Talk:Macedonia (terminology)/Archive 2

message: I don't know whether it'd be a featured list or a featured article, but whatever it is, it's really great at what it does (summarising the various terms and terminologies), and is good enough to be featured in my opinion... —Nightstallion (?) 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Want to put it through a Wikipedia:Peer review first? - FrancisTyers · 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think it's about time we posted all external references in this article too? They exist in the daughter articles and the talk section "#Links". About peer review, yeah, why not. :NikoSilver: 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Submitted for PR. You mean the citations, sure we can add citations, how do you suggest we do it? (Personally I think it would be better if they weren't lumped in with the notes but i'm open to being proved wrong). - FrancisTyers · 13:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should already know I prefer them separately. :-) Especially for articles like this one. I think we should use the old system for citations to separate them, until the bugs are fixed. Ok? :NikoSilver: 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great :) - FrancisTyers · 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we add  tags for stuff that needs citing? - FrancisTyers · 13:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naaah, let's see what we got first and then we decide. Care to do the honours of creating the new section? I'll show you my refs if you show me yours! :NikoSilver: 13:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haaaa ha ha ha! !!! :NikoSilver: 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ^__________^ - FrancisTyers · 14:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ain't we supposed to show that these terms are used by irredentists? How can you expect a "non-partisan" source for that? :-) (Jesus, did I just put WP:BEANS in my ndose?):NikoSilver: 14:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, perhaps you are right. Well, I suppose we can keep this one until a better one (if a better one exists) is found. - FrancisTyers · 14:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right about the beands?:NikoSilver: 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: o____O - FrancisTyers · 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Anything else you'd like citing? I certainly can think of a few...:NikoSilver: 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Shall I mark them with ? Or would you like to proceed before I do it?:NikoSilver: 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, thats probably the easiest. - FrancisTyers · 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured? 

message: Should we note that another name for Aromanian is Macedo-Romanian ? - FrancisTyers · 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the language you should also mention the people maybe? :NikoSilver: 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should use also the non-frequent terms here (and specify so). I really don't know if they are called as such. The article about Aromanians starts like "Aromanians (also called: Arumanians or Macedo-Romanians; ...", but then again, it has a POV tag right above it...:NikoSilver: 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dunno, but why don't you try inserting that where applicable? :NikoSilver: 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another language

message: Thought that's a derogatory term addressed to all Bulgarians and referring to their 'purely non-European Tatar and mongoloid origin of Central Asia' that is undisputable by the modern science. AFAIK, it seems just like sort of an ethnic slur, not exactly a term to describe pro-Bulgarian ethnic Macedonians. I'd have removed it, but would like to ask first, because I might be wrong. Todor→Bozhinov 19:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word should be kept, lest people think that the Macedonian Slavs are more tolerant than everyone else. If it's a slur for Bulgarians, then it should be kept and described as such.--Tēlex 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, I'm cool with keeping it, but it has a different meaning from Bugarofil and Bugarash, so it should be separate. Todor→Bozhinov 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since they are allowed to self-identify as they wish (i.e. Macedonians), they are also allowed to call other nations the way they want (i.e. Bugaro-tatari for the Bulgarians), but, for God's sake, noone is allowed to call them the way he/she wants (i.e. Skopjians, as the Greeks call them, or Western Bulgarians, as Bulgarians do)!!!:ppp --Hectorian 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what you fail to understand is that all people in the "historical" region of Macedonia who have a Slavic language as their mother tongue are ethnic Macedonian. There are two groups of these people: there are those who acknowledge their ancient Macedonian heritage and declare as Macedonians, and there are those who deny it and declare as something else; they are what we would call οι εν υπνώσει Μακεδόνες. There are four main categories: Bugarofili (most Macedonians in Pirin Macedonia declare as Bulgarians), Grkomani (most Macedonians in Greece declare as Greeks), Srbofili (most Macedonians in Pohor Pchinski declare as Serbs), and Albanofili (most Macedonian Muslims declare as Albanians). --Tēlex 20:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, i know what they think! but if someone calls them 'Western Bulgarians', 'Southern Serbians', 'Slavicised Greeks', 'descendants of Paionians' or just 'Skopjians' or 'Fyromians' they will accuse him of making personal attacks! There have been users (as u probably know) that accused Greek editors (me included) for personal attacks cause we name them by the last two terms! so, i guess that we do not have the right of identifying other groups... They have the copyright of self-identification and of identifying the others:p. Do they also have an equivalent of Epsilon Team, cause i am sure that they have plenty of conspiracy theories? --Hectorian 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugaro-tatari? 

