Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:41, 8 August 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. North Macedonia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Europe This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Talk Archives:

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2

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

German Austria was renamed by allies to simply "Austria"

The claim that a country always has a right to name itself whatever it wants are false. For instance in 1919, Austria was officially known as the Republic of German Austria (Republik Deutschösterreich). Many territories it claimed under its control included regions that were later assigned to neighboring nations. Not only did the Entente powers forbid German Austria to unite with Germany, they also forbade the name; it was therefore changed to the Republic of Austria.

Irridentist.. that's a new one

Man, I thought an "irridentist" was a doctor that gave your teeth an eery glow. I guess you learn something new every day! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelled "irredentist" (with an "E' not an 'I')

Problem with much of this article

The POV problem with much of this article, in particular with edits such as the most recent ones by User:The Cat and the Owl, is that it mixes up two different things: reporting what somebody's (e.g. the Greek side's) argument is, and our own authorial discussion (as enyclopedia authors) of what the actual historical facts are. The article should really only deal with the first. The second should be left to our articles dedicated to the history of Macedonia or whatever. For the first, what you need as reliable sources is notable representatives of the partisan points of view, e.g. Greek government spokespeople. For the second, you need independent academic sources. What this article is now doing is mixing the two together in a coatracking way: ostensibly reporting the partisan argument, but then, at every corner, mixing in quotes from independent scholars that purport to prove that the partisan argument is correct. That way, people are mis-using this article as essentially a POV fork of "History of Macedonia": you get to write a history of Macedonia, but purely from the one POV rather than the other. Please don't do that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The subsection I was editing is the "Historical concerns" of the "Greek position", so it's the Greek POV by definition. The sources I provided are coming from very well known reliable scholars (Eugene Borza and Loring Danforth) who are experts on the subject, especially Danforth. I chose to add quotes from the sources provided to the references and not to the section, simply to help readers follow the references, which anyway meet WP:RS standards. Of course there will always be people such as BalkanFever who don't feel comfortable with that, but since the subsection I was editing is the "Historical concerns" of the "Greek position", so the Greek POV by definition, my edits was NOT in a coatracking way and they have to get back.

To BalkanFever: We are used to such comments (..."learn the name of the country or gtfo") by you, stop reminding us your background. FYROM is the abbreviation for UN's "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", like it or not. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And Republic of Macedonia is the name of the country, like it or not. If you can't tell the difference, you can't be helped, and you definitely should gtfo. BalkanFever 09:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat-Owl, you didn't address my argument. As long as you don't show any signs of even understanding what the argument is, revert-warring is not going to help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FPS, independent scholars experts on the issue referenced, reliable sources, the section is Greek POV by definition, what more to address??? BF, you have been reported at ANI. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained to you why the independent scholars are irrelevant here. The section has the function to explain what the Greek position is. Not more and not less. For that purpose, you just need sources exemplifying the Greek position (like a government spokesperson), or even better, an independent scholar discussing the Greek position, as such (like Danforth does in part of his book). What the section must not attempt to do is pass judgment on whether or not the Greek position is correct. Therefore, there is no legitimate function in listing opinions of outside authors just because they agree with this or that corollary of the Greek position. You have been collecting quotes not to explain the Greek position but to endorse it. If you can't see why that is wrong, I can't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I got your point. However my edits has nothing to do with "whether or not the Greek position is correct"! Anyway, shall I then at least add Danforth? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Which quote of Danforth? If you mean the one I reduced here , the answer is no, and the reason is in my edit summary. That passage, firstly, doesn't say what you claimed it said, and second, it is not about how and why this fact is used as an argument by the Greek side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Both, hence:"The history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C. or with Saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century A.D. as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim." and "Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is perfectly clear that the communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons for declaring that one did exist and for fostering its development through a concerted process of nation building, employing all the means at the disposal of the Yugoslav state". (The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton Univ. Press, December 1995) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, not that one. So? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not the other either. The one about the "construction of a Macedonian national identity" is, first, again not from a passage where Danforth discusses why and how the Greeks use this as an argument or what role it plays in the Greek position, so again, you are not explaining the Greek position, you are just heaping on what will appear as additional support for it. Second, you are quoting it incompletely, and therefore in a distorting fashion. Read the next sentence, it goes something like: "... but it doesn't begin with Tito in 1944 either, as the Greek side would want us to believe" (just reporting the sense of it, from memory, can't be bothered to look up the exact wording right now.) So Danforth is in effect saying that both sides are distorting history. You are ripping things out of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is the full quote: "The history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the great in the fourth century b.c. or with saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century a.d., as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. nor does it begin with tito and the establishment of the People’s Republic of Macedonia in 1944 as Greek nationalist historians would have us believe. It begins in the nineteenth century with the first expressions of Macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals in places like Thessaloniki, Belgrade, Sophia, and St.Petersburg. This period marks the beginning of the process of “imagining” a Macedonian national community, the beginning of the construction of a Macedonian national identity and culture." The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. So, this could possibly serve as a reference to support a sentence in the article that might go something like: "Greek nationalist historians tend to emphasise the late emergence of a Macedonian national identity, often quoting Titoist political initiatives around 1944 as its point of origin and denying or discounting earlier roots in the 19th century." That's what this quote has to offer for a paragraph about the "Greek position". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... The way you put will fit better in the "Ethnic Macedonian position", not the "Greek position"! Anyway, shall I edit it like you suggest, adding the full quote in the ref.? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's the whole problem. You misunderstand what "Greek position" means. It doesn't mean that the paragraph should be written from the Greek POV. It means the paragraph should describe the Greek POV, from a neutral distance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, really, I got your point. That's why I asked you to edit it the way you suggest. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given it a try myself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I edit the sentence in the "Historical concerns" to follow the rest of Danforths's passage to follow your above advice and avoid "quoting it incompletely, and therefore in a distorting fashion". The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find that particular addition very poor writing. Clumsy, redundant, and again tendentious. "Despite the fact that.... claim the opposite" is just silly. And, it's again outside the scope of the paragraph. It's about the Greek position, remember? The stance of the Macedonian nationalists doesn't belong here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it accordingly then! I'm self-taught in English... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But remember, not "incompletely, and therefore in a distorting fashion"... :) The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good and "complete" quoting does not mean one has to report everything that an author happens to say on a given page. It means one has to report things respecting their context and the author's intentions. We've dealt with the Greek (over-)emphasis on the late emergence of a Mac. nation; the ethnic Mac. (over-)emphasis on earlier traditions and continuities is already dealt with elsewhere. No need to repeat that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FPS, by removing that sentence (Despite the fact that the history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC or with saints Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century AD, ethnic Macedonian nationalist historians claim the opposite...) from the section, you quote Danforth's passage incompletely, therefore in a distorting fashion, giving a false impression to the readers. Why don't you add it back with your good English? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there's nothing distorting about the sentence as it stands now. The topic of our section is the Greek position; what Danforth means to say about the Greek position at that point is just what it says now, not more and not less. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat and Owl, though I disagree with much in the approach to the Macedonian issue with FPS, I think you have not understood the nature of the quote here and therefore your editorialising is out of place. By wiki standards (whatever they are re file and I understand your aganaktisi) your editing reads like POV. Politis (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, so I added that sentence in the "Historical perspective" of the "Ethnic Macedonian position". Perhaps you can edit it a bit, unfortunately my English are not good to do it myself. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh man.

Here I was thinking that this little issue had been resolved peacefully. Then come three agenda-driven POV accounts and do this.

It's hopeless. This whole article is a festering rotten mess of a POV nightmare. And it will remain so as long as it's in the hand of agenda editors who will not cease and will not leave it alone until every but every little detail has been given a spin. The result is abominably poor writing.

So you guys want every bit that might be understood as negative about the Greek position to be hedged with "it has been argued", while as long as it's critical of the Macedonian position it's presented as fact, right.

Also, just for the record: The one bit in this composite edit (the one inserted in the Macedonian section) is obviously redundant, this issue is already treated just in the sentences around it. And the other bit is falsifying. That wasn't a direct quote. And there's no use for that hedging there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta recognises Macedonia under its constitutional Name

http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/attdiplomatica.asp?idlingua=5

Please sort Malta in the List of Countries that bilaterally use the name "Macedonia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.194.30 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait until it is recorded here :

http://www.mfa.gov.mt/

What is this other link?

GK1973 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention in the article about the recent accusations about minorities

I read the whole article and nowhere is mentioned the recent row of letters sent by FYR Macedonia to the EU. It is technically off-topic but very actually on-topic. It is clearly perceived by Greece as very related to the naming dispute and common sense dictates that has a very strong merit. --Leladax (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself: it's off-topic. This article is exclusively about the name of the state, nothing else. The continuous tendency of growing into a general treatment of all Macedonian history of politics must be stopped. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not off topic since it is the official stance of the government of Greece that it is on topic. Namely it is perceived - and IMO rightly so - that no such accusations would exist without the naming dispute. It is seen as a decoy related to the naming dispute and a non-real issue. In any case, it is not about my opinion or your opinion, it is related to the official stance of the Government of one of the Countries on the naming dispute specifically. --Leladax (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the international organizations dealing with the name FYROM

The article claims to be about the dispute while there is only mention of UN and that only in FYR Macedonia POV fashion (since it is immediately followed by "but most of its members don't care" etc.). Other organizations include (as found in Macedonia (terminology)): European Union, NATO, IMF, WTO, IOC, World Bank, EBRD, OSCE, FIFA, and FIBA. --Leladax (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions versus facts on the naming disputer

Futper, you just removed a large section from this talk page and part of your justification was "This page is not for you guys to discuss your "opinions" about Macedonia". Actually I think that discussion is exactly what a talk page is for (it's not the article right?), We are trying to determine if something is a verifiable fact or an opinion before entering the actual article.

(long-winded material redacted again)

No, this talk page is not for exchanging opinions about Macedonia. It is also not for working out what is "true" or "false". It is purely for discussing what needs changed in the article, based not on our opinions but on what the academic literature on the topic says. The article is about the naming dispute. About the dispute as a topic of present-day politics, not about the historical facts regarding the issues the dispute touches on. This article is most definitely not about whether Alexander the Great was Greek, or whatever. Now, what aspect of the naming dispute do you think is currently not represented according to the way reputable sources describe it? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall where I gave "my opinions" in the last post. Didn't I just ask you for yours?

I also clearly stated I was not interested in getting into a discussion on ancient Macedon history (so I'm not sure why you make this point) If you carefully reread the Macedonian naming dispute article you'll see that a huge section of it deals with concerns over historical patrimony so it's clearly not completely irrelevant as you suggest. (which is also part of why the US condemned FYROM for anti-Greek propaganda) The essence of the Greek complaint is FYROM propagandists deny Macedonian (Greek) heritage in order to later claim it as their own history. I fail to see why on a talk page questions are being removed especially considering you were free to answer as you wished.

However, since you object I will happily ask these questions where ever you like. Would you prefer I asked on your talk page? Crossthets (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Which were the Greek's Byzantine days?

I will ask for an explanation. The introduction sounds a bit like nationalist manifesto. It says: "Greece, whose Macedonian province was the first region to be named as such, at official level, since its Byzantine days."
Please supply the facts or revert to my correction. Greek was not even official language during the whole Byzantine (I would write Roman, most precise historical term is Eastern Roman) period so please precise which were the Greek's Byzantine days. Macedonia is Greek region from 1913 and from 168BC it was Roman province and later part of the Ottoman territory called Rumelia up to 1913. (Toci (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Please don't try to re-write history. Not only Greek was spoken in the Byzantine empire but it is documented that in the Roman empire itself Greek was prevalent. Check the sources. --Leladax (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I find it extremely ridiculous that such a sorry state of an article gets even more nationalist extremist edits. It doesn't even include the organizations that call the country FYROM (as it has been stated above) and some editors pump it with even more pro-FYROM POV. This article is at a laughable state at the moment. The only article in the entire wikipedia that may be shedding some light on the issue is Macedonia (terminology) --Leladax (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian ethnic group

Macedonian is attested in English from 1897, according to the OED. IMRO is older than that, if not much. Surely we should be discussing the last half of the nineteenth century? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well in a sense you're right, it was used in the late 19th century by specific persons or small groups of people. The IMRO didn't use the name in connection to an ethnic group when it was founded in 1893. Can you please quote the OED reference ?--Zakronian (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The quotation from Gladstone now in Macedonia (terminology): Why not Macedonia for the Macedonians as well as Bulgaria for the Bulgarians and Servia for the Servians? Note that the relevant definition is:

A member of a people of Macedonia distinguished by their Slavonic language and culture. Also: a person identified with this ethnic group, whether or not a native or inhabitant of Macedonia.

Use for Ancient Macedonia is of course much older. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How old is this definition ? That's what i'm asking, Gladstone referred to the people living in Macedonia as the IMRO did in the first years, not to a specific ethnic group. I can understand that "in the first half of the 20th century" might point out to late events and as i said in a broader sense you are right but you are using wrong sources.--Zakronian (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The definition is of course younger, it was written by the editors of the OED. But if they list Gladstone's quote under the heading with that definition, it means they understand, in retrospect, that Gladstone was using the term in that sense. Now, whether they understood Gladstone correctly or not I have no way to check, but given the fact that early statements of Macedonian nationhood had been made by that time, it's certainly not out of the question. Have you got the context of his quote? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

US Senate

Pmanderson is right: the resolution in the US Senate wasn't "passed". It was an initiative of a handful of Senators which was merely referred to the relevant committee (), where it's apparently sat without being finally voted on for a year. (Of course it's got very little chance of being passed anyway, because it blatantly contradicts government policy, at least in its choice of wording. )

Given this state of affairs, I'd very much question whether the whole thing is notable anyway. These resolution proposals in some parliaments are a dime a dozen. Senators associated with some lobby group can bring in as many such proposals as they wish. Together with that FYROM resolution, there was also a resolution "Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School" and one "Commending the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for holding a 3-day celebration of the 250th anniversary of the birth of the Marquis de Lafayette" . That's about the level of seriousness these kinds of resolutions have. Unlike the FYROM one, those two were actually agreed on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem: the Greek media take everything out of proportion to support the Greek position, and then it ends up here Examples:

• Gruevski at Goce Delčev's grave
• This resolution thing
• Panama switching to "FYROM"

About the last one, Macedonian press reports that in a call to Antonio Milošoski, Samuel Lewis Navarro refuted Greek media claims that Panama switched, and the country still uses "Republic of Macedonia". BalkanFever 07:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That being said, the Macedonian media have blown up a few incidents as well, but evidently we should also be wary of Greek news. BalkanFever 07:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. That way, it's not even the Greek contributors' fault. They just go by the narrow perspective of their national media. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Panama

The alleged "change" of Panama towards "FYROM" is also misquoted. The ambassador merely said that Panama will apply "for all purposes, the result that arises from the negotiations taking place under the UN", and that it commits itself to abiding by the relevant decisions of the UN regarding that country's name for international and bilateral use, according to . Now, in the context of "result that arises...", the reference to "decisions of the UN" can obviously only refer to any future decision about a final settlement. He's saying his country will switch to whatever is agreed if something is agreed in future. For now, there is no "relevant decision of the UN" that would oblige any individual country to use FYROM bilaterally. The UN only ever decided that they will use FYROM internally. So by committing himself to UN decisions he is basically not making any commitment whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this section yet, but I changed Panama and used A1 as the source. The most important part is quoted in the ref. BalkanFever 08:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class North Macedonia articles
• Top-importance North Macedonia articles
• WikiProject North Macedonia articles
• B-Class Greek articles
• Mid-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Unassessed Europe articles
• Unknown-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles