Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 21

1934:

Demosthenes did call Phillip a barbarian 5 times, but he was politically motivated. His political enemies call Phillip a Greek. Strabo, the most reliable of survivng ancient geographers, calls several times Macedonia part of Greece, for example in the begining of his eight book (8.1.1). Pindar in his odes, which he wrote for the Dorians, says how the Dorians were once Makednoi living in Mt. Pindus. Arrian does talk twice of Alexander talking "in Macedonian voice", but that can easily be as speaking in the dialect, it is very unlikely that he would talk to his army before Issus or his bodyguards one night he got drunk and caused a mess in Athenian. Anyway the Pella Katadesmos is rather good evidence of Macedonian as a dialect of Greek rather than a separate language. As for religion they definitely believed in the 12 gods. They did have several unusual practices influenced by their neighbors and the people they conquered, but that can be said for the Ionian Greeks

1845:. Even if there is "such a huge" debate on whether the ancient Macedonians were Greeks or not, there is no reasonable historian saying that they were slavs... but, quite surprisingly (!!!) those who are asking to rename etc, this article, do not ask the same for the respective article of people from FYROM (which does not include people like Alexander, but it has the name 'Macedonians')... the ancient Macedonians self-identified as Greeks (and there are dozens or historic records that someone can look at). and if someone says that the 2.5 millenia that exist between modern and ancient Greek Macedonians, is an obstacle in listing them together, they should also exclude 1962:- when an uninformed reader sees the category under the recent name, he would probably get confused. What are Greek Macedonians, are they Greeks or Macedonians, are they ancient or modern people etc. Actually, we have Ancient Macedonians with disputable relation with the Ancient Greeks, we have existing Macedonians living in the Republic of Macedonia and finally we have Greeks living in the Greek region of Macedonia. I would support renaming of this category to Ancient Macedonians (that is neutral and does not imply whether they were Greeks or not). 2958:- however, two concerns: A) should it be "government" or "Government"? The U.S. Government is a proper noun, whereas "United States government" could refer to government in any sense within the United States (state, local, etc.) Also, care must be taken to use the category properly. For example, Cat:Independent Agencies of the United States government should be a subcat of this. In addition, a given agency should be categorised in the applicable executive department as well as here. The 2421:. "Greek Macedonians" refers to contemporary important people from the Greek Macedonian Administrative Region, while "Ancient Macedonians" to ancient people from the Kingdom of Macedonia, a kingdom with strong Greek ethnic and cultural historical evidence. Moreover, the whole issue with having Macedonians distinctively identified in Ancient Greek literature makes me laugh: we're talking about times where Atheneans considered themselves (and in fact were) a different state from Spartans. 1297:- It's controversial to state as a certainty their ethnicity; also, and more important, to put in the same category Ancient Greeks and modern Greeks seems a bit too much to me. the Category:Ancient Macedonians would be a sub-category of both Category:Ancient Greeks and Category:Ancient Macedon. Always remember that saying they were ancient Macedonians in no way necessarily implies they were a different ethnicity. As for the moderen Macedonian Greeks, the name must be absolutely kept.-- 1889:. I wonder why you keep trying manipulating history, simply for the ethnic interests of FYROM. Fyrom community should try to defend the present ethnic situation instead of trying to change history. Slavs have never been in this area during archaic, classical or hellenistic period. Knowledge (XXG) is a data base for knowledge and should remain like that, or else has no reason of existence. Don't destroy knowledge, because you destroy Knowledge (XXG) and vice versa.-- 1370:

regarded as unusually strong (maybe like that of Cretans). In that case, there should be an intorductary sentence that redirects the reader to the Ancient Macedonian category for persons living in antiquity. From comments above it appears that one motive for having this list is to promote the POV of the Greek identity of ancient Macedonians. This is a sensitive subject that has to be treated with care.

