Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:50, 14 November 2006

Thessaloniki received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
Archive 1

Book Fair

There is a list on fairs and I'd think this one should be added too. http://www.thessalonikibookfair.com/2007TBF/eng/excib.asp There is also another one on the waterfront that lasts longer than a week during the summer months.Diamantidis 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of Thessaloniki in Ladino

Miskin has deleted the Ladino name from the lead, writing " "Selanik" is _not_ the name in Ladino language for crying out loud" I'm finding "Selanik" in Ladino documents on the web. Perhaps this is a common mistake? For now, I am reverting. I would invite other users to correct, rather than delete, the name in Ladino, if possible. Jd2718 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative names

I'll try a compromise proposal, the principle is the same as with the foreign placnames (as noted by Fut.Perf. at Macedonian Slavic): Any alternative names that require extra explanations, disclaimers, historical discussion etc., should not be in the lead sentence. Instead, they should be mentioned towards the end of the lead paragraph, with a pointer to the more detailed discussion further down in the text.

I'll move all those names below in the intro, and that 'further down the text' is substituted by the linked article for placenames. Do not revert this without serious rationale. •NikoSilver• 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me.--Aldux 14:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Niko: Bear in mind that I will apply the above "axiom" of yours to all articles of European cities/towns/villages. . . places I'll come across (WP). Sshadow 14:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the historical importance of Thessaloniki for all Slavic peoples, since they were evangelized and got their writing from there, not just Slavonic speakers in Greece, wouldn't it be better to put the late Common Slavonic name of the city Солѹнъ here instead? After all, that's the version that appears in the manuscripts. CRCulver 14:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sshadow (edit conflict): It actually depends on the case. Thessaloniki's great cultural heritage encompasses rightful interest for all those different languages. It used to be Turkish (and is Kemal's home-town), the Greek monks Saints Cyril and Methodius started from there for all Slavs, Jews were a significant part of the population, and Aromanians were and are a significant assimilated minority in Greece (even Papoulias!). As a Greek, I am proud of this heritage. So should be you. And, yes, apply that wherever applicable (i.e. where there are cultural ties). •NikoSilver• 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Maybe we should also include the (code)names used by nazis, muslim lumpens, and other nationalistic subcultures for the places they looted or lived therein as parasites and malicious minorities, contributing to Thessaloniki a huge NOTHING. Sshadow 14:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP doesn't look kindly to ethnic slurs made on Talk pages. Please remember to edit dispassionately. CRCulver 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry you feel this way Sshadow. Please see WP:TALK and WP:NPA#Examples of personal attacks. •NikoSilver• 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's too much for your sensitive nature, you know VERY WELL what to do. Don't you? And *OFF-TOPIC* you should also consider using those court/jailhouse tricks of yours to people you're supposed to work together (hey isn't that WP is all about?!). I'm sure they're going to be effective. Sshadow 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I had stopped being bothered by this naming issue until I realised that no real consensus was ever reached and the "rule" varried from article to article depending on its "supervisors". Aldux would remove the historical names of Bitola and Khoikhoi would respond to my querries with plain sarcasm. In my opinion the Greco-Turkish name of Bitola (Monastiri/Monastir) is of extremely significant importance, let alone still in wide use by historians. Secondly, the "rule" is being abused in several occasions:

• German name of Crete; ironically enough the only connection I see is the nazi occupation of the island.
• Aromanian name of Thessaloniki; I've never read anything about a significant Aromanian population in the city.
• Ladino name of Thessaloniki... What the hell? How can a language originating in Spain be using the Turkish name for that city? I'd rather see the Hebrew name in its stead, it's definitely more relevant today.
• Slavic name of Thessaloniki... According to every source I've read, the Slavs were never a significant minority in the city, in fact few Bulgarians settled for the first time in a suburb of the city in the 19th century.
• And the list goes on, no point to mention everything.

