User talk:NikoSilver

NikoSilver is currently working his ass off in real life and has decided that it is about time his long RealLifeBreak in favor of WP was interrupted. He will make frequent brief RealLifeBreaks, but you won't see him as much as you may be used to. (Yeah, he knows you're better off!)

File:Villianc.svg

NikoSilver would like to thank everybody with an opinion about The TruthTM on this page, undeterred about those monitoring this page and uniting to prevent its enforcement. Keep sending that valuable feedback please.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User_talk:NikoSilver/Archive12. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
Jan 28 – Mar 28, 2006 Mar 28 – May  2, 2006 May  2 – May 29, 2006 May 29 – Jun  8, 2006 Jun  8 – Oct 12, 2006 Oct 12 – Nov 15, 2006 Nov 15 – Dec 31, 2006 Jan 1 – Jan 24, 2007 Jan 24 – Apr 13, 2007 Apr 14 – Sep 10, 2007 Sep 10 – ... , 2007

Remarks

_*

1. I will post responses below your comment right here, so "watch" my page (or select to watch whatever you edit in your prefs). Same I will expect from you when I message you. Otherwise, continuity is completely lost.
2. You can spy if you want... Only morons don't use e-mail when they want to conspire...
3. My e-mail application actually has a bell thingy. I'll read them faster if you don't message me as well that you sent me one. Actually, it'd be more alarming to send me an e-mail, telling me you've left a message in my talk! :-)
4. This talk is being automatically archived using User:Werdnabot/Archiver. All comments that are older than 10 days are removed and placed in the respective archive. In the rare case I don't respond to a comment, please remind me so.
5. Sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) that produce your name and the datestamp. The automatic archive doesn't work if it doesn't see a timestamp!

Δε θα κάνεις archive το talk page σου ποτέ; Telex 1 3 : 0 5 , 2 M a y 2 0 0 6 ( U T C )

Μπα! :NikoSilver: ^{(T) @ (C)} 1 3 : 1 8 , 2 M a y 2 0 0 6 ( U T C )

---

Panhellenic Socialist Movement leadership election, 2007

Very well done, thanks! Any idea when it's likely going to take place? —Nightstallion 14:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The party "conference" was set to take place on Feb 8th 2008, yet political analysts argue that it will be done much earlier in Oct-Nov 2007. No definite date has been announced as of yet. BTW the new candidate will have to be nominated by 10% of the party members and PASOK "friends" (=nobody knows what that means!), which is a rather high number given that Papandreou had amassed one million votes, being the only candidate. We'll wait and see. NikoSilver 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

nods I can only hope -- both Karamanlis and Papandreou are absolutely horrible, IMO. Normally, I'm all for parties left of centre, but I can understand why the choice between either of the two parties would be rather difficult currently... —Nightstallion 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO the economic policy has to be right of center in Greece, because for the task of "giving money to the people" I trust more the entrepreneurs through their investments, than I trust the politicians through their looting. How much do companies earn? 5%? 15%? Well, they are compelled to invest at least half of it to be viable, thereby creating new jobs and hiring higher-paid executives. On the other hand politicians are notoriously stealing 30% and, of course, invest zero. For the rest of the policy I'd say I am center-left. I guess it takes a split personality to match my ideal candidate! NikoSilver 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are both 'center-right free-market socialists'. See you at the next elections! Politis 11:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read (in the Austrian newspaper Die Presse, see this article) that Venizelos might be the catalyst of a large change in the Greek political structure, maybe leading to some sort of alliance between PASOK, the Communists and the Left Coalition -- is that likely? —Nightstallion 12:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Democracy briefly governed with the Communist Party in 1989. So anything is possible. But in this case it is unlikely. Venizelos is on the right of his party and does not wish such alliances; it will create a Socialist Tower of Babel. But even in such a coalition, they have no majority. Politis 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, but they'd have a far easier time to become the largest party when in an alliance... Why did the Communists govern with ND back then? —Nightstallion 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Heard about this? If he was on his way to a meeting to decide the procedure for the election, does that mean we'll be getting a date some time soon? ;) —Nightstallion 11:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he read the instructions in the coffee cup :-) In 1989 ND won the largest number of votes but no overall majority in parliament. Joining with the communist party buried the hatch and, besides, there was no other party that could have provided it with sufficient MPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Politis (talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why ND governed with the left: In 1989 (or so) Andreas Papandreou had foreseen he'd lose the elections, while he was also accused of major financial scandals. Legal action against the former government could only be done by the immediate next due to the law. So Papandreou altered the election law to deprive parliamentary majority from the ruling party even with the (quite astonishing) 47.8% that it got. The left decided to co-govern with ND in order to prosecute the previous government, and then, after 5 months, new elections were made. NikoSilver 16:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A side issue

It is said that in 1993 PM Mitsotakis and Kiro Gligorov had agreed for the name "Slavomacedonia". MFA Samaras disagreed and turned down the government (which due to the still-active crazy electoral law had only 151 members despite a majority of 47% or so). Papandreou came again to power guns blazing about "no Macedonia in the title at all". The result is the situation we have today as you know it.

