87.221.5.81 (talk) |
87.221.4.107 (talk) |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
Don't be silly, it's not ''"illegal"'' to call the country Republic of Macedonia. It is false and hillarious comments like those that causes people to take the extreme Greek nationalist point of view less seriously. Luckily enough, most Greeks don't engange in that sort of nonsense; we have many excellent Greek editors here on Wikipedia. But fine, if you think it is illegal, please post a link to the law banning it. As for collaboration, I already pointed out that it occured in each and every country, and all the evidence shows that it was more common in Greece than in Macedonia. [[User:JdeJ|JdeJ]] ([[User talk:JdeJ|talk]]) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
Don't be silly, it's not ''"illegal"'' to call the country Republic of Macedonia. It is false and hillarious comments like those that causes people to take the extreme Greek nationalist point of view less seriously. Luckily enough, most Greeks don't engange in that sort of nonsense; we have many excellent Greek editors here on Wikipedia. But fine, if you think it is illegal, please post a link to the law banning it. As for collaboration, I already pointed out that it occured in each and every country, and all the evidence shows that it was more common in Greece than in Macedonia. [[User:JdeJ|JdeJ]] ([[User talk:JdeJ|talk]]) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Looks like you forgot about the LAW here... it is forbidden in wikipedia to insult people. So immediately retract yourself and ask for mercy on all the Greeks you have offended all along. You simply gave no real and proven argument on those comments and it is an insult to cross them as false and hilarious, so again, RETRACT YOURSELF AND SAY SORRY FOR INSULTING! Your evidences are nothing but propagandistic and insulting words. Refrain again from attacking our country and nation. Period. Begone with you and, please, mark already that THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED! We had enough of you, anti-Greeks! Macedonia is Greek and whoever denies that simply proves his ignorance about history. [[Special:Contributions/87.221.5.81|87.221.5.81]] ([[User talk:87.221.5.81|talk]]) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
:Looks like you forgot about the LAW here... it is forbidden in wikipedia to insult people. So immediately retract yourself and ask for mercy on all the Greeks you have offended all along. You simply gave no real and proven argument on those comments and it is an insult to cross them as false and hilarious, so again, RETRACT YOURSELF AND SAY SORRY FOR INSULTING! Your evidences are nothing but propagandistic and insulting words. Refrain again from attacking our country and nation. Period. Begone with you and, please, mark already that THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED! We had enough of you, anti-Greeks! Macedonia is Greek and whoever denies that simply proves his ignorance about history. [[Special:Contributions/87.221.5.81|87.221.5.81]] ([[User talk:87.221.5.81|talk]]) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::I understand you friend, but please, calm down. We all know there are too many anti-Greek administrators around here, but this is not our way of doing things, right? Let's be constructive. The entire world knows about Greek history. The ones that deny that Macedonia is Greek, well, either they do know that it is Greek but have other interests or they are plain ignorants that come here to make noise or they simply know the truth but what to convince the world about lies. Calm down friend, and rest assured that we are all here and that no matter what lies are being posted in wikipedia, the truth will remain in history books. Otherwise... well, let's just say that if our Greek government exhausts the diplomatic way... they will use force as last resort. Justice will come. Definitely. Rest assured. [[Special:Contributions/87.221.4.107|87.221.4.107]] ([[User talk:87.221.4.107|talk]]) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:10, 19 March 2008
More Article Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This information has been placed in a collapse box to improve readability.. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox locator map
I notice that there are several locator maps used for European countries. Macedonia's is Mercator, and extends far north and west, leaving the country looking tiny (if it weren't already quite small). Compare at the map used for Italy, which seems to be far more suitable for showing countries on the European mainland, especially towards the south. Can the other base map be adapted for use here? Jd2718 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was the originator of the PNG locator maps as used in Italy and various other European countries, which are consistent with maps used for most other countries. Surprisingly, there was a prior edit war regarding these maps, with some arguing that the
horridorange Mercator maps should remain without there really being a prior consensus to keep them. Anyhow, it is my intent to produce SVG maps for all European countries when able, but I have been delayed in doing so. This is still on my to-do list, so stay tuned! Quizimodo (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg
Image:The Sun too is a star.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
References to ancient Macedon in the History section
"Over the centuries the territory which today forms the Republic of Macedonia was ruled by a number of different states and former empires, but Macedonian blood has always run in the genes of the Macedonians living in this region."
Could someone clarify this statement for me? How is "Macedonian blood" defined encyclopedically? Should Wikipedia rely on a nationalist, gene/blood-related definition of ethnicity (see Blood and soil)? If Wikipedia were to rely on such a definition, then this statement would definitely need to cite a credible peer-reviewed source (preferably one including comparative DNA tests performed on the remains of people living in the region during the past 2816 years).
Of course it could be the case that the author intended a different meaning whereby, at any point in time, the people living in the region called themselves Macedonians. So, in that case, the Greek inhabitants of ancient Macedon called themselves Macedonians in ancient times; while, in our times, the predominantly Slavic inhabitants also call themselves Macedonians. If that is the case, then the whole statement should be removed on the grounds of relying on circular reasoning, as this ambiguity would confuse many of the readers (particularly when viewed in the context of the Macedonia naming dispute - i.e. in what context is the word "Macedonian" used and in what context is the word "Macedonians" used in this statement).
Moreover, the part that refers to the "Ancient Period" contains numerous ambiguities with regards to its references to ancient Macedon. While it mentions early on that "The kingdom of Macedon took over Paionia", it then goes on to refer to Alexander the Great as "Philip's son Alexander the Great (356–323 BC), the King of Macedonia" and "Alexander was born in 356 BC in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia". This begs the question of whether the word "Macedonia" here refers to ancient Macedon or to the former Yugoslav Republic. I am not trying to flame anyone here; all I am trying to say is that you people should pick a naming convention and then stick to it... you can't use the words Macedon and Macedonia interchangeably, in this article, for fear of confusion! This is an encyclopedic article; we can't assume any knowledge of history on behalf of the reader, so it is essential to avoid such situations. As a final remark, I should note that since this is not part of the history of the "Republic of Macedonia" [sic] per se, but of the history of the "Region of Macedonia", this should not be a part of this article for fear of confusion.
--Radjenef (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to transmit knowledge, let's make sure people are not getting "technically" correct but ultimately misleading information. You seem to imply that the blurb on ancient history is sloppily written; however, I think it is intentionally hazy. It is perfectly accurate, yet can lead an unknowing reader to the impression that the Republic of Macedonia has some sort of cultural continuity with ancient Macedon. I conquer, Radjenef, that that whole section should either be clarified or moved to a different article. This also goes for some of those photos appearing in the margin (i.e. readers could be confused into thinking that the emperor Justinian was an "ethnic Macedonian").
Anyway, I find it sadly ironic that in this same article, we learn that:
"The Macedonian State Religion Commission denies the group (the Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric) to be registered as a religious group saying that only one group may be registered for each confession and that the name was not sufficiently distinct from that of the Macedonian Orthodox Church."
The government of the Republic of Macedonia seems capable of recognizing the obvious problems in the overlap of religious groups' names, but not in the overlap of the names of countries and cultures.... But perhaps I am delving too far into politics here! Nojamus (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The Justinian pic needs to go. He was actually born in Leskovac, Central Serbia, which is quite far from the border with FYROM, he was certainly not a Slavic Macedonian, nor is that mosaic of him located on the territory of FYROM. Therefore there is not a single valid reason why that pic should be included in this article. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- And please, add him to the page about Greece or Greek history. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo
The map of Kosovo is missing. Kosovo should be reflected on the map because it is now a Republic --Arber (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- They are still not a republic. Self-declaring something is not encyclopedic fact. It's just news. The same thing is with Skopje. Self-declaring a name doesn't mean that is fact/closed case. We should wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.155.16 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It is very biased to describe the Republic of Kosovo as a Serbian Province. We should adopt the neutral sounding "Kosovo" rather than "breakaway province of Kosovo" or "Republic of Kosovo".
Clearly, Kosovo fulfills the all attributes of a state - it has a defined territory, a defined people and defined government.
The only countries that refuse to accept it are countries without a vested interest in preventing the right of countries to declare independence, bacaue they have provinces which might want to breakaway, for example:
Canada with Quebec; Spain with the Basque Country; Serbia which claims Kosovo; Bonsia with the Republic of Srpska; Russia with Chechnya; Cyprus with Northern Cyprus; Sri Lanka with the Tamil Northern areas; China with Taiwan and Tibet; Azerbajan with Nagorno-Karabakh; Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Moldova with Transnistria
Countries without a vested interest in preventing independence have invariably recognized the independence of Kosovo. There is no chance that Kosovo will not achieve universal recognition shortly - most countries who have not yet recognised Kosovo have explicitly stated that the will not be among the first to do so, so as not to *support" independence. In three months, one year's time, will anyone say Kosovo is not independent. No - those who currently deny its independence will shortky find themselves standing on the wrong side of history. 2007apm (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're way off base. First of all, Canada has not recognized Kosovo's independence but, judging from its very pro-US government right now, it really is only a matter of days or weeks before it does so. Secondly, there are examples of countries with territorial disputes that HAVE recognized its independence. Have you forgotten the UK and that pesky trouble in Northern Ireland, for example? The point is this: it is impossible to draw many general conclusions about who is supporting and who isn't supporting Kosovo's independence. The only pertinent one I see is that the West generally is, and the East generally isn't, supporting it. This has more to do with who gets to benefit from small, weak, dependent states than it does with whether a country has its own territorial squabbles. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? Nojamus (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Your speculation that the UK should have a vested interest because of Northern Ireland is completely nonsensical; Northern Ireland has historically been a problem and the territory is hardly cherished. If you would like to provide a source to show that the current government of the UK is desperate to retain the province, then I'll be happy to accept your point. The Unionists, naturally, would have a vested interest in preventing independence, but the Government of Serbia does not run from Kosovo, so the two situations are not comparable. Your citing of 1 relevant country with a bias in its political dealings does not validate your flippant dismissal of 2007apm's recognition of the undeniable correlation between states failing to recognize Kosovan independence and their own potential breakaway provinces. But why are we discussing Kosovo on this page, anyway? That would be because of the conspicuously over-wordy phrasing "and its partially recognized breakaway province" before "Kosovo" in the introduction. I think either simply "Kosovo" with an inconspicuous link to the list of countries which recognize her, or "(and Kosovo)" after the mention of Serbia- would be most acceptable. LaFoiblesse (Talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (GMT)
MAp
Vandalism
Subjectivism
"In the Republic of Macedonia the past meets the present," what is this, an advert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.225.203 (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Add article about the issue from this source
Please, be so kind to add the relevant parts about why Greeks oppose to the use of Macedonia on this country's name as explicated in the following official/reliable source: http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.html?newsid=8222&lang=US 87.221.5.28 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- "My first concern is that a proposal that is being seriously considered is "Upper Macedonia". Mr. Nimetz, the term "Upper" (or "Ano" in Greek) is a geological term and has been used to describe the "highland" area in the western part of the Hellenic Macedonia Province, in particular the area of Kozani, Kastoria and Florina. There are numerous historical books from antiquity to the present that refer to this area by that term. You can see then the complication that would arise if FYROM changes its name to "Upper Macedonia". It would not only cause Historical confusion, but may also give claim to FYROM to this area of the Hellenic Macedonia Province."
- "My second concern is a rare picture from 1941 which was recently published in the APOGEVMATINI newspaper in Greece which shows the Slavs of the Vardarska Banovina (Province of the Vardar River) of Southern Yougoslavia along with Bulgarian "Macedonians" welcoming the Nazi troops of Hitler with roses and other flowers with the hope that Hitler would give them the Hellenic Macedonia Province after the war. The picture in the background leaves no doubt to this. Hitler failed to fulfill such a request. Later though, while many Greeks risked their lives to save as many Jews in Greece as possible, these Slavic people collaborated with the Nazis to put many of the Balkan Jews on trains to send them from Southern Yugoslavia to their HORRID end in Germany. I cannot understand why the civilized democratic world would now stand aside and allow the greatest gift of History, the Hellenic Macedonia name, be granted to these Nazi collaborators."
87.221.5.28 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from the lack of logic and the factual errors in that article, it's disgustingly racist and luckily enough not official at all. It's the opinion of one individual. JdeJ (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, I see no racism here at all, simply the use of right of self defense. Second, I'd rather say the opinion of many individuals, not just the one. This is an official institution in the United Stated, the one that writes the article has been elected, and everyone that has seen the article agrees to it. I think that the contribution of this friend of Greece should be noted here. Thank you friend for bringing us this nice article. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Calling today's inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia "Nazi collaborators is of course as racist as it is factually incorrect. Hellenic News is a monthly magazine, and in no way an official US institution. JdeJ (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- We know very well your biased and subjective point of view here, so your opinion towards Greeks does not count. Said that, what the article says is pretty well documented, so denying that they helped the Nazis is like denying the holocaust, which is a crime in Europe. Apart from that, I see no racism in that sentence. Could you please explain where exactly do you see the racism in that sentence? Remembering that someone helped the Nazi, as far as I know, does not match the definition of racism. What shows up is exactly the opposite, that they helped the Nazis and thus, they are the racists. And please, you have already been accused of anti-Greek POV, do not prove it further. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I've been accused of anti-Greek POV by you'. That's hardly something I take very seriously, given your edit history. As for Nazi collaboration, there were Nazi collaborators in all occupied territories, including Greece under the government of Georgios Tsolakoglou and Konstantinos Logothetopoulos. The Wikipedia article on movements and parties collaborating with the Nazis list five such organisations in Greece and none in Macedonia. Trying to describe it as anything typical of Macedonia is either ignorant or idiotic, possibly both. The problem with the article is that it tries to point out Macedonians living today as Nazis, based on the actions of some collaborators 65 year ago. No Macedonian under the age of 80 could possible have been collaborating, just like no Greek under that age could have done it. Besides, I fail to see how this discussion and the letter in a minor American magazine is of any relevance to this article. JdeJ (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion, and after reading through this all, what I want to know is why the heck JdeJ is so obstinate to oppose to show to the public the Greek point of view, and why the heck he uses a unilateral, illegal name, even if recognized by third parties, it is still illegal, instead of using the United Nations name. And no, an answer that this is the constitutional name of the country means nothing to me. It is simply ILLEGAL. So the horse is dead, rename the article and move along. And the fact that they helped the Nazis to attack Serbia and Greece is proven in history, so quit it already. 87.221.5.28 (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also want this article renamed to FYROM please. As all the Greeks do. Stop attacking us with propaganda at once. 140.211.166.183 (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in my opinion, and after reading through this all, what I want to know is why the heck JdeJ is so obstinate to oppose to show to the public the Greek point of view, and why the heck he uses a unilateral, illegal name, even if recognized by third parties, it is still illegal, instead of using the United Nations name. And no, an answer that this is the constitutional name of the country means nothing to me. It is simply ILLEGAL. So the horse is dead, rename the article and move along. And the fact that they helped the Nazis to attack Serbia and Greece is proven in history, so quit it already. 87.221.5.28 (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I've been accused of anti-Greek POV by you'. That's hardly something I take very seriously, given your edit history. As for Nazi collaboration, there were Nazi collaborators in all occupied territories, including Greece under the government of Georgios Tsolakoglou and Konstantinos Logothetopoulos. The Wikipedia article on movements and parties collaborating with the Nazis list five such organisations in Greece and none in Macedonia. Trying to describe it as anything typical of Macedonia is either ignorant or idiotic, possibly both. The problem with the article is that it tries to point out Macedonians living today as Nazis, based on the actions of some collaborators 65 year ago. No Macedonian under the age of 80 could possible have been collaborating, just like no Greek under that age could have done it. Besides, I fail to see how this discussion and the letter in a minor American magazine is of any relevance to this article. JdeJ (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- We know very well your biased and subjective point of view here, so your opinion towards Greeks does not count. Said that, what the article says is pretty well documented, so denying that they helped the Nazis is like denying the holocaust, which is a crime in Europe. Apart from that, I see no racism in that sentence. Could you please explain where exactly do you see the racism in that sentence? Remembering that someone helped the Nazi, as far as I know, does not match the definition of racism. What shows up is exactly the opposite, that they helped the Nazis and thus, they are the racists. And please, you have already been accused of anti-Greek POV, do not prove it further. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Calling today's inhabitants of the Republic of Macedonia "Nazi collaborators is of course as racist as it is factually incorrect. Hellenic News is a monthly magazine, and in no way an official US institution. JdeJ (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, I see no racism here at all, simply the use of right of self defense. Second, I'd rather say the opinion of many individuals, not just the one. This is an official institution in the United Stated, the one that writes the article has been elected, and everyone that has seen the article agrees to it. I think that the contribution of this friend of Greece should be noted here. Thank you friend for bringing us this nice article. 213.97.51.67 (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't be silly, it's not "illegal" to call the country Republic of Macedonia. It is false and hillarious comments like those that causes people to take the extreme Greek nationalist point of view less seriously. Luckily enough, most Greeks don't engange in that sort of nonsense; we have many excellent Greek editors here on Wikipedia. But fine, if you think it is illegal, please post a link to the law banning it. As for collaboration, I already pointed out that it occured in each and every country, and all the evidence shows that it was more common in Greece than in Macedonia. JdeJ (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like you forgot about the LAW here... it is forbidden in wikipedia to insult people. So immediately retract yourself and ask for mercy on all the Greeks you have offended all along. You simply gave no real and proven argument on those comments and it is an insult to cross them as false and hilarious, so again, RETRACT YOURSELF AND SAY SORRY FOR INSULTING! Your evidences are nothing but propagandistic and insulting words. Refrain again from attacking our country and nation. Period. Begone with you and, please, mark already that THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED! We had enough of you, anti-Greeks! Macedonia is Greek and whoever denies that simply proves his ignorance about history. 87.221.5.81 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand you friend, but please, calm down. We all know there are too many anti-Greek administrators around here, but this is not our way of doing things, right? Let's be constructive. The entire world knows about Greek history. The ones that deny that Macedonia is Greek, well, either they do know that it is Greek but have other interests or they are plain ignorants that come here to make noise or they simply know the truth but what to convince the world about lies. Calm down friend, and rest assured that we are all here and that no matter what lies are being posted in wikipedia, the truth will remain in history books. Otherwise... well, let's just say that if our Greek government exhausts the diplomatic way... they will use force as last resort. Justice will come. Definitely. Rest assured. 87.221.4.107 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)