I don't have any agenda against the historical ethnic minorities of the city (in fact I couldn't care less), I just can't stand the fact that some editors are turning the articles into a "human-rights watch" organisation, and are unable to see that many of their entries are irrelevant or plainly erroneous. Furthermore this practice is pretty much like the "related ethnic groups" fields in the national infoboxes. There are no fixed criteria on what can be regarded as "important enough" to be mentioned in the head of article. For example CRCulver's opinion on the "importance" of the Slavic name are simply not convincing to me. Someone who does not share his opinion would be justified to remove it (and add something else maybe). My point is that when an entry depends by definition on personal interpretations, it always remains the subject of disputes and edit-wars. In my opinion a foreign name is worth being mentioned only in two cases:

1. it has been in official use for a significant amount of time and/or it's still in use in historical context
2. the curent name originates from and/or is a corrupted version of a foreign one.

Miskin 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1.Personally i do not mind the German name in Crete... The Germans had occupied the island recently (60 years ago). The turkish occupation ended a century ago... Every summer, 10s (if not 100s) of thousands of German tourists, who speak german, visit the island... The turks, not only do not visit the island, but even the Cretan Turks (Muslims, we should say with modern terminology) spoke greek. 2.There are many aromanians in Thessaloniki, but none of them calls the city like that... As i've said before, the aromanian is an idiom that lacks much of what it would make it a language (apropos, 40% of its vocabulary if greek-more than any other language's words... The grammar and syntax are those that have latin elements). I would like to know what is the romanian name of the city... maybe it is the same, and for well-known reasons it has been added as 'aromanian'... 3. the Ladino name could be relevant, if it was different. but now, it is the same as turkish, so, i can't see why to include it... btw, the 300,000 greeks in Chicago call that city... 'chicago'! may i add it there? (in any case, they are nore than the Sephardic Jews of Thessaloniki ever were! but, in order to be honest, and knowing the fact that the city was of major importance to the Jews, i have to say that the Hebrew name would indeed have place here (the descendants of the Seph. J. of Thessaloniki in Israel speak Hebrew now. the descendants of the muslim cretans in turkey speak turkish now... do i see ironic double standards in these cases, or it's just my illusination? 4. Bulgarians actually lived in the environs of the city. and the city is of major cultural importance to them. the name 'Solun' should be added, but as 'Bulgarian', since this is what everyone considered it to be till... always... Hectorian 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aromanian "isn't a language" because 40% of its vocabulary is non-Romance? What rot. The English lexicon is something like 70% non-Germanic after the influence of Norman French and the coining of scholarly terms from Greek and Latin, would you argue that English "isn't a language"? You won't find any support in international Romance studies for the notion that Aromanian is inherently less worthy of study than any of the other Romance languages; the only reason for its neglect is that lack of literary production makes it hard for scholars at e.g. Cambridge to study it from afar.

As for the Slavonic name of the city, it is not considered Bulgarian by all. The authors of the major English-language handbooks of Old Church Slavonic, namely Lunt, Schmalstieg, and Nandris, do not ascribe any Bulgarian-ness to the speech the language of the manuscripts is based on, but rather call it "Old Macedonian" or similar (though this language of medieval northern Greece is emphatically is not to be identified with RoM modern Macedonian). Since the name is present in a common form in the manuscripts and in early attestations of the modern Slavonic languages, the name should be marked as Common Slavonic. CRCulver 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not just list Old Church Slavonic; the modern names in the reformed communist spelling are irrelevant). The only relevant Slavic names are Селунь and Солунь. No irredentist Солун stuff. It would be different if there were still a minority community here using that spelling, but there isn't (as per the Treaty of Neuilly).--Tekleni 00:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OCS would be fine, but would sort of suggest that the city was of importance only to the South Slavs, while the late Common Slavonic form would show relevance for all Slavs. Either way, I see that there are differences in the final vowel of the name, with some sources attesting the front yer and others the back... CRCulver 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For the name 'Solun', u are right in one thing. but wrong in the other. it was not called always 'Bulgarian', but it was not called 'Old Macedonian' either... It was Old Church Slavonic, a previous stage of the evolution of the Bulgarian language. Now, maybe i should draw some attention on when a term 'Macedonian language' (talking about 'Slavic') was introduced. and this happened very recently (in historic terms), for some western Bulgarian dialects. u wanna call this a 'language'? fine by me! but this language was never in use in Thessaliniki or the Greek region of Macedonia. the Slavic language in use here was 'Bulgarian' or, if u prefer, 'Dopia'. i will not allowed the introduction in this here of a name in a language (whose very existence status is disputed), which was invented some decades ago, just to make an irrendistic favour to some northern nationalists... As i've said, i have no problem with the inclusion of 'Solun' under the name 'Bulgarian'. and u know why? cause i do not want to falsify history for no reason! and cause i have seen that the Bulgarians also do not have such an intention (see Plovdiv, as a small example, and compare it with the history of Bitola article).

The aromanian is an idiom that has never been written and whose speakers have always been bilingual (till the moment they appear in history). Attempts to write the language in Romanian scriupt and to introduce thousands of Romanian words in order to replace the Greek words have been rejected by the Aromanians themselves a billion times... I did not say that it does not belong in the Romance family, but i did say that 40% of its words are Greek (the word for 'Thessaloniki' included). Hectorian 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How can a language spoken outside the Kingdom of Bulgaria be called specifically Bulgarian? Proto-South-Slavonic != Bulgarian, anymore than Proto-NW-Germanic == English. The use of "Old Macedonian" to describe the language of those Thessalonians, Sts Cyril and Methodius, has been used in English-language scholarship before contemporary polemics over the language spoken in the Republic of Macedonia. I have no role in the dispute between Greeks, Bulgarians, and Republic-of-Macedonians on the current language, but I do know what the vernacular of Sts Cyril and Methodius is called in OCS scholarship in English. I should mention that, as I have clearly stated I have no part in a nationalistic dispute but rather am a historical linguist in a far-away country, any accusations that I'm an "irrendentist" or a "nationalist" will be interpreted as personal attacks. CRCulver 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I was not talking about u when talking about "irrentism" and "nationalism";-). I had checked your userpage before replying and saw where u are from. i was talking about some specific circles of FYROM. i apologise if u misunderstoond... Sts Cyril and Methodius used Greek, according to most scholars, not Slavonic. they lernt and used that language in order to christianize the Slavs. in any case, 'Old Church Slavonic' is much more widely used for the Slavic language of the region. in addition, historical maps of the region of macedonia describe the slavic inhabitants as bulgarians (and they continued to be called as such until the end of WWII). so, any mentioning of 'Macedonian' language is unhistorical, and even if it's not, it has nothing to do with the modern language of RoM, which means that it cannot be used here by making a link to that language. Hectorian 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, reading all this above, I realize I acted too fast in trying to find a compromise solution. I propose we split the discussion on a per-language basis. I am setting the headers below. I am not removing languages just yet, but I am definitely going to do that unless notability/relevance is proven by some sort of citation/rationale. •NikoSilver• 01:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ladino was the majority language of Salonika for centuries. There is, on the other hand, no reason to consider Hebrew. Also, I suggest Albanian should be included. Jd2718 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suggest to include also the Venetian (Venice controlled the city twice and the city's symbol, the White Tower, was built by them-so they have cultural significance more than others...), the Latin (cause of the Roman Empire), the Italian and German names (cause of the WWII), the Arabic name (the Saracens conquered the city some gazillion years ago...), in Armenian (many Armenians lived and some still live in the city), and also the name in Russian, Chinese, Urdu, Kurdish, Ukrainian, Romanian, Nigerian, etc, cause the city has now many immigrants from many countries... Then, after the destruction of this article is completed by the addition of any name in any language of any person who ever came/passed by/controlled/conquered/ruled or lived in the city, allow me to move on by adding French-Italian-Greek-Polish-Russian-Korean-Japanese-Bantu-Hindi-Arabic-Turkish-Slovenian-bla bla bla names in London, Paris and New York. Regards Hectorian 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Albanians lived in Salonica for several centuries, before being largely removed during the population exchange (as those in the city were Muslim). There is extensive discussion in Mazower {citation} of repatriation to Albania vs Turkey. (I am not offering this on the basis of the Albanians who currently work in Thessaloniki. I don't think the size or duration of this community is that large. Though there are newspapers and notices in Albanian, among other languages, near Demokratia Pl (sp?)) Jd2718 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the following quote by an individual named "Hector": "u wanna call this a 'language'? fine by me! but this language was never in use in Thessaliniki or the Greek region of Macedonia. the Slavic language in use here was 'Bulgarian' or, if u prefer, 'Dopia'. i will not allowed the introduction in this here of a name in a language (whose very existence status is disputed)."

I would like to address the Macedonian language first. It is not that "you" or "CR" choose to call this language Macedonian. The fact of the matter is that the Macedonian language exists not only in the Republic of Macedonia, but in "Greece," "Bulgaria," the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, and it is recognized as such NOT because somebody simply "feels" like calling it that but because intellectual scholarship has dictated it. The Macedonian language is taught in some of the best universities in the world - including Arizona State University, Cornell, and others - as a LCTL. The Macedonian language is considered as such NOT because "you" or "I" feel like calling it that, but because the study of Southern Slavonic linguistics indicates that what is spoken in the Republic of Macedonia is a language - independent of all others in the region. So, Hector, you can call the Macedonian language what you like - you can call it "Bulgarian," "Jew," "English," "Dopia," "Idiom," or even German but that will not change the fact that it is the Macedonian language and that its roots are in Salonika. This information should be added and cited and I would be glad to make it happen.Red White and Blue 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, what is 'CR'? The language that was in use by some people in the middle ages, and after the slavic migrations in the region was 'Old Church Slavonic'. and the language that was spoken by the slavophones during the late byzantine and ottoman times, it was 'Bulgarian'. the travellers say this, the censuses confirm this, the Bulgarian literature confirms this as well. until the early 20th century, everyone knew that the language spoken was Bulgarian. at the moment, the slavophone Greeks call their language 'Dopia' or just 'Slavic'. "Macedonian language" is something invented later as a distinctive name for the western bulgarian dialects, mainly during the Cold War era, by Tito's regime. so, not only it is unhistorical to call the slavic idiom as "Macedonian", but lacks scientific evidence. apropos, what u call "Macedonian language", is still in debate among linguists, many of whom call it just 'Western Bulgarian". in addition, it is intilligible with bulgarian, with the only difference being 2 letters in the alphabet, letters adopted some years ago... LOL! this is not how languages evolve, u know... Someone wise once said: a language is a dialect with an army and a navy (in the case of FYROM, navy can be excluded). Hectorian 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkish

Ladino/Hebrew

Miskin said:

Ladino name of Thessaloniki... What the hell? How can a language originating in Spain be using the Turkish name for that city? I'd rather see the Hebrew name in its stead, it's definitely more relevant today.

I would like to point him to a Ladino song (note the usage of "Selanik"):

That's my evidence. I disagree that we should use the Hebrew name, because the Jews of Thessaloniki only used it to read the Torah, they didn't use it in everyday use. Also keep in mind that the use of Hebrew as a vernacular is a relatively new invention (by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda). Khoikhoi 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Khoikhoi. One concern might be that the spelling may not be unique. However, we clearly have one good spelling in Ladino, we should keep that unless/until there is contrary evidence. Jd2718 12:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you very much Khoikhoi for pointing out the obvious. Blatantly the Jews of Thessaloniki used "Selanik", but that's precisely because they had the Turkish word replace the Ladino word for the city. So unless you support that Ladino was a language born and exclusively confined in Thessaloniki, there would have to be an original Ladino word for that city. Because last time I checked the article said "Ladino: Selanik", and not "Thessalonian Ladino: Selanik" (assuming such term exists). Thus spoke Miskin.

You're very welcome, my friend. :-) It was a pleasure. If you can find sources that contradict mine, you can include it in the article. Until then, search away! Khoikhoi 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Slavic/Bulgarian/OCS

Aromanian

Not any representation on Macedonians?

Why isn't there anything on Macedonians? As in those who live in the Republic? Because my family originates from Salonika (Solun) and I would like to see some more representation please, I live in Melbourne and know other people from Solun who are Macedonian, just like those in the Republic and we understand each other. Please consider.

