Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 ROM/FYROM official propaganda 2 Full text for 1829 quote 3 "Macedonians"? 4 A modest proposal 5 10 August 6 Map 7 Congratulations! 8 Renaming proposal 8.1 Poll 8.1.1 Macedonia (terminology) 8.1.2 Terminology of Macedonia 8.1.3 Definition of Macedonia 8.1.4 Ambiguity of Macedonia 8.1.5 Meaning of Macedonia 8.1.6 Comments: 9 In-line refs 10 Regional Macedonians 11 Question 12 Schoolbooks - govt. publications 13 Government propaganda 14 Wilkinson 15 MIA: sucky agency or occasionally prone to irredentism? 16 Intro par in Politics section 17 Tall Macedonians ref 18 Geographical vs. Irredentist

[edit] ROM/FYROM official propaganda

There was a querry regarding the official involvement or otherwise of Skopje in promoting material that shows the region of Macedonia as the official borders of the state - thereby claiming lands from Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia. I would like to add to the previous list:

• The official history manual for schools: History book, Grade 8 History, Skopje 1992.

The table of contents is quite indicative http://uranus.ee.auth.gr/new/eng/macedonia.old/kofos/fig15.html]: For the period from 1913 to 1990, the chapters are divided into subchapters on 'The Aegean part of Macedonia' and 'The Pirin part of Macedonia'. The text and context promotes the notion that the ROM consists of the region of Macedonia, a region that forms geographically and ethnically a single entity, but has been politically divided since 1913, with only 'Vardar Macedonia' being liberated. For the partisan activities in WWII, there is a map of 'The free zone in Macedonia in August 1943' [1]. The free areas are shaded and they include those parts of Greek Macedonia that were temporarily controlled by Yugoslav Macedonian partisans; but the map excludes the free areas of Greek Macedonia liberated and controlled by the Greek partisans of ELAS. In other words, the areas of Greek Macedonia held by Greek partisans are considered as much under occupation as those controlled by the Axis. As for Greek history (excluding Greek Macedonia), from antiquity to the modern age, it is treated quite fairly. There are more examples in those school books [2] Politis 13:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• This: [3] is a text we should all carefully read and criticise before we start modifying the article. The link was provided by Politis, and I truncated some part of the address. Please read and comment. :NikoSilver: 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, is this to say they have one textbook for the whole country? I'd like to get some !!!DISAMBIGUATION MODE ON!!! Macedonian  !!!DISAMBIGUATION MODE OFF!!! input on this. As it is presented (by Mr. Kofos) it certainly is quite damning. How does this refer to the article though? - FrancisTyers · 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, a few years ago, Skopje issued standard school manuals for all the country. If this is still the case, perhaps a friend from Skopje can fill us on that. But the point remains that, at least until the 1990s, the history books held that line; and we have the pictures of the relevant pages. Personally, I very much doubt if changes were made; school manuals are quite reluctant to re-edit themselves. Now, how is it relevant? Good question. Perhaps somewhere in the context of irredentist usage of history and, in our case, of terminology? The floor is yours... Politis 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This is yet another example of how gross the propaganda in that country is... All of "their" history is either fabricated or the twisted history of Bulgaria and Greece. I really hope our government is finally going to do something about it now (see Ivaylo Kalfin), like vetoing their EU membership (around 2015) if they don't put an end to this. They've been usurping Bulgarian history for decades now and it's a shame our government hasn't done much to stop them. I mean, when it's the history of the Bulgarian (now Slavic Macedonian) population of Macedonia, it's also theirs, it's a part of their Bulgarian heritage, but they just steal it and traduce us and all things Bulgarian in their history books (and not only there). Todor→Bozhinov 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a news item recently whereby Sofia would consider blocking its EU membership if it continued misusing Bulgarian history. I think their historians have lost all sense of overlapping history; there is also a tendency where everything containing the term 'Macedonia/n' is 'theirs'. It is unfortunate that they do not seem to accept there are some historical situations that belong equally to many nations (ex. Saints Cyril and Methodius), in their case, this is most of their historical totems. Imagine if they had called the country 'Byzantium', or 'Illyria', or even 'Europa' :-). Politis 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, what do Bulgarian and Greek textbooks have to say about the region? I wonder do Greek textbooks mention those little inconvienences and do Bulgarian textbooks accurately reflect the role their country played in the cold war. I know from experience that our textbooks include hardly anything of the Empire, so it wouldn't be surprising to find "Macedonia has always been Greek" in a Greek textbook or perhaps a downplaying of Bulgaria's subserviant role in a Bulgarian textbook. It certainly is a shame that people can't see that some culture belongs to the world (I think it was a Greek who said this). - FrancisTyers · 17:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that means nations should stop ranking and comparing themselves in any way, and that's not going to happen.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not with that attitude it isn't! :) - FrancisTyers · 21:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Trust the Greeks to come up with all the best quotes ;-) Will try and find out what Greek school manuals say. Politis 17:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full text for 1829 quote

John Comstock, History of the Greek Revolution complied from official documents of the Greek Government... and other authentic sources; New York, 1829.

p.2. [Title of chapter] 'Geographical Situation and Population of Greece'. There is some difficulty in prescribing the exact boundaries of the country properly called Greece. Formerly it included Macedonia, Peloponnesus, the Ionian Islands, Crete, and a part of what is now called Albania. [...] The present divisions of Greece, adopted by the provisional government, are the following: Eastern Hellas, Western Hellas, Morea, Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, Crete, and the Islands. p.7. M. Beaujour concludes the total population of Greece to be 1,920,000 including Macedonia. Politis 14:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Ypsilanti planned a government which would include the entire Balkan peninsula; so what? Nor does anything here show that Macedonia was never "presented" as part of the Ottoman Empire. Septentrionalis 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Has Politis actually looked at the book he cites, or is he also copying citations from elsewhere?

• Comstock nowhere says anything about the "first presentation" of Macedonia, and since he is copying a document of the provisional government, the event is more likely to be in 1821. (And it can't be 1829; the London edition was printed 1828.)
• Comstock is not a historian; he's an MD; it says so on his titlepage.
• he identifies the pashalik of Salonica as the "southern portion of Macedonia".(p. 8)
• "What portion of Macedonia comes within the boundaries of Greece we have no means of deciding. A line due east and west from the northern extremity of the Thermaic Gulf (Gulf of Salonica) to the mouth of the river Viosa (the ancient Aous) would include, according to the recent maps, a considerable proportion of that territory; while, according to Anacharsis, Macedonia Proper is still entirely north of such a line."
• Having said that Greece is "bounded on the north by Macedonia and Upper Albania, Comstock proceeds to "estimate the population within the limits of Crete on the South, Thessaly and Epirus on the North, with the Eastern boundary of the Aegean, and Western boundary the Ionian Sea, together with the Islands over which the government claim jurisdiction" as 12.2 million, before citing Beaujour's wider area and estimate.

In short, part of the text fails verification; much of the rest of this is selective quotation. This leaves the bare statement that the provisional Government included Macedonia as one of the divisions of Greece, which should be located elsewhere than it is; clearly they did not state its boundaries. I will move it; if someone thinks it off topic, I will not complain. Septentrionalis 14:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Macedonians"?

Macedonians might speak a different language at the market and at home, and the same dialect might be called Serbian "with Bulgarian influences", Macedonian, or West-Bulgarian.

Ooh, I don't like this. I'm strongly opposed to calling a mostly Bulgarian-identifying population "ethnic Macedonian", if that is meant by "Macedonians". The Slavic population may have certainly spoken Turkish and Greek at the market, but that's not important. I particularly dislike the way that "same dialect" is first described as Serbian, than "Macedonian" (anachronistic) and in the end "West-Bulgarian". POV. Todor→Bozhinov 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's the basis of one of the ethnographic maps, I believe by a Bulgarian. (And it cuts both ways; the Pomaks spoke Bulgarian at the market.) Septentrionalis 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is that in the article? - FrancisTyers · 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I see now. Well, it is cited, from Wilkinson, so unless you want to remove Wilkinson as "hopelessly POV" (which I think would be a bad idea) we should probably live with it. He doesn't specify ethnic Macedonian or regional Macedonian — presume it is the one that fits your POV and sleep soundly. - FrancisTyers · 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "an inhabitant of Macedonia", alrhough clumsier. Wilkinson does mention that the dialects of the area around Skopje were differently named by different ethnographers; if the order of the labels is somehow offensive, feel free to change them. Septentrionalis 13:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, is it really important to the article? And what period does Wilkinson refer to? Currently that part is very ambiguous, not quite important and possibly inaccurate. After all, it's the geography section and discussing language is a bit of a divergence from the topic. I'd suggest removing it. Todor→Bozhinov 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It refers to the period between 1878 and 1912 (and to some extent after 1912); I thought that was clear. I think it important to show that the major difference between the ethnographers is in the internal divisions of Macedonia rather than the borders; and that their differences are in part justifiable. If you would rather have Wilkinson's comments on the motives, reasoning, and integrity of ethnographers of all nationalities, I can supply those instead. (That there are other applicable standards than self-identification is important.) Septentrionalis 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to have Wilkinson's placenames spelt as he does; this avoids anachronisms; but I put this forth for discussion. Septentrionalis 14:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal

If any editor wants to write

• The Greek claim to Macedonia
• The Bulgarian claim to Macedonia

...or

• The Fooian claim to Macedonia,

please go ahead and do that. Please make sure every clause is sourced and verifiable (as somebody's assertion); I will help defend such articles against hostile edits. Septentrionalis 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better (lol, edit: worse) to have Claims to Macedonia? - FrancisTyers · 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they can each fill up an article ;-}. I am serious in suggesting that such articles would be encyclopedic, and that (if every claim is sourced as "X claims this and this, and Y argues as follows that therefore Macedonia is rightfully Fooian") they would be NPOV - describe arguments, don't advocate them. Septentrionalis 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The only contemporary X claims to Macedonia that have been sourced are the ones already illustrated in the article. I doubt you will have any content for contemporary Greek or Bulgarian claims to Macedonia to match these and make them deserve the equal status of an article title. This is just one more biased whitewashing attempt of undue weight. :NikoSilver: 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Greeks have no claim to the periphery called Macedonia? The Bulgarians have no claim to the area around Gotse Delchev? These are novel positions indeed. If you mean that these nations have no claims beyond their present borders, I'm not sure Todor would agree with you. Septentrionalis 15:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments below. Please explain, because I don't understand how we can compare a Bulgarian claim over Bulgarian soil (Gotse Delchev (town)) and a Greek claim over Greek soil (Macedonia (Greece)) to a (pardon my Greekness:) Slavomacedonian claim to Greek and Bulgarian soil (all of Macedonia (region)). I don't consider that London being claimed by the Brits deserves a British claims of London article either. :NikoSilver: 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 August

I will, this once, consider the day's edits individually, with edit summary.

Pmanderson, I am responding below each, and this once, I am requesting politely you become more civil, assume good faith, and quit underestimating other people's work. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• pmanderson, this does not need citation, it's obvious.
  • No, it's not; the question at hand is whether ancient Macedonia included Paeonia. I'm sure it can be sourced; at least as one view. (Even if it were obvious, it should be sourced; all debating points on the title to Macedonia should be.) Septentrionalis
    • Citation added. It was obvious already, see the maps.:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• makeDNOS is not used in any other IE language, and even if it did, I doubt you'll find such an early reference. 1st citation requested is for tall people -or- for Doric adj?)
  • The earliness of the reference belongs in Greek claim to Macedonia, not here.Septentrionalis
    • This is your pov for butchering the article and equalising the (non-existent) Greek or Bulgarian claims for the entire region for the (apparent, shocking, blatant and semi-official) Slavomacedonian claims. I disagree. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see that we are finally discussing makednos and not its cousins. There are in fact two unsourced claims here:
    • Makednoi are named for their height,Septentrionalis
      • I really don't care if it is removed, but I am sure it is widely known and not (worth being) disputed. There was a whole theory about the length of the Sarisa (spear) of the soldiers in the Macedonian phalanx. If not, remove it. If yes, cite it. If you don't want to cite it, remove it, or remove the annoying tag. I will not bother in citing things that are not worth being cited.:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The length of a sarissa is about 5 or 6 meters. Its use has nothing to do with the height of the Macedonians, and a lot to do with their close-order drill. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Anyway, you seem very familiar. Do you have any source about their height? I am sure I've heard it before, and I know you'll agree it doesn't really add anything to the Greekness or not of the term. Could you cite it please? I'll ask Aldux too.:NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • a Doric adjective appears in Homer.Septentrionalis
      • That was already cited. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

    The tag was intended for the first, since the second claim can be avoided by rephrasing. Septentrionalis