message: BTW does anyone know if there is any terminology used by the Serbs or the Albanians. I know that nationalistic Serbs directly deny the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity, call them Torlak-speaking Serbs, and demand the incorporation of FYROM into a Greater Serbia. --Tēlex 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I'm sure there are some around, same goes for Greater Albania. - FrancisTyers · 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Serbian nationalists used to deny a Macedonian ethnicity's existence, AFAIK most don't today (except for the extreme nationalists, of course). They would also call them 'South Serbians', but since this type of propaganda proved unsuccessful, the Serbs shifted to persuading the Slavic population of Macedonia to adopt an ethnicity of their own after WWII — it's better than having most of them having a Bulgarian national and ethnic consciousness, you know :) I don't know anything about Albanian terminology, though, but I can assume there exists some sort of it. Todor→Bozhinov 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I either do not know if there is an albanian terminology, but i know that in nationast albanian cyrcles the people of RoM are regarded as descendants of Illyrians (for them this means Albanians). to take it a bit further, they believe that also the Greek Macedonia is inhabited by greek-speaking Albanians and that Alexander was also Albanian-there are many sources like that on the net. --Hectorian 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Po, Leka i Madh ishte shqiptar. Maqedonët antikë ishin Ilirë dhe gjuha e tyre ishte Ilirishtja. Don't forget that this is what they claim in Skopje: they prefer the ancient Macedonians to have been Albanians than Greeks. Don't ask me why; Greeks are more friends to them than the evil Muslim Albanians who are tearing their country apart. --Tēlex 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't ask u, cause i think i know: they cannot challenge the Greeks over the ethnicity of Alexander (the thousands of ancient references make every single of their claims seem ridiculous...). so, they think it is better for them to achive divide et impera over Alexander, if they can... --Hectorian 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll have to object to this one, Bugari-tatari is also used to refer to people originally from the Republic, living in Bulgaria and identifying as Bulgarian, as ridiculous as this is.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Like Vlatkoto? --Tēlex 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he does not identify as Bulgarian, at least not in wikipedia.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right. Like he says on his userpage: he is a MACEDONIAN. --Tēlex 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I'm Thracian :).   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: U have more evidence to be Thracian than he has to be Macedonian:) --Hectorian 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, is this term used specifically for "Macedonians who identify as Albanian"? If not, why is it here — this isn't an insult-fest - FrancisTyers · 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You miss my point, are there Macedonians who identify as Albanian? It would seem to me to be a rather difficult thing to do, akin to me identifying as Jewish — different language, different religion etc. with Bulgarian as we know the issues are small (language very similar, religion same), Greek (religion same, can claim language is Slavic language (Greece)), Serbian (religion same, language similar). Albanian (different religion, different language). I'd be interested to be proven wrong. - FrancisTyers · 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting, I should have remembered that, considering I wrote it on the Albanisation page. It is kind of different from the other insults as it isn't specific for Macedonians who identify as Albanian, but rather used for any Albanians. - FrancisTyers · 22:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they have taken for granted another "unification" scenario and perform a logical leap in giving them the same pejorative term in advance...:NikoSilver: 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Shiptari is a general insult directed at Albanians, it's used in Bulgaria and Serbia too. Oddly, it doesn't seem to have any offensive etymology — it comes from shqiptar, the endonym, AFAIK. I don't think it's used to refer to Macedonian Muslims who identify as Albanian. Todor→Bozhinov 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do we include this or what? :NikoSilver: 11:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That, while it would make the word recognizably Macedonian, is not appropriate, since ethnic groups are usually in the plural and not used with a definite article when treated as terms. Shiptarot means 'the Albanian' (i.e., male person). Todor→Bozhinov 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian, Albanian terminology 

message: I have the impression that terminological nitpicking extends even into the question of whether or not to capitalize the first word of FYROM, right? At least, I've seen editors change from one version to the other here on WP many times. Is that just individual editors' preferences, or does it correspond to different naming practices out in the real world? If the latter, would it be worth mentioning? Who uses "F", who uses "f"? We should really do our best to present the intricacies of this case to the reader in all its gory detail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. The original UN Security Council resolution used "f". The CIA World Factbook uses "F". --Tēlex 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You'll find that distinction in Greek: πΓΔΜ vs ΠΓΔΜ. --Tēlex 11:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an official acronym used in the UN, or is it decided arbitrarily ? - FrancisTyers · 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably random - compare  and . I'll see if I can find anything on a government site. --Tēlex 12:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But does the UN actually use an acronym or does it always use the spell out form in the resolution? - FrancisTyers · 12:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes . --Tēlex 12:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: End of story then. Use all caps from now on for abbreviation, and use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for spellout. :NikoSilver: 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Former" or "former"? 

message: Jesus! We all deserve a block for ommission and lack of intelligence!  :NikoSilver: 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ancient Macedonians]] 

