Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Old complaints

FYROM,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, is fabrik for folgery Greek history,Greek culture,Greek geography and Greek symbols Macedonians!See Greek Macedonian symbol "Vergina Sun",Philip II king of Macedon and Alexander the Great king of Macedon !!! Vergina 00:16, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So? Your point? What do you suggest we do about it? --Jiang 00:17, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

jiang: "Northern Cyprus" IS NOT STATE!! Vergina 07:18, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And China uses the FYROM label. See Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. --Jiang

Hi! There is something of a provocation in your article: the history of GREEK Macedonia is mentioned under your article for FYROM while the article for the greek Macedonia has no "history" under it. --83.112.105.88

Please feel free to write it, then. --Shallot

I would also like to mention that Northern Cyprus is indeed no state.

I think that is very common nowadays for anyone to support and advertise opinions that have not previously checked. For the real Macedonian (Dorian - Δωριείς) history please read (Ploutarxos , Pindaros , Stravo (Latin) , Hrodotos , Thoukidides) . They all have documented the truth at least 3000 years ago . Yes we Greeks have been around here for that much to know.(Nlakaf 13/04/2004)

Comment (I have no position on the Macedonian question): careful with facts! "3000 years" is generous.... The oldest author on the list, Herodotus, wrote about 2600 years ago. Plutarch for example wrote 1800 or so years ago. Strabo, by the way (1900 years ago) wrote in Greek, not Latin, and, despite his name, was Greek. It's also very hard to tell what any of these writers said that would bear on the modern situation. — Bill 11:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is generous. It may based on the theory of the "descent of the Dorians", which aims to provide an explanation for a series of facts in prehistoric Greece. On the other hand, it may be a very gross approximation to the millenium... Etz Haim 11:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Change to disambiguation

The decision to change this page into a disambiguation was made with no prior discussion. I will revert the move if there are no good reasons provided here. Just look at how many page link here... --Jia ng 07:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The name does have a lot of meanings. I don't see what harm is done by having such a menu for those who search for Macedonia. Adam 07:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks Adam :) --Cantus 07:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with having the content here at Macedonia (disambiguation) and have Macedonia be a general overview related to the country and clarifying the controversy, as is done at Macedonia (region). --Jia ng 07:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Macedonia is such a general word and as Adam said has so many different meanings that having it go directly to the historical region known as Macedonia first is not very convenient to many people. --Cantus 08:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted, too, we've had a pretty good setup before and the vandalism was curbed to an extent, too. Don't mess with something that works... --Shallot 13:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, this is Wikipedia and everybody can click the Edit button. --Cantus 14:35, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Macedonia almost never refers to the town in New York or locality in Brazil. It almost always refers to the place in Europe. the region article discussion what Macedonia means in Europe. --Jia ng 20:22, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. Please do not move pages without first gaining consensus. There are no da pages under the main title at China or Ireland. I don't see how this is any different. I've bolded subjects that are sometimes referred to as "Macedonia". --Jia ng 21:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You didn't gain consensus either. --Cantus 10:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to change. I just changed back. --Jia ng 23:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More complaints about FYROM

The falsification of the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Falsifier is the Macedonijiang --Vergina 10:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

~~?? Mind rephrasing that? --Cantus 13:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)~~ Oh, I see you're not fluent in English. You seem to be here only to defend the Greek position on Macedonia. I suggest working on the Greek Wikipedia if you haven't already. Cheers. --Cantus 13:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please Vergina do not put in the article such siliness as "capital of Greek Macedonia". Also the "The HUGE equestrian statue" is childish. Please be moderate. I'll try to correct some other silliness in there. I'll also check this article regularly. And yes i'm greek. Geia sou kai mhn mas rezileueis.

I'm afraid anyone working on Macedonia related articles has to get used to User:Vergina and his stupid behaviour, which serves only to discredit the Greek cause, as I have tried to explain to him several times. Adam 02:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam why did you revert the changes i did? (deleting "capital of Greek Macedonia" and "The huge equestrian statue" and trying to smooth somewhat a paragraph with nationalistic overtones). At first i thought that Vergina did it. But looking at the history of the page i found out that you did. Is there any other problem with the changes i made?

