Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Patron Saint

National patron saints are not like football teams--there isn't one for every major city. There might be city or regional patron saints, but that doesn't deserve mention on the national page. It's a question of scope. A country has one patron saint, not a set of them. Most countries (like the U.S.) have no patron saint. At this point, Tomica, you need to provide a reference, I think, since you haven't been able to list a single official patron saint for Macedonia. I respect the religious devotion of the Macedonians, but for Wikipedia purposes, the patron saint label in the template isn't for every saint that a Macedonian church is named after. It isn't even for every saint that a Macedonian denomination accepts as its principal saint. It's for a saint that is widely accepted on a national level as the saint that specifically watches over the country of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

To count as a patron saint, there must be a reliable source that says, "Saint X is the patron saint of Macedonia" or something similar. "Patron Saint" implies something official, not popular. For example, the Archangel Michael is the patron saint of Kyiv, Ukraine--his statue stands above the old city gate, his likeness is on the city flag, there are stories about his patronage, etc. (Taivo (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

Trial unprotection proposal

I've noticed that in the few weeks since the finalising of WP:MOSMAC2, there has been very little vandalism to this page from established editors. In the interests of open-editing, protection policy suggests that articles should not remain indefinitely protected. Whilst I could not countenance move-unprotection and believe move=sysop should remain default, I'd like to propose a trial of unprotection to allow anonymous editing here again. If excessive vandalism occurred, we could apply standard protection practices, up to and including an eventual to indefinite edit=autoconfirmed. I invite thoughts here. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth it to give it a try. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And the lion will lay down with the lamb... (Taivo (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Anyone want to start a sweepstake to guess how long it'll be before re-semi-protection is required? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

... I'll take that as that you think it's a bad idea? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's just say it's been tried before – just as unprotecting George W. Bush and Barack Obama was tried a few times as well. But if you want to spend all day reverting blankings, search-and-replace insertions of "FYROM" and "Skopje" and posted rants about how Macedonia is Greek, feel free. This article has been ground zero for a lot of racial and nationalist hatred ever since it was created. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my money on six hours, ChrisO. Because J.delanoy will pull protection just before he goes to bed, then discover the situation when he wakes up. (Taivo (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

What the hell prompted that? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO was taking bets... ;) (Taivo (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

I meant, saying that I would unprotect it right before I go to bed? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this only means that Taivo may well need a little more sleep and a little less worrying about RoM-related edit-warring. My personal, but not expert, opinion is that he was just projecting. Dr.K. logos 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Chill, J.delanoy. It was just a guess and light comment, not a judgment on your personal habits or Wikipedia practice. Since Wikipedia is pretty much a MMORPG, there's nothing personal involved. I don't have any reason to doubt your sincerity or seriousness.  :) (Taivo (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC))

(Removed Anon IP anti-Macedonia rant that Smarkflea refers to below) (Taivo (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

I suppose you are also disgusted by the fact there is an Athens in Georgia. Get over your-self...Smarkflea (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not unless people in Athens, Georgia start claiming that they're all descendants of Pericles or, worse yet, that Pericles was an American. You are confusing nationalism with misguided, over-eager attempts to protect Greek history. In fact, given that the ancient Greek civilization formed the basis on which European history and the entire Western civilization was formed, it is not just a matter of Greek history, but a matter of world history as a whole. Nikos P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.108.16 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bitola coat of arms

I see that the city of Bitola does not have a coat of arms in the demographics table, as well as some other cities. Please update the coat of arms column with the correct images. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderwebmkd (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Politically charged messages

The wording in the article suggests an open emotional attitude toward some of the neighboring countries of Republic of Macedonia. Although this has become the stereotype for that country`s foreign affairs in the international public opinion, I believe that we can smooth out wording of this sort and make the article more factual, less emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.229.156 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review request

You may notice a new header this morning, as I have requested a peer review of the article content. Since MOSMAC2, the article and its associated disambiguation page have calmed down considerably. With the argument over the title quelled somewhat, I think it important that efforts be made to address the content itself. I have requested outside review because I think that's helpful. I think there are some areas for discussion:

• Structure: There are too many headings - the TOC is enormous, and there are lots of very short sections that could quite easily be merged into each other.
• Weight: Some sections, are incredibly short compared to other, less important topics within the article and that is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Clearly in the case of some sections, such as History or Geography, we cannot include all content, but could we better organise the material into a coherent summary.
• Graphics: Galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia - I think we ought to remove it, but the open question is the use of graphics on the page as a whole, and whether we incorporate the gallery back into the main article. In general, we should align the images within the text to the right.

My comments here will be eerily familiar to anyone who has been through GA/FA - and that is my intention here - in the short-term, to improve this article to a Good Article, with the more ambitious goal of improving it to featured status. It would be the ultimate for this article - from edit warring and Arbitration to a possible place on Wikipedia's main page. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia cannot be peer reviewed, that is why we rely on secondary material that, hopefully, already enjoys some form of peer review. Politis (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Peer-review" isn't meant here in the academic publication sense, but in a wikipedia-internal sense: Wikipedia editors having their work informally reviewed by their Wikipedian "peers", i.e. other Wikipedians. See Wikipedia:Peer review. It's a well-established process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

203.0.223.244 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates in article are okay. BrainMarble (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Diaspora?

Shouldn't that be in the Ethnic Macedonians article. I mean it has nothing to do with the country, but with part of its population (or to be precise - part of the population at a time when it was not actually a country yet). --Laveol ^T 13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, should be part of the Ethnic Macedonians article, not the Republic of Macedonia article. The only reason it should be here is if all these "foreign" Macedonians vote in Macedonian elections and thus influence contemporary Macedonian politics. If they don't vote in modern Macedonia, then their relevance here is minimal. (Taivo (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

OK ... I will remove it then. Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I see that the pictures used in this article does not reflect the heterogeneity of the country. The article in general but especially the pictures portray Macedonia as being 100 % Macedonian. NOAH (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures are great, and of course Macedonia is Macedonians, cause the name of the country is Republic of MACEDONIA!!! 1111tomica (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What a etnocentric statement by a confused "Macedonian".--NOAH (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

People, keep it cool, both of you please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think articles should be NPOV and right now the article isn't. And we see that editors openly accept they have a bias and most importantly incorporate their bias in the article. There should be done something about this. --NOAH (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that articles should be NPOV, and the articles gallery is great! I know what you want to be in the gallery, but that you can put in Albania's and eventually the Kosovo gallery, but here NO! 1111tomica (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither yours or mine, it belongs to the humanity. You don'y seem to know what I want to add. I want to add pictures from the other towns like Tetovo, Gostivar, Kumanovo, Struga etc.--NOAH (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If the photo is in Macedonia and illustrates life or architecture of Macedonia, then it's appropriate here. Keep the caption neutral and non-controversial and there is no problem. 1111tomica, if the photo follows those guidelines it is appropriate here, whether it is from an ethnic Macedonian town or an ethnic Albanian one. NOAH, stay away from controversial topics in the selection of photos and there's no problem. But the gallery isn't for a travelogue, it's to illustrate features of Macedonia and Macedonian life ("Macedonian" in this sentence means "pertaining to Macedonia", not "ethnic Macedonian"). (Taivo (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

In the government's "visit Macedonia" clips on CNN, they often like to show a couple of mosques. Would something like that be suitable Noah, or do you have something else in mind?--Ptolion (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Couple??? I saw 1 mosque in the CNN commercials maximum 2!!! 1111tomica

Uh, two is a "couple", 1111tomica, but we generally use "couple" for 1-3 if we don't know the exact number. (Taivo (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Using some photos from cities with many non-Macedonian innhabitants would be good to show the diversity of the country. --NOAH (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two have already been added, but if you have better ones... (Taivo (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Hey

I request a section be made about Macedonia's most brutal leader. Also block me for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.121.150 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the basic name is changed again?

Macedonia (country) беше далеку подобро, отколку Republic of Macedonia? Сосема доволно за да се разликува од сето останато што се подразбира под името Македонија. Ова е малку понижувачко, на секое да додавате Република, кое воопшто не ми се допаѓа. Тоа се користи само во официјални документи! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duli85 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Name

I believe that the name of country stated on the page should be the same as the name of the country as reconized by the United Nations, ie Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M). I contest the current naming of the page and wish to inquire why it is under the name it is. Furthermore there is no reference to the Greek speaking population, as this is a major dialect within the nation. Ilias.x (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

About the name: see the very top of this page, and the link provided there. About Greek speakers: according to census data there are only a couple hundred. We tried to find out more but could find no reliable source indicating anything about there being more. Without reliable sources we can't say anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Western Kingdom of Macedonia?

