Talk:Macedonia/Archive 1

message: This archive page covers approximately the dates between 25 June 2005 and 14 February 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.
If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Macedonia/Archive 2. Thank you. --Latinus 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old talk pertaining to Macedonia is now located at Talk:Macedonia (region)/Archive 1--Commander Keane 09:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I edited this page per MoS:DP today and was reverted without explanation.  Could someone please help? Tedernst | talk 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dab style 

message: The real question is "Is WP an encyclopedia"? If it is and if the rest aforisms at WP:NOT are correct, then the current version is POV. The first who used the term Macedonia, were Macedonia. From that kingdom came all the rest. Macedonia (region) is the superset of them all. With the definition that WP uses for the region (let's not get into details why it is not very accurate), RoM has less than half of that region (we must note that parts of RoM are outside the Macedonia (region), there's a small percentage of that region in Bulgaria and more than half is what WP calls Macedonia (Greece). Macedonia (Greece) used the term Macedonia (and not anything else or even "Greek Macedonia") constantly and it's still called Macedonia. I could understand a historical/geographical version for this page (see previous version) but I cannot understand the POV pushing in favor of RoM. +MATIA  ☎ 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason for a disambiguation page is to help the reader quickly and precisely find the page she or he is looking for.  To that end, sorting a page like this logically with the most sought-for categories toward the top is the way other pages like this are organized and the way this one should be too.  It had been that way for a long time until someone took out the independent states category so that the independent modern country was between an airport and some political subdivision in a list. That doesn't help the reader, so of course I reverted that. When making changes to this page, please remember its only purpose, and leave the political stuff on the articles this page sends readers to. Jonathunder 17:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as making the page "encyclopedical", please remember this page is not an article, it is a guide to navigation: a list of see also notations. Ordering in a logical fashion to help the reader is not POV. Kind regards. Jonathunder 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think your POV tag is misplaced.  The dab page can only point to the articles that exist.  Seems the POV issue is with those articles, not here. Tedernst | talk 17:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template is a self-reference (see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references) and as such, must be used sparingly. I know it's tempting to slap a POV tag on an article when it's not the way you want it, but they shouldn't be abused. What I don't get is how can a disambiguation page be POV. Izehar (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Matia, a disambiguation page are like a Telephone directory. You split the entries into categories such as "dentists", "driving schools" and so on. How is it pro RoM? By designating it as an independent state? Encyclopaedias are about the world as it is today and not just about history. RoM is more significant in world politics today that Macedon or Modern Greek Macedonia. It only makes sense that they are at the head. Izehar (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Telephone directories are sorted (alphabeticaly). Your argument about world politics is a nice argument, but is it NPOV? Entries in a list of an encyclopedia, could be listed as I have mentioned in my first comment here, historicaly (by date), geographicaly or even alphabeticaly. If we sort it "politicaly" we contradict NPOV and WP:NOT. +MATIA  ☎ 18:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. If RoM is an independent state, then readers are more likely to look up that. I'm not disputing the content, I stating that your POV tag was improperly placed. As for the content, well you can sort that out yourselves. Also note that telephone directories list categories alphabetically. You may want to copy the layout of China (disambiguation). Izehar (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your guesses on what the readers are more likely to read are interesting, but if they 're looking for a Republic, then they would search for a republic. If they are here to learn, then they'll be also interested in history and geography. Thanks for the link of China (disambiguation), I think my version of the article is closer to that page, than the current "independent states" version. +MATIA  ☎ 18:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're welcome - just don't slap POV tags on to articles just because you disagree with the layout, it clutters up the category. Also, if I were looking for France, I would look for France, not French Republic (Republique Francais) just because it is a republic. I don't see why this case should be any different. I'm sure most people refer to this country as Macedonia plain. Perhaps you should add the  template. Izehar (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Suits me. Izehar (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I think it is a fair and reasonable assumption, that any user searching for the word "Macedonia" in an English-language encyclopedia is not primarily looking to know more about the Airport of Thessaloniki. I understand that there may be raw nerves exposed on this disambiguation page, but logically it seems unnecessary with so many interrelated or overlapping articles to choos from. To me, at least. 8-] --Big Adamsky 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: MATIA, please tell me what would it look like the perfect version according to you? (if you want, of course) Bomac 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about Macedon. Did Macedon kingdom gave the name Macedonia to the region? If yes should it be mentioned before the region at the begining? Should Hellenistic civilization be mentioned along with Macedon? But I'm unsure about the answers. +MATIA  ☎ 20:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: As User:REX has requested, I'm quoting and linking the Britannica article:
* ancient kingdom centred on the plain in the northeastern corner of the Greek peninsula, at the head of the Gulf of Thérmai. In the 4th century BC it achieved hegemony over Greece and conquered lands as far east as the Indus River, establishing a short-lived empire that introduced the Hellenistic Age of ancient Greek civilization. 
Therefore starting from now, any editing on this will be regarded as vandalism. Miskin 18:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wanna look at this one as well: link Rex(talk) 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: If the article is going to be sorted in reverse chronological order, we should state it in the begining. +MATIA  ☎ 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree with the sorting 

