Talk:Macedonia (Greece)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disputed Content

The content of this page is disputed and thus would be unethical and illegal to mis-represent information without mentioning that this information is disputed. Just some examples:

“Macedonia covers an area” - “Macedonia is divided into three peripheries”- “but this is not part of the Macedonia precincts” - “Macedonia possesses some of the richest” - “Kavala is the other harbour of Macedonia” - “full distance of Macedonia”

The name Macedonia is internationally and offically disputed, is it not? It is erronious to use the name in this manner.

“by Slavic Macedonians”

Offically, is there a such thing as a “Slav Macedonian?” NO – There are Macedonians, yes. If someone feels that they are of another ethnic background they may freely express that. For example, if you are a Greek, call yourself Greek. If you are a Greek Macedonian, call yourself as such much like African-Americans, Irish-Americans etc..do the same.

“re-incorporation into Greece in 1912.”

“Greece” as a NATION STATE did not exist until the 1830s (CIA World Factbook). How could it be a re-incorporation into "Greece?"

Offically, there is no "Slavic Macedonian" language. There is though, a Macedonian language. Is there any other Macedonian language in existance? NO - to call it "Slavic" Macedonian is wrong.

This article is totally and offically in dispute and it would be a mistake to not mention it. I will be adding that in right now. Thanks -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macedonian876 (talk • contribs) .

This issue has already been discussed. See above under the title "Slavic Macedonians". Kalambaki2 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Remain neutral? Thats not neutral? That is highly offensive! What the hell is wrong with you people? You need a qualifier? "Greek-Macedonian"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macedonian876 (talk • contribs) .

You are obviously new to Wikipedia. A lot of people have worked and discussed in order for the article to reach it's current form, which is accepted by the majority. It would be irresponsible on your part to make changes to the article, which have already been discussed and resolved, just because you don't like it. Kalambaki2 20:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the entire point kid – The name “Macedonia," as well as all its historical right,is INTERNAIOTNALLY DISPUTED, therefore, I don’t care what you write in your article you must state that the factual accuracy of this article, and any article relating to Macedonia, are in dispute. It does not matter what you agree upon with the other members of this site – you could agree to write in this article that “Macedonians have never been Greek and will never be Greek” or that "Greeks fabricated for the purpose of territorial gain" or "Greeks are Macedonians" etc. etc., but you still must write that it is disputed. I’m not proposing that you change one word in the article – maybe except “re-incorporation into Greece” as nothing was “re-incorporated” because Greece became a nation state in 1829 when it declared its independence and Macedonia was not “incorporated” within the state until approx. 84 years after – period. There was not a nation state called Greece in 1000BC nor in 300BC. Therefore that needs to be changed. There is no way you can argue otherwise. Do you need me to source infomration about a nation state or do you understand that it is a new/modern idea? Anyway, you MUST have “disputed content” at the top of this page and any page relating to Macedonia – it is internationally disputed therefore must be included or you are mis-representing and misleading the public which is illegal. Macedonian876

The Template:Totallydisputed template is an editorial comment, encouraging other editors to check the article for referencing for facts stated and improving language use towards WP:NPOV. It is not used to inform the reader that the subject of the article is controversial.

You also seem to be concerned about the way in which the word "Greece" is used in the article, or at least that is my understanding of your sentences about nation-states. I'm not sure that I am following you, but your argument seems to be that because "Greece" is the English name for a European state that some other name should be used to indicate everything that we typically describe as Greece that is not that state. I think that this would qucikly become immensely confusing. Jkelly 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. I appoligize for my use of "totally disputed," as now I know it is only used as an editorial tool, BUT, please understand that I am not trying to inform the reader the the topic is "controversial" as if they know anything about it, they know it is controversial (and most likely if they are searching for it, they want to know more because it is controversial). What I am saying is that the reader should know that even though wording is agreed upon by members of this site, the information is not offical - as there is an international dispute regarding the name and all else assoiated with it. If the reader is not told that the information contained in the article, even though we agree upon it, is disputed, then they are being mis-lead as they may believe the information relating to Macedonia and the usage of the term is corret - and/or that the dispute is settled.

Regarding "Greece," I am sorry if I was not clear enough. The passage states "for the territory of Greek Macedonia before its re-incorporation into Greece." When was the territory of Macedonia FIRST incorporated into Greece? Let us do an analysis - Greece was created in 1829 when it became a Nation-state independent from the Ottomans (CIA World Factbook). Macedonian territory was NOT part of this new state (Treaty of Bucharest - wikipedia). In fact, Macedonia became independent herself in 1903 BEFORE portions were EVER incorporated into Greece (Krushevo Republic - Ilinden Uprising - History of Macedonia.org). Half of Macedonian territory became, though, part of Greece in 1913 when Macedonian territory was divided by the Treaty of Bucharest 1913 (Treaty of Bucharest 1913 - wikipedia). Therefore, it is "for the territory OF MACEDONIA before its INCORPORATION into Greece" not "Greek-Macedonia before its RE-INCORPORATION into Greece." And, no one can argue that Macedonia was part of Greece in BC time because Greece did not exist in BC time (CIA World Factbook - Greece Independence). In order for simplicity, we refer to the City-States of BC with similar cultures in this region as "Greece" when infact it was not "Greece," each were completely independent city states (Any ancient author you want to choose). Therefore, the terms re-incorporation and Greek-Macedonia do not work at all. Macedonian876

I still think that you are using the template incorrectly, because you are trying to use it to communicate to the reader instead of other editors. Controversy should be described in the article in prose, ideally in WP:NPOV way. I'm not even sure that I can agree with you about the nature of the controversy. I am unaware that anyone is seriously arguing that this region within Greece is not or should not be referred to as Macedonia, which is an entirely separate issue from the naming dispute about the Republic of Macedonia. However, when it comes to your point about "incorporation" vs. "re-incorporation", I find myself agreeing with you; the former strikes me as better wording. Jkelly 23:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming and original research

Please read Wikipedia:No original research before contributing further. Thanks. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is original - my friend - everything is documented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macedonian876 (talk • contribs) .

In that case, there is no disputed content. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually there would be as you are mis-representing information that I have documented as clearly being inaccurate. Please do not detract the conversation between Jkelly and I - Jkelly I write again - Macedonian876

Snipped re-posting of comment (see above) out of space concerns Jkelly 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, what you are doing is called original research. What you think you can prove on your own is of no consequesnce - I can burst into a long rant and prove you wrong - perhaps even quote Gligorov, who said that Macedonian Slavs are not descendants of the Ancient Macedonians, but are descendants of Slavs who moved into the region in the seventh century. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the first incorporation could be the Byzantine empire, which towards its end, was a Greek speaking state. According to the article: Byzantine Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων) is the term conventionally used since the 19th century to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centered at its capital in Constantinople. I think we all know it contained Macedonia as well. See map. Of course, this is my original research as well. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you show me where the source (1) says “for Greek-Macedonia before its re-incorporation into Greece?” IT DOSENT! It does say, though, “from the new Greek territories.” Is “for Greek-Macedonia before its re-incorporation into Greece” something you made up? Read the source JKelly and tell me if it says “for Greek-Macedonia before its re-incorporation into Greece?” IT DOES NOT, it should read – “OF MACEDONIA before its incorporation into Greece” as the source says – “new greek territories” and as I have documented above.

"Its first incorporation could be the Byzantine Empire" - Used to discribe a portion of the Roman Empire does not constitute a Nation-state - Macedonian876

snip "Regarding Greece" para, already posted aboveJkelly 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't - see above. The Byzantine Empire, after the Slavic, Bulgar and Avar invasions have been so cut back that it was a Greek speaking state (read the relevant article). Did this Greek state not incorporate Macedonia? Yup! You really shouldn't believe what you read on macedonia.org - most of it's pure makeup. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nation states and national identity

NATION-STATE KID - I said Nation-state NOT Greek-speaking state. Used to describe a greek-speaking portion of the ottoman empire does not constitute A NATION-STATE. That map includes Albania, Turkey, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia, Romania, etc. etc. - Are those Greece too??? JKelly, can't you see this non-sense yet? I am now adding Totally disputed to this page - as the sources do not represent what is said in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macedonian876 (talk • contribs) .

