Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] International Reactions

These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles. I'll start with a quote.

«ἡ κυβέρνησις τῶν Η.Π.Α. θεωρεῖ, ὅτι συζήτησις περὶ «Μακεδονικοῦ ἔθνους, Μακεδονικῆς πατρίδος καὶ Μακεδονικῆς ἐθνικῆς συνειδήσεως» ἰσοῦται μὲ δημαγωγίαν, ποὺ δὲν ὑποκρύπτει ἐθνικὴν ἢ πολιτικὴν πραγματικότητα, ἀλλὰ ὑποκρύπτει ἐπεκτατικὰς διαθέσεις κατὰ τῆς Ἑλλάδος».

"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."

- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944

http://www.sartzetakis.gr/points/makedonia16.html


[edit] Propaganda & linking

ChrisO - I guess it's ok if you wanna remove the links (though I don't understand why, they do not in the way for reading). However, I don't think POV is a good substitute for propaganda here. The point of view is clear: The Greeks thought the population of Macedonia was Greek, the Serbs - Serbian, the Bulgarians - Bulgarian, and that is mentioned before listing all propaganda efforts. What the author talks about is the effort to prove this to the world, as well as to attract more of the Macedonian population to its side; that's propaganda. I just checked Encyclopedia Britannica where I think the author has borrowed the structure and the details and the encyclopedia also used the term 'propaganda'.

I'll take your word for it regarding propaganda. However, on linking, it's not necessary and it's against Wikipedia policy to link every single iteration of a term. Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context states: "Avoid duplicate links on a page. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, link the first occurrance of a term, and always link when directing to a page for more information, e.g. "Relevant background can be found in Fourier series"." -- ChrisO 15:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Yap, I read ur note on linking and agree. So you can revert and de-link them again. But I think propaganda should stay. Cheers. VMORO


Kapnisma - In the section 'Greek propaganda' someone edited that greek armed guerillas 'terrorized the "Exarchist" Bulgarian population and even committed a wide-scale massacre at a village near Kastoria in 1905' this is not only inaccurate, but also a sign of pure propaganda since this claim is only made by macedonian slavs in FYROM and by Bulgarians.Be more careful and ask for evidence before accepting any claims like this one.

Kapnisma -I will not accept macedonian-slav propaganda

First of all, this is neither Slav, nor Bulgarian "propaganda", as I have written it and I am neither Slav, nor Bulgarian. The massacre of Zagorichani (April 1905) is very well described in pages 216 and 217 of Brailsford's "Macedonia, its races and their futures". Some 60 unarmed peasants were massacred, including women, elderly people and children. The news of the massacre also hit the front pages of all major Western papers. I can certainly understand why you do not want this fact to be included in the article (as it is clear you are Greek) but your desire or lack of desire doesn't make the massacre less real. Birkemaal

Kapnisma -The fact that this so called massacre is written in ONE book and that western newspapers wrote about it IS NOT evidence.

It certainly IS evidence.

Since you like histrory I URGE you to read some of the following sources: 1)H.R. Wilkison, Maps and Politics.A Review of Ethograghip Cartography of Macedonia, Liverpool 1951 2)Duncan M. Perry, The politics of Terror.Macedonian Revolutionary Movements 1893-1903, London 1988 3)Basil Gounaris,Steam over Macedonia, 1870-1913, New York 1993 4)Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia 1897-1913. I think that this place is supposed to offer information,NOT TO PROMOTE PROPAGANDA

Maps and politics is on the list, you can check. As for the choice of sources - I have taken good care of including only sources contemporary for the time as information tends to get "lost" or "transformed" with the course of time. As for the list you are quoting, any Macedonian or Bulgarian can put out a similar list of new books which defend their own ideas of Macedonia, and that's exactly what I have tried to stay away from. Birkemaal


Kapnisma -It's also my belief that these informations must be given from an INDEPENDENT point of view.The whole article claims that Greek efforts resulted in terrorizing the "Exarchist" Bulgarian population

Certainly IMRO terrorised the Greek priests and teachers, as well, information on it will be added as soon as I find time.


when it is obvious that this was also happening from the other side too.The sentence i've deleted must either be deleted of written again in an NEUTRAL way.You also claim that the greek military units were guerillas,

I have called the IMRO units guerillas, as well, in the section "Bulgarian propaganda", there is no case any opposition between "guerilla" and "detachment", at least not intentionally.


and that they were fighting detachments of IMRO I want to ask you: 1)against who was fighting IMRO,against the Turks only or also against those macedonians that declaired they were greeks even if they could not speak greek?

an unnecessary question, as I said I am gonna add some info about it as soon as possible


2)who supported economicaly IMRO locals, or Bulgaria?

Both


3)they were peaceful local peasants being slaughtered by vicious Greeks or something else?

They were peasants who were unarmed and among them were women and children, it's you the one who chooses to add the word "vicious".


4)the socalled greek guerillas were also local greek macedonians or just greek officers from Athens?

The majority of them came from Greece proper.


Please i want an answer

I have made the addition about IMRO you requested. I hope we can all have a good night's sleep now. Birkemaal


Kapnisma -my problem was that the whole article was written in a way that presented the greeks killing and bulgarians being innocent for everything.I thank you for adding informations about IMRO,but i must sadly comment that this happend after my involvement, not by you alone.

Also,question number 3 was refered to IMRO supporters, not to those peasants that were killed by Greeks. If your intention is to present all the massacres that were made from all parts, I personally don't have any problem to do so.My intention was to avoid these references about killings for all, bulgarians and greeks.

Finally, you are implying that that the sources i have quoted are supporting greek opinion on this matter.I must tell you that i've red those books and you'll be astonished by their altitude for greeks,if you read them too. Among academics, Douglas Dakin is considered to be the most recognisable for the whole Macedonian question, in Europe, (not in Greece).

I hold on with agony for the infomations you promished.


[edit] The Ancient Macedonians

Obviously, Abel, Hatzidakis, Hoffman, Kalleris, Muller, Sturz, Keramopoulos, Svoronos, Weigand, Blass, Blumental, Buck, Fick, Hirt, Krahe, Kretschmer, Lesny, Meyer, Meillet, Nehring, Pedrizet, Pisani, Solmen, Thumb, Beloch, Bengton, Bury, Droysen and many,many,many other disagree with you.

The fact is that in reallity, as I said before, the majority of historians and linguists agrees that Macedonians were Greek or at least Greek tribe which separated from the others early.This is based in simple, rational thoughts:

As you already know, when some researcher of history phrases a theory, must have evidence not only from ancient quotations, but also from archaiological findings.

For examble, if I say that the native Americans (Indians) were of Greek origin (apart from being ridiculous) I am clearly wrong.An academic will respond that my theory is not correct because ,1) we know from past and contemporary sources that their language is not Greek but something else 2) their archaeological findings(pottery,buildings,tools) have nothing in common with Greek ones 3) their folklore (music,clothes,etc) also have nothing in common with Greek ones.

But lets return to Macedonians, the academics who consider Macedonians as not Greeks are only based on ancient quotations(Demosthenes,Isocrates,etc). Is this a rational thought? Thucydides writes that Aitolians were canibals and barbarians, is this also right? Aristofanis writes that Thebans(like Epaminondas and Pelopidas) were pigs,barbarians and no Athenaean can understand what they are saying were they also not Greeks? In Greek literature there are many similar exambles which prove that we must not rely only to ancient sources.

Consequently, if the Macedonians were not Greeks, and they were just influenced by them, then why: 1) Many ancient Greeks wrote that they were Greeks. 2) All,(when I say all,I mean ALL) the inscriptions found in the area of Macedonia are written in Greek? 3) All their vocabulary (700 words)saved to us, is without any doupt, Greek? 4) All archaeological findings, (pottery,buildings,arms,tools,temples) are of Greek style?

I remind that for the above 4 reasons, academics know that Illyrians and Thracians were not Greeks, but just influenced by them.(For example archaeologists have foung inscriptions in Illyrian and Thracian languages which are clearly not Greek-see J.P. Mallory The Indoeuropeans 1989,Thames and Hudson Ltd, London- and archaeological findings are different from Greek ones) Kapnisma 02:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important point here. There are (roughly speaking) three theories here: that the ancient Macedonians always were Greeks, that they never were Greeks, and that they originally weren't Greeks but became hellenized over time. Wikipedia's NPOV policy demands that we shouldn't try to state which theory is correct. We should confine ourselves to describing each of the theories. -- ChrisO 11:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I couldn't agree more. As you can see the changes I've made CLEARLY display the theory that Macedonians weren't Greek. I haven't changed a thing.If I wanted to make propaganda or if I was extreme nationalist I would have altered the opposite arguments. But it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics.I also erased some false sentences such as Hellenized aristocracy and clearly exceptional cases which are arbitraries, with lack of evidence and distinctly not NPOV.

Kapnisma 12:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kapnisma, stop trying to qualify which theory is supported and which is not - besides what you say is not true as the intermediate version has the most followers, may be I should point out - OUTSIDE Greece. Remember that is not a Greek encyclopedia and its content should correspond to what is accepted in the world, NOT in Greece. As for the arguments you quote - about the pottery and inscriptions: All inscriptions and pottery in the lands of the Thracians were of Greek style and written in Greek, that's why almost all of our knowledge of the Thracian and Illyrian language is based on toponymical data as they are the only true source of evidence about the language of the Thracians and the Illyrians. Birkemaal


What exactly is your problem, Birkemaal? Above I gave you common academic believes about Macedonians with bibliography and sources. Well, I must say that what YOU say is not true. Outside FYROM and Bulgaria most acadenics support the first opinion.You have LACK OF INFORMATION about Illyrians and Thracians.I suggest you see that book I mentioned above (or whatever else you want about Indoeuropeans, if you imply that the writter is Greek supporter).The Illyrian and Thracian inscriptions are written in greek alphabet, but NOT IN GREEK. Well you didn't said anything about the vocabulary, the archaeological findings, etc.Pottery in the lands of the Thracians naturally is greek cause of commerce, but their tools,jewels etc are CLEARLY OF NOT GREEK STYLE. Both opinions are well balanced in the article as it is now so I really don't understand what is your problem.I repeat :it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics.I also erased some false sentences such as Hellenized aristocracy and clearly exceptional cases which are arbitraries, with lack of evidence and distinctly not NPOV.

Oh, and something else, certainly wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, that's why opinions must be WELL SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES.But it's also not YOUR international encyclopedia to write whatever you wish without rational arguments.

With comprehension,Kapnisma 22:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kapnisma, the ruling opinion on the ancient Macedonians outside Greece is that they were closely akin to the Greeks and were gradually Hellenized over time. What have FYRMacedonia and Bulgaria have to do with that and with the discussion here is something I don't quite understand. ChrisO (who - like me - is neither a Macedonian Slav, nor a Bulgarian) also advised you against making qualifications (wrong as far as international opinion is concerned, on top of it) which theory is best supported by evidence and which is not. Birkemaal

What do you mean by this "Outside FYROM and Bulgaria", Kapnisma??? We don't have anything to do with all the crap around Alexander the Great, it is of no interest to us whatsoever. Bulgarian books contain the same information about the anc. Macedonians as all other books outside Greece. It is, however, appalling that the Greeks are trying to impose their opinion on the rest of the world yet again. Quite reminiscent of the suggestion of Bakoyani that henceforth the Olympic Games should be held only in Athens... All the people I talked to afterwards (from all possible countries, not from Macedonia and Bulgaria) said that it was unbelievably arrogant and they wanted to smack her in the face. I really think there is no limit to how self-centered you are. And by the way, the Thracian inscriptions in Bulgaria are written in Greek, not in Thracian VMORO


What is wrong about you people? Do you want to deliberately falscificate history? What is your problem? Where exactly did you see that I want to impose my opinion? I just wrote down the theories.I repeat :it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics.I also erased some false sentences such as Hellenized aristocracy and clearly exceptional cases which are arbitraries, with lack of evidence and distinctly not NPOV.

Dear, Birkemaal. If your problem is the qualification, erase it.But the arcticle shows the theories in an equal way.When on the first part we present the theories,IT'S NOT NPOV to write later that they were hellenized.If you see what VMORO writes in this discussion you will understand what my problem is.Some people here want to falscificate history and they write down whatever they want.Take as an example VMORO.He writes thatever he likes without evidence and he continues to alter historical reality.As I said before, read whichever book you want about Indoeuropeans and you will see that what I said it's correct,still he denies it... An other example, of some people writting whatever they want: go to the article Bulgarians they write that in Greece exists a Bulgarian minority!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They even figured out the number(105,599) and the year of cencus (1981)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that all theories must be presented with their arguments,so that the reader decides on his own.But when I read something which is not NPOV, or AGGRAVATING I will change it. Kapnisma 23:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kapnisma, the last edit testifies to what all non-Greeks think about your little statement. And don't throw around accusations you cannot substantiate - I can substantiate each one of my edits. I saw just now what is going on in the article you mentioned (I have never edited it). It is very nice someone eventually ventured to write extensively on that topic though the article needs a lot of work the way it is right now. VMORO


And Kapnisma: don't you think it is a little bit cheap of you to write some crap in the discussion page of Bulgarians and sign it with my name? Or should I blame it on the fact that you are only 20? VMORO

Please VMORO, for once stop warping what I say.What I wrote is that all theories must be presented with their arguments,so that the reader decides on his own.And I presented some examples of people doing the opposite.

Ì am certainly not "warping" your comments. You pointed me out as a prime example of bad editing (in opposition to a "prime example" of good editing - you) and afterwards you quoted as an example an article which I have never edited?!! I might be harsh and biting at times but I sure know what I write about, I can substantiate everything I say and I stand behind all of my edits. You demonstrated the same attitude a couple of days before when you embroiled the name of Bulgaria in something we have nothing to do with and which concerns only Greece and FYROM. Do you just throw random accusations when feel pressed, Kapnisma? VMORO
And VMORO: Don't YOU think that is really,really cheap for you to refer on my age as a factor of me making wrong about this? Or should I blame it on the fact that you have no other arguments?

I remind that this discussion started about the neutrality of the article.Because some people in here want to impose their opinions or perhaps because they can't tolerate other views, does not gives them the right to accuse all the others. And for once more I repear:it's illogical not to say what is the common belief among academics(internationally) Kapnisma 13:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


As I can see the old Greek-Bulgarian feud has erupted yet again... You two should calm down, there is no point in barking at each other. But, Kapnisma, instead of suspecting all editors of an anti-Greek conspiracy, why don't you consider the option that you yourself might be wrong? The international supporters of the view that the Macedonians were Greeks initially are indeed few and far between. And if you look at the reactions which edits to that effect have produced among non-Greek editors, especially while this section was part of Macedonia, you can clearly see how "positive" they are towards this idea.

Anyway, the qualification - whether right or wrong, I am tired of discussing that - should go. It is ok with the erasing of the "Hellenized aristocracy" if you wanna keep a balance between the two opinions. And in that connection - what exactly is the second opinion as I have never heard of it before. There is pretty much an understanding that the language of the Macedonians was closely akin to Greek and some have argued that it was even a dialect of Greek (the position you are defending) but I have never read a position denying any connection with the them. And even if such an opinion exists, it is probably too marginal to deserve a mention here. But I might have misunderstood you. I'll look forward to yoúr answer. Cheers, Birkemaal

Dear Birkemaal,try to understand what I say: the fact that there is a belief that the macedonians were a mixed tribe,later hellenized doesn't mean it's right or that it is supported by the majority because it seems politicaly correct to you.And please,don't regard as wrong from the beginning my opinion just because I'm Greek.It is very well supported by most historians.Unfortunatelly,the way some articles are written here is anti-Greek.Try the section Greek propaganda.You only wrote for example what crimes Greek did and only after I reacted you became neutral.I'm sorry to tell you, but history is not written in such a way. The opinion that macedonians were not greeks,nor mixed with them but a separate indoeuropean tribe is supported by FYROM historians but it's so ridiculous that it's unworthy of annotation Try to understand that I am not nationalist when I support with evidence my opinion and instead of rejecting it from the beginning, appraise it. The Greeks are not furious nationalists,with denial of other opinions,after all what you support (that macedonians were a mixed tribe of Greeks,Illyrians and Thracians speaking a form of Greek) is also supported by a great greek historian, Kordatos. Please,visit this site:http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/ it's from a greek univercity,I'm sure you will find many interesting things Kapnisma 09:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) Bob: ...-As you already know, when some researcher of history phrases a theory, must have evidence not only from ancient quotations, but also from archaiological findings. -Yes and that archeological findings have linked Macedonians and their culture to Trebenishte culture,Phrigians(Brigians) and Tracians.New findings have given picture of wider Pelasgian tribes dweling from early megalitic times in these areas.Macedonians are part of them-Pelasgians.Yet I cant find nothing of this on your web.And this is what archeology is saying.