message: Tedernst pointed to me that the word periphery (and the wikilink that was for the explanation of that term) should be omitted. I think that in a list or in a disambiguation page, a small summary is needed for all the disambiguated terms. Since we have listed about 20 Macedonias in USA, perhaps we should list Macedonia (Greece) as a region and/or province and the three peripheries as were in the past (check Talk:Macedonia_%28disambiguation%29#was this link) or as administrative districts. Any thoughts by editors who are familiar with Macedonia (Greece)? +MATIA  ☎ 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea - I've implemented it now. Is that any better? -- ChrisO 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that part of the article is now improved. +MATIA  ☎ 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  peripheries 

message: Although he didn't ask anybody in the discussion, I agree with CrissO's decision to remove 
the name of the greek region in greek language, as it might misslead people about the (slavic?)
origin of the word Macedonia (macedonia comes from the greek word blah blah blah) Arnegjor 12:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of name of the greek region in Greek language

message: Bomac tells us The reason why this country is called like this must be written.  Why?  How could this possible help someone find the article they are looking for?  This information should be on the target page, not on this dab page.  Bomac, please explain, in encyclopdic, not political terms.  Tedernst | talk 15:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That issue is not "politicized" by me, but by some other users. Sincerely, my opinion is that even "FYROM" is unworthy to mention here. The one who wants to read about "FYROM" will find it in the article about Republic of Macedonia. FYROM is too much text for the disambiguation page also. Regards, Bomac 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reason for name 

message: I think that the dates or those who preceded Philip II, are more important than the "successors", perhaps that phrase should be removed. +MATIA  ☎ 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the successors 

message: Which titles does this side have with FYROMian Wikipedia?
:Vergina 10:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?????

message: The British first take a great deal of Greece's national treasures, position the Greeks and Turks at each others throats, cause conflict in the Middle East, rape Africa, take so much away from India, go to war with China during the Opium Wars to force the Chinese to buy drugs from the British, and help brake Yugoslavia. The situation in Macedonia must be settled by Greeks and Slavs peacefully as neighbours. Similar problems are being nurtured for Iran by the same parties in relations to Azerbaijan and other Iranian sub-groups.
The problem in Cyprus was the work of the British, the division of India and Pakistan, and the problems in the Arab World. Greeks and Slavic Macedonians must sit together with no outsiders like the Americans and British manipulating both sides.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs) .
:A college drinking buddy of mine, who was a history major and future lawyer, was great at a Pub game called "blame the Brits". We could call out any problem anywhere in the world, no matter how remote or obscure, and he would offer a somewhat plausible explanation of how that was all the fault of the U.K. or the British Empire. It was amusing, sophmoric, and completely irrelevant. Jonathunder 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't blame us for Minnesota, surely... ;-) -- ChrisO 23:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: These Problems are the Work of the British

message: when some calls you by some name you don't like you feel offended,i dont like to be called FYROM.
So please stop.Remove "FYROM" from this disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.141.39.2 (talk • contribs) .
:See point 3 above. Your likes or dislikes are irrelevant to this discussion. -- ChrisO 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Respect

message: Naming conflict policy clearly states that "If the term "Cabindan" (i.e. RoM) is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised". The deleted note brought this article to compliance with the policy. Please explain why meeting the requirements of the Naming Conflict Policy is grounds for locking the page. Regards, Sysin 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonia 

message: Check the information in the wikipedia about Holy Roman Empire. Is exactly the same situation. EVERYONE knows that H.R.E. has nothing to do with the Roman Empire: king's names, language, culture, architecture just geographically happened to be part of the Roman Empire. EVERYONE knows that they were German-culture nation. The name was reasons of pride but today we can understand that is a joke in history. From 5th-6th AD when Slavs took this part of Byzantine Empire till Tito's nationalistic imaginations the Slavs of that area never used to call themselves macedonians. They can call themselves Republic of Macedonia, or Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire or Ottoman Empire, or Nazis but they will be Slav-culture nation. cheers! (unsigned comment by User:86.139.188.33 (talk) 
: Wow ... talk about rampant ... If Greeks are so confident about the Greekness of ancient Macedonia, then why do they get so worked up about this. Oh, and just because the Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia speak a Slavic language, it doesn't mean the majority of the people are descended from Slavic immigrants. Many Greek are descended from Slavic "invaders" too, doesn't mean they aren't Greek. Let's not be backward, let's look ahead to the future, and let's not draw antagonism between Macedonians who speak modern Greek and Macedonians who speak the modern Macedonian language. Thanks. - Calgacus 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The real issues at stake here are the political implications depending on whether Macedonia is Greek or Slavonic. These implications are related to nationalist myths and fears of territorial expansion as well as national pride. It's no secret that the original constitution of the Republic of Macedonia implied territorial expansion into Greece - irridentism at its fullest. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a source for this? Bitola 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to, just look at User:Macedonia's userpage. What is a "United Macedonia"? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought you were talking about the Macedonian constitution? Bitola 19:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was: Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#Constitutional issue. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm seeing no irredentism if some country cares for the status and rights of those persons belonging to the Macedonian people in neighbouring countries, especially when in the same paragraph is literally written: In the exercise of this concern the Republic will not interfere in the sovereign rights of other states or in their internal affairs.  However, these articles were removed from the constitution with the agreement between the Greece and the Republic of Macedonia in 1995. Just to remind you that in the Greek constitution (article 108) you can find the following: The State shall also attend to the education, the social and professional advancement of Greeks working outside the State (I see no irredentism in that either).Bitola 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I wonder how User:Macedonia, who is in favor of an "United Macedonia" (sic) which includes the Greek city of Thessaloniki, views it ;-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking about the users, have you seen the "wonderful" description of my country at the Makedonas user page?:)) Bitola 20:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, it's inspired by the Greek point of view - the fact that I may not approve of userpages being used like that can be illustrated by the fact that no nationalistic icons can be seen on my userpage. However, as there is no specific policy against it (or none that I can thik of), there's nothing that can be done about it. The same applies to User:Macedonia's userpage. Anyway, I think that out little chat is getting a bit long and as Wikipedia talk pages are not inteded for discussing anything other that the articles, you are welcome to continue this discussion on IRC. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you are right, thanks for the invitation. Bitola 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Roman Empire! 

message: I've semi-unprotected this disambiguation page - it's been locked for long enough. New and unregistered users still can't edit it, however. I've taken this step in the hope of deterring some of the hit-and-run POV vandalism that seems to plague any article that mentions the M******** word. -- ChrisO 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-unprotection