Today, the Greek parliament consists of the following:

• A flimsy parliamentary majority (152) for the ruling party (any bells?)
• Samaras returned in ND and a parliament member (any bells?)
• Strong left parties (who are traditionally pro-"Macedonia"-name due to the Greek Civil War etc)
• Far right present in the parliament with minimum voice, that can put its disagreement on record

And now something for conspiracy theorists: If I were to "design" the ideal parliament composition that would "sell" the Macedonia dispute, I wouldn't be able to think of a better one! Being a Laokoon, I foresee a stable solution proposal by ND (such as New Macedonia), which will be disagreed by the left (who will want just Macedonia), by the right (who will want "no Macedonia at all") and by PASOK (same), and will end up in new elections (because the government will be again overthrown), that will lead to PASOK ruling again with a firm position, that will lead to the situation becoming irreparable for Greece (much like it is today, only worse). Well, it may not happen like this, but if it does, you'll know I had said so. NikoSilver 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Greece's position in this is untenable, as more and more countries are simply adopting RoM as the official name instead of FYROM -- another decade or so, and there'll be barely any FYROM-countries left... —Nightstallion 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blaming PASOK for pretty much everything that happens in Greece, from Macedonia to the recent fires, is a favourite sport of the Right. Except for the inconvenient details that a. PASOK was the only Greek government to extract any concessions at all from Skopje; and b. ND was firmly in power when the whole issue blew up in the first place. It had at least two years to bury the problem in its infancy, and didn't. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as illustrated here, there may have been quite an arm-twist from the Republic's part. Extremists say that Greece should pay in the same currency. Still, the problem of official repeated misinformation internally and externally remains, and I've lost hope that it could be solved any other way but with a freaking disambiguating qualifier that would "demote" the country and the ethnic group from their perceived region-wide status to a sub-region status (as it actually is). The worst part is that I've never seen any user from that country here who would not strictly follow the doctrines of Macedonism, which leads me to the conclusion that they are not insisting on calling themselves plain "Macedonians" for reasons of "self-identification" alone; but for reasons that they all actually believe to their bone that their country should be a United Macedonia, that they descend from the Ancient Macedonians, and that their language derives from the Ancient Macedonian language. I'm generally a good-faith person, and if I had met one that says otherwise, then in the hope that his views would eventually spread amongst them, I'd probably change my mind and let them be called as they like. Have you met anyone? NikoSilver 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

shrugs Frankly, the identifying with Ancient Macedonians and claiming to derive from them doesn't hurt anyone (neither Greece nor Macedonia has too much of a right in that regard); the revisionism is the only worrying part, IMO, and even that can't seriously be considered an issue as the Greek Macedonians would never democratically choose to become part of the RoM. This whole issue could be ignored, IMO, if it weren't for popularity contest issues in Greece (and Macedonia, too, of course)... —Nightstallion 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We all have a right to this glorious heritage, but most of all the Greeks, since the only guy that counts (and his fathers) self-identified as such. Self-identification is a bitch I've heard. Nevertheless, Kennedy's or Onassi's or Einstein's son, could very well be a total dork, just like the daughter of the ultimate loser could become Madonna. So, yes, if one generation only can turn your genes up-side-down, then I can most realistically imagine why the rest of my fellow modern Greeks are so screwed up. (Except me, of course.) NikoSilver 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough, true enough. Even the Portuguese managed to spend the EU funds more sensibly than the Greeks... —Nightstallion 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that why they've fallen behind several of the new eastern European members in per capita GDP as the result of a chronically stagnant economy, while Greece has recently surpassed Spain and Italy in PPP terms? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you win, both Portugal and Greece are wasting money equally well. ;) —Nightstallion 15:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

We must be doing something right, considering Austria was the only member state ever to be slapped with EU sanctions. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which was rather ridiculous, actually, seeing as how the Polish government has not been sanctioned -- BTW, it was horrible how the rightist parties used the sanctions for their own political gain. sighs —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; Poland and Britain should be kicked out to let the EU get on with it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Well, Poland maybe not, as it's not the population which is against it, but just the government -- the population is more pro-EU than Luxembourg's. But if the UK keeps obstructing further integration... Well. —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely, now, Nightstallion, do you truly believe that "neither Greece nor Macedonia has too much of a right in that regard"? Would you actually equate the relevance of the two? And before you think I'm nuts about "heritage" and stuff, please note that what concerns me is *not* that I'm losing something of value, but that someone who definitely does not deserve it [for the other reasons] is gaining something out of nowhere, and to the extent of utterly monopolizing it. Aren't they [more] nuts about heritage in turn? NikoSilver 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the whole issue utterly irrelevant and ridiculous, and it's very difficult to say who's more nuts about the issue -- the Greek or the Macedonian politicians. shrugs —Nightstallion 15:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some 20 million people from both "sides" apparently disagree. Just like the Austrians would disagree if the Slovenes were 60 years ago officially named plainly Ostarrîchians and their country Ostarrîchi and if they claimed descent from the Babenbergs, and refused to use any disambiguating term whatsoever. And then we'd surely find that the Slovenes Ostarrîchians were distinct earlier than 1944, and since they lived around there nobody knew how to call them, so they were simply called Ostarrîchi Slavs. But now they hate the "Slavs" in their name, because it offends their self-determination, while the Austrians have no moral right to this name either because it was first given 1000 years ago. I forgot to mention that the Slovenes Ostarrîchians have repeatedly expressed irredentist aspirations for lower Austria, and think that their true land is the United Ostarrîchia. That would be ridiculous, of course, and the worst would be if people laughed at the Austrians for being pissed (on top of everything). NikoSilver 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well-woven analogue, except for the fact that lower Austria doesn't border Slovenia Ostarrîchi – using Carinthia and Styria as an analogue would have been a perfect fit. The fact is, I personally would not change my opinion one single bit – if they want to call themselves Ostarrîchians, let them. BTW, the fact remains that the Macedonians have renounced any territorial claims in writing and officially.

Yes, they have, officially (what the hell did you expect). And yes, the idea of (FY)ROM being a threat to Greece (which btw arms itself to balance mighty Turkey) is simply laughable. But look at all this official shit they let slip:

• A selection of 6 official references (#29 to #35) in Macedonia (terminology)
• The userpages of all ethnic Macedonian users here! I challenge you to find one that has never had an irredentist content. Of course, this is not "official", but it gives you an idea of what they've been taught in school and re-confirms the references above. It also shows the extent of this misinformation. I've been there, I know. NikoSilver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, yeah, but that's not a basis for negotations, is it? —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

They are supposed to limit this bullshit wherever it comes from, even "private" (but schoolbooks and embassies for Christ's sake?). Check paragraph 7.1 of the interim accord. [1] They are obviously in violation. NikoSilver 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mh, you may have a point there, but I know too little about the actual situation in Macedonia to pass judgement on that. —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that many Carinthians (nowadays, in the 21st century!) have an unexplainable fear of Slavisation and refuse to set up more bilingual village name signs (as mandated by the Austrian State Treaty fifty years ago and as finally and irrevocably decided by the Austrian Supreme Court) is considered utterly ridiculous everywhere outside of Carinthia – including all other parts of Austria; just in case you weren't aware that there was a related issue alive in today's Austrian politics. This goes so far that Jörg Haider and his BZÖ keep ignoring the official Supreme Court verdicts, with tacit support from the local ÖVP and SPÖ. Maybe that's another reason why I find such revisionist and slavisation fears ridiculous and am rather fed up with them. —Nightstallion 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, there's nothing comparable in the two situations, as there aren't any concentrated significant numbers of Slavic speakers in Greece, and even less without a strong Greek national identity. Sources cite them to 10-30,000 across the whole region. See Minorities in Greece#Slavic-speaking for details, and draw your own conclusions. Moreover, this is not a 'Slavic-labels' or such issue. I'd be a supporter of that, if it were needed. NikoSilver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for Carinthia -- there's hardly that many Slovene-speaking Carinthians there, too... As I said, irrational. —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The whatever existing/non-existing minority treatment issue is irrelevant (yeah, irrational, I agree). I'm talking about the main group's name, not that of any minority (and certainly not their rights). NikoSilver 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, here we have a serious disambiguation issue, and I don't think any government will ever be able to conduct a proper census in the area and actually count them, without violating anybody's right to self-identification by inserting qualifiers. To witness its full perplexity, see below:

Question	ethnic Macedonians	Greek Macedonians	Normal- e.g. Albanians
How do you call a person of the above groups that lives... ...in Macedonia (Republic of)?	Macedonian	Greek Macedonian	Albanian Macedonian
... in Macedonia (Greece)?	Greek Macedonian	Macedonian	Greek Albanian -or- Albanian Macedonian
... in Albanian Macedonia (around lake Ohrid)	Albanian Macedonian	Greek Macedonian -or- Greek Albanian	Albanian Macedonian
...abroad?	Macedonian	Macedonian	Albanian

Mouseover please. So, a "Greek Macedonian" (or vice versa "Macedonian Greek") can either be a Greek living in (FY)ROM, or a Greek living in MkGr, or an ethnic Macedonian living in MkGr! Now compare this to e.g. the Greek Americans. Same with the Albanian Macedonians (last line) and same with the Bulgarian Macedonians (too bored to expand the table)! NikoSilver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I refuse to accept that qualifiers such as "Slav", or "New", or whatever (rational) has been proposed can be considered "offensive". I mean, come on, when ethnic Macedonians renounce such "offensive" qualifiers from their names, then they are "self-identifying"; and when the Greek guys up north do the same, then they are becoming jerks. I wanna be called a "Macedonian" and not be confused either dammit! Doesn't that violate my self-identification? Why do we suddenly have to use a qualifier, and they don't? NikoSilver 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the fair compromise would be to call the Republic of Macedonia "Slavic Macedonia" and the Greek region "Greek Macedonia" -- shared heritage, and everyone's happy. Except that I'm afraid it won't be so easy. sighs —Nightstallion 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there you go. As a matter of fact, Greeks never raised issue officially about qualifiers in their name (even about that of Aegean Macedonia), but what troubles me is that you finally understood what I mean when I pretended to raise such an issue! 'Nuff said, I need to contact Dora now to tell her what the trick to solve the Macedonian Question is! NikoSilver 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what precisely troubles you...? And be sure to do that. ;) —Nightstallion 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strike "...you finally understood..." and replace with "...usually people understand that the self-identification issue is a double-edged knife when Greeks raise issue about qualifiers in their own name." What "troubles me" is that we have come to a (quite sophisticated and advanced) point where immaterial "rights" (such as that of their un-disambiguated self-identification) can more effectively be countered with other immaterial "rights" (such as the un-disambiguated self-identification of the Greeks), while all other material rights may be at stake (such as their whatever existing/non-existing minority rights in Greece, such as their apparent official irredentism and historic revisionism). NikoSilver 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, you can lose a couple of tourists if you are perceived not to have the only Macedonian king's grave, or if you are not exactly called like the legendary ancient tribe, or their kingdom, but I think it should be viewed as more important if you risk loosing your actual home (or your child's life God-forbid) because someone thinks the "White Tower" is theirs... Maybe humanity should take a couple of steps back and re-prioritize its values. Self-identification is important, but not more important than the [even remote] risk of lost lives and properties. NikoSilver 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, true enough. But actually, the fastest way to ensure peace is to have good trading relations and to integrate them into Europe... Which requires a mutually agreeable solution to the name issue, at some point. —Nightstallion 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't have been a need for any objection to any qualifier on the pretense of "self-identification", if there were no true aspirations to land claims and history. It is evident that they want the name of the region because they want the whole region. Maybe Greece should respond by renaming itself to "Balkánia"... NikoSilver 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They have officially distanced themselves from the revisionist claims, and due to their EU aspirations, they won't reopen that issue ever again. But yes, why not, Balkánia is a nice name, too... ;) —Nightstallion 19:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They officially pretend to distance themselves, and actually endorse it officially in practice. I am anxiously awaiting on October 10 the official introduction of the book "Μακεδονισμός", ο Ιμπεριαλισμός των Σκοπίων, 1944-2006 ("Macedonism", Skopje's Imperialism, 1944-2006) from the Society of Macedonian Studies where more than 300 (!) official irredentist pieces of evidence are published (laws, decrees, minutes of the parliament, official governmental statements, maps, school textbooks et al).[2] It's bilingual in Greek and English, and an online copy will also be available. I'll let you know. NikoSilver 08:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the publishers claim that three generations have been raised with this propaganda. No wonder why we haven't met one non-irredentist user here. NikoSilver 08:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!

Regarding the irredentism: Obviously, it will take time to reverse the previous indoctrination, but I sincerely think that the Macedonians have no interest in further elaborating the irredentist claim -- they have nothing to gain from it (they'll never succeed) and much to lose (respect, EU integration, business relations). Give them some time and the benefit of doubt, is what I say. —Nightstallion 12:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Time? OK, I'll tell my grandchildren. Their schoolbooks may have changed by then. But if you are asking me to respect their pretense regarding "self-identification rights" while they continue to not respect my right to life, I'll disappoint you. It takes two to tango. NikoSilver 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Schoolbooks

Jesus... The whole book is online in Greek here. Just check the part from the schoolbooks. I'll let you know for translated parts in English when they are uploaded. NikoSilver 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, here's a good part (I've broken the sentences for comments, it used to be just one paragraph):

Greek translation

«Κατά την εγκατάσταση των Σλάβων στη Μακεδονία, αυτοί συνάντησαν τους αρχαίους Μακεδόνες. Στην αρχή οι σχέσεις τους ήταν άσχημες, αλλά στην πορεία βελτιώθηκαν. Οι Μα- κεδόνες ήταν χριστιανοί και με ανώτερο πολιτισμό. Σταδιακά άρχισαν να συνεργάζονται μεταξύ τους.

Οι Σλάβοι για τη νέα τους πατρίδα αποδέχθηκαν το όνομα Μακεδονία και άρχισαν να ονομάζονται Μακεδόνες.

Οι γηγενείς [starosedelci] Μακεδόνες αποδέχθηκαν τη σλαβική γλώσσα, αργότερα και τη σλαβική γραφή.

Υπολείμματα των αρχαίων Μακεδόνων είναι οι Βλάχοι» (Бошкоски, σ. 32).

| class="col-break " |

My translation in English

"During their settlement, the Slavs in Macedonia met the ancient Macedonians. In the beginning, their relationships were bad, but later they were ameliorated. Macedonians were Christians and with a superior culture. Gradually, they started cooperating with one another.

The Slavs accepted the name Macedonia for their new homeland and started calling themselves Macedonians.

The native [note: composite word used meaning "in-this-land-born-s", implying the ancients] Macedonians accepted the Slavic language, later also the Slavic writing.

Traces of the ancient Macedonians are the Vlachs."

| class="col-break " |

My comments

1. Britannica says the ancient Macedonians had been assimilated by the rest of the Greeks until 2nd or 3d century AD, while the Slavs came after the 6th
2. It is accepted by the academic community that the earliest traces of a distinct ethnic Macedonian identity (ethnogenesis) happened not earlier than mid-18-hundreds, which is a thousand years later from the alleged prior gradual cooperation.
3. The ancient Macedonians were speaking Koine Greek by then, but that is not mentioned. The Slavic writing (Cyrilic) was given to the Slavs by the Greek Byzantine brothers Cyril and Methodius.
4. The Vlachs are related to the Dacians and the Romanians who [latter] are related to the Romans who are not related to the Greeks or to the ancient Macedonians, since the Romans came much later than the ancient Macedonians to the region. Interestingly those "traces" cannot (of course) be found among the Greeks.

I'll let you know when I'm in the mood for translating more. NikoSilver 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite interesting, thanks for the translation! —Nightstallion 09:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More from page 114 of Balkan History of grade 6 (published 2005):

«Η κατακτητική πολιτική των βαλκανικών χωρών έναντι της Μακεδονίας»

«Κατά τον Α΄ Βαλκανικό Πόλεμο (1912), στην περιοχή της Μακεδονίας κατά των οθωμανικών δυνάμεων πολέμησε ο σερβικός, ο ελληνικός και ο βουλγαρικός στρατός. Οι οθωμανικές στρατιωτικές δυνάμεις ηττήθηκαν και αναγκάστηκαν να αποχωρήσουν. Η Μακεδονία κατακτήθηκε και διαμελίσθηκε μεταξύ της Σερβίας, της Ελλάδας και της Βουλγαρίας»

Ερώτηση προς μαθητές: «Ανέλυσε τον χάρτη της Μακεδονίας μετά τον Α΄ Βαλκανικό Πόλεμο σε σχέση με τις κατακτημένες περιοχές από την πλευρά των γειτονικών κρατών»

«Ούτε μία από τις βαλκανικές χώρες δεν ήταν ικανοποιημένη από τον διαμελισμό. Εξαιτίας αυτού, ξέσπασε πόλεμος μεταξύ τους, ο οποίος είναι γνωστός ως Β΄ Βαλκανικός Πόλεμος (1913). Στη συνέχεια, το μεγαλύτερο τμήμα της Μακεδονίας το έλαβε η Ελλάδα. Στη Σερβία περιήλθε η περιοχή της σημερινής Δημοκρατίας της Μακεδονίας χωρίς τη Στρώμνιτσα και την γύρω περιοχή, ενώ το υπόλοιπο -το πιο μικρό- τμήμα περιήλθε στη Βουλγαρία. Αυτός ο διαμελισμός επικυρώθηκε με τη Συνθήκη Ειρήνης του Βουκουρεστίου (Αύγουστος 1913)».

[Τα αποτελέσματα των Βαλκανικών πολέμων ήταν...]«Καταστροφικά για τη Μακεδονία. Διαμελίσθηκε μεταξύ της Σερβίας, της Βουλγαρίας και της Ελλάδας, ενώ ένα μικρό τμήμα της προσαρτήθηκε στο νεοσύστατο αλβανικό κράτος».

«Η Συνθήκη Ειρήνης του Βουκουρεστίου είχε βαριές πολιτικές, εθνοτικές και οικονομικές επιπτώσεις για τον μακεδονικό λαό. Με τη συνθήκη αυτή διασπάσθηκε η εδαφική και η εθνοτική ενότητα της Μακεδονίας, άρχισε η διαδικασία εθνοτικής εκδίωξης του μακεδονικού πληθυσμού και ο αποικισμός μη μακεδονικού πληθυσμού, με στόχο την αλλαγή του παραδοσιακού ιστορικού εθνοτικού χαρακτήρα της Μακεδονίας. Το μακεδονικό όνομα και η μακεδονική γλώσσα απαγορεύθηκαν και τα βαλκανικά κράτη άσκησαν πολιτική αφομοίωσης και απεθνικοποίησης. Η μακεδονική οικονομία καταστράφηκε και ο πληθυσμός αναγκάστηκε να μεταναστεύσει από την γενέθλια χώρα»

«Η Μακεδονία στις 30 Ιουλίου (10 Αυγούστου) του 1913 με τη Συνθήκη του Βουκουρεστίου διαμελίσθηκε σε τέσσερα τμήματα μεταξύ των εμπολέμων πλευρών: τη Σερβία (Μακεδονία του Βαρδάρη), την Ελλάδα (Μακεδονία του Αιγαίου) και τη Βουλγαρία (Μακεδονία του Πιρίν), ενώ ένα μικρότερο τμήμα δόθηκε στο νεοϊδρυθέν κράτος της Αλβανίας. Με την πράξη αυτή διασπάσθηκε η ολότητα της Μακεδονίας, κάτι που επικυρώθηκε στη Συνθήκη Ειρήνης των Βερσαλλιών (1919) και των Παρισίων (1946)».

| class="col-break " |

"The conquering policy of the Balkan states against Macedonia"

"During the First Balkan War (1912), in the area of Macedonia, the Serbian, the Bulgarian and the Greek armies fought against the Ottoman forces. The Ottoman military forces were defeated and forced to retreat. Macedonia was occupied and dismantled between Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria."

Question to students: "Analyze the map of Macedonia after the First Balkan War in relation to the occupied territories by the neighboring states."

"Not one of the Balkan countries was satisfied from the dismantling. Because of that, a war broke among them, which is known as the Second Balkan War (1913). Consequently the greatest part of Macedonia was taken by Greece. To Serbia was annexed the region of today's Republic of Macedonia without Strumica and the area around it, while the rest -the smallest- part was annexed to Bulgaria. This dismantling was ratified with the Peace Treaty of Bucharest (August 1913)."

[The results of the Balkan Wars were...] "Catastrophic for Macedonia. It was dismantled between Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece, while a small part was annexed to the newly founded Albanian state."

"The Peace Treaty of Bucharest had grave political, ethnic and economic implications for the Macedonian people. With that treaty, the territorial and ethnic unity of Macedonia was broken-up, and a process of ethnic prosecution of the Macedonian population and immigration of non-Macedonian population, with a target of altering the traditional historic ethnic character of Macedonia took place. The Macedonian name and the Macedonian language were banned and the Balkan states started an assimilation and de-ethnic-alization process. Macedonian economy was destroyed and the population was forced to migrate from the birthplace."

"In July 30, 1913 (August 10) with the Treaty of Bucharest, Macedonia was dismantled in four parts among the war parties: Serbia (Vardar Macedonia), Greece (Aegean Macedonia) and Bulgaria (Pirin Macedonia), while the smallest part was given to the newly founded state of Albania. With this act, the wholeness of Macedonia was segregated, something that was ratified in the Peace Treaty of Versailles (1919) and of Paris (1946)."

Template:EndMultiCol No need to mention that all these passages are accompanied by numerous maps of "Macedonia" since even Paleolithic times (!), where the "dismantling", "segregation", and "break-up" are highlighted with different colors. Just have a peek in the images here. NikoSilver 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I will make only one comment on this: See how "Macedonia (country)" is never disambiguated from "Macedonia (region)", but in fact it is used as a synonym that was "occupied" and "dismantled"; that's why it is offensive if someone uses a qualifier! I rest my case. NikoSilver 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest talks

I'd find either of the two names proposed by Greece (New Macedonia or Upper Macedonia) to be a fair compromise. Think anything's going to come out of this? —Nightstallion 15:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cross your fingers that the #side issue above won't happen. The only way this can't happen is if the Greeks appear (or are forced to appear) to not be united in this. Thankfully, to now, all parties seem to support the "composite name" solution, except LAOS (~3.8%) that doesn't want "Macedonia" in the title at all. PASOK's both main candidate leaders support the idea, but they "bitch" about irrelevant details (such as "it is ND's fault that we are at this point" (by G.Pap.) and "I don't support that the name issue should be rushed by Greece at this point" (by Ev.Ven.)). There are also a few (of the flimsy parliamentary majority ruling) ND MPs who have, expressed disagreement, so this must pass with the votes of the other parties, and I don't know how willing they may be to sacrifice a chance to drop the government, over solving a national issue... We'll see. NikoSilver 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we can only hope. —Nightstallion 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Το ζήτημα της ονομασίας της ΠΓΔΜ δεν είναι θέμα για πρόωρες εκλογές"..."στο θέμα της ονομασίας δε μας χωρίζει τίποτα από τους άλλους πολιτικούς αρχηγούς" [3]

("The naming issue of FYROM is not a matter for early elections"..."in the issue of the name nothing sets us apart from the other political leaders") - Greek MFA Dora Bakoyannis.

Hmmmm... NikoSilver 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bets

To all stalkers friends watching this page: I bet the name issue will have been resolved by July 2008. Anyone up for it? NikoSilver 18:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Even if Greece goes along with the 'double name' and FYROM is recognised as ROM, there are so many irredentist propaganda from the Slav Makedonce, including the encouragement to use military symbols to liberate the 'other Macedonias'. I think there will probably be violent attacks against Greeks by some of them. Militant groups want Makedonija za Makedonci, just as extremist Serbs murdered in the name of a cleansed Bosnia. Greeks want peace. Politis 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant chat

Mipos mou estiles tipota gia pictures to share with friends, i mas exoun 'spamarei' gia ta kala? Politis 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nai, kalo einai. Empa. NikoSilver 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Need a little help file

Started a Page on Constantinos Tsakiris as part of a general Panionios clean up I undertook and some English girl googled him, could not get enough hits and decided to try and delete the article despite me finding him on Forbes and other sites! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constantinos_Tsakiris can you help the cause file? Reaper7 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the deletion discussion, but I'll refrain from commenting there to prevent you being accused for (unknowingly) WP:CANVASSing. Read that policy for the next time. You won't have a problem anyway, you did a good job and the article will stay. Don't worry. NikoSilver 00:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

& so hello to you too, Niko. HoTep!

Just catching up with you here. You seem like you may be a real-life™ type of person; Even one who's well-versed himself in contention and politics. My good man! So, what do you know about the repression of monorities as they touch upon Wiki articles- and Wiki article-wars? Perhaps you could leave some more advice for me...

Specifically I've found the science articles around Halton Arp - and even Non-standard cosmology- have been unfriendly places since well before I came along. But the parties are so apparantly erudite, as well as perhaps intentionally abstruse at times, that it took me numbers of archived talk pages to understand that a full Wiki political action has been simmering for over 2 years now. I am just the latest naif to stumble into this.

But there may be editing abuses occuring here abandoned by the Wiki process - because the possibility exists that good faith can no longer be assumed on behapf of all concerned. Of course, this is just "how it is" in real-life™. But have you ever encountered this sticky wicket in Wiki?

For some overview of the stakes, here's another view of Arp and his works' implications. This is an emergent but minority view- though a view an apparant clear majority of concerned wiki editors are utterly unable to see represented anywhere on the English Wikipedia:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/synopsis2.htm ( -lots of big words) http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm ( -the pretty picture)

I realize this isn't at all your real life bailiwick, but there seem to be fairly clear editing abuses here falling afoul of Wiki process.

Thanks to you for your availability, and for any assistance. Σας ευχαριστούμε Niko. Ρολόι έξω, είμαι φοβερός καταχραστής των αυτοματοποιημένων προγραμμάτων μεταφραστών. Ο φίλος σας Hilarleo 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

ii: reply to yer reply

Hey Niko. Thanks for your quick interest. "Cite reliable sources" ... Tha's safe and sensible advice.

A framing meta-problem here is the (potentially frightening if abused) notion of being able to allow "all" evidence- when the question imputes 'scientific reality' & the nature of the "reliable sources" game itself. ie.: Science in the 20th century has again become a _political_ problem. ALL sources are in dispute, because real science does involve the interpretation of our data. Yet neither are we talking "original research" here.

It seems there is always money riding on the status quo. Yes? So, big astronomy is not so interested in undermining the complex of theory supporting the Big Bang. But as it is a theory... one that is now promoted by powerful government agencies with commercial interests... You may have encoountered such as these before? Here we encounter superfluous difficulties.

So: The idea has further been put forth in Wiki that the fullness of Arp's work has been successfully *suppressed* in the metier of "peer reviewed journals". But there's more than one catch-22:

First our C-word, 'conspiracy', is now a ltmus test of its' own- in certain circles. Then: How to give citations on anything considered too dangerous to publish? Some of Arp's work however is published and useful to this staus quo, so that's an out with any accusations of gross and personal prejudices.