I reverted the changes because they deleted statements which are both true and relevant. Thessaloniki is the capital of Greek Macedonia (look at a map). The statue is huge (go there and see). The demonstrations in Athens and Thessaloniki were huge (most of the adult population of Thessaloniki took part). To say that "most" Greeks opposed the use of the name Macedonia by the Skopje government is in fact an understatement - virtually all Greeks opposed it. There is nothing nationalistic about stating these facts. To delete them is to falsify the historical record. Adam 10:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

-Thessaloniki is the capital of Greek Macedonia- This sounds like there is a Greek Macedonia country. -The status is huge- I have seen it. I have lived there for 10 years. It is huge by comparison to what? It ain't the statue of liberty. Why refer to its size? Does being huge makes it any better? Is it something interesting?. I didn't delete the fact that "most Greeks opposed it". I deleted the fact about the protest because it seemed redundant. In a encyclopedia i think you have to keep the information terse. So redundant information has to go. I good rule of thumb is that if you would like to add something new to an article but you had size constraints what would be the first thing to go? This fact seemed like a good candidate.

Good job, ChrisO! VMORO

Wrong percentage 40%

Quotation:"the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with around 40%; and Bulgaria, with less than a tenth, in Blagoevgrad province."

In the year 1911, according to Statiskik, Skopje(see Uskup) did not hear Macedonia,separates was the capital of Kosovo.

Therefore the per cent of 40%,are wrong because contain Kosovo area as Macedonia.

Justin McCarthy and J.Dennis Hyde "Ottoman Imperial and Provincial Salnames"

Kosova Vilayeti (The State of Kosova) in 1911

Yenipazar(Novi Pazar): Muslim-98; Bulgarian-68

Taslica(?): Muslim-39; Greek-32

Ipek(Pec): Muslim-96; Greek-28; Catholic-5

Uskup(Skopje): Muslim-215; Greek-13; Bulgarian-272; Jewish-2; Gypsy-1

Pristine(Pristina): Muslim-240; Bulgarian-128; Catholic-6

Prizrin(Prizren): Muslim-271; Greek-19; Bulgarian-64; Catholic-4

Consider,that this map is reconstructed in the year 1992:[Image:Macedonia 1913 map.png] --Vergina 06:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is rather unintelligible, but it seems to me that you're quoting population stats, whereas the article primarily refers to territory...? --Joy [shallot]

About Skopie (Uskub)

I think you are confusing the geographical area of Macedonia with the political division of the Ottoman Empire. Macedonia in Ottoman parts comprised parts of the Salonica, Bitola (Monastir) and Uskub Vilayets. Other parts of these were, however, regarded as belonging to Albania, Kosovo and even Thessaly.

VMORO

For God sake Vergina the possibility to persuade Joy (his nationality; croatian (ex republic of Yugoslavia-homecountry of Yugoslavian Dictator Tito), is the same as a Turk to persuade you that you are not Greek, and that you are Turk.--Themata 02:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the truth people, the truth...

why is it so hard for the invaders to admit they have invaded? Macedonia has been greek for thousands of years, and many others have invaded, and some have stayed

why do you all want to be "macedonians?" why can't you just live with the truth and be the invaders of macedonia?

it's like the Chinese calling themselves Tibetans or the Turks calling themselves Cypriots or the English calling themselves Welsh...

philaleth

The real truth, not your truth, Philateth

The bulk of the population of Macedonia has been Slavic from the 6th century until 1922 when the colonists from Asia Minor came. Hellenism in Macedonia prevailed from ca. 4 century BC until 6 century AC. Macedonia has been Slavic for much longer than it has been Hellenic (and it has never been Greek before the Balkan Wars), don't even attempt to talk to me about truth. VMORO

the truth shall prevail vmoro - not your truth

If we were to consider the invaders to be true natives then Israel would have no right to exist and the Chinese can claim that Thibet is Chinese and the Turks can claim that the northern part of Cyprus is Turkish - But just as in all of those cases, history and the international community is not at your disposal. This is Wikipedia. You will abide by the truth.

