may be partisan. I object that that is the reason.:NikoSilver: 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: Clearing out H above: I am not getting H, I'm saying that if that was the case, then the source is right, hence not unreliable because of that.

Haha :) I left some space in case there were any facts I'd missed out ;) It isn't just that the source is partisan, but that the information that we need to make the giant leap from "used" to "first used" isn't in there. I refute your Proposition Ω! Remember I'm not the only one disputing this :P - FrancisTyers · 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We're saying two different things here, only I am the only one admitting yours is right: YES, I am not getting H, YES I am not supporting the non-partisanship of the source. You said before that the source is moot coz the term was used before. Well, no. It's moot coz it's Greek. OK? :NikoSilver: 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Languages of region

Could somebody explain how are Armenian and Russian languages of region? Luka Jačov 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a recognized Armenian community in Greece (including Macedonia), and Russian is spoken by immigrants from the Greek community in Russia (they are those who are referred to as Ρωσοπόντιοι for those who know Greek). They're everywhere now - in a survey carried out in 2001, 0.4% had Russian as a mother tongue, and over half of them were in Thessalonica (see Demographics of Greece). --Tēlex 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fyrom twice?

I thought you didn't like it, Fran. What is this about? :NikoSilver: 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to make the distinction between "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". - FrancisTyers · 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Duh? What for? Do they sound different? Would anybody care if it were one or the other? Would it make a difference in Ancient Greece (all caps)? :-) But if you insist:

  • The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is...
  • The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is...
  • FYROM is...
  • fYRoM is...
  • FYR Macedonia is...
  • FYR of Macedonia is...
  • fYR Macedonia is...
  • fYR of Macedonia is...

Wow! A new definition for polyonymous...:NikoSilver: 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hah, well, does the UN use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or does it always use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ? - FrancisTyers · 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Number 1. See Telex link above.:NikoSilver: 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In demographics

Two ethnic groups inhabiting the area have a common element. They self-identify as Macedonians both on a regional and an international meaning, and disambiguate the other Macedonians in the area by adding distinguishing prefixes in their names, or totally renaming them. An ethnic Macedonian would call themselves simply Macedonian and usually disambiguate by adding "Greek-" or "Bulgarian-" for the others. The same would apply to a Greek Macedonian, calling themselves simply Macedonian, and disambiguation would be required for their northern neighbors, in the form of a "Slav-" addition, or renaming to "Skopjan". These groups do not always aim to use such additions in a pejorative way, but the other side generally perceives them as such.

Apart from the heinous mispelling of "neighbours" :)) The paragraph is neutral, however I'm not sure that it really adds to the article (nothing against the contribution, but I really think that it would probably be better without). Incidentally, we might mention that in terms of national identity, Greeks identify as Greeks and Macedonians identify as Macedonian. Seriously, I'm convinced we don't want to get into this. - FrancisTyers · 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but I think that it adds those comments to the article that we all know (and think of) but nobody explicitly expressed. About national id, sure. Add that too, if you feel it makes a difference. That was my "both regional and international" quote attempting to do anyway...:NikoSilver: 11:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section as well, as below I'd prefer not to include it, but any comments are welcome. - FrancisTyers · 11:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If we add Macedo-Romanians why not add Macedo-Albanians, Macedo-Serbs, Macedo-Turks, Macedo-Roma and Macedo-Bulgarians as well?   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In linguistics

The same principle applies in the languages of the inhabitants of the region. Furthermore, the dispute over the connection between Ancient Greek and Ancient Macedonian language has been escalated in the recent years, in an attempt to separate the respective groups from their common self-identification as Greeks. Another local controversy is in the degree of officiality. The means of oral communication of the ethnic Macedonians is official in the country (hence called a "language"), while that of the Greek Macedonians is a local close dialect of modern Greek. The recognition of the language status of the ethnic Macedonians' language was refuted by Bulgarians, who argued that it was a dialect of Bulgarian, due to its closeness and mutual intelligibility.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here, but this passage is pretty much useless as is, it isn't just what you've put in, but what you've left out.

  • Furthermore, the dispute over the connection between Ancient Greek and Ancient Macedonian language has been escalated in the recent years, in an attempt to separate the respective groups from their common self-identification as Greeks.
No idea what you're talking about here. - FrancisTyers · 11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Read XMK talk and article. :NikoSilver: 11:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) See: [14]
  • Another local controversy is in the degree of officiality. The means of oral communication of the ethnic Macedonians is official in the country (hence called a "language"), while that of the Greek Macedonians is a local close dialect of modern Greek.
Wrong — it isn't called a "language" (drop the scare quotes) because it is official, it is called a language because thats what the people who speak it say it is. Just like Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian and all the other South Slavic languages.
Whatever, go ahead and replace it. See? Even I didn't know that (think about those poor uninformed guys...):NikoSilver: 11:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. It wasn't refuted by the Bulgarians, if anything it was disputed, but considering they are widely believed to be talking out of their arses I'm not sure that we need to include that in the main body.
Change the verb, make it a footnote if you wish, but it is clear for my text that it is highly discredited as an approach. You can add to that if you wish.:NikoSilver: 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I beg of you, stop! :( I don't want to re-run these disputes here. Seriously, it was better as it was before. - FrancisTyers · 11:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's give it a try with those modifs I proposed above. We have all the time in the world, and a lot of people argueing about lack of text and lack of illustration of controversy. :NikoSilver: 11:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fran, are you studying XMK or are you waiting for me to do the proposed changes? I would suggest that it is you who does it, even if you don't like the result so far. Let's play and give it a try. We may end up with something really nice. Agree?:NikoSilver: 11:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-written the section, let me know what you think. - FrancisTyers · 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like including it though... - FrancisTyers · 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You edit-conflicted my "Bravo".:NikoSilver: 11:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth can you not like it? It explains all the bitchin'!:NikoSilver: 11:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for someone to come along and shout at me with, "SIR, YOU HAVE MISREPRESENTED MY POSITION!" and then challenge me to a duel :( — btw I note that it has transformed into another list :)) Can't get away from them... - FrancisTyers · 11:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cooperating against your will. In my view, the result is amazing. I suggest we leave it as is and wait for more opinions. I'll ask FlavrSavr, Fut.Perf., FunkyFly, Telex and the voters over at FAC.:NikoSilver: 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And ofcourse Politis too. :NikoSilver: 13:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments by Fut.Perf.

Quote:

  • "On the first hand, the origins of the Ancient Macedonian language are currently unknown,...": Wording. It's not so much the origins (diachrony) of the language that are disputed, it's the synchronic status of relative independence vis-à-vis mainstream Greek. The origins (somewhere in the Proto-Indo-European dialect continuum) are pretty clear.
  • "... with the majority of scholars believing that it was a variety of the Ancient Greek language and a minority advocating a separate language hypothesis." Not sure were you get the majority-minority division from. From what I've seen of the literature it may just as well be the other way round. Unless we get reliable confirmation from a neutral, non-partisan state-of-the-art report that assesses the relative weights of the positions like this, I'd avoid it altogether. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hands up* I wrote that, sorry, the XMH XMK article seems to give the impression that there is a majority/minority division. Please remove it if this isn't the case (I don't have time to read up on the literature). With regards to the origins, again, please make the change :) - FrancisTyers · 13:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Bulgarian position about the Macedonian language. It is acknowledged that it is codified and that it exists. Scientifically however, it is considered a dialectical form of Bulgarian, which has been standartized in such as way as to overemphasize its differences from standard literary Bulgarian, including Serbian alphabet, and such. On a government level it has been recognized as the "official language in the Republic of Macedonia", so that bilateral treaties and other documents can be signed by both countries. Also, popular opinion supports the scientific position.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love

To get this quote in, "If it were not confusing, it would not have been Macedonia" (from McCarthy, J. (2001) The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire, p. 55 — you can find it at http://books.google.com :) - FrancisTyers · 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Idea: Create a Trivia section. Include that quote, the Macedonian salad etymology and whatever else you can think of. Any more ideas? :NikoSilver: 13:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Trivia is generally discouraged ("Wikipedia's general trivia policy is, however, not to promote inclusion of trivia in the main namespace."), and we're aiming at FA status here, so I'd say we'd better not. Todor→Bozhinov 09:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:-( :NikoSilver: 09:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Is it my imagination, or has someone been trolling the article. Adding a {{fact}} to the claim that e.g. the Serbian name for Macedonia is Makedonija seems like WP:POINT to me. --Tēlex 15:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was User:TheGrappler, see the FAC page for an explanation. - FrancisTyers · 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, do we have an online dictionary source for any of these to add? Also, does anybody know how to use {{cite web}}?:NikoSilver: 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have access to the OED online through my university (the system is hilarious called ATHENS). I added the ones I could find. And I even managed to find references for some of the "slang" terms in Urban Dictionary — although I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source in any stretch of the terms :) - FrancisTyers · 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Greek character of the Macedonians

"Fran, why did you remove that? Oh, and just the reference title is enough as a ref for that too.)"

