Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive 5

Language labelling
Labelling the language sections is fairly simple. First, there is only one ancient Macedonian language, so labelling it as Greek or Hellenic in the header is unnecessary. Second, there is only one modern Macedonian language, so labelling it as Slavic in the header is unnecessary. Third, the modern dialect situation, however, is more complicated. The term "modern Macedonian dialect", without any other qualifier, would naturally mean a dialect of Macedonian itself, what might be called "Macedonian proper" as a standard dialect. This occurs all the time in linguistic labelling, so the language that is sometimes named Ute or Southern Paiute has the Chemehuevi, Southern Paiute, and Ute dialects. Since this is obviously not what is intended, then the labelling of "modern Macedonian dialect" as Greek in the header is important since it is not what would normally be expected from the phrase "modern Macedonian dialect". (Taivo (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Disagree. Well actually the labels are important in my own humble opinion because they are key to the value of the bdispute and the reader's understanding of the arguements. We know that Modern Macedonian is related to Bulgarian a slavic language and that Ancient Macedonian language is at worst a cousin of ancient Greek at best a dialect of Ancient Greek, however the reader will not obviously be in full knowledge of these facts. Therefore the labels serve as an important factor in depicting the reality of the situation and how the word Macedonian when referring to language does not follow a clear line in history as there is a disinterest between what the ancients knew as macedonian and even the those in the middle ages and what we today understand as 'Macedonian' since the collapse of Yugoslavia. Thank you for your time. Reaper7 (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Trim the POV in the list of countries/organizations section
It's for 2 years in a state of "all countries there do that, all countries there do this" (while they are only a minority of the UN) which is clearly the POV of someone trying to push "seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee1? all those guys say it". It is also after a long period of time where organizations such as NATO and UN weren't even listed. This is ridiculous. Either ban all Greek and Slavic Macedonians from these articles or do a better job. --Leladax (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest then, moving the list of countries and int'l orgs section into a new article, deleting it, or something else? What I am concerned about in that section is the accuracy, it seems to be based mainly on finding references to either "ROM" or "FYROM" on government websites from each country. The trouble with that though is that it is possible to find both being used on many countries' government websites. Such references don't necessarily prove anything.--Ptolion (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We've been discussing a removal for ages – there was a thread at least a year ago somewhere up on this page, and at least one more during this year if I remember correctly. I'd be happy with removal, leaving just a few well-cited representative examples and an overall figure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I must agree with all the above concerns. In addition: Based on previous comments and for the above reasons (among others), I have tagged the section. I also agree that a descriptive paragraph along with FPAS's proposal would be more helpful. We could explain the common practice in international situations: all countries will accept any agreement from negotiations, but they have established full diplomatic relations, the vast majority using RoM for bilateral purposes, while all major international organizations use a provisional name variant. Antipastor (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * problematic entries include: unreliable sources, unverifiable claims, duplicates, synthesis and original research ;
 * the wording is misleading, and not neutral;
 * the list breaks the flow of the article out of the blue and it is unnecessary, the presentation with flags and all is childish;
 * the article is about the naming dispute, the lists are not integrated correctly in the context.
 * I agree that the list is rather problematic. All countries use whatever name is convenient at the moment they need to refer to something.  I have no doubts that the ambassador to Greece for most of these countries calls it FYROM and the ambassador to Macedonia calls it Macedonia.  Who is representing the home country's position?  It depends.  Thus, the list is easily manipulated depending on what type of foreign ministry document is being referenced.  Future Perfect's suggestion is appropriate.  (Taivo (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Also my opinion that the list is poor content, an opinion I think I already stated some months ago. I can see that a lot of work was put by some. At least it should be moved to another page in the likes of International recognition of Kosovo or something like that. If it's useful content to some (I wouldn't imagine to who exactly) lets just move it.
 * As an extra removing the list will greatly reduce the edit-warring ratio of this page and the workload of everybody since many of the edits are about that list. Go for it. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the list should stay, becuase probably nowhere on the internet we have such a list of countries which tells us who recognised the country under which name. But moving the list to an own article and leaving just a few examples here isn't a bad idea. I do support it. Habel (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop in to point out that facts are not POV and we need to avoid an unnecessary content fork. The section detailing all the countries and their positions is ok so long as it is well sourced and doesn't have OR (which is not a POV issue). - MK (t/c) 05:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that two competing facts don't make a fact. The selection of which fact to place in the article constitutes POV.  This is not an accurate list whatsoever.  For most countries, there is no standard usage--it depends on what context the country is working as to which term they use.  And, except for Greece, none of these countries really care.  So the list presently implies that there is a "vote" going on with some countries caring more about their relations with Greece most of the time and other countries just not caring and using the simpler name.  This list needs to be simply removed.  Its content is not reliable enough to warrant another page or preservation.  The issue of satisfying Greece's naming silliness isn't going to be decided by a vote of nations, but by Greece getting something diplomatically (or financially) in return.  The rest of the world really doesn't care.  (Taivo (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC))
 * If you have sources to cite that, put it in. Verifiability, not truth. - MK (t/c) 05:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are Macedonians claiming to be ancient or aren't they
The current article makes it rather unclear whether the modern Macedonian government are or are not claiming to be related to ancient ones.

As far as I understand it ethnic Macedonians of today appear to have started off as primarily a splinter group of self-identifying ethnic Bulgarians in the 19th century (and also widely considered their language Bulgarian), Macedonian appears to have been regional term at the time, ethnic Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks, Roma, Jews or anyone else living in the region (officially Turkish at the time) could unofficially also call themselves Macedonians. I base this assertion on the premise I can't seem to find any official census data from the period that shows the existence of "ethnic Macedonians". It seems unlikely that a wide number of sources from several countries, using different methodologies could have missed their existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Macedonia#Statistical_data

Maybe I've missing something but first hand accounts by even ethnic Macedonian national icons appear to re-enforce this conclusion. For instance BMARC statutes explicitly indicate (a predecessor organization of IMRO and which included key IMRO members like Delchev) that the organization was only for Bulgarian Macedonians.

"Art. 2. To achieve this goal they [the committees] shall raise the awareness of self-defense in the BULGARIAN POPULATION in the regions mentioned in Art. 1., disseminate revolutionary ideas - printed or verbal, and prepare and carry on a general uprising. Chapter II. - Structure and Organization Art. 3. A member of BMARC can be any BULGARIAN, independent of gender" http://wapedia.mobi/en/Internal_Macedonian_Revolutionary_Organization

Even Misirkov (widely considered an important figure in modern Macedonian history) states "The first objection — that a Macedonian Slav nationality has never existed — may be very simply answered as follows: what has not existed in the past may still be brought into existence later, provided that the appropriate" historical circumstances arise.”http://misirkov.org/can_macedonia.htm

He also wrote “We are Bulgarian more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. The Serbian not only want to colonize Macedonia with Serbs from other part of Yugoslavia, but they wish to kill our Bulgarian consciousness. They took our right to call ourselves Bulgarians, even Macedonians, they intrude their schools and education, so much false and Jesuit, so much as the study of St. Sava and finally they come to the idea for the special Macedonian nationality, which they discover in South Macedonia.” http://www.macedoniainfo.com/Krste_Misirkov.htm

Another quote “Come what may, our separation from the Bulgarians…”http://misirkov.org/is_there_a_need.htm

Loring Danforth writes about ethnic Macedonians (who is currently being used as an expert source in the article so presumably he's considered reputable)

The history of the construction of a Macedonian national identity does not begin with Alexander the Great in the fourth century B.C. or with Saints Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century A.D. as Macedonian nationalist historians often claim. (Loring Danforth, "The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World", Princeton Univ Press, December 1995 p.56)

"Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his own personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian linguistic and national separatism, acknowledged that a Macedonian national identity was a relatively recent historical development." (p.63)

"The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians.(p.64)

Many prominent Macedonian officials (one's elected by the people of Macedonia) are also on record suggesting they are unrelated to ancient Macedonians.

'We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great.' (Macedonian Ambassador Ljubica Acevshka in speech to US representatives in Washington January 22 1999)

'We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.'(Macedonian Ambassador to Canada Gyordan Veselinov in interview to Ottawa Citizen Newspaper 24 February 1999)

"We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century ... We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians" (Kiro Gligorov, first President to Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA3kwC2YTq4

"The creation of the “Macedonian” nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the “Macedonian” historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the “Macedonian” identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made." *Macedonian Denko Maleski, Minister of foreign affairs of the Macedonia from 1991 to 1993 in an interview to Macedonian newspaper Utrinski Vesnik October 16, 2006)

"To everyone of us it is clear that this entire thesis, this entire thesis for ethnogenesis from Macedonians, it isn't so. Ancient Macedonians until today is founded on a series of mystifications and semi-historical truths which are emitted from Republic of Macedonia and that by using and abusing the media.[...] "Why do Skopjans not ask how much Dardanian blood there is in them[..] how much Thracian blood there is in them[...] how much Illyrian blood there is in them[...]how much Paeonian blood there is in them.[...]I do not see anyone of us get into a fight over the amount of Paeonian blood in us, or God forbid, Dardinian one?[...]Ancient Macedonia does not match with today's Macedonia at all.[...]Ancient Macedonia, we must clarify it once, is literally in entirety in today's Greece.[...] If we are looking at ethnogenesis then we should open at another place. Therefore we should discuss how much we are Paeoneans. " (Ljubco Georgievski, ex-Prime Minister of Macedonian on Macedonian A1 TV June 2009) http://www.youtube.com/user/Srbolog#play/uploads/1/-HvKPiLYZCI

So what I'd like the article to indicate more clearly has the current government of Macedonia changed its position and are now officially claiming to be related to ancient Macedonians or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.142.49 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

...Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis, however, has not yet made a comment - a gov change has occured in Greece since then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.152.15 (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenya
Understanding there is some contentiousness around the section Macedonia naming dispute, I merely want to point out that Kenya is omitted altogether from that section, which would seem to be aiming for a comprehensive logging of all countries. &mdash;Ipoellet (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Albania
Only the former PM Nano recognize "Rep. of Macedonia", the actual govern of PM Berisha use FYROM(IRJM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.17.230 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/ear/shqip/main/shq-mac_introduction.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.17.230 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is unclear what the reason is for people of the R.o. Macedonia for their name
The article doesn't fully explain what the reason is for macedonians to have their country be called macedonia. It only tried to debunk the greek claims that it is not a good name, but doesn't come up with reasons for macedonians to have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoincidentalBystander (talk • contribs) 09:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because their country is a large part of the modern region of Macedonia and includes a portion of the ancient region of Macedonia? --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Borza on Slavomacedonians
Frances B. Titchener, Richard F. Moorton (ed.) The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, University of California Press, 1999, 0520210298, 9780520210295, p.259 Chapter: Macedonia Redux by Eugene N. Borza

On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians. One need understand only a single geopolitical fact: As one measures conflicting Serb and Bulgarian claims over the past nine centuries, they intersect in Macedonia. Macedonia is where the historical Serb thrust to the south and the historical Bulgarian thrust to the west meet. This is not to say that present Serb and Bulgarian ambitions will follow their historical antecedents. But this is the Balkans, where the past has precedence over the present and the future.