[edit] Zagorichani massacre

Image:The Balkan Troubles, Jun 13, 1905.png
Zagorichani Massacre in the Times, Jun 13, 1905

This is a warning to the anonymous user who erased the note about Zagorichani - in view of the facts I have, I would recommend you refrain from further deletions as they can be viewed only as vandalism. And in this case I'll proceed towards banning you from the website VMORO 14:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Bulgarian anti-Greek frenzy

Everybody (apart from you) understands that during a guerilla fight as between the bugarians and the greeks EVERYBODY commits crimes.Mystiriously, only a greek crime is presented and none bulgarian.Is this NPOV according to you?If you want to turn wikipedia to a monument of hate presenting crimes of both sides I have no problem,it will be your fault,but my opinion is different

The anti-greek frenzy of some people in here is incredible!!!! Mystiriously again it comes from editors that their origin is from the Balkan area.Since, as I have mentioned,some want to turn wikipedia in their personal monument of hate in the following days I will edit crimes and massacres of the Bulgarian side.I will wait with agony to see if those editors that changed my edit will do the same again.

There was no "guerilla fighting", the people were massacred in cold blood. I have half a dozen other articles, again from the Times, about several other massacres committed by the Greek bands in the Kastoria and Serres regions. This is not a "monument of hate", it is an objective representation of the facts - and everyone should take responsibility for what they have done. And I'll remind you that the one with foam on his mouth is you, not me. May be you should take some sedative, ha? VMORO 18:49, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


You don't want to understand,right?Your nationalism is incredible!Since you challenge me, I wonder what are you going to say when you will read what your Κομιτατζιδες did.You seem to have a great collectionsof articles of that period,mystiriously although you are so objective you seem to forget(?) those articles about the bulgarians,but that's ok,I will remind them to you myself.

[edit] All articles relating to Macedonia

Is there a list anywhere on Wikipedia of all the articles relating to Macedonia and Macedonians? If not, can we start one? Maybe put it in a template? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 30, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

[edit] C L E A N U P

Hi, my name is Prince Miskin and I have a question. Who the hell is writing all that bullshit on the article? I know that some people are just biased and want to have their propaganda on public view, so that's perfectly ok. What's not ok, is the fact that the supposedly "neutral" people (there must be a few) just sit by and watch. I mean, there's not even any need to make a specific remark on this article. Besides the fact that 90% of the information provided is irrelevant to the region of Macedonia, this information is also FALSE (in caps). I'm going to clean up this joke of an article and replace it with some actual facts, you know, of the kind that's written in history books and actually took place, yeah that's the one. Miskin 3 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)


So, is there actually a valid reason for this article to exist separately from Macedonia, Macedon and Macedonian and all the relative articles? From what I see here, the current article was created by a nationalist Bulgarian (sad Balkan War losers) who almost indirectly quotes ex-commie propaganda. What really sad here is that nobody has noticed, which implies that nobody is familiar with the region's history. The logical question that comes into my mind, is what the heck would people who are ignorant to the history of region be doing in this article. Even if there really is a good reason for this article to exist (apart from VMORO's) ethnic insecurities, there's no way in bloody HELL that those individuals's edits will stay in this article. People who don't see why, should not even bother to give me an answer. Miskin 3 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

[edit] To VMORO

Turkish census of Hilmi Pasha in 1904, on the Ethnic groups in Macedonia:

Vilaeti of Thessaloniki Greeks: 373,227 Bulgars: 207,317

Vilaeti of Monastiri Greeks: 261,283 Bulgars: 178,412

Santzaki of Scopje Greeks: 13,452 Bulgars: 172,735


Turkish census of Hilmi Pasha in 1906, in the area of Macedonia:

423,000 - 41.71% Muslims (Turks and Albanians)

259,000 - 27.30% Greeks

178,000 - 18.81% Bulgarians

13,150 - 1.39% Serbs

73,000 - 7.72% others


After the defeat of Bulgaria in the Balkan Wars, after the population exchanges between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, after two World Wars and after 40 years of Greek domination in the area, are you telling us that suddenly Bulgarians were more than Greeks in Greek Macedonia?? What's next? Are there more Palestinians in Israel as we speak? Nevermind, I've heard this story before as well. So what on earth are you on about encyclopedia Brittanica? 1,200,000 bulgarians?? :D Are you lying on purpose or are you actually _that_ brainwashed? We don't even know whether "The Times" article on the "massacre" is authentic. Either way, it's ludicrous, Bulgarians and Turks are known for their atrocities during the wars, it's almost ironic seeing them blame someone else on that matter.

Let's get some things clear:

  • The sections you wrote have nothing to do with Macedonia. It's POV information on people who are ethnically alien to Macedonians (such as Serbs and Bulgars). If you want to start an article on the political problems of Macedonia during the 20th century, that's a whole different story, which definitely has no connection to the article title "Macedonians".
  • Bulgarians have nothing to do with Macedonia (assuming that Macedonian Slavs are not Bulgarians).
  • Your additions are plain propaganda and falsification of Greek history. You're obviously lacking fundamental historical knowledge on the current topic.
  • You should stay away from all Greek history related articles. You're a brainwashed nationalist whose only purpose is to hide his propaganda behind an encyclopedic mask.
  • There's no reason for this article to exist. That is none other than the ethnic complexes of the person who created it. Macedonian, Macedonia, Macedon etc provide more than sufficient information on the subject.

Miskin 3 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)


Miskin, I agree that most of what you deleted was hopelessly biased. however:

  • you should calm down
  • you should edit, not blank
  • you have to carve out exactly what belongs on "Macedonians," and what belongs on Macedon.

It is not advisable to have an article "Macedonians" at all, because the term is too ambiguous. If you ask me, "Macedonians" should redirect to the Macedonian dab page. Otherwise, this article will mostly consist of material already covered elswhere, and keepin stuff consistent will be a nightmare, seeing the controversial nature of the topic. So take this as one vote for merging+redirecting this article. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

I was gonna say the same thing: I don't like the same info being repeated in various articles.Decius 3 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)
ok, so I suppose we can basically agree that this article covers too much ground already treated elsewhere. When you do break it up, make sure that no information is lost, i.e. when blanking check that you export stuff to the pertinent article. dab (ᛏ) 3 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

How can I calm down Dab after knowing that this page had been exactly like that for months now. It is not advisable to have an article 'Macedonians' at all, because the term is too ambiguous. If you ask me, 'Macedonians' should redirect to the Macedonian dab page. Thank you very much, cos if you ask me I'll say the same thing. This why I'm blanking instead of editing, there's no point to edit. Why change something which doesn't even belong there in the first place? The thing is, that the sections which are indeed related to Macedonians, have been already addressed in other articles. The sections that haven't got to do anything with Macedonians (such as the modern Bulgaro-Slavic propaganda) has also been addressed in Macedonia. Basically there's absolutely no point on keeping this article. If you want to find a reason for its being, then just notice which individual has practically started and finished it. This article was created by a Bulgarian nationalist who supports that Slavo-Macedonians don't have the right to think of themselves as a distinct ethnic group and Greeks have never set foot on the region of Macedonia. I rest my case. Miskin 3 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

The majority of information however has to be lost as it is false. Most of it is just summarising the other Macedonia-related articles in a biased way. Miskin 3 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

[edit] To ChrisO, the "Democrat"

rv vandalism. Get a consensus before making changes of this magnitude

Oh, Is that so. Was there a consensus before this page was created? Do I have the write to disambiguate the article Sicilians and write inside the history of the Arab World? What kind of logic are you using? Let me pose a question, just how familiar are you with the history and the region of Macedonia? Does there have to be a consensus because you people don't have a clue? I mean, if you knew at least the basics, you'd realise that talking about Bulgarian and Serbian attempts in the 19th and 20th century is definitely not related to the term Macedonians. This article has no reason to exist. It was created and started by VMORO, who basically distorted history in public view. I mean for crying out loud, this guys doesn't even mention that Macedonia next to Asia Minor and Thrace was the core of Hellenism during the Byzantine and Roman periods for over 2000. This guy writes in public that Greek Macedonia had 2,000,000 Bulgarians in the 20th century. This guy writes irrelevant and false information. In the beginnin I was only upset on the content of the article. Now I realise that the article has no reason to exist. Talking about Bulgarian and Serbian nationalism in an article that's called Macedonians, it's nearly disgusting. The fact that you and many others kept editing this article and regarded VMORO's edits perfectly normal, proves that you know two things on the history of the region and its people:

  • JACK
  • SHIT!

And Jack has just left. Miskin 3 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend any particular point of view. I'm simply trying to encourage you to discuss your changes with your fellow editors. It's not regarded as good practice to delete very large chunks of an article because you don't like it for whatever reason. If you're not happy with the article, I suggest that you change the bits that you think are wrong and discuss your reasons and evidence here. In the meantime, I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers#Wikicivics for some advice on rules of engagement. -- ChrisO 3 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

The truth is I got carried away, so let's all put an effort and try to be civilised. No more lies and side-edits. Miskin 3 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

It is not me who started the article, although I have certainly made edits to it. Anyway, that's not the point, if there is anything debatable, it might only be the name. As regards the regards the rest of your conduct, Miskin, you behave as yet another country bumpkin infested with Greek nationalist frenzy. If you have read only Greek history textbooks, then you might not be acquainted with the nationalist propaganda in Macedonia at the end of the 19th century - Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek - or with other details of Macedonia's history but that is really only your own problem. Refrain from trying to insult me or other users. Or do so - I'll be glad to be able to kick you out for unrestrained behavoiur and repeated vandalism. VMORO July 3, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
Umm, actually you can't kick someone out, unless you were made an administrator while I wasn't looking! Please don't threaten fellow editors - that's my job. ;-) -- ChrisO 3 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
No, I can't - I am not aiming at an administrator status, either. But if he goes one in this way for a couple of days, I am sure I can make it a winning cause before someone who has an administrator status. VMORO July 3, 2005 14:28 (UTC)
So what exactly is not debatable then? I mean, what on earth is not biased about this article? Slavs pushing the "surviving Greek population" in the islands, hundreds of thousands of muslim Turks and Albanians being Hellenised in Byzantine Greece, I mean honestly but how the hell are you coming up with that crap? Massacres by Greek soldiers published in american newspapers, 2 Million Bulgars in Macedonia (that's one of the best) and the list goes on. I mean, is there actually a limit to your lies? I really find it extremely ironic for you to call anybody a nationalist, what's next? Calling me a Bulgar maybe? Don't talk about history, don't you ever put the word history in your mouth, I've read enough don't worry and I know what to tolerate and what to oppose. You're basically quoting Bulgarian propaganda sites.Miskin 3 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

if there is anything debatable, it might only be the name.

Oh... so that's an "only". Point made. Well you've heard what the majority of serious people think. This article is a source of trouble and is therefore going down. Miskin 3 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

Don't try to define what is going down and what is not, please. Point out what you agree/don't agree with instead of blurting out general accusations. And next time you say something offensive to me AGAIN, I'll contact an administrator to complain about repeated personal attacks from you.
According to Birkemaal, the Zagorichani massacre is also mentioned in Brailsford. But anyway, a database with old issue of the Times (this is a British newspaper, not an American one, you should know that) is available at any large Public library. Not liking something is not a reason for deleting it.
This article has a source list. Before you come here throwing around opinions, you should prepare your case.
The statistics (mother tongue) is apparently taken from Encycolpaedia Britannica 1911 edition. I have a similar statistics from the Times (1903 issue) and I am hereby attaching it here. VMORO July 3, 2005 14:52 (UTC)


The exclusion from this article of the Bulgarian atrocities against the Patriarchists is dubious, to say the least.--Theathenae 3 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)
This excerpt is from the article: "IMRO fought not only against the Ottoman authorities, but also against the pro-Serbian and pro-Greek parties in Macedonia, terrorising the population supporting them and resorting to murders of Greek and Serbian school teachers and priests." May be you haven't read carefully enough, Theathenae? By the way, the Bulgarian colonists settled in eastern Macedonia btn 1941-1944 were former Bulgarian refugees from Greek Macedonia, as well as their descendants. But I am gonna deal with this later... VMORO July 3, 2005 15:01 (UTC)
Is that all they did? Their only victims were a few Greek and Serbian schoolteachers and priests?--Theathenae 3 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

terrorising the population supporting them... Again, you are not reading carefully. If you have evidence about massacres which took place, you are welcome to present it. VMOROJuly 3, 2005 15:08 (UTC)

Not being able to present evidence for Bulgarian atrocities against Patriarchists is not a reason to erase info about Greek atrocities against Exarchists after info and source have been presented. VMORO July 3, 2005 15:19 (UTC)
Presenting a single example amongst the many atrocities committed by all sides displays a certain bias, wouldn't you say? Was that the only massacre that took place?--Theathenae 3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Alright keep singing. The first thing I'll do is to remove the plain lies. Then I'll just point out in Talk which sections have no place here. Even if you assume that your massacre happened exactly as you described it, can't you see that's it's completely irrelevant to the article? If you insist on keeping it then you'll just force me to search and post every single crime Bulgarian people have done in Northern Greece the past 150 (and trust me it will be plenty). If you want to debate on your massacre then you should stick it on a separate article, or would you like me to do it for you? Miskin 3 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)

If you are talking about the massacre in Zagorichani, I will soon make a separate article about it. As well as about the Greek massacres during the Second Balkan War. And I'll revert every incorrect edit by you. VMORO July 3, 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Good. And until you do, you "massacre" has no place in the article "Macedonians". What's the remote connection between the Turkic missionaries of Byzantium and Macedonians? What's the remote connection between "how did foreigners call Bulgarians in the 10th c." and Macedonians? None, and None. Miskin 3 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Well, if we are gonna play statistics, here you get some by me. Which one do you prefer? I can quote at least 3-4 more, such as Brailsford, the Times and the Guardian but don't have the time to look them up now. As for the rest - your idiotic questions do not deserve an answer. I have so long refrained from making overtly pro-Bulgarian edits here but just wait and see. VMORO July 3, 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Name 1. Prof. G. Wiegland - Die Nationalen Bestrebungen der Balkansvölker. Leipzig 1898 2. Official Turkish Statistic Ethnicity of Macedonia Philippopoli 1881 3. Journal "Le Temps" Paris 1905 4. Robert Pelletier - La verite sur la Bulgarie. Paris 1913 5. Leon Dominian - The frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe. New York 1917 6. Richard von Mach - Der Machtbereich des bulgarischen Exarchats in der Türkei. Leipzig - Neuchatel, 1906 7. Prince Tcherkasky 1877 8. Stepan Verkovitch 1889
Nationality Germany Turkey France France USA Germany Russia Serbia
Population total 2,275,000 754,353 2,782,000 1,437,000 1,438,084 1,334,827 1,771,220 1,949,043
Bulgarians 1,200,000 500,554 1,200,000 1,172,000 1,172,136 1,166,070 872,700 1,317,131
Greeks 220,000 22,892 270,000 190,000 190,047 95,005 124,250 222,740
Turks 695,000 185,535 410,000 --- --- --- 516,220 240,264
Albanians --- --- 600,000 3,036 12,006 6,036 --- 78,790
Remarks all Muslims under Turks all Muslims under Turks --- only Christians only Christians only Christians all Muslims under Turks ---


I don't really know where you got this data from, as I don't even know where you got your articles on your massacres from and at the moment it's not really important. Assuming that your data is authentic, it's basically mathematically impossible to be correct:

  • We already know how many people took place in the population exchanges and the exact ethnic composition of Greece after 1913, and the millions of Bulgars you're claiming just don't do the math.
There were around 300,000-350,000 Bulgarians (or more rightly - Slavs) in present-day Greek Macedonia before 1912. Some 150,000 fled or were relocated to Bulgaria during and after the Balkan Wars and after WWI. The patriarchists were at least 100,000 and presented themselves as Greeks, they, of course, stayed. Last there are 80,000 people which the Greek government counted in 1926 as Bulgarisants. As you see, the numbers fit quite well. VMORO July 4, 2005 06:53 (UTC)
  • We know that Serbians agreed with Greece to acquire Agean Macedonia (which is basically the real Macedonia) only because the Slav population was a minority. As you already know, Serbians were planning to assimilate any Slavophone population of Macedonia and gain access to the Aegean sea. Serbia was more more powerful than Greece at the time and there's no way in hell she would have agreed with this treaty if the Slavic population of Aegean Macedonia was not a minority.
I have never argued that Bulgarians represented the bulk of the population of Aegean Macedonia - they represented around 1/3 of it if we count mother tongue. Don't attempt to speculate on what the Serbians wanted and thought and tra-la-la. Everyone took whatever they could in Macedonia. Period. VMORO July 4, 2005 06:53 (UTC)
  • What's the population of Bulgaria today? 7,000,000? According to Demographics of Bulgaria only some 80% is ethnic Bulgarian. But let's say I give you that. Let's say it's 100%. Let's say Bulgaria and FYROM put together. How much? 8, 9, hell I even give you 10M! The year is 2005, and you claim a 2M Bulgarian population only in Northern Greece during the 19th century... That implies that in the 19th c. there's at least a constant C > 2M already in Bulgaria, and a few other constants Cn for each neighbouring country with a Bulgarian population (FYROM, Serbia, Turkey etc, etc). I mean, unless a nation has a superficial homosexuality tendency, the math just doesn't work. Or let me guess, is this data correct because there's still a massive Bulgaro-Macodonian minority in Northern Greece which is kept hidden by the Greek governent? I've heard that one too. Of course it's inhumanly oppressed, forbidden to speak its language, etc, etc. I bet those hairy Greeks smell bad as well, don't you think?
7.5 MLN and 84%, thank you. You don't read carefully. And the highest number which comes from the Christian Bulgarians in Macedonia is around 1.0 MLN (These are now - of course - Macedonians in RoM and Bulgarians in Bulgaria). Where are these 2.0 MLN you are constantly wandering about? Seriously, can you read, Miskin??? And what is this "massive Bulgaro-Macodonian minority in Northern Greece"? It is only you who you are talking about it. Is this the real reason behind your edits? VMORO July 4, 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Why are you

  • Lastly, I don't know exactly what you define as "Macedonia" in the early 20th century. The infamous partition of Macedonia in 1913, didn't really share the historical region of Macedon, what it shared was an Ottoman province. During the 2nd century AD, the province of Macedonia in the Roman Empire included Thessaly, Epirus, part of Thrace and Illyria. The original province of Macedonia (TM) prior to Philip II's conquests was restricted to what you people call "Aegean Macedonia'. Ever since Philip's time the borders of the have varied. In that respect, I'm always talking about the authentic region of Macedonia, which has nothing to do with Bulgaria, FYROM and Serbia&co. In other words, if the region of Macedonian in your own mind extends from the Aegean sea to the fringes of Transylvania, is a completely different story, a personal problem of yours, and definitely not something which has to do with the term Macedonians.

Miskin 4 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

I see you have a serious problem with the definition of the borders of Macedonia - which is proven by your inadequate comments here and by your edits in the article. In an international (understand English-lingual) context, the region of Macedonia COMPRISES the Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia. This modern definition covers also the whole time span from Antiquity until now. The borders of Ancient Macedonia are NOT VALID in an English encyclopaedia. If the Greek definition of Macedonia applies only to Aegean Macedonia, this is peculiar only to Greece, everyone else defines Macedonia as I defined it above. Not because I have chosen it to be this way but because this is a GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE. If you are editting here, you should conform to the definition of Macedonia in English. If you want to pretend that Macedonia is nothing else but Aegean Macedonia, there is the Greek Wikipedia for you. VMORO July 4, 2005 06:53 (UTC)

[edit] Rival Statisics Deleted

I put some additional statistics with a number of Macedonian Slavs. There are 3 sources, all of them from Western Europe. Naturally, it was deleted. Looking at the history of the article there seems to be lot of delete wars so I don’t see much point reposting them. On top of that they don’t look right; it’s not believable that Bulgarian sources would put Greeks as strong majority. I want to share few anecdotes from H. Brailsford’s book regarding all those fancy statistics:

  • … . I remember vividly my amazement when I encountered this quaint phenomenon during my first visit to Macedonia. I was talking to a wealthy peasant who came in from a neighbouring village to Monastir market. He spoke Greek well, but hardly like a native. "Is your village Greek," I asked him, "or Bulgarian ?" "Well," he replied, "it is Bulgarian now, but four years ago it was Greek." The answer seemed to him entirely natural and commonplace. "How," I asked in some bewilderment, "did that miracle come about ?" "Why," said he, "we are all poor men, but we want to have our own school and a priest who will look after us properly. We used to have a Greek teacher. We paid him £5 a year and his bread, while the Greek consul paid him another £5; but we had no priest of our own. We shared a priest with several other villages, but he was very unpunctual and remiss. We went to the Greek Bishop to complain, but he refused to do anything for us. The Bulgarians heard of this and they came and made us an offer. They said they would give us a priest who would live in the village and a teacher to whom we need pay nothing. Well, sir, ours is a poor village, and so of course we became Bulgarians." One can picture this rather quaint revolution….
  • … I have heard a witty French consul declare that with a fund of a million francs he would undertake to make all Macedonia French. He would preach that the Macedonians are the descendants of the French crusaders who conquered Salonica in the twelfth century, and the francs would do the rest….

--Cigor 14:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ---> Transferring text

How about some space for Bulgarian propaganda? Miskin 4 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)

Bulgarian interests are a big factor here, but I won't call it all propaganda for now (though there probably is/was plenty Bulgarian propaganda in the text), because I haven't seen the sources VMORO is using. Propaganda or not, this article still seems superfluous. Decius 4 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)

How's it a big factor for Bulgaria? I mean FYROM at least is currently experiencing the 19th century process of nation-building, so it does have a good reason to say a lie or two (or more) hoping that someone will fall for it. But the Bulgarians? I mean what do they actually hope? Someone to think one day "Hey, Macedonian Slavs are in fact Bulgarians, let's suggest a unification to the UN", or maybe something like "wow, 19th century Macedonia (which in Bulgarian maps is right next to Sofia) has a majority of Bulgarian population, let's tell NATO to invade Northern Greece and give it to Bulgaria"!! This data he provided is simply false. I'm not saying for certain that it's not authentic (although it's highly probable) but it just contradicts my data (which I know for a fact which is authentic), and it doesn't do the math according to the modern history of the region. Such a great number of an ethnic group only in Macedonia during the 19th century is just unrealistic. If they had had a "minority" of 2M they would have taken Constantinople from the Ottomans instead of begging for wastelands from Greeks and Serbs. If you have the slightest confidence on me you should trust me on this one. Miskin 4 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

I think I know what the problem with the demographics data is. VMORO doesn't seem to know where Macedonia starts and ends. I'm getting the impression that (like most of Slavs) he thinks that Macedonia includes the entire region of FYROM (Vardarska Baninova). This is why he refers to Greek Macedonia as 'Southern Macedonia'. I just realised that this entire article is talking about a different region... Macedonia's Northern border ends at Monastiri (Bitola). Any other opinion is just a personal point of view. If Bulgarians want to think of Macedonia as a greater region, then it's fine as long as they do it in their own little world, and leave the real region of Macedonia and its history alone. Miskin 4 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Decius you probably already know, but I suggested the same thing with you i.e. to kill the article. It's totally useless, provides biased and false information (now less than before), and most importantly, it has no remote connection to its name (Macedonians). I tried to force intelligence by blanking the article but I failed. People are just too stuck at typical procedures (votes etc) without really knowing why. There are just some things that we "should not do". So how can we eliminate this article with "acceptable" procedures? Miskin 4 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)

What I'm doing is waiting for VMORO to state what he intends to do with this Macedonians article, and the arguments he has for maintaining it rather than transferring text, merging, etc.. He is the main opposing party, and I'd rather hear his counter-argument before just redirecting. If the article remains (and it might), then I plan on trimming its discussion of the ancient Macedonians, etc. etc., which is covered in Macedon. Decius 4 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Alright, I guess this article can remain, even though it repeats a lot of material, and I'd still rather see it gone. I'm going to fix what interests me, and you guys can have fun over the rest. The excuse I see for this article is that it would be too much to fit in Macedonia, and one legitimate reason is enough to let it linger for awhile more at least. Decius 4 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)


-> To Decius: I am not "intending" to do anything with this article - it is not my "personal article" in my "personal website". But I have also thought that the name "Macedonians" does not really fit here, it is more like "History of Macedonia" or even "Demographic history of Macedonia". I just want to see how things are gonna go - whether it is gonna be renamed or just dismantled. And I am more in favour of renaming than of dismantling. +

- -> To Miskin: Did you fall from the Moon or what, Miskin...? You come here and throw around a big fuss and then, all of a sudden, say: "Oh, I thought all the time the article was only about Greek Macedonia, I guess the Slavs have different opinions about its borders..." Miskin, not only the "Slavs", everyone else has an opinion about its borders, which is different from the one of the Greeks. This is the intro of Macedonia here in Wikipedia, pls read it and don't write bullshit any more: +

- Macedonia is a geographical and historical region of the Balkan peninsula in south-eastern Europe with an area of about 67,000 square kilometres and a population of 4,76 million. The territory corresponds to the basins of (from west to east) the Aliákmon, Vardar/Axios and Struma/Strymon rivers (of which the Axios/Vardar drains by far the largest area) and the plains around Thessaloniki and Serrai. +

- The region is divided between Greece, with roughly half of the area and population, split between the three peripheries of Central Macedonia, West Macedonia, and East Macedonia and Thrace; the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¤, with around 40%; and Bulgaria, with less than a tenth, in Blagoevgrad Province. The Greek part is sometimes referred to (by non-Greeks mainly) as Greek Macedonia or "Aegean Macedonia", the Republic of Macedonia as "Vardar Macedonia", and the Bulgarian part as Bulgarian Macedonia or "Pirin Macedonia". + - VMORO July 4, 2005 07:07 (UTC)

Demographic history of Macedonia seems better than Macedonians. A title like that would be less "inflammatory" and less suggestive. I'll put my vote behind Demographic history of Macedonia or something like that. Decius 4 July 2005 07:14 (UTC)

That's a very good proposal Decius. Let's vote on this, or whatever. It's hard to talk sense to those fanatics. Miskin 4 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

[edit] No mass reverts

VMORO, for every single change I made, I gave a reason for it. You should state your reasons in Talk for each and every change you want to make, because right now you're the one who is vandalising the article by starting a childish edit war. You can add you demographic data if you want, but then I'll add my reasons as to why it's fake. As for the links in the article Macedonia, if you can't understand in simple terms why your articles are ludicrous, I'm willing to analyse with you every single one of their moronic claims in discussion, so that we settle this matter once and for all. Miskin 4 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

[edit] For a laugh

Enjoy: http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/MacedoniansNotSlavs.html

[edit] Moving the article

As the popular vote seems in favour of a new name, I am moving the article to Demographic history of Macedonia. I am the author of the bulk of the article, so if you have any comments with regard to it, turn to me. Miskin, you either give no reasons whatsoever for your edits or you give reasons, which are completely inane. But more about that later. User:Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and answers

The edits of Miskin:

  • 1. (in Roman Empire): The upper courses of the Axios, Nestos and Strymon are part of Macedonia, whether you like it or not.
  • 2. Name: Your name is first misleading - half the population of present-day Macedonia is Macedonian Slav and Bulgarian, the settlement of Slavs and Bulgars is far from "a temporary invasion" as you call it. Secondly, the section talks about many other ethnic groups which have nothing to do with Bulgars or Slavs.
  • 3. Erased paragraph: You ask "What are these Turkic Christians doing in this article?" I'll ask you: "What are the Greek refugees from Asia Minor in the 1920s doing in the article?" Both groups settled in Macedonia, that's their right to be in the article. You are applying consistently double standards.
  • 4. Yet another erased paragraph. I expect to get an explanation as to why you erased the paragraph, you've given none.
  • 5. Rest except statistics. Practically everyone outside Greece admitted that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Slavic - Wilkinson's review of the Ethnographic Carthography of Macedonia is a must on that matter. I can quote around 20 books about Macedonia supporting this, this was the information in all encyclopaedias, on all maps and in all books of maps. Some of the sources are in the source list, others I can give here. If you can't provide any, besides very strong references in favour of what you say, I'll consider further changes as vandalism.
  • 6. Statistics. The Statistics which I included is the most widely used statistics of the time - present in Britannica, the French Larousse, the American Encyclopaedia, the maps of Leon Dominian. I expect and demand an explanation as to why you deleted it...? Certainly, there were also other statistics - which said that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Turkish, Greek, Serbian or Romanian, this is, however, the most widely accepted one, which is easily demonstrated by the around 10 sources with similar data listed by VMORO.
  • 7. Your statistics. The statistics of Hilmi Pasha will be a good addition to the article although it is still nothing more than a statistics of religious denomination. The same regards the statistics of Amadore Virgile, he, for example, does not recognize any Albanians in his maps or statistics as the Christian ones are classified as Greeks and the Muslim ones as Turks. The statistics of Virgile and Kun which you quoted can easily be put together with the ones provided by VMORO in a table after the statistics of Britannica and the religious denomination of Hilmi Pasha

Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)


1. (in Roman Empire): The upper courses of the Axios, Nestos and Strymon are part of Macedonia, whether you like it or not.

You probably haven't been through all my posts, and this is exactly what I've already brought up. The region of Macedonia has varied throughout time. The Roman province of Macedon included Epirus, Thessaly, parts of Thrace and Illyria. Therefore we shouldn't be using the term 'Macedonia' in such an abstract way. It would be like mixing the history of the USA with the native american civilizations under a term "American history". Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

In the 10th and 11th century Macedonia was the name of Thrace and had its centre at Adrianople (Basil II was often named the Macedonian because he came from Adrinople although he was actually Armenian). Does it mean that in the 10th and the 11th century we should review the history of Thrace instead of of Macedonia just because the region was called Macedonia for several centuries? No, this would be extremely confusing. The borders of Macedonia are as defined by the Macedonia article but I think VMORO said that already to you. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
No you don't necessarily have to review the history of Thrace (althought that would be an option). But unless you expect your readers to be checking two articles at the same time, you should be stating for which "version" of Macedonia you're talking about in this one. Otherwise you'll be offending someone that's certain. Miskin

2. Name: Your name is first misleading - half the population of present-day Macedonia is Macedonian Slav and Bulgarian, the settlement of Slavs and Bulgars is far from "a temporary invasion" as you call it. Secondly, the section talks about many other ethnic groups which have nothing to do with Bulgars or Slavs.

Again, it has to do with what you consider to be the borders of Macedonia at the given time. The region that is currently called "Republic of Macedonia", was only baptised as "Macedonia" under Tito in the late '40s. If Poland baptises itself Bavaria, I don't think anyone in 50 years time will be talking about a greater Bavaria with a mixed Germano-Polish population. The invasions of Slavs, Avars and Bulgars that took place during the middle ages, has nothing to do with the later history of the region that contain more ethnic groups and nationalities. The former is called by Byzantine scholars The Slavic and Bulgaris Invasions because that's what it was, it's not a term I'm making up. I never said that the invasion was temporary, what I said was that the Slavic peoples had always been a minority in the area until their final migrations. A minority can't claim the history of a region and its people, especially one which found itself there as an invader. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

Look at the answer to 1. Greece does not have a monolopoly over the name of Macedonia. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
On the geographical region that Greece inteprets as Macedonia, it does, as it has been founded and overpopulated by Greeks since antiquity. It all comes down to borders again. Besides, the name MAKEDONIA speaks for itself. I wonder why its etymology was not included in the initial version of this article. Did you never come across it in one of those Wagon-books you have read? Hard to believe... Miskin

3. Erased paragraph: You ask "What are these Turkic Christians doing in this article?" I'll ask you: "What are the Greek refugees from Asia Minor in the 1920s doing in the article?" Both groups settled in Macedonia, that's their right to be in the article. You are applying consistently double standards.

