Talk:Macedonia (terminology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Macedonia (terminology) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 8, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 10, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 23, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Macedonia (terminology), or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High	This article has been rated as a High priority article

	Republic of Macedonia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Republic of Macedonia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Republic of Macedonia-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Bulgaria Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale.

	A section of this article is within the scope of the WikiProject Etymology, an attempt at improving etymologies on Wikipedia.
	This article's etymology section is good.
	This article is ranked 3 on the priority scale.

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Templates

Contents 1 Suggested editing 2 Quote 3 Map of ancient Macedonia is WRONG 4 Linguistic Macedonia 5 Skopjan = offensive 6 Balkan Federation 7 Tribes and ethnic groups 8 All positions are nationalist? 9 I say we change it to 'Alexandria' :P 10 Ancient Macedonia Map 10.1 Unprecise maps 11 Macedonia Timeline 12 Moderate Greek position missing?

[edit] Suggested editing

No author is granted such long quotes, or it is misleading to do so. This looks like a PR job (unintentional no doubt). I still think the Danforth quotes are far too extensive and even though some quotes are pertinent, his 'neutrality' has been seriously disputed. I do not suggest removing but clearly summarising. I suggest replacing it with extracts from the Nimitz summary. Politis 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Politis do you have a link to that? (regardless of Danforth summarization/removal/leaving-as-is). NikoSilver 15:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I only found it in Greek translation: at [1]Eleftherotypia, 13/04/2005. See what you make of it. Does any have the original text? If any Slav Macedonian friends want the gist of it, let me know; or perhaps you have a Makedonski version? Politis 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

The quote is totally out of place, especially for a featured article, for the following reasons:

1. Biased. Presents "the Balkans" as being exotic, wild, driven by ancient primal forces. Too much history: what does that even mean?
2. It is not uncontroversial. In 5 seconds I found a paper contesting the sentiment behind it.[2]
3. Therefore, the reason for this polyonymy, heteronymy and confusion can be summarised in Winston Churchill's words: "The Balkan region has a tendency to produce more history than it can consume."'

What information does this convey? "The Balkans have a complicated history, and it's complicated due to the complicated history of the Balkans"? It is tautological and banal.

On the other hand, I cannot see any reason for it to be included, so I'm taking it out until someone makes an argument for the status quo, beyond accusing me of vandalism (aka editing).--Methodius 16:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It had a questionmark at the end ;) --Laveol 16:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, implying :/--Methodius 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I your main reason is that the quote shows the Balkans in an "exotic, wild, driven by ancient primal forces". Well, I'm a Balkan native and I think the quote is spot on. Even the controversy you are trying to create is just another example of what this quote aims. I'm reverting--Laveol 18:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then I feel sorry for you I guess. Some of us realise that Balkan problems have concrete causes, nothing to do with "too much history" or other banal meaningless concepts. I am not trying to create controversy, but to have a neutral article. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think, the article should not be presenting as a given something which is not uncontroversial and not relevant.--Methodius 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting the quote. As a native of the Balkans myself, I also think that it is spot on. History is used to back everything: Serbs claim Kosovo, Greeks claim the name Macedonia, Bulgarians claim the Macedonian Slavs, Albanians claim "Greater Albania" etc all making historical arguments. However, none of these arguments are practically relevant in the modern world; they really shouldn't be issues in resolving the Balkan disputes. Who cares if the Albanians are direct descendents of the Illyrians and therefore native in the territories of "Greater Albania" the result supposedly being that their rights to the territory override those of supposedly later arrivals (Slavs, Greeks)? The facts of today should only be relevant: what the ethnic composition of the region is, what potential effects of independence are (persecution of minorities, encouragement of terrorism elsewhere etc). The truth of that quote is best proved on the internet: all Balkan nationalist websites are appealing to history to justify their claims. The quote is certainly relevant enough to be mentioned and let the reader make up his own mind.--Ploutarchos 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW I think Transcaucasia may be about to overtake the Balkans in nationalism if they haven't already.--Ploutarchos 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I give up. I have better things to do than struggle against others' inferiority complexes.--Methodius 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have agreed with Methodius. The quote is not very useful, it's patronising, and worst of all, we are not just quoting it, we are explicitly endorsing it and editorialising over it ("Therefore, the reason ... can be summarised in Winston Churchill's words:...") -- Won't hurt the article to cut it out. Just my 2c. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Churchill is irrelevant to this article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. I don't think it adds much to the article. -- ChrisO 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I won't insist: I only thought it worth keeping because it reflected quite well the foreign pov on the Balkans. But anyways, I agree that not much will be lost by removing it.--Aldux 22:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My my... I feel the vibes of the old days when the violence was ready to explode for the silliest of all reasons. Hell, we can even throw a poll over it. Guys, who cares? Be as it may! Anyway, since I declare guilty for adding it in the first place, I agree with all of you ("is he drunk?"). I agree with Methodius that it makes Balkans sound exotic. I agree with with Ploutarchos and Laveol that appeals to history are the primary ammunition of nationalists in our neck of the woods. I agree with Fut.Perf. that we shouldn't endorse it. I agree that Churchill is irrelevant (Kekrops). I agree it doesn't add as it is (Chris). And I agree with Aldux (reflects foreign pov).

The solution is simple:

1. Don't make the Balkans sound exotic -> by not endorsing the quote.
2. Inform the reader that history fuels nationalism -> by just mentioning the quote
3. Stop endorsing it and editorializing -> by rewording "Therefore..." etc
4. Show the relevance of Churchill -> by pointing out that Macedonia is in the "heart of the Balkans"
5. Make it add -> by adding/emphasizing information that nationalists appeal on history within the article
6. Show foreign pov -> Well, it does on its own.

I'll try to work on these in a couple of days, and come back. In the meantime, please behave! I'd also appreciate a little civility ("load of wank deleted", "feel sorry for you"-over a quote? Jeez!) :-) NikoSilver 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Methodius' "counterexample" actually says that Churchill's quote is half the truth; the other half is that foreign empires export history to the Balkans. Including both (especially since the second is also widely held; compare Black Lamb and Grey Falcon) would probably be a good idea. They would make a nice paragraph, starting with "Macedonia is in the heart of the Balkans; Balkan history is complex." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of ancient Macedonia is WRONG

The ancient Macedonian kingdom extended further north than Niko's CONTRUCTED map suggests. That is why Macedonian region today included RoM and Bulgria, and not just northern Greece .

Niko, i suggest you change that map or I;ll put in a REAL one

RegardsHxseek 09:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Either back your opinions with veriable and reliable sources, or expect your threats to be ignored at best. You might want to carefully read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA too while you're blocked. --Ronz 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How is the above a 'personal attck' ROnz? Hxseek 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic Macedonia

In Linguistic Macedonia, Macedo-Romanian is listed as another name for Aromanian. I trust you all know that Macedo-Romanian is an exonym and the Aromanians do not use that name or identify as Macedo-Romanians and so it is not tied in with national identity in that particular case. Aromanians only identify as Macedonian in the context of professing another identity (ROM, northern Greek, or southwestern Bulgarian) and so they are not involved in the dispute. I just don't want people unacquainted with the subject to think this from reading that. Alex 202.10.89.28 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skopjan = offensive

