Talk:Macedonians (Greeks)

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)

Macedonians (Greeks) or Macedonian Greeks?

Hallow. There are any questions with incorrect name of a similar article in Russian Wikipedia. If these people are called Macedonians (individual name of the nation), they are not Greeks. And if they are Greeks, it should be called "The Greeks of Macedonia" or "Macedonian Greeks". It is written that they are a regional group, as: "Yorkshiremen (Englishmen)"??? Maksimilian karlovich (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"If these people are called Macedonians (individual name of the nation), they are not Greeks" how is this not textbook POV? These 3.5 million people (more than the "ethnic" Macedonians) identify as equally both and reject the distinction between the two identities. They have a right to their culture just like your people so live and let live. Macedonian contributors seem to think that if they vandalize enough Greek articles the world will just hand them all of the geographical Macedonia on a platter and make all the other ethnicities on the area go away but life doesn’t work that way. CapJoe2 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Page citations for the text in the lead

Since nobody seems interested in discussing challenged initial reverts on the talkpage (when asked to do so) on this page that seems to have a substantial history of vandalism, I'm going to let both the Mackridge and the Shea quote stand, while re adding the "page needed" tag for the Mackridge one (originally added by User:Judist). We will see if any more information about that is forthcoming. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism comes usually mostly from people with nationalist connotations, who are, for political reasons, ignoring archeological evidence and are disputing the Hellenic identity of the ancient Macedonians and are trying, to relate the ancient people with the Slavic people associated with the Republic of Macedonia. For more info, please check Macedonian nationalism. Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda, it is better to stay away from actions that can constitute POV in such politically-sensitive articles. If do you believe that the Ancient Greeks and modern Greeks (and Byzantine Greeks and whatever) are unrelated to each other, then bring us sources so we can see them? That could be a very helpful first step. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the political sensitivity of the article, although I am aware that it is sensitive and I do take note of that. What would really be helpful, is if people who invoke history to justify their political or nationalistic notions would realize that the perceived "nature" of these notions, be they identities or geographical concepts, tends to shift throughout history in time and in space. I, being historically a Saxon Groninger, who is also a Burgundian, a Dutchman, a Frank and a German and a Frisian would like people to actually understand how that works and how they can become more dispassionate about these matters when editing an encyclopedia. But it seems to be rather difficult. What would also be helpful is if people whose edits are rejected or critiscised or even reverted by others would engage in talk about the edit conflict. A feature that has been seriously lacking on this page and on related pages (about three or four of them in the last week only) visited by the contestants that have also operated here recently (for which you User:SilentResident are not to be blamed of course). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Gerard von Hebel, I agree, no identity or geographic concept in the world is 100% pure and I do not believe in such theories of pure races and pure ethnicity or whatever. In fact, this is what makes the world history be that fascinating and interesting: the interaction between people of different origins and backgrounds across different time periods.

But the problem with the Balkan-related articles is that they remain very politically sensitive today, for reasons that relate to the current nationalist policies based on identities, as well as the former communist policies that have been adopted by the states in the region of the Balkans in the not-so-distant past, and which have marked (and re-shaped) a large part of the peninsula's politics and populations.

Unfortunately the societies in the Balkans have yet to reach the level of political maturity seen in the rest of the European societies. One can easily notice how in the Balkan politics, there is a strong presence of "genealogical pureness", "ethnic superiority" and "patriotic nationalism", which can unfortunately only cause political tensions between people and states.

The Wikipedia in fact has suffered greatly from these "attitudes", and for this very reason, the online encyclopedia is in fact struggling even today to find and maintain a balance in the Balkan-related articles. Under this context, Wikipedia has adopted certain measures, policies and restrictions regarding the edits and information permitted on the articles, and, honestly, this is expected.

I agree that the sentence which you have tried to remove "X people claim ancestry/are descendants from this A and from that B", normally could not belong on this article under normal circumstances, because it is natural and obvious that no nation can ever claim today that they are pure descendants of people who lived centuries and thousands of years ago. But it is present in the article, not for genealogical reasons as one might have assumed, but due to the fact that there is a record of a semiological confusion over identity between Macedonians (ancient Greek people), Macedonians (Slavic people), and Macedonians (modern Greek people) in this region of the Balkans, and how these people relate to each other. It is a very complicated issue that cannot be explained here, but if you want to check out more details about it, you can read about the term Macedonia currently the subject to the heated 20-year long dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece, as well as for the connotations it bears for certain nationalist circles which can only add to the confusion of the readers. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is quite simple the way I see it. This article is about the Greeks who are native to Macedonia (the Greek region), not the region of Macedonia itself. As such, any material about Greeks from Asia Minor is extraneous to the article. While it's true that many Greek inhabitants of Macedonia are originally from Asia Minor, that info belongs in other articles (e.g. Macedonia (region), Macedonia (Greece)), where it is in fact already mentioned. But it is not appropriate for this article. This article is strictly about the Greeks native to Macedonia. It never ceases to amaze me how much off-topic stuff is regularly added to Wikipedia articles. Athenean (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, Athenean. You got a very valid point. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You want to leave what you like, and remove the rest - I disagree with you, Athenean. As long as descent from Ancient Macedonians stands in the intro, removal of any other ancestral group is a tendentous removal. It is visible recently how much has the sentence attracted ambitious IP-trolls, nationalists and vandals with numerous evasions. Therefore all must definetely stay in the intro to balance and none descent should be hidden. Otherwise the intro would be extreme, feding and satisfying only the chovinist view. The proprotion of refugees will be mentioned in the article, so by removing the prevalent descent from Pontic Greeks from the intro the aim is clear - to be claimed in the intro that Greek Macedonians are pure descendants of Ancient and Byzantine Macedonians and anything disputing it to be removed. Judist (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

As you admit yourself, there is a separate article about the Pontic Greeks. This article is about the Greeks indigenous to Macedonia, not the Pontic Greeks. How many people currently residing in Macedonia are Pontic Greeks is irrelevant to this article. So basically your argument as to why an irrelevant sentence should stay is because "sentence attracted ambitious IP-trolls, nationalists and vandals with numerous evasions". By the way, none of those IPs [1] would happen to be yours, would they? Athenean (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Judist, I have noticed in various comments by you that there is an particular interest of your part on Pontic refugees in Macedonia, and only in there. In fact, I haven't noticed any interest on Pontic refugees in Athens for example. How comes? What do the Macedonian locals have to do with Pontian refugees? I do not understand, why are you insisting that the Pontic refugees have to be added particularly on the article about Macedonia. After all, the Pontic refugees didn't only settle in there. They have settled in Thrace, Attica, Epirus, and Peloponnese too, but honestly, I have never noticed any interest of your part on Pontic resettlement in the aforementioned articles besides Macedonia's one... I apologize for my ignorance on the background of the Pontic case, just it is strange, any highlight is much appreciated. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear SR, I was probably mistaken when I said Pontic. The statistics of population exchanges show that most refugees from Turkey settled in Aegean Macedonia, more than in any other region in Greece. 45% of Greek Macedonians were born in what is now Turkey. These people may have also another regional identity different than Macedonian and intermixed with the locals. The statistics make it undisputed that most Greek Macedonians are descended from recent refugees at least partially. However none verifiable source is provided in the article backing the claim that Greek Macedonians descend from Byzantine or Ancient Macedonians. If it will be see WP:Balance, then it would be rational to clarify what part are not descended from the region. The whole part can be moved out of the introduction where almost the same information is already written, so I don't see what the sense of this discussion is.Judist (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Judist, first of all, I very kindly ask you to not use the irredendist term "Aegean" when referring to the corresponding portion of the region of Macedonia that Greece holds, as it is not tolerated by the Greek people and the rest of the international community, because it is politically incorrect term, for it bearing irredentist connotations associated with certain political and nationalist circles in the Republic of Macedonia. Much like how the international community uses a country's formal and transliterated international English version of that name (such as the Republic of Macedonia's "Bitola", over the Greek "Monastiri", or Greece's "Thessalonica over the Republic of Macedonia's "Solun", or even Turkey's "Istanbul" instead of the Christian Orthodox "Constantinople", etc), can I expect the same formal reciprocity? That would be a good first step for honest talks.