But it's easy to turn a blind eye when the consensus advises: "there live dragons". Even at home in Berkeley I can't engage university astronomy graduate students in any on-the-record discussions- They literally fear for their careers. But this is not supposed to be Beltway stuff. Instead it's so like Galileo fighting the Pope, redux.

One source that was cited by previous Wiki editors in the Arp article was also my 2nd suggested to you: http://www.thunderbolts.info/synopsis2.htm

Would you as a mediator object to this site as a wiki citation? I doubt it. It's full of dynamic data and interesting suggested interpretations. Interesting is good in science (& more so if one teaches). Arp's not involved here, except as inspiration; This site is created by a collective and has numerous educated contributors. But how many are tenured? And who cares?

So far there appears only one man ruling the editorship and shaping these contentious Wiki pages, along with a peanut gallery of another fellow. Such as they are these self-imposed arbiters of the Wiki article(s) have declared any such web site is simply 'not good enough' at the outset. They want- and are able- to argue this strictly from the journal argument- journals and arguments which we hold are all based on assumptions we futher hold in question. The web site quicly got stamped "anecdotal evidence" and disallowed- as in, No Mention Tolerated in the body of the article, and it's ususally suppressed from the links section also. So.

One question: Is Wiki simply unfit to docment controversy? How about real scientific process as it happens- in real, bleeding-edge sciences? And when this science has powerful implications?

Among the most obvious implications are alternate power generation techniques, as well as profoundly new propulsion systems. So these initial implications immediately get into profoundly consequential life altering, Outer Limits areas- which makes another fuel for deriders as well as strong passions among the more naive.

The situation is developing it's own strategy of intractability. And it seems institutional in more than one way: Our problem editor is a tech at the Max Planck institue- where Arp also works... now as a scientist. Politics anyone?

Today the Halton Arp article has already been through one aborted round of mediation. The mediator got frustrated and disapeared or quit. Maybe he was killed. Since then our 'progressive' editors have utterly given up while our best has quit the community in Wiki-frustration. Good Faith is no longer apparent from all parties involved. I myself absented for several months when I understood the sheer passive-aggression fueling the situation. I don't feel I work well with authoritarians.

Well, This is what I understand. My only defense is [I thought] you asked. I hope this is not scary. I need to sleep. BTW it's urly-early a.m. here in berkeley & I were still editing it when you'd replied; so there's maybe additional background in that 1st post... dunno. "May all wishes be bountifully fulfilling." Thankas Niko; leo 75.36.223.69 15:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the translating help! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you believe his version events, as you quoted them to me on my own page. So be it. Reaper7 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I told him before the forbes and other links and then added them. Removed the prod. Was not good enough. Than to back his argument over mine he played the google card. Can read the second part of the argument here as the first part has been nicely removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constantinos_Tsakiris

Reaper7 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Did u listen to what i said? I spoke to him directly about forbes/. It is not on that page. You know what, i see you are convinced still, seriously, its ok, just next time don't be so quick to believe bullshit. If you read carefully you will see he is saying the sources are not good enough. These are the ones I told him personally which he later told you if he had known about he would have never continued for deletion. Do you understand??? Reaper7 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops (Pontic Greek Genocide)

Sorry, I didn't scroll down and it looked like he just removed the info. Χερετε! -- AdrianTM 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I thought so too. And thanks for the greeting! Cheers! NikoSilver 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Niko, as usual you dont make any sense, you dont say one single word that is relevant for the article, you dont bother to discuss the issue at all, unless that is directed in changing the topic, and yet you keep reverting the article which has been in this format over some months..And i seriously dont understand how such blatant, ugly nationalist POV pushing traditionally demonstrated by you can still be tolerated..

Anyway, just let me tell you in advance, following your lead im planning to open an article about the atrocities of the Greek army..

This seems to be a neutral source, and it uses the word `genocide` in relation with what Greek army had done:

The short-sightedness of both Lloyd George and President Wilson seems incredible, explicable only in terms of the magic of Venizelos and an emotional, perhaps religious, aversion to the Turks. For Greek claims were at best debatable, perhaps a bare majority, more likely a large minority in the Smyrna Vilayet, which lay in an overwhelmingly Turkish Anatolia. The result was an attempt to alter the imbalance of populations by genocide, and the counter determination of Nationalists to erase the Greeks.. By C. J. Lowe, M. L Dockrill Published 2002 Routledge ISBN 0415265975

[4]

And Rummel that you like so much alo uses the word `genocide` describing the Greek atrocities.. Considering your behavior in Kurdish Human Rights article, that should be enough for opening at least a section named as `claims of genocide` in that article im planning to open up..Regards..--laertes d 22:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)