Talk:Macedonians (Greeks)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dab notice

I think that Macedonians (ethnic group) are not necessary, since they are included in Macedonian dab page. For the same reason, we excluded them from the respective slavic article. If you really have to include them, though, then they must be mentioned as their wiki article name (and not without the "ethnic group" dab parentheses) and they clearly are not ...majority (wow! 2.5 million Greek Macedonians vs 1.6 million Slavomacedonians).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, two things, 1. I thought we agreed to include Greek Macedonians in the Macedonian dab. 2. They are a majority in the Republic of Macedonia, which is what I put. - FrancisTyers 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings. While syntactically correct point, it sounded otherwise. You really need the dab? I am not a WP:DICK, so feel free to keep it, but I think it is redundant (given the ethnic group precedent). Also, give a look at my response to your "I seriously doubt that" comment in the above talk... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, ok, I must admit I'm a little behind on the ethnic group page. Its filling up like a latrine in a dysentry epidemic. I've removed it and we'll keep it out, same as the ethnic group page. - FrancisTyers 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! It's like the <sewer> I presume... And, Fran, you know you don't need to wikify Greek words for us Greeks to understand... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! :) - FrancisTyers 11:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki links to FYROM

In Greek related articles there will be no mentioning of Republic of Macedonia, as it is insulting since it tries to acquire and monopolise the Greek self-identifying term. We will follow the Gdansk/Danzig precedent (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote) where users voted with a smashing majority that the name would be identical to each side's views in each side's articles. If you need to specify RoM, then it must follow fYRoM and it must be unlinked and in parentheses.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy if you'll stick to this "the name would be identical to each side's views in each side's articles". - FrancisTyers 11:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on though, how could I not change it ;) Any page dealing with Macedonia without a little naming dispute edit conflict isn't dealing with the problem at all :)) - FrancisTyers 11:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently we are following your rules, so we follow them all the way... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See it this way. Most Greek Macedonians would self-identify as being from a region just south of a state called FYROM. --Telex 11:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Maybe we should create a redirect to this article in South-of-Fyromians!!!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Whether or not the Ancient Macedonians were Greek or not is unknown and a matter of dispute among historians today, so I don't see how wikipedia can pick sides and have an unneutral comment made unnoticed. Therefore I am adding a tag to let the reader know that there are unreliable POVs in the article. Macedonia 02:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The people included in that article are very well historically documented (go and read Herodotus or whatever ancient historian you wish). If you continue breaking WP:POINT, you 'll probably get an RFC. talk to +MATIA 08:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Macedonia, as I'm sure you're well aware, the Argead dynasty declared themselves Greeks, respect their right to self-identification. --Telex 09:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he's just trolling guys. - FrancisTyers 09:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is the risk of being repetitive. We already have a List of ancient Macedonians, so probably it would be more reasonable to concentrate on expandind that and putting in this article a "see also" link. Tell me your opinion.--Aldux 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You have apoint here Al. What I'd do is shorten these lists here (both contemporary and ancient) to the most prominent 4 or 5 members and then include all the rest in the separate lists, with the note: "See List of ancient Macedonians and List of Byzantine Macedonians for the complete list..." (provided the latter link will not be red anymore). Guys?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea Niko. talk to +MATIA 09:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A List of Byzantine Macedonians seems problematic, first for the few names that are on wikipedia, and second for the ambiguity of "romaios", meaning both Greek and Roman, that as such could be used for non-Greeks. But for the first part, I agree.--Aldux 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Argead dynasty in which Alexander III and Philip II belonged, officially recognised itself and was recognised by others as Greek (and participated in the Olympics). Period. Miskin 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please read the full discussion, Miskin? There's a list of ancient Macedonians; and there's no point making a double list.--Aldux 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The List of ancient Macedonians is already problematic, the Kings of Hellenistic Kingdoms were not recognised by anybody as "Macedonians", that's just a clear POV. See the citation in Koine Greek as an example of ancient account. Miskin 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sts Cyril and Methodius

Were they, in the modern sense of nationality, Greek? They were born in Thessalonica; they spoke Greek. They also spoke Slavonic. Methodius may well have learnt this as a job requirement, but it is difficult to make the same argument for Cyril.

This raises much deeper questions:

• Did "nationality" in the modern sense exist in the 9th century?
  • Did Greekness then mean something different from "obedient to the Byzantine Patriarch"?

I would evade these questions by reducing this page to its proper purpose: listing the numerous Greeks of Macedonia in modern times, when the Greek national movement had come into existence, and Macedonia means, as it now means, the Ottoman administrative district.

No; I am not pro-FYROM. The Greek frontier is justified, and fully justified, by the ethnographic and military balance as of 1912. Ptolemy and the Byzantine Emperors have nothing to do with it, either way. Septentrionalis 00:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: What is Leo the Paphlagonian doing on this page in any case?

I am not surprised by your POV Pmanderson... A former discussion in Talk:Greeks has convinced me that u believe the Greeks suddenly came into existance in the 19th century... Strangely, u do not support such claims for other nations... --Hectorian 02:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you should have failed to understand what I was saying either there or here: the Greeks discovered nationalism, in the modern sense, when everybody else did. Septentrionalis 02:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What a quote! why haven't u still removed Dante Alighieri from the list of Italians? or William Shakespeare from the list of English people? or Miguel de Cervantes, Gjergj Kastriot Skanderbeg, Mehmet II, Margrethe I, Louis IV from respective lists? u are attacking greek-related articles in order to push your POV... It can't be more obvious... --Hectorian 03:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek = native Greek-speaker and Macedonian Greek = Greek born in Macedonia, it's as simple as that. If Pmanderson thinks that Greek = Greek national or holder of Greek passport, then that's just his POV. Hectorian made a point, Pmanderson's only issue is with Greek continuity and history in general. His views are not applied in wikipedia nor in any academic circle. The examples of Dante, Newton and Descartes being described as Italian, English and French respectively, sufficiently proves this. According to pmanderson's logic we have to change literally all pre-19th ethnic descriptions. Miskin 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Artistole was born in the Ionian city of Stageira, which was at the time part of Chalcidice, an independent political and geographical entity. Miskin 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course he was; he was a Greek who went to live in Macedon. Septentrionalis 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Revealing your POV once more... Let me give u some advice: keep it for yourself, or edit sources that support it (more reliable than those who say the opposite: that Macedonians were Greek)...I am sure that no matter how hard u try, u won't find... --Hectorian 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which of these do you find PoV?

• Aristotle was a Greek.
• He went to live in Macedon.

Septentrionalis 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Macedonian monarchs Pmanderson? Do you deny that the Argead dynasty claimed royal Greek descend? Miskin 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, they did so claim; as Herodotus records. The nature of that claim should be discussed if it is to br mentioned; including the fact that it did not include the people of Macedon.
• I am willing to compromise on what Telex suggested: to move all references to ancient Macedonia to that article, with a cross-reference; but others are not.
• And what, again, is Michael the Paphlagonian doing here? does anyone claim he came from Macedonia? Septentrionalis 02:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not only Herodotus who says it, it's also Thucydides, Phillip II, Alexander III etc, basically it was common knowledge in antiquity. I'm going to add them back and remove Aristotle. Miskin 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Miskin, can't you tell a source from subject matter? or do you mean to claim that writings of Philip and Alexander survive?
• Of course the text should state that the Argeads claimed Greek descent; and it always has. (So did the Romans.)
• None of this justifies calling the Ptolemies and Seleucids Argives. Septentrionalis 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, no...!!!, Pmanderson, do not try to drag me i word-games. u said he was a Greek who went to live in Macedon, implying that Macedon was not Greek. if u meant something else, u would have said: he was from Stageira and went to live in Macedon (or Pella, Aegae, Vergina...). your past edits have revealed your POV numerous times... this was just "once more". --Hectorian 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then do not try to read my mind; your telepathy is failing. My only concern is to keep this piece of nationalism out of ancient history. It is acceptable to move this to ancient Macedonians if and only if the ancient Macedonians are also moved. Septentrionalis 20:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no telepathetic abilities:). Your aim was as clear as it always is... btw, it seems that your only concern is to push your POV in ancient history related articles (particularly, if not only, to ancient Greece related ones...) --Hectorian 02:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL Herodotus was obviously pushing Greek POV :-) I'm sure back then the naming conflict was top priority in their agendas. It's appalling and unscientific that we only use sources from Ancient Greek historians and never mention sources from Ancient FYROMian historians :-) --   Avg    09:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson I'm having difficulties to believe that you were being serious about those last edits of yours. Miskin 11:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He was trying to illustrate that the pov of the article as it is, is equally extreme to the one he added. Usual tactic. The next step will be a POV tag, and then the tag will be removed because there are no arguements for it. Remember the article Greeks?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"This story was occasionally repeated in antiquity, although it was the practice of most sources to distinguish between Greeks and Macedonians; as Arrian does, in writing out the history of Ptolemy I Soter. Modern Greek nationalists also consider this significant; although it is as irrelevant to the northern frontier of Greece, as the undoubtedly Greek foundation of Syracuse, Naples, and Marseilles is to the western frontier."
If that edit was done by an anon I'd categorise it as sneaky vandalism. But the guy was serious about it. Miskin 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians

Telex's revision consists of the note that the following people self-identified as Greek, and are from Macedonia.