The return of the Greeks to the Albanian mountains or about the origin of peoples

Philaleth, you are very brave talking about *invaders*. May be I should remind you that the Greeks themselves came from the Albanian mountains. And I'll kindly invite you to return there where you actually belong. As for your *neutrality* claims: Everyone in Wikipedia can see what kind of edits you make (jingoistic ones), you are the last one who can talk about neutrality here - either to me or to anyone else. As I can clearly see what reaction your edits cause in all other non-Greek users.

by contrast: I have a life and a history (and not too much time to bother with your propaganda machine vmoro)

The Slavic hoardes didn't start their various excursions (from the Pripet marshes) to the north of Greece (including Macedonia and Thrace) until 600-700 AD. That is thousands of years after the Greek civilization (which enables you today to use scientific argument, or in your case demagoguery, instead of superstition and lore) flourished in Greece. The earliest signs of the Greek civilization in Greece are from 15,000 BC and more evidence is being unearthed that proves much earlier habitation of Greeks in Greece. I feel truly sorry for those who have to "hijack" Greek history in order to lend themselves some sense of identity, and I am certain that they will self-destruct eventually, like all those who tried to invade Greece did over the millenia. Yes, vmoro, I am Greek, but I defend the truth from those who would warp it, not only for the sake of the Greeks but for the sake of the TRUTH itself. This is the force that created civilization, and it is this that maintains it, against the waves of sycophants, propagandists and delusionals. PS: do not flatter yourself, you do not speak for non-Greeks, but only for some of the disenfranchised remnants of Tito's grandiose propaganda machine. I have seen your contributions and they are cleary veiled attempts at "manufacturing" a history for that group of people. As my real life permits, I will continue to remove the propaganda slant from the Macedonia article. Philaleth

Wrong conclusions, Watson

As I said before: southern (and ONLY southern) Macedonia was Hellenic btn 4 cent. DC and 6 AD. Between 6 cent AD and 20 cent Macedonia was Slavic and Bulgarian. As I am not Macedonian but Bulgarian. And you have wasted half an hour of your time to write about smth that doesn't concern me at all. Enjoy. VMORO

Allright, it's back to Pripet for you :-o

By definition Macedonia was a part of Greece (Hellenes) and no one else. At some point it was invaded. Since then the Hellenes have made every effort to maintain it. I may be missing something here but who exactly was it that was in Macedonia, other than the Hellenes and their slaves, between 4-6AD? Or are you just making up some fictitious designation of ancient Macedonia so as to include non-Hellenes in it? And what if there have been a myriad of invaders of every brand ("barbarians" to the Hellenes) since then? Is it now the International Standard Of Possession that if you are invaded you cease to exist? Or that your land is the invader's birthright? Are you prepared to tell the Israelis to pick up and get out of the Palestine region by the same token? Don't waste my time with fiction... I'm not buying. This article will be changed appropriately, and if you are interested in the truth you should be eager to do that.

Albanians in the 1991 RoM referendum

In 1991, Yugoslav Macedonia held a referendum on independence which produced an overwhelming majority in favour, although it was boycotted by the Macedonian Albanians. [...] The Macedonian Albanians were unhappy about an erosion of their national rights in the face of a more assertive Macedonian Slav nationalism.

Was the latter the reason why they didn't participate in the referendum, or was there some other circumstance involved that isn't mentioned? It would probably be good to join these sentences to avoid having to skip around the text a lot to get to the rationale. --Joy [shallot] 14:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

White Tower of Thessaloniki

The article White Tower of Thessaloniki mentions some Macedonian Slav nationalist agitation regarding that in the 1990s, but also that it wasn't in official correspondence. This could probably be mentioned in the "Controversy: Macedonia and Greece" section... --Joy [shallot] 15:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apologies

My revert changed VMORO's "conservative" to "Slavic", something that I do not endorse and I wouldn't put it anyway, unless by mistake. I feel that Adam Carr has been unfair on me in his edit summary. A look on the page history diff reveals what I intented to restore.

I'd also want to declare that my Greek origin does not predispose me into being an advocate of a certain "Greek vs Slavs" agenda. Etz Haim 00:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I understand Etz Haim correctly as saying that it was not him who sought to change "conservative" to "Slavic" then I apologise. That's how it looked on the edit history. Adam 01:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guys, I'd be glad if you didn't put your judgement against me or the Greeks in your edit summaries, because this doesn't give the opportunity to properly respond. When it comes to the "overly descriptive sentence that VMORO didn't like", I was unable to identify it as Greek nationalist, much less as "Greek" in general. If you think this sentence may be misinterpreted and stir confusion, or even anger, I respect this and do not object to its removal. However, I'd discourage you from passing such stereotypical judgement on anyone, especially inside edit summaries. Etz Haim 11:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I initially simply fixed that whole anonymous insertion. VMORO later removed that part that I left in, but I suspect only because it talked about invasions, because the initial part about Macedon is factual. Then it was restored after another round of reversion, but I suspected that it would be cause for further disagreement and I ditched the vaguely emotional stuff and left only the factual stuff.

