Talk:Macedonian Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History[edit]

Macedonian Empire seems to be a text on the history of the Macedonian empire only, needs lots of work and more information on the empire itself, also after Alexander the Great, it jumps to the conclusion and ends the empire, it needs serious formatting, is copied/pasted from here (http://members.fortunecity.com/fstav1/macedon.html) although it could be written by the user himself. -- Leandros, 18:33, 20 Jul 2004

If it's a copyright violation, then it needs to be removed. In any case, it might be duplicate with Macedon. --Shallot 17:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In fact I believe that Macedon and Macedonian Empire really ought to exist as separate articles, and they are not duplicate, and not copied from the same webpage. I do suspect though that this page was written by the same user who wrote the Macedonian Empire article. Would this still count as copyvio? Anyway, someone really into the subject has better rewrite the article. --leandros 10:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Empire[edit]

Do not insert "Macedonian Empire". This is a view held my a minority of historians in Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia and it is otherwise given Wikipedia:Undue weight. Mr. Neutron 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? The purpose of Wikipedia is to present all views about the subject, so I do see valid reason for your censorship here. Besides, I would not say that it is view of "minority of historians" because it is view of all historians from former Yugoslavia while opposite view that it was Bulgarian Empire is just a view of historians in Bulgaria. Who is majority and who is minority here is the question for long discussion. PANONIAN 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and I corrected it this way. Btw this is not Former Yugoslavia vs. Bulgaria, it is Former Yugoslavia vs Western scholarship, and it is very evident that the former Yugoslav historians are in minority on this matter. It will also be nice if you can provide some source for this usage. Mr. Neutron 17:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And interesting question - are Asparukh of Bulgaria and Krum of Bulgaria, who were leaders of the First Bulgarian empire considered "Macedonians" in Yugoslavia? Mr. Neutron 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with western scholarship is that Bulgarians were simply more aggresive to impose their own view to western scholarship which does not mean that this view is 100% correct (it is just more aggresively presented). Regarding sources for usage of this name, here are some: [1], [2], [3] (You can find more by google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE+%D1%86%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE&btnG=Search ). Regarding Asparuh and Krum, no they were not considered Macedonians (no matter that their names were simply Asparuh and Krum without "of Bulgaria" sufix). In Yugoslavia, Macedonians were Slavic inhabitants of Slavic empire centered in Macedonia during rule of Samuil - linguistics proved that Macedonian language is unic language different from both, Bulgarian and Serbian and fact is that Slavic inhabitants that lived in that area in that time also spoke that same language, which confirm that they were different from Bulgarians. PANONIAN 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing but pseudohistory. Mr. Neutron 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In Yugoslavia, Macedonians were Slavic inhabitants of Slavic empire centered in Macedonia during rule of Samuil - linguistics proved that Macedonian language is unic language different from both, Bulgarian and Serbian and fact is that Slavic inhabitants that lived in that area in that time also spoke that same language, which confirm that they were different from Bulgarians." - Wow, and what a surprise it was Yugoslavian authors who "discovered" this. As I have said before read the Samuil of Bulgaria article before imposing such non-sense. --Laveol T 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, even you agree that Yugoslav authors have this point of view, so I have to remind you that purpose of Wikipedia is to present all points of view about one subject, not to present one point and to ommit another. Regarding "Samuil of Bulgaria", he was indeed known as Samuil in historical sources, while sufix "of Bulgaria" is just a construction invented on English Wikipedia by Greater Bulgarian nationalists - even Bulgarian Wikipedia use simply "Samuil": http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Самуил PANONIAN 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To add and conclude, history (at least Bulgarian and Western) is not built on "aggresiveness" and "imposition of views", it is built on facts and evidence. In this case the Yugoslav side has very little of both. Mr. Neutron 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not - it is based on Greater Bulgarian nationalism that want to occupy Republic of Macedonia. You cannot deny to Macedonians to speak about themselves and their country. PANONIAN 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad you do not any sources to support this statement and it is shameless you utter it. See Macedonism. Mr. Neutron 16:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O, but I have many