Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

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)

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)

---> 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)

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)

For a laugh

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

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)