Second, you seem well-informed in regards to the Refugee redistribution across the territory of Greece, and I am very sure that you are also well informed ab out how the share of refugee burden was done, so it is pointless for me to remind you of that, right? But still, for the convenience of other readers around here who are following our discussion but do not know much, here we go: the Greek portion of Macedonia has the largest percentage of the Greece's total territory, making it the largest region in terms of territory size (34,177 km2), with the region of Central Greece (including Attica) third (24,818.3 km2), and the region of Peloponnese following third (21,549 km2). The biggest region of Greece also meant more percentage of Pontic refugee burden share (which is natural, and which once again is seen in modern times, where the biggest Greek portion of Macedonia is again the lead in Syrian refugee hosting / burden sharing). Secondly, The Greek region of Macedonia, due to its sheer size, is the region that was affected the most from the Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey. Everyone who has seen the statistics, can see that the biggest chunk of Muslim populations that were forced to leave Greece, were living in what today is Northern Greece, and its capital, Thessalonica. amd thus, making it one of the most depopulated areas.

However, dear Judist, in spite of Attica accepting the second largest burden share of the Pontic refugee despite being only just a small part of the 2nd largest region in Greece (Attica consists only of 3,808.10 km2), I have not yet heard you complaining about the local people of Attica being no longer "Authentic Descendants" or how could you call them, given that Pontic refugees and Armenian refugees have left an everlasting impact to the city of Athens, which even today faces serious city-planning problems (bad rain flood management, bad road network planning, rapid growth of districts, no respect to architectural norms of the city, etc, are just few of these issues.) And a good percentage of the city is not local Athenians, but refugees from Asia Minor and Anatolia. Athens, which is a city 200 times smaller than the entire Greek portion of Macedonia in terms of available land territory for resettlement, in fact accepted more refugees from Turkey in terms of /sq mi than Macedonia did. However, dear Judist, I am curious to understand why is there an expressed interest of yours about Pontic refugees only for the Greek part of Macedonia, but no interest at all for the refugees in Attica and Athens? Am I missing something or just it happened that you have not shown any interest to any Pontic resettlement in other areas of the country which in terms of landmass, they got an even bigger burden share than the Greek part of Macedonia? I hope you can shed some light here so I can really understand what the case is about. Otherwise I can't help you. Thanks for your response. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The author of the source itself used the term Aegean Macedonia, not me. Since you politely asked me I am providing you the statistics[2][3], the total number of refugees in Macedonia is 776,000 as described here [4] including refugees from countries other than Turkey, this is more than half of both the total population of the region and the total number of refugees. SR, I don't seem to disagree with you for anything, unless you insist unverified sources without pages given to remain in the article. I am not arguing that Maceodnian Greeks are no desendands of the Ancient, but no verification is provided. If the sources are not verified then they should simply be removed, this is my simple view. I don't insist the refugee information to be in the intro if the unverified source, alleged for claiming that Greek Macedonians descend from the Ancient is removed. Whether you are going to move the information for refugees to other sections or articles it doesn't matter, it is already stated there. I don’t wish to argue more on the topic as the discussion escalates longer than needed. Only the part that fails verification should be deleted. Thank you for your time.Judist (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you are not talking only just about Pontic refugees but all refugees. Even so, I don't understand what your argument is. You are disputing connection of modern Greek Macedonians as whole, even those who are native in the region, just because it accepted a large percentage of refugees? Then again, how comes this is not a case for you about Athens? 1,200,000 Greeks Refugees came from Turkey, plus 80,000 Armenian refugees which is for some reason not mentioned in the link. Over 580.000 refugees settled in Athens from Turkey, and Athens is so much smaller than the entire region of Macedonia. Athens's refugee population density was the highest in the entire European continent as result of this large-scale population exchange, and also was much larger than the refugee density in the Greek portion of Macedonia. Still what is the case here? None seems to be concerned that the Athenians today are less Athenians just because of refugees from other lands outside Greece. Rhetorically speaking, the refugees are as Greek and as Athenians as possible today, no matter their refugee past, and none, even the Scholars do not dispute that, much like none disputes that the European migrants to America can be as American as possible today, or the ethnic Macedonian diaspora abroad as ethnic Macedonian as possible. Just I don't get what the problem is here, any clarification could be appreciated. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, if someone holds the personal opinion that the present-day Athenians are absolutely not connected to the Athenians living there prior to the refugee wave, seems like an anecdote (no offence)... But even so, it is a personal opinion, and this has to be respected. People are free and can express their opinions in a democratic world. But Wikipedia is not formed upon people's personal opinions. Wikipedia is build on facts, sources and event records.

So, given the fact that both the Greek portion of Macedonia and the city of Athens have had a Greek presence prior to the Greek refugees swarming them, the continuous Greek presence in these regions/cities was (and still is) uninterrupted, or even bolstered I could say. With simple words, refugees of a particular ethnicity coming and settling in a region, did not end abruptly that ethnicity's presence in the said region, nor it did change the fact that the Greek presence in Athens and Macedonia was continuous to this time. Refugees coming bolster a group's presence in the affected regions and this does not cancel that group's historical heritage to its homeland, nor does diminish it over time. Refugees in Macedonia and in Athens get integrated and mixed with the local populations, like it was the case elsewhere in the world, and it is very natural that their descendants enjoy the same heritage. We the individuals are not the ones to judge and decide who has the right to his heritage and who has not. All the people of the world have equal rights on culture and heritage. Each person may has his own opinions on the matter, but the generic philosophy behind human development on the European and American soil through the centuries, is that there is always some form of continuous human presence in an area (be it for the one or the other), with the obvious exception of mass migrations and genocides. But the point here is that the pop additions (refugees) does not erase/cancel this, just influences it. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If the migrants were supposed to determine, alter, be something, or even cancel/end the right of the local people to their cultural and historical heritage, then I am afraid that the entire world today should be labeled as "mixed people" or as "migrants", and cast them void of any heritage rights to their places. Such anti-migrant logics are adopted usually by the ultranationalist, fascist and racist political parties, notably from the Balkans and certain northern and central European states and they cannot be tolerated in Wikipedia. No one can ever claim or make up the assumption that migrants to a place somehow voids the local people of their heritage or culture. The migrants are a phenomenon that has affected all the countries and it is an integral part of the human development and of the world history. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the migration aspect (supported by the Shea quote) should be removed from the article. While some think that the descendents of migrants are not the subject of this article, their presence in the region cannot be of no interest to the subject at hand. It doesn't have to be in the lead but it should be mentioned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not the right article for this. We can't mention Romans, Vlahs, Romas, Ottomans, Albanians, Slavs, and Byzantines here, this article is about the Macedonian people, not the region where the migrants came or passed through. For that case, the article Macedonia (region) is the recommended one. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It is of interest to their demographic position in their region of origin and therefore to the subject at hand. I see no reason to be all that rigid about it. Other articles about ethnic groups mention information like this when appropriate, so why should this one be an exception? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hebel, the refugees have already been mentioned in the article and this is enough. I do not understand why you and Judist are insisting so much about adding more about a particular group of refugees than really needed. If your check In the Origins section, you will find this sentence:

"After the 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey, half of the refugees from Asia Minor, Pontus, and Eastern Thrace settled in the region."

and in the Early 20th Century section, you will find the following sentence:

