Talk:Macedonia (Greece)

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Disputed Content

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

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

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

“by Slavic Macedonians”

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

“re-incorporation into Greece in 1912.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming and original research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nation states and national identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source for "re-incorporation

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

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

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

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

Tagging and reverting

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

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

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

WP:3RR

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

Quote

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

Anthem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apolitical anthem concern

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

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

Controversial Information

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

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

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

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