This would be improved by sources that

• Seleucus and Antipater self-identified as anything, in any surviving evidence.
• Clarification whether Ptolemy's "self-identification" consists of anything other than the claim that he was Philip II's bastard.
  • If so, it would also be nice to have a source that he himself made this claim.
• A source that Michael the Paphlagonian was from Macedonia. Septentrionalis 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do we need this page?

I propose merging this page into Macedonia (Greece).

• There's no reason to have a separate page for the inhabitants as opposed to the region they inhabit. There's nothing in this page that couldn't just as well be said (or indeed has been said, and better) on Macedonia (Greece)#Demographics or the various other Macedonia-related pages.
• We don't normally do separate "inhabitants of X" pages for subnational regional entities when we already have an "X" page and the inhabitants do not have at least a separate ethnic identity. There's no New Yorkers, no Texans, no Californians, no Yorkshire people, no Lancashire people, no Glaswegians, no Hamburgers (people), no Berliners, and for good reason. There is no Athenians, no Roumeliotes, no Cretans, no Thessalians, no Eptanesians either (check, all the ones that come up blue are just redirects to their respective geography article).
• This page was apparently just created for wiki-political reasons, in order to drive home the point that "Macedonian" is ambiguous and that the (Slav) Macedonians must always get some disambiguating term to accompany their name. Okay, point taken. But we still don't need this page.
• In fact, there is very little evidence that this term, in the meaning of this page, is ever used in English (except by Greeks). I couldn't find a single attestation on Google Scholar and Google Books where the term "Macedonians", alone, is used by a non-Greek author to refer specifically to modern Greek Macedonians. Of course, "Greek Macedonians" occasionally is used. It never seems to have any conceptual content beyond "Greek inhabitant of Macedonia"; as such, it carries no meaning that couldn't be treated in the geography articles.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no ojection to move this information within Macedonia (Greece)#Demographics and to redirect this page there. The redirect will suffice for the evil propagandistic aims outlined above, and the section there will be expanded by the present information. :-) NikoSilver 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another idea would be to merge the List of Macedonians (Greek) here. NikoSilver 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article serves a useful purpose in the context of understanding the naming dispute. Like it or not, the Macedonians' regional identity is more distinctive and vigorously expressed because of it. Besides, it is not the only such article; Maniots is in a similar vein, contradicting FP's thesis that we don't do regional non-ethnic demographic articles. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know some Greek editors have been inexplicably fond of such articles and have created a few. That doesn't make it a good idea. If you look at Talk:Maniots, the consensus actually was that the page is not currently where/what it ought to be. It's not a precedent to follow.

As for the "usefulness", I don't accept that just because the inhabitants of a region have a "distinctive and vigorously expressed" identity (as have Texans, Berliners and Yorkshiremen) we need an article on them. There still is nothing interesting to say about this group of people that couldn't just as well be said in the article about the region. The region is what defines this group of people, after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we read the article, the content doesn't give reasons for a separate article about Greek Macedonians. It should include more details about the culture of these people, in order to exist as a distinct article from the Greek Macedonia. But I am, for one more time, suspicious about the motives of them who called for the merger. - Sthenel 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[Article recreation]

The purpose of this article is to clear up the comfusion among the ethnic Macedonians and the Macedonians (Greeks). Sometimes, the term "Macedonians" refers only to ethnic Macedonians, ignoring the 3 milions of Macedonians (Greeks), their culture, their heroes, their history and their presence. I think this article is useful to the average reader, although it is short. I hope for enrichment.

Don't forget

1. Don't forget to include that Macedonians of Ancient Macedonia and Greeks of Ancient Macedonia were not regarded as the same people, with Greeks on the coastline and Macedonians inland.
2. Don't forget to mention that the Greeks of the Macedonian struggle were Cretans and their leader was from Epirus
3. Don't forget to mention the 1920s population exchanges, and the fact that their descendants claim blood-lineage to the ancient Macedonians
4. Don't forget to mention document from the 15-16th century showing Macedonians were considered speakers of Slavic.

Mactruth (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Maybe you forgot to give me your sources. Anyway, ancient Macedonians were different from ancient Spartans, ancient Atheneans or ancient Epirotes, but this doesn't prove anything. Don't forget to mention that they spoke Greek and their kings were participating in the Olympic games as Greeks.

• Look, I have several sources stating Macedonians were different then GREEKS, not subgroups of Greeks. Who cares if the Macedonians were speaking Greek, most of the ancient world was at that time, and it was indicated that Greek was separate from Ancient Macedonian language. Also, Romans also participated in the Olympic games, as did the Thracians. Mactruth (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Don't forget to mention the participation of the Macedonians Greeks in the Greek revolution for independence in 1821. Aggelis Gatsos, Anastasios Karatasos, Emmanouel Pappas were some of the Macedonians (Greeks) who were Greek heroes of the revolution. Don't forget that the Macedonians Greeks revolted several times against Ottomans and Bulgarians, mainly in 1854 and 1878. Don't forget also, that your Cretans and Epirotes came to help the native Macedonians against the Bulgarians. Not to mention the thousands of heroes of the Macedonian struggle, who were native Macedonians. Konstantinos Christou from Florina was the main leader. His execution led to the Macedonian struggle and brought volunteers from Southern Greece.

• Can I ask you something? Are there sources showing that Aggelis, Anastasios, Emmanouel etc were stating they were ancestors to the Ancient Macedonians? In other words, did they call themselves Macedonians, and if so was it due to historical terms or the modern nationalistic ideologies? Because Aggelis Gatsos and Konstantinos Christou were both "Slavophone Greeks", an identity formed after centuries of Greek church brainwashing that the "Bulgarians forced you to speak Slavic." Mactruth (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The three milions of Macedonians (Greeks) are refered to native Macedonians. There are 1.5 million native Macedonians (Greeks) living in Macedonia (Greece) and 1.5 million abroad, mainly in U.S.A. The current prime minister of Greece is one of them.

• Today there are 2.5 million Greeks with Macedonian regional identity. In 1913 Greeks only comprised 10% of the 2 million inhabitants of the region of Macedonia, which is equal to 200,000 Greeks. In the 1920s, over 600,000 non-indegonous Greeks came to Macedonia, and on top of that non-Greeks were being assimilated anbd forced into becoming Greeks, like ethnic Macedonians and Bulgarians. So, I highly doubt your statements. Mactruth (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1. The language of some Macedonians (Greeks) is still slavic but this doesn't prove anything. Their national identity is Greek. Don't forget that. In the Macedonian struggle they were called "Grecomans" by the Slavs.

Chrusts 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

• If the language being Slavic means nothing, then why is Alexander the Great speaking Greek mean something? Can you say: hypocrite? The fact that they have a Greek identity is not surprising, many will even admit their ancestors wee Bulgarian or ethnic Macedonian. The Greek government has brainwashed them to such an extend that anybody can be the descendants of the ancient Greeks or ancient Macedonians. Mactruth (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Maybe you have sources, or you can construct some...There are many sources that they proove that ancient Macedonians were Greeks. "That time" that you said is about 5th century BC. Did the world spoke Greek at that time? Did the world spoke a pre-Dorian dialect at that time? How Macedonians learned to speak a dialect, that was disapeared to the rest Dorians centuries ago? Did they learned Greek before 1.000 BC? And if they spoke Greek (pre-Dorian) at 1000 BC, maybe were they or not Greeks? There was not a Greek language at that time as you may know. There were just local dialects. And Macedonian dialect was different from Attic dialect ofcourse. I don't think Romans and Thracians participated in the Olympic Games at 5th century BC. That only happened when Greeks coquared by Romans at 1st century BC. Alexander the 1st participated in the Olympic games in the 5th century after proving that he was a Greek. Let me remind you, Patriarch Metrophanes of Alexandria from 1636 to 1639 was a native Macedonian Greek. Patriarch Callinicus of Alexandria from 1858 to 1861 was a native Macedonian Greek. Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople from 1878 to 1912 was a native Macedonian Greek. Bishops and priests in the villages and towns of Macedonia were also native Macedonians. Then, who was the church? Who brainwashed who? The priests were the only people of the villages that could read books, and they tought to their co-villagers their history, as schools were forbiden for many years in Ottoman times. That was all.