I found this on the intro: "Today's Republic of Macedonia occupies the western half of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia. Historic Macedonia was defeated by Rome and became a Roman Province in 148 B.C."

The F.Y.R.o. Macedonia does not occupy the western part of "Ancient Kingdom of Macedonia". The Ancient kingdom of Macedonia is situated in Northern Greece. A small part of it, if any (ancient frontiers are obscure)after the expansion of Philip and Alexander is situated in the Southwestern edge of the F.Y.R.o Macedonia.

The Historical region of Macedonia has inherited its geographic connotation during the Ottoman era. By all means, run through evidence and change this.(CG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.52.250.139 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to ad to any confusion I like to point out that the "Historic region of Macedonia" is NOT the "Roman Province of Macedonia". If that would be the case, then Thessaly, Boetia, part of Epirus, and Thrace would also be considered to be part of the "historic region of Macedonia". Likewise, the Roman province of Macedonia was just that: a Roman province, not the ancient kingdom. The text should be changed to "Today's Republic of Macedonia occupies the Northern half of the Histrorical region of Macedonia which inherited its geographic connotation during the Ottoman era. (CG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.52.250.139 (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

I have a question: why the hell is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and FYROM in bold? -212.18.51.218 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The last relevant discussion i remember happening is this, where there was no consensus for debolding.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This old poll is also helpful. --Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding, bolding the various names any country is officially or unofficially called is the norm in Wikipedia (see USA, UK, Greece, Netherlands, Russia, Sri Lanka etc). Maybe there is a country article which does not follow this rule, but every one I looked up did. So, I do not think that this should be the topic of another argument over whose nationalistic ego prevails. GK1973 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One should not be disheartened because of FYROM appearing in a bold typeface. It is important to remember that while the article is called plain Republic of Macedonia, FYROM is still a name for the country in a number of institutions. If things had been different here, Former Yugoslav.... may yet have been the article's name, let's face it, the name is a potential candidate for title; even so, it comes second place in the pecking order. This is something we cannot ignore. It needs to be bold and close to the headword. Evlekis (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are unaware of WP:MOSMAC or else you wouldn't think that "FYROM" was still a candidate for the article's title. (Taivo (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

It's WP:NCMAC for the record, and I don't see anyone here advocating for renaming the article FYROM. Athenean (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it got renamed. And Evlekis' comments are pretty close to "The jury is still out on the name of the article". (Taivo (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Vardar and "access to the sea"

Some silly reverting here [1]. Questions:

1. My understanding is that the Vardar isn't navigable (though there have been plans to make it so). If it isn't, there is no obvious sense in which it provides "access to the Aegean".
2. Independently of the factual correctness of the claim, the sentence "Although landlocked, the Vardar river provides Macedonia with access to the Aegean Sea" is grammatically incorrect, as it contains a dangling adjunct clause (it's not the Vardar that is landlocked, but the country, which isn't the subject of the main clause.)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i find it as an example from the Serbia article, where it's standing the same sentence just, Dunav and Black Sea, instead Vardar and Aegean Sea. Serbia is landlocked too right??

You missed my point about being "navigable". To "provide access" means to be useable for actual traffic. The Danube, of course, is an important international waterway. The Vardar isn't, unless I'm mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I didn't understand the context of the sentence. I will make revert. 1111tomica (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues

In my opinion there are no issues in the article, I would write the history parts better, but some Bulgarian editors would complain about that never mind... But the User:Подпоручикъ is making Bulgarian propaganda in the article it's obvious, propaganda with a lot of grammar mistakes. Pleasently I would like to plead the Bulgarian editors to leave the article, because as you can see their pose it's not the same as us (Macedonians) and it's of course unacceptable. Administrators Please react! 1111tomica (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Classical Antiquity map

It seems to me that the Map of the area in classical antiquity (situation of ca. the 5th century BC) presently used to illustrate the section Ancient history of the territory is not very adequate — which is not surprising as it apparently was made for a different purpose, focusing more on Epirus rather than on the territory of the present Republic of Macedonia in antiquity. The map even fails to show the entire territory of Macedonia (region), missing its eastern parts. There should be some better map available I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Document No 2

The 1992 Top Management Forum Competing in Global Markets

Henry Kissinger

An Analysis of the Global Geopolitical Environment

Management Centre Europe 18-19 June 1992, Paris 2/10/92

This is an abstract of the minutes kept during the annual meeting of Management Centre Europe held in Paris on June. During the questions time at the end of Henry Kissinger's presentation one of the questions was:

   "What is your opinion for the problem which Greece have to accept the name Macedonia which the Scopia Government is trying to implement?" 

Mr Kissiger asked the man who asked the question:

   "Are you Greek ?" 

Reply "Yes"

   "Look, 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 the History which I must say that Athens have not used so far with success." 

Other questions followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.174.90 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Ancient histroy

An anonymnoys editor added a paragraph abount Macedonia's history in antiquity. The problem is that there is already a section on this topic, so this is redundand. If anything, information contained in this paragraph should be incorporated into Republic of Macedonia#Ancient history of the territory. Additionally, the language and the formatting of the paragraph does not comply with encyclopedic standards. I deleted the paragraph.  Andreas  ^(T) 13:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantomatic Languages in Macedonia

"There are also smaller minorities of Adyghe and Greek speakers" is listed on the article.

• UN source [2] : no Adyghe and Greek
• EU (eurominority) [3] : no Adyghe and Greek
• Britannica [4] : no Adyghe and Greek
• BBC [5] : no Adyghe and Greek
• Eupedia [6] : no Adyghe and Greek
• Ethnologue on Republic of Macedonia page [7]: no Adyghe and Greek

On what objective and non cherry-picked but multiple sources is the clame of "Adyghe and Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia" based than? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.91.95 (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

About the sources you cited above:

• "UN source": contains no information about languages at all.
• Eurominority: amateurish website, notoriously unreliable, no official affiliation with EU (it's the website that famously lists "Makedonia xakousti" as the hymn of the ethnic Macedonians [8], right?)
• Britannica map: a Europe-sized map, by far not fine-grained enough to show even many of the notable minorities, let alone small ones.
• BBC website: only a rough list of the most important minorities, no claim to exhaustiveness ("Others include…"). Cannot be used as evidence against the existence of a small minority.
• Eupedia: again, a Europe-wide map showing only the very largest groups, by far not fine-grained enough for smaller groups.
• Ethnologue: in contrast to your claim, the page you cite clearly does include Adyghe – but Greek only as an "immigrant language"

About the pages cited currently in the article: Ethnologue actually needs to be taken with some caution. The page on "Greek" [9] has some obviously dubious entries (Greek is "Widespread, especially in Greek Macedonia". ORLY? The major dialects of modern Greek are "Katharevousa, Dimotiki, Saracatsan". ORLY? "Graecae" is an alternate name of Greek. ORLY?). The page on Macedonia, in its 2010 version, lists Greek as an "immigrant language". ORLY? Apparently its older versions still listed Greek among the main list (see discussion at Talk:Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia#Greeks are mainly settled in the cities of Gevgelija ...). Apparently Ethnologue also added a few more entries in its reference list. Back when we discussed it last time, it said "mainly from B. Comrie 1987, W. Browne 1989, 1996". Now, it says: "W. Browne 1989; W. Browne, E. Dornisch, N. Kondrashova and D. Zec 1997; B. Comrie 1987". I'd have to check what those sources are and what they actually say. If we can identify these, we can hopefully clarify this and sidestep Ethnologue, whose performance on this issue has been less than satisfactory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: The Browne/Dornish/Kondrashova/Zec publication must be this: W. Browne, E. Dornisch, N. Kondrashowa & D. Zec (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting 1995. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. This means it's unlikely to be the source for Adyghe and Greek, which leaves us with just the Comrie 1987 source (that's B. Comrie, The World's Major Languages). Can somebody check this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comrie 87 doesn't really talk about Greek emigration (at least in the chapter on "Greek") and it doesn't mention Adyghe at all. I'm not up for perusing the entire 1000 pages of Comrie 87. --Taivo (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You clearly haven't read this, the most recent edition of Ethnologue. Ethnologue is considered perhaps the most reliable source for actual language information since it is solely a language reference. The BBC is not a linguistic source, you're kidding me, right? The UN and the EU are not linguistic sources with no real interest in actual linguistics, but politics and economics. Britannica is a general source without a specific focus on anything at all. Only Ethnologue is an actual linguistic source that focuses entirely on languages. Citing multiple poor sources is not preferable to citing one major source. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect is correct that Ethnologue contains errors that are often brought over from other sources, but as an overall source, it is more reliable than any other linguistic source that covers the planet and far more reliable for languages than any of the other sources the anon IP cited. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

UN,EU, Britannica and BBC poor sources? Are you kiddign me? Eurominority the United Nations project an amateur site??? And Ethnologue a cherry-picked single source, is reliable? Few points here:

• 1. Ethnologue is single source, if this language minority is there it must have been evidented by other sources.
• 2. If none of the other sources evident this minority it could be that its so small and negliable to evident it, so no place for this info on the main page of R.M.
• 3. Ethnologue does not indicate Greek among the languages in Macedonia: The number of individual languages listed for Macedonia is 9. Non of the 9 listed by Ethnologue is Greek.

I really don't see the logical sense and objective evidence to list Greek or Adyghe among the languages spoken in Macedonia. At this point this clames cannot stay on the page, please provide different sources to support this theories. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.91.95 (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand Wikipedia, anon IP. There is a major reliable source that lists these languages. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and the sources you list are inferior as sources for linguistic information to Ethnologue. --Taivo (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Adyghe: B. George Hewitt, "Introduction", The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, Volume 2, The North West Caucasian Languages (1989, Caravan Books): "As a result one finds today NW Caucasian peoples spread throughout the Near East, predominantly in Turkey but with populations also in Jordan, Syria, Israel, Yugoslavia and even in Western Europe (originally Gastarbeiter from the Near East) or America (e.g. New Jersey)" (pg 16). Hewitt is one of the major authorities on Caucasian languages. On pg. 17 he cites "Yugoslavia (200 Circassians)" (Adyghe is one of the Circassian languages). --Taivo (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that sounds better. Here is a bit more, with a further reference to A. Popovic (1991), The Cherkess on Yugoslav territory, Central Asian Survey 10: 65–79. However, so far I've only seen sources that locate this tiny group in Kosovo, rather than Macedonia, if they locate it to anywhere specific in Yugoslavia at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok enlighten me on Wikipedia:

WP:CHERRY Ethnologue single source VS the sources "I listed" that infact were already cited on the article, all "inferior and less reliable sources" like are UN documents [10], Eurominority reports [11], Britannica articles [12] BBC reports [13]Eupedia [14] and on top of it all even Ethnologue your main argument [15] does not list Greek among the 9 languages in Macedonia. So please do explain on what wikipedia basis you are pushing this information on the main page of Republic of Macedonia. Another point, isn't there a level of importance, if the number of the linguistic minority is way too small and insignificant shouldn't we reconsider keeping this information for a specific page on the Languages of Macedonia and not for the main page. Same for the minor immigrant language Greek. Its not that the USA main page under languages could keep all the immigrant languages spoken there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.91.95 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP. You need to take a basic research class at any university. The quality of sources on a particular topic is always important. If you want to write a paper on fissionable material, you rely more heavily on one book specifically about fissionable material than on three books about plumbing a nuclear reactor, regulations on nuclear power, or uranium mining sites. While the other books are reliable in their fields, they are not necessarily the most reliable sources on peripheral topics. Your argument is that 10 peripheral, non-specific sources are preferable to a single work that is focused on the topic at hand. And I still don't see why you cannot see the very clear mention of "Immigrant languages: Greek" at the top of the language page on Macedonia in Ethnologue and the listing of "Macedonia" as one of the countries where Greek is spoken at the Greek page. Perhaps your glasses need adjusting?

On Greek: Voegelin and Voegelin, Classification and Index of the World's Languages (1977, page 148) lists eastern Yugoslavia as one of the places where Greek is spoken. This is most likely the (uncited) source of the Ethnologue listing of Greek in Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Yugoslavia is not Macedonia

Thank you kindly for enlighten me. Could you also be so kind in explaining not nuclear physics but how:

• United Nations documents about ethnic affiliation data (that go down to 0,4% Vlach)
• Britannica Articles [16]
• BBC reports on Languages
• Eupedia and Eurominority reports on languages

happen to be non-specific peripheral sources, non quality sources???

Ethnologue the single cherry-picked article you base your clames on is contradictory to say the least.

• here [17]

Indicates that a Greek language is spoken in the Macedonia Region, (not Republic of Macedonia)

• on the language map of Greece-Macedonia by Ethnologue [18] there is Aromanian, Megleno, Gheg, Turkish, you name it... and no trace of Greek (marked by brown) in R.M.
• while on this page [19]

Ethnologue listis quote "The number of individual languages listed for Macedonia is 9. Of those, all are living languages." none of the 9 listed is the greek

also adds an arbitrary "Immigrant languages: Greek" whatever that means.

So not only none of the "less reliable sources" like the UN documents lists Greek among the languages in R.M. But also Ethnologue does not, even if it has a lot of opportunity to do so. We are down to an arbitrary sentence "Immigrant languages: Greek" Please keep on the argument and be constructive.84.223.91.95 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• At the Macedonia page for Ethnologue, Greek is listed as an immigrant language. An immigrant language means that it doesn't necessarily occupy a specific region, but would be found in urban areas mixed with other languages. That's a simple concept. There are many immigrant languages in the U.S., for example, but they are found in urban areas and would not be marked on a map. The Greek article plainly states that Greek is 1) spoken in Greek Macedonia (the Greek region) and 2) in the countries listed, which list includes Macedonia. Your comments are getting ridiculous in not reading the plain English of Ethnologue. Ethnologue very clearly states that Greek is spoken in Macedonia in two different places.
• "Eastern Yugoslavia" is used in pre-breakup sources and does not refer to Serbia-Montenegro exclusively. It's not clearly stated what "eastern Yugoslavia" does or does not constitute, so just saying that "Macedonia isn't eastern Yugoslavia" is a rather poor argument. Macedonia is further east than nearly every other state of the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, the same source lists Macedonian as being spoken in "southeastern Yugoslavia", so "eastern Yugoslavia" probably includes the region where Macedonian is spoken.
• Your other sources, as I and Future Perfect have stated many times are not primarily linguistic in nature. While Ethnologue is 100% built for and by linguists, the other documents are not. Britannica is not a primarily linguistic source. While a reliable source by itself, it is always to be superceded by specific sources. UN ethnicity documents are about ethnicity--that is a different creature from language. The BBC is a news organization. How many journalists are experts on linguistics? Few, if any. They're going to report on fires, wars, and murders more often than on issues of linguistic minorities, which they generally don't understand and misreport anyway. So far, you have offered no evidence from reliable linguistic sources, only from general information sources. Future Perfect and I are looking at actual linguistic sources. If you have something productive to offer based on reliable linguistic sources, then please do so. --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• In order to keep "Greek as minority language" in Macedonia on the page we more evidence from different sources. Ethnologue and Ethnologue only cannot be the only evidence there is, if there is any significant language minority of this kind in Macedonia.

• Also a simple question arises: If according to Ethnologue Greek is a linguistic minortiy in Macedonia why Ethnologue does not place it on the list of the 9 languages spoken there?
• In order to keep this statement please provide other relevant sources, since we cannot base a statement on a single cherry-picked even if very relevant source.84.223.91.95 (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Greeks in the Republic of Macedonia contains a reference to the 2002 census where a minority of 422 Greeks is mentioned. This correlates well with the ethnologue data on the Greek language. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.K, 442 immigrant people is a ridiculously low number of people to be reported as a linguistic minority on the main R.M. page. Its the greek embassy staff members plus local businessman. Ridiculous, we all do realize that this information about 442 people, reported just by an arbitrary sentence on Ethnologue, are not significant enough to stand as a linguistic minority on the main page of Republic of Macedonia. 442 people, arbitrary sentence on Ethnologue and a vague

"Greek language in eastern Yugoslavia" reference, are we chasing ghosts here?84.223.91.95 (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 422 people ghosts. They are real and they are located in the republic. This coupled with the ethnologue reference which is a reliable source WP:RS allows us to accomodate this fact in the article. As to what they are and who employs them this is speculation and original reasearch WP:OR on your part. By the way the threshold of including a fact in Wikipedia is verifiability WP:V not truth. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@ User 84.223.91.95, can you get a user name for yourself? It makes life easier for other editors, Thanks for your contributions. Politis (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

just didBlizzb (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@dr.k

• 442 people is a ridiculously low number of people to be reported as a linguistic minority
• Ethnologue does not list greek among the 9 spoken languages in Macedonia [20]

There is just a single arbitrary sentence on "immigrant language". So in order to have a WP:V and not a single WP:CHERRY information, please provide multi source, relevant evidence that this 442 people in Macedonia are considered a linguistic minority. thank you Blizzb (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you continually ignore the fact that in two separate places, Ethnologue lists Greek as a minority language of Macedonia. This isn't "cherry-picking" as you continually misuse that term. "Cherry-picking" is where you select one favorable quote from a source and ignore other quotes from that source. This is using a specialist source which is always superior to using general sources. If you picked one source out of equal sources, that would also be cherry-picking, but in this topic, Ethnologue, a specifically linguistic source dealing only with linguistic communities, is a far superior source to the BBC or Encyclopedia Britannica, neither of which puts an equal amount of effort into linguistic topics. We actually now have three different sources placing Greek in Macedonia--Ethnologue (a specialist linguistic source), Voegelin and Voegelin (another specialist linguistic source), and Dr. K's census. That's three sources. And there is no "official cutoff" for listing languages in a country. Each case is taken separately. No one but you, Blizzb, objects to including the Greek speakers here. Wikipedia works on consensus based on verifiable information from reliable sources. The information on Greek speakers in Macedonia can be verified by its appearance in three reliable sources, two of which are specifically focused on linguistic communities in the world. Your comment "ridiculously low number" is rather in poor taste. There are many languages in the world that would be greatly benefited by 422 more speakers. --Taivo (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, thank you for your eloquence. It sure makes my life much easier not to have to add any new points since you so adequately covered all the bases and then some. Thanks again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In the article for Greece, Ladino is mentioned as a language. It is probably spoken by fewer than 500 people (irrespective of statistics), but it is included. I dont see the problem with Greek in the Republic of Macedonia. My un-wikipedish personal research suggest that it is spoken by well over 1,000 people on a daily basis by R.Macedonian citizens who were Greeks, Slav/ethnic Macedonian refugees from Greece, Vlachs and Sarakatsan. Also remember that until the late 1920s there was an entire neighbourhood in Skopje called, the Greek quarter. I understand the sensitivities about a Greek presence in R.Macedonia and a larger Slav/ethnic Macedonian presence in Greece, but hopefully we, longer standing Wikipedia editors, have found a solid modus vivendi. By the way, good to see Blizzb has chosen a name :-) Politis (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

@Taivo Im sorry but the information on a "Greek linguistic minority" in the sources you quote simply is not there:

• Ethnologue, again, does not place greek on the list of the 9 spoken languages in Macedonia. [21], greek could have been there as language N° 10 and things would have been more clear, still it is not. Its a fact.
• Voegelin and Voegelin from 1977, indicates a vague reference of "eastern Yugoslavia", we could debate what is considered by this, still fact is Macedonia is not named, so this is irrelevant information too.
• About the census data, yes there are 442 Greeks in Macedonia, no one denies this, what we are interested here though is a minority language in Macedonia status assigned to this 442 speakers. This census data indicates ethnic affiliation not linguistic minorities.

Bottom line, fact is all we do have is a single phrase: "Immigrant languages: Greek" by Ethnologue [22], while on the same page it keeps Greek off the list of spoken languages in Macedonia. So we do need relevant multi source information. other than this single phrase. thank youBlizzb (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not going to engage in original research by analysing and rejecting sources the way you suggest. In addition all evidence so far points to the undeniable fact of a small but existing Greek language presence in the republic. Thus this fact remains in the article and we do not need to second-guess the evidence provided by our reliable sources. If you do not like them you are free to find additional sources to further strengthen this fact. Meanwhile the presence of the current sources is enough, under our policies, to allow this fact to remain in the article. Further debate will be counterproductive and time wasting, as you are the only one who disagrees with this approach so I am quietly invoking WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry to see that in lack of arguments you bring up various WP:. My points are not original research or analyzing, they are plain facts. They are key arguments and should be adressed, running and hiding behind various WP or invoking dead horses wont make up to the lack of arguments.

• Fact is we have pretty relevant, even if generic linguistic sources like UN, EU and Britannica that don't tace a Greek linguistic minority, even if they go down to 0,4% of population.
• Fact is we have some vague references in specific linguistic sources, as Voegelin's "eastern yugoslavia", and a non specific census data on Greeks in Macedonia.
• Fact is we have Ethnologue that on one hand does not list Greek among the living languages in Macedonia and on the other indicates it as "Immigrant language".

Now, to avoid WP:Cherry, and in order to have verifiable information from different reliable sources we need more relevant sources. I do hope you understand my request as it is a good faith constructive edit. Thank you Blizzb (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are still calling eurominority.eu a "EU source"? Man, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to develop better reading skills. Eurominority.eu is a private website without any affiliation with the EU or any other public organisation, and run by people with no academic or other professional linguistic qualifications [23]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, even if you are right on Eurominority Fut.Pref, we still do have UN, Britannica, BBC and ::plenty of other generic linguistic sources that don't report Greek among the languages in ::Macedonia. Please don't cling to a single point, rather I invite you to adress the different ::open issues I have pointed out above. Thank you Blizzb (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I already debunked the other alleged references with my first posting above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, your argument was about the Adyghe language in Kosovo and not in Macedonia, if im not wrong.[24], and this does not adress the open issues I pointed out above. Thank you Blizzb (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about my very first posting in this thread, where I explained to you why your "EU, UN, Britannica" etc sources don't help your case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point here, we are looking for evidence about a linguistic Greek minority in Macedonia, in other words evidence that supports there is a linguistic minority of this kind, not documents that don't evidence this linguistic minority.

In the meanwhile I found the book Bernard Comrie - The World's Major Languages Second edition published in 2009 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN ISBN 0-203-30152-8 Master e-book ISBN and under the Greek language chapter page 347-373, and mainly 19.2 Greek in its Geographic and Social Context there is no reference of Greek language minority in Macedonia. Please point out some relevant evidence that supports there is this kind of minority thank you. Blizzb (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Finding a book that does not mention a fact does not prove that the fact does not exist. Please spare us from such logical fallacies. You started by using the BBC and other linguistically specious sources as arguments and now you are expanding to Google books using essentially the same fallacies. We don't need this. Especially since we have reliable sources which do mention this fact. You are trying to invalidate Ethnologue and other sources which establish both the presence of a Greek minority and the presence of the Greek language in the republic by using arguments which have been repeatedly rebutted. This is original research combined with a bad case of I didn't hear that. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. K. Let me just add, about my own stance on this, that I'm actually somewhat skeptical about the Greek case myself (I remember debates we had over at the "Greeks in the..." article, where people were trying to find reliable sources but they all remained incredibly vague). As far as I'm concerned, the jury on whether we can substantiate this case is still out. I just want Blizzb's specious arguments to be cleared out of the way first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@A Dr.K Bernard Comrie - The World's Major Languages is not "a" book, if you have actually read the dispute above, it has been quoted by Ethnologue, and the "Greek immigrant languages" was supposed to be quoted from there, which doesn't happen to be the case. Bernard Comrie is one of the most prominent experts on the matter, he lists a lot of greek linguistic minorities (even in Ukraine) still does not name Macedonia.

@ Fut.Perf we actually agree, there is little clear evidence on this supposed linguistic minority, thats all this debate is about. We could start by listing what evidence there is supporting this supposed minority. thank you Blizzb (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Future, nice to see you after such a long time by the way :) Maybe the sources available are not the most definitive but I think that the evidence points conclusively toward a small but existing presence in the republic and maybe the small size of that prsence is the reason why many sources simply ignore it. Further analysis will of course not harm the encyclopedia. But I agree with you that any analysis cannot be done using fallacies. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Blizzb

• First, I seriously wonder how you can accuse others of cherry-picking, Blizzb, when you ignore the actual evidence in Ethnologue: 1) under "Macedonia" we find "Immigrant languages: Greek"; and under "Greek" we find "Also in Albania, Armenia, ..., Macedonia, ...". So in two separate places Greek is unambiguously placed in Macedonia.
• Second, I remind you that your "general linguistic sources" are not linguistic at all--they are "general" only. Neither the BBC nor the Encyclopedia Britannica are linguistic sources, but only sources of general information. Indeed, the charge of reverse cherry picking can be leveled at you since you refuse to acknowledge the best and most relevant of the reliable sources that are being cited here.
• Third, you misrepresent the evidence in Comrie. Comrie does not include an exhaustive list of countries where Greek is spoken. Indeed, he specifically states that Greek is spoken throughout the southern Balkans without any enumeration whatsoever of what countries the "southern Balkans" does or does not include.
• Fourth, while Comrie is one of the listed sources for Ethnologue, it is not the only source for information. Much of Ethnologue is based on sources that are only cited in the general bibliography and not on any specific references listed in any individual article. Ethnologue scientists and editors have taken data from a wide variety of sources, so you cannot assume that Ethnologue's information about Greek is based solely on Comrie or the other two cited sources. Your accusation that they have overreached Comrie's statement is ill-founded. They use a wide variety of sources in compiling and editing Ethnologue including published sources, unpublished sources, and personal contact with specialist scholars.
• Fifth, Voegelin and Voegelin is a reliable source for this as well. While it is not sufficient by itself to establish a presence of Greek in Macedonia since it only says "eastern Yugoslavia", when combined with the evidence from Ethnologue and the census data, it provides additional confirmation. --Taivo (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Taivo, thank you for taking part of this. Ill start with the most important evidence we have in favor of this Greek linguistic minority: Ethnologue.

• Ethnologue, yes under "Macedonia" we find "Immigrant languages: Greek"; and under "Greek" we find "Also in Albania, Armenia, ..., Macedonia, ...". Still you forget there is a third entry [25]: The number of individual languages listed for Macedonia is 9. Of those, all are living languages. There is no Greek on this very specific list on the living languages in Macedonia. Greek is not a living language in Macedonia? Why is Greek on a separate entry and not on the list with the other languages? I don't want to speculate or present personal interpretations here, I just underline a fact that there is a certain amount of contraddiction between the 2 entries and the clear list of languages presented. Thats why we are looking for other linguistic evidence.
• Second, we have the PDF data on the 442 Greek inhabitants in Macedonia. Two points here;
  • One:This[26] is the actual data from the official census from the Macedonian goverment site, there are no Greeks evidented. The PDF[27] that was pointed out that indicates this 442 Greeks is a study, a non official census data (where does the number 442 Greeks come from??)
  • Two: on what basis you discredit the ethnic affiliation census data on this UN [28] document that does not present any Greek minorities with the excuse that the data are not specific linguistic on one hand and in the same time keep pointing this other ethnic affiliation census data PDF (not even offitial document) when its another non specific linguistic information? Are we keeping or are we not keeping consideration of ethnic affiliation census data? Isn't this WP:Cherry?

• Third: Voegelin and Voegelin. as you note "it is not sufficient by itself to establish a presence of Greek in Macedonia since it only says "eastern Yugoslavia". Not even when when combined with the contradictory evidence from Ethnologue and the non-specific unofficial census data. Three improper or vague sources cannot simply summ up for a single solid WP:RELY one.

In this constuctive edit I kindly ask for reliable evidence that indicate a Greek linguistic minority in Macedonia. Thank you. Blizzb (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that is specifically focused on linguistic communities--Ethnologue. Other sources are focused on ethnic communities and not necessarily linguistic ones. Ethnologue by itself is a sufficiently reliable source to place a Greek-speaking minority in Macedonia, but when we note the Voegelin and Voegelin statement and the census data that Dr. K presented, then the evidence becomes conclusive. You keep refusing to read the two simple, straightforward, unambiguous statements in Ethnologue and instead rely on an absence of a statement. Absence of a statement does not, in any way, prove an absence. If your sources said, "After extensive search, no Greek speakers were found in Macedonia", then you have a positive source proving your POV. But the absence of a statement does not mean the absence of a community when a more reliable source says that there is a community. You think that the "9 languages" list without Greek proves that Greek isn't there even though the preceding paragraph specifically mentions Greek as an immigrant language. Ethnologue tends to be inconsistent in these lists. Look at the entry for the United States to compare. The prose paragraph mentions Tagalog (1,220,000 speakers) and "languages of the Gypsies" (1,000,000 speakers) as immigrant languages, yet Tagalog does not occur in the list of 176 living languages and none of the Romany languages occur there either. This puts the stamp of error to your argument about the "9 languages" of Macedonia. Are you going to now argue that neither Tagalog nor any of the Romany languages are spoken by over 2 million people in the U.S.? I know Tagalog speakers personally. Are they ghosts? There are more than two dozen of these immigrant languages in the U.S. entry that don't also occur in the itemized and numbered list of languages that follows (Pingelapese, etc.). Your argument is false. Ethnologue has two positive, unequivocal, unambiguous statements that Greek is spoken in Macedonia--one at the entry for Macedonia and one at the entry for Greek. That closes the case conclusively as to Greek's existence in Macedonia. The issue of whether 422 speakers is enough to count is a separate issue, but their existence is verifiable with one of the most reliable sources on the issue of linguistic communities in the world. --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So why has nobody mentioned here in this article that most of the diaspora from this region especially in Australia who are in their 60's onwards in age actually speak Greek as their second language. I have come across many instances where this has occurred even though the Slavomacedonian are always reluctant to use the language. It seems this is conveniently ignored in this as well as other articles. I suggest all the nationalistic people who write on this forum to ask their grandfathers to be honest and to speak to them in Greek, they all know how to and be honest with yourselves as well, you know they can speak it. In addition to this, are the editors of this article actually telling me that a fictitious border between two neighboring countries prevents the transfer of language, what a scientific breakthrough. Get real people, the whole argument in this article is so fictitious that nobody serious can agree with any of the rubbish written here. So @ Taivo the expert, are you actually telling me that on a border area occupied by so many people over 100's of years, there is NO transfer of language, please do not insult the intelligence of the people any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellasforever (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

About section: National Awakening

The whole section is trying to point out that Bulgarians are responsible for the Macedonian national awakening. While the uprisings in the neighbouring countries were an INSPIRATION towards Macedonian national awakening, they were in a few (if any) cases that were under influence by the other countries for the genuine Macedonian national awakening. Of course, there were plenty of cases where Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians tried to fanthom the Macedonian people under their nationalistic agendas (propagating that they are Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs, respectivelly). But that made no significant change in the national feelings of the native Macedonian people, then, and, though they work hard at that very purpose even today, it makes no significant change nowadays too.

So, an article pointing out at the Bulgarian nation as the only responsible factor for the Macedonian national awakening is flawed, and I invite a thoroughly thought-out revision for this section. Thank you. MakedekaM (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Trade and Investment

I did not include the source [29] from Taxalia. Read it if you like and judge for yourself; despite its critical stance, it confirms the fact of cross border trade. But there are other media sources commenting that Greeks cross the border for their weekly shopping, as indeed they do with Bulgaria. Politis (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't take me wrong, I don't disagree with you. Nevertheless, it would be good to provide a reliable source for it. It would also be interesting if someone can provide some info and of course a source about the hundreds of FYROM's citizens who cross the borders during the summer to get a job in Greece. A Macedonian (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be so kind to translate this for me? A Macedonian (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about source for people crossing the borders. I think around 50,000 thousand cross the border to work in Greece but only around 500 are permanent residents in Greece. I just dont have time right now to locate those sources. The article you linked I think concerns the arrest of Afghans who were arrested and held in Kumanovo; they had entered from Greece. Politis (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Right Politis. The article has nothing to do with the Macedonians or any other citizen from the Republic of Macedonia. Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

Thanks Politis, I'm sorry I don't speak any Slavic language at all... A Macedonian (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Page move

WP:Consensus can change and

"Likewise it is POV to say it is Burma, because both the country and the UN and other less-politicised bodies use the name Myanmar. Furthermore it is Wikipedia's bias to use Burma here and not Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as the latter is known. If one wants to use the official name is should be consistent, with a due redirect." Cant have the cake and eat it too.(Lihaas (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)).

Sure we can. --Taivo (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not.(Lihaas (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)).

Well, Lihaas, it hasn't, so you're just wasting your time. --Taivo (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Names

