Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 14 May 2006

Welcome

Geia sou

Theoreis oti tha mposouses na suneisfereis psahnontas gia sygkekrimenes phges sto arthro gia tin Macedonia? Polu tha epithymousa na dw kapoies adiamfisvithtes phges gia ta osa les... --Hectorian 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK! as doume ta pragmata apo tin arxi (tha grafw sta agglika, gia na summetexoun ki alloi an theloun):)

I suppose that there are no objections concerning the 3 first sections (Etymology of the name of Macedonia, Boundaries and definitions, Demographics)-they are well-written and well-sourced. I suppose that u also do not have any objections concerning the ancient, byzantine and ottoman periods (for the reason u told me). so, lets go to 1903. the article says After the revival of Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian statehood in the 19th century, Macedonia became a focus of the national ambitions of all three governments, leading to the creation in the 1890s and 1900s of rival armed groups who divided their efforts between fighting the Turks and one another.. thus, there is reference about greek involvement prior to 1903. but the Ilinden uprising forced the Greeks to react more. i guess that there is noone who could say that this uprising was caused by the Greeks, but many claim that this uprising had effect on their actions. i think that prior to 1903, the ethnic groups of Macedonia were in a sort of status quo, having to fight primarily the ottoman rule. after that date, they started fighting one another with more passion (have in mind that there were 3 groups: pro-serbian, -greek, -bulgarian. there was not such a thing as pro-'macedonian' group). about the 'Macedonian identity': they are not just opinions, but repetition of historic facts, since no 'Macedonian ethnic group' was ever shown on censa or reported by western (or not) historians or travellers. It is another thing to try to be NPOV and another to accept modern theories with no historical base. I also think that there are no 100% accurate and reliable sources that would be able to guide us in all the matters of conflict. since (as u said and i agree with u) all the modern historians (Greeks, Bulgarians and 'Macedonians') see the whole issue from a nationalist perspective, i guess we should either look for non-ethnically-involved historians and/or (even better) on contemporary historians.

Oi apopseis sou sto talk mou fanikan 'perierges' kai gi'afto skeftika oti tha ekane mono kalo mia proseggisi twn apopsewn sou. --Hectorian 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made the corrections in the errors u spotted. i also believe that these edits were not accurate and historic. but concerning the 'Macedonian Slavs'... Δεν σηκώνω μύγα στο σπαθί μου! there are no contemporary references, but only people like the one u mentioned, who cannot be considered NPOV. the article says about him Misirkov mentioned the necessity of creating a Macedonian national identity which would diverse the Macedonian Slavs from Bulgarians, Serbians or Greeks.. in western cont. historians' books there are references about the ethnic groups of Macedonia. none of them mentions 'Macedonians'. ottoman censa were based on religion, as u correctly said. so, i cannot see any debate on that matter... such an identity simply did not exist in the way it is presented today.

Se genikes grammes sumfwnw mazi sou, oswn afora tis istorikes anakriveies pou entopises. kai afto epithumw gia ola ta arthra pou sxetizontai me to thema: na sevastoume tin istoria...

Regards:) --Hectorian 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are Greek, I'm Martian

You know that claiming a false identity will cost you my FYROMian friend... --   Avg    00:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)