Talk:Macedonia naming dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Well, let's get it off our chests everyone, shall we? :-) NikoSilver 00:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ethnic identity 2 Juxtaposition 3 Copypasting 4 Curious 5 Census 6 Question 7 Albanian recognition 8 greek pov 9 nikosilver's reverts 10 Quotes for US shift in policy 11 More renaming about to take place 12 I myself am a Macedonian

[edit] Ethnic identity

We should cover the fact that in northern Greece there are two groups who wish to identify as "Macedonians", and that the Greek government has historically taken a dim view of one of them. I'll see if I can add something in. - Francis Tyers · 11:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you taking about the Macedonians vs the Rainbow Party? //Dirak 11:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rainbow Party is a recent event. Do they take a position in the naming dispute issue? - Francis Tyers · 12:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juxtaposition

We could probably just leave it at that :)) - Francis Tyers · 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I love it :) //Dirak 14:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As Miskin once said, the Greeks respect the rights of the Slavomacedonians in Greece; of all three of them! NikoSilver 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the Greeks in Vardar Macedonia? The 1911 census found 200,000, the 2001 census found 400. Makes you wonder where the real forced assimilation is taking place. //Dirak 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Kindly cite and include that info somewhere in the Greek position please Dirak. NikoSilver 14:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. - Francis Tyers · 15:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I really can't remember where I found it all (give me time...). See here though [1], from where I copy the number of Greeks and the census year: 848 (1953) - 836 (1953) - 536 (1971) - 707 (1981) - 474 (1991) - 368 (1994). We see a steady decrease and then a sudden drop in the 90s (probably the borders with Greece opened after the fall of communism and many fled to Greece to find employment) The 2001 census isn't listed, but I remember it shows the Greeks at about 400 - the increase will likely be due to the immigration of Greek businessmen (I hear Greeks own more than half of Fyrom). //Dirak 15:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting and translating from "The economy of fYROM - Sumary report year 2004" (Η οικονομία της πΓΔΜ - Περιληπτική έκθεση έτους 2004), Hellenic Republic, Skopje Liaison, Financial and Commercial Cases Bureau, p.28:

C. Bilateral economic cooperation (Greece - fYROM)

2. Greek investments in fYROM

The Greek investments in fYROM are concentrated on companies dealing with energy, financial services, cement industry and tobacco, food and beverage, marble mining, ready made garments and commercial activity.

The Greek investments in fYROM increased during the period 2000-2004 and according to official data they rise to US$231.7 million (stock capital) occupying an important position among investing countries. In the 10 month period of 2004, Holland (70.9% on the total) occupies the first position among foreign investors, followed by Greece (26.6%) and in the third position by Switzerland with 5.6% on the total invested capital.

Intermingling cabal notes:

Quick math: US$231.7 mio/26.6% = US$871.05 mio total investments in the first 10 months of 2004

US$871.05 x 12 / 10 = US$1045,26 year total (estimate)

That, however, does not reflect reality because:

Intermingling cabal note: Drumroll, book cooking following (Greek recipe)...

-it concerns only deposited capital of companies and not real invested capital (which appears only in the country's Central Bank ~current accounts balance~, where there is no allocation per country.

Interminling cabal note: The ~tilded text~ is my idea of translating "ισοζυγίου τρεχουσών συναλλαγών".

-important part of the Hellenic entrepreneurial capital has entered in fYROM through companies of Greek interests, which have their seat in other countries (Holland, Luxemburg, Cyprus, Ireland)

Intermingling cabal notes:

All the good-old hide-my-name-coz-I-need-privacy countries.

Cypriot capital is supposed to be Greek anyway, isn't it?

the data does not concern buyouts and mergers (ELPE-OKTA [= Greek Oil], ETE-STOPANSKA BANKA [= National Bank of Greece], OTE-COSMOFON [= Gr Natl Telecom], TITAN-UJSE [= Gr Cement giant], 3E-PIVARA [= beverage], ALPHA BANK, KYRIAKIDIS [?], ELBISCO-ZITOLUX [= food])

Consequently, the size of Greek investments, according to invested capital is higher than that officially registered and rises to €800 mio. occupying the first position. We note that the thirty (30) largest companies of Greek interests in fYROM have invested capital of the size of €723 mio.

(Bolding above not mine). Cabal quote end. Comments yours. Quick quiz: How many times did you read fYROM in these 8 sentences? NikoSilver 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I had not noticed the pictures earlier... They are nice:). Ten FYRO"M"ians in the one, and thousands of Macedonians in the other... For a protest about a new Bulgarian Unification, I suppose the first would be uncountable... Hectorian 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copypasting

I disagree with this revert [2]. What was wrong with my summary that justified copying text written by me from elsewhere? //Dirak 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys miss a good old fashioned edit war? Merry Catholic Christmas everyone!   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Grazie :) //Dirak 22:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Scuzi, io Orthodoxo Greco, ma uguale. Merry Christmas to you too FunkyWarrior! NikoSilver 22:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

I understand the naming dispute, but I have no idea what the other Macedonian-Greek dispute/disagreement/fight is. I have never seriously read about this issue. What is the real problem? I always hear a lot of words flying around like Macedonian/Slav/Greek etc, but I never understood what the exact problem is: are Macedonians extremely different than Greeks, or are there really people who consider themselves "Macedonians" rather than Greeks in Macedonia (Greece), if so what is the exact difference? How does "Slav" fit into this? I perused a lot of related articles, and still couldn't understand much. Or is the whole thing a much ado about nothing that just confuses people? I am not at all from the concerned places, so I was just curious... Baristarim 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe start from here and work your way towards the terminology by group.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right Baris, we assume it is obvious, we should expand.