The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one.
 * This page is for discussing issues of the wiki, not for just throwing in quotes... But, since you seem to know this book, do you know how this author came to this conclusion? L.tak (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Borza is not a Greek historian as you state in the text.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition the quote is directly relevant to the subject discussed in this particular wiki page, namely the naming dispute.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it is not relevant. But the Talk page is to discuss problems or important changes. What you did, was just posting the comment without a question or comment about it here, which is not within the scope of a talk-page... L.tak (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was in preparation for inserting it in the article's main body and hopefully in order to engender discussion. Now that's sorted I am of a mind to know your opinion of how Borza came to that conclusion, if for nothing else than to see if it would be relevant to the article at hand. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

International organizations
The section listing international organizations seems unneeded - they all utilize "FYROM". There is not a single example of "RoM" (this is expectable since Greece is member of most/all of these organizations) - so we can replace this list with a general note that "Most/All international organizations refer to Macedonia per its name adopted in the UN" and maybe mention the Turkey-note in NATO documents. The list is incomplete anyways. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Does Albania recognise FYROM as Macedonia??
I can't find any links, the two posted, one is a dead link - (surprising) and the other is just a non link quote. This article says Albania does not recognise FYROM as Macedonia:

http://waz.euobserver.com/887/31078

Reaper7 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland
Switzerland uses the name "Republic of Macedonia", as stated here: http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/eur/vmkd/stamaz.html. Could someone please modify the map? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.107.61 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sister wiki page called "Macedonian Question"
There is a sister page on Macedonian demographics concerning the Macedonian naming dispute to a great extent. However, I do not think this article and the one referred to blow can be merged although the two articles are intricately related. Perhaps there can be a reference at the top in BOTH articles so that readers can find and KNOW about both these articles. I think naturally the English speaker will be redirected to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Question#The_Macedonian_Question

and not the present one regarding the naming dispute explicitly. One question I have is that while looking at these two pages, is do we have any idea of the hits each page gets so as to look into why the page redirects only to the above-mentioned link once someone searches: "Macedonian" and there is not even mention of this page in the drop down list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellaivarios (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

== Explicit clarification between the wider GEOGRAPHIC Macedonian area, the ANCIENT kigndom Macedonia (i.e. Alexander III), the Macedonian Byzantine Themes, and the Greek Macedonian Prefecture, etc. needed ==

I also want to add this, and PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, FORGIVE ME FOR THE LENGTH OF IT, but i feel it is entirely relevant and applicable and DESERVES to be part of this discussion as some of the points raised, both questions and answers, clarify much of the dispute under a different, fresh light in my view, and indicate anew where this problem stems from and whence its current roots are spreading, largely due to public ignorance. In particular, this discussion clarifies central ideas and misconceptions which have yielded the Macedonian naming dispute, and points out the misunderstanding that arises from lack of understanding of their semantics and having common semantics (and definitions) for that matter.

As such, after devoting the time to read this section, I believe it is imperative that a specific section be created in the article which is devoted to providing explicit, unambiguous clarification between: the wider GEOGRAPHIC Macedonian area, the ANCIENT kigndom Macedonia (i.e. Alexander III), the Macedonian Byzantine Themes, and the Greek Macedonian Prefecture; as well as the Slavic language spoken in the wider GEOGRAPHIC Macedonian area, the Greek language spoken in this wider GEOGRAPHIC Macedonian area, and clear definitions of the concept of STATE/CITIZENSHIP and NATION/ETHNICITY, aside from clarifying that the very MODERN concept of what constitutes the GEOGRAPHIC area that spans a region named Macedonia is quite different prior to 1991, when the state known as FYRO(M) was established, in that this Geographic area described as "Macedonia" was expanded further to the north to include the whole of this new country (due to its name), whereas in the past in most maps it did not reach halfway into the area that FYRO(M) used to be. Lastly, it is important that a universally accepted indisputably descriptive periphrasis is used, however tedious and long, for the description of these concepts, so as to ensure they are utterly and rigorously unambiguous, as well as idiot-proof and nationalist-proof.

The following is from the discussion in the page concerning the Greek Prefecture Macedonia with a self-identified educated "Australian-Macedonian", and I believe much material/ideas can be used to enrich the present article:

(pardon the heated moments at certain points) Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC) ---

Region borders - Map sources
What are the sources used in map, featuring prominently in the article? Kudos to the creator for taking the time to provide us with a nice map, but who defined the borders of "modern geographical Macedonia"? To be frank they seem a bit off, and I'm not aware of any geographical authority awarding names in post-Ottoman territories. Needless to say that there was no such administrative region in the Ottoman Empire. Folkstream (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Albania using "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for all official purposes. Albania has never recognized Skopje under the name "Macedonia"
Albania recognize Skopje with its official name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Albanian: Ish Republika Jugosllave e Maqedonisë). Albanian President and Prime Minister use the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the decree or decision that they sign. Albania has never recognized Skopje under the name "Macedonia". Albanian government uses the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for Skopje.

Web site of President of the Republic http://www.president.al/shqip/info.asp?id=4550 http://www.president.al/shqip/info.asp?id=6203

Web site of the Prime Minister http://www.keshilliministrave.al/?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=13411

Minutes of the Foreign Commission of Albania's Assembly use FYROM. http://www.parlament.al/web/Procesverbal_date_24_02_2009_5691_1.php http://www.parlament.al/web/Procesverbal_date_17_02_2009_5532_1.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvihyka (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine points for argument Macedonia is Greek
Fine points for debate over Macedonia is Greek. *1.On ancient maps where is Greece up to approx 1830ad? '' Ancient maps are by definition much older than 180 years old... One cannot but wonder what the meaning of this question is.'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*2.Who was Alexanders father{A Macedonian barbarian as Athenians called him in many writings}?Was he a king and of what country?Why was he a king if it was a Greek state?

''It was Philip II, an Argead king. Can you produce the "many writings"? Btw, according to Herodot the Athenians were barbarians who became Greeks when they were hellenized by the Macedonians... Oh! And as far as kings are concerned, Sparta had kings, Syracuse had kings, the Cypriot states had kings etc etc etc. Who told you that the Greek states were all democracies?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*3.Who conquered then united the Athenians etc{Alexanders Father and Alexander himself} '' When? The Athenians were "conquered", actually beaten in battle and forced to accept garrisons or changes in their political system many times, as was the case before Philip with the Lacedaemonians (they lost the Peloponnesian War and actually faced extinction) etc. The Athenians themselves were notorious for their brutality towards other Greek states when they "conquered" them, they actually exhibited much more brutality than Alexander showed when he took Thebes. Philip beat them and forced them into his alliance but allowed them to keep their democracy. Again I fail to understand the point of this question.'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"On this note I would also like to add by giving the example of a disparate country and culture: China. Up until about 800AD the roughly the present day area China occupies was more or less Chinese, riddled with many dialects and variants in the culture, and one of the Chinese kings, a member of the Qin dynasty, if I am not mistaken, united the entire area by "conquering" every kingdom and making them part of a wider whole: a nation. Today he is celebrated and credited as the creator of China." Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*4.Why does Macedonia appear on all ancient maps of the world from all races?{But Greece doesn`t}

''? Again I do not understand the question. What ancient maps? Do you mean modern maps depicting ancient times? What is the meaning of this? Do you really dispute the existence of "Greece"??????????????? What races?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"First of all, Macedonia does not appear on "ALL" maps of "ALL" races, nor does Greece, nor France, nor Germany. Can you provide examples of all maps of all races? I'm sure I could come up with at least ten maps, ancient and relatively modern that don't say "Macedonia", or "Greece" or "France", or any country you want. Moreover, I would like to add here that whoever posted these questions fails to understand the separate concept of nation and state/country. For instance: the Jews did not have a country/state for centuries. No one denies they existed. Maybe Hitler, who tried to erase them. Likewise, the modern Greek state does not appear on maps prior to 1821, because that's when the MODERN Greek state was created. One could argue that at some point Byzantium was/became an exclusively Greek empire, having lost its "Romanness", and the Byzantine empire included the region of Macedonia pretty much for the entire duration of its existence, in which respect, Greece and the regions of Macedonia, Epirus, Thrace, Attica, etc have remained Greek under the Byzantine empire for a duratin ranging from 500 to 1000 years. But that doesn't prove anything either, nor does the empty question posted above, which is a pathetic fallacy argument in logic ("pathetic" not meant as an insult, but with the literal sense -- I could go off on a tangent to explain why almost all these questions are moot, but I would be wasting keystrokes). Nonetheless, there are numerous maps from antiquity till present that show the region called Greece, and its various areas, albeit without this geographic area being a Greek state, even while Greece was under Ottoman rule, and even the Ottomans admitted that in their own maps. Another example is that no one disputes that Crete is Greek, just because on a map it didn't say "GREECE" over Crete from antiquity until present, but instead it said "Kreta" or some sort of variation of the name. The same goes for the region of Macedonia. Maybe Greece and other countries should start plastering the country's name next to every single name of town and province or prefecture on all maps just to make sure from now on. I would like to make the same question posted above by changing it as follows: "Why does Macedonia appear on all ancient maps of the world from all races? But (i.e) France doesn't?" uhm... because no state has existed from the beginning of time. States come and go. Sometimes nations come and go. People of FYRO(M) are by no means related to the ancient Macedonians. Maybe the Greeks aren't either. But the people of FYRO(M) are using a protochronism here in an attempt to establish primacy over the Greeks for the region of Macedonia. That's all this is about. Let's also not forget how all this started from the Bulgarian uprise way before even FYROM or Yugoslavia existed for that matter, but the area was split between Bulgaria and Greece in the early 1890's: Kuzman Shapkarev (a Bulgarian) wrote to Drinov with regard to the usage of the words Macedonian and Bulgarian, aiming to create a national and geographic entity that differentiated them from the Ottomans and Greeks:


 * "But even stranger is the name Macedontsi, which was imposed on us only 10 to 15 years ago by outsiders, and not as something by our own intellectuals.... Yet the people in Macedonia [the region] know nothing of that ancient name, reintroduced today with a cunning aim on the one hand and a stupid one on the other. They know the older word: Bugari, although mispronounced: they have even adopted it as peculiarly theirs, inapplicable to other Bulgarians".

I quote further:
 * "The first significant manifestation of Slav Macedonian nationalism was the book За Македонските Работи (Za Makedonckite Raboti - On Macedonian Matters, Sofia, 1903) by Krste Misirkov. In the book Misirkov advocated that the Slavs of Macedonia should take a separate way from the Bulgarians and the Bulgarian language. Misirkov considered that the term "Macedonian" should be used to define the whole Slavic population of Macedonia, obliterating the existing division between Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians. The adoption of a separate "Macedonian language" was also advocated as a means of unification of the Ethnic Macedonians with Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek consciousness. On Macedonian Matters was written in the South Slavic dialect spoken in central Bitola-Prilep. This dialect was proposed by Misirkov as the basis for the future language, and, as Misirkov says, a dialect which is most different from all other neighboring languages (as the eastern dialect was too close to Bulgarian and the northern one too close to Serbian). Misirkov calls this language Macedonian. [...] As regards to the Ethnic Macedonians themselves, Misirkov maintained that they had called themselves Bulgarians until the publication of the book and were always called Bulgarians by independent observers until 1878 when the Serbian views also started to get recognition. Misirkov rejected the ideas in On Macedonian Matters later and turned into a staunch advocate of the Bulgarian cause - only to return to the (Slav) Macedonian idea again in the 1920s. Volker und Sprachenkarte der Balkan - Halbinsel 1924, Leipzig [...] Another prominent activist for the ethnic Macedonian national revival was Dimitrija Čupovski, who was one of the founders and the president of the Macedonian Literary Society established in Saint Petersburg in 1902. During the 1913-18 period, Čupovski published the newspaper Makedonski Golos' (Македонскi Голосъ) (meaning Macedonian voice) in which he and fellow members of the Petersburg Macedonian Colony propagandized the existence of a separate Macedonian people different from Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs, and were struggling for popularizing the idea for an independent Macedonian state. [...] The ideas of Misirkov, Pulevski and other ethnic Macedonian Slavs would remain largely unnoticed until the 1940s when they were adopted by the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia influencing the codification of the Macedonian language. Claims of present-day historians from the former Yugoslav Socialist Republic of Macedonia that the "Autonomists" in IMRO who defended a Macedonian position are largely ungrounded. IMRO regarded itself - and was regarded by the Ottoman authorities, the Greek guerrilla groups, the contemporary press in Europe and even by Misirkov -as an exclusively Bulgarian organization. The present-day historians from the Republic of Macedonia claim that IMRO was split into two factions: the first aimed an ethnic Macedonian state, and the second believed in a Macedonia as a part of wider Bulgarian entity."

Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Question#The_Macedonian_Question

*5.Where did the Minoans go after the Athenians came ashore?

''"Came ashore"? What do you mean? The Mycenaean conquest of Crete? Your question again makes absolutely no sense...'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC) --- I would also like to add here that just because Greeks go to battle against other Greeks (albeit about 2,500 years ago) does not mean the two opposing parties do not consider each other Greeks, nor that this has anything to do with the Macedonian question at hand. Your logic is skewed my friend. But it is good, because you ridicule yourself further with illogical statements and completely unfounded "facts", thereby making the FYRO(M) hoax even more clear. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*6.Cleopatra never called herself Athenian only True Macedonian Why? '' Why should she call herself Athenian? What words of Cleopatra are you referring to? What are you talking about?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Spartans never called themselves Athenian. WHy?? But why?? LOL What are you saying? She was a member of the Ptolemy dynasty, which was Macedonian-Greek. Period. And she spoke Greek, Egyptian and Latin. Not Slavic. I bet you she called herself an Egyptian Pharaoh too, above all else. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*7.Why are the modern day Greeks so hell bent on suppressing the Macedonians?maybe they{Athenians}forget it was a Macedonian that united the small tribes of that time and their people? '' If modern Greece were so "hell bent" to suppress the "Macedonians", they would have already done so. As far as I know, Macedonians are as good Greeks as all other Greeks. Now about the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, they are as good citizens of their country as they want to. I guess that if they will be able to live through the next decade without another civil war, they will be able to survive as a country.''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NO. What people from FYRO(M) do not understand is that Greeks do not want to take over this small country called FYRO(M)!!!! They don't care about Vardarska (as it was known until the dissolution of Yugoslavia) that much. What must be made clear here is that my silly compatriots have exacerbated the problem inadvertently by stating "Macedonia is Greek" and other such mottoes, in an attempt to ensure Greece's sovereignty and thwart any claims to their land by FYRO(M) (the Greek Prefecture of Macedonia in particular), be these claims implied or explicitly stated. It would be wiser for the Greeks to shout: "The Greek Prefecture Macedonia, is Greek". Before the dissolution of Yugoslavia, The Greeks had pretty good relations with their neighbors to the north, through business and cultural exchange, and they still do: over 60% of businesses in FYRO(M) are Greek today.Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*8.Why did even Alexander speak Macedonian before there was an official Greek dialect between the tribes?

''There never was an official Greek dialect between the Greek tribes. Up to the Byzantine times, even today, regional dialects exist, as is the case all over the world. If you are referring to the Koine, it was indeed the lingua franca of the Hellenistic times, as is proper English, German etc today. Why shouldn't the Macedonians speak Macedonian or the Acarnanians Acarnanian? Again there is no logic in this question.'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexander III, also known as Alexander the Great, spoke the early Greek Koine, in particular: Attic Greek. This is de facto and can be proven and validated across many sources. Macedonian was a dialect of Greek at best, if not its own variety of Greek, and mutually understandable by almost all Greeks, even by modern-day well-educated Greeks who can read ancient Greek. An example so you can understand this in analogy is just how people of FYRO(M) speak a variant of Bulgarian, but Bulgarians and people of FYRO(M) can read each other's texts and speak to each other without much difficulty. To make this clearer: The Spartans had their own dialect, words and names, culture, traditions, and even some lesser deities. They were clearly Greek though. Today people in Crete speak a dialect of Greek, and so do Pontians, and Cypriots and Greeks in the Aegean islands. Most Greeks can understand each other just fine though. I understand every variant of Greek, even Grigo, which is spoken in south Italy. Yet even if Alexander did not speak the Panhellenic Greek Koine, that would still not constitute grounds for dismissing him as a non-Greek. You must understand that what constitutes a nation are five central concepts: Language, Religion, Culture & Traditions, History, and Race; and although the latter in present times is disputed as bearing any validity, in ancient times it mattered, although it did not constitute grounds for hostility, i.e. racism; this is a much newer societal creation, especially in the modern sense. Finally, perhaps the only indication we have that the Macedonian dialect was dropped and the Greek Koine was adopted is from scanty texts since the times of Philip the I, Alexander III (the Great's) great great great grandfather. By the way, I understand what "Boukephalos" means -- that's Alexander's horse's name (Bous=Oxen/Bull, Kephalos=head, meaning "with an oxen-shaped head"). Do you? Does it mean anything in Slavic? I understand what Alexander's name means (Alex=repell, Andros=man, meaning "the one who repels men"). Do you? I doubt it. I understand what "Macedon" means (Make/Makru=Long, meaning the ones who are long or tall). Do you? I wonder if Alexander III were to be brought back in a time machine what you people would tell him expecting him with open arms... "here Alexander, here, we are your people"? LOL First of all your country occupies in its vast majority the region known in Alexander's time as Paionia, which Alexander's father and grandfathers had conquered and Hellenized, that is, they made them Greek and speak Greek, because they were barbarians. Paionians do not exist today. Secondly people of FYRO(M) speak Slavic, a variant of Bulgarian; there's a better chance Alexander could probably understand with great difficulty modern Greek, but no chance he would ever understand Slavic. The region of ancient Paionia, which FYRO(M) now occupies was only a conquered area part of the Macedonian Kingdom, while Pella and Vergina on the other hand, places in which Alexander strolled as a young boy and as a young King before embarking on his campaigns, are still part of Greece, and were always quintessentially Macedonian; and if you want these lands "Molon Labe". Are you willing to fight for something that was never yours? Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*8b.Why did Alexander choose Macedonian soldiers over Athenians when he attacked Persia?He even fought against Athenians whom constantly rebelled like savage barbarians.

''He did not. He used soldiers from all over the Balkans. He had Athenian hoplites, Peloponnesian and Thessalian cavalry, Cretan bowmen, the whole Athenian fleet, he even used barbarians like the Agrianes, the Paionians and the Thracians. He fought against the Athenians in Chaeronia only, when they fought for their freedom, as did the Thebans. Their choice, bore the consequences, what is "savage" and "barbarian" in that? Greeks were always freedom lovers and they never liked any Greek state achieving hegemony, as was the case before Macedonia with the Athenians, the Lacedaemonians and the Thebans, all states which achieved hegemony and were hated for that as were the Macedonians by many.''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Corinthians fought like "savage barbarians" against the Athenians. What does that mean? That they were not Greek? Again you confuse the idea that there were city-states at the time, they were all Greek and they all fought against each other quite frequently. Let's make this clear with another example: Go to southern Italy near Palermo to a village called Kalimera (means "Good morning/good day" in Greek). Ask them if they are Greek. Some will say, "yes of course, because we speak Greek" (They speak Grigo, an ancient surviving Greek dialect) others will say "No we are not, we are Graeco-italians of Kato-italia" ('Katoitaliotika', or 'Magnaitaliotika' being the dialect once again and the region: "Magna Grecia"). But of course they are Italian CITIZENS. They are Italians. The Cypriots are Greek, but they are Cypriot citizens. Get it? Probably not, but I tried. Anyway, back to your question: the only soldiers Alexander did not use, and this is because they chose not to participate in the campaign against the Persians since they were not allowed to lead the campaign, were the Spartans. In fact Alexander sent the loot from hist first victories back to the Oracle of Delphi and Delos and on one of the inscriptions he wrote (out of spite): "I Alexander and all the Greeks, with the exception of the Spartans, sent all the gold of the conquered people back to Greece". Finally, the Spartans chose mostly Spartan soldiers, over all other Greeks. maybe you are going to start telling us that Spartans were not Greek. And here's my question: let's say Alexander had not used other Greek soldiers, but only soldiers from his own Greek Kingdom, what does that prove? That he was not Greek? The Chinese Qin dynasty king used only his own troops to unite all of China. He was the quintessence of 'Chinese-ness' to everyone though, Chinese and the rest of the observing world alike. Again, your questions are moot. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*8c.Why did the tribes{Athenians etc}not form a united country of their own?It took a Macedonian King and his son to do so.

''Again your question is lacking logic.. Why should they? Actually it is funny that you mention Athens for, should you ever occupy yourself with history, you would know that there is a reason why "Athens" is actually a word in plural. The ancient Greek word is "Athenai" and means "many Athenses". In the far past they were many different settlements and are supposed to have been united by Theseus. Anyway... there were many kingdoms, federations, leagues etc between Greek states. The Athenean League was a "union" of more than a hundred cities. Syracuse united at a time most Sicily under her. The Aetolian league, the Achaean confederation etc etc etc... there were many "attempts" to peacefully or forcefully "unite" / "conquer" Greek states. And of course nor Philip nor Alexander succeeded in uniting the whole Greek world. Greeks of the West remained fully independent.'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

it could have taken a spartn king to do so, but it didn't and who cares? Might I also add that whether or not the Greeks never united does not negate their existence nor does it prove the existence of a separate country, nation, nor the modern day nation called FYRO(M) for that matter. Your questions are moot. I cannot overstate this. To this day, Greeks identify as a nation but everyone despises everyone. They only unite at the presence of a common enemy. Present-day borders and the definition of State, inside whose borders are encased nations or merely citizens is a very modern idea that originates with the idea of state-building in post-French-revolution Europe. You should really read up on this. If it were up to me i would do away with borders all together and i would let national identify form on its own as cultures and languages intermingle and spread by themselves; and may the better ones win, thrive and survive. Countries suck, look at what the concept of "countries" has done to the world. Finally in answer to your question, like GK1973 mentions, there were numerous alliances and leagues amongst the Greeks, such as the Delian league or the Spartan League (conquered pretty much all of the Peloponnese at some point), but no one managed to unite all Greeks. I suppose the Greeks stopped quarreling only under Roman rule, were they were truly allowed to be Greek. Maybe in your logic, the Romans were the "true" Greeks, LOL if it only takes to unite into a nation-sate to be considered part of that wider ethnic group - after all, "to be Roman, go Greek" as the motto says. Mind you, after Alexander died at the age of 33 and his empire disintegrated into chaos the Greeks were back into their regular business of city-states and disputes until the romans came. Why are you so stuck on the concept of "country" in order to define nation, or ethnicity? You make such moot questions all the time. Once again, let's say the Greeks had managed to unite into a common union and had remained so until present with roughly the same geographic borders. Do you think that would stop FYRO(M) or any other country from laying claims upon their land? Maybe the Italians should rename the north of their country France...see how that goes; and thank god "Bretagne", the region in the North of France, is separated by water from the British Isles... the French and the British would have been still at war perpetually. I wonder what would happen if the Germans suddenly renamed the western federal state of 'North-Rhine Westphalia' (West german State with capital Düsseldorf) to Lorraine or Alsace (the French-bordering provinces)...LOL see if that would slowly bring about WWIII or what. FYRO(M) is a politically-driven created state and its nation is struggling amidst all this to make sense of it all. If you want to be Greeks so bad, just start speaking Greek, and I'm sure relations with Greece will become much better. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*9.The star of Vergina has never been used by Greece ever but has been used by Macedonians worldwide up until recent archaelogical finds in what was until the end of ww1 part of The Peoples Republic Of MACEDONIA.yet there have been several movies over the years showing Macedonians using the emblem on shields etc.Alexander and his father must have really burn`t hatred into the Athenians forever with that emblem for them{Greeks}to be so staunch against Macedonians using it as their national flag.

''The "star of Vergina" is called so because it was also found in Vergina in a royal tomb but in reality it was not a Macedonian only symbol but a panhellenic one. Its first mass use is attested in Athens centuries before Philip and Alexander and is archaeologically found in hundreds of instances on shields, decoration, armor etc. It is found throughout Greece in its 16 ray and 8 ray form, even in a 32 ray form. It is a religious symbol and was also used by the Macedonians. As for your other comments, they are really inappropriate, but if a Slavic nation wants to use a Greek symbol it is understandable that it will meet some problems.''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GK1973 covered most points in answering this moot question, but i must add that apart from the Star of Vergina being a Panhellenic Greek symbol used by all Greeks, by Spartans, Macedonians and Athenians alike, found on shields, pottery, temples and coins, it's significance is important for the national Greek identity from antiquity till present: each ray on the star symbolizes a god, and the quadrants symbolize the four elements of nature. It has astrological, magical and religious significance, and given that it has been a part of Greek national sentiment from antiquity until now, use of this emblem by another nation or country is enough reason for strife. Why don't you go ahead and use the American Flag? See how that goes. Or how about the Bulgarian Emblems? The Albanian flag of the double-headed eagle is a vestige of the Byzantine empire, but that does not bother Greeks so much because it is a symbol that does not infringe on territorial claims. The use of the star of Vergina does. And even if we assume that the star of Vergina had never been used by the Greeks, that does not mean that the people of FYRO(M) are Macedonians, decendants of ancient macedonians, related to Alexander III in any way, or that they have any claims over the northern Greek territory called Macedonia (the Greek Province). Finally you say that Macedonians used the star of Vergina as their national flag all over the world. First of all, which Macedonians? The Greek Macedonians of the people of FYRO(M), because the latter country didn't exist up until the dissolution of Yugoslavia about twenty years ago -- they as a nation may have exited for no more than 100 years since they branched off of Bulgarians and Serbs. "The people's republic of Macedonia" did not exist in WWI. The area was Bulgaria.What you are confusing is that when the term "Macedonian Slavs" began to be used in the early 1900's it referred to the Slavs who lived in the Macedonian REGION/AREA, who were dialectically slightly distinct from Bulgarians and Serbs, not that there was a (separate/distinct) nation or country called "Macedonia"

I quote:

[...] Independent sources in Europe between 1878 and 1918 generally tended to view the Slavic population of Macedonia in two ways: as Bulgarians and as Macedonian Slavs. German scholar Gustav Weigand was one of the most prominent representatives of the first trend with the books Ethnography of Macedonia (1924, written 1919) and partially with The Aromanians (1905). The author described all ethnic groups living in Macedonia, showed empirically the close connection between the western Bulgarian dialects and the Macedonian dialects and defined the latter as Bulgarian. The International Commission constituted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1913 to inquire into causes and conduct of the Balkan Wars also talked about the Slavs of Macedonia as about Bulgarians in its report published in 1914. The Commission had eight members from Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and the United States. Ethnic groups in the Balkans and Asia Minor as of the early 20th Century (William R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, 1911). Distribution of races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor in 1918 (National Geographic) Distribution of races in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor in 1922, Racial Map Of Europe by Hammond & Co. Ethnographical Map of Central and Southeastern Europe - The War Office, 1916, London.

The term "Macedonian Slavs" was used by scholars and publicists in three general meanings:
 * as a politically convenient term to define the Slavs of Macedonia without offending Serbian and Bulgarian nationalism;
 * as a distinct group of Slavs different from both Serbs and Bulgarians, yet closer to the Bulgarians and having predominantly Bulgarian ethnical and political affinities;
 * as a distinct group of Slavs different from both Serbs and Bulgarians having no developed national consciousness and no fast ethnical and political affinities (the definition of Cvijic).

An instance of the use of the first meaning of the term was, for example, the ethnographic map of the Slavic peoples published in (1890) by Russian scholar Zarjanko, which identified the Slavs of Macedonia as Bulgarians. Following an official protest from Serbia the map was later reprinted identifying them under the politically correct name "Macedonian Slavs". The term was used in a completely different sense by British journalist Henry Brailsford in Macedonia, its races and their future (1906). The book contains Brailford's impressions from a five-month stay in Macedonia shortly after the suppression of the Ilinden Uprising and represents an ethnographic report. Brailford defines the dialect of Macedonia as neither Serbian, nor Bulgarian, yet closer to the second one. An opinion is delivered that any Slavic nation could "win" Macedonia if it is to use the needed tact and resources, yet it is claimed that the Bulgarians have already done that. Brailsford uses synonymously the terms "Macedonian Slavs" and "Bulgarians", the "Slavic language" and the "Bulgarian language". The chapter on the Macedonians Slavs/the Bulgarians is titled the "Bulgarian movement", the IMRO activists are called "Bulgarophile Macedonians". The third use of the term can be noted among scholars from the allied countries (above all France and the United Kingdom) after 1915 and is roughly equal to the definition given by Cvijic. According to Edmund Spencer[14]: "The inhabitants are for the most part composed of Rayahs, a mixed race of Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians, who, it cannot be doubted, would join to the man their brethren in faith of Serbia and Upper Moesia. It must therefore be evident that the great danger to be apprehended to the rule of the Osmanli in these provinces, is the successful inroad of the Serbian nationality into Macedonia; with this people they have the tradition of right, and their former greatness, aided by the powerful ties of race and creed" [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Macedonia Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*10.The modern day Greeks invaded and occupied Macedonia why when it was no threat in the 20th century,Why?

''The Greeks never waged war against "Macedonia". They invaded the Ottoman Empire, won the war and gained lands as a result of war victory. These lands were inhabited by Greeks, Slavs, Turks, Albanians etc and became lands of the Greek state. It was liberation for the Greeks and conquest for the Ottomans. This "no threat" part is again making no sense... The Ottoman Empire posed no threat? What are you talking about? Of course the Greeks were never able to regain the lands they occupied before the Ottoman conquest. Else, they should have every land up to the Dunabe...'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Greeks were to regain all lands they once occupied they should have all the lands up to the border with China, where the Indo-Greek Kings ruled for over 400 years. hmmm. wait a minute, the ottomans did the same to the Greeks. You see, these lands in India or Pakistan were never Greek; the people there were not Greek. The peoples in the area called Macedonia were in the vast majority Greek at the time that the Greeks were liberated from the Ottoman empire. FYRO(M) on the other hand did not exist then. the are was Bulgaria, and if you want to identify with the broader Slavic peoples as your group, as your ancestry, that is fine, but there was no "Macedonia", as a country, to invade. It was an area occupied by the Ottomans, which contained primarily Greeks, secondarily Slavs (Bulgarians in particular), Albanians, Jews, Aromanians, and of course quite many Ottoman Turks. If you had existed back then as a nation or country, you could have fought alongside the Greeks to throw off the Ottoman rule and then right for the spoils of war, i.e. territory gains.Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*11.Why change names of cities i.e Salun to Thessaloniki if Greeks lived there anyway?or was it revenge and to stir up the Macedonians and show what they could get away with?

''What name changes? Thessaloniki never stopped being called Thessaloniki by the Greeks. It was the name of choice of Cassander, that is of the ancient Macedonians and the name of choice for all Greeks since. If you choose to call it Solun or Salun, this is your language and it is quite understandable to do so. Constantinople is nowadays called by the English speaking world Instanbul and Muenchen is called Munich. Deutschland is called Germany and Hellas Greece. A city, place, village has one name in one language (Slavic in this case) and another in Greek. What is your problem with that? Why did you change the Greek names into Slavic ones? Why didn't the settlers keep all Indian names in America? What are you talking about?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The city has been called Thessaloniki by the Greeks for about 2,400 years. It was founded by Philip II of Macedon and the name means "victory of Thessaly" (Nike=Victory, Thessaly) in Greek, and it was built over an older town called "Therma", honoring Thessalonike, his daughter, thus Alexander's half-sister, and also Cassander's wife. (after winning the battle of the Crocus field in 353BC, the day she was born). As a true Macedonian you should know that and not ask moot questions. It is one of the oldest cities in Europe. Yet again, as a true Macedonian, you should know the Macedonians never called this city "Solun". For the love of anything true and rational that is left in this world.

*12.We all know about the cleansing of whole villages when the Greeks moved in and the mass murders and burning down of whole villages but why go to this extreme and to change every towns name in former Macedonia?sounds like pardon the name Adolf Hitler and the cleansing of jews.

''Even through gross exaggeration you just describe what was really commonplace throughout the Balkans. Bitola had a huge Greek population as did Instanbul, Smyrna and hundreds more places throughout the Balkans and Asia Minor. What happened to them? During war murders happen as did the Bulgars and your people against Greek citizens before, during and after WWII. Maybe you should not have helped the Communists after WWII, maybe you should not have kidnapped the thousands of Greek children, nobody is innocent at those times. As for namechanges, we touched that above. You changed the Greek names, Greeks changed them again etc etc. Maybe, if you win a war over Greece you will again change them...''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Greeks never "cleansed" whole villages. Once areas are incorporated into a country/state, populations are assimilated; not by force but gradually. There's also the exchange of populations that happened between Turkey and Greece, speakign of ethnic cleansing. There were about 3.5 million Greeks in Asia Minor, present day West-coast Turkey, around the 1920's, and hardly any of these Greeks are there today, and if some have remained, the vast majority identify as Turks. Moreover, the Turks changed every single name of a hundreds of Greek cities, such as Smyrna, Pergamon, Ephesos, Miletos, Halikarnassos, and more, to name but a few. The Turks had their own names of Greek towns and cities; the greeks didn't "Cahnge" them after they liberated themselves off the Turks, they just kept using the greek names of these towns, villages and cities, just asthey used to.. It sucks for the Greeks, because in the areas of Asia Minor were where most famous philosophers were from. But hey, that's life. I don't want to go to war with Turkey to get these lands. Besides there's hardly any Greeks there anymore. And neither Greeks nor Turks are claiming that they are ancestors of one another to ascertain primacy over the region... Let's give it up already! Can't there be peace in the Balkans for more than twenty years in a row? Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*13.Macedonians never spoke the same language and don`t even look alike if Alexander the Great was Greek why did he prefer to speak and use Macedonian if there was no Macedonian.If he was Athenian he would speak Athenian and use their soldiers as his best wouldn`t he?

''Alexander talked Macedonian, most possibly one of the ancient Greek dialects. He also spoke Attic as did all Macedonians (it is as if you are wondering why an American general speaks American and not British English to coalition forces in Iraq...) and he always speaks in Attic to his army before battle, during events and trials. According to all descriptions, ALL Macedonians understood him, so unless you want to propose that for some reason all Macedonian peasants (craftsmen, herders, farmers) had to learn Attic, it seems that Attic and Macedonian were not that different... Anyways, the best accepted theory today is that ancient Macedonian was a Greek dialect, you disagree, that is certainly your right.''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This moot question was stated earlier again in a different way. I am going to say the same thing. All Macedonians spoke a form of Greek -- either a dialect or a branch of Greek and used the Greek alphabet. The lingua Franca at the time was the Greek Koine, a.k.a Attic Greek. Moreover, he used every single type of Greek soldier, including barbarians AND mercenaries, such as Agrianes as Sphentonistes. His elite phalanx was composed mainly of Macedonian soldiers. I think the Spartns and the Athenians had their own troops too. Yet again, let's say he didn't speak Attic Greek, and let's say he only used soldiers from his area, does that not make him Greek? Were the Romans not Roman because they used Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian mercenaries? many Romans spoke Greek, but it is clear that Greek was not their language and they would not fight FOR Greece or to UNITE Greece. Alexander was Greek, and ancient Macedonians were a Greek phylum or tribe. This is beyond academic doubt. Don;t take my word for it. Stop reading FYRO(M)ianpropaganda and read and you shall open your blind eyes. pardon my polemic stance here, but you are really frustrating, not so much for national or patriotic sentiments but more so because your statements/questions are an offense to logic and reasoning. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*14.Why do Macedonians have completely different surnames if they are Greek?even after the invasion after ww1 why would Greeks go to the extreme of changing all the Macedonian`s surnames in the occupied section of Greece`s Macedonia? '' Here I make no sense... Do you talk about people or places? Who says that the Ottoman state called those places with their Slavic names? What are you talking about? You spoke in your language, Greeks spoke in theirs, Turks in theirs....''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL Go to Crete: almost every single person has a surname that ends in -akis (diminutive form of the name during Ottoman rule). Go to the Peloponnese: almost every single person has a name that ends in -poulos (meaning "son of"). Go to the North of Greece: almost every northern surname ends in -ides. You make no sense. These are idiomatic and have been like this for at least a couple of centuries. Do you mean the surnames of people from FYRO(M)? well of course they have completely different surnames because they are Slavic. Are these the type of "questions"/"arguments" they teach you as rebuttals in schools in FYRO(M)? Good heavens and good grief. If you are referring to people being assimilated and if previously being Slavic, then changing their name to a Greek one and taking on a Greek identity, like I said earlier, this is what happens to populations one they are part of a territory and that has nearly 85-90% uniform population, in this case, Greek. In the case of the wider region called Macedonia, which changed hands from kingdom to country almost every decade for a few hundred years after the Ottoman empire was losing its grip, it was a polyethnic region. Racially, people are diluted, and linguistically is probably the only tie to a nationality they have left, if that, because pretty much all of them are orthodox, so religion is out too. Hence if you have Slavic Macedonian people who spoke Greek, and may have had Slavic ancestry, they of their own accord may have assimilated into the Greek populace, and likewise much of the Greek-Macedonian peoples with a Greek ancestry, who for some reason ended up speaking slavic, were much more easily assimilated into the Bulgarian state. Let Let me point something else to you: Why did your own X-prime minister claim Bulgarian citizenship?

I quote:

[...] around 60,000 [FYRO]Macedonians apply[...] for Bulgarian citizenship; in order to obtain it they must sign a statement declaring they are Bulgarians by origin. Probably the most prominent Macedonian that applied for and was granted Bulgarian citizenship is former Prime Minister Ljubčo Georgievski.[89][90]

I quote again to give you another perspective, just so you don;t think this is one-sided, and so you can see how greece has seen the other side of the coin too, with regards to renaming cities and assimilating populations: "Greece was attacked and occupied by Nazi-led Axis during World War II. By the beginning of 1941 the whole of Greece was under a tripartite German, Italian and Bulgarian occupation. The Bulgarians were permitted to occupy western Thrace and parts of Greek Macedonia, where they persecuted and committed massacres and other atrocities against the Greek population. The once thriving Jewish community of Thessaloniki was decimated by the Nazis, who deported 60,000 of the city's Jews to the death camps of Germany and German-occupied Poland. Large Jewish populations in the Bulgarian occupied zone were deported by the Bulgarian army and had an equal death rate to the German zone.

The Bulgarian Army occupied the whole of Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace, where it was greeted from a part of a Slav-speakers as liberators.[26] Unlike Germany and Italy, Bulgaria officially annexed the occupied territories, which had long been a target of Bulgarian irredentism.[27] A massive campaign of "Bulgarisation" was launched, which saw all Greek officials deported. This campaign was successful especially in Eastern and later in Central Macedonia, when Bulgarians entered the area in 1943. All Slav-speakers there were regarded as Bulgarians. However it was not so effective in German occupied Western Macedonia. A ban was placed on the use of the Greek language, the names of towns and places changed to the forms traditional in Bulgarian.

In addition, the Bulgarian government tried to alter the ethnic composition of the region, by expropriating land and houses from Greeks in favour of Bulgarian settlers. The same year, the German High Command approved the foundation of a Bulgarian military club in Thessaloníki. The Bulgarians organized supplying of food and provisions for the Slavic population in Central and Western Macedonia, aiming to gain the local population that was in the German and Italian occupied zones. The Bulgarian clubs soon started to gain support among parts of the population. Many Communist political prisoners were released with the intercession of Bulgarian Club in Thessaloniki, which had made representations to the German occupation authorities. They all declared Bulgarian ethnicity.[28][29] In 1942, the Bulgarian club asked assistance from the High command in organizing armed units among the Slavic-speaking population in northern Greece. For this purpose, the Bulgarian army, under the approval of the German forces in the Balkans sent a handful of officers from the Bulgarian Army, to the zones occupied by the Italian and German troops to be attached to the German occupying forces as "liaison officers". All the Bulgarian officers brought into service were locally born Macedonians who had immigrated to Bulgaria with their families during the 1920s and 1930s as part of the Greek-Bulgarian Treaty of Neuilly which saw 90,000 Bulgarians migrating to Bulgaria from Greece." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Question#The_Macedonian_Question

and finally I will ask a rhetorical question, and point out that your questions have no place in this article, but are more specific for discussion in the "Macedonian Question" article. In any case, how do you define natinoality/ethnicity? Is it only through citizenship? Then what is citizenship? Is it any person a state can grab a hold of and smack them with an identification card and a passport? here is an example:

I quote, from the same website listed above: "Professor Richard Gillespie stated that according to the League of Nations in 1926 the inhabitants of the Greek Macedonia were Greeks (88.8%) and Bulgarians or Slavophones (5%).[23] According to A.Angelopoulos, published in the Journal of Balkan Studies, Greek Macedonia's national makeup in 1913 was 44.2% Greek, 38.9% Muslim, 8.7% Bulgarian and 8.2% others.[24][25]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Question#The_Macedonian_Question

According to Gillespie, the Greeks were Greek regardless of Religion, i.e. Orthodox Christian VS Muslim, so long as they fullfilled other characteristics, i.e. linguistic or racial or adherence to cultural ideologies and sharing common historic views. According to Angelopoulos, the Greeks who were Muslim did not count as Greek. This is a problem not only of Greeks, but also of other Balkan peoples, who are ethnoreligiously self-identifying groups, meaning they identify as a nation also based on religion, much like the Jews. Now in the case of creating an ethnic division between Slavs (or Slavic peoples who live in the region of Macedonia, be these Serbs, Bulgarians or now also people from FYROM), this is especially difficult because they are (almost) all Orthodox Christian, so only linguistic differences remain separating them in defining their identities. Angelopoulos was clearly distorted in his views because "muslim" is not a nationality! It's a religion! So I don't think anyone went around changing people's surnames. I am pretty proud of my family surname. I think few people would change their family name. In English I spell my with the Latin alphabet, and in Greek with the Greek alphabet. Do you consider that a name change? Go ask people with names like "Latsis"... they have a known Slavic ancestry, but they self-identify as Greeks.Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*14b.Why are the Macedonians in the Greek side of the border so scared to speak Macedonian aloud and why do they know this ancient language if they are Greek?Is it suppression by the Greeks?Why did they burn all their books and prevent them from having radio,newspapers etc in their own native tongue?Breach of human rights or not?

''Who is scared? I know that whoever wants to speak Slav does so. But of course this is not the official language of the Greek state. They even have a political party as far as I know. Don't overdramatize situations... You saying that is not exactly a proof, is it?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The few Greeks who also speak Slavic variants (i.e. Bulgarian, Serbian, FYRO(M)ian) for whatever reason, be this due to ancestry or because they loved the language and learned it, (just like almost almost all Greeks learn English and French or German, without this meaning or constituting grounds for them necessarily being members any of the aforementioned national groups or citizens in which these languages are primarily spoken), are free to do so. The very few Slavic dual citizens of FYRO(M) and Greece, NOT the few Greeks who speak Slavic and do not identify as people from FYRO(M), but explicitly the people from FYRO(M) who reside in Greece have their own political party, which according to Greek statute, law and the constitution receives Greek government funding to continue its propaganda withing the Greek state; the party is called "rainbow". To be fair, I will point you to the statistics of vote it receives, which you can verify by yourself if you want, here on Wikipedia and external sources. Don't you think this party would receive more than 1000 votes on average if the people from FYRO(M) who as you claim have such a large minority in Greece, were truly that many? I rest my case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_%28political_party%29 (BTW, the 3,000 votes it got were with an allegiance with OAKKE, another leftist party; all remaining participations where in the European parliament -- where it got 0.02%)

*15.Has there been any favoritism by other countries due to the fact that Greece`s prince is related to at least 6 other countries royal families such as prince charles etc?

''Again your question makes no sense. Greece has abolished monarchy decades ago. What favoritism?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

--- I'm starting to worry about your mental capacity here buddy.. we are abandoning any formal, serious academic conversation and plunging into the depths of ridicule, which i cant help. Who cares about the former prince and his grandma's golden embroidered handkerchief with which I wipe my ...face? He has absolutely no power or hope of ever coming to reign over Greece since his Austro-Hungarian-installed grandaddy was kicked out of Greece gladly by the people. You think other countries would "favor" Greece because some self-proclaimed "price" lives in Spain? What favoritism? The whole world is against Greece right now, because of some idiotic politicians who made a mess out of the economy.

*16.Macedonia has had coats of arms for over 800 years but Greeks deny the existence of Macedonia until the recent find of the supposed grave of Alexander the Great which was false anyway then they{Greeks}decided to name the occupied section MAKEDONIJA and use the star of Vergina but there wasn`t a Macedonia it was Greece say the Greeks can you clarify which part you told is farcicle and which part is truth? '' Again shouts with no substance... Do you really claim that there ever was a Macedonian state in the last 800 years? Macedonia was a theme of the Byzantine Empire (the fun part is that at times it was not even where the region of Macedonia lies today but in nowadays Thrace). Then it was conquered by the Ottomans and remained Ottoman until it was regained by the Greeks. What grave of Alexander? I have already discussed the "Vergina" star...I do not understand the rest of your question...'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Might i also add: dear misguided individual, you are confusing the Byzantine "Theme" (in other words province or territory or Prefecture) called Macedonia, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the modern 1999-born state of FYRO(M), and whose people are in no way related ethnically or nationally to the people who lived in the region of the Macedonian Byzantine Theme. Once again, you are confusing, concepts like state and nation, as well as region and dependencies, or countries. You make moot questions. I can't overstate this. let me help you see the light: Let's say there exists an empire called "Rome" in this empire there exists a province called "Asia" occupying roughly most of the western coast of Turkey and reaching just in the outskirts of Ankara, over a land previously occupied by Luwians and Greeks. 2,500 years later after the Roman-designated province has ceased to exist, the Kurds claim to be "Asian" and want to "annex" the land which they call "Asia" even though the Turks today call it Turkey and the area "Anatolia" because, LOL they have no linguistic connection to people who lived in that land, because it makes "logical" sense to claim ancestry after 2,500 years, and of course, because they are descendants of Hecataeus, Thales and Anaximander. LOL just like you are using a wonderful protochronism to claim you are the Slavic descendants of Alexander. Here's a map of my example to give you an idea of how preposterous everything you say is, by analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

Secondly, we already discussed the star of Vergina. No need to reiterate things. And even if you or others had been using the star of Vergina for 500 years, but only that, that still would not make you Greek nor Macedonian. Here's another example: The Albanians use the Byzantine double-headed eagle: Are they "Byzantine"? LOL Why are we using ostrich techniques of logic here?

Thirdly, The Greeks never denied the existence of ANCIENT Macedonia. They do not deny the existence of a REGION called Macedonia by many people for centuries, be these Slavic, Latin, Greek or whatever, in language and/or ethnic background. They do not deny the existence of FYRO(M), they just challenge what FYRO(M) claims to be and worry about the dire dangers that such a nationalistic propensity FYRO(M) has may have for the region given its territorial aspirations that lure in the background from the semantics confusion between the Greek province called Macedonia and the country you choose to name Macedonia that borders the aforementioned Greek province of Macedonia to the north, even though initially FYRO(M) was called FYRO(M) and then Republic of Macedonia, and now you choose to call your country plainly "Macedonia".

Fourth, The "grave" of Alexander III has not yet been found or verified to be such. More than likely it would be a tomb, not a grave. If you are referring to the tomb found in the Oasis Siona, in Egypt, by the Archaeologist Sivaltzi a few years back, the Greek government cut funding and did not issue a permit under the bilateral Egyptian-Greek agreement for the Archaeologists to continue work, due to the possibility that of such a finding, if true, even by mere fact of allegations alone, would create severe nationalist waves and could result in a flare-up between Greece and FYRO(M). Don't forget the entire special police forces of Athens alone are more than FYRO(M)'s army. You don't really want nationalism to spark up if you are a Greek politician amidst all the hatred between Greece and FYRO(M) back then and even today because some people from FYRO(M) claim all kinds of nonsense about Alexander III. I bet you if the tomb is found there would probably be a hot incident between the two countries, probably resulting in civil war in FYRO(M) and subsequently the area being divided between Greece, Albania and Bulgaria taking the lion's share. You shouldn't hope that the tomb of Alexander is found if you are from FYRO(M) and I'll tell you why: if the tomb of Axexander is found, with an inscription that proves this, then more than likely the tomb will reinforce beyond any shadow of doubt he was Greek, due to the tradition of inscribing curses, magic spells and the story of the man buried or mummified in the tomb, on the walls and the sarcophagus of the dead, together with objects and a whole treasure with Greek inscriptions. Not Slavic. I bet you there will be an inscription saying "Here lays Alexander, son of Philip, King of Macedon and all of Greece, who subdued the world from Epirus to India", next to a whole bunch of hieroglyphics. Finding such a tomb will only result in reinforcing the Greek national sentiment and the international ridicule of people in FYRO(M) who have such skewed nationalistic views. Look, you can call your country anything you want. You can call it Crete if you want. But if you bordered Crete, it would be a problem, and if you claimed to have Cretan ancestry, it would be a problem (because you would be trying to claim primacy over the Cretans themselves for the region), and if you tried to use the Labrys (the double-axe) t would be a problem for the Cretan Greeks. the same things goes with the situation FYRO(M) has created by trying to establish and define its national identity by appropriating other people's national emblems, history and identity. This is one of the first cases of national identity theft, instead of the usual personal identity theft. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*17.Do Athenians know their history before they invaded the islands,the Minoan`s etc?and the homeland? '' What are you talking about? We know many things form myths and from archaeological excavations. I think that some things are taught in Greek schools....'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think by "Athenians" you keep refering to the Greeks as a whole and it's starting to become annoying and offensive. No one here has called you a Skopjan. You are a slavic person, self-identifying as a Macedonian. For clarity's sake so there is no semantics confusion between the modern Greek province of Macedonia, ancient Macedonia, which was Greek, and the general loosely defined geographic region of Macedonia occupied by FYRO(M), Bulgaria, Albania nad for the most part by Greece, most people refer to you either as the "Former Republic of Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia". Personally I do not accede to calling you anything that has to do with Macedonia, because this insults my intelligence and any academic knowledge and sanity I may have left. Secondly, and most importantly present-day FYRO(M) country does not even occupy what was historically Ancient Macedonia, to which you claim ancestry and relation to Alexander III. Ancient Macedonia of Philip and Alexander extended up to lake Ohrid in present-day FYRO(M), which is about 20-30 kilometers north of Greece. The rest tiny bit is in eastern Albania and some is in western Bulgaria. During the Roman times the Roman Province Macedonia did not cover the area present-day FYRO(M) country occupies either, but the vast majority coincided almost precisely with whatis the Greek provice/prefecture Macedonia today. The Byzantine Theme called Macedonia was on the coast of present-day Bulgaria. Finally, are you refering to the Myceneans invading the Minoans of Crete in roughly 1,700BC? If so, what does that have to do with anything? how are the Myceneans, a broader group of Greeks, identified by you as "Athenians"? And let's say that the Mycenaens were Athenians, lol and they conquered and invaded and pillaged all of greece, including minoan Crete and the islands (which islands?), what does that prove? LOL that what? That in your delusional logic, that makes Greeks not Greek, and as such Macedonians were a separate and disparate group? And even if The Macedonians WERE a disparate group, do you think it's up for grabs so you can claim lineage and ancestry to it and thus establish claims to a national identity with teritorial claims in the Balkans? just have your country and be happy, why must you have a long time-trailing history i order to feel valid in the balkans with a brand new country?And what do you mean "Do the Athenians know their history" specifically? and by "before they invaded the islands, the Minoans, etc."? Who invaded? What do you refer to by "homeland"? who's homeland? Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*17b.What happened to the Spartans were they suppressed too? '' By whom? When? During the total existence of their state?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel drained and tired answering moot questions. What does this have to do with anything man? And what do you mean if the Spartans were suppressed? by whom? When? Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*18.How can Macedonians be Greek when Greece didn`t exist until 1830 officially but there sure was The peoples Republic Of Macedonia on every map? '' How can Macedonia be anything else than Ottoman when until 1912 and for more than 400 years it was only a part of the Ottoman Empire? What is the meaning of your argument? Southern Greece (and many other places, like Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Syria etc etc etc) was also under Ottoman rule until 1830. So? I hope you do not suggest that there is any map that shows any "People's Republic of Macedonia" before 1830 !!!!! Or even muuuuuuuuuuuuch later....''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no map that shows "People's Republic of Macedonia" before 2002 when it was renamed from FYRO(M), which in turn was formed in 1999 after Yugoslavia collapsed. Again you are confusing the concept of state and nation. Clear that up in your mind. i find many people from FYRO(M) have this concept mixed up. Moreover, Greek Macedonians are just as Greek as Greek Spartans and Greek Athenians, and Greek Korinthians and so on. Can you PLEEEeeeeeeaaaAAAase read some external sources other than the maps available in FYRO(M) libraries!!!?? I'LL PAY -I SWEAR TO MY MOTHER'S BONES, I'll pay for you to go to francee, Germany or the UK for a month as a present so you can open a book in a library that is not full of propaganda. For the love of god, alexander or whatever you believe in, don't you want to find out the truth by challenging your own views? My friend, every country has propaganda, but there are levels and levels of propaganda.. FYRO(M) propaganda has recached the point of intellectua mental masturbation. let me put it this way, based on your logic: How can Kurds be Kurds since no map shows Kurdistan? How could the Jews be Jews since no map showed Israel EVER? LOL I feel my brain cells have been castrated. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*19.How can the language and calender be so different it takes years for a mastermind to make a calender and a language that has to be taught and refined down so many generations?Maybe the Macedonians were brilliant and woke up 1 morning and everyone was gifted with a new language,calender and alphabet.How can Macedonians on both sides of the border speak the same Macedonian language but the Greeks state quite clearly there is no Macedonia or Macedonian language? '' What calendar? What language? Again.. what are you talking about? Slav is different to Greek, so whoever spoke Slav spoke another language and whoever spoke Greek another... Are you really wondering why do people today speak Slav? Why shouldn't they? Why do Germans speak German? As for the alphabet, we all know how it was invented by the Greek brothers and given to the Slavs of the day. What is so peculiar about that? Of course you don't speak Greek and you have your own alphabet... so do the Chinese. What does this have to do with the ancient Macedonians?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What does any of this prove? How does this or any of these questions relate to the article called Macedonia (referring to the Greek prefecture Macedonia), which should be discussed here, and only that. Why are you wondering how can the language be so different? Because people inf FYRO(M) speak Slavic, and Greeks speak Greek. What calendar? What calendar is "so different"? Are you talkign about the gregorian and Julian Calendars, the former being used by the old-calendarist Christian Orthodox people, whether they are Greek or Russian or Bulgarian or from the FYRO(M)? And no it does not take years to create a calendar; there have been a few hundred invented in the course of the history of mankind, and languages too, take Esperanto for instance, which was written from scratch. A mastermind maybe, butnot years. And even if there were such differences, what does that prove? Finally, once again, the Greeks NEVER say there is no Macedonia. I bet you no single Greek will tell you there is no Macedonia. I already addressed this question, you re-iterated it in different words earlier: The Greeks never denied the existence of ANCIENT Macedonia. They do not deny the existence of a REGION called Macedonia by many people for centuries, be these Slavic, Latin, Greek or whatever, in language and/or ethnic background. They do not deny the existence of FYRO(M), they just challenge what FYRO(M) claims to be, in terms of ancient Macedonian lineage (so as to establish primacy over the Greek northern region) and for the use of the name "Macedonia"; the Greeks worry about the dire dangers that such a nationalistic propensity FYRO(M) has may have for the region given its territorial aspirations due to the semantics confusion between the Greek province called Macedonia and the country arbitrarily named Macedonia that borders the aforementioned Greek province of Macedonia to the north, even though initially FYRO(M) was called Vardarska, then FYRO(M) and then Republic of Macedonia, and now you choose to call your country plainly "Macedonia", using the star of vergina as your flag and erecting statues of Alexander and printing paper money thay depict the Greek city Thessalonike's White tower (Leukos Pyrgos) (imagine the Bulgarians showing the Acropolis for instance, same thing) or printing history books with maps that show the area in the north prefecture of Greece called Macedonia as though being under Greek occupation, awaiting liberation from FYRO(M). This is preposterous and absurd! Is this some kind of natinoal experiement bordering on insanity?

*20.Are all these attrocities of our modern times comitted by the Greeks a phobia that Macedonia may try to reunite or break-away like ie Kosovo and Albania? '' What atrocities? Atrocities happen during wars and you did as many if not more... So did the Albanians, the Bulgarians, the Turks, the Russians, the Germans, the French, the Spaniards etc... Atrocities happen because war is war... As for Greek Macedonia breaking away...... well...should you suggest that something like this could be possible, Greece would of course have objections... Don't you object to your Albanian minority (soon to become majority if I read statistics well) breaking away and joining Albania? On the other hand, a minority of something like 0.2 per cent, as is the case in Greece does not have the power of a minority of 25-30%, does it?'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been NO attrocities between Greece and FYRO(M) ever, not even during war as GK1973 says, simply because FYRO(M) -the state- never existed prior to 1991, and Greece has not been in any kind of war since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. If you are refering to atrocities between any slavic-speaking nationals who had conglomerated to form Yugoaslavia previosuly Bulgarians and the Greeks, yes, during the Balkan wars, during WWI and during WWII Greeks and Bulgarians exchanged quite a few bullets. Yugoslavia fought against the Axis powers though, and FYRO(M) was part of Yugoslavia no? So I don't really think the Greeks have been at was with FYRO(M) or the modern slavic ancestors of people who live in FYRO(M) in recent times. Tito had great plans to utilize the province named "Socialist Republic Macedonia" so as to take over the Greek prefecture Macedonia. It seems after communist Yugoslavia has ceased to exist, the plan is still being carried out, by virtue of the planted seeds of delusional nationalism within FYRO(M). if only the poeple in FYRO(M) would become educated, this would all be solved. I think the more rational and educated people in FYRO(M) must be disgusted at what is happening to their country. Finally, The Greek Prefecture of Macedonia will not try to secede and unite with FYRO(M). There is no reason for it to do so. It is Greek by vast majority and quite proud to be Greek Macedonian. As for the "atrocities", I quote:

"Bulgaria [the Tsardom of Bulgaria] participated in the German invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece, and annexed Vardar Banovina from Yugoslavia and eastern Greek Macedonia and Western Thrace from Greece. Bulgarian forces garrisoned in the Balkans fought various resistance movements. Despite German pressure, Bulgaria did not join the German invasion of the Soviet Union and never declared war on this country. However, despite the lack of official declarations of war by both sides, the Bulgarian Navy was involved in a number of skirmishes with the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, which attacked Bulgarian shipping." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Bulgaria

and I also quote a list of sovereign states in 1913, (tell me where is there a mention of FYRO(M), People's Republic of Macedonia, Macedonia or any other variant you may consider that even remotely suits the description of the present day FYRO(M) hoax other than a Yugoslav Kigdom with "Yuogoslav nationals"?: or are you going to tell me "FYRO(M) slavic-Macedonians were under occupation by their own allegiance and union? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_1913

You should also read about the kingdom of Serbia.. which is where it ALL started... Yugoslavia and the whole Macedonian question. Initially, from around 1882-1913 in the Kigndom of Serbia, the term "Macedonia", or "Northern Macedonia" merely described the south territory of the Serbian Kigndom to the north of Greece, and the official name of territory, was "Vardarska", until 1922. The Serbs merely used the term "Macedonia", or "Northern Macedonia" to describe the very south of the Serbian Kigndom because traditionally it also corresponded to a tiny bit of the northern region of the AREA which has been called "Macedonia" by almost everyone in the Balkans. It's just like the Albanians calling the south of Albania northern Epirus. Now just imagine if the Albanians began calling themselves Epirots and started saying they are descendants of Pyrros, who was the equivalent of Alexander, (who in fact, as many Romans said he was, if not second best to Alexander, at least just as good a military commander as Alexander III, and so has Hannibal stated). This is called a protochronism my friend, i.e. using distorted history so as to pretend you were there before another nation (first in time) and it has been done before with other communist countries, because communism strips people of any national identity they have, and then the people of the countries where communism existed (in the Balkans) go around trying to find it in the unclaimed remnants of history or by appropriating other people's history that is innaplicable to their own. See protochronisms relating to Thrace and Dacia, claimed by Romanians who wish to ascertain a primacy and superiority in their region and claim territory from other countries... it is only a political leverage and the distortion of history is disgusting. The Albanians have tried to say they are descendants of Pelasgians (a very ancient Greeek phylum). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Serbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia

Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*21.Some Macedonians returned to the occupied area to go back to their homes only to find they had been given to Greeks where are their rights to compensation.Isn`t council or government in Greece responsible for approving these deeds of title etc{ownership of land is usually registered in most countries that i know of with Government or Council.

''You mean traveled... Citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are not Greek citizens and as I understand, after the Greek civil war (before 1950), there were some legislations passed regarding those who lost this war, among whom the people you mention. But then, now, you have filed a petition in some international court and maybe they will tell you what should be done. Of course the same thing should be asked about the Greek properties in your country, in Turkey, the Turkish properties in Greece, Bulgaria etc etc etc... '' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's clarify something once and for all: by the term "slavic Macedonians" we mean people who spoke slavic, and who were not Greek in customs, culture or adherence to history and in general, the Greek way of life, nor Albanian for that matter. They could be Bulgarian or Serbian. That's all there was. Certain dialects among the Serbs and Bulgarians existed, one resulted in the present day national group FYRO(M). let's be more clear: The term "slavic Macedonians" does dot refer to people who were citizens of a particular country or who were part of a particular nation/ethnicity. They were/are people of a certain GEOGRAPHIC REGION called Macedonia and spoke/speak Slavic, may be usually Orthodox Christians, and were/are usually part of a sub-branch of the Serb sovereignty, the Bulgarian sovereignty, the Albanian sovereignty (after 1913) and the Greek sovereignty (since about 1880's). If these people happened to have a house or land in Greece and for some reason they were displaced (give me examples, why did they lose their homes? when? when are you referring to specifically?) and they have TITLES to this land, then there is a Greek law that allows them to keep their land or regain it, but it's easy. Coming from FYRO(M) and pointing to a house of a field and saying this used to be my grandpa's, is just as good as me saying I'm the pope. If they are Greek citizens, regardless of ethnic background, they will have no problem through legal avenues taking this land back, so long as it has not been used for more than 20 years and claimed by the present resident/user of the land (why didn'r they come sooner to reclaim it once peace was re-established let's say after a decade after fifteen years?). Otherwise I could go back to my great great great great great great grandfather's castle in Austria and kick the prince out and tell him the castle and the whole estate was mine, but I had to leave thirty years ago during a war or whatever. Too bad. Do you think the British who left their homes during the bombing od London by the Germans and fled to the United States and came back after 55 years can say, "hey chap, get out of my house; it used to be mine 55 years ago" Riiiiight... that's the same problem in Cyprus. with the Turkish occupation. It has become complicated, because although the occupation is an invasion and unfair, the Turks who live there and are now in Greek homes and lands, have families and kids for 40 years. Then again who is going to compensate the Greeks who lived in present day FYRO(M) and Bulgaria, and Albania, and the Pontians and the Greeks in Asia Minor? This is the cost of war. It sucks. And don't tell me the people of FYRO(M) were not completely disheveled and displaced by the Buglarians? I mean the Tsardom of Bulgaria "annexed" Vardarska in WWI from the young then Yugoslavia and again in WWII... how many land and home titles were lost then? And Bulgarian never gave all of the land back - it still stayed a bit to the west, maybe 100 kilometeres westward into what Vardarska used to be. Finally, I have heard of this issue of old FYRO(M)ians claiming their homes (probably about 125 seriosu claims in total) and a lawyer frind of mine told me that many of the people who identify as people from FYRO(M) who have "lost their homes or land" in Greece, are Greek opportunists who may or may not speak Slavic (usually they do not -- they must have forgotten their language in 30-40 years) and who were part of the Communist party (many did speak Slavic dialects, ergo why they were communists, regardless of the fact that they were Greek citizens) and some were exiled after they lost the Greek Civil War, and now seek to have a piece of the capitalist dream...property, land ownership, etc... They won't have much luck proving they were title owners. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*22.Why would a country block a peaceful and small nation in comparison from joining NATO or E.U? '' Because it has problems with it. The "peaceful" and "small" are very relative terms and an opinion which is or is not accepted by others... Diplomacy is diplomacy... Find a solution with Greece and join NATO (EU is a more distant option)''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Greece did not want FYRO(M) to join alliances or monetary Unions because FYRO(M) has appropriated parts of the Greek national identity and history and has clearly showed an intention to attempt to claim land. Sadly, with other countries, like france or the United states, this would have resulted in war, as it would be considered as a threat against the nation's soveriengty. Again, this is irrelevant regarding the discussion for this article in particular (Grfeek prefecture of Macedonia) and the fact that you are here arguing these things further validates the nationalist sentiment of the people of FYRO(M) regarding claims to the Greek prefecture called Macedonia. Whether or not Greek-FYRO(M) Diplomatic relations are good, does not prove if people from FYRO(M) are descendsnts of Alexander III (he had not offspring by the way) or descendants of the ancient Macedonians, for that matter, which is ludicrous not only on liguistic terms, but also on ethnic and historical grounds. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*23.If there was no Macedonia why is the name being blocked it would be a first time so therefore should not be a problem for anyone as it does not imply anything but Macedonia is Macedonia and nothing to do with Greece.For example i have a son born and i want to name him george but a Greek man say`s no you can`t that is a Greek name?Who gives you the rights of ownership to a name?Especially one that doesn`t exist in their opinionHow can you block a name you would have to be pretty petty to do so or severely paranoid or as the Greeks put it xenophobic for a reason?What is that reason?I see none can you?But Greeks can change the name of whole cities and towns it doesn`t add up.

''Macedonia cannot have nothing to do with Greece, since Macedonia is also a province of Greece (and very populous indeed, more than your state for example), Macedonia was also an ancient Greek state (prevalent academic opinion) and a Byzantine theme (province). The region you call "Macedonia" today is actually a recent invention, yet a prevalent one today. Anyways, Macedonia has many meanings and not just the Republic. Actually the Republic is the most recent one... The question here is why you want to be the sole user of the name?''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt any Greek has told you don't name your son George, LOL. Once again, No Greek simple citizen nor any serious scholar denies there was/is a Macedonia, as an ancient state, a broad geographic region and as a greek prefecture, as well as the modern day country from which you come from. I'll paste it again for the third time. Maybe it will sink through. The Greeks never denied the existence of ANCIENT Macedonia; in fact the Greeks were quite happy and proud of their ancient Greek history, which also included the history of the Macedonian-state/kingdom among that of the Spartans and the Athenians for theat matter. The Greeks do not deny the existence of a REGION called Macedonia by many people for centuries, be these Slavic, Latin, Greek or whatever, in language and/or ethnic background. They do not deny the existence of FYRO(M), they just challenge what FYRO(M) claims to be and worry about the dire dangers that such a nationalistic propensity FYRO(M) has may have for the region given its territorial aspirations made possible in large part due to the semantics confusion between the Greek province called Macedonia and the country you choose to name Macedonia that borders the aforementioned Greek province of Macedonia to the north (which most English speakers do not even care to learn the difference), even though initially FYRO(M) was called 'FYRO(M)' and then 'Republic of Macedonia', and now you choose to call your country plainly "Macedonia". The Greeks do not want you to be using a name of their own territory. Moreover, "Macedonia" has a lot to do with Greece, because it is the name of one of its prefectures with a population larger than that of FYRO(M) and a slightly bigger area.

Finally, the problem here is not YOUR RIGHT TO CALL YOUR COUNTRY WHATEVER YOU WANT -- that is YOUR INDESPUTABLE RIGHT -- but that by calling it or giving it certain names, you can create a semantics confusin and in future have leverage over territorial claims due to a semantics confusion. I Don't think anyone will care the least bit if you called your country "Republic of ALEXANDRIA" for that matter. Also, I think it should be adopted everywhere from now on that the spelling of the country that calls itself macedonia, if it continues to choose to do so, should be changed from "Macedonia" to "Macedonja" at least, so as to differentiate between the Greek Prefecture Macedonia and the Country "People's Republic of Macedonja" And for your reference, countries DO own their names, under UN charter, and names of international heritage. Don't tell me that the land where Mountain Olympus is, the Mountain of the Greek Gods, the quintessence of Greekness, and Greek religion, in the Modern Greek Prefecture of Greece called Macedonia (also part of the Prefecture of Thesssaly), is not Greek?????????????. Come on... the Greeks are hardly xenophobic. They have changed everythign into English and French in business and signposts and many live abroad and speak foreign lagnguages and are eager to adopt new ways of life. However, the national identity, as is someone's personal identity is not negotiable, and when it is threatened, or when a country's land ois threatened, of course there is going to be conflict. It's not like FYRO(M) is benignly trying to have the name Macedonia and create such a connection to Alexander III. let's be serious. The people of FYROM have absolutely no connection to Alexander nor Macedonia, except that they are loosely in part within the broader Geographic region of what has been traditionally called "Macedonia" among many Balkan peoples from antiquity till present. In particular, the area covered by the state of (FYRO(M) is about 80% in what used to be Paionia in antiquity. However, the area which the modern Greek state has in its prefecture of Macedonia is not even up for dispute as it was the de facto, clearly defined area of Macedonia occupied by the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, and thus Philip and his son Alexander III, whom you so love for ...spreading the Greek culture and language to the known eastern world. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*24.Who are there so very few Greeks in Macedonia?Because it is Macedonia not Greece of course common sense.

''I guess you are asking "why". What Greeks in which Macedonia? There are more Macedonian Greeks than Macedonian Slavs in the region of Macedonia (your Republic, Greek and Bulgarian Macedonias). If you are talking about your country, then the answer is that there used to be many Greeks there but they relocated south as did many of your compatriots to the north.''GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely why the Greeks advocate for no use of the name "Macedonia" other than the Greeks for their province/prefecture, since it has been so for longer and with a population more than all the slavic populations in the broader geographic region called Macedonia: Because GK1973 and myself as well as numerous others, both scholars and academics stumble upon this semantics problem: GK1973 has asked about twnty times as have I "in which Macedonia?" Imagine having to ask every time you had a conversation "In which France?"!!! It would drive anyone insane. I cannot handle this parody anynmore in the name of academic truth and logic. I am an adjunct professor of classical philology and this is driving me off the wall. Has the world lost all sense for reasoning? I have heard these arguments so many times since the 90's and i'm startgin to lose faith in the human capacity for reasoning. Is there no drive in these people for inquiry?

Once again let's start by clarifying the semantics confusion, down the tree of branches and sub-branches into what you could possible be refering to by "Wh[y] are there so very few Greeks in Macedonia? Because it is Macedonia not Greece of course common sense." The Greek Prefecture of Macedonia within the borders of the Greek state has more Greeks occupying the wider loosely defined geographic region known as Macedonia (called Macedonia by many Balkan peoples for centuries), than all of the slavs who reside in the area combined. Moreover, the Greek Prefecture of Macedonia within the borders of the Greek state covers the largest geographic area of the wider loosely defined geographic region known as Macedonia, called Macedonia by many Balkan peoples for the past few centuries, including Slavs (Serbs and Bulgarians, Albanians, Greeks and the Ottomans, let alone the Byzantine empire (although they sometimes placed "Macedonia right where present-day Bulgaria is). Thirdly, there are few Greeks in FYRO(M) and few FYRO(M)ians in Greece, as most Greeks have migrated south with their ethnic compatriots whom they share common linguistic, cultural and historic ideologies, as have the few slavic speaking FYRO(M)ians who lived in what has been the modern Greek Prefecture Macedonia for over a century, and almost all of them did of their own accord. I suppose the problem has been exacerbated by the greks stating "Macedonia is Greek" (When they should be stating "the Greek Prefecture of macedonia is Greek) and the confusion of semantics going both ways, so both the Greeks and FYRO(M)ians are confused, i.e. FYRO(M)ians now think that with this statement the Greeks imply that the country known as FYRO(M), which has been as of late euphemestically, amorously and arbitrarily called "Macedonia" by the people of FYRO(M), is Greek. NO, NO no and yet again NO! The Greeks do not want or care about FYRO(M) land. It was never their to begin with, since antiquity, even if quite a few greek peoples lived there scattered about. For all intents and purposes the greeks have the historically-known area of Greek Macedonia, which roughly more or less spans the area that was occupied by the ancient Macedonian Kingdom ruled by Philip and the well-known Alexander III. Also, many people in the Balkans are ethnoreligious groups, which means they don't mingle with others that well, unless their religion and ethnicity match (that includes language, race history and culture). They are not like Canadians or Americans that is, whose countries form a mosaic, or a melting pot, respectively, if you allow me (I am Canadian, so I'm going to say it, whatever, we have no such strong national sentiment). Finally, in answer to your statement: "Because it [Macedonia] is Macedonia not Greece [;] of course common sense." one must point out that "Macedonia" as a name and land area IS a part of Greece, not only because it is a Greek homonymous modern province/prefecture, but also because of its historical context from antiquity through the middle ages, Byzantium till present, and also because the Greek prefecture of Macedonia occupies most of the land area that the geographically defined region known traditionally as Macedonia in the Balkans occupies. However THIS DOES NOT IMPLY that the land called FYRO(M), the country self-identifying as Macedonia is Greek, in part or in whole, or the other way around. Are we clear on this? Please note the the MODERN view on what the wider GEOGRAPHIC region known as Macedonia occupies, is not the same as what it was prior to 1991, as it has come to accede the view that the area occupied within the present state FYRO(M) is also part of what used to be ancient Macedonia, and later, historically and traditionally referred to as Macedonia in the Balkans by many peoples.

I quote:

"After the creation of Macedonian Republic the Presidium of ASNOM which was the highest political organ in Macedonia made several statements and actions that were de facto boycotting the decisions of AVNOJ. Instead of obeying the order of Tito's General Headquarters to send the main forces of the NOV of Macedonia to participate in the fighting in the Srem area for the final liberation of Yugoslavia, the cadre close to President Metodija Andonov - Cento gave serious thoughts whether it is better to order the preparation for an advance of the 100.000 armed men under his command toward northern Greece in order to "unify the Macedonian people" into one country.[42] Officers loyal to Chento's ideas made a mutiny in the garrison stationed on Skopje's fortress, but the mutiny was suppressed by armed intervention. A dozen officers were shot on place, others sentenced to life imprisonment. Also Chento and his close associates were trying to minimize the ties with Yugoslavia as far as possible and were constantly mentioning the unification of the Macedonian people into one state, which was against the decisions of AVNOJ.[43] Chento was even talking about the possibility to create an independent Macedonia backed by the USA. The Yugoslav secret police made a decisive action and managed to arrest Metodija Andonov - Chento and his closest men and prevent his policies. Chento's place was taken by Lazar Kolishevski, who started fully implementing the pro-Yugoslav line.

Later the authorities organised frequent purges and trials of Macedonian people charged with autonomist deviation. Many of the former IMRO (United) government officials, were purged from their positions then isolated, arrested, imprisoned or executed on various (in many cases fabricated) charges including: pro-Bulgarian leanings, demands for greater or complete independence of Yugoslav Macedonia, forming of conspirative political groups or organisations, demands for greater democracy, etc. People as Panko Brashnarov, Pavel Shatev, Dimitar Vlahov and Venko Markovski were quickly ousted from the new government, and some of them assassinated. On the other hand, former IMRO-members, followers of Ivan Mihailov, were also persecuted by the Belgrade-controlled authorities on accusations of collaboration with the Bulgarian occupation. Metodi Shatorov's supporters in Vardar Macedonia, called Sharlisti, were systematically exterminated by the Yugoslav Communist Party (YCP) in the autumn of 1944, and repressed for their anti-Yugoslav and pro-Bulgarian political positions.

The encouragement and evolution of Macedonian culture has had a far greater and more permanent impact on Macedonian nationalism than has any other aspect of Yugoslav policy. While development of national music, films and the graphic arts has been encouraged in Macedonia, the greatest cultural effect has come from the codification of the Macedonian language and literature, the new Macedonian national interpretation of history and the establishment of a Macedonian Orthodox Church in 1967.[44] [...] After Greek Communists lost Greek Civil War, many Slav - speakers were expelled from Greece.[72][73] Although the People's Republic of Bulgaria originally accepted very few refugees, government policy changed and the Bulgarian government actively sought out Aegean Macedonian refugees. It is estimated that approximately 2,500 children were sent to Bulgaria and 3,000 partisans fled there in the closing period of the war. There was a larger flow into Bulgaria of refugees as the Bulgarian Army pulled out of the Drama-Serres region in 1944. A large proportion of Slavic speakers emigrated there. The "Slavic Committee" in Sofia (Bulgarian: Славянски Комитет) helped to attract refugees that had settled in other parts of the Eastern Bloc. According to a political report in 1962 the number of political emigrants from Greece numbered at 6,529.[74] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Question#The_Macedonian_Question.

[...] Macedonia (Listeni /ˌmæsɨˈdoʊniə/ mas-i-doh-nee-ə; Macedonian: Македонија), officially the Republic of Macedonia (Република Македонија, transliterated: Republika Makedonija [rɛˈpublika makɛˈdɔnija] ( listen)), is a country located in the central Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe. It is one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, from which it declared independence in 1991. It became a member of the United Nations in 1993 but, as a result of a dispute with Greece over its name, it was admitted under the provisional reference of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,[7][8] sometimes abbreviated as FYROM.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia

[...] "Krste Misirkov, a philologist and publicist, mostly known for his work "On the Macedonian Matters" (1903), heralded by Macedonians as one of the "founders of the Macedonian nation", stated: "Some will ask why I speak of breaking away from the Bulgarians when in the past we have even called ourselves Bulgarians and when it is generally accepted that unification creates strength, and not separation. And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?[27]" [...] The important idea here is that for Greece, Macedonia was a region with large Greek populations expecting annexation to the new Greek state. At this time, the region which today is the Republic of Macedonia was known as the "fief (vilayet) of Skopje". The status of the Republic of Macedonia became a heated political issue in Greece where demonstrations took place in Athens while one million Macedonian Greeks took to the streets in Thessaloniki in 1992, under the slogan: "Macedonia is Greek", referring to the name and ancient history of the region, not posing a territorial claim against their northern neighbor. Initially, the Greek government objected formally to any use of the name Macedonia (including any derivative names) and also to the use of symbols such as the Vergina Sun. On the other hand, also in 1992, demonstrations by more than 100,000 ethnic Slav Macedonians took place in Skopje, the capital of the Republic of Macedonia, over the failure to receive recognition and supporting the constitutional name of the country." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28region%29

No country has accepted JUST the use of the name "Macedonia" alone to refer to FYRO(M); here is a Map with the policy of all countries on which name they acepted to use and recognise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macedonia_naming_dispute.png Some use "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", others "Republic of Macedonia". No country uses "Macedonia" to refer to FYRO(M), but the yhave recognized you as a country. So has Greece. But does not accept FYRO(M)'s use of the name "Macedonia" as self-identification. Greece does not dispute FYRO(M)'s RIGHT to self-determination and self-identification, so long as this right does not infringe upon the rights of Self-identification and Self-determination of Greece, and in particular, it's prefecture to the north called "Macedonia".

As a conclusion:

These are some of the questions i have asked myself,family friends and many people in Greece and Macedonia whilst on holiday there many times.I will be approaching many senator`s and minister`s here in Australia over the next year to ask these questions and offer my 11 years of study on this topic as well as these questions as i believe they are quite straight forward,direct and inoffensive but well put to paper.My mother is English my father is Macedonian but i am Australian Macedonian and believe in truth,justice and a fair go for all.It is up to the individual to research their own answers and decide but these days many polititians don`t have time to research a huge issue as such and accept policies on flimsy research and information and make mistakes as we are all human anyone can make mistakes including myself.I hope you find these questions interesting and very good questions for debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiemacedonian (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

let me quote:

"In 1993, at the height of the name controversy and just before joining the UN, the government in Skopje claimed that there were between 230,000 and 270,000 Macedonians living in northern Greece. [...] In the 2001 census of Greece, 747 people registered as "ethnic Macedonians",[30] approximately 0.01% of the total population of the country and 0.03% of the population of [the] Greek [prefecture] of Macedonia." National Statistics Agency. http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A1602/Other/A1602_SAM07_TB_DC_00_2001_07_F_GR.pdf. Retrieved 20 April 2011. Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

'' Good for you... Ask them.... but have in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for such debates. There are many fora on the internet for that. I guess that your "questions" will be deleted any time soon. I just gave some (of course very short) answers to your many insubstantial and childish questions and claims, so that a reader here does not get the wrong picture. Should you desire to contribute to Wikipedia, you could make your proposals regarding issues within the articles and discuss them in a non nationalistic tone, presenting relative and acknowledged sources and discuss those of the other editors. And of course you will have to accept that apart from the Republic, there are many other Macedonians and to be very careful with your claims and statements, for here you will be read by many people who have an academic background and not just children who want to make their voices heard.'' GK1973 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are so many utterly wrong statements and wrong information in the above that I couldn't even begin to enumerate them. The above piece should probably be removed because it doesn't deal with anything related to the Wikipedia article. However I wouldn't remove it because it serves great as a monument of what many years of propaganda has done to create so strong misconceptions for people to indulge in such hatred and hate speech against the Greeks. Some of the claims are laughable, but also sad in a kind of way. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 05:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If so many questions are wrong and information is propaganda WHY SO FEW AND FLIMSY ANSWERS?WHERE are the answers in a factual way,Where are your books your documents the harscore facts to back up your reteric?These are great questions for a small minded greek that needs name calling etc on wikipedia then reserves the write to do as he wishes.get real fool you ain`t a god and these questions are about a subject of historic value not childish reteric and any other subject but the one at hand.Get Real mate the whole world knows Macedonia forever but Athenians what girlies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.72.249 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

??? GK1973 (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)