This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you want a serious discussion about why Wikipedia articles portrary Macedonia in a light that conflicts with your personal points of view, we can have that discussion. But I have serious doubts that you want to have it, judging from the tired arguments I've seen from your compatriots on Wikipedia and other online forums. Here are some comments on the "facts" you present, in the same order. I then end with some more important general comments.
1. (I don't understand that sentence.)
2. Surely you are not trying to make an argument about what happened in history based on how many countries have diplomatic ties with your country?! Political expediency and history are two separate things.
3. It was your country that took on that name in 1991-2. It's people (including politicians) in your country who routinely lay claims to Greek territory. The Macedonia issue didn't start from any action on Greece's part.
4. I really don't want to debate ancient history with you, but just because both sides can offer "thousands of facts", it doesn't mean that the facts of one side are correct, or that we can't arrive at the truth. That is a poor debating tactic, but a typical one. You will probably never accept that ancient Macedonians were Greek, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of scholars will ever agree with you.
5. Even the most cursory look at Balkan history should convince a reasonable-minded person that your people are closely linked to Bulgarians and Serbs, and that your language has evolved from the influences of those two.
6. I don't who you are claiming has denied that population exchanges occurred. MANY population exchanges did indeed occur as a result of wars over the years. Population exchanges do not, in and of themselves, indicate some kind of right. Greeks have had a continuous presence in the current Greek province of Macedonia far longer than any other peoples in the region. At some point, though, borders must be allowed to stand. And this is why you don't see many modern Greeks urging for a conquest of Turkey (or Italy or Egypt, for that matter).
7. Actually, no one I know claims that Tito created your ethnicity. The first known records of people calling themselves ethnic Macedonians are from the late 19th century, well before Tito. So it's easily possible that many of the people who emigrated to other countries in the early 20th century took this concept of ethnicity with them. (It is also true that many people in other countries only began to call themselves ethnic Macedonian in the 1990s. I know this because I witnessed it. But that's another matter.) What Tito DID DO, however, was to officially call the region your country occupies "Macedonia" for the first time in history.
8. I have no idea about this singer, but I wish him all the best.
Of course my arguments here are unscientific one-off tidbits, just as yours are. The issue is much deeper than throwing some words around on the internet. Would you like to seriously talk about the ancient Macedonian language? (Including the origin of the word Macedonia?) Would you like to talk about the fact that Greeks have never laid claim to the ancient history of Thrace, despite the fact that much of Thrace is now embedded in modern Greece and many Greeks call themselves Thracians? (Apparently Greeks are a bit better than you think at differentiating between their history and other people's history). How about the fact that in the 1940s, following Tito's actions, the US (which was ALLIED WITH HIM against the Nazis) stated emphatically that it considers any question of a Macedonian "ethnicity" to be propaganda aimed at laying land claims on Greece?
And if you like, we can also talk about FYROM propaganda. How about the ridiculous FYROM archaeologists who published a paper in a local history journal a couple of years back, claiming that the Greek text on the famous Rosetta Stone wasn't Greek, but was a prototypical ethnic Macedonian language? (The journal eventually retracted the article after ridicule by foreign scholars). How about your prime minister laying a wreath before a map that showed your country and Greek Macedonia united as one country, despite the fact that only 10% of your country was ever historically identified with the region of Macedonia? How about the propagandists who try to convince us that Thessaloniki is a bastardization of the word Solun, when in fact Thessaloniki has a meaning in Greek ("defeat over the Thessalians") and Solun - an obviously shortened version of this - does not have a meaning in your language?
No, sir. There are all sorts of things we "could" talk about, but I don't think you really want to talk. I think you are caught up in a nationalist paradigm and desperately want the world to see things your way. Instead of celebrating your Slavic heritage - which is considerable - you have chosen to throw all your eggs into the Macedonia basket. Having done so, you take any disagreement on historical subjects as being a matter of racism and discrimination, and you vilify the Greek people (who have so much more in common with you than different, including that "minor" thing we call Orthodox Christianity).
Look, Greece has already conceded that your country should be allowed to incorporate the word Macedonia in its name. Hence it is not trying to deny your existence. All Greece has asked is that (a) the name have a geographic distinction so that the well-known nationalists in your country have less ammunition down the road to lay claims on Greece, and (b) you don't deny that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek (with no trace of any other language ever being discovered), called themselves Greek, followed the Greek religion, and spread Greek culture around the known world (Point B, by the way, is not even being asked formally by the Greek government. It's just something that Greeks would hope that you would do. Ultimately, if you want to fool ignorant photo-snapping British tourists about the nature of ancient Macedonia, that's your call.)
So let's stop using Wikipedia as a stomping ground for ethnocentric arguments. The internet is the great equalizer, because the power or population size of your country does not have any bearing on whether you can get your message across (as evidenced by the number of amusing websites that pop up when one does a Google search of "Macedonia"). If you can provide the sources, the Wikipedia community will have to let you have your way, even if there is some unjustified vandalism by Greek nationalists every now and then. But notice: the sources must be AUTHORITATIVE, not word of mouth, not "my grandfather said such and such", not publications from nationalist organizations in your country that claim to be scientific but that are derided abroad. Give us the sources and then feel free to write whatever you like.
Signed, with respect,
A friend from Canada. 130.15.114.75 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear all
I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia.
I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.
From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction.
My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.
I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts.
Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia.
This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia?
Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs.
Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia?
If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!!
Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess.
But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it?
Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians.
Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family.
How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there?
Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito.
Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.
All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.
Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.
I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country.
Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians).
Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled).
Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors).
Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)
And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians.
If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed.
Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims.
Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.
At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web.
There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia.
The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.
With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski - Skopje, Macedonia - is@on.net.mk
ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people.
In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town.
Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?...
A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time.
Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case?
Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free.
Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.
On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.
On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS???
BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.
In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites.
I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change.
How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?
Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski - Skopje, Macedonia
JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS.
Claiming that the Turks were incapable of reinforcing their army in Eastern Thrace because the Greek fleet controlled the Aegean Sea borders idiocy. What about the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphoros etc.? The Greek fleet was important for the campaign in Macedonia no doubt but claiming that it was the decisive factor in the war as a whole is nonsense.--Avidius (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
it's not mine idiocy. It's Erickson's. You have the book read the page. --Factuarius (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
So it would seems Erickson has never seen a map of Turkey if he dears to make such a bold statement,fortunately geography disproves him.--Avidius (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
AVIDIUS WE HAVE DISCUSSED ALL THESE FOR MONTHS IN THE PAST IN THE 1st BW ARTICLE BEFORE WE REACH A CONSENSUS THERE. ERICKSON DID NOT SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T FOUND AT THE END THEIR WAY TO THE THRACIAN FRONT, HE SAYS THAT BY TAKING THE LAND ROUTE FROM MIDDLE EAST TO EUROPE THEY REACHED THERE MONTHS LATER THUS HIS EXPRESSION "in the all-important opening round of the war". YOU HAVE THE BOOK YOU HAVE THE PAGE SPARE ME AND READ IT. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM HE IS STILL ALIVE CONTACT HIM. THANKS, --Factuarius (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Sources
For the Sakellariou's book provide page
Brancoff's book is of 1905. HOW YOU CAN USE IT AS A REF OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 1913?
