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.
THIS PAGE IS INCORECT!!! This is all lies, and this promotes a racial hatred! There is not a region in Greece called Macedonia with simbol with the star of Vergina! That region was part of Republic of Macedonia, its called Eagean Macedonia and in 1913 with
the Treaty of Bucharest, Eagean Macedonia become a part of Greece. And today there lives Macedonians which are more than Greeks in Eagean Macedonia... Its true that i'm from Macedonia, but i'm neutral. I want people to know the true... So it's true that this part today belongs to Greece, but there is noting true in this page! This page was made from nationalists! WIKIPEDIA SHOULD BE NEUTRAL PAGE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marko sk (talk • contribs) 13:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you crazy? This region does exist and it was called like that since the Ottoman rule of the region. The "Republic of Macedonia" never held any rule on that region. The ethic Macedonians living there are just economic immigrants, you are not neutral at all.
International Reactions
These are useful to understand geopolitics and international perceptions, and the reasons and change of these perceptions through time. Perhaps a corresponding section should be created in these articles.
"The United States government holds, that any discussion of a Macedonian nation, Macedonian homeland, or Macedonian national identity, to be demagoguery, that does not hold ethnic or political reality, but expansionary attitudes towards Greece."
- Edward Stettinius, U.S. Secretary of State, December 26, 1944
Your really going to use the Cold War in this? C'mon man, Democracies took other Democracies sides no matter the issue when it comes to Cold War era. Maktruth (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fukutu, please familiarise yourself with the Macedonian conflict by reading the featured article Macedonia (terminology). Most Greeks in Macedonia do not self-identify as Macedonian Greeks, but as Macedonian period. Therefore their land, is not identified as Macedonia, Greece, but as Macedonia period as well. That will be a tough one, and I suggest we keep it as it is to avoid unnecessary conflicts. •NikoSilver• 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that people from this region in Greece, do or don't consider themselves Greek. They can consider themselves anything they want to. I'm just saying that Macedonia is a region in Greece, so I think having ", Greece" over "(Greece)" is an improvement. So I 'm asking, what makes "(Greece)" better than ", Greece"?--Fukutu 11:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me first clear out that I am not trying to defend one or the other title. Presumably, "(Greece)", allows for the help:pipe trick, which produces "[[Macedonia (Greece)|Macedonia]]" if you just type "[[Macedonia (Greece)|]]", saving you from a few keystrokes. Secondly, most related articles are of this form, like Macedonia (region), Macedonia (terminology), Macedonians (Greek), Macedonians (ethnic group) and soon Macedonia (ancient state) (see Talk:Macedon). When something works and prevents edit-wars, as apparently this has done for years in this controversial article, the worst thing to do is damage the equilibrium that has been reached through extensive talks. That ofcourse, doesn't prevent anyone from discussing it, or being bold, but generally, these are sensitive articles and bold attempts create more tension than good. Next, I'll expect a fellow Greek editor just go ahead and move Macedonians (ethnic group) to Macedonians, Slav, Macedon to Macedonia, ancient Greece, or a Macedonian Slav editor go ahead and move Macedonians (Greek) to Macedonians, Aegean and so on. Finally, what I told you before: many Greeks resent the implication that "Macedonia" needs being disambiguated by any addition, since many Greeks believe that "Macedonia is one and only and it is Greek". The parentheses (especially combined with the pipe trick) signify that better, so I suspect that it is a matter of self-identification. The same applies to our Slav friends in their related articles, like in the Gdanskprecedent (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote). •NikoSilver• 13:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I was using geographical commas. Slav isn't a country so "Macedonians, Slav" would be a bit sus. While Macedonia period would be good, since a Country decided to name itself Macedonia that’s not going to happen. But I respect the brackets I really do.--Fukutu 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Niko, isn't it a bit historically incorrect that Greeks state "Macedonia is one and only and it is Greek" considering from the 6th century until 1913 is was heavily Slavisized? Even today, Greek Macedonia has a heavy influence of Slavic peoples. Using the term "Macedonia (Greece)" allows Greek Macedonians to continue to call their Macedonia "the true Macedonia" and continue to allow racist slurs towards the Macedonian Republic and ethnic Macedonians. It is rare that I find a person call themselves just Spartan, or just Athenian, or just Thessalonian, or just Thracian, it seems only Greek Macedonian calls themselves only Macedonian, and if that is the case then the Hellenic branch should be broken down into Greek and Macedonian (two different ethnicities) just like Slavic is broken into many branches (one of them being Macedonian). Maktruth (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Other ideas could be "Greek Macedonia" instead of Macedonia (Greece). I have heard this term stated many times by the Greek government and Greek peoples. Also, it could be distinguished from Republic of Macedonia. Maktruth (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
were are the slavic influences in modern macedonia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Not commenting on the rest, but it simply isn't true that Greeks don't call themselves by other regional identifiers. If anything, other regional identifiers are used more frequently than "Macedonian" is; for example, Epirotes (from Epirus) strongly self-identify as such. --Delirium (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is from individual experience that comes from an ethnic Macedonian living in a part of America with a heavy Greek population. Maybe the regional identity only is between Greeks, because whenever I speak to Greeks, they always include "Greek" when they identify themselves to me. Maktruth (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Independence from Greece I think. Either reunification with ROM or a separate state called Macedonian Greece. Kick out the occupiers (Greece) and liberate the peoples - let them speak what they want, let them be what they want. No more oppression from the Greek Government. If they want a separate state from ROM and Greece that would stop any more conflict - no one wins the land - make it separate and call it Macedonian Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.233.23 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Star of Vergina
"It originated from the vergina tombs on a golden casket from the tomb of Philip, father of Alexander The Great. But this archaeological find had already long been a part of Greek identity - causing a massive diplomatic row"
"Similar abuses occurred during the Balkans conflicts following Yugoslavia's break-up - not just in Macedonia, but throughout the region, argued Stasa Babic of Belgrade University"
Fourth: your article also states "Archaeology can't be neutral. We have to be aware of it and we have to admit it." Be aware of that Maktruth (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
SEVENTH vergina was used before it was found in greece.itwas used by macedons in ancient greece.and because the ancient macedons were greeks, VERGINA SYMBOL IS A GREEK SYMBOL.
LOL... Sorry, but you must be joking... What exactly did you proove now? How funny can you be?
The Star of Vergina was always a Greek symbol.
Eight-pointed suns often appear in Macedonian coins and shields of that period. Eight-, twelve- and (rarely) sixteen-pointed suns have been used as a decorative element in Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIMISM2008 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Dimanovski's edits
These edits do not belong here: this article is about the Greek part of Macedonia - the history of the Republic of Macedonia is treated there. Andreas (T) 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Protected
I have protected this page from editing for a day because of the ongoing edit war in the "Demographics" section. Please discuss this matter here rather than edit warring. If the edit warring continues after the protection expires, I'm going to be pretty liberal about handing out blocks. So discuss, come to a compromise, and stop edit warring. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The page should be protected from numbered users as the recent Nato events will spark more vandalism.Megistias (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Maps
This map is wrong.[1].Ancient macedon was around the thermaic gulf and chakidiki.The expanded state was bigger and was good at the previous map state.Megistias (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ancient Macedon's regions and towns, prior to the 4th century BC this is the extent of ancient macedon prior to expansion to thracians territories.What is this?
It all comes down to which period of ancient Greece (and Macedon) one refers to. To give the issue some rest, here are various maps, curtsey of the Macedonian and women in antiquity expert, acclaimed writer ([2]), and inspiring Professor of Ancient History in Clemson University, Dr. Elizabeth Carney. Her brilliant academic webpage.
The state it was in before expansion of course.Megistias (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Have a look around, it's all there plus much, much more. --157.228.98.153 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect use of FYROM
I repeatedly see the word “FYROM” used as an abbreviation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In the manual for Macedonia related articles Wikipedia rules specify the correct use of the reference which is, again, “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and not FYROM. Using FYROM to abbreviate the inconveniently long reference is not a correct way of doing so and it is offensive. Nobody uses HR to refer to the Hellenic Republic, FRG to refer to Federal Republic of Germany, etc. The UN resolution clearly states that the Republic of Macedonia will be referred to as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and not FYROM or F.Y.R.O.M. (note the use of the lower case letters for “the” and “former”) [3]
If your intentions, as an information portal, are to be politically correct I ask you not to be subjective in your intentions. When you are using the reference, you use it as intended without modifying or abbreviating it, meaning "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". If you intentions are to be politically incorrect, then it should be clearly implied that you are using the right to be politically incorrect. Please correct this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noompsy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
There was only one use of "FYROM" in the article, which I've reworded to avoid it. I agree we should probably avoid it, if only because it's a kind of strange acronym that the average reader probably isn't familiar with. --Delirium (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So Noompsy. You have a problem with the use of the term FYROM and yet you insist on using Republic of Macedonia which is not an acceptable and recognized state name even in your paragraph above. I think if you want neutrality, you should take care with your terminology as well because you see i am Macedonian and i find your use of Republic of Macedonia offensive to me and my ancestors124.190.26.158 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)hellasforever124.190.26.158 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
abbreviations for countries not correct? What about the U.K. and the U.S.? 62.51.169.187 (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Greek Macedonia
Should the article "Macedonia (Greece)" be renamed to "Greek Macedonia"? Here are the positives:
1)The term would help distinguish the Macedonia in Greece from the Republic of Macedonia
2)The term would familiarize nationalistic Greeks that their Macedonia is a part of the regional Macedonia, hence allow them to get over there "Macedonia is only one and its in Greece" obsession
3)The term would allow new readers to comprehend there is also a Greek Macedonia, instead of being confused into believing that Macedonia and Greece have the same meaning Maktruth (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Since two of your three points appear designed to push a nationalist point of view, I don't really consider this a constructive suggestion. As for the first one, is there a serious confusion? How would somebody looking for the Republic of Macedonia page ever end up at this article? They would have to go through Macedonia, which clearly distinguishes (and even lists the Republic of Macedonia article first). --Delirium (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not whether or not it goes through the Macedonia disambiguous page. The person could goto the "Macedonia (Greece)" page by typing in "Makedonia" on accident instead of "Macedonia", which I myself have done many times. A new reader could confuse Macedonia and Greece being synonyms by the way the title is worded. Maktruth (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would you be typing the Greek Makedonia instead of the Slavic Makedonija in the first place, if you were looking for the latter rather than former? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How can I explain for you to understand, I meant to type "Macedonia" but I wrote "Makedonia" because of a typo on the "c". What I am trying to state is "Macedonia (Greece)" may give unknown audiences that Macedonia and Greece are synonyms, does this make sense? Maktruth (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The title is fine as is. "Ambiguous term (disambiguator)" is the common format for such article titles. But shouldn't the article have a dablink on top, like For other uses, see Macedonia (disambiguation) or something? Fut.Perf.☼ 12:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've brought the dablink back. It was there for ages and was taken out by a vandal a couple of weeks ago and apparently forgotten when tidying up the vandalism [4]. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that even the parenthesis is enough. Macedonia is a word of greek origin (μακεδνός) but ok let's say this is out... Saying "Greek Macedonia" means (you carefully haven't stated that) that the only "real" macedonia is the one of the republic. No thanks I prefer the parenthesis, more NPOV and it's fair enough as a compromise. Perhaps the RoM must have a disambiguation that says "Slav" or declares that it's got nothing to do with the macedonia in Greece and it's history. I think that would be a far better solution/compromise wouldn't it? Plus saying Greek Macedonia, what the hell, don't people (not the extremists or the victims of propaganda) know enough about it? Isn't it clear that in an article that reads "Macedonia (Greece)" it means that it refers to the Greek province which by the way includes the history of Ancient Macedonia? I think it is. End of story.87.202.12.231 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Makednoi - a Dorian tribe?