message: This is a huge addition with no citations. I'm removing it so we can discuss... - FrancisTyers · 12:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear, it isn't necessarily wrong, but it is clearly written from a strong Greek point of view and is likely selective in the sources it it using. - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words unless it confirms the cornerstone of Macedonian Slav nationalism - the existence of a historical Macedonian region - it is incompatible with your pro-FYROM position. I think it's a fact that there is no such thing as a "historical" Macedonian region. --Tēlex 12:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your words taste bad, stop putting them into my mouth :( In case you couldn't see it all the way up there, what I said was, "This is a huge addition with no citations. I'm removing it so we can discuss...", I then followed it up with "Just to make it clear, it isn't necessarily wrong, but it is clearly written from a strong Greek point of view and is likely selective in the sources it it using." - FrancisTyers · 12:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see there is a case for removing such a long paragraph, but I really think that we need to include how it was introduced in Octover 1945 as part of a territorial claim that played a huge part in the ensuing Greek civil war, the refugees question and the legacy of mistrust by the Greeks towards that name. Remeber that it is still officially used in school books printed in Skopje. Politis 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see some citations from non-partisan reliable sources before we continue. I'm not denying that it is plausible, but it certainly needs referencing. - FrancisTyers · 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See book, I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis, June 1947, printed by the Greek Ministry of Press and Information. The book consists of translated documentation and a number of pictures - including the front page of Nova Makedonija. All the quotes are dated and there are accompanied by no commentaries. This makes all the information sourced. I will reduce the paragraph.
*But I find the current divisions in the article as Aegean, Vardar, Pirin, misleading since they are hardly ever used and especially not in EU, UN, Greece and Bulgaria. Also, we need to know their source, and it is irridentist. Naturally, as a historian, all proofs to the contrary greatly appreciated. Politis 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, printing 1947 by the Greek government, doesn't exactly sound like a non-partisan source. Wasn't the civil war going on then? I'd like to see a non-partisan source about this. - FrancisTyers · 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A brief search  shows that it is used by Bulgarians. Furthermore, it is used by non-Macedonians, although Greeks describe it as "FYROM's terminology". So, a non-partisan source on the origin of the name please. - FrancisTyers · 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Was the term used by Greeks supporting the communists during the civil war? - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgarians do use it in an irridentitist context. The whole world knows that due to the site www.macedoniainfo.com. --Tēlex 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure macedoniainfo.com counts as a reliable source. - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when are examples of nationalism supposed to be reliable sources? --Tēlex 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, those guys! Well, I don't think that it is on the same level as the United Macedonia, but do we have an article on Greater Bulgaria yet? :) - FrancisTyers · 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that there are no mistakes deliberate or otherwise in translation? And where is your source for this being the first use of the term? I think we can safely say that Tito used it, I will draft a compromise and post it below. - FrancisTyers · 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Putting two Greek words together - Aegean and Macedonia - should not offend Greeks just because 1,3 million people from the poorer end of Europe without an army and 600,000 Albanians and a resident UÇK used it for propagandistic purposes.
--Tēlex 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What he means is that because he used that nomenclature in his essay, he doesn't want people to think that he's a nationalist ;-) --Tēlex 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Telex: Who was that guy above? :-) Also, I agree with the new rewording by Politis. Add it please.:NikoSilver: 13:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we get a full citation for that book too, and an English translation of the name. - FrancisTyers · 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 edit conflicts: No, not by them, but by them. :NikoSilver: 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Niko, is my version, and the footnote acceptable? - FrancisTyers · 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the footnotes are lost in any way, but this paragraph seems to continue the logical historical flow of events. I mean, first we have Macedon, then Roman, then Byzantine, then Ottoman, then the maps by that Greek guy and the Bulgarians, and finally the Tito s*** which completes the historic background of the area. After that, we are fully informed to read the politics. In that sense, I mostly agree with the text, but I disagree with it being in a footnote.:NikoSilver: 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I can't agree with it being in the article body. Not with the current citation. The source is not reliable. - FrancisTyers · 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We should be presenting it how we present the other government and non-governmental sources, in a footnote. - FrancisTyers · 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fran, I understand your concern about Greek POV, but this is the only info we have so far. I suggest we enrich it with the other side (if there is one).:NikoSilver: 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the other side the region of Macedonia has always looked like this, and has always been inhabited by Macedonians, who were Slavicized at some time after the 7th century. In 1913, this region was divided against the will of the Macedonians and the Macedonians in the area known historically as Aegean Macedonia were expelled and Greeks were settled in the region (this is the first time in history Greeks appeared in the region). I think this sums it up. What they don't realize is that a historical Macedonian region looking anything like that didn't exist before the 19th century, the ancient Macedonians were Atticized long before the 6th century (this means they can claim to be the descendents of Slavicized Atticized Ancient Macedonians if they want :p), and that the Macedonian ethnicity is the product of the 20th century. --Tēlex 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand. How is it disputed? --Tēlex 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, my apologies, I was confused, I thought we were still using Politis' version "It quotes Josip Broz Tito using for the first time the term Aegean Macedonia on the 11th October, 1945" — that is disputed. Looks like I got ahead of myself. :) - FrancisTyers · 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the whole thing would be complete if we included Telex's other side above too (provided we can adequately source it). :NikoSilver: 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime (until Telex sources it) can you (Fran) add that darn R-1 and renumber the rest please?:NikoSilver: 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "sources it"? Check http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/, http://www.makedonija.info/, http://www.maknews.com/ etc. --Tēlex 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what to do then...:NikoSilver: 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't. --Tēlex 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Write it, cite it, and state the conflict with scientific consensus. Appropriate?:NikoSilver: 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to not work on a page

