Talk:Macedonian Question

Redirected
Today, Friday December 8, 2005, the "Featured Article" on the English Wiki HomePage was Macedonia (terminology). Only articles which meet the highest standards of quality are choosen for "Featured Article" status.

FIRST Macedonia (terminology) contains all of the topics formerly covered in the article Macedonian Question. Macedonia (terminology) is a beautiful example of everything an article should be. Given the passion the Macedonian Question raises, it is an extraordinarily neutral, exemplifying all that is meant by "Neutral Point of View."

SECOND The article which was here was an absolute mess. It was very poorly formatted. There was no Wiki structure to it. There were no links to other Wiki articles. When I started to add them I had 25 in the first two paragraphs. There were also no sections.

THIRD it is multiply redundant with several other Wiki articles.

So I took it upon myself to remove this article.

Before you flame me: I have saved the contents and will send them to anyone who requests them.

Send any questions or comments to me. Nwbeeson 09:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but from what I see, you haven't actually done any of the things you've said you would do. So I at a bit of a loss here as to what to do now. Carcharoth 10:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this is a warranted redirect, for the time being at least. Having read this (wannabe) "article," I've seen that there is a lot of material which is not covered by the Macedonia (terminology) article and other relevant ones. Granted that it's suffering from various problems (e.g. NPOV issues, structure and content issues etc), still, my view is that it provides a lot of raw material for the development of a much better one. For starts, some parts are relevantly well sourced and cited. JavMilos 09:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
I am not Greek, nor Macedonian, I was just looking for information on Macedonia and find the quote "Macedonia’s vile and evil southern neighbor, Greece" to be hilarious. How can anyone take any of the rest of the article seriously with a quote like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBethe (talk • contribs)

the problem is that the Macedonian question is a controversial issue, and whenever someone from the nations involved reads this, they have a need to change it.... stupid, but..


 * The thing is that the "Macedonian Question" is a late 19th topic of specific content which is highly irrelevant to the modern claims of FYR Macedonia and its dispute with Greece. It is also irrelevant to anqituity and practically most of the things the article focuses on. The article gives a POV interpretation of the Macedonian question as it's perceived by the modern Slavic Macedonian nation, and it should be subjected to clean-up. Miskin 21:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section on antiquity and the middle ages should be removed, as it is of no importance for the article. --Aldux 22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am Bulgarian!
With my great grandfather beeing deported from the Greek part of Macedonia seen by himself and everybody he knew as part of Bulgaria after it was re aquired by Greece in the Berlin Congress. My great grandfather and all of the family were deported and dumped on an island in the mediteranean. And were alowed to be rescued by the bulgarian goverment afer one year during which most of them died. The samllest child of the family had to be given to a greek family otherwise it would not have survived. I know my great grandfather and he saw himself as a Bulgarian during his whole life. And my grandfather sees himself as Bulgarian, my father sees himself as a Bulgarian and i am a Bulgarian too. If the Bulgarian goverment would't have rescued my great grandfather i would not be here. So please don't write about Bulgarian propaganda. The claims of FYROM are a seperate topic and have no historic connection with the fact that Bulgaria tried to protect his people from beeing killed and deported. In my oppinion the lnguage of FYORM was invented and written up after world war 2 and hammered into the people of FYORM throught extensive propaganda. Even the former Capital of the grat Bulgarian Kingdom lies in FYORM nowdays with thousands of chronics from monasteries througout the cenutries mentioning themselves as Bulgarian monasteries. I am disapointed with wikipedias accuracy on this article and think it should be changed so it doesn't declare people that have been killed in a genocide as people without a nationality. It is respectless to fight a modern day conflict of the shoulders of innocent people and don't teel the truth. '''Regardless what FYORM claims my family died from the Greek, because they were not allowed to be part of their Nation. It is simmilar to the Kosovo konflict, but nobody calls them Kossovians, they preffer to be called Albanians.'''

Don't take my nationality and bring shame on the people thath had to flee from their land because they weren't allowed to keep their culture.

Angel Usunov --222.152.180.45 12:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Support for my Comment
Everybody should have a read about the bulgarian history if you don't belive me. This article is from wikipedia, 1st empire of Bulgaria:

Cultural development Missionaries from Constantinople, Cyril and Methodius, devised the Glagolitic alphabet, which was adopted in the Bulgarian Empire around 886. The alphabet and the Old Bulgarian language gave rise to a rich literary and cultural activity centered around the Preslav and Ohrid Literary Schools, established by order of Boris I in 886. In the beginning of 10th century AD, a new alphabet - the Cyrillic alphabet - was developed on the basis of Greek and Glagolitic cursive at the Preslav Literary School. According to an alternative theory, the alphabet was devised at the Ohrid Literary School by Saint Climent of Ohrid, a Bulgarian scholar and disciple of Cyril and Methodius. A pious monk and hermit St Ivan of Rila (Ivan Rilski, 876-946), became the patron saint of Bulgaria. After 893 Preslav became truly new and in many aspects authentic Bulgarian capital.

From several history books I heared that Ohrid was capital before Preslav, but Ohrid had a Bulgarian School, teaching the Bulgarian Language right fromthe beginning ofthe Bulgarian state. There are hundreds of chronics and offical documents from that time to support this.

On this map from the same article you see that Ohrid was a part of Bulgaria since its establishment and intially populated by Bulgarians and not Serbs or Greek Angel Usunov--222.152.180.45 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look at maps of Macedonia from circa circa 500 BC, you see that it is unquestionably Greek. For that matter maps of Turkey circa 1700 show it to be Turkish. Just because Bulgarians once conquered a part of Macedonia, and that was part of Bulgaria "since its establishment", does not mean that it was initially populated by Bulgarians. All maps of "Classical Greece" going back more than 200 years before your map show Macedonia to be part of Greece, and populated by Greeks. Your map proves nothing except your version of Balkan history only begins in the Middle Ages....

Editing
There has been a huge and unwikified copy-and-paste from Macedonia (region). We don't need to repeat content; can someone edit it down? Alba 01:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

EXPLAIN THIS
Scroll down to the group photo - http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/articles/. Also have a read of this article from the Time archives http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796967,00.html

EVERY RIGHT
What Kissinger said when asked on FYROM's adoption of the name Macedonia in the annual meeting of Management Centre Europe, held in Paris in 1992:

''I believe that Greece is right to object and I agree with Athens. The reason is that I know history, which is not the case with most of the others, including most of the Government and administration in Washington…. The strength of the Greek case is that of history, which I must say, that Athens has not used so far with success.''

Philhellenism 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)