Talk:Macedonia (region)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Greek Macedonians

I just noticed that "Greek Macedonians" have been listed as the majority ethnic group in the Macedonian region, at 2,500,000. This is the biggest POV I've ever came across in Wikipedia.

• Firstly, how can you be certain that all 2,500,000 citizens of Greek Macedonia are "Greeks by ethnicity" or at least "identify as Greeks" if Greece has never taken an official census based on ethnicity/identity?

• Secondly, how can all the Greeks in Greek Macedonia be considered "Greek Macedonians" if the majority of Greeks in Greek Macedonia are descendants of the refugees that have arrived in the region from Asia Minor some 80 years ago? The correct term to use would be "Pontian Greeks" or "Greeks of Asia Minor descent" are the largest number in Greek Macedonia, followed by "Greek Macedonians" - that is, the native Greeks of Macedonia, who were a minority in the Macedonian region and were limited to the parts south of the Argos Orestiko-Veria-Thessaloniki-Drama line. Otherwise, the two groups of Greeks should be counted together under the term "Greeks", not "Greek Macedonians".

Polibiush (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It also should be noted that officially, Slavs are the largest ethnic group in the Macedonian region. I say officially, because there is no reliable or official information to count the different ethnic groups in Greek Macedonia, or the number of people who identify themselves as Greeks. Counting every single person in Greek Macedonia as a "Greek" or "Greek Macedonian" is nothing more than a POV. Polibiush (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I suppose you're one of those delightful United Macedonia enthusiasts who think there are more than a million ethnic "Macedonians" in Greece, because that's the only way the "Macedonians" would be the majority ethnic group in Macedonia. The Macedonians of Greece are Greeks by ethnicity and Macedonians by geography. This of course includes those of refugee origins, because that is how they self-identify and how they are viewed by other Greeks. Simply put, the Macedonians are the inhabitants of Macedonia; having family origins going back to the Argead dynasty is not a requirement. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think there are a million Macedonians in Greece, but on the other hand there is no way to tell how many people identify as what, because there is no census data. And don't change the subject to a united Macedonia or whatever else, you are obviously drawing the reader's attention away from what I have raised here. So what part of my statements did you find nonsense? Or is anything that challenges the Greek POV automatically labeled as nonsense on Wikipedia? You say that the refugees are Macedonians because that's how they identify??? The people in the Republic also identify as Macedonians, why don't you recognize them also? Anyway, I see you are one of those extremists who believe that every single person in Greek Macedonia is "Greek", even though you have no reliable data/census information to support your claims. You just assume (# of citizens in Greek Macedonia = # of Greeks). If that is not a POV, then what is??? Polibiush (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the other sections on the ethnic Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Albanian population are ALL based on census information. How can you equate the section on the Greek population with the others, if there is no census data to support the Greek claims? Polibiush (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

AND WHY is the origin of ethnic Macedonians mentioned in the Demographics section as Slavic, BUT the origins of the so called "Greek Macedonians" are left out? Isn't it worth mentioning the population exchange with Turkey, where 600,000 Christians from Asia Minor were settled in Greek Macedonia, making them the majority "Greek Macedonian" population? This would mean that Greek Macedonians are primarily of Asian Minor origin, since the refugees out numbered the native Greeks upon their arrival in the 1920's. Polibiush (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And what if they are? I've already told you what Macedonian means in a Greek context. According to your definition, only those sharing your ethnic identity are "Macedonians". But this is Wikipedia, and your definition is irrelevant. Denying the Macedonians of Greek refugee origins the right to be defined as Macedonians would be the epitome of POV. As for your ethnic "Macedonians", their origin is mentioned as Slavic because that's what it is, just as the origin of the Asia Minor refugees is Greek, i.e. there is no "Asia Minor" ethnicity or ethnic grouping. And what's wrong with the statement # of citizens in Greek Macedonia = # of Greeks? The nationality of the inhabitants of Macedonia is Greek, regardless of their ethnic origins. In any case, even without census data we can safely say that ethnic Greeks are the majority of the population of the wider region, simply because no serious source estimates the number of non-ethnic Greeks to be high enough to challenge their numerical predominance. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At least I tend to understand "Greek Macedonians" as "Greek-identifying people who live in Macedonia", regardless of their ethnic or regional origin. It is no secret that probably most of today's Greek population of Macedonia consists of refugees from Asia Minor (Pontian Greeks), and that many of the Greek-identifying people of the original population were Grecoman Bulgarians loyal to the Patriarchate, Vlachs or Albanians. Kanchov's 1900 survey lists 1,179,036 Bulgarians and 225,152 Greeks in all of Macedonia, for example.

However, assigning origin to populations in a census is extremely difficult and what's more, it's not how it works. By my understanding, all Greeks who live in Macedonia are Macedonian Greeks, purely geographically, just like all Bulgarians in Thrace are Thracian Bulgarians regardless of where they came from. That said, and given the way the Greek census functions (I'm not a fan of the Greek approach but I have to accept it), we can't do anything else but list 2,500,000 Macedonian Greeks and insert a note about the origin of most: which we've already done.

I mean, what else can we list? We can't get reliable data by origin, we don't even have ethnic census data, so we basically have our hands tied here. To be honest, even if the Greek government did ask about ethnicity in their censuses, the overwhelming majority of Greek Macedonia's population would self-identify as Greeks nowadays, even the Slavophones. And that surely wouldn't change the overall ethnic status quo: Greeks are the majority in the region nowadays. Todor→Bozhinov 13:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except with your "Grecoman Bulgarians" statement. That is how they were viewed by Bulgarians, not how they viewed themselves. And not all Greek refugees from Asia Minor were Pontians. In fact, the Póntioi tend to be clearly distinguished from the Mikrasiátes, i.e. those from western Asia Minor – Smyrna, etc. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As we're looking into the past, I personally see no problem with ignoring today's perceptions of self-identification and applying the idea that people who spoke the same dialect of Bulgarian as their neighbours (in the same village), but were tempted by Greek culture and other factors, can be called "Grecoman Bulgarians". It's merely a matter of origin here: most of these people's descendants are, today, Greeks by all standards. The assimilative power of the Greek identity is no secret, and the way Greek-identifying Bulgarians, Vlachs and Albanians were viewed by everyone else does reflect their origin correctly. I doubt these people had illusions about their origin, but in those days, it had some advantages to be a Greek.

But that's all a bit beyond the purpose of this discussion. And I accept your remark about the refugee nomenclature. Todor→Bozhinov 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The Bulgarian, Rumanian, and Albanian national identities emerged rather late in the modern era, after many Slavophones, Vlachs and Arvanites had already thrown their lot in with Hellenism. When the establishment of the Exarchate forced people to pick sides, the decision of those Orthodox Christian Slavophones who chose to remain Greeks was no less valid than that of those who chose to be Bulgarians. Language, in and of itself, is not always the best indication of ethnic origins. The Copts, for example, consider themselves the true descendants of the ancient Egyptians, despite having been linguistically assimilated by the Muslim Arabs. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse the emergence of a Bulgarian national identity in the 18th century (and not in 1860 or 1870 as you claim) with the Bulgarian ethnic identity that has existed since the Early Middle Ages. Also, don't confuse Patriarchsists with Grecomans: although all Grecomans were Patriarchists, not all Bulgarian Patriarchists were Grecomans; it's a logical fallacy. A religious choice does not necessarily reflect an ethnic identity, there are other factors.

It was not a choice to "be" or "become" Bulgarians, which these people have always been, and I already explained I'm not referring to the modern concept of a nation here ("Orthodox Christian Slavophones who chose to remain Greeks" leads me to this conclusion), but to that time's concept of a people.

I don't think you can provide any evidence that the Grecomans were all Greeks who, while Bulgarian, Vlach or Albanian-speaking, have never abandoned their Greek ethnic identity. And there are countless sources testifying to the opposite: that they were assimilated members of another ethnic group. Seriously, we'd better not abandon good science for fringe theories here, we risk becoming the Republic of Macedonia. It's like claiming the Pomaks were Arabs who came in the Middle Ages and were assimilated by the Bulgarians. Todor→Bozhinov 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That would only hold true if they once had a clearly articulated Bulgarian, rather than Christian, identity and switched to identifying as Greeks. Did they? In any case, "Grecoman" is a pejorative and offensive term and should be avoided. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for the most part they did: they had a Bulgarian identity and they switched to identifying as Greeks, often for economic and/or social reasons and/or due to Patriarchate pressure. It was originally a choice they made: most often not a free choice, but a choice, not an inherited Greek identity.

To give you an example and to solidify my statement about Patriarchist not being the same as Grecoman, enter Kote Hristov/Kotas Christou. Born in a Patriarchist village in 1863, he joined IMORO in 1899 (although he was a very violent and controversial member, a real hajduk in the bad sense) and participated in the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising of 1903. Only after the uprising did he join the Greek armed propaganda and welcome Pavlos Melas in the region.

A "Christian = Greek" identity was what the Patriarchate was pushing for at the time of Megali Idea, it was not the identity the masses actually had.

If you find "Grecoman" offensive (I can understand your reasons), then a good substitute is "Hellenized", but it's not the original term. Todor→Bozhinov 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that much of the Slavophone peasantry of Macedonia had no clear ethnic or national identity under Ottoman rule. The existence of Bulgarian kingdoms centuries earlier does not mean a continuous Bulgarian identity survived throughout the lands they once ruled. I have no doubt that Hellenization of actual Bulgarians occurred, but that doesn't mean that all or even most of the Slavophones who adopted a Greek identity did so as Bulgarians. Your Kottas example merely illustrates the fluidity of these people's loyalties. That a Patriarchist would enlist in the Bulgarian armed propaganda campaign before ditching it for the Greek cause suggests his "Bulgarian" identity can't have been all that strong to begin with. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence to the opposite, though I was surprised to hear a Macedonist argument coming from a Greek here: are you saying the activists of the Greek Struggle for Macedonia struggled against a herd of clueless peasants with no idea as to their ethnic origin? Germanos Karavangelis was pretty clear when he said to H. N. Brailsford: "A great day was coming, when Hellenism would claim her own. It was only necessary to crush the Bulgarians first." So really, if your own folk knew what they were facing, then perhaps you shouldn't turn a blind eye either. It's of no use to your own clause to give any support to Macedonist concepts, but that is for you to decide.

One of the goals of the Patriarchate was to eradicate the Bulgarian identity and the way the population of Macedonia joined and actively supported the Bulgarian Exarchate speaks for its resistance to that, I believe. The Bulgarian-speaking population of Macedonia had, for the most part, a pretty strong idea of their ethnicity and participated actively in the Bulgarian National Revival. A fact that clearly means they had no worse idea than Bulgarians from other regions as to what ethnicity they belong to. There are countless folk songs, from any corner of Macedonia, clearly mentioning the population's Bulgarian identity to boot. But do I really have to explain that to someone today? I thought it was only the Macedonist clause that rejects common sense and historical consensus.

Now, as for Kote Hristov, it is pretty naïve to think he was wondering whether he was a Bulgarian or a Greek, isn't it? Not all Bulgarians cared about the autonomy of Macedonia and the national liberation, some were more concerned with their personal interest and material gains. Money > identity sometimes. It's the Balkans, remember, some people serve the highest bidder :)

To finish on a bright note, Ilinden 1903 had a positive effect on the population of Kote's native Rulya (today's Kotas, Krystallopigi, Florina Prefecture): the entire population joined the Exarchate. Todor→Bozhinov 21:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting my words. When did I say that the Bulgarians were not the main rivals of the Greeks in Macedonia? Greece and Bulgaria were engaged in a fierce confrontation for the hearts and minds of the Slavophones, some of whom identified as Bulgarians or Greeks, and others who simply hadn't thought about it, hadn't made up their minds or avoided the question altogether. But you're right; Greece certainly did not struggle against a herd of clueless peasants. It struggled against Bulgarian expansionism and the very real possibility of losing Macedonia, a land of crucial historical significance for the Greeks. The existence of artefacts of Bulgarian culture does not mean that the entire Slavophone population had a fixed Bulgarian identity. The situation in a region as mixed as Macedonia could never be that simple, and you know it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, all this shows is that the history of Macedonia, and the cultural, ethnic and linguistic demographics have always been complicated and in flux, and no sinle nation is the true 'owner' of Macedonia.

By the way Kekrops, you make some good points such as

• Language, in and of itself, is not always the best indication of ethnic origins.

• the fluidity of these people's loyalties in history

• the assimilative power of Hellenic culture

• The existence of artefacts of Bulgarian culture does not mean that the entire Slavophone population had a fixed Bulgarian identity..

Yet, those very same principles seem to be totally disregarded when debating the origins of anceint macedonians. Hxseek (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How so? The ancient Macedonians didn't just speak Greek, they also, crucially, self-identified as Hellenes, according to all historical accounts. Apart from the "kind" words resentful Athenians had to say about them, is there any evidence that they themselves identified as non-Greeks? And I don't mean simply having an awareness of being different. Macedonians and Athenians, Pontians and Peloponnesians, Cypriots and Epirotes are rather different, even today. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. Just like Gauls, Spaniards, and even Asians came to speak latin and identify as 'Romans" Hxseek (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But they had a documented non-Roman identity before being Latinized, no? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Did not the A.M. have a documented history as barbarian, non-Greeks prior to the 5th century BC ? Hxseek (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Did they? According to whom? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is no secret. Anyway, this debate is not relevant to this current discussion. Happy NY everyone Hxseek (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about self-identification, man (or woman, I'm not sure); not what Demosthenes, Borza, Shea or Donski had to say about them. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, the opinions of contemporary, bona fide scholars like e.g. Badian or Borza -opinions that are rejected, in part or in whole, by other bona fide scholars- as opposed to those of a politically motivated Demosthenes, Shea, Donski or "Gandetto" shouldn't, and can't on wiki, be discounted.

In any case, what's important is what H. said above: "Whatever the case, all this shows is that the history of Macedonia, and the cultural, ethnic and linguistic demographics have always been complicated and in flux, and no sinle nation is the true 'owner' of Macedonia." When both sides, ours and theirs, truly realize this, there'll be no problems. And of course, even more importantly: happy new year. 3rdAlcove (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said the opinions of bona fide scholars should be discounted, merely that the self-identification of the ancient Macedonians as Greeks is too often neglected by the other side while their own is held up as sacrosanct and non-negotiable. I agree that Macedonia is a transnational region, and that is precisely why Macedonian shouldn't refer to any single nation, which is what the naming dispute is ultimately all about. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of 'Macedon'

Perhaps we can find or create a better map of the region of Macedonia in ancient times. The current map (from some historic atlas) acutualy represents the Roman provincial divisions of Balkan territories, not the situation in pre-Roman times. What's more, it is rather dark and on the whole not very visually appealing Hxseek (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

New maps

Topographical map of Macedonia

Thanks to the excellent tutorials by this guy from fr-wiki, I can now offer some rather fancy new map-making capabilities. So I thought I'd give it a try on all our favourite region. Hope you guys like it. Suggestions for corrections and improvements welcome, as always. (Wasn't quite sure how to prioritise what towns and rivers to include, for instance.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice map. You might wish to consider adding some towns, like Kumanovo, Delčevo and Strumica in the Republic of Macedonia, or Petrich, Bansko and Smolyan in Bulgaria. (By the way 'Titov Veles' is no more, it's 'Veles' again.)

And please use Bulgarian Roman spelling for Bulgarian toponyms, namely Gotse Delchev, Kyustendil, Maritsa, Peshtera, Pazardzhik and Krichim — not 'Goce Delčev', 'Kustendil', 'Marica', 'Peštera', 'Pazardjik' and 'Kričim'. Apcbg (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

regarding the borders

it is stated in the article:

" According to geographer H.R. Wilkinson, "it defies definition". Its current 'geographical' limits are nonhomogeneous - either ethnically or geographically - and they were established only in 1899, by the Greek cartographer C. Nicolaides for political purposes. His map took hold a few years later"

However looking at the figure:

"Borders of Macedonia according to different authors (1843–1927)" which is sourced by the author,

one may easily come to conclusion that the borders "except the green line (anonymous greek author), which should be removed since uncited"

coincinde with minor differences. A city here and there.

Hence, here are the problem.

1. Why should C. Nicolaides be discredited in such a way. Something that is as well unsourced. Anyhow, during those years I suppose all the cartographers from the states of the region had "political and ethnic" views of the region. Something that should be attributed to all of them. Thus, the comment "for political purposes" should be removed.

2. Wilkinson's saying that the borders of macedonia defy definition is also contradicting with the figure. Another, problem is that a larger part of the article should be included there. In that way "defies definition" should be in context.

3. Wilkinson's comment should have a citation that points to (page:paragraph:line) in order to be easily verifiable. Yparjis (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonian Province of Roman Empire - figure

Figure: "Macedonian Province of Roman Empire"

has no citing. Permissions are from a website that is down. Non-authoritative website.

Should be removed. Yparjis (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It can probably be replaced. Let me look into it - I'll see if I can find a suitable replacement from the Commons. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. What do you think of the new map I've added to the "Boundaries and definitions" section? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The National Awakening --

Moved this and the following two threads here from Talk:Macedonia, where they had been posted apparently by mistake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Several movements whose goals were the establishment of autonomous Macedonia, encompassing the entire region of Macedonia, began to arise in the late 1800s" needs citation. is not specific. uses weasel words.

"the earliest of these was the Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees, later transformed to SMORO. In 1905 it was renamed as Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (IMARO)"

since the earliest was at 1896 why don't you just rephrase the first comment to "several movements ... began to arise with the first at 1896"

Now , several, with just one is largely different. Should cite more than one and sources should be outside wikipedia or at least wikipedia+outside sources.

Consider revising and citing appropriately. Other matters may be incorrect in this paragraph and further verification should be given. Yparjis (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Serbia and Yugoslavia --

"Following the two Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913 and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, most of its European held territories were divided between Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia."

should cite the treaty of the serves / london / bucharest and so on.

"most of its European held territories", is inappropriate. Macedonia as a geographic region has always been considered European. Should you say non-ottoman? It is not quite clear. Yparjis (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav Macedonia in World War II --

NO CITATION at all in this paragraph. Should be cited. Yparjis (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing Sourced Info

Stop removing SOURCED info!

MAP MADE FROM THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS (not a POV lol):

File:Mapofgreecerefugeesettlements-1926.JPG

STATISTICS:

The official refugee population per region in 1928 was as follows (number of refugees and percent of the refugee population) - Educational Institute of Greece (in Greek):

Macedonia: 638,253 52.2% (with 270,000 in Thessaloniki alone)

Central Greece and Attica: 306,193 25.1%

Thrace: 107,607 8.8%

North Aegean Islands: 56,613 4.6%

Thessaly: 34,659 2.8%

Crete: 33,900 2.8%

Peloponnese: 28,362 2.3%

Epirus: 8,179 0.7%

Cyclades: 4,782 0.4%

Ionian Islands: 3,301 0.3%

SOURCE: Educational Institute of Greece: Πίνακας 2 Κατανομή των προσφύγων κατά γεωγραφικό διαμέρισμα (1928) ΔΙΑΜΕΡΙΣΜΑ ΑΡΙΘΜΟΣ ΠΟΣΟΣΤΟ Μακεδονία 638253 52.2%

Athenean wrote: Source says *nothing* of the kind and has been falsified, map is solely for pushing the well-known POV

HERE WE HAVE A MAP FROM THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, AND STATISTICS FROM AN OFFICIAL GREEK INSTITUTION.

Polibiush (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The numbers you are giving are correct and well sourced. No problem there. 2. Your deductions have to be more precise and free of bias. If it is your deductions you want to keep, you will be constantly reverted due to obvious personal estimations which can very easily be refuted. If you want to keep the numbers as a reference, then you have to do it in a proper way, for else they will be removed too. 3. For example, in order to arrive to a conclusion as the one you are advocating, many factors have to be considered. First of all, you need an undisputed reference as to the total population of the region before or just after the relocation. Then you have to take into account the possibility of Greek Macedonians living outside Macedonia, since the migration to Athens had already started, tens of thousands (if not more) had already relocated south. More factors will also arise and you have to be able to address them. Anyways, I can ascertain you that this is an almost impossible task to do yourself, so it might be better to try and find multiple clearly neutral, objective and undisputed sources, for the opposition will also do the same.

However, such bold conclusions as the one you are proposing are very difficult to support. It might be better, safer and less problematic to refer to your sources and let others draw their conclusions without suggesting one yourself. That these people were relocated in Macedonia is undisputed (unless or until someone brings on more reliable sources). Add this as information in a place within the article which is appropriate and you have a strong case. Place it in a random or not appropriate place and you again will most certainly be reversed no questions asked.

After that, you should also expect a similar approach from Greek editors putting in similar data and allowing for the same deductions to be made regarding your country. This is another thing to consider, since, Wikipedia is (or was until some days ago) relying on consensus, mutual understanding and goodwill. If your actions are interpreted as a token of ill will, then, regardless the seriousness of your case, similar edits will be made. As long as they too will be well sourced and properly placed, they will have to stand too. So, if you wish to proceed and keep the basics of an appropriate addition to an article, I will support you. If you need any help in finding ways to present your point in a way that will have the higher chances of acceptance, I am also willing to help you. I have again worked with you and I hope you have seen that I try to be as impartial as possible, as long as proper procedures are followed. I am clearly against this coup against Wikipedia's values that is taking place in the last days, but this has nothing to do with you or any other editor who sincerely wishes to improve Wikipedia. Cheers!

GK1973 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Again there is a problem there. I will not delete your image BUT :

1. The map does not correlate with your numbers, so it will be disputed. It is not a Greek map and seems that it is not from the same source. Just see where it places the various settlements and with what density. If you want to use the numbers, you cannot use them with this image. You will surely be reverted unless you change the caption removing numbers not visible on the map.

2. Your placement is inappropriate. It has no place there and should be placed in the appropriate history section of the article.

My advice would be to keep the map, refrain from mentioning any numbers not visible on the map, provide sources for the map and placing it in the proper section. Until you can provide what is needed, you had better delete it yourself to not be dubbed as a POV pusher.

GK1973 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, you are disputing that the refugees were the majority group in Greek Macedonia? If this is the case, then I will further research the population numbers. However, I feel it is extremely relevant mentioning it, and regardless of whether they were the majority, they DID make up a very large portion of the population. In fact, the settlements changed the whole demography of Macedonia. As Greek metropolite of Florina Augustinos Kandiotis said: "if the hundreds of thousands of refugees had not come, Greek Macedonia whould not exist today" (Karakasidou, p. 141). Karakasidou further explains, citing statistics from Mavrogordatos, that Greek Macedonia "became the depository for East Thracian (Thrakiotes), Pontic (Pontyi), and Asia Minor (Mikrasiates) refugees" (pg 145).

I and many others will dispute it. In order to write something like this, you have to provide sources, you cannot just expect from others to agree to what you think/know/have been told or somewhere read. They DID make a large proportion of the population, but this is a historical issue, so you have to mention it there. You will be confronted with many arguments like how many of them were already Macedonians who had migrated to Asia Minor etc. These things are truly difficult to support in a way that will make you happy and so you have to be very careful with your wording. Of course they did alter the demographics of the rgion, in exactly the same manner that the demographics in your country were altered when the Greeks residing there relocated south. Avoid coming to conclusions. For each source you have studied there are 10 more that can be used to refute you. In order to make a sustainable addition, you have to refrain from accusations and obvious anti-Greek statements. Use the numbers you have and present them in a neutral way and not in this way. If you wish to be more aggressive, as it shows until now, you should consider editing the Macedonia naming dispute, where such approaches are tolerated more. GK1973 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So until I gain further population statistics, for the time being, it would be best if I put this into the article:

"It is worth noting that a large portion of the Greek Macedonian population are of Asia Minor (Mikrasiates), Pontic (Pontyi), and East Thracian (Thrakiotes) origin. This is due to the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in the early 20th century where (out of 1,221,849) 638,253 Christian refugees were settled in Greek Macedonia". Polibiush (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See the mentioning of your numbers in the Macedonia(Greece) article. They are used there. You could try a similar format but you should be very careful and unoffensive with your wording. Greek editors could answer by providing sources that hundreds of thousands of Bulgarians used to live in Macedonia and come to similar conclusions. No matter how you will insist that the Turkish authorities should but did not conduct censuses according to ethnicities but according to religious affiliation, you may start a war that has been conducted in the past and made everybody unhappy. You see, what you want to propose has been proposed in the past multiple times. After long edit wars, disputes and confrontations, articles tend to be a compromise and this compromise has already been made. Should you disturb it, the same thing will happen. It sounds peculiar but it works. one addition every time, well sourced and well placed, and things progress. You can say :"Today as a frontier region where several very different cultures meet, Macedonia has an extremely diverse demographic profile. Greek Macedonians or "Makedones" (also known as Macedonian Greeks or simply Macedonians), numbering approximately 2,500,000, form the majority of the region's population (~51%) and live almost entirely in Greek Macedonia. In the recent past and especially after the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924, Greek populations of non Macedonian origin comprise a significant part of Macedonia's Greek population (here recite your sources as references. They will not appear in the text, disturbing its purpose and sounding aggressive, but will be shown in the references. This is a common procedure to add "offensive" data in a manner that will be difficult to dispute). GK1973 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean that "The map does not correlate with your numbers" , "It is not a Greek map" ? The map is just a visual presentation representing the location of the settlements. It is from a different, but legitimate source, why does it have to be a Greek map? Polibiush (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The map is not a visual representation of the said numbers. It is an unnamed and unsourced representation of somebody's numbers. Just look at it. The densities proposed have nothing to do with the numbers given from the acknowledged source. If you have the book, just turn the page and read the legends. As far as anyone is concerned it might be about some other resettlement. You need a full source and the description of the map according to THIS source. See the on the map proposed density of refugee settlements on Crete. Then look at central Greece. There are obvious problems, which show that this map probably (that is all a dispute needs) has not been compiled with the use of the said numbers. This is why you have to fully know what this map depicts and be able to source it correctly. It does not of course have to be a Greek map. Yet the data were of a Greek source, so it is obvious that the map may not comply to these numbers. GK1973 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And btw, NEVER post your edits before a conclusion in the discussion is made or has failed to be made. It is considered improper and can also be used as an argument against your "good will". GK1973 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are over reacting about "disturbing the article and causing edit wars". What I posted is not offensive. Look at the part mentioning ethnic Macedonians: Ethnic Macedonians or "Makedonci" (also known as Macedonian Slavs) are the second largest ethnic group in the region. They are primarily of Slavic origin forming the majority of the population in the Republic of Macedonia. You see, right after it is mentioned, Greek editors have made sure that the "origin" of these people are mentioned. Yet they make no mention of the origin of the Greek Macedonians, despite the fact that the Greek Macedonians have one of the most culturally diverse origins in the region. It is only fair to include their origin as well. I am not offending anyone by doing this, in fact I am using Greek terms and Greek statistics from Greek sources.