There are the Macedonians (Greek) who are 100% Greeks that live in the Greek province of Macedonia (Greece), speak a modern Greek slight variation called Macedonian dialect, and declare Greek Orthodox.

A new ethnic group emerged (arguably between 1880 to 1944) self-identified as Macedonians (ethnic group) along with a new self-identified Republic of Macedonia, who have nothing to do with Macedonians (Greek) (and don't want to have to do anything with Greeks either way) since they largely descend from Slavs and speak a language close to Bulgarian, which they officialy call Macedonian language. They also established a break-away Macedonian Orthodox Church.

The Greeks fear that the Slavs want to take over the whole contemporary Macedonia (region) (that arguably largely includes but is not limited to their country) and the glorious (Greek) history behind it by using the exact same name. The educated Slavs argue that the Greeks have nothing to fear, since they don't claim descent from the ancient or Byzantine Macedonians and they don't wish to invade Greece either. However, educated people are an extreme minority in most countries, and the result is that Macedonians (ethnic group) of the Republic of Macedonia who speak a Macedonian language are logically confused with Ancient Macedonians who lived in Macedon (almost equal to Macedonia (Greece)) and spoke Ancient Macedonian language (largely related to ancient Greek, but not 100% certain). Ancient rulers such as Alexander the Great self-identified as Greeks, but are attempted to be integrated as part of the new country's history. The country has also demonstrated expansionistic ambitions (United Macedonia). Both are regarded by Greeks as aided by the choice for the same name.

Personal opinion: It's better to be a worthy inheritor, than an unworthy offspring. Greeks (Macedonians or Southerners) should stick to their business and prove they are worthy rather than offsprings; and Slav Macedonians should drop the history falsification and the irredentist claims. Then it won't matter what name our Northern neighbors will choose. They might also consider aiding everybody (uninformed, uneducated) else understand that instantly, by adding some dab in that name. To give you a parallel, it's like I told you that modern German citizens, living in modern Germany, and speaking German language, had absolutely nothing to do with Germanic people who spoke Germanic languages in Germania. Could that sound logical? If you mouseover, you'll see that this is the case! NikoSilver 00:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Greeks (Macedonians or Southerners) should stick to their business and prove they are worthy rather than offsprings; and Slav [sic] Macedonians should drop the history falsification and the irredentist claims. Then it won't matter what name our Northern neighbors will choose." :D - Francis Tyers · 15:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Emphasized keyword: "Then" NikoSilver 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The concise summary really helped since it was kind of hard trying to connect all the content of the relevant articles (there are many :)). And the whole thing seemed like a somewhat complicated issue. Only thing that I knew about this was the naming issue, but even that superficially to an extent. Thanks a lot!! Happy new year by the way! Baristarim 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The latest news has the Skopjan authorities renaming the city's main international airport after Alexander the Great. The farce continues... ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thats so yesteday.   /FunkyFly.talk_  07:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΣΚΟΠΙΑΝΟ Η ΛΥΣΗ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΜΙΑ, ΣΥΝΟΡΑ ΤΩΡΑ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΕΡΒΙΑ! Mitsos 14:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FOR the CITIZEN OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIAN REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA the SOLUTION THEY IS, BORDERS NOW WITH SERBIA

ΛΕΣ; ΑΛΛΑ ΤΟΤΕ ΘΑ ΑΠΟΚΤΗΣΟΥΜΕ ΣΙΓΟΥΡΑ ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΙΚΗ ΜΕΙΟΝΟΤΗΤΑ. //Dirak 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

BUT THEN WE WILL ACQUIRE SURE MACEDONIAN MINORITY

Σλαβομακεδονικη θες να πεις. Αυτο δεν ειναι προσωπικη αποψη, ειναι η θεση (ελπιζω να ξερεις για ποιο κινημα μιλαω) του ελληνικου εθνικιστικου κινηματος. Πολεμος πρεπει να γινει μετα απο μακροχρονιες προετειμασιες, και τοτε φυσικα δεν πρεπει να αποκτησουμε μειονοτητα. Πρεπει να γινει εθνοκαθαρση καποιας μορφης. Αλλα επισης θεση του κινηματος ειναι κατσε να γινει η ομονοια ελληνικη, και βλεπουμε για τα σκοπια. Mitsos 15:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Slavomakedonjki CES you say. This they is not personal opinion, they is the place (I hope you know for who movement I speak) the Greek nationalistic movement. War should become after long-lasting preparations, and then naturally it should not we acquire minority. It should becomes ethnic cleansing of some form. But also posisition of movement is that the omonia square must become Greek first, and we see for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Ωχ, αποκλείεται να υποστηρίξω γενοκτονία των Σκοπιανών και αν γίνει προσπάθεια για κάτι τέτοιο οι ΗΠΑ θα βομβαρδίσουν την Ελλάδα όπως βομβάρδισαν τη Σερβία και πιθανότατα θα χάσουμε και την ελληνική Μακεδονία (όπως οι Σέρβοι θα χάσουν το Κοσσυφοπέδιο). //Dirak 15:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wh, it is excluded I support genocide of Citizens of the ancient Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and if becomes effort for something such the USA vomvardj'soyn Greece as vomva'rdjsan Serbia and very probably will lose also Greek Macedonia (as the Serbs they will lose the Kossyfope'djo)