The Carnegie Endowment's report is a very well known POV report. All the sources about it are full of addreses of it's POVish. Below are some let me know if you want more:
-Frank Maloy Anderson, Amos Shartle Hershey, National Board for Historical Service -Handbook for the diplomatic history of Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1870-1914 -"pro-Bulgarian bias" p 428
-Kemal H. Karpat -Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics - "Some pro- Bulgarian sources (such as Carnegie Endowment)" p 50
Book doesn't actually contain such a citation: [1]Kostja (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
-Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos -Plundered loyalties: Axis occupation and civil strife in Greek West: "the fanatically pro-Bulgarian part of the report" - p 12
Book doesn't contain such a quote as regarding the Carnegie report, the report is actually used as a source by the book: [2], page 12. Kostja (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
-Alice Garnett -Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration - "a full account written from a pro-Bulgarian standpoint" p 140--
Note about the above book: The quote used actually refers to "Macedonia: Its races and its future" [3] so it shouldn't be taken into account when determining Carnegie's neutrality. Kostja (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kemal Karpat is obviously pro-Turkish, Giannes Koliopoulos and co. are pro-Greek. The Handbooj for the diplomatic history of Europe actually has the following citation: "Their work was accurately and carefully done, although the pro-Bulgarian bias of one member, M.Miliukov probably affected the report to some extent". This is very far from the report being a well known POV report. As the report included members from multiple countries, there are much stronger indications towards its neutrality. Therefore the source will not be removed. Kostja (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, so let's make it clear. The sources you don't like are POV. Those that you like are not. Neutrality, anyone? What's he problem with Carnegie Endowment's report, by the way? Written by Bulgarians? Those little cheeky brats, they somehow manage to spread their propaganda everywhere.--LaveolT 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed! Just look at the Kresna Gorge discussion page. We've got a Greek user with IP 63.209.227.248 (talk) called CMELLAS claiming " As for the credibility of the Carnegie Endowment Inquiry, that is a different subject altogether. Needless to say that the Carnegie Comity was biased from the very beginning, and therefore was not suctioned by the Greek side"Then a few lines further down you see Factuarius giving his two cents and at the same time, almost instantly CMELLAS appears and starts applauding him. The interesting thing is that IP63.209.227.248 (talk) CMELLAS has been completely inactive since then. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if that was Factuarius writing and applauding himself.--Avidius (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Further more as you can see only things "sanctioned by the Greek side" can be viewed as objective. Now what is this?--Avidius (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
@ Laveol: I understand you like philosophy but that's not the proper place for it. It's not me who says so. Ask them, not me why they believe was written with pro-Bulgarian bias. Unlike you I only provide sources, not theories.--Factuarius (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
@Avidius: That's easy. Either go and ask for a check or stop immediately accusing me or him for sock. If you were not so fanatical you would had noticed that the 63.209.227.248 IP is from the States.--Factuarius (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Although the Carnegie report is a by definition primary source as User Athenean pointed, I farther want to write some words about why it was an obvious non-neutral document.
The Carnegie report (or what Maria Todorova in “Imagining the Balkans”, 1997 called “a process which led to the standardization of the Balkan peoples as blood-thirsty savages seeking revenge”) was started as a good intention's effort which was in the process clearly compromised by pro-Bulgarian bias and was much criticized for that, then, and until today (see above). No really neutral studies make use of it and it fully deserves its current use in every ultra nationalist Bulgarian leaflet and site. Most of the Bulgarian bias in it was due to a -key in creating that report- persona named Pavel Miliukov who wrote most of it (four out of the seven chapters).
The key role P. Miliukov played in that report was revealed by Prof. of university of Sofia Ivan Ilchev in his study "Karnegievata Anketa na Balkanite prez 1913" in Makedonija: Istorija i polititseska sadba (1912-1941), Sofia 1998, vol. 2, pp. 241-256.
Pavel Miliukov (who -amazingly enough- before the war was a professor of history in the "St. Kliment Ohridski" university of Sofia, Bulgaria), was considered as one of the more passionate pro-Bulgarian foreigner of its time. He, himself never pretended to be neutral in the Balkan issues (hence -despite his non-Bulgarian- origin, his appointment in the Sofia university); among others, in one of his interviews in a Bulgarian newspaper he said that the Treaty of Bucharest was “the greatest injustice in Balkan history”. he had also previously reproduced clearly bias and key propagandist material like the statistics of the inspector of the Bulgarian schools in Macedonia of V.Kunchev (a Bulgarian nationalist, & a leading figure in many falsifications of data during the propaganda war of the period, about him see article on M.Todorova's study [4]).
Another farcical mistake by Factuarius: The person he refers to is actually Васил Кънчов (Vasil Kanchov). Васил Кунчев (Vasil Kunchev), better known as Vasil Levski was a Bulgarian revolutionary who was executed in 1873 and had obviously nothing to do with the events in 1912-1913. Kostja (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
From the above is clear that a report mostly written by an openly admitted pro-Bulgarian, ex-Sofia university professor, cannot be considered neutral and even if it was not an obviously primary source it could not be used as NPOV source in any case.
P.S.Miliukov was a Russian. In general his views and his priorities were of a complicated nature and were changed over time, but before (and apparently during) the Balkan Wars he saw the Russo-Bulgarian partnership in the Balkans as following: “Russia, Slavic from head to toe, imagines that she has been endowed with a mission to transform the Balkans into a Slav – a Russian to all intents and purposes – Empire." (Balkanshi Krizis, St. Petersburg, 1909 ). Putting such a person to write a neutral report over a Greco-Bulgarian conflict is a mystery by itself and at least controversial, and not surprisingly the results are evident to anyone reading the report.
For farther reading about the report see the works of two moderate Bulgarian academics mentioned above
Ivan Ilchev ("Karnegievata Anketa na Balkanite prez 1913", Makedonija: Istorija i polititseska sadba (1912-1941), Sofia 1998.
Maria Todorova, Imagining the Balkans, Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0195387865, USA 2009 --Factuarius (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Needless, to say the idea that the Carnegie report has Bulgarian bias is a POV pushed by Factuarius. Serious researchers of the period have rather different views. See, for example "he Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: Prelude to the First World War, p.138" by Richard Hall, one of the main sources for the First Balkan war article: "Probably the most objective assessment of the question of atrocities in the Balkan Wars is found in the Carnegie Report." Therefore, removing this source because there are different opinions about is (not to mention that whatever Miliukov's opinions, he was just one of many writers) can't be justified.
Also primary sources are permitted, as long as they're not used for interpretations, which is not the case here. See WP:Primary. Kostja (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as who is POV-pushing, your credibility has been completely shot by your attempt to use a source from *1905* for an event that occurred in 1913. Sorry, but after a stunt like that, don't expect me to believe anything you say. So I'll take Factuarius' word over yours about the Carnegie report any day (and isn't Hall pro-Bulgarian too? You may think yourself clever, but backing a POV source with a POV source gets you nowhere). Athenean (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The first source was erroneous and has been now removed. The second source actually referred to the population composition of Kukush in 1905 and this has been been now clarified.
As for Hall - so he's pro-Bulgarian now, too? A very interesting opinion which is unfortunately without any backing and so is totally irrelevant (not to mention that a significant part of the article uses him as a source). As for primary sources - where does it say that primary sources are forbidden? Kostja (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering why you can't find a secondary source to prove your point. If the destruction of Kilkis is as uncontrovertible as you claim, it shouldn't be too hard to find a secondary source that backs up your claim, no? The insistence on using a primary source when no secondary sources can confirm the event is a bit suspicious to say the least. Athenean (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
There are secondary sources, though most of them cite the Carnegie report. Whatever its faults, it was probably the most extensive, reasonably neutral report. Interest in Balkan affairs hasn't been that high and the reports compiled by the warring states can hardly be regarded as neutral.
By the way, regarding Factuarius, he wrongly cited a book in his attempts to prove the Carnegie commission's bias, see my note above. Perhaps you shouldn't trust him so blindly? Kostja (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second. The paragraph as it is currently written makes no sense chronologically. First, the Greeks defeat the Bulgarians during the Battle of Kilkis-Lahanas. Then they advance north along the Strymon river valley towards Sofia. Then, according to you, they burn Kilkis. This makes absolutely no sense. First, some of our readers might think that Kilkis and Kukush are two different places, and that Kukush is north of Kilkis (since the Greeks "burned" it after their northwards advance following the battle). Kilkis was flattened and de-populated during the battle. The way the paragraph is written now it's as if the Greeks marched northward towards Sofia and burned a settlement known as Kukush along the way. We can mention that Kilkis was damaged during the battle, but it ends there. There is a tit-for-tat victimological mentality on the part of some editors here "You mention our burning of your city, so we should mention your burning of our city", and the result is that what is currently written makes absolutely no sense. Athenean (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That can be changed and it's no excuse to remove the source. By the way it was Factuarius again who started this game when he protested against the inclusion of Kukush because Serres wasn't mentioned.Kostja (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just looked at this [5]. This is about as POV as a source gets. I mean, really. "The main fact on which we must insist is that the Greek army inaugurated the second war by the deliberate burning of a Bulgarian town." Did I read that correctly? Athenean (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this source couldn't be used for citing that Greece set out in the war to cleanse the Bulgarian population. However the rules for using primary sources clearly permits their usage for direct citation as in this case. Kostja (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue is not so much that it is primary, but that it is far from neutral. The chapter is written by Miliukov, a Russian, who is as pro-Bulgarian as a someone could be. Since this discussion is going nowhere, however, I am to go to WP:RSN with this. I will abide by whatever is decided there, and I trust other users will do the same. Athenean (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that the chapter was written by Miliukov. Kostja (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Alexicoua and Athens, as has been said multiple times, the 1905 source was there to establish the ethnic situation in Kukush before the Balkan war. While that source might be doubtful, the rest of the quotation is supported by two reliable secondary sources (see here:[6] and therefore I suggest the following compromise:", after which the mostly Bulgarian town was destroyed [1][2]". The statement "mostly Bulgarian" is also referenced by "Who are the Macedonians", when they refer to the town as "Bulgarian center". Kostja (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave aside whether removing poorly sourced information is POV pushing, but the source "Hellas and the Balkan wars" is from 1914 [7], the same year as the Carnegie report, which was declared an unsuitable primary source. Therefore, in the name of balance, a secondary source should be found. :Kostja (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Carnegie report is a fully primary source as the text and the name indicates. Nothing to do with its date. The Casavaveti's book is fully secondary and you can see that by just having a look on it. You can read and check it. Is entirely free on-line. --Factuarius (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Factuarius, the source " Hellas and the Balkan Wars" is indeed secondary, but for old sources the line between primary and secondary sources blurs. This is exactly what the admin decision about the Carnegie report was - it's a secondary source, but it's too old to have the same authority as modern secondary sources: [8]. The same is true of this source. I should add that the accusations about the Carnegie report being biased are even more true in this case, as it was written by a Greek British. I won't remove it for now but it must be replaced with a secondary source. Kostja (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Factuarius, you have not responded to the argument that this source is inappropriate, so your revert is disruptive. Either this will be removed, or I will reinsert the Carenegie report. Kostja (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong I did't rv it, check again. And please don't accuse me for disruptive reverts before read what I did. The source had no problem at all but to end the issue I remove it and added another. --Factuarius (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice. Kostja (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"symbolic force?"
@Avidius: Lets put it clear: First you insist in the word "symbolic" giving a 1,500 casualties or captured according to Greeks without mentioning what the official Greek Army study says just below that Bulgarian soldiers managed to avoid capture succeeding to left out the city and were captured or killed later. Secondly by any logic, no 48,000 division can have less of 2,000 men per battalion and you claim that 2,000 men were a symbolic force. 2,000 men as a symbolic force? And if they were "symbolic" why did they fortified? For symbolic reasons? Also the agreement said nothing about "symbolic forces" either in Salonika or in Serres. It was a clear Bulgarian violation of the agreement by any means and everybody knew that. Both in Athens as in Sofia. To my opinion you are trying to disguise that from the readers and mislead them by using a clear vague, OR, and POV wording like "symbolic force" and "only". That's just unacceptable. Who is to decide what a "symbolic force" is? You? Me? Come now be reasonable. --Factuarius (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but it is a little hard to believe that a great part of them were able to escape, after all they were deep in "enemy" territory. However even if they were 2000 thousand(which is very hard to prove)they were a symbolic force in size compared to the 7th division and the Greek forces that opposed them and that is fact you can't change.Why don't you mention by the way that the battalion was not concentrated in one place but was scattered in different parts of the town or that it didn't have any artillery(unlike the greek forces that opposed them), that the men had only 200 bullets per riffle? Your POV is unacceptable.--Avidius (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
And do not count on pushing you POV on a basis of unsourced agreement which nobody has heard of especially since the article clearly states that the Bulgarian command initially removed the 7th division because it needed it in Eastern Thrace and not because of some "agreement".--Avidius (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Also how many Greek battalions were in the town and in the vicinity? We are speaking about one battalion opposed to tens of Greek battalions, many of them well over 1000 men. So yes it is quite a symbolic force.--Avidius (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you dispute that was an agreement in removing both troops from Salonica and Serres? The text says that the Bulgarians agreed on that because they needed their troops in Thrace anyway. I don't say "great" or "small" part, nobody says what part. I suspect you must know because I am sure you are in position to know that were far more than the 1,500 Greeks managed to capture or kill. If 7th Division had its battalions numbering 1,500 men, its size would had been 12,000 not 48,000, and you also know that. But in any case 1,500 or 2,000 men are not by any logic a "symbolic force". 50, 100, 200, or 300 men can be accepted as a symbolic force not thousands men. Any thousands. But the most essential in that issue is that what is, or isn't symbolic, is not up to you to decide, not either up to me. If it was up to us, we would have discussed until the hell will freeze. The issue is that what you are trying to input is WP:OR! Understand that. --Factuarius (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh really? So you can say what is massive according to your own made up criteria but other editors should not? Why is that is the article yours or something? You are not convincing at all!--Avidius (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Words like "massive" and "symbolic" are really unnecessary here. For a force of 48,000, the number speaks by itself, no need to say "massive. Similarly "symbolic" is subjective and OR unless it is sourced, which it isn't. In my opinion both should go. Athenean (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Territorial gains and losses?
The 'Outcome' section doesn't say anything about territorial gains and losses. For example, I found this map on the Greece article:
Evolution of the territory of Greece
Which Treaties led to these outcomes? Do we have articles about them? Were there other gains and losses? Where are they shown?
(Am I correct in guessing that the Macedonia shown is the Greek province of that name?) --Red King (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The article Macedonia (region) seems to have information that should be here. For example
Boundaries on the Balkans after the First and the Second Balkan War (1912–1913)
In the First Balkan War, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro occupied almost all Ottoman-held territories in Europe. Bulgaria bore the brunt of the war fighting on the Thracian front against the main Ottoman forces. Both her war expenditures and casualties in the First Balkan War were higher than those of Serbia, Greece and Montenegro combined. Macedonia itself was occupied by Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian forces. The Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of London in May 1913 assigned the whole of Macedonia to the Balkan League, without, specifying the division of the region, in order to promote problems between the allies. Dissatisfied with the creation of an autonomous Albanian state, which denied her access to the Adriatic, Serbia asked for the suspension of the pre-war division treaty and demanded from Bulgaria greater territorial concessions in Macedonia. Later in May the same year, Greece and Serbia signed a secret treaty in Thessaloniki stipulating the division of Macedonia according to the existing lines of control. Both Serbia and Greece, as well as Bulgaria, started to prepare for a final war of partition.
So this article should definitely include the Treaty of London (1913) at least. --Red King (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
^Hugh Poulton, "Who are the Macedonians?", 2000, p.75