It is written here that : "According to Herodotus, the Makednoí were a tribe of the Dorians."
Actually this is wrong... What Herodotus says is that the Makednoi migrated both to the south and to the north. Those who went south to Peloponnesus were CALLED Dorians. Thus, the Dorians are (according to Herodotus) a Macedonian tribe and not the other way around.
I here present the text in question :
“Although the one nation nowhere yet went out, the Lacedaemonian was very much wandering. For, in the time of King Deucalion, it was settled in the land of Phthia, and in the time of Dorus, the son of Hellen, in the country under Ossa and Olympus, the so-called Histiaean. From the Histiaean, after it had been expelled by the Cadmeians, it was settled in Pindus called Macedonian. Thence again it changed its place to the Dryopian land, and from the Dryopian thus it came to Peloponnesus, and was called Doric.” (Herodot, Book I, 56.3)
So according to Herodotus this Greek tribe was first called Macedonians and THEN called Dorians..
Thus I propose that this text be changed to "According to Herodotus, the Dorians were a tribe of the Makednoi that migrated south to Peloponnesus."
You're quite right; I've changed it to "both the Dorians and Macedonians descended from the Makednoi tribe". How's that? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Still not good...
According to Herodot (always) the Dorians were a Macedonian tribe. Of course Macedonians and Makednoi is the same thing. He said that first they were called Macedonians then they migrated into Peloponnesus and afterwards they were called Dorians. This is actually another proof (according to Herodot) that the Macedonians were Greeks since according to him even the Spartans are Macedonians (this is the actual reason for this text, to comment on the Spartan descendance..) If you are afraid that it will be misunderstood add the Lacaedemonians as Herodot does. Nobody thinks that the Spartans were not Greeks??!!
I always thought Μακεδόνες was just a later form of Μακεδνοί, referring to the Macedonians after the Dorians split off and headed south. Were the Macedonians still referred to by the older name after the establishment of the kingdom of Macedon? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's there currently, so this has been resolved I think? Not sure what was going on earlier. --Delirium (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Balkan Wars divide
This region was apart of today's Republic of Macedonia before it was divided to Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece, not the Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.162.63.204 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There was never a "Republic of Macedonia" before the 90s. Greece fought against Serbia, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire for Macedonia. The Greeks didn't fight against any "Macedonians"...--DIMISM2008 (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there was a Krusevo Republic in 1903, which was the predecessors to the Republic of Macedonia. There was also the Socialist REPUBLIC of Macedonia, which was a Republic within a Federation. Also, in terms of states/military units Greece only fought Serbia, Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire, but there was also Macedonian locals which fought on the side that they believed would give them the best outcome. To make an analogy, its like Greeks within Darius' army fighting against Alexander the Great, stating there were no military Greek units is correct because there was only an ancient Macedonian and a Persian military unit... but there were still Greeks within both units. Mactruth (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Applesnpeaches (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Still, the region was not part of today's former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia. Also, the Greeks fighting for the unification of Macedonia (Greece) to Greece - many were Macedonians (Greeks/Hellenes) that were locals of the region.
Also, the Turkish census ethnicity counts of the era never mention ethnic Macedonians in the region but Greeks, Bulgarians, Turks, etc.
Also, the people of FYROM speak a Bulgarian dialect so it would seem to the Greeks that they were fighting Bulgarians,
Serbs and Turks for Macedonia. Granted that the term Macedonia is of greek origin, this would also imply
that the oldest inhabitants of homeland Macedonia (now in Greece) were indeed Hellenes. Which would further explain
why the Macedonian empire was Hellenic wherever it expanded towards - which also explains why the Romans and Persians refer to the Ancient Macedonians as Greeks. But if there were slavs that somehow adopted the Bulgarian language and customs and
considered themselves ethnic Macedonians - they never voiced this prior to the Second World War. And I do mean "ethnic" not just of the region. Also see letter by Kuzman Shapkarev stating that the idea of Macedonian ethnicity was enforced upon Bulgarians. (In Bulgaria, Sophia - I think national library.) Either wasy, he identified as Bulgarian - yet FYROM state he was ethnic Macedonian.
Applesnpeaches (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applesnpeaches (talk • contribs) 13:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please verify the anthem and the flag and about the tendencies in writing of the article
I will ask for the editors to verify the sources for the the anthem and the flag of Macedonia (Greece). Who enacted the the anthem and the flag and when? I can not find an anthem and a flag on the website for the perifery Macedonia and Thrace.
The second objection is about the tendencies in this article. This article is being heavily Macedonized during these two years and the neutrality can be at risk. There is only censual facts about Greek people in Macedonia (Greece), but in Wikipedia these Greek people are forwarded as separate ethnic group that is slowly Macedonized (attributed with Macedonian) in the edits. In the old revision of the article Macedonia (Greece) from 12 May 2007 says: "The inhabitants are overwhelmingly ethnic Greeks (Greek Macedonians)...". In the old revision of the page 22 November 2007 says "... Greek Macedonians have developed a strong regional identity..." (no mention of Macedonians (Μακεδόνες)). And today is written: "Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) is the term by which ethnic Greeks originating from Macedonia, particularly the Greek region of Macedonia, are known. The Macedonians have a strong regional identity..."
The process of Macedonization of Greeks is followed by second attribution process of Slavonizing the ethnic Macedonians in the parallel articles and in the manual (with the use Slav Macedonians, Slavic language, Slavs, etc. Here we have a term Slavic ethnic Macedonians). The people in the Rainbow party are declared as only Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes). Check on their website one more time and transfer the information in Wikipedia as it is.
Also the statements "Vlachs (Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians) or Slavophones, who largely identify as Greeks and belong to the Greek Orthodox Church" sounds rather negatory to these minorities. If the people are Vlachs, they are clearly not identified with ethnic Greeks (they have only Greek citizenship). The difference in the language identifies them as ethnic Vlachs.
(Toci (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC))
For the flag and the origin of it, there are some sources and discussion on Vergina_Sun#Modern_usage that might be useful --Enric Naval (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no info about the flag there, only about the symbol. Says in the text with the reference that the Greek parlament passed a bill about the Greekness of the Vergina Sun symbol in 1993, not a bill about the flag of Macedonia (Greece). The flag seems is more recent invention or application of the Vergina Sun symbol, but there are no sources like origin, dates, who established it, etc. The flag is not even on the website, there is only Greek and EU flag there. (Toci (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
You should leave a message on Talk:Flag_of_Macedonia_(Greece), and on the heraldry wikiproject linked at that page to find sources for official usage of the flag. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Greek Vlachs largely self-identify as Greeks so they're Greeks (you see, if that weren't the case, the wiki article would be calling YOU simply Bulgarians or Slavs and not Macedonians (ethnic group); no double standards ey?). "Macedonian" for Greeks is simply a(n ethno-)regional identity. End of story. You've been told all these a million times before. Stop posting your inane rants or I'll start removing them. It's getting annoying. Are you REALLY that obtuse or just playing? Not to mention comments such as "slavonizing ethnic Macedonians"...Jesus Christ almighty. 3rdAlcove (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in modern Greece most Vlachs would take offense at an implication that they didn't count as "real" Greeks in the national-identity sense. This is distinct from the Turkish minority, which considers itself Turkish but with Greek citizenship---the Vlach minority considers itself fully Greek. --Delirium (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. All this talk of "respecting our self-identification" from Macedonians (Toci here has made the same point before), yet they don't seem to extend the same courtesy to others (that's not to say that -all- Vlachs, and since their first appearance on the Helladic mainland no less, have considered themselves Greek, of course). 3rdAlcove (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
3rdAlcove, I think it is wrong to remove any talk that deal with the quality (rather the neutrality) of this article. I gave a timeline how the ethnic Greeks became only Macedonians in the edits of the article in these two years. Being only Macedonian can be rather misguiding especially in regard to the ongoing Macedonia naming dispute (people can refer to this article). It is also good for the people to know that the official regional declarations of the ethnic Greeks as Macedonians are of recent date (like the Karamalis statement in 2007). Now I am also trying to discover when the flag was enacted or if it is enacted at all. Strangely I even saw a version of the current flag of Republic of Macedonia on blue background on some Greek nationalist videos. Maybe this flag can be included as well in the article as the second flag for Macedonia (Greece).
I am trying to say that it is wrong to write in the article that Vlachs are Greeks (they have unique culture and language). The Vlachs are only Greeks now because Greece does not collect data on ethnicities. It is wrong to write that someone is something that is not, that was my point, regardless if they get offended for not being as fully Greeks. They are what they are. You can write in the article: there are numbers of Vlachs who live there (by the census from X were X population) but because Greece does not collect data on ethnicities it is unkown how many Vlachs live today... And please "Since the first appearance of the Vlachs on the Helladic mainland[citation needed]"? What does this mean?