message: The term Aegean MacedoniaThe name "Aegean Macedonia" is considered by some Greeks offensive when used to refer to northern Greek region of Macedonia as it can be used by irredentist organizations in the Republic of Macedonia who support a Unified Macedonia, contrary to the desires of the people living in the area. is an area in the south of the Macedonia region. The borders of the area coincide with Macedonia in Greece.
The term ‘Aegean Macedonia’ was officially introduced by Tito, on 11 October 1945, in a speech he made in Skopje, in the build up to the communist backed civil war in Greece. He stated, “…today, there are Macedonians outside Macedonia. They are our Macedonian brothers of Aegean Macedonia, but we believe that they will unite with us…”. On the same day, the official newspaper in Skopje, Nova Makedonija wrote, "Now, Vardar Macedonia is the defender and initiator of a united Macedonia" and called on the people in Bulgaria and Greece to take up arms. On 20 Octover 1945, on a visit to Sofia, the president of the new Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Lazar Kolisefski, re-iterated the intention to "unite all of Macedonia". With the start of the Greek civil war, the term Egeska Makedonija was made into a front page article by ‘Nova Makedonija’, on 27 August 1946; it included a map of Greek (Aegean) Macedonian which the authorities claimed had to be united with the new Socialist Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In June 1947, the Greek Ministry of Information published a book (H enantion tis Ellados Epivouli), pointing out that the “new term, Aegean Macedonia”, but also “Pirin Macedonia”, were introduced as part of the Yugoslav offensive against Greece in the on-going civil war, laying claim to Greek Macedonia.
::I can see there is a case for removing such a long paragraph, but I really think that we need to include how it was introduced in Octover 1945 as part of a territorial claim that played a huge part in the ensuing Greek civil war, the refugees question and the legacy of mistrust by the Greeks towards that name. Remeber that it is still officially used in school books printed in Skopje. Politis 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see some citations from non-partisan reliable sources before we continue. I'm not denying that it is plausible, but it certainly needs referencing. - FrancisTyers · 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See book, I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis, June 1947, printed by the Greek Ministry of Press and Information. The book consists of translated documentation and a number of pictures - including the front page of Nova Makedonija. All the quotes are dated and there are accompanied by no commentaries. This makes all the information sourced. I will reduce the paragraph.
*But I find the current divisions in the article as Aegean, Vardar, Pirin, misleading since they are hardly ever used and especially not in EU, UN, Greece and Bulgaria. Also, we need to know their source, and it is irridentist. Naturally, as a historian, all proofs to the contrary greatly appreciated. Politis 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, printing 1947 by the Greek government, doesn't exactly sound like a non-partisan source. Wasn't the civil war going on then? I'd like to see a non-partisan source about this. - FrancisTyers · 13:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A brief search  shows that it is used by Bulgarians. Furthermore, it is used by non-Macedonians, although Greeks describe it as "FYROM's terminology". So, a non-partisan source on the origin of the name please. - FrancisTyers · 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Was the term used by Greeks supporting the communists during the civil war? - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgarians do use it in an irridentitist context. The whole world knows that due to the site www.macedoniainfo.com. --Tēlex 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure macedoniainfo.com counts as a reliable source. - FrancisTyers · 13:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when are examples of nationalism supposed to be reliable sources? --Tēlex 13:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, those guys! Well, I don't think that it is on the same level as the United Macedonia, but do we have an article on Greater Bulgaria yet? :) - FrancisTyers · 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that there are no mistakes deliberate or otherwise in translation? And where is your source for this being the first use of the term? I think we can safely say that Tito used it, I will draft a compromise and post it below. - FrancisTyers · 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Putting two Greek words together - Aegean and Macedonia - should not offend Greeks just because 1,3 million people from the poorer end of Europe without an army and 600,000 Albanians and a resident UÇK used it for propagandistic purposes.
--Tēlex 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What he means is that because he used that nomenclature in his essay, he doesn't want people to think that he's a nationalist ;-) --Tēlex 13:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Telex: Who was that guy above? :-) Also, I agree with the new rewording by Politis. Add it please.:NikoSilver: 13:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we get a full citation for that book too, and an English translation of the name. - FrancisTyers · 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 edit conflicts: No, not by them, but by them. :NikoSilver: 14:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Niko, is my version, and the footnote acceptable? - FrancisTyers · 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the footnotes are lost in any way, but this paragraph seems to continue the logical historical flow of events. I mean, first we have Macedon, then Roman, then Byzantine, then Ottoman, then the maps by that Greek guy and the Bulgarians, and finally the Tito s*** which completes the historic background of the area. After that, we are fully informed to read the politics. In that sense, I mostly agree with the text, but I disagree with it being in a footnote.:NikoSilver: 14:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I can't agree with it being in the article body. Not with the current citation. The source is not reliable. - FrancisTyers · 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We should be presenting it how we present the other government and non-governmental sources, in a footnote. - FrancisTyers · 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fran, I understand your concern about Greek POV, but this is the only info we have so far. I suggest we enrich it with the other side (if there is one).:NikoSilver: 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the other side the region of Macedonia has always looked like this, and has always been inhabited by Macedonians, who were Slavicized at some time after the 7th century. In 1913, this region was divided against the will of the Macedonians and the Macedonians in the area known historically as Aegean Macedonia were expelled and Greeks were settled in the region (this is the first time in history Greeks appeared in the region). I think this sums it up. What they don't realize is that a historical Macedonian region looking anything like that didn't exist before the 19th century, the ancient Macedonians were Atticized long before the 6th century (this means they can claim to be the descendents of Slavicized Atticized Ancient Macedonians if they want :p), and that the Macedonian ethnicity is the product of the 20th century. --Tēlex 14:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand. How is it disputed? --Tēlex 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, my apologies, I was confused, I thought we were still using Politis' version "It quotes Josip Broz Tito using for the first time the term Aegean Macedonia on the 11th October, 1945" — that is disputed. Looks like I got ahead of myself. :) - FrancisTyers · 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the whole thing would be complete if we included Telex's other side above too (provided we can adequately source it). :NikoSilver: 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime (until Telex sources it) can you (Fran) add that darn R-1 and renumber the rest please?:NikoSilver: 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "sources it"? Check http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/, http://www.makedonija.info/, http://www.maknews.com/ etc. --Tēlex 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what to do then...:NikoSilver: 15:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't. --Tēlex 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Write it, cite it, and state the conflict with scientific consensus. Appropriate?:NikoSilver: 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irridentitist name

message: Your source is disputed , I'm removing it. - FrancisTyers · 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now why didn't I say that before you did, Politi? Maybe I need a vacation...:NikoSilver: 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course my source is as unreliable as yours ;) Maybe we should just stick a  on the article, but it seems silly for a small thing like this. My complaints have been adequately expressed above. - FrancisTyers · 15:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading lessons

message: As explained previous I am not happy with the "In geography" section. - FrancisTyers · 15:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You understand ofcourse that your source is a third-party source in this (as regards the Aegean-Macedonia issue)...:NikoSilver: 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, if we had to support the "Pirin Macedonia" name, I would consider it partisan. Same goes for the Greek source vice-versa. Seriously, have the Tito records been openned? :NikoSilver: 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fran, I am changing this title here, and I assure you that I will not accept anything unless we all agree in it. Leaving the article as is for now, and we can keep discussing. No 3RR will stop us from making it perfect. Agree? :NikoSilver: 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok Fran, you want war, you'll have it. I offered peace. I request a decent response in the above, not a POV tag. :NikoSilver: 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It would help if you specified what exactly your problem is? --Tēlex 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New sources

message: Could somebody explain how are Armenian and Russian languages of region? Luka Jačov 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a recognized Armenian community in Greece (including Macedonia), and Russian is spoken by immigrants from the Greek community in Russia (they are those who are referred to as Ρωσοπόντιοι for those who know Greek). They're everywhere now - in a survey carried out in 2001, 0.4% had Russian as a mother tongue, and over half of them were in Thessalonica (see Demographics of Greece). --Tēlex 19:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages of region 

message: I thought you didn't like it, Fran. What is this about? :NikoSilver: 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was trying to make the distinction between "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". - FrancisTyers · 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hah, well, does the UN use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or does it always use "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ? - FrancisTyers · 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Number 1. See Telex link above.:NikoSilver: 10:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fyrom twice? 