2. There are many sources to prove that the Macedonians you mentioned such as Ag. Gatsos, An. Karatassos and Em. Pappas (as their real names were) knew that they were Macedonians, and that they were descentants of Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonians. Read their notes. In fact, Anastasios Karatassos is my anchestor and I don't have any doubt for this, anyway. Look, the Macedonians (Greeks) have a continuous presence over history, from ancient times,, to Roman times, to Byzantine times, to Ottoman times until the Greek War of Independence and the Macedonian Struggle. There are thousands of heroes, scholars, academics, kings, philosofers, artists, politicians, military officers, clerics etc who knew their origin and declared to be Macedonians and Greeks. Konstantinos Christou used to say to the villagers, during the Macedonian Struggle: "For us the Macedonians, there are two ways to go: the one is the Bulgarian, which is the easy way, because they promised to us money and welth, and the other is the Greek, it is the way of our heart, but it is difficult, passing through blood and fighting. I think it is worth to choose the second one." After this, do you have any doubt? About the nationalistic ideologies and the brainwashing, I only can say these words: The first Greek Nationalist was Ion Dragoumis, who was Macedonian. The Greek goverment can't make brainwashing to us, the Macedonians because Macedonians don't accept guidance from the Southern Greece. You may know about the dispute we have with Athens, from the begining of the Greek War of Independence until now. And that's because Macedonians are proud and we believe that we are more Greeks than the Southern ones. As German historic Wilcken states, Macedonians were always the forefront of Greeks, they always fought against the Northern Barbarians in order to protect the Southern Greece. That's what Ag. Gatsos, An. Karatasssos, Em. Pappas and K. Christou did and that's what we do now!!

3. In 1912 there were about 900.000 Macedonians Greeks in Macedonia (Greece). See the census. I don't know where did you find those fake numbers. Wake up! They are desceiving you! Now we are 2.5 millions in Macedonia and 1.3 millions are native Macedonians Greeks. In fact, we, the native Macedonians, claim to be descentants of the ancient Macedonians and not the descentants of the refugees. Noone forced nobody to become Greek. In fact the Greek goverments tried to force the slavophones not speaking the slavic dialects. That was generally correct. But, the Southern Greeks didn't understand that we were living with Slavs over 1000 years and that it wasn't easy to change in one generation. Together with the language, the goverment took away our songs and our dances just because they thought they weren't Greek. Nowadays, the officers of the Greek goverment in Macedonia, are Macedonians, so we don't have problems with the stupid Southern Greeks. We try now to keep the Macedonian culture (songs and dances). In fact those who were not Greeks left. They weren't forced to become Greeks.

4. I am not talking about descentants and anchestors here. I am talking about national identity. In fact, in this land, there were always people who had Greek Identity, and they are now, too. Even if they spoke, pre-Dorian Greek, Attic Greek, Latin, Aromounian, Serbian, Bulgarian, the majority of people in this land, always were Greeks. Was there any brainwashing during 5th century BC? Was there any brainwashing, during Alexander the Great? Was there any brainwashing During the Romans? Was there any brainwashing, during Byzantium? Was there any brainwashing, during Ottomans? Was there any brainwashing, during the Greek War of Independence, at 1821? If there was brainwashing, then I admit it. I am not a Macedonian Greek, in fact I am a descentant of a tribe that it is being brainwashed for 4.000 years, and we believe, by mistake, for these 4 thousand years that we are Greeks!! Chrusts 19:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

At 14th century Macedonia falls to Ottomans. Descriptions of that era by Ottoman travelers, such as writer Hadji Kalfa, recorded that the only nation living in the area was the Greek one. Chrusts 15:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

NPOV

Please see the AfD for opinions on the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hope it stays

I hope this article stays. I can see its potential weakness, there are no articles 'Peloponnesians (Greeks)' etc. But then, considering the Macedonian issue, much has changed in the last years; this includes articles based on a wealth of literature and include the creation of articles on Macedonian who are Slavs, Macedonians who are Greeks, aso. I hope to include 17t-19th Century authors who identifies as Macedonians (therefore Greeks) in their books. Politis (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it stayed but we should define the scope of the article. "History" is more or less the history of the region and not of the people.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I also do not like the "Notable Macedonians" section. It is listy, and I never understood the utility of these lists of notable people. Create a separate list, if you want. By the way, in the history section (again), the story starts from Byzantium. Well, Greek Macedonians emerged from nothing in the middle ages then?! Weird! There should be some kind of history connection between the ancient and the middle ages era.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Peloponnesians have their own entry, the just don't need the clarifying parentheses. It's true Peloponnesians might redirect but the Tsakonians and Maniots do have their own article when they are a subset of the former. There is no policy I could find against writing the first one too. Besides as Politis said, the scope of this article is different. The Macedonian Identity section alone establishes a different context for the notability and justification to have a seperate article. That said there is no other group of people claiming to be Peloponnesians, Cretans or Athenians (I think people from Athens, Georgia declare themselves as Americans). If that was the case This page could have been named simply Macedonians but that one is (correctly) reserved for disambiguation purposes. The existence of a Macedonian population (regardless of the general history of the region which includes non-Greeks of course) inside Ottoman Empire in 1912 played a major role for the war, again establishing notability for a seperate entry. Furthermore the vast demonstrations in 1992 to declare that very identity closes the case. This article should have only epigrammatical refence to the history of the region. The scope should be to adress specific issues of Macedonian identity in order to properly justify disambiguation with other "Macedonians" such as Slavomacedonians. As far as I know none of the articles, like Macedonia (Greece) adresses specific issues, such as the spoken language, thus allowing room for misconceptions about the Greeknesss of the Macedonians in Greece.

As for the rest I agree. Any suggestions/contributions? I was thinking of the Hellenistic Age as a better start for the History section. This article is right now an ongoing process. "Greek people of Macedonia" is a title I'm considering for the section. Shadowmorph (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand why Greeks of the Macedonia region may want their own article, especially with Greek nationalism spreading throughout Greece like a wave in the water. What frustrates me is while the subgroup of Greek Macedonians get there own article, the subgroup Aegean Macedonians do not. When the article Aegean Macedonians was up, you Greeks protested it should be within the article "Slavs of Greek Macedonia", but you do not apply the same views for yourselves (ie: Greek Macedonians should be within the article Macedonia (Greece)). All I can say is: very hypocritical, your nationalism has blinded you to the point of insanity. Mactruth (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

We should edit an article for Macedonians (Greeks) inside the Republic of Macedonia or Bulgaria, instead.Chrusts 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

Shadowmorph, I'd also like your feedback, co-operation, and sources on the Macedonia (Greece) article, as I have announced in my user page I am serious on upgrading it and bringing it to FA status, when I am FINALLY done (wrong: when WE are finally done; it is a collective WP:GREECE effort) with the Greek War of Independence.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to help you on Macedonia (Greece) too, please give me directions of the specific matters that need my contribution there. Google crunching for citations and creation of graphics and/or photos could be some things. You know, I was editing the disambiguation pages which are also important, before I was entangled in the arbitration that right now I'm preoccupied with. Shadowmorph (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary facts

The section about contemporary Macedonians has to include some facts about the contemporary people, their aspects, their actions and I think that a demonstration of 1,000,000 of them is very notable. I can't see how having an article about 2008 Greek riots is notable and that the 1992 Rally is not worth even a mention? It of the essence to include some facts. The name dispute info is covered only in epigrammatic fashion, the real value of this content is the aspects and expressions of the contemporary Macedonian Greeks. Shadowmorph (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, I now that you are new to Wikipedia but realise now. Common ideology does not feature in ethnicity articles. Gives facts about people not POV pushing. It is not only Macedonian Greeks that object to the name Macedonia. This article is not about what they Think, it is about them. The fact that they held a protest might be mentioned, but realistically within the boundaries of the article. There is much to write about; symbols, origins, history, diaspora perhaps, culture, music etc. The Macedonia naming dispute has too great a feature in this article. You should consider writing about the group not for the group. PMK1 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I know that. The views of the people are also facts. Just think of how many articles about single people contain their views. The article is about the people but it is more importantly about the distinctive characteristics of the people. Stating the expressions of the Macedonian identity is notable. I tried to minimize wording like "expressed" and "discomfort" etc. However the rest of the section just gives a brief history of the dispute so that the reasons are rationalized and the section is coherent. Mentioning just the rally alone leaves the reader baffled. I'm sure we could make it even briefer but briefness is not of the essence.