"The Greek refugees from Turkey constituted 45% of the population of Greek Macedonia in 1928."

and this is pretty much enough. Any particular focus on other groups of people besides the one the article is dedicated to, can cross the lines and constitute possible WP:Fringe, especially if what you are insisting in adding is the "this group mixed with this". Once again, I feel obliged to warn the users to refrain from such debatable moves on sensitive articles, as this certainly does not improve their quality. Thank you and have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That I hadn't yet noticed and will do quite well in my opinion. Thanks. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gerard. The origin parts can be moved to the Origins section, not removed. The introduction says it clearly that article is about all ethnic Greeks inhabiting or originating from the region, the infobox as well. This includes assimilated Slavs, a Cambrdige University source backing this has even been removed, which no user with NPOV would do. No discontent can be expressed for such sources. The only complain provided so far is that they are not for the article. That part fits the topic of the article unless you change the meaning of the heading sentence. They include all people sharing the same identity regardless of their origins. Is anyone able to point out the page of the source in the intro with the page needed tag so as to know if it is going to meet the verification or not? Best, Judist (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Judist for your comment. Apologies to you and User:SilentResident for being to quick on my feet where recent edits were concerned. I think it is important and sufficient that the immigrant situation towards Greek Macedonia (the place where the people discussed in the article live) is mentioned in the Early 20th Century and the Origins section. Perhaps a source could be added, but it is important to keep articles like this balanced. Other groups inhabiting the region where the population discussed in the article come from are mentioned. Which is sufficient enough for my purpose. I haven´t been able to find a page number for the Mackridge source however, but placed a notification about how that is wanted. I think that it´s a good thing that people are now discussing this on the talkpage. A feature that has been lacking during the IP invasions on articles like this in the nearby past. I also think it is a good thing that the 20th century immigration of other Greek groups to Greek Macedonia, and the width of its demographic influence on the region, is mentioned in the article. I do believe that the Slav speaking Macedonians of Greece and their descendants are mentioned as well. Although mention of their presence in the region today might be lacking. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Hebel. I am glad to help. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The introducer[5] of the source claiming that the Greek Macedonians descend from the Ancient should provide a page for the claim. Otherwise it will be removed sooner or later.

@A Gounaris:, provide a page for where you've got the claim for your inclusion per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Or it will obviously be seen as a source falsification.

@SilentResident:, at least explain the removals in the Origins section of Cambridge University sources.Judist (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you can check the edit history of the article [6] and see that this sentence was not added by me in the first place. All what I did is to defend and restore the article to its last stable version. You have so far failed to provide any sources backing your claims, and you have failed to prove any lack of connection between Ancient Macedonians and modern-day Macedonians. Due to this, the other users, including me, have reverted your edits on this page. If you do believe that Ancient Macedonians and modern Macedonians are unrelated to each other, can you explain to us and provide us with reliable sources backing this theory? I could appreciate if you take the time and provide us with sources verifying that there is no connection or whatever between the modern Greeks and their ancestors, before resorting to more disruptive edits. That could be helpful and allow for your edits to stay. Until then, I kindly please you to refrain from reinstating the same kind of edits on the page, as there is a consensus against your edits by multiple users and repeating these edits can risk you in getting blocked from editing this page in the future. Thank you. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Depsite all, you did not justify the removal of information throughout the Origins section, for whose inclusion Gerard insisted. I do not understand what I am reuqired to provide. I do not include any unsourced theorie. So you should provide a source backing an unsourced sentence. Oterwise it is only about an unverified sentence, so the editor, who included it must show the page where he saw the claim. The series of blanking sourced information and introduction of a falsified source continue without backing them with any argument or source. Judist (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious to me that (Not taking into account the somewhat recent post Lausanne deportations and resettlements, which should be mentioned in the article, I agree with User:Judist there!) most people that resided in Greek Macedonia before 1923, are somehow descended from the Macedons of ancient times. But that goes for the Greeks, Slavs, Turks and Aromunians and what have you, alike. That is simply a function of a sensible understanding of the statistics and knowledge about how ethnic changes in a limited piece of territory generally go about. I live in a territory which is now Saxon speaking, but was Frisian speaking some hundreds of years ago. Mostly Protestant now but Catholic before and it's pretty obvious that I descend from Frisians, Saxons, Protestants and Catholics alike. Who do you suppose the people of Turkey (Anatolia) mostly descend from? Exactly! The people who have always lived there and who's ancestors have identified with a multitude of ethnicities from Hittite to Phrygian to Greek to Turk! With more or less substantial influx from outside at times of course, but still.... Pages should be named of course when it comes to sources, but I feel a different approach to this matter is sorely needed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Due to the latest disruptive edits by the user Judist, and the breach of the 3RR in spite of multiple warnings by other users, I was left with no other options but to report him to the Administrator's Noticeboard, and the Administrators now blocked him from editing this article for the period of a week. Furthermore, I have undone Judist's edits and the article has been reverted back to its last stable version by Athenean. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that and a weeks rest would be a very good opportunity to think about this matter a little further. I obviously don't agree with either side of this equation completely when it comes to connecting present Greek Macedonians, and particularly their descent and heritage exclusively to one or the other side of a conflict about identity. I think the people that are talked about should be identified as heirs (partially or otherwise, that is a problem to be solved and I believe it can be solved) with ancient Macedon. And we cannot get around the simple fact that ancient Macedon should be identified with a Greek identity when it comes to the facts on the ground in antiquity. I also think that we cannot ignore the influx of immigrants after 1923 and their influence on the region in which the people discussed live. But it's not just the immigrants. It's also the descendants of people who lived in the province before 1923 that may not have identified themselves as Greek at the time. Basically the scope of the article should be better explained. The demographics of Greek Macedonia has changed between 1913 and the twenties and later. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with this logic, dear Gerard von Hebel. These are fringe theories. If immigration has to be considered as a factor determining the ancestral/heritage rights for a group, then, I am afraid, dear Gerard von Hebel, the world's communities will have to be re-organized and re-thinked for their origins, because, in your respective, only a very small percentage of the world's total population are true descendants (in the genetics sense) of locals who lived before them in the same areas (remember, there is also the internal migration, which along with the urbanization and decentralization, has affected roughly the 90% of the world's total population). And even so, does this permits the remaining 10% of the world's population, to question the history and homes of the 90% which is the majority? Absolutely not. And in spite of the fact that the humanity has been through two World Wars, medieval climate changes, and internal migrations, all of which have caused a drastic change in world population. So, respect your heritage even if it is uncertain that you are a Frisian or a Saxon by genetics, because your heritage is not based solely on genetics, but on your political association, your birthplace, your homeland, your culture, your ethnicity, your society and your language. Ah, and do not forget that the same right is recognized for all the Greeks currently living in the region of Macedonia, as it is for Saxons in Saxonia, the Ethnic Macedonians in Macedonia, and the Italians in Italy. But at least, consider yourself lucky in that your country where you do live (I assume it is Netherlands?) does not share land borders with other countries stylizing themselves as Republic of Saxonia or Republic of Frisia, because at least that saves you from the trouble of being semiologically confused with a namesake country you are not associated with, as is the unfortunate case of the Greek Macedonians and the Republic of Macedonia. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources for some of these claims?

and the ethnic cleansing policies of the Bulgarian authorities. - Is there a source for this? Bulgaria officially annexed the occupied territories, which had long been a target of Bulgarian irredentism, on 14 May 1941.[37] - Bulgaria, at that time, couldn't annex anything without the supervision of the Reich. Jotaro97 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macedonians (Greeks). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805041430/http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/100-7-79.shtml to http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/100-7-79.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008232738/http://www.neurope.eu/articles/90089.php to http://www.neurope.eu/articles/90089.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia is not Greece and the Macedonians are not Greeks in the Holy Bible

Acts 20:1-2 King James Version (KJV) 20 And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.

2 And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece,

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ - 20 1 Μετὰ δὲ τὸ παύσασθαι τὸν θόρυβον προσκαλεσάμενος ὁ Παῦλος τοὺς μαθητὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος ἐξῆλθε πορευθῆναι εἰς Μακεδονίαν. 2 διελθὼν δὲ τὰ μέρη ἐκεῖνα καὶ παρακαλέσας αὐτοὺς λόγῳ πολλῷ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ῾Ελλάδα·

Acts 27:2 King James Version (KJV) 2 And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us.

ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ - 27 2 ἐπιβάντες δὲ πλοίῳ Ἀδραμυττηνῷ μέλλοντες πλεῖν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν τόπους ἀνήχθημεν, ὄντος σὺν ἡμῖν Ἀριστάρχου Μακεδόνος Θεσσαλονικέως, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geliefde Liefde (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macedonians (Greeks). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831205515/http://www.kozani.net/kozani.php?p_id=76&menu_id=25 to http://kozani.net/kozani.php?p_id=76&menu_id=25

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

False allegations of POV and blatant negationism

I see that reverts and negationism such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_(Greeks)&diff=910302497&oldid=910302391 are a big problem on this page. There are thousands of sources that state Slavic is still spoken among Greek Macedonians such as and countless more

Calling all sources stated here "original research or novel syntheses" such as User:Dr.K. has is blatant POV and denialism at its finest. Would you also consider all the evidence and sources provided in Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia as being unreliable because they don't align with your POV?

Also a collection of references that accentuate why the statement "Notably, they have a heritage and identity distinct from that of the Slavic Macedonians" is utter POV, and why we need reliable citations to back up the statement:

You can't use primary sources which is why Dr K has said you are synthesising material You need a third party reliable source which makes supports the change -----Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Saying all the sources that are presented here are "primary sources" where I am making logical implications is beyond laughable. Also removing the citation required tag for such a bold statement with no reliable sources to back it up indicates the political motivated actions which are being conducted in this page Beat of the tapan (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. You are POV-pushing using edit-warring and personal attacks. You'd better stop doing that. You have dumped all kinds of sources, many on genetics. What do these sources have to do with the language edit-warring you are engaged in? Most of the other sources do not say what you are pushing here. Dr. K. 06:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Lets have a look at "Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data" and see what is stated here and why we should review the lead of the article; "Consequently, we suggest that there is a “central-east European” genetic substratum in West and East Slavs, exemplified by NRY hgs R1a and the k3 ancestry component, and a “south-east European” one, featuring NRY hgs I2a and E plus the k2 ancestry component for South Slavs (Fig 2A and 2B, Fig 3, Table K in S1 File; Tables A,B in S1 File). Notably, the “south-east European” component does not extend to the whole Balkan Peninsula, as South Slavs are differentiated from Greek sub-populations except Macedonian Greeks (Fig 2A, Fig 4B) [55]."

How about you have a look a Fig 2A and see that Greek and ethnic Macedonians cluster together with respect to autosomal analysis? The majority of the other genetic analysis articles hold the same preservative. But this goes beyond genetics, see the source I elaborated to User:Snowded. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I brought up genetics since the lead of the article states a distinct heritage which mean an distinct genetics and ancestry to ethnic Macedonians. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I went through the references and I couldn't see support for your perspective. There are generic material not specific to this article other than through implication. Now several of your references do not have online versions so if you think there is relevant material then please quote it here so we can look at it. You should also stop making personal attacks on the motivation of other editors -----Snowded ^TALK 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me choose one source, since mathematically speaking, all I need to find is one counterexample to indicate that you are lying saying that "You went through the references and I couldn't see support for your perspective". Lets go with citation [9] - NATIONAL CONFLICT IN A TRANSNATIONAL WORLD: GREEKS AND MACEDONIANS AT THE CONFERENCE FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE, by Loring M. Danforth (does this look like a primary source to you?), as you can see in section 5. Macedonian Human Rights and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe it is stated

According to the 1990 Country Report on Human Rights Practices published by the United States Department of State (1991:1172) there are between 20,000 and 50,000 Slavic-speakers in northern Greece, most of whom live in the relatively underdeveloped area along the Greek-Yugoslavia border. While the vast majority of these people have a Greek national identity, a significant number of them (perhaps 5,000-10,000) have a Macedonian national identity; that is, they identify themselves as Macedonians, not as Greeks.

Now if you say that this does not support my perspective then I am gobsmacked at such denialism. As I said, one source is enough Beat of the tapan (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

My polite request for you to tone down your comments stands. I'd remind you of the opening of this article "This article is about ethnic Greek people from Macedonia, Greece" it is not an article about Macedonia or a specific geographical area per se. Your source needs to establish that Slavic is a significant language in that ethnic group. The quote you give is not explcit on that, it might be held to imply it but I think we would need more. You will get a lot further if you engage in a conversation about this rather than edit warring and throwing out accusations. These issues are fraught in the history of wikipedia and any experienced editor will tell you the same. Calm down and engage in a discussion. I'm not closing my mind to your edit, or some variation, but at the moment I don't see support for it in third party sources other than by synthesis or original research -----Snowded ^TALK 07:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Request accepted. How about, we look at another source while we are at it, UCLA: Language Materials Projects:

Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia, formerly the Yugoslavian Socialist Republic of Macedonia; it has a total of 2 million speakers including 1.4 million in Macedonia and about 200,000 in Greece.

Right. So, whether it's 30,000 or 200,000 Slavic speakers in Greece which identify as Greeks (see Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia), that is significant. I can modify the edit to say the language is spoken by a minority, but avoiding any mention of it and ignoring sources is unscientific and comes across as politically motivated. Also you have not gave any justification of removing the 'citation needed tag'. Beat of the tapan (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

More sources, according to , Northwestern Greece is home to an indeterminate number--estimates range widely, from under 10,000 to 50,000 or more--of citizens who speak a Slavic dialect at home, particularly in Florina province. A small number identify themselves as belonging to a distinct ethnic group and assert their right to "Macedonian" minority status. Their assertions have generated strong objections among the 2.2 million non-Slavophone Greek inhabitants of the northern Greek region of Macedonia, who use the same term to identify themselves. The Government does not recognize the Slavic dialect as a "Macedonian" language distinct from Bulgarian. Members of the minority asserted that the Government pursues a policy designed to discourage use of their dialect. The Government is concerned that members of the "Macedonian" minority may have separatist aspirations. Greece's dispute with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia over that country's name heightened this sensitivity. As you can see, this is an issue about Greece and not North Macedonia Beat of the tapan (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beat of the tapan: you stated: "By the way, I brought up genetics since the lead of the article states a distinct heritage which mean an distinct genetics and ancestry to ethnic Macedonians." Nope. The heritage of the people is historical, cultural and linguistic. Genetics isn't the focus here, and we shouldn't go by labeling people based on genetics. This is racist. if the people consider themselves to be their own distinct group, then as Wikipedia, we can do nothing about it but simply respect the reality. Self-determination of people is one of Wikipedia community's principal ethics. Now if you have sources claiming this or that, I am not going to rebuke them, but I strongly object using them in such a disruptive way that causes friction among Wikipedia editors of different views, like how you already are doing right now. Many editors who visit these pages, as well as readers, take pride in their heritange, be it historical, linguistic, or cultural. None, including you and your sources on genetics, are to dictate how the others are called or defined. Understand? I highly recommend you drop this disruptive approach to any articles related to the region of Macedonia and its people, because it is well-known for being multicultural and the homeland of many different groups that bear different political views, ethnic origins and linguistic/cultural heritages.

If I were you, I could use such sources only in an anthropologically informative fashion, not for political purposes. And I could avoid using them especially on an article that is about, not genetics, but a historical, cultural and political group of people. In case you weren't aware, there have been similar attempts in the past by other editors, who tried to ram Genetic findings in Balkan topic area articles, especially Macedonian, Turkish and Albanian articles, and all of them have been rightfully been reverted due to their POV-pushing nature. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources I posted are not only genetic. Okay fair enough, I will sway from the genetics on this article. But as you said heritage is historical, cultural, linguistic and these three components have not yet been disproven. Okay, we can say by historical, that could be contemporary, then fine. But the linguistic (in particular) and Cultural issue have not yet addressed. If you can make it more explicit that a large contingent of Greek Macedonians descend from refugees that arrived from outside of Macedonia during the 1923 population exchange, then yes you can say that those three criteria are satisfied. But for now, since that is not reality for the article, saying they have a different heritage to ethnic Macedonians is not entirely true and the statement is probably best avoided since Wikipedia is not about supporting national myths to not upset anyone's "national pride". In regards to the Slavic language, which exists amongst some households, we can state the Slavic dialects of Greece are spoken by a minority, but to say they all speak Greek and only Greek is another falsification as per the sources I provided Beat of the tapan (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Linguistically speaking? Ok. Here we go: For info about the Greek-speaking Greeks, you are welcome to contribute to this article. For info about the Slavic-speaking Greeks, you are welcome to contribute to that article Slavophone Greeks here. I hope that helps.

Now, about your statement: "If you can make it more explicit that a large contingent of Greek Macedonians descend from refugees that arrived from outside of Macedonia during the 1923 population exchange, then yes you can say that those three criteria are satisfied." I am saddened to hear this overused argument which, in case you haven't realized, is the primary argument heard only by far-right nationalist Macedonians whose goal is no one other than to downplay and diminish the Macedonian idendity of the refugees who have come from other parts of the world and settled here, or, as worse, promote theirs at the expense of the idendity of others. I don't know what you have in your mind, but the refugees of 1900s can be as Macedonian as the Slav migrants of the 1000s. It doesn't matter where one's grandparents come from, the people residing in the region of Macedonia today, including the Greek portions of it, are real Macedonians, like it or not. Idendity isn't about blood or genetics. Idendity is about a person's consciousness, lifestyle, culture, language, political affiliations and choices. Simple as that. This is already reflected with a single keyword within the article's lead. A keyword which usually does not escapes most editor's attention. Let me copy-paste the sentence with the keyword contained: "The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) or Greek Macedonians are a regional and historical population group of ethnic Greeks, inhabiting or originating mainly from the Greek region of Macedonia" I hope I have been clear on this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You are still not justifying the misuse of the term heritage in the lead of the article and why a 'citation needed' tag is not required. The use of that term in such a manner signals POV to portray orthogonality between ethnic and Greek Macedonian heritage which is not true. A simple, and reliable citation is all I need, and I will back off. In addition, the title of Slavophone Greeks supports my perspective that Slavic should be mentioned as a minority language, although at this stage, due to the moving of goal posts and ignoring the elephant in the room, I am almost willing to give up on this and go on editing useful topics. Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beat of the tapan You need a source which states the language is spoke by the ethnic group which is the subject of this article. So far you continue to interpret sources to make that point which is either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or some combination thereof -----Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Give me, word for word according to wikipedia's engraved rules, why those statements which I have posted on this talk page, especially those in bold are somehow WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Explain to me how statements like from under 10,000 to 50,000 or more--of citizens who speak a Slavic dialect at home from a US government website are WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? Beat of the tapan (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You can read the policy as well as I can - I've given you my take on what that means and what I have asked for shouldn't be difficult to obtain. Otherwise, you need to pull other editors in through an RfC or similar -----Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beat of the tapan: I agree with Snowded. The policy is clear IMO and it leaves little room for misinterpretation. The edits you are trying to make to the article, require strong sources to support them. Don't get me wrong, none here objects to inclusion of any information as long as it is well-sourced and accuratelly attributed and meets Wikipedia's WP:NPOV criteria. But considering that this theory of yours wasn't even heard before, or even supported by the vast majority of the academic world, and since you want to insert it into a politically sensitive article such as this one, you really will have to provide strong sources backing your edits. Also I shall note that, generally, Wikipedia does not host views expressed by a very tiny minority of scholars or researchers. For a view to be accepted in Wikipedia, it has to be well-sourced and supported not just by one or two, but by at least a significant minority of the international community. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure I'll be happy to fetch more references and sources, but I need you to show me why that will be worth my time by clarifying why reference [20] for example is against Wikipedia's guidelines when it's a government source and has nothing to do with original research or synthesis as it explicitly states what I'm trying to get to here - to avoid going through all this again once I get more sources. I've read the guidelines and it may not be as explicit as you are claiming it to be. I doubt what I'm presenting here is a fringe view as it is well accepted there are Greeks in Greek Macedonia (therefore Greek Macedonians) that irregularly or regularly speak Slavic. I'm here to build an encyclopaedia, because topics are politically sensitive, that gives no right to not express what is well supported and to have POV such as saying there is a distinct heritage with their northern neighbours. By the way, I still need a source on that claim, no original research or synthesis - someone keeps on deleting my 'citation required' tag and if anything is a fringe view it is this. If no sources are provided, then I recommend using another term that relates better to identity as Wikipedia is ment to be objective. You may avoid offending one group of people with that statement, but in the end you just outright offend another group. Beat of the tapan (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beat of the tapan: "Sure I'll be happy to fetch more references and sources, but I need you to show me why that will be worth my time by clarifying why reference [20] for example is against Wikipedia's guidelines when it's a government source and has nothing to do with original research or synthesis as it explicitly states what I'm trying to get to here - to avoid going through all this again once I get more sources." Please familiarize yourself with WP:RELEVANT which is one of Wikipedia's most important assays and the reason your edits in this article are being reverted. The source from State.Gov you are trying to add here, is WP:RELEVANT to the other article, not here. If you are not capable of complying with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules and failure in seeing your errors in spite three editors trying, for whole days, to explain your errors, and your insistence in your faulty positions despite this increasingly lengthy discussion then, I can't help but wonder about your competence as an editor. Usually most editors are able to understand Wikipedia's rules and which articles are wp:relevant to the information they want to add. No matter how many more sources you find, they won't be added here since this is the wrong article for it. The State.Gov source talks about Slavophone Greeks, not Grecophone Greeks. Unless you can find sources backing your claim that the Greeks of Greek linguistic origin and Greek cultural background are same people as Greeks of Slavic linguistic origin and Slavic cultural background, then not only you will fail to gain any WP:CONSENSUS for adding this source here, but also your future attempts to add it will be reverted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beat of the SilentResident:

I am indeed competent enough to edit, for your information. So we go from WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to WP:RELEVANT? I was looking for information on how my source failed criteria specified by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For WP:RELEVANT to hold, you are treating Macedonians (Greeks) and Slavophone Greeks as two totally disjoint groups, which is not true, and if it is in the context of the article, it does a poor job differentiating the two groups. I'm also sure that with respect to self declaration most Slavophone Greeks will not be happy to be classified outside Greek Macedonians. I see where you are getting at with WP:RELEVANT, but we need the article to do a better job of differentiating the two groups. If this is achieved I can rest my case with the language and the heritage term. Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all, my name is SilentResident, not Beat of the SilentResident. You talk about competence, yet not even my name you cant write properly.

Second, we didn't "go from WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to WP:RELEVANT" as it is your efforts to make sources WP:RELEVANT to this article through WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules and it cannot be tolerated. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH aren't and cannot be tolerated in any way and form, as this damages the project's accountability towards the readers.

Third, I am not "treating Macedonians (Greeks) and Slavophone Greeks as two totally disjoint groups". I wasn't the one who created the two separate articles about the two groups, nor I was involved in this article's creation and expansion, nor I participated in any consensus-building, not had I added any sources to it myself. I am merely defending the article against your needless disruption. Simple as that.

Last, your statement about most Slavophone Greeks will not be happy to be classified outside Greek Macedonians is not the scope of this or that other article. (Whatever the people consider themselves, is fully respected and none is in position to tell them who they are and how to feel.) We are in Wikipedia, and, for encyclopedic purposes, Wikipedia's role is to provide verifiable and accurate information on the various groups which reside in the region of Macedonia, using reliable sources. There is a reason each group has its own article, regardless of how one group relates with others. Because the outstanding majority of the sources has these people groupped separately, primarily for linguistic purposes. If you are not satisfied with that, then go send your complaints to the world's scholars and linguists, not to me. Personally, I am against the concept of ethnicities, borders, separation and groupping of peoples in the globe based on races, languages, religions, ethnicities and sexual orientations, as I consider all people to be just humans and this is what really matters, at the end. But, whatever I may believe, is none of Wikipedia's concern or business, as the project does not take in consideration and account the beliefs/opinions of editors (in short, editorial POV), only what reliable sources do say. Now, if you can't gasp the obvious things about how Wikipedia works and content is created/tagged, then it is not my problem, is yours. Dont expect me to continue this unproductive discussion, and do not expect further replies by me on this. I spent more time here than I normally could.

But know that: you do not have anyone's consensus for your edits. If you do think that we (I, Dr.K. and Snowded) are the ones who are wrong and your sources back your claims, then you are free to call for a WP:RfC. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, whatever. Putting the insults aside, I will drop my argument here. But I will request that more effort is dedicated to differentiating both groups within the article, as it is confusing to me and I am sure to many other readers as to which Greek Macedonians this article portrays. I hope to contribute to distinguishing these groups on the article. Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Modern and Ancient Macedonians

Guys I have a question here. Prespes Agreement changed the view on both Greek and Slavic views on Macedonia. So reading article 7.2 it gives a linear historical version of Greek Macedonia whist a national view on the Slavic Macedonia. So as per the Prespes we rebranded the Macedonians (ethnic group) from Macedonian Slavs to Macedonian people. Should we remain consistent and replace Greek Macedonians with Modern Macedonians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melathron (talk • contribs) 08:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by the Prespa agreement, the nomenclature for these ethnicities have been in use for many years. Beat of the tapan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Then why Wikipedia accepted the change in the Macedonians(Ethnic Group) from Macedonian Slavs to Macedonian people when the Prespes Agreement put in place ? If we revert to Macedonians slavs and retain the old set it makes sense otherwise we have to include the Prespes approach for both parties, hence modern Macedonians vs Macedonian people as per Prespes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melathron (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

More info can be found here: Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Then why Wikipedia accepted the change in the Macedonians(Ethnic Group) from Macedonian Slavs to Macedonian people when the Prespes Agreement put in place ? @Melathron: Sorry but you got it all wrong so let me correct you: Wikipedia called them simply Macedonians already a long while before Prespa Agreement came to existence, so better get your facts straight. Just because Prespa Agreement came, doesn't mean Wikipedia will have to adopt more confusing terms for these groups of people, or worse, change the descriptive terms the people used to call them by. Wikipedia isn't bound by internatonal treaties in any way. Plus, there is a reason Wikipedia has chosen these descriptive terms for the modern Macedonian groups: The modern slavic group is idendifying on ethnic grounds, so they are called Ethnic Macedonians, the other modern group is Greek based, so they are called Greek Macedonians. These terms are descriptive and in no way do imply that the Ethnic Macedonians and Greek Macedonians aren't modern-day groups; they are modern, just of different cultural and political associations. By using simply "modern" for descripting both groups, you are generating more problems than solving, both for the editors as well as for the readers. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Melathron: also please familiarize yourself with WP:MOSMAC which has been updated recently, as result of the Prespa Agreement's developments. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: Thank you very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melathron (talk • contribs)

Macedonian vs Greek Macedonian

It was decided this page would be called Macedonians (Greeks) rather than Greek Macedonians. However, the words "Greek Macedonians" are used many times in the article. Should all instances of "Greek Macedonians" be changed to "Macedonians"? This wikipedia already makes it clear it's talking about the Greek ethnic group rather than the Slavic one. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Greek Macedonians is a redirect to Macedonians (Greeks) as Macedonians (Bulgarians) is a redirect to Macedonian Bulgarians. It is the same. Jingiby (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what im saying. Im saying the body of the article it often says "Greek Macedonian" and other times it just says "Macedonian" without qualifier. This should be made uniform. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes into the intro.

There is a question are all Greek Macedonians today native to that area? Please, keep in mind that 1,000 000 Greek refugees natives of Asia Minor, Thrace and the Black Sea areas fled during the Greek genocide (1914-1923) and Greece's later defeat in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) moved to today Greek borders. The core of the refugee population settled in today Greek Macedonia, i.e. 638,253 or 52% (with 270,000 in Thessaloniki alone). Moreover, in the last ca. hundred years since the region has been part of Greece, it has been normal to have internal migration. This means that large masses of Greeks from other regions have settled in Macedonia. So to claim that the Greeks of today are all of local origin is not serious. Jingiby (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The term 'Macedonian' has been used as a demonym since ancient times to refer to the inhabitants of the region. This article is specifically about the Greeks that have been inhabiting Macedonia and who have had a historical presence here of thousands of years, from the ancient kingdom of Macedonia to the Roman and Byzantine periods up until today. They've had a presence all around the Macedonian region, not just the modern day greek part of it. You can certainly focus only on the inhabiting aspect and say that the term is for those who only live in the Greek Macedonia region (which is entirely correct) but if you want to talk about origins then it's necessary to point out that Greeks have been present everywhere in the wider region of Macedonia.

The Wiki page about Slavic Macedonians mentions that they are an ethnic group native to the entire Macedonian region which is untrue since they're Slavs originating from Northern Europe. How is that acceptable but my objection isn't?

The population figures in this article are for all modern residents of Greek Macedonia, not just those with roots in the region. The correction made in the introduction confuses the whole construction of the article. Please return it to its stable version and discuss the significant changes you propose here. Otherwise, the sign of lack of neutrality must remain. Discuss the issue with the Slavic Macedonians on their article, not here, please. Jingiby (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's literally mentioned in the first paragraph of the History section that it is about the Greeks and not all residents. The previous edit makes it sound as if Greek Macedonians have existed historically only in the modern Greek region of Macedonia which is entirely untrue. That's why I made the distinction between origin and residence. Originally they've been around the entire region ever since ancient times. If you want to make the term generic for all the residents then you should specify it in the intro alongside what I said about the origin.

The previous version of the intro was stable for years with no objections against it. Please, revert yourself an discuss your proposals here to gain a consensus. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The edit war accusation on my talk page is quite tragically ironic. You ask me not to insist on editing something EVEN if I believe I'm right but a false statement on a page should remain the same and not be changed even if wrong. Makes sense.

Ronbb345, can you please add signatures to your comments on this discussion, as it makes it easier to follow. I support the changes made by Ronbb345. The question of Greeks being native to Macedonia has already been clearly settled on wikipedia through thousands of sources - see for example the sources listed on the articles for Alexander the Great and Heraclea Lyncestis. Ronbb345 is not required to provide additional sources to prove that the earth is not flat, I support Ron's edits. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is to clarify that today not all Greek Macedonians are native to Macedonia. Part of them are inhabiting Greek Macedonia and are Greek Macedonians, but their roots are outside that area as follows: in Thrace, in Anatolia, in Epirus, in Crete, in Crimea, etc. That is normal. By the stable version, changed without discussion, that was clear. Jingiby (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Apples&Manzanas Thanks for your support mate. I noticed we were in agreement judging by the editing history. But Jingiby agreed with a neutrality dispute and that's enough for me for a start. -- Ronbb345

My proposal is to add the following sentence or the like into the intro: Today the area is inhabited also by Macedonian Greeks, whose roots are in other regions of Greece, or in the neighboring countries. Jingiby (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The area is indeed already inhabited by Macedonian Greeks. -- Ronbb345

I mean for example, that if your parents are from Crete and moved later to Thessaloniki, and when you was born in Heraklion, but you have lived in Thessaloniki since you was a small baby, you are Greek Macedonian, but you are not native to that area. Jingiby (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to Jingiby: That is the most absurd nitpick of all time. By that logic, no one is native to anywhere because everyone was in Africa once upon a time. Expert opinion has widely and almost unanimously agreed that Macedonia was indisputably Greek in antiquity, and that Greeks are native to Macedonia. You are trying to separate Greekness from Macedonia, wikipedia is not the place to push disproved theories. (https://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

For future reference, please do not directly link to nationalist websites. This issue is far from closed, I suggest sticking to the stable version of the article Beat of the tapan (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a nationalist website, it's a website created by academic scholars. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the Macedonians (ethnic group) has been repeatedly edited to say that slavic macedonians are native to the region of macedonia (something that no credible historian believes) yet this page has been edited to say that greek macedonians are not native to macedonia (something that pretty much all credible historians believe), is obviously laughable. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Spot on, Apples&Manzanas. I've noticed this type of bias in numerous such articles about origins/ethnicity. Thanks -- Ronbb345

I have moved the content to the stable version, predicting the edit-war initiated by Ronbb345 who is blocked now. No consensus for these changes was reached on the talk for now. Jingiby (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been blocked because I've argued by pointing out the obvious based on historical facts. My apologies. Next time, I'll resort to accepting nationalist propaganda per Jingiby's request. -- Ronbb345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronbb345, I noticed that you added and changed content in this article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Keep in mind that some reliable sources describe your idea of continuity between Ancient Macedonians and modern Greek Macedonians as a modern Greek historical myth and that it is only a 20th century idea. This myth has a serious problems with some hard historical facts. For more see Kevin Cramer, The Uses of the Middle Ages in Modern European States: History, Nationhood and the Search for Origins, ed. R.J.W. Evans and Guy P. Marchal, Springer, 2010, ISBN 0230283101, on p. 148. Jingiby (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of expert opinion believes that the ancient macedonians and greek macedonians are related by every conceivable measure, it is a historical myth to suggest anything to the contrary. Pushing one source (inaccessible and without a pinpoint reference) is not a valid argument. Wikipedia does not respect the fringe minority views of one historian over the vast majority of academic opinion.

Expert opinion from slightly under 400 scholars says that ancient macedonians were greeks: https://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html.

Historian and expert in the field, Robin Lane Fox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OYx-29Z3xE , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgMm93eW5a4 ,

This discussion has already been had on articles like Alexander the Great and Ancient Macedonians you can find many many more reliable sources there. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

What reliable source should I provide for the introduction?! It's literally written in the first paragraph of the History section that Greeks have existed in Macedonia since ancient times and I'm simply pointing this out in the introduction, as well. You consider the continuity between Ancient Macedonians and modern ones a myth but you're absolutely okay with Slavic Macedonians being considered native to the entire region despite them neither having a historical presence in it nor the term being used for anyone outside the country of North Macedonia. -- Ronbb345 Ronbb345 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby, has it right on the matter. I also support the proposed suggestion made by the editor on adding clarification about roots. As for continuity and alike historian Dimitris Livanios (2008) in The Macedonian Question: Britain and the Southern Balkans 1939-1949 says it best: pp.24-25. [7] "As far as Greek Macedonia is concerned, the exchange of populations between Bulgaria and Greece (‘voluntary’, 1919 onwards) and between Turkey and Greece (compulsory, 1923 onwards), provided for by the Treaties of Neuilly and Lausanne respectively, dramatically altered the ethnographic picture of that area. More than 600,000 Greek refugees were settled in Macedonia, mainly in its eastern part, while over 50,000 Slavs left Greece. Before 1923, the Greeks were a minority in their own northern province, but after the coming of the refugees the Hellenization of Greek Macedonia became reality. According to the Greek census of 1928, there were about 80,000 Slav-speakers in northern Greece, which is undoubtedly a gross underestimate, for Greek archival sources give a much higher number: about 200,000. According to the same sources, however, the majority were just peasants, while the ‘Bulgarians’, that is those who displayed a Bulgarian national consciousness, were about 80,000. Despite the Slav exodus from Greek Macedonia, a by-product of population exchanges, fear, and oppression on the part of the Greek state, solid Slav enclaves remained in the Greek province, and particularly in the districts of Florina, and Kastoria, in Greek west Macedonia." @Jingiby what do you reckon. Should there be incorporation some of Livanios into the article for clarification?Resnjari (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously oppose. Reliable sources provided here already overwhelming support the notion that the Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. This article is about Greek Macedonians and sources show that the first Greek Macedonians were the ancients. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We may construct a small Controversy section explaining that in the early 20-th century the Greek-speakers constituted only a small minority in that area, while Turkic, Slavic, Vlach and Albanian-speakers were a vast majority, as well as the continuity theory is supported mainly in Greece but is criticized by different researchers. Jingiby (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed ^^. Also im not sure what would be 'controversial' about that anyway to justify a controversy section? Even if that were true, that doesn't prove that the ancient macedonians werent greeks in the slightest. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:DeportaLausanne.jpg

It's hard to argue no Greek Macedonians have continuity, but clearly, not all are.

Apples&Manzanas neither extreme in this debate is right. It is difficult to argue there is no element of Greek continuity in Macedonia, considering the population density in some subregions in late antiquity -- it would have taken some unique catastrophe or genocide etc to mean there is no Greek continuity in the area. However, at the same time, it's disingenuous to say that all Greeks in the region are native -- this requires amnesia about what happened in the 20th century. Less than a century ago, Macedonia was flooded with Greek refugees from Anatolia, Pontus, and Bulgaria. Before that, many of the effected regions were predominantly Slavic, Turkish, or Vlach, or, in the case of Thessaloniki, Jewish, where a hundred years ago, Greeks were the fourth largest group, Jews were a simple majority, and to get around you had to speak either Turkish or French (which the Ladino-speaking Jews favored over both Turkish and Greek). Meanwhile in the hinterland, there were some Greek areas yes, but also many non-Greek areas. The Turks and some of the Bulgarians were deported, later policies by Venizelos and successors (not Metaxas though) cut the Jewish population in half before it was finished off by the Germans/Axis, and a good chunk of the Vlachs and Albanians also fled too. Actually the 20th century was not the only time Macedonia was "re-Hellenized", because during the Byzantine era there was also a policy of deporting Slavs into Anatolia, assimilating the remainder, and settling Greeks from elsewhere among them -- but this does not mean that no part of Macedonia has a continuous Greek population. Most of this is actually out of scope, and I can't say I have examined the mainspace debate here much, but on balance I'd agree with Jingiby that we cannot simply present the population as simplistically continuous. --Calthinus (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

About the "controversy" section -- I don't think this is an NPOV way to go about it, because there is no "controversy" over the existence of Macedonian Greeks, I think...? The ethnographic changes are part of the history of the region and this is best covered in the history section. Some of this is fairly balanced; others could use work -- I don't think the 1904 Ottoman census should be relied on, especially for claiming a Greek majority in M(o/a)nastir/Bitol(j)a, and while the mentioned 1926 census chucks Jews into non-enumerated "other" column, the page doesn't mention the Jewish majority in Thessaloniki that lasted centuries, nor consider views that are at least mainstream in the Jewish historiography of the area, like that of Clogg, cited in Lewkowitz 1999 (p.82): More than 100,000 refugees came to Thessaloniki, increasing its population by half. After the Balkan Wars, Greeks were a minority in the territories of 'New Greece', they became a majority after the population exchange and Greece became "...one of the most ethnically homogenous countries in the Balkans". I don't know about the exact statement that Greeks were a minority in the new territories overall, but you get the point. We don't need to literally discuss all of this. The page does already mention that in 1928, 45% of the pop'l was refugees. What it's missing is minor points about the former size of certain minority communities so as not to sweep them under the rug, and some minor cosmetic issues ("Heroic" is not NPOV, Bulgarians/Macedonians/Turks read this page too fyi, etc.).--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to Macedonia, we have Livanios, but there are more of course other acadmics who confrim that Greeks become a majority only after 1923, in most parts except for the extreme west (Florina, Kastoria areas etc) were a Slavic speaking population is still there is some extent.Resnjari (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Greeks become a majority only after 1923"...Greeks were a majority during the time of the ancients. They didn't "only" become a majority recently (regardless of whether they were a majority in the year 1900). Regardless, you have now gone entirely off track from what this section of this talk page was originally devoted to discussing. The talk page was originally meant to discuss Ronbb345's edit which said something to the effect of the greek macedonians originated in the wider area of ancient macedonia. This is a fact. Discussions of 20th century migration have nothing to do with this fact. Ronbb345's edit has now been reverted, and even though i dont think there's any good reason to revert it, i can't be bothered engaging in edit wars. If you have any new proposals or changes to the article, you need to create a new section of the talk page to discuss them. Ronbb345's edit has been entirely reverted and the current discussion of changes has nothing to do with the edit war between jingiby and ronbb345 that gave way to this talk section in the first place. This section of the talk page is long enough as is, without tacking irrelevant forum like discussions onto it. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the ethnic Greeks that have been living in Macedonia, not the people of various backgrounds that inhabit it. Ethnic Greeks have been living all around the entire Macedonian region, starting from the ancient times with the Ancient Macedonians and spreading all around the area throughout history as its borders were being expanded and/or reduced depending on the period. And I simply want to point this historical fact in the introductory paragraph. Because saying that Greeks only originate from the Greek region of Macedonia is like saying that Greeks appeared in Macedonia in the 20th century after Greece became a fully unified modern nation which is tremendously incorrect and historically false.

You are absolutely okay with the page of Slavic Macedonians, a term invented for the inhabitants of the recent state of North Macedonia, mention that they originate from the wider region of Macedonia even though they are Slavs who originally came from Northern Europe just like the rest of their tribe but you oppose to me pointing out that one of the earliest actual inhabitants of this region ever since the ancient times have always existed all around it.

Look, I've come to the realisation that this website is unbelievably biased and this incident right here is only just a tiny example of the awful misinformation taking place so I don't know if I'm interested in discussing it any further. You are obviously accepting nationalist, unfounded propaganda from North Macedonia and no further edits are going to take place. I contained myself and refrained from even pointing out the obvious. That these people shouldn't even be called Macedonians. They are Slavs with absolutely no relation to Macedonia. I avoided engaging in that disagreement. You, on the other hand, are blatantly biased. A pity.

-- Ronbb345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbb345 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox removal

Interesting that today Khirurg states that I need consensus for removal on this article, but yesterday he/she thought I needed consensus to keep longstanding content on the ethnic Macedonians page. Anyway, the reason for removal is following some of @TU-nor:'s recent edits that official symbols of political entities should not be included in the infobox of ethnic group articles (such as in Albanians, Bulgarians, and Slovenes). I tend to agree with this that it's not best for the infobox. However, there are plenty of examples of flags being used in ethnic group articles such as in Italians and Russians. One user, @SilentResident:, if I understand correctly, supports removing all symbols from all ethnic group articles. I'm not sure anyone else supports that, I certainly don't find any sense in that and think descriptions of symbols that ethnic groups identify with of course belong on these articles. With regard to this specific article, the flag of the Greek region of Macedonia is included twice. --Local hero ^talk 02:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, consistency does not seem to be a defining characteristic of edits in the Balkan area... In my opinion, national or regional flags do usually not have any place in the infobox of ethnic groups. On the other hand, not mentioning the flag in the article at all would be very strange, given its extensive use, not least in the diaspora worldwide. Anyway, having the flag twice is undue. --T*U (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I know that consistency is not a defining characteristic in the Balkan topic area. And I doubt it will be unless we use the opportunity of the debate that the symbols has caused, to push forward for less politicized articles of the Balkan people the same way it was done for non-Balkan ones too. In the distant past I used to support the presence of symbols on articles, like how you still do, but that was before realizing how so many articles across the Balkan topic area of Wikipedia have been politicized (or are linked to politics), including the people articles which are supposedly dedicated solely to the people themselves. The Balkan topic area has for decades been strongly politicized and polarized, making any efforts to bring consistency pretty premature. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not accurate to say that I support the presence of symbols on articles. I do neither support nor oppose them on principle. I oppose them if I find them undue, I support their mention if it is notable. I have stated just above here that "national or regional flags do usually not have any place in the infobox of ethnic groups", which is why I have lately removed national flags from the infoboxes of Macedonians (ethnic group), Albanians, Moldavians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Czechs and today Greeks. I can think of cases where such flags may be appropriate, but they are very few.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to accept a complete moratorium on mentioning symbols that are an important part of the identification of an ethnic group. As a case in point, I would find it very strange if the article about Greeks did not mention the Greek flag. Few, if any other diaspora groups use the national flag more as a symbol of identification. Just take a look at the average Greek restaurant in any country, or gatecrash on any celebration in the diaspora.

I would have removed the Greek Macedonian flag from the infobox in this article, but since there is an edit war going on, I refrain. SilentResident, it would be appreciated if you could explicitly support the suggestion from Local hero about removing the flag from the infobox. That would be one step forward. --T*U (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally support removal of the flag of Greek Macedonia from the infobox as I do from all infoboxes of Balkan people and their diasporas. In this context, if you ever run into problems of removal of flags from infoboxes of other ethnicities, please ping me and I will gladly offer my help in their removal. Regarding the present article, I would also appreciate if the question marks in the infobox are also addressed, by replacing them with actual population data and, even better, if someone can make such a beautiful map/chart containing population distribution data for the Greek Macedonians like the ones made for the other articles to use in the infobox. Is there anyone who knows how to create such a map/chart for the Greek Macedonian population distribution worldwide? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That would have been nice. It will, however, be difficult, the main reason being that statistics from most countries will not have such information. They will simply not know how many are of Macedonian descent among those with Greek ancestry. --T*U (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes there are no precise statistics. There are two solutions to this. 1) the harder solution is to make a map displaying approximate estimates in varying colors depending how big these populations are estimated to be, or 2) the simpler solution, a map coloring with a plain color the countries that have been confirmed to have at least some of these people living them, without providing any population figures. Both aren't great solutions but can work. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For infoboxes about ethnic groups and subgroups, the best option in my opinion is a traditional costume, and not a map or a flag. The latter have a place in the body text, but for the infobox I really think a traditional costume is the best option, as these articles are about people, not places. Khirurg (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, Khirurg. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll go along with that idea, too. I have not found any suitable pics at Commons. What we could do, is to borrow the pair of pics from the "Culture" section, at least as placeholders until someone comes up with a better alternative. --T*U (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I was thinking that as well. The culture section is a bit cluttered as it is, with quite a bit of image sandwiching, so it has the benefit of reducing the sandwiching as well. Khirurg (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)