Macedonians? Of course, the inhabitants, as Greeks of Thessaloniki, are Macedonians. It would be like writing about the city of Patras and insistinig on mentioning the Peloponnesians, or writing an article on Geneva and insisting on mentioning the Suisse Romands... I live in London and know loads of Macedonians from Thessaloniki and other parts of the Greek province of Macedonia. So what, do we have to include them in an article on London? Politis 16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but i think you have misunderstood me. My family originates from Salonika but had to leave during WWII because the Greeks forced them out of their home and I see nothing about the Macedonian people who once also lived in Salonika, there are quite a few of us in Melbourne here. And here I am talking about the same Macedonian people as in those of the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje, Bitola, Ohrid and those cities...and no you do not have to include Macedonians in a London article because that is different. At least some representation or acknowledgment that these people also lived in the city, I don't see why that is so wrong, there is nothing to be ashamed of that there were other nationalities other than Greek in the city.

Pardon my ignorance, but ask your family again, I think that the Greeks were in no position to expell anyone during WWII; especially since they, themselves, were being massacred. As for 'Macedonians', you mean the Slavophone Macedonians. But do you have any historical references mentioning Slav Macedonians in Thessaloniki, or are you relying on what you are being told in Melbourne? In my historical references, all those who identified as 'Macedonian' in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century were Greeks. Eventually we have some Bulgarians identifying as Macedonian and Bulgarians who later identify as 'ethnic Macedonian'. But in Thessaloniki there were no people saying we are '(Slav) Macedonians', or only a handfull in the 20th century. What did your family tell you? I am genuinely interested.

I think you are probably aware that 'Macedonian' in Greek Macedonia meant and means ethnic 'Greek'. Otherwise, I fully respect the people of Rom/Fyrom who call themselves 'Macedonian'. The name issue, as you know, remains unresolved. Politis 11:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's messier than that. Under the Ottomans people were counted by religion; the Slavs really were Greek (Orthodox), as you found in your research. Mazower documents whole Macedonian villages during the beginning of the last century choosing (under threat by guerillas or bandits) which language to use; those in Thessaloniki who Hellenized, remained. Jd2718 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good afternoon - how is everyone today? I hope well. I find Politis' ignorance interesting, but who am I to judge. I'm trying to understand a few things so someone please help me out if you can. Firstly, I'm trying to understand the relationship between "'Greek' people being killed" during WWII and their inability to kill, or commit other acts, as a result? It is my understanding that during times of war, people from every side commit murder and other acts of disgrace. Is it your position, Politis, that because "Greeks" were being murdered they could not do the same (or, commit other acts like expulsion)? Humm., very interesting indeed. I'm also having a hard time understanding the following quote: "But in Thessaloniki there were no people saying we are '(Slav) Macedonians'." That is also interesting because Macedonians do not need to identify themselves as such. They identify as Macedonians - why would they change that? Finally, this quote: "In my historical references, all those who identified as 'Macedonian' in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century were Greeks." Could you provide this information please? I would like to see what documents you have to support that in the 16th century there were Macedonians calling themselves "Greek." Or, that in 16th century the Macedonians that called themselves Macedonians really meant "Greek?" Thank you Red White and Blue 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify something. as a Greek, living in Thessaloniki, i think i have uderstood what Politis meant for one thing. "But in Thessaloniki there were no people saying we are '(Slav) Macedonians'." : When people in Thessaloniki, in Macedonia (Greece), in Greece in general and in the Greek diaspora say 'Macedonians' they mean the Greeks of and from the region of Macedonia, spanning from ancient, continuing in medieval, and up to modern times, to the very day that i am posting this comment. On the contrary, we call the people of FYROM by the name 'Skopjians' (in everyday life, in casual talks between friends, in the media, in public life, everywhere), and their country ΠΓΔΜ (FYROM) or 'Republic of Skopjie'. Very rarely, we call them 'Slavomacedonians' or 'Macedonian Slavs', only when talking about a possible future consensus over that county's name. so, don't jump into conclusions of how the Greeks use this name... Why are perfectly aware of its meaning, and we certainly make a clear difference between us, and the people of FYROM. Hectorian 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Red White and Blue. I think your miscontextualisation of my text originates from a simple fact: I was answering to specific statements made by a person who did not sign their statement (I just added anonymous after their text for clarification). Please read their text and mine and then continue your useful observations. And for crying out loud man, of course Greeks were (are) no angels; the Greek civil war revealed a most savage aspect of the Greek character. As for the references, you are absolutely justifyied in asking for evidence, for technical reasons, I will see if I can oblige. Politis 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian and Politis - good morning. Thank you for understanding that I am simply trying to understand your positions. Excuse me if I seem "forward" in some contexts. Thessalonika is a beautiful city - I'm glad you get to enjoy it Hector. I should be in Thessalonika this summer if all goes well. Anyway, so what you are saying, Hectorian, is that what was meant by Politis was actually this: "But in Thessaloniki, there were no Indo-European Southern Slavonic speaking peoples claiming Macedonian decent or, more simply put, self-identifying as Macedonian." Would this be a fair interpretation of his comments? I think this would be a fair interpretation. Since that would be a fair interpretation, I think this comment is one that you might have a very hard time confirming. I am well aware of Southern Slavonic Indo-European speakers in Thessalonika, and other areas of Greek Macedonia, so I simply wanted to express the unrealistic nature of the comment and I think I have been successful in doing so.