I removed it because it said that the kings self-identified as Greeks, isn't this stating the obvious? Didn't all Macedonians back then self-identify as Greeks? I figured the reference to a book about Ancient Greece was enough. It just reads oddly. Want to suggest different wordings ? - FrancisTyers · 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think since this is one of Erida's apples, it should me mentioned. Also, there is a specific discussion about exactly from what point in time the Macedonians can be considered Greeks. It was argued that they weren't and that they became only after certain of their kings self-id'd as such (so not all, just them is fine). Other wording:
  • ...including their notable, self-identifying as Greek, rulers Phil and Al...
...but I kinda prefer the first one...:NikoSilver: 14:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How about just "their notable Greek rulers" ? - FrancisTyers · 14:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that would be considered too POV by the other side, but thanks anyway...:NikoSilver: 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

YAARGH

Where was it recommended to de-list the lead???? Definately better before! - FrancisTyers · 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP! The lead is horrific now. Please! Bring back the listed lead, it was _much_ easier on the eyes. - FrancisTyers · 15:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
:-( Think it can be worked out? :NikoSilver: 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a section ==Overview== or ==In history== that has the old "bulleted lead" in. That would probably be the best answer to criticism. We can still have a lead, but keep the rest in a different section, as a list. I really am opposed to not having *[[Macedonia (foo)|Macedonia]] (as foo) is.... - FrancisTyers · 15:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Like it :-) :NikoSilver: 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Albanian terminology

Should we have one as well?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not important for controversy, but welcome as an addition if someone with the adequate knowledge can enlighten us...:NikoSilver: 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Remind me not to ever nominate another article please! *exhausted* :NikoSilver: 13:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The nomination is hard to figure out. What is the result of the vote?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added a lot of text, refs etc today and I'am starting to develop a WP:OWN complex, which may lead to me becoming a wikiholic WP:DICK that desperately needs a wikiholiday. Can all editors please jump in and correct me/dispute me as usual? Or should I consider myself immaculately NPOV and infallable? :NikoSilver: 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL :) Well, we can start by this bit I removed:

There is a popular belief among extremist Bulgarians, that certain extreme members of the ethnic Macedonians are over-zealous in trying to over-emphasise their national, linguistic and historical distinction from the Bulgarians, by fabricating and reproducing falsified information. General usage of these terms follows:

I've removed this bit, if you really think it belongs we can think about rewording it. - FrancisTyers · 21:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

edit conflict:
At last! Thanks Fran for removing:
There is a popular belief among Bulgarians, that certain extreme members of the ethnic Macedonians are over-zealous in trying to over-emphasise their national, linguistic and historical distinction from the Bulgarians, by fabricating and reproducing falsified information. General usage of these terms follows:
Can you please state what else could be the most important element in Bulgarian terminology? We've spoken about the other two sections, and it's well cited below. :NikoSilver: 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
So I guess it's number 2, but how can we reword it? :NikoSilver: 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Aww, you ruined my fun :D - FrancisTyers · 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this paragraph is that in my opinion it overgeneralises and paints the Macedonians as extremist without painting the Bulgarians as extremist, when in fact anyone who denies self-identification is extemist (Macedonian — with their huge oppressed minority in northern Greece and Bulgarian — with their "o lol macedonians are just bulgarians ahahaha!" alike!).
I think something like "A proportion of Bulgarians and Macedonians have extremist views about their inter-relatedness. The Macedonians seek to downplay their relationship to Bulgarians, while the Bulgarians attempt to deny the right of self-identification and self-determination of the Macedonians. Certain terms are in use by these groups as outlined below." would be more appropriate. Tone it down a bit if you think I'm being too bulgarophobic or macedophilic (or conversely macedophobic/bulgarophilic) :) - FrancisTyers · 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

O Francis!

What was this? Are you saying that the Bulgarian linguists are unjustified in their position? That's POV! Saying that Bulgarian linguists are acting contrary to science standards is also (unsourced) POV. --Tēlex 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well they are! :D Those crazy guys - FrancisTyers · 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's POV pushing though. Bulgarian linguists are more familiar of the situation - the Bulgarian identifying population of Pirin Macedonia (who the Macedonian Slavs view as 'Macedonians'), who speak the western Bulgarian dialects which Tito renamed to 'Macedonian' with respect to the confused population of Vardar Macedonia. Does the opinion of those over 200,000 people not count? Please find a more neutral wording. --Tēlex 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Bulgarian linguists are by and large irrevocably biased, they've abandonned their scientific integrity. They even include the Slavic dialects of northern Greece in their crazy linguo-irredentist dialectological literature. Basically my position is that they try and argue that it isn't a language because of "X Y Z" and is a dialect because of "A B C". This is contrary to the scientific (linguistic) consensus, which is well illustrated with the quotes on my userpage. I'd be happy to consider alternative wordings. - FrancisTyers · 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, in your opinion are the Slavic dialects of northern Greece just "dialects of Bulgarian" then? Or are you being, 1. ignorant, 2. obtuse, 3. inflammatory, 4. sassy? - FrancisTyers · 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
What dialects? :-) :NikoSilver: 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I do consider them dialects of Bulgarian (to the delight of the Bulgarian-identifying population of Greece), just the same way I consider the so-called "Pomak language" a dialect of Bulgarian. I'm a unonist, I consider Aromanian a Romanian dialect (Britannica agrees with me on that one), consider Tatar, Azeri, Kazakh, Uzbek etc dialects of Turkish and consider Scots a dialect of English. --Tēlex 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You forgot Urdu a dialect of Hindi, Tajik a dialect of Persian, Norwegian a dialect of Danish, Afrikaans a dialect of Dutch, Ukrainian a dialect of Russian, Slovak a dialect of Czech (or is it Czech a dialect of Slovak) ;) - FrancisTyers · 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, like it? Double-edged huh? :NikoSilver: 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"controversially"

Is there any other "Macedonia" in history section "controversially" referred to as "Macedonia"? How high must a controversy be escalated to deserve inclusion in the history section?:NikoSilver: 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole region is controversial, I'm not going to make a point about it, but you know what I mean. - FrancisTyers · 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no other terminology controversy in the history section, but thank you anyway. We cannot state that M is a name for ROM just like that. It is inaccurate and incomplete, since it does not apply world-wide. :NikoSilver: 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
You mean it doesn't apply in Greece ;) Besides, we already mention the controversy in the Politics section. We could move the note up if you like, but I think it fits better there. - FrancisTyers · 10:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually no, it doesn't apply to Greece. At least not in an official level. Anyway, I respect your comment about "already mention" but I'm afraid that most readers will skip the blah-blah and go directly to the list (striked out forbidden word). :NikoSilver: 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to controversy

Francis, why are you excluding details? I thought you were angry about ethnic Macedonians claiming false history, and Bulgarians over-objecting distinction. I really really think it explains the whole fuss, plus it's cited!:NikoSilver: 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If it "would require more prose", feel free to add it...(that's what everybody is thirsty about!):NikoSilver: 23:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I reverted for now. We can discuss more tomorrow. I really need to explain to all those people why everybody is so jumpy about names. It is well sourced. :NikoSilver: 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've added some (it tastes of delicious weasel words). I'm sure we're going to need "citations" for all of these, which I will supply sometime tommorow. I hope you'll agree that it is accurate, although probably not comprehensive. - FrancisTyers · 23:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks. We need all sources we can get.:NikoSilver: 09:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thats good. - FrancisTyers · 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Refs