Anything can be "offensive". There is no absolute truth and even this has many sides. If other people do not like your "truth" they will challenge it. This is what I mean by "offensive". Then, you will find it difficult to present your side, unless you are extra careful. Sometimes allowances have to be made to make information people find "offensive" accepted by the "enemy"/challengers/fellow wikipedians etc. Using Greek or whatever sources does not mean that you won't be challenged. Please understand, that I did not dispute you. I just try to show you how you can add information and achieve its acceptance. You have already been reverted a number of times and you will be even more. From your style of writing it seems that you want to "challenge" the Greeks and this is a sure way of getting undone. Even your name will be found "offensive" by them. However bad hostility is, you, as a nation, are in no good terms with the Greeks and your choice of nick (this of an ancient Greek historian-politician) can also be perceived as provocative. Yes, I know it is your right etc, etc, etc. You might be a sincere admirer of Polybius, but a Greek calling himself "Goce Delcev" or "FYROMios" will also attract unwanted attention. As for the "primarily Slavic origin", it is not the same with "many are x Slavs and others are y Slavs". You are trying to get into much more detail. BTW see my link where the same numbers you provide are being mentioned. GK1973 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the map, there is nothing wrong with it, you are just reading it incorrectly, because each dot does not represent a certain size of the settlement, it just represents the location. For example, one dot can represent 100 people (rural settlement), another dot can represent 100,000 people (as in the city). The map clearly says "refugee settlement", NOT size or numbers. It makes sense for Macedonia region to be more dense, because 90% of the "rural" settlements of refugees were in Macedonia and Thrace (Karakasidou, pg 145). So most of the dots in Macedonia are representing a very small number of people, while the few dots in Athens region are representing 100,000s of people. So please, try and understand the map has nothing to do with numbers or the size of the settlement, its just showing the locations of each settlement. Polibiush (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the map for sure. I just said you have to provide a map based on the same numbers, because people will claim that something MAY be wrong with your map and they will be able to produce a good case. If you can provide that the map you showed is based on the same numbers there is no problem by me. But you cannot present numbers from a Greek source, a map from another source with no legends or text to explain what it depicts and to expect acceptance. For example the map does not state what refugee camps it is talking about, what decade it is supposed to depict etc. You have to provide sources properly. Provide the page of the book where this map is explained/analyzed etc. You know that your edits will be challenged, so you have to provide careful justification for them. It is not enough for you to know the details... you have to let other people know too... GK1973 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You say the map is unnamed and unsourced. You can find the same version of the map in "Crossing the Aegean: The Consequences of the 1923 Greek-Turkish Population Exchange" by Renee Hirschon, 2003, page 181. Also it is in "The Balkan Exchange of Minorities" by D. Pentzopoulos, 1962, pg. 106. Polibiush (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You will provide the sources, not me. Just provide the legends also. If you provide the sources then it won't be unsourced! Again, I am not disputing you here, I am trying to help you make a point without always being undone. It is very easy to find reasons to dispute most things, yet articles are being written and improved, even when they are so hotly contested. GK1973 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

to Hexseek

Hi! I do not refuse your edits I blanked. Some are really worth mentioning. Do propose here your thoughts to tweak the wording to avoid any misunderstanding. Thx GK1973 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted (by me) text to discuss

Although 'traditional' scholarship attributes these changes to the mass migrations of Slavic 'invaders' and weakened Imperial defenses, the story may have been more complex. Scholars today are more inclined to envisage the changes as part of a generalised dissipation of Roman identity which commenced in the third century, especially amongst rural provincials who were crippled by harsh taxation and famines. Given this background, penetrations carried by a relatively smaller numbers of Slavic warriors and their families were capable of assimilating large numbers of indegenes into their cultural model, which was seen as a more attractive alternative . In this way, most of Macedonia came to be controlled by Slavic-speaking communities. Despite numerous attacks on Thessaloniki, the city held out, and Byzantine-Roman culture continued to flourish, although Slavic was said to have been spoken fluently by the city's inhabitants.

I bolded what I mainly want to discuss. The first part about scholars today is very debatable and you will have to come up with proof that it is the "more" advocated position of modern scholars. In my opinion it is a theory of a certain scholarly group but certainly not the "new rage". Then this part about how a handful of warriors and their families could turn the local population is also strange. It is one thing for a Slav controlled region to turn because of the "laconism" of their ways and another to claim that this was achieved by some roaming small bands of immigrants. It is true that at a time much, even most of Macedonia was controlled by Slavs but this needs dates. I hope you see I am not negative to these additions as long as we word and support them better. GK1973 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What some Slavic historiography lately considers as Macedonia (especially within FYROM) is relatively recent. In European maps on the 16-18th centuries, Macedonia is shown mainly within Greece and in reference to maps of Greece. The word Macedonia was normally written over the area of Mt Olympus. Skopjie (Uskub) was generally outside this Macedonia (Ortelius, Mercator, Guillaune de Lisle, etc). Moreover, there are no reliable sources about the populations of this or any other Macedonia prior to the Turkish censuses of the early 20th century. League of Nations records estimate that in 1912 no more than about 14% of the inhabitants of the current Greek administrative district of Macedonia were Slavs, so this theory that most of Macedonia was overrun by Slavs is not impartial. It is probably true of the current region occupied by FYROM, which was not a part of Macedonia in its entirety in some older European maps. http://www.vintage-map.com/en/Maps/Europe/Greece/Ortelius-Greece-Peloponnese-Aegean-Crete-Aisa-Minor::520.html http://www.sanderusmaps.com/antique-maps/europe/greece_15357.cfm http://www.lunacommons.org/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~31236~1150265:Carte-de-la-Grece-?qvq=w4s:/who/Lisle,+Guillaume+de,+1675-1726/where/Greece/;lc:AMICO~1~1,BardBar~1~1,CORNELL~3~1,ESTATE~2~1,FBC~100~1,HOOVER~1~1,JCB~1~1,LTUHSS~20~20,MOAC~100~1,PRATTPRT~11~11,RUMSEY~8~1,RUMSEY~9~1&mi=6&trs=15 Skamnelis (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet here we are talking about Macedonia (region) and not about Macedonia (Greece). The Slavic element was indeed strong in these parts, as was in other regions of the Byzantine Empire, and this should be indeed shown, in a scholarly acceptable way. GK1973 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question GK, and I shall answer it. I will not direct any responce to Skamnelis becuase I don;t know what he is getting at, and I think he is missing the point of the discussion.

The issues of ethnicity, migration, group identity esp during Late Antiquity/ migration period has been a particular field of interest for me. I have considerably revised articles on the Migration Age and about so-called 'archaeological cultures' such as the Przeworsk and Chernyakhov culture. The basic tenet is that the idea of 'mass migrations' of ethnically homogeneous units, or "tribes", has been questioned. In the 19th and early 20th century, this is how changes in culture and language were often explained, eg the Kurgan hypothesis, the Dorian "invasions", the migration of the Makedones from Olympus to Emanthia, the "Slavic migrations", the Anglo-Saxon invasions of sub-Roman Britain, etc, etc. These older theories were based on (as modernists argue) a literal interpretation of sources (Jordannes, Herodotus, all our favourites), as well as a primordialistic view of ethnicity and Kossinian archaeological methodology (which beleived that certain artefacts carry an ethnic ascription, and therfore their spread equates with the expansion of a people).

