User talk:Cecropia/Archive 17

Thanks :-)
I appreciate your support on my RFA! Lots of people to respond to :-) Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 05:07 (UTC)

Weyes nomination
The Weyes re-vote is up again. The vote is very similar to the previous one - i.e, inconclusive. However, given the extended time period and revotes, can I suggest that there is not going to be a consensus to award adminship at this time and that Weyes is not promoted, but of course encourage another nomination in a couple of months? Would like to hear your opinion, Warofdreams 1 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Iraq
There are no easy answers, Cecropia. I can see both sides of the argument about invading Iraq (though it would be nice if we weren't lied to about WMD as a justification). Yes, Saddam's reign of terror has certainly be ended, though at one hell of a price. I don't know whether the events in Iraq represent a net loss or a net gain in human life. Neither do you.

In any event, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of wanting to join the military "to kill those responsible for killing innocent people", as if the military never did any such thing. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Hmm. The war certainly could have been avoided if it had been about WMD as claimed. Weapons inspections were going on, after all.

If it was really about preventing Saddam's reign of terror against his own people, it would have been nice to have been told this, and been invited to weigh up the benefits of lives saved vs. lives lost.

However, you make it sound as if the war in Iraq has reduced the threat to the U.S. and the rest of the Western world. But it's rather unclear how. As far as I can see, there was no threat to us at all from Iraq.

As far as reducing the risk of terrorism - I'm quite certain the opposite is the case. Hatred of the West can only grow in the Islamic world as a result of this (the quote at the top of my page is my view here). Evercat 7 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)


 * You see, it is rather difficult to find common ground when we operate from different assumptions. The WMD argument (and we know Saddam has WMD, we just don't know whether we still had them at the beginning of the war) doesn't concern me personally, because Iraq for me was never about WMD. As to the risk of terrorism because of hatred of the west, it is a big assumption that a soft hand in dealing with Islamic extremists will make the situation better. Remember that the active advancement of the conspiracy in the U.S. that resulted in 9/11 began in 1995, after the U.S. had already responded to the first World Trade Center attack with prosecutions instead of war. And 9/11 occurred at a time when the U.S. was not focusing on terrorism, there were no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. had bombed the hell out of a former alley on behalf of the Muslim population of Kosovo. No brownie points earned there. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

This is, I grant you, a good point. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Although having said that, the U.S.'s undying support for Israel, not just morally, but in terms of actual money and military hardware, isn't exactly helpful... it seems to be in the billions of dollars. The other grievance Bin Laden seems to have is the presense of U.S. troops in the "holy land".


 * I have to deal with the U.S.' "undying support" for Israel separately. If Israel didn't have the firm support of the U.S. it would probably have been toast by now. Is that a good idea? Is that moral? You see, I have a problem with Europeans' undying advocacy of the Palestinians; not because they are less worthy of freedom than anyone else in the world, but because Europe does not have the kind of history and intimate relations with Arab people (except in a colonial sense) that it has with the Jews. There wouldn't be a "Jewish problem" in the mideast if the Jews hadn't had a "European problem" for centuries, culminating in the murder of the great majority of European Jewry with the help or complicity of a large number of non-German European nations, and the effective expulsion of most of the survivors. How do you think an objective historian will view this period one hundred years hence. Will he or she say "yes, the Europeans were so continually hostile to the only Jewish state in the world, funding and advocating for its enemies as a simple civil rights matter, for the suffering of the Palestinian people (while being blase about the sufferings of other Muslims in Muslim countries, not to mention the underdogs in much more murderous conflicts around the world) and this has nothing to do with the Europeans' historic hatred of the Jews.

BTW, none of this is supposed to justify anything. I don't really take sides in the Israel/Palestine thing much these days (both behaving as bad as each other), and why the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia etc should be such a big deal is beyond me, but it's clear to me that people don't become suicide attackers simply because they hate things like Western freedom and democracy, etc. To become a terrorist, I think one has to feel a deep sense of injustice and anger about something. Ultimately we will have to do something to remove that feeling of injustice, otherwise the "war on terrorism" simply cannot be won, because new terrorists will always emerge. Certainly the way to proceed isn't to invade Iraq whilst giving reasons that turn out to be completely false. Evercat 8 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)


 * "why the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia etc should be such a big deal is beyond me". Ah, Man of the Western Mind (to paraphrase Dickens), do you believe Usama or not when he says that he was first inspired to action against the U.S. because of its military presence in Saudi Arabia? Why is it a big deal? The Saudis and their followers openly state that all of Saudi Arabia is holy land. Jews (not "Israelis") are not permitted in the Kingdom at all. The Christian soldiers who were there to protect them in the first Gulf War could not openly show or practice their Christianity; Christmas celebrations (such as they were) had to be carried out quietly, privately, where it was certain no Saudi could observe it and be offended. When these people say "infidel" they are not making a joke.


 * Next (again Western materialist thinking) you say "To become a terrorist, I think one has to feel a deep sense of injustice and anger about something." Well, that is one issue, certainly. But what is really provoking them? Yes, a Christian or Jewish presence in the midst of an otherwise Muslim Sea would anger many. In the West we call this Racism (though more properly ethnocentrism or religious bigotry). What about the rulers of Muslim nations who accumulate wealth to themselves while their people starve and suffer and feed their people the story that it is the Infidel in Iraq and the Jew in Palestine that is the cause of their suffering. In the Americas we had a not inalogous situation when (pre-Reagan) most of the countries were ruled by dictators who exploited their people in much the same way. The people there did not have a whipping boy nation in their midst to refocus their displeasure, and most of those rulers (remember Samoza?) are history.


 * Then you say "Ultimately we will have to do something to remove that feeling of injustice." Be positive with me. Give me some specifics. How do you propose to do that? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

One last thing while I'm thinking about this. In advocating a less "hawk-like" attitude, I'm aware I'm open to accusations of "appeasement", etc. But the situation is somewhat different from the 1930s. The number of Germans available to Hitler to be used as soldiers was mostly constant. But the number of terrorists available to Bin Laden is variable. And, for the most part, he doesn't control the number. We do.

Anyway, I'm sorry for any offense caused. I don't actually like getting into arguments, but I do have strong views, I suppose. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize to me personally--this is in the context of the give and take of a debate or argument.


 * As I said above, we have a fundamental difference in perspective. You believe that the potential for terrorist is reactive--i.e., don't bother them; they won't bother us. I disagree. Who is the target at any given moment may be influenced by events, but in an important way this is like the 1930s. Those who translate their grievances into military action (and terrorism is usually that, though unsanctioned by international law) test to see what they can get away with, and at how low a price to themselves. The grievances of the Islamists run much much deeper than whether the U.S. or Britain are in Iraq, or Israel exists or not. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

OK, I understand we disagree about how to react to terrorism in general, but what baffles me in this specific case is what the link between terrorism and Iraq is supposed to be...? As far as I'm aware, top U.S. agencies are of the opinion that there was no significant link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)


 * The difference in perspective is in your saying that you are baffled by "the link between terrorism and Iraq" but no in the next say there was no significant link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So you imply that terrorism = Al Queda. I would say that Iraq was one of the links in the chain or terrorism, which is supported not simply by Usama pulling strings in Afghanistan, but by a network of recruiters, trainers, financiers and sympathizers. For a variety of reasons Iraq was a central link in this chain. Perhaps I could put it this way. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. went to war with Japan, but it also went to war with Germany and Italy. Hitler didn't attack the U.S.; Mussolini didn't attack the U.S. Bu that they were Japan's allies, half a world away, was enough. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Hmm - I'm sure there is a network of terrorism, but it's a global thing. Why haven't we attacked Saudi Arabia, for example? It would seem to be a bit more central to Islamist terrorism than Iraq. Evercat 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)


 * War has tactics. If Saudi Arabia can be kept down to a dull roar without military intervention, there is no problem without disrupting the biggest source of crude oil for the entire western world, and during wartime no less. Plus if you think getting a war resolution on Iraq through the U.S. Congress was a tough sell, imagine making war on a putative "ally"? And the west attacking Saudi Arabia is the one place (with Mecca and Medina and the whole country a "holy site") is the one specific event that probably would have inflamed the muslim world. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

OK, another fair point. Still, in Iraq you've removed the regime, but I'm sure there will still be "recruiters, trainers, financiers and sympathizers" there. Evercat 7 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)


 * There is more to it than that. There are several legal and military issues that made Iraq the logical next target (not in order of importance):


 * 1) Geography. Iraq was the natural bridge state between Saudi Arabia, Syria and sympathizers in the middle east and hot spots such as Afghanistan, Chechnya, Indonesia and Pakistan.
 * 2) Safe Haven. A variant of the above, Saddam provided safety for militants who were nationals of other states.
 * 3) International Law. You may consider that ironic, but it was a factor. Saddam signed an armistice to end the first Gulf War. An armistice is not a permanent end to hostilities; it is a cessation of hostilities, with conditions, pending a peace treaty. If any of the parties (usually the "loser") break those conditions, the war may be resumed at any time, without further declaration. Saddam broke those terms multiple times, as acknowledged by the UN.
 * 4) Symbolism. Saddam was an open financier of terrorism and grew increasingly aggressive as he looked to see how far he could go. His open defiance of the UN made trash of world resolve to force him to terms. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

You may well be correct, but can you give me some sort of source for Saddam giving terrorists a "safe haven" and being an "open financier of terrorism"? Evercat 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

(starting a new section, since this is getting hard to follow...)

I'm not "advocating the Palestinians". I'm advocating neutrality in other people's conflicts, unless there's some strong reason to prefer one side to the other. If there was no aid to Israel, and it actually was invaded, then of course it should be defended, in a similar manner to Kuwait the first Gulf War.


 * Do you also recommend that Europe be neutral in the Middle East?


 * Even assuming you don't consider insurrection by non-Nationals to be an "invasion," who would defend Israel under your definition. Who would commit troops? Germany? France? Britain? Even assuming that these nations did not obstruct a defense of Israel, it would be on the U.S. Israel is one of the few smaller states in the world that puts its on troops on the line. So you feel that to satisfy European sensibilities, the U.S. should again endanger its own troops?


 * I really don't see this invasion of Israel as a realistic possibility today. Nobody's going to invade a nuclear power. So this is largely hypothetical. But European forces did fight to liberate Kuwait.

While there certainly used to be a worry about Israel being a soft target, I doubt there's any worry now, with it's well-armed military, modern fighter planes, tanks, suspected nuclear weapons, etc. Yet the military aid continues.


 * One supplies support for its allies. The U.S. is Israel's only ally. The Arab nations have plenty, including diplomatic and monetary aid from Eruope.


 * Well I know nothing about this, but I would be surprised if there were any European states giving military aid that they knew was going to be used against Israel.

I'm having a little trouble finding sources on the web, but it seems that the U.S. used to provide military aid to Taiwan, but doesn't any more (I could be wrong on this point). But the threat that the U.S. keeps up - that it will defend Taiwan from China if necessary, seems to be sufficient.


 * I don't know about U.S. aid to Taiwan, but it is a different situation anyway. This is more comparable to the cold war standoff and not really a model for the middle east. China is one country with a unitary leadership. The Arab nations are many. The U.S. should threaten war with them all under your scenario?

One other thing - the fact that, historically, some Europeans have been hideous genocidal anti-semites does not mean that other Europeans, completely innocent of such crimes, are somehow obliged to give total support to the Jewish state. That's absurd.


 * I said no such thing. I asked the origin of such overwhelming support for the Palestinians and such universal condemnation of a people who Europeans have a long historic record or oppression and murder against.


 * Perhaps the origin is in the fundamentally more left-wing nature of European politics. People look at Israel with its well armed military, and it's Western looking cities and modern ways of living, and then at the Palestinians with their pathetic weapons and their squalid dwellings and their poverty, and, notwithstanding the fact that Palestinian acts of terrorism against Israel are to be condemned, it's still pretty obvious which side is getting the worst of it. The left is naturally sympathetic to the poor.


 * You seem to be hinting there's some not-so-subtle anti-semitism behind it.


 * Anti-Semitism? I don't think so insofar as anti-semitism is a politicised social construct. I think it's much more fundamental than that; an ancient sense of Jews as "the other" ingrained in European cultures for many centuries.

(Quote:)


 * Then you say "Ultimately we will have to do something to remove that feeling of injustice." Be positive with me. Give me some specifics. How do you propose to do that? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 8 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Pull troops without a good reason for being there out of the middle east. Currently they do have a good reason for being in Iraq and Afghanistan (they can hardly leave right now) but they should leave as soon as practical. They should certainly get out of Saudi Arabia - I seem to recall reading that this was actually being done? - and anywhere else where their presence merely causes resentment. Don't launch any more unprovoked wars (by which I mean, like Iraq. Afghanistan was provoked). Treat Israel like it's a foreign county (but with whatever necessary assurances about it's defense as above).


 * This began around the issue of the attacks in London, you really think those suggestions will satisfy the Islamists? So where does that leave us?

Perhaps you could give me some specifics about how you expect the War on Terror to end? I mean, what's the "endgame", as all those analysts love saying. You can't seriously expect to end terrorism by a series of wars, can you? As I try to point out, wars seen as unjust cause the very problem you're trying to solve. And the stakes are very high - if this keeps up, I won't be surprised if there's a terrorist attack in my lifetime involving biological or even nuclear weapons, leading to deaths in the 6 or 7 figure range. Evercat 9 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)


 * Yes, there may well be a terrorist attack as you describe. Everything you say seems to point back in the same direction I identified at the beginning of this discussion. You feel that the terrorists are reactive. They would leave the west alone if their demands were met. I think not. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:15, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

And this comes back to my original point. Maybe some hard core of fanatics will be willing to wage Jihad no-matter what, but, all in all, the number of "Islamist" terrorists in the world is a number we have a fair degree of control over. As part of an effort to combat terrorism, Iraq (inter alia) was counter-productive.

Anyway, we're not going to convince each other. I respect your views - you at least have sensible arguments for much of what you say. But perhaps we should call it a day... Evercat 23:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's been a good game between honourable opponents, even if it ended in a stalemate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

William Connolley
No doubt you've been followed the adminship request for User:William M. Connolley. I believe the final results of user comments are now in, with 70% supporting and 30% opposing (not counting neutral comments).

What the heck do we do now? I don't want to alienate one of Wikipedia's few bona fide scientists - one who has the courage to use his own name. But is it really about NPOV (or endorsing Dr. C's slant on climate), or merely being trusted to use features like rollback of simple vandalism and page deletion?


 * I doubt William is that thin skinned. While I was the one to nominate him, and while I think he can be trusted to use admin powers responsibly (which is, IMO, the only real criterion for adminship) I don't think that one should act out of fear of offending the person.  There's a critical mass of people who voted oppose on the basis of his being under an ArbComm injunction - which is a fair reason to oppose.  What bothers me is that people voted oppose on the basis of expertice or due to the fact that he is an "active editor".  Without those votes you might have had consensus to promote, but on the other hand, those voters would not have been an issue without the experienced editors who voted "no" based on the ArbComm ruling.  I would say that, while I am unhappy with the outcome and bothered by several of the votes, overall the process isn't broken (yet).  Guettarda 15:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I hear all you're saying, but so far we haven't empowered bureaucrats to make those kinds of value judgments, so I've got to consider that consensus hasn't been reached. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it hadn't been reached in your case either. What if I just use my judgment on this one? Can you trust me to certify that Dr. William C. Connolley is trustworthy? Uncle Ed 16:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talk page, I think this would be deeply inappropriate behaviour, Ed. It is not for bureaucrats to go against the community consensus - or community precedent. Especially for someone so closely involved with the user. Are you joking here, or are you serious? -Splash 16:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not a joking matter. Uncle Ed 16:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Ed's a very very long term Wikipedian and used to make all the promotions, but this is opening a very broad area. If it were almost anyone else but Ed, I would say "no way." But if he's willing to take the considerable heat, I won't obstruct him. See my reply at Chez Ed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll buy some of the popcorn you'll be selling. However, mere userling that I am, I feel I must point out here that Bureaucrats are servants of the community, and not its rulers, no matter how long they have been around. -Splash 17:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Ed comes from the era before "bean counting." It is only within my time that numbers have been more-or-less formalized. I 'm going to watch this with great interest, -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I too will watch this with interest and have weighed in with my opinion on the RFA page. I have left messages for Raul654 and Warofdreams and look forward to their comments.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And I left a note with Angela. Like Ed she is a very early (and trusted) Wikipedia and has made dozens of promotions. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Angela isn't really a "very early" Wikipedian, though, she arrived only a month or two before I did.  Ed, on the other hand, is one of the half dozen or so people who've been here from the beginning and stuck with it.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Spitting Image
I just saw your comments on talk, and all I can say is well put man!

I cannot tell you how uncomfortable some vets feel in certain company. TDC 00:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Thank you for the kind/helpful notice! I'll read all the admin literature straight away. thanks Bluemoose 15:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice too :) Hashar 16:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you as well. It's a steep learning curve indeed. :) GarrettTalk 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

reappeared admins
Hi - As a side effect of updating WP:LA based on current activity (with a script), I noticed a few relatively long gone admins have reappeared (see this diff). WP:FAITH would imply this is a good thing, however it could also be that one or more long dormant accounts have been cracked. I looked at the recent contribs and didn't notice anything suspicious, but I thought I'd bring this to your attention so someone might watch the activity from these accounts. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Thanks for the promotion and for the friendly/helpful message on my talk page. I appreciate it. --Canderson7 16:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
On your edit summary in RfA you said rm Agent0003, Humblefool, no consensus. However Humblefool is not removed, is probably going to be promoted, and doesn't end for two days. Was it a typo? Howabout1 Talk to me! 15:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Howabout1 Talk to me! 20:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Wikipedia?
Dear Wikipedia administrator

I am writting you about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia. I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction. My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts. Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia? Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs. Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia? If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!! Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess. But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it? Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians. Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family. How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there? Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito. Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country. Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians). Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled). Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors). Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed. Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims. Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web. There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia. The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski Skopje, Macedonia is@on.net.mk

Ted Kennedy Page
Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks 24.147.97.230