In meanwhile 3rdAlcove, please, instead of getting anoyed of these facts, find some older references in the Greek newspapers for example from the 1950s of Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες) doing something in Salonica. It will really stregthen the fact of the regional identity of the Greeks. (Toci (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
I think I'm done talking to you altogether. Obviously you're here to disrupt (or insult our intelligence, or even worse, yours). Cheers. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope then some other Greek editor who is in the area will help in the research about the flag, anthem, regional identity and the tendencies. As I wrote these are interesting facts in regard to the ongoing Macedonia naming dispute. (Toci (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
Hello Toci, I have read your arguments and conclude the following:
There have been a conversion of identification from "ethnic Greeks in Macedonia" to "Greek Macedonian." This phenomenon has been a recent event and it stems from raising national identity with a end purpose of convincing all the inhabitants of the Greek region of Macedonia that they are ancestors to the ancient Macedonians.
The Greek-Macedonian flag is unofficially adopted, that is why you cannot find any governmental sources on it. After its discovery in the 1980s, ethnic Macedonian diaspora started using it, but Greek-Macedonians also started using it. It is an unofficial symbol, which should be written in the article since it stats "Official symbol of Macedonia" in the article.
The anthem of Greek Macedonia is believed to have origins from a dance, which evolved into the modern form of the anthem. The origins of the dance are not concluded, and the formation of the anthem is not sourced. Too me, its most likely a recent anthem with a purpose to again, convince all the inhabitants they are ancestors to ancient Macedonians (look at the lyrics: it subtly states "Macedonians/Macedonia are Greek")
Slav Macedonian or Macedonian Slav is used in articles which Greek and Macedonian history/events/etc collide. Mactruth (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
IT does raise a good question though: Why did Greece force Macedonia into changing the flag if it won't even adopt it itself? My belief is Greece is making it unofficially popular (which also increases nationalism) before it will adopt it officially, in which case they then can state "the ancestors of the ancient Macedonians have their symbol back." Quite entertaining. Mactruth (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) is the term by which ethnic Greeks originating from the region are known." This very statement is wrong since at least half of all "2.5 million" Greek Macedonians originate from modern Turkey. Also, many people are assimilated and while they did originate from Macedonia, they were not ethnic Greek. Remember: There is a difference between national and ethnic feelings, being Greek on a national level does not mean you are ethnic Greek. Also, the flag stating "Macedonian flag" needs to be changed to "Unofficial flag of Macedonia (Greece)" same goes for the anthem. Mactruth (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be offensive and I don't mean to be provocative. However, I can't help but classify your statements as tendentious bullshit. Please provide some real evidence to your statements aside from the usual FYROM-induced propaganda. Thank you. Deucalionite (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
In the Balkans, scholars make no modern distinction between "ethnic" and "national" that goes back more than 100 years or so. If you go back more, it's nearly impossible to separate out the intertwined ethnicities---Greeks, Arabs, Turks, etc. are all quite intertwined. So when a scholar says "ethnic Turk", he doesn't mean something weirdly racialist like "pure-blooded descendant of the ancient Turkic tribes", since almost nobody meets that criterion. However, I should also note that this isn't a talk page for general discussion of the subject, so instead of just giving your opinions, citations to reliable sources when discussing them would be helpful. --Delirium (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say that its impossible to separate different ethnicities in the Balkans. Keep in mind that some ethnic groups are more prone to "intertwining processes" than others. However, this is not the place to be talking about such things. Mactruth needs to provide reliable, accurate, and verifiable evidence before making any "bold" statements. Deucalionite (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There are several organisations for the preservation of the Greek Macedonian sub-ethnic identity, both in Greece and in the diaspora, e.g. [5], [6], [7]. The Greeks of Macedonia have always declared that they are Macedonians (just as the Cretans have always declared they are... Cretans), each time as a subgroup of the Greek nation. Similarly, the Slavs of the region of Macedonia had been declaring that they are Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks and the muslims Turks. Since the Macedonian Greeks are not an ethnicity different than the rest Greeks, but rather a regional sub-group, none of the states that have governed Macedonia in the past found it suitable to make a distinction. Similarly, they found no reason to make a distinction between the so-called "Slav Macedonians" and the Bulgarians or Serbs. What the world needs to realise and what FYROM aggressively (with backing, of course) tries to hide, is that there was not a Slav Macedonian ethnic identity until Tito's rule. When FYROM became independent, in 1991, they were protesting that Greece should not monopolize the name "Macedonia" and its derivatives. Today, it is FYROM who tries to monopolise it. The Greek regional identity of Macedonia is not in dispute, but only in the minds of some nationalistic circles in Skopje. --Hectorian (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand the facts. Peripheries are administrative divisions, they are different from geographic regions. E.g.: the NW part of the geographic region of Peloponnese is joined with part of the geographic region of Central Greece to form the administrative periphery of Western Greece. The fact that Greek Macedonia is divided in different administrative units doesn't mean it is not a single geographical region. Also, check out the Regions of Greece article. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, still even the Regions of Greece article quotes a small and mainly unclear map from the Greek site of the ministry of Agriculture, i think a better quote could be found (official Greek geography books per example).
Can anyone can send any historical or modern documented evidence of the existence or use of the term "Greek Macedonia" and more in general of the term "Macedonia (Greece)" by the Greek State, thank you.Alex Makedon (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
But that's the whole point of the Macedonia naming dispute: Greece (and Greeks) terms its northern region simply "Macedonia" (e.g. the Ministry of Macedonia and Thrace), and objects to the unqualified use of the term by the RoM for that exact reason. In Greece, any mention of "Macedonia" would 99% of the time refer to the part of the region that is in Greece (or ancient Macedon). The RoM is usually termed "Skopje", as you perhaps know, or, at best, "Macedonia" inside guillemets. Hence, the Greek state does not see any need to add any qualifiers like "Macedonia (Greece)" or "Greek Macedonia". These are used in WP or by scholars for clarity and nomenclature purposes. See also WP:MOSMAC. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a similar situation. Macedonia is a case where different ethnicities with different cultures claim the same name. In the other cases there is a strong connection between the two regions. For example Belgian Luxembourg is a break away province from the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. And additionally, Greek Macedonia is both larger and more populous than the Republic.--Avg 19:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
From Greece's perspective, in fact, the Macedonia situation is similar to that of all its other border historical regions---they're all now split between Greece and neighboring countries. Macedonia is split between Greece, the RoM, and Bulgaria; Epirus is split between Greece and Albania, and Thrace is split between Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey. The main reasons this one are a bigger flashpoint are: 1) more high-profile history (there's no Thracian or Epirote equivalent to the Macedonian Empire); and 2) the non-Greek part is independent and named after the region, whereas there's no ethnic-Albanian Republic of Epirus, or ethnic-Turkish Republic of Thrace. But in any case, it makes sense IMO to follow the same practice of having the main article be either a disambig. or about the historical region. --Delirium (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Identity of the inhabitants of the Greek regions Macedonia
Is there any official document (census data, identity document etc.), even a historical one, that states any kind of Macedonian Identity (etchnicity, nationality, linguistic etc.) of the inhabitants of the three regions of Greece named Macedonia. If anyone can post any official document that shows the Macedonian identity of the inhabitants of the Greek regions named Macedonia, thank you.Alex Makedon (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? Being Greek overlaps other identities but doesn't erase them. There is a strong feeling of regional identity in Macedonia like in Thessaly, Peloponnese, Thrace, Epirus, Crete etc In Germany for example someone is German but proud to be Bavarian also. Census count people no affiliations or feelings! --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia encyclopedia is about facts not feelings, so i ask if there is any kind of official documented evidence where the identity of the inhabitants of the Greek regions Macedonia is stated as Macedonian. The Bavaria example is not good since there is no population that has Bavarian nationality, etchnicity, and linguistic Bavarian identity, while there is Republic of Macedonia and official Macedonian nationality, etchnicity, language etc. Thats is the reason why there is a need of any official document that states any kind of Macedonian identity (etchnicity, nationality, linguistic etc.) of the inhabitants of the Greek regions named Macedonia, thank you. Alex Makedon (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are official documents by the Bulgarian and Greek Helsinki committees -feel free to find them and read some. Have you read any that deny it? Cause you might as well have asked if Human Beings exist and if sources were available on the matter. As for the Bavarian example - nobody knows; maybe one day we'll have a new ethnicity with its own language and history (there was such a state up to the German unification so it would have more grounds for pretensions than RoM). --LaveolT 11:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
About the Bavarian situation there is Bavarian official documented citizenship, even if its not a good example since there is no one declaring Bavarian nationality and etchnicity. So there is a documented Bavarian Identity.
A good example would be indipendent State Luxembourg and the inhabitants of the region Luxembourg. Even if all of them are Luxembourgers by a "regional identity", there is a documented distinction between the Luxembourgers and the other inhabitants of the region Luxembourg. Infact in the the largest Belgian province named also Luxembourg, even if the all the inhabitants are Luxembourgers by regional identity, there is an evidented minority of Luxembourgers.
So since a regional identity of the inhabitants is a pretty wide and unclear way of identification there is a documented difference between Luxembourgers and the population with regional Luxembourgers identity.
Is there any such documented identity of the inhabitants of the three regions of Greece named Macedonia, namely a document declaring their Macedonian identity?
@ Laveol: Can you post a link of this Helsinki committees where it is stated the identity of the population of the Greek regions named Macedonia as Macedonian plz, thank you. Alex Makedon (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are thousands of articles, wills, letters, announcements, reports etc that clearly state the Greekness of Macedonians or the Macedonism of Greeks in Ottoman occupied Macedonia. The archives of the Aristotle University of THessaloniki boasts a huge archive of 19th century newspapers and of other written documents and these are available to anyone. It is very interesting that the city newspapers (published in the Greek language) clearly identify the ancient Macedonians as Greeks as well as calls Greeks Macedonians and vice versa. They also clearly define all Balkan peoples in various articles but peculiarly among them there is none that can today be identified as "ethnic Macedonian", a non-existant word at the time. Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians, Vlachs, Turks, Montenegrans, Croats, Jews etc are all clearly mentioned but no other unidentifiable people emerges in the thousands of articles... The same counts for the Ottoman as well as for the Bulgarian archives as far as I know. There were newspapers published in Skopje, in Ochrid, in Bitola... Do a research in your archives and try to find more evidence than the letteres of some revolutionaries who used the name "Macedonians" to describe themselves as many times as they used the name "Bulgarians"... I unfortunately had not yet the chance to have a look at these, but I am sure that should they give a fraction of the evidence given by the Greek Macedonian newspapers, this would be heralded by your state. Instead you are left to think that there is actually few written evidence from the 19th century, which could not be further from the truth. There are thousands and you should look through those in your country.
And of course the Helsinki Committe, an American NGO, regardless it name, has absolutely no international jurisdiction. It is just a private organization and no branch of any internatinal authority. And of course, you have to read the actual text to understand that it has little to do with what people in FYROM claim. Among many things, it also states regarding the claim of the FYROMian "expatriates" that they should be allowed to return and claim their fortunes and staff that the Greek government HAS the right to deny them their wish. Find the site of the committee and there you will find the said report. You should read it, for it is many times recited wrongly by people with a different political agenda.
Oh! And I forgot to mention the existence of organizations, clubs and societies that clearly connected Macedonia with Greece. There were Societies of Greek Macedonians who held archives we have and of course clearly linked the ancient Macedonian history with Greece. And all that THROUGHOUT the 19th century, before any claim of non Greeks on Macedonian history. Again I urge you to visit your archives and make a research. Maybe you will be able to find data that will also be of interest to us. Evidence is very easy to procure if needed in pdf form from official scans of the Aristotle University.
I will repeat the question, perhaps is not clear:
Is there any official document (census data, identity document etc.), even a historical one, that states any kind of Macedonian Identity (etchnicity, nationality, linguistic etc.) of the inhabitants of the three regions of Greece named Macedonia?
Is there any official identity document stating Macedonian Identity of the population of the Greek regions called Macedonia?
(newspaper articles, letters and private clubs are not an official document of the Identity) thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure i understand the question and the point you're trying to make. If you are talking about state recognition, what would be the purpose for an "official" distinction to exist ? To prove the obvious ? To my knowledge there's no state recognition of any regional identity group. If Greece was a federation like Germany there might have been. I don't know much about the Belgium-Luxembourg situation to make a detailed comparison, a basic difference is that Greece doesn't recognize any country with the name Macedonia. The article already has reliable references about the Macedonian identity, so what are you trying to say with this question ?--Zakronian (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What kind of "reliable" references are there if there is no, not a single one official identity document (even one from the Greek Goverment) that describes the inhabitants of the three Greek regions called Macedonia as Macedonians? This is neccessary since there is a state clearly declaring Macedonian Nationality, Etchnicity and Citizenship of its citizens. Is this Greek "regional" Macedonian identity verificable, documented, are there any official criteria, is there any document where anyone from the Greek regions of Macedonia has stated this kind "regional identity" in any conext? If yes plz post this document, thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
lol, what more official do you expect other than the naming dispute itself ??? What ever you might have in mind excluding by using "official" instead of "reliable" or "verifiable", wikipedia doesn't work like that. Read the references and present a counter-arguement. There is no internal need for a state ( or whatever meaning you give to "official") recognition. Now that i think of it, if it existed it would made the country's position in the dispute weaker.--Zakronian (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You cannot take the name dispute for rellevant identity declaration. At most its the other way around: a rellevant Macedonian identity documentation of the inhabitants of the Greek regions of Macedonia (wich is missing at this moment) could justify the naming issue.Alex Makedon (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any official, reliable or verifiable document (census data, identity document etc.), even a historical one, that states any kind of Macedonian Identity (etchnicity, nationality, linguistic etc.), used in any context, that describe the inhabitants of the three regions of Greece named Macedonia as Macedonians? Alex Makedon (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There was no reason for the state to identify the obvious untill the independence of the RoM. Many in Greece would see a move of an internal distinction following the 1991 dissolution of Yugoslavia as a need to disambiguate, which can be intepreted as semiofficial acceptance of the neighbour's position. Even if the government's position has softened in recent years, still such a move would not help. I find this discussion to be off-topic, is there any objection to the reliability of the present sources ? You mean to say maybe that nothing can be used as credible source other than official state documents clearly implying regional recognition ? If that's the case than there's no case at all and the discussion is a waste of time.--Zakronian (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, sorry, but I have to say I find your arguments really lame. What document do you want? If we have a ton of scholars talking about it, could it be something that doesn't exist? What document do you want? Do you have a document which determines somebody is an "Aegean Macedonian" (of the Slav type that is) - do you count "Aegean Macedonians" separately on the census? I believe (and hope) that the answer is no. And yet again, we even have an article on this here. And now you want census data for this? Sorry but you don't have a valid argument. Peter Mackridge talks extensively about the Greek Macedonian identity - there's a whole book on it. And tons of others who present the identities in BG and GR ad yet you want prove? Sorry if I've misunderstood you, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Does the article state that this regional identity is official? That it is sanctioned by the government? --LaveolT 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Now i get his plan...--Zakronian (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Lol "his plan" lol... My arguments are lame? I dont present arguments to start with, all i look for is some kind of documented evidence, a written document prove for the existence of the much discussed millions of Macedonians in the northern Greek region. To make it more simple Karamanlis has stated that there are 2,5 million Macedonians in northern Greece, is this information backed up with any kind of officially documented evidence (a census per example), where does Karamanlis take this information about the Macedonians in Greece and their number too (2,5 milion)? Than even looking at the issue from a purely regional identity there are many questions open, and with no official, reliable or verifiable document first of all from the Greek Goverment this Macedonian regional identity remains undocumented unofficial information.Alex Makedon (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, in order to end this silly and POV-driven discussion, some scholarly sources about a "Greek Macedonian" regional identity: [8] and [9]. If you search a bit more, you should find more, as well. Cheers to all, Constantine ✍ 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The links stated are far from official documented Identity evidence. For example with a similar search we find research works like this [10] that investigates the Macedonian minority in Greece, in clear contrast with Macedonians as a wider regional Greek Identity. So, there is a need for official documented Identity evidence describing the inhabitants of nothern Greeece as Macedonians. Alex Makedon (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I really can't see what you expect to reach with all this. Do you expect the Greek state to go around giving people identity cards based on which region they come from? Cretans, Epirotes and many others have strong regional identities, regardless of whether official documents to that effect exist or not. To expect the government to actually bother with documenting people's regional ties "officially" is absurd, the more so since any unitary nation-state automatically would regard such a demand as a precursor to separatism. Regional identities are de facto unofficial, unless they happen to coincide territorially with an earlier polity (e.g. Bavaria). They are not created or "made official" by government sanction. If the Prime Minister of a country loudly proclaims his pride in his regional identity, and if serious scholars document the existence of such an identity, that should be enough for most (i.e. non-biased) observers. If you are trying to prove that the Slavic Macedonians are the only "true" Macedonians because of a lack of Greek official documents, then that is absurd. I would also like to remind you that by the same token, no "ethnic Macedonians" existed in the early 20th century either, since no state actually "officially" referred to them as such. The Macedonian dispute is complex enough, both inside and outside WP, without raising another, truly non-existent issue. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to leave the question open, to give enough time so that documented evidence about the Macedonian Identity of the inhabitants of the three northern regions of Greece comes up. Since this kind of information would contribute to the objectivness and the clarification of the issue, "both sides" would benefit from it. thank you. Alex Makedon (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What this unfortunate man wants to say is that if a country in Northern Europe calls itself Aztecland, they can claim their history, culture, national and local identity of the Aztecs, since there is no "taken" Aztec nationality at the moment nor is there any "official" document of an Aztec land linking the Aztecs with the American Indians of these lands today...
You cannot have an Aztec nationality in Mexico, since the nationality of the inhabitants is Mexican... There is no Roman nationality in Italy nor a Visigoth nationality in Morrocco or a Celtiberian nationality in Spain... What you are asking makes NO SENSE.... If you just want ANY formal paper mentioning the name "Macedonia" or the adjective "Macedonian" referring to Greeks this is also too easy. There are thousands of official Greek papers (since of course the formation of the Greek Republic) which mention these words. Is it "official" enough for you the Treaty between Philip V and the Carthaginian Senate which clearly links Greeks and Macedonians? Anythging written by ancient historians you would call "history books", thus not official... Are maps, military, state and commercial "official" enough (of course you cannot believe the absurdity that the Greek maps did not include the name "Macedonia" before the formation of FYROM????)? Is the celebrating of the "Macedonian Struggle" (the struggle of Greeks to liberate Greek Macedonia) nationwide "official" enough? Will censuses and voting lists clearly using the name of "Macedonia" to denote the said Greek region "official" enough? Are official speeches of Greek politicians, generals etc "official" enough? What are you getting at? Do you really believe that Macedonia was some kind of a taboo word? Please get over the insane and absurd propaganda and start a real debate...
[User:GK1973|GK1973]] (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you for example explain us where the literary products of the "ethnic Macedonian" people are? Throughout the 19th century, there are thousands of documents documenting Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Turkish, Jewish, Serbian, Croat, Montenegran even Vlach and Aromanian presence in the region... Where are the documents your people produced? Where are the papers of the "ethnic Macedonians"? Where are the wills of these people? Where are their schools? Why are there hundreds of OFFICIALLY CALLED Bulgarian and Greek schools throughout Macedonia? Where are the "ethnic Macedonian" schools? Did the Ottomans deprive you of a right every other people in Macedonia had? Where are your newspapers? There are Greek ones... Bulgarians... where are the "ethnic Macedonian" ones? Even the OFFICIAL Ottomans OFFICIALLY called people Bulgarians, Greeks etc etc... Where are the "ethnic Macedonians" and don't repeat this absurdity about how the Turks only recognised people by religion... not all OFFICIAL Ottoman papers are censuses...?
keep to the documents evidence and facts we are looking for, leave the chat and debates for the forums thank you. Alex Makedon (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please explain here the difference between using the population for municipality and the population for city, and explain why one is better than the other, and agree on which one to use? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First, I don't know where that 700,000 number has come from. Second, before that it was 1 million (that's the population of the entire Thessaloniki Prefecture). That's obviously not the population of Salonika. Third, the city (or municipality) of Thessaloniki is 363,987 which is what the table is asking and what www.statistics.gr says is the population of Thessaloniki. All other numbers just inflate the population of the city and don't tell you the true population. It's like Athens, the who region of Athens has 3.2 million people, but Athens itself is only 745,514. El Greco(talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Thessaloniki is a city that is comprised of many municipalities along with the Municipality of Thessaloniki. The censuses are about municipalities. In order to find what the population of the city is you have to add up the populations of the municipalities. When we are giving the population of the City of New York, we add up the populations of all its municipalities (boroughs) as is the case with every other city in the world. If Manhattan was called municipality of New York, then we wouldn't say that New York was just that, would we? There is no city of Kalamaria, Pylaia, Euosmos, Stauroupoli etc in Greece... all these and many more are municipalities of a single city...Thessaloniki. The same counts for Athens and its own municipalities like Ag. Paraskeui, Peristeri, Philadelphia etc. In the case of Athens there is only the question of Pireus. In the ancient time it was the port of Athens and today it is considered a municipality of Athens, there is no city of Pireus...
In page 142 of the census regarding permanent residents ([11]) it states that the Demos (Municipality)of Thessaloniki has in 2001 a population of 385.406. To this most of the following demoi (municipalities) have to be added. You have to know that although these are the official numbers they do not depict the true size of the city which now has a lot more than 1.000.000 people, but I do not suggest we should move along this path.
Go to [12] to see which the municipalities of the city are. I have not done the mathematics but the guy who wrote that says he has...what's certain is that the City of Thessaloniki is much more than the Municipality of the same name. The same applies to Athens..
I quote wiki about New York City "Located on the Atlantic coast of the Northeastern United States, the city consists of five distinct boroughs: The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. It is the most densely populated major city in the United States, with an estimated 8,274,527 people[1] occupying just under 305 square miles (790 km2).[2][3][4][5][6] The New York metropolitan area's population is also the nation's highest, estimated at 19,750,000 people over 6,720 square miles (17,400 km2) in three states.[7]" Boroughs are what in Greece is called municipalities, demoi. If we used this thinking, we should only assign to New York the population of Manhattan...
Meh, I guess this is the same difference between Barcelona and Urban Region of Barcelona. When giving the population of Barcelona, you only give the city itself, you don't add the populations of Badalona, Hospitalet de Llobregat, etc, even if they are right next to Barcelona (there are streets where the buildings on each side belong to a different municipality). This distintion between city and municipality is splitting hairs, we are talking about a list of towns, not a list of urban areas, and every other entry lists only the population of the town itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you seriously going to tell me, GK1973, that there is no city of Piraeus?? To quote: The same counts for Athens and its own municipalities like Ag. Paraskeui, Peristeri, Philadelphia etc. In the case of Athens there is only the question of Pireus. In the ancient time it was the port of Athens and today it is considered a municipality of Athens, there is no city of Pireus... They way you make it sound, is like there are only 2 cities in all of Greece: Athens and Thessaloniki and every other city is part of those two major cities. Technically Athens is it's own municipality, so are all those other cities you listed in the Athens area. See here as well: page 126 and page 47 of document and both documents lists Kalamaria, pylia, and stavroupolis seperate of Salonikia. El Greco(talk) 14:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes... you are totally wrong... the "poleodomiko sygrotima Thessalonikis" is the city of Thessaloniki, NOT the municipality or borough of Thessaloniki. The same applies to the "poleodomiko sygrotima Athinon", which is the city of Athens and NOT the municipality (borough) of Athens. Have you ever been to these cities????? Have you ever seen in ANY Greek map a "city" of Kalamria or a "city" of Peristeri!!!????? These are all municipalities (boroughs) of a SINGLE city and NOT cities in themselves... Other Greek cities are Patrae, Herakleion, Larissa, Volos, Alexandroupolis, Komotene, Xanthi, Kastoria, Sparti, Argos and many many more which you will find on Greece's maps and are NOT municipalities (boroughs) of the said cities... Officially they are NOT cities, they are just boroughs...
It is evident that you have not made the effort to look at a map of the two biggest Greek cities... So here are some...
As far as your sources are concerned they are indeed clear... they clearly state that these are MUNICIPALITIES, Demoi... It is exactly as I said... This official pdf gives details for the demoi and the koinotites that comprise every prefecture of Greece... These have NOTHING to do with cities (poleodomika sygkrotimata)... In the other pdf you provided it is also clear that it talks about MUNICIPALITIES... it says so... D. Thessalonikis -> M. Thessalonikis. In Greece, the local authorities are NOT responsible for a whole city. They are instead responsible for a single Demos, thus mayor is the head of a municipality and NOT that of a city. There is no CITY of Kalamaria or a CITY of Peristeri in Greece as there is no CITY of Bronx or CITY of Brooklyn in the US...
[13] For example in this map, where NOT the whole "poleodomiko sygrotima of Thessaloniki" is depicted you will see some regions marked with blue letters...(Ampelokipoi, Neapoli, Agios Paulos, Sykies and Triandria) These are municipalities around the municipality of THessaloniki and it is quite clear from the map that they belong to the same city...
See this one for the map of Thessaloniki as is given by OASTH, the public bus service of the city (Organismos Astikon Sygkoinonion Thessalonikis)
Here you will also find two different links leading to 1. the map of Thessaloniki and 2. the map of the Municipality of Thessaloniki. In the map of Thessaloniki, you can see in different colors the various boroughs...
I really cannot understand your problem with the fact that Greek cities are comprised of boroughs just like EVERY OTHER CITY IN THE WORLD...
And by the way... the Municipality of Athenaion (Athens) has only a population of 745.514 people according to the official Greek census of 2001.... ([14])but the "POLEODOMIKO SYGKROTIMA ATHINON" is much much larger, for it contains many boroughs...
And no Eric.. it is not the same case with Barcelona. These boroughs are integral parts of these cities and were NEVER considered separate cities with the sole exception of Pireus. They are also NOT depicted on Greek maps.
See also this article about the demoi and the cities of Greece. The article gives information about both and states that Thessaloniki has according to the 2001 census 838.820 citizens and Athens over 3.500.000. And do not forget that Greece has 917 municipalities.... Unless you can think that a country of 11.000.000 people can actually have more than 900 cities (!!!!!), you have to accept that each municipality is NOT a single town or city...
The article has a list of towns, not a list of cities. A "city" is a vague term that varies on definition by country. You have towns and you have urban areas that include several towns (and urban areas can also be vague). Check the several definitions at City#The_difference_between_towns_and_cities. If you want a list of cities, then you should point out at the official definiton of "city" on greece.
My point is that, as far as I know, in all lists of statistics for towns only the municipality itself is taken into account. The urban area numbers would be for a list of urban areas.
As for majors, the municipalities around Barcelona also all have their own majors and independient administration (in that street I mentioned, the urban equipment is different on each side of the street, and the branding is that of the corresponding municipality), and none of them is responsible for the whole urban area, just like in Athenas. There is no authority for the "city of Barcelona". The municipality of Barcelona is also divided on buroughs, which were independient munipalities before becoming buroughs.
As for maps, any map called "of Barcelona" includes all the urban area with all the municipalities surrounding it[16], so I don't see what is so special with Athens or Thessalonika. Google maps also shows it as if the whole urban area was Barcelona [17] and you can find maps calling the whole area barcelona[18][19]. If you look at the cityofathenas website, they only give the map for the municipality itself[20], just like Barcelona's website[21] --Enric Naval (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to refer to municipalities then talk about municipalities. Nevertheless, if the question is about the CITY of Thessaloniki, then we have to include all its boroughs. Towns also may have multiple boroughs. If you visit the official sites of the municipalities of Thessaloniki or Athens they clearly state that they are parts of their respective poleodomika sygkrotimata (formal Greek for cities). If you try to find a list with Greek cities, you will never find any of these demoi included. So, the choice is really clear. If we want to give the population of the city of Thessaloniki, then we have to include its boroughs as is the case with Athens. If we want to give the population of the municipalities of Thessaloniki or/and Athens, we then give that. If we want to give both we can give both. But saying that the city of Thessaloniki or just Thessaloniki has some 380.000 people is clearly misleading and wrong. When we visit a link that has to do with a country, its most important cities are given, not municipalities but CITIES. Thessaloniki, as Athens are officially clearly defined in Greece as "poleodomika syngrotimata" and so are their services like EYATH (water company of TH-essaloniki), OASTH (public buses of TH-essaloniki) etc etc etc.
I really cannot see the point in all this. When the population of New York is mentioned its boroughs are added up. So are the boroughs of Hamburg to reach a pop of 1.8 mil.
In the article about Paris we write : The city of Paris within its administrative limits (largely unchanged since 1860) has an estimated population of 2,167,994 (January 2006).[2] The Paris unité urbaine (or urban area) extends well beyond the administrative city limits and has an estimated population of 9.93 million (in 2005).[3] The Paris aire urbaine (or metropolitan area) has a population of nearly 12 million,[4] and is one of the most populated metropolitan areas in Europe.[5]
Does this mean that whenever we will refer to the population of Paris we should mention its CITY population only ("Paris has a population of about 2 million people") (CITY here not meaning city as with London, but also municipality, the historic center, the old city)? This would be ridiculous...Everybody knows that Paris and London are some of the largest CITIES in the world...
So, yes, it is a matter of terminology. In ancient Greek Demos was not "the city" but "the people". In the whole world, when the word "city" is mentioned in all (maybe most) geography books, touristic brochures etc, the urban (not the metropolitan) area is being meant. And this is not some unofficial terminology... Search as hard as you may, you will never find that Euosmos, Kalamria, Peristeri etc are among the largest cities of Greece. Even saying that the population of Athens is less than 800.000 people would sound hilarious. Any citizen of Kalamaria, when talking about his city says he is a "Thessalonikios", even the mayor and every official there and when the state mentions "the city of Thessaloniki" and "the city of Athens", they ALWAYS refer to the sum of their municipalities. Else they mention "the municipality of Thessaloniki" (when only referring to the municipality) or the "prefecture of Thessaloniki" (when referring to the whole prefecture which is much larger than the city)
In the case of Barcelona we write
"Barcelona (Catalan IPA: [bəɾsəˈlonə], Spanish IPA: [baɾθeˈlona]) is the capital and most populous city of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia and the second largest city in Spain, with a population of 1,605,602 in 2006" and then the population is given for the metropolitan area.
Then, in the article about the "Urban Area of Barcelona" it is written that
"First Zone: it is the official Barcelona metropolitan area. In it, the majority of the cities form a continuous urbanization with the capital. It includes cities as: L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Badalona or Santa Coloma de Gramanet. "....so... in these 1.6 mil we include all those "cities"...I still can't understand, how populous is Barcelona??? Maybe some 500.000? And if so, then why not use this figure whenever we are talking about the city of Barcelona?
