Talk:Macedonia

Descriptions

Why cant the descriptions for each article show the full story, "Macedon" identity is argued yet on Wikipedia it is "in nothern Greece" (even tho many state it is north of Greece), "Ancient Macedonian language" is argued between Illyrian, Thracian, and Greek... yet it states "closely to Greek" (even though its close to Illyrian and Thracian also). Stop the propaganda Greeks

Mactruth (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pella curse tablet, Ancient Macedonian language, Argead dynasty, what more do you want, to convince yourself? Why do you want to eliminate the word "Greek" and "Greece" from the ancient Macedonia, when we all know that it was a part of the ancient Greece? --xvvx (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I never stated I wanted to eliminate, I simply state that some authors state "Macedonian is Thracian" others state "Macedonian is Illyrian" while others state its Greek, yet it is not reflected in the Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral and show all sides. Mactruth (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply looking at the Wikipedia page it states:

1. an Indo-European language which is a close cousin to Greek and also related to Thracian and Phrygian languages, suggested by A. Meillet (1913) and I. I. Russu (1938),[12] or part of a Sprachbund encompassing Thracian, Illyrian and Greek (Kretschmer 1896, E. Schwyzer 1959).
2. an "Illyrian" dialect mixed with Greek, suggested by K. O. Müller (1825) and by G. Bonfante (1987).

I don't have time at the moment, but this proves authors disagree as to what ancient Macedonian is, whether it is Greek, Thracian, Illyrian (etc) and should be shown in the page Mactruth (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to convince the people from your profile that the Macedonians are not Greeks! Are the Epirotes not Greek, the Creatans not Greek, the Peloponnesians not Greek, the Euboeans not Greek, the Thessalians not Greek... etc??? From the ancient times the Greeks defined their origin not only ethnological, but georgaphical too, just like the Greeks do nowdays.

I wont say more but why are you using a Greek symbol (Vergina Sun) in your profile, that is forbidden for use by your country and it was discovered by Manolis Andronikos in 1977 in Greek Macedonia?...

From the Vergina Sun article...

"The Vergina Sun (or Star) is the intellectual property of Greece and a state emblem of the country [1][2] under the World Intellectual Property Organization, as well in its differen variations."

What would the reactions from the Americans be, if suddenly the Greeks start using one of their symbol? Why did your country do that?

You are talking about propaganda, but your profile is full of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakis79 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Flag of Malaysia, the Flag of Chile, and the Flag of Liberia. Even the Greek flag was probably influenced by the American flag. No Americans have started crying yet. --Local hero 19:32, 19 March 2009

All off-topic, people. Please go elsewhere. This is the discussion page of a dab page. The only purpose of a dab page is to pass a reader on to the real articles as quickly as possible, and the only purpose of this discussion page is to work out how best to do that. Take your POV gripes elsewhere, everybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) should be up front in this article.

It was a featured article too. I added it on the top and then someone said "Sorry it's also on the 'see also' section". I know, but the 'see also' section is not really part of the main article, or it's not that apparent. This is a very important article (terminology) that provides a length of information not found in this one. --AaThinker (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just what the "see also" section is for. It just doesn't fit into the logic of the main list. "'Macedonia' can refer to 'Macedonia (terminology)'" is simply not a true statement. 'Macedonia' refers to a real entity out there, and the Macedonia (terminology) article is not about such an entity, but about a discussion on a lingustic meta-level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate names & Geographic terms

There is really no reason to add the so-called geographic terms on this disambiguation page as User:Fireleaf did. I've seen he had repeated this discussion here for the same edits. Now he/she is trying to slowly and secretly re-feed those terms for both the Bulgarian part and the Greek part, with two edits separated by some days apart :). I'm joking, but strangely what is missing is an edit to add the other geographic term: Vardar Macedonia

I assume good faith, please Fireleaf explain why to add these terms. If we do for reference purposes, wouldn't there be logical to add alternate names like FYROM for the Republic too? After all it is an official name used by many international organizations. Wouldn't that lead to an editing mess? Let's keep it simple then.