A Greek nation state is a Greek speaking state - see nation state (a nation state is based on language). I'm referring to the Byzantine Empire, not the Greek speaking portion of the Ottoman Empire. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is now an awful lot to read on this page. It may take me a while to respond. Jkelly 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL - JKelly, again, I am correctly placeing "totally disputed" in the article. It is ignorant and non-productive to take it off because it is in dispute. This guy puts up articles that go aginst his own statement hahaha. I will wait for JKelly to respond - BUT - TOTALLY DISPUTED NEEDS TO STAY AS IT IS. Macedonian876

You will have to for all editors of this article to respond, not just me or Jkelly. Read Wikipedia:Consensus. I also suggest you stop writing in capitals - it looks like you're yelling and it's very hard to read. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"::A Greek nation state is a Greek speaking state - see nation state (a nation state is based on language). I'm referring to the Byzantine Empire, not the Greek speaking portion of the Ottoman Empire. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

An Empire is not a Nation-state - period!Macedonian876

Can you provide some kind of evidence? Was the Empire of Japan a nation state for example? --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure I can - Actually, you provided the evidence yourself. Here it is - "see nation state." And I quote - "What states existed before nation-states? - In Europe, before 1850, the classic NON-national state was a multi-ethnic empire. It was a monarchy ruled by a king or emperor, or in the case of the Ottoman Empire, by a Sultan. The population belonged to many ethnic groups and they spoke many languages. The empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was usually the language of public administration. The ruling dynasty was usually, but not always, from that group." Read through the entire article - Macedonian876

In other words, the Byzantine Empire was a Greek state which incorporated Macedonia. You've proved my point. That "one ethnic group" were Greek speaking according to the article. However, we've entered the realm of original research now. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No - not in other words - The Byzantine Empire was a portion of the Roman Empire - 700AD "The Eastern Roman Empire's loss of territory was offset to a degree by consolidation and an increased uniformity of rule. Emperor Heraclius fully Hellenized the Eastern Roman Empire by making Greek the official language, thus ending the last remnants of Latin and ancient Roman tradition within the empire."

Again - "What states existed before nation-states? - In Europe, before 1850, the classic NON-national state was a multi-ethnic empire." The "slavs" moved to the area in 600AD right? The slavs are numorous right? "It was a monarchy ruled by a king or emperor, or in the case of the Ottoman Empire, by a Sultan. The population belonged to many ethnic groups and they spoke many languages. The empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was usually the language of public administration. The ruling dynasty was usually, but not always, from that group." Therefore, does not constitute a nation-state. Macedonian876

Source for "re-incorporation

Now that that is cleared up - remember what we were talking about -

"Could you show me where the source (1) says “for Greek-Macedonia before its re-incorporation into Greece?” IT DOSENT! It does say, though, “from the new Greek territories.” Is “for Greek-Macedonia before its re-incorporation into Greece” something you made up? Read the source JKelly and tell me if it says “for Greek-Macedonia before its re-incorporation into Greece?” IT DOES NOT, it should read – “OF MACEDONIA before its incorporation into Greece” as the source says – “new greek territories” and as I have documented above. Macedonian876 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

snip "regarding Greece" para already posted above Jkelly 23:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"re-incorporation" is wrong. It should read "incorporation" because "Greece" did not exist as a political entity before 1829. Andreas 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tagging and reverting

Stop taking the dispute off - we are in a discussion and dispute and about the facts and that is what it is for. Stop being ignorant. Macedonian876 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