When an anonymous editor makes a series of changes that show an agenda, then please don't be surprised when I diss them because of that. They have no less right to do something that I do, and at least I have the common decency to explain why I think that something should be changed and not just go and do that without rationale. --Joy [shallot] 14:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Macedonian Slav minority numbers

I would make a remark with regard to the so called *Slavic estimates*, as the other sentence was not only non-NPOV but also extremely idiosyncratic (leaning towards moronic). Greek Helsinki watch quotes ca. 200,000-240,000 Macedonian speakers in Greece, you can see that yourselves at:

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/media/sum-oct97-mar98.html

and

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/articles/the_macedonians.doc

I don't believe in this number myself (neither am I a fan of the Macedonian ideology) but if that "conservative" (as compared to 240,000 10,000 is VERY conservative) gets again changed to "Slavic", I'll make sure that the approximations of Helsinki Watch get into the body of the article and stay there. VMORO

Well, I may say that I'm sceptical about the contemporary numbers too. Not because I want to underestimate or overestimate the Macedonian Slav population in Greece, but because it's difficult to produce valuable demographic data for a non-recognized minority. It would be best if Greece eventually agreed to recognize it and include them in the next census.

I think that the 10% of the Slavs in 1913 in Nikolaidis' research is worth mentioning, though. Where's the mention of the 240,000 you are talking about? I did a quick search and I could not find that in the references you provided.

And I also disagree that there's a "Macedonian ideology" or a "Greek ideology" contradicting each other. One's position on the Macedonian debate is a political issue and has little to do with one's origin. It would be an insult to the Macedonians to call your quote:

"The bulk of the population of Macedonia has been Slavic from the 6th century until 1922 when the colonists from Asia Minor came."

part of any "Macedonian ideology". Etz Haim 13:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The above would apply respectively for a "Bulgarian ideology" too. Etz Haim 13:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is an insult to me if someone says that "Macedonia has always been Greek but later there were barbaric tribes that came and laid various claims to it". Insults lead to insults. As for the Greek colonists from Asia Minor and Thrace - that's something you can find in any history book. I know myself quite many Greeks from Thessaloniki and NONE of them has an ancestry in Macedonia. As regards numbers, you should read more carefully. The first text gives an approximation of ca. 2% Slavs in Greece (ca. 200,000-250,000), the second one quotes numbers between 100,000 and 250,000. VMORO

Philaleth "Macedonia has always been Greek but later there were barbaric tribes that came and laid various claims to it" is a statement of fact as there were none but Greeks in Macedonia and there was no Macedonia outside Greece until 700 AD. Then various slavic tribes started venturing into Macedonia and the rest of northern Greece. That is a minimum of 3000 years of recorded Greek civilization and if we take into account recent finds it goes as far back as 7,000 years ago. Following those (recent by comparison) invasions, the Greeks have tried as best they could to maintain their sovereignty and their lands, including Macedonia. This is not an insult. It is a plain truth. If to you it is insulting to state the truth then it means you resent the truth. Only one explanation for that: you have some hidden agenda against the truth. I am not a person who insults others. But I refuse in this case to stand by while propagandists with agendas hijack the truth. If you are one of those then I have no intention of being nice to you. I am not interested in how I am perceived by extremists but rather in uncovering the truth. Philaleth 22:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Huh, who said that? If anyone can interpret the trimmed clause as such a grave insult to Slavs, then I'm definetely for its removal. The estimates you are talking about are not HRW's own; HRW is quoting others such as an "anonymous scholar", who had themselves difficulties in conducting their research. FYI, I am a Greek living in Thessaloniki, 50% Macedonian and 50% "colonist" in origin. I'm sure that my great-granfathers who fled from the Asia Minor Catastrophe had nothing better to do and one day they just decided to "colonize" Macedonia just to augment the percentage of Greeks there. Etz Haim 13:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is not my problem if you regard *Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year 1987" or "The Financial Times" as some "anonymous scholar" - I don't and most people won't, either. What you forget is that the question is not about those numbers but about the qualification "conservative", which your compatriot kindly decided to switch with the nonsense "Slavic" while talking in a completely racist fashion as to how Greece had the pre-emptive right to Macedonia and how people who lived there for 13 centuries were "invaders". That's what I am talking about. Yes, and I am sorry, you are certainly right - my grandparents were lawfully driven out of Kukush by the Greek army in 1913 along with more than 150,000 other Bulgarians so that your grandparents could settle in their lands. VMORO

