Talk:Florina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Proposed move 2 Disputed 3 Macedonian Population 4 About Florina 5 Lamest edit war 6 Леринь / Лерин 7 You must be joking, Florina/Lerin? 8 Lerin? 9 Lerin - origin of name 10 What's wrong with "Republic of Macedonia"?

[edit] Proposed move

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.. From Florina (city), Greece to Florina. –Hajor 01:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Florina is currently a redirect to this page. Markussep 15:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Support. –Hajor 20:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

The Bulgarian (former) inhabitants of Florina would more accurately be classified as Macedonians or Mecedonian Slavs. Andreas 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely support this. There are no Bulgarians in Florina (if there are, show some true, non-propagandistic sources), there is a Macedonian minority. Bomac 12:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have friends who are descendants of Bulgarians from the region, who were forced to flee after the wars (and there are apparently many Bulgarians with such faith)... what you say is extremely anti-Bulgarian POV on a controversial topic for all sides. I've changed it to a more appropriate version. Please don't continue this pro-Macedonian (FYROM) practice, but rather seek neutrality. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There are NO MACEDONIANS, they ARE BULGARIANS. And there are no Bulgarians there because the Greeks have killed or exiled almost the whole population when they conquered the town in the Balkan Wars.

[edit] Macedonian Population

One Greek newspaper reported in 1992 an estimate that of the 53,000 people living in the district of Florina, the largest group, 65 percent, referred to themselves as "dopii" (Greek: locals), or "local Macedonians" [1]. - Makedon45

This statement is very unclear, since "dopii" only means "locals", as you have said.I have never, in relevant bibliography or in practice, encountered the use of "dopii" and "prosfyges" mentioned in the HRW report.In my experience, someone who identifies himself as "dopios" is stating that his family originates from the region he is currently living in(i.e. that they have not migrated for many generations)."Prosfyges" has a meaning pretty much equal to that of "refugees".Ethnic Greeks living in the region can still identify themselves as either "dopios"(local) and "prosfygas" (the same person could not identify as both, obviously) depending on their family's history.These terms are not directly connected with ethnicities.It is possible HRW's researchers have confused two different uses of these terms( one of which I have never encountered), and that's why this statement cannot be considered as solid evidence of anything.--Jsone 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Florina

I worked 2 years in the region of Florina, and I know that many of things, that at times is written here, are lies, so people who haven't stepped their foot there shouldn't instist in their opinion.

In some villages of Florina the people have slavic origin but greek conscience (Dopii=locals). The older people, speak a bulgarian dialect, which they called it Dopia (=local dialect). In some other villages the people are Greeks who came from Black sea(Pontioi). In a few villages the people are Greeks Vlachi, and there is at least one village where many people have slavic origin and slavic conscience (greeks call them filoskopiani). Many of Slavians of the region, after 1913, removed to Yugoslavia and other places. In the town of Florina most of the citizens are Greeks who removed from Bitola(Monastiri) after 1913 when the city occupated by Slavians. Of course in Florina live people from the villages around.

From the 53 000 citizens of Florina prefecture there are no more than 5 000 people with slavic origin and conscience (filospopiani).--Makedonas 12:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lamest edit war

See: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever#Ethnic feuds

[edit] Леринь / Лерин

Macedonia, could you please provide a reference to support your statement that Lerin is spelled Леринь in Bulgarian? Google returns only one result for that spelling, but returns over 1,700 for Лерин - including several hundred results from Bulgarian websites. -- ChrisO 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have understood about the Bulgarian language, they did away with the "soft sign" in around 1973. Since then, consonants have hardened but in the writings of some of the older more conservative people, they tend to keep it. so even if Lerin DID have the soft sign some 40 years ago, it hasn't now. The question is, how do they call Lerin in Russia? No doubt this is the Slavic name, and I speak a fair amount of Russian but I have never looked to see a map of Greece to know how they say it. Celtmist 7 February 2006

Umm, maybe I'm missing a point here, but how did we get from Greece to Russia via Bulgaria? What's the relevance of Russia? -- ChrisO 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia is RUSSIAN! But Florina is American... talk to +MATIA 12:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You must be joking, Florina/Lerin?

Last time I checked, this is a city located in GREECE. What's with the double naming? A reference to the slavic name is ok, but that's more than enough. Check Istanbul, do you see Constantinople being mentioned anywhere?

Yes but the city SHOULD NOT be located in greece, but in BULGARIA.

[edit] Lerin?

Is there a reason for the south slavic name to be prominently featured in this article, if not to establish that there is a significant south slavic minority there? (which is not true).--Avg 15:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First: there is a significant minority in this prefecture, considering the small Macedonian party collects here most of its (not too many) votes. Second, far more important, this article has already been a laughstock for the whole wikipedia community for this dispute, so we should leave it as it is since both Greek and Macedonian editors seemed to have calmed down on the issue and accepted the present solution.--Aldux 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on Avg, here you don't want to accept a single meantioning of an centuries old name that was in use until Greece changed it in the previous century. If not else, accept that it has an historic importance. On the other hand you want the provisional reffernence for the Republic of Macedonia to be used as many times as possible and you demand separate article and paragrafs about it. --Dipazi 22:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

My friend the provisional reference is an official appelation. Lerin has historic importance and I don't deny its existence in the article. But according to your reasoning, the article about Republic of Macedonia should read: The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија; Greek: Δημοκρατία των Σκοπίων/Republic of Skopje), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. Because this article says: Florina (Greek: Φλώρινα; South Slavic: Лерин/Lerin) is a town in Greece. In parentheses is the name that Macedonians refer to Florina with and moreover Cyrillic letters! This is the direct equivalent, because this is how Greeks refer to the RoM. So I will be very happy if this was the intro of your country's article. --Avg 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lerin - origin of name

Does anybody know what the origin of the name "Lerin" is? When was "Lerin" rep. "Florina" first used? We had a similar discussion for Bitola/Monastiri that showed some results. Andreas 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with "Republic of Macedonia"?

I think by saying Rep. of Macedonia, it's pretty clear that it's not referring to the Greek region. Why do we have to push the "former Yugoslav" part? Why is that necessary? The page is at Republic of Macedonia, so we should link it as such. The only excuse for us using FYROM is if we move that page to FYROM. —Khoikhoi 01:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We're adopting FYROM POV. As I was saying, articles regarding Greece do not have to refer to FYROM as ROM. FYROM is a perfectly legal name, which is used by them in all international organisations. Why should we subscribe to their POV? According to linking, I don't disagree that the link might be ROM to avoid redirects. So the best solution would be [[Republic of Macedonia|former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]--   Avg    01:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting something very important: although calling it Macedonia offends Greeks, calling it the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia equally offends Macedonians. That's why I think it would be neutral to call it ROM. As stated in WP:NPOV, it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think that many people are offended by "Republic of Macedonia" as they are by "Macedonia" for the name of the country. —Khoikhoi 01:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, nobody can be offended by a legal name. We don't like ROM but we can't say do not use it in Wikipedia because we're offended, since it is already used. It's the same with FYROM. They can't say they are offended, because it is already used. And I say again, ROM is not neutral. It's their POV. This is exactly what they want, to bypass all international decisions and mediation and pass ROM as a fully accepted name (which is NOT).--   Avg    02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Their POV is to call it "Macedonia" The issue here is not what is legal, but what people use. Anyways, I'm too tired to discuss something like this anymore. γειά σου. —Khoikhoi 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We've had the same discussion over and over. If their POV is "Macedonia", then our POV is "Skopje". That's the equivalent. In terms of FORMAL titles, the country has two, not one. They prefer ROM, we prefer FYROM. Γεια σου και σένα! --   Avg    02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, until the page Greece says "Republic of Macedonia" , then do you think it makes sense to put RofM in the city pages? Chaldean 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

but what people use - But people in Greece do not use Republic of Macedonia. Chaldean 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Greece, Chaldean. It's supposed to represent views of other people in addition to that of the Greeks. —Khoikhoi 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need a Gdansk/Danzig type of compromise here. FYROM is not just the Greek name, it is the name used by all international organizations and a large number of states too. --Telex 00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But it's not neutral because the Macedonians don't like it. I always thought that "Republic of Macedonia" was a sort of compromise between Macedonia and FYROM. —Khoikhoi 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. FYROM was supposed to be a temporary compromise name until the dispute could be solved. See UN Security Council Resolution 845 (1993). They cooked up this name, so that people could use it to refer to the country without taking sides. --Telex 00:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that, but today calling it FYROM is taking sides. Anyways, as I said before, having the "Republic of" clarifies that it's not talking about Greek Macedonia. —Khoikhoi 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling it Republic of Macedonia is also taking sides. Not to mention that Florina is in Greek Macedonia. That's the problem with these kind of things - no one's happy until diplomacy works everything out and even then some people will still be grumbling. --Telex 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. So what should the Republic of Macedonia article be moved to, in your opinion? —Khoikhoi 00:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I had thought of something like Macedonia (republic) (and then say in the intro: the Republic of Macedonia - also known as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - is a...). I had seen it like that somewhere (can't remember where), but a vote was taken on this issue a few weeks ago and the result was firmly to keep it at Republic of Macedonia. --Telex 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of)? It doesn't take sides either and includes all names, plus it has Macedonia first. What do you think? (Wikistalker->)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What I had in mind (I read this somewhere as well) was to have the article at Macedonia (region) and then use the name FYROM in Greece, EU, UN, NATO etc related articles and use ROM in everything else. Kind of a Gdansk-Danzig compromise. The double name solution FYROM's goverment is always trying to persuade the Greek goverment to accept (they never have and they never will though). --Telex 00:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, again you dogged the issue - why dont you change the main page first - Greece - then we can talk about everything underneath it.

I always thought that "Republic of Macedonia" was a sort of compromise between Macedonia and FYROM. - Can I ask how you figured this? "Republic of Macedonia" is what people in FYROM want. Anyways, I dont understand what is the problem here. Like why do we have to shove "R of M" into Greek people's face? This is what the subject (Florina) sees it as (As beeing part of the nation Greece) and that should be respected. I mean, putting "Republic of Macedonia" into any Greek city or village page is like going into a FYROM city or village and changing "R of M" to FYROM. Does that sound neutral? Chaldean 00:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. So what should the Republic of Macedonia article be moved to, in your opinio? Nowhere, why should it be moved? This is what that nation has declared itself under and that should be respected. Chaldean 00:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the root of this dispute. See User:Macedonia for the extreme FYROM POV. I quote: Aegean Macedonia [ he means Greek Macedonia ] has an estimated population of 2,400,000 with Greek speaking inhabitants making up the majority; Macedonians account for about 20 percent of the total population, forming a majority in the districts of Florina, Kastoria, Pella, Kozani, Imathia, Kilkis and Serres; there are also other smaller groups including Turks, Vlachs, and Gypsies at around 2 percent each. Pirin Macedonia has a population of 355,000 made up entirely of Macedonians with smaller groups of Bulgarians and Turks. All together, the total population of Macedonia may be estimated at 4,700,000. The idea is irredentist land claims to create a United Macedonia at the expense of Greece, Bulgaria, Albania and Serbia. Of course their claims are baseless and in the case of Bulgaria one could argue the opposite's true. In the 1911 Ottoman census, Greeks were the largest Christian population in Bitola. The FYROM government claims there are no Greeks there today - where did they go, nobody knows. In the latest census on the topic in Greece (1951), 41,000 Slavic speakers were recorded. Slavic is a wide term and covers Macedonian Slavs, Bulgarian and Greek identifying Slavs (who according to the Helsinki Human Rights Monitor, are the largest group). Evidently those claims are baseless. As even if there were 41,000 "Macedonians" in Greece, they still are not enough to form the majority in all those districts. If the irredentism would go away, then they can call themselves whatever they want. Have you ever seen any of their propagandistic websites? --Telex 00:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why do you argue aboult all this. There are no Macedonians, but Bulgarians and consequently soon Macedonia will join Bulgaria. It will be harder to return our lands in Greece (which are all north of Larisa) but there are ways...