Άσ' τα αυτά. Το σκοπιανό θα λυθεί από μόνο του -- οι Αλβανοί θα τους περιλάβουν τους Σκοπιανούς με τη δημογραφική έκρηξη που γίνεται τώρα στα Σκόπια και η μείωση του πληθυσμού των Σκοπιανών. Η Αλβανία τα πάρει τη δυτική ΠΓΔΜ, και οι Σκοπιανοί σε ό,τι έχει μείνει από την ΠΓΔΜ θα αναζητήσουν παρηγοριά στην αγκαλιά της Μητέρας Βουλγαρίας. Και τότε με τη Μεγάλη Αλβανία (-Τσαμουριά) και τη Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία (-Μακεδονία του Αιγαίου και Δυτική Θράκη) να κτυπούν την πόρτα μας θα αρχίσουν τα αληθινά προβλήματά μας. //Dirak 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A's the these. The citizen of the ancient Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia will be untied from only him the Albanians them they will include the Citizens of the ancient Yougoslavian Republic of Macedonia with the demographic explosion that is become now in the Former Yougoslave Republic of Macedonia and the reduction of population of Citizens of the ancient Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. Albania him takes the western PGDM, and the Citizens of the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia in what it has remained from the PGDM they will seek comfort in the embrace of Mother Bulgaria. And then with Big Albania (- Tsamoyrja') and Big Bulgaria (- Macedonia of Aegean and Western Thrace) they strike our door they will begin our genuine problems

Francis [3]. I'm sure you could have done better than those bablefishy translations ;-) //Dirak 15:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Greek, as you well know :) Maybe I should learn one day. - Francis Tyers · 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, for machine translation it is surpisingly ok. - Francis Tyers · 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ποιος μιλησε για γενοκτονια? Υπαρχουν διαφορες μορφες εθνοκαθαρσης. Τωρα, το να ανεβουν οι Ελληνες εθνικιστες στην εξουσια προυποθετει μεγαλες αλλαγες (οτι θα εχουν παρει την εξουσια οι εθνικιστες και σε αλλες χωρες δηλαδη - ηδη σε ορισμενες ευρωπαικες χωρες τα εθνικιστικα κομματα εχουν μεγαλη ανοδο) και αρα και την αλλαγη του παγκοσμιου σκηνικου. Mitsos 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Who spoke for genocide? Exist differences forms of ethnic cleansing. Now, they go up the Greek nationalists in the power preconditions big changes (that will have already taken the power the nationalists and in other countries that is to say - in certain european countries the nationalistic parties have big rise) and hence also the change of world setting.

Κατά τη γνώμη μου εθνοκάθαρση = γενοκτονία. //Dirak 15:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion ecnoka'carsi = genocide

Francis, if you want to know εθνοκάθαρση, which bablefish translates as "ecnokacarsi" means ethnic cleansing. //Dirak 15:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I kind of figured that one. I'm trying to work out 'προυποθετει' — and am asking a Greek guy now. (turns out it means "preconditions"). - Francis Tyers · 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Μπορει να γινει και με μορφη απελασης. Αλλα ναι υπαρχει και η λυση της περιορισμενης γενοκτονιας. Mitsos 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It can become also with form of deportation. But yes exists also the solution of limited genocide

Απέλαση τέτοιας μορφής απαγορεύεται συνταγματικά και από το διεθνές και το ευρωπαϊκό δίκαιο. Όσο για «περιορισμένη γενοκτονία» >> fuck off. //Dirak 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Deportation of such form is constitutionally also prohibited by the international and European right. As long as for "limited genocide" >> fuck off.

Οσο για αυτα που λες για "σοβαρα προβληματα" που προκειται να αρχισουν, εγω σου λεω πως εχουν ηδη αρχισει. Και δεν εννοω το σκοπιανο και την μεγαλη αλβανια. Σοβαρο προβλημα ειναι οι εκατονταδες χιλιαδες μεταναστες, η ανεργια, η φτωχεια, η εθνικη αλλοιωση και η γενικοτερη παρακμη του λαου μας. Mitsos 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as for what you say for "serious problems" that are to begin, i to you I say that already they have begun. And I do not mean the citizen of the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and Freater Albania. Serious problem they is the hundreds thousands immigrants, the unemployment, the poverty, the national alteration and the more general decline of our population.