message: Two ethnic groups inhabiting the area have a common element. They self-identify as Macedonians both on a regional and an international meaning, and disambiguate the other Macedonians in the area by adding distinguishing prefixes in their names, or totally renaming them. An ethnic Macedonian would call themselves simply Macedonian and usually disambiguate by adding "Greek-" or "Bulgarian-" for the others. The same would apply to a Greek Macedonian, calling themselves simply Macedonian, and disambiguation would be required for their northern neighbors, in the form of a "Slav-" addition, or renaming to "Skopjan". These groups do not always aim to use such additions in a pejorative way, but the other side generally perceives them as such.
Apart from the heinous mispelling of "neighbours" :)) The paragraph is neutral, however I'm not sure that it really adds to the article (nothing against the contribution, but I really think that it would probably be better without). Incidentally, we might mention that in terms of national identity, Greeks identify as Greeks and Macedonians identify as Macedonian. Seriously, I'm convinced we don't want to get into this. - FrancisTyers · 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, but I think that it adds those comments to the article that we all know (and think of) but nobody explicitly expressed. About national id, sure. Add that too, if you feel it makes a difference. That was my "both regional and international" quote attempting to do anyway...:NikoSilver: 11:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we add Macedo-Romanians why not add Macedo-Albanians, Macedo-Serbs, Macedo-Turks, Macedo-Roma and Macedo-Bulgarians as well?   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In demographics

message: To get this quote in, "If it were not confusing, it would not have been Macedonia" (from McCarthy, J. (2001) The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire, p. 55 — you can find it at http://books.google.com :) - FrancisTyers · 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Idea: Create a Trivia section. Include that quote, the Macedonian salad etymology and whatever else you can think of. Any more ideas? :NikoSilver: 13:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trivia is generally discouraged ("Wikipedia's general trivia policy is, however, not to promote inclusion of trivia in the main namespace."), and we're aiming at FA status here, so I'd say we'd better not. Todor→Bozhinov 09:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -( :NikoSilver: 09:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'd love

message: Is it my imagination, or has someone been trolling the article. Adding a  to the claim that e.g. the Serbian name for Macedonia is Makedonija seems like WP:POINT to me. --Tēlex 15:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was User:TheGrappler, see the FAC page for an explanation. - FrancisTyers · 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, do we have an online dictionary source for any of these to add? Also, does anybody know how to use ?:NikoSilver: 13:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have access to the OED online through my university (the system is hilarious called ATHENS). I added the ones I could find. And I even managed to find references for some of the "slang" terms in Urban Dictionary — although I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source in any stretch of the terms :) - FrancisTyers · 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:POINT 

message: Where was it recommended to de-list the lead???? Definately better before! - FrancisTyers · 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP! The lead is horrific now. Please! Bring back the listed lead, it was _much_ easier on the eyes. - FrancisTyers · 15:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -( Think it can be worked out? :NikoSilver: 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Like it :-) :NikoSilver: 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YAARGH 

message: Should we have one as well?   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not important for controversy, but welcome as an addition if someone with the adequate knowledge can enlighten us...:NikoSilver: 21:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albanian terminology 

message: What was this? Are you saying that the Bulgarian linguists are unjustified in their position? That's POV! Saying that Bulgarian linguists are acting contrary to science standards is also (unsourced) POV. --Tēlex 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they are! :D Those crazy guys - FrancisTyers · 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's POV pushing though. Bulgarian linguists are more familiar of the situation - the Bulgarian identifying population of Pirin Macedonia (who the Macedonian Slavs view as 'Macedonians'), who speak the western Bulgarian dialects which Tito renamed to 'Macedonian' with respect to the confused population of Vardar Macedonia. Does the opinion of those over 200,000 people not count? Please find a more neutral wording. --Tēlex 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgarian linguists are by and large irrevocably biased, they've abandonned their scientific integrity. They even include the Slavic dialects of northern Greece in their crazy linguo-irredentist dialectological literature. Basically my position is that they try and argue that it isn't a language because of "X Y Z" and is a dialect because of "A B C". This is contrary to the scientific (linguistic) consensus, which is well illustrated with the quotes on my userpage. I'd be happy to consider alternative wordings. - FrancisTyers · 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, in your opinion are the Slavic dialects of northern Greece just "dialects of Bulgarian" then? Or are you being, 1. ignorant, 2. obtuse, 3. inflammatory, 4. sassy? - FrancisTyers · 22:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What dialects? :-) :NikoSilver: 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I do consider them dialects of Bulgarian (to the delight of the Bulgarian-identifying population of Greece), just the same way I consider the so-called "Pomak language" a dialect of Bulgarian. I'm a unonist, I consider Aromanian a Romanian dialect (Britannica agrees with me on that one), consider Tatar, Azeri, Kazakh, Uzbek etc dialects of Turkish and consider Scots a dialect of English. --Tēlex 22:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot Urdu a dialect of Hindi, Tajik a dialect of Persian, Norwegian a dialect of Danish, Afrikaans a dialect of Dutch, Ukrainian a dialect of Russian, Slovak a dialect of Czech (or is it Czech a dialect of Slovak) ;) - FrancisTyers · 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O Francis! 

message: Is there any other "Macedonia" in history section "controversially" referred to as "Macedonia"? How high must a controversy be escalated to deserve inclusion in the history section?:NikoSilver: 23:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole region is controversial, I'm not going to make a point about it, but you know what I mean. - FrancisTyers · 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no other terminology controversy in the history section, but thank you anyway. We cannot state that M is a name for ROM just like that. It is inaccurate and incomplete, since it does not apply world-wide. :NikoSilver: 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it doesn't apply in Greece ;) Besides, we already mention the controversy in the Politics section. We could move the note up if you like, but I think it fits better there. - FrancisTyers · 10:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, it doesn't apply to Greece. At least not in an official level. Anyway, I respect your comment about "already mention" but I'm afraid that most readers will skip the blah-blah and go directly to the list (striked out forbidden word). :NikoSilver: 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "controversially" 

message: Francis, why are you excluding details? I thought you were angry about ethnic Macedonians claiming false history, and Bulgarians over-objecting distinction. I really really think it explains the whole fuss, plus it's cited!:NikoSilver: 23:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it "would require more prose", feel free to add it...(that's what everybody is thirsty about!):NikoSilver: 23:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted for now. We can discuss more tomorrow. I really need to explain to all those people why everybody is so jumpy about names. It is well sourced. :NikoSilver: 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've added some (it tastes of delicious weasel words). I'm sure we're going to need "citations" for all of these, which I will supply sometime tommorow. I hope you'll agree that it is accurate, although probably not comprehensive. - FrancisTyers · 23:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, thats good. - FrancisTyers · 10:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to controversy