Sources and Proof!! http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/stefov/karygiannis%20.html http://umdiaspora.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=263&Itemid=1 Plus there is a group on Facebook with over 300 people who agree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstatik (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Skopjan nationalist websites hardly constitute reliable sources. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kékrōps Get a Life!!! Should we then to and refer to some Greek websites! Who else would consider the term offensive other than those who are offended!!! FACT: The Term Skopjan is used by Greeks as a way to deny Macedonians of their Macedonian Identity. It is used with hateful intent. It is no different that using the term "nigger". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstatik (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the term "Macedonian" is used by Skopjans as a way to deny Macedonians of their Macedonian identity. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Greeks use it as a pejorative term. It offends Macedonians because most of them aren't from Skopje. And even if they are that is not their national identity. Americans don't call Georgians Tbilisians. (Personal attack removed) Alex 202.10.89.28 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting the preceding comment Kekrops. Take your problem up with me. Don't silence me. I proved Skopjan is pejorative and you are erasing my comment so you can still use the term while telling people you don't believe it's offensive. You know it is. Alex 202.10.89.28 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Skopjan" is NOT pejorative. It is the common name Greeks call their northern neighbors in everyday speech without even the slightest hint of nationalism. Because simply "Macedonians" for Greeks are (and always were) the Greeks who live in Macedonia. It's a disambiguation issue. Slavomacedonians CLAIM it is pejorative because they want to force the Greeks to call them Macedonians, which for obvious reasons will never happen. At the same time, but no-one really cares about this in Wikipedia, Greeks consider extremely offensive to hear someone refer to the Slavs as "Macedonians". --   Avg    02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that in this discussion, we should separate derogatory to the subject from derogatory as meant by the speaker, and call something a derogatory term only when it is mean so by the speaker. The subject cannot judge very well if the speaker meant to use the term in a derogatory way, so we should call a term derogatory only when the speaker admits so. I think this is not the case with the terms Skopian and Macedonian. Preslav 07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks. NikoSilver 12:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't say the name Skopjan is absurd and don't compare it to calling Georgians Tbilisians. Instead, note that this sort of thing is normal in small states; we use the term Luxembourgers even if they're not from the capital city. Historically Hanoverians were from a large territory in Germany, not just the city itself. I'm not saying Skopjan is right, just that it's in no way absurd. -Oreo Priest 11:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a significant difference in meaning between the two examples you give and the case of the RoM. Nobody is denying or has denied the legitimacy of the states of Luxembourg and Hanover. However, the Greek use of "Skopian" does seem to be linked to a more general denial of the legitimacy of the RoM, as in it being dismissed as a "statelet" or "Titoist entity". David E. Sutton comments in Memories Cast in Stone: The Relevance of the Past in Everyday Life p. 177 (Berg Publishers, 1998; ISBN 1859739482) that the Greek use of Skopje to mean the country "is a pejorative reference meant to reduce the country to its capital city. It parallels the Greek reference to FYROM as a "statelet" (kratithio) rather than a full state." Sabrina P. Ramet notes in Thinking about Yugoslavia p. 294 (Cambridge University Press, 2005; ISBN 1397805218) that "the tendency among some Greeks to refer to the new country as 'Skopje' and to its inhabitants as 'Skopjans' made as much sense as it would have to have referred to Greece as 'Athens' and to its residents as 'Athenians'." The term "Skopian" is clearly used not simply as a shorthand, but as a means of denying the validity of the term "Macedonian" in connection with the people in question (just as with the term "FYROMian", for instance). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. We all know what it is trying to say, I was just pointing out that its use is not absurd. -Oreo Priest 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well of course Greeks consider the term "Macedonian" invalid in connection with the people in question; that's the crux of the dispute and the reason Skopjan was coined in the first place. But the name issue is distinct from that of their separate nationhood, which concerns the Bulgarians far more than it does the Greeks. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So it's a lose-lose for Greeks. Whether they call their neighbours Skopjans, FYROMians, Vardarians, Dardanians or anything else BUT Macedonians they are nationalists. At the same time, it's ok for the other side to freely call themselves Macedonians and claim that Greeks are "unrelated" to the Macedonians, call the Greek Macedonia "Aegean" and call their language "Macedonian". And that's what is called NPOV! --   Avg    18:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The ethnic Macedonians only have one autonym - Macedonian. They don't want to piss off the Greeks. The use of the term to refer to themselves and their language is not an attack on Greeks. If it were, they would use the autonym "Greek" not "Macedonian". And "Aegean Macedonia" is not necessarily an irredentist term. It can be used as such, but it is also used just to refer to Macedonia, Greece. You use the term "Greek Macedonia" which is considered offensive by ethnic Macedonians because it suggests that that area is Hellenic, as opposed to only being under the control/jurisdiction of the Greek government. And then comes the dispute about whether Macedonia, Greece is Hellenic or not.

Either way, if you don't want to be labelled nationalist or don't want to offend either side, I propose we use the terms "Red team" and "Blue team" to refer to the two groups of Macedonians - based on the two flags using the Vergina sun. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And maybe for the 10th time, I'll point an editor from the Republic of Macedonia to the article irredentism - on one side you say that you do not use the term as to claim other lands (Greek, Bulgarian), but on the other you say this: "You use the term "Greek Macedonia" which is considered offensive by ethnic Macedonians because it suggests that that area is Hellenic, as opposed to only being under the control/jurisdiction of the Greek government. And then comes the dispute about whether Macedonia, Greece is Hellenic or not." If you do not like to be offended why do you offend other peoples (Greeks, Bulgarians)? --Laveol ^T 12:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really beyond belief. Now you are offended when we call the Greek region of Macedonia "Greek Macedonia"? Do you know that this is our (the Greek editors) compromise to NPOV in Wikipedia, since what Greeks ACTUALLY call it in everyday speech is plain vanilla "Macedonia"? What we were expecting from you is to call your part of Macedonia "Slavic Macedonia" or something similar, but this never happened. This only proves that the only thing we gain when we try to compromise is more intransigence.--   Avg    21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When did I say I find anything offensive. I merely told you what ethnic Macedonians think. Do you even know English? I did not state my view at all. If I was irredentist I would have said temporary control. And I said nothing about Bulgarians anywhere. I only mentioned the blue corner, never Blagoevgrad/Pirin (the Green corner if you will). Laveol, you are suggesting that the blue corner is Bulgarian! You are offended because my "irredentism" conflicts with yours. And now, I will, for the first time, point a Bulgarian editor to hypocrisy. Feel free to point me to sarcasm.

And Avg, the ethnic Macedonians call their land, in their everyday speech, plain vanilla Macedonia as well. The only difference is the two versions are written in different alphabets and have different syllabic emphasis. "Slavic Macedonia" doesn't work because the Bulgarians and Serbs and even Poles are also Slavs. My proposal works better (in a discussion) as it is actually neutral. And there has been compromise on both sides - don't mistake this for intransigence just because your views have not been suited to a greater extent. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to lighten up the atmosphere, I do like the blue and red proposal, because, like the blue and red pill in Matrix, only one is real and the other is virtual reality, although admittedly in Matrix redpill is the good one :-) --   Avg    02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to offend people it doesn't really lighten up the atmosphere. Real vs Fake argument doesn't work on Wikipedia. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, what I think you're doing is "testing the waters". You say you're offended by everything and see what you can get away with from admins and third parties and then push your POV from there. I find extremely hard to accept you are offended by a humorous comment, given the discussion we had before. --   Avg    03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended. If you were insinuating that the red corner is fake, don't. It was actually a humorous comment. Whatever you say, you wont offend me. I'm just telling you what the red team, for the most part, find offensive so that you know what you are doing when you say something. You can do the same with me so that I know when I am (significantly) offending you, or Greeks in general. Greek editors continually bring up that something is offensive, especially the blue team editors. Then the red team has to explain the other side - what is offensive to them. Everybody will always inadvertently offend somebody, but we need to reach a compromise. And by the way, I'm not testing the waters. My POV is that the Balkans are fucked and everybody who lives there will always have some form of problem in terms of recognition of ethnicity or nationality. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was telling you why you're being offensive to Greeks (you're offensive to Bulgarians on other levels) and that you tend to be offensive to others, but yet claim that they're offending you - so which one is the true? I'm pretty sure it's yours since judging from your comments, you're always right. --Laveol ^T 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You're just making me repeat myself. I told you what the red team, for the most part, finds offensive. I have also told you about what they think of Bulgarians. That is not my view. Stop telling me that it is and that I am deliberately being offensive. If you can't handle that some people don't like Bulgarians, that's not my fault. Alex202.10.89.28 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving on, did we establish that Skopjan is pejorative (and therefore offensive)? Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We did?--   Avg    22:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not saying we did, he's asking if we did. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And the answer is no, we didn't. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is offensive as shown by ChrisO. Pretty much what is offensive is defined by the people on the receiving end of the term, not on the giving end. This has been demonstrated countless times. - Francis Tyers · 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been mentioned countless times that Greeks find offensive that their northern neighbours call themselves Macedonians, this is why the whole Macedonian issue has started. It seems though that Greeks aren't allowed to have sensitivities.--   Avg    23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Greeks are offended by what other people call themselves. Because we all know those Skopians are only calling themselves "Macedonians" with pejorative intentions towards Greeks. Of course we shouldn't allow sensitivity. BalkanFever 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving your not so successful irony aside, can you tell me how Greeks should call their northern neighbours if they find Macedonians offensive? They chose Skopjan and the answer was that it is offensive. The same answer is reiterated for ANY other name than Macedonians. So don't try to be simplistic, there is a very real issue here. One side is trying to label all names except Macedonians as offensive, in order to force people to use "Macedonians".--   Avg    05:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, let's go with what you said. When talking to Greeks, you call the Macedonians "Skopjans". But when talking to a Macedonian, and you completely understand that "Skopjan" offends them, what are you going to do? Call them a "Skopjan" and say "No offense, but what you call yourself offends me". Obviously that is if you decide to be at least civil to a Macedonian....<finish this sentence yourself>. BalkanFever 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done precisely that a number of times, actually, though I find your long-winded explanation of why I use Skopjan unnecessary. I just use it, I don't have to justify it; we all know where we stand. And yes, there were Skopjans who didn't want much to do with me after I refrained from calling them "Macedonians", but there were also those who didn't really care, or agreed to disagree, and in any case didn't consider it a hindrance. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, since they continue to use the name Macedonians, I will continue to use Skopjans and that's about it. When a final solution is achieved, hopefully everybody will abide by the new name. Until then, NOTHING is offensive because there isn't an official name. --   Avg    16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of free speech, I reserve my right to "offend" anyone I see fit on talk pages, including Skopjans. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And Macedonians reserve the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to themselves. And everyone else reserves the right to "offend" Greeks when referring to Macedonians. BalkanFever 10:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And they already do, persistently and throughout Wikipedia. So what's your beef? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is we don't have to bring it up every time someone says Skopjan and FYROM are offensive, because they are two different forms of offense. One comes from being called something, one comes from hearing/reading something. BalkanFever 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; we don't have to bring it up every time. This whole thread started when a now banned Skopjan editor was "offended" by my use of that word. And then your newcomer пичка felt it had to proffer its "constructive" 2¢ as well. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a comparison of terms. Do you see how it works? If I live in the hypothetical region of "Greece, Macedonia" and I don't want to call you "Greek" because I'm offended when other people call you "Greek" even though it would be easier to just get over it because it's not breaching on my national identity, apparently I should call you something else ("Athenian" instead of what I said before). So if you get offended, it's your own fault because I just feel you shouldn't have the name that you want to have. That is absurd. Skopjan is directly offensive - by using it, you have chosen to offend someone. It's not Macedonians choosing to be offended. Don't tell me that Greeks don't know it will offend Macedonians - it is obvious that it will. However, Macedonians calling themselves Macedonians is not them choosing to offend you for the sake of devaluing your so-much-more-important-than-national regional identity. It is you choosing to be offended. At the end of the day, "Skopjan" is offensive with the intent of being offensive - pejorative. BalkanFever 08:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That is just your humble opinion, I'm afraid. In the Greek view, the name itself was originally chosen in order to promote claims against Greek territory and history, and its (mis)use is therefore deliberately offensive. On the other hand, the intention of Skopjan is not to offend, but merely to avoid the offensive use of a Greek name with an long-established and very different meaning. If you choose to feel offended, then that is simply unfortunate, but you're certainly not alone. By the way, you may call me Athenian if you really must; I for one am not offended by the name of my own capital city, and cannot for the life of me fathom why your lot are. Actually, I can... ;) ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What is unfortunate is the Greek view. The name was not "chosen" to promote claims against Greece. Macedonians called (and still call) themselves Macedonians because they, alone, wanted to. They did not have to justify themselves to Greeks, nor do they have to now. There is no copyright. No-one has to ask Greece for permission. The Greek view ultimately comes down to ego problems. Unfortunately this concept is probably unheard of there, as ego is a Latin word. BalkanFever 10:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, "ego" is the Greek word, meaning "I" or "me", and combined with the Greek suffix "-ism", it becomes egoism. Why does this unproductive surreal discussion persist here? NikoSilver 12:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary sucks then ;). Take a look at who revived it after more than a month, though. BalkanFever 13:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of the revival is that this term is not offensive and it will be reverted if someone mentions this in the article.--   Avg    17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But I think the article already clarifies all this perfectly. See the following two quotes from the intro of "Terminology by group" section:

Despite the fact that these terms may not always be used in a pejorative way, they may be perceived as such by the receiving ethnic group.

and

Any denial of self-identification by any side, or any attribution of Macedonia related terms by third parties to the other side, can be seen as highly offensive.

What we keep doing here is in vein. Both views are presented in an NPOV way. Now, for the words which are intended to be offensive by the speaker, we just label them as such for emphasis. This is the exact differentiation between words merely used for disambiguation such as "Skopjan"/"Egejci" vs words with pejorative intent like "Bulgaroskopian"/"Grkomani". But ALL words are offensive to the ears of the receiver, and we say so in the intro of the section, and we also say why. Now can we close this issue please? NikoSilver 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Oreo Priest 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell are the "Ethnic Macedonians"?? I have family in Thessaloníki (Greece) so I am "Ethnic Macedonian"? This is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am born in Skopje and “Skopian” or “Slav” (used mostly by Greeks) or “Slavomacedonian” (used lately mostly by Albanians) are offensive words for a Macedonian because as terms they don’t exit. We don’t use them and we haven’t used them (maybe they exist in some unpopular texts). We recognize ourselves as Macedonians for many generations. The use of “Skopian”, “Slav” or “Slavomacedonian” equals our use (on the Balkans it is common to have a bad word for your neighbor tribe) of “Tartar” for Bulgarian or “Gipsy” (being a “Gipsy” is regarded as offending) for a Greek (that is BalkanFever's meaning and I agree with that). Usually if you say to some Macedonians these words, he will either try to explain you that it is impropriate word or he will just go away and discuss nothing anymore. This dispute for the name Macedonia is quite absurd and easy to solve, using the Ireland experience. Ireland is consisted of Republic of Ireland (with mostly Irish people) and Northern Ireland (with people who feel British). The same is with Macedonia. We have Republic of Macedonia (with people who ethnicaly feel they are Macedonian) and Southern Macedonia (with mostly ethnical Greek people. The Greeks who live in Southern Macedonia have no other national conscience then Greek and they will never feel Macedonian as a part of a tribe or nation. I have Greek friends who feel as Greeks and say that they are Macedonians or Greek Macedonians; because they live in the province Macedonia and that there is no difference between Macedonia and Greece (Macedonia=Northern Greece). But my friends don’t think of Macedonians on ethnic level. @ Nefeligeretis Q: Who the hell are the "Ethnic Macedonians"?? A: Here is the answer. The Macedonians who feel that are different ethnic group call themselves "Ethnic Macedonians" opposite of “Greek Macedonians” ( for example the Macedonian party in Greece “Rainbow” uses this term) Toci 5:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"What we keep doing here is in vein. Both views are presented in an NPOV way. Now, for the words which are intended to be offensive by the speaker, we just label them as such for emphasis. This is the exact differentiation between words merely used for disambiguation such as "Skopjan"/"Egejci" vs words with pejorative intent like "Bulgaroskopian"/"Grkomani". But ALL words are offensive to the ears of the receiver, and we say so in the intro of the section, and we also say why. Now can we close this issue please? NikoSilver 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)" That is where you are wrong. Skopjan is used with pejorative intent and is no different than Grkomani. There is a consensus here that believes that to be the case!!

[edit] Balkan Federation

I see in Eric Ambler's Schirmer Inheritance that a State of Macedonia was projected as one of the components of the Balkan Federation of 1944. We should mention this one way or ther other.

I regret to tell Niko that much of the book (written 1951) is set in Florina, and shows many of the locals as "Macedonians" rather than Greek patriors; in context, this is clearly the same nationality as IMRO. Doubtless things changed over the next quarter-century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a reference to it in 1910, with the First Balkan Conference.[3]

1) A Balkan Democratic Federation was raised as a slogan at the First Balkan Socialist Conference in Belgrade in 1910, in connexion with the growing threat of imperialist aggression on the Balkans. The Balkan socialist parties advocated fraternal understanding of the Balkan peoples, which would enable them to defend their freedom and national independence against the aggressive encroachments of the imperialists. The federation was 'to facilitate the settlement of all outstanding national issues in the Balkans, including the Macedonian question. Macedonia, which was split into three parts, was to be reunited into a single state enjoying equal rights within the framework of the Balkan Democratic Federation (Georgi Dimitrov).

- Francis Tyers · 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tribes and ethnic groups

Hello buddy, ethnic group is not a neologism. I did not invent it. But tribe in this context works just as well, as these groups were undoubtedly tribally organized. That, however, is not true of all ancient ethnic groups, many of which were organized by polity, location, or just association. These hill people, though, still had their tribes. So, I am going to let tribe stand. Stet. You could, however, have followed down ethnic group.Dave (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a neologism when used in reference to ancient tribes. Cheers, matey. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All positions are nationalist?

While reverting I've just realised that in this article there is no mention of the official positions of each country. I'm happy (well sort of) to keep both "nationalist" opinions, but shouldn't somewhere the official positions of the two countries be placed? Aren't the nationalists of both countries given undue weight? Also I completely disagree with keeping Danforth's labelling of opinions as "nationalistic", since he partly describes mainstream opinion in both countries. Unless we also agree that the majority of Greece and fYRoM inhabitants are nationalists. --   Avg    01:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that the majority of inhabitants of both countries are, as would be described by the Wikipedia article nationalist. Note: This is not a value judgement. - Francis Tyers · 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all just a reaction to seeing the word "nationalist" next to the word "Greek". Avg thinks it is a personal attack and Wikipedia is calling him a nationalist. Let's not forget there have been many Greeks editing this page that did not have a problem with the usage. And since his edit summary was directed at me I'm pretty sure he was just looking at my contributions, rather than the history of the page - where one can see User:Michael X the White removing the word nationalist, and calling the Macedonian language the "Slav idiom of Slav Macedonia", which is why I reverted all of his edits in the first place. I'm fine with it if anybody decides to go back to previous usage. BalkanFever 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that is exactly why I removed the word nationalist from YOUR paragraph as well... Keep entertaining me.--   Avg    19:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Which one is MY paragraph, anyway? And which of your edits are you talking about? BalkanFever 03:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Avg, Danforth refers to nationalism. So do these article sections. They are not "opinions", they are "nationalist opinions". And, no, the Greek "majority" (or "mainstream") does not propagate that "only Greeks have the right to identify themselves as Macedonians" (actually even the official position now only calls for a "composite name", so as to disambiguate), nor does it propagate about the "impoverished linguistic idiom of Skopje".

Francis, an anti-nationalist, would serve the interests of civic nationalism, which is the ultimate form of nationalism (IMO). That makes anti-nationalists worse than the "majority of inhabitants of both countries", who have some sort of excuses (values, histories and customs) to back their nationalism up, at least.

BalkanFever, Michael IX's edits were all bollocks, and you were right to revert them, but kindly do use more elaborate edit summaries in the future.

NikoSilver, stop sounding like a preacher and go to bed. It's past 3am re malaka. NikoSilver 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one awake at this time :-) Anyway, as you can see in these three polls [4], the percentage of Greeks who disagree even with a compound name for the country with Macedonia in it is between 62% and 68% (especially in Greek Macedonia it is 73.4%). That's a clear majority. The remaining approx. 30% agrees with the compound name and only 2.4% says let them call themselves as they like.--   Avg    01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense that the official position is the most moderate, I guess. Niko, I will use better edit summaries in the future, but to be pedantic, I did say "rv pov" which I believe implies reverting the most recent edits. BalkanFever 01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1991 95% of the Macedonians voted for Republic of Macedonia as a souveraign state. If we have the vote now I think the number will be 99%. I kind of doubt that the Macedonians will change their opinion of being Macedonian, because as Macedonians we don't know any other alternative. We cant change our ethnicity because 60% of the Greeks disagree???!? Being Macedonian is fact, we are a Balkan tribe as the Greeks and Serbians and Albanians are, sooner the Greeks accept it (and Bulgarian as well), sooner the region will relax and progress. Toci 14:41, 15 February 2008 (CET)

What the figures say is that approximately 98% of the Greeks disagree with you being called Republic of Macedonia. About one third of this 98% are prepared to accept something like Slavomacedonia or Upper/Northern Macedonia, the remaining two thirds believe that even this is too much. There is another interesting figure in these polls which I haven't mentioned, 89.1% of Greeks believe that if you don't change your stance towards the name, Greece should veto your entrance to both the NATO and the EU. By the way these polls are by well known poll companies, so there is no issue whether they correspond to the actual figures. Now regarding you 99% estimates, have you asked the 25% of your country if they consider themselves Macedonian and if they don't want to join Albania?--   Avg    18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The high number of the polls is dued to the Greek politicians who wage this narrow-minded political war of threats and don't present the true reality for the Greek public. Macedonia is a country (as any Greek that visits Macedonia notices), we are Macedonians and that will stay. I am Macedonian and I have lot of Greek friends who don't mind me being Macedonian (so I doubt your statistics). The Albanians in Macedonia usually don't vote on these issues (I kind of doubt that the 600000 Albanians who live in Greece (5-6%) are included in your figures as well). The veto will only show that the Greek politicians are short-sighted and don't think for the future (we might not enter NATO this year and EU is 10 years, but sooner or later we will). It is not the first Greek veto or embargo and we will survive it. Toci 00.10, 16 February 2008 (CET)

Apparently you're uninformed about the Greek political scene (which is not a bad thing, you don't miss much). Currently the Greek politicians are in disarray with the majority of the population who don't accept the compound name. Almost all political parties do support the compromise of the compound name, with the exception of the nationalist LAOS (they get only about 4-5% of the vote so they're marginal). So it is completely the other way round, the politicians try to soften the stance of the population. Having said that, although Greeks are very passionate about the naming issue, almost everyone I know, including me, believe that Skopje can be Athens' closest ally given our cultural and historical bonds. Now someone has said a new nation needs an enemy in order to be forged. It seems you've found us. Greeks consider you more like a problem child than an enemy. Eventually you will grow up and see who your real friend is. --   Avg    23:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of Greece’s domestic politics (the Greek national feelings are irrelevant for us, as ours are irrelevant to the Greek, we are two states) the Macedonians will not accept compound name (former... is already the temporary compound name). Republic of Macedonia or Macedonia is the name that the Greek politicians and public have to accept (sooner or later). That is what the Greek politicians don't see as fact and present it to the public. Macedonians and Greeks have lot of cultural and historical bonds, you are true there, but they were not as friendly as you think. Macedonians regard Greeks as not trustworthy and backstabbing (especially the older generations). We also think that you undervalue us (speaking of undervalue you wrote: "Greeks consider you more like a problem child than an enemy. Eventually you will grow up and see who your real friend is.") We are no childish at all, especially not problematically childish. We are equal, and in some aspects better state then Greece (personal freedoms, human rights, self-sufficiency (we don’t have yearly 55 billion euros trade deficit)). We, as state, lack strategy then and then, but we are learning quickly. When we are talking about real friends, my real Greek friends address me as Macedonian, rather as a silly Macedonian that often talks too much. But most of my Greek friends have visited Sweden or live in Sweden, where the society evolved over the nationalist issues. So when we speak about growing, you need to grow up as well, over the Greek nationalist interests. We have more in stake then Greece and Macedonia, there is an ongoing climate change that will hit seriously (desertify) the Balkans in the next 50 years. We need to cooperate and we will not be able to cooperate if you put vetoes and embargos on us and don't recognize us as Macedonians. Macedonia is one river basin where all the water sinks in Salonica bay and the future will depend on the negotiations between the three major tribes in this basin, Albanians, Greeks and Macedonians. Toci 02.20, 16 February 2008 (CET)

I very much agree with your last comments, we have to put this issue behind us and cooperate. But in order to reach an agreement we need both sides to take steps. Currently it's only us who accept the compromise of a compound name. Our official position has shifted from "No Macedonia in the name" to "Compound name with Macedonia in it". And that is (as I've shown with the polls) against what the Greek people wants. Your government though is intransigent and it's time you make your step forward as well.--   Avg    01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Greece's official position didn't shift a bit (I dont know what the Greeks did except threatening to put vetoes). We have a compound name already that Greece recognizes. So we will be waiting. We made the last, with changing the flag (I saw even the Greeks like our new flag; they have made it in a blue and yellow version). That was a poor move from our diplomats, I think, but that was the last move in the negotiations. It is Greek turn to accept our name. Greeks forget that we have nothing to lose. If I am not Todor I am nothing, if I am not Macedonian I am nothing. Lot of Macedonians died in the past 200 years for the freedom and the right to call ourselves Macedonian, we didn't get the name as gift. So we have a strong standing point on our name, without it we are nothing and we spit on the heritage of our forefathers. In the end will you change your name if the Macedonian people want that? Will you change Salonica into Solun and Florina into Lerin because 100% of the Macedonian people call them Solun and Lerin? Of course you will not and it will be rude if I insist that you change it. The Greek requests for changing our name I see as more unfriendly and rude as these malicious requests for changing yours and the cities names. So be polite and friendly and use Macedonia and Macedonians, as we do. Toci 04.00, 16 February 2008 (CET)

Drama will take you nowhere. I could put drama as well if I wanted, you know like defending our history and our name from someone who's trying to steal it from us, fight as we did back in the Macedonian Struggle etc etc. I find these things useless, we have to work together and we both have to compromise. That's how it is. Welcome to real life where Don Quixote is unemployed.--   Avg    04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use drama and describe the Greek Struggle for Macedonia. You are putting the topic on the board. We regard the andarts as butchers. If they were not butchers they would have been celebrated in Greece long time ago (the Macedonian Struggle museum in Salonica is from 1980s and it is disgraceful building, it is same if the Serbs erect a museum to celebrate the masacre in Srebrenica). Unfortunately I have heard only the Macedonian side of the dramatic story where Macedonians are being slauthered both by Turks and Greeks (I saw that during the Greek Struggle for Macedonia the bloodiest day was the masacre of 79 villagers). But you are here to enlight me with the Greek side of the conflict. For our name, it is not for compromise, we did our compromise with the flag, if the Greeks don't see it as a sign of a good will that is not our problem. Greece is not prerequisite for the life and progress of Macedonia. We are self-sufficient state as I wrote before and we do what we think it is best for us. Don Quixote is unemployed, you are right there, but he survives on little. Toci 12.10, 16 February 2008 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 11:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second... Does anybody seriously disagree that "United Macedonia" and the statement "there cannot be a Macedonian nation since there has never been an independent Macedonian state: the Macedonian nation is an "artificial creation"" (etc) are by definition nationalist?? NikoSilver 09:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If they disagree, wouldn't that make them nationalist? BalkanFever 10:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement "the Macedonian nation is an artificial creation" sounds genocidal (genocide=deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group) if you are Macedonian (the quotation marks "" describe quote or irony in English language "artificial creation"=opposite of artificial creation=natural creation so I presume that you wanted to write artificial creation). Being artificial creation in political terms means missguided or fake. Republic of Macedonia is reality, it is not missguided exibitionism of 2 milion people as 60% of the Greeks believe. Toci 14:41, 15 February 2008 (CET)