Ουτε εγω υποστηριζω την γενοκτονια, νομιζεις οτι ειμαι σαδιστης? Οσο για το διεθνές και το ευρωπαϊκό δίκαιο, αυτα ειναι κομματια χαρτι που δεν τα παιρνει κανεις σοβαρα. Οι μονοι νομοι στους οποιους υπακουμαι ειναι οι Αιωνιοι Νομοι της Φυσης. Αυτα που λεμε ομως ειναι ασχετα με την Wikipedia και πρεπει να σταματησουμε. Mitsos 15:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor i I support the genocide, you believe that I am sadjstis? As long as for the international and European right, these they is pieces paper that him does not take no seriously. The alone laws in which ypakoymaj they is the Eternal Laws of Nature. What we say however they is irrelevantly with the Wikipedia and it should we stop.

OK. Πες μου όμως (στο talkpage μου), πώς συντελούν αυτά που είπες στην παρακμή του λαού μας; Ο λαός μας δεν παθαίνει τίποτα μην ανησυχείς. Ότι προβλήματα έχουμε εμείς, έχουν παρόμοια όλοι οι υπόλοιποι (ανεργία κλπ). //Dirak 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Say does I however (in talkpage my), how they contribute what you said in the decline of our population? Our population does not suffer nothing does not worry. That problems we have we, have similarly all remainder (unemployment etc).

[edit] Census

Could someone work [4] into the article, but mention that the figures regarding the Vilayet-i Manastir could be misleading as it included only south FYROM and parts of south Albania (around Korce). The north of FYROM was part of the Kosovo Vilayet. //Dirak 14:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, see [5] for those who say that there were no Greeks left outside Greece after the Balkan Wars. //Dirak 14:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Do we know what is the total number of states having recognized FYROM as "Macedonia"?--Yannismarou 08:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No we do not, exactly. Does anybody have a source for that? We can also create a List of countries recognizing FYROM by its constitutional name. NikoSilver 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dum! I cannot find a proper link telling me that "X countries have recognizes FYROM or Macedonia with the X or the Z name". Yes, the list is a nice idea.--Yannismarou 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article presently implies that only the Greeks insist on FYROM. Does anybody else? Does Cyprus? That may be a simpler question to start with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus does.^[6] We should look for others too. Sorry for reverting your edit, but "minimal" was Francis' wording (and we should realy say "minuscule" :-), plus all perfectures are on a drop down list to the left, so you can add up to see that the total votes in the Macedonian perfectures were indeed less than 3,000, and that e.g. Peloponnese and Crete was indeed greater! NikoSilver 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick search:

• FYROM site:.gov.* -site:.gov.mk: 2.910 hits
• "Republic of Macedonia" -former site:.gov.* -site:.gov.mk: 1.230 hits

 :-)

Also, Greece is not insisting on FYROM. Greece insists on dab in the name, which is evident from both the official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (here) and the fact that the proposal for "Republika Makedonija-Skopje" [sic] while not accepted outright by Greece, was characterized as "a basis for constructive negotiations" (here). You will also notice that no academic has called the latter position (i.e. to keep being called "Macedonia", but with the addition of a dab) as "nationalistic" or whatever. It is simply not addressed to. (Why?) NikoSilver 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this article may shed some light to the above (rhetorical?) questions. Another thing; the photos you have provided are, most likley, from the Vevchani carnival held in ROM. There are discussions of these photos in some extreme nationalist ethnic Macedonian (mainly diaspora but not only) boards, e.g. here. Are the people of this carnival trying to mock extreme nationalists, are they playing a joke on themselves, are they trying to play a joke on Greece/Greeks, are they trying to play the rest of the world, are they trying to play "war games", are they just "playing" (add your <<play>> here)? Well ... 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. An interesting introductory <<play>> would be the old time classic 'divide and rule/conquer' concept. Uh-hum let's just say/ speculate/ hypothesize/ suspect/ guess/ suppose/ theorize/ "conjectrurize"/ .../ that some 'allien force' is feeding amorus but subtle, inflaming but controllable, intense but periodical animosity just to .... 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask the user who introduced the source (here) regarding the exact content.

The "crisis group" link proposal (2002) is almost identical to the last proposal by Matthew Nimetz (2005) in terms of the name issue. It takes into account a need of reassurance for the people in the country; which I fail to understand how it can be undermined by a proposal for -say- "New Macedonia/n". The latter would specifically disconnect the two cultures, while not violating the self-identification/regional-identification rights of either the people/country concerned (at least not more than it does to eg. the New Yorkers), nor of the neighboring Macedonians (either them or them or them or them and whoever else drops by).