And these cities were cities in existence in the past. Thessaloniki's and Athenian municipalities were NOT. They were just administrative districts of the same city... There was NEVER a city of Agia Paraskeui, of Agios Paulos, of Psychiko or Pylaia...they were just small settlements that were totally engulfed by Thessaloniki and Athens.
I know this may be stating the obvious, but can't we simply cite both figures, municipal and urban? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
And "Town" is not a word used in Greek and there is absolutely no dictionary which would translate it as a "demos". When we talk about towns, we always translate it as small cities sometimes larger than a "komopolis" (settlement with a population of about 2-10.000 people, else a village). Anyways, "town" is no concrete term and cannot of course be interchanged with "municipality" apart from the cases, when a municipality forms a single urban being and not a part of a city. Actually the demoi usually on Greece are not even tons or cities!!!! Most Greek demoi (municipalities) are a cluster of villages and towns totally independent, which join under a common administration to have more rights and power than a "koinotita" (translated in English as "community" or "village"). The Greek country is divided in administrative regions that in terms of size from the smallest to the largest are 1. koinotita, 2. demos, 3. nomarchia (prefecture), 4. periphery. So, trying to just translate from Greek into English is not the way.
Of course we can KEK, but when we simply want to mention Athens' or Thessaloniki's populations we can't always write both. The population of Athens is not 780.000 and that of Thessaloniki is not 380.000... Kalamaria, Evosmos and Peristeri are not Greek cities larger than Kavala and Alexandroupolis and Paris does not have a population of 2.000.000.
Would this mess with the translation of "town" and "city" be solved by making two separate lists? One of municipalities (deimos) and one of "poleodomika sygkrotimata", or something similar? Would there be a huge difference on the order of the list?
In spanish, "city" means just "big town", and "town" is the same as "municipality", so we don't have those ambiguities :-) , and Barcelona itself is given always a population of 1.6mill. The sum of all municipalities on the metropolitan area gives 3.1mill, but that's not an official city size by spanish standards. The official website of Barcelona gives 1.6 mill [22], as so does the INE (national institute of statistics) [23] (row 891, the 5.3mill number is for the province of Barcelona, which is a wholly different thing) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Still, Enric, when you're travelling from, say, Kallithea, you'd probably say you're going to "Thessaloniki", even if you're really going to Panorama. While there, you're probably less likely to say you're from anywhere near Athens, but that's an entirely different story. If we go by your standards, the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2004 Olympics were not held in Athens at all but Marousi. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen, Dimos Thessaloniki's (or Salonika's) population is 363,987 and Dimos Athen's (or Athen's) population is 745,514. End of discussion. Anything other number is refering to an urban area or metro area. El Greco(talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen El Greco. If you want to write about the population of the Municipality of Thessaloniki then do it but if you want to write about the population of Thessaloniki it is not it. It is not "Demos of Thessaloniki or Salonika", it is Demos of Thessaloniki, a small part of the city of Thessaloniki" And when you want to talk about the population of a city (in Greece and most other countries)you always mean what you call the urban area. In your profile you state that you are a native Greek speaker. Are you a Greek?
And by the way... Since this is your opinion where are all those other municipalities in this list of Macedonian Towns? Do you want to add them as separate "towns" or "cities"? If you are seriously thinking about listing all the Demoi of the city of Thessaloniki (for there are still other demoi in the prefecture of Thessaloniki, which are not included in the city) then please do not! There is noone and no book where you will find any mentioning of those municipalities as separate towns or cities of Greece. The same of course applies to Athens. End of discussion (???).
To Eric. Of course there would be no problem. Noone who lives in Greece or has anything to do with Greek geography and city planning will mistake the word "municipality" for "city". Just look up any map of Greece and try to find the said demoi listed as separate cities... you will find none. Ask ANY Greek what they mean when they ask cities or any architect or engineer and they will tell you the same thing. Ask any politician or public servant. Ask the mayors.... in Greece it is very clear what our cities are. Look through any relevant bibliography, lexicon, encyclopedia etc. The municipality of Thessaloniki is one thing, the City of Thessaloniki another, the prefecture of Thessaloniki another and the Empire of Thessaloniki (in the byzantine years) yet another... So. I have changed the Thessaloniki caption into Municipality of Thessaloniki, not the population. Not even El Greco can deny that this is correct. As he said "Dimos Thessaloniki's (or Salonika's) population is 363,987"Although the second part is a clear mistake (where did you find that information? In all censuses the listings are Demos of THessaloniki NOT Demos or Thessaloniki or Thessaloniki) ) I keep the first part which I absolutely agree with. The population of the Demos (in English Municipality) of Thessaloniki is 368.000 people! Actually there are even demoi with names which no settlement holds... (Deimos Echedorou in Thessaloniki is an example). And of course most demoi were recently created with the Kappodistrias Law, a law which defines Greek administrative divisions regarding demoi and koinotites.
I do tend to agree somewhat with GK1973; the use of municipalities in Greece is very restricted, usually the very small historical core of a city, somewhat akin to the way the official City of London is a very small proportion of what in common parlance we'd call London. It's somewhat more extreme than the usual city vs. metropolitan area distinction, because Greek municipalities don't even encompass the actual urban core of the city, let alone the suburbs. In other lists like that, we seem to use the larger administrative boundary rather than the smaller one; for example, London on Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits uses the population of Greater London, not that of the City of London, despite the phrase "within city limits". --Delirium (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
El Greco, you still are wrong. It is about the MUNICIPALITY of THESSALONIKI, NOT about the CITY of THESSALONIKI. Your source is also presented by me and it says that this is the population of the municipality and then it gives only the name as it does for every demos and koinotita!!!!!! It DOES NOT say the city of Thessaloniki, as says the wikipedia list (TOWNS). You keep ignoring all the maps and OFFICIAL sites I give you, all the evidence I have as an inhabitant of Thessaloniki for more than 30 years because you have some kind of a fanatic urge to present Thessaloniki and Athens with a lower population than they have. I do not get your point and you are not a satrap or something to impose your will. Furthermore I apologize if you found my words insulting but it was you who were insulting in the first place, I just showed you how insulting you were by using the exact phraseology you used towards me with some question marks. My question was still not answered. Are you Greek? Have you ever visited these cities? Do you know anything about Greek administration? I happen to have studied architecture in APTH (Aristoteleion Panepisteimion of Thessaloniki) and have lived in the center as well as in Kalamaria. I happen to visit Greek governmental offices in the city every week and I pay bills to the public companies of Thessaloniki. I happen to travel to Athens about 4 times a year and have spent there some years too. What are your credentials in this persistence of yours to blatantly ignore every argument there is because in Greece we happen to organize our censuses in demoi and koinotites instead of urban areas? If you do not want to present Thessaloniki's true population for some peculiar reason then I have no problem with using the right terminology, that is write that the MUNICIPALITY of Thessaloniki is what you propose.
You say you know Greek. Then open the zipped map of the CITY OF THESSALONIKI provided by EOT (Greek Tourism Agency). You will also find there two maps of Athens. one about "Athens" and one of the "wider Athens region" First notice that there is no mention of a city of Athens. The first one is about the Municipality of Athens and the other one about the city and the Metropolitan area (wider than the city)
visit this. The site of "The Small Industry Chamber of Thessaloniki" VIPETH. Read the population they give for the city. "over 1.000.000". Why? Because they count in all the municipalities that comprise the city...
The site of the Technological Institute of Serres about companies they associate with... Should you be Greek or look it up you should understand that AA1 "American School of Agriculture" with a phone number of 2310-492740 (eastern Thessaloniki) is NOT located in the Municipality of Thessaloniki. The same applies with AA2 (2310-780792 western Thessaloniki) and more. Of course the TEI clearly states that these are located in THESSALONIKI.
This is another official description of the exact definitions of the terms "Urban area of Thessaloniki" and "Wider region of Thessaloniki" compiled by YPEHODE (Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works). It gives the exact definition of the urban area (poleodomiko syngrotima) of Thessaloniki with the names of all demoi and koinotites that belong to it in 1985 (before the Kapodistrias Law, when many koinotites were still not put together into demoi).
Here you can see where all citizens of Thessaloniki go to fill in the forms for the National Cadastre. The 14 demoi of the urban area of Thesaloniki also have to come to the grounds of the International Fair, located downtown.
This is good... it has also an english translation, it is official and includes map which clearly define the city to be "the urban area" and not the Municipality of Thessaloniki, by the region of Central Macedonia General Secretary. See the maps on page 6 and 22, read the information he gives on the CITY of Thessaloniki... See the address on page 22 "...Pylea, Thessaloniki." On page 32 most telephone numbers and addresses that are placed in Thessaloniki are clearly also not in the Demos of Thessaloniki..well if you read this, you will all know what Thessaloniki is...
Maps and studies from the Greek government. See how all the maps only refer to Athens and Thessaloniki as cities and NOT to their municipalities while clearly giving the names of other Greek CITIES smaller in size and population than many demoi of Ath. and Thes.
(official maps provided by the Nomarchia (Prefecture) of Thessaloniki regarding the PSTHE)
...and soooo much more... What's important is to at last understand that in Greece cities can be a number of demoi and that the Greek official word for city is "Poleodomiko Syngrotima" which can be roughly translated as urban area. Whenever we say city (VORSICHT: There is NO Greek official use of the name POLIS which is the direct translation of the word city. The term is only used to denote what officially is called a "poleodomiko syngrotima" by ALL Greeks and all official and unofficial documents which do not have legislative power and as such they do not have to use the exact legal terminology.)
Again I hope that El Greco will stop insisting on the infallibility of his views and look at the matter from its true perspective. El Greco, please, look into the matter to understand that what in Greek is called a demos does NOT translate as a "city" nor as a "town". The best argument was said by Kekrops when he said that if we agreed with your views then there NEVER were any Olympic Games in Athens but in Marousi in 2004... and then of course we should redraw all maps of Greece to include hundreds of new "cities", many as large or larger than 100.000 citizens...