1873:-- it turns out that most of the pages in the category were recently added by over-categorization of the pages in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties. Since none of them were Ancient Greek (ends when Greece was conquered by Alexander of Macedon), nor Ancient Macedonian (likewise), nor Greek Macedonians (none born there), and it violates 2063:- Of course they are Greeks; they are not Peloponnesians or Chians or Corfiots, they are Macedonians. Sorry MatriX, but when the southern region of Yugoslavia was named YSR of Macedonia, that appelation had been used for centuries - by the Greeks and variable according to the (pre-nationalistic) Greek modus vivendi. Try something else. 1861:(cause of the c.800 and 500 years respectively that stand between their time and 2006). lets face it, the only reason that this category was proposed for deletion, is that some think that our northern neighbours have some sort of connection with the ancient macedonians (although History, Culture, etc seem to disagree with them:)...). -- 3552:

I agree that there's a substantive distinction, but I think 'activists' is a more appropriate category for Knowledge (XXG) than 'people' in something like this. Characterizing all people, not just those who have become notable as focused on some subject, by their political opinions is a huge can of

2187:

The proposed deletion not only does not serve clarity but, on the other side, it leads to unnecessary confusion of two distinctive nations and civilizations: 1) the ancient and contemporary Greek Macedonians and 2) the contemorary Slav "Macedonians" of FYROM. Therefore, this mischievous deletion (in

2166:

Essential for clarity. This looks like a sorry example of a debate being skewed by a small interest group and I think the closer should take that into account. These rows about ethnic definitions should be of no relevance, as all the necessary categories can be created separately, but the name being

1262:

Normally such a discussion shouldn't even exist, because everybody would agree that Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. But, exactly because FYROM history revisionists have made their lifetime goal to disassociate Ancient Macedonia with Ancient Greece and seem to have partial success, this should serve

2477:-- not yet all, only those that were mistakenly put there recently by a user that didn't understand the categorization guidelines. Those that remain (at the moment) should be looked at individually. Those that are ancient belong in the Ancient category, those that are modern belong in the other. -- 2486:

I guess that i am the user u are talking about... My point is that u did what u did (according to-as u say- Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines) only in specific articles (and, i'm sorry, but this seems far from been neutral). U may look at my comment above 'bout ancient or medieval or modern English or

2218:

are not particurarly developed. I like the idea of Ancient Macedonians having their own category. Now can we forget them for a while and deal with the populations and history of Macedonia during and following the Roman conquest? By the way we don't have a category on Greek Peloponnessians because

1359:

b) if we need a greek macedonian category, then what about greek thracians, greeks from thessaly and so on? c)there is an ongoing debate on the national identity of Greek Macedonian and i think the most NPOV to do until the debate is resolved is to make an ancient macedonian category without any

1369:

This category is not necessary for ancient Macedonians (before arrival of the Slavs), because there is no ambiguity. As for modern times, this category would only make sense if there were also categories for Greek Peloponnesians and the like, unless the regional identity of Greek Macedonians is

1019:

This category was intended for Greeks living in Macedonia. The unnecessary nationalist struggle over Macedonia has now been extended to count all the articles about the inhabitants of the ancient Kingdom of Macedon as Greek Macedonians. This ignores the ancient Greek sources, which consistently

3532:

Is that not similarly overly broad and simplistic? Unless you're talking about some specific vote, it's not very sophisticated to lump people into "for" and "against" buckets. Even if the category explanation contains more specific criteria, it doesn't fix the clumsy name. "Activists" is more

2102:

I'm not intending to involve in another endless session (sorry, but this is discussed so many times before on the Macedonian talk pages). I will provide just one link (the Macedonian controversy is so hard and we cannot cover it all here, there we are supposed only to vote and give very short

1933:

The evidence that Macedonians were not Greek are ambiguous at best. Greeks were those that had the same blood, same religion and same language (ομαιμον, ομοθρησκον, ομογλωσσον). This definition is first given by Herodotus in the part were he explains exactly why Macedonians were Greeks. True,

1465:

Speaking about self-identification, there are tons of historical self-identifications as Greek of the Ancient Macedonians. Further "sensitivities" on the matter border with inappropriate talks about genetic differentiation (ie discrimination) of people in the present, or the past.

3303:

At best this category should be a list. But in general it's pretty amateurish. Deletion was apparently proposed once before a while ago with no consensus. Presumably the hope being that the category would evolve. I would say it is still pretty clumsy and a hopelessly simplistic

2560:

Something more (in case i did not make myself clear): people that are Natives of Thessaloniki or of Central/Eastern/Western Macedonia can be Greek Macedonians or not. if u are an American, u know what i mean (natives of LA can be German-Americans or NewYorkers as well...)

344:

There was a discussion where it was decided to use (film) instead of (movie) in the title of the page and in titles that need to be disambiguated. That's a long way from a consensus that all categories with 'movie' in the name should be changed to 'film'.

3314:

I wouldn't say it's amateurish. The category blurb is alot better than most categories, and gives fairly clear instructions as to what should be added to the categories (and it's children). It could turn into a mess, but at the moment it looks pretty good.

2397:. Every serious organisation refer to those people as Ancient Macedonians, people of Macedon. The daily politics shouldn't intervene in the anthiquity. From anthiquity till now have passed lots and lots of years. The meaning of the things has changed. 1694:

to have Ancient Macedonians in the Greek Macedonians category. I believe that the majority of non-Greeks would agree with this, as evidenced by the ongoing trends in the poll. Basically, it's only Greeks who vote for the Oppose option, so I find your

3542:

I agree it may be overly broad and simplistic, but I don't believe it's clumsy. I'd say there's a substantive distinction between activists and people (who have gone on record as being) against something. Thanks, though, for your thoughts. Regards,

2286:. I don't understand precisely what the nominator wants to see happen. They don't seem to be arguing that there should be no category by this name, they instead seem to be arguing that the wrong articles are in it. That's not a CfD problem. 2347: 1633:(preceding strikethrough was intentionally made after a friends positively documented confirmation that you are who you say you are). A hell (666) of a coincidence, I must say, it even fooled me! Sorry Giorgo M., and welcome to en:wp... 1213:

per nom, which will make things much clearer for those of us not interested in this squabble. Ancient Greeks can be subdivided in the category system, in the same way as modern British people are subdivided into English, Scottish etc.

1032:. Classification as Greek is usually, and properly, unsupported by the articles. The best solution is to move the list to the neutral name for the category, and then strain out the handful who properly belong in the original cat. 3140:

into A-League and NSL players by club, since the A-League took over from the NSL – it would be like splitting English Premiership players into English First Division players and FA Premier League players. Hope this makes sense.

3590:

categories. I'm sure there are several sportspeople (for instance) who are against the Iraq war, but they are notable for a different reason. If the rename happens, the header text needs to be changed to clarify the scope.

3603:: as it stands now the category is so broad/flux that it is rather meaningless- in addition it does not much information about a person to say that he was against the Iraq war- except if he is an activist. thus i think 2543:, etc, cause they are not Greek Macedonians, but Pontian Greeks (those whose surname ends in -idis) or Thesalian Greeks or whatever (i am sure u know wikipedia quite well and that u can see my changes). This category 1624: 521: 2201:

I believe that in this way the scientific and encyclopaedic integrity, accuracy and credibility of Knowledge (XXG) gets undermined. No encyclopedia respecting itself fosters confusion, partiality and inaccuracy.--

2123:

Greek Macedonians existed, but you pretended you didn't... hmm... I feel so secure to know that there are people who care for the neutrality of Knowledge (XXG) ;-) BTW that link of yours contains an inacurracy.

2104: 2080: 867: 1413:

are 2.5 million people, with a definite regional identity, sometimes even stronger than the (much fewer) Cretans, especially in matters of disambiguation from their (much fewer) Northern neighbours. The

1903:- Ancient Macedonians identified themselves as Greek and this is clearly recorded. If we would allow the request for movement of this category, we would allow a distortion of historical perception.-- 894: 463: 2547:

reasons to exist, many reasons (with a sense of bitterness, i expected u to come with a better excuse, unless u are not familiar with the regional differences of the Greeks-in this case, i take my

1450:. A huge example of this, was yesterday on the French broadcast of the Eurovision, when both (otherwise well informed, educated and humorous) French speakers, welcomed Helena from fYRoM, as 1321:- there could be different ways of doing this, but Aldux' proposal strikes me as particularly reasonable. In any case, do whatever it takes to separate the moderns from the ancients. Having 2778: 1990:... And then we have the (self-labelled) Greek Macedonians across the centuries, especially 17th and 18th and 19th centuries. Wake up guys and stop pretending you represent the Makedonci. 3228:

is essentially the only football/soccer competition in Australia which featured notable-enough players to have their own articles, so re-classifying them into 'division' is unnecessary.

1874: 3221: 2131:, and he was certainly no Greek. In the unlikely event that you find proof of a "Macedonian" ethnicity before the 20th century, please post the evidence to my talk page. Thanks. -- 2784: 2912: 42: 37: 2487:

Italians if u wish. Pls, do the same thing there as well, and say that Shakespeare was not English, cause he was born 500 years ago, and leave a 'dispute' note that medieval

3029: 1950:. The current name is completely unclear as based on normal usage in wikipedia category naming it means "People of Greek Ethnicity who live in the Republic of Macedonia". 316:

That reference says nothing about using 'movie' vs. 'film', it only talks about how to disambiguate if the movie/film happens to have the same title as something else. --

2875: 2790: 2781: 849: 2775: 2799: 2796: 2793: 3032:

was opposed to merging from "in" to "of", and in any event neither category was tagged. As the consensus seemed to be in favour of "in", merge from "of" to "in".

876: 3058: 2787: 326: 3374:

What is needed here is a doublechecking to ensure that the category is supported by all the articles in it; at the moment it is doing fairly well at that.

524:, otherwise "ships" too far from start of name. (Meanwhile, having second (fourth?) thoughts about expanding abbreviations in category names...) Regards, 1238:- contrary to the claims by both Pmanderson/Septentrionalis and NikoSilver, it is uncertain whether the ancient Macedonians were ethnically Greek or not ( 1777:(as Telex, Aldux and Lukas have pointed out above). This I am doing because I saw the latest additions to the category, but you better forget about the 2966:

should not be in this category, as it is already in Cat:U.S. Dept of Defense agencies, and that category should be a subcat of this one. Got all that?

858: 853: 831: 3480:

was the emerging consensus last time this was nominated, I thought. I'm not sure why it was never done. But that seems to be much more manageable.

1690:. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't take sides in the disputes, so if it's disputed whether the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or not, it's simply contrary to 840: 21: 2774:

Redundant category. It was decided last year that individual contestants should not have individual articles unless they were already noteworthy.

727: 265:

can be used as an adjective, to mean "Of or relating to the Philippines or its peoples, languages, or cultures." However, per naming conventions,

294: 871: 1458:

to figure it out, if educated French speakers fail to do so? Especially with the WP policy of naming all ethnic groups and countries as their

3213: 3137: 3133: 1726:

option there, rather than the description of the dispute. Please show me where the PA is, and I'll show you where the double standards are...

898: 17: 2215: 909: 913: 2082:. Now can you prove that the ethnic group in FYROM today which calls itself "Macedonian" isn't a product of the 20th century, with a 1425:

and the like, doesn't mean that such categories mustn't be included in future, nor does it mean that this category should be deleted.

2573: 2536: 2511: 636: 241: 765: 756: 2741: 2448: 2316: 1371: 885: 586:

These two categories appear to cover the same territory, so I'm proposing a merge to the larger, more clearly named category. -

236:"Filipino" is exclusive for people (Filipino basketball players, Filipino historians. "Philippine" is for other things, such as 3627: 3620: 1452:"the girl from the country of Alexander the Great, that will sing in English, rather than the language of the Ancient Kingdom" 3095: 2871: 905: 889: 862: 835: 2540: 2515: 2510:

I've begun looking at the individuals, and am beginning to understand how the massive populating was done. Folks that are

880: 844: 3518: 2913:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:United States federal boards, commissions, and committees

2911:

Similar in naming scheme to other such categories. Also, makes it clear that these are government agencies. (See also:

2042:- It would be good if you have some undisputable evidence for this (as Politis said from 17th, 18th and 19th centuries). 1020:

distinguish between Greeks and Macedonians; it also fails to include the ancient Greeks who did in fact live in Macedon:

376: 2995: 2991: 2959: 2300: 986: 60: 3281: