Talk:Aegean Macedonia

message: I've "fact"-tagged the statement that "the origins of the term are unknown". We shouldn't confuse our state of knowledge as Wikipedia editors with the state of knowledge of scholarship. That sentence, as it stands, implies that scholars have looked into the matter by browsing through the historical archives and come up empty-handed. If that's the case, fine, and it should be referenced. If, however, the sentence only means to say that a few Wikipedia editors have looked into the matter by surfing the web for an hour and have come up empty-handed, it is seriously misleading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to rewrite it :) - FrancisTyers · 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: The term Aegean Macedonia is not a nationalist Macedonian Slav term. It is the name for that area of Macedonia. It is the name of the area in Macedonian. It has been used by western sources to describe the area as well here is an example where Canadian Macedonian Steve Stavro is said to have been born in Aegean Macedonia.
As you can see this term is not a nationalist term. It is used by western sources.
Alexander the great1 19:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term Aegean Macedonia 

message: Please provide evidence regarding the presumed appelation 'Aegean Macedonia' since the Treaty of Stephano, up to 1944 or 1945. No Bulgarian, Greek, Engish or French source texts I have seen use that expression. If no evidence is provided, then we must remove that reference until such evidence is provided. Regarding the Bulgarian reference, please can you translate it.
San Stephano Treaty does not even include the terms 'Aegean' or 'Macedonia' Politis 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: San Stephano, I think not

message: I think there is an overkill with the whole irrednetism claim about Macedonians. While certainly worth mentioning from a historical perspective, this article in particlular is filled with these claims. 
This is just an outdated hangover from 1950s communist era, held onto by some because they lack any real arguements Hxseek 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trend 

message: You have a good point; the problem is that if it is just about the 'term', then the article can be just one paragraph. In fact, it was originally created as a form of disambiguation with most of the material provided by Politis (yours truly) and accepted by the then editors. Of course things move on. Politis 12:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the term though. Does the note at the top of the page not say "This article is about the term "Aegean Macedonia" in northern Greece, for a full description of the Macedonian region in Greece, see Macedonia (Greece)"? All I'm questioning is the relevance of the profile of Macedonia (Greece) in this article when it is linked to at the very top of the page. Also, are there any sources about how in Greek "the inclusion of 'Aegean' refers to 'coastal' regions with immediate access to the sea, as opposed to 'in land'"?--NetProfit 12:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Albion and Blighty refer to the UK, but the profile is not reproduced, as you live in the UK, you should be familiar with those terms. Anyway, "Aegean Macedonia" sometimes includes areas of southeastern Albania ("Mala Prespa and Golo Bardo") so the extent to which it strictly refers to Greek Macedonia is debatable. Finally, even if Plato does use "Aegean" that way, it's original research to try to guess the origin of the term "Aegean Macedonia" here.--NetProfit 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's an exception, when claiming United Macedonia, they usually just refer to Aegean, Vardar and Pirin Macedonia (the parts in Greece and Serbia are just included in the terms Aegean and Vardar Macedonia respectively). As long as this article says (in the note at the top) that it's about the term, the profile of Greek Macedonia really has no place here.--NetProfit 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You haven't yet explained why the profile of Greek Macedonia is so absolutely essential in this article. Including it implies it is a legitimate alternative name, which we know it is not (if it was, at Macedonia (Greece), it would say Macedonia, also known as Aegean Macedonia...). Moreover, I think that duplication of information is discouraged.--NetProfit 14:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you think the map of Greek Macedonia will do? How about adding (or replacing it with) a map of "United Macedonia"?--NetProfit 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Term

message: The following passage from the article displays some confusion about sources:
:Tito's war time representative to Macedonia, Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo, is credited with promoting the usage of the new regional names of the Macedonian region for irredentist purposes. Indeed, Tsola Dragoicheva, in her Memoirs, 'Pobadata', Sofia 1979, writes that, "Under pressure from Tempo, the Macedonian HQ issued a Manifesto in October 1943, for the slogan about a 'United Macedonia', which began to crop up in CPY documents. Hitherto, the Yugolsav party leadership only had designs on Vardar Macedonia. Tempo himself wrote (Struggle for the Balkans,London: Merlin 1980) that, “The slogan about a united Macedonia first appeared in the Manifesto of the HQ of the Macedonian National Liberation Army, at the beginning of October 1943. There had been no mention of it earlier in any document either in Yugoslavia or in Macedonia”. Tempo also attacked the Greek Communist Party (KKE) because it, "only recognises the Macedonian people of Aegean Macedonia a right to equality in the framework of the Greek State" (How and why the people's Liberation struggle of Greece met with defeat (O narodnou revolucijiu u Grckoj), Manchester: Merlin Press, 1985, original 1949). The ideological context was always 'anti bourgeois-democratic parties' and in line with communist ideology.
:
*Questions:
**Where in this paragraph does the passage ascribed to Tsola Dragoicheva end? 
**What's the exact bibliographic reference for "Struggle for the Balkan" (1980), is it a book by Vukmanovic-Tempo himself or a book by someone else quoting him; and if the latter, when and where did Vukmanovic-Tempo write it?
**Same question about the 1985 book. Who is its author, what is its real title? (Obviously, "O narodnou revolucijiu u Grckoj" isn't a literal translation of "How and why the people's Liberation struggle of Greece met with defeat".)
Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: BalkanFever, can you provide a number of sources from FY/ROM where 'Aegean Macedonia' is NOT used in an irredentist manner? Also, please provide irredentist sources. Politis (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you didn't understand the question - read it again: sources from FY/ROM --Laveol T 23:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Especially irredentist

message: I'd suggest to clear this article from the pollitical millitant propaganda tones and POV's like the continous "irredentistic" labels attached every time the historical term Aegean Macedonia is used.  Alex Makedon (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest Greek nationalists stop referring to the country of Macedonia as "FYROM". BalkanFever 08:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the overwhelming majority of Greeks, who don't want "Macedonia" in the name of any neighbouring country, call it Skopje. As for FYROM, that is preferred by such bastions of Greek nationalism as the UN, the EU, NATO, etc. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: In terms of "wtf" cares, it seems the UN, EU, NATO etc do. And why "Greeks" is in quotes again? I gather this has something to do with Ethiopians?--Avg (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: UN, EU, NATO etc respect the negotiation process, agreements and the provisional reference the Republic of Macedonia as a sign of good will towards Greece has accepted. UN, EU, NATO don't really give a damn how the "greeks" feel about some states and regions names. Alex Makedon (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you answer please why you use Greeks in quotes?--Avg (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get over it. It's irrelevant. BalkanFever 01:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only it's not irrelevant, your reply clearly shows where you stand.--Avg (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, I'm scared. BalkanFever 08:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete all the antagonistic labelling of the term Aegean Macedonia as "irredentistic" and similar POV 

message: This is a Greek article of a Greek province. The first reference is to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The subsequent ones are Republic of Macedonia. They will probably also have to be changed. Editors of all persuations have already gone over this. Politis (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek article

message: We shouldn't probably be doing this ("original research" and all that jazz), but since the article is currently claiming the term was only invented in the 1940s, I've been searching a bit... :
The following are hits on Google books showing usage of the term significantly before 1945:
*"Bulgarian Govt, [...] denies Greek charges that it fomented disorders within Greece in order to detach Aegean Macedonia:" Source: New York Times Index (1913), p.188 (March 27, 1913) 
*"The Greeko-Serbian [sic] treaty of June 2, 1913, recognized as Bulgarian the entire Aegean Macedonia outside of Salonica." Source: George H. Blakeslee, in Journal of International Relations (1920), p.362. 
*"[...] Aegean Macedonia could only win their liberation within the framework of Yugoslavia". Source: Tribune, 1937 
It is true that attestations become significantly more frequent after c.1945 in the context of the Greek Civil War, and there are also a few attestations were outside (Western) sources denounce the term as associated with Titoist territorial claims, but there are also quite numerous examples immediately after 1945 where the term is apparently used by outside western sources with no apparent political overtones whatsoever, as if already a completely established term.
Now, I'm not asking that all of this should be written into the article. What I'm asking is that we shouldn't be doing these kinds of things either way. Either a reliable source tells us when and how the term was introduced, or tells us explicitly that scholars have tried to find out and still don't know; or we have no business talking about the issue.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This search has validity since it gives sources. I would conjecture that, based on the above evidence, we notice that the term AM was mentioned by outsiders. This does not prove (yet) that the term had any history, or any continuity to the 1940s. Perhaps our Bulgarian, Bulgarian-speaking friends have some Bulgarian sources handy? Personally speaking, all sources such as the above are gratfully received. Damn, I feel like an esoteric academic ;-) Politis (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is not original research, it is bibliographical research and perfectly acceptable. It seems that the term was coined by Bulgaria during/after the Balkan wars (first mention is in 1913). Could you tell me how did you find the text you quoted for the NYT article, since I only see the result and there's no preview? .--Avg (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I was wondering the same thing as Avg... Politis (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier mentions 

message: The use of the word "irredentist" is nothing more than Greek POV pushing!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.96.194 (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words = irredentist 

message: From Macedonia (Greece): "Since World War II, Greek Macedonia is sometimes called Aegean Macedonia, a term introduced by Tito in 1945 to lay claim on Greek Macedonia and in the build up to the Greek civil war."
Aegean Macedonia is a term used for irredentist purposes and has limited (if not zero) use among native english speakers.
I propose deletion of this article, cleanup of the useful parts and expand a relevant section in Macedonia (Greece). - Thomas  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.33.148 (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and merge with Macedonia (Greece) 

message: The term is apparently also used by Bulgarians, see the Bulgarian interwiki of Macedonia (Greece) that points to :bg:Егейска Македония. Interesting, the Serbian interwiki also points to :sr:Егејска Македонија, but not the Serbocroatian one.  Andreas  (T) 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, Bulgarians use the term "Беломорска Тракия" or "White-sea Thrace" as well as "Западна Тракия" or "Western Thrace," I have yet to see the term you suggested anywhere else. This observation is based on the overlap of the bg article for Western Thrace and Aegean Thrace with the shared term "Belomorska Trakiya." DasПиg talk  19:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used by Bulgarians? 

message: As expected this article was filled with strong nationalist POVs, that were either unsourced or badly sourced, original research on origins of the term based merely by using the earliest date written under Google Book results, and terribly written with terrible sourcing style and unable to verify - several sources have no page numbers at all. I cut out a lot of the POV, but this article still is terribly written and with strong POV tendencies in an accusatory manner pointing at Bulgarians and Slavic Macedonians essentially as people to be held responsible for the existence of the name "Aegean Macedonia".--R-41 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total rewrite needed plus merge into a section on the article: Macedonia (region) 

message: I'm unclear why people keep reinserting the reference I removed to Loring Danforth's book in the first paragraph. A quick look at the book reveals that the reference has been selectively edited and the quotes are taken out of context to misrepresent the book. thanks. 73.134.243.84 (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The same issue is confirmed by other references too. For example check: John S. Koliopoulos, Thanos M. Veremis, Modern Greece: A History since 1821; A New History of Modern Europe, John Wiley & Sons, 2009, ISBN 1444314831, p. 121. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way check ethnic Macedonian POV in the same book on p. 45. It confirms the same, Jingiby (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading reference