I am afraid that neither such a proposal would be accepted by FYROM, on the grounds that it doesn't allow them to continue to falsify history and have expansionistic aspirations... But then again, I may be just losing WP:AGF due to politically WP:POINT moves like this... NikoSilver 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Your PS crosses many people's minds, especially after this... NikoSilver 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS2. Please don't notify MY GOVERNMENT regarding my lenience in the name... NikoSilver 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know noone recognized "Macedonia", the very least is "Republic of Macedonia".   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

this is a little outdated, but I dont think it has changed substantially for two years.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh-hum I think that we started in the wrong foot here. Never said "Macedonia", I haven't implied any malice about the use of these photos, I haven't even implied that I do or do not agree with the proposals of the "crisis group" and certainly I haven't accused anyone for forming "juntas". Regarding the "crisis group" article, a good start might be to see where these proposals came from... 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict: Nope, not misunderstood at all, don't worry (the "my government" link was a joke :-) the smiley would have helped). Funky we were wondering about the exact content of the source with the "nice" pics (you know, the one that shows people "playing" by burning the Greek flag and having maps of the United Macedonia). NikoSilver 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As I read it more carefully, it does not seem at all related to the pictures. The newspaper however is a mainstream one. Weird. Maybe link just the pictures?   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What does it say? Shall we remove it alltogether? Is it just a bad sense of humor or a bad excuse for it? Also, to the anon, thanks for pointing these things out, and sorry if I missed a smiley up there. The usual suspects for your PS above are all over that member list; is that your point? NikoSilver 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it is about a carnival of humor and satire. Yeah, I will remove the link.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the photos, I was just trying to portray how easily one can mix-up and use-up incidents like this one to feed "popular beliefs". They are most likely from that carnival and can be used by any side just to advance a/some point/s. Satyrical and humorous as they may be, does not rule out, on the other hand, other <<plays>>. However, it's better to know where they came from, now, instead of defending imaginary "points" in the future. About the "crisis group"'s proposals and their board well let's just say that it is one (minor?) "player" which can possibly feed animosity as well as "pax (whatever-ana)." 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I bet the Greeks would be quite unable to assume good faith, given the latest developments regarding explicit history falsification by renaming the airport. For me there is no other excuse in sticking with an ambiguous name without disambiguation; but of course I am just a Greek (and one of the most moderate here, to add)... NikoSilver 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To the anon: you seem to have good intentions, so get an account! To all: I made a mistake linking the article too hastily.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you (anon) could also comment on the (only) featured article for the region and the ambiguity there: Macedonia (terminology). And read WP:WHY too, because we need open minded people here... NikoSilver 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I do have an account, but I like, sometimes, to "troll" around bearing only my IP. It's interesting to see the way some people treat - if I may say - "informed" edits when coming from "anonymous" users... I did the same with the said article. In a nutshell, I think it was a noble effort; the end result though, lacks the simplicity required to explain something that complex, to its indented audience i.e. people which would generally know jack about 'M & M's (and many more 'Ms'). I don’t have the time to make a fully fledged review now, but I do have some very specific recommendations and ideas about it or similar articles. So, will keep in touch -- Ninio 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albanian recognition

Albanian MFA has both appellations (here and here). Which is valid? Does anyone have an explicit source stating that Albania has decided to use RoM? (I've searched but haven't found anything). FWIW, the previous source there (which I removed) was a copy of a letter by Cervencovski himself, although I've no idea what it said, but it didn't seem something like "thank you for recognizing us as RoM". NikoSilver 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Albania has a lot on its plate. Non-compliance with FYROM demands would likely result in unfavourable repercussions for the significant Albanian community in FYROM. That pressure tool used by the FYROM authorities is what also caused the Albanian government to recognize a non-existent ethnic minority (interesting how some Albanians are now saying that there is no such minority :-) when will the government follow suit?). If Albania did recognize them as ROM, then there would probably be a mass expulsion of Albanian immigrants in Greece (not as severe as in the OMONOIA trial, but still noticeable). Perhaps Albania uses FYROM normally and only uses ROM when FYROM is around and Greece (or Cyprus or any other state which does not recognize the ROM name) are around. //Dirak 17:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That being said, I'm removing Albania alltogether from the list, pending explicit citation (which I seriously doubt will be presented). NikoSilver 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] greek pov

i deleted this from the section on macedonian language. it looks like pov, and is irrelevant to the section in question.

Nevertheless, standard Macedonian is mutually intelligible with standard Bulgarian and until the late 1940s, all activists and leaders of the Macedonian movement, including those of the left, used standard Bulgarian in documents, press publications, correspondence and memoirs and nothing indicates they viewed it as a foreign language.^[1] This is characteristic even of the members of IMRO (United) well into the 1920's and 1930's, when the idea of a distinct Macedonian nation was taking shape.^[2]

Benwing 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nikosilver's reverts

i undid your reverts.

first, whether "a million" greek macedonians protested or not, this info shouldn't be included; it's clear pov that's trying to pump up the validity of this position. note that other pages showing protests don't normally include figures, for good reasons.

second, the info claiming that modern macedonian greek is directly related to ancient macedonian is total nonsense. (i am a linguist and i have extensively studied historical linguistics, so i am in a position to know this.) ancient macedonian was a separate language from greek; it may have been a sort of greek dialect but if so it was quite distinct from the others. it's often thought that it was actually a sibling language to greek, same as thracian and phrygian and such. but regardless, it left no descendants. modern macedonian greek is derived from the byzantine koine, just like all other modern greek dialects other than tzakonian; and the byzantine koine in turn comes from attic greek.

Benwing 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hectorian, first, you put back the "million", which isn't sourced. second, you ignored my talk page comments completely. third, whether the language info is sourced or not, it's false. read the Ancient Macedonian page itself and think about whether this claim makes any sense. i suspect the sources here are highly questionable. Benwing 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

i looked at the references; they look reasonable but i can't verify any of them. i suspect that they do not make the claim given here, and that someone ignorant of linguistics (but probably having a pov to push) put this claim in without understanding the reality. see this from Ancient Macedonian:

• Eventually, Attic Greek supplanted it entirely, and Ancient Macedonian became extinct during the first few centuries of the Common Era. Exactly when its final traces disappeared is unknown and perhaps impossible to determine, since the tongue may at the end have survived only among a few individuals.

Benwing 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If u want a source to back up the 1 million protesters, I can provide one+; if u think it is unnecessary, i have no problem omitting it (after all, the photo speaks on its own). As for the Ancient Macedonian language, the fact is that the modern Greek Macedonian dialect (along with the other modern Greek variants) is the most and only related to it; not as a direct descendant of Ancient Macedonian Greek dialect, but as descendant of another ancient Greek dialect (Attic), both being dialects of Ancient Greek. The POV u are trying to push, e.g. ancient macedonian was a separate language from greek or it's often thought that it was actually a sibling language to greek, is practically a minority opinion... U say u have extensively studied historical linguistics, but u seem to (deliberately?) ignore the position of the vast majority of past and present scientists and linguists... I'd like to see indisputable sources about that; about grammar, vocabulary and syntax of Ancient Macedonian proving that it was not Greek... So far, cause I have also extensively studied historical linguistics, I never saw such proof in any professor's work... Simply cause it does not exist. I've seen only polemics and pseudo-theories that have more to do with geopolitics than linguistics. Regards Hectorian 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]: Hello and excuse me, but what does anything you're saying have to do with this revert?

My version was:

To the points (respective numbering):

There is also a close variation of modern Greek called Macedonian and spoken by the Macedonians (Greek), (replaced underlined with dialect) that has no relation to the Slavic languages and is directly related to the ancient Macedonian language, except the fact that it belongs to the Balkan sprachbund. You also deleted the million protestants. And the three citations: Ανδριώτης (Andriotis), Νικόλαος Π. (Nikolaos P.) (1995). Ιστορία της ελληνικής γλώσσας: (τέσσερις μελέτες) (History of the Greek language: four studies). Θεσσαλονίκη (Thessaloniki): Ίδρυμα Τριανταφυλλίδη. ISBN 960-231-058-8.  Vitti, Mario (2001). Storia della letteratura neogreca. Roma: Carocci. ISBN 88-430-1680-6.  Lindstedt, J. (2000). “Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement”, D. G. Gilbers & al. (eds.): Languages in Contact, (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 28.), Amsterdam & Atlanta, GA, 2000: Rodopi, 231–246. ISBN 90-420-1322-2.

No problem, call it a dialect. The first and second source call it both. Last time I heard a Macedonian, he was intelligible (PM Costas Karamanlis for instance) It doesn't have any, and that should be noted. Last time I checked, that was apparent in the XMK article (unless vandalized again). Slavic languages belong in a completely separate branch of Indo-European than Greek, XMK etc (who have their own branch -ie. Greek, or hypothesized Proto-Greek, Proto-Greco-Macedonian, Proto-Greco-Armenian et.al.) It is as yet undetermined whether the language was a (1) dialect of Greek, (2) a sibling language to Greek,(3) or an independent Indo-European language close to Greek, Thracian and Phrygian languages.ref:XMK So a folk linguist like me reads above: (1) it was a daughter of Greek, or (2) a sister of Greek, or (3) a first cousin of Greek. I suspect that this sources adequately the word related. To add, per your quote, it was absorbed within Koine Greek, which is the predecessor of modern Greek, so it's related to modern Greek for one more reason; hence directly related (in folk linguistics we'd call that incest :). If you have another way to illustrate these direct relations, I am all ears, but your bit that "claiming that modern macedonian greek is directly related to ancient macedonian is total nonsense" is (per your politeness) WP:Complete bollocks, and a historical linguist would simply say "I don't know how very much it is related" -at most. The Balkan sprachbound is a later thing that came upon us all. Cited by #3 (for Greek and by extention for its close varieties.) Million: You said: "note that other pages showing protests don't normally include figures, for good reasons." Can you please cite examples? After that, can you please cite a policy that states "we don't include number of protests in articles"? I can drop 5 citations in 10 minutes for the number, but I prefer you cite my two questions first.

I would suggest you avoid pompus introductions because some may see it as a means to intimidate other user's knowledge and scare them off.

I also warn you that I take issue with your ad hominem insinuation "i suspect that they do not make the claim given here, and that someone ignorant of linguistics (but probably having a pov to push) put this claim in without understanding the reality."