I'm seriously thinking of swapping old and new refs in the article. The old refs are recommended for large blocks of text (like in "Notes" section), while the new refs are recommended for citing (and re-citing) sources. I'm gonna start doing this, so please, please, please don't edit conflict me for a while...:NikoSilver: 09:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Done!!! I moved two notes within the text for consistency with the other relevenat "see..." quotes, plus they weren't really compatible to the content of the other NOTES (don't drop loud caps). Danforth appears three times. We must either join all three, or Fran, can you kindly add the page numbers? (or both join and add page numbers if the page numbers are the same) :NikoSilver: 11:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And I am holding you on your promise for more sources too! :NikoSilver: 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I've got to go out shortly, but I'll at least add the danforth page nos before I go. - FrancisTyers · 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to say I preferred the structure beforehand. With the "notes" in "ref" tags and the "references" next to "note" tags. I sense you don't want to switch it back, but please at least consider it :) - FrancisTyers · 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Danforth, first one is p. 44, second p. 44 and third p. 44 - FrancisTyers · 11:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Is there anything in p.44 we could include in the article? How exactly do you sense that I DON'T WANT TO SWITCH IT BACK? :-) No, really, it's better this way, coz it also solves the numbering issue (R-notes used to start by R-3 [Churchill]). :NikoSilver: 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but I really hate reference text in the body of the article >:( — p. 44 just describes the terms, which is what we're referencing it for. - FrancisTyers · 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I can understand how you feel, but the standard view has priority over the edit window... I only wish those bugs could be worked out soon. I wouldn't have to spend all morning trying to swap them! :NikoSilver: 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor ref. glitch

It seems that in order to access the first reference, (Jasminka Z. et all. SARAJEVO PARADOX: Survival throughout History and Life after the Balkan War, http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/int/int_0603c.pdf ) a userid and password is needed. Maybe it’s better to find another source for this paper or in case that this is not possible to mention (somehow) the restrictions applicable for that specific source ? --NotReallyAnonymous Tom

Hmm, good point, you can actually get the paper through Googles cache, but we should probably find a different source. - FrancisTyers · 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Corrected now! :NikoSilver: 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved comments by Sandy from User talk:NikoSilver

  • This sentence needs help (dispute which is disputed): The second dispute is over the very existence of a distinct language (i.e. different from Bulgarian), which is disputed by certain partisan groups.[10] I'd delete "partisan" to avoid problems.
  • This entire section has a lot of content that seems to require referencing: Terminology by group
  • This sentence is malformed, I can't tell what it's saying: Macedonist (Македонист) is a derogatory term for a person ...), whose studies support the official historical doctrine of the Republic of Macedonia or former Yugoslavia. Person, whose studies support ?

I am reluctant to excersise my English skills, plus some recommendations refer to text by Francis. Care to do it yourself, Fran?:NikoSilver: 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I look, take a look at [15] can you say "reference salad"? :) - FrancisTyers · 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I admit it's confusing in the edit window, but we have to live with it. On the brighter side, I hope we won't have to re-edit this very often, but we may enjoy the actual article. I did some minor reformatting for separating the refs from the text utilising hard returns (see it now). It's not perfect, but at least it's an improvement. :NikoSilver: 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

POV wording

On the one hand, extremist ethnic Macedonians seek to emphasise their national, linguistic and historical distinction from the Bulgarians.

I think that this is a POV wording. There's nothing extremist in emphasising a national, linguistic and historical distinction from another nation. We must also mention that the ethnic Macedonians seek to emphasise their distintction from the Serbs and Greeks, especially in the past, when those groups still had assimilation concepts concerning the ethnic Macedonians. (Why doesn't anybody consider that to be extremist?) Of course, the ethnic Macedonians are linguistically an historically inter-related to the Bulgarians, but also to Serbs, and to some extent even to the Greeks. There is a major difference between these two sentences:

  • The ethnic Macedonians are nationally, lingustically, and historically distinct from the Bulgarians. and
  • The ethnic Macedonians are the descendants of the Ancient Macedonians and the Slavs, while the Bulgarians are a Turko-Asiatic tribe, and have nothing to do with Macedonia and the Macedonians.

The first sentence is not extremist. There is no major dispute about the national and linguistic distinction from the Bulgarians, and this is the general international view. The historical part is a bit tricky since the territory of the modern RoM (where most ethnic Macedonians live) has historically been under both the Bulgarian and the Serbian Empire (Skopje was the capital of the Serbian Empire), as well in the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

The second sentence is extremist. I think that the whole sentence should be put like this: extremist ethnic Macedonians seek to deny the possibility of any national, linguistic and historical relatedness to the Bulgarians. --FlavrSavr 02:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment FlavrSavr. I agree with your proposed text and modified the article accordingly.:-)
On the historical comment, please cite sources stating that the territory or the inhabitants were called Macedonia/ns, during the Bulgarian and Serbian empires, and we will find a way to include it. On the other hand, Wilkinson, says that it re-appeared as a name "in 1899 by Greek chartographer C.Nikolaides for political reasons", so we will also have to illustrate the disagreement between the two sources. The more we complicate things, the more I like it! :-) :NikoSilver: 09:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
FlavrSavr, having said that, it has to be noted that Macedonians were not considered a separate from Bulgarians until recently — whether linguistically, nationally or historically. The codification of a separate language and the development of an own national consciousness were part of a later process of the 19th and mostly 20th century. Comparing the historical Bulgarian importance and influence in the region with regard to the Macedonians as a group to that of Serbs, Greeks and Ottomans is wrong and misleading. Many parts of Bulgaria have been ruled by all these and many other empires in different periods, but that's just a historical fact and has had no effect on them being Bulgarians.
As for the extremist wording, I agree it should be out and approve your proposal. Todor→Bozhinov 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Todor, our greatest handicap is, presumably, our (not your) limited understanding of Bulgarian history. As I understand it, there was a Bulgarian empire with, presumably, its distinct ethos and priorities - hence its name was granted to those under its suzerainty. There is also a Bulgarian state.
The question is, with hindsight, how do we distinguish between those who can rightly be considered Bulgarians, and those who were simply 'covered' by the appellation 'Bulgarians'. Similar concern can be applied to the term 'Romoios/Greek', 'Turkish' and even 'Arab' - let alone 'Macedonian'. For instance, at one time all Orthodox Christians were classified as Greeks. The first modern assertion of 'Bulgarianism' was, it seems to me, based on religious grounds, not ethnic or cultural. I am not qualified to draw any conclusions, but I understand that some ethnic Makedonci as well as Slavophones in Greece argue they were called 'Bulgarians' but that this was a label not a description. Politis 19:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
They were not called 'Bulgarians', they called themselves Bulgarians and their language Bulgarian. Todor→Bozhinov 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
There is an intersting observation about the 'Russian peasant' during the 1917 revolution: "[As a recruited soldier] he lacked inner motivation... he was a virtual stranger to the sentiment of patriotism. The failure of the Imperial Government to develop mass education meant that much of the citizenry lacked awareness of a common heritage and common destiny... the [Russian] muzhik has little sense of 'Russianess'. He though of himself, not as a 'Russkii' but as a native of Viatka or Tula province". But if asked in the army, he would say Russian. (R Pies, Thr Russian Revolution, 1990:203). Similar observations have been expressed about the rural and mountainous populations of late 19thC Macedonia.
Now if you read EM Cousinery, 'Voyage dans la Macedoine', 1831 (he was there in the late 18thC?), he notes meeting a Bulgarian, but he had educated himself and was now a Greek. Such observations indicate a supra or pre-national approach to someone's id. I suggest that this factor needs to be considered when attributing retrospectively the term 'Bulgarian', even if they called themselves and their dialect as such. Perhaps it is not a matter of trying to fit 'Macedonian Bulgarians' into a modern precept of Bulgarianhood, but of expanding the definition of 'Bulgarianhood' - even though this could be perceived as diluting modern ethnic perceptions of what it is to be Bulgarian; this seems to me a challenging and interesting task. I close by pointing out that I have a limited knowledge and even fewer answers but find the dialogue is educational. Politis 11:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I should add that it seems honourable for 'Bulgarianhood' to encompass 'uneducated' people, thirsty for knowledge and progress who, in doing so, felt they were now 'Greek'. Likewise, it is no loss to Greeks to 'loose' such 'Greeks' who recognised in a 'Hellenic' education a path toward a better life. Tying up culture and civilisation to a specific ethnic group seems counter productive. I mean, does 'Americana' and the American dream belong to the Americans? Hell, no! Wikipedia is the product of Americana, so is our language of communication, but we are not citizens of the US :-( Politis 11:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Or 'Europe' and the European dream (if there isn't an article there should be) to the Europeans :) I agree on your comment re: tying up culture and civilisation to a specific ethnic group. - FrancisTyers · 11:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Politis on this matter. --FlavrSavr 23:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aegean Macedonia data by Politis

What is "GFM A/24581/G2/1945"? Also, can we cite "I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis"? Finally, any more significant info to add fromthe Aegean Macedonia article please? :NikoSilver: 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