This page is to help someone who doesn't know which Macedonia article to read about. References to these terms belong to the Macedonia (terminology) article or elsewhere, not here

If the edits were meant to inform the reader on the geography, in my opinion the geography of the regions is pretty clear from the text. Besides there is a link for the geography right on the top. A "region in northern Greece" and "a western province of Bulgaria" makes everything crystal clear, no need to add anything else. Since we are begging this discussion I must mention that the geography of FYROM is not so clear from the text. Should we add northern Macedonia, as in "the northen part of the Macedonia region"? I'm not in much favor of doing this on this page. What do you think?

Please discuss before doing these edits again. By the way I'm sure that you understand that both Pirin Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia are controversial terms as stated in the respective articles. Is it really helpful to disambiguate a term using other controversial terms? Let's go for simplicity.Shadowmorph (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The "new sections" added to Macedonia dis. page

If you are going to add subgroups of an ethnicity, why not add Aegean Macedonians and Pirin Macedonians? Obviously, they are a subgroup of Macedonians and contain the word "Macedonian"

1. Macedonians (Greeks) - We already stated subgroups would not be added to the dis. page
2. Macedonian dialect - the page does NOT even give a description of a so called "Macedonian dialect" but rather the speakers are talking a Northern dialect, where an example of a Northern dialect is "Macedonian." The problem is this statement is a modern dialect based on modern political divisions, not historical date (ie: There are no documents stating in the middle ages or ottoman empire of "the greek dialect of Macedonian")
3. Macedonians (Bulgarians) - again, we already stated subgroups would not be included (ie: Aegean Macedonians also), and the page does not even direct you to an appropriate page, but rather a list?
4. Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia (Slav-Macedonians) - pure politics. First off, you include in the historical section, ignoring that Greek Macedonia was not created until 1913. Second, you write "Slavic Macedonians" but there is already a redirect for that! Again, this is a SUBGROUP, not an ethnicity.
5. Macedon or Macedonia, the kingdom in ancient Greece - Again, I have added sources showing Macedon was regarded NORTH of Greece by several historians, but instead you Greeks DELETE the data... ignoring what doesn't suit your agenda. I'm sorry but if you want data Future Sunshine just ask, but some authors state "Northern Greece" others state "North of Greece" and ignoring that shows bias.
6. The Ancient Macedonian language, an extinct Indo-European variety close to Greek - Again, I showed sources stated authors stated the Macedonian language was Thraco-Illyrian, but again you DELETE and IGNORE the date. Why are Greeks so reluctant to show ALL the data, and instead focus on their point of view only? Again Future Sunshine, if you want the data just ask but don't make Wikipedia bias.
7. Socialist Republic of Macedonia - How is this a historical concept? It was a republic within Yugoslavia only 20 years ago, not the middle ages or Ottoman Empire. It is also the predecessor of the Republic of Macedonia

Mactruth (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it all back to the last version of Future Perfect. The users adding stuff can discuss it here prior to adding it again. --Laveol ^T 09:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mactruth please discuss this. Why are you reverting good faith edits, marking the revert as minor. I don't think that is ok to do. I don't understand the reason we have to hide all other ethnic groups in the region. What does it mean that they are subgroups? Wikipedia has info on other Macedonians too. Should we hide that information by suggesting that no other people call themselves Macedonians? This is a disambiguation page! Everything that could be referenced with the name Macedonia (or adj. Macedonian) should be mentioned here. Also, the argument about the subgroups is wrong. There is no rule against subgroups. Aren't the Macedonians (ethnic group) also a subgroup, that of peoples of Macedonia region? Why don't we have that article like Peoples of the Caucasus that mentions all ethnicities? Why is there no problem with other Wikipedia disambiguation pages like America, American, Caucasus, Caucasian. They have links to all subgroups involved. Maybe we should split the disambiguation page into noun + adjective like it is standard practice in Wikipedia. If we serve all the links for the noun why should we not do the same for the adjective? Sorry but it makes no sense. Since the adjective is used in English to refer to other peoples like here and here the information should be in this page. So to quote Metallica nothing else matters! Shadowmorph (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So I guess according to some editors 2.5 million Greeks being called regularly Macedonians isn't notable. And Macedonian referring to the a specific a dialect of Greek (one of the Northern dialects) isn't notable either because there isn't enough info in Wikipedia. That can't be an excuse. I'd be bold and create the article, but there is some effort involved and I'm not the definative expert.

In favor of disambiguating to Macedonian dialect of Greek: Here are some sources on the Macedonian dialect explicitly referring to the dialect of modern Greek quote from a book on Greek phonology

Now in modern Greek the dialects are divided sharply on this point. The dialects of Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly have "σε δίνω", those of the rest of of Greece "σου δίνω", in the sense of "I give you"

quote from just one linguistics book

THE MACEDONIAN DIALECT (note: a whole chapter) : The Greek language has come down to us, like the old Teutonic language, in a number of dialects and sub-dialects

quote from a book about the Greek Testament

the dialect spoken in most of northern Greece ...the Macedonian dialect uses accusative clitics

In the Bible. Here is [3] just one book I could find that specifically mentions that passage]

Why were you called Timotheus by the Thessalonians? he replied : "In the Thessalonian dialect Timotheus meant the same as leader or bishop.". Note that the meaning of the word Thessalonian at that time transcended to Macedonian Shadowmorph (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How about we include disambig entries only if and when an actual target article has been written? Nobody denies we could have some encyclopedic treatment of, let's say, modern Macedonian Greek dialects. But right now, we don't. Nobody has taken the trouble of writing any. Not even our survey articles on Modern Greek and Varieties of Modern Greek have anything. So, what's the use of having links to articles that don't exist?

By the way, before somebody endeavors to write one, I would first want to check if "Macedonian" today is a linguistically relevant dialectological category at all. Of course there are Greek dialects in Macedonia, but is Macedonia a distinctive dialect region? Are there any linguistic features that are characteristic of Greek Macedonia as such, rather than, say, of the whole of northern Greece, or of only a sub-area of Macedonia? Do linguistically relevant dialect boundaries coincide, even roughly, with those region boundaries between Macedonia, Thrace, Epirus or whatever? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've checked out the American disambig. page here is what is used there

• A citizen or something of or from the United States
  • For the collective inhabitants of the U.S., see Demographics of the United States
• A citizen of one of the nations of the Americas

I agree with you on some extent. I hope this won't be just an excuse. You see above (as in many other disambiguation pages) that there is no requirement for an article to exist, rather that a reference exists that may be used with the term. In that case a wording like for the dialect of Greek spoken in the region see Modern Greek is what should be used

Articles do exist on all "subgroups" of people (and all of them were or are self-identified as just Macedonians now or in various times in history). We should include all of them. Actually I find the term "subgroup" rather ugly, aren't all ethnic groups in the region logical subsets ("subgroups") of the Peoples of Macedonia region? It isn't a matter of whether the cover article exists, its a matter of logic. We shouldn't include one and not the other.

Why do we have to discuss weather there is an Elephant in the Room when -funny enough- other pages like Caucasian have links even to one-line orphan articles like North_Caucasian_(pig) :D

It absurd enough that these people appear in their own lists but have no respective articles.

I have went on and sourced Modern Greek#Varieties and enriched Varieties of Modern Greek to reflect things that were written in the first but not the second.

You can read the 2nd of the sources or take my word for it, there exists a Macedonian dialect of modern Greek. It is a common anecdote among all Greeks and a source for some teasing among Athenians and Thessalonians about which form of speaking is the correct. All of the Greek speaking people of Macedonia (most of them in the capital Thessaloniki) speak this "dialect" (it is actually an idiom). People from Kozani to Katerini and Kavala speak the idiom but people south of Katerini or East of Kavala almost never do. The boundaries are of course blurry, but the fact is that this idiom is characterized naturally by Macedonia (thus the usual connotation he speaks Thessalonian after the capital of Macedonia). If you go in Athens and order something saying "δώσε με" instead of "δώσε μου" (both meaning "give me") they will say, Oh, are you from Thessaloniki? But no one will ever think you are from Volos or Alexandroupolis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the Macedonian dialect other things difer as well, many words - like this funny difference for the word of a popular food, explained here Souvlaki#Kalamaki. There are countless examples for differences in the vocabulary for foods, outside Macedonia in the rest of Greece, the food named Bougatsa is different thing. Also in Macedonia the "L" is pronounced thicker, at times written with double "L"