Philaleth 03:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Curtail the demagoguery VMRO (let me guess: son of IMRO? I know what they're trying to do wrt the north of Greece), and face it: Invading part of Macedonia doesn't make anyone Macedonian, any more than invading Iraq makes Americans into Iraquis. Those people will have to admit they all hail from Pripet and that's that. If you want to be Macedonian you have to apply for Greek citizenship. None of your "statistics" have any verifiable source (especially the British and very Occidentalist FT and EB), other than some people quoting each other and "most people" may not give a damn... but it's not that hard to verify this. As for the real number of Slavic-origin-people-who-speak-the-language-manufactured-out-of-Bulgarian-by-Tito-for-the-sake-of-producing-a-Yugoslav-Macedonian-Republic well, the only estimates that we have are Slavic estimates and those that were derived from Slavic estimates. Because(as you have so proudly announced) the Greeks haven't made any. What you skillfully ommitted to mention is the reason: because when they tried to take census, the slavic minorities refused to participate on the grounds that they consider themselves Greek and don't want to be counted otherwise! Let me repeat: those people whom you are trying to count as Slavic do not want to be counted as such, they'd rather be just Greek!! Hope this isn't too inconvenient a fact for you. Therefore, if you give a damn about the truth you will change it to Slavic estimates - either that, or I will (PS: facts regarding this here).

I sympathize with your grandparents' misfortune of being relocated against their will, probably because some of my family had had a similar misfortune during the Asia Minor Catastrophe. Those of my relatives (from my father's side) that were provided with some land to cultivate (some other weren't) took it from Turks, who had respectively emigrated during the population exchange. I sympathize with them as well, despite the history Greece has had with Turkey.

Anyway, I think that the "slavic" vs "conservative" estimate issue has been resolved during your absense. If anyone decides to change it back that won't be me. I also detest being held responsible for actions of my "compatriots"; in a similar manner, you could be held responsible for many things other Bulgarians did that you may not approve. Etz Haim 14:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Philaleth, no people and no country has any "pre-emptive" right to any territory. Nor any territory can be reserved for one nation/people. If you look at the history of Europe and the world, every single people came at some point from somewhere. The Indo-Europeans themselves (including the Greeks) came millenia ago from Asia. Following your line of thought all Europeans are also "invaders". I wouldn't go as far as VMORO to accuse you of racism (that's a very strong word to be used just like that) but if you continue making postings in the same spirit, it won't be only VMORO who'll do that. As for the ancient Macedonians - they were certainly not Greeks, though most certainly they were almost completely Hellenised by 4 c. AD. Birkemaal

NikosP Bulgarians and Greeks should not quarrel!!! They have a common enemy - the thiefs of history from FYROM!!! Bulgarian and Greeks should fight togethern against the FYROMians!!! And FYROM should neber be allowed into the EU if it keeps making claims to Greek history!!!

Synonomate, I agree with you that Greeks and Bulgarians shouldn't quarrel, but why not extend this friendly policy to the Macedonian Slavs as well? Anyway, "common enemies" are not in the subject of this discussion. Here, we (well, some of us...) are trying to overcome "traditional hostility" and prejudice to produce a valid encyclopedia article. All comments should be relevant to the article itself and not outside its scope. Etz Haim 12:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Philaleth 00:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Sadly, Birkemaal, you are grossly misinformed. Macedonians were Greek, as much as Spartans and Athenians and Myceneans and Minoans... Why are you all talking about rights to territories? Did I ever mention anything regarding anyone ceding territories?. No. You did. Rather the VMRO agent did. You see that's all they have in their mind. To occupy territory. There is no dishonor in admitting that they hail from Pripet and descended to Greece. But they'd rather make the Spartans to be non-Greeks and pretend that Greeks are Albanians so that they can feel better... You people are sick in the head. See your shrinks. Maybe then you'll remove all this revisionist swill from this article... Sorry fellow-Greeks, call me extremist if you will, but this crap cannot stand like this, unchallenged. If it stays, this thing is no better than Hitler's version of the Encyclopedia...

I don't have any more time for this garbage, go ahead and "play nice" but don't pretend that this has any semblance to the truth.

Non-NPOV distribution map removed

I removed the map from a 1923 source of "distribution of races in balcans" for the following reasons:

it was not from a credible source

The map IS from a reliable source : Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd. If you don\t agree with it, I can easily put another one - by Lejean, by Boue, by Kiepert, by Sax, by Meinhard, by Weigand - even by Cviic, although his maps are widely disproved nowadays. They will all show the same. VMORO

it was too broad in its scope vis a vis its relevance to Macedonia

That's a very lame excuse VMORO

it did not provide a multilaterally agreed upon time-sequence view of ethnic movements into Macedonia, starting from the start
it did not provide a multilaterally agreed upon accounting of such distributions as they are today or even remotely recently

After the Holocaust of Asia Minor in 1922 the populations of Macedonia were signifacantly impacted and then again during and after WWII This map reflected none of those realities. As a result this map served only to confuse the reader into erroneous and unreasonable conclusions. It did not serve any legitimate purpose whatsoever.

1923 is recent enough. The map certainly doesn't reflect the situation nowadays but the title under the map clearly says that it regards 1923. Only a reader who cannot read will be confused. Sure it can be placed in the History section, that was where it was placed initially (I think). VMORO

(I apologize for the botched edit comment in the history - I hit something on the keyboard and the thing saved before I was able to finish writing, and I have no knowledge of how to undo that...) Philaleth 03:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The map is actually quite good, Philaleth. You will find practically no map by an independent (meaning non-Greek cartographer), which portrays Macedonia as predominantly Greek before 1923 and that can be checked easily in Maps and Politics. Review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia by Wilkinson. All cartographers show Macedonia as predominantly Slavic. A note should certainly be added to the effect that the map represents the ethnnographical situation before the Greek-Turkish population transfer. JayO

Philaleth 18:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) I do not seek to find a map that shows Macedonia predominantly anything. I seek to prevent the abuse of the ignorant reader of the article. Specifically, an American child that will read about this, that will see solely one map, the one as of 1923, will acquire no understanding either of the fluidity of the migrations of peoples in that area or of the complete history of the region and more eggregiously: the child will be misled into believing that (since no alternative map is being presented and no note is made) the area's populations stand to this date at the same distribution levels as the map shows. The fact alone that I have to point out to you this blatantly obvious propaganda problem signifies that neither you nor anyone else here is performing the due diligence necessary to maintain a source of information as a valid one. So either tell me that Wikipedia is supposed to be the collective trash that propagandists care to propagate or remedy the situation - or at least don't get in my way when I try to! And that applies to everyone in here. The VMRO agent is just doing his job, he probably gets paid for it. But what's the excuse of the rest of you? I have lost all respect for you.

Who's Greek (or Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian Slav) and who's not

Many of the edits in this article assume that a people's national consience and self-determination are something permanently fixed, invarible throughout history. Some nationalists (of any origin) may even argue that it's coded in the DNA. That's a nationalistic point of view and the wrong way of regarding history, especially in the Balkans. Unfortunately, this has contaminated the thoughts of many people on both sides of this argument, including those who have recently edited this article to adapt it into their prejudice. I don't subscribe any such point of view. Etz Haim 14:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. One source on the history of Macedonia that I was reading this morning commented that the ancient Macedonians' identity (i.e. as Greeks or "barbarians") was a "social construct" which evolved over time. This is something which you could say about virtually any national identity - it's only relatively recently that we seem to have adopted the idea that national identities are and always have been fixed things. -- ChrisO 16:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the appologies about my grandparents, I also appologise if I have been rude to you yesterday. The section below is dedicated only to Philaleth. VMORO