GFM A = Greek Foreign Ministry Archives. Yes, the title is correct, the book was published in 1947, no author is mentioned, or, since it consists of source, no editor is mentioned. As for more info, err, that is it for the moment. I might send you a scan next week of the Nova Makedonija and Borba map and you might be able to loaded or do what you like with it.Politis 14:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

'Macedonian salad'

I think we might include the term 'Macedonian salad' or 'macédoine', the reason is that this dish was created by the French specifically in (humorous?) honour of the ethnic diversitay of the area in the early 20th century. There is also a 'Macedonian Pizza' in Skopje (I am not suggesting that we include the pizza dish), whose ingredients change according to what is available (no it is not a joke, they make a very good on, depending on the ingredients, in the restaurant Dal Met Fu), but Skopje offers no 'Macedonian salad'. In Italian, a 'macedonia' is a fruit salad and in French, a salade macédoine is a classical vegetable salad. Politis 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Macedonia (disambiguation) might accommodate these, but dishes of any kind are hardly considered important to understanding the pecularities of the region in any way :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering most key decisions in world history have been accompanied by multi-course meals and fine wines, I am sorry to see that wiki editors lack the gastronomical initiative to include such a seminal dish in such an important article. But who said food is important? Now I am going back to my Turkish/Greek/Cypriot/Armenian/Arabic coffee (metrio) ;-) Politis 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See proposal above. :NikoSilver: 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget it Niko, Πάλι νηστικοί θα κοιμηθούμε... :-) Politis 10:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! translation: "Once again, hungry to bed...", popular Greek motto of the lower class! :NikoSilver: 11:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

International organisations

Do we have a source that states "most international organisations use the 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'" ? Because just having a load of references to its use by international organisations seems like OR. You are proposing that "most international organisations", and then supporting that with a list of "examples in which it is used". I checked with Google scholar, and it seems that there are references which support this position, but I don't have access to most of them. If someone else could check, that would be good. - FrancisTyers · 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the UN, EU, NATO, IMF, IOC and other organisations linked to them. The standard policy is that each country is referred to by the name it has been registered. Hence, we have Republic of Ireland (or Ireland), not Eire. ROM belongs as FYROM, therefore all official documents and official websites refer to it as such. There are, no doubt, officials of those organisations who, unilaterally, refer to 'Macedonia' but that is not reflected in reports and other agreements. I suppose we could do a re-phrase, "the main international organisations, including UN, EU, NATO, IMF, IOC, FIFA, recognise the country as 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'" - this, until further notice, would cover us for single official mentioning 'Macedonia'. I think that somewhere we had links to the websites of those organisations with FYROM. Politis 16:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the last one I'm posting anyway. But if you find one that says so, it's ok. I remeber Aldux had found only one organization that doesn't use the UN name. :NikoSilver: 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support Politis' suggested wording. - FrancisTyers · 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As a rule, all organizations of which Greece is a member (quite a lot) will use FYROM. As for the countries of which RoM is a member but not Greece (pretty few), they'll use Macedonia or RoM. As for the others, of whom neiter RoM nor Greece are members, I haven't controlled, but I suspect they generally follow the ONU (the OPEC does).--Aldux 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that Politis suggestion is better too. I'll get into it. Please wait...:NikoSilver: 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Done. You want me to put FIFA ([16]) in too? :NikoSilver: 16:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Forza Italia! Yes please. Politis 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The suggested wording is OK. --FlavrSavr 23:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flavr, the suggested term itself is not ok. :-( Hope all this is solved soon...:NikoSilver: 11:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonian terminology

I'm moving these to talk pending citation, when we have a citation we can add them back. For some of them we'll probably need a dictionary reference, but for that we'd probably need a (engage disambiguation mechanism) Macedonian (disengage disambiguation mechanism) to look it up. Is FlavrSavr around? - FrancisTyers · 17:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've notified FlavrSavr. I think it is an extreme measure to remove the whole section though. I would suggest you put it back and we wait for him or someone else to do it. There is no dispute over the actual use of these terms...:NikoSilver: 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I think this is a quick way to get a response :) - FrancisTyers · 23:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's quite reliable. Old Macedonian is rarely used, though. Was this what I was supposed to do? --FlavrSavr 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Provide citations for those :) - FrancisTyers · 23:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be hard :). Unfortunately I don't have a Macedonian-Macedonian dictionary. OK:

  • Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia in Macedonian:

entry on Macedonia: Maкедонија (Macedonia) - официјално Република Македонија ("Republic of Macedonia") --FlavrSavr 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ЕНЦИКЛОПЕДИЈА Британика: Л-Н, Топер, Скопје 2005 --FlavrSavr 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Britannica Concise Encyclopaedia in Macedonian:

entry on Macedonia: Повеќе од две третини од населението се Македонци, околу една петтина се етнички Албанци... ("More than two thirds of the inhabitants are Macedonians, about a fifth ethnic Albanians..."

ЕНЦИКЛОПЕДИЈА Британика: Л-Н, Топер, Скопје 2005 --FlavrSavr 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It must be using a fairly old census, because the 2002 census shows less than two thirds and one quarter respectively.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite possibly. The results of the census were not official until late 2004, I think, and the works on the Britannica edition in Macedonian were started a bit earlier... --FlavrSavr 23:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Бугарофили" is a derogatory term, so it is generally not used in the media. A simple Google search reveals, that, nevertheless used in the common speech: [17] --FlavrSavr 00:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll be bold and use your citations above, re-including everything back. :NikoSilver: 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trnovo

Thank you FlavrSavr for your sites and usefull translations. Just to say that Trnovo, where the 'Aegean Makedonski' hold their annual meeting, was a Hellenovlach village where Greek is still spoken. This is hardly surprising since it sits above Bitola - famous for its Hellenovlachs and Rom neighbourhood. It also has a Sarakatsan family which is ethnically Greek. It is a very pastoral village and offers great walks overlooking a lush valley, WWI fortifications and interesting wildlife. Politis 11:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Language

Ok, I added all of them, plus I found sources for "Old Macedonian" and "Bugarashi" using google link by FlavrSavr above and copying the Macedonian Slavic text in the search-box. I have a question and it is serious: In view of the controversial/disambiguating character of the article, should the 'language=x' field in the respective sources be something like 'Macedonian Slavic'? This is a sincerely disambiguating question, and to prove my goodwill, for now, I've simply included 'Macedonian'. Please advise...:NikoSilver: 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
PS, It is the Macedonian (Slavs) I am asking and the third parties in this. I know what the Greeks will respond...:NikoSilver: 12:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I prefer having all these names the way they are in the respective articles, but we may add a note, if it's possible :) By the way, the references section is imposing, good impressive work! Todor→Bozhinov 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be Macedonian, or if you prefer, Macedonian language. - FrancisTyers · 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any of our sources being written in the other Macedonian language, so I think we're safe here. - FrancisTyers · 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dual names

Regarding appelation of rivers and mountains, where they cross borders and change names, they should bear all names. But where it concerns cities and inner country features, they must be named according to current appealation and under international norms. Hence, where it says, "Vardar (Axios) and Struma (Strymónas) rivers, and the plains around Thessaloniki (Solun) and Serres (Serez).", we cannot have 'Solun' and 'Serez', it sends us to an entirely different ball game. In this respect would we write, Tetovo (Kaskandelen)? So I suggest editing out the Slavonic appelations. Politis 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally we were going to have all the relevant names in the official languages of the states in question. I would like to keep them because I don't think it detracts from the article. Alternatively we could have your suggestion and then a note pointing to the list of alternative names, I believe there is one around somewhere. - FrancisTyers · 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
So we can use all places in FYROM which are part of the Greek irredenta in dual names also, e.g. Bitola (Monastiri), Gevgelija (Gevgeli) etc? These things work both ways... --Tēlex 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep, so let's have dual/triple/whatever names for objects in two or more countries, but a single name for cities and others, when they're in a single country. No Solun or Serez (Serez is even only the RoM name, ours is Syar/Ser...). Todor→Bozhinov 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I would have yes Telex, but it seems people don't want it. - FrancisTyers · 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, not in this article. The usage of 'neighbouring' names is usually undertaken either by people who only know their local term, or by people with irredentist visions laying claim through 'baptism'. It is invariably best to use the international names. No Russian, Bulgarian or Pole will ask for a plane ticket to Solun or Uskub in a London travel agency and they will not find it on internet bookings either. I have 1914 German maps of 'Southern Serbia', southern Bulgaria, most of Albania and northern Greece and the list of alternative names (before they were changed) is wrist-breakingly long :-) Politis 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

When I was in Bulgaria, Sofia train station a few years ago (before I was exposed to the wonders of the Balkans) looking to get to Thessaloniki, it took me a long time to realise that in Bulgarian it was called Solun/Soln. They've been doing up the train station recently, with electronic boards and everything, but I think they still use the Bulgarian names. This isn't irredentist, its just descriptive. - FrancisTyers · 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, we only have the name Solun (what's Soln? :)), you'd almost never hear of it being referred to as Thessaloniki in Bulgarian. Doesn't that ugly Communist building I've always disliked have electronic boards in English? It seems necessary to have such! Todor→Bozhinov 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Soln is me being illiterate and not remembering properly/being bothered to look it up ;) Not only do they have boards in English now (I seem to remember), but also kittens! :) [18] and [19] (the server is slow). I'm not sure the building is ugly as such, but the benches really suck, and the new bus station accross the way is much more fancy :) - FrancisTyers · 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that I am an admirer of Brutalist architecture. - FrancisTyers · 16:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
D'oh, can't stand that style. I've always admired Gothic and Baroque, but we only have thraces of the latter + Classicist, Neorenaissance, Romanticist, Art Noveau-esque and Interwar architecture in Sofia, which aren't bad at all, of coruse. And I'm almost bored of Bulgarian National Revival :)
The railway station really sucks in terms of design in my opinion, both from the outside and inside (sorry, but your gallery doesn't seem to open :(). The crumbling frescoes inside are appalling. But the Central Bus Station is much better indeed. Todor→Bozhinov 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha, Bulgarian National Revival, I noticed in Turnovo but didn't know what the style was called. The DNS for my gallery was down it appears, give it another go. Its hosted on my home DSL so can be kind of sluggish anyway. The crumbling frescos yes, but they've done a lot of work both outside and in since I first visited three years ago. Besides, trains are infinitely cooler than buses :) - FrancisTyers · 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Now I saw the kittens — cute! :) I like kittens. For breakfast. Todor→Bozhinov 18:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If you catch the intercity between Athens and Thessaloniki on a sweltering hot day, make sure you take a blanket (or huge towel) with you, the airconditoning would freeze Iceman's you-know-whats :-! Politis 13:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, hop on a boat and go cruising with 30 knots. Stop in the middle of the Aegean and jump inside to swim with the dolphins. Harbor it in the smallest loneliest gulf you find and swim and fish all day. Barbeque your fish at night with olive oil and fresh lemon. Slice a couple of tomatos open. Open a bottle of wine and dance zeibekiko by yourself. Don't forget to clap your hands in self-exclamation. Break the plates and sleep drunk on the sand...:NikoSilver: 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Kind of like them using Hook of Holland instead of Hoek van Holland in UK ferry ports. - FrancisTyers · 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if I asked for a ticket to Paris in Greek, I would ask for a ticket to Parisi, not Paris. I guess I am an irredentist chauvinist :-( --Tēlex 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
So I am... how much does a ticket to Parizh cost? :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in Sofia and Skopje you ask for Solun if they do not understand Thessaloniki but if talking Bulgarian you say Solun; that is normal. In Greece you ask for Nea Iorki and the river Sikouanas crosses Parisi. In London it is Turin (not Torino). But we do not include all those names. In English the city is Thessaloniki or Istanbul or Skopje. The introduction of Solun in this context tickles other dimentions, as would Uskub or Danzig, Leningrad and who knows how many other places. But we are not cashiers from Yambol in a Sofia bus station, but wiki editors who understand that international norm is easy and best to follow. Politis 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, but this is a terminology article. Actually, I have a better idea, we have a "Names in the languages of the region" section, why not put them in there? We can have a note pointing to that section. - FrancisTyers · 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The Macedonian "region" is an arbitrary fanstasy. The names of Thessalonica should be in the languages currently or previously spoken there (this therefore excludes "Macedonian"). Relevant languages are Greek, Bulgarian, Turkish, Armenian, Ladino, Russian and Albanian. --Tēlex 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Aww, spoil sport. Besides the name in Bulgarian is the same as in Macedonian iirc. - FrancisTyers · 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a terminology article specifically for the term 'Macedonia'. The title is our guide and international norm our learned advisor and none of them include 'Solun', etc (but we must keep Axios / Vardar, etc). Politis 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you not think it is informative? - FrancisTyers · 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the article if quite informative for anyone wishing to disentangle Macedonia and without having to trip over any other unhappy ambiguities - as mentioned above. Politis 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would even be possible to have symbols next to the name, e.g. "*" for "historical", "+" for "currently in use", "~" for "in use only in X", etc. This way we can signal that not all the names are universally used. - FrancisTyers · 17:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this sign for the Greek ones? :NikoSilver: 13:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
haha :) - FrancisTyers · 15:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed...

The text below has been copied here from FAC talk::NikoSilver: 15:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a list of statements that need inline citations. (I think I confused this issue earlier by saying "references" when I meant "citations"):

  • and they seem to have been established only in 1899, by the Greek cartographer C. Nicolaides for political purposes.
  • The perception of the division of a single area emerged as a historical hindsight.
  • Ethnic Macedonian nationalist fringe groups have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (in Greece), "Pirin Macedonia" (in Bulgaria), "Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo" (in Albania), and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (in Serbia).
  • The terms are used in non-partisan scholarly works, although more often they are used in ethnic Macedonian literature of an irredentist nature:
    • Although there is one citation regarding the irredentist origin of one of these terms in an article linked to, this statement should have a citation of its own.
      • Rephrased as: ...although they are also used in ethnic Macedonian literature of an irredentist nature:
  • Greece and the Republic of Macedonia each consider this name a compromise: it is opposed by some Greeks for containing the Greek self-identifying name Macedonia, and by many in the Republic of Macedonia for not being the short self-identifying name.

Insert citations for those and that'll take care of my objection. --RobthTalk 15:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not removing those sentences just yet, but please hurry because the FAC closes soon.:NikoSilver: 15:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding a group or groups that "express irredentist claims", I can find plenty of maps etc. like here, but I can't find any "groups", unless this website counts as a group? - FrancisTyers · 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, rephrase. Nationalists instead of nationalist groups, or irredentists etc. Add the source too in the end to justify Serbia claim as well.:NikoSilver: 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Greece and the Republic of Macedonia each consider this name a compromise: it is opposed by some Greeks for containing the Greek self-identifying name Macedonia, and by many in the Republic of Macedonia for not being the short self-identifying name.
  • Ethnic Macedonian nationalist fringe groups have expressed irredentist claims to what they refer to as "Aegean Macedonia" (in Greece), "Pirin Macedonia" (in Bulgaria), "Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo" (in Albania), and "Gora and Prohor Pchinski" (in Serbia).
  • and they seem to have been established only in 1899, by the Greek cartographer C. Nicolaides for political purposes.

- FrancisTyers · 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

:NikoSilver: 00:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment out or tone down those statements then until voting is over? They can be readded when sources are found. I'll look for sources meanwhile.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost sure that the region borders where defined before... Anyway, I'll be on 11-days wikibreak, so I really don't have the time to investigate the matter. The map in the United Macedonia article clearly shows a map of a French cartographer made 1885, so... --FlavrSavr 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flavr. I searched for it in google scholar and found nothing. Do you know who uploaded it, or where we can find info about it? In any case, I think it is not important to pin down exactly the date it was first drawn on a map, or even who did it and for what reason. Currently, in the article, we're not saying that it was first created then for a fact. We're saying that Wilkinson says so. Please provide the information if it is available and we'll add it too.:NikoSilver: 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Prose and... Cons

I did something. Please don't revert just yet. Instead, try to perfect it, and maybe the end result will be to our and your satisfaction. Francis, the table to the left, does what the list (sorry) bulletted paragraphs used to do. I am gone for now, please comment/edit and I'll catch up later.:NikoSilver: 15:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some formatting changes, and I think that the table is a reasonable compromise :) - FrancisTyers · 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thasos