    • Rephrase what? It's clear. Didn't use to be clear before your rewording. Thanks. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• sensible dab
  • Sheer guesswork. If this is what Gladstone meant, the OED does not say so. This therefore fails verification; it is also off-topic, since the question at hand is the existence of a recognized region of Macedonia. Septentrionalis
    • Yeah, sheer guesswork, right! I suppose Gladstone was implying that either the Macedonians (Slav) or the Macedonians (Greek) should perform ethnic cleansing and keep the region for themselves. That would make sense. Your pov is unacceptable and confusing. I am going to clarify for the 'uninformed reader' accordingly (and for the informed one, coz nobody really knows why you had to add this quote and what the hell it means).:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Bitter talk aside, I'd really like your opinion on this.:NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Italicize quote.
  • Unnecessary and unidiomatic, quotation marks show a quote; we don't want both. Septentrionalis
    • Whatever. I suppose this is your most justified commnet. Or is it my idea you just had to go ahead and undermine the entirety of my edits, no matter how insignificant? Do bother to check the whole history of the article, you'll find hundreds more to keep you occupied. Or maybe, just go ahead and delete the whole thing, coz I am of the ones who wrote most of it. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I am considering the present state of the article, not who wrote each bit. Most of it is excellent (which is why this discussion is about a few isolated points), and I congratulate you. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Let's work together. :NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• dab mode on.
  • The assertion that the dialects in question were called "Macedonian (Slavic)" is a misrepresentation of the source. (That they were Slavic dialects should be obvious, but can be added. Septentrionalis
    • The assertion is misquoted. It should be 'Macedonian' (Slavic), rather than 'Macedonian (Slavic)'. It has been agreed (and the only sensible thing is) that we disambiguate every single ambiguous term. I will proceed in correcting it if not already done. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your self-reversion here. Septentrionalis 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't have taken place had you not clarified adding the 'Slavic' adj first. Thanks, and sorry for rushing in the first place. :NikoSilver: 20:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Italicize all quotes.
  • Unnecessary and unidiomatic. Septentrionalis
  • Whatever, see 2 comments above.:NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I shall edit accordingly. Septentrionalis 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And I will too. Please don't make me feel your comments are ironic again. :NikoSilver: 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I would prefer this map to the present {{Geographical Macedonia}} template; chiefly because it is a geographical map; the template is a political map - it's most visible content is the 21st century boundaries, which are an anachronism. (I don't particularly care which geographical map we use, however.) Septentrionalis 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced. Septentrionalis 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, lovely map, but my only problem this map reflects a particular and individual interpretation. It is a historical map and this article is not 'history' specific. I think the previous one was more neutral and representative, just the area. Politis 11:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

.

We can use this one again, I suppose; but a geographical map should have some geography on it, don't you think? Septentrionalis 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the map is to show the area as it spreads across 5 countries, rather than its geographical features. This French one actually extends up to Prishtina and is inaccurate. Politis 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at the high resolution version; it extends, like most maps, just short of Prishtina. In any case, the caption notes what Wilkinson demonstrates, that maps vary slightly on including this or that town. But I don't insist on this one; a scan of Meinhard's map would be perfectly acceptable; Bianconi does have the advantage of making no ethnographic claims, however. Septentrionalis 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the templatised map too. Reasons:

• It is an accurate geographical map (sat pic from NASA site)
• It shows the geographic location of all sub-regions (major and minor), described in the adjacent text.
• The present day borders coincide with the sub-region borders, as defined in the text.

:NikoSilver: 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That template is objectionable; I have explained my objections in nominating it for deletion. Briefly, I find the map garish and unreadable, the prose tendentious, and both redundant. But one reason to nominate it is to find out what everyone else thinks. Septentrionalis 01:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That template is highly descriptive, informative and objectionableive. Your tendentious objection is ...objectionable and has been dealt with accordingly. Another thing that is objectionable, is how on earth the vague east-ward Byzantine thema, managed to become the nice 1885 map without any description of that process. The whole Ottoman history chapter of Macedonia jumps from a vague distant area to the present day convenient interpretation of the region. What a coincidence! :NikoSilver: 11:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Westerners, including English speakers, have always called the area north and west of Thessaloniki "Macedonia"; there is no other name for it. This has nothing to do with the Byzantine theme (except cousinship), and the article does not claim causality. Most of the Westerners involved were ignorant of it, and the rest did not care. It is bad faith to assume FYROM influence; here, as on Talk:Imbros and Tenedos, I am a classicist, speaking for established English usage. Septentrionalis 15:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for a Westerner calling that area 'Macedonia' during Byzantine period? During early (let's say first 300 years) Ottoman period? :NikoSilver: 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Byzantines were concerned, Macedonia was a province with its center at Adrianople (in Thrace). If any Byzantines did use the term in a different way, it would have been in a historical sense. --Telex 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the satellite map itself; I think it might be useful; but I can't see the terrain, or even the alleged borders of "Macedonia" for all the coloring. Septentrionalis 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is self-contradicting:

• Either you can't see the region because it's not colored enough...
• or you can't see what is below because it's colored too much.

You can't claim both. My view is that the geographic features are less important than the sub-region borders. However, the geo features are still apparent behind the red-green-blue shades. Wherever the shade is lighter there is a plain, wherever the shade is darker there's a mountain. I'd be reluctant to emphasize the whole region's borders because I can't find a neutral (i.e. non-partisan) color:

• Greek part is white with blue border (because it is sub-national and can't be yellow), like the Greek flag.
• Slavomacedonian (pardon my Greekness) part is red like their flag, plus the yellow border is like the rays in the flag.
• Bulgarian part is green (the only free color left that exists in their flag).
• Minor parts are neutral colors (orange and purple).

I believe this map is the ultimate color compromise, plus it clearly shows to the 'uninformed reader' where the hell those sub-regions (described in geo section) are.

Re your reserves that it refers unduely to the irredentist nature of the names, I simply think that since these names are controversial and can be considered pejorative, the least thing we can do is provide them with a footnote. That's what we've done. That footnote would exist anyway, since the text on the left requires it.

Finally, the greatest confusion the 'uninformed reader' may have (IMHO) is Macedonia vs Macedonia and Macedonia. I think the map is essential in clarifying that confusion.

Please withdraw deletion proposal. :NikoSilver: 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do claim both. The (present) national boundaries are more visible than the color washes, which are more visible than the terrain. If we are going to have a geographic map of Macedonia, it should be exactly the reverse in both cases. Someone capable of producing this map should be capable of inverting this. Septentrionalis 20:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people think it's tasteful execution. :-)

Look, the national boundaries happen to coincide with the geographic sub-region boundaries, so it's ok. Coloring the rest of the map and leaving the terrain visible in the subregions is not an option either (how will you distinguish them from one another?)

The only solution was the one already applied: transparent colors. I experimented with various degrees of transparency, and this was the best result I could come up with. Sorry, I can't do better, but I could e-mail the whole thing (along with its 'objects', 'masks', 'lens effects' etc) in .cpt format (Corel PhotoPaint v.12) to whoever you point me to as 'capable' of improving it. •NikoSilver• 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 28#Template:Geographical Macedonia: Case closed. •NikoSilver• 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this humble barnstar to all those who worked tirelessly to make this one the best article related to Macedonia, arguably the most complex and tense topic in the universe[citation needed]  :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Common! There is more complex that that. :-) CG 10:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear physics? Back off, here comes Macedonia! :P Todor→Bozhinov 12:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming proposal

I wanted to post this during the nomination of the article, but I see that it gained FA status. Congratulation! Anyway, I'm suggesting that we change the article to Terminology of Macedonia. According to Naming convention and Wikipedia common practice, the current title implies that the article is about Macedonia, a field in the "science of terminology" or at least in linguistics (like in Plasma (physics)) whereas it is about the terminology of Macedonia (like Terminology of homosexuality). What do you think? CG 08:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking. Sounds good to me. Politis 11:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology of homosexuality is about terms for several things, whereas this is (except for the table of ethnic terms at the bottom) overwhelmingly about "Macedonia". So Terminology for Macedonia might be better. Septentrionalis 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that 'Terminology for Macedonia' indicates that there are different terms for the appelation 'Macedonia'. For instance, Terminology for Germanhy would mean: Allemagne, Germania, Tedesco, Deurschland; for United States it would be, Etats Unies, Inomenes Polities, Estados Unidos, etc... At least we agree that we can find something better than Macedonia (Terminology). Politis 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You say that the word "terminology" is wrong for this article. So we have to change the current title. CG 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposals:

• Terminology for Macedonia
• Terminology of Macedonia
• Terminologies in Macedonia
• Macedonian terminology

Feel free to add yours too. Also, how about Macedonian exterminology (sic)? :-) :NikoSilver: 13:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how Terminology for Macedonia is different and I don't like Macedonian terminology. Read Terminology#Types of terminology: the article says that "terminology" might deal with a single term. Therefore you're definition above is wrong. CG 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a pointless conversation. Systematic terminology deals with everything, so it might not be dealing with a single term. I am adding your proposal above, but really don't care which preposition we use. I still am not satisfied with the title, and wish someone comes up with a stunning idea. :NikoSilver: 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Definition of Macedonia? CG 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but not super. It only includes geographical and political. I suggest we try harder to find a title that can include demographics, linguistics etc too. I wish I could come up with an idea...:NikoSilver: 11:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Geia sou file Niko, piasame kanena xtapodaki?, dino paron alla seira mou na leipo. Thinking of a new name; but one thing is certain, it will have to contain the term 'Macedonia' ;-). Politis 11:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Macedonia? Macedonia (term)? CG 13:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Macedonia (term): nice and simple! Politis 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Macedonia (terminated)
• The Terminator IV: Macedonia
• Termacedonia (portmanteau)
• Terminal Macedonology
• Maze-donia

(maybe I should get a blog or something, but since we're brainstorming...) :NikoSilver: 14:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No reasonable guy can doubt; Terminal Macedonology, one of the most obscure branches of knowledge!--Aldux 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Humour aside :-p , do we all agree on Macedonia (term) (or word) or it's just me and User:Politis? CG 07:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, I'd actually prefer something without the annoying parentheses. Any ideas? :NikoSilver: 08:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Make your mind. I'll be out of proposals soon :-p CG 08:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to rush changing an unsatisfactory name to a less (?) unsatisfactory but not perfect one. The only change you and Politis propose is this: Macedonia (terminology). The word 'terminology' is more complete than the word 'term', because it does not restrict to 'Macedonia', but may include all other variations. Again, I think the most annoying part of the title is the parentheses, not the word 'logos' (or the ending '-logy'). I am not trying to be a wise-guy by rejecting a possible solution without providing an alternative, but I sincerely think we should all try harder. We have all the time in the world to make it perfect (without intermediate solutions). Ok CG? :NikoSilver: 08:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, from all the proposals above I'd distinguish these two:

• Definitions of Macedonia (I added plural)
• Terminology of Macedonia (or 'for' or 'in' or whatever -IANAL-)

Thoughts? :NikoSilver: 08:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Terminology of Macedonia. CG 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would be a sensible stop-gap measure (like the name FYROM). :-) :NikoSilver: 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer Definitions of Macedonia; I like the plural "definitions", as it gives the idea we're treating the complexity, without reducing it to une "term".--Aldux 20:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

More proposals:

• Clarification of Macedonia
• Disambiguation of Macedonia

I just thought they were sensible enough. I particularily like the first one (probably because the second one is kinda half-taken...):NikoSilver: 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The two titles above (terminology and definitions) are better. Would you consider making a straw poll? CG 10:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that's what I had in mind. I'd like to see if there are more proposals though. I suggest we wait until Monday. :NikoSilver: 10:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey! We forgot a whole new category of names for this article: The antonyms! The article proves that Macedonia/n/s are ambiguous terms, and the end result (after you read all of it), is that you are still unable to understand what is meant if one says "Macedonia/n/s"!

• Does he mean this, this or that area?
• Does he mean this or that language?
• Does he mean them, them or those?

So the fact is, that Macedonia/n/s IS ambiguous! Therefore, I suggest:

• Ambiguity of Macedonia

I like it more than any other option we've discussed. Please comment! :NikoSilver: 13:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I like it, although as an anglophone, I am tempted by Seven Macedonias of Ambiguity, with a See Also to William Empson. ;-> Septentrionalis 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I really like your proposal so much, that I wish this was not an encyclopedia! Unfortunately, the only problem is that it sounds too editorial...:NikoSilver: 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No I disagree strongly with the word "Ambiguity". First it's too subjective. You might find this issue ambiguous and complex, but a connaisseur or historian will get it pretty easily. Also, the term is not amiguous for the groups mentioned in the article (Greeks, Maceonians, Bulgarians...) because they know and hang on only one definition of the term. And second, the title should be relevant but not too descriptive. Why not name Controversiality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, or Complexity of non-Euclidean geometry. And why not Clarification of the use of Macedonia, it's more welcoming for the reader? I'd go for the word "Terminology", because the word "Definition" doesn't suit the two sections "Names in the languages of the region" and "Terminology by group", and according to the Terminology article Terminology, in its general sense, simply refers to the usage and study of terms, and their is a type of terminology Ad hoc terminology, which deals with a single term or a limited number of terms. Nothing ambiguous ;) about this. CG 13:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, I don't see how it relates to the present title being invalid, but since you asked, here goes: 'Ambiguity' is as subjective as 'Clarity' or 'Disambiguation of'. Actually, I feel that more users will agree it's still ambiguous, rather than being fully disambiguated with this (or any for that matter) article. For those in our neck of the woods, try being Greek and cooperating with (ahem, pardon my Greekness) Slavomacedonians. Also, why on earth should the title be not too descriptive? I've heard otherwise! Why not name it as you proposed? Sure, go ahead and add your proposals in the poll. Terminology article quote: You know, this article does "refer to the usage of terms" in/for/about/among Macedonia/n/s. Ergo? •NikoSilver• 12:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • On a lighter note, the subject is so controversial, we can't even agree on the article title! I suppose we're done with all proposals, and with the timeframe I had proposed for more, so here goes: •NikoSilver• 10:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

[edit] In-line refs

Is it just my Firefox or is there actually some problem with the in-line refs? E.g., the link to the Pirin Macedonia endnote in the text says N-[4], but the endnote itself and the link from the {{Geographical Macedonia}} template insist on N-[2]. Also, the endnote doesn't have ^{a b} like it's supposed to, but an arrow ↑ instead, so it doesn't seem to recognize the Pirin Macedonia link in the text for some reason (though the Pirin Macedonia link in the text does take me to the note, but when I click the arrow it goes to the template link).

On the other hand, the McCarthy, J. ref (#15) doesn't seem to recognize the one from {{Historical Macedonia}} and the arrow it has instead gets me back only to the link in the text.

The N-[3] ^{a b} and N-[5] ^{a b} links are OK, however. Todor→Bozhinov 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Todor, the templates are known for being dumb with the refs. As for the rest, there have been some additions/modifications. I didn't find any more mistakes. Kindly re-examine yourself. •NikoSilver• 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about the rest, but the issues with Pirin Macedonia and McCarthy, J. still stand :( Todor→Bozhinov 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fixed everything but McCarthy, J in template. Please check once more. It was quite tedious...•NikoSilver• 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pirin Macedonia is fine now, thanks! :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Macedonians

I have a question. In the demographic Macedonia table, the Greek Macedonians are cited as the only regional Macedonians. What about the Bulgarians? --Telex 12:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a ref that they self-id as 'Macedonians' too on a regional level? I bet we don't because it is quite confusing, since they may end up being thought of as these! •NikoSilver• 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I am sure the same applies to Serbs and Albanians. Talking about ..."monopolization of the name and creation of semiological confusion, whilst violating the human rights and the right to self-determination of Greek Macedonians"... that surely extends to the Macedonian Albanians, Macedonian Serbs and Macedonian Bulgarians! What a mess! And all from a name, which is backed up by serious irredentist and nationalistic agenda! Quite disappointing... •NikoSilver• 13:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the Bulgarians do, there's even a stereotype — Macedonians are regarded as crazy, short-tempered freedom-loving brawlers :) There's even a commercial advertising a "Macedonian sausage" set in the late 19th/early 20th century during some uprising against the Ottomans, with voivods, etc. :D And people from Blagoevgrad Province are often regarded as regionally "Macedonians", there was a female pop folk singer from Sandanski in VIP Brother who was a stereotypical Macedonian and was often referred to as such.

Of course, Bulgarians are usually very careful with the word "Macedonian" since guys from the Republic of Macedonia tend to misappropriate everything that mentions it in some way without regard to what's meant. So sometimes people from Pirin Macedonia are called pirintsi ("Piriners") to avoid the reference to Macedonia.

You can cite this if you need a source for the Bulgarian Macedonian regional identity. Looks quite reliable. Todor→Bozhinov 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, I included it, but I am not sure that this is the source you've been looking for, Todor. Can you please point me to a specific paragraph? •NikoSilver• 22:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here are some quotes:

• "The Bulgarian state accepts the regional identity of the Pirin Macedonians, and treats them as belonging to the Bulgarian ethno-national group (Kanev, 1999b)."
• "Due to historical reasons, some people in Pirin Macedonia see themselves as Macedonians. Besides Macedonians who have strong regional Macedonian feelings and Bulgarian national identity..."
• "Thus, when one talks to a person who has a Macedonian regional and a Bulgarian national identity, s/he claims that the costumes, dances, and songs of the region are Bulgarian."
• "Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia (similarly to the ones in Greece) are divided into three groups. The majority has a Bulgarian national identity and a Macedonian ethnic and/or regional identity."
• "This fact raises the question about the degree to which Pirin Macedonian identity in today’s Bulgaria is in fact a national orientation, or is it a form of “ethno-regionalism,” like in the case of the Aegean Macedonians in Greece (Troebst, 1999b)." Todor→Bozhinov 13:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, we also need to reword the intro to reflect this:

Demographically, it is mainly inhabited by three ethnic groups, two all of which self-identify as Macedonians (in a certain sense?): A Slavic (Macedonian Slavic?) group does so at a national level, while a Greek and a Bulgarian one at a regional level.

Todor→Bozhinov 14:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! See? Even I misinterpreted your source! With the name they chose, not only do they commit "...semiological confusion, whilst violating the human rights and the right to self-determination of Greek Macedonians...", but also that of Bulgarian Macedonians! This is a subject that needs further research, but the Bulgarian Macedonians (red for now -the field is yours) are definitely oppressed, since they cannot rightfully self-identify as "Macedonians", in fear of being confused with these! And, I repeat, all of that happens, because certain people promote a nationalistic agenda! Pitty, I don't see anybody here complaining about the rights of "self-determination" of the Bulgarian Macedonians or for that of the Greek Macedonians... All I see is people complaining about the rights of the Slavomacedonians! •NikoSilver• 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the intro sentence, I propose:

Demographically, it is mainly inhabited by three ethnic groups, all of which self-identify as Macedonians: One Slavic group does so on a national level, while another Slavic group, Bulgarian Macedonians, and a Greek one, do so at a regional level.

I was reluctant to put more emphasis like:

Demographically, it is mainly inhabited by three ethnic groups, all of which self-identify as Macedonians: One Slavic group does so on a national level, while violating the right of self-determination of another Slavic group, Bulgarian Macedonians, and a Greek one, who do so at a regional level.

Salad? An understatement, definitely! •NikoSilver• 15:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To complicate things further, the Bulgarian Macedonians usually view the ethnic Macedonians as the same people as them (=Bulgarians) and the self-identification as Piriners could be interpreted as regional Macedonian group from a certain sub-region, but it's somewhat easier to work with since it makes no mention of Macedonia. The ethnic Macedonians also call the Bulgarian population of Pirin Macedonia (which they perceive as being part of their ethnicity) "Piriners" (пиринци; e.g. here)

Now, that British Council source I found is about the existence of an ethnic Bulgarian regional Macedonian group, it makes no mention of Piriners, so we can't use it to source this part.

Also, not sure if Bulgarian Macedonians is really a neutral term, given this group's position on the issue: according to most of them (the BC report is a source for that) the ethnic Macedonians and the "Piriners" are the same people, namely Bulgarians. Thus, I'd delay writing an article about them until later :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And the Yugoslav position was that these people, or most of them, are Serbs. ("Was" because there is no more Yugoslavia; I'm sure the position is still held.) Since the existence of three ethnic groups is one of the points in dispute, let's not start with it. Septentrionalis 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable, but we have to specify something. I modified both the intro and the relative demographics section accordingly. I need citation for 'Piriners', and can't tell if the one above is WP:RS. Anyway, please comment.•NikoSilver• 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can give an example of the term being used (e.g. here, "when they heard the Macedonian rhythms, the people crowded to enjoy the voices and graceful dances of the Piriners"), but not a source specifically discussing it. The term doesn't seem to be popular in English, however, and "Piriners" might not be correct in English — is "Pirintsi" (mean transliteration) any better?

As for the Yugoslav position, it changed rapidly when the Serbs found out they couldn't assimilate the confused population in their part of the region, and instead decided to help them further establish a separate (i.e. non-Bulgarian) identity, which in any case was a successful move. The former Vardar Banovina became the Socialist Republic of Macedonia :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Piriners is fine ("use English"). Which of the two links would you prefer for citation of the term? I'll drop in the first ref and kindly fill in/adapt the title/work/url accordingly. •NikoSilver• 21:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The second one (2) is the only one that mentions the term "Piriners". 1 discusses the ethnic Bulgarian regional Macedonian group, so we should use it to ref the very existence of the group, while 2 would ref the alternative "Piriners" name.

Kindly drop in the second one in this one's place and write the title and work fields. (I can't read Bulgarian). •NikoSilver• 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, "A Slavic group does so at a national level, while a Bulgarian and a Greek one do it at a regional level." isn't correct, Bulgarians are a Slavic people too :) The version you suggested above seems better ("One Slavic group does so on a national level, while another Slavic group,...") Todor→Bozhinov 21:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, but it was too long and messy. Everybody knows that Bulgarians are Slavs, and the present intro doesn't state or imply that they aren't. I am open for better proposals though... •NikoSilver• 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Demographically, it is mainly inhabited by three ethnic groups, all of which self-identify as Macedonians: A Greek one and a Bulgarian one, do so at a regional level, while another Slavic group does so on a national level,

Will that confuse readers that Greeks may be Slavs? Ha! We can cite Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer!!•NikoSilver• 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, there are more Albanians than Bulgarians in Macedonia (region): according to the latest census data, there are 509,083 Albanians in the Republic and 286,491 Bulgarians in Pirin Macedonia (or Bulgarian Macedonia as the World Book Encyclopedia calls it). As there are no other significant enclaves of Albanians or Bulgarians in the region, then I think the inescapable conclusion is that there are four main ethnic groups: Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Slav-Macedonians. --Telex 22:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll correct that (either way) as soon as you tell me if you can cite if they self-identify as Macedonians too. If not, I guess they too are oppressed by the name of their neighbors, and can't rightfully self-identify as such not to be confused with them (like the Bulgarians, and unlike the Greeks who stand up for this right and are considered nationalists for doing so!) •NikoSilver• 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Albanians in FYROM being referred to as Macedonians (one written by an Albanian, one by a Greek and one by The Economist): [6] [7] [8]. Took me ten seconds on Google. --Telex 22:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All of them are third-party references to the term. The Economist article is nice though. I could use it as a citation, but we can't add Albanian-Macedonians just because the Economist uses it to disambiguate from Slav-Macedonian in the same sentence. How would you say Albanian-Macedonian in the Albanian language? Can you search for that please? That is more likely to constitute a self-id than the English term. •NikoSilver• 23:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In Albanian, Albanian Macedonian is maqedonas shqiptar. --Telex 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

...so, which of the links here would justify as a self-identification? •NikoSilver• 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find a single reliable source on the topic. Most of the findings (including in other searches with different grammatical forms) are about Albanian-Macedonian negotiations or web forums talking about the Albanians in FYROM. --Telex 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Then we can safely assume that Albanians in the republic or in the region in general self-id simply as Albanians. No Macedo-Albanians, no Albano-Macedonians, no Macedonian-Albanians and no Albanian-Macedonians. I'd hate to change that intro again, anyway! •NikoSilver• 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

When will this article appear on the front page of the wiki? Has it appeared already?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't :) It will sooner or later appear on the Main Page, but we can also request it on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Main Page FAs are being arranged about 10 days ahead of appearing and the guy who generally looks after that section of Wikipedia is User:Raul654. Todor→Bozhinov 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of posting it there (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Macedonia (terminology)) a week ago... I've also included some date recommendations...•NikoSilver• 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't even bother looking for it on the page :( My bad. Thanks for posting it there, I really liked the date recommendations. Can't wait to see that one hit the Main Page! Todor→Bozhinov 21:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolbooks - govt. publications

Re my last addition please refer to previous discussions here and here, as well as FrancisTyers' talk here. •NikoSilver• 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government propaganda

Found it. This was published by MIA (Macedonian Information Agency), on 2 March 2006. For the record, on its web page we read that, "MIA was established by Macedonian Parliament's decision in 1992. By the decision of the Government of the Republic of Macedonia in 1998, MIA started to work in 1998."

The story ran like this: MACEDONIA MARKS 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF DIMITAR MITREV'S DEATH, Skopje, February 24 (MIA) - Regarding the 30th anniversary of the death of prominent Macedonian literary critic and theoretician Dimitar Mitrev, a meeting honoring his work took place Friday at the National, University Library "St. Kliment Ohridski". [...] Foreign Minister Ilinka Mitreva also attended the ceremony, dedicated to her father. Dimitar Mitrev, born on October 14, 1919 in Dede Agac, Aegean Macedonia, was literary critic, essayist, theoretician and anthologist. [...]

The highlighting is my own. Since MIA is a government agency, its terminology reflects its thinking. Hence we notice that:

• 1/ By 1919, the city was called Alexandroupolis, so Mitrev was born in Alexandroupolis and not in Dede Agac (a Turkish appelation).
• 2/ The city has never been part of 'Aegean Macedonia', but it was in Greece, and in Thrace.
• 3/ The appelation 'Aegean Macedonia' had not been established in 1919.
• 4/ The talk was attended by FYROM/ROM's foreign secretary.
• According to standard news agency code of practices, the line should have read that he was born, in Alexandroupolis (northern Greece).

Politis 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"*3/ The appelation 'Aegean Macedonia' had not been established in 1919."

You haven't shown that, we know it was considered "split into three parts" as early as 1910-1915 from the BCF. No comment re: your other points, although you are right, Alexandropoulis is clearly not in the region of Macedonia. Sounds like a pretty sucky agency on all accounts. - FrancisTyers · 18:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be in the "extended" region, which includes Thrace and the Rhodopes :)   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow we might read Athens is part of Attic Macedonia and Vladivostok is the capital of the Macedonian Far East :) No, seriously, these guys are nuts! Todor→Bozhinov 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha Ha! Todor, look at the edit conflict:

Nice. Glad they haven't coined "Cretan Macedonia" or "Peloponnesian Macedonia" yet... In any case, I think the article well covers and cites the subject (see heading above). When will all disputers of the Greek position understand that the monopolisation of the name itself, is a springboard for nationalistic propaganda? •NikoSilver• 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, you are the springboard for nationalist propaganda! - FrancisTyers · 19:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On a lighter note, no, the monopolization of the name isn't a springboard for nationalistic propaganda. Just about any place can be named Macedonia if it suits the purpose (e.g. Thrace)! •NikoSilver• 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Or Israel - FrancisTyers · 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit conflict :) "Great minds think alike", heheh! Todor→Bozhinov 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilkinson

Guess what: I bought the damn book!. Now, as I'm reading, I'm gonna be adding...

Ah-oh... Chapter one, paragraph one, line one (in page one):

"Macedonia defies definition for a number of reasons."

I thought I should add that somewhere, since someone was disputing it ever existed in the book... More later...•NikoSilver• 19:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah-oh... Chapter one, paragraph one, full paragraph (emphasis mine):

"Macedonia defies definition for a number of reasons. Hardly two authorities can be found to agree on its exact delineation, although many agree on its general location. The name itself is the Latin form of an ancient Greek place-name, one of many which has persisted right down to our own day, for describing this part of Europe. This persistence has largely been due to the effects of the Turkish conquest. Ignorance of Balkan languages, difficulties of transliteration, lack of topographical survey, all combined to restrict the use of contemporary place-names so that the opening of the nineteenth century still found western European scholars thinking of Balkan geography in terms of Ptolemy and Strabo...

Now why did I add this? Well it seems that someone was disputing the fact that not only until the end of the Ottoman conquest there was no definite region to begin with! I was forced to think that I should have accepted the fourth map in history template to miraculously match the contemporary Britannica definition. Well guess what: Wilkinson says they all thought in terms of Strabo until early 1900s. So I am changing that map back to the original 'absent' version. But later, now I have more reading to do...•NikoSilver• 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

More: Chapter one, page 3, paragraph one:

It is notewotrthy that the Osmanli Turks, who inherited so much from their Byzantine precursors, never recognized any Macedonian administrative unit

That's exactly what I supported. Had the Turks inherited from the Byzantines, their region would have been similar to the eastward Thema (which excluded Thessaloniki). But they had 'no administrative unit', and the Europeans of the time were thinking... "Strabo or Ptolemy". So nobody knew where the 'Macedonia' region was, because there wasn't any! Westerners didn't call the region west and north of Thessaloniki 'Macedonia', and even if some did, that was based on Strabo and not because the place was called as such by the people there themselves. •NikoSilver• 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, he also calls some people there "Macedo-Slavs". That nationalist bastard! •NikoSilver• 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note: Wilkinson's quote doesn't say "they all thought in terms of Strabo until early 1900s" but until the early 1800s; it says 19th, not 20th century. And remember that Wilkinson's passage "not because the place was called as such by the people there themselves", appears to regard all Macedonia, Greek Macedonia included. Hope I don't sound too fastidious, Niko ;-)--Aldux 23:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted after accidental deletion by Francis: Correct on both accounts. I mistyped '1900s', but 1800s is also way too-late. Turks had already been there for 4 of their 5 centuries. As for Gr Mac, why should that be excluded from the ambiguity? The point is that it didn't exist as a territory, neither in 'Greece'. Just a small notice on that: most ethnographic maps I saw in the book, no matter how biased they may be, present overwhelmig Greek populated majority at least close to the Aegean shoreline. That extends from a thin stripe, to half of Bulgaria/FYROM/Albania. I hope you get the picture of what I mean by that...•NikoSilver• 23:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

...but in case you do not, since my comment above can be easily misinterpreted, I'll spell it out: The present north border of Greece seems to match the 'average' of all etnographic estimations in the book. That pleases me, because I am neither a separatist, nor an irredentist, nor an expansionist. I like things as they are. •NikoSilver• 11:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I shall revert any such blanking. When Nikosilver gets to Wilkinson's maps, in a few pages, he will find that most (not all) of the nineteenth century maps have a boundary for Macedonia substantially identical with the map in question. Meinhard's is so close that I cannot see any differences. (Wilkinson discusses only one eighteenth-century map; the others weren't ethnographic.)

Most importantly, consent to FAC was obtained on the understanding that the article would be stable, and there would be no tricks of this kind; if they continue, I will ask for a review, as well as tagging the article appropriately. Septentrionalis 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, what exactly do you dispute? I've already browsed a significant part of the book. Wilkinson says:

• European scholars had no idea and thought of Macedonia in terms of Strabo or Ptolemy (maybe he should have also mentioned those Byzantine geographers too)
• They started to get data and produce maps in 1800; after 4 centuries of Ottoman conquest.
• Even then, the first maps produced varied from restricted to present Greece (p. 3 or 4) to somewhat present definition
• The Ottomans didn't have an administrative unit by the name 'Macedonia'

Now, from all this, I read: During the greatest extent of the earlier period of the Ottoman conquest, there was no definition of 'Macedonia region'.

On the other hand, you seem to claim (above): "...Westerners, including English speakers, have always called the area north and west of Thessaloniki "Macedonia"; there is no other name for it. This has nothing to do with the Byzantine theme (except cousinship), and the article does not claim causality. Most of the Westerners involved were ignorant of it, and the rest did not care..."

I've asked you for a source, and I have no reply yet. While it is clear that western geographers thought of Macedonia as its pre-Ottoman ambiguous region. Now how exactly can you place a map of contemporary 'Macedonia', to describe the 'Ottoman period' in a template, when it is clear, that no such definition exists for the greatest part of that period? Especially along with the text: Its boundaries varied, usually slightly, from map to map? Isn't that WP:OR? Do you have any source from either a westerner or an Ottoman from the first 3 or 4 centuries of Ottoman conquest that supports your claim?

PS. As for the threats about FA, and stability, be aware that it is I who will request tagging and review. There is no compromise with me when I see WP:OR. Also, why on earth can this position be considered biased or pro-Greek? I really don't get it... The way I see it, most Macedo-Slavs (not-sic at all) would prefer an ambiguous region to begin with. It justifies their broader definition of 'Macedonia'. Doesn't it? •NikoSilver• 12:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for Pmanderson's claim. However, I would point out that "During the greatest extent of the earlier period of the Ottoman conquest, there was no definition of 'Macedonia region'" this is not quite right. There was a definition, just because it wasn't an administrative division does not mean there was no region defined. Kurdistan is a borderless region and not an administrative divsion, but no-one would doubt that it exists (and has existed) -- apart from maybe some Turks. - FrancisTyers · 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I rephrase: "As of today, no prevailing definition of 'Macedonia region' has been recorded or survived for the greatest extent of the earlier period of the Ottoman conquest". That being said, The map with the 'questionmark' was better than the 'absent one', because indeed we have no data, for that period. That may have been the reason for the otherwise WP:OR statement (which was correctly removed) that "it rarely appeared on maps." So what about 'question mark' plus my new sentence above? •NikoSilver• 13:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that is unsourced. Before this, the article said nothing about the existence of data before 1800, because I didn't want to search down old maps of the Balkans. To claim they do not exist, however, is going vastly beyond the evidence. Silence requires no source. Septentrionalis 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably correct reasoning since I still haven't found such a quote. However, you must admit that using this map characterises the whole period as that, while we know for a fact that (a) Turks didn't have such administrative unit, (b) Westerners were still thinking Strabo and Ptolemy. So, in the same logic, why not put the Macedon or Macedonia (Roman province) map? The question remains to the reader: How on earth did the Byzantine thema come back west and expand north instantly? •NikoSilver• 22:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would definitely be an improvement to have hatched lines instead of solid fill. - FrancisTyers · 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hatched lines would be good; more justifiable than on the Byzantine theme. Septentrionalis 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

See rsp above too. That would be a good stop-gap measure. However, the solution is to find out wtf scholars say about the four full centuries (that's a hell of a long time and a hell of a twist in the 'borders' to leave open). Along with the hatched lines, I propose we write what we already know (a+b above). So how about:

During the first four centuries of the Ottoman period, western scholars thought of Macedonia in terms of Greco-Roman geographers.^[1] The Ottoman Empire did not have an administrative unit by that name.^[2] In the early 19th century, the definition of Macedonia by most scholars, approximately matched the contemporary region with seldom extreme variations.^[3]

Refs: [1] Wilkinson, p.1 par.1, [2] Wilkinson, p.3 par.1, [3] Wilkinson, pp.2-4,99

Well?•NikoSilver• 22:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. - FrancisTyers · 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I uploaded the hatched map. Hit ctrl-F5 to see it. Now I'll try to adapt the text and refs in the template...•NikoSilver• 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Text is changed. The refs from the template do point to Wilkinson, but not vice-versa. In any case, all of these pages are included in the reference (for the other parts in the text), so it wouldn't be too hard for anyone to check them out. •NikoSilver• 23:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - FrancisTyers · 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Why do you (Sept) keep linking the high res link for the Bianconi map? What particular detail of the map is so important for having a special by-pass link for the high res? It's obvious that the map is very similar to the contemporary one, and in any case, any reader of WP knows how to make one more click to see it. (Not to mention that WP content should be treated similarly to that of a print encyclopedia). Please remove it. It is ugly, useless and unidiomatic! I won't edit-war about that though...:-) •NikoSilver• 23:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The reason is stated in this edit summary: Image:85mapmacedonia.jpg is small enough that the lettering is largely unreadable. No particular location interests me; a geographical map should, however, explain the geography; legibly, if possible. Septentrionalis 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MIA: sucky agency or occasionally prone to irredentism?

This is a government agency wrting - not Joe Average; hence, as with the school text, the news item reflects a persistent irredentist strand in Skopje's government. Politis 15:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No Politis, it is not 'persistent irredentist strand'. The guy who wrote that probably makes the perfectly logical equation Macedonia=Macedonia. He's also been taught about that at school... •NikoSilver• 23:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro par in Politics section

Just added, as it was the only section without an intro par. Feel free to modify, enhance, or revert. •NikoSilver• 13:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tall Macedonians ref

Would this ("The Macedonians were tall, large, robust people similar in appearance to the Dorians...") or this (" The Makedones (or Macedonians) were regarded as tall people, and they are likely to have received their name on account of their height...") suffice, or do we need a contemporary source in this instance? I really can't stand that ^{[citation needed]} needed tag :) Todor→Bozhinov 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The first is to the Pan-Macedonian Organization of Ontario; the second doesn't work. If you want to say "the Pan-Macedonian Organization of Ontario asserts...", fine. But I'd rather have a scholarly source in English, and would prefer one from the later twentieth century; unless this is a nineteenth-century mare's-nest, there should be several. (I have no opinion on whether it is or not - until the source is shown.)Septentrionalis 21:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical vs. Irredentist

Its been nagging at me for some time, and I couldn't realise what it was until now, but I think we should split the "Geographical Macedonia" template into two. The first detailing "Vardar, Pirin, Aegean" Macedonia (as widely used in scholarship). The second detailing the ethnic Macedonian irredentist view of Macedonia (including the parts in Albania and Serbia). I do think the current version is garish, but it seems to be doing the job reasonably well. If there are no serious complaints, I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes. - FrancisTyers · 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I can help, since I have the file with all those regions in different 'objects'. How exactly would you make that split? Are you thinking of two templates; one with the major regions, and one with the minor parts? I think the minor parts are included in the scholar definition. Should they appear included in Vardar, or in Aegean?

How about just using the template we already have by replacing the minor parts irredentist names with the actual Serbian and Albanian toponyms? •NikoSilver• 17:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The template should be split into two. The first should be the "geographical" definition, with A, V and P. The second should be the "irredentist" definition, with A, V, P and Albanian parts and Serbian parts. I think that the geographical definition should not show the current boundaries of countries, I think the irredentist definition should show the current boundaries of countries. - FrancisTyers · 17:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

? But they are the same! Are we going to have the same map twice? One with the borders and one without? Also, where does the Albanian part belong to? To A or to V? •NikoSilver• 17:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They aren't the same, as the Albanian part[s] and Serbian part[s] are only included in the irredentist version.

• Geographical version: A, V, P -- Without borders
• Irredentist version: A, V, P, Al, Sr -- With borders

- FrancisTyers · 18:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Albanian and Serbian parts are included in our 'definition'. See intro map. You can't exclude them fro the 'geo' version.•NikoSilver• 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We should probably remove them from the intro then. - FrancisTyers · 18:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But they are Macedonia, according to the maps Wilkinson has in the first pages. •NikoSilver• 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded a couple of poor-quality images from the book for quick reference in the talk page. Kindly do not upload these pics in the article, as they are blurry and probably copyrighted. The images clearly show that apart from one restricted German version of the definition of its borders, all others include both Prespa lakes. •NikoSilver• 12:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly copyrighted; they're Wilkinson's compilations of other maps, and he wrote in 1951. Septentrionalis 22:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that applies to talk-pages. If yes, please delete them. I just wanted to show Francis.•NikoSilver• 22:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be fair use, since WP doesn't encourage free distribution of talk pages. Septentrionalis 23:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to our muttons: remember that these represent only a few of the maps W compiled, and the boundary goes through the Prespa lakes on the second if I'm seeing it correctly. You have the book in your hands. What do the indexed references to Prespa say? Septentrionalis 23:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the boundary goes clearly through Ochrid lake (Bulgarian Brancoff). The Prespas are included in all versions except the German restricted one. I checked all indexed pages and haven't come across any reference to 'just excluded'. They all include it. p.p. 46, 56, 114, 122, 128, 177, 189, 200, 330. Think we could get away with a clearer pic? I can re-prhotograph it if you wish.•NikoSilver• 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No; I'll go look at Wilkinson; not worth going to lots of trouble to save me a little. Septentrionalis 05:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)