First off as I said before Don't Insult Me. Don't call me a fanatic or anything else. It's not helping your arguement. Second, Δήμος translates to Municipality. So it's the Municipality of Thessaloniki, i.e. Thessaloniki for short. And Thessaloniki's population is 363,987, any other population figure is establishing a urban or metro area. Even with your example of New York, the city is listed as 8 million by the US census, not as the individual boroughs that need to be added up. The boroughs are nothing more than counties, that act as administrative divisions. You claim, that Thessaloniki's population is 1 million, with that one link you provide. Are you to tell me that the PREFECTURE of THESSALONIKI's populaiton is equal to the city of Thessaloniki? I find that highly doubtful. Yeah sure, the urban or metro population can 1 million, but no way can you claim the city of Thessaloniki has a population of 1 million people in an area of 3700 km2 (NYC is only 8 million with an area of 1200 km2). Your arguement still proves that their are only two cities in all of Greece: Athens and Thessaloniki. What's Rhodes, Hania, Patras, and Kavala? Are they municipalities of Athens of Thessaloniki? If that was the case, why do they have their own seals, governing bodies (mayor, employees, and so on), and their own administrative division (boundaries)? Why don't Athens or Thessaloniki tell them, as their municialities, what to do? I mean if they are Athens and Thessaloniki, why do they make their own decisions then? Even the ΠΟΛΕΟΔΟΜΙΚΟ ΣΥΓΚΡΟΤΗΜΑ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ translates to Urban Group Thessaloniki, from this link [24]. That's still the Urban area of Thessaloniki, not Thessalaniki. Thessaloniki is part of that urban area, but it is not the urban area (i.e. the urban area does not define what the city is). That's much like the Attica Basin or Lekanopedio in relationship to the whole Athens area. Athens is the largest city in the Attica Basin, but the Attica basin refers to the immediate urban/metro area of Athens much like the New York Metro Area, or Chicagoland, and the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex. El Greco(talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Eh, can't we just change the name "List of urban areas", make a note explaining that the municipality has less population, and get on with it? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
How are you going to define the urban areas for the small cities like Kavala? El Greco(talk) 23:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hum, is there any chance of making a list of "πόλη" or "πολεοδομικό συγκρότημα"? Is that defined for places like Kavala? --Enric Naval (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Never mind, it seems that the 2001 census does not list those --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
1.I will of course stop insulting you and I expect a similar approach from you.
2.Δήμος translates to Municipality and not city. City in Greek is πόλη, which is offically called πολεοδομικό συγκρότημα.
3. The city of New York is 8.000.000 all boroughs included (just look up the respective article). Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse etc are different cities and its met area is what some would call extended suburbs. The boroughs (like Manhattan, pop 1.620.867, Bronx, pop 1.373.659 etc, Staten Island 481.613 etc) and the counties of the US are administrative divisions like the demoi are in Greece. Notice that most demoi in Greece are actually clusters of villages and not cities or towns.
4. The official population of the Νομαρχία prefecture of Thessaloniki is just over 1.000.000 as the official population of the city (PSTHE, ΠΣΘΕ) is something over 800.000. The sources talk of over 1.000.000 because 1. the last census was 7 years ago, because 2. in Greece, during censuses many people go to be numbered in other places, because of various political reasons. 3. Apart from that, in Thessalonki resides a huge number of students from all over Greece (some 50.000) and 4. many illegal immigrants. I do not ask or propose to use the estimated real population of the city, for it is unofficial and thus an estimation. But this estimation speaks of anywhere between 1 and 1.3 million people. If you visit the official site of Demos Euosmou, the estimation of the authorities there talk of 120.000 inhabitants, when the census of 2001 lists about 60.000. The same applies to many other demoi. Even the urban area depicted on maps has greatly expanded in the last years (I would estimate about 20%, in demoi like Evosmos, Pylaia and Kalamaria much more). For example Nea Politeia alone, which is an area in the north of "Old" Evosmos has an area of more than 3 km2!! Agios Ioannis in Kalamaria is even larger... (Both of these are "neighborhoods", areas which have only recently entered the urban area, as we say.)
5. How do you do the maths of this "two cities" argument? Athens is about 4-4.5 million and Thessaloniki 1-1.3 million. The sum is 5-5.8 million. There are still about 5.2 million Greeks to be accounted for and some hundred thousands immigrants. The official numbers of the 2001 censuses are at your disposal and if you do the maths, you will see that Athens adds up to some 3.5 mil and Thessaloniki to about 800.000. The other Greek cities' populations are also there. Most of the extra citizens are counted in demoi of the rural areas, which appear more populated than in reality. This happens because according to law, a certain population limit exists for a 1st level administration division to qualify as a demos instad of a koinotita, so many citizens who have interests (land, houses..)in rural areas declare themselves citizens of the said areas, so that the local demoi can claim more funds to develop their infrastructure. Anyways, I repeat that I do not propose that an estimated real population should be mentioned. The official one is enough. So, Chania, Rhodos, Kavala, Larissa, Volos etc are independent cities, with their own urban areas (πολεοδομικά συγκροτήματα), usually comprising one or just a few demoi (Patra for example consists of 3 demoi), due to their smaller size.
6. You still are confused by the terminology. The Lekanopaidio Attikis is not the Urban Area of Athens. This is why we also say "Ypoloipo Lekanopediou". Πόλη in Greek is not official urban planning terminology. Πολεοδομικό Συγκρότημα is. The prefecture of Thessaloniki is also simply called Thessaloniki, so is the demos and the city. Whenever a Greek student recites the prefectures of his country he says "Thessaloniki". So is the case when anyone comes to any demos of the urban area or when somebody speaks of the demos. It is always easily understood by context. But if someone just says "I will come to Thessaloniki tomorrow", he is always considerd to mean the urban area, the city. In Greece it is always the urban (NOT the metropolitan) area that defines the city.
7. Eric, urban area is the Greek official terminology for a city. Unless you want to call any city in Greece an urban area this could not work. Just look up any Spanish book (I take it you are from Spain?) and look up the cities of Greece. If you find any city of Kalamaria, Evosmos or Peristeri, all three actually larger than most other Greek cities (urban areas...) I will admit I am wrong, tear my diplomas and start growing potatoes in my countryhouse... I doubt we would search for a peculiar word in Greece to translate borough or county... more probably we would translate both of them as demoi or maybe borough as dimotiko diamerisma... and then we translate the State of New York as Politeia tis Neas Yorkis and we all know what that means although politeia in Greek actually means "polis", "government" or "regime".
Actually, I never looked into the article we have about Thessaloniki. I did during the last days and I was shocked to read that it should not be counted among the largest cities in the Balkans because it is half the size of Beograd and Sofia!!!!! Beograd is 1.6 mil and consists of 16 municipalities.. Anyone wants to go there and claim that it is only a single municipality that should be counted within the city? Sofia is comprised of 20 municipalities.... Do I need to say more? Worldwide, a municipality is NOT considered a city unless there are no more municipalities in the urban area... So, after we settle it here, the population of Thessaloniki (maybe Athens, I will check) will have to be corrected throughout wikipedia. By the way, what is the population of Barcelona, the "towns" of the 1st zone excluded?
Barcelona's population is 1.6 mill, you only count the municipality. I see that the New York City article makes the same. It gives a population of 8 million, which is the municipality of New York itself, without including any of the surrounding municipalities, and then it gives also the population of its metropolitan area, just like the Barcelona article (and like Paris). Belgrade has a city government covering all 17 munipalities, Thessalonika doesn't.
Also, I'm sorry but, contrary to what you are saying, Kalamaria and Evosmos do not appear to be a burough of Thessalonika, they appear to be full blown municipalities, it's not at all like New York's buroughs or Barcelona's barrios. Neither the buroughs or the barrios have majors of their own, and they are not independent from its municipal government. The official website of Kalamaria has a city plan (Διαχρονική εξέλιξη σχεδίου πόλης Δήμου Καλαμαριάς) [25]. Hell, the Kalamaria article even has a list of sister cities. Also, check the Kalamaria website: "On 1 January 1943 began operating as a separate administrative unit [ξεχωριστή διοικητική ενότητα]. (...) It is the second most populous city municipality [Δήμος] of Thessaloniki Urban Area, and northern Greece and the ninth (9) in Greece."[26][27]. The major page says something about putting Kalamaria on a Olimpic Cities thing[28].
About spanish sources, I checked a spanish paper encyclopedia from 1965, on the "Salónica" entry it lists 250.920 habitants for Salónica and 544.344 for its "nomo" (unfortunately, it's too incomplete to list the other cities you mentioned). For the "Atenas" entry: "1.852.709 h with the suburbies (...) the strict city has some 565.084 h." All spanish websites I found were talking of Kalamari as a village [29][30]
So, I think that we should just rename to "list of municipalities (deimos) and update the list. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Municipalities are administrative regions and have NOTHING to do with the concept, translation or anything else of a CITY. Municipalities in Beograd and Sofia are also adminitrative regions. A city has nothing to do with administration. It has to do with urban planning. Follow ALL links I gave (they are not few). ALL are very direct in what the ΠΣΘΕ is. It is the city. The university of ΑΠΘ in Thessaloniki, the government offices, the urban planning agency, the municipalities themselves. All acknowledge and declare that they are parts of the city of Thessaloniki. The fact that there is no governing body of the total city does not change the fact that according to the state its cities are NOT called δήμοι but πολεοδομικά συγκροτήματα. Just be logical. I am a citizen of Thessaloniki, I spend half of my days going to and forth to government agencies and offices. Look at a map. See how it says Thessaloniki with great capital letters and then gives the names of the municipalities in some other less conspicuous color... Understand that municipality is NOT a city. The municipality of Axios for example (in the west of the city) comprises a number of villages and κωμοπόλεις (small towns). Would you ever translate this as a "city"? Where do you base your insistence that this should be done? Is there some specific style or way to define what cities are accordsing to wikipedia? What is stated in wikipedia is that the definition of words as "town" and "city" is very difficult and differs between countries. In Greece, when we say "THE CITY OF..." we always mean what the state calls "THE URBAN AREA OF...". Municipality is not translated as city under NO CIRCUMSTANCES. So... according to you, we should clearly satte in our articles that have to do with Greece that Greece has NO cities. It only has municipalities and urban areas but NO CITIES.... Don't you see that this is a matter of TRANSLATION? Greeks have no word for "city" that could be easily understood because of resemblance. We use the term "polis". And this term is clearly stated in ALL links I gave and is clearly connected NOT with the municipalities but the urban area.
You allow a false translation to give false data on Greece. As I see it, you should at least respect what other Greeks have to say on this matter, since in the absence of any concrete definition of a "polis" we have to translate either "municipality" or "urban area" as such. As you yourself say the mayor (also misleading, Δήμαρχος means head of the demos) of Kalamaria, (so we have mayors for 6 or 10 villages(!!!)) says that his DEMOS is.... and that his demos belongs to the PSTE (urban area of Thessaloniki), which is the city. He did not say the metropolitan area, as if Kalamaria was a suburb or something.
Fact 1. Whenever Greeks informally or formally talk or write of a polis, they always mean the urban area.
Fact 2. There is no formal definition of the world polis. There are formal definitions of the words 1. municipality and 2. urban area
Fact 3. Urban areas are always urban. Most municipalities in Greece are rural and are comprised of villages. (should the then be translated as counties?)
Fact 4. There are governmental agencies which use the names of the municipality and others, which use the name of the urban area. For example there is Eforia Evosmou (IRS office for Evosmos) but there is also Dieuthinsi Ekpaideusis Anatolikis Thessalonikis (of eastern Thessaloniki (urban area).
Fact 5. On maps there is never any demos of the respective urban areas given as a city, only the urban areas.
Fact 6. Urban area is NOT the metropolitan area and the suburbs. For example among the Thesaloniki suburbs there are many municipalities not counted within the ΠΣΘΕ like Thermi, Mihaniona and Epanomi etc.
Fact 7. The article on the Athens Olympics should change and become the Marousi Olympics.. Especially in Athens where the prefecture is called Attici, there can be no mixup with the prefecture and municipality names as someone could claim that is the case with Thessaloniki, where both the prefecture and the municipality are called thus.
People... the whole thing is semantics.... it is unheard of to say or write or even imply that "I was in Kalamaria, a city near Thessaloniki". You can say "I was in Kalamaria in Thessaloniki". I have no problem with prsenting municipalities along with anything, but in Greece there are 914 municipalities....most rural... It is my firm belief that we should simply state that the City of Thessaloniki includes x municipalities and has a population of y. And then give that the municipality alone (not the city) ...bla bla bla...
Ooook, just to be sure that I got it right. If I'm not mistaken, the 2001 census is the most reliable source available for populations on Greece. Now looking at the census:
a) it lists 1.057.825 for the "nomos" or prefacture (ΝΟΜΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ)
b) it lists 363.987 for the "municipality" (ΔΗΜΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ)
c) it doesn't mention "PSTHE" (ΠΣΘΕ)
d) it doesn't mention "city" (δήμοι)
e) it doesn't mention "aglomeration" (πολεοδομικά συγκροτήματα)
f) it does list "municipality of Kalamarias" (ΔΗΜΟΣ ΚΑΛΑΜΑΡΙΑΣ) in an entry of its own under the "nomos" entry
So, if I'm not mistaken, it only lists prefactures and municipalities, and it doesn't list cities. So, let's make a list of municipalities as it's what the most reliable source has. GK1973, I totally agree with making all those puntualizations about Thessalonika, including the bla, bla, bla :) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Only about d. Eric. It does mention demoi (δήμοι). But not poleis (πόλεις), cities. This D. written there is "demoi" and if you look at my list down further you will find among them the Demos Axiou for example. Axios is the name of a river in the west of Thessaloniki and there is no settlement of any size with that name. It comprises villages like Nea Malgara, Kimina etc. The same applies to other demoi (municipalities) too. As I have already mentioned, most demoi in Greece are actually rural and not urban. This is why demos is better translated as a "county" most times instead of "municipality" in order to be understood by foreigners who could never regard some minor villages as a municipality. As you see, demos has nothing to do with urban territory. It is just a 1st level (as it is called) administrative division. Maybe we could set up some article on these differences although not many people are interested in such details but in this way we cannot talk of cities... Actually in the links I have given there are a lot of official statements about the PSTHE. And all municipalities' sites also officially state that they are a demos belonging to the PSTHE. Agglomeration is a correct translation. In Greek Πολεοδομικό Συγκρότημα means in an exact translation Urban (poleo) built (domiko) Entity comprised (sygkrotima). It is used to denote a single entity and can be used in plural to denote more PSs. IN conclusion, I agree in presenting both the population of the municipality and the population of the urban area of Thessaloniki and Athens.
To clear the missunderstandings of what's going on in macedonia. When you ask a Greek person from were they are,they are gonna answer Greece,when you say: were from Greece? Then they are gonn answer Macedonia. For everyone living in Greece, Macedonia isn't a sub-country,it's a territorial division. Be extra careful to the words 'people living in Greece'. I am not implying that everyone in the world feels like that (even though i dissagree, i know it exists).
I live in Macedonia (Thessalonika) so i can vow for that
Demoi (Municipalities) of the Prefecture of Thessaloniki
Prefecture of Thessaloniki 1.057.825
D. of Thessaloniki 363.987 (PSTHE = Poleodomiko Syngrotima Thessalonikis)
D. of Saint Athanasios 14.387
D. of Saint George 5.466
D. of Saint Paul 7.978 (PSTHE)
D. Ampelokipon 40.959 (PSTHE)
D. Axiou 6.780
D. Apollonias 4.137
D. Arethousas 3.522
D. Assirou 3.861
D. Vasilikon 9.303
D. Vertiskou 3.350
D. Egnatias 3.134
D. Eleutheriou-Kordeliou 21.630 (PSTHE)
D. Epanomis 8.671
D. Evosmou 52.624 (PSTHE)
D. Ehedorou 23.924
D. Thermaikou 20.253
D. Thermis 16.546
D. Kalamarias 87.255 (PSTHE)
D. Kallitheas 6.096
D. Kallinodoion 4.689
D. Koroneias 4.286
D. Koufalion 10.757
D. Langada 16.836
D. Lahana 3.779
D. Madytou 3.456
D. Menemenis 14.910 (PSTHE)
D. Mihanionas 9.425
D. Mikras 10.427
D. Mygdonias 7.239
D. Neapoleos 30.279 (PSTHE)
D. Panoramatos 14.552 (PSTHE)
D. Polihnis 36.146 (PSTHE)
D. Pylaias 22.744 (PSTHE)
D. Redinas 6.364
D. Sohou 5.773
D. Stauroupoleos 41.653 (PSTHE)
D. Sykeon 41.726 (PSTHE)
D. Triandrias 11.289 (PSTHE)
D. Chalastras 9.837
D. Chalkidonos 10.001
D. Chortiati 12.866
D. Oraiokastrou 11.896
K. (Koinotita)Eukarpias 6.598 (PSTHE)
K. Peukon 6.434
All demoi that do not belong to the PSTHE are actually comprised by smaller villages and small towns but still comprise demoi at an administratice level. Again this is to show that demoi should not be translated as cities. In these cases they are naught but a number of neighboring villages and small towns. Futhermore some of those demoi are also considered subarbs of Thessaloniki but do not belong to the PSTHE.
Second, the Sun was ONLY used by Greeks AFTER IT WAS FOUND IN Philip's TOMB (please prove me wrong) Maktruth (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How about it was used on COINS of the Macedonian kingdom BEFORE Philip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.73.166 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
??? The sun was used by non Macedonian Greeks for centuries before Philip. There are hundreds of artefacts that depict it as a symbol of Athenians and other Non Macedonian Greeks. Of course it was also used by the Macedonians...
You don't understand my statement. I meant "No one in the 21st century used the Vergina Star until it was found in 'Philips tomb'" meaning Greek Macedonians did not have it as a symbol in the 1900s only until it was found in Philips tomb. Comprehend? And i said please prove me wrong, but you guys immediately discuss ancient history Mactruth (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I cannot believe you have the arrogance to actually state "so what?" I won't even reply to that one. Mactruth (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
What's your point? Who used it as a symbol for Macedonia before it was found at Vergina? Or have you been using it continuously since the time of the Argead dynasty, along with the ancient Macedonian language? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Here we go again. Mactruth, your covert attempts towards disassociating the Greekness of the Vergina Sun are ludicrous to say the least. Just because the symbol was supposedly re-used by modern Greeks hardly mitigates the fact that the symbol itself was invented and used by their forebears, the ancient Greeks. Give it a rest already. Deucalionite (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, Vergina was first used as a significant Macedonian symbol (in the sense of Greek Macedonian) by the author Martis in 1984, on the cover of his book on Macedonia. It was later picked up in 1988 by Slav Macedonian Australians (whose origins were from Greece, not FYR Makedonija) in 1988 and by a Macedonian (Greek) demonstration in Toronto. It was just about immediately taken up by many areas of Macedonia (Greece) as a decorative symbol in their town halls and by 1991 it was promoted by the Slav Macedonians as a flag of the new Republic. At the declaration of independence in Skopje, no Vergina flags were flown. All corrections to the above comment and factual information is welcome through my email. Politis (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Remove Aegean Macedonia
"Aegean Macedonia" is an irredentist term used by FYROMian propagandists and I have seen it in no literature anyway, expect the few propagandist books. Normally it is called plainly "Macedonia", so that sentence should be removed or rephrased to something like "FYROMian irredentists call the region Aegean Macedonia. Let's be consistent, please. No need to spread lies in wikipedia. 195.10.10.180 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but it appears to have been mentioned in quite a few books from university presses, which are usually considered reliable sources here [31]. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Propagandistic sources are not reliable sources dude. 195.10.10.180 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Blog/news site most popular
This website, www.taxalia.blogspot.com [www.taxalia.blogspot.com] is one of the most popular in Greece and it is based in Thessaloniki. Despite some ridiculous or malevolent comments speculating that a wikipedia user published something on that site, the handlers of the site search everything and comment or criticise many things concerning Greece and especially Macedonia and Thessaloniki. I think it should be included in the main article, but if people disagree, then I respect that. By the way, this suggestion is not an expression of approval or disapproval of this site. Politis (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Before 1821
Only one of the references added by Politis[32] is from before 1821. Maybe one should say "before the establishment of the Modern Greek state in 1830" (London Protocol). In my understanding, the name was ambiguous even then, see the sentence about where to draw the line between Greek and non-Greek Macedonia immediately after "we have no means of deciding" and the section further down, as well as the leading comment at page 1 of the Modern Traveller: "Bounded, on the N., by Albania Proper and Macedonia". Andreas (T) 15:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, 1821 is now 1830 Politis (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
![[13]](http://www.metas.ch/euromet/phora/meetings/tcm-apr-2003/THESSALONIKI_map.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://www.casa-arbanil.com/boda/images/map_barcelona_area.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://www.world-guides.com/images/barcelona/barcelona_map.jpg){kind=link}