Check out Ashkenazi Jews and Andalusians, of course not fitting here but just some insights. Shadowmorph (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to get to the other things (culture, diaspora) that have to be written. We have time for those. This article is about the modern people and the explicit Greek identity. There is a difference about the content that should be placed here and the one that belongs to all the people of Macedonia region and should go to the Macedonia (Greece) article better. Shadowmorph (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with PMK1. This article is about the people and who they are; if the reference to aspects of the naming dispute adds to that, then ok let's do it, but it has indeed to be epigrammatic and focused on the article's scope. Now, Shadowmorph raises a very important issue: the relation of this article with the Greek Macedonia's article. We must limit possible overlaps (completely avoid them is impossible, and maybe undesirable), use SS respectively where applicable, and try to have a clear definition and distinction of the scope of these two articles: the one is about the identity and the culture of the people, while the other has a broader field, which still encompasses both the people and demographics. To be honest, I haven't fully cleared in my mind the distinct scopes of these articles, and this is one of the reasons I proposed the deletion of the group's article. I hope that Shadowmorph will elaborate on that, and will help me and everybody here to illuminate all these issues and dispel possible fears for overlaps.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that there should be no overlaps too. As it is apparent from the choice of the three detailed sections this article is more about the history of the Macedonian (ethnic Greek) identity in a distinctive fashion. I don't see the problem, e.g. the Maniots doesn't overlap the Peloponese article. The cultural history of the region and and further information belong to Macedonia (Greece). Greek Macedonians existed before the modern nation of Greece and there are numerous mentions of them in books about pre-20th century history. However since no people can suddenly appear, a short "Preface" is needed first. Lastly the notion of the distinctive identity from other Macedonians (those belonging to the Slavic ethnic group) became again notable in contemporary period. All the three expanded sections are about specific periods that the Macedonian identity (as a Greek regional identity) was a matter of importance, sometimes disputed or confusing in the demographic mix. The informative value of this article to the reader has to be the fact of an existence of a Macedonian population that had a Greek identity to begin with. The specific acts in the history of the people are chosen primarily because they portray that this identity existed. That part is not elaborated in any other article not and this separate article is worth if only to contain these three subjects. Macedonian Greek identity in the Ottoman Period, before the Balkan Wars and the contemporary regional identity inside Greece. In all those periods the subject of the existence of a separate identity was/is of the essence. The first sings of the formation of the modern identity (along with the rise of the modern Greek nation); a justification of for "liberation" of Macedonia; and a cause behind the name dispute, respective to those three periods. Shadowmorph (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regional identity has its roots and the history of that is in the article. Of course some summaries about origins, preface and geopolitical context for coherence are needed. Shadowmorph (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Slavophones

I think Slavophones must be considered as part of Macedonians (Greeks). It is a subgroup of Macedonians and not a subgroup of Greeks in general. They can't be confused with Pomaks which are also slavophones. Macedonians may have several subgroups, such as Slavophones, Chalkidikiotes, Chassiotes, Thassians, Eastern Macedonians, Meglenites, Sourds, Olympians, Arvanitovlachs and Voians (from Voio province). They have some differences between them but they have a lot in common. They are the Macedonians.Chrusts 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

The article about slavic speakers in Greece is comfusing. There are several groups of slavic speakers in Greece and outside of Greece that they are connected with Greece, one way or another. 1. There are native Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece. 2. There are native Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in North Eastern Macedonia, Bulgaria. 3. There are native Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Northern Macedonia, Rep. of Macedonia. 4. There are Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece, came from Asia Minor in 1922, with origins from Acrida (16th century), known as trakatrukes. 5. There are Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece, came from Northern Macedonia, Rep. of Macedonia in 1912 and 1919. 6. There are Slavophone Macedonians Greeks in Greece, came from North Eastern Macedonia, Bulgaria in 1920. 7. There are native Slavophone ethnic Macedonians in Greece. 8. There are Slavophone ethnic Macedonians in Rep. of Macedonia, came from Greece in 1945. 9. There are Slavophone Bulgarians in Bulgaria, came from Greece in 1920. 10. There are native Slavophone Bulgarians in Greece. 11. There are native Slavophone Pomaks in Greece. As you may see, we have 11 categories of slavophones, 6 of them refering to Greeks, 2 of them refering to ethnic Macedonians, 2 of them refering to Bulgarians and one of them refering to Pomaks. This article is comfusing everything and makes no sense at all.Chrusts 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs)

It's true that the contemporary Slavic-speakers inside Macedonia (Greece) are Greek and they consider themselves as such (only a very small minority of them doesn't). In principle the contemporary Slavophone Greeks could be a section inside this article. Care to write a summary? However the whole of the history of those people is more confusing since their ethnic affiliations in the past was disputed. For instance, some of the Macedonian refugees of the Greek civil war are now considered Bulgarians . Therefore the Slavic-speakers with origin in Greek Macedonia as a whole subject (irrespective of the time and place they live) cannot be included here. Shadowmorph (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Any Slavic speaker is a Slavophone!, Czechs, Poles and Slovenes are all Slavophones. This article is clearly in reference to the Macedonian Slavic speakers of Greece. Shadowmorph we already have an article about the Macedonian-Slavic speakers of Greece. If there is an issue with that page then bring it up there. PMK1 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, what Shadowmorph says is that Slavophones do deserve a place in this article, and I agree with that. However, their main article is elsewhere, and per SS it is clear that the main analysis of this topic does not belong here.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

local victims and fighters - Sources

What kind of sources do we need here? I'll try to find some more. Do the photos qualify as sources? Next to the monument in the photo there is another inscription specifically about the lost villagers, it is less readable in that photo of mine. I doubt we can find English sources about the existence of many monuments spread in the area. But they do exist, so what should we do? The Dragoumis family was from Kastoria, so count one local Macedonian fighter. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO the photo qualifies as a source, but we need more (printed) even in Greek language. I reacted as I reacted for the following reasons:

• It is important to know if local Greek Macedonians fought along with the Greek regular army. It is important to know if they had a passive or active stance during the fightings. This is crucial in order to understand their historical course.
• Monuments is both an evidence and a part of collective memory. So, the reference of "local heroes" in such monuments is of certain importance. Let's have in mind that such "local heroes" were also "immortalized" and honored in works of the Greek literature, such as "Mystika tou Valtou" of Penelopi Delta, and this could also be somewhere mentioned in the article.

I have a real difficulty to see how all these issues qualify as "trivia" "trivial", and are deleted without the providing of a proper explanation.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Future meant "trivial" (not trivia) i.e.: simple fact that stems from general knowledge. If that is what he meant I agree that the death of innocent civilians wouldn't need a source. It was a war after all. About the rest you are right.

I have added a source about a monument. It is even in English too. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Added more sources. I think some quotes from Penelope Delta or Ion Dragoumis would indeed be relevant. I only mention Delta but I do give a source that the stories are actually based on historical data and who collected them.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Malkin, Irad (2001). Ancient perceptions of Greek ethnicity. Harvard: Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees for Harvard University. pp. 418. ISBN 0674006623, 9780674006621

This source is used irresponsibly in the article, using it to state "Macedonian Greeks have roots in ancient Macedonians" when the book itself states:

1. "Arrian refers to Greeks and Macedonians as belonging to different gene - a term that explicitly articulates notions of descent"
2. "There we find that eponymous Macedon, who supposedly gave his name to the Macedonians, was regarded as the brother of Magnes and son of Zeus and Thuia, the daughter of Deucalion." Filiation from Zeus in itself provided no qualifications for Greek descent"
3. "In his To Philip men are divided in three groups, Greeks, Macedonians, and barbarians"
4. "[He] does not list the 4th century Macedonian capital Pella among them [Greek cities]"

pages:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Mactruth (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How about you guys not use Greek authors as sources, since they use names such as "Macedonia: 4000 years greek history" Mactruth (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your removing of Vacalopoulos, when he is not used for something controversial, but to reference the fact that many Greek Macedonians resided in Thessaloniki. Unless you deny the fact that Greek Macedonians resided in Thessaloniki! Yes, Greek authors should not be used for controversial claims, but I see no controversy here.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In your fury you tend to facts which are also supported by pro-ethnic Macedonians authors: "Towards the end of the Ottoman era, the term "Macedonia" came to signify a region in the north of the Greek peninsula different from the previous Byzantine theme." What is the controversy here?!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement is wrong bcuz it was a region in the north of the Balkan peninsula, I have not read authors stating the Macedonia region of the late 1800s to present was located in north Greece. I understand in the present a portion is in northern Greece, but the region of Macedonia wad not described in this fashion in the 1800s. I am not stating it's wrong or right; I am stating an appropriate source needs to be present. This is wikipedia. Mactruth (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It says it was in the north of the Greek peninsula; not in the north of Greece. So, it is a geographical description; I personally don't think this is problematic. But if you want to propose a better geographical definition for Ottoman Macedonia, I am all ears.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what "Greek peninsula" means. If you can present evidence that it is different from "Greece" then its fine, but during Ottoman Empire the region was not "Greek peninsula", but "Balkan"... hence the word is of Turkish origin. Mactruth (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Page for deletion

"Macedonians is the term by which ethnic Greeks inhabiting or originating from the region of Macedonia in Greece, are known."

what does this term describe in this context? it is not even specified what kind of identity category are we talking about? They are Macedonians by Nationality? No. Etnicity? No. So this "Macedonians" in this context stands for what?

Aricle full of unclear statements, pov, and "are known as" unverified sources Alex Makedon (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Preface

Should there be a preface? Everyone knows the ancient Macedonians are unrelated to today's Greek Macedonians. Greek Macedonians are comprised of Christian Turks/Pontic Greeks, Vlachs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, and a few indigenous Hellenics. For the few indigenous Hellenics, can Greeks show sources that they saw themselves as Macedonian before being incorporated into the Greek state or before the formation of the Greek church in Macedonia? Please do not use Greek sources. Mactruth (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To Sthenel, please provide some evidence that Greeks in Macedonia during nationalism in the Ottoman period identified as Macedonian, related to ancient Macedonians Mactruth (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask you again. Do you dispute the Greek character of the Hellenistic culture to add a citation needed-note? - Sthenel (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the wording of it:

"With his extended conquests into the far east the Hellenistic era was the culmination of the Greek influence that left a resonant perception of Greek Macedonian identity thereafter"

With the statement you are stating 1) the modern Greek Macedonians are descendants of the ancient Macedonian conquerors 2) During ancient/medevil times, ancient Macedonians called themselves Greek Macedonian 3) modern Greek Macedonian identity has been in existence since the Hellenistic times.

With that in mind, you need sources, until then citations will remain. Mactruth (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

To Macktruth,in 1878 after the Berlin agreement a lot of Greek communities in Macedonia sent protests to the foreign powers in order to make clear that they are Greek. There are edited and written protests by communities of Monastiri (Vitolia), Krousovo, Megarovo, Nizopoli, Resna and Achrida where they all state that they are Greeks, descendants of ancient Macedonians. If you still have doupts, I can find the papers toshow you. Christos

Isn't the inclusion of this article under the 1 Revert Rule according to WP:NCMAC still in effect? ::Mactruth, you have replied saying "undisputed? Really?! Well maybe if you use selective sources, but citations are still needed"[4] about this diff of mine[5] where I said "basic and undisputed historical knowledge needs no citation". I don't know if you actually saw that in my diff i removed the citation tag that was added to the phrase "After the Ottoman invasions, Macedonia came under the rule of the the Ottoman Empire". I believe the historical fact that the Ottoman invasions occured and that the Ottoman empire actually existed is undisputed.

About your other edits I think that it is pointless to try to question whether the Hellenistic civilization was Hellenic. Of course multiple sources are available but we do not really have to flood this page with citations as we do have other articles that cover those issues. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

To Christos, yes I would like to see these documents, but again I stated to give documents before Greek church intervention in Macedonia, and before Greek army involvement in Macedonia. In 1878, both were highly present, it is a start but I want to see documents before both.

To Shadowmorph, I put the citation due to the statement implied that Greek Macedonians kept Macedonia Christian during Ottoman times, meaning the other ethnicity were being ignored (creating bias). Your current source simply stated "Greeks", not Greek Macedonians, and from readin the material it does not indicate the Greeks were claiming descent of ancient Macedonians. Mactruth (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

About the 2nd point, I haven't included in the article anything about Greeks "claiming descent of ancient Macedonians" so I don't know why you say this to me. Of course the notions of ethnicity and descend require a more thorough analysis and maybe be part of a future section of this article.

Shadowmorph, the article explicitly tries to show that "Macedonian Greeks" are descendants of "ancient Macedonians" through its wording. That is why I stated several times "show me that the Greeks of Macedonia during that time viewed themselves as such, before nationalism from the Greek state." Mactruth (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

About the 1st, where the source is talking about "Greeks" it is not talking about Greeks of any area other than Macedonia i.e: Macedonian Greeks. If you prefer to say "the Greeks of Macedonia" that is the same in English with "Macedonian Greeks". Besides this article's focus is the Macedonians (Greeks) as the title says and we want to provide information about those people to the reader. So tell me please which of these do you dispute: the fact that Macedonian Greeks were mostly Orthodox or that most of them lived in Thessaloniki? Or maybe you doubt the very existence of Macedonian Greeks in the Ottoman times? I understand what is the driving force for you objecting (it's your personal view) but I can't understand what exactly it is that you find wrong.

At the time (ie: during the fall of Ottoman Empire), did the Greeks of Macedonia self-identify as "Macedonian Greek"? It is a very simple statement, because if they did not identify as such, then "Greeks of Macedonia" and "Macedonian Greek" are not the same. I don't dispute that Greeks of Macedonia (I will change my reference when you show me sources stating the Greeks of Macedonia at the time referred to themselves as Macedonian Greek) were Orthodox, I disputed (before, but now resolved) that they were the ONLY orthodox people keeping Macedonia Christian. That is what the wording was in the past, but it is resolved. I dispute that most lived in Thess, considering it was a JEWISH city at the time. I also dispute the existence of "Macedonian Greeks", but I do not dispute "Greeks in Macedonia".

What I find wrong is that even though today Macedonians (ethnic) identify themselves as such, Greeks continuously call us "Macedonian Slavs" across the articles. There were many Macedonians who did call themselves as such, many that didn't. The point being, Greeks of Macedonia did not identify as "Macedonian Greek" back then, and know you are tweaking history. Its like "Names of the Greeks" being Romani. They called themselves Romani, not Romani Greek. Same as "Byzantines", they called themselves as such, not "Byzantine Greeks". Use the sources to show what they called themselves, don't change their past identity for todays purpose of nationalism. Mactruth (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No real reason for changing "Macedonian Greeks" to "Greeks" in this article. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 05:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mactruth above: "Please do not use Greek sources", especially for the Ancient Macedonians, please only use the Slavic or English sources Alexander the G himself would have used :-) Politis (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Politis, I did not "don't use Greek sources for ancient history." I said don't use Greek sources for the time period of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, where plenty of unbiased sources are available. This simply confirms the ignorance of the time period between ancient history and the fall of Ottoman Empire. Mactruth (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you try to tell us Mactruth? You very well know that for more than a thousand years it was impossible to anyone to self-identify as Greek-something and stay alive due to the persecution the Byzantine's Christianity had imposed about. The word Greek was synonym to the pagan in every known document and thus was severely punishable during Byzantine era and even much of the Ottoman one. During that period you will find only numerous anathemas in relate to that word although the Greek language was in wide use in every corner. I do believe that this is very well known to you and thus I find your argument "find me someone self-identified as "Macedonian Greek" hypocritical. --Factuarius (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius, The Byzantine era ended in 1453, and the Ottoman era was ending in the late 1700s. Why won't you show sources in which Greeks were proclaiming their ancestry to the ancient Macedonians during this time? It is very easy to do, yet you decide to continue to debate and argue and continue to revert to "Macedonian Greek" when no source shows it. All I said was show sources in which (1) Greeks of Macedonia identified as Macedonian (2) they traced their roots to the ancient Macedons.