Furthermore, Hectorian, I clearly understand the nature of how Macedonia is defined by the modern Hellenic population. Even though I may be new on this forum, I surely am not new to the Macedonian issue. I think that the way the hellenic population refers to the people of the Republic of Macedonia, and the Republic itself, is pathetic, inhumane, and simply childish. There is no such thing as the "Republic of Skopje" and there is no such people as "Skopjan" (unless you are refering to a member of the city of Skopje). Public perception in the Hellenic Republic or Hellenic community goes beyond my ability to comment, but the reality outside of the Hellenic Republic is quite different. The people are considered Macedonian, the republic is considered the Republic of Macedonia, and the language is considered Macedonian. It is quite simple.

Finally, Politis, yes, I will read through more of your comments so that I can gain a better understanding of your perception of reality and your stance on this highly intellectual matter. I do look forward to civilly discussing issues with you gentlemen (and/or ladies) and surely would expect respect in return. I am not here to disgrace the Macedonians nor am I here to disgrace the Greeks. In my very first comment here, I stated that I am here to learn and contribute to the best of my ability. The references I requested are important because to date I am not aware of any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian pre-1920 and as a matter of fact I am not aware of any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian pre-1950 and possibly later. I do not think that any ethnic Greek from Macedonia had a Macedonian consciousness in the recent past. If you can provide otherwise, I would gladly like to see it. Thank you gentlemen and I look forward to applying my knowledge to Misplaced Pages. Red White and Blue 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really are unaware of "any ethnic Greek claiming to be Macedonian" then you have some serious reading to catch up on. Perhaps you are confusing the Greeks with the Slavs, who only began to call themselves "Macedonians" (rather than Bulgarians or Serbs) in the twentieth century. That answers your initial question as to why there is no mention of ethnic "Macedonians" in the article: because, quite simply, there were none when Macedonia was incorporated into Greece. There were, of course, Slav-speakers, more so in the rural hinterland than in the cities like Thessaloniki, but by all accounts they identified as Greeks or Bulgarians, depending on whether they belonged to the Greek Patriarchate or the Bulgarian Exarchate. Projecting a "Macedonian" ethnicity onto them was a later Yugoslav innovation, an historical anachronism if you will. Lying outside the borders of Yugoslavia, they were not subjected to the process of "Macedonian" nation-building that began there several decades later, and therefore cannot be meaningfully included in the "Macedonian" nation as you understand it today. On the other hand, you may be pleasantly surprised to learn that the Greeks of Macedonia have been identifying as Macedonians for thousands of years.--Kékrōps 17:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review