Besides the fact that we're talking about a ratio of 10/1, the Turkic Christians were not just an ethnic group which once upon a time settled in Macedonia. They were missionaries who fought in the borders of Byzantium against Slavs and Bulgars and have no special connection to the region as they were later assimilated to the Ottoman Empire. I agree that some things do seem as double standards to people who are not familiar with them. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

You are wrong - they assimilated with the Greeks or possibly with the Bulgarians (Macedonian Slavs). You admit you are using double standards? This is not an answer, Miskin, I know better than you because I am Greek, thing of something better. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
No I didn't admit using double standards, read it again please, and I don't think I know better than you only because I'm Greek. They were not assimilated in the Greek population because the majority of them converted to Islam during the Ottoman occupation of the area. But even if they did assimilate, there's absolutely no reason to prove it, let alone to mention it. Miskin

4. Yet another erased paragraph. I expect to get an explanation as to why you erased the paragraph, you've given none.

Which one? I remember removing something because it was completely false. Imagine that you saw a section "Chaters" in the hypothetical article Euro 2004, which would state clearly how Denmark and Sweden cheated to draw 3-3 and qualify over Italy. Would you edit it or would you remove it? Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

This is again not an answer. You are refusing to accept that the Slavic, Albanian and Vlach intelligence of Macedonia was strongly Hellenofile at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 20th century (for some strange unexplicable reasons), something which is well confirmed by Weigand and Poulton (in the list), as well as all other ethnographic books about Macedonia from the 19th century. And you provide no source for the deletion. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
The reasons are neither strange nor unexplicable. First of all you should have made a distinction between Albanian and Arvanite, unless you also consider that Dutch means German. The majority of the Slavic masses who supported Greek independence were characterised as Slavophones, because they considered themselves Romans (Greeks) who had lost their language (and I can back this up with sources). For the Vlachs you're probably right. What I oppose is your personal description of events, which is one-sided and biased. The way you have written it, it's as if the so-called Greek population of Macedonia was nothing but Hellenised foreigners (a view supported by propagandists). Miskin

5. Rest except statistics. Practically everyone outside Greece admitted that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Slavic - Wilkinson's review of the Ethnographic Carthography of Macedonia is a must on that matter. I can quote around 20 books about Macedonia supporting this, this was the information in all encyclopaedias, on all maps and in all books of maps. Some of the sources are in the source list, others I can give here. If you can't provide any, besides very strong references in favour of what you say, I'll consider further changes as vandalism.

What Slavic crowd calls "central Macedonia" was undoublty predominantly Slavic. However the real central Macedonia (Northern Greece) as I specify in the article, had always been predominantly Ottoman and Greek. If you want to generalise Macedonia the way Tito did, then we should change the name of the article in to "Demography of Modern Macedonia" and state in the biginning that we're talking about a post-Roman era. As long as this article begins with the history of ancient Macedon, you have to respect its borders. It's pretty straight forward. By the way I can also quote modern demographies of the region of Greek Macedonia and compare them to the modern demographies of Bulgaria and FYROM. Let's try to find a pattern on who's been lying on the subject. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

The borders of Macedonia are as defined by the Macedonia article. The ancient Macedon comprised only one part of the region of Macedonia and the article starts with a general description of all the ethnicities who lived in this region of Macedonia (not Macedon), some of them were the ancient Macedonians (in Macedon) but some were not: Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians. Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
I've replied that in the beginning. Unless we remove the links to ancient Macedon, and specify the borders of Macedonia for each section, that we can't do unbiased business. Miskin

6. Statistics. The Statistics which I included is the most widely used statistics of the time - present in Britannica, the French Larousse, the American Encyclopaedia, the maps of Leon Dominian. I expect and demand an explanation as to why you deleted it...? Certainly, there were also other statistics - which said that the bulk of the population of Macedonia was Turkish, Greek, Serbian or Romanian, this is, however, the most widely accepted one, which is easily demonstrated by the around 10 sources with similar data listed by VMORO.

Britannica in the mid-40's (I think) published another demography which found some 60% of Macedonian minority in Greek Macedonia. Careful, Macedonian, not Bulgarian nor Slavic like your data says. I don't think I need to even try to convince you that this data is false. All I have to do is to find the original source and prove that Britannica is talking out of its behind. They couldn't even decide what the names of the ethnic groups were. Why are the statistics that you choose the most accepted ones? Because you study Slavic history and favour their culture? I don't think you realise how thin this subject is, it's not enough to just quote sources. During the time of those demographies, there was not a clear distinction between Slavs (could be bulgar, serb etc), there was no clear disctinction between ethnicity and religions, there was no fixed border of the region, and there was no fixed criterion on the ethnic categorisation (for some it was religion, for some it was language, and for others were the testimonies). So stop trying to pose as an experts in topics that you obviously don't have a personal experience with. Miskin 4 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

I am three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history ahead of you. If personal experience means hatred, prejudice and staunch belief that only the Greeks are right and everyone else is wrong, then I don't have this personal experience - and neither do I need it. You need to convince that the data is false as pretty much everyone agreed that the data is authentic - and everyone agreed that the Slavic population of Macedonia is Bulgarian until the 1920 when this was reverted and they started viewing it as Macedonian Slav. But that's all in the article anyway.

Birkemaal Birkemaal 4 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

I am three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history ahead of you.

And yet this paragraph was the best answer you could come up with to everything I said? And I'm the president of the USA. Knowledge is not a substitute to wits. Miskin 4 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

If personal experience means hatred, prejudice and staunch belief that only the Greeks are right and everyone else is wrong, then I don't have this personal experience - and neither do I need it.

Does anyone else spot the oxymoron? Anyway I don't hate anybody, the fact that you can such assumptions with such ease tells us alot about your "neutral" point of view. I've already spotted and corrected many biasm on this article, especially on the section 'ancient Macedonians', I don't think that anyone can refuse that. The previous childish version said something like 'Macedonians viewed themselves seperately from Greeks, they hated Greeks and thought they smelled blah blah blah'. Find the original and compare it with the quotations I provided. I never told you not to add the data which you consider valid, but be aware that I'll provide some explanations on the borders of Macedonia perceived by Bulgarian people. Besides the demographics section has nothing to do with all my other edits that you've been reverting. Anyway I have a proposal to make to end this edit war. The term Macedonia which links to ancient times is by definition part of Greek history, not Balkan. In order to make it part of Balkan history, we should remove any connection to Antiquity. If it's not too late we can add the term "modern Macedonia" in the title's article, or to make things simpler, we can add a paragraph which states that this article talks about the history and demographics the region of Macedonia from the middle ages until today with no connection to the ancient Greek state of Macedon whatsoever. In this manner Bulgarians and the rest of the Slavic crowd will make "Macedonia" their business, because right now it's not. They just speak of the wider term 'Macedonia' and its history as if it was Jerusalem, without paying any attention to what Macedonia and Macedonians originally mean. For example I think we all agree that Slavs set foot on the region in the 7th century BC or so. When you know this and start an article on Macedonians and Macedonia, and make an introdution to its ancient inhabitans as if they were the same people, then you're making it on purpose in order to fool the reader into believing that they are. This my friend, is known as propaganda, and as long as it's there, I'll keep reverting. Miskin 4 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)


What you say is preposterous and unacceptable. Macedonia is part of Balkan history and Macedonia was, is and will be inhabited by different peoples, not only by the Greeks. No one has the right to monopolize the history of the region for themselves. Considering the attitude which you have, it is not wonder that a multitude of people is complaining about your behaviour in several articles. The only way we can proceed with the statistics is to lay them all out, not - as you suggest - to try to figure out which one is wrong and which one is right. Certainly, the right ones will be the ones supporting the Greek view, everything else will be wrong. Birkemaal 5 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)


Excuse me but it's your attitude Birkemaal that is unacceptable. I've just read the whole talk page and I was amazed by your neutrality. My friend, before accusing the Greeks of nationalism and generally those that have a different opinion than yours, just try and make a discussion with yourself. You so widely declare that you are neutral,etc,etc,etc but it was YOU who was not bothered at all that this article contains biased informations. It was YOU, who was not bothered at all that this article presents the Greeks as murderers of children and very,very suitable for you suppresses crimes made by other nations.

You so arrogantly said above:I am three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history ahead of you. Dear friend, you are not in position to discredit the knowledge of other editors, first of all because you DON'T know them and then because the characterisations that you so easily make, others can equally.

Bottomline, altering your claims: if three wagonloads of books and four years of studies of Balkan history means that you consider neutral only those informations that match your criteria you must tear your degrees- if you have any at all.

Next time, when univercity library opens I will edit those historians that , you know, you forgot to mention. Odysseas 5 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)


three wagonloads of books in front I agree, that was hilarious. How can you take seriously a person who speaks of books as if they were sacks of potatoes? Anyway, Birkemaal, you obviously didn't understand what I said. The region of Macedonia is independent to the people historically known as Macedonians, this is why the article was moved. Macedonians is not an ethnic group, despite what Macedonian Slavs like to think. The geographical borders of Macedonia have been varying since the occupation of Macedon by the Roman Empire, therefore it's simply innacurrate to speak so abstractly about Macedonia as if it was some village. The region interpreted by Greeks as Macedonia, is the area corresponding to ancient Macedon, whereas the region interpreted as Macedonia by Bulgarians (and Slavs in general) corresponds to the reforms of Tito. We're not talking about a region of fixed geographical borders, therefore we're not talking about a region of fixed population. In that respect, any demography that uses the term Macedonia is biased, unless it doesn't state which "version" of Macedonia it's talking about. The best thing to do in order to be neutral, is to cut off this article's connection to antiquity, because that's where its borders stop being fixed. In that respect, we should remove the "ancient Macedonia" section and add a paragraph in Italics which would say something like this: This article is about the geographical region of Macedonia of the middle Ages. For information on ancient Macedonia see main article Macedon. If we don't do this and talk about Macedonia as an abstract term, then the article will always be biased. I'm expecting opinions on this proposal. Miskin

Actually, before Rome conquered Macedon, as you know, Macedon expanded from its nucleus in Greek Macedonia to include practically all if not all the territory included in Macedonia (the geographical region of Macedonia). This article deals with the demographic history of that region (Macedon in its post-Phillip/pre-Roman conquest era, in other words, Macedonia). Decius 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
And it's not the same as when Macedon conquered Persia, etc., because those Balkan regions forming Macedonia, as far as I can tell, were incorporated into Macedon's core territory: Paionia, Pelagonia, Mygdonia, Bottiaea, Crestonia, Bisaltia, et cetera. Decius 7 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

It didn't include the entire region of FYROM, it went as North as modern Bitola (Monastiri). The region of FYROM was generalised into Macedonia by Tito. Ancient Macedon also expanded to Illyria, Thrace and then Egypt, Persia and India. Obviously that's not regarded as an geographical expansion of the Macedonian region. According to this logic, we'd have to include in this article the entire history of Illyrians and Thracians (as we're almost doing with Bulgarians). I think my suggestion is fair and reasonable. The constant reference to an abstract region of Macedonia of varying borders, is what causes the ethnic debate. Miskin 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying that they were incorporated into Macedon's core territory? I don't think there's any historical source that can support that. Those Northern regions became part of the Antigonid Empire and the Hellenistic world, they had no more special fate than Thrace did. But I don't see us including the history of Thrace in the article. Basically if we include the history of ancient Macedon in the article, we should also include the history of ancient Paeonia, and maybe Illyria and Thrace. Miskin 7 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)

I anticipated your comparison to Persia, Egypt, etc., so I pointed out that it was a different situation. I will try to find references that prove it was different (incorporated directly, rather than administered). By the way, the entire demographic history of Paionia is going to be covered in this article, since it was all in the geographical region of Macedonia (except for temporary expansions of Paionian territory towards Perinthus, etc., which doesn't concern the article). Decius 7 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
In other words, what I'm claiming is that regions like Paionia, Mygdonia, and so on, were completely and utterly incorporated directly into Macedonian territory, so that they were soon obliterated. Thus, the name of Macedonia was established for the entire region, because all those older, specific names for small portions of the region went out of usage. Anyway, Macedonia is agreed upon to be a geographical region as defined in that Wiki article. I have an encyclopedia that echoes the Wiki article's demarcation of the area (World Book Encyclopedia, etc.). Decius 7 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
If you are disputing the demarcation of the region of Macedonia, you should go here first: Talk:Macedonia. Decius 7 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

I'm planning to go there next. I'm trying to sort things out here first because this is where the biasm lies (ChrisO, VMORO, the wagonbook guy etc). Everyone agrees that Slavic occupied territories were not geographically on the region of ancient Macedon, so it's not a lie to at least point that out. This will prevent many ethnic debates. Miskin 7 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

I can tell you it will be a waste of your time to dispute the demarcation of Macedonia, aside from maybe small details. The issue here should be specifically what you disagree with in the Demographic history of Macedonia (Macedonia is established usage for this geographical region, and the article attempts to give a history of the demographics of that region). Decius 7 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)


You know that the Macedonian Slavs and their supporters are trying to force a connection between their artificial name "Macedonians" and the "Ancient Macedonians". If we talk about a region that was once inhabited by ancient Macedonians, and then about a modern different region which is inhabited by Slavs, without stating that's it's not the same place and refer to it abstractly as Macedonia, then we're supporting a propaganda. The thing is, that prior to the Slavic invasions, the Slavic people have no connection to the region. Therefore the pre-Slavic history of the area is pointless to be mentioned in theree, as it is mentioned . And if you think it's that necessary to include it, then we should mention the history of Paeonians and all other peoples of the region. Miskin 7 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

I'm not a Slavophiliac or a Slavophobe, but the fact that Slavs now live in this region does not change the fact that this region is known as Macedonia, and was once incorporated directly into Macedon (I found the references I was talking about, and I was right: see Errington, John Wilkes, etc., I might quote them later). 10,000 years from now, octopus-headed crustaceans might form the majority population, but it would still be the region of Macedonia. I agree that the article must detail more about Paionians, and I'll add more about them. Decius 7 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe. What do your references say exactly? Miskin 7 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not talking about 10,000 years from now, I'm talking about FYROM being incorporated into Serbia, Albania, or Bulgaria. When that happens, the myth of the Macedonian nation will cease to exist, and the region of Macedonia will re-acquire its original size. Miskin 7 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Errington, History of Macedonia pg. 58, about the new Thracian additions to Macedon (Crestonia, Bisaltia, Mygdonia, etc.):

"The region up to the Nestos was fully integrated into the Macedonian state territory; the Odrysian monarchy was abolished and replaced by Macedonian military governors; towns were founded at strategic points, and a Macedonian population, perhaps including criminals from the prisons, were settled in them."

