Jump to content

Talk:Demographic history of Macedonia

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

When was this whole region named Macedonia?

[edit]

This article claims that there was a region of Macedonia that was divided into different states. This is pure ignorance. First of all, the Ottomans did not have an administrative region named Macedonia. Moreover, the treaty of Bucharest does not mention the name Macedonia anywhere. Also, the FYR Macedonia (or Republic of Macedonia if you like) bore the name Vardarska Banovina until the 40s in the 20th century. If we are to refer to ancient times the fact that Philip II conquered Paeonia (modern day Republic of Macedonia) does not mean that Paeonia was named Macedonia. Alexander reached to India, why don't you include the whole world map as region of Macedonia then? During Roman era Macedonia included parts of central Greece as well. Why don't you include the region of Thessaly in Macedonia as well? Historically, the region of Macedonia was about what the Greek Macedonia is today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geotol (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate article called Region of Macedonia. Check it, please. Yet the first sentence states: "Macedonia is a geographical and historical region of the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. Its boundaries have changed considerably over time; however, it came to be defined as the modern geographical region by the mid 19th century." The region is not related historically only with Alexander etc. The Roman province of Macedonia consisted of what is today Northern and Central Greece, much of the geographical area of the present-day Republic of Macedonia and southeast Albania. More, in the Byzantine Empire, a province under the name of Macedonia was placed in modern Thrace, etc. Please, get acquainted with the issue, before discussing it. Jingiby (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I am very much acquainted with the subject that I consider this article misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geotol (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aegean/Greek Macedonia -> 51%

[edit]

Dear Xelet (who art mirroring my name), you are requesting sources for the fact which is one of the few things that are not in dispute. There is a unanimous acceptance from all sources that Aegean/Greek Macedonia is 51% of the geographical region [1] [2]. Of course, I just know that you are reverting for the sake of wikistalking, and you have being doing this to a number of users, I strongly believe that you will earn you a hard ban from all articles, not just Rajput. I hope this has been clear enough, Mr Singh. --Telex 10:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Reunification

[edit]

Macedonia no longer poses a threat to Europe - Alexander has been dead for over 1000 years! Wake up Europe - look at Germany. The occupiers Bulgaria and Greece need to hand back Macedonian soil so that Macedonia can become complete again. Only then will the country be able to move forward. Until then, Greece and Bulgaria are simply going to have a humanitarian problem on their doorstep that won't go away - and could simply make matters worse (destabilise region).BluePanther (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that, seeing that nobody in Pirin Macedonia considers himself an ethnic Macedonian. I'd expect the same from Hellas. 212.50.65.68 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

95% of Real Macedonia is in Greece

[edit]

The Real Macedonia:

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

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

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

http://crystalinks.com/mapgreeceancient.gif


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

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

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


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

I suggest that in the body of the article, reference to the historian Eugene N Borza & his comments regarding this ethnic group also be added so as to make a clear distinction that a link between the Slav-"Macedonian's" & the ancients Macedonian's does not exist... "Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ”Macedonia” for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation “Macedonia” and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival." "Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999 Some will say I am being biased but I'm not making this up or using it as a lame excuse, I am quoting a very reputable historian of which many other historians also agree with his point, such as Levinson, Brailsford & Coon (to name a few) N.Panamevris (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No you wrong . Most , certainly, but not 95 % . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 July 2007

Error- sclavinas

[edit]

For some reason, this article, and the other macedonian articles wrongly state that the slavic invaders that occupied the macedonian region were 'expelled'. (likely because it is the same author)

This is simply wrong. If the slavs were expelled by the Byszantines, then there would be no Macedonians, Bulgrains and slavophone Greeks today ! Yes, many were expelled, and they were pacifieed, but MOST remained in the area, albeit under Byzantine rule

You cannot just make huge errors like that. It falsifies history

I corrected it Hxseek 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your unsourced opinions have been reverted. Please take the time while you're blocked to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:3RR. Thanks. --Ronz 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval history error

[edit]

I would again like to highlight an error and inconsitenct in the above section.

Pertaining to the slavs " They (the slavs) invaded Macedonia and reached as far south as Thessaly and the Peloponnese, settling in isolated regions that were called by the Byzantines Sclavinias, until they got gradually eliminated by the Byzantine Emperors."

This must be a typing error, becuase it does not make sense. A great number of the sieging slavs were pacified and made to serve in the Byzantine army, but they were certainly not all expelled, as what the above paragraph makes out happened. Not only is this incorrect, but it is self contradictory- as the rest of the paragraph continues to discuss about how the slavs continued to raid with Bulgars, etc

The paragraph should be corrected. Eg the wiki article on history of Macedonia region is more correct:

"In the late 7th century Justinian II organized a massive expeditions against the Sklaviniai of the Greek peninsula, in which he reportedly captured over 110,000 Slavs and transferred them to Cappadocia. By the time of Constans II (who also organized campaigns against the Slavs), the significant number of the Slavs of Macedonia were captured and transferred to central Asia Minor where they were forced to recognize the authority of the Byzantine emperor and serve in its ranks. There are no Byzantine records of "Sklavines" after 836/837 as they were absorbed into the expanding Slavic First Bulgarian Empire. Slavic influence in the region strengthened along with the rise of this state, which incorporated parts of the region to its domain in 837 AD. "

Hxseek 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe viewpoint?

[edit]

" During this period it has been claimed by Macedonian scolars that there exist large and oppressed ethnic Macedonian minorities in the region of Macedonia, located in neighboring states. Because of those claims, irredentist proposals are being made calling for the expansion of the borders of the Republic of Macedonia to encompass the territories allegedly populated with ethnic Macedonians. The population of the neighboring regions is presented as "subdued" to the propaganda of the governments of those neighbouring countries, and in need their incorporation into a United Macedonia."

This article should more explicitly state that the above idea represents the view of a FEW, FRINGE macedonian ultra-nationalists. As it is above, it is as if the whole RoM is actively preparing for invasion ! THis smells of Greek scare-mongering as if to justofy their denial of Macedonian self-sovereignity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 August 2007

Please back your assertions and follow WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK when doing so. Thanks! --Ronz 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to back a claim which denies rediculous accusations Hxseek 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you don't mind being ignored and possibly blocked you don't. --Ronz 04:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, block me. Allow such controversial, blanket, unsourced statements like the one above to be presented as matter of fact, yet you claim I am POV and I need to back my objection to it ! ? Do you even understand what you are saying?

This is unjust, this is not academic. This is not what one would expect from 'scholars'. Shameful Hxseek 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILLOUT --Ronz 15:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK. Do not offend me with your own ignorance, do try to be impartial.

I think there is an overkill with the whole irrednetism claim about Macedonians, in all these articles. While certainly worth mentioning from a historical perspective, some keep refering to it as an excuse of why RoM should not be recognised.

This is just an outdated hangover from 1950s communist era, held onto by some because they lack any real arguements. Hxseek 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic statement about Slavs in Byzantine armies

[edit]

I've removed the following sentence from the section about the arrival of the Slavs:

Many were eliminated by the Byzantine Emperors - as many as 200,000 were made to serve in the Byzantine army in Anatolia.

This seems dubious to me - I don't doubt that Slavs were employed in the Byzantine armies; in fact, according to our existing Sclaveni article they were systematically employed as military settlers too. But the sentence insinuates that this employment was a means to exterminate them? This seems odd, without a source. I've replaced the sentence with something more neutral, for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think up 200, 000 were removed, some of which then served in the army. Hxseek 11:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed re-format

[edit]

The http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Macedonia#Slavic.2C_Bulgar_and_Avar_invasions section, hilst certainly very informative, reads a little laboured. I think it tries too cram too much info about too many things, eg Aromanians, AVaras, Tirks, Slavs. I propose that we break it down into sub sections, whilst keeping the essence of what is said intact Hxseek 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are all insane

[edit]

Sorry but,this article is all but the text for somme encyclopedia.How is possible those shits to be placed in Wikipedia.How you can argue about history and demography of some nation?Did somebody here ask himself about origins or demography of nowadays Greeks or Bulgars.For example Greeeks are totaly artificial nation.In 1821 in Morea(Pelloponesus) 50% of population can't understand modern greek language.About Bulgarian-this term in 19 centurie mean ortodox slavic christian in Balkans.See the census from 1911 in Ottoman empire:in villaet of Kosovo-there is no Serbs but 500.000 Bulgarians.This article is pure shauvinistic propaganda against Macedonian people and I think if wikipedia want to be serious encyclopedia,then articles like this are not needed.This is pure political shauvinistic propaganda against one whole people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.185.179 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the Region, NOT the republic of Macedonia. Where are the stats? Kosovo was not the modern Kosovo . Скопие Skopie (Ottoman/Albanian Ushkub) was the provincial capital of Kosovo vilayet. Maqedan (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAQEDAN; I am very sorry but you are so mis-informed. Greeks and Greek history is written for 1,000's of years unlike the Skopian propaganda which has only been claimed since after WW2. I am a Greek Macedonian and am proud of my origins and history unlike the Slavs from FYROM who seem to be ashamed of their Slavic origins. YOU ARE NOT MACEDONIAN AND HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE ORIGINAL MACEDONIAN PEOPLE WHO WERE A GREEK TRIBE. This is proven by the fact that in the empires of BACTRIA, PTOLEMY IN EGYPT, SELEUCID, etc there is only the GREEK language and writing, not slavic/cyrillic. As a matter of fact, these languages did not even exist at the time. After this under the Romans, the Byzantines and whatever other occupying power at the time, the language used and the people in this area were Greeks. As a matter of fact, the language which you speak today was written for you by two Greek priest Cyril & Mythodius from Thessaloniki. Yes a Greek city from times of antiquity which was first controlled by Olynthos & then by Macedonian Greeks. YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THIS FACT. I understand it is hard to identify with any other nationality because of your academics propaganda over the last 60 years but please do not insult yourself any further and grow a brain. Read as many books from as many independent writers as possible and make your own call rather than being so closed minded. 95% of the historian and writers could not possibly be wrong and all archeological items can not possibly be fabricated. As a matter of fact, i have spoken to other FYROM people who claim a conspiracy that all your ancient artifacts have been destroyed just to stop your claims. What a joke. Hellasforever (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)HELLASFOREVERHellasforever (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE WHOLE WORLD IS INSANE - Germany was reunified after proving it was no longer a threat to Europe. When will the Republic of Macedonia be reunified? Alexander the Great has been dead for over a millenium!!! Macedonia will have been split for 100 years in 2013 - are we still scaring our neighbours?? We no longer pose a threat to Europe, so Greece and Bulgaria hand back what doesn't belong to you.BluePanther (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Slav" changed to "Ethnic"

[edit]

Administrator, I have changed "Slav Macedonian" into "Ethnic Macedonian" since we do not identify as "Slav Macedonian." Mactruth (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator, I am also changing "Slav Macedonian" into "Ethnic Macedonian" since we do not identify as "Slav Macedonian" and due to the fact that it is very insulting. The modern nation-state is based inclusiveness without regard to tribal sentiments of ethnicity. There is a country called Macedonia and the people who live there are Macedonians. Furthermore, since evey country is a collection of different tribes, should the "Slav Macedonian" slur be restored to this page, then I will petition that all slavic country pages have like changes made, e.g. "Slav Polish" , "Slav German", "Slav Russian", "Jewish Russian", "Slav Ukrainian", "Saxon Pole", etc. If this sounds ridiculous to you, then you should understand why the term "Slav Macedonian" is so ridiculous and insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.242.218 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think that in the article there is many times the term "ethnic Macedonian" in some paragraphs.i think that this is in order to convince the users of WP that there IS a ethnic Macedonian group while we want just to inform the users,not to make them believe something that is still under dispute.so,i ask the permission to correct it,or a user to do it.188.4.104.135 (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to readd the European map. The explaination was given is not reliable. Jingby (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it back again. 68.41.129.87 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first macedonian nationalists have appeared in the late 19th and early 20th century outside Macedonia. The early adherents of the macedonism were people inconsistent in his ideas. At different points in his life, most of them expressed conflicting statements about the ethnicity of the Slavs living in Macedonia, including his own nationality. They formed their pro-Macedonian conceptions after contacts with some panslavic circles in Serbia and Russia. The lack of diverse ethnic motivations seems to be confirmed by the fact that, in their works they often used the designations as Bulgaro-Macedonians, Macedonian Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs in order to name their compatriots. Jingby (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German ethnic map of Central Europe from 1932

[edit]

This map can't be of 1933 since it shows Greek population in Asia Minor which expeled in 1923.

1917 Rizoff Atlas

[edit]

I see that at least six of the maps appearing on this page are identical to, and possibly taken from, an atlas published in Berlin in 1917, with a preface by Rizoff. Indeed, this atlas is cited as the article's reference 5.

I have recently scanned the atlas, and made it available on the web at http://www.maproom.org/00/48/index.php. The ethnographical maps, copied from various sources, plates numbers 15-30, are of particular relevance to this article.

If anyone would like to add a link to that page, please do so. I cannot do so myself because it would break Wikipedia's guidelines. Maproom (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone wants an image of any of the plates in that atlas, I can upload it at a resolution suitable for Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

[edit]

I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. I also noticed that you also removed it from any other article of wikipedia including the very article of the Berlin's Congress by saying that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing in 1878, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Factuarius. I don't doubt that the map is "wrong", all such maps are imperfect and many are biassed. But the Stanford map, in particular, is important for the influence it has had. It should be kept in the article; and if there is evidence that it is seriously inaccurate, this also should have a place in the article. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby

[edit]

Jingiby claims "Macedonian ethnos as distinct naionality was recognized for first time by the Comintern in 1934." Oh Really?

  1. The Freemanm 1921
  1. Newspaper sources
  1. New York legislative documents, 1921

Jingiby, it seems like all these sources are before 1934, don't you agree? And wouldn't you agree that you will ignore any evidence I show you because your views from day 1 of Wikipedia is "Macedonians are Bulgarians, communism converted them." Mactruth (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most sources don't state "Macedonian Slav" do they? Mactruth (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need a document as official act of recognition by international political organization or independent state, and reliable secondary source, but not a cuttings from newspapers. Народот кој што од Новиот Завет па до К.П. Мисирков не може да наведе еден институционален процес за својот континуитет; народот кој што од Османлиската Империја никогаш не побарал да му даде посебен Македонски милет; (Власите последни во 1905 година бараат од султанот Влашки милет и тоа им е дадено); народот кој што првпат некаква институција (Коминтерната) го има признаено во 1934 година; народот кој што својата прва книга поезија на сопствен македонски јазик ја има издадено 1938 година, а својот прв роман 1951 година, одеднаш претендира да биде најстар. Затоа, молам за малку скромност!

Also, do not forgive that according to Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Edition Macedonians constituted the majority of the population in the whole region of Macedonia, then part of the Ottoman Empire, but Macedonians (Bulgarians)!

Look also here: [3]; [4]; [5] Jingby (talk)

Well, you have the look at the situation at the time. Bulgarians were claiming Macedonians, Greeks were claiming Macedonians, Serbs were claiming Macedonians. The point I am trying to make is it was very difficult for international bodies to comprehend what the true situation was because all claimed Macedonians, and hence a part of Macedonia. Different sources supported all claims, hence the frustration with Wikipedia (political selection of sources to fit the current boarders).
The point I am trying to make is there were people in Macedonia claiming to be simply Macedonian at the time when Greeks, Bulgarians, and Serbs were claiming them. There is a wealth of newspapers, books, and articles separating Bulgarians and Macedonians as distinct, many showing direct statements from the Macedonians at the time.Simply because Macedonians were sympathetic towards Bulgaria for their help does not make them Bulgarian.
An example would be the Polish-Lithuania empire, or the Hungarian-Austrian empire. Poles do not claim Lithuania as theirs simply because they worked together in the past, same goes with the Hungarians.
Do I deny there were Bulgarians in Macedonia? Of course not! Do I agree that Macedonians and Bulgarians worked as a team before ww2? Of course! But, do I agree that Macedonians = Bulgarians? No. Religion played a big part in why many Macedonians declared themselves Bulgarian. "If you are in the Greek Orthodox Church, you were Greek" was the mentality caused by the Ottoman Empire. Same goes with the other churches, and at the time the most-fulfilling church was the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, since Macedonian and Bulgarian were both Slavic. Mactruth (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for example: Conquest how societies overwhelm others page 41 Mactruth (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. But still the article deals mostly with the time when there was no ethnic Macedonian consciousness. The term Macedonian Slavs (meaning Slavs from Macedonia, by the way) is used to denote the population from the Slav ethno-linguistic group, inhabiting the geographical region. Any nationalistic sentiments are therefore omitted by using the NPOV term Macedonian Slavs (meaning Slavs from the region of Macedonia). They are not called Bulgarians or Serbs, but not ethnic Macedonians since they did not self-identify as such. Any further disruptive behaviour might as well look nationalistic, as much as you don't like it. Thank you. --Laveol T 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slav of Macedonia = Macedonian, a separate identity. I believe the documentation of ethnic Macedonian consciousness can cover a lot of the article that is currently stated as "Macedonian Slavs." Ethnic Macedonian consciousness has been documented since at least the 17th century, which covers a lot of the emergence of nationalism in Ottoman Empire:
Read the articles
Books on Macedonian Migration 1905 to 1918
1793 Daniil of Moschopolis' lexicon
1751 D. Ludovici Martini Kahlii
1851 Visit to Belgrade
Australian articles 1884
1822 Geographical dictionary
1846 Georgi Makedonski
1820 Travels
1824 Brittanica
1823 European Magazine
1876 Revista
1876 Macedonia and Macedonians
1700s Russian documents
1630 Fimiliar Letters

As you can see from a few of these articles, Macedonians are ALWAYS distinguished from the Greeks and Bulgarians. Also, the authors do not call the Macedonians "Slav Macedonians", but simply "Macedonians". This WP article needs to change how it names people for them Mactruth (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsof (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)These links do not prove anything.As you can clearly see from the wikipedia link of a page of Daniel Moscopolite's book the term βουλγάρικα,bulgarian,is used and not μακεδονικά,macedonian.The author of languages of the world translated the word βουλγάρικα,bulgarian as macedonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsof (talk • contribs) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for a reply considering I am "under review" from Sthenel, before editing the page. Mactruth (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean before continuing with the disruptive behaviour. The article as it is is informative. Changing it according to your POV serves your POV only. There is a difference between Slavs in Macedonia and ethnic Macedonians, whether you like it or not. Plus, don't bombard us with nationalistic sites, we're not interested in them. Oh, an, please, spare us the ethnic (tatar) slurs. I believe you've been blocked for such behaviour before. --Laveol T 00:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby, if you want to differentiate between the Slavs of Macedonia and ethnic Macedonians, then all you have to do is use the correct wording. We do not call ourselves Slav Macedonians, in fact we see that as an ethnic slur. It is quite entertaining that you warn me of such things, then continue to do the same. I guess the sources are all POV correct? Because they don't show Macedonians = Bulgarians, is that it? Mactruth (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the ethnic slur Macedonian Slavs [sic]?!? read the section in this article, which you, I am shure, ever read: Development of the name Macedonian Slavs. I offer you, to read also another section from the same article, which you, never read, too: The missing national consciousness. Please, provide a reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy about the official recognition of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity from international organization or independent state before 1934. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading map

[edit]
Wrong map of Pirin Macedonia
Pirin Macedonia

The shown on the right map of Pirin Macedonia presently used in the article is misleading, and I am removing it.

The errors in that region's borders that should be fixed are explained in detail in the talk page File talk:Pirin macedonia map.png. Apcbg (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of removing the map, it would be better to correct it. Or, if you do not have the tools to correct it, I can create a corrected version in accordance with your description. I have no knowledge or opinions of Pirin, but I can do what you say. Maproom (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        It would be nice if you could fix the map, just remove the three northernmost districts, and add the adjacent northeastern one; see also the map of Pirin Macedonia on the left. Best, Apcbg (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have made the changes you requested. For reasons I don't understand, it takes some time for an edit to an image to propagate back to wikipedia pages and become effective. I am a bit hesitant about making this particular edit, it seems harmless enough, but you will be aware from some of the discussions above that maps of the Balkans can arouse strong feelings, and I don't want to offend anyone when I know nothing about the significance of the changes I am making. By the way - to indent a piece of talk like this, colons ":" work well. Maproom (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maproom! The corrected map is now back in the article; as for the colons, I've been using them for years now :-) but they seem not to work next to an image. Apcbg (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

refimprove tag

[edit]

I happened to notice the removal of the {{Refimprove|date=January 2010}} tag. This one actually makes sense because there are a several consecutive sections in this article that have either no or very few references. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was the one that removed it. I undid all edits from that anon since he was just spamming tags all over a ton of articles. You're welcome to add it again. --Laveol T 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too long

[edit]

I think you should split this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.130.111 (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles needed for "Ethnic Controversy in Macedonia" and "Macedonism"

[edit]

After seeing the Controversy Article about Linguists and Ethnicity in Moldova, and the article about Moldovanism, I think it is time to create such articles about the ethnic controversy in Macedonia and the controversies about Macedonism. When looking at both regions--Bessarabia and Macedonia, well the portion east of the Struma river, south of the Voras Mountains and west of the upper Polog valley, in short the majority Slavic inhabited area, one has a remarkable similarity in history. Both groups, the Bulgarians of Macedonia and Romanians of Bessarabia, show a history of being identified as Bulgarians and Romanians by virtually the entirety of non-interested nations up until the Balkan Wars (when for example in 1910 Russia stated that it had no Romanian minority). With regard to Serbian interest in the Region, Britannica's 11th edition says it best:

"The aims of the Servians, whose active interference in Macedonia is of comparatively recent date, have not been realized. Previously to 1878 the hopes of the Servians were centered on Bosnia, Herzegovina and the vilayet of Kossovo; but when the Berlin Treaty assigned Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria, the national aspirations were directed to Macedonia, the Slavonic population of which was declared to be Servian." (volume 17, pp 219)


Both groups went through assimilation campaigns--the Serbianization and Hellinization of 1913-1915 and 1919-1941, just as one had the Russification of Bessarabia from 1812-1918, as well as the puppet MASSR (1924-1940) and attempts by the USSR to spread 'Moldovism' into Bessarabia from 1918-1940. One then had the full-scale Communist assaults and brainwashing campaigns of 1944-1989/91 which codified new languages, alterations and outright falsifications of history, both local and everything involving the peoples of the regions as a whole, and in both cases, the majority of this being imposed upon the native population by foreigners--i.e., Serbs and Croats in Yugoslavia, and Russians and Ukrainians in the USSR, as opposed to local Bulgarians and Romanians. There was also the quashing of resistance to these alterations by the native population in both Bessarabia/Moldova and Vardar Macedonia, while in Aegean Macedonia, especially the eastern part, there was large-scale fight and smaller population exchanges, somewhat similar to what happened to the Romanians in North Bukovina when around 28% of them were killed or deported following the Soviet invasion of 1940 (a decline of 75,752 between 1930 and 1959, out of a total of around 227,200 in 1930, with remaining in 1959, although it appears to be 1/3 deported or killed, one had 24 years of peace and population growth--10 from 1930-1940 and the other 14 from 1945-1959 for the native figure to increase), and restoration of Soviet control in 1944, although for census data, the Romanians in Transcarpahia and North Bukovina (though not north Bessarabia) were continually refereed to Romanians from 1959-1989 (100,863 in 1959, 112,141 in 1970, 121,795 in 1979 and 134,825 in 1989), as well as 146,707 in 2001, though the Bulgarians of Greece were simply refereed to 'Slavaphones'.

Then one has what can only be considered practical reasons behind such changes. Given the long borders and long history, as well as the longstanding common identity on both sides of the border for both groups, the brainwashing and historical falsifications can be interpenetrated as a safety mechanism to prevent separatist tenancies and a lack of loyalty to the new regimes, as well as a form of justification by those regimes on why they should hold the territories in question.

In short, the initial connection with rival, if not fringe claims by interested neighbors, the forced assimilation prior to WWII and the strong connection with Communism in the 'development' of these two 'ethnicities', justify the need for two articles dealing with the Madedonia issues--the controversy around 'Slavic Macedonians' and Macedonism, ideally "Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in the Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonism" Prussia1231 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian propaganda

[edit]

The Romanian propaganda section is full of WP:POV, dubious and unsourced statements, of no encyclopedic value. Someone should source those assertions and they should be removed. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian-Greek Population Exchange

[edit]

Article currently states: "After the great population exchanges of the 1920s, 380,000 Turks left Greece and 538,253 Greeks came to Macedonia from Asia Minor. After the signing of the treaty of Neuilly in 1919, Greece and Bulgaria agreed on a population exchange on the remaining Bulgarian minority in Macedonia. In the same year some 66,000 Bulgarians and other Slavophones left to Bulgaria and Serbia, while 58709 Greeks entered Greece from Bulgaria."

As far as the latter statement, "in the same year" is incorrect because all to most of those persons were actually displaced during the Balkan wars, especially 1912-13 and their displacement was merely made legal six years later by the treaty. In other words Greeks in Bulgarian (mostly Black Sea littoral in southern half of Black Sea Coast) were forcibly ethnically cleansed by Bulgarian military and paramilitary forces in 1912-13, and to some extent Bulgarians and Slavic speakers ethnically cleansed at the same time. These populations became refugees at that time. In 1919 the whole mess was just mutually legitimated and those DPs denaturalized from the respective countries where their homes had been, and naturalized in their their respective "mother countries." Bulgarian forces invading Western (Greek) Thrace during World War I, found Greek refugee settlements in Drama, Serres, Xanthi, etc of persons the same forces had displaced out of Varna, Tsarevo, etc (Black Sea Coast extreme Eastern Thrace) etc, a few year earlier, displacing them for a second time.

It was in the interest of Athens, Sofia, Belgrade and indeed the "Great Powers" to legitimate those early displacements in the name of creating ethnically homogenous states that they believed were more stable. This model was copied in the more massive population exchange that followed between Greece and Turkey a few years later.

The Exchange treaties, especially the first, Neuilly, did not so much mandate the exchanges/ethnic cleansing: To be more precise, they legitimated something that had already occurred.

Clarification of geographical area covered by this article

[edit]

This article does not adequately clarify the area covered. In fact, this article seems to cover the region defined in another Wikipedia article, namely in Macedonia (region). This area was loosely established in the late 19th century and the introduction of this article (Demographic history of Macedonia) explains that, "This article is about the region spanning several countries in southeastern Europe". Therefor, I believe this gives us a queue to add after it the slightly edited for purpose introduction of the article Macedonia (region), namely:

So the new introduction might be something like:

Politis (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article is about the demographic (not the political) history of a region. Right at the top of the article, there is a map which makes it clear what region. Which nations currently rule parts of the region is irrelevant to this article - though it can be deduced from the national frontiers shown on that map. Maproom (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, there is a map and the article is about the demographic history of a specific region. That region has an article devoted to it and an updated introduction as suggested, would place the reader immediately. Other article that start with 'Demographic history of...', do not need any such definition since they concern specific countries. This, as far as I can tell, is the only such article dealing with a region. You might like to look a bit further into the matter? Thanks. Politis (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR added to induce readers to a cnclusion

[edit]

I removed part of a text in this edit. The reason is simple: if we are providing data that was available at Encyclopedia Britannica, we should not add our own conclusions and original research. If Britannica says "Slavs", we put "slavs" if what Britannica published is what we are showing in the text. FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol you reverted me again without answering here. My question is regarding this bolded part of the text:

The 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica gave the following statistical estimates about the population of Macedonia: Slavs (described in the encyclopaedia as a "Slavonic population, the bulk of which is regarded by almost all independent sources as Bulgarians"): approximately 1,150,000, whereof, 1,000,000 Orthodox and 150,000 Muslims (called Pomaks).

Are you saying that the bolded part is actually found in the original Encyclopedia Britannica edition from 1911? FkpCascais (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, it is not that hard to look it up. The text is in the public domain and is available on wikisource as I indicated in my edit-summary. I did not come up with it, just got curious why you removed it in the first place and decided to check if this was indeed mentioned in the encyclopaedia.--Laveol T 22:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me pointing out where exactly says that: "the bulk of which is regarded by almost all independent sources as Bulgarians" ? I gave a look and I can´t find those words in the link, but maybe I missed it. FkpCascais (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's on page 219. The paragraph dedicated to the Slavonic population. Searching for the word "bulk" might also help. I highly doubt it's mentioned more than 1-2 times. --Laveol T 06:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No References in Statistical Data

[edit]

A friend pointed out there are no references in the main section of Statistical Data. Where did they go? Can anyone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.100.199 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent point of view?

[edit]

How could be independent point of view that says that the macedonian populationhad no ethnicity? This is absurde, this is imposible....... over 1.2 milion people without ethnicity in the begining of the 20 century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.139.247 (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographic history of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographic history of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Demographic history of Macedonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diadochi Period?

[edit]

Why does the history section skip from Alexander to Rome? Even if the internal demographics did not change substantially during the intervening period, the borders surely did. At one point Cassander's "Macedonia" included almost all of what is now mainland Greece (except for a small portion controlled by Epirus, along with modern Albania). Admittedly, it was the first of the major Greek kingdoms to fall to Rome, but that did not happen at Alexander's death. This seems like it warrants at least a sentence. As it stands, the article sort of implies that when Alexander died, Rome took over, which is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.105.96.42 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

[edit]

I like how in the Greece/20th century section there's huge emphasis only on the Greek attrocities and not the Bulgarian ones with a lot of the incidents mentioned coming from an unreliable Slavic Macedonian source.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eastern Question which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synvet Map

[edit]
Synvet's map

The Synvet map is directly relevant to the topic of the article, despite its many flaws, since it is associated with Greek propaganda in the region and is mentioned as such in the academic literature Other maps by amongst others the Frenchman F. Bianconi [1877], who was the chief architect and engineer of the Ottoman railways, A. Synvet [1877] and Karl Sax [1878], a former Austrian consul in Andrianople, were similarly favourable to the Greek cause.. That the map is "erroneous" misses the point of the article. All these ols maps are more or less erroneous. Perhaps Synvet is worse than some others, but these maps are indicative of the fierce competition for the region of Macedonia at the time and as such are useful to the reader. This is why they have been in the article since the beginning. There is a tacit understanding among long time editors to include all maps in the article, faults and all. To selectively remove one map because it is "erroneous" in unencyclopedic and a disservice to readers. Khirurg (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Countless maps have been produced in the 19th century. Selecting one, if not the most, erroneous and propagandistic map, which provides only inaccurate informations, without even clarifying them, but just including in the caption "described as pro-Greek by later historians" is not acceptable. It does not "just undercount Albanians in general" as you stated, it considers all sourthern Albanians (Tosk Albanians) – the half of the entire Albanian population – as non Albanian. And it has many other huge issues about other ethnic groups as well. If you reasonably consider that other maps provide extremely erroneous informations that would need many clarifications, remove them. – Βατο (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whose idea was it to include such a huge number of maps ignoring Wikipedia's quality standards? Is this article about the actual demographic history of the region of Macedonia or is it about the "map mania" of the late 19th and early 20th century? – Βατο (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not anyone's idea, it's just the tacit understanding between long-time editors, that the article does include the "map mania" of the late 19th/early20th centuries and thus includes all maps form the period, no matter how flawed. Synvet's map is no worse than many of the others, some of whom show Albanians extending down to the Gulf of Corinth. This is why I haven't removed these maps, even though I easily could make them vanish from the encyclopedia. But there should at least be one article where all these maps are shown and discussed. Perhaps a separate article for the "map mania" should be created, but until that's done, the understanding between editors was that this was the article to do so. By the way you are wrong about Stanford's map, it clearly shows the Arvanites in southern Greece. Khirurg (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the 19th/20th century "map mania" is not the subject of this article, nor is this article a list of maps. An article about such subject would be something structured like this one, where all the maps would be included, dedicating a column to clarify the erroneous informations they portray according to present-day reliable sources. This article can include only some maps in the relevant sections, maps that have issues which can easly be discussed within the limited space of the image caption. You can remove those maps that show exclusive Albanian presence down to the Gulf of Corinth, after all there are already too many maps, their number should be reduced. The clarification I added about Stanford's map is the claim insistently maintained by Gennadius, the anonymous author of the map (see the cited source), but you are right, there are exceptions in that map, I removed that info from the image caption. – Βατο (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographic_history_of_Macedonia&oldid=1252991968"