Talk:Macedonians (Greeks)/Archive 1

message: I think that Macedonians (ethnic group) are not necessary, since they are included in Macedonian dab page. For the same reason, we excluded them from the respective slavic article. If you really have to include them, though, then they must be mentioned as their wiki article name (and not without the "ethnic group" dab parentheses) and they clearly are not ...majority (wow! 2.5 million Greek Macedonians vs 1.6 million Slavomacedonians).  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, two things, 1. I thought we agreed to include Greek Macedonians in the Macedonian dab. 2. They are a majority in the Republic of Macedonia, which is what I put. - FrancisTyers 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No hard feelings. While syntactically correct point, it sounded otherwise. You really need the dab? I am not a WP:DICK, so feel free to keep it, but I think it is redundant (given the ethnic group precedent). Also, give a look at my response to your "I seriously doubt that" comment in the above talk... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, ok, I must admit I'm a little behind on the ethnic group page. Its filling up like a latrine in a dysentry epidemic. I've removed it and we'll keep it out, same as the ethnic group page. - FrancisTyers 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! It's like the <sewer> I presume... And, Fran, you know you don't need to wikify Greek words for us Greeks to understand... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! :) - FrancisTyers 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dab notice

message: In Greek related articles there will be no mentioning of Republic of Macedonia, as it is insulting since it tries to acquire and monopolise the Greek self-identifying term. We will follow the Gdansk/Danzig precedent (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote) where users voted with a smashing majority that the name would be identical to each side's views in each side's articles. If you need to specify RoM, then it must follow fYRoM and it must be unlinked and in parentheses.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy if you'll stick to this "the name would be identical to each side's views in each side's articles". - FrancisTyers 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on though, how could I not change it ;) Any page dealing with Macedonia without a little naming dispute edit conflict isn't dealing with the problem at all :)) - FrancisTyers 11:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently we are following your rules, so we follow them all the way... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See it this way. Most Greek Macedonians would self-identify as being from a region just south of a state called FYROM. --Telex 11:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! Maybe we should create a redirect to this article in South-of-Fyromians!!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki links to [[FYROM]]

message: Whether or not the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or not is unknown and a matter of dispute among historians today, so I don't see how wikipedia can pick sides and have an unneutral comment made unnoticed. Therefore I am adding a tag to let the reader know that there are unreliable POVs in the article. Macedonia 02:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people included in that article are very well historically documented (go and read Herodotus or whatever ancient historian you wish). If you continue breaking WP:POINT, you 'll probably get an RFC. talk to +MATIA 08:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Macedonia, as I'm sure you're well aware, the Argead dynasty declared themselves Greeks, respect their right to self-identification. --Telex 09:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's just trolling guys. - FrancisTyers 09:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is the risk of being repetitive. We already have a List of ancient Macedonians, so probably it would be more reasonable to concentrate on expandind that and putting in this article a "see also" link. Tell me your opinion.--Aldux 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You have apoint here Al. What I'd do is shorten these lists here (both contemporary and ancient) to the most prominent 4 or 5 members and then include all the rest in the separate lists, with the note: "See List of ancient Macedonians and List of Byzantine Macedonians for the complete list..." (provided the latter link will not be red anymore). Guys?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea Niko. talk to +MATIA 09:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A List of Byzantine Macedonians seems problematic, first for the few names that are on wikipedia, and second for the ambiguity of "romaios", meaning both Greek and Roman, that as such could be used for non-Greeks. But for the first part, I agree.--Aldux 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please read the full discussion, Miskin? There's a list of ancient Macedonians; and there's no point making a double list.--Aldux 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander the Great 

message: Telex's revision consists of the note that the following people self-identified as Greek, and are from Macedonia. 
This would be improved by sources that 
*Seleucus and Antipater self-identified as anything, in any surviving evidence.
*Clarification whether Ptolemy's "self-identification" consists of anything other than the claim that he was Philip II's bastard.
**If so, it would also be nice to have a source that he himself made this claim.
*A source that Michael the Paphlagonian was from Macedonia. Septentrionalis 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Macedonians