---Paionia I'll discuss next. Decius 7 July 2005 14:27 (UTC) 7 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

The Paionia account I take from Wilkes, but he's at the library, so I'll summarize as best I remember: Paionia was reduced to a semi-autonomous province of Macedon in Phillip's time, (if I remember right). But later (perhaps over a century later), the Paionians rebelled and joined the Dardanians who lived just outside of Macedonian territory to the north. This outraged the Macedonians and caused them to pretty much obliterate the Paionian power; they slaughtered or resettled the Paionians and replaced them with Macedonians and Thracians. So, Paionia was eventually wiped out, and fully became part of Macedon. This is according to memory so sorry that I don't have the exact quotes. Paionia (which was made part of Macedon) corresponds largely to RepOfM. Decius 7 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

I can find more references, but probably not today. Decius 7 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

But anyway, use logic: what's the best way to consolidate territories in your own backyard? To fully integrate them. That's what the Macedonians did in Macedonia, pretty much. Decius 7 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

The Wiki article correctly defines Macedonia, as accepted in geography, so there's not much "dispute" that can be done about that. Decius 7 July 2005 14:59 (UTC)

The first account doesn't talk about a full integration, Macedonian soldiers were settled all over the world. Either way, it doesn't imply a change in the borders of the region. The Roman province of Macedonia however it does. These are all factors that need to be specified. Dardania which you defined as a territory just in the North of Macedonia, it's geographically in today's FYROM, which strengthens my position over yours. Skopje itself is a name inherited after a Dardanian city. The settlements you keep repeating, took place also in Pakistan and Persia, you can't just say so abstractly that Paionia was wiped out and assimilated into Macedon. It was you who last directing me to Paeonian coinage of the Hellenistic Era, this is contradictory to what you say now. If the area had been completely assimilated by Macedon prior to the Hellenistic era, then how would a separate Paeonian coinage appear at a later stage? Basically FYROM is largerly composed by the old regions of Paeonia, Dardania, Illyria, Thracia and Macedon. And I don't see how that enforces the view of monopolising the name Macedonia (which wasn't even there). Miskin 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

No, Dardania corresponds to Kosovo (though Dardania extended more to the north, less to the south). Bylazora, the Paionian capital, is now the center of RepOfM. Paionia corresponds basically to RepOfM. And Paionia was integrated into Macedon. I'm not saying any of this "justifies" the nation being called "Republic of Macedonia", I'm just telling the facts. I don't think they should monopolize the name either, since RepOfM only represents a small part of Macedon. But it's no use imagining that the integration of Macedonia can be compared to that in Persia---now you're being silly and in denial. Decius 7 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
The Paionian coins are from the semi-autonomous period it seems. I don't remember when the rebellion occured that Wilkes wrote of. Decius 7 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

And until you remember, your theory is unsupported and refuted by achaeology alone. Miskin 7 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

Actually Miskin, see below. It seems that Paionia was a semi-autonomous province of Macedon for a long time, with frequent power struggles with the Dardani. That explains the Paionian coinage. Decius 8 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting to change the definition of the wiki article. I was only suggesting to specify how the geographical area has varied. Hiding such crucial information is like sweeping things under the rug. Miskin 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

The article Macedonia specifies that, but this one can to a bit. Decius 7 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)
And we need to specify it here as well, since we're talking about the demography of a 2500 year old region of varying borders. Miskin 7 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Update on Paionia: I was right about its semi-autonomy, and it lasted for a long time it seems, and there were times when the Macedonians lost control of parts of Paionia to the Dardani (nevertheless, Dardania was mosty north of RepOfM, but borders shifted). So, I would assume that not until the Paionian rebellion that Wilkes mentions was Paionia fully integrated, which was probably a century or more after Philip the II's reign. Nevertheless, I think it became incorporated into Macedon before Roman times. I'll look for references. By the way, you do realize that this is irrelevant to the fact that Macedonia is accepted as a geographical region as defined in that article. Decius 8 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
Basically your update supports my theory against Paeonia's assimilation. I remind you that the coinage date in the 3rd century BC. It's literally impossible to force a complete assimilation during this period of time. Besides I think you're abit confused on what your sources mean. The "assimilation" of Paeonia was not into the Macedonian state, it was in the Macedonian province of the Roman Empire. This proves that Paionia was never integrated in the Macedon. Take a look at this source: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/I63.html

The Agrianians had already abandoned the Skopje region, which allowed the Dardanians and others to fill the voids. Eventually, Philip V of Macedonia annexed it in 217 AD, installing Didas as his viceroy and recolonizing the old Paionian settlements as a bulkwark against the Dardanians in Skopje. Eventually, in 148 B.C., Paeonia was incorporated into the Roman province of Macedonia (along with Thessaly, Thrace, Northern Epirus, and Southern Illyria). Miskin 8 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Your source doesn't mention the Paionian rebellion that my source mentioned, but I think they refer to the same period. I was beginning to suspect that the event I referred to occured in the Roman period---however, I can quote Errington, where he states that Pelagonia, a region immediately west of Paionia, was integrated in Philip the II's time. So it's not clear cut, either way. Paionia was integrated, but not fully till the Roman period it seems. Macedonians also founded cities in pre-Roman Paionia however (at least one, I have the reference). Decius 8 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
I still don't see how you can so easily define it as an assimilation. All evidence point towards a usual Macedonian conquest. Definitely not a reason to expand the geographical borders of ancient Macedon. It all points to an assimilation under the Roman province of Macedonia. Modern FYROM and Bulgaria are still primarily on non-ancient Macedonian territory, which is something that I'm planning to point out in the article. Miskin 8 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
Historians have used the term assimilation or integration (I have the quotes) when describing a number of these regions that were added, so don't expect me to take your objection seriously. The evidence points to conquest as well as much integration before the Roman conquest. Yet, your whole point is hardly relevant because the article does not claim that the entire region was fully integrated before the Roman period. Are you sure you are reading the same article (or as VMORO asked, are you sure you can read)? Seriously now. Decius 8 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
No it doesn't say that (yet), but for some reason I'm under the strong impression that you're planning to write something along those lines, so I'm reducing the chance of an edit war. Btw, keep quoting VMORO, that's brilliant. Miskin 8 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)
Even I never claimed that every squarefoot was integrated into Macedon before the Roman period---but eventually, the name of Macedonia wiped out most of the other local ancient names for particular regions, as well as wiping out many ethnic groups who are now quite forgotten (Paionians, Agrianians, Maedans, etc.). We only hear about Macedonia and Macedonians now. There is a reason for that (the Macedonian conquests and integrations, as well as the Roman province). Decius 8 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)

Well despite what your sources say, since we have references on Paionian independent rule (supported by coinage) until Philip V, it's impossible to talk about assimilation. If not my objection, then take logic seriously. Such implications won't be considered neutral in the article. Miskin 8 July 2005 10:29 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Paionia or only to Paionia: I have in mind Pelagonia (which was well north of Greek Macedonia), Mygdonia, Crestonike, Bisaltia, Almopia, etc. etc. Decius 8 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
I don't know how long this abnormal discussion can last. Miskin, you heard it from VMORO, you heard it from me, and now you here it from Decius. The borders of Macedonia are not subject to debate (otherwise you can turn, as Decius proposed, to the talk page of the article Macedonia). It is not the "Slavs" who think otherwise, it is the Greeks who think otherwise from the rest of the world considering Macedonia to be only the ancient Macedon. Secondly, we cannot describe a region with borders which shift all the time. The region of Macedon has different borders from the classical region of Macedonia (the Roman province), which has different borders from the Byzantine province of Macedonia (located in Thrace), which has different borders from the modern region of Macedonia. As far as any history of the region is concerned, it should cover the history of the region as delimited in the article Macedonia. Birkemaal Birkemaal 9 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Decius never said that Macedonia had fixed borders, nobody with basic knowledge on the subject would ever say that except you and the fanatics (chances are that you're one of them in disguise). Ancient Macedon prior to the Hellenistic age (where it expanded in Asia) was within the borders of the modern Greek state, even the article Macedonia states that. Decius argues that during the late Hellenistic Age those Northern barbaric nations were assimilated by Macedon, something which is not true since we have records of independent Paionian Kings until 148 BC, where Roman Macedonia changed its borders completely. VMORO is a nationalist who has no neutral historical knowledge on the subject, you are probably one of the same (I know there is a Slavo-Macedonian minority in Sweden), and Decius is just a person who wants to debate against me and any Greek claim on Macedonia. Therefore until you prove something, you can't have your ways with this article. I'm willing to take this matter as far as the wiki-mailing list. Miskin 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not claim that the geographical region of Macedonia corresponds completely to ancient Macedonia, but contrary to what Miskin believes, works such as Errington's History of Macedonia state that southern Thrace was assimilated up to the Nestus (most of that land is in Greece), and that Pelagonia (outside of Greece) underwent much assimilation, as did much of Paionia, even though it retained semi-independence. We can debate the finer details back & forth, but at the end of the day, heavy Macedonian settlement extended outside of Greek Macedonia. Decius 20:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Also Miskin, I am not against "any Greek claim on Macedonia", and I would rather have Greeks claim Macedonia rather than Slavic-speakers, if some sort of "one-or-the-other" choice had to be made. What I'm against is Miskinites such as you who think Macedonia (Greece) defines completely the area of ancient Macedonian settlement. Decius 21:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

That's because it does. I'm looking at some maps of Ancient Macedon right now (which I will only bring up as evidence if it becomes necessary), it has the region's borders prior to Philip's conquests and its borders afterwards, and it's completely different to what Bulgarians think as "Macedonia". There's absolutely no implication of assimilation of Pelagonia and Peionia (which both lie exactly in FYROM) in the way you want to propagade, I will prove this shortly by bringing up sources on the Paionian nation's existence up until Roman occupation. Miskin 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Since we agree that the diversity in ethnic groups starts with the invasion of the Slavs, I don't see a reason to include the demographic history of the region prior to the middle ages. After all, everyone agrees that from the Hellenistic age to the Slavic and Bulgar invasions in the 7th c. AD, the population of the region was almost purely Greek (or Hellenised). Therefore the article should have the Bulgar and Slavic invasion as a starting point, and link the reader to Macedon and Macedonia for its ancient demography. That's the only way it won't be repetitive. What do you think? Miskin 19:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

We do not agree that the ethnic diversity in Macedonia as defined in that article begins with the Slavic incursions, so what are you talking about? Decius 20:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if we do assume that there was an ethnic diversity in antiquity, that would have absolutely no connection to the later Greco-Slavic diversity, as by the time of the Slavic invasions the entire region was Hellenised. How's your knowledge on Byzantine history? Miskin 21:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is no real connection between the ancient diversity (Macedonians, Greeks, Paionians, Thracians, Illyrians) and the modern (etc., etc., etc.). But this article is not concocting any connections. My knowledge of Byzantine history is here & there & not that bad, but I don't feel like discussing the Byzantine era now, but you can go ahead. Decius 22:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss anything, just point out the fact that the region was being Hellenised by Macedonians, Romans and Byzantines until the Slavs arrived. Funny how the authors of this article constantly avoid mentioning the ethnic character of Macedonia prior to the Slavic invasion. Funny how they also hesitate to use the word "invasion" as a section title. Miskin 11:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking ancient Macedonian section

After the page is unprotected, I'm going to seriously trim and try to put together a new section on the ancient Macedonians that will be appropiate to this article's purpose, which is to detail the demographic history, not to mull over the Hellenic controversy or give an etymology of Makedonia, which we already find in Macedonia. Neither the previous version nor Miskin's version are appropiate to the article's topic. I want to focus on where Macedonians were settled, what lands they controlled and fought over in the area, their constant struggle with the Dardani, and so on. A short summary though, no extended material. I'm in no hurry, because I don't have all the references I want yet anyway. Decius 8 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

First of all don't make a complete re-write. You should add the history of Paionians and all other nations which are included in the modern version of the region. Don't give support to the Slavic nation-building which wants to present it as if there's been only one type of Macedonians in history. Don't remove my section on the Greek ethnic claims of the Macedonian people, unless of course you question the authenticity of my quotations. This is something important for the article and something that the Slavic crowd constantly stries to sweep under the rug (as the previous version of the section reveals). Personally, I still don't see why the ancient section has to be here. It's obviously part of Macedon. Miskin 8 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

No, as long as this article exists, it's going to begin with the ancient history section. I am going to re-write (rather erase) much of the text because it is not pertinent to the aim of the article and it repeats themes struck in other articles (Macedon), and even repeats material. This isn't about your version, but also the previous version was off-track also. The new info will be more "nuts and bolts" and pertaining to demographics (references strictly followed, no loose interpretations). Decius 8 July 2005 11:34 (UTC)
I support completely Decius here. The section about the ancient Macedonians is abnormally large and repetative as much of stuff there is already present in Macedon and the Ancient Macedonian language. Birkemaal 9 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)
In case no-one noticed, many things are repetitive in this article. The difference is that before my edits, they were repeated "selectively". IMO the entire section "ancient Macedonians" is repetitive and irrelevant to the demographic history of the region. I suggest to remove the entire section, not just the things that Decius doesn't like. You have failed to prove that ancient Macedon expanded to the North prior to the Hellenistic Age, therefore I'm warning you in advance, do not try to edit the article with your dodgy views in mind. I'll be watching your edits. Miskin 18:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation repair needed

Whenever this page is unlocked, will someone please disambiguate the numerous links to "Greek", which is a disambiguation page (or drop me a note and I'll do it). Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 22:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

What are you referring to exactly? Miskin 18:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

  • A link to the word "Greek" does not link to an actual article, but rather to a disambiguation page. Each instance should be fixed to link to Greek, or Greek, or Greek, for example. -- BD2412 talk 00:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bring out the evidence

Okay Miskin, even though it is not necessary to justify this article, I'm going to call your bluff. I'm going to cite (over the next few days, weeks, etc.) the solid references that indicate ancient Macedonian settlement outside of Macedonia (Greece) in the Balkans, and you're going to cite counter-evidence. Note that I'm not just talking about Paionia. And though I may restrict myself to the pre-Roman conquest, I do not see why I should not also discuss Macedonian settlements in the Roman period. Decius 00:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If all you are relying on are some maps in some French books, you may want to get a second opinion. Decius 00:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

In time. The counter evidence will be the existence of a Paionian nation in the 2nd century BC and the Macedonian settlements all over the world. None of the above imply that the region of Macedonia has changed its borders at a pro-Roman stage. Miskin 11:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I was expecting more than you just bringing up those Paionian semi-autonomous coins which I first brought to your attention on Talk:Macedon some months ago. I'll assemble my evidence/arguments in the coming weeks/months, unless I decide to drop the issue because it is time-consuming and irrelevant to the article. Decius 04:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

I'm unprotecting this article because it's been protected for a ridiculously lont time and discussion has died down here. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

VMORO your name alone makes me laugh with the fact that you're allowed to edit in here (for those who are unfamiliar check VMRO). Is there really one time that you have used the discussion page in order to bring up some actual counter-arguments before reverting? Not once. You talk about 500,000 Albanians in Greek Macedonia today without having a clue. 1/3 of Albania is working abroad, that doesn't mean that it counts as an ethnic minority in other countries since it has a temporary stay. Furthermore this has to do with the 1990s not the 1910s that the article is about. The biased version talks about Orthodox Albanians, but since you don't even know what Arvanites are, there's no point going there, so we just take it out for the obvious reasons to those who have a clue. That's only a sample of your ignorance. This article is rediculously biased and the reason is extremist like you. I've been restoring fallacies that I have previously discussed, and I'm quoting from prominent historians so it's not wise to mass revert my edits and replace it with your propaganda. Try to settle scores in the discussion page for a change. State what you don't agree with, otherwise your reverts are considered vandalism. I have already discussed over my changes and none of your buddies were able to come up with a counter-argument, hence the edits in the article. You didn't even dare to try to engage in a debate, and I don't blame you, I wouldn't be able to challenge the truth face-to-face either, that's way too difficult, even when it comes to best liars, and worst extremist. As I said, you've been reverting a pre-existing version (ancient Macedonia) and I'm restoring it, you're the one who's breaking 3RR. Either talk over the edits I've made one-by-one here in discussion or piss off. And as an advice... Instead of trying to improve the image of your country (which has by default a fairly low international importance) on the internet by supporting one-sided propaganda articles on supposedly neutral places, I think it'd be more useful for your country if you tried to help the actual people who are alive today, let's say by being more concerned about its economy and quality of life... Miskin 09:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, I want to draw your attention to the constant use of expressions like "reunification" (which I had to correct in several places), which clash with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. "Reunification" expresses the Greek point of view, from the point of the Macedonian Slavs or the Bulgarians it would be "occupation". In the same way a Bulgarian can use "reunification" concerning the administration of eastern Greek Macedonia by Bulgaria in WWII, whereas for the Greeks it was clearly an "occupation".
There was - without absolutely now doubt - large Latin-speaking population in northern Macedonia (the case of Justinian is enough of a proof), if you don't want to hear this from me, I can contact Decius and ask him to explain it to you. Birkemaal 21:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Birkermall I'll just make three points before reverting:

  • 1. Scupi at the time of Justinian was not part of Macedonia B, it was on another province which must have been Illyricum (I'll check the map when I get home). Therefore you wrote what you wrote on the wrong borders, and I was right to remove them.
  • 2. Justinian was a native speaker of Greek and wrote the Empire's constitution in the Greek language. In the same work he characterises Latin as their "father language", as it had long fallen out of use on the eastern part of the Empire.
  • 3. In Alexander III's own words: Macedonia and the rest of Greece, hence since antiquity Macedonia is considered a part of Greece. Then the Byzantine Empire included it within its borders for over 1000 years, so reunification refers to all that, and whether you like it or not it's valid. If that was the only thing that troubled you then you could have edited this word alone instead of the entire article.

After having exposed your ignorance, I'm reverting. Miskin 11:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, my attempts at discussion with you are very well documented in the previous sections. Yes, attempts, because explaining to someone an obvious fact such as the borders of Macedonia for around 10 times causes the objective suspicion whether that someone is blind, analphabetic or simply an idiot. Your constant use of anachronisms such as the "Byzantine nation" (read the article Nation to understand why it is anachronistic) and POV expressions such as "reunification" (also mentioned by Birkemaal) does make your edits worthy of reverting. You should, however, note that I tried to integrate your edits with the rest of the text removing only the obvious POV elements and anachronisms - something which you rejected because you seem to be in love with them. Well, suit yourself. VMORO 08:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know the borders of Macedonia over time, point #1 above proves it. As what you consider obvious facts are false, I feel responsible to correct your fallacies. As for the rediculous claim "There is no Byzantine nation", that's the stupidest thing I've heard in weeks. That's like saying, "there's no country called Germany". Please go read a book, preferrable a non-bulgarian one. As I said, if that's really what bothers you then edit those 2 things, you don't have to revert the entire section, but I suppose that's just a silly excuse. Your integration was rediculous. Miskin 11:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

VMORO we can't do business that way. You need to use the discussion page before you edit so that I can give an answer to every single of your remarks otherwise we'll keep reverting each other. I'll summarise as many things as I can remember. First of all it's not me who edited the section 'ancient Macedonians', I don't know who it is. The edits I made in the "Roman Empire" section aimed to correct false information. What you consider and refer to in the article as "Northern Macedonia" (FYROM), hasn't had this significance before Tito's reforms in the late 1940's. To use the term "Northern Macedonia" to refer to that region during Roman times (or any time prior to Tito) is simply anachronistic, POV, and generally stupid. Apart from that, even monkeys know that the Eastern part of the Empire which included Macedonia was Hellenised and not Latinized, hence the creation of the Byzantine nation. Also the Byzantine Empire, whether you like it or not, was a Greek state. As G. Ostrogorsky has said, the term "Byzantines" was invented in order to separate Roman from Medieval Greek history. Apart from that, nobody refers to the Byzantines as "Romans" apart from themselves, the rest of the world called them Greeks (including Bulgarians). At the end of the day, half of the population of Modern Greece are immigrants from Asia Minor and Constantinople, i.e. Byzantines. I hope this is also clear. Everything I've added in the section "Byzantine Macedonia" is pretty much quoted from the book. The rest of my edits are corrections of fallacies which constantly deny the existence of Greek people in Macedonia, and the ludicrous implications about the Greek people being nothing but an artificial nation of Hellenised Romano-Turko-Albano-Slavs. According to Hobsbawm (probably the best historian alive), the Greek war of independence was the only scenario of a revolution which suited the standards of Western nationalism, i.e. an entire nation rising against a conqueror. He continues by saying that due to the power of the Greek patriarch of Constantinople who promoted the Greek language, many merchants of the Ottoman Empire (not in Greece) were Hellenised. That's the only case of Hellenisation he mentions, and the rest of cases mentioned in the article are nothing but Bulgarian propaganda. Southern or Aegean or Greek or simply "original" Macedonia, has always been primarily Greek whether you like it or not. I'm going to specify in every section of the article what Macedonia geographically means (like I did in the Byzantine section). Miskin 01:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You should read G. Ostrogorsky better. The Byzantines were used of the enormous ethnic mixture that had characterized the empire. For the Byzantine world, there was only one emperor and his empire constituted an earthly manifestation of the Kingdom of Heaven. There was no idea about Byzantine nation or worse Greek nation – all Christians were supposed to be under the emperor. Orthodox Byzantine universalism was partly dropped early 15 century when George Gemistos Plethon revived the Hellenic spirit in Peloponnesus, but this was at the time when the empire was reduced to the capitol and Mistra.--Cigor 15:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

Miskin, you should think about putting your quotes in Macedon. I am finding more and more quotes that can be posted to argue the opposite view; NPOV (which gives equal representation to views of virtually equal standing) would force us to present both side by side; now, that would be fine, except for the fact that going into such a prolonged discussion of the controversy is detracting from the aesthetic unity and purpose of the article. I expect objective editors to agree with a new compromise. User:Miskin and User:Theathenae probably will not agree, but all they have in mind is seeing "Greek, Greek, Greek" across the page, it seems. User:VMORO might also prefer to overemphasive the alleged Greekness of the ancient Macedonians for his own reasons, but I don't know. But I think all editors should reconsider. Decius 00:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The text I have left in the section now as of my writing this appears to be a reasonable compromise. It is more summarized, less repetitive (see Macedon and Ancient Macedonian language) and less Point Of View. Decius 00:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion into Roman Empire

Excuse my intrusion, but Macedonia finally became a Roman province in 146 BC (see Andriscus), so it appears (maybe I'm wrong, who knows) that both the Miskin version ("3rd century bc") and the version VMORO reverts to ("4th century AD") is incorrect. Even if you incorrectly date it from 168 BC (the defeat of Perseus of Macedon at the hands of the Romans), that is still the 2nd century bc. ---Decius 05:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

And there was no "complete Hellenization" of the region in 146 BC. To avoid questioning your intelligence, Miskin, I will question your neutrality. ---Decius 05:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The 3rd instead of 2nd century was a typo from my part. As for whether or not it was fully Hellenised up until 146 BC, that's something debatable. However I have no objections to say that it wasn't. Miskin 11:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Latinization in Northern Macedonia

References will be found for Latinization in Northern Macedonia, so it would be better not to delete this from the text yet Miskin, though I don't have the references now. But I can't say that Northen Macedonia was "largely" Latinized, which needs a reference. This is an interesting subject so far as I'm concerned, because individuals such as Andre Du Nay in his pro-Hungarian POV work, The Early History of the Romanian language (1996) claims that Proto-Romanian formed in the Roman province of Macedonia, so I'm wondering what evidence all these Latinization claims are really based on. I also read that Emperor Justinian I's family were Latin speakers (he was born around Scupi). The Latinization question will eventually be discussed in the Roman province of Macedonia. ----Decius 13:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wiki article on Justinian I claims that when he was born, that area was in the province of Illyricum, but even if that's so, it doesn't disprove Latinization in Northern Macedonia. Decius 14:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your mistake here is to confuse the Roman with the Byzantine empire. As the article says, during the Roman Empire (the Latin one), the province of Macedonia included Thessaly, Epirus parts of Thrace and Illyria, so for obvious reasons we cannot consider the demography of that era as a representative of Macedonia in general. It would almost be as if we considered Philip's unification (or conquest if you want) of the central Greek city-states as a greater Macedonian region. I hope you don't disagree that Justianian I is a Byzantine Emperor, and E. Honigmann's maps reflect the provinces of Byzantine Macedonia (A and B) during his reign (also stated in the article). Macedonia B was expanded in the North up until Monastir, and I remember making sure that it didn't include Scupi, therefore the article of Justinian stands correct. Even after the Slavic invasions took place, Scupi was not part of Byzantine Macedonia. It only because part of a region named Macedonia under the Ottoman domination as the villaet of Scopje (or whatever the Turks called it). According to Turkish demographies, it was the only villaet of Macedonia where the Slavic element was dominant to the Greek (the other velaets being Monastir and Thessaloniki). Even if we assume the region of Scupi to be largerly Latinized, it was not part of Byzantine Macedonia, therefore to mention that the Northern part of Macedonia was Latinized is false. Justinian had imperial blood on his mother's side, this is why Latin was fluent in his family (still not a first language) and because it was spoken in the area. Besides, the Latin Justinian used in his writings was 'Classic', a form of Latin that by his time had ceased to exist as a vernacular language. That's probably the same Latin that was fluent in his family and all Byzantine courts. It has nothing to do with the Vulgar Latin, which was the only spoken form in the Latinized areas. On the other hand, Justinian used vernacular Medieval Greek in order to write the constitution, he didn't use Atticist language like the Byzantine scholars of his era. This means that he had a mother-tongue knowledge of Greek, which doesn't necessarily imply that Scupi was a Hellenized reason. Miskin 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Two points, my darling Miskin:
1)I have made no "mistake", nor am I "confusing" anything here. The stuff about Justinian I is not my idea, read this:[1]. So your attempt to pin it on me fails. His family has been cited (along with other evidences) as evidence of Latinization in northern Roman Macedonia, though his family was from a later period.
2) I have no especial interest to claim that Northern Macedonia was largely Latinized, I am just interested in reviewing the evidence, and do not like it when editors erase mention of something (Latinization in Northern Macedonia) from articles just because they don't like it (you want to make sure everything stays Hellenized, etc.). I would rather prefer no Latinization in Northern Macedonia, which would refute the Hungarian claim that Romanian formed in the Roman province of Macedonia. But if credible scholars out there still consider Latinization in Northern Roman Macedonia, and if there is evidence for it, it will be mentioned in this Wikipedia article.
---Decius 00:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
You don't need to get so defensive about it. I told you already that Scupi was not part of Byzantine Macedonia, so even if we assume it to part of a Latinized region, it's still not part of Northern Macedonia until the Ottoman period (where Latinization would have been replaced by Slavinization). I don't have a problem to be regarded as a Latinized area either, what I corrected in the article was the abstract use of "Romanization" that conveniently didn't specify Roman Latinization from Byzantine Hellenization. Miskin 00:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at this map: [2] and this map: [3]. They show the classic Roman provinces of the Balkans, Pannonia, Dacia, Moesia, Illyricum, Thracia, and Macedonia. In the period these maps depict, Scupi and its environs were located in the Roman province of Macedonia. Justinian I is from a later Byzantine period, but his Latin-speaking family didn't appear out of nowhere. Scupi itself, according to historians, was practically founded by the Romans in the 2nd century BC. A historian (think it was Pliny or Plutarch) mentions Romans living there. Insofar as Scupi apparently was in the Roman province of Macedonia for at least a time, that alone proves Latinization in Northern Macedonia. What needs to be determined is when Scupi was included in the Province of Macedonia, because at an earlier date it may have been alloted to Dardania (in southern Moesia). And we haven't even discussed the evidence of Romanization south of Scupi that probably exists. ---Decius 03:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
It is my impression, and unfortunately I cannot provide any references because I don't remember where the heck I read it, that Justinian I was an avid "Latinizer" (he called it "the language of our forefathers"), who regretted the wholesale delatinization-cum-hellenization of his empire. Indeed he decreed that the vast legal works he initially commissioned (Corpus Iuris Civilis etc) be written in Latin, but this proved futile as very few of his subjects could read it; he therefore relented and had the "Νεαραί" (Novellae Constitutiones) written in Greek. Chronographos 14:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It was Justinian himself who said it in Novellae: "ου τη πατρίω φωνή τον νόμον συνεγράψαμεν, αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν είναι γνώριμον δια το πρόχειρον της ερμηνείας". Miskin 23:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you have it, right from the horse's mouth, so to speak: "We did not author the Law in the language of our forefathers, but in the common, Greek one, so that it be accessible to all, and readily interpretable". Chronographos 00:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern extension of the Roman province of Macedonia at different times

A main thing that the Roman province of Macedonia article will be concerned with is determining the borders of the Macedonia province at different times. But for this article, the Roman borders are irrelevant, because this article concerns the geographic region as it is defined now, and thus Scupi in this article will be considered as part of Northern Macedonia. ---Decius 05:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That's your POV. I say that this article is restricted to what has been known as Macedonia over time. A reference to the pseudo-Macedonian lands (Scupi etc) can be made from the Ottoman period and forth, but referring to those regions as "northern Macedonia" in Byzantium or Antiquity is simply academically wrong. It has to be specified what is geographically meant by "Macedonia" in each historical section. Miskin 12:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering two options: making clear in an introductory paragraph what is meant by Macedonia in the article; or specific explanations in each section (or even both). But in the case of Scupi, it appears that at times it was part of Roman Macedonia, unless all these maps (and many others) are wrong. Decius 12:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, these maps seem to be accurate regarding the Roman province of Macedonia at different times:

---They all include Scupi in the Roman province of Macedonia. ---Decius 06:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This next map may be an example of an earlier partitioning, with Scupi included in a Dardanian region of southern Moesia:

In this map, Scupi is not included in Roman Macedonia
Enlarge
In this map, Scupi is not included in Roman Macedonia

---Decius 07:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how on earth can you see in your first map that Scupi is part of Roman Macedonia. In the same map you can see that Roman Macedonia includes Thessaly and great part of central Greece, this is why it can't be considered in this article. In Byzantine Macedonia however, Scupi is not part of Macedonia, and if you insist I will have to post sources and maps as well. I don't know how this changes anything, except the belief that Northern Macedonia was Latinized (something that's been said already). Miskin 12:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

All four maps in the external links clearly show (the www.raremaps.com one is clear too) Scupi in Roman Macedonia. This counters your claim that it was not included in Macedonia till "Ottoman times" (wrong). I'm not talking Byzantine times, but Roman times. ---Decius 12:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for the first image: it divided Moesia Inferior from Thrace at a higher latitude (see Roman province) than the 1849 map (in fact, all the actual maps are aligned in this way, except that Wiki image), so it is disqualified (probably a wrongly done image). The dip (actually, a bay) in the Illyrian Adriatic coast in the 1849 image lines up much more with the division of Moesia Inferior from Thrace in the 1849 map, but in the Roman Empire Map.png, the division is placed well north of the coastal dip (bay), up into Dalmatia. So it's no good for comparisons. I don't need that image, because I already have three which explicitly include Scupi in Roman Macedonia. Decius 13:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't counter anything. Roman Macedonia was massive and I thought I made it clear why its demography can't count in this article (unless of course you want to consider Southern Macedonia to start North of Athens). Miskin

That is your POV. This issue will be further discussed by various editors, including me, but I'm going to leave this point for today. A more pressing issue is why someone doesn't ban Igor Sterbinski's many IP's from Wikipedia already (see Macedonia article). Though he probably has enough back-ups that it won't matter. Decius 15:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
POV or no POV, why don't you just upload all the Public Domain old maps you can find (the older the better) in the article and get done with it? People who want to read about Macedonia as a Roman province are best served by the maps themselves. Of what importance is it whether Scupi lay at this or that side of which border at this time or the other? Chronographos 15:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (As for Sterbinski, I would report him myself, but he is too much fun. It's interesting nevertheless, how some admins once banned Theathenae's ISP (a whole domain range!) for much less disturbance, and now turn a blind eye towards that particular serial offender). Chronographos 15:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm planning on filling this stub article with maps:Roman province of Macedonia. It is in serious need of references so real text can be added to it, rather than a few sentences. It'll be handled eventually. Decius 15:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Maps are good. Especially old engravings: not only are they aesthetically superb, but their copyright has expired by definition, making them perfect Wikipedia material. Chronographos 15:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Against blatant pro-Bulgarian propaganda

It's you who's got to use the talk page, Miskin. You have justified none of your edits, your style and English are appalling and the only sections of the article which were not in shambles due to your soft touch were the ones editted by Decius. The only reason why I haven't interfered in the past weeks is because my keyboard was broken. Well, now I am back. VMORO 17:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)~
I've justified most of my edits in the section "Vandalism" and I've long waited for a reply before reverting. User:Birkelmaal (aka VMORO) failed to make a point, so I didn't see a reason to stick to the biased version of yours. Basically the only thing I've done is "neutralise" the article, there's not a single POV in my edits. Please point out your exact arguments here so that we can talk this through and end the edit-war once and for all. So far you've been replying with insults and reverts. Miskin 21:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The one who failed to make a point for long is you, Miskin, and no one else. None of your edits can be justified in any way. A perfect example - the claim that the present-day Greek Macedonia was inhabited mostly by Greeks. Ethnographic research (check Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia by Wilkinson) clearly shows that the northern part of present-day Greek Macedonia was a mixture of Slavs (Bulgarians) and Turks down to the line Thessaloniki-Edessa-Kastoria + that there was a preponderence of the Slavs there. The second thing is your almost non-existing style. You behave like a Greek writer of a Greek text book for 9-year-olds. This is an international English-language encyclopaedia and neutral terms should be used. But about your reunification and Slavic and Avar invasions we've talked for a long time. VMORO 16:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)~
All of which is completely understandable: after several centuries of Ottoman rule (my POV term would be "slavery"), the population, especially in rural and mountainous areas, was largely illiterate, most probably multilingual (some Greek, some Bulgarian, some Turkish to get along with the authorities and the tax collectors, etc etc) and most certainly with language skills that were overall poor in the modern sense. Census along religious adherence/observance lines would be the most logical thing for the Ottoman authorities to do if they wanted to somehow classify their subjects for whatever reason. After all, the Ottoman/Turkish state was late in adopting "Western" methods of administration, and did so to its own destruction: it was a backward, medieval state that time had left behind.
Anyways, what's the point of all this? Ottoman Macedonia was a complete and utter hodge-podge. It took almost ten years of war to sort everything out, boundaries kept shifting, populations were exchanged, some forcefully, some willingly, a vast number of people were killed, soldiers and civilians alike, and in the end a status quo was accepted by all states involved, treaties were signed and everyone settled down to get on with their lives. That's the important thing.
Things could actually have gone worse: look to the whole Francogerman affair. It took 11 whole centuries of bloodshed to deal with the can of worms that was formally opened by the Treaty of Verdun, and for all sane Germans and Frenchmen to accept that the Ruhr is to be German and Alsace and Lorraine are to be French, and that peace and prosperity are more important than anything else. Chronographos 15:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The Ottoman census is the most unbiased one, and as you can see it clearly states that Greeks were by for more numerous in the southern vilaets. I never said that they were more numerous than the Turks (or muslims in total), I said that they were significantly more numerous than the Slavs. I don't even know why you keep doubting this, it just makes you look silly. Miskin 19:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
The Ottoman census reflects only the religuious adherence of the population and nothing else. Thus all Muslims are written as Turks, all adherents of the Bulgarian Exarchate as Bulgarians and all adherents of the Constantinople Patriarchate as Greeks. Irrespective of mother tongue and of national consciousness and this is known by everyone except you, Miskin. Apart from very few exceptions (like Amadore-Virgile), everyone else has constructed their statistics according to mother tongue and not to religious allegiance. And everyone admitted that the population north of the line I indicated was Slavic with a large Turkish admixture.