Therefore, I'm reverting you (again). I'm also adding sources for claims 3.1, 3.2 (and per my abundant WP:AGF) for 3.3. NikoSilver 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

fine, i give up. unlike you, i have no axe to grind or pov to push regarding the general greek/macedonian situation; i am not either greek or macedonian, i don't have any greek or macedonian friends, etc. etc. but i do like to see wikipedia neutral. i'm simply adding a pov tag and leaving it at that.

just a few points for you to ponder:

1. elsewhere in this same article there's a picture of ethnic macedonian protesters with no figures by it. go look at Protest and tell me how many of the seven or eight protest images have figures by them. go look at Abortion and tell me how many of the two photos depicting protesters have figures by them. tell me why you need to mention the number of protesters, and whether it adds anything encyclopedic. i don't know if there's a policy against putting in the figures, but it seems to be npov "common sense" to me.
2. "directly related" in historical linguistics between two languages normally implies that one is the parent of the other or that they are close siblings. if you want to put this in, you need to find a source for this. your cited sources obviously concern ancient macedonian and *ancient* greek, which is totally a different thing. "directly related" is your interpretation, and very far from consensus. linguists would normally say that modern greek (any dialect) and ancient macedonian are distantly related, much like modern english and gothic. similarly, modern macedonian and ancient macedonian are also distantly related, just at a slightly greater timescale (perhaps 5500-6000 years instead of 4000-4500 years).

Benwing 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, i see that you actually removed the "directly related" language ... but what you put in is still pov, as you are still trying to make the basic claim that modern greek is "related" to ancient macedonian and modern macedonian is "not". personally i don't think this info is terribly relevant, but if you want to state anything, state the estimated timescale rather than making claims about relatedness. the whole paragraph about ancient macedonian and its supplanting by ancient greek is really irrelevant; that's what a link to Ancient Macedonian is supposed to do. Benwing 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fact is, I can perfectly read the Bible in the original text (you know, the one close to the language that absorbed the other language -if it existed), and Macedonian Slavs can't. The timespan you're implying relates all languages to Adam and Eve's. Please stop the insults (second warning), and get a source for your WP:OR. I'm removing your tag. NikoSilver 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't understand you at all. why are you getting so angry? where did i insult you? why did you remove my pov tag? (that's a real no-no.) what does WP:OR have to do with anything? what does it matter if you can read the bible in the original text? how am i "relating all languages to Adam and Eve"? i'm using standard figures for indo-european. it is generally assumed that PIE split up about 5500-6000 years ago, and that proto-greek split up about 3500-4000 years ago; since ancient macedonian might be slightly outside of proto-greek, a figure of 4000-4500 might be reasonable (this is all off-the-cuff, though).

btw it seems you really have an axe to grind. wikipedia is not the place to do it.

i don't have time for this, so you won't see me anymore around here.

Benwing 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

btw since i do dispute the pov of certain parts of this article, i'm tagging it as pov. Benwing 00:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded in you talk. What do you dispute? NikoSilver 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose NikoSilver referred to the Bible in order to show that modern Greek is not a daughter of ancient Greek, but its continuation; and modern Greeks indeed can understand the Bible, in the original script, with minor difficulties. thus, according to most linguistics and historians, modern Greek is the continuation of Attic Greek, which in turns is the continuation of Attic-Ionic, containing many characteristics of the other ancient Greek dialects, Doric included; ancient historians and most modern linguists consider Ancient Macedonian a variation of Doric Greek; thus, here we are again in modern Greek as inheritor of ancient Greek as a whole. And if this is not enough, Tsakonian, the continuation of Doric Greek, is the most related dialect to Anc. Macedonian; Tsakonian is classified as a dialect of Greek, so, the conclusions are easy to be made. All these, of course, if we accept the opinion of the vast majority of scholars... If we accept the minority opinion (well, at present minority, in the past of non-existence-again someone can draw his/her conclusions), Anc. Mac. was a separate language, whose surviving closest relative is Greek... Here we are again... And if we go so far back in the past and begin talking about the split of the Indoeuropean languages, we should not be talking about Alemannic German as a dialect of German, but as a close relative of Germanic and a distant of Italic. Regards Hectorian 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern Greek is, Tsaconian in part excepted, descended from Koine; please list the Doric contrbutions to Koine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a matter for another article. The fact remains that Greek is the closest surviving language to ancient Macedonian by far, whichever way you look at it. The degree of Doric contribution to Koine is irrelevant, as Koine evolved from Attic, which like Doric was simply a dialect of ancient Greek. In other words, you cannot use the "un-Doric" nature of modern Greek as an argument against its relationship to XMK. Doric was no less (or more) Greek than Attic or Koine. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I've made some adjustments, and let the readers draw their own conlclusions. (It's so obvious anyway...) Notably, I've tweaked the wording here, and added a new header for XMK. I'll also add the citation for the recognition by Bulgaria (because I have an axe to grind). NikoSilver 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that Bulgaria was the first country to recognise the "Republic of Macedonia", as a means by which to reassert its influence there after the collapse of Yugoslavia. It has so far refused to recognise a "Macedonian" nation separate from the Bulgarian, however, and considers the name Macedonia a purely geopolitical term for what it considers an essentially Bulgarian region. Greece, on the other hand, takes issue purely with the name rather than the Skopjans' self-determination as a separate nation per se. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes for US shift in policy

The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav partisan and other sources with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected State. This Government considers talk of "Macedonian Nation", "Macedonian Fatherland", or "Macedonian National Consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.