sources that support my claims, just see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=makedonsko+carstvo&btnG=Google+Search And please, just do not claim that you see there does not exist - every man should trust to his own eyes. PANONIAN 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You dont have sources, but google queries which do not mean anything. Mr. Neutron 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it do not mean anything to you, but it mean much for Wikipedia and most of its users. PANONIAN 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was always knows as Tsar Samuil. Not “Samuil of Bulgaria”Alexander the great1 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, just like Peter I of Serbia was known as Tsar Peter and King Zog of Albania was known as King Zog. Should I add Napoleon I of France? Mr. Neutron 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Mr.Neutron then you agree that Alexander of Macedonia was Macedonian, following what you have said that would mean that he was indeed Macedonian and not Greek. Like you said "Peter I of Serbia", "King Zog of Albania" all follow the same concept, then “Alexander of Macedonia” is the same. Following what you have said there should be no reason for there to be a conflict over his ethnicity as it is clear that he was Macedonian. Alexander the great1 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There there son, try this one Alexander of Macedon. Mr. Neutron 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See again Bulgarian Wikipedia, it is simply Samuil: http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Самуил And "Peter I of Serbia" is also not written as "of Serbia" on Serbian Wikipedia: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Краљ_Петар_I_Карађорђевић These "of something" sufixes were invented by some English Wikipedia users and therefore they reflect original research and should be changed. PANONIAN 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So? This is the English wikipedia and naming conventions differ. Mr. Neutron 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Differ from what? If you read the namimg conventions page you would see that they in fact differ from opinion that you want to impose here. PANONIAN 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the n-th time, make your case at Napoleon I of France and King Zog of Albania, also try Peter I of Yugoslavia, which you should be more concerned about anyways. Mr. Neutron 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander the Great(Alexander III) the one everyone knows about, the one that is known throughout the world as Alexander of Macedonia.Alexander the great1 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. He is known as Alexander the Great. Mr. Neutron 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: Macedon ≠ Macedonia (country) and Macedonians (ethnic group) ≠ Ancient Macedonians. Period. NikoSilver 01:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3352286Alexander the great1 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spamming nonsense, and see my first reply in Talk:Alexander the Great#Ethnic Macedonians. NikoSilver 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not spam it's a link that has to do with the Macedonian empire.Alexander the great1 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding term itself, here are manz sources that refer to Samuil's empire as "Macedonian Empire": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=macedonian+empire+samuil&btnG=Search PANONIAN 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And can you point out which exactly sources (google itself is not a source) is Reliable? Mr. Neutron 16:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response in another place where this was posted: [4] NikoSilver 16:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fair the ignore the fact that several countries have come to the accord that Tsar Samuil was Macedonian and that his empire was a Macedonian one. Alexander the great1 17:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, per WP:FRINGE. And again it is not countries, but views of historians. Even for Serbia there are internal disputes. Mr. Neutron 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a fringe theory if it is the official view of a country?72.140.254.76 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is fringe because it is 1. unsupported by evidence, 2. rejected by more than 99% of scholars. Mr. Neutron 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence does the Bulgarian theory have other then the “Voden Inscription” http://www.gate.net/~mango/Bulgarian_falsification.html Alexander the great1 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I not answering any more of your trolling. Read Samuil of Bulgaria and Bitola inscription. Mr. Neutron 18:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presenting facts is not “trolling”Alexander the great1 18:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I hear is "several countries have come to the accord that Tsar Samuil was Macedonian", but I see no freakin' source for that. Do you have a governmental site? A governmental publication? A schoolbook? A governmental academic? Any academic at all? I asked before, so if you do, please list them here. NikoSilver 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The educational