Before 1870 when the Bulgarian Exarchate was established, pretty much all Bulgarians were adherents of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Would this mean according to you that there were no Bulgarians before that and that they just landed from outer space in 1870? And don't give me your inane remarks: "you look silly, tralala". You look like a moron, Miskin, and everyone has noticed that here. VMORO 12:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)~

The Ottoman census reflects only the religuious adherence of the population and nothing else

Exactly. So what makes you think that using religion as the primary criterion of nationality is not the closest thing to the truth? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but neither you nor me are in position to decide that. This is why in my version all criteria used in the demographies are explained in detail, without deciding which is right and which is wrong, and that my friend is what we call neutrality. You might as well try and take a hint. Nothing from the Turkish cencus proves nor implies that those Greeks were not Greek speaking. The majority of Bulgarian population had never been adherent to the Patriarch of Constantinople. You're confusing yourself with the small Bulgarian or Slavic-speaking population which viewed itself as part of the Roman nation which had lost its mother tongue over time. Therefore despite religion and language, the greater part of the population of Southern Macedonia viewed itself as Greek (or Roman if you prefer). Then if we can't trust any demography, think of the population exchanges. 50,000 Greeks entered Greek Macedonia from Pirin Macedonia, and some 60,000 Bulgarians left for Bulgaria. Then some 500,000 Greeks enter from Turkey and suddenly, we have some 1 million Greeks in Greek Macedonia? Where did the other half million come from? Mars? Oh, I know, it's a Bulgarian "majority" group that the Greek government is still hiding isn't that so? And now think of the ludicrous numbers that you're trying to pass as the truth: 2 million Bulgars in the entire of Macedonia and the assumption of another million in the south. I mean, use your brain for ones and do the maths - have you ever checked what the population of Bulgaria is today? Honestly some people just can't take the truth. And if neither of that convinces you then think of the Greco-Serbian alliance. Would the Serbs have ever agreed with Greece occupying over half of Macedonia for itself unless that land was not primarily Greek? Serbia was significantly stronger than Greece and in the search of Slavic-speaking lands to assimilate. It would have never happened. If you really want to do something to help your country, I would advise you to go over there and offer your people some physical help. I don't think that making nationalist propaganda of the internet is one of their priorities at the moment. Miskin 14:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That's again some claptrap of yours, Miskin. First of all, it wasn't 50,000 Greeks who entered Greece from Pirin Macedonia - there were around 40,000 of them and they came from the Black sea coast - Pomorie, Burgas, Sozopol, Ahtopol etc., from the small Greek enclave south of Yambol and from Plovdiv and Asenovgrad (to make it easier for you, Philipopolis and Stanimaka). There were some Greeks in Melnik in Pirin Macedonia but they all resettled to Greece after the end of the Balkan wars (look at [4]).
Secondly, all Bulgarians - both in northern Bulgaria and in Thrace - were members of the Patriarchate of Constantinople before 1870. If we take your naive explanation, then there were no Bulgarians before 1870, they were all Greeks. Well, I don't think so.
The majority of Bulgars had never been directly subjected to the patriarch of Constantinople, you're either making this up or misinterpret the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church. What you claim is disproved by the Turkish census which records many Bulgarians. Assuming that the majority was however, it still wouldn't imply that they were Greek unless they declared so. The Ottoman census was based on religion and personal ethnic feeling, and you're not in position to pass your POV on which census you consider more reliable than the other. My neutral version explains everything without taking any sides. Miskin 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Thirdly, the proper way to say what you wanna say is "that southern Macedonia (present-day Greek Macedonia) was predominantly influenced by the Greek idea" and that "the majority of the Christian population adhered to the Patriarchate of Constantinople". But that's already said in the article. Southern Macedonia was predominantly Slavic in the north, predominantly Greek in the south, with large pockets of Muslim population both in the north and in the south. This was recognised also by the Greeks - after the Balkan wars, for example by Nikolaides in 1918 according to whom the population north of Seres-Thessaloniki-Edessa-Kastoria was Slavic (Wilkinson).
The "Greek idea" bullcrap that you have written is bunch of communist propaganda that people like you have been fed over the years and try to pass it as history. No, there were not 5 Greek people who started a Greek idea and tried to convince 5,000,000 Slavs that they should convert, it's actually a Greek majority that did this. As for Thessaloniki and the other Macedonian towns being predominantly Slavic, damn, that is just laughable and contradictory to all historical events that followed afterwards. The fact that somebody called it a Slavic city doesn't mean jack shit. That would be for the same reasons that many people today would call France an Arab country and London an Indian city, I hope you understand how childish and naive your arguments are. The major cities and the Southern part of Greek Macedonia were predominantly Greek (in language) and the Northern part was predominantly Slavic-speaking, yet the overall population of the region was slightly predominantly Greek by language, and significantly predominantly Greek by religion and personal ethnic feeling. The ultimate proof of this is the Serbian participation on the treaty of Bucharest. Serbia would have never agreed to lose a piece of the Aegean sea if she could have had the slightest chance to assimilate a Slavic majority. This is something that Bulgarian nationalists never take into consideration, the just cry "boo-hoo Serbs preferred to take the side of the Greeks instead of our, this is why we lost Greek Macedonia that we never owned anyway". Both Ottoman and european censuses verify the Greek predominance in Greek Macedonia, whether the criterion is language or religion of personal feeling. Miskin 11:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Fourth of all, no one outside Greece buys the shit about "the Slavophone Greeks who had lost their language over time". They were Slavs who just got assimilated over time. Nothing bad about it. But don't try to bullshit me.
I know what Bulgarian nationalists generally believe. They believe that there's a 95% chance for any random Macedonian Greek to be a Bulgarian who is not allowed to speak his language. They believe that Macedonia is rightfully part of the Bulgarian Empire and that it was once inhabited only by Bulgarians. It's obvious that along the lines that's what you believe as well, and it's my duty to protect wikipedia from your brainwashed one-sided views. The fact is that there's 50% for a Greek Macedonian to have Anatolian origin, and another 50% to be a native Macedonian. There's probably some 1% to find a Slavophone who's not allowed to speak his language. I know this because most Macedonian people don't even know that Slavophones existed, and if they heard one speaking they'd think he's an immigrant. The "term" Slavophone is used to describe 3 Slavic-speaking ethnic groups: Bulgarians, Macedonian-Slavs and Slavophone Greeks. These are the facts, and whether you believe them or not it's your POV, I urge you to go now in Greek Macedonia and start your personal research. Miskin 11:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Again wrong calculations on your part - first the Greeks who came from Asia Minor were well above 500,000. Some Greek authors have given as high numbers as 600,000. Secondly, there were 250,000 Greeks in southern Macedonia even before the Balkan wars. 60,000 Greeks fled from Eastern Thrace during the Balkan Wars, the majority of them settled also in Macedonia. That's how we get at least to 900,000. And there is something like natural increase, if you don\t know that.
I quote again my sources: Wilkinson's review of the Ethnographic Cartograqphy of Macedonia, which presents ALL maps created for the ethnographic region of Macedonia in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, more than 90 per cent of them portray southern Macedonia as predominantly Slavic (with significant Greek population in the southernmost part). Practically all researchers at that point: Starting with Ami Boue, Lejean, Safarik, Hahn, Kiepert, and continuing towards Weigand, Seton-Wats, Braisford, Mach, etc. at the beginning of the 20th century. Practically all modern researchers - Roudometoff, Banac, Poulton, Rossos. What is funny is that Greek researchers nowadays admit, as well that the population of Southern Macedonia was predominantly Slavic. In Roudometoff, Victor. (2000). The Macedonian Question: Culture, Historiography, Politics, you can find an article by a Greek author (can't remember the name) on the only real ethnic census of the population in the region of Florina of 1912. According to census, some 50% of the population registered as Bulgarians, 30% as Greeks and 20% as others (Turks, Romanians, etc.). According to mother tongue - the majority of the "Greeks" were monolingual Bulgarians, some were monolingual Vlachs, a minority was bilingual (Bulgarian-Greek or (Vlach-Greek) and only 5% of them registered as speaking only Greek.

VMORO 11:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)~

To register the Slavophone percentage as Bulgarian is biased by definition. This population should be referred to as Slavic or Slavophone, because that's what it was. Part of it recognised itself as Macedonian Slav Orthodox, part as Bulgarian, part as Serbian and part as Greek. To generalise it into Bulgarian because some scholars who did't give a rat's ass wrote so, is against POV policy. I don't disagree that Florina might have had a predominantly Slavophone population. To generalise this for the entire Greek Macedonia and its cities however is retarded. Honestly what do you think that the ethnic composition of Monastiri was? Just curious to see the degree of your brainwash. The 5% of Greeks which you gave doesn't make sense with the 250,000 Greek Macedonians that you mentioned earlier - do the math. Miskin 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Provide sources for your edits or don't even think of reverting again. VMORO 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)~

My sources on the demographic date is given within the corresponding section. Miskin 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miskin's bulshit yet again

So, I loaned the book from the library and I want to clarify some things:

  • The author is Greek - Anastasia Karakasidou, it is an article in Roudometoff, Victor. (2000). The Macedonian Question: Culture, Historiography, Politics
  • The data is from the Historical Archive of Macedonia/General Directorate of Macedonia - a Greek government agency which was created after the inclusion of southern Macedonia into Greece in 1913.
  • According to the agency, the population of the Florina region in 1913 was divided between:
    • Bulgarians - 42.1%
    • Turks - 29%
    • Greeks - 27.4%
    • Romanians - 1.5%
  • According to mother tongue, the 'Greeks' were divided in the following way:
    • Bulgarian (monolingual) - 39%
    • bilungual Bulgarian and Greek - 24.8%
    • bilingual Kutsovlah and Greek - 15.%
    • monolingual Kutsovlah - 7.2%
    • bilingual Albanian and Kutsovlah - 6.9%
    • bilingual Greek and Albanian - 6.9%
    • There were NO MONOLINGUAL GREEKS AT ALL
  • Of the Christian population of the region, 70% were monolingual only in Bulgarian
  • In the same book: The Greek prefect of Florina wrote in a letter in 1925 that:
    • The Schismatics obtained and preserve a Bulgarian consciousness. The Patriarchists (on the other hand) live in a psychic world of timidity, but with the hidden longing and everyday wish to shake off the Greek yoke.
  • The article contains enough of other archive material which give a clear idea that the Greeks themselves were extremely suspicious of how Greek the Slavs professing a Greek consciousness really were with a number of them concluding that they don't have a Greek national consciousness.
  • This is a Greek article written by a Greek author using practically only Greek sources. This is not blatant pro-Bulgarian propaganda, this is not even a neutral point of view, this is the opinion of a Greek researcher.
  • According to the same research (using again the Macedonian Greek archive), Patriarchists in the Florina district had a majority of 75% in 1886 against Bulgarian Exarchists, in 1900 the ratio was 50%-50%, by 1913 it was the Exarchists who were in the majority. The same process can be seen in Kastoria (see the website Mapping migration in Kastoria) - in the 1880s the Patriarchists were in the majority, around 1900 the Exarchists had the majority and after the Ilinden uprising and the violence between IMARO and the Greek bands, the Patriarchists again gained the majority. So, if I have to follow your theory that adherence to a church means a national consciousness, we get to the concusion that people in the Kastoria region first were Greeks, then they became Bulgarians and then they became again Greeks. That is so stupid that it deserves no comment.
  • Your claim that "southern Macedonia was inhabited predominantly by Greeks" does not hold. A portion of southern Greece was indeed inhabited by Greeks (below the line Serres-Thessaloniki-Edessa-Kastoria), the northern part of the region, along with the other parts of Macedonia (now called sometimes Vardar and Pirin M.) was, however, inhabited by Slavs. The majority of these Slavs were swayed by the Bulgarian idea, a large minority (in the south) by the Greek idea and a small minority (in the north) by the Serbian idea. The Slavs who were swayed by the Greek idea cannot be called Greeks because they were not such, they were only Hellenophile. They cannot be called Bulgarians, either - if they were Hellenophile. And they cannot be called Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs) as no such thing existed at that time. They can be called Slavs - and that's how the article calls them - if you haven't seen that.
  • A large portion of them eventually got assimilated into Greek society, along with the Vlachs and the small minority of Christian Albanians who lived in Macedonia, but this was only because it was Greece that received southern Macedonia. If it was Serbia, they would be Macedonians now, and if it was Bulgaria, they would be Bulgarians now. I am absolutely sure that some of these people had a "Greek consciousness" before the inclusion of the region into Greece, the vast majority of them, however, did not have it, especially the people living in villages. They probably had no national consciousness at all - confirmed by all Greek sources in the article quoted. According to the Greek government officials themselves, there were fanatical Greeks, there were fanatical Bulgarians and there were those (a majority) who were only interested in keeping their livelihoods and while officialy conforming with Hellenism, did not have any national affiliations at all.
  • Thessaloniki had a predominantly Jewish population + 30,000 Greeks and 30,000 Turks. Serres was again predominantly Greek but only by a slight majority before Turks and Bulgarians. Bitola did not have any Greeks at all, all the Greeks there were Aromanians. Macedonia before the Balkan wars had 80 to 85% peasant population, so the influence of the Macedonian cities on the demography of the region was negligible. And the vast majority of the peasants were Slavs.

*A section about the Hellenophilism of Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs you continue to erase without giving any explanation at all is something openly admitted by Greek scholars, as well. L.S. Stavrianos writes in "The Balkans: 1815-1914" that "The Macedonian Slavs escaped Hellenisation by remaining illiterate through the long period under the Constantinople Patriarchate, thereby preserving their language and customs..." I demand an explanation as to why you keep erasing the section.

  • The Bulgarians - in Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia - were subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople between 1396 and 1870 and were counted as "Rum-millet" (Greeks) until the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate. Don't fart crap all over that this wasn't so, yes, it was. If we again follow your reasononing, we get to the conclusion that no Bulgarians existed for 5 centuries and they were Greeks. No, they were Bulgarians and they existed, they were simply adherents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople but that does not make them Greek - and neither does that make Greeks the Slav Patriarchists in southern Macedonia.