FWIW, I also agree. We need to realize that different times brought about different nations and that national concepts evolved, often contrary to how someone would like. Everything has a context and even if we can't ever hope to satisfy every point of view in a single text, we can and should do our best in presenting all the relevant contexts involved. The only bias that can't be avoided is the one involved in the selection and ordering of contexts per relevance, but this is workable. --Joy [shallot] 19:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Philaleth 18:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) you people can agree all you want; your consensus does not magically make your ramblings or revisionist spin true. what source is that you were reading ChrisO? are you sure they were not commissioned by Tito or the VMRO? and whereas the concept of national identity could not possibly have existed for the barbarians from Pripet, the Greeks called themselves "Hellenes" and used the word "barbarians" to describe non-Hellenes of various sorts. They also used the term to belittle one another when they got into a squabble or internal conflict. Spin away revisionists. There is no way that you can sell this propaganda. you keep descending to deeper and deeper levels of obscenity with it: now the Hellenes, who wrote history and conceptualized society as you know it today, and who spoke of the Macedonians like they did of every other one of the Hellenic city states, now you re-interpret the Hellenic historians of antiquity and try to propagate Tito's and VMRO's propaganda! It's reminiscent of book-thumping extremists of all sorts that will take any phrase, word or paragraph out of context and twist it and mangle it to make it serve their purpose... We need some sober adult supervision here. Some historians with real skills and knowledge and with no VMRO/FYROM agenda to straighten out this mess. This article has to be reviewed by someone serious.

Greek racism

I don't intend to waste my time arguing with you about non-sequitur, Philaleth. Your position can be qualified only as FASCISM and RACISM. According to your ideology all WHITE AMERICANS MUST leave the United States, all ENGLISHMEN MUST leave ENGLAND and all GREEKS MUST GO TO THE ALBANIAN MOUNTAINS WHERE THEY CAME FROM ca. 1000 BC. This is racist, absurd and sickening. It only shows how uncivilised and ASIAN modern Greece is and Greeks, respectively, are.

I have seen your attempts to erase everything that proves that the ancient Macedonians WERE NOT Greeks. Philaleth, this is the opinion of pretty much anyone else EXCEPT the Greeks themselves. This is not a Greek website but an international one and you should comply with its NPOV POLICY.

Writing 10 lines about History in the section about Geography when everything is described in the History secion ONLY to further your thesis that Macedonia is Greek is a bit silly.

The map IS from a credible source and SHOWS the ACCURATE population distribution of Macedonia from ca. 6th cent. until 1923. VMORO

~~Why, oh why, did I waste my time writing the above? Etz Haim 15:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~

If you wanna say something, Etz Haim, you should sign it. Not slip it as if it were the tooth fairie. VMORO

I suggest that you may take a look at the page history. I'm turning your section into an h2 to avoid any further misinterpretation. Etz Haim AKA the tooth fairy, 15:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

...sad lot....

we have some covert VMRO agent writing history for Greece {and proclaiming Greeks to be Albanians now!), and calling me names! LISTEN HERE YOU FREAK! I DON'T GIVE A SH... WHAT YOU WRITE HERE, IT DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR ORIGINS FROM THE SWAMPS AND MINE FROM THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZED THOUGHT. the sad factor here is that those of us who have real lives can't waste our time dealing with propagandists like you (are you getting paid for this?) so go ahead and write what you will. it's obvious that this is some freakshow project and not a serious attempt at creting a credible source. otherwise this effort would include fact-checking roles for someone and methods for producing "historical facts" that are not revising the history of civilization as of 79 years ago! (YES I AM addressing you "administrators") I leave this quagmire to its fate (much like FYROM): to self-destruct. (thankfully, I have a large number of friends from Croatia, Serbia, Albania and Russia and therefore have affirmation that there are MANY trully intelligent, enlightened and aware people in those parts of the world, and you VMRO THUG are not by any means representative of that intellect...)

Philaleth 18:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) the only good thing about it all this that the VMRO agent, no matter how much they pay him and all their spin-doctors, will not be able to "create" a history for the disparate peoples of FYROM by maligning and revising Greek history. you people are trying so hard to make up a history that it shows! look at the garbage you have written! it's laughable! to take phrases or words like "our language" out of context from the mouth of Alexander, and try to make up stories about a different language! you are really a pathetic lot...