system in Serbia use the term "Macedonian Empire" in all of its publications - I simply never saw any Serbian source that use term "Bulgarian Empire" for this state. In another words, when I say all sources I refer to both, academic and non-academic sources (including history books for elementary school). And what governmental site you ask for? There are many various Serbian and Croatian sites on google search that use this name: http://www.google.com/search?q=makedonsko+carstvo+samuilo&hl=en&safe=off&start=10&sa=N PANONIAN 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here are sources in English as well: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=macedonian+empire+samuil&btnG=Search PANONIAN 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the n-th time, stop posting some random google queries. Post titles! Mr. Neutron 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You are not stupid that you cannot find these titles in google page that I showed to you, are you? PANONIAN 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming there are sources - state them as a list. Make sure thay are reliable. It is your duty to present them. You cannot use google itself as a source. Mr. Neutron 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These google hits are enough for anybody who want to see whether this term is used or not. If you refuse to accept what you see that is your own problem. PANONIAN 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Panonian, and the fact that you get 800 hits (all of them from .mk sites) surely makes you happy. But why didn't you try it out with Bulgarian + Samuil + empire - I just got 14100 hits. This is not a prove itself for anything just a counter to your views. All proves can be found on the Samuil of Bulgaria article (as I have said a number of times already). There is something about Wikipedia, you know, all the articles have links between each other (you must have seen it by now) - you cannot go and write stuff in one article that is totally opposite to another. So, you cannot just say that he was a Macedonian king in this article when the article about himself makes it totally clear what kind of Empire he ruled. Sorry for the sarcasm, but this starts to get really disruptive. Laveol T 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but even you recognized right here that there are 800 hits for term Macedonian Empire, so you also recognize that name is used and that is my whole point. I do not propose that we change name of article "First Bulgarian Empire" into "Macedonian Empire", but I say that if other name is used in sources that should be reflected in Wikipedia especially on this page and especially in articles dealing with Republic of Macedonia and Serbia to reflect the view of historiographies in these countries. I do not see what could be disruptive in presenting these different opinions to Wikipedia readers - I do not propose that we simply replace term "Bulgarian" with term "Macedonian", but to use term "Macedonian" TOGETHER with term "Bulgarian" and also written AFTER it in parenthesis or something like that, which is indeed compromise that in fact support your view that main term used for it is "Bulgarian Empire". Therefore, your refusal to accept any compromise and to present only one point of view is in fact disruptive and if I ask some admins to help solving this dispute you will not be very happy about end result. PANONIAN 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing - just why do you think that the STATE sponsored schoolbooks in the Republic and in former Yugoslavia show Samuil as a hmmm, no, I'm not gonna say it ... king? And the rest of the world sees him as Bulgarian? All sources from this period have him as Bulgarian, all western scholars from the XIX, XX and XXI century have him as Bulgarian and just Republic of macedonia's let's say academic circles have him as something else (and to some extend Yugoslavian/Serbian scholars) and with no evidence or logic behind it. Sounds like some sort of a state policy, doesn't it? --Laveol T 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not duscuss here whether he "really" was Bulgarian or Macedonian ruler - we duscuss one and simple thing: whether term "Macedonian Empire" is also used in some sources for that empire and I already proved that it is used by simple google search. Therefore, Wikipedia that aim to collect all human knowledge simply have to reflect this fact that other term is used as well. PANONIAN 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99% of the time "Macedonian Empire" is used to refer to "Macedon", so I am reverting to Niko. If you have changes, make them in Macedonian Empire (disambiguation), and do not add Wikipedia:Double redirect!!!!Mr. Neutron 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing links to page Macedonian Empire (disambiguation). as a compromise I did tried to redirect "Macedonian Empire" to Macedon article and to writte there a note: ""Macedonian Empire" redirects here. For other uses of the term, see: Macedonian Empire (disambiguation).", but the Greek user deleted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedon&diff=140981834&oldid=140965787 So, what you suggest that we do now? - link to page Macedonian Empire (disambiguation) must be placed somewhere. PANONIAN 10:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonian_Empire&oldid=1144578619"