I demand that you provide sources if you think of reverting your bullshit again (until now you have NOT substantiated a single edit!). If you don't do that, I'll ask that the article is blocked again. If you are not prepared to discuss something with argumentation and sources, then don't come here again. VMORO 12:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)~

VMORO, I do not know how reliable a historian Karakasidou is, but right off the top of my head I will say that the data you present are not actually that far from the truth. If I wanted to "distill" all I have read about the area, I would say that Greeks were huddled along the coastline and in the cities, whereas Bulgarians dominated the countryside, especially the further north one went. I mention "Greeks" and "Bulgarians" in the loosest of senses. One cannot ascribe a modern-style national self-consciousness to these populations, unless they were somewhat educated, and this admittedly was commoner among Greeks who often were wealthier merchants and lived in cities. Let us remember the actual situation of a Macedonian peasant in the early 20th century and before: almost universal illiteracy, back-breaking manual labor in the fields all day just to secure the food one lived on, an oppressive Ottoman regime, no roads, no transport except on beasts of burden, no free time, no information, no newspapers, no money to spend. I would be surprised if those peasants actually knew which way Athens, Sofia or Constantinople lay. This goes a long way to explain your astute Greek-turned-Bulgarian-turned-Greek paradox. It's not a paradox at all, it's just what happens if one tries to define 19th-century people by 21st-century criteria.
Therefore as I have said before, Ottoman Macedonia was a hodge-podge. Enter the Balkan Wars, WW I after that, and then the sequelae of WW I. The region had finally settled down by around 1925. Boundaries were agreed on, mainly by military considerations, and populations were transferred to conform with these boundaries. The understanding was that Muslims and Christians were exchanged mandatorily (with some explicit exceptions) and Christians were exchanged voluntarily. In other words, borders were fixed and the message to the Christian populations affected was: whoever is on this side of the line is Greek (or Serbian or Bulgarian) and anyone who doesn't like this may pick up their things and move beyond the border. From now on if you stay somewhere, that's what you are. It was something akin to the principle of the Peace of Augsburg: Cuius regio, eius religio (i.e. each person had to conform with the religious denomination of his or her local prince). Of course it was rather easier for a merchant to sell their property and use the money to start a business in their new home, rather than for a dirt-poor peasant to sell his land, for which he might not even have Ottoman documents of ownership, and hope to get some land elsewhere.
I don't see the reason why any particular timeline should be drawn as to the legitimacy of this, that or another population distribution. If one regards the huge influx of Anatolian Greeks as an anomaly of sorts, one could counterargue that these Greeks originally found themselves there following the wholesale Hellenization of the Levant after Alexander's conquest and then, as the times demanded, their descendants moved back. Indeed if any line need be drawn, it is that defined by the treaties signed by the states of the region.
The only statement of yours I disagree with is "If it was Serbia, they would be Macedonians now". Actually they would be Serbian but for Tito and the Cold War. My point is, I am surprised how eager you are to surrender the name "Macedonians" to the citizens of FYROM. This name belongs to all inhabitants of Macedonia equally, and with the understanding that the Macedonian Greeks are the sole inheritors of the Macedonian patrimony before the 7th century BC. The FYROM does not exist in vacuo. If it wants to reach a modus vivendi with its neighbors, it has to listen to what they have to say. Otherwise it should not be surprised to find its neighbors standing in the way. That said, I don't think I disagree with you on most other matters.
It is rather plain that, following the wars of the 20th century, if any country got the short end of the stick in Macedonia, it was Bulgaria. But this is the price a country pays for aligning itself with the losing side every time (the Central Powers, the Axis and the Soviet Union in succession). Chronographos 15:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


I don't think they would have turned out Serbian, Chronographos. 30 years of Serbian rule and Serbification in Vardar Macedonia did not lead to anything - and this despite a strong pro-Serbian party in the north. In Aegean M, the Serbs had only a nominal presence... As for the use of "Macedonians" and "Macedonian Slavs", I don't want to take any part in the Greek-Macedonian conflict, if I have used "Macedonians", it was because of I didn't want to waste time to write out "Macedonian Slavs", that's all... VMORO 19:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Against ludicrous pro-Bulgarian nationalist edits

Although normally I should be pissed off at your persistence, I feel that it's every serious editor's responsibility to have to deal with fanaticism, which in most cases comes from people of the diaspora. Hence I will answer to all your arguments and biased views, for one more time.

*In the same book: The Greek prefect of Florina wrote in a letter in 1925 that:

    • The Schismatics obtained and preserve a Bulgarian consciousness. The Patriarchists (on the other hand) live in a psychic world of timidity, but with the hidden longing and everyday wish to shake off the Greek yoke.

You're making it too easy for me. All the sources you mentioned above speak of the small city of Florina which is situated in the North of Greek Macedonia. Now this data would have been a small counter-argument to the claim that "there were no Slavs in Greek Macedonia". Unfortunately the claim is that "Greeks were the majority in Greek Macedonia". To point out that there has in fact existed a city of Greek Macedonia where Slavs had been the majority, doesn't change anything. Monastir was a city of Vardar Macedonia that had a predominantly Greek population, I don't see anybody using this as an argument for the entire Vardar region being predominantly Greek. In fact I fell silly making all those logical explanations as if I was talking to a 15 year old boy, but in your absence of logic, I feel obliged to do so. The fact is that Florina is the only city of Greek Macedonia that even today has an official presence of a Macedonia Slav minority. That implies two things:

  • Florina has probably been the only city in Greek Macedonia of such high Slavic population.
  • I am not talking (nor the author) about cities but about districts. VMORO 18:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This Slavic group has always recognised itself as Macedonian Slav and not as Bulgarian that your ludicrous edits imply.
  • Nothing like this is implied in any way. The author (quoting Greek sources from the interwar period) explicitly talks about "fanatical Bulgarians". You interpret things any way you want to, as usual. VMORO 18:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not making this too easy for you at all. I quoted also a website which concerns Kostur (Kastoria). And Kostur is even a more ludicrous example as the population there underwent the change from predominantly Patriarchist to predominantly Exarchist and again to predominantly Patriarchist in less than 20 years. After all, Lerin (Florina), Kostur (Kastoria) and Voden (Edessa) were the only districts with Slavic majority in Aegean Macedonia which were not affected by a wide-scale migration to Bulgaria around the Balkan Wars and after WWI.
  • Bitola did not have a predominantly Greek population, at all - there were actually no Greeks there at all. There were Slavs (a majority), the majority of which professed themselves as Bulgarians, there were Hellenised Aromanians and there were Turks. The "Greeks" which you were talking about are nothing else but Vlachs, and as such they are mentioned by practically all authors previously mentioned by me - including by the Greek author of the article according to whom they had emigrated to Florina after the Balkan wars. VMORO 18:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you have decided to label an entire Slavophone population of Greek and Vardar Macedonia as "Bulgarian", is the definition of the term POV. This population still exists, and although it's not "Macedonian" in the sense that modern generations would like to imply, it has recognised itself to be different from Bulgarian in the last century. It is at least my duty to remove all your nationalist references to "Bulgarian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian" for every Slavic population in the region, and of course your fallacies and "rug-swept" information about the Greek majority of "Aegean Macedonia". Miskin 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The Slavs who were swayed by the Greek idea cannot be called Greeks because they were not such, they were only Hellenophile. They cannot be called Bulgarians, either - if they were Hellenophile. And they cannot be called Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs) as no such thing existed at that time. They can be called Slavs - and that's how the article calls them - if you haven't seen that. Despite what you just claimed, the demographic data you have provided doesn't call them, they're all labeled as "Bulgarians". And this is the POV that I'm talking about. In your little biased head you have taken your decisions about what should everyone be called. Slavophones who recognised themselves as "Macedonian Orthodox" are basically the "Macedonian Slavs" of today. Slavophones who recognised themselves as "Rum" was a Greek minority that had lost its language. That's how things are, despite have you and your family chosen to believe. Hellenophile was a term that was confined mainly for the Franco-British scholars of the early 19th century who supported the Greek was of independence (e.g. Lord Byron). To speak about "Bulgarian Hellenophiles in the 20th century" is just a retarded oxymoron. They were Greeks, whether you like it or not. Why? Because they officially claimed so. This is what the neutral version points out in case you haven't noticed. Miskin 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The demographic data calls them "Bulgarians" (it quotes authors who call them nothing else but Bulgarians), the article otherwise uses consistently "Slavs" and not "Bulgarians". You are violating the NPOV of Wikipedia trying to call them "Greeks". And the correct term is "Hellenophile Slavs", not "Bulgarian Hellenophiles". The article I quoted is quite a sufficient proof that these Hellenophile Slavs did not have a Greek self-consciousness. VMORO 18:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A section about the Hellenophilism of Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs you continue to erase without giving any explanation at all is something openly admitted by Greek scholars, as well. L.S. Stavrianos writes in "The Balkans: 1815-1914" that "The Macedonian Slavs escaped Hellenisation by remaining illiterate through the long period under the Constantinople Patriarchate, thereby preserving their language and customs..." I demand an explanation as to why you keep erasing the section. Your edits on this topic are manipulating real facts in order to imply a false conclusion (which is pretty much the definition of propaganda). It wasn't just random Slavs, Vlachs and Arvanites of Macedonia that chose to convert to Greek Orthodoxy. It was a very specific social level of the Ottoman Empire that was not confined to a region, and was too small to inflinct any changes in ethnic composition. I other words,

  • True side of the story: As a result of the power of the Greek patriarch of Constantinople in the Ottoman Empire, the Greek language became the defacto means of communication in commerce, and thus a great part of merchants in Rumelia chose to convert to Greek Orthodoxy and become Hellenised.
  • VMORO's version: Most Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs of Macedonia chose to become Hellenised.

I think no further comments are necessary. My source for this is Eric Hobsbawm's L'ére des révolutions. In case you've never heard of him, he's generally regarded as the greatest historian of the 20th century. Miskin 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Miskin but I agree with what u said (probably because you quote for the first time a source and not your delusional fantasi). This voluntary Hellenification affected the well-to-do urban class (yes, indeed mostly merchants and the emerging bourgeosie) from Albania to Bulgaria. The only reason why this Hellenification did not spread to the peasants in the countryside was that the Patriarchate of Constantinople never bothered to open schools there. That's what the article says. Can I get now an explanation as to why you keep erasing the section??? VMORO 18:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


Finally I don't see why you so stupidly keep requiring my sources on the claim that Greek Macedonia was predominantly Greek. Great part of it is marked under the demographic data which I have added in the article, and of course the Ottoman census which despite what you claim, is the only source closer to the truth. Miskin 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article has the wrong title

This article, as it stands is not about the demographic history of Macedonia, it need to be retitled "Bulgarian versus Republic of Macedonia views on Macedonia"

I am not going to take a position on that interesting question, but the article is simply a confusing polemic that leaves one to believe no Greeks Turks or Jews have a demographic place in the modern history -- ie this is all about argumetns between two of the five major groups on which those two can only agree on one thing, the marginalization of the other three!

example no greek historians are even listed on the source section
even in the talk pages here is this quote which is indicative: and thus a great part of merchants in Rumelia chose to convert to Greek Orthodoxy and become Hellenised....meaning they should not be considered "Greek." I cannot figure the assetions other than race basis for ethnicity, which is wrong. People who choose to become Greek are Greek, people who choose to be come Bulgarian are Bulgarian, etc. The proponent of this is saying that there are 30 million Italians in America who are not American because there great great graet grandparents choose to come here out of economic interest?
now here is the kicker. look a the section Independent Point of View the entire thing completely ingroes the Greek, Turkish and Jewish populations! outside observers saw no Greeks, Jews or Turks?DaveHM 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
DaveHM, I have been long striving to make the point that you successfully spotted and summarized. Have a look at the edit-wars on the history section and the neutralised version I once created for this article in order to remove those chauvinist edits once and for all. Miskin 16:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to edit Wikipedia articles

Hi. User:Miskin, you may want to consider reading some Wikipedia guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Your editing of this article removed many links to articles and instead pointed them to a disambiguation page. Please don't do that.

Furthermore, you changed many of the references to the Roman period to Hellenes. That is a confusing change. You also added, throughout the article, indicators of who, in your opinion, are of what ethnic group, what jobs they had (mercenaries), and removed descriptions of Ottoman effects on the area, removed the fact that Bulgaria occupied parts of Greece, etc. You may also need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The previous version of the article still needs work, but in many places had more informative and less confusing content. Jkelly 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll fix the links. The content changes I made were crucial in order to neutralise this article. You need to be more specific on the following points:

  • you changed many of the references to the Roman period to Hellenes - That doesn't make any sense.
  • You also added, throughout the article, indicators of who, in your opinion, are of what ethnic group, what jobs they had (mercenaries) - All my edits are based on established sources such as Eric Hobsbawm. Be more specific on what you consider "on my opinion" and I'll quote from souces.
  • removed the fact that Bulgaria occupied parts of Greece, etc - I removed what was overemphasized, misinterpreted or irrelevant to the article. Bulgaria never occupied parts of Greece, The medieval state of Bulgaria occupied parts of the Byzantine Empire and th

PS: I remember you were once supporting Nazi additions on the article Greeks, so please don't try to give an indication on neutrality. Miskin 17:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

the Germans occupied Greece in WW2, that's about it. Any other intepretation is a POV. it is incorrect to say the bulgarians did not occupy Greece during world war two. they occupied a large chunk and proportional death rates and deportations by the Bulgarian army of Jews exceed that of German occupied GreeceDaveHM 18:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Miskin, I think you may have me confused with someone else. I have made one edit to the article Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greeks&diff=30236682&oldid=30236605 this), and one to its talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGreeks&diff=28236273&oldid=28157112 this). That said, there was a period in which the article on Greek fascism had a lot of weird "Metaxas was a good fascist" material that I reverted back to because it looked like an anon was removing sourced material. Is that perhaps the incident that you are thinking of? To return to discussing the article, can you explain to me why you are changing references to Romans to Hellenes, why you removed material about the region being depopulated, why you are calling Thrace "non-Hellenized", why you removed information about Ottoman killings, why you removed the information on Orthodox church changes impacting "the Greek idea", and explain how the Bulgarians "invent"ed ascendency (this is weird phrasing)? That said, cutting the sentence "Also, the present-day historians from Macedonia claim that there were two IMRO organisations - a macedonian one and a vrhovistic one, which declared as a bulgarian organisation." was a good idea, as it was unsourced. Your explanation of your change in re: Bulgaria and WWII makes sense to me. Jkelly 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sorry if that's the case (confusing you with someone else), there was someone who was pushing racial theories into that article and his name resembled your own, it has nothing to do with you. I now see what you mean by changing reference from "Romanised" to "Hellenised". If we regard as "Romanisation" the act of spreading the Latin language, and as "Hellenisation" the act of spreading the Greek language, Macedonia (and the entire Eastern part of the Empire) were never Romanised. If we assume the ancient Macedonians as non-Hellenic peoples, then we have to use the word "Hellenisation". The Macedonian culture is assimilated by the Greek and stays like that until present times. Later on in history the Slavic element is added to Macedonia's composition, but it never assimilates the Greek, unlike what this article currently implies by emphasizing Bulgarian history (that hardly connected to the proper Macedonian peninsula anyway). Either way the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (including Macedonia) was never Romanised and only Hellenised, the proof of this is the birth of the Byzantine civilization. Thrace was Hellenised much later than Macedonia and only part of it, I'm not sure where your argument is. I removed information on the "Greek idea" that I consider biased, unsourced and generally one-sided. The present-day historians of Macedonia line was only stating a POV which has no place in wikipedia. Real historians know the real answer to it. Miskin 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about calling me a Nazi. And, while we are at it, I should apologize myself for a response to your editing that wasn't a model of WP:COOL. I remain concerned about a... "fluidity" of historical interpretation in this article. There are a bunch of references listed at the bottom, but it's mostly impossible to guess what statement is referenced by what. I'd like to ask about one remaining point that I am unclear on. Are you contending that the Ottoman killings are unreferenced, or are a Bulgarian POV? Jkelly 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think there's suspiciously too many references? I've argued with the person who has supposedly written the article and read all those books but he didn't give that impression. He also claimed to have no agenda on the subject and yet a word count on the string "bulgarian" would use up all my system resources. The article is extremely one-sided and for the sake of neutrality it should be largerly revised. Which section of the article are you referring to? It's been awhile since I made this edits and I don't remember them by heart. Miskin 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To VMORO

Please let us finally sit down and discuss this article on a civil and producive manner in order to reach to a mutually respectable solution. Miskin 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aegean/Greek Macedonia -> 51%

Dear Xelet (who art mirroring my name), you are requesting sources for the fact which is one of the few things that are not in dispute. There is a unanimous acceptance from all sources that Aegean/Greek Macedonia is 51% of the geographical region [5] [6]. Of course, I just know that you are reverting for the sake of wikistalking, and you have being doing this to a number of users, I strongly believe that you will earn you a hard ban from all articles, not just Rajput. I hope this has been clear enough, Mr Singh. --Telex 10:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 95% of Real Macedonia is in Greece

The Real Macedonia:

http://www.macedonia.com/english/history/regions1.html

http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/stmapi/mapa3.jpg

http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Maps/mapSeq_Map01.html

http://crystalinks.com/mapgreeceancient.gif


The Dardanians, Paeonians, and Illyrians are shown below, and those are the ancient inhabitants of the Fyrom area....NOT ancient Macedonians:

http://www.soros.org.mk/archive/G01/A01/as0106.htm

http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/stmapi/mapa4.jpg


69.234.160.42 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Phil Hellene

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/Talk%7EDemographic_history_of_Macedonia_e501.html"