It is inevitable that the island of Thasos appears on a map of the Macedonia region, but I have never seen it mentioned as part of that region, it has never cropped up in any definitions of the region and there have been no claims against it from 'ethnic Macedonians'. It might be an idea to reflect that on the map. Politis 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been. Check ref lucky#13 ([[20]]). Feel free to add whatever info though.:NikoSilver: 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I've removed the "no supported" thing from the third hypothesis, it looked wierd without a citation, feel free to add it back with citation, the article should probably include the main article for that (etymology). I'm slightly concerned about the other "main articles". There were way too many. I like the idea of having a reference, but I think a see-also-section-on-steroids might be better? - FrancisTyers · 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "terminology by group" section is pretty much unreadable now (for me at least) — something I regret because the column layout is quite nice. - FrancisTyers · 22:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Make it a triangle if you wish. Oh, wait I got an idea! :NikoSilver: 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Now I'm going to find out how to underline the main terms (I think it will be more clear than italics). - FrancisTyers · 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How? But in a tedious way, of course! And while you're at it, better delete those *s too to create more room for the columns...:NikoSilver: 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Haha, yup. Having said that, do you think it would look better with underline+italics or just underline or just italics? I was lazy and didn't remove the italics at the same time as doing the underline, and while the result is ok, I'm not so sure... - FrancisTyers · 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice job. I'd say that no-itals+yes-u for terms, yes-itals+no-u for text would be best.:NikoSilver: 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The one you created is nicer.:NikoSilver: 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok :) Either is fine by me. - FrancisTyers · 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive Revert

I am going to revert to the original version before tables and stuff. I really don't care about Joelito's irrational concerns in talk. He has failed to respond on my arguments. This is harrassment. End of story, let it become a featured stub or whatever. I am not ruining the article to satisfy one user with obvious intention to make a WP:POINT. You can express your complaints there if you wish. :NikoSilver: 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better and much more informative without repetitions. I would even edit-war for this version! Fran, please don't arrest me!! :NikoSilver: 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree (although I thought the history table was a rather elegant solution). Perhaps we should really consider agitating for a Wikipedia:Featured disambiguation candidates :) After all, disambiguation is quite a big topic and doing it right really helps the encyclopaedia (in my opinion). - FrancisTyers · 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC) - FrancisTyers · 22:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is certainly not over. I really expect that Joelito's unilateral unexplained opposition will be disregarded. In any case, this article deserves front-page. Dab pages don't. :NikoSilver: 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Can somebody tell me if Bugarofili, Srbofili, etc. should be capitalized? I suspect not, but somebody correct me if I am wrong. It's in Ethnic Macedonian terminology section. --dcabrilo 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Philhellen generally isn't, mainly because it starts with phil-, rather than e.g. Helleno-phile. Grammatically, I have no idea. Contextually, I suppose it is appropriate for this article. :NikoSilver: 12:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Here are source where the terms Aegean and Pirin Macedonia are used in an irredentist context. They are from the government in Skopje, as well as from militant communities in other countries:

  • Risto Stefov, History of the Macedonian People from Ancient Times to the Present, Unitedmacedonians.org, April 2004.
  • The Macedonian Times, semi-governmental monthly periodical (printed by the, then, state owned, Nova Makedonija).
Issue number 23, July-August 1996:14, Leading article: Bishop Tsarknjas (interviewed by R.M.V, he is a Greek citizen, a defrocked priest and advocate of autonomy for the Greek province of Macedonia). "The Macedonians [in Canada build a church in Marcham] dedicated to St. Demetrius of Salonika. The greatest number [of them] originate from the Aegean part of Macedonia."

p.23. [Article title] Times of wars, darkness and heroism! by Vera Veskovic-Vangeli. Image: The flag of Republic Krushevo [it shows a map in the form of a banner of Greater Macedonia on red background and an armed peasant-fighter standing next to it] no date for the map].

Issue Number 24, September 1996.

p.21. [Article title], 'The Symbols of Statehood', by Petar Karajanov. [extract from a law passed at the Second Extraordinary Session of ASNOM, held on July, 1946]: The grain stalks, poppy fruits and tobacco leaves convey the wealth of Macedonia... the folk motifs on the strip - the richness and beauty of the folk features... The mountain represents Pyrin, the biggest Macedonian mountain, which had been a centrer of the National Liberations War in the past, the flowing river is Vardar, the largest Macedonian river. Pyrin and Vardar together symbolize the unity of all parts of Macedonia and the ideals of our peoples for its unificatioin. The sun conveys the new life".

  • THIS IS A GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION Facts About the Republic of Macedonia - annual booklets since 1992, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia Secretariat of Information.
For instance, Second edition, 1997, ISBN 9989-42-044-0.

p.14. 2nd August, 1944. [...] Representative from all parts of Macedonia, including the Pirin and the Aegean parts of the country, gathered for the occasion [of the first ASNOM session] and decided on the constitution of a modern Macedonian state as a member of the new Yugoslav federation.

  • IMRO and the Macedonian Question, A.Michel Radin, Kultura, Skopje, 1992. ISBN 86-317-0183-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum

p.121. [Sub-chapter on, ‘Aegean Macedonia’] “…towns such as Lerin, Kostur adn Salonika (Solun) became Florina, Kastoria, and Thessaloniki respectively [following a 1927 Greek law].

  • Ed. Pero Korobar, Orde Ivanovski, La Verite Historique - l'Opinion publique progressiste en Bulgarie et en Macedoine du Pirin sure la Question Nationale Macedonienne, 1896-1956, Skopje - Kultura 1984. [As pointed out by past comment, the very title treats a Bulgarian province as separate from Bulgaria]. Politis 12:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, the article says "nationalists not supported by the official government". As you understand, "support from the govt" claims are very significant, and have to be cited in an undoubtable manner. Please specify which sources above are governmental. :NikoSilver: 13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Fran, what do we do with those that I highlighted?
  • The first includes a quasi-irredentist quote.
  • The second, although recent (1997), includes a historical approach that says "Aegean parts of the country" (rather than at least "Aegean parts of the region").
I think you better rephrase the sentence about non-official support, and include the second ref. I am not doing it myself, because I am sure it's going to be biased (due to extreme frustration)! :NikoSilver: 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the ex-Priest a government official, or are his views just being reprinted in a publication that partially belongs to the government? I don't think that someone quoted on the BBC could be said to be representing the government. Second is historical. - FrancisTyers · 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
For the first one I agree (I said it myself). The second one, though, speaks about a country that included Aegean and Pirin parts. It does not refer to a historic quote, it just takes for granted that these region parts were (or should be) country parts. If not official-support, it is definitely twisted history and official-encouragement. The paper is a fully govt owned publication. :NikoSilver: 14:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Was it published in English, if not I'd like to see the original text. I would err more on the side of "twisted history" rather than "official encouragement" — e.g. what they considered part of the "country" at the time, but then as Telex pointed out, I'm probably a Republican spy! I'd also like to see more context to the quote. - FrancisTyers · 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Will get back to you tomorrow. Meanwhile, it is published in English. It reflects 'twisted history' promoting 'official encouragement' (VMRO DMNE founding manifesto, its 1990s electoral campaings, etc...). As for Tsarknias article, I see your point about the BBC (or CBS, ABC, etc); their stories do nor reflect policy. But if they kept pushing regularly the same style of historical interpretation without presenting any other side, then it would be considered policy. That is what the Macedonian Times does (or did if it is still published) on every single issue. And as a journal founded under Yugoslav, state owned principles, it was (is?) semi-governmental if not governmental because Nova Makekonija certainly was until 2003. Politis 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I still think that it is quite open to interpretation. What was this supposed to be the source for again? - FrancisTyers · 16:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Fran, sorry, but I think you're overdoing it with your whitewashing. We have here repeated examples of governmental or semi-governmental publications that maintain and reproduce pseudo-historic ideas of a larger country. Politis says this is in most issues. It's definitely official encouragement. There is no context under which a governmental publication in e.g. Greece would be considered acceptable if it talked all the time about lost cities of a greater country that existed before (in Turkey or Albania or whatever), interviewed irredentists and quoted them without other opinion, etc etc. My last proposal (provided Politis covers you above -I too want to read more text) is for "indirect official encouragement". For now we just wait...:NikoSilver: 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Maps etc.

Could we move "Geography" down to the Geography section, and perhaps replace it with some images of Macedonia? Or maybe some basic stats in a box like "there are 2 languages called macedonian, 6 historical entities, 5 ethnic groups" and then have some images of macedonia at the top of the box (like the ethnic groups ones) -- but preferably just landscapes (politically neutral) from the various parts that self-identify as macedonia. - FrancisTyers · 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea. I had tried to move the geo template to the appropriate section (in preview mode) but it orphaned the lead. I'll work on the box per your suggestion in my mind and will be ready to plug it in as soon as someone provides those photos. Hell, I'll even search for them myself too, although I really think that landscapes are dull. How about me highlighting with different shades all the Macedonias (sic) that ever existed on a Balkan peninsula sattelite image? To push it further, we could also morph Great Al, Karamanlis, Gligorov and back into one nice animated gif! :-) :NikoSilver: 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
HAHA! A resounding yes to Satellite images, a unequivocal no to anything involving controversial personalities and animated gifs! :)) I presume the colour shade will be in the same range :) - FrancisTyers · 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then we can exclude Gligorov, maybe. :NikoSilver: 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, I got a problem though... I have lots of links and stuff, but where can I get that sat image without copy-vio? Could somebody e-mail me one with good resolution which focuses on about the same territory as the maps? I may crop it later to zoom-in, but I can't zoom-out. You could also direct me to a source... :NikoSilver: 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
NASA World Wind might be what you're looking for :) - FrancisTyers · 22:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You want pictures? I think this is just a map article. No pictures, por favor... Politis 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nein. I've been trying to make a map with every Macedonia that ever existed, that doesn't look like a vometed salad. Hard work...:NikoSilver: 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Now, what do you think about the sat-map? (Francis, kindly read above section.):NikoSilver: 11:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I like the idea of the sat map, but the current version is very hard to discern what is going on. I think we have too much stuff in there. I like the inset box showing Macedonia within Europe. The quote placement is good :) — one thing to try would be to use the same colour for all, and just have it darker/lighter where they overlap ? - FrancisTyers · 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was experimenting since yesterday, but that was the cleanest I could do. If you have Corel PhotoPAINT, maybe I could send you the complete image with objects and stuff to experiment yourself? The quote placement needs a little ref format too, since we already have that book below. I would suggest we format them all in one line per the Wilkinson example, but don't know the pages to the others you cited. :NikoSilver: 14:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I won't have any time to play for the next couple of days at least. perhaps we could just have the Balkans, with the inset "in Europe" for now? (with or without current political borders) - FrancisTyers · 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

TOC

hope you dont mind, I moved the TOC across to the right, IMO it looks much cleaner but you might not like the whitespace. Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I'll try to address that when I finish uploading the new maps. For now, sorry for my temporary revert. :NikoSilver: 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a concern as such but I was just trying to make the page look nice (me being very bored and all that!! :D). I had the same prob as you in my browser - it was fixed with a carriage return but i guess in opther browsers it doean't. Ah well if you feel like it / like the idea I'm sure you'll figure out a better way :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Thanks for experimenting. Do you know how to alter the width of the standard TOC template? I want to make it 350px and then I can align it below the new map.:NikoSilver: 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok simple solutions for simple problems. TOC on its own, below intro text. Like it? :NikoSilver: 23:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New Maps

Actually I thought the beauty of the precious set up was its simplicity. These new maps overlay geographical features and the colours seem like runny water-paint. The seem over-crowded (but certainly, if not involontarily make the point about unclear borders). But 10 out of 10 for initiative. Politis 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Politi. Ok. Now I finished uploading what I had in mind. I made another version for intro, which has much less clutter. I hope you like it now. Hit ctrl-F5 for refreshing to the new images. Thanks.:NikoSilver: 17:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I can see that its been a lot of work, but I still prefer the old versions :/ Hmm -- Could we go back or are you set on these. You've put the work in so its entirely up to you. If we go back I'll try and work out something in the next day or so to be the image at the top. - FrancisTyers · 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It's not the first time I devoted hours in vein, anyway. Options:
  • (a) As it was before. (no available diff link due to templates, but see examples: Geo old vs Geo New, Hist Oldvs Hist New, and Polit Old vs Polit New
  • (b) As it was before, but with the new maps (i.e. intro map dumped, geo map on top, for preview, see (d) without the map in the Notes section)
  • (c) Version 1 (new intro map) [21]
  • (d) Version 2 = (b) + (attempted) intro map in Notes section to create attention. [22]
  • (e) Version 3 = (b) + new history template [23]
Opinions please?
PS. Don't let it cross your mind that I may be offended or anything for dumping my maps! If you don't like them, the old ones are still uploaded and I can turn the whole thing back in a jiffy. Oh, it was me who drew the old ones too. So it is a question of NikoSilver vs ...Former NikoSilver. :NikoSilver: 12:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
These are OK, but I preferred the simple old ones too. And I'm not sure if this one is precise, it seems to show Pirin Macedonia twice larger than it actually is, the Albanian part is also too big, and so is the Serbian one. Todor→Bozhinov 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd still go for 'a'. :/ - FrancisTyers · 12:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. Idea: We keep the old ones everywhere, and I make a new template for geographic section, that includes the subregions with the new sat-maps (which look vere geographic too). Ofcourse we'll have to rename the intro template from "Geographic Mk" to "Contemporary Mk". Thoughts? :NikoSilver: 13:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Done. You like that or we get back to (a)? :NikoSilver: 15:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Looks good to me :) - FrancisTyers · 16:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Like it that way too. But fix that satellite map, Pirin Macedonia is certainly well too big to the east (it only reaches the west bank of the Mesta River) and so, I believe, is the part of Macedonia in Albania. Image:LocationMacedonia-REG-1-z.png looks quite accurate to me, so you may enlarge that dark region-marking spot from to the appropriate scale and transpose it over the national borders in the satellite map, than colour, make it transparent, etc. :)-Todor→Bozhinov 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to do something in the next few days... Please bear with it if it sticks there for a week or so. As for the Albanian part, I only got the thinnest possible stripe of land after the lakes. They are not visible anyway, so I might go ahead and shorten that too...:NikoSilver: 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Edward Stettinius

There's been a quote added by an anon in the top of this page. The quote is from the web page of Mister Sartzetakis (Greeks will laugh, I'll explain below why), former President of Greece [24]. It includes an alleged quote by Edward Stettinius, foreign minister of the US in 1946. The quote follows:

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."
- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

I took the time to verify this quote. Following are two links from State Department interviews and one from the Library of congress that verify it: [25], [26], [27]

I don't know what that should mean. Maybe the anon implies that times change (along with policies)? By the way, Eddy appears to be one of the nicest guys in US foreign affairs. He was the co-founder of the UN among other things...

PS. 'Mister' is funny because most Greeks remember him accusing people of not capitalising Kyrie when referring to him. :NikoSilver: 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose he would have more weight if he wasn't sporting a prominent Greek name and listed as a "Greek alumni" of UVA :) - FrancisTyers · 16:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
As a Greek, I can confirm his name does not sound as Greek (unless he modified it significantly). Sounds more like Jewish. And actually I read in one of the links when I was searching that he was Jewish. Do you have a source for your claim? Not that it would matter, anyway... he was the US foreign affairs secretary, appointed by Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman... :NikoSilver: 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounded Greek to me :) [28] - FrancisTyers · 00:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a list of Greek-letter fraternities. Divided by a common language, again. Septentrionalis 14:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, not Greek (ask roommate). If it 'sounded' something to you, that should have been Latin-based (-us). Greek names end in -us only in plural (unless... imported to English through Latin). And Greek names usually mean something. They are actual words combined (like Black, Brown, ...Silver etc). As for your link, it's just a list of english names that were in a fraternity or sorority with Greek letters (Alpha-Phi-Gamma etc). Nothing to do with ethnicity. See the mission. :NikoSilver: 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
HAHA! I should have twigged that "Woodrow Wilson" was on the list! :D Using Google cache's highlight function evidently has its weaknesses :)) Still, it would be interesting to know his ethnicity. - FrancisTyers · 00:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally I would bet he's a German from Pomerania, or Stettin, more exactly. As for the statement, I don't see nothing strange: USSR and Stalin were for a united Macedonia federated with Jugoslavia, so it's very natural the Americans were staunchly against anything connected to a red Macedonia.--Aldux 00:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fran: Biography, data, and Britannica, all say 'American'. No other ancestry specified by credible source. (The site I told you before was a ...conspiracy theory about the atom bomb). Unless ofcourse you mean that American is not an ethinicity? :-)