From what i have read, a host of scholars interested about group identity, migration, anthropology, etc have deemed this to be simplistic. Rather, changes in culture and language could be the result of internal developments, albeit catalyzed by external influences. These external influences have been proposed to be in the form of a movement of certain sub-groups. Most European groups were sedentary. Only small factions migrated, or invaded- usually young men forming 'warrior groups' +/- their families. Specifically in Late Antuiquity Europe, the collapse of Roman economic and military power led to a decline in the prestige of being a "Roman". Consequently, many inhabitants of former Roman provinces looked away from Rome, or Constantinople, and joined with the 'barbarian' bands that had begun moving into the provinces increasingly from the 3rd century.

Now, I can't quantify how many authors support this notion as opposed to the simple "mass migration into depopulated areas" hypothesis. But I quote that Walter Pohl, Thomas Noble, Johana Nichols, Patrick Geary, Herwig Wolfram (all notable medievalists) subscribe to this idea. Florin Curta specifically applied this idea to the Slavic case. Of authors writing in the last two decades, only Peter Heather still supposes that the migrations were actually a fairly large scale movement of 'peoples' and not mere small warrior bands, although even he recognises that this involved considerable internal evoluation and change. I present what the weight of authors currently agree on. Yes, more general books might speak of mass migrations, but they do not go into deep analysis of the issue.

This may all be a little off topic as far as the history of Macedonia is concerned spcifically, but I merely wanted to bring the medieval secition up to speed with currnet scholarship, in that the demographic changes in Macedonia during the 6th to 8th century were not simply due to a flood of Slavs from across the border, but the result of widespread changes within the Empire and across its borders, changes which inevitably involved Macedonia. Hxseek (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK! Then without any mentioning how notable any of these theories are (since you cannot determine this fact), you can just add your hypothesis as "another theory" and add bibliography. In this way, there will not be undue weight on it and your point will be given. You know that I happen to disagree with this school of thought (previous discussions), yet I don't see any problem with them being mentioned as a new alternative hypothesis (just don't make it sound as very widely accepted yet or as "complex and innovative" compared to the older "simplistic" one). Still most historians describing migrations do describe them at mass scale, as do all primary sources and there will be years until this school gains acceptance as the established theory, if it keeps its momentum. Go on, propose a text along these lines and I will get through it and tell you my opinion. GK1973 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree, then you should offer rebuttle with sources who distinctly disagree with this. I think you will find it hard to provide any such scholars who deal exclusively with ethnicity and migration (who are not merely giving a general overview of the topic), excluding those that wrote pre-1970s, who disagree with it. And the testimony of ancient sources hardly constitutes undisputable rebuttle, given that no scholar perceives them to be entirey historically accurate. Given that such theories are widespread in today's literature I think it is fair to say that, if not predominanant, then they are certainly already established theories. You might not be aware of it because Wikipedia articles on ethnic groups read like primary school essays regurgitating government-controlled teachings, and consequetly lag decades behind current scholarship. My deeming these 'newer' theories to be more 'complex' represents what the scholars themselves write. I do not present them to be gospel, in fact I present the both views in articles. Hxseek (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

: hxseek how do these theories explain away the linguistic slavicization of the whole balkans except parts of greece (and european turkey) and albania and the existence of many slavic toponyms even in those non-slavicized regions?! a massive migration of 'slavs' or 'slav speakers' if you prefer must have occured even if there were archaeological continuity since the slavs are almost archaeologically invisible anyway, and much of the pre-slavic population of course survived, and even if the hyperbole of contemporary chroniclers is discounted(its also funny that the slavs and the greeks happen to be on the opposite sides in this section than is usual on this matter lol!)87.202.44.4 (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hexseek, I don't have to only provide opinions of scholars who exclusively deal with ethnicity and migration. You know that it will be extremely easy to quote a hundred of historians and other scholars to dispute your theory. This is not my point. The point is that you seem all too eager to present this theory as the "novel, new, complex" theory of the 21st century, which is much better suited to explain the ethnogenesis of the Balkan people than any other "conservative, old-fashioned and simplistic" older theory. You are not just presenting your views but at the same time attack the established theories in a personal, unscholarly way. Every academian who introduces a new theory and every school of academians who does that of course will attack older (I could say here established) theories. As long as those older theories are still the most popular you cannot just degrade them with such wording. So, form a presentation which will not degrade the current academic consensus regarding how much of the Balkans were slavicized and we are OK. By the way, I want to see how the historians you mentioned advocate this position. Could you point me to their texts where they seem to present this idea of migrations? For example, I am reading one of Wohl's works right now and I find many examples of mass migrations in his text (I have not read the whole book yet, but I am inclined to think that he might see your theory as a possibility instead of a certainty, as you describe it). The same applies to more of the scholars you refer to. So, could you give me a name of this theory (if there is any) and the references as to their support to it?GK1973 (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I had not intended to engage in a wholesale debate regarding the nature of ethnic groups and migration given that it is rather off-topic as far as this page is concerned. I can see that maybe one might interpret that I endorse the 'anti-migrationist' stance, which I actually do not. Rather it is something which requires inclusion to improve many articles which speak of groups shifting en masse from place A to B. This is simply not how migration worked. Only certain sectors of a population migrated, whether it was youg men looking for conquest or booty, or due to internal strife. The idea that an entire nation packed up its things and moved several thousand kilometers way is false. The way I present different theories about migration follows the chronology of scholarly thought. I present the older , or 'traditional' theories first, then the more recent. I don't mean to say that the newer theories are miraculous and ground-breaking. But, by and large, they have received a lot of attention in more recent works. I can provide direct quotes for you, if you insist. As for what the anonymous person said above, I agree it is usually Greek scholars who try to minimize the extent of Slavic invasions into Greece, no doubt to maintain the idea of cultural continuity. No one can deny that politics influences even the most respectabe academians.

Here are a few. I could be here all day

Over the course of the 20th century, scholars realized that the barbarian tribes were in fact confederations that formed, unformed and reformed many times in different circumstances. The Romans perceived these tribes as distinct peoples but their perception was inaccurate. ...Long coherent histories have been assigned to, or claimed by, people who were imagined to be, more or less coherent biological entities. Such theories are highly revealing about the people who articulate them but rarely much value in understanding the past. p 29 . From Roman Provinces to Medieval kingdoms. Thomas X Noble

This has nothing to do with whether there were huge, big or small number of migrants/invaders etc. How "Westerners" perceived barbarian tribes is irrelevant to whether they indeed migrated or talked other people into adopting their culture. GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A closely related set of questions turns around the matter of whether material remains can be made to yield information about the movement of peoples. Right away the issue is complicated by the fact that "tribes' are seen to be rather changeable groups. Coherent migrations are thus hard to talk about. Then too, people can borrow or exchange material goods from different sources at different times. pg 31

This can serve as an argument as to why we should be critical as to whether an archaeological find can be attributed to a local population or not. Of course we cannot always. We have found Mycenean artifacts in Germany and Viking artifacts in Greece... GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The first shift removed removed migrations from intellectual agenda for a while by demonstrating that there was no need to explain culture changes exclusively in terms of migrations and population replacement, but focus on autochthonous development. Noble goes on to say that this is particularly prominent in Anglophone circles, but is not an univerally acccpeted explanation. Eg German scholars still talk of 'migrations'. Pg 263-4.

Again, I do not advocate that culture changes is exclusively explained in terms of migration and population exchange... the spread of Hellenism in the Classical and Hellenistic times is a direct proof that this is not a prerequisite... again nothing on the issue at hand GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So we need not invoke huge numbers of barbarian migrants to explain even dramatic culture change. We must consider the weakness of the indigenous culture as well as the strength of the incoming one. Pg 55. Guy Halsall in Volume II New Cambridge Medieval History. The barbarian Invasions"

Agreed.. we don't always need them. Again not dismissive that we cannot exclude them as lies and exaggerations of an illustrious fantasy... GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The invasions, as currently presented, are an awesome spectacle...observing a migration of peoples. Rather those involved were a mere handful of peoples, each groups numbering at the most in the the low tens of thousands, and many of them - not all- were accomodated within the Roman provinces without dispossessing or overturning indegenous society. Pg 236 . From Roman Provinces to medieval Kingdoms. Walter Goffart . Pg 236.

