User talk:NikoSilver/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Self-pity

Thank you, Niko, sincerely; your latest argument that Greece should be pitied because a neighboring state, by its name alone, lays claim to part of the National Patrimony makes clear why you are having trouble getting the English-speaking world to take this quarrel seriously.

One would think, from the way your faction carries on, that this was unprecedented. Of course it isn't. It's true of most of the Balkan states; more to the point, it's true both of the Southwestern United States and of Northern Ireland.

So, Cardhu tonight, or Arbroaig? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In turn, I pity your limited perception. I pity the lack of knowledge and the unfortunate "parallels"/"precedents". Tell me please in which of those examples the English speaking world was trouble figuring out who was what when, and try to compile the following text by using historic equivalents from -say- Ireland, Luxembourg, or New Mexico/California:

People have to know all this in order not confuse this with this or this or this or this; and that with that or that or that; and these with these or these or these or these or these or these; thereby not to help promote the idea that these are not the descendants of these (or even him of that dynasty, who also slaughtered them, who were the major ancestors of them -probably in an amok against his own), and that doesn't sound at all like that, and this is not an occupied territory of this by this and this? I call that oppression of the unaware... Can you imagine? Instead of disambiguating it with one (ANY) word, we have to explain all that to the poor uninformed... Ah, I forgot: 99% of those uninformed don't give a shit, so they naturally assume that these who speak that and live in there, are the descendants of these that spoke that and should of course live there (so naturally those who support this are right...) Unless, of course, the prevalent perception is that these, who speak that and live there have nothing to do with those who spoke that and lived there...

After you compile such a text, I dare you to find one Southwestern-American/Irish/Luxembourgish governmental or otherwise official or even academic site that promotes the above semantic bollocks as "The Truth^TM", and that raises claims over the respective neighbor's territory and history, as the "obvious", "natural", and "reasonable" thing to do. I dare you ask the vast majority of the inhabitants of those territories you mentioned if they feel descendants of the historic figures of the neighboring state, and rightful owners of the whole homonymous area. Then come talk to me, and tell me that "a name alone cannot make a difference". Of course it can't, but it's definitely a good means of helping simple people understand there is a difference. And of course it shouldn't, because in an ideal world it would be best to educate them instead. However, it is those "simple" people that [are supposed to] rule the world. Not the intellectuals like yourself, who happen to be an extreme minority. Niko Silver 10:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Niko, you are wrong. Readers do not need to know all this in order not confuse the Republic of Macedonia with the ancient kingdom of Macedonia or the wider region of Macedonia or the Greek province(s) of Macedonia or the Bulgarian part of Macedonia; and the Macedonian language with the Macedonian dialects of Greek or the Ancient Macedonian language or Macedo-Romanian; and the modern Macedonian ethnicity with ~~these or~~¹ the Greek inhabitants of Macedonia or the Ancient Macedonians or inhabitants of Bulgarian Macedonia or Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia or Macedo-Romanians. Because we helpful Wikipedia editors do our very best to make sure that all realistic dangers of confusion are met by optimal disambiguation strategies throughout. But we do that purely with the aim of guiding readers to the right articles as smoothly as possible, not with the aim of satisfying people's national sensitivities, and also not with the aim of dispelling some national myths that some of us don't like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

¹ You cheated, that one was a dab page.

No you don't. When you say that "Florina is in Macedonia which borders Macedonia" you're very far from doing so, and that's what I'm here to explain. (and no, I didn't cheat, I meant to dab the ethnic group from the regioners -who are a supergroup of that and the other groups and who deserve to be able to be called by that regional identity without needing to dab that they don't necessarily belong to the ethnic group-). Niko Silver 12:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

But we don't say that, Niko! (Well, Britannica comes close to it; we don't). We say: Florina is in the province of Macedonia, which borders the Republic of Macedonia. If there's still a problem with that, it's not one of disambiguation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is still a problem with that for all normal uneducated readers, and I am not surprised you cannot get it. Einstein couldn't understand why most physicists or simple people in general couldn't grasp the relativity theory. You are too familiar with the subject, and too smart to be taken for sample. All an uneducated reader understands from your sentence is that the editors who wrote it were on drugs. Let me post a fictional example for a fictional land of which you're not aware of:

XYZ is in the province of Fictionia, which borders the Republic of Fictionia.

I used your own words in that example, and all I understand is that someone mistyped something. Niko Silver 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me again take the more realistic example, as crafted by PMA:

"Pella (Greek: Πέλλα) is one of the prefectures of Greece. It is situated in the periphery of Central Macedonia, in the region of Macedonia.
...
Pella is bounded by the prefectures of Kilkis to the northeast, Thessaloniki to the east, Imathia to the south, Kozani to the southwest, by Lake Vegoritida to the southwest, and by Florina Prefecture to the west. On the north, it is bounded by the national border between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia."

There is indeed a Fictionia/Fictionia problem here, which I stumble over, but it's at the beginning, where the two levels of Greek Macedonia are mentioned. Towards the end, the wording is perfectly clear. It wouldn't get any clearer by adding "fY..." to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would still be unnecessarily confused by this [elaborated] example, which just tries to insert text between the two sentences hoping that readers have forgotten in the meantime. In any case, Sept was wondering why there's an issue to begin with, and that's what I was trying to explain. You are more on the subject, since you are discussing the WP issue alone.

From my part, I feel that it is a semantical error for the country to be called as such. It is confusing and it is "a springboard" for lots of ugly things, including irredentism and history falsification. It appalls me to see that all¹ my Northern neighbors have been raised to believe half their country is occupied and their "True" ancestors are stolen. If it weren't for that, we'd solve it the Luxembourgish way. Niko Silver 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

¹You have great experience in WP, which is supposed to be far from a blog, have you ever met one? Or more seriously, what is the percentage of [Fyro]Macedonian editors that you really think don't believe in this bullshit? How do you plan to educate 99.9% of them? What about the rest of the world which is being fed MakNews-fabricated bollocks by their academics and their official governmental sites? Do you really-really see that there's "no problem"?

I know I am going back and forth discussing both the real-world and WP issues interchangeably, but I am really surprised people like Sept don't understand "why you [Greeks] are having trouble getting the English-speaking world to take this quarrel seriously". What more should it take? What other solution do you have to offer? Niko Silver 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your problem, but I have to insist it is irrelevant to our naming practices. And I don't see how inserting more "fY..."s in so many articles would help to "educate" anybody. But it's not Wikipedia's task anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Indeed, the "education" is a real-world problem, not a WP one, and I said so myself. Out of curiosity, I'm really interested for ideas on the bold question above.

Now to our WP issue: If you understand there's a real-world problem (which I am not sure yet), then you acquire a more perceptive approach. WP is not there to "educate", in the strict sense, but it is there to "give free knowledge". I understand from that that this knowledge must be free of misunderstandings. I sense that your wording leads to such misunderstandings, and I am sure that if I were an uninformed reader it would lead me to try to find what the hell is a Fictionian Republic doing outside of a Fictionian periphery/region, in which case I'd demand to have a handy link for clarification (one of those that you elsewhere call means to "satisfy their own [Greek] ideological sensitivities").

You are wrong to say IMO that "fY..." doesn't help in clarifying. If it didn't it wouldn't have been chosen to begin with. Read it: "Former Yugoslav". It speaks for itself. It says that there was a previous ("former") [federal] state called Yugoslavia that had a subnational entity called RoM, that is now an autonomous state. See? That's what I read. What do you read?

Now imagine there was no UN, no temporary reference, no dispute, no angry Greece, nothing: Would it be so bad to put these words before the RoM text as a means of informing more?² And now let me reverse the question: Isn't it silly that we're putting all sorts of [unauthorized - WP:OR] dabs next to the Greek-et-al peripheries/regions so as to let the damn name that creates the semantic problem to get away without its UN-approved dab? It's too double standards for my taste... Niko Silver 14:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

² E.g.: XYZ is in the province of Fictionia, which borders the former Soviet Republic of Fictionia. Is that poor English? Is it not clarifying that the Fictionian Republic broke away from -say- USSR? What is so bad about it?

That Gdańszigc thing...

You just brought it up again, but I think I'll prefer treating it hear because the case page is getting so crowded.

I suppose you mean the provision that in the Gdzântic case, articles about German people should use the German name and articles about Polish people the Polish name, right? That's not part of the general naming standards, but okay.

But I object to transferring that rule here, because it ignores the very principle motivating it in that other case. In the Dangzigt case, this was a special ad-hoc means of honoring the self-identification principle. Both German people and Polish people would have had reasons to regard Dtanzgic as "theirs" - it was their city, they were at home there, they regarded it as part of their nations' and their language's heritage. We do a courtesy to both groups, by using language that doesn't imply the city was foreign territory to them. Self-id.

But for Greeks, the RoM is foreign territory. They don't want to use "fY..." as a self-identification term. They don't regard the RoM as theirs. They don't want to mark it as theirs. In fact, quite the contrary, they want to distance themselves from it, mark it as foreign.

You may feel you have a right to the name. But you don't have a right to the country (and aren't claiming any).

We have a rule in Wikipedia of giving some consideration to how people (voluntarily, preferentially, independently from political pressure) call themselves. The unprecedented thing would be to give consideration to how somebody wants to call somebody else.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice approach. Hadn't thought about it that way. So we punish Greeks for not having irredentist aspirations for their Northern neighbors and we reward the "Makedonski" for publicly admitting so through their governmental sites. Here in WP we do lots of crazy stuff, but, hey, at least we don't violate anybody's preferred self-id! Actually, no, we selectively violate the self-id of the Greeks who call themselves that, but are too dumb not to create a separate state called "Republic of Macedonia"... Heh, you chop your legs off, but look: your self-id rights are somehow enhanced!

It is amazing how WP doesn't care about politics, unless it's used to endorse patently anti-Greek stuff: We don't care what UN says, we care what the one country says. We don't care what the Greek Macedonians say because they have no separate political entity of their own so as to need to be dab-ed. We care what the "Makedonski's" say, because they have a political entity of their own to express that! We don't care whose un-disambiguated self-id right we violate, as long as they are Greek... I'm sure that even if there were two "Republic of Macedonias", we'd find some reason to push this agenda against the Greeks... (not you -don't take personally things I say that are intended for the wider audience) Niko Silver 16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, don't think you'll get away with the previous section, eh! (Now I'm longing for the standard response that I am obsessed and that nobody can keep up with my rants etc etc...) Niko Silver 16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Crete

Niko, Wikipedia makes absolutely no clear information about Crete. Could you please help with what precisely happened to the island in the 19th century? Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not very familiar Pax, and too wikitired to start looking about. I'll pass, but thanks. Niko Silver 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I just need the information when did Greece obtain Crete (a year), just that. --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting piece of history

Heh, I didn't know about this until today (more details here). Wanna offer a trade, at least temporary :-D? Duja► 11:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, glad you're back from the "occupied territories" Duja! There doesn't have to be a trade, I'll take you for free just as I would with those I disagree. Maglic is an interesting example of the political orientation becoming a superior criterion than nationalism (or national integrity for that matter). It is indeed very interesting! Niko Silver 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, glad you're back from the "occupied territories" Duja!

I'm not :-(. but c'est la vie. Some photo impressions here, but I gues yours are better... Duja► 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the feeling... I wish they never ended... Thankfully I'll go on a fishing trip next Wednesday to Kythira. I'd upload my pictures too, but the new Epsilon rules regarding revealing your true identity in WP are very strict. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one to gain some weight on vacation. :-) It must have been those eggs from Aristotle's lanterns... Niko Silver 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh...

Niko, if you want me to discuss that statement with you, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to take a course in Intensional logic first. This is going to get philosophical. Are we up to that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer common sense. No, really, I'm not up to philosophizing right now, but give it a shot anyway; I may be interested to dig into it later. Be careful not to give me the chance of accusing you for wikilawyering though... Niko Silver 14:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I understood your point already by reading only the first paragraph in your link. The thing is that I don't agree that the alternate meaning of the synonym should not be reflected in those contexts too. Niko Silver 14:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Creativity award

Dear Niko, some good guy put in your photos in the greek mountza article. My congratulations on your photos. Someone should have thought of that before, but then again better late than never. Well done!!. I would like to give you a creativity star, but my best idea would be one of those photos and come to think of it, maybe it would be stretching your wonderful sense of humour too much, therefore, please accept my award, without a star.--FocalPoint 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, it took me quite a long time to set the camera in a proper angle without a tripod. I especially enjoyed the smack of that double moutza right before the flash! Sheesh, though, I never thought it could be used as a ...star! Congrats on the humor Focal! I guess I deserve one of those for a multitude of reasons! Órse to me then! Niko Silver 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What better award could there be for an helinnaras, than an actual, full fledged mountza? Órse to all of us Niko - couldn't be better.--FocalPoint 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Italiotis

Kalispera Niko. Thanks for the comments.Italiotis 23:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kalispera Nico. I think the issue about Macedon and Alexander the Great is nor properly adressed. Kiro Gligorov and prominent citizens of FYROM have publicly and honesty admitted that the so called ethnic Macedonians are slavs who arrived in the currenr region of FYROM on the 6th century AD. Ancient Macedonian Language, Macedon, Alexander the Great, Philip, Argead dynasty are universally treated as part of the Greek heritage and history, with some isolated scholars only to question this. The Macedonia name dispute is not about this part of classical history but rather whether those people have the right to self determine theirselves as Macedonians when this is in clash with the ancient greek kingdom of Macedon and its people who were self identified for the last 3,500 years as greeks. So it is not an issue to discuss. We should stick to the current format and if there are douubts then we could send a quotation of both the Academy of Athens and the Academy of Skopje to mutually discuss the matter and give an expert opinion. Till then we should not improvise and leave things as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kalimera Nico. Thanks for the welcome that gave me a better insight of Wiki rules etc. I will be very glad to continue to contribute under the commonly accepted frame. All the best Italiotis 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

euxaristw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Eating cats...?

[1] -- Fear the revenge! Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it doesn't hurt to outsmart the vandal occasionally. Too bad I didn't have the time to do it again! Niko Silver 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Macedonian Wikipedians' notice board

I saw you were involved in it a year ago. I decided to sort of re-open it (or at least re-introduce it). Any help will be more than welcome :) --Laveol ^T 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try Laveol. Let me just drop a few ideas for now. We need some sections like: "Participants/Members", "Articles within the scope", "Requested articles", "to do list" etc. Niko Silver 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Italiotis

Nico kalimera. It seems that we have continuous vandalism on Alexander the great page. I have reverted back but do you think we should lock it for a couple of days? Xairetismous Italiotis 09:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kalimera. Don't worry, it's watched by many. Niko Silver 12:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Chrisostomos Smyrnis

To arthro gia ton Christotomo Smyrnis exei kakopoioithoi vanausa apo tous Tourkous Xristes!!! Prospatho na to diorthoso alla xreiazomai voithia!!! Filika Seleukosa 16:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your warning

Sorry Niko, I'm not sure this [2] was a good idea. Those edits seemed perfectly defensible to me and were certainly made in good faith. (We had a footnote there previously saying that the number was for southern Cyprus only; he was just reinstating it in a slightly different form.) Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think of it that way; you may have a point, in which case I apologize. I thought it aimed to change the name of the country (or article) to "Southern Cyprus" or "Cyprus (Southern)". Maybe a footnote that "figures regard the part of the island where the government of Cyprus has effective control" is in order to wipe any such suspicion clear. I'll work on it. Niko Silver 15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Nick. I haven't seen this Barnstar in your collection, so I award you one. You deserve it! Odysses (☜) 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Odysses! I like the way it spins! :-) BTW, your latest help in New Acropolis Museum seems to have a chance to make the news... ;-) Niko Silver 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant chat

Mipos mou estiles tipota gia pictures to share with friends, i mas exoun 'spamarei' gia ta kala? Politis 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nai, kalo einai. Empa. Niko Silver 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Need a little help file

Started a Page on Constantinos Tsakiris as part of a general Panionios clean up I undertook and some English girl googled him, could not get enough hits and decided to try and delete the article despite me finding him on Forbes and other sites! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constantinos_Tsakiris can you help the cause file? Reaper7 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the deletion discussion, but I'll refrain from commenting there to prevent you being accused for (unknowingly) WP:CANVASSing. Read that policy for the next time. You won't have a problem anyway, you did a good job and the article will stay. Don't worry. Niko Silver 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

& so hello to you too, Niko. HoTep!

Just catching up with you here. You seem like you may be a real-life™ type of person; Even one who's well-versed himself in contention and politics. My good man! So, what do you know about the repression of monorities as they touch upon Wiki articles- and Wiki article-wars? Perhaps you could leave some more advice for me...

Specifically I've found the science articles around Halton Arp - and even Non-standard cosmology- have been unfriendly places since well before I came along. But the parties are so apparantly erudite, as well as perhaps intentionally abstruse at times, that it took me numbers of archived talk pages to understand that a full Wiki political action has been simmering for over 2 years now. I am just the latest naif to stumble into this.

But there may be editing abuses occuring here abandoned by the Wiki process - because the possibility exists that good faith can no longer be assumed on behapf of all concerned. Of course, this is just "how it is" in real-life™. But have you ever encountered this sticky wicket in Wiki?

For some overview of the stakes, here's another view of Arp and his works' implications. This is an emergent but minority view- though a view an apparant clear majority of concerned wiki editors are utterly unable to see represented anywhere on the English Wikipedia:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/synopsis2.htm ( -lots of big words) http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm ( -the pretty picture)

I realize this isn't at all your real life bailiwick, but there seem to be fairly clear editing abuses here falling afoul of Wiki process.

Thanks to you for your availability, and for any assistance. Σας ευχαριστούμε Niko. Ρολόι έξω, είμαι φοβερός καταχραστής των αυτοματοποιημένων προγραμμάτων μεταφραστών. Ο φίλος σας Hilarleo 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ii: reply to yer reply

Hey Niko. Thanks for your quick interest. "Cite reliable sources" ... Tha's safe and sensible advice.

A framing meta-problem here is the (potentially frightening if abused) notion of being able to allow "all" evidence- when the question imputes 'scientific reality' & the nature of the "reliable sources" game itself. ie.: Science in the 20th century has again become a _political_ problem. ALL sources are in dispute, because real science does involve the interpretation of our data. Yet neither are we talking "original research" here.

It seems there is always money riding on the status quo. Yes? So, big astronomy is not so interested in undermining the complex of theory supporting the Big Bang. But as it is a theory... one that is now promoted by powerful government agencies with commercial interests... You may have encoountered such as these before? Here we encounter superfluous difficulties.

So: The idea has further been put forth in Wiki that the fullness of Arp's work has been successfully *suppressed* in the metier of "peer reviewed journals". But there's more than one catch-22:

First our C-word, 'conspiracy', is now a ltmus test of its' own- in certain circles. Then: How to give citations on anything considered too dangerous to publish? Some of Arp's work however is published and useful to this staus quo, so that's an out with any accusations of gross and personal prejudices.

But it's easy to turn a blind eye when the consensus advises: "there live dragons". Even at home in Berkeley I can't engage university astronomy graduate students in any on-the-record discussions- They literally fear for their careers. But this is not supposed to be Beltway stuff. Instead it's so like Galileo fighting the Pope, redux.

One source that was cited by previous Wiki editors in the Arp article was also my 2nd suggested to you: http://www.thunderbolts.info/synopsis2.htm

Would you as a mediator object to this site as a wiki citation? I doubt it. It's full of dynamic data and interesting suggested interpretations. Interesting is good in science (& more so if one teaches). Arp's not involved here, except as inspiration; This site is created by a collective and has numerous educated contributors. But how many are tenured? And who cares?

So far there appears only one man ruling the editorship and shaping these contentious Wiki pages, along with a peanut gallery of another fellow. Such as they are these self-imposed arbiters of the Wiki article(s) have declared any such web site is simply 'not good enough' at the outset. They want- and are able- to argue this strictly from the journal argument- journals and arguments which we hold are all based on assumptions we futher hold in question. The web site quicly got stamped "anecdotal evidence" and disallowed- as in, No Mention Tolerated in the body of the article, and it's ususally suppressed from the links section also. So.

One question: Is Wiki simply unfit to docment controversy? How about real scientific process as it happens- in real, bleeding-edge sciences? And when this science has powerful implications?

Among the most obvious implications are alternate power generation techniques, as well as profoundly new propulsion systems. So these initial implications immediately get into profoundly consequential life altering, Outer Limits areas- which makes another fuel for deriders as well as strong passions among the more naive.

The situation is developing it's own strategy of intractability. And it seems institutional in more than one way: Our problem editor is a tech at the Max Planck institue- where Arp also works... now as a scientist. Politics anyone?

Today the Halton Arp article has already been through one aborted round of mediation. The mediator got frustrated and disapeared or quit. Maybe he was killed. Since then our 'progressive' editors have utterly given up while our best has quit the community in Wiki-frustration. Good Faith is no longer apparent from all parties involved. I myself absented for several months when I understood the sheer passive-aggression fueling the situation. I don't feel I work well with authoritarians.

Well, This is what I understand. My only defense is [I thought] you asked. I hope this is not scary. I need to sleep. BTW it's urly-early a.m. here in berkeley & I were still editing it when you'd replied; so there's maybe additional background in that 1st post... dunno. "May all wishes be bountifully fulfilling." Thankas Niko; leo 75.36.223.69 15:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the translating help! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you believe his version events, as you quoted them to me on my own page. So be it. Reaper7 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I told him before the forbes and other links and then added them. Removed the prod. Was not good enough. Than to back his argument over mine he played the google card. Can read the second part of the argument here as the first part has been nicely removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constantinos_Tsakiris

Reaper7 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Did u listen to what i said? I spoke to him directly about forbes/. It is not on that page. You know what, i see you are convinced still, seriously, its ok, just next time don't be so quick to believe bullshit. If you read carefully you will see he is saying the sources are not good enough. These are the ones I told him personally which he later told you if he had known about he would have never continued for deletion. Do you understand??? Reaper7 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops (Pontic Greek Genocide)

Sorry, I didn't scroll down and it looked like he just removed the info. Χερετε! -- AdrianTM 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I thought so too. And thanks for the greeting! Cheers! Niko Silver 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired

Probably I should wait until tomorrow to answer this but:

"Just a question: If I had said (or if I now rephrased) to "WP practically does not adopt the Greek position" (that you propose), would there be any change in the rationale that Greek users here feel like as if they landed on Mars?"

From what you said on the arbcom page:

"As a Greek, I must note that doing so is extremely difficult, given that the consensus in Wikipedia, as established by the related policies, practically adopts the ethnic Macedonian position."

I got that Wikipedia was deliberately making an effort to adopt the ethnic Macedonian position. This is not the case, and I was trying to point out that not adopting the Greek position does not mean adopting the ethnic Macedonian position.

Maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe I misunderstood you, but that is all I was trying to say :) And yes, it was harder to debate with me because I actually provided sources and made reasoned arguments, rather than yelling " MAKEDONIJA RULEZ GREKS DROL LOLOL !! ". As I recall, FlavrSavr had some input on that article, and if it hadn't been going so well without them there would probably have been more input. - Francis Tyers · 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My coments at Request for Arbitration: Macedonia

Copied from my talkpage

Why is this tendentious or anything? Where is the revert, had he posted that before, and who reverted him and on what grounds? And what is the serious argumentation for any opposition in such an edit, that merely rewords what is already said (only better in my view)? Did you pick the wrong diff by accident? Niko Silver 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I read dozens of diffs this morning to to sort out what happened on Thessaloniki.

On September 28 an IP reverted weeks of revisions. I immediately reverted. One of the many little changes the IP made was to change "Capital of the Greek province of Macedonia" to "Capital of Macedonia". An edit war broke out over that phrase, with the POV-pushing extreme IP 82.199.216.24 dropping all reference to Macedonia, and Kekrops taking the opportunity to reopen the war over "Greek Macedonia".

It took about a week to get a temporarily stable version. The formulation was yours. The capital "R" was mine. You'll find me, you and Future Perfect at Sunrise defending this version over the next few days. Yours was the last remark on the talkpage: [3]. You might want to also look at the relatively hot discussion the last week of September at Talk:Thessaloniki#Disambiguation_for_Macedonia.

So I saw the ArbCom request this morning, and went right to Thessaloniki because that's where I look first. And sure enough, something looked wrong. I reread the diffs, and it all seemed clear. Kekrops was part of this entire discussion, he watched the agreement being reached, and then he waited a month, until attention was no longer on the article, and he undid what we came up with.

For what it's worth, I think FPaS' "get away with murder" remark was unhelpful. All POV pushers, no matter what nationality, are a problem. All of them make it hard to edit. All of them get in the way of good editors of every nationality. Jd2718 01:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

MACEDONIANS -exiled from the Aegean

At the end of WW2 the attempt for entering Solun and joining the Macedonian partisan groups in the Aegean failed.the Macedonian high command was imprisoned and killed by the Tito led government and the troops diverted north to Srem.

After a couple of years the Macedonians in the Aegean saw their chance in the Greek civil war, they rose up and in fanatic fighting managed to liberate the town of lerin, The Greeks surprised by the offensive seeked help from the British..they got it..dozens of villages were burned to the grown by the rain of napalm.Tens of thousands of women and children were exiled from their homes, thousands were killed while running to safety.But it didn't end here..a great number of refugees in the Vardar part of Macedonia meant a potential treat in the long run..Yugoslavia closed the borders and the rest of the refugees were scattered around the world.

this is their story...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JBLSRBD6aLo

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o6_ZULK2nH4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cvEcbqop3as

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7VOA5qKhlOo

--strich3D 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions:

How many? (show me a WP:RS)
In return, how many Greeks left Bitola/Monastiri et al for the south? Did you know that Greeks were deemed "capitalists" in your parts and were sent off to Greece as well?
Why don't you go blame "the British"? After all, this whole thing was in the eve of the Cold War.
Did you know that all Communists were chased by the Greek government, regardless of ethnicity? (with the blessings of the Westerners) Did you know that we have many more communist (or ex-communist) Greek grandpas and grandmas here complaining about prosecution?
Have you met any Greek or Vlach former communist who was expelled by Greece in your country? I have! Many!
Did you know that the extreme majority of the few Slavs that remained in Greece (again for political reasons), now self-identify as Greeks, and actually are the most fanatic nationalists I've ever met? Why do you think that is?

And the final question: After all this is over and behind us, and after there's no political base for these hardships like there were imposed before, isn't it silly to try to attach ethnic motives, to something that is generally accepted to have been done for political ones? Aren't you preserving it that way? Don't you think that this helps our [common] enemies more than it helps us? Think about it. Niko Silver 23:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Very bad news about the growing conflict... --PaxEquilibrium 12:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Where? Niko Silver 12:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In northwestern Macedonia, the "political advisorship of the Kosovo Liberation Army" was in a small crackdown with the Macedonian armed forces. 6 were killed. They have united with other units into the "Liberation Forces of Albanian lands". I have a very bad feeling about this, it's only going worse day by day, especially with the tensions in Kosovo and Presevo growing. --PaxEquilibrium 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny enough, the main people that share common interests with the Macedonian Slavs are the Serbs and the Greeks. The first are pissed because of the split (right on the time when they needed them), and the last because of the name. In Greece we say "you make your own bed". Niko Silver 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Č::Well, t'is be the Balkans. :S --PaxEquilibrium 13:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Panhellenic Socialist Movement leadership election, 2007

Very well done, thanks! Any idea when it's likely going to take place? —Nightstallion 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The party "conference" was set to take place on Feb 8th 2008, yet political analysts argue that it will be done much earlier in Oct-Nov 2007. No definite date has been announced as of yet. BTW the new candidate will have to be nominated by 10% of the party members and PASOK "friends" (=nobody knows what that means!), which is a rather high number given that Papandreou had amassed one million votes, being the only candidate. We'll wait and see. Niko Silver 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

nods I can only hope -- both Karamanlis and Papandreou are absolutely horrible, IMO. Normally, I'm all for parties left of centre, but I can understand why the choice between either of the two parties would be rather difficult currently... —Nightstallion 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO the economic policy has to be right of center in Greece, because for the task of "giving money to the people" I trust more the entrepreneurs through their investments, than I trust the politicians through their looting. How much do companies earn? 5%? 15%? Well, they are compelled to invest at least half of it to be viable, thereby creating new jobs and hiring higher-paid executives. On the other hand politicians are notoriously stealing 30% and, of course, invest zero. For the rest of the policy I'd say I am center-left. I guess it takes a split personality to match my ideal candidate! Niko Silver 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are both 'center-right free-market socialists'. See you at the next elections! Politis 11:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read (in the Austrian newspaper Die Presse, see this article) that Venizelos might be the catalyst of a large change in the Greek political structure, maybe leading to some sort of alliance between PASOK, the Communists and the Left Coalition -- is that likely? —Nightstallion 12:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Democracy briefly governed with the Communist Party in 1989. So anything is possible. But in this case it is unlikely. Venizelos is on the right of his party and does not wish such alliances; it will create a Socialist Tower of Babel. But even in such a coalition, they have no majority. Politis 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, but they'd have a far easier time to become the largest party when in an alliance... Why did the Communists govern with ND back then? —Nightstallion 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Heard about this? If he was on his way to a meeting to decide the procedure for the election, does that mean we'll be getting a date some time soon? ;) —Nightstallion 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he read the instructions in the coffee cup :-) In 1989 ND won the largest number of votes but no overall majority in parliament. Joining with the communist party buried the hatch and, besides, there was no other party that could have provided it with sufficient MPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politis (talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why ND governed with the left: In 1989 (or so) Andreas Papandreou had foreseen he'd lose the elections, while he was also accused of major financial scandals. Legal action against the former government could only be done by the immediate next due to the law. So Papandreou altered the election law to deprive parliamentary majority from the ruling party even with the (quite astonishing) 47.8% that it got. The left decided to co-govern with ND in order to prosecute the previous government, and then, after 5 months, new elections were made. Niko Silver 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A side issue

It is said that in 1993 PM Mitsotakis and Kiro Gligorov had agreed for the name "Slavomacedonia". MFA Samaras disagreed and turned down the government (which due to the still-active crazy electoral law had only 151 members despite a majority of 47% or so). Papandreou came again to power guns blazing about "no Macedonia in the title at all". The result is the situation we have today as you know it.

Today, the Greek parliament consists of the following:

A flimsy parliamentary majority (152) for the ruling party (any bells?)
Samaras returned in ND and a parliament member (any bells?)
Strong left parties (who are traditionally pro-"Macedonia"-name due to the Greek Civil War etc)
Far right present in the parliament with minimum voice, that can put its disagreement on record

And now something for conspiracy theorists: If I were to "design" the ideal parliament composition that would "sell" the Macedonia dispute, I wouldn't be able to think of a better one! Being a Laokoon, I foresee a stable solution proposal by ND (such as New Macedonia), which will be disagreed by the left (who will want just Macedonia), by the right (who will want "no Macedonia at all") and by PASOK (same), and will end up in new elections (because the government will be again overthrown), that will lead to PASOK ruling again with a firm position, that will lead to the situation becoming irreparable for Greece (much like it is today, only worse). Well, it may not happen like this, but if it does, you'll know I had said so. Niko Silver 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Greece's position in this is untenable, as more and more countries are simply adopting RoM as the official name instead of FYROM -- another decade or so, and there'll be barely any FYROM-countries left... —Nightstallion 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blaming PASOK for pretty much everything that happens in Greece, from Macedonia to the recent fires, is a favourite sport of the Right. Except for the inconvenient details that a. PASOK was the only Greek government to extract any concessions at all from Skopje; and b. ND was firmly in power when the whole issue blew up in the first place. It had at least two years to bury the problem in its infancy, and didn't. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as illustrated here, there may have been quite an arm-twist from the Republic's part. Extremists say that Greece should pay in the same currency. Still, the problem of official repeated misinformation internally and externally remains, and I've lost hope that it could be solved any other way but with a freaking disambiguating qualifier that would "demote" the country and the ethnic group from their perceived region-wide status to a sub-region status (as it actually is). The worst part is that I've never seen any user from that country here who would not strictly follow the doctrines of Macedonism, which leads me to the conclusion that they are not insisting on calling themselves plain "Macedonians" for reasons of "self-identification" alone; but for reasons that they all actually believe to their bone that their country should be a United Macedonia, that they descend from the Ancient Macedonians, and that their language derives from the Ancient Macedonian language. I'm generally a good-faith person, and if I had met one that says otherwise, then in the hope that his views would eventually spread amongst them, I'd probably change my mind and let them be called as they like. Have you met anyone? Niko Silver 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

shrugs Frankly, the identifying with Ancient Macedonians and claiming to derive from them doesn't hurt anyone (neither Greece nor Macedonia has too much of a right in that regard); the revisionism is the only worrying part, IMO, and even that can't seriously be considered an issue as the Greek Macedonians would never democratically choose to become part of the RoM. This whole issue could be ignored, IMO, if it weren't for popularity contest issues in Greece (and Macedonia, too, of course)... —Nightstallion 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We all have a right to this glorious heritage, but most of all the Greeks, since the only guy that counts (and his fathers) self-identified as such. Self-identification is a bitch I've heard. Nevertheless, Kennedy's or Onassi's or Einstein's son, could very well be a total dork, just like the daughter of the ultimate loser could become Madonna. So, yes, if one generation only can turn your genes up-side-down, then I can most realistically imagine why the rest of my fellow modern Greeks are so screwed up. (Except me, of course.) Niko Silver 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough, true enough. Even the Portuguese managed to spend the EU funds more sensibly than the Greeks... —Nightstallion 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that why they've fallen behind several of the new eastern European members in per capita GDP as the result of a chronically stagnant economy, while Greece has recently surpassed Spain and Italy in PPP terms? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you win, both Portugal and Greece are wasting money equally well. ;) —Nightstallion 15:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We must be doing something right, considering Austria was the only member state ever to be slapped with EU sanctions. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which was rather ridiculous, actually, seeing as how the Polish government has not been sanctioned -- BTW, it was horrible how the rightist parties used the sanctions for their own political gain. sighs —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; Poland and Britain should be kicked out to let the EU get on with it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Well, Poland maybe not, as it's not the population which is against it, but just the government -- the population is more pro-EU than Luxembourg's. But if the UK keeps obstructing further integration... Well. —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, now, Nightstallion, do you truly believe that "neither Greece nor Macedonia has too much of a right in that regard"? Would you actually equate the relevance of the two? And before you think I'm nuts about "heritage" and stuff, please note that what concerns me is *not* that I'm losing something of value, but that someone who definitely does not deserve it [for the other reasons] is gaining something out of nowhere, and to the extent of utterly monopolizing it. Aren't they [more] nuts about heritage in turn? Niko Silver 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the whole issue utterly irrelevant and ridiculous, and it's very difficult to say who's more nuts about the issue -- the Greek or the Macedonian politicians. shrugs —Nightstallion 15:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some 20 million people from both "sides" apparently disagree. Just like the Austrians would disagree if the Slovenes were 60 years ago officially named plainly Ostarrîchians and their country Ostarrîchi and if they claimed descent from the Babenbergs, and refused to use any disambiguating term whatsoever. And then we'd surely find that the ~~Slovenes~~ Ostarrîchians were distinct earlier than 1944, and since they lived around there nobody knew how to call them, so they were simply called Ostarrîchi Slavs. But now they hate the "Slavs" in their name, because it offends their self-determination, while the Austrians have no moral right to this name either because it was first given 1000 years ago. I forgot to mention that the ~~Slovenes~~ Ostarrîchians have repeatedly expressed irredentist aspirations for lower Austria, and think that their true land is the United Ostarrîchia. That would be ridiculous, of course, and the worst would be if people laughed at the Austrians for being pissed (on top of everything). Niko Silver 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well-woven analogue, except for the fact that lower Austria doesn't border ~~Slovenia~~ Ostarrîchi – using Carinthia and Styria as an analogue would have been a perfect fit. The fact is, I personally would not change my opinion one single bit – if they want to call themselves Ostarrîchians, let them. BTW, the fact remains that the Macedonians have renounced any territorial claims in writing and officially.

Yes, they have, officially (what the hell did you expect). And yes, the idea of (FY)ROM being a threat to Greece (which btw arms itself to balance mighty Turkey) is simply laughable. But look at all this official shit they let slip:

A selection of 6 official references (#29 to #35) in Macedonia (terminology)
The userpages of all ethnic Macedonian users here! I challenge you to find one that has never had an irredentist content. Of course, this is not "official", but it gives you an idea of what they've been taught in school and re-confirms the references above. It also shows the extent of this misinformation. I've been there, I know. Niko Silver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, yeah, but that's not a basis for negotations, is it? —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They are supposed to limit this bullshit wherever it comes from, even "private" (but schoolbooks and embassies for Christ's sake?). Check paragraph 7.1 of the interim accord. [4] They are obviously in violation. Niko Silver 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh, you may have a point there, but I know too little about the actual situation in Macedonia to pass judgement on that. —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that many Carinthians (nowadays, in the 21st century!) have an unexplainable fear of Slavisation and refuse to set up more bilingual village name signs (as mandated by the Austrian State Treaty fifty years ago and as finally and irrevocably decided by the Austrian Supreme Court) is considered utterly ridiculous everywhere outside of Carinthia – including all other parts of Austria; just in case you weren't aware that there was a related issue alive in today's Austrian politics. This goes so far that Jörg Haider and his BZÖ keep ignoring the official Supreme Court verdicts, with tacit support from the local ÖVP and SPÖ. Maybe that's another reason why I find such revisionist and slavisation fears ridiculous and am rather fed up with them. —Nightstallion 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, there's nothing comparable in the two situations, as there aren't any concentrated significant numbers of Slavic speakers in Greece, and even less without a strong Greek national identity. Sources cite them to 10-30,000 across the whole region. See Minorities in Greece#Slavic-speaking for details, and draw your own conclusions. Moreover, this is not a 'Slavic-labels' or such issue. I'd be a supporter of that, if it were needed. Niko Silver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for Carinthia -- there's hardly that many Slovene-speaking Carinthians there, too... As I said, irrational. —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The whatever existing/non-existing minority treatment issue is irrelevant (yeah, irrational, I agree). I'm talking about the main group's name, not that of any minority (and certainly not their rights). Niko Silver 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, here we have a serious disambiguation issue, and I don't think any government will ever be able to conduct a proper census in the area and actually count them, without violating anybody's right to self-identification by inserting qualifiers. To witness its full perplexity, see below:

Question	ethnic Macedonians	Greek Macedonians	Normal- e.g. Albanians
How do you call a person of the above groups that lives... ...in Macedonia (Republic of)?	Macedonian	Greek Macedonian	Albanian Macedonian
... in Macedonia (Greece)?	Greek Macedonian	Macedonian	Greek Albanian -or- Albanian Macedonian
... in Albanian Macedonia (around lake Ohrid)	Albanian Macedonian	Greek Macedonian -or- Greek Albanian	Albanian Macedonian
...abroad?	Macedonian	Macedonian	Albanian

Mouseover please. So, a "Greek Macedonian" (or vice versa "Macedonian Greek") can either be a Greek living in (FY)ROM, or a Greek living in MkGr, or an ethnic Macedonian living in MkGr! Now compare this to e.g. the Greek Americans. Same with the Albanian Macedonians (last line) and same with the Bulgarian Macedonians (too bored to expand the table)! Niko Silver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I refuse to accept that qualifiers such as "Slav", or "New", or whatever (rational) has been proposed can be considered "offensive". I mean, come on, when ethnic Macedonians renounce such "offensive" qualifiers from their names, then they are "self-identifying"; and when the Greek guys up north do the same, then they are becoming jerks. I wanna be called a "Macedonian" and not be confused either dammit! Doesn't that violate my self-identification? Why do we suddenly have to use a qualifier, and they don't? Niko Silver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the fair compromise would be to call the Republic of Macedonia "Slavic Macedonia" and the Greek region "Greek Macedonia" -- shared heritage, and everyone's happy. Except that I'm afraid it won't be so easy. sighs —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go. As a matter of fact, Greeks never raised issue officially about qualifiers in their name (even about that of Aegean Macedonia), but what troubles me is that you finally understood what I mean when I pretended to raise such an issue! 'Nuff said, I need to contact Dora now to tell her what the trick to solve the Macedonian Question is! Niko Silver 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what precisely troubles you...? And be sure to do that. ;) —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strike "...you finally understood..." and replace with "...usually people understand that the self-identification issue is a double-edged knife when Greeks raise issue about qualifiers in their own name." What "troubles me" is that we have come to a (quite sophisticated and advanced) point where immaterial "rights" (such as that of their un-disambiguated self-identification) can more effectively be countered with other immaterial "rights" (such as the un-disambiguated self-identification of the Greeks), while all other material rights may be at stake (such as their whatever existing/non-existing minority rights in Greece, such as their apparent official irredentism and historic revisionism). Niko Silver 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, you can lose a couple of tourists if you are perceived not to have the only Macedonian king's grave, or if you are not exactly called like the legendary ancient tribe, or their kingdom, but I think it should be viewed as more important if you risk loosing your actual home (or your child's life God-forbid) because someone thinks the "White Tower" is theirs... Maybe humanity should take a couple of steps back and re-prioritize its values. Self-identification is important, but not more important than the [even remote] risk of lost lives and properties. Niko Silver 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, true enough. But actually, the fastest way to ensure peace is to have good trading relations and to integrate them into Europe... Which requires a mutually agreeable solution to the name issue, at some point. —Nightstallion 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't have been a need for any objection to any qualifier on the pretense of "self-identification", if there were no true aspirations to land claims and history. It is evident that they want the name of the region because they want the whole region. Maybe Greece should respond by renaming itself to "Balkánia"... Niko Silver 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They have officially distanced themselves from the revisionist claims, and due to their EU aspirations, they won't reopen that issue ever again. But yes, why not, Balkánia is a nice name, too... ;) —Nightstallion 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They officially pretend to distance themselves, and actually endorse it officially in practice. I am anxiously awaiting on October 10 the official introduction of the book "Μακεδονισμός", ο Ιμπεριαλισμός των Σκοπίων, 1944-2006 ("Macedonism", Skopje's Imperialism, 1944-2006) from the Society of Macedonian Studies where more than 300 (!) official irredentist pieces of evidence are published (laws, decrees, minutes of the parliament, official governmental statements, maps, school textbooks et al).[5] It's bilingual in Greek and English, and an online copy will also be available. I'll let you know. Niko Silver 08:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the publishers claim that three generations have been raised with this propaganda. No wonder why we haven't met one non-irredentist user here. Niko Silver 08:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!

Regarding the irredentism: Obviously, it will take time to reverse the previous indoctrination, but I sincerely think that the Macedonians have no interest in further elaborating the irredentist claim -- they have nothing to gain from it (they'll never succeed) and much to lose (respect, EU integration, business relations). Give them some time and the benefit of doubt, is what I say. —Nightstallion 12:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Time? OK, I'll tell my grandchildren. Their schoolbooks may have changed by then. But if you are asking me to respect their pretense regarding "self-identification rights" while they continue to not respect my right to life, I'll disappoint you. It takes two to tango. Niko Silver 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Schoolbooks

Jesus... The whole book is online in Greek here. Just check the part from the schoolbooks. I'll let you know for translated parts in English when they are uploaded. Niko Silver 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, here's a good part (I've broken the sentences for comments, it used to be just one paragraph):

Greek translation

«Κατά την εγκατάσταση των Σλάβων στη Μακεδονία, αυτοί συνάντησαν τους αρχαίους Μακεδόνες. Στην αρχή οι σχέσεις τους ήταν άσχημες, αλλά στην πορεία βελτιώθηκαν. Οι Μα- κεδόνες ήταν χριστιανοί και με ανώτερο πολιτισμό. Σταδιακά άρχισαν να συνεργάζονται μεταξύ τους.

Οι Σλάβοι για τη νέα τους πατρίδα αποδέχθηκαν το όνομα Μακεδονία και άρχισαν να ονομάζονται Μακεδόνες.

Οι γηγενείς [starosedelci] Μακεδόνες αποδέχθηκαν τη σλαβική γλώσσα, αργότερα και τη σλαβική γραφή.

Υπολείμματα των αρχαίων Μακεδόνων είναι οι Βλάχοι» (Бошкоски, σ. 32).

My translation in English

"During their settlement, the Slavs in Macedonia met the ancient Macedonians. In the beginning, their relationships were bad, but later they were ameliorated. Macedonians were Christians and with a superior culture. Gradually, they started cooperating with one another.

The Slavs accepted the name Macedonia for their new homeland and started calling themselves Macedonians.

The native [note: composite word used meaning "in-this-land-born-s", implying the ancients] Macedonians accepted the Slavic language, later also the Slavic writing.

Traces of the ancient Macedonians are the Vlachs."

My comments

Britannica says the ancient Macedonians had been assimilated by the rest of the Greeks until 2nd or 3d century AD, while the Slavs came after the 6th
It is accepted by the academic community that the earliest traces of a distinct ethnic Macedonian identity (ethnogenesis) happened not earlier than mid-18-hundreds, which is a thousand years later from the alleged prior gradual cooperation.
The ancient Macedonians were speaking Koine Greek by then, but that is not mentioned. The Slavic writing (Cyrilic) was given to the Slavs by the Greek Byzantine brothers Cyril and Methodius.
The Vlachs are related to the Dacians and the Romanians who [latter] are related to the Romans who are not related to the Greeks or to the ancient Macedonians, since the Romans came much later than the ancient Macedonians to the region. Interestingly those "traces" cannot (of course) be found among the Greeks.

I'll let you know when I'm in the mood for translating more. Niko Silver 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting, thanks for the translation! —Nightstallion 09:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More from page 114 of Balkan History of grade 6 (published 2005):

«Η κατακτητική πολιτική των βαλκανικών χωρών έναντι της Μακεδονίας»

«Κατά τον Α΄ Βαλκανικό Πόλεμο (1912), στην περιοχή της Μακεδονίας κατά των οθωμανικών δυνάμεων πολέμησε ο σερβικός, ο ελληνικός και ο βουλγαρικός στρατός. Οι οθωμανικές στρατιωτικές δυνάμεις ηττήθηκαν και αναγκάστηκαν να αποχωρήσουν. Η Μακεδονία κατακτήθηκε και διαμελίσθηκε μεταξύ της Σερβίας, της Ελλάδας και της Βουλγαρίας»

Ερώτηση προς μαθητές: «Ανέλυσε τον χάρτη της Μακεδονίας μετά τον Α΄ Βαλκανικό Πόλεμο σε σχέση με τις κατακτημένες περιοχές από την πλευρά των γειτονικών κρατών»

«Ούτε μία από τις βαλκανικές χώρες δεν ήταν ικανοποιημένη από τον διαμελισμό. Εξαιτίας αυτού, ξέσπασε πόλεμος μεταξύ τους, ο οποίος είναι γνωστός ως Β΄ Βαλκανικός Πόλεμος (1913). Στη συνέχεια, το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα της Μακεδονίας το έλαβε η Ελλάδα. Στη Σερβία περιήλθε η περιοχή της σημερινής Δημοκρατίας της Μακεδονίας χωρίς τη Στρώμνιτσα και την γύρω περιοχή, ενώ το υπόλοιπο -το πιο μικρό- τμήμα περιήλθε στη Βουλγαρία. Αυτός ο διαμελισμός επικυρώθηκε με τη Συνθήκη Ειρήνης του Βουκουρεστίου (Αύγουστος 1913)».

[Τα αποτελέσματα των Βαλκανικών πολέμων ήταν...]«Καταστροφικά για τη Μακεδονία. Διαμελίσθηκε μεταξύ της Σερβίας, της Βουλγαρίας και της Ελλάδας, ενώ ένα μικρό τμήμα της προσαρτήθηκε στο νεοσύστατο αλβανικό κράτος».

«Η Συνθήκη Ειρήνης του Βουκουρεστίου είχε βαριές πολιτικές, εθνοτικές και οικονομικές επιπτώσεις για τον μακεδονικό λαό. Με τη συνθήκη αυτή διασπάσθηκε η εδαφική και η εθνοτική ενότητα της Μακεδονίας, άρχισε η διαδικασία εθνοτικής εκδίωξης του μακεδονικού πληθυσμού και ο αποικισμός μη μακεδονικού πληθυσμού, με στόχο την αλλαγή του παραδοσιακού ιστορικού εθνοτικού χαρακτήρα της Μακεδονίας. Το μακεδονικό όνομα και η μακεδονική γλώσσα απαγορεύθηκαν και τα βαλκανικά κράτη άσκησαν πολιτική αφομοίωσης και απεθνικοποίησης. Η μακεδονική οικονομία καταστράφηκε και ο πληθυσμός αναγκάστηκε να μεταναστεύσει από την γενέθλια χώρα»

«Η Μακεδονία στις 30 Ιουλίου (10 Αυγούστου) του 1913 με τη Συνθήκη του Βουκουρεστίου διαμελίσθηκε σε τέσσερα τμήματα μεταξύ των εμπολέμων πλευρών: τη Σερβία (Μακεδονία του Βαρδάρη), την Ελλάδα (Μακεδονία του Αιγαίου) και τη Βουλγαρία (Μακεδονία του Πιρίν), ενώ ένα μικρότερο τμήμα δόθηκε στο νεοϊδρυθέν κράτος της Αλβανίας. Με την πράξη αυτή διασπάσθηκε η ολότητα της Μακεδονίας, κάτι που επικυρώθηκε στη Συνθήκη Ειρήνης των Βερσαλλιών (1919) και των Παρισίων (1946)».

"The conquering policy of the Balkan states against Macedonia"

"During the First Balkan War (1912), in the area of Macedonia, the Serbian, the Bulgarian and the Greek armies fought against the Ottoman forces. The Ottoman military forces were defeated and forced to retreat. Macedonia was occupied and dismantled between Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria."

Question to students: "Analyze the map of Macedonia after the First Balkan War in relation to the occupied territories by the neighboring states."

"Not one of the Balkan countries was satisfied from the dismantling. Because of that, a war broke among them, which is known as the Second Balkan War (1913). Consequently the greatest part of Macedonia was taken by Greece. To Serbia was annexed the region of today's Republic of Macedonia without Strumica and the area around it, while the rest -the smallest- part was annexed to Bulgaria. This dismantling was ratified with the Peace Treaty of Bucharest (August 1913)."

[The results of the Balkan Wars were...] "Catastrophic for Macedonia. It was dismantled between Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece, while a small part was annexed to the newly founded Albanian state."

"The Peace Treaty of Bucharest had grave political, ethnic and economic implications for the Macedonian people. With that treaty, the territorial and ethnic unity of Macedonia was broken-up, and a process of ethnic prosecution of the Macedonian population and immigration of non-Macedonian population, with a target of altering the traditional historic ethnic character of Macedonia took place. The Macedonian name and the Macedonian language were banned and the Balkan states started an assimilation and de-ethnic-alization process. Macedonian economy was destroyed and the population was forced to migrate from the birthplace."

"In July 30, 1913 (August 10) with the Treaty of Bucharest, Macedonia was dismantled in four parts among the war parties: Serbia (Vardar Macedonia), Greece (Aegean Macedonia) and Bulgaria (Pirin Macedonia), while the smallest part was given to the newly founded state of Albania. With this act, the wholeness of Macedonia was segregated, something that was ratified in the Peace Treaty of Versailles (1919) and of Paris (1946)."

No need to mention that all these passages are accompanied by numerous maps of "Macedonia" since even Paleolithic times (!), where the "dismantling", "segregation", and "break-up" are highlighted with different colors. Just have a peek in the images here. Niko Silver 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I will make only one comment on this: See how "Macedonia (country)" is never disambiguated from "Macedonia (region)", but in fact it is used as a synonym that was "occupied" and "dismantled"; that's why it is offensive if someone uses a qualifier! I rest my case. Niko Silver 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest talks

I'd find either of the two names proposed by Greece (New Macedonia or Upper Macedonia) to be a fair compromise. Think anything's going to come out of this? —Nightstallion 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cross your fingers that the #side issue above won't happen. The only way this can't happen is if the Greeks appear (or are forced to appear) to not be united in this. Thankfully, to now, all parties seem to support the "composite name" solution, except LAOS (~3.8%) that doesn't want "Macedonia" in the title at all. PASOK's both main candidate leaders support the idea, but they "bitch" about irrelevant details (such as "it is ND's fault that we are at this point" (by G.Pap.) and "I don't support that the name issue should be rushed by Greece at this point" (by Ev.Ven.)). There are also a few (of the flimsy parliamentary majority ruling) ND MPs who have, expressed disagreement, so this must pass with the votes of the other parties, and I don't know how willing they may be to sacrifice a chance to drop the government, over solving a national issue... We'll see. Niko Silver 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we can only hope. —Nightstallion 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Το ζήτημα της ονομασίας της ΠΓΔΜ δεν είναι θέμα για πρόωρες εκλογές"..."στο θέμα της ονομασίας δε μας χωρίζει τίποτα από τους άλλους πολιτικούς αρχηγούς" [6]

("The naming issue of FYROM is not a matter for early elections"..."in the issue of the name nothing sets us apart from the other political leaders") - Greek MFA Dora Bakoyannis.

Hmmmm... Niko Silver 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many more news in this. Such as Nimetz's and US's reaction to the premature publicizing of the Republic's negation on negotiations, the Republic's quarrel between president and prime-minister in respect to the NATO accession vs name issue as more important, comments by the Republic's officials regarding the non-negotiation of a matter of self identification, the US response that "the name issue should not be a prerequisite for NATO accession", the Greek response that "nobody wants to use veto, so the good neighborly relations including the name are an issue which must be resolved beforehand" etc. Nimetz said he'll give his last proposal on December 1st. Niko Silver 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Makedonismos" is uploaded in the English version now. Please give it a quick browse, if interested. Niko Silver 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bets

To all ~~stalkers~~ friends watching this page: I bet the name issue will have been resolved by July 2008. Anyone up for it? Niko Silver 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Even if Greece goes along with the 'double name' and FYROM is recognised as ROM, there are so many irredentist propaganda from the Slav Makedonce, including the encouragement to use military symbols to liberate the 'other Macedonias'. I think there will probably be violent attacks against Greeks by some of them. Militant groups want Makedonija za Makedonci, just as extremist Serbs murdered in the name of a cleansed Bosnia. Greeks want peace. Politis 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia

Dear Niko, I think you have to take part in the Discussions here. Now the topic was locked in very unobjective situation! Jingby (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonia (Republic)

Niko, I think this article is for speedy deletion! Jingby (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Kalwshrtha.

Ευχαριστώ για το καλωσόρισμα. 3rdAlcove (talk)

Red team vs Blue Team

I just ~~stalked~~ read your discussion with Nightstallion about the naming dispute and propaganda. Am I mistaken, or did some guy Бошкоски say that there is some form of continuity between Vlachs and Ancient Macedonians? If I'm right, the idiot is bringing another group into this and then the Republic has one more minority problem. It's also possible Greece can get involved in this - Greek sources already claim a Greek minority based on Vlachs.

I'm sorry that you haven't seen/met any non-irredentist ethnic Macedonians - they are there. Maybe they are in hiding :). The government does distance itself from irredentism but it doesn't crack down on it (hence school books and such) because then there will be a political problem (much like what happened in Greece - the lame " not hardline enough" accusations). Both governments need to keep the people happy while solving the dispute - it's a bitch. Obviously, in the red corner there are some people who want the entire region, but the smart people know that this will never happen - just like how Bulgaria will never get the republic, Albania will never get Southern Epirus, and Greece will never get Northern Epirus. In Europe, borders (on the maps) will stay the same - even though they won't actually matter when the union expands. It's not even in the republic's best interest to be "united" because then there will be yet another minority problem.In regards to your table, ethnic Macedonians from the blue corner are called "Aegeans" (Егејци - Egejci).

The naming dispute could be resolved that early, but it all depends on which Greek party comes into power and how much they want it resolved. It's actually in Greece's best interest to resolve it quickly - otherwise they look like assholes for using their veto. The republic, on the other hand, have survived as non-NATO for this long already so it won't hurt much to wait. Same with EU - the republic can work on fulfilling the criteria for accession to a greater extent until the only thing standing in the way is Greece (and maybe Greece 2). Alex 202.10.89.28 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Greeks would form a slight majority in a United Macedonia. Oops. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe/maybe not. The problem is the unknown number of Slavophones. They might adopt/return to (depends how you look at it) a Macedonian (Slavic) identity because it would benefit them to be part of the majority. If you have a response Kékrōps go to my talk page. Alex 202.10.89.28 07:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The unknown number of Slavophones with "ethnic Macedonian consciousness" is very well described in Minorities in Greece#Christian Orthodox Slavophones. Estimations range from less than 3,000 to 180,000. Niko Silver 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Now to your first post: I agree with many things that you say, and I also take the flip side into consideration. The US and UN pressing on the acceptance of the recent (FINALLY!) Greek shift in policy for a "composite name" has started to become notable. In that sense, both can start looking like assholes, for different reasons. Non-NATO survival is to my sincere opinion in a very big danger of becoming short-lived, given the (unavoidably IMO) upcoming Kosovo crisis. So, maybe not only Greece and Greece 1⅔ are standing in the way. I'd say it's to the Republic's own best interest to start looking for really friendly and worthy neighbors, with common interests. I would look south for the best match. Niko Silver 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But let's not forget that "friendly" will only extend to the governments of both countries. What the respective inhabitants (most of them, anyway) will think of each other is completely different. It's definitely not my view, nor do I think it's your's, but the red team and Greeks (especially the blue team) will have these mutual feelings for a long time. While I'm not a fan of any party on either side, imagine if the people were allowed to decide on foreign relations. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately (?) for both of us, it is the people who dictate foreign policy, either directly or indirectly in the end of the day. So, the purpose of those who can grasp reality should be to educate those people, and make them dictate reality, rather than moronic passion. I've tried a lot to do my part with the hard-lined Greeks I've come across. But this has to work from both sides, and there's still a lot of work to do. Niko Silver 11:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, to my understanding, most of the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Albanian National Army are (and this might be misinformation or a fringe view) actual criminals involved in drug and weapons trafficking, and NATO (or some big country, probably the US) took the Kosovo side because of the potential of profiting from this. I can't really be certain that NATO membership for the Republic will actually protect it from Kosovo, especially if it is beneficial to the US to let the Albanians do what they want. The US has a history of backing military coups in the less well off countries. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems the Republic is expected to join NATO next year, along with Albania, so that could complicate the Kosovo situation a lot. I seriously doubt Albania will take action against Kosovo if NATO does.

Yes. Greeks experience this already with Turkey (and vice-versa). So this makes your country's pacification with Greece even more important. Niko Silver 11:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And you didn't answer to the first paragraph. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What, the Vlachs? I wouldn't be a strong supporter of this, but to my experience, the Vlachs in Greece are the most crazy pro-Greek nationalists. BTW even our president is of Vlach descent! So much about the concept of "Greek genetic continuity", huh? Anyway, I feel that Vlachs are very adaptive to the cultures they are brought-up in. Although I've met quite a few in your country, I cannot assess their self-classification. I think it's far from a minority problem, though. And those Greek sources are from the extreme right minority. Niko Silver 11:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you the Vlachs in Macedonia identify as Vlachs or just as "Makedonci" which doesn't necessarily mean ethnic Macedonians. What I meant was if an ethnic Macedonian says traces of Ancient Macedonians can be found in Vlachs, this may get out of hand - another group claiming continuity and then a minority problem. I hope that makes sense. The Vlachs are basically friends with everyone in every country. I didn't know Papoulias was of Vlach origin - but on the flip side, Hari Kostov is as well. And Gigi Becali. And Fatos Nano. Can you explain the sources/content again? So a minority party in Greece is pointing out (alleged) red team propaganda? Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no. The idiot red team guy says that traces of the Ancients can be found in the Vlachs -period (which is totally unhistoric). He forgets to mention whichever Greeks (whose language had absorbed their's by 300AD), because that would be a national crime. In this way he tries to appropriate the ancients from the window of intermingling with the Vlachs. The idiot blue-team guys say the Ancients were Greeks all along (like it even matters), and then that whichever Vlachs around are Greek too, because they usually self-identify as such. Niko Silver 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. That clears things up. Still on the Vlachs, it would be funny if the Greek, Albanian, and Macedonian presidents/prime ministers were all of Vlach descent. Maybe then they would get along :D. BTW what's are you leaning towards on a naming solution? I am seeing Upper Macedonia as the one (for now, but I'm not endorsing anything yet). Maybe they'll have a shortlist and announce it for a vote. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it is important which qualifier is picked. My only concern would be that there is a qualifier, so as to leave the wider region that encompasses all of us without one. I would let the ethnic Macedonians decide which they prefer if it were me. Below I have some comments on several of them, feel free to add your view in each one:

New: Well, it certainly is not the old one, but, still, I can foresee two problems with this: 1) 1870 when geographers started calling the wider region as such is not that "new", although 1944 when the Republic was first formed politically is "new". 2) Hardliners of the red team may argue that it detaches them from their "rightful past". I can also see two benefits: 1) It is a widely used unoffensive qualifier (New York, New Mexico, New Zealand, New Philadelphia, etc), and 2) it's frequently abbreviated by "N." It is my preferable choice.

I can't explain it but it just sounds too weird. I don't think ethnic Macedonians (regardless of position on history) will go for it. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Slav/ic: That one is "burnt", unfortunately. Too many negative feelings, and for no reason in my opinion. Nobody disputes that ethnic Macedonians are of Slavic descent. It has two major problems: 1) It does not describe the Albanian minority. 2) It had been used in a "discriminating" way by the Greeks during our civil war.

I'm not a fan of names describing the ethnic affiliation of the inhabitants (majority or minority). And the Albanians might complain. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Upper/North: "Upper" sounds a little strange, and hasn't been used in any other situation (to my awareness). North has a few ugly connotations with formerly split nations, or from nations that had wanted to be "re-united". Such as Ireland (in the view of IRA), such as Korea et. al. I'd prefer the first since it is a virgin term.

In any case, as I said, I wouldn't really mind what the qualifier would be. Actually, I wouldn't even mind if a qualifier existed at all if everybody was educated to the point of not confusing irrelevant things (like "Macedonia=Macedonia=Macedonia"). Unfortunately we can't educate our own people, so you can imagine what goes on with the rest of the world. Niko Silver 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all so sad, really. And ridiculous. Rather than being threatened by the name, Greece should have been the first to welcome Macedonian independence, set up aid, binational trade and cultural organizations, ushered Macedonia into the EC and other international organizations etc, etc. Skopje and its hinterlands would by today be awash with Greek businesses, Greek tourists. Greek and Macedonian archaeologists would be collaborating, etc, etc. With huge benefit for the entire region, on both sides of the border.

Theoretically, it is still possible to get out of this mess, but I don't see real progress where one side demands the other concede. And I don't see either side ignoring their hard-line nationalists. Too bad there is not a name like Ur-Macedonia available. Jd2718 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And if all that wasn't enough, we have know-it-all outsiders pontificating on what's best for us. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jd2718 what you say couldn't be further from the truth. Greece has supported FYROM's independence from day one. The official Greek position was, is and will be that your state has to survive. Greek business had already major presence in Skopje. Greece is pushing for integration of not only you, but all Balkan states in the European institutions. And at the same time, the only reliable ally you have, you try to insult by stealing her history.-- Avg 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Jd has a point. The Greeks could have very well listened to several hardline Greek nationalists and could have very well said "welcome our Macedonian brothers" back then. Hell, maybe in that case the hardlined ethnic Macedonians would request to place a qualifier next to their name so as not to be confused/merged with the Greeks. Only, I'm sure that at that point Greeks would be accused for being nationalists trying to appropriate a distinct ethnic group... Either way, it would be a lose-lose situation for the Greeks! Niko Silver 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Niko. Bulgaria would have been the only country that would accuse Greece of appropriating a different ethnic group. And even this might not have happened, as the entire world, while maybe not using only one name of the Republic, know that the inhabitants are not Bulgarians and don't speak Bulgarian. And Bulgaria doesn't accuse the entire world of being Macedonists, so it wouldn't have been a lose-lose for the Greeks. Greece is not/would not have been appropriating a distinct ethnic group - they are acknowledging one. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Greece emphatically acknowledges the distinction of that other ethnic group! Greece says that the group does not want to acknowledge its distinction from the other ethnic groups around, who happen to share the same region. How about Greece trying to rename itself to e.g. "Balkania"? Wouldn't that be seen as a ridiculous irredentist attempt by all other Balkan states? Niko Silver 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then Greece doesn't understand the idea of a United Macedonia. Macedonians don't say "We're all Macedonians so let's have a united Macedonia". They say "The majority of this region are Macedonians so let's have a United Macedonia". United Macedonia wouldn't be Switzerland. The red team don't play down their distinctiveness from everyone else - Bulgaria plays down the distinctiveness from them. And "Balkania" wouldn't be seen as a ridiculous irredentist attempt. It's just a name. That is why this is so lame. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops - 12 years and no solution? It's pretty obvious the outsiders are smarter than us. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The outsiders don't have to live with the consequences. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The outsiders are the ones who get confused by this crap. In the Republic everybody knows what "Macedonia" means. In Greece everybody knows what "Macedonia" means. The disambiguation helps the outsiders, not you and I. Think of someone who travels from Belgrade to Salonica (by car). They see "Welcome to Macedonia" then "Now leaving Macedonia" then "Welcome to Macedonia". Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty stupid huh? Add now a red-team farmer in the picture, whom the driver consults for directions to Macedonia. Then suppose the driver wants to return from Salonica to Belgrade, and add a blue-team farmer in the picture whom the driver consults for directions on how to go to Macedonia. Quiz: How many farming tools are through the guy's windshield by the time he gets back to Belgrade? Niko Silver 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have to enter the discussion given what a crucial day this might prove to be. I hope the bomb won't explode, and get the region in yet another war. Niko, Havier Solana, said that only one EU country does not agree with the independence plan - any idea who this might be. I thought of Greece, but I guess it would be two countries then, certainly not Bulgaria (I know our stock) so who is it if these words are true? And what happens if the bomb does go off with the blessing of the US of Europe and America? I don't like to see the past coming back. --Laveol ^T 12:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia? Jd2718 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, EU only.--Laveol ^T 13:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greece is against Kosovo independence, like Greece was always pro-Serbian (and look what happened to Serbia). Only Greece is too small to have her way, so she plays a quasi-neutral role with an ambiguous position. So, who's that other one? Niko Silver 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess Laveol says that Cyprus foreign policy is close to Greece's in this matter. -- Avg 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. If Greece was the one against, then (most probably) Cyprus would follow, so that would make two EU members. Havier Solana spoke of one, and I'm sure he didn't insinuate that one. Niko Silver 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greece is against Kosovo's full independence, unless it can get some support from its allies regarding the name 'Macedonia'. Cyprus fears that the de facto independent 'TRNC' will become de jure independent. Poland fears that Silesia will mobilise towards independence (forming a Greater Silesia movement, just look at the map) and Spain has its Basques, Italy the Ligua Norda, Turkey and the Kurds, Britain with Scotland, France and the Languedoc, etc... where will it end? Anyone for an independent Corfu :-) Politis (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Not full independence"? That's an oxymoron on its own. (like I said, "ambiguous position"). Niko Silver 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So who is against independence then? Is it Slovenia/Romania/Hungary because of proximity/history? Is it the UK because they don't want a Balkanization idea to spread? Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The UK is pro-independence for Kosovo but I've just heard David Miliband say in Jeremy Paxman they will never let Kosovo join Albania.-- Avg 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants Kosovo to join Albania. I've heard Slovakia mentioned, too (somewhere in the news). What the hell do they have to worry about? I love this speculation games :) --Laveol ^T 01:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Slovakia has its Magyars. And so does Serbia, in its other autonomous province. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just heard in Greek news that it's Cyprus who opposed, due to the TRNC issue. Also Dora Bakoyanni mentioned that Greece wants autonomy for Kosovo but not independence.-- Avg 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If Kosovo joins Albania, there will be a war as the Republic will get seriously paranoid. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving on.....

I almost forgot I wasn't done yet ;). You said you don't like the confusion of Macedonia (Ancient=Republic=United). I haven't come across it that often. The reason we can't educate our own people is because of Big Head syndrome (Tvrdoglavnost/Megakefalismos - I know that's wrong). We can call it Balkanism :). Anyway, if you hear a person equate Macedon to the Republic, just say "Actually..." and they won't do it again. However I don't understand how uninvolved people will assume Republic=United because there are plenty of instances where people don't equate countries with regions. Also, let's look at the flipside of confusion, which is actually more annoying than the one you referred to.

"former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was conceived as a provisional reference until the dispute was resolved (i.e. the UN didn't want to decide on a name).
lazy people abbreviated this to "FYROM"
people (especially Greeks) then assumed that this was the long-form official name (c.f. USA, Russian Federation, Federal Republic of Germany).
99.9% of random Greek users vandalize articles on the basis that "FYROM is the official name. United Nations is proof".

You've been on Wikipedia a long time - what's more common: people saying Macedon=RoM=United, or people renaming everything to FYROM? Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy question. The reply is both are equally frequent. Greeks reverting to FYROM try to counterbalance ethnic Macedonians reverting to Macedon=RoM=United, who try to counterbalance Greeks who are reverting to FYROM (and so on). You know, you can't re-revert once your version is up, so they are equal in this! :-) BTW I personally revert both of them if you've noticed, hence Greeks sometimes may call me a "traitor". And that's exactly what we need: More such "traitors" from both sides.

I've witnessed that Greeks get really convinced when a fellow Greek tells them something like "Geia sou, you know the contemporary geographic region of Macedonia actually encompasses them too. Either we like it or not, they are as much "Macedonians" as we are "Balkanians" or "Europeans". Of course we are not the only "Europeans" around, so asking them to add something to their name for disambiguation is one thing, but asking them to abolish it altogether is impossible (and unnecessarily cruel and unfair)."

And I'd really love it if I had some fellow "traitor" from the red-team who would say something like "Zdravo, you know, the fact that we have come to call ourselves "Macedonians", as we definitely deserve since we are indeed within the contemporary geographic region of Macedonia, does in no way mean that we descend from completely different peoples who coincidentally self-identified as such (such as the Ancient Macedonians and their Greek self-identifying kings, or the later Macedonian dynasty of the notorious Byzantine Greek Basil II, the Bulgar-slayer who brutally slaughtered our partly-ancestors 1000 years ago). It neither means that whatever else is called "Macedonia" is rightfully our "lost homeland", because we simply never inhabited it in great numbers. I understand your fury towards Greeks who call us whatever they like, but maybe we should also try to understand them when they say that we "monopolize" the name. After all, we are not the only Macedonians."

Am I wrong in anything? Well, tweak the text below if you so wish. We could very well templatize those two messages and send them to all those who jump in to mess our articles up every now and then! Niko Silver 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right. It would only take a handful of WPians saying these things, preferably at least one 'Jovan' and one 'Iannis', and the issue would be, on WP, more or less permanently resolved. Jd2718 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed what we should do, although it won't be easy ("this template is a personal attack", "you are falling for propaganda" and such). But the red team doesn't claim a continuity with Basil II (they call him the Byzantine King who defeated the Macedonian Samuil). I personally don't care who anyone claims as anything - but I'll probably support this if there is anybody willing to do it. We already have a Iannis (it's actually pronounced "Niko" :D), but I can't see Jovan yet. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)