Talk:Aegean Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oida oti ouk oida?

I've "fact"-tagged the statement that "the origins of the term are unknown". We shouldn't confuse our state of knowledge as Wikipedia editors with the state of knowledge of scholarship. That sentence, as it stands, implies that scholars have looked into the matter by browsing through the historical archives and come up empty-handed. If that's the case, fine, and it should be referenced. If, however, the sentence only means to say that a few Wikipedia editors have looked into the matter by surfing the web for an hour and have come up empty-handed, it is seriously misleading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite it :) - FrancisTyers · 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect and in all humility, the top comment can (i.e. possibly under certain conditions) be seen as totally superfluous in terms of Wikipedia editing because the duration of net surfing has little to do with it. An editor may be an expert in this field with a long standing and professional experience; but his/her conclusions and assesment will be considered POV by wiki standards if the statement cannot be (reasonably?) sourced. That seems like a sound wiki choice and I agree with it. Of course, ill disposed editors can 'suffocate' an article with an overkill of 'sources required'. However, again, no problem, that is the nature of wikipedia and that is why it is not such a reliable tool. It is what it is. Politis 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent additions and great research! Thanks :) - FrancisTyers · 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've converted to references, I hope you don't mind, but I have a request, could you provide translations for the Greek titles and - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)