This is not going to be changed. See WP:MOSMAC.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please change the sentence “Macedonia is a member of the UN and the Council of Europe. Since December 2005 it has also been a candidate for joining the European Union and has applied for NATO membership.” To ““ The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a member of the UN and the Council of Europe. Since December 2005 it has also been a candidate for joining the European Union and has applied for NATO membership ” As that this is a fact. No such a country by the name Macedonia is a member of the UN or the Council of Europe or has been a candidate for joining the European Union or has applied for NATO membership. Proofs can be found in the “Notes and references” of the article Republic of Macedonia [54] [55] [56] [57]. 09:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Kokosekos (talk) Won't happen, don't bother asking. See big notice right at the top of this page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC) If FYROM doesn't accept a name like "Northern Macedonia" or "Slavomacedonia" which shows who they really are they will never enter the EU or the NATO... And they have to learn that they can't steal history! They are slavs and they should be proud about that! They are betrayers of their own identity! Shame on them! Enough with that lie! You could only be named macedonians if you accepted to become part of Greece! Why everything found in macedonia is written in greek? Not in greek alphabet, but in greek language! Why Alexander the Great has a greek name? He 's called Alexandros Megas! Not Aleksandar Veliki! Why? Come on! You play a silly game from which you can't win anything... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.146.242 (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC) There is evidence that the Greeks of modern Greece were replaced by Slavs, so the Macedonians of Macedonia are probably the true Greeks, ironically...Smarkflea (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC) ?... A Macedonian (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC) @IP: Your argument amuses me immensely. "Why everything found in macedonia is written in greek?" What of it? Archeological finds (which is what I assume you are speaking of) made in Egypt are nearly always written in hieroglyphs. Modern Egyptian citizens speak Arabic, and use the Arabic alphabet. By your logic, modern Egyptians are somehow not the "rightful owners" of their land merely because they do not use the same system of writing that an older people (living in the same place) did. Right. Your argument here makes utterly no sense. "Why Alexander the Great has a greek name? He 's called Alexandros Megas! Not Aleksandar Veliki!" How can you possibly use a Greek-to-English translation and accept it without batting an eye, and then assert that a Greek-to-Macedonian translation is somehow "invalid"? When I speak of this man in Spanish, I say "Alejandro Magno". You have no right to say that the Macedonian translation is wrong, when you implicitly accept the English one. Finally, Alexander himself most certainly did not speak the same language that the citizens of the modern Hellenic Republic speak, so your argument is invalid on all points. Oh, and what FutPerf said. J.delanoygabsadds 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Well, the truth is Alexander didn't speak Slavic for sure! :) And of course he self identify as Greek... A Macedonian (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC) I have an issue with the map of Greece. It has "Macedonia" as the name of the country immediately to the north of Greece. In 1945 this area was called "Vardarska Banovina" and baptized "Macedonia" by Tito for no other reason than expansionist plans towards ancient Greek Macedonia. This was the prime objective of the Communist regime for about a century, they couldn't achieve this end in WWI or WW2 so they decided on a more underhanded way of obtaining the name and the lands from the neighboring country forgetting that ancient Greek Macedonia was Greek for 4,000 years. My Grandfather, got rest his soul, was a true Macedonian from ancient Greek Macedonia, returned from Serbia after WWI to find his parents dead, his brothers and sisters missing! With the help of the Red Cross and his persistence he found his sisters, his brothers were found imprisoned in a school in Bulgaria and were being taught to hate Greece and their countrymen and were going to be returned to Greece as Communist insurgents! Please change the name of the neighboring country to its internationally recognized name of "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or as it was still known in 1945, Yugoslavia or more specifically "Vardarska Banovina." There are still negotiations taking place between Greece and the Former Yugoslavia to agree on a final permanent name which will describe this rump of the Former Yugoslavia by a geographical name not by a name that is synonymous with ancient Greek Macedonia. I hope us ancient Macedonians do not lose the right to call ourselves by our historically earnt name of Macedonians for the sake of political and expansionist expediency! Macedonia derived its name from the two children born to Zeus and Thyia, Magnes and Macedon. Let us not forget ancient Greek mythology, its sheds a lot of truth to the true ethnicity of the Macedonians, i.e., Greek! I truly find it ludicrous and offensive that history can so easily be falsified and many sit back and watch this happen for the sake of a political agenda. My mother passed away on a great day, 28th October 2010 at the age of 89, a mega day on the Greek calendar of history. She died having a question mark over her God given right to call herself a Macedonian as the Yugoslavs have taken that right away from her by pseudo claims of an ethnicity that has never existed. It is like saying that a Greek of Macedonia, a Greek from Sparta, a Greek from Corinth, a Greek from Thebes, a Greek of Thessaly (Magnesia), a Greek from Boeotia, a Greek of Thessaloniki etc, etc., is not a Greek! Macedonia has been Greek for 0ver 4,000 years; "Macedonians" of the former Yugoslavia have only been calling themselves by this name since 1991! Where is the logic? Where is historical truth? Where is justice? Where is honor? Don's steal something that does not belong to you to make yourself out to be something better in the eyes of history. Alexander the Great and his father would be turning in their graves to see what history has become, their ancestors Achilles and Hercules would also be turning in their graves to see this injustice and fraud!60.231.5.253 (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC) This issue has been decided. Move on. --Taivo (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Some facts on the Macedonia being exclusively Greek: misappropriation . . . . of Alexander the Great: More recently even Alexander’s father, Philip, has also been abducted: “When Macedonia renamed Skopje airport for Alexander the Great in 2007, this seemed a one-off to annoy Greece. More recently, however, the government has broadened a policy the opposition calls “antiquisation”. The main road to Greece has been renamed for Alexander and the national sports stadium named after his father, and plans are afoot to erect a huge statue of Alexander in central Skopje.” The Economist April 2, 2009 Even the popular but supposedly serious periodical Archaeology, a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America, has recently (January-February 2009) published an article with the name “Owning Alexander: Modern Macedonia lays its claim to the ancient conqueror’s legacy.” called Paionia in antiquity: The geographic situation is made clear by Livy’s account of the creation of the Roman province of Macedonia in 146 B.C. (Livy 45.29.7 and 45.29.12). The land north of Mt. Barnous and Mt. Orbelos was inhabited by Paionians. The natural barrier formed by these mountains must be acknowledged. Barnous (modern Voras or Kaimaktsalan) reaches a height of 2524 meters, while Orbelos (the whole range extending to east and west of the Strymon; the western ridge is the modern Beles or Kerkini with a height of 1474 meters) has a maximum height toward the east of 2211 meters. Strabo (7. frag 4), writing a few years before the birth of Christ, is even more succinct in saying that Paionia was north of Macedonia and the only connection from one to the other was (and is today) through the narrow gorge of the Axios (or Vardar) River. does not form a line of communication: M. Sivignon, in M. Sakellariou (ed) Macedonia (Athens 1982) 15. subdued by Philip II: Diodorus Siculus 16.4.2 See also Demosthenes (Olynthian 1.23) who tells us that they were “enslaved” by the Macedonian Philip and clearly, therefore, not Macedonians. Isokrates (5.23) makes the same point. for at least 2,500 years: See, for example, Herodotus 5.17, 7.128, et alibi. about a millennium after the death of Alexander: For the first appearance of the Slavs in the Balkans in the mid-6th century after Christ, see Walter Pohl, “Justinian and the Barbarian Kingdoms,” in Michael Maas (ed.), Age of Justinian (Cambridge 2005) 469-471; for their devastating path through Greece in the 580’s, see Anna Avramea, Le Péloponnèse du IVe au VIIIe siècle, changements et persistances (Paris 1997) 67-80 thoroughly and indisputably Greek: In the words of the father of history “I happen to know that [the forefathers of Alexander] are Greek” (Herodotus 5.22). The date of when Alexander I competed at Olympia is not sure, but it certainly occurred between 504 and 496 B.C. He established his Hellenic roots by tracing his ancestors back to Argos and, ultimately to Herakles. Hence the coins with the head of Herakles wearing the skin of the Nemean Lion from Archelaos and Amyntas, among others. Euripides – who died and was buried in Macedonia: Thucydides apud Pal. Anth. 7.45; Pausanias 1.2.2; Diodorus Siculus 13.103. Some modern scholars doubt this tradition, but not that Euripides spent time in Macedonia. Philip, won several equestrian victories at Olympia and Delphi: Plutarch, Alexander 3.9 and 4.9; Moralia 105A. Philip advertised his victories, and therefore his Greekness, by minting coins commemorating those victories. Below is a silver coin with the head of Olympian Zeus on the front and Philip’s victorious horse on the reverse, labeled with his name “of Philip” in Greek. A gold coin with the head of Apollo of Delphi on the front, and Philip’s winning two-horse chariot on the reverse, again labeled with his name “of Philip” in Greek. ............ conduct the Pythian Games: Diodorus Siculus 16.60.2 delegation from Athens: See, inter alios, Demosthenes, De Falsa Legatione, and Aischines, De Legatione. It is the tirades of Demosthenes against Philip (e.g. 9.30-35 in which he calls Philip not only “not a Greek, nor related to a Greek, nor even a barbarian from someplace that can be called good”) that have given rise to the notion that the Macedonians were not Greek, but Demosthenes tended to call all his enemies barbarian, even fellow Athenians (e.g. 21.150). Another northern Greek, Aristotle: Because Aristotle’s native city, Stageira, was established in the 7th century B.C. before the Macedonians had developed their kingdom, Aristotle cannot be called a native Macedonian, although his father, Nikomachos, was the friend and doctor of Amyntas III (393-369) according to Diogenes Laertius 5.1. Philip later, as a part of his conquest of the whole of the Chalkidike in 348 B.C. (Demosthenes, 19.266) , seems to have laid waste to Stageira, but rebuilt it in 342 B.C. at Aristotle’s request (Diogenes Laertius 5.4). Clearly the relationship between him and Macedonia was close. tutor of Alexander: Diogenes Laertius 5.4; Plutarch, Alexander 7.2-8.1. Aristotle also taught a number of Alexander’s peers and comrades, some of whom later became kings like Ptolemy of Egypt. classroom which can still be seen: A spacious room cut back into natural bed rock with cuttings for roof supports and a bench for the students is easily repeopled in the visitor’s imagination with Aristotle standing in the middle and Alexander and his pals on the bench. It was Aristotle who advised Alexander to “treat the Greeks as if he were their leader, other peoples as if he were their master” (Plutarch, On the Fortune of Alexander 329B). In the event, Alexander did not take this advice for his only wives were non-Greek orientals. Aristotle’s edition of Homer: Plutarch, Alexander 8.2 founding cities and establishing centers of learning: Although cities like Pergamon and Alexandria in Egypt became major cultural centers under the successors of Alexander (the Attalids and the Ptolemies, respectively), it was Alexander who laid their foundations. See Diodorus Siculus 20.20.1 and Justin 13.2, and Arrian 3.1.5, respectively. as far away as Afghanistan: Excavations at Ai Khanoum on the northern border of modern Afghanistan have produced great quantities of Greek inscriptions and even the remnants of a philosophical treatise originally on papyrus. One of the most interesting is the base of a dedication by one Klearchos, perhaps the known student of Aristotle, that records his bringing to this new Greek city, Alexandria on the Oxus, the traditional maxims from the shrine of Apollo at Delphi concerning the five ages of man: In childhood, seemliness In youth, self-control In middle age, justice In old age, wise council In death, painlessness Klearchos inscription, ca. 300 B.C., now in Kabul Museum For further information about the Greekness of Ai Khanoum, see Robin Lane Fox, The Search for Alexander (London 1980) 425-433, and figures on pages 390-393, and elsewhere; and Paul Bernard, Les fouilles d’Ai Khanum (Paris 1973). Slavs and their language were nowhere near Alexander or his homeland until 1000 years later: see above. The ancient Paionians: The ancient Paionians may have been of Hellenic stock, but relatively little is known about them, partly because “no Paionian Philip ever dominated Greece, and no Paionian Alexander ever conquered the known world” ( Irwin L. Merker, “The Ancient Kingdom of Paionia,” Balkan Studies 6 (1965) 35). Nonetheless, they appear already in the Trojan War (albeit on the Trojan side; Homer, Iliad 2.848-850, 16.287-291, 17.348-351). Their confrontation with the Persians is recorded by Herodotus (5.1, 12-17). They fought against Philip who subdued them and with Alexander against the Persians, especially in the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 B.C. (Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander 4.9.24-25. They enjoyed, even under the Macedonians, a certain degree of autonomy as is shown by their negotiations with Athens (IG II2 127) and the many coins minted under a series of Paionian kings, whose names are Greek and inscribed in Greek on the coins. See, for example, the following silver issue of Patraos, probably depicting the slaying of a Persian satrap by the Paionian Ariston as told by Quintus Curtius (see above): Even more significantly for the assimilation of Paionia into the Greek world are the dedications of statues of Paionian kings made at Delphi and Olympia, and especially the bronze head of a Paionian bison, also at Delphi. See BCH 1950:22, Inschriften von Olympia 303; and Pausanias 10.13.1, respectively. Greekish: No Paionians are recorded as victors in the Olympic or other Panhellenic games. This may, of course, be a reflection of a lack of athletic ability rather than a lack of Greekness. territorial aspirations: We would note that in 1929, in an effort to submerge unruly local identities into a unified Yugoslav nation, King Alexander of Yugoslavia named the region the Vardarska province, after the major river that runs through it. See, for example, the Yugoslav stamp of 1939 with the ancient Paionia labeled with the name Vardarska. This effort to reduce ethnic tensions was rescinded by Tito, who used the “Macedonian” identity as leverage against Yugoslavia’s Greek and Bulgarian neighbors. The (mis)use of the name Macedonia at that time was recognized by the United States State Department in a dispatch of December 26, 1944, by then U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius: “The Department [of State] has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally 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 nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.” [Source: U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations vol viii, Washington, D.C., Circular Airgram (868.014/26Dec1944)] school maps: This map shows the “real” Macedonia (in Slavic) which includes ancient Paionia, the Greek province of Macedonia (the historical Macedonia), and a part of southwestern Bulgaria (which was also inhabited by Paionian tribes in ancient times). Other maps, such as this one above in an 8th grade history book in 2005, maintain that, as of 1913 and thereafter, “Macedonia” included parts occupied by Albania (yellow), Bulgaria (purple), and Greece (red). bank notes: The White Tower of Thessalonike in Greek Macedonia, fronting onto the Aegean Sea, is the central decoration of this note printed in Skopje in 1991. mock and provoke its neighbor: An apt analogy is at hand if we imagine a certain large island off the southeast coast of the United States re-naming itself Florida, emblazoning its currency with images of Disney World and distributing maps showing the “Greater Florida”. characterize such behavior: “’It is nuts’, sighs one diplomat” (The Economist April 2, 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.5.253 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Famous people: Mother Theresa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa was born in Skopje, Macedonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.226.35 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Who also appears twice in the List of Albanians.

Ancient history of the territory

I feel that the statement "Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, reaching as far north as the Danube, and incorporated it in his empire." is false, and in fact in contradicts the wikipedia on Ancient Paeonia itself. Let's see what that article states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paeonia_(kingdom)

"...He (Phillip II) followed his success in 358 BC with a campaign deep into the north, into Paeonia itself. This reduced the Paeonian kingdom (then ruled by Agis) to a semi-autonomous, subordinate status, which led to a process of gradual and formal Hellenization of the Paeonians...."

This statement is also supported by other sources, namely:

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/I63.html

"He (Phillip II) followed his success in 358 BC with a campaign deep into Paionia, which reduced that kingdom (then ruled by Agis) to a semi-autonomous, subordinate status."

What Philip II did was his staple of action: First reduce an enemy, then bind him into an "alliance", where that former enemy would be forced to contribute troops to future Macedonian campaigns, instead of reserving them - possibly for an attack against Macedonia itself.

This pattern was all too public with the "Hellenic league" that forced almost all of the Greek states to contribute troops in the campaign against Persia. Nevertheless, none of these states became formally parts of the Macedonian kingdom during the time of Phillip II. They were "allies". Paeonia was such an ally of the Macedonian kingdom as well.

The statement that "Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, reaching as far north as the Danube, and incorporated it in his empire." is a lie because Alexander did not conduct a conquering operation either in Paeonia or anywhere else near the Danube. The operation was a RAID with the explicit purpose of frightening the Thracian, Illyrian and otherwise people that were not already "allied" (practically binded) to Macedonia to not attempt any incursion into Macedonian and "allied" territory, while the Macedonian and allied troops would be busy fighting the Persian campaign. As a result, Alexander did not construct even a single settlement during that "conquest on the Danube", in contrast to the construction of Philippopolis (Plovdiv in modern Bulgaria) by his father Philip II, or the other 69 settlements (Including Alexandreia of Egypt) that Alexander built during his Persian campaign. Evidently, Alexander was not interested to change the status quo in the region, and he did not incorporate the area between Macedonia and the Danube in his empire. He certainly did not stay long enough in the region to pacify it.

Furthermore, the wikipedia entry in Paeonia explains how and when the latter was truly incorporated in Macedonia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paeonia_(kingdom)#Decline

"In 280 BC the Gallic invaders under Brennus ravaged the land of the Paeonians, who, being further hard pressed by the Dardani, had no alternative but to join the Macedonians. Despite their combined efforts, however, the Paeonians and Macedonians were defeated. Paeonia consolidated again but in 217 BC the Macedonian king Philip V of Macedon (220-179 BC), the son of Demetrius II, succeeded in uniting and incorporating into his empire the separate regions of Dassaretia and Paeonia. A mere 70 years later (in 146 BC), Roman legions conquered Macedon in turn...."

As you can see, Paeonia was still autonomus (and not incorporated in Macedonia) at least until 280 BC, and there is no mention of it having seceded from Macedonia prior to it. Therefore, it is more than certain that Paeonia was NOT incorporated in Macedonia by Alexander the Great who died at 323 BC. Therefore, the sentence "Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, reaching as far north as the Danube, and incorporated it in his empire." Should be replaced by the sentence: "Phillip V succeeded in uniting and incorporating into his empire the separate regions of Dassaretia and Paeonia." as quoted from the wikipedia entry for Ancient Paeonia.

Thanks in Advance. Houhoulis Petros, 25 Nov 2010.

--Sikader (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Spring 2011 Census

A population census will be held in April 2011.

@ wikipedia/ whoever has contol: Please add the information on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.17.222 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Addiakogiannis, 26 November 2010

Dear Sirs

According to the unatited nations that is the official name registration authority for countries the name of the specified country is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or F.Y.R.O. Macedonia" and NOT republic of Macedonia.

As you can see it is stated in the page of the United Nations. http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/activities_by_region/europe/greece

Please alter the articles title to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

Addiakogiannis (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "official name registration authority" for countries. Countries define their own names by themselves. Wikipedia has a policy of following common English usage in its naming decisions, while also taking account of the country's own choices. For this specific case, the naming decision was determined through a very extensive discussion process and community consensus. Please see the link at the very top of this page. This is not going to change easily. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSMAC2 I understand that the naming of this page has been contentious, but if you would refer to the first page warning, you'll understand why the article is named for Macedonia and not FYROM. Unvanquished (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient history of the territory

I feel that the statement "Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, reaching as far north as the Danube, and incorporated it in his empire." is false, and in fact in contradicts the wikipedia on Ancient Paeonia itself. Let's see what that article states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paeonia_(kingdom)

"...He (Phillip II) followed his success in 358 BC with a campaign deep into the north, into Paeonia itself. This reduced the Paeonian kingdom (then ruled by Agis) to a semi-autonomous, subordinate status, which led to a process of gradual and formal Hellenization of the Paeonians...."

This statement is also supported by other sources, namely:

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/I63.html

"He (Phillip II) followed his success in 358 BC with a campaign deep into Paionia, which reduced that kingdom (then ruled by Agis) to a semi-autonomous, subordinate status."

What Philip II did was his staple of action: First reduce an enemy, then bind him into an "alliance", where that former enemy would be forced to contribute troops to future Macedonian campaigns, instead of reserving them - possibly for an attack against Macedonia itself.

This pattern was all too public with the "Hellenic league" that forced almost all of the Greek states to contribute troops in the campaign against Persia. Nevertheless, none of these states became formally parts of the Macedonian kingdom during the time of Phillip II. They were "allies". Paeonia was such an ally of the Macedonian kingdom as well.

The statement that "Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, reaching as far north as the Danube, and incorporated it in his empire." is a lie because Alexander did not conduct a conquering operation either in Paeonia or anywhere else near the Danube. The operation was a RAID with the explicit purpose of frightening the Thracian, Illyrian and otherwise people that were not already "allied" (practically binded) to Macedonia to not attempt any incursion into Macedonian and "allied" territory, while the Macedonian and allied troops would be busy fighting the Persian campaign. As a result, Alexander did not construct even a single settlement during that "conquest on the Danube", in contrast to the construction of Philippopolis (Plovdiv in modern Bulgaria) by his father Philip II, or the other 69 settlements (Including Alexandreia of Egypt) that Alexander built during his Persian campaign. Evidently, Alexander was not interested to change the status quo in the region, and he did not incorporate the area between Macedonia and the Danube in his empire. He certainly did not stay long enough in the region to pacify it.

Furthermore, the wikipedia entry in Paeonia explains how and when the latter was truly incorporated in Macedonia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paeonia_(kingdom)#Decline

"In 280 BC the Gallic invaders under Brennus ravaged the land of the Paeonians, who, being further hard pressed by the Dardani, had no alternative but to join the Macedonians. Despite their combined efforts, however, the Paeonians and Macedonians were defeated. Paeonia consolidated again but in 217 BC the Macedonian king Philip V of Macedon (220-179 BC), the son of Demetrius II, succeeded in uniting and incorporating into his empire the separate regions of Dassaretia and Paeonia. A mere 70 years later (in 146 BC), Roman legions conquered Macedon in turn...."

As you can see, Paeonia was still autonomus (and not incorporated in Macedonia) at least until 280 BC, and there is no mention of it having seceded from Macedonia prior to it. Therefore, it is more than certain that Paeonia was NOT incorporated in Macedonia by Alexander the Great who died at 323 BC. Therefore, the sentence "Philip's son Alexander the Great conquered the remainder of the region, reaching as far north as the Danube, and incorporated it in his empire." Should be replaced by the sentence: "Phillip V succeeded in uniting and incorporating into his empire the separate regions of Dassaretia and Paeonia." as quoted from the wikipedia entry for Ancient Paeonia.

Thanks in Advance. Houhoulis Petros, 25 Nov 2010.

Sikader (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done It looks to me like someone already took care of this, although they didn't write it exactly the way you had indicated. If you have further concerns, please post them here, but I'm going to mark this request as completed for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Macedonian" language

The language section is problematic.

Let's face it, "Macedonian" is no longer extant - it died out some time during the late Roman or early Byzantine empires. "Macedonian" was almost certainly a Doric Greek dialect. (Please, no nationalist wars over this.) From the very article, it sounds like modern-Macedonian is more or less Bulgarian. At the very least, the term should be changed to contemporary-Macedonian or some such ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

"Macedonian" is the standard linguistic term in English for the modern Slavic language spoken in Macedonia. "Ancient Macedonian" is the standard term for the extinct ancient language. (I'll list standard references illustrating this if you need them.) This is not nationalistic, it is simply the fact in English linguistics. There is absolutely nothing wrong or confusing about the language section. It is accurate linguistically and uses correct linguistic terminology to discuss the use of Macedonian and other languages in Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes... But of course you know that Macedonians are not dead like the "ancient macedonian" language that you mentioned! If greek-macedonians still exist and they still speak greek how can you say that the slavic language of FYROM should be called "macedonian"? It could only be called slavomacedonian... Nobody can change such a great and long history like that of Greece. And the history of Macedonia is, of course, a big part of greek history... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.138.146.242 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Forget it, you wont beat Taivo, he has put his 1000s of hours into protecting anything Fyrom. He even admitted discussing strategies on msn with other editors in order to control the content. You will not convince him of anything and he has much power here. I suggest you leave this article and concentrate on one he has not seen yet, this one is a sealed unit. We scored a small victory getting the article back to 'Republic of Macedonia' after he and others changed the article late one night to 'Macedonia' and protected it so no one could change it! Be careful on this article, it is a very dangerous place. Reaper7 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting accusation, Reaper, since I haven't used MSN since 2005 and thus never would have mentioned it here. You better have evidence before making random accusations of collaboration off-wiki. --Taivo (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Macedonian" is a Slavic language whether it is based on a Bulgarian dialect or on the Serbo-Croatian language, both are understandable by any Slavic speaker. I worked with a "Macedonian," a Pole, a Serbian, and a Slovak, they could understand each other if not completely! Therefore, logically, the language of the Former Yugoslavia is NOT "Maceddonian" how can it be, when the Slavic people use the Cyrillic alphabet (based on the Greek alphabet), and did not enter the Balkans 1000 years after the death of Alexander the Great! Their language should be described as either Serbo-Croatian or if speaking geographically, Vardarskan or Banovinian, the name of the area that is now occupied by the rump of the Former Yugoslavia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.166.67 (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned and other well-meaning Greeks would do well to read the wikipedia article on the "Banovine" re-charting of borders and names within the Kingdom Of Yugoslavia. It was done for all the former Yugoslav countries (thus Macedonia is as much Vardarska Banovina as Serbia is Dunavska Banovina, or Slovenia - Murska Banovina) and it lasted less than 15 years. "Banovian" is probably one of the more retarded concoction I've heard in a long time, as it means absolutely nothing, Banovina meaning 'county' or 'region', thus the concoction would have the meaning of 'county-ish' or 'region-alish'... God help us... Capricornis (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It seams that except Taivo there are not some facts that prove that Macedonian language doesn't excist. If you see in the United Nations the name of the language is MACEDONIAN language, and the people are Macedonians. So your discusion doesn't make whole sence remeber people who wrote Slavic alphabet were Macedonians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisstudent17 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You realise, they called themselves Bulgarians at the time, and noone can deny Bulgaria their claim over the Holy Brothers. One more thing, if a person, who lives in Transilvania, RO were to call their identity, wouldn't they say Romanian? And if later on, Transilvania was to separate itself from Romania, wouldn't all pre-separation credit remain to Romania? Or do Macedonians claim to be the same Macedonia of Alexander the Great? Because provided he was from that region too, according to you, the world will have to accept this too. Overambitious much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.9.24 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem with the history of the Republic of Macedonia. The region called Macedonia is part of 3 countries, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Bulgaria and Republic of Greece, but this territory was only part of the Republic of Macedonia until it was divided after the balkan wars. The Cyrillic alphabet is made by Sv.Kiril and Sv.Metodij, brothers, Macedonians. How can you say that the Macedonian language is a modern Bulgarian, when the Bulgarians are just a Tatar tribe that came from the valleys of the river Volga in Russia when the Slavic tribes were already on the Balkans and used the Cyrillic alphabet for decades. The Bulgarian language its a simple mix of eastern Macedonian dialects and some left overs of their Russian origins. "If greek-macedonians still exist and they still speak greek how can you say that the slavic language of FYROM should be called "macedonian"?" Those greek-macedonias as u say speak Greek not Macedonian and they are Greeks NOT Macedonians, so therefor the language spoken in Macedonia and by Macedonians its Macedonian, not Bulgarian, not "serbo-croatian" but plain Macedonian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.180.32 (talk • contribs) 1 May 2011