...a mere handful of people numbering at most in the low tens of thousands... So.. 20-40.000 people do not qualify as a mass migration.. First to challenge an argument you have to define some terms. Where does a mass migation begin? at 1K? 10K? 50K? 100K? 1mil? What about waves of migratory bands? Your arguments are mostly implying bands of 20-50 warriors, which surely have nothing to do with 5.000 warriors and their families descending into a valley as Goffart describes. And of course, as far as displacement is concerned, here the writer is of course writing on the specific age in a specific geographical area, where whole peoples asked for right of passage to leave Central Europe (just look at the history of the Vandals and how they even descended en mass to Africa!).GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Weale, in his "Y-chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass migration" (2003) summarises the different types of thinking well:

The use of migration as an explanation for cultural transitions has varied greatly over the past 100 years and remains controversial. Before the 1960s, archaeological evidence for cultural change (such as changes in pottery type) was often interpreted as prima facie evidence for substantial immigration. The processual school or New Archaeology that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s rejected this view, arguing firstly that the adoption of new cultures could occur through trade or by the influx of a small ruling elite with minimal or no impact on the gene pool (the "elite dominance" model of Renfrew [1987]) and secondly that if no positive evidence for migration could be found then explanations based on non–migrational internal forces were more parsimonious and therefore preferable. More recently, this antimigrationist stance has been questioned and migrational models reconsidered'.

Again no dismissal, apart from a proposal that things can happen in another way if no positive evidence for migration can be found (who argues with a possibility?). And I am troubled by the last sentence you provide "More recently, this antimigrationist stance has been questioned and migrational models reconsidered". Is this an extract from a book? Is this Weale's opinion? I also think that antimigrational models are not popular in most cases and certainly cannot replace migrational models in many circumstances. GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically for the Slavs.

With small, individually organized social units, Slavs did not simply arrive as tax-collecting armies but as farmers who sorked the lands they conquered. For conquer they did. Their spread was slow but violent, followed by the absorption of indegenous populations into their linguistic and social structures. Gradually across the 7th century, Slavic warrior-settlers moved across the Danube and into the Balkans. The chronology is unclear and necessarily so: The process was so decentralized and fluid that it could hardly be dated or documented. Individual reversals at the hands of the Byzantine counteroffensives could not stop such widespread success.. Pg 145-6. Myth of Nations. Patrick Geary.

Yes? They conquered violently and absorbed the populations and...why did you include this here? To show that Slavs did indeed gradually conquer parts the Balkans? Who said otherwise? Mass migrational models do NOT exclude warrior bands or little tribes from the picture. It is you who try to completely exclude mass movements but this is impossible when we are talking about armies numbering in tens of thousands. GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the Slavic model proved an attractive alternative ..which proved practically indestructible. Slav traditions, language, and culture shaped, or at least influenced, innumerable local and regional communities: a surprising similarity that developed without any central institution to promote it. These regional ethnogeneses inspired by Slavic tradition incorporated considerable remnants of Roman or Germanic population ready enough to give up ethnic identities that had lost their cohesion.” Walter Pohl in Conceptions of Ethnicity in Debating the Middle Ages. Pg 20

Again, you are talking here about assimilation. Who excluded assimilation (even voluntary assimilation) from the picture? So was the case with many other civilizations of the past who were imitated by or exerted certain degrees of influence on other peoples. Again this does not exclude mass migration or invasion. GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All sources highlight that small -scale migration, even new 'cultural contacts', could result in profound changes in society given the right conditions - ie collapse of Roman power. When Rome decline, being Roman simply lost its appeal, and large numbers of Roman turned to being 'Gothic', "Frankish", or 'Slavic" . Hxseek (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hexseek, please. I also do not want to engage in a large scale exchange of arguments here. I have read some of your proposed sources and I found their views quite critical to this and other issues regarding migration (into the Balkans, into England, the Americas etc). Many are assuming (and not asserting) that mass migration is NOT ALWAYS necessary to justify certain changes in culture, yet they are seldom dismissive. What you describe is just what I described in our last conversation as an assimilation process, which can happen as much peacefully as violently. You also (and some of the sources also criticise this in their books) are very vague as to what numbers a "tribe" comprises. "Mass" migration implies (in our imaginative minds) that hundreds of thousands of people move together (as has been in the past, is happening now and will be in the future). Yet, groups of a few thousands are seldom called "mass" (yet most small tribes (usually parts of a larger cultural entity) actually numbered a few tens of thousands of members, not millions) and on the other hand they also surely are not called "bands". Your interest seems to mainly lie in the field of the Barbarian Invasions of the Medieval Years, where "mass" migrations are attested, since migrations of smaller numbers are attested multiple times in antiquity (Greek, Phoenician, Roman colonies to speak of non-barbarian relocations). Yet "mass" migrations have undisputedly happened multiple times even in the recent past (European surge into the Americas (millions), war refugees still today are migrating, changing demographics and cultural character... etc). Another point in your arguments are numbers in each single migratory movement. This is also tricky, because successive migratory waves are as "mass" as a single convoy. Maybe this is the main point of dispute here? 1.000.000 people migrating to a region in 10-50 years is also "mass" and will lead to ethnic and cultural changes may assimilate a "weaker" culture and may be assimilated by a "stronger" one. We could be debating for months with lengthy arguments (as we have already done in the past). I think that what I am proposing is fair and logical. The theory you advocate is NOT replacing (at least yet) the established theories regarding migration (into the Balkans specifically or generally). So, be civil towards established theories and present your ideas in a manner that will NOT devalue them. It is one thing to present a possibility and another to present the theory which is bound to replace the old-fashioned, simplistic views of the past. GK1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You aked for direct quotes, it was not my intention to prolong this discussion. I'm sorry it has confused you- I do not see it to be too cerebrally taxing. If I appear to have given undue weight to essentialist theories, I will re-define the section pertinent to this article Hxseek (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK! No problem... always happy to have a discussion, but this time I am in the middle of something and cannot just answer properly. I can comment on the sources you give and maybe give some myself, but I don't have really the time to go through the relative bibliography and get into unnecessary details (as I should). I think that we can work this out in an easier way. :) GK1973 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the text. How does this sound? I didn't propose something before because I thought you would like to make changes yourself.

Although traditional scholarship attributes these changes to the mass migrations of Slavic invaders and weakened Imperial defenses, the story may have been more complex. It has been proposed that a generalised dissipation of Roman identity commenced in the third century[1], especially amongst rural provincials who were crippled by harsh taxation and famines. Given this background, penetrations carried by successive waves of relatively smaller numbers of Slavic warriors and their families were capable of assimilating large numbers of indegenes into their cultural model, which was sometimes seen as a more attractive alternative [2]. In this way and in the course of time, great parts of Macedonia came to be controlled by Slavic-speaking communities[3][4]. Despite numerous attacks on Thessaloniki, the city held out, and Byzantine-Roman culture continued to flourish, although Slavic cultural influence steadily increased.

GK1973 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good mate Hxseek (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK! I agree to that. Insert it anytime you want. GK1973 (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

@hxseek im the anon from above. i was referring to many scholars interested in such matters, greek or not...lets not forget that some older scholars thought that the tsakonians were actually slavs(!!)...and dont worry, im not accusing you of promoting some theory of ancient macedonian - slavic macedonian continuity. your comments about large scale changes INSIDE the empire and a recent re-examination of the character of the slavic migrations and settlements are actually completely true.. i have an interesting article in mind for example that discusses such matters as regards peloponnesus especially the western part on which the slavic invasions are though to have had their major impact...eg as attested by chronicles and the distribution of slavic toponyms...as opposed to the eastern part...i might try to find it87.202.18.133 (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If you find it . What is a Tsakonian ? Hxseek (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

References

etymology

After reviewing

• the outcome of the discussion here as advised by an adminTalk:Republic of Macedonia/Archive 16#Etymology, "where the region of Macedonia gets its name, mentions of the ancient Macedonians and Indo-European roots and the like, are completely superfluous and can be treated in Macedonia (region) and ancient Macedonians."
• after finding reliable sources about the name Macedonia and that he comes from mak+don, both greek words, such as:

1.hecucenter.ru

2.panmacedonian.info

3.meaning of word "χθών", and its references as also presented here [1],

4. these books also : Emmy Patsi-Garin: Επίτομο λεξικό Ελληνικής Μυθολογίας, εκδ. οίκος «Χάρη Πάτση», Αθήνα 1969, σελ. 705, and Κρουσίου: Λεξικόν Ομηρικόν, διασκευή από την 6η γερμανική έκδ. υπό Ι. Πανταζίδου, έκδοση «Βιβλιεκδοτικά καταστήματα Αναστασίου Δ. Φέξη», Αθήνα 1901,the first written from a foreign lit, the second is a free translation of a german book

4. etymonline.com, where clearly meaning of prefix "mak" isnt an issue, meaning tall, high, implying the suffix "-don" which obviously means earth, to justify the meaning of "higlanders" 5. the explanation given based on sources here [2] as its a common practise community check for sources the article.

In all the above sources, translation and etymology of word Macedonian, is similar to this : ...Macedonia comes from Mak+don which means "the tall ones", or "highlanders." Same etymology has the word Poseidon=posis+don=man of the earth (Ποσειδών=πόσις+δων=άντρας της γης). The ancient prefix for word earth was "gdon" ("γδων"). Some races removed letter d and left "gon,ghn,gan,gaian" ("γων,γην,γαν,γαιαν") - try to translate the word "γην" to an online dictionary see that meaning is "earth" pls-.Some other races removed letter g and left "don,dh,da" (e.g. Dhmhtra=Dhmhthr= mother earth -(from Dh, meaning earth, and mhthr (μήτηρ) meaning mother, try to remember Greek goddess Dhmhtra or Dimitra (because letter "η" becomes "i" or "e" in latin and not "h" in order to sound the same as the Greek word, known now in other races as first name :Dimitrios, Dimitra, Dimitri etc-... ...Finally, some other races made "gdon" to "chton". So, in early athens Poseidon, from man/husband of earth (Posis gdon) became her lover (Erechton) (from Eros = love, and chton = earth). Ερέχθων. There is a full list with -don, or gdon, or -chton. Like autochtone (=native, this who lives in his own land, auto->my own). Like amfikton=we share the same land (amfi- we share together, , and -kton = earth, land). Search for word "χθών". Like "ypochthonios" Υποχθόνιος, meaning "ypo- , under, and chton, - earth, so this word means someone who leaves underground.

its obvious from where the word comes. Its difficult from someone not knowing greek to understand very well, its also difficult from someone that speaks a language that only in FYROM they speak and in some slavik countries, of course not in Greece where most of the Macedonian region belonged from ancient times to accept it, but easily using google translator everyone can make a point. Or else, maybe an admin who knows how to read Greek can write here his points.

So, etymology should be included, not only because a discussion on other article concluded to this, but also because there as some characteristics that point where a race come from. This is border, language spoken, sometimes religion. If we say for example eastern of aegean sea, "turkish" language spoken most from people inside these borders, that are muslims and believe in islam, this characterize turkish people.

If we show Greek borders, if we say Greek language spoken from civilians especially within these borders, if we say orthodox, we understand that we refer to Greek people.

Every country has at least these 2 or three characteristics. If we show USA in the map, if we claim that most people inside these borders speak same language, USA english, then we understand that we are refering to american civilians, so if someone who leaves eastern of atlantic ocean from ancient times, and speaks for example French, tell us that he is american, this is not true!

We are refering to the region of Macedonia here, so etymology of the meaning of this word, (etymology=explanation of root of a word, not what Makedon was in ancient history ,maybe children of Dias/Zeus or an ancient King, which is something different from etymology), should be explained to an encyclopedia. We need etymology, root of a word, not maybe terminology=The study of nomenclature=from where it got the name=maybe from ancienct king, ancient monster etc.Psikxas (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More references added, clearly explaining meaning of -don as earth. An example "The etymology of the word Poseidon is derived from the ancient Greek word όσις (meaning man or husband) and δα which is another appellation for the term earth from which we get the word Poseidon." and "..name Poseidon closely link with the earth;..lord or husband of earth" Psikxas (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

urgent - Original Research in the article (!)

The new included map contains original research since it seems to indicate the location of the island of Atlantis to the southwest of Greece, between Sicily and the Peloponnese. Most researchers however put in either near Thera in the Aegean sea or somewhere in the Atlantic ocean. It's shape is also wrong since Plato describes it as circular. Furthermore according to all texts Atlantis had already disappeared before the appearance of Macedonia by any definition; therefore the inclusion of Atlantis in the map is not justified. I didn't correct the map myself since I am not so experienced in crypto-archeology :)

How this blatant original research went unnoticed by several experienced editors I can only ascribe that to inattentional blindness caused by the superhuman skills of that skilled Atlantean POV-pusher map-maker :D Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from the map, so that the secret of Atlantis remains hidden. Long live the Epsilon Team! Constantine ✍ 11:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does someone care to edit or remove this??

"Its oldest known setlements dating back aproximately 9,000 (years? from when?) and becoming the center of much power in Classical Greece, Macedonia has had long and diverse history."

What a confusing sentence .. can anyone clean this up and cite sources?

12.238.246.6 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) CY

I don;t know who wrote it, but at some point I hope to write a little about Palaeolithic and Neolithic macedonia Hxseek (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

People, this article is about the REGION not the kingdom!!

I see that many editors insert information only regarding the Macedonian kingdom. The result is that the article in many aspects regarding its antique history is misleading the reader to believe that it is the same thing as the ancient kingdom. Please, do not go this way. GK1973 (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not objective text!!!!

The part of the text talks about boundaries, but it not defines recent bounderies of the region, it not explain principles of bounderies defining. The part of Serbia (Pčinja area and Gora at Kosovo) are mentioned as parts of Macedonian region but it was never inside Macedonia, not politically, nor geographically. Geographically, Gora is at the northern slope of Šar-planina whose mountain ridge separates southern (Macedonian) slope from northern (Serbian) slope. Pčinja is north of Kozjak mountain which is polictical and geographical northern border of Macedonia toward Serbia. Only Pčinja River is common and it runs through the mountain gorge. Politically, this is exactly the plan of recent ultra radical and radical nationalistic parties from FYR of Macedonia. Only at one historical moment, some 10 years before World War 2 in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was made the reform of administrative system. Yugoslavia was shared on "banovinas" which were made by some princips: minimal and maximal number of citizens, common river valleys i.e. basins for different areas (banovinas were named generally after main rivers), etc. Boundaries of banovinas were unlogical from any other aspect. Some banovinas include absolutely different areas: Zetian included recent Montenegro, parts of recent Bosnia - Herzegovina and Serbia, Drinian included parts of Bosnia and Serbia, Danubian included half of recent Serbia with whole Vojvodina region (without Belgrade with some kind of autonomous capitol), Vardarian (Axios) included whole recent FYR of Macedonia and the part of southern Serbia. This quazi-evidence Slavic Macedonians use as main argument to feed own nationalism and chovinism pulling for foreign territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.255.232 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fake map

I clicked on a map in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantine_Macedonia_1045CE.svg It said "A FAKE map showing the Byzantine themata (administrative units) of the Byzantine Empire in 1045 CE, focusing on central Balkans around the region of Macedonia. The Macedonian thema is in what today is part of present-day Bulgaria, while the Bulgarian thema includes what today is the Republic of Macedonia." Why did you include it with a misleading caption in the article? This article is a mess... Simanos (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See Macedonia (theme) for an answer and references.  Andreas  ^(T) 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word FAKE previously introduced by an anonymous user[3]  Andreas  ^(T) 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians...

Dearly wishing to avoid the controversy, I must however point out that this edit " descendants of the Greeks who lived in the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedonia and are also" is not sourced and actually makes the whole sentence rather clumsy. Soccershoes has inserted and already reverted this tidbit once. I would hope that they can take the time to explain why it should be in the article without sourcing.

And I would hope that my name is not taken some indication of partisanship. It is inherited from my kid in the heyday of his basement dwelling gamer phase. It is not an indication of Slavic patriotism. Thanks. Gingervlad (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Map

I have placed a new map which includes all groups postulated by Georgiev over the extent of the wider Macedonian region, not solely concentrating on a single group Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a number of issues look very weird on this map:

• Georgiev describes that Proto-Greek and Proto-Macedonian regions do not coincide chronologically, there is a ca. 1 millenium time gap (3rd vs 2nd mil. BC), it would be good to address that both areas/languages were part of the same idiom until the end 3rd milennium BC.
• Georgiev prefers the term "Pre-Greek" instead of "Pelasgian".Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they split roulgy end of 3rd Mill - as you said The Proto-Macedonian and Proto-Greek languages formed a common Indo-European subgroup until the end of the 3rd millennium BC

Georgiev doesn't "prefer" either Pelasgian or pre-GReek. Did you ask him personally ? He calls pre-GReek Pelasgian in his Intro and in the Ed. Crossland book. Since the Pelasgoi were the pre-Hellenic populationof the Aegean.., one may term this stratum Pelasgian. So I don;t think you can speak for what you think Georgiev prefers, which doesn;t really matter as its away from real focus on Macedonia, anyway. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the map is a direct copy from Georgiev's own Map 2 in intro Book. That is how he separated the langauge groups and how he labelled them (unlike your 'creative interpretation' map). So there's very little to discuss.

I don't see why we can't include both maps, since one is for the 3rd millennium and one for the 2nd. Athenean (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

theoretically, I don't have an absolute objection to that. However, couple of issues. If we were to include Alexi's map, it'd need to mbe modified to also include Phyrygian in northern Macedonia and Thracian in east, cause the focus is Macedonia, and not proto-Greek . This brings the added problem of interpretation, and potential conflicting interpretation -ie my map is a copy of a published, verifiable map, and not a construct. Lastly, do we really need two language maps from basically the same period on a general history article ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Sv avoid this childish behavior by creating several povish maps and claiming that they belong to a specific author. By the way, there was no Proto-Greek region in the turn of 2nd M BC, per Georgiev (they reached s. Greece that time "The Greeks conquered the central and southern part of Greece at the latest during the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC and probably even earlier). Also what you label Pelasgian, Georgiev labels it pre-Greek in all of his works: [[4]][[5]][[6]].Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

you´re just trolliong now. its a true copy of georgiev´s map. If you actually have ever read the books you ´´claim´´ to quote, then you´d see its a copy of his map 2 in his ´´intro´´ book. pelasgian was pre-greek as in ´´non-greek´´, and you just sometimes ignore entire chapters of his, thus draw false conclusions. Your agenda seems to focus on labelling nearly everying in the balkans to be labelled ´greek´ this or other. i´m done discussing with you what is otherwise a closed matter, you´re clearly being stubborn and chauvanistic undeservedly, especially that I have merited ´´your´´ other maps . i´ll seek admin arbitration against you if required here (sv)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

Hello, I would like to add a footnote to an article on Macedonia (region). In place of ====World War I==== where the article mentions Comintern I would like to add a footnote. I am the authot of a book "The Greek Communist Party and the Macedonian national problem 1918-1940. I added a few footnotes today. I am asking you kindly to let me to do it in this article. Thank you in advance! Ireneusz A. Ślupkov, M.A.

Ireneusz A. Ślupkov (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Until you are autoconfirmed, you won't be able to edit semi-protected pages. In the meantime, if you provide the exact changes you want to make, another editor can make the edits for you. If you want to do that, leave the information here and reopen this request by changing |answered= back to "no" in the {{edit semi-protected}} template at the top of this section. — Bility (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Gligorov ad 100,000 Greeks

The reference given in the last edit by Eismakedon[7] is not reliable: it is a blog entry where there is a clip, and the image of a page that cannot be read. The word "Greek" does not even appeare in the clip.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: call for evidence since October 2009

Regarding the boundaries of the Diocese of Macedonia, the article seems to have a 'citation needed' since October 2009. It currently reads, "In late Roman times, the provincial boundaries were reorganized to form the Diocese of Macedonia, consisting of most of modern mainland Greece right across the Aegean to include Crete, southern Albania, and parts of modern-day Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia.[citation needed]". I think the information is correct but I could not find evidence, so this just a reminder to fellow editors if they can help. Politis (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge articles on Aegean Macedonia and Vardar Macedonia into sections on this article

Due to POV issues such as POV fork occuring with the articles Aegean Macedonia and Vardar Macedonia, I suggest that the two articles be merged into the article and put in appropriate sections on the article.--R-41 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Order of countries in template

There is a natural order to listing countries within a multi-country "region". If the region shares a name with one of the countries, it should come first under most circumstances, especially if that country's land mass is entirely within the boundaries of the region. For example, the region of Mongolia is larger than the country and the entire territory of the country of Mongolia is within the region of Mongolia, so Mongolia should come before China and Russia. Following that, the other countries would normally be ordered in terms of relative amount of the region that falls within their territory since none of the other countries will normally entirely fall within the region. Thus, "Mongolia, China, Russia", for example. (As matter of note, there is no article "Mongolia (region)", but it still serves as a good example of how to naturally order countries within a template.) In this case, Macedonia shares the name of the region and its entire land mass falls within the borders of the region of Macedonia. Thus, the natural ordering of this list should be "Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia". Pushing Greece to the top of the list, despite the fact that the region of Macedonia does not include all of Greece, does not include the capital city, and does not include a majority of its territory looks like pushing a Greek anti-Macedonian agenda. Although I assume good faith on the part of the editor who reordered the country names, it is not a good idea since it gives the impression that Wikipedia places Greek politics over a neutral point of view. --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there good reason not to sort them, say, by area or alphabetically instead? I mean, this sounds fairly arbitrary to me. Order in the infobox's title is en-el-mk-bg-sq (and no Serbian) and alphabetically under 'Languages'. Under 'Currencies' the euro is first. — Lfdder (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Two problems. With an alphabetic sort, Albania would be at the top of the list and Macedonia second from last. This is simply unnatural since the area is called "Macedonia" and since Albania has the smallest area involved. With an areal sort, Greece comes on top with Macedonia second. This also appears unnatural since the area is called "Macedonia" and since the political problems between Greece and Macedonia are so severe. Putting Greece on top leads to three problems of naturalness: 1) Macedonians living within the bounds of Greek Macedonia are actually a minority of the population; 2) Greek Macedonia is bounded by politically drawn boundaries, not ethnically or linguistically drawn boundaries, and the political boundaries of Greek Macedonia extend far beyond the historic, ethnic, or linguistic boundaries of "Macedonia"; 3) Macedonia is 100% within the boundaries of the region of Macedonia and putting Greece on top, where "Macedonia" only includes a fraction of its territory, overemphasizes Greece to the exclusion of Macedonia. It's simply more natural to place Macedonia on top, Greece second, and then the others in order of amount of area. It is a perfectly natural ordering to place those countries 100% within a region before those countries that are only partially within a region. --Taivo (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a look, for example, at Himalayas. Note how strange the alphabetic list looks with Afghanistan at the top. Of all the countries on the list, Afghanistan is least associated with the Himalayas, having only a tiny finger of its territory extending to the Karakorum region. Nepal, the quintessential Himalayan country, is second from the end. Strange and unnatural. Now take a look at Alps. That list seems to have no order whatsoever that I can fathom. How Slovenia is at the top of the list and not either Switzerland or Austria is a mystery. Now take a look at Borneo. The majority of the island is part of Indonesia, but it is a minority of Indonesia's land mass, so Brunei, which is entirely on the island of Borneo, comes first, with Indonesia and Malaysia ordered in terms of area following Brunei. This is a natural ordering. --Taivo (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrt 1), Greek Macedonians also identify as "Macedonians" (but I'm not sure how it's relevant). I'm not sure I understand your second point either; the whole of Macedonia is "politically bounded"--as far as I can tell. Either way, I'm not arguing in favour of putting Greece on top. I just think that we ought to have a fairly simple line of reasoning, really, e.g. in order of % area in region as part of total area of country (which I think is in line with what you've been saying). — Lfdder (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your % of country within region measure might be a very sensible solution. Under that measurement, the ordering would be Macedonia, Greece, followed by Bulgaria, Kosovo, Albania, and Serbia in some order. --Taivo (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument Taiko. Since there is an ongoing UN led negotiation on the name of the Republic of Macedonia, (the term Macedonia used in wikipedia for the state, is not even the constitutional name of the country, it is a political agenda, but anyway this is another story), then putting Macedonia first on the list is certainly pushing political agenda of ROM against all other states in the Macedonia region who oppose giving the default use of the term to any state as it feeds irredentist views of the United Macedonia movement. We shall respect neutrality and all Macedonians living in the region, either Slav Macedonians 1.3million people, or Greek Macedonians 2.5 million people or Bulgarian Macedonians. I think that we shall follow either an alphabetical order or order according to size (least preferable) (Stevepeterson (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC))

Since your comment Stevepeterson is completely politically motivated, then it is irrelevant here. Wikipedia is not bound by UN disagreements or Greek objections to Macedonia's name or existence. Lfdder has the best proposal, that the order of names is based on the percentage of the country within the region. That ordering makes the most sense in many respects and is a natural ordering. Alphabetical ordering is stupid and unnatural since it will put Albania first and Macedonia second to last. Lfdder's suggestion is far superior to your political POV pushing. --Taivo (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit: delete "However for reasons that are still unclear"

Under the paragraph 'Boundaries and definitions' we read, "However for reasons that are still unclear, over the next eleven centuries Macedonia's location was changed significantly". But, the text that follows and in other Wikipedia articles related to Macedonia we have sufficient explanations as to why the location was changed significantly. I therefore suggest that we delete the rather POV words "However for reasons that are still unclear", and simply keep "Over the next eleven centuries Macedonia's location was changed significantly". Politis (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK! Jingiby (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete Georgiev map

The linguistic map "Macedonia at end of 3rd millennium BC, according to Georgiev" is based on 40 year old date that have not been corroborated since then. There is, as far as I can tell, no evidence to justify a linguistic map of the region 5,000 years ago. Therefore, the map should be deleted from this article. Politis (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)