To lighten up a little, here is a guy from Thessaloniki (In Macedonia called Salonikios, but elsewhere in Greece called Thessalonikios) speaking with the Macedonian idiom: [4] :) Shadowmorph (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we need a bit more than your personal anecdotes here. Of the sources you cited above (excluding the one from 1903, which hardly counts as a serious linguistic treatment as far as I can gather, but I couldn't read it on google books), every single one was mentioning Macedonian only within the same breath as other northern dialects. All actual dialect features that have been quoted from reliable sources so far, including most notably the syntactic dose me, are shared between Macedonia and its neighbouring regions. There may very well be some distinctive Macedonian dialect, but we haven't yet heard anything reliable about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided what I could find for now. Why does it matter if it's features are shared with adjacent regions? Aren't features of the Slavic Macedonian language also shared with adjacent Bulgarian dialects? Does the area that it is spoken coincide exactly with the Republic? My point is that "Macedonian" is used as a term to refer to a Macedonian dialect when it is in a context about modern Greek.

Besides isn't "Macedonian" (or Slav-Macedonian) another name given (in some contexts) for some of the dialects spoken by some Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? They are different from standard language spoken in ROM but people even from ROM sometimes refer to them as "Macedonian".Shadowmorph (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, some of the sources you have shown are written by Greeks and are modern, while others do not show a difference in dialect between Macedonia, Thrace, and Thessaly dialects (meaning it is not distinctive). You claim there must be a Macedonian dialect because articles state Thessalonian, but you fail to realize that Thessaloniki was predominantly Jewish before the World Wars came along. Any Thessalonian dialect that came along after the World Wars was not historical, and most likely adopted by the mass influx of Pontic Greeks that arrived in Macedonia during the 1920s. The Macedonian language is an internationally recognized language, which has been historically associated and classified as being spoken throughout the Macedonia region. You don't see me adding "Aegean Macedonian dialect" do you? Or Pirin Macedonian dialect? There is no point to it because even though it may exist, it is a modern context that evolved after the division of Macedonia. The Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia is classified as speaking the Macedonian language by many historical sources, and was even taught after the Macedonians and the Communist defeated the Greek armies for a brief period during the Greek Civil War, and there are also documentaries which show Macedonians will not express their language openly due to Greek discrimination. Mactruth (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now about your arguments one by one

1. You say some of the sources are writen by Greeks. Actually only one of the four and not some of the sources is co-writen by Greeks and Geoffrey C. Horrocks. And it is an international University publication not a Greek one. Please don't disregard me as someone that would babble with only Greek sources in hand. Do you have any reason to say that it isn't good?
2. You say do not show a difference in dialect with adjacent regions. I have answered to Fut.Perf. about that, you are just repeating the question. Even if it is a shared and not a distinct dialect (a thing that you don't know but just saying it) there is no problem in that. I mean that the idiom of modern Greek we are talking about is indeed referred to as "Macedonian dialect", or "Thracian dialect" etc. according to the regional context. I have assumed for the sake of argument that they are one shared dialect, which is not the case. Even then we would have to add a link in this disambiguation page - all other info about shared features belonging to inside the article, not here
3. What you call Aegean Macedonian dialect, I think the reason you are not adding that is because Wikipedia calls it by another name like "Aegean Macedonians" too, which redirects. I would suggest not using controversial terms, unless they are stated as such and all other terms appear likewise (I tried that, didn't work out). Does a Pirin Macedonian dialect exist? I couldn't find it, is it a Bulgarian dialect?
4. You say all those are in a modern context. So what? Are all other things here historical? Isn't the whole top section about Modern period? I did state it is about a dialect of modern Greek
5. you fail to realize that Thessaloniki was predominantly Jewish. Did I say it never was? What do you think I am, silly? I didn't say "Thessalonian", Paul did (not McCartney - the apostle) in the Bible. Check the Epistles. This was before becoming predominantly Jewish. The sources are about Thessalonian Greek which at that time transcended into Macedonian Greek, the passage is about the name Timotheus which is Greek from τιμή (like in timology) and θεός (like in theology). The rest is unrelated. If anyone has a link to the epistle text please share it with us. Modern Greek that is spoken today in Macedonia (Greece) has inherited features from that Thessalonian or Macedonian dialect of Greek spoken in Paul's time. Anyway I just wanted to show that a distinct dialect did exist back then and does exist now. At least Paul though it did.
6. No comment on the rest you say, which are more or less correct except the thing you say about discrimination. Just for the record, I don't agree on that (but it's off-topic to talk about).Shadowmorph (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

about argument #1 a correction: Springer is an ademic publisher not a university, and a respectable an outside source Shadowmorph (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"FYROM"?

ChrisO said in an edit summary: "we should at least mention the FYROM acronym to catch searches for this term". Sorry Chris, I don't quite see your logic here. Why would we want people who search for "FYROM" to be directed to this page? They should (and will, of course) be taken straight to the Republic of Macedonia page. Why would we want them to see this dab page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

People who type in FYROM in Wikipedia do get redirected correctly. It might be the case that people coming here in one way or another have never heard of the name Republic of Macedonia but will recognize only FYR.Macedonia or FYROM. For example if one has ever heard of the country only from the Olympics or from the Eurovision Contest. Republic of Macedonia would be an unknown term for him/her to click. Not everybody in the world knows ROM with it's constitutional name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your logic here Shadowmorph, the statement that Macedonia is referred to as "FYROM" is within the article Republic of Macedonia, and most likely people on the Macedonia page are wanting to goto the region or country therefore it seems like its unneccassry information since "Republic of Macedonia" - an independent European nation and "Macedonia (Greece)" - a region of Greece will discriminate by themselves. Mactruth (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Ok, I aggree. I guess the words "sovereign state" make it clear that this is the country even if someone (e.g. from Micronesia) is not familiar with the name. So lets omit it. I was against alternate names in here to begin with.

Lets also omit "Pirin Macedonia". Using your own words:

the statement that Blagoevgrad Province is referred to as "Pirin Macedonia" is within the article Blagoevgrad Province, and most likely people on the Macedonia page are wanting to go to the region or country therefore it seems like its unnecessary information since "Republic of Macedonia" - an independent European nation and "Blagoevgrad Province" - a region of Bulgaria will discriminate by themselves.

Those discriminate even better since they aren't homonymous Shadowmorph (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On top of that "Pirin Macedonia" is controversial

Peripheries of Greece

Macedonia can also refer to one of three peripheries of Greece

West Macedonia

Central Macedonia

East Macedonia and Thrace

I believe nobody objects to adding them. Besides if we have added salads and songs, administrative divisions are more important things and they are different things from geographical regions. With the current structure I have categorized them under Macedonia (Greece) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to mention and the University of Macedonia http://www.uom.gr/index.php?newlang=eng in Thessaloniki. It was on the list in the past, but i guest for some reason, the salad, the frigate and the football team are more important :p --xvvx (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this page was a bit clean of Greek things. Of course the university should be added, Greek poeple say I went to "Macedonia" like they say I went to "Cambridge". To add to that the university is also known as "Macedonia University" even internationally like in conferences[5], academic projects[6] and interships[7] etc. I went on to add University of Western Macedonia -established in the West Macedonia periphery- as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I object to these additions. None of these things is simply called "Macedonia". There is no sense of the word "Macedonia" in which it refers exclusively to West Macedonia or Central Macedonia alone. West and Central Macedonia are always only parts of what Macedonia refers to. Thus they don't belong here. As for the university, it can be included if you can show that the usage "I went to Macedonia" is current in English. Which I doubt. Otherwise, please refer to the manual of style (WP:MOSDAB): things that are simply named after something and carry that word as part of their name should not be included in dab pages.

You guys are misunderstanding the purpose of a dab page. Whether or not to include something here has nothing to do with how "important" it is. The only criterion is whether or not it is called "Macedonia(n)", pure and simply. If it is only a part or an aspect of a Macedonia topic, or if "M." is only part of its name, it goes out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:MOSDAB states: If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does. That's what every other editor in Wikipedia is doing in other places.

Well, sorry my friend but I'm not misunderstanding the WP:PURPOSE, are you? You say to not show the universities because of a technicality. Are you sure we aren't creating exceptions only for the Greeks? Does the manual of style apply only to Greek things?

I challenge you to find one article about a university, that doesn't appear in the disambiguation page of it's homonymous region. And how exactly did some of the universities articles have proven common English usage of the one word variant? You are assigning me with an impossible task. I say it's just an excuse to delete the Greek things.

I just checked some articles for the famous ones

University of Oxford states in the article "or simply Oxford" and appears in Oxford (disambiguation). Correct.

University of Cambridge states "often Cambridge University" but doesn't state "simply Cambridge" - But it appears in Cambridge (disambiguation). The page even includes Cambridge University Press which is never stated as "simply Campridge"

(On our case, I have already provided sources for "Macedonia University" form being used, but they are not really needed, see below)

Now let's get to the tricky ones

"Minnesota" can never be used solely for University of Minnesota (the old one) because there also exists a bigger one, the University of Minnesota system. In the article it doesn't say that it is referred to as simply Minnesota. Still, it appears in Minnesota (disambiguation)

University of Washington nowhere states that it can be referred to simply as Washington, but it appears in Washington (disambiguation)

I want to make a point so I am going to paste some colleges from there, take look at Washington (disambiguation)

Central Washington University, in Ellensburg, Washington, Central Washington University-Lynnwood, in Lynnwood, Washington, Eastern Washington University, in Cheney, Washington, George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., Lake Washington Technical College, in Kirkland, Washington, Trinity Washington University, in Washington, D.C.,University of Mary Washington, in Fredericksburg, Virginia ...

about 50 entries of colleges and universities etc, all of them NOT AT ALL following the WP:MOSDAB

And we are making fuss about two universities in Macedonia (Greece)? :D

WP:MOSDAB is not the Bible

I concur that referring to a University by stating only the name of it's region is common in English for most of the Universities in the world. When answering the question which university did you attend? - I went to Minessota (no confusion). Can you prove the above is wrong?

As long as Western Washington University, in Bellingham, Washington is included Washington (disambiguation), 'so shall the University of Western Macedonia be included here

Now about the peripheries, I've seen these disambiguation pages

Irish includes Northern Ireland which is never stated as simply Ireland and is also a part of England politically, or Ireland geographically.

Caucasus (disambiguation) includes North Caucasus, South Caucasus

Luxembourg (disambiguation) includes Luxembourg (district) even though its just a part (southwestern) of the state. Deeper still, includes Luxembourg (canton) that is just a subdivision of the division of the country.

Iberian includes things like Northeastern Iberian script and Southeastern Iberian script

Catalonia (disambiguation) includes Northern Catalonia event though it is "Northern Catalonia" and not just Catalonia that is also a sub-region, that of Southern France

That's because a geographic identifier can always be omitted in simple English and the word will retain the meaning. West Macedonian, and Central Macedonian citizens of the respective peripheries all being referred to as simply Macedonian. Also, other words are trivially omitted like colours, the words language, dialect and script for speaking/reading/writing almost always are omitted (thus Northeastern Iberian script is referred to as Iberian, Macedonian language as Macedonian), the words Old (Old English) and New (the New Testaments are referred to as Testaments - and Nova Makedonija as Makedonija) and of course administrative and demographic divisions like ethnic group, regional group, county city,town,state and periphery in our case

I hope nobody tries to find excuses to make this page as Greek-free as possible

According to WP:PURPOSE, in my opinion the above additions should remain like all those examples

This shouldn't be the most restrictive strict disambiguation page just to scare of the Greeks

To sum up for our case e.g. West Macedonian', simply Macedonian can refer in English to a person or a thing related to the West Macedonia periphery of Greece. Shadowmorph (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. So, the short answer is: no, you are wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So we should remove from the Oxford (disambiguation), Aristotle (disambiguation), Cambridge (disambiguation) (the list is actually endless), any reference about the universities (amongst other things)? My question is... why only in this page? --xvvx (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Right on the point, "Oxford" being the only University in that long list deserving its appearance in a dab page (according to WP:MOSDAB). But WP:MOSDAB says about universities refered to with one word: "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does".

Fut.Perf. sorry for the long previous very long post. Yet, I would like to hear your opinion on these things. By the way, introducing separate dab pages was probably a good idea. Shadowmorph (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, it's simple. Oxford university is often referred to simply as "Oxford" in English. "I studied at Oxford". "He graduated from Oxford". Now, show me one example where this is done, in a decently reliable source in good English, with those Macedonian universities. "He graduated from Macedonia"? If people say that, no problem. Show me. - As for "West Macedonia", of course "Macedonian" can refer to people or things from that periphery, since it's obviously part of Macedonia. But that is already covered by our entry on Macedonia (Greece). Nobody would ever say simply "Macedonia" when they mean West Macedonia specifically and alone. That's all that matters here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian

in another section User:Mactruth has said:

Macedon or Macedonia, the kingdom in ancient Greece - Again, I have added sources showing Macedon was regarded NORTH of Greece by several historians, but instead you Greeks DELETE the data... ignoring what doesn't suit your agenda. I'm sorry but if you want data Future Sunshine just ask, but some authors state "Northern Greece" others state "North of Greece" and ignoring that shows bias.

The Ancient Macedonian language, an extinct Indo-European variety close to Greek - Again, I showed sources stated authors stated the Macedonian language was Thraco-Illyrian, but again you DELETE and IGNORE the date. Why are Greeks so reluctant to show ALL the data, and instead focus on their point of view only? Again Future Sunshine, if you want the data just ask but don't make Wikipedia bias.

pasted here for convenience by Shadowmorph (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The current wording is the better one

• Macedon or Macedonia, the kingdom in ancient Greece
  • Ancient Macedonians, the people of the ancient kingdom of Macedon
  • The Ancient Macedonian language, an extinct Indo-European language close to Greek

1. "the kingdom in ancient Greece" is better (it even avoids describing it as Greek), I believe because ancient Greece is an area and an idea; that encompasses Macedon in any case, as shown in Macedon's history. Classical Greece or Hellenistic Greece could be an alternative referring to the either the culture or the time period. "during the times of ancient Greece" is just a sentence to avoid saying Classical Greece or Hellenistic Greece that both correctly associate to the time and the culture of Macedon. "during the times" also creates a kind of POV aura that Macedon just happened to have existed then and has no other affiliation to Greece. It's like the argument about the language that follows the same suit. To sum up "In ancient Greece" is the simplest solution
2. Saying the language is of unknown affinity only leaves room for being mistaken as an ancient form of the Slavic Macedonian language. Again the POV aura. It is also wrong, it's affinity is not unknown, it's just not fixed to one exact scenario. "close to Greek" sums up nicely the majority of classification scenarios without even saying anything about classification. It just says that it is close to Greek, a fact, regardless of classification or the "original" origin of the language. Also, confusion with the modern language is thus avoided. The arguments of some editors are like creationist arguments about "teaching the controversy" about evolution in schools. The fact is that it is close to Greek. Shadowmorph (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, Shadowmorph, I think you hit the nail on the head this time. Good work. --Athenean (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Some useful statistics

Here are web hit statistics (from http://stats.grok.se) about what our readers are actually reading. All figures from March 2009:

Articles

article	hits
"Macedonia" entries
Republic of Macedonia	119,905
Macedon	22,845
Macedonia (region)	12,827
Macedonia (Greece)	11,660
Socialist Republic of Macedonia	1,972
Macedonia (Roman province)	1,873
Blagoevgrad Province	1,707
Diocese of Macedonia	296
Macedonia (theme)	603
Macedonia, Alabama	365
Macedonia, Georgia	317
"Macedonian" entries
Macedonian language	15,863
Macedonians (ethnic group)	9,547
Ancient Macedonians	4,739
Ancient Macedonian language	3,934
Macedonians (Greek)	289

dab pages

dab page / redirect	hits
Macedonia	34,752
redirects to dab page
Macedonian	1616
Macedonians	945
Makedoniya	10
Ancient Macedonian	207

other redirects

redirect	hits
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	2,239
FYROM	1,958
FYR Macedonia	583
Macedonia (country)	539
Greek Macedonia	414
F.Y.R.O.M.	71
Makedonija	672
Makedonia	734
Ancient Macedonia	433

I've proposed a re-grouping of the dab page a bit more in line with our readers' interests. Incidentally, it also makes the wording more efficient, because it is much easier to describe what the region is when you have already previously mentioned the country and the Greek part, rather than the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this "keep it simple and hierarchical" logic, is just fine... and i hope to stay that way, for a long long long time ;-) --xvvx (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Page name modification

I've made a minor change to the page naming, adding the standard "(disambiguation)" terminology that we commonly use for disambig pages per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)