Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Aegean Macedonians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mythbusting with Pm Kocovski and AVG

Just busting a few myths about this article with AVG.

Myth Number one: That all slavophone greeks have an ethnic macedonian identity.

  • "pushing a specific POV (by using irredentist terms), which states all Slavophone Greeks have a Slavic Macedonian conscience" - AVG
  • I Have never written that all slavophone greeks have an ethnic macedonian identity. Because they dont! Only some identify as ethnic macedonians! P m kocovski (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Myth Busted

Myth Number Two: That Aegean Macedonia is an irredentist Ethnic Macedonian word/concept.

  • "The term is used solely in a Slavic Macedonian context" - AVG and "Terms such as "Aegean Macedonians" and "Aegean Macedonia" are Slavomacedonian nationalistic terms used to refer to the region of Macedonia in Greece, in the context of a United Macedonia." - The Cat and the Owl.
  • The term is not used by ethnic macedonians only, but as well as serbs, bulgarians, croats. Other references are by Poles, Swedes, Czechs, Bosnians, Slovenians, Occitans, Catalans, Spainards and many others (on the actual, or disambiguation page). It is clearly not a term used by only ethnic macedonians, but an alternative term used by many people including english speakers. P m kocovski (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Myth Busted

Myth Number Three: That the greeks living in Aegean/Greek Macedonia are not even mentioned.

  • "Well it happens that there are 2.5 million people in "Aegean Macedonia" who are Greeks. They should also be "Aegean Macedonians", but they're not even mentioned to your article" - AVG
  • The greeks living in that region are at the top of the page. They are mentioned before any ethnic macedonians (apart from the title)! They were mentioned first. P m kocovski (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Myth Busted

Err did you just copy/paste whatever you wanted from above without any context and any mention of the actual replies you got to each one? Bravo! That's a seminar in POV pushing. People have already replied to all your claims, if you feel you need to replicate the same issue then this shows how weak you feel your arguments are.--   Avg    06:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually im just summarizing the main points or discussin between us.P m kocovski (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

        • Observation User P m kocovski only started contributing in March 2008. We thank him. However, many editors have been working together and going over their disagreements for a few years now. They (we) established a way of doing things. This article unwittingly(?) violates all those previous efforts, it attracts entrenched positions that are best left to blogs, not in Wikipedia. I suggest Pmkocovski takes a deep breath and stops rushing into things. There is plenty of time for everybody. User:Politis.
          • So what you are saying is as long as nobody mentions the ethnic Macedonian minority of Greece the Greek users will cooperate? But otherwise, it's no holds barred edit warring? Nice. BalkanFever 12:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you Politis. I acknowledge the length of my use of wikipedia, and that many users have been using it for some time now. But what i have tried to do is to create informative articles where there have not been any before. Although these positions are 'entrenched' they should always be consantly under reveiw and examination. I disagree that articles like this should be left to blogs, when articles are informative and in the general spirit of wikipedia. And, politis thank you for your advice. P m kocovski (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Welcome. To BalkanFever: Where do you see this in my entry 'Observation'? Please read it again and let me know because the last thing I wish is to cause offence and I would apologise if I offended you in any way. So please let me know. Some contributors worked together in the past to get the article Macedonia (terminology) Article of the Day. This was done through co-operation. User:Politis.
        • I'm not offended, I just don't understand what you mean by "established a way of doing things". Was the established practice to leave the minority issue alone? There is/was an ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece, so why can't there be an article on that topic? I have met some good Greek contributors here, but I have also met some ultra-nationalists, who would go so far as telling me that I don't exist. We haven't worked together, so I'm not referring to you here. But if those nationalists had their way, there would be so many articles deleted simply because it went against "national interests". And they can get stuffed. BalkanFever 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Be careful Balkan fever, the 'established way' of doing things is not creating one sided articles even if as a Fyromian, you feel you need to very badly. The Fyromian minority is unknown in Greece, we do know by the votes their official party gets it is an extremely low number - even smaller if you take into account the amount of Greek homosexuals who accidentally vote for the Rainbow (political party) thinking it is a party for increased gay rights. Your country may have some ideas on how many Fyromians there are in Greece and so does Greece. However to start an article on the hope that there are many and that they have any bearing on Greece is not very appropriate to wiki. Reaper7 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I assume nobody will feed this troll. BalkanFever 14:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant closure

The following closure on my part was made redundant by an edit conflict with ChrisO:

The result was keep. Absolutely no policy-based arguments for deletion have been made. The "delete" opinions generally consist of the mere assertion that the article is a WP:POVFORK, but they do not state which article this content is supposed to be forked from. The nominator believes that to be Macedonians (ethnic group), but in fact Aegean Macedonians appears to be a subarticle of the former topic, conformant to WP:SS. Even though I also discount most "keep" arguments as exercises in narrow-minded nationalism, as pure votes or for other reasons, there's still no reason to delete this reasonably well-sourced article about an apparently notable topic. If there's consensus that the content or title are non-neutral, the article can be edited, merged or renamed accordingly.  Sandstein  19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)