On what do you base your assertion that it "sounds genocidal"? It is just another opinion, one shared incidentally by many theorists vis-à-vis all nations. Many on the other side also consider Greece to be an "artificial nation" invented by Britain in 1830 or whatever. Greeks have no real problem with the country's existence, and in fact probably prefer it over a Greater Albania or Bulgaria; it's the name that's the issue. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not another opinion, it is the ‘’only’’ Greek opinion, because the Macedonians (as separate ethnic group) are excluded by the Greeks in all the scenarios for the future Balkan (that is genocidal). The Greeks deliberate and systematic try to destroy any trace of Macedonians as ethnic group and as Macedonia as their state. Behind every political threat, veto and embargo and stands a sign “They are Slavs, Fyromians, not Macedonians”. Naming us Slavs seen from narrow perspective seems harmless (and we have a Slavic intermix in the history as the Greek and all the Balkan tribes do), but if you see the whole picture it is a genocidal political strategy and that is why we see the words ‘’Slavs’’, ‘’Macedonian Slavs’’ and ‘’Slavomacedonians’’ offending. These days there is again pressure from the ministry of foreign affairs of Greece for the Macedonian membership of NATO and again with the label “They are Slavs, not Macedonians”, they don’t exist as tribe, they are thieves of history and liars. So it is not a name issue, it is national issue. The Greeks, as the Serbs did in 1944, must evolve their narrow nationalistic view and have an agreement with the Macedonians (excluding any threats on the name which is unchangeable) as the Irish did with the English (British). We are negotiating on the same level today, even though the Greece is an older and bigger state. I already wrote about the Irish experience (Republic of Ireland (Ireland) and Northern Ireland (UK)) and made distinction Republic of Macedonia (or Macedonia) and Southern Macedonia (Greece). Southern Macedonia is populated with mainly Greeks and Republic of Macedonia is mainly with Macedonians. There are no territorial claims on Southern Macedonia by Macedonia as there is no claim by Ireland that Northern Ireland is Irish (they live in peace). The Greeks (with ally help) won all the wars with Macedonians in the last century (the last was the Greek Civil war) and Macedonians have no ground to claim any territory from Greece (on the ground they are Macedonians), but they can claim human rights for the handful of people in Southern Macedonia that remain there and who speak Macedonian at home and feel as Macedonians. It is now all about being progressive (opposite of narrow-minded nationalist) Greek and accept Macedonia and Macedonians as reality. Toci 23:45, 15 February 2008 (CET)

If that is really the kind of attitude that moulds your government's stance towards Greece, we can't be very optimistic about the future. And your careless remarks about "genocide" are highly offensive to a nation that actually has suffered genocide. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Genocide may be too strong a word, but Greece is not the best example if one wants to uphold human rights. BalkanFever 07:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, just another opinion that does little to help resolve this issue. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Like you can offer anything anything more constructive. BalkanFever 08:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Greeks had and made a genocide to the Turks as well, so you should not be offended by the word. Everyone had its share of genocides in the past. Just check the statistics for Salonica for the 1890. Greece emptied Salonica from all the other nations by resetling and making them Greek. Salonica was a city of mixed cultures, where the Jews and Turks were majority. But that was in the past and we should look to the future. You are still thinking that the Greeks are poor victims of the Turks and are surrounded by unfriendly tribes that want to destroy you. Addressing us as ‘’Slavs’’, ‘’Macedonian Slavs’’ and ‘’Slavomacedonians’’, maybe it is not genocidal physicaly, but it is toward negating us, that is softer political genocide. The domestic politics in Greece changed, you should change as well in these posts. You have a political party of ethnic Macedonians in Greece. If your courts regonized it, you should have to accept the reality of the Macedonian state. Toci 18:00, 16 February 2008 (CET)

That is not the view of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. And the recognition of a political party does not mean that the Greek authorities or people accept the positions it upholds; far from it. The Rainbow Party has the right to its bizarre opinions and the rest of the Greek citizenry has the right to oppose them. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If they haven't reviewed the events, which I suspect they haven't, then how could they come to a conclusion? That's like saying the example you mentioned didn't exist until last year. And since there was a mutual expulsion between Greece and Turkey, how can there only be one genocide? Never mind though, as this is a bit too far removed from Macedonia (terminology). What position, anyway? That there is an ethnic group calling themselves Macedonians? All Greeks know that's true. BalkanFever 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Greco-Turkish population exchange is not normally treated as part of the genocide suffered by the Greeks of Anatolia prior to that event, so I think you're a bit confused about the history. The Greeks of eastern Anatolia in particular suffered a similar fate to that of the other Christian populations of the region, most notably the Armenians and Assyrians. Unless of course you choose to deny those genocides too. As for the Rainbow Party, it has views on the "artificial Greek nation" that are a bizarre mix of postmodern deconstructionism and old-fashioned ethnic nationalism. If all nations are artificial, why the fixation on identifying with one over the other? Or is it only the Greeks who suffer from a lack of authenticity? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You must be confused, I never denied the genocide. BalkanFever 07:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you recognize a political party of Macedonians in Greece and their will to proclaim themselves ethnic Macedonians, opposite of ethnic Greeks mayority, that is a good step toward recognizing the Macedonian nation and state. The Rainbow Party has no bizarre opinions, they are not aggressive or demanding (for example as Greece's foreign politics toward Macedonia). They want to be simply Macedonians, to learn Macedonian in school and keep the Macedonian culture (the language, stories, songs and dances). If you see that as bizarre that is a chauvinist stand where any other culture then Greek is negated (chauvinism is the main cause for the Balkan genocides in the last 200 years and we should uproot it from our Balkan brains). You should learn from Macedonia. If you are Serb, Turk or Albanian in Macedonia you can go to school on your language (Albanians even have few universities), you can have festivals, you can even have your national flag in the municipality (we as Macedonians don't like the foreign flags, but we accept them). It is an age of decentralization, where the central nationalist politics disipate to leave place for the local people. The Rainbow Party could not exist in the 1980s and they would have been sentenced to prison as traitors of Greece. But now Athens has less and less influence on the municipalities and the will of some people in Lerin (Florina) is to return to their roots and live as Macedonians. There is nothing bizarre there. It is chauvinistic to negate that as it is chauvinistic to negate the existance of Macedonia as state. Toci 13:22, 17 February 2008 (CET)

Pardon me, but what the hell does anything of the above have to do with the article? See WP:NOT#FORUM. And also, you seem to confuse negation of existence with negation to a name for that existence. For the last time, we already have Macedonians in Greece, and that's how they are called by us, and that's how they are calling themselves, and that's how third parties call them also! Greece's issue is semiological confusion; not your existence, of course! NikoSilver 13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are true, its a bit forumish. But this is not an article, but talk on nationalist stands to solve the semiological confusion about Macedonia and the use of term Macedonia. So lets talk hard facts. Greece don't recognize Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians who are living there as ethnic group (and names them "Slavs"), because they are allegeable stealing the name from the Macedonians (Greek). Macedonians (Greek) are not existing in the official Greek censuses and that puts in question the Wikipedia term Macedonians (Greek). The only recognized minority in Greece are 481663 Albanian and 43981 Bulgarian immigrants www.statistics.gr. If Macedonians (Greek) or Greek Macedonians are Greeks that live in Macedonia and I don’t understand why there is a claim on the name Macedonians when they are declared as Greeks. It seems that the only Macedonians (by ethnical declaration in censuses) live in Republic of Macedonia www.stat.gov.mk (and small part in Bulgaria and Serbia). If the Greeks feel that Republic of Macedonia and the Greek province of Macedonia are too similar, they should solve their issue themselves. The name Greek Macedonia is used in Wikipedia to describe that province (part of Macedonia where Greeks live) opposite from Republic of Macedonia as state. Why not accept that as a fact. The Greek Macedonia as territory is larger and more populated then Republic of Macedonia, but it is not a state and can't be referred internationally only as Macedonia, whereas Republic of Macedonia can be. The Greek Macedonia is Greece internationally. Macedonia in the article in Wikipedia is firstly a region that is divided on one state and two provinces that are put on the same level. Politically the region Macedonia is divided between Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Bulgaria and Hellenic Republic. These are the actors that should be put on the same level, not Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia (Greek Macedonia is province and Pirin Macedonia is the area of Macedonia under the Pirin mountain). Toci 16:42, 17 February 2008 (CET)

Your whole post above, and especially the deleted bit exactly illustrate why Greece is right in arguing that you are intending to monopolize the term. Macedonia is a region, and that is indisputable. Calling part of that region "Macedonia" alone, puts it on the same level with the whole according to the Greek position. The "levels" you are talking about represent only the political aspect, which is entirely inconsistent with all other aspects. Greek Macedonia has two times as many Macedonians (Greek ones). Greek Macedonia has seven times your economy. Greek Macedonia has 60% more than your territory. Your ill-informed example about Ireland above is exactly the opposite in all those other aspects. So, the political aspect is just a crazy depiction of a false reality. Also, the political aspect should be irrelevant (as you yourselves usually argue): It shouldn't be an issue if one constitutes an autonomous nation or not, as long as the people self-identify and self-determine as such. And again, nobody negates your right to existence and your right to self-governance. It is your "right" to misrepresentation of an irredentist whole that is questioned.^{[5] [6] [7] MIA [8] [9] [10]} And that is not a right in my view, as it comes in direct conflict with the right to unambiguous self-identification of all other Macedonians (not to mention the risk to their right of self-governance). It also comes in direct conflict with all mathematical reasoning and logic about sets and subsets, of which I am a great fan. NikoSilver 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't said that as Republic of Macedonia we will monopolize the name. Our irredentist whole is not realistic and it is not even a fantasy. Macedonia is a region and Republic of Macedonia is a part of the region. But the Greeks who live in Macedonia are not Macedonians by ethnicity, and the they are ethnic Macedonians then they are not Greeks. There is not a single census document in Greece that proofs that Greek Macedonians exist. They are fantasy as our irredentist whole. There are no documents for other Macedonians so we can't discuss on them. There is a document of ethnic Greeks who live in Macedonia and we can talk about their advances in economy and their growth, but that is not the topic on this talk. We are talking about Macedonia and Macedonians and I wrote that part of Macedonia belongs to Hellenic Republic and it is Greece today, regardless of the province name. Republic of Macedonia is Macedonia. The Greek national stand (no different then the Bulgarian who say the same) it that the entire region is Macedonia, but Macedonia is Greece, and we are the Slavic invaders and problem kids who steal the history (in Bulgarian national story we are unconscious Bulgarians). Macedonia (where Macedonians used to live) got smaller and parts turned to Greece and Bulgaria. And that is the reality that Greeks should be aware of and respect Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonians as equal. (Toci (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

In other words, one can only be "Macedonian" if one shares your ethnic self-identification. The rest of the population of Macedonia, the overwhelming majority, are not Macedonians, they are interlopers and invaders who must be got rid of if Macedonia is to be truly free. Pretty accurate so far? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto Kekrops. You understood perfectly Toci's comment. And BTW, Toci, if the Greek Macedonians self-identify as "Macedonians", it's their business, and their business ONLY. Everybody else has to follow suit and call them exactly as they wish. If you do not agree with this simple principle, then everybody can call YOU differently as well from what you would wish. Do you? NikoSilver 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"In other words, one can only be "Macedonian" if one shares your ethnic self-identification." Yes, we are tribe of Macedonians and Greek Macedonians self-identify with the Greeks not with us (I never said they self-identify as "Macedonians", even more I said they are not existing as "Macedonians" in censuses, but as Greeks). The people who live in 51% of the region of Macedonia 100 years ago are predominately Greeks and therefore this territory is Greece today. Just to point out that we are not living in exact borders and countries turn smaller and larger in history. Kosovo was part of Serbia, but today is obviously not. Salonica was part of Turkey 100 years ago, but today is obviously not. It is part of Greece. Armenia was a large state in the history, but not today. In the future maybe there will be no Macedonia or there will be no Greece. It all depends on the ethnic self-identification. If noone feels Macedonian or Greek, there will be no Macedonia or Greece. I don't regard you as a Greeks in 51% of the region of Macedonia, but as Greeks in Greece, so why rid of Greeks in Greece. Behind your border, is your problem. But you as state insist (gentle word for political pressures, vetoes and embargos) that Macedonia is Greece.

On the question were the Greek invaders in the region of Macedonia 100 years ago. The answer is yes. There were then, but not today. Today is 100 years later and Greeks live several generations. The Greeks invaded region of Macedonia, won the war, moved out the non Greek population and moved in Greek population. It was normal then to change the population because Turks and especially Macedonians would have rebeled to their deaths (that was the Macedonian national motto then 'death or freedom'). No one blames Greece for that, the past is past. If the Macedonians would had been in role of the Greeks, we would have also expell all the Greeks. If the Turks would have won the war, they would have done the same.

Albanians took Kosovo from the Serbs, but they don't proclaim themselves as Serbians and make a dispute on the Serbian name. They don't even regard Kosovo as part of Serbia, but more part of Albania. So why do you see the 51% of Macedonia 100 years ago as Macedonia today when is officially and internationally Greece for almost 100 years. I don't understand why is Greeks business, and their business ONLY to call themselves Macedonians in the media and not as ethnicity in the censuses. That looks a bit strange. Poeticaly it seems like you want to put us in a deep shadow using another shadow. (Toci (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

According to the Greek view, they are Macedonians, therefore Greeks, and have been since long before you decided it was a pretty name to call yourselves. In other words, being Macedonian and being Greek are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they are inextricably linked. Your preposterous belief that you are the Macedonians and that the Greeks had no presence in Macedonia until they "invaded" it 100 years ago (is that really what they teach you in school?), is precisely the reason Greece has adopted the stance it has. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can read it in Wikipedia about Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians and Montenegrian invaded Macedonia 100 years ago (First Balkan War). It is not important what they teach us in schools. It is not my preposterous belief that we are the Macedonians, but the censuses show. Please give me a link or point a official document of Macedonians living in North Greece (I will name "Greek Macedonia" North Greece which is the true international name). (Toci (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Kekrops and I are trying to explain the following: The Athenians are also Greeks. The Peloponnesians are also Greeks. The Epirotes are also Greeks. The Cretans are also Greeks. Same, the Macedonians (Greek) are also Greeks. It happens that there are also other Macedonians around. Notably you. Personally, I have no problem with that, as long as each side accepts that the other side exists, and as long as each side finds a way to distinguish which Macedonians are of which part. That's all. So, the question is: Do you persoanlly challenge the right of the Greeks who live in the Greek part of Macedonia to self-identify as Macedonians? NikoSilver 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit late to reply, but, changed whatever was there to "Slav idiom of Macedonia", simply because it is in the column of what Greeks refer to. And I do not think that when any Greek talks about "Σλαβομεκεδονικά", they mean "Macedonian". Also, the world "nationalist" simply because it is not just the "nationalists" who have that opinion, and it is even not a "nationalist" opinion, but it is common, even to someone who is ,say, a communist. I just did not have time to justify those edits at that time. I really wonder to see "Macedonians" or others, what will you say, when you will anyway have to change all articles,re-edit, re-write them, when soon, the name of FYROM will be neither FYROM nor ROM?? We will sure give you a hand at that time, although it will be very entertaining seeing you changing all these. And that will be done within two weeks, or say, a month,for, if not, if FYROM or however you call it does not choose dialogue and get a new name, within two weeks, Veto in EU,NATO and all other international organisations will come, as it is already close at hand. --Michael IX the White (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear for this section's title: No, not all positions are nationalist (in the bad sense). There are many moderate positions around. Those two sections in the article, though, try to describe which are the nationalist ones because this is highly relevant to the subject. So, keeping the same title about the nationalist positions, does anybody feel that we should alter/expand/reduce the content of those two sections? Is there anything we missed? Is there something that doesn't sound "nationalist" to you, and why? NikoSilver 11:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When the positions of even the Communist Party of Greece, for exemple, are the same in that matter, so those described as nationalist, how can they really be nationalist?? Almost all the political parties in Greece, from the communist to the far right have these so called "nationalist" positions. So they're not nationalist really.--Michael IX the White (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh?? "There cannot be a Macedonian nation since there has never been an independent Macedonian state: the Macedonian nation is an "artificial creation""?? --- "They speak an impoverished idiom"??? When did KKE say these? When did any other party (including LAOS) deny the existence and independence of that nation?? Why on earth are we still talking about this? NikoSilver 22:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, KKE, LAOS and the rest have never accepted that it actually is a nation. Well, if you're Greek, just watch the news these days and it is all clear.If you can't do that, go to all parties websites. Simple as that.--Michael IX the White (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ti les bre Mixahlo? Gia des th selida mou! To the point: Well, actually KKE does accept they are a separate nation, and only wishes their name to contain just a geographic denotation.[11] LAOS, which indeed doesn't, is a nationalist party in my view. Also, according to all academics (and the UN charter), the right to self-determination of a nation lies on its people only. Does anybody seriously doubt that the people have chosen to be a separate nation in that case? Their independence was voted in a referendum for the love of holiness! NikoSilver 15:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Epitelous symfonoume!!!!:P:P xd (At last we agree!!) Iremia tora. :P --Michael IX the White (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We have confirmation that the PM of FYROM Gruevski is a nationalist abiding by the ideals of Macedonism. Look at the map behind. [12]--   Avg    19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well he's the leader of the major nationalist party of the country, so that's a given. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What does it say by the way. I see him on Gotse Delchev's grave (there is one in Bulgaria as well) with a map of United Macedonia (that never was). --Laveol ^T 01:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Grave or memorial? BalkanFever 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... making someone from FYROM accept that there can be other Macedonians or that some kind of a determinant should be used to avoid ambiguity is an extremely tedious task... Well let us for a minute contemplate about the ambiguity of the term "Macedonian" within FYROM alone. In FYROM reside people who identify themselves as Macedonians, people who identify themselves as Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs etc. Now... what is a Macedonian in these cases? Is it only the one who declares himself "ethnic Macedonian"? Is it everybody who posesses a "Macedonian" passport? The Macedonians who declare themselves Albanians are Macedonian Albanians? Are they Albanian Macedonians? Are they Macedonians of Albanian origin? Are they Albanians who reside in Macedonia and hold a Macedonian passport?

Now look up Macedonia, USA.... You will find some towns named Macedonia. Are they Macedonian Americans? US Macedonians? Or are these names reserved by the Macedonians who immigrated to the US and declare Macedonian origin regardless where they reside? Can they call themselves Macedonians? If an Irish immigrant who resides in Macedonia (some town somewhere in the US) says that he is a Macedonian will the Macedonians shout in anger? If he says that Alexander was a Macedonian and pictures him with a tomahawk and colorful feathers, will the Macedonians have a problem?

In Greece there is an area called Macedonia... anybody wants to dispute that? Now this Macedonia is called thus by the Greeks since 1913 and Greeks who reside there (some were there in 1913 others came afterwads, some migrated to Athens to find a good job) have called themselves Macedonians exactly as people in California call themselves Californians and people in Bavaria call themselves Bavarians... At the same time there were people in the broader region who also called themselves Macedonians although they were not Greeks. Some resided in Greece, some in Bulgaria, others in Yugoslavia. These people, less than 20 years ago established a new country and declared that they want to call themselves Macedonians...

So, now we are called to decide who is Macedonian... If Macedonia was a brand name it would belong to the Greeks since they officially used it longer. Unfortunately it isn't... So we have to first decide on what this name means and implies...The Macedonians claim that it encompasses whoever lived in Macedonia as it was geographically defined in the late Ottoman period. Hmm.... Then thousands of Turks now in Constantinople are Macedonians. Greeks, Jews, Bulgarians too... They rethink and say "No! A Macedonian is someone who lived in these lands and does not define himself as anything else than Macedonian alone!" Of course if this was the case then Goce Delchev, Mirsikov, Gligorov etc would not be Macedonians and of course all those people who belong to the Macedonian minorities are also Non-macedonians... "Wait!" they shout "there is another solution! Macedonians are those people who define themselves as Macedonians!" Now the Albanian Macedonians can be Macedonians but then now, so can Greek Macedonians... And then we reach at the final solution..."Macedonians are those people who call themselves Macedonians and are called Macedonians by us!" But even now the term is not completely complete.... "Macedonians are those people who call themselves Macedonians and are called Macedonians by us and those people we call non-Greek, non-Albanian, non-Bulgarian Macedonians regardless of what they call themselves!" Now they can also encompass in this term some hundreds of thousands of Albanians, Bulgarians, about a million Greeks etc... And how about the ancient Macedonians? "Well, they called themselves Macedonians and Greeks so they were not Greeks! They were Macedonians." Why not call Macedonians those who reside in the Macedonia of Phillip alone? Why not call Macedonians those who resided in the Byzantine theme of Macedonia? Why not call Macedonians those who called themselves Macedonians, how about the Peloponessian Dorians? "No they are Greeks" Yes.... but they were Macedonians too... Let's call the Agrianes Macedonians too..."But they were not Macedonians, they were Agrianes!" Yes but they lived in what you call Macedonia. "Yes, but back then it was not called Macedonia.." Aha! And then why do you call the place you live now Macedonia? "Because the Turks said so...????" Ok...

The thing is... all these people defined, define or/and will define themselves as Macedonians. Millions of people who enter disputes and debates as to which part of Macedonia of which timeframe and what part of its history belongs to whom. The Macedonians claim there is no such issue since they call themselves Macedonians and they have the right of self determination. But then so do the Macedonians too!!! And as if that was not enough there are the Macedonians who claim the same... Most of them are in Macedonia, many in Macedonia and some in Macedonia... Are you lost? You shouldn't be for according to the Macedonians there is no need to differentiate since there is only ONE Macedonia and its people are the Macedonians!

People... of course there HAS TO BE some determinant as to which Macedonian we are talking about each time we are trying to make sense... If the people in FYROM feel that any other determinant than sole Macedonia is offensive and should not be used we can achieve nothing and of course this will not be accepted by the other Macedonians who will ask for the same treatment... Why can't you just be Macedonians X and Greeks can be Macedonians Y and then let the historians do their jobs as to the history? What is so bad in calling yourselves North Macedonia or Vardar Macedonia? Greeks would just be South Macedonians or Aegean Macedonians. Why is it a shame to call yourselves Slavomacedonians (minorities inluded)? The Greeks could be Graecomacedonians (minorities also included). If only the governments reached such an agreement, our job here would become sooooooo much easier... (actually rumor has it that there will be a comromise only months after the elections in FYROM, but we will see)

GK1973 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I say we change it to 'Alexandria' :P

In the tradition of Alexander, let's change it to Alexandria when it gets to Greek references, ancient greek, and modern. Pf, like he was even the best example of ancient greek history. the militarist extremist.

ps. it's not a forum but it seems the improvement of such articles requires the use of discussion)

pps. let me add, don't forget what is most important is information, not naming, i.e. if you know what modern republic of macedonia is and if you know what ancient greece was, naming is almost immaterial. what are you gonna lose? a few tourists to uniformed idiots calling the republic of macedonia ancient greece?

--Leladax (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexandria (disambiguation) is actually a worse example. The Greek mentality, education, and tradition argues that these concepts (information and naming) are inseparable. I had an illustrative quote from a major Greek philosopher about names and meanings, but I can't remember it right now. I don't necessarily agree, but surely we can all see the difficulty of explaining all these to someone, instead of giving a different or partly-tweaked name... NikoSilver 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreaciate your commitment on the creative side, I must say, but really, it can't be a solution.Anyway, it is not about Alexander anyway. Many of these "Slavs" accept that they have no relation with the original Macedonian Kingdom or tribe and that they arrived at the 6th century AD. So, Alexandria would be totally irrelevant... You say we has not the best exemple in the Greek history...Oh well, he anyway built up an Empire from Macedonia to India, adn he was just 33 years old... Anyway, it's good having any ideas. --Michael IX the White 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Many of these "Slavs" accept..." It is a bit offending to use "Slavs" to refer to the Macedonians. In the past we regard ourselves as Christian (usual moderate answer before World War II) or Macedonian (answer for which you could have been isolates, prosecuted and even killed before World War II and usual answer after World War II and after People's Republic of Macedonia was established). Alexander the Great is also part of Macedonian stories not as Alexandar the Great, but as Alexander Macedonian (Aleksandar Makedonski, Александар Македонски) or king Aleksandar (kral Aleksandar, крал Александар). The Macedonian legend is that Alexander Macedonian invented the war. If you think before, Alexandar is the first king in history who masacres the armies. I am not sure, but before Alexander the warfare was more of a show-off nature, where the more richer and more fancy dressed won the war, or the war was of a duel nature. Macedonians were poorly dressed, but they were killing machines. There is a Macedonian poem (in a slavic language) from 1850s about king Alexander who met craftmans that made stone coffins. King Alexander told them to make a completely closed stone coffin for him because the flies and mosquitos are all around him and are not giving him peace. When they made the coffin king Alexander lied there. This 150 years old poem that was sung by a bling singer in Macedonia tells the story of Alexander's death more then 100 years before the theory that Alexander died of malaria. The relation with the original Macedonian Kingdom was a taboo in People's and Socialist Republic of Macedonia where the tendency was to not research the past and the tendency was to emphasize the Slavic in all the former Yugoslav republics as ground for brotherhood. The new research in the folklore archives and the archeological dig outs in Republic of Macedonia shows that there are some links between the antique and todays Macedonians. In the dig-outs in Vardarski rid (Gevgelija) you can see almost no change in architecture for 2500 years. The same building techniques that were used in 5th century B.C. were used in the Macedonian villages of the 19th century (now these techniques are abandoned as backward). The Slavs at the 6th century AD didn't arrived exclusively in Macedonia, they arrived in Albania, Greece and Romania, so all of these tribes have a slavic intermix. We have also other tribes arriving in Macedonia after the Slavs, especially during the crusades. So even if Macedonians want to, we can't be "Slavs", but a mix of many many armies that pass through Macedonia with the local population. But in our heads, we are Macedonians. The Alexandia naming has no reality. Toci February 17 14.22 (CET) —Preceding comment was added at 13:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If my aim was to offend I would simply not put "Slavs", but just Slavs. I think you can see the difference clearly. About the architecture, all houses in the Balkans were being built the same way, from the most ancient times, till the 19th century, as you said. There was never a great difference in any region of the Balkans, in terms of building till the 19th century, so the architecture should not be considered as any significant sign. About Alexander, there is irrefutable prrof that he, and his subjects were Greek. 1)He took place in the Olympic Games, in which, till the Roman Conquest, only Greeks who could proove they were Greek took part 2)his mother was Princess Olympiad of Epirus, a Gree Kingdom, and she was descendant of Achilles,the Greek hero of the Trojan War 3)Phillip and his family claimed to be descendants of Hercules,another Greek hero 4)Philip and Olympiad met at the Eleusinian Sacraments, a Greek mystical ceremony in Eleusina 5) Philip, and then Alexander,were leaders of the Panhellenic Coalition, the Coalition Of All Greeks 6) Alexander's teacher was Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, who was student of Plato 7) All writings in Philip's palaces and tombs are in Greek 8)All the writings in Alexander's new kingdom were Greek 9)The language introduced by in Alexander's kingdom to bring his subjects closer to him was the Hellenic (Greek) Common 10) Alexander burned Thebes to the ground for betraying Greece in the Persian wars 11)Olympiad, Philip,Alexander, Hephaistion, Parmenion,etc. are al Greek names and have meaning in Greek, as every other Greek name of the age. Your legend may be that Alexander invented war, but already Thucydides, the first accurate historian of all times (it's a title), described brilliantly battle strategic positions and warfare tactics more than 150 years before Alexander's birth. Flanking,formations, etc. Also, Arion (historian) describes in great detail the flashy armour of the soldiers in the battles in Alexander's campaign. But your were not sure anyway. In fact, the only ones in the time who were poorly dressed, but killing machines, were the Spartans. Also, it is perfectly clear that Alexander and his subjects considered themselves Greek, speaked Greek and believed in the Greek Gods. So, Macedonians are Greeks and if you are Macedonians, you are Greeks and therefore should be one with us. As you mentioned, Slavs arrived in the Balkans in the 6th century. However, touring around the Balkans, you will easily find the old castles and defences againist the "Slavonic Raids" and that the natives were not friendly to the Slavic tribes. The Byzantine societies never accpted the Slavs in them. However, the Emperors of the time gave the Slavs some land, in agreement to defend the Empire. The settlers did not mix with the natives, though. Also, Albania and Romania, which you mentioned, were at the time not even general terms for the regions in which the modern countries are. The Eastern Empire and the Slavic tribes did not become so great "friends" in the 9th century, when Cyrillus and Methodius were sent by the Emperor to preach Christianity. It was then that they gave the alphabet, which you use today. Why, if you are Macedonian, so Greek, would you change your alphabet, to one given by your people to other tribes? Why would you also change your language, when, in every other part of the Balkans, the rest of the Greeks, did not change theirs? So you're most Slavs than Greek, so more Slavs than Macedonian. In his account of the Balkan Wars, as a soldier, Str.Myrivili, who was wounded in Monastiri, that is now called Bitola (I think), he was care taken by a family of your people.They told him that they were more Serbian and a bit Bulgarian, but they hate both peoples for considering them being Bulgarian property.There is no mention of Macedonian ethnicity in that book and account.--Michael IX the White (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Macedonia Map

I have noticed that your map of Macedon has an error. The borders of Macedon are covering too much of eastern Greek Macedonia and too little of southern Republic of Macedonia (I hope you didn't do this purposely). According to Britannica Encyclopedia, this is how Macedon looked like before 359BC [13], as you can see, Halkidiki was never originally part of Macedon, and eastern Greek Macedonia was part of Paeonia. I uploaded a map myself that resembles the britannica map very closely, but I want to know your opinion first. Thanks Polibiush (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At last! A source! We used verbal references to construct that map in Macedonia (terminology) with numerous editors from all ethnicities. I think it was Aldux who had said something about excluding Halkidiki. We had also argued about how much should show within the republic and how much not, and "my" map that you see in the article was the result of the whole talk. It's all in the talk archives. This and the other maps were extensively discussed (not to mention every single word in that article), and it is not a coincidence that this is the only featured article of the whole freakin' region. However, it is the first time that someone actually produces a concrete source. Congratulations on that one, and I'll link it myself in the article. NikoSilver 08:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, regarding your other bitter comment, I understand your reservations by my being Greek, but please do not ever do that with me again. Yes, I am Greek, and yes I have my beliefs, but everybody here knows that I don't let them in the way when it comes to writing an article, so I do not take such remarks lightly. All the best. NikoSilver 08:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. Its just that this is Wikipedia, and lately I've been seeing a lot of crazy edits from a lot of crazy users. You are obviously not one of them. Again, you'll have to forgive me for my comment. Polibiush (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Accepted and thanks. Do tell me if I ever get out of line, though. I meant just please do not presuppose it. After all, I'm human. NikoSilver 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you also correct this image (Image:HistMac.gif), for some reason I can't fix it on my computer. Polibiush (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already had it in mind. Problem is it needs a lot of time which I do not have right now, and it is too difficult to process without the masks. I don't recall where I've kept the original files. I'll need a little time for that. NikoSilver 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even the map of Britannica has errors. It places Thessalian borders in Ambracia!. Eastern Macedonia was ethnically Thrace ,full of Thracian tribes Mygdones,Bisaltae,Edoni. If you want only to define the borders of the Kingdom Chalcidice along with Pelagonia,Lynkestis became part of Macedon under Philip II (after 359 BC). Parts of East Macedonia belonged to the Kingdom since Alexander I (East Macedonia was lost during Perdikkas II and regained by Archelaus. What map you want to do political or ethnical? Catalographer (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a map of macedon prior to expansion to thracian territories.Meaning its gonna be chalkidiki,thermaic gulf and a bit around those.Megistias (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ancient macedon not something else.

The other things are expansions.Megistias (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(Macedon in 431 BC) This is the best map prior to Philip's II expansion after 359 BC Catalographer (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I really don't know the details. I think that a political map would be useless (unless we wanna argue if we're gonna include India)... So, what we're after is indeed an ethnic map. I suppose that a map prior to the recent expansions before/during Philip/Alexander will be the best era. Can anyone source this from an academic source please? I'll be happy to modify the map as close as possible to any such sourced image (or text that says the extents/borders). In the meantime, I'm returning the map to the status quo ante. NikoSilver 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedon in 431 BC * macedonia prior to expansion is the only acceptable solution along with anything even older.Expansions into thracians and illyrian territories and others is not.Megistias (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman province did not include the south.It was this,and someone put the normal macedon state and not the expanded one.

Roman province

Megistias (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ancient Macedon: Approximate borders of the kingdom before expansion to conquer the whole known world, according to archaeological findings and historic references." This is the expanded state already into thracian territories.Place the actualy macedon kingdom before expansion.Megistias (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was User:Pmanderson who had found a source that the Roman province's borders were extremely volatile during the Empire's long dominion over the territory. The map presented for the Roman province in the article shows "the maximum extent". NikoSilver 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Volatile or not the most stable form is the one that stays.Megistias (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be ancient macedon prior to expansion,roman province of macedon,modern macedon in greek,(rom) state,Megistias (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not disagreeable at all. So, to sum up:

• We need a source for the extents of the Roman Province (or ideally a sourced map) and the dates when these extents were official (to justify "most stable")
• We need a source for the extents of the Ancient Kingdom prior to the conquests (again, or ideally a sourced map).

Please put the references below so that we end this asap (because it's a little cluttered above). Thanks. NikoSilver 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The roman map is source unto it self from

• Professor G. Droysens Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas. Bielefeld und Leipzig 1886. p. 17,Roman provinces on Balkan-peninsula. Römische Provinzen auf der Balkanhalbinsel
  • Why is this the "most stable"? When was it official? NikoSilver 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• We could ask Marsyas & Bibi Saint-Pol who made the maps above on ancient macedon to make them.Megistias (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Student britannica is under no circumstances a specialised sourced on ancient macedon.student.Not a good source we have many and the 431 map is sourced properly and prior to any epxansion.Megistias (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedon 356-336 BC

Ideal map with dates. Merge that of 431 BC with 356 BC map

using dashes - - - or tildes Catalographer (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps: User_talk:Ilidio.martins#Macedon:_Literature_Quotes_and_MapsIlidio.martins (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprecise maps

The Roman map has one unprecise detail (the placement of Scupi) and can be misunderstood. Scupi is a city on Axius (Vardar) and on the map Scupi is placed on Margus (probably South Morava in Serbia). In the Roman Macedonia map (animated Macedonia map) the border is under Scupi (Skopje today). The river Axius by the Roman map is entirely inside Macedonia Salutaris and Scupi (ancient Skopje) is a city on Axius. To make the thigs more confusing Scupi is inside Macedonia by Tabula Peutingeriana, the road network of the Roman empire.
The second objection is about forwarding maps of Ancient Macedonia that fit more or less only the Greek part of the region Macedonia (for example: the map from the reign of Philip II). There are two highlighted areas, one area as the Ancient Macedonian kingdom (that fits the Greek part of the region Macedonia) and second area as other areas controled by the kingdom. Philip II conquered the Paionans and controled Paionia (in the map presented outside of Ancient Macedonia) which later became part of Ancient Macedonia. Now it is matter of style should the Paionian kingdom be included in Ancient Macedonia during Philip II when it was conquered and controled, or 100 years after, when it merged in Ancient Macedonia. But the spreading of the kingdom and its control reach should be presented in the animated Macedonia map in the article (maybe there is a need of several Ancient Macedonia maps). The Romans faced a kingdom (Ancient Macedonia) that spread over the entire Macedonia (region) and more, not only what is today the Greek part of the region Macedonia. (Toci (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Macedonia Timeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HistMac.gif This time line needs to be changed since the boarders of ancient Macedonia have not been changed in accordance to the mapMaktruth (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to point that out. Now, I shall support it. The maps from W. R. Shepherd The Historical Atlas might help. User_talk:Ilidio.martins#Macedon:_Literature_Quotes_and_Maps Ilidio.martins (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moderate Greek position missing?

The article in its current form describes an extreme and a moderate Macedonian position (where it ascribes the latter to "educated Macedonians"), but it only describes one version of Greek nationalism (apparently a more extreme one). Can someone please describe the moderate Greek version? I can't quite believe that there isn't one, for example as held by "educated Greeks".

FWIW, both extreme versions appear totally lunatic to an unwary reader (such as me :)), while the "moderate Macedonian" one as describe here seems rather reasonable. The omission of its moderate Greek counterpart could be seen as POV because it might lead uninformed readers to believe that the Greek position is in general bollocks, which can't be true. Instead, we're apparently not being told the whole story. If possible, please fill in the gaps. Thank you. Anorak2 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I did something. See if you can dig out anything else from the Macedonia naming dispute to add here, although I think we're fine. NikoSilver 13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)