Aldux: Sure. The question is wtf they wanna do now...:NikoSilver: 00:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, his name isn't anything like Muscowequan or Ahtunowhiho, so it must have originated from somewhere outside the US — most likely in Europe :) And besides, we all know this famous Englishman. ;) - FrancisTyers · 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
To Aldux, Can we have some evidence? Stalin pushed for a united Macedonia within Yugoslavia? According to Milovan Djilas, Conversations with Stalin (1962), in 1944 Stalin did not know where Macedonia was and what it was about; Stalin also hoped the Albanians may be Slavs. Stalin did not go for the inclusion Greek Macedonia because the Yalta divide of the world was against it. He considered Bulgaria could give up its Macedonian lands, but that went overboard in 1948 when Belgrade broke off with Moscow. Politis 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Dunno about Greek Macedonia, but indeed, at one moment our red leader, Georgi Dimitrov, had to force people in Pirin Macedonia to declare as Macedonians to justify the addition of it to SFR Macedonia as part of Yugoslavia. Bulgaria would also be supposed join Yugoslavia and be handed back the Western Outlands, a Bulgarian-inhabited region of Serbia, as a compensation. It never happened, though, and I think for good. It's great we didn't get involved in all those wars of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, the ethnic conflict in the Republic of Macedonia. Todor→Bozhinov 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Apart from one or two stray missiles ;) - FrancisTyers · 11:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still wondering how they managed to hit that house in Gorna Banya... I'm still suspicious of the NATO bombers' comepetence, but anyway :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dimitrov is an interesting case. According to Djilas, in Moscow he looked very pale and ill but his mind was sharp. Dimitrov was quiet about the Macedonian issue and looked at it sentimentally. I think that they main thrust of his Macedonian argument was to shatter any remaining ideology about a Greater Bulgaria that had been so costly for the country. His language to that effect was unyielding. For Tito, the Macedonian issue was tailor made to curtail any Serbian expantionist intentions, to keep Serbia in its boundaries. For Greece, the objective was to hold on to its existing border and put an end to communist activities. Politis 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Politis question: I was going by memory, now I've controlled in Clogg's history of modern Greece. It appears that the communist policy of a united Macedonia predates stalinism, and became official comintern policy in 1924, and forced upon the (quite unwilling) KKE. The Comintern policy was to create a Balcanic federation, of which Macedonia was to be a pillar. KKE acceptance of these plans weakened the party in the inter-years wars, till Comintern left fall the idea in 1935 for national autodetermination. During the Greek Civil War, this policy was revived by the Cominform, always as part of a Balcanic federation. Clogg believes KKE prompt obbedience to this policy is among the reasons of the communists defeat (with others, like Tito's rupture and American help, obviously).
As for Stalin not even knowing of Mac. in 1944, this is highly probable; till 1946 he avoided confrontation with the allies, even ordering in 1944 the KKE to enter in the Papandreou government. It was only in 1946 that Stalin started supporting a rupture, only to change idea in 1948, in fear of a direct confrontation with the Americans, that would not have tolerated the loss of Greece. This is what Clogg says.--Aldux 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
See Balkan Communist Federation. :) - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know of the article; thanks for telling me.

--Aldux 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I created a sub-page here (/Templates) with all the templates that were ever created for this article. I like all the ones with the new sat-maps, but who am I to argue if all of you chose the simple ones :-(. Anyway, do you feel that any of this could fit here or in other articles? Could the 'confusing' one be used in the 'notes' section for creating attention? The section is kinda lost there...:NikoSilver: 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Jazriel (FAC)

  • Etymology: I'm pleased that you included an etymology section. "Αccording to Herodotus, the Makednoí were a tribe of the Dorians." It would help to provide an inline citation to an online English translation for the appropriate point in Herodotus Histories. Likewise for Homer.
  • In History: Was there a region or administrative area called Macedonia within the first or second bulgarian empires? It may be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that the Macedonia region was incorporated into the Byzantine empire as the thema of Bulgaria?
  • In Geography: It would be helpful to know the size of Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo, and Gora and Prohor Pchinski, to give an idea of how they compare to the major sub-regions.
  • In Demographics: "Macedo-Romanians" - is there an approximate figure for the number of Macedo-Romanians?
  • In Demographics: "As of 2001 the inhabitants of Bulgarian Macedonia, who in their vast majority self-identify as Bulgarians, are 341,245." It may be worth mentioning the number of people who identified as ethnic macedonians in the 2001 census - 3,117?
  • In Politics: "The term came to be used following a naming dispute with Greece." It would be helpful to provide the year when the term FYROM came into use (1993?) and the source of the term (the United Nations?).

I just copied these comments here for fast reference. They all look appropriate. Please help. :NikoSilver: 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Prohor Pchinski and Pčinja District

Actually, Prohor Pchinski (it's at Prohor Pčinjski, in Serbian) is just a monastery right at the Serbia-Republic of Macedonia border, but on the Serbian side. The monastery is of historical importance for the ethnic Macedonians (it is a "monument of the Macedonian statehood", because it hosted the ASNOM in 1944), they don't claim the whole Pčinja District or anything (there are no Macedonians there that I know of), only the monastery. Todor→Bozhinov 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a map: [30]. The monastery is the big blue dot just at the border. You see, there's not much to claim actually :) They certainly don't claim the whole of Pčinja District, where the population consists of Serbs (~65%), Albanians (~24%), Roma (5%) and Bulgarians (4%; in the east, in and around Bosilegrad) and no Macedonians whatsoever. Todor→Bozhinov 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, you mean that 3,117 in a 350,000 populated region would be good reason enough? Ha ha! I'll just include the word "monastery". :NikoSilver: 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Still missing

  1. If Macedonia was a Bulgarian Empire province (???)
    The Bulgarian Empire, as far as I know, had no such administrative division. Feudals lords and local governors (e.g. Salan, Glad, Despot Slav) did exist, but they would govern a much smaller area than a region the size of Macedonia. I'm not aware of the name "Macedonia" being used by the medieval Bulgarian authorities to refer to this region (or even at all), and the name "Macedonia" at that time actually referred to the Byzantine thema in Eastern Thrace, which has little to do with the modern region. Todor→Bozhinov 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. How many Macedo-Romanians are there.
    See the infobox of the Aromanians article: some figures are official and referenced, others are old an unreliable, and unfortunately the total population estimate is very unlikely to be true (350,000?! Not today.), and it's not sourced. Also see Ethnologue, which claims the "population total all countries" to be 306,237 Todor→Bozhinov 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Any data on these please? :NikoSilver: 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Todor! :NikoSilver: 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

New map

Can we get an "in history" map for the "international supervision" after the treaty in 1904? - FrancisTyers · 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The map now being used for the "region of Macedonia" at the top of the page looks like Meinert's, which may well have been used. I will see if I can find an exact statement (the differences between most maps will be scarcely visible at this scale in any case). Septentrionalis 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian flag

If someone can figure out how to give a black top-border to these images (all three, of course, but only the Bulgarian with its white chief matters) that would be good. Septentrionalis 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy

McCarthy (p.53) says, correctly, that "Macedonia was not an Ottoman administrative designation" He goes on to say that it was "generally described" as containing Selanik Province and parts of Manastir and Kosova Provinces (the Skopje region). This allows for some indefiniteness; but McCarthy's provincial map indicates this agrees with the statement from Miller (his Selanik province includes Drama, for example). Wilkinson shows the indefiniteness in detail, but most of Wilkinson's definitions are fairly similar (with some exceptions), as his Fig. 1 and Fig.2 show.

The statement that "the name disappeared from most maps" is not supported by McCarthy, and it appears to be original research. Septentrionalis 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wilkinson

Wilkinson's book is intentionally limited to ethnographic maps of Macedonia. He includes several, which, like O'Etzel's 1821 map, contain no names of regions at all.

  • p.120
    ...Nicolaides' book on Macedonia, the German translation of which was published in Berlin in 1899. It contained an ethnographic map, one of the first of its kind specifically limited to Macedonia.
  • p.130
    [Kǎnčev's] definition was the same as that of Meinard, [except specified points near Albania.]
    • "Meinard's definition was more restricted than Nicolaides'." p.125, which also contains the differences.
  • p.136
    V. Kǎnčev's map reappeared in F.F. Voinov's work on Macedonia

Etymology

The mention of Aristophanes and Homer in the paragraph on Etymology is pointless; these are attestations of the uncontroversial word μηκος, not of Makedones. The derivation from maki-kedones would require a source. Septentrionalis 00:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this clearly irrelevant sentence about mēkos; makednos is attested as an adjective.
The adjective is used by Homer in Odyssey, to describe a tall poplar tree,[1] and by Aristophanes in his comedy the Birds, to describe a wall built around their imaginary city.[2]
  1. ^ "Perseus project". Homer, Odyssey 7.105 (in Ancient Greek & English translation). Retrieved August 3, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  2. ^ "Perseus project". Aristophanes, The Birds, 1130 (in Ancient Greek & English translation). Retrieved August 3, 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
If it is ever restored, it should be linked either to the original Perseus, or to the Berlin mirror. Septentrionalis 13:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Μακεδνоς is also attested from classical antiquity; μηκος is a cognate, as irrelevant as any other cognate (like μακρος, or Latin magnus or other cognates, which I believe include cognates from the Slavic languages. Septentrionalis 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(terminology)/Archive_2&oldid=1039594082"