Secretary of State E. Stettinius on December 26th 1944

Philhellenism 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote confirmed and had been posed to the State Department on 2005-10-12 (here). The reply was:

MR. ERELI: And your question is?

QUESTION: Let me finish.

MR. ERELI: No, no, I'm not going to let you finish. What's the question? You're taking up people's valuable time with a reference to something written in 1945. I will tell you, and I will end this here because I don't want to just go on forever on this. I told you what the U.S. policy is: We support the UN. If you want to bring in history from 50-plus years ago, you're free to do so, but let's do it at a time when you're not imposing upon others. Thank you.

I thought this would be useful for followup. As a side note, Edward Stettinius is the founder of the UN (among other 2-3 others). Read his WP article, and read why he quit his job at the UN... NikoSilver 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

What Kissinger said when asked on FYROM's adoption of the name Macedonia in the annual meeting of Management Centre Europe, held in Paris in 1992:

I believe that Greece is right to object and I agree with Athens. The reason is that I know history, which is not the case with most of the others, including most of the Government and administration in Washington…. The strength of the Greek case is that of history, which I must say, that Athens has not used so far with success.

Philhellenism 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote is only verified by Greek sources (here), including former FA Minister N.Martis. Does anybody feel that any of the two should be included in any of the relevant articles? NikoSilver 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More renaming about to take place

Meanwhile, Balkan Insight has learned that the authorities are considering a broader campaign to rename sites and streets after classical heroes, whether or not this angers Greece.

http://www.birn.eu.com/en/66/10/2105/ (11th paragraph)

Philhellenism 06:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I myself am a Macedonian

Apologies, Niko. I guess that explains EPT's different wording: an English translation of the Greek translation of the original English quote. I wasn't sure which language he said it in, as I have yet to see the actual footage. (Probably should be watching more news and less tennis!) In any case, he didn't say it during his speech to the Parliamentary Assembly, a video recording of which is available for download at http://www.coe.int/. It must've been during the press conference later on. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In the background (which was quite limited because the camera was focusing on him) there was another guy listening with small earphones. It looked like a panel to me. The words as I typed them were the exact English words that came out of his mouth. I had time to reach for a pen, because it was pre-announced by the newscaster. ERT is indeed translating English from Greek from (the original) English that I heard. It doesn't make much of a difference anyway, but those were his exact words. (sorry for the 20067 bit). NikoSilver 12:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

About time, really. I suppose he is the first Macedonian PM since the outbreak of the whole kerfuffle, so it was only appropriate that the words should come out of the mouth of a Greek official at the highest possible level. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It is to Athens' great responsibility that the human right of self-determination of the Macedonians (G) [<-Gosh how much I hate having to do that] has not been given the attention it deserves. "It's not OK to violate their's but it's OK to violate ours", sounds double standards to me. "Doesn't violate" is simply pathetic of an excuse, unless we all sign as we feel like from now on: George Bush (without dab please -it's insulting!) 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you bother with the (G) thing. I only use the name in a specifically Greek sense, because that's what it means to me, and it's up to others to keep up. The "Macedonians" never bother to disambiguate, so why should the Macedonians? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And neither is helpful to Wikipedia. We have a whole article on Macedonia (terminology). The mere English-speaking reader should not have to plow through it to guess what we mean here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is ridiculous of wikipedia to refer to FYROM as "Macedonia", since the UN has recognize it as FYROM. No country has the right to monopolize a name of a region that belongs to more than one countries. There is Slavic Macedonia, Greek Macedonia and even Bulgarian Macedonia. They do have the right of having as part of their name the term "Macedonia" but they do not have the right to monopolize it. Historically, they have never been self-identified as "Macedonians" before the 20th century. They only did so in order to stress their separation from neighbour nations as Albanians, Bulgarians and Grecomacedonians. Let me give you an example. If Portugal was separated in two countries like former Yugoslavia did, would the northern of it have the right to be called "Galicia"? No, because there already would exist a region of a neighbour country with that name. So, dear citizens of FYROM and dear editors of wikipedia, change this country's name on this site. My suggestions are: either refer to it as FYROM and to its citizens as FYR Macedonians or refer to it as Slavomacedonia and Slavomacedonians. This is the fairest choice, although you could also use Northern Macedonia and Northern Macedonians. These sollutions would be fair to both sides Greek Macedonian and Slavomacedonian and they would also be justified in historical, political and other terms. You always care about FYROM's right to self-identification, what about the right of 2,5 millions of Greek Macedonians to identify themselves as Macedonians as they have so for thousands of years and they did not just "remember" they were "Macedonians" during the last few decades like the Slavomacedonians did. (Dionysios 14:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC))

The UN HAS NOT recognised the term FYROM as the OFFICIAL name for the Republic of Macedonia. The UN is using this term, as an iterim name while the dispute continues. For the sake of all wikipedia readers please make sure what your are writing is accurate and true. -- 61.88.183.103 01:56, 8 February 2007

The article already makes this clear. Please see paragraph 2 of Macedonia naming dispute#Background. -- ChrisO 00:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)