...And the official name of FYROM is former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.In the article about this country how many times are you writing this country with its official name????--Makedonas 21:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Discuss that in that article - this is not the place for it - thanks - JK, he revirted it back for the fifth time in minutes - take away his editing rights. Macedonian876 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Stop edit-warring over the "totally disputed" tag. There is neither an urgent need to have the tag on the article nor an urgent need to remove it. Discuss concerns here, with more brevity and courtesy. Messing around with the tag is a silly reason to get blocked for WP:3RR, but I will do it if the level of cooperation here continues to detiorate. Jkelly 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Hi. Please don't edit the quote in such a manner that it differs from the text we are quoting. Whether or not we should use the quote (which I added to the article) is certainly a matter we can discuss. As long as it is in the article, however, it should be an exact match to the passage from the book that we are quoting. Thanks. Jkelly 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag

I've added a SVG graphic of the Vergina Sun flag - the previous version's resolution was a little hard on the eyes. Dragases 08:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anthem

So, what is the deal here? Jkelly 00:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again (after the blue-flag-reverts) editor(s) from fY-RoM delete sections and sources are requested. I guess an invitation for the parade at March 25th won't do, right? Anyway, according to Greek Army official website this is a military march (εμβατήριο) based on the traditional "Macedonian Dance" (Μακεδονικός Χορός) which is related with the Akrites of the Byzantium. It is written in Dorian scale, in iambic 15syllable (ιαμβικός δεκαπεντασύλλαβος). The beat is 2/4 and it can be danced as a chassapiko (χασάπικο the literal translation is butcher's). talk to +MATIA 01:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please! This is laughable! Go to the original site - "www.army.gr" and choose english instead of Greek with regards to the language. Click on archives, like your above link says, and tell me where you see this "march song?" Why is it not available in english? Even if the "march song" exists, that hardly constitutes an official anthem. The anthem section should be deleted. Macedonian876 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate definition would be that this is 'the unofficially official anthem of Macedonia', or, 'the song that is the most readily associated with an important historical phase of Macedonia'. It is widely known, immediately recognised by Greeks and associated with the liberation of the Greek province of Macedonia from the Ottomans. It is not sung 'football style' to provoke anyone. Politis 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is widely known, immediately recognised by Greeks" is clearly subjective. It's not even official. Its not even necessairy for the article. It is clear that this is simply a politically motivated stunt. Keep the article informative about Macedonia not about clearly sujective and politically motivated "march songs." Macedonian876 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really, you find the unofficial anthems of England all listed on that article. Most of them are church hymns. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There are links to these unofficial anthems, not the whole text included in the article. Bavaria has an official anthem, it is not even mentioned in the article. I would suggest to keep a link to Famous_Macedonia with a note that it is not official. Andreas 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

England is a different case because 1) It does not have a "national anthem" to begin with -according to the article and 2) There is no dispute over England (or recognized dispute that is). It is an unofficial and offensive "march song" and should not be in this article. It just has no relevance. Macedonian876 18:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. Have you ever heard Land of Hope and Glory? That song has been heavily criticised due to it's offensive (from the Colonies' point of view) imperialist overtones. IMO these are identical situations. Regions within independent countries with unofficial anthems. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are mis-representing this issue. It is not an unofficial "anthem" to begin with? It is a "march song" not an "anthem" of the territory. Two very different things!Macedonian876 18:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The music to Land of Hope and Glory is Sir Edward Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March number one. They are both marches! Thanks for bringing another similarity to my attention :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Marches but not anthems - Marches that could become anthems, yes, but not anthems. Macedonian876 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

De facto anthems. Like in England! --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the march is back again, MATIA reverted it. This will probably be the only article in Wikipedia that has the wording of an anthem or patriotic song in the article itself. Greece does not have the wording of Ode to Freedom, Republic of Macedonia does not have it, nor does USA have the anthem's wording. Andreas 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to add one more thought. Macedonians - whether of Greek, Slavic, or other descent, have a right to be treated with dignity. The article as it is now puts too much emphasis on the ethnicity of the inhabitants of this region. I would suspect that the women and men who live in this beautiful part of the world have many more concerns in their lives than their ethnic background. They are citizens of the European Union. They are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. Andreas 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put. Jkelly 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The national anthems of countries are often central to gaining citizenship of that country. they also say something about that country. So, allons enfants de la wikipedia, le jour des anthems est arrivé; we should ivariably include them. Politis 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

National anthems should be included - I agree with you. But, march songs that are not national anthems should not be included. And yes, nicely put Andreas. Macedonian876 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If the march Land of Hope and Glory can be mentioned at England, then Makedonia ksakusti can be mentioned here. Whether is will be a link or the full text is still a matter for debate, after taking into consideration various implications such as the page length. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

After I stopped laughing, for various reasons unrelated to this post, I decided that although I usually would not post a comment refuting a statement similar to the above statement, I would in this case, as my comments could have a direct impact on the neutral nature and accuracy of this article. First of all, what goes on in the page “England” is of no concern to me – if it was, I would post directly in the area set aside for “England.” I am NOT here to question the use of an “unofficial March song” on “England’s” page because England is of no concern to me, as I stated above. I will question, however, the use of an “unofficial March song” in a page that is of concern to me. I’m sure you have heard this when you were a child, as we all have, but it seems like I must reiterate the theory - Do you mean to tell me if John jumped off a cliff you would too?

The basic concept is that just because others do something, that doing so does not necessarily make it correct. If “England” were of concern to me, I would be posting in that area about how an “unofficial March song” is irrelevant and unnecessary to that article. Rather, official national anthems could, if you would so please to have it, be added to the article, as it would have some relevance. Unfortunately, unofficial march songs not only have no relevance to the article but they are unofficial for a reason. Either public mandate is not strong enough to make it an official anthem or the march song is only viewed as relevant to national extremists or nationalists for a more concise use of words – both instances seemingly quite similar in nature or interrelated to one another. The fact remains that an unofficial march song is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. This is an encyclopedia, formed to inform the uninformed about a subject matter that peaks curiosity or desire or research. In this case it is the region of divided Macedonia that happens to be located in modern day Greece. Politically motivated, extremely nationalistic, unofficial March songs, from the “Greek” military, are irrelevant and should not be included. Macedonian876 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I defer to my previous statement. Unofficial de facto national symbols and anthems are mentioned in Wikipedia articles, whether you like it or not. This article is following the precedent set by other articles of a significantly higher quality and there are other numerous examples of how national symbols and anthems by default are used, including Scotland, Northern Ireland and Northumberland. The status quo with regard to such subjects is not going to be changed to satisfy FYROM's POV, so I'm afraid that the Anthem of Greek Macedonia is going to be used in the article and as long as a similar pattern is followed in other Wikipedia articles, that is the way it is going to stay. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"This article is following the precedent set by other articles of a significantly higher quality and there are numerous examples of how national symbols and anthems by default are used?" It is not a national anthem? It is not an official national anthem? It is not even an unofficial national anthem? It is a politically motivated, nationalistic, unofficial march song''', from the Greek military? It is completely irrelavent! This has nothing to do with the Republic of Macedonia, its point of view, or its people? It has nothing to do with this article? Jkelly, I have been kind enough not to modify the document at all regarding this issue, as we are currently discussing it. But, since you are a moderator, I think, make a decision regarding whether to keep this march song or take it off because I'm not going to get into a revert match with these people. Macedonian876 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And remember, the UK uses "PATRIOTIC SONGS" becuase "the United Kingdom has no consititutionally specified anthem." Macedonian876 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the true colors showing at last :-) Administrators like Jkelly are not authorised to decide content disputes. Disputes are meant to be resolved though Wikipedia:Consensus and that will emerge through negotiations as always. If you think you can bully FYROM's POV though, you are sadly mistaken. I appreciate that you are new and it takes time to get to grips with how things work here; it took me a long time (of course I never vandalised others userpages [1], nor got blocked for ignoring the rules [2]). With regards to why the march should be kept: I defer to my previous statements. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What true colors? I don't know how we can settle something we have totally different views about? You have not shown how an unofficial march song from the Greek military has anything to do with a national anthem or with this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macedonian876 (talk • contribs) . 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible, it happens all the time. Usually some kind of compromise. Also, if I Vow to Thee, My Country can be mentioned at England, the Makedonia ksakusti can be mentioned here. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it is possible - But remember, "the UK uses "PATRIOTIC SONGS" becuase "the United Kingdom has no consititutionally specified anthem." Does Greece? Macedonian876 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Actually, Makedonia ksakusti has some regional specifics. Also, I think you should learn how to distinguish between England and the UK. The UK has no constitutionally specified anthem. Constitutionally, England does not exist! Therefore, the very article England is based on a de facto regional identity. Not everything has to be official, that's why Makedonia ksakusti can be mentioned. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I will agree with you here Latinus. England is a constitutant country of the UK? I agree with Macedonian that the anthem should not stay in this article. Macedonian, what type of macedonian are you? Andropolus 15:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"What type of Macedonian" is a flawed question and it is irrelavent to this article. Yes, England is a constitutant country of the UK - the "anthem" should not be in the article. Macedonian876 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Apolitical anthem concern

What is the copyright status of the anthem? What is the copyright status of the translations? If the lyrics, or that translation, are under an unfree copyright, we cannot have them in the article. Jkelly 18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That depends on where User:Makedonas got the lyrics from. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Try telling that to Jimmy Hendrix about copyright. No, they have as much copywright as the national flag of a country. Politis 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The German composer Stockhausen wrote that, "Anthems, the national anthems, are the most popular music there is. They are sound signs, sound objects familiar to many people. Actually, everyone is familiar with two or three of these anthems, at least the beginnings of the melodies if not the texts [...] That is why I chose them as objects, which I can now manifoldly modulate and compose into an unknown world of electronic music." Thank you for your indulgence. Politis 20:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I translated the lyrics of the Anthem. About the Anthem, I am sure that it is official, because we sing it in anniversaries, and in other school events, after the Greek Anthem. Every Macedonian child learn it together with the Greek Anthem! I don't think that there are other EU region, that would have so much problem to write down its Anthem. I can't understand why we cannot put it here because some people from other continents don't want it here, even though they don't know nothing about Macedonia today.--Makedonas 22:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Makedonas, I understand and respect your opinion about the anthem and the pride that you connect with it. My previous deletion (reverted by MATIA) has nothing to do with this. This is an encyclopedia, and is here to provide information in a concise way. There are many regions in the world where ethnic tensions exist, including the province where I live, Quebec. Greece Macedonia does not stick out in any way in this respect, and should be treated equally. I quote from the Quebec page: The song "Gens du pays" by Gilles Vigneault is often regarded as Quebec's unofficial anthem. Andreas 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Andreas, I wasn't refered to you in my previous text. They are many people here, who don't want to accept many facts for the Greek region of Macedonia for other reasons, even though they don't live in the region. You have the right to be suspicious because, the things we write here, should be valid. The most people who write here aren't from this region, and I 'm just trying to explain you how are the things in Macedonia. For examble if you read wikipedia you think that there are a big number of slavomacedonians in Macedonia who suffers from Greeks. This isn't valid. Today, people with slavic origin lives only in the regions of Florina and Edessa, they are totaly hellenised, and the olders speak a slavian dialect, except from 1-2 villages who feel Slavians. Many older people with Greek origin in Florina can also speak this slavian dialect because they came in Greece from the region of Bitola after the balkan wars. And I am saying all this because I worked 1,5 year in the town and villages of Florina with all these people, and I thing that when you see and live something, is most important than to hear or to read it.--Makedonas 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many of the so called "Macedonian minority of Greece" actually identify their language (and some even themselves) as Bulgarian :-))) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (see sources on the relevant page)

Logically, that is entirely possible. For example, I am a Macedonian, but I would identify the language I speak as English? You know people can be and are (but do not have to be) bi-lingual right? Oh, and, those who call themselves "Bulgarian" would not fall into the "Macedonian minority of Greece" now would they? Ah, refreshing isn't it? They would fall into the "Bulgarian minority of Greece." Macedonian876 19:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're grouped together as the "Slav speaking" minority. Some people though, try to label all of them as either one or the other. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is erroneous to group people together based upon language. Is an American man Australian, British, or American? They are different right? It would be erroneous to say he is English right? Macedonian876 19:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. In this case though, these people identify as Greeks. In other words, they are Slavic speaking Greeks, not Macedonians or Bulgarians. Only a minority actually proclaim a non Greek national identity. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So, if they are grouped together, how do you know if one is talking about Russian, Serbian, Macedonian, etc.? Do they have the option "Macedonian?" Macedonian876 19:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no Serbians or Russians in Greece (excluding the immigrants), only (Slav) Macedonian/Bulgarian speaking Greeks. This is more accurately explained at Macedonians (ethnic group). I don't really know much about it. The minorities are virtually extinct anyway, hardly anyone under the age of 60 can speak the language. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then, the statement - "Actually, many of the so called "Macedonian minority of Greece" actually identify their language (and some even themselves) as Bulgarian" - is invalid, because, you group them together as "slavic speakers." Because, if a slavic individual identifies himself as "Bulgarian" he would be part of the "Bulgarian minority of Greece." If a slavic individual identifies himself as "Macedonian" he would be part of the "Maceodnian minority of Greece." As for language, you agreed with me above so I will not state it again. Macedonian876 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is an alleged Bulgarian identifying minority with its own political party and the whole nine yards. The problem is, we've never actually seen any people from this minority. They're just like the alleged Macedonian Slav minority (they have a political party too). They are referred to as the "ghost organizations", because these minorities only seem to exist on paper, but no one's ever seen any members of these minorities ;-) Please read my comment of 19:30 above. Only a minority proclaim a non Greek national identity. That is in theory of course :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They DO only exist on paper - tahts wwhy Andropolus 15:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you be sure? Why would they exist on paper but not reality?Macedonian876 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Information

If you look at the text underneith the picture next to the so called "anthem" - it says "Vergina Sun - The symbol of Ancient Macedonia/Greece." Since when is the Vergina sun a symbol of "Ancient Greece?" Because as far as I know, it is unclear what the symbol represents, but it is clear that it represents one of two things - 1) The Ancient Macedonian kingdom 2) Or a religous symbol of Macedonia. Furthermore, "Greece" as a nation state did not exist during the time of Philip so how could the symbol represent "Greece?" You got it now, it didnt - it represented the "Macedonian kingdom" or was a symbol synonomus with the "Macedonian kingdom." The text under the pic should be deleted as well. Macedonian876 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Since ever? 1, 2 in greek, 3 in greek. By the way it was a symbol of the god Apollo, and it still is a symbol for Greek Macedonia (the blue flag with the Vergina Sun). talk to +MATIA 18:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Vergina Sun is a (unofficial/folkish) symbol of modern Greece (that is what Greece in the caption refers to - it does not say Ancient Greece anywhere). One used to be able to find it on the old Greek 100 drachma coin. Of course, now Greece is a member of the European Union and having that status has amongst others the ability to veto the ascension of new members (λέμε τώρα) and more importantly, has the euro as its currency, so the old coins are now gone. The implications of that (if any) are something I know very little about. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And? Again, the symbol is a symbol of or relating to the "Macedonian Kingdom" not "Greece." And, the Macedonian sun has been used for centuries and has been placed on religous icons painted in Macedonia, from Macedonia, even after the "slavs" invaded if you like to believe that an invasion occured. Macedonian876 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article England has a flag and a controversial (disputed by some historians) coat of arms. Again, identical situations. Unofficial symbols (like everything in the UK - they have no written constitution: almost everything is unofficial). --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the "macedonian sun" and other variations of Sun symbols used in Byzantine Churches are not identical with the Vergina Sun. talk to +MATIA 18:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Different variations of the "rays" size and amounts exist, but, the symbol itself was always used to represent the "Macedonian Kingdom," "Macedonians," "Religon of Macedonia," etc. etc., nothing to "Greece" related. Macedonian876 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well somehow it is a Greek symbol now. Hmm... --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dont rush to believe so? The issue is disputed - thats it. You may be able to push Macedonians around because your state has more financial power right now, but dont think you are anywhere close to becoming Macedonian. Macedonian876 19:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks, dear, or I'll report you. Take your frustrations out on the Greek icon makers, coin makers etc. Perhaps even on the old lady (how romantic) who sew the Macedonian flag (which unlike the FYROM flag, actually does depict the Vergina Sun) which is used throughout the Greek region of Macedonia. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian876, go and read Herodotus about the Argead dynasty - it was their symbol. And Sun Symbols exists in many (if not all) of the civilizations - some of them even worshiped the sun (see Apollo) - but the similarities are because of the same prototype. Go ahead and believe that the Byzantine decorative symbol, was the one of the Argeads if you want to. talk to +MATIA 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have read Herodotus, thank you for bringing him up. Herodotus says - "The Greeks tell many tales without due investigation." Thanks for the reminder Herodotus, and thank you too Matia....Macedonian876 17:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what an argument! That must have convinced the whole world that you are right :-D --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus was a "Greek" correct? Herodotus said "Greeks tell many tales without due investigation," correct? Enough said - Who is your next source? Macedonian876 18:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See Straw man. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are unnecessary. Please refer to Don't make personal attacks for more information. Consider this your warning. Macedonian876 19:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See bluff. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the Vergina Sun is a recent revival, based on an object found in excavations in 1977, only 30 years ago. I do not believe there is any continuity from ancient times to modern times in the use of this symbol. I do not believe it was used as a symbol of Greece or the region of Macedonia (or for that matter of the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) before that, either officially or unofficially. The "old" 100-drachma coin is from 1990. It would be interesting to document the ancient, medieval, and modern uses of this symbol in the Vergina Sun article. --Macrakis 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Festivals

A sentence was added by User:Politis regarding "festivals for Macedonian Slavs from around the world." This would be a good thing by itself because it would promote understanding and friendship among people with different ethnic background. However, I doubt if this is article is the right place for such a statement. On the other hand I (and maybe others interested in Greek Macedonia) would like to know more about these festivals. Politis, it would be nice if you could provide a source for this (maybe some of the festivals have websites?) Andreas 01:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Demography indigestion

The demography chapter has become the main dish, it is huge. This entry is about a Greek province, its geography, industries, sights, climate, its relation to the centre (Athens) and a hint of history. I hope sometime in the future to cut it back to a reasonable size. Politis 18:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A change for minorities

Hi there, I was reading this article and was not very pleased with the minorities part, particularly the Macedonian minority (yes I am talking about the Greeks view of Macedonian 'slavs' or 'slavophone'). My background is from this region of Macedonia; part of my family are from Florina (or Lerin as my parents and grandparents call it) and the other part from Salonika. I have lived in Australia all my life and hearing stories from my grandparents about their home villages, and only last year did I go to Northern Greece to see where my grandparents came from. I was mainly in Florina, staying with relatives. I learnt some basic Greek before I went but when I arrived there, I discovered that the language was not really necessary for me as the majority of the people in Florina spoke to me in Macedonian (that language in the Republic of Macedonia). Not only in Florina but in the villages and in Kastoria and Edessa (to a lesser extent). There are also many of us who have a background from this region of Greece, who live through out Australia. The experience made me realise how much of a large minority my people comprise of in this region of Greece and reading the article here has prompted me to write this (if you can call it) 'complaint'. I do not want to provoke or start an argument, just that I believe it is not very much fair on my people. So if something could be done to slightly alter the article so that it is more neutral, or more revealing of us Macedonians, then that would be very nice:)

It is always usefull to sign your contributions with your user name. Thanks. Also, I have been to the same parts of Greek Macedonia with Slavophone Greeks; when they spoke in Slavonic in shops, the answer came back in Greek (there was not negative reaction) and, unlike Athens, the people were polite. Also, though there are quite a few bi-lingual people (speaking both Slav Macedonian and Greek), a considerable number consider themselves Greeks and not members of a minority (admitedly, 2 out 3 of my Slavophone Greek friends considered themselves members of a minority but happily acknowledged that most people did not. The third person considered himself a Macedonian Greek; he disliked intensly the nationalism coming out of Skopje that imposed a particular style of 'Macedoniansm' on Slav Macedonian Greeks and, to a lesser extent, the insensitivity of Athens) Politis 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)