About the Byzantine, Greek was the official language, meaning everyone had to speak it regardless of ethnicity. Are the Albanians of Macedonia Macedonian because they learn Macedonian in school? Are the Macedonians of Greece Greek because they learn Greek in school (well actually, due to years of propaganda some identify as "Slavophone Greek"). The point being an official language does not make all the citizens of the civilization that ethnicity. Byzantine Empire composed of Romans (Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Vlach, Albanians), and all the modern Greeks did was this:

Romans (Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Vlach, Albanians) Mactruth (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You understand nothing of what I told you in my last post. Reread it. Also your knowledge of the Ottomans' history is limited; no, the Ottoman era ended early 20th century not at 1700's. No, during the Byzantine and most of the Ottoman era there were no schools to teach to the population the Greek language at all and to apply Greek propaganda. Your knowledge about Byzantium is also limited; no, during most of the period the official language was not Greek, was Latin. The "Byzantine Empire" never really existed, it is a misleading term created very later in a common "agreement" between the western and modern Greek scholars: The western were for centuries anxious to cut any legal and historical connection of the Constantinople Emperors with the Roman Empire for their reasons and the Greek scholars were anxious to "Hellenize" the Eastern Roman Empire for their reasons. During the 1,000 years of its existence not a single emperor called himself or his Empire "Byzantine" and in fact there was not such a term before long after the end of the Empire. All of them called themselves Roman Emperors and their Empire Roman Empire. Every known document of the era both political, historical and religious including numerous laws very clearly indicate that proclaiming being Greek was severely punishable. This policy continued during most of the Ottoman era (and at least until the 19th century) because of the Patriarchate's fierce opposition, which continued identifying the term Greek as synonym of the pagan as in the pre-Ottoman period, they spoke Greek and in the same time it was impossible to admit their origin for almost 1,300 years. At the end they lost any link with their past, adopting the term Romioi (Ρωμιοί) which was how the "Byzantine" and Ottoman authorities wanted to call them, meaning Romans, although they were not speaking Latin but Greek and they were not of Italian origin but of Greek. Even during the Greek Revolution at 1821 the people called themselves Romioi, such was the result of 13 centuries of persecutions, having only their language to link them with their unknown past. Seeking Greek people identifying themselves as such during those 13 centuries only revealing your lack of historical knowledge even in the more basic level of that period, else hypocritical and propagandistic intentions. If the case is the first one I would like to be more informative to you but unfortunately I don't have the time. Read more about by yourself. --Factuarius (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To Macktruth, When you say before Greek church intervasion, you mean before 30 AD, because since then the Greek Church is always present here and almost all of the bishops and all priests are native Macedonians. So tell me, since when actually do you need documents: 1sr century AD, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, fifth century AD, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th century AD, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th century AD, 18th or maybe 19th, because it is easy to find in every period. Christos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.173.251 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Mactruth wants a source that says the Greeks that lived in Macedonia self-identified themsleves as "Macedonians". Furthermore he doesn't accept Greek sources of the era. Therefore he wants a source from some (e.g.) English person that says "The Greeks living in Macedonia call each other Macedonian and believe in a heritage from Alexander". He also wants that source to be from the 1800s era when he perceives was the end of the Ottoman era (when infact it was disolved in the 1900s). Of course multiple Ottoman era sources circa 1900 exist that attest the Macedonian Greek character of the people we are talking about. But he doesn't want to accept those because he believes that by 1900 the Greeks somehow managed since the formation of the Greek state around 1830 to "force an identity"(?) to the Greek population. That is why he asks from rather older sources.

That is so narrow a citation so that it cannot be found with all the above properties and he can claim that no source exists.

However Mactruth is totally mistaken.

However I decided to accept his challenge and deliver what he asked for. See the section "Sources from 1800's" below this one for answers

I hope now he can stop the edit-warring. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, but: if we talk about self-identification we have to search for local Greek statements, such as Greek communities' protests in foreign embassies. If we talk about just identification it is another story. Christos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.173.251 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Slav-Macedonians identified as Macedonians prior to the mid-20th century but it doesn't prevent Mactruth and others from calling them Macedonians in the respective article and not "Slavs from Macedonia". Good sources by the way. - Sthenel (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

YES, BUT IF THEY are called "Macedonians" internationally, then what are we that we were always are been called as Macedonians? There must be a seperation such as Macedonians on the one hand and "20th century Macedonians" on the other (like "20th century Fox")!!!. Christos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.173.251 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1800's Sources

Sources from the 1800's (Greece was under the Ottoman Empire). That's 100 years prior to the Balkan wars, there was no Greek state, no body existed able to supposedly "spread propaganda" (sic), "hellenize its subjects" (sic) etc. However the writers of that time reported the fights of the Greek Macedonians who joined the rest of the Greeks in the common cause.

• "Une députation arriva de l'Olympe à Tripolizza vers la mi-octobre, annonçant que 7,ooo Macédoniens étaient prêts à se soulever dans les parties méridionales de cette province, et demandaient du canon , de la poudre et des officiers. On leur envoya deux mortiers de six pouces ; mais à peine étaient-ils débarqués à Ekatarina, qu'ils furent enlevés par un parti de Turcs. Cependant l'insurrection projetée fut mise à exécution, et se maintint avec diverses chances de succès"

French to English: (semi-automatic translation)

• A deputation came from Olympus to Tripolizza mid-October, announcing that 7 thousand Macedonians were ready to revolt in the southern parts of the province, and demanded the gun, powder and officers. They were sent two six-inch mortars, but they were deployed scarcely on Ekatarina and they were abducted by a party of Turks. However the projected insurrection was implemented, and maintained with various chances of success.

(1825) source: Edward Blaquière, Histoire de la révolution actuelle de la Grèce: ...

• "Dès les premiers jours de l'insurrection, les Grecs, sentant que l'issue de la guerre qu'ils ont entreprise dépend en grande partie du sort du Péloponèse, dirigent tous leurs efforts du côté de cette péninsule. Les plus braves des paisibles insulaires de l'Archipel, une foule de Thessaliens et de Macédoniens échappés aux massacres de Salonique, de Smyrne et de Constantinople, les fils de plusieurs négociants établis chez l'étranger, les jeunes gens les plus instruits, tous apportent aux Péloponésiens leurs bras, leurs richesses et leurs lumières."

French to English: (semi-automatic translation)

• From the earliest days of the insurrection, the Greeks felt that the outcome of the war they were now depends largely on the fate of the Peloponnesus, direct all their efforts on the side of the peninsula. The bravest of the peaceful islands of the archipelago, a crowd of Thessalians and of Macedonians escapees of the massacres of Salonika, of Smyrna and of Constantinople, the children of several traders located in foreign countries, young people better educated, all bring Peloponnesians to their arms, their wealth and their enlightenment.

(1829) source: Alexandros Soutsos, Histoire de la révolution grecque

Considering the scarcity of books from that period and about that subject matter, it was not an easy task to deliver the source that satisfies all the (unnecessary) specialized properties Mactruth wants. Here it is: it's a book by respectable English writers Andrew Kippis,William Godwin written in 1822 (before the Greek was officially recognized). It quotes the Macedonian Greek rebel leader and the quotation is rather nice in showing the mindset of the Macedonian rebels who are Greek rebels and bonded with the heritage of Alexander the Great and ancient Greece. I've underlined some parts for your facilitation. The book is called The New annual register, or General repository of history, politics, and literature, for the year 1822 By Andrew Kippis,William Godwin:

• link to the source

“ The Greek population, whose submission rendered the name of Greek a term of scorn and reproach, has suddenly been reanimated with the spirit which history relates so eminently distinguished

the ancient inhabitants of their soil. Unarmed and unprovided with the materiel of armament, but impatient of further oppression and degradation, the Greek slave has heroically, rather than prudently, engaged in a terrible and' unequal contest.

The Turks are known to have enslaved their Greek subjects for centuries, and to be repaid by them with a degree of hatred amounting to abhorrence in the heart of every Greek.

If the energy of action correspond with the ardour of expression in their proclamations, some considerable success may be fairly anticipated for them. It is worth while to preserve a specimen :— :

" Macedonians! Greeks !. The standard of liberty waves over the summit of Olympus,—over the summit of Pindus. Glorious monuments, the monumental columns, the tombs of our heroes, have passed away; but our native mountains, those eternal trophies of our glory, still bid defiance to> time. Macedonians, children of Alexander, around these trophies will we assemble: beside them will we conquer or die; and those who fall in the glorious contest will add new lustre to the deeds of their ancestors; and that lustre will strike terror into the hearts of the barbarians! Macedonians, children of Alexander, sons of the conquerors of the world, grasp your swords! Shame on those who will longer submit to be governed by a wretched hoard of barbarians. Your mountains and your valleys are free, and the ensigns of tyranny only still wave on the fortresses. But in vain do the barbarians hide themselves behind the walls of Salonichi, of Jenizzar, of Cavalla, and call them, as heretofore their bulwarks but these walls will fall before the swords of the Macedonians, and ye will avenge the sufferings of our fathers, our wives, and our daughters, in the blood of the barbarians. Thrace have we already conquered! Philippopoli is in our possession. Our heroes in a few days conquered that city. Stagira is no more, the Greeks have destroyed the town of the philosopher. Why should it be an asylum for the barbarians? Many have fallen, more will yet fall! But our ranks increase daily, and will still further increase. To those who Lave sacrificed themselves on the altar of freedom the favour of heaven will be extended, and their brothers will avenge their death. To arms! to freedom, Macedonians ! Greeks of every country, the eyes of the world are turned upon us. "

Odysseus,

Commander of the Macedonians. From the camp on mount Olympus, July 20."

”

The above text was written in 1822.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We cannot use these 19th century sources; like so many other sources, they clearly identify the Macedonians as Greeks. But Mr Gruevski, as well as the authors of the scientifically based 'Macedonian Encyclopedia' from Skopje, tell us that it was only in 1988 that the Greeks, for the fist time, identified the Macedonians as Greeks... By the way, what happened to the reference to the 17th century Greek scholar and cleric, Kritopoulos, who, like many of his fellow Greeks, also identified as a Macedonian? Politis (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Census data, official document, any kind of official paper, no eh?...

Ever herd of regional population group identity!? There it is now there is one... Seems to me we are chasing ghosts here...

- No Infobox since in the Infobox we need to place official verifible numbers of population and territory...

And the official verifible numbers of population is the tricky part here...

• UN doesn't acknoledge this group...
• EU Council doesn't acknoledge this group...
• Greece papers are not clear and have a vague refference (no census data, no official numbers ...)

are we chasing ghosts here!?

On top of this all, there are supposedly 2,5 milion of this supposed "Greek Macedonians", hell pretty hard to miss out of census data? There are census data about them, right!?

Id like to see a single present day official paper where this 2,5 milion population of Greece is evidented as Macedonians, and this supposed regional population group identity is described, delimited and evidented in any manner. Othervise its just greek propaganda trash based on nothing to delete ASAP.Alex Makedon (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't answer the above but I can't help it. In short:

• "regional population group" is perfectly good English. Try searching for the term regional identity. It's somewhat different from a national or ethnic identity. Checkout Quebecers or Andalusians. This article talks about Greeks from Macedonia, Greece
• There is a whole section on the diaspora. Sources and all.
• EU & UN also don't recognize a group called Athenians. So what? Is he saying that Texans or Californians don't exist also?
• There is a census in Greece in 2001. Checkout the population of the province of Macedonia, Greece.
• Official Greece has multiply reiterating the fact that 2.5 million Greeks identify themselves culturally as Macedonians. If that didn't happen how is there a naming dispute?

• In the article you can find a statement by the previous prime minister.
• Previous minister of foreign affairs, see transcript: [6]
• Response by the Greek delegation: [7]
• Greek MFA: [8]
• Greek response to UN: [9]
• In Geneva: http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/A12843DDB8581ED5C125757800370340?OpenDocument

The above for any interested reader/new editor's information. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 02:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of vandalism on this page - shall we raise protection level?

Lately, users are vandalizing, mostly for political reasons, this page. Maybe can we add some sort of protection or lock it, at least temporarily? --SilentResident (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The page is still being vandalized in a regular basis! Page's protection really needs be raised up! --SilentResident (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Template issue

We should do something with the template, too. I don't think it's at the appropriate size. User:Pyraechmes Chrusts 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it has been fixed now, it seems.--SilentResident (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia was always Hellenic

Macedonia was never a part of the ancient Hellenic city-states

One of the steps in the Scientific Method of Investigation is the publication of your obtained results. This is done, so that others by repeating the same experiment using same methodology may independently arrive to the same conclusion and verify whether it is true what you have accomplished with your own hypothesis. Once many independent laboratories—through their scientific research—confirm your results, then, the hypothesis that you have proposed becomes accepted and your findings acknowledged. I have said before, and I stand by my assertions that: (a) Macedonia was never a part of any ancient Greek city-state, nor were the ancient Macedonians ever considered by the ancient Greeks or by themselves, to be Greek. (b) Macedonia was never a member of any Hellenic League. Macedonia was not a member of the Greek Amphictyonic League either. Fact is that membership into these leagues was reserved for Hellenes only. And since Macedonians were not considered Hellenes, they were not admitted into these leagues. There is no record of either side voicing displeasure regarding this rule. And (c) in antiquity people knew that the boundary between Macedonia and Greece was the river Peneus and mount Olympus; to the south were the Greek tribes and to the north was Macedonia. I challenge all of you lecturers of history, including Professor Stephan Miller and his like-minded historians, to dispute my assertions and prove me wrong. When you claim or support a claim that "Macedonia was always Greek", it is incumbent upon you—academic standards compel—to find at least one shred of evidence from the ancient chroniclers and bring it forward. Find other authors from antiquity who will agree with your own assertion. And please, instead of shielding yourself with ambiguous interpretations from the 18th and the 19th century philhellenic writers, convince the readers with valid, persuasive arguments. Bring to the table solid, irrefutable evidence from the ancient Greeks themselves or their contemporary Greek or Roman biographers and chroniclers. I will go on the limb and reiterate my opinion regarding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians: Anyone who claims that ancient Macedonia was a Greek land and that ancient Macedonians were Greeks or that Macedonians are stealing Greek heritage, is nothing less and nothing more than a corrupt, deceitful fabricator of history whose (scientific) thinking—devoid of substance—is based on personal beliefs and mythical constructs. Facts are not derived from beliefs or mythology. Scientific knowledge does not rest on feelings, nor is it supported by bad-time stories and mythology. Science needs concrete, verifiable evidence. I can safely state that I stand on the shoulders of others; I stand convinced that (1) you will be unable to prove Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius wrong. These biographers have stated that Greece commences at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminates at the river Peneus.I am convinced that (2) you will be unable to prove Aeschines, Theopompus and Pausanias wrong, for not including Macedonia on their lists of the Amphictyonic people of Greece. I stand convinced that (3) you will have no answer as to why Thucydides found no room for Macedonia on his list of states on either side of the warring parties in the Peloponnesian War. Macedonia is found neither on the Athenian, nor on the Lacedaemonian side. These are hard facts that cannot be dismissed with lame excuses and manipulation of text. One cannot disregard evidence of this magnitude and bring forward a pitiful assertion like ´Macedonians spread Hellenic culture in the East´, instead. One cannot substitute and equate the words of a king (Philip V) "My ancestors Philip II and Alexander the Great conquered Greece", with "but Macedonians had same names as Greeks", nonsense. You can saturate the media with slogans and cry "thieves" as long as you want, but you will be unable to subvert and change the evidence left from the ancient authors. Fact is that you have bought some professors to put their whimsical shoulder on your "Greek" wheel, but fact is also that you are stuck in the mud of lies up to your knees and cannot move. The following piece of evidence reaffirms my position and demonstrates, once again, that truth is not a manipulative currency and cannot be suppressed for long. The following passages were taken from the Canadian Macedonian Historical Society Review written by Alexander Nitsis: "As one of the powers which had guaranteed the independence of the Greek Kingdom in 1828, Great Britain held the position that the Greek claims to extension of their territories were greater (as of 1880) than the boundaries which the Greek city-states held in antiquity. This position was brought forward by Major J.C. Ardagh, (later became Sir Major-General). He was part of the British delegation that was attached to the Special Embassy during the Congress at Berlin on June 3rd, 1878. He was also appointed as her Majesty´s Commissioner for the delineation of the frontier of Bulgaria (September 7th, 1878); and was employed during the conference at Constantinople in 1881. Sir J.C. Ardagh was born on August 9, 1840, and died on September 30th, 1907. Before the Conference at Constantinople, Major Ardagh communicated with the British Foreign Office on the issue of the new Greek frontier with his "Memorandum on the Ancient Boundaries of Greece", which was received at the Foreign Office on February 24th, 1881. The information which Major Ardagh presented in his memorandum (quoting sources from antiquity) reaffirms claims made by Macedonians today that, Macedonia was never part of any Greek (Hellenic) state during ancient times. If ancient Greek sources did not see Macedonia as part of the "Ancient Greek World", how can the modern Greek state see Macedonia and its people as Greek? What Major Ardagh´s memorandum does raise is questions not only to the issue of the true Greek frontier, but also to the true identity of the people of Macedonia. Since 1913, the end of the Second Balkan War when Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia and Montenegro divided up Macedonia amongst themselves, Greece has been claiming that Macedonia was always Greek. Major Ardagh discredits this claims by quoting ancient Greeks themselves and shows that not only was Macedonia not Greek or part of ancient Greece and neither was Epirus or Thessaly. Doc. 41 Memorandum on the Ancient Boundaries of Greece By Major J.C. Ardagh, C.B., R.E. – (Received at the Foreign Office, February 24th, 1881.) The Ancient Boundaries of Greece As the claims of the Greeks to an extension of territories are in some degree based upon the limits of the ancient Greece, I conceived that an examination of the early Greek geographers would throw some light upon them, and I have been able to procure, and annex extracts from them in Greek with translations. Strabo, Scylax, Dichaerchus, Scymnus, and Dionysius all concur in making Greece commence at the Ambracian Gulf, and terminate at the river Peneus. The catalogue of the ships in the Iliad, the various lists of the Amphictyonic tribes, the states engaged in the Peloponnesian war, the travels of Anacharsis , the description of Greece by Pausanias, and the natural history of Pliny—all give proof of the same fact, by positive or negative evidence; nor have I found anywhere a suggestion that Epirus was Greek, except that Dodona, the great oracle, though situated amid barbarians, was a Greek institution, and the legend that the Molossian Kings were of the house of Aeacidae. When Epirus first became powerful, 280 B.C., Greece had long been under the complete ascendency of the Macedonians, and after the fall of the Empire at the battle of Pydna, 168 B.C., it became a Roman province in 148 B.C. The establishment of Greek independence in 1832 was exactly 2,000 years after the battle of Pydna.  Strabo: (1) The tribes extending beyond the Ambracian Gulf to the eastward, and contiguous with the Peloponnesus, are Greek. (2) The tribes from the Strymon to the Pontic passes and Haemus are all Thracian, except on the coast which is inhabited by Greeks. (3) On the right of the entrance (of the Ambracian Gulf) dwell the Acarnanians, a Greek tribe. On the left is Nicopolis and the Kassopaeans, an Epirote tribe. (4) The Peneus divides Lower and Maritime Macedonia from Thessaly and Magnesia, and Haliacmon Upper Macedonia. (5) But the Peneus bounds Macedonia towards the north, and Thessaly towards the south.  Scylax: Periplus:-- (1) From Ambracia Greece is continuous (along the coast) as far as the river Peneus. (2) Up to this point (the country of the Magnesians) Greece is continuous from Ambracia. Dicaearchus: (1) I therefore draw the limits of Hellas at the country of the Magnesians, i.e., to the Vale of Tempe.  Scymnus: (1) Obove Tempe towards Olympus is the region of the Macedonians. (The writer describes the Thesprotians, Chaonians, Molossians and the inhabitants of the interior of Epirus, as barbarian. 430-460.) (2) Greece is continuous from Ambracia to the Peneus. Homer: In the catalogue of the ships in the second book of the Iliad, Acarnania, Aetolia and Thessaly are the most northern districts mentioned. The others are Boetia, Phocis, Locris, Euboea, Athens, Salamis, Argos, Mycinae, Laconia, Messenia, Arcadia, Crete, Rhodes, and Isles. The amphictyonic people. The names are given by Aeschines, Theopompus and Pausanias:  Aeschines: Thessalians, Boeotians, Dorians, Perrhaebeans, Magnetes, Locrians, Aeteans, Phthiotes, Maleans, Phocians.  Theopmpus: Ionians, Dorians, Perrhaebeans, Magnetes, Achaeans, Maleans, Dolopes, Aeneans, Delphians, Phocians, Phthiotes  Pausanias: Ionians, Diopes, Thessalians, Magnetes, Maleans, Phthiotes, Dorians, Of these, none belong to Epirus; indeed there are neither Aetolians nor Acarnanians.  Thermopylae: The next catalogue which throws light on the subject is that of forces under the command of Leonidas at Thermopylae. They are enumerated by Herodotus, Pausanias, and Deodorus as follows: Peloponnesians, Thespians, Thebans, Phocians, and Locrians (or Milesians). Forming in fact, something less than the present limits of Greece.  Thucydides: In book II of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides gives a catalogue of the states ranged on either side as follows: With the Lacedaemonians: All the Peloponnesians except the Argives and Achaeans, the Megareans, Locrians, Boeotians, Phocians, Ambraciots, Leucadians, and Anactoreans With the Athenians: Chians, Lesbians, Plataeans, Messenians of Neopactus, most of the Acarnanians, the Corcyraeans, Zacynthians, with certain islands and colonies.  Anacharsis: Travels in Greece, 357 B.C. There are 14 other nations in Epirus. Pausanias does not even mention Epirus  Pliny: Natural History, book IV: He places mount Olympus in Thessaly, but does not precisely define the boundary of Macedonia, which he describes as extending to the Adriatic." With this illustration by Ardagh, the Greek cries of "Macedonia is Greece", is shown once again to be nothing more than a fabrication. The ancient boundaries of Greece do not coincide with the modern Greek borders. These ancient frontiers of Greece are the basis which the present Greek state is using for the claims on Macedonia. This is certainly another piece of evidence that reaffirms the inadmissibility of the Greeks´ claims that "Macedonia was always Greek". Time and again, this blatant lie is being exposed for what it really represents—a flagrant and shamelessly executed subversion of historical truth—heist of unparallel historical proportions never before seen in the history of mankind. What is so arrogantly flaunted as Greek heritage is nothing but a stolen property from the Macedonians. Between these rampant Greek lies and deceptions and the silence of the European academicians, who, certainly, know the truth, runs the menacing current of the biased and the hypocritical attitude of Europe itself. Human rights issues in Greece are of paramount importance and Europe remains silent. By not addressing these obvious violations of its own constitution, Europe undermines its own reputation. By not attending to these flames of hatred and racism exhibited by the Greek government, Europe diminishes its own stature and weakens its own institutions. Europe must find courage to tell Greece, simply to "grow up", as said by former US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger in the interview for the Macedonian Television. And in the words of the former German ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, Hans Lothar Schteppan, Europe must recognize that "Greece’s strong objection to the name was laid on a foundation of lies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbeheard (talk • contribs) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Macedonia was not only Hellenic from the early Greek history until nowadays, but it also was greek-speaking area all the time. See Pella curse tablet for instance. From early 6th century BC, 5th century BC, 4th century BC, 3th century BC, 2th century BC, 1th century BC, 1th century AD, 2th century AD, 3th century AD, 4th century AD, 5th century AD, 6th century AD, 7th century AD, 8th century AD, 9th century AD, 10th century AD, 11th century AD, 12th century AD, 13th century AD, 14th century AD, 15th century AD, 16th century AD, 17th century AD and 18th century AD, the only people who called themselves Macedonians, and they signed as Macedonians were only Greeks and nothing else. How can you explain this? And also our fathers, our grand fathers, our grand grand ..... grand fathers were always called Macedonians. Say what ever you want, for Greece, but we, the indigenous Macedonians, will give the answer again, as we always did, against our northern neighbores. You want the name "Macedonia" for your selves? Then have it. We can borrow you our name. I am sure you like it. Because we are generous. How many years you thik you can keep it? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? Then, another nation will come from the north and you will disappear. But we, the indigenous Macedonians, will still be here, as we are here for thousands of years. User:Pyraechmes We were here before you came and we will be here after you leave 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If 1000 years from now an English text is found in Turkey will the Historians automaticly say, Yeah this was English empire in the past??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.181.152 (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be a Greek dialect that we've not found again- and, on top of that, FYROM's geographic position doesn't coincide with Ancient Macedonia- they've got nothing to do with the Ancient Macedonians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.69.58 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)