message: I'm seriously thinking of swapping old and new refs in the article. The old refs are recommended for large blocks of text (like in "Notes" section), while the new refs are recommended for citing (and re-citing) sources. I'm gonna start doing this, so please, please, please don't edit conflict me for a while...:NikoSilver: 09:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Done!!! I moved two notes within the text for consistency with the other relevenat "see..." quotes, plus they weren't really compatible to the content of the other NOTES (don't drop loud caps). Danforth appears three times. We must either join all three, or Fran, can you kindly add the page numbers? (or both join and add page numbers if the page numbers are the same) :NikoSilver: 11:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am holding you on your promise for more sources too! :NikoSilver: 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I've got to go out shortly, but I'll at least add the danforth page nos before I go. - FrancisTyers · 11:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: Danforth, first one is p. 44, second p. 44 and third p. 44 - FrancisTyers · 11:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! Is there anything in p.44 we could include in the article? How exactly do you sense that I DON'T WANT TO SWITCH IT BACK? :-) No, really, it's better this way, coz it also solves the numbering issue (R-notes used to start by R-3 [Churchill]). :NikoSilver: 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but I really hate reference text in the body of the article >:( — p. 44 just describes the terms, which is what we're referencing it for. - FrancisTyers · 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand how you feel, but the standard view has priority over the edit window... I only wish those bugs could be worked out soon. I wouldn't have to spend all morning trying to swap them! :NikoSilver: 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: It seems that in order to access the first reference, (Jasminka Z. et all. SARAJEVO PARADOX: Survival throughout History and Life after the Balkan War, http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/int/int_0603c.pdf ) a userid and password is needed. Maybe it’s better to find another source for this paper or in case that this is not possible to mention (somehow) the restrictions applicable for that specific source ? --NotReallyAnonymous Tom
:Hmm, good point, you can actually get the paper through Googles cache, but we should probably find a different source. - FrancisTyers · 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected now! :NikoSilver: 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor ref. glitch

message: *This sentence needs help (dispute which is disputed): The second dispute is over the very existence of a distinct language (i.e. different from Bulgarian), which is disputed by certain partisan groups.[10] I'd delete "partisan" to avoid problems.
*This entire section has a lot of content that seems to require referencing: Terminology by group
*This sentence is malformed, I can't tell what it's saying: Macedonist (Македонист) is a derogatory term for a person ...), whose studies support the official historical doctrine of the Republic of Macedonia or former Yugoslavia.  Person, whose studies support ?
I am reluctant to excersise my English skills, plus some recommendations refer to text by Francis. Care to do it yourself, Fran?:NikoSilver: 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I admit it's confusing in the edit window, but we have to live with it. On the brighter side, I hope we won't have to re-edit this very often, but we may enjoy the actual article. I did some minor reformatting for separating the refs from the text utilising hard returns (see it now). It's not perfect, but at least it's an improvement. :NikoSilver: 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unresolved comments by Sandy from [[User talk:NikoSilver]]

message: What is "GFM A/24581/G2/1945"? Also, can we cite "I Enandion tis Ellados Epivoulis"? Finally, any more significant info to add fromthe Aegean Macedonia article please? :NikoSilver: 14:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aegean Macedonia]] data by Politis 

message: I think we might include the term 'Macedonian salad' or 'macédoine', the reason is that this dish was created by the French specifically in (humorous?) honour of the ethnic diversitay of the area in the early 20th century. There is also a 'Macedonian Pizza' in Skopje (I am not suggesting that we include the pizza dish), whose ingredients change according to what is available (no it is not a joke, they make a very good on, depending on the ingredients, in the restaurant Dal Met Fu), but Skopje offers no 'Macedonian salad'. In Italian, a 'macedonia' is a fruit salad and in French, a salade macédoine is a classical vegetable salad. Politis 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Macedonia (disambiguation) might accommodate these, but dishes of any kind are hardly considered important to understanding the pecularities of the region in any way :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See proposal above. :NikoSilver: 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha! translation: "Once again, hungry to bed...", popular Greek motto of the lower class! :NikoSilver: 11:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Macedonian salad'

message: Do we have a source that states "most international organisations use the 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'" ? Because just having a load of references to its use by international organisations seems like OR. You are proposing that "most international organisations", and then supporting that with a list of "examples in which it is used". I checked with Google scholar, and it seems that there are references which support this position, but I don't have access to most of them. If someone else could check, that would be good. - FrancisTyers · 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the last one I'm posting anyway. But if you find one that says so, it's ok. I remeber Aldux had found only one organization that doesn't use the UN name. :NikoSilver: 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule, all organizations of which Greece is a member (quite a lot) will use FYROM. As for the countries of which RoM is a member but not Greece (pretty few), they'll use Macedonia or RoM. As for the others, of whom neiter RoM nor Greece are members, I haven't controlled, but I suspect they generally follow the ONU (the OPEC does).--Aldux 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Politis suggestion is better too. I'll get into it. Please wait...:NikoSilver: 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Flavr, the suggested term itself is not ok. :-( Hope all this is solved soon...:NikoSilver: 11:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International organisations

message: Thank you FlavrSavr for your sites and usefull translations. Just to say that Trnovo, where the 'Aegean Makedonski' hold their annual meeting, was a Hellenovlach village where Greek is still spoken. This is hardly surprising since it sits above Bitola - famous for its Hellenovlachs and Rom neighbourhood. It also has a Sarakatsan family which is ethnically Greek. It is a very pastoral village and offers great walks overlooking a lush valley, WWI fortifications and interesting wildlife. Politis 11:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trnovo

message: :Ok, I added all of them, plus I found sources for "Old Macedonian" and "Bugarashi" using google link by FlavrSavr above and copying the Macedonian Slavic text in the search-box. I have a question and it is serious: In view of the controversial/disambiguating character of the article, should the 'language=x' field in the respective sources be something like 'Macedonian Slavic'? This is a sincerely disambiguating question, and to prove my goodwill, for now, I've simply included 'Macedonian'. Please advise...:NikoSilver: 12:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, It is the Macedonian (Slavs) I am asking and the third parties in this. I know what the Greeks will respond...:NikoSilver: 12:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I prefer having all these names the way they are in the respective articles, but we may add a note, if it's possible :) By the way, the references section is imposing, good impressive work! Todor→Bozhinov 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be Macedonian, or if you prefer, Macedonian language. - FrancisTyers · 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not aware of any of our sources being written in the other Macedonian language, so I think we're safe here. - FrancisTyers · 14:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: The text below has been copied here from FAC talk::NikoSilver: 15:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having trouble finding a group or groups that "express irredentist claims", I can find plenty of maps etc. like here, but I can't find any "groups", unless this website counts as a group? - FrancisTyers · 15:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, rephrase. Nationalists instead of nationalist groups, or irredentists etc. Add the source too in the end to justify Serbia claim as well.:NikoSilver: 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: NikoSilver: 00:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment out or tone down those statements then until voting is over? They can be readded when sources are found. I'll look for sources meanwhile.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Flavr. I searched for it in google scholar and found nothing. Do you know who uploaded it, or where we can find info about it? In any case, I think it is not important to pin down exactly the date it was first drawn on a map, or even who did it and for what reason. Currently, in the article, we're not saying that it was first created then for a fact. We're saying that Wilkinson says so. Please provide the information if it is available and we'll add it too.:NikoSilver: 19:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed...

message: I did something. Please don't revert just yet. Instead, try to perfect it, and maybe the end result will be to our and your satisfaction. Francis, the table to the left, does what the list (sorry) bulletted paragraphs used to do. I am gone for now, please comment/edit and I'll catch up later.:NikoSilver: 15:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some formatting changes, and I think that the table is a reasonable compromise :) - FrancisTyers · 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prose and... Cons

message: It is inevitable that the island of Thasos appears on a map of the Macedonia region, but I have never seen it mentioned as part of that region, it has never cropped up in any definitions of the region and there have been no claims against it from 'ethnic Macedonians'. It might be an idea to reflect that on the map. Politis 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been. Check ref lucky#13 ([]). Feel free to add whatever info though.:NikoSilver: 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thasos

message: I've removed the "no supported" thing from the third hypothesis, it looked wierd without a citation, feel free to add it back with citation, the article should probably include the main article for that (etymology). I'm slightly concerned about the other "main articles". There were way too many. I like the idea of having a reference, but I think a see-also-section-on-steroids might be better? - FrancisTyers · 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Make it a triangle if you wish. Oh, wait I got an idea! :NikoSilver: 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Now I'm going to find out how to underline the main terms (I think it will be more clear than italics). - FrancisTyers · 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How? But in a tedious way, of course! And while you're at it, better delete those *s too to create more room for the columns...:NikoSilver: 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, yup. Having said that, do you think it would look better with underline+italics or just underline or just italics? I was lazy and didn't remove the italics at the same time as doing the underline, and while the result is ok, I'm not so sure... - FrancisTyers · 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job. I'd say that no-itals+yes-u for terms, yes-itals+no-u for text would be best.:NikoSilver: 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one you created is nicer.:NikoSilver: 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok :) Either is fine by me. - FrancisTyers · 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I am going to revert to the original version before tables and stuff. I really don't care about Joelito's irrational concerns in talk. He has failed to respond on my arguments. This is harrassment. End of story, let it become a featured stub or whatever. I am not ruining the article to satisfy one user with obvious intention to make a WP:POINT. You can express your complaints there if you wish. :NikoSilver: 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better and much more informative without repetitions. I would even edit-war for this version! Fran, please don't arrest me!! :NikoSilver: 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree (although I thought the history table was a rather elegant solution). Perhaps we should really consider agitating for a Wikipedia:Featured disambiguation candidates :) After all, disambiguation is quite a big topic and doing it right really helps the encyclopaedia (in my opinion). - FrancisTyers · 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly not over. I really expect that Joelito's unilateral unexplained opposition will be disregarded. In any case, this article deserves front-page. Dab pages don't. :NikoSilver: 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive Revert

message: Can somebody tell me if Bugarofili, Srbofili, etc. should be capitalized? I suspect not, but somebody correct me if I am wrong. It's in Ethnic Macedonian terminology section. --dcabrilo 12:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Philhellen generally isn't, mainly because it starts with phil-, rather than e.g. Helleno-phile. Grammatically, I have no idea. Contextually, I suppose it is appropriate for this article. :NikoSilver: 12:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Could we move "Geography" down to the Geography section, and perhaps replace it with some images of Macedonia? Or maybe some basic stats in a box like "there are 2 languages called macedonian, 6 historical entities, 5 ethnic groups" and then have some images of macedonia at the top of the box (like the ethnic groups ones) -- but preferably just landscapes (politically neutral) from the various parts that self-identify as macedonia. - FrancisTyers · 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea. I had tried to move the geo template to the appropriate section (in preview mode) but it orphaned the lead. I'll work on the box per your suggestion in my mind and will be ready to plug it in as soon as someone provides those photos. Hell, I'll even search for them myself too, although I really think that landscapes are dull. How about me highlighting with different shades all the Macedonias (sic) that ever existed on a Balkan peninsula sattelite image? To push it further, we could also morph Great Al, Karamanlis, Gligorov and back into one nice animated gif! :-) :NikoSilver: 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HAHA! A resounding yes to Satellite images, a unequivocal no to anything involving controversial personalities and animated gifs! :)) I presume the colour shade will be in the same range :) - FrancisTyers · 21:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then we can exclude Gligorov, maybe. :NikoSilver: 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, I got a problem though... I have lots of links and stuff, but where can I get that sat image without copy-vio? Could somebody e-mail me one with good resolution which focuses on about the same territory as the maps? I may crop it later to zoom-in, but I can't zoom-out. You could also direct me to a source... :NikoSilver: 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: NASA World Wind might be what you're looking for :) - FrancisTyers · 22:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nein. I've been trying to make a map with every Macedonia that ever existed, that doesn't look like a vometed salad. Hard work...:NikoSilver: 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, what do you think about the sat-map? (Francis, kindly read above section.):NikoSilver: 11:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I like the idea of the sat map, but the current version is very hard to discern what is going on. I think we have too much stuff in there. I like the inset box showing Macedonia within Europe. The quote placement is good :) — one thing to try would be to use the same colour for all, and just have it darker/lighter where they overlap ? - FrancisTyers · 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was experimenting since yesterday, but that was the cleanest I could do. If you have Corel PhotoPAINT, maybe I could send you the complete image with objects and stuff to experiment yourself? The quote placement needs a little ref format too, since we already have that book below. I would suggest we format them all in one line per the Wilkinson example, but don't know the pages to the others you cited. :NikoSilver: 14:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I won't have any time to play for the next couple of days at least. perhaps we could just have the Balkans, with the inset "in Europe" for now? (with or without current political borders) - FrancisTyers · 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps etc.

message: hope you dont mind, I moved the TOC across to the right, IMO it looks much cleaner but you might not like the whitespace. Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern. I'll try to address that when I finish uploading the new maps. For now, sorry for my temporary revert. :NikoSilver: 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a concern as such but I was just trying to make the page look nice (me being very bored and all that!! :D). I had the same prob as you in my browser - it was fixed with a carriage return but i guess in opther browsers it doean't. Ah well if you feel like it / like the idea I'm sure you'll figure out a better way :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! Thanks for experimenting. Do you know how to alter the width of the standard TOC template? I want to make it 350px and then I can align it below the new map.:NikoSilver: 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok simple solutions for simple problems. TOC on its own, below intro text. Like it? :NikoSilver: 23:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: I created a sub-page here (/Templates) with all the templates that were ever created for this article. I like all the ones with the new sat-maps, but who am I to argue if all of you chose the simple ones :-(. Anyway, do you feel that any of this could fit here or in other articles? Could the 'confusing' one be used in the 'notes' section for creating attention? The section is kinda lost there...:NikoSilver: 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: *Etymology: I'm pleased that you included an etymology section. "Αccording to Herodotus, the Makednoí were a tribe of the Dorians." It would help to provide an inline citation to an online English translation for the appropriate point in Herodotus Histories. Likewise for Homer.
**Done, and done. Aristophanes done too. :-) :NikoSilver: 14:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a map: . The monastery is the big blue dot just at the border. You see, there's not much to claim actually :) They certainly don't claim the whole of Pčinja District, where the population consists of Serbs (~65%), Albanians (~24%), Roma (5%) and Bulgarians (4%; in the east, in and around Bosilegrad) and no Macedonians whatsoever. Todor→Bozhinov 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, you mean that 3,117 in a 350,000 populated region would be good reason enough? Ha ha! I'll just include the word "monastery". :NikoSilver: 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks again Todor! :NikoSilver: 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Jazriel (FAC)

message: Actually, Prohor Pchinski (it's at Prohor Pčinjski, in Serbian) is just a monastery right at the Serbia-Republic of Macedonia border, but on the Serbian side. The monastery is of historical importance for the ethnic Macedonians (it is a "monument of the Macedonian statehood", because it hosted the ASNOM in 1944), they don't claim the whole Pčinja District or anything (there are no Macedonians there that I know of), only the monastery. Todor→Bozhinov 11:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a map: . The monastery is the big blue dot just at the border. You see, there's not much to claim actually :) They certainly don't claim the whole of Pčinja District, where the population consists of Serbs (~65%), Albanians (~24%), Roma (5%) and Bulgarians (4%; in the east, in and around Bosilegrad) and no Macedonians whatsoever. Todor→Bozhinov 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, you mean that 3,117 in a 350,000 populated region would be good reason enough? Ha ha! I'll just include the word "monastery". :NikoSilver: 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prohor Pchinski and Pčinja District 

message: # If Macedonia was a Bulgarian Empire province (???)
#: The Bulgarian Empire, as far as I know, had no such administrative division. Feudals lords and local governors (e.g. Salan, Glad, Despot Slav) did exist, but they would govern a much smaller area than a region the size of Macedonia. I'm not aware of the name "Macedonia" being used by the medieval Bulgarian authorities to refer to this region (or even at all), and the name "Macedonia" at that time actually referred to the Byzantine thema in Eastern Thrace, which has little to do with the modern region. Todor→Bozhinov 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again Todor! :NikoSilver: 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still missing

message: Can we get an "in history" map for the "international supervision" after the treaty in 1904? - FrancisTyers · 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The map now being used for the "region of Macedonia" at the top of the page looks like Meinert's, which may well have been used. I will see if I can find an exact statement (the differences between most maps will be scarcely visible at this scale in any case). Septentrionalis 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New map

message: If someone can figure out how to give a black top-border to these images (all three, of course, but only the Bulgarian with its white chief matters) that would be good. Septentrionalis 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgarian flag

message: McCarthy (p.53) says, correctly, that "Macedonia was not an Ottoman administrative designation" He goes on to say that it was "generally described" as containing Selanik Province and parts of Manastir and Kosova Provinces (the Skopje region). This allows for some indefiniteness; but McCarthy's provincial map indicates this agrees with the statement from Miller (his Selanik province includes Drama, for example). Wilkinson shows the indefiniteness in detail, but most of Wilkinson's definitions are fairly similar (with some exceptions), as his Fig. 1 and Fig.2 show. 
The statement that "the name disappeared from most maps" is not supported by McCarthy, and it appears to be original research. Septentrionalis 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McCarthy

message: Wilkinson's book is intentionally limited to ethnographic maps of Macedonia. He includes several, which, like O'Etzel's 1821 map, contain no names of regions at all. 
*p.120
*:...Nicolaides' book on Macedonia, the German translation of which was published in Berlin in 1899. It contained an ethnographic map, one of the first of its kind specifically limited to Macedonia. 
*p.130 
*:[Kǎnčev's] definition was the same as that of Meinard, [except specified points near Albania.]
**"Meinard's definition was more restricted than Nicolaides'." p.125, which also contains the differences.
*p.136
*:V. Kǎnčev's map reappeared in F.F. Voinov's work on Macedonia
**It is clear from the context that this is important, not for the borders of "Macedonia", but for the ethnographic claims within Macedonia. Septentrionalis 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilkinson