Talk:Balkan Wars/Archive 1

Neutral Wikipedia???
This is for Igor, the first poster below:

If you want a serious discussion about why Wikipedia articles portrary Macedonia in a light that conflicts with your personal points of view, we can have that discussion. But I have serious doubts that you want to have it, judging from the tired arguments I've seen from your compatriots on Wikipedia and other online forums. Here are some comments on the "facts" you present, in the same order. I then end with some more important general comments.

1. (I don't understand that sentence.)

2. Surely you are not trying to make an argument about what happened in history based on how many countries have diplomatic ties with your country?! Political expediency and history are two separate things.

3. It was your country that took on that name in 1991-2. It's people (including politicians) in your country who routinely lay claims to Greek territory. The Macedonia issue didn't start from any action on Greece's part.

4. I really don't want to debate ancient history with you, but just because both sides can offer "thousands of facts", it doesn't mean that the facts of one side are correct, or that we can't arrive at the truth. That is a poor debating tactic, but a typical one. You will probably never accept that ancient Macedonians were Greek, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of scholars will ever agree with you.

5. Even the most cursory look at Balkan history should convince a reasonable-minded person that your people are closely linked to Bulgarians and Serbs, and that your language has evolved from the influences of those two.

6. I don't who you are claiming has denied that population exchanges occurred. MANY population exchanges did indeed occur as a result of wars over the years. Population exchanges do not, in and of themselves, indicate some kind of right. Greeks have had a continuous presence in the current Greek province of Macedonia far longer than any other peoples in the region. At some point, though, borders must be allowed to stand. And this is why you don't see many modern Greeks urging for a conquest of Turkey (or Italy or Egypt, for that matter).

7. Actually, no one I know claims that Tito created your ethnicity. The first known records of people calling themselves ethnic Macedonians are from the late 19th century, well before Tito. So it's easily possible that many of the people who emigrated to other countries in the early 20th century took this concept of ethnicity with them. (It is also true that many people in other countries only began to call themselves ethnic Macedonian in the 1990s. I know this because I witnessed it. But that's another matter.) What Tito DID DO, however, was to officially call the region your country occupies "Macedonia" for the first time in history.

8. I have no idea about this singer, but I wish him all the best.

Of course my arguments here are unscientific one-off tidbits, just as yours are. The issue is much deeper than throwing some words around on the internet. Would you like to seriously talk about the ancient Macedonian language? (Including the origin of the word Macedonia?) Would you like to talk about the fact that Greeks have never laid claim to the ancient history of Thrace, despite the fact that much of Thrace is now embedded in modern Greece and many Greeks call themselves Thracians? (Apparently Greeks are a bit better than you think at differentiating between their history and other people's history). How about the fact that in the 1940s, following Tito's actions, the US (which was ALLIED WITH HIM against the Nazis) stated emphatically that it considers any question of a Macedonian "ethnicity" to be propaganda aimed at laying land claims on Greece?

And if you like, we can also talk about FYROM propaganda. How about the ridiculous FYROM archaeologists who published a paper in a local history journal a couple of years back, claiming that the Greek text on the famous Rosetta Stone wasn't Greek, but was a prototypical ethnic Macedonian language? (The journal eventually retracted the article after ridicule by foreign scholars). How about your prime minister laying a wreath before a map that showed your country and Greek Macedonia united as one country, despite the fact that only 10% of your country was ever historically identified with the region of Macedonia? How about the propagandists who try to convince us that Thessaloniki is a bastardization of the word Solun, when in fact Thessaloniki has a meaning in Greek ("defeat over the Thessalians") and Solun - an obviously shortened version of this - does not have a meaning in your language?

No, sir. There are all sorts of things we "could" talk about, but I don't think you really want to talk. I think you are caught up in a nationalist paradigm and desperately want the world to see things your way. Instead of celebrating your Slavic heritage - which is considerable - you have chosen to throw all your eggs into the Macedonia basket. Having done so, you take any disagreement on historical subjects as being a matter of racism and discrimination, and you vilify the Greek people (who have so much more in common with you than different, including that "minor" thing we call Orthodox Christianity).

Look, Greece has already conceded that your country should be allowed to incorporate the word Macedonia in its name. Hence it is not trying to deny your existence. All Greece has asked is that (a) the name have a geographic distinction so that the well-known nationalists in your country have less ammunition down the road to lay claims on Greece, and (b) you don't deny that the ancient Macedonians spoke Greek (with no trace of any other language ever being discovered), called themselves Greek, followed the Greek religion, and spread Greek culture around the known world (Point B, by the way, is not even being asked formally by the Greek government. It's just something that Greeks would hope that you would do. Ultimately, if you want to fool ignorant photo-snapping British tourists about the nature of ancient Macedonia, that's your call.)

'''So let's stop using Wikipedia as a stomping ground for ethnocentric arguments. The internet is the great equalizer, because the power or population size of your country does not have any bearing on whether you can get your message across''' (as evidenced by the number of amusing websites that pop up when one does a Google search of "Macedonia"). If you can provide the sources, the Wikipedia community will have to let you have your way, even if there is some unjustified vandalism by Greek nationalists every now and then. But notice: the sources must be AUTHORITATIVE, not word of mouth, not "my grandfather said such and such", not publications from nationalist organizations in your country that claim to be scientific but that are derided abroad. Give us the sources and then feel free to write whatever you like.

Signed, with respect,

A friend from Canada. 130.15.114.75 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear all

I am writting about the issue of Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slavs (like Wikipedia calls the Macedonians) and the problem between Macedonia and Greece about the term Macedonia.

I am aware that this issue is largely discussed here, at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia claims that it is trying to take a neutral side. But, that is not the case. Wikipedia is everything except neutral in this question. In the following lines I will explain you why.

From the text in Wikipedia most of the people will conclude that Macedonian nation appeared during the World War 2 and Tito was the one who 'invented' us. The family of my wife (she is Mexican) read this and asked me is it truth. That was actually the first time I read what Wikipedia says about my nation, which was a direct reason for my reaction.

My grandfather is born in 1911th. Yesterday I had a talk with him. He took a part in the strugle for independence since 1925th and he took a part in the 2nd world war. He is alive and personal prove that Wikipedia is full of bullshit and lies about our origin. He spent half of his life proving and fighting for that. He was shot 3 times, all 3 from the Bulgarians who wanted to ocupy Macedonia in the Balkan wars and in the WW1 and WW2. Just a 1 min with him will show you how many lies you suport in Wikipedia.

I tried to edit some of the text few days ago, but everithing I wrote was deleted. And all I wrote were facts.

Fact 1. Macedonians (or Macedonian Slavs, like ONLY Wikipedia, Greece and Cyprus calls us) is the only nation of many living in the area concentrated inside the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia.

This is a pure fact, something that you can even find on the CIA web page. Can you give any fact to deny my fact? If you can not, why you erased it from Wikipedia?

Fact 2. Republic of Macedonia has diplomatic relations with about 150 countries in the world. Wikipedia says that "at least 20" countries recognize Macedonia under the name Macedonia. Guess what? That number is more than 100. And this is an officially confirmed by our ministery for foreighn affairs.

Fact 3. Wikipedia says that my country Contraversialy calls itself Republic of Macedonia. This is a pure example of taking a side in the problem. Why you don't say that Greece contraversialy deny us the use of the name Macedonia?

If you intended to be neutral, just write that we have the naming problem with Greece, but do not call my name "contraversial"!!!

Fact 4. While explaining about the antient Macedonia, its kings etc. you highly support the claim for their Greek origin. I can give you 1000s of facts that that is not truth and I beleive that some Greek guy can give you 1000s facts that those claims are truth. That was 2400 years ago and there is no chanse for us to know the real situation. We can only guess.

But, when you give the Greek suported version, why you ignore the version suported by the newaged Macedonians? In this moment I can give you 10 names of internationally respected scientist supporting our theory. If you are neutral, why you ignore it?

Fact 5. Wikipedia says that the Turkish Empire were calling us Bulgarians. Strange, because the Turks were recognizing the uniqueness of our nation since the moment they occupied the teritory of Macedonia. Actually, the Turkish history archives are the biggest prove of our existance, history and culture. Did anyone of you ever read anything from those archives? Even on the birth certificate of Khemal Ataturk says that he is born in Bitola, Macedonia. And his autobiography is full of memories of his childhood spend with the Macedonians.

Fact 6. Wikipedia ignores the egsodus of the Macedonian people from Greece and says they were running because they were supporters of the comunists. 1/3 of the Macedonians have origin from this part of Macedonia. They were runned away from there by force and you can find many historical proves for that. Again, big part of my family has origin from there. As a matter of fact, my grand-grand father was married to a Greek woman, my grand-grand mother. But, no matter of that, his house was burned and he was forced to run away for his life and the life of his family.

How dare you deny this? Do you know that even today my grand father is not allowed to visit Greece, because he was a kid when his family runned away from there?

Fact 7. There are about 500 000 Macedonians that live outside Macedonia, mostly in Canada, Australia, USA, Sweden etc. At least 1/3 moved there before 1930s. If we were a product of Tito, how can you explain that even they feel of Macedonian nationality? I have a family in USA which moved there in 1927th. Their ancestors (my cousins) do not even know how to talk Macedonian well. But, they still feel Macedonian. One of them is even one of the financiers of the party of the Macedonians in Bulgaria, trying to help their strugle to keep their national identity. I repeat, first time he visited Macedonia was in 1995th, far after Tito. And his family moved in USA in 1927th, far before Tito.

Fact 8. Wikipedia claims that the book of Macedonian songs by Dimitar Miladinov is actually Bulgarian. Have you maybe seen a original copy of the book, printed in Croatia? IT says clearly "Macedonian". Not to mention that the same author wrote one of the most important books in the Macedonian history "For the Macedonian issues", again printed in Croatia, where it clearly talks about the Macedonian nation and non-Bulgarian origin.

All this was simply erased from the database. I didn't erase anything when editing these pages, I support the other side and I do not want to hide their facts. But why Wikipedia wants to hide our facts, which show that we are not a product of Tito's ambitions for the Aegean Sea. In Tito's time, the Yugoslav army was far superior in the region. If he wanted the Aegean Sea, he would get it very easily.

Many things in Wikipedia are very offensive for the nowdays Macedonians. Wikipedia simply ignores us, gives us a new name and supports the theories of denial of our existance, culture and history.

I will try to give you an example that includes with Mexico. I beleive that you know that the Maya civilisation was invaded by the Spanish kingdom. Spanish were ruling Mexico for centuries and millions of Spanish people moved at Mexican teritory. Later, after the liberation war, Mexicans formed its own country.

Fact 1. Mayas were living in Mexico (same as Antique Macedonians).

Fact 2. Spanish invaded them and great number of Spanish people moved to Mexico (The Slavs moved on the theritory of Macedonia and there was no reported fights or movements of people away from the teritory where the Slavs settled).

Fact 3. Nowdays, everyone of the Mexican is aware that they are partly Spanish, but they still have Mayan origin (Wikipedia says that the people living in Republic of Macedonia are Slavs. When there was no reported resetling of the Antique Macedonians, how is possible they not to mix with the Slavs? It is a fact that the nowdays Macedonians are not same as the Antique Macedonians, but they certanly have a significant part of their genes. Same as I beleive that Greece has a part of their Genes, but they are definitly not their direct ancestors).

Fact 4. Mexican speak Spanish. Reason: The Spanish culture was superior in that time. (The Antique Macedonians accepted the Helenic culture, including a variation of the Greek language. Reason: the Helenic culture was superior in that time. Everyone who knows at least little history will know that Hellenic and Greek are not synonims. Greek is nation, Hellenic is religion/culture. USA and England both speak English, both are mostly cristians, but they are SEPARATE nations. Aren't they? Same happens to Germany and Austria, or Serbia and Croatia, or Canada and France, or Brazil and Portugal, or the rest of Latin America and Spain)

And here is a comment about the claims of the Bulgarians, that the Macedonians are actually Bulgarians.

If that is truth, I am going to kill myself. Bulgarians through the history made the worst for my nation. During the strugle of the Macedonian people for independence from the Turkish empire, at the end of the 19th and begginbing of the 20th century, the Bulgarians were the ones who killed the most of our revolutionaries, including 4 members of my close family which were members of the Macedonian revolutionary organization (VMRO). Whis is not something that I was told by Tito. My grandfather (the same grandfather from above) was in fact a member of the same organization. He personaly knew many of the revolutioners that Bulgarians claim are theirs, including 2 of the leaders: Goce Delcev and Gorce Petrov. They were Macedonians and they all gave their lives for free and independent Macedonia and they had nothing to do with Bulgaria. There was a part of them who were Bulgarians inserted in the organizations, who were actually the killers of the real Macedonian revolutioners, because it was in Bulgarian interest to weaken the organization, so they could take the lead in the organization and later put Macedonia in the hands of the Bulgarians. Thanks god, they did not succeed.

Wikipedia claims that VMRO was pro-Bulgarian and the revolutioners were Bulgarian fighters. You suposed to see the face of my 94 year old grandfather when I told him your claims.

Neurtal Wikipedia? I do not think so.

At the end I have to ask for Wikipedia NOT TO TAKE A SIDE IN THIS. I am not asking to remove the Greek and Bulgarian side of the story. But, why you ignore our claims, which are suported by many non-Greek and non-Bulgarian scientists and very largely through the web.

There are just about 2-2.5 million Macedonians around the world. We do not have enought influence and strenght as Greece has, which is much more powerful and richer country than Macedonia.

The Macedonian-Greek question is too hard and too complicated to solve. History can be interpreted in 1000 ways, especially on a teritory like the Balcany, where there are so many nations on so little space. Fortunately, DNA testings are getting more and more reliable and soon it will be possible to be used to acuratelly show the origin of our nations. I hope that then the denyal of me, my history, culture and existance will finaly stop. It is very disapointing that Wikipedia takes a part in all that.

With all the respect, Igor Šterbinski - Skopje, Macedonia - is@on.net.mk

ALL the Macedonian history (the one that the Macedonians, the one that Wikipedia calls Macedonian Slavs) before the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Greek history. I am talking mostly about the Antient Macedonia. I do not claim that Macedonians (Macedonian Slavs in Wikipedia) have the exclusive right to this history. But, Greece can not have that right eighter. It is a history that this region shares and both, we (Macedonians) and Greeks have a part of our origin from those people.

In the same time ALL the Macedonian history after the 6th century is given in Wikipedia as Bulgarian history. I am talking about the Wikipedia claims that in the 9th century the Macedonian Slavs got Bulgarized or assimilated by Greece, that in the 10th century Macedonia become a center of Bulgaria (which is not truth, because there are 1000s of hard proves and writtings found in Ohrid denying the Bulgarian claims), the tzar Samoil kingdom (which was everything than Bulgarian, because he had several fights with them and won in all and you can find again 1000s of proves in his fortress in Ohrod), then the Macedonian Ohrid Archbishopry which was clearly Macedonian and everything else than Bulgarian, with dressings and crowns with a completely different stile than the Bulgarian ones. Later Wikipedia claims that after 1018th Byzantine Empire makes Macedonia a Bulgarian province, but it doesn't say the reason for it (the Bulgarians were fighting at his side, so this was his reward towards them, something that will happen in the WW2, when the biggest part of Macedonia will be given to Bulgaria by the Germans. 3 of 4 sons of Samoil were actually latter killed by pro-Bulgarians Another reason is the wish of Vasili II to make a revenge towars Samoil and his people, with denying them, something that Wikipedia does NOW). Then, Wikipedia claims that the Ottoman Empire was seeing us as Bulgarians, which is completely not truth. You have incredible written archives in Turkish museums for this, so you can make a search by your own. All the Macedonian uprisings were characterised as Macedonians. Even the after-capture execution of the leaders was taking place in Skopje, the biggest town in the teritory of Macedonia and not in Sofija, which was the Bulgarian biggest town.

Wikipedia says that the following Macedonian history is Bulgarian: IMRO, Ilinden Uprising in Krusevo (where the only newspapers that write about it as Bulgarian uprising are the ones who didn't have their Journalists in the region and were using the Bulgarian sources, which in that time was already liberated, who wanted to show the uprising as their own. Why you don't read some Russian sources which have their journalists in Krusevo and Bitola at the time? Some of the grand sons and grand daughters of the revolutioners are still alive, so you might ask them what their grand-fathers were fighting for. The Krusevo Manifesto says that their goal is FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia. Why would their form their own Republic, if they wanted to be part of Bulgaria? All Wikipedia claims simply have no sence), Goce Delchev and the other revolutioners (NOTE: Goce Delchevs nephews which are still alive all spent half of their life proving Goce Delchev's belongding to the Macedonian nation. NOTE 2: Why would he fight for Macedonia's independence if he was Bulgarian? If he was Bulgarian, wouldn't he fight for unification of Macedonia and Bulgaria? Why was he betrayed by a Bulgarian, which resultet in his death in Banica 1903rd? You are corupting our biggest revolutioner, something that we keep as a saint). Wikipedia says that the "St Cyril and Methodius" high school in Solun, where Delchev studied was Bulgarian. How come, when no Bulgarians were living in Solun?...

A prove for the Bulgarian, Serb and Greek ambitions to assimilate the Macedonians and take their teritory is the deals and fights they had in the both Balcan wars. They were all exterminating the Macedonians, burning their houses and grabbing their lands, but Wikipedia completely ignores all that. I (and many more) have a living family members who were witnesses of that time.

Then, the WW2, when 2/3 of Macedonia was given to Bulgaria by the Germans. Why the hell 100000 Macedonians were fighting against the Bugarians? 25000 died in that war, again many members of my family. And Wikipedia says that we have Bulgarian origin. Why they didn't fight at the Bulgarian side if that was the case?

Wikipedia later claims that our country (Republic of Macedonia) was given to us by Tito. What a lie!!! As I said 100000 Macedonians were fighting for freedom. If Tito made us be under the Serbs again, that wouldn't be freedom and 100000 heavily armed Macedonians would continue fighting for it. Even my 94 year old grand-father, who took a part in the WW2 fighting for the partizans, and who was looking at Tito as a saint agrees with this, that he wouldn't rest till he saw Macedonia free.

Wikipedia even denies the exodus of 250 000 Macedonians from Greece, saying they were running away by their own. Who the hell will leave his house and land if he was not forced to? My other grand father's house was burned and he was shoot at in order to make him leave his hometown.

On some places Wikipedia says that this 'Bulgarian part' of the history might be Macedonian, but that is very well hidden so it even can hardly be noticed.

On the other hand, Wikipedia says that 'In 2000 several teenagers threw smoke bombs at the conference of pro-Bulgarian organisation 'Radko' in Skopje causing panic and confusion among the delegates'. Yes, that is completely truth. But in 1000s of years, you find one incident that we caused against the Bulgarians and you wrote it. What about centuries of incidents, murders, wars, assimilation made by the Bulgarians towards the Macedonians? What about the fact that Bulgaria and Greece do not allow the Macedonian parties in those countries to register and take a part in the ellections? This is something that was taken even to the European court. HOW CAN WIKIPEDIA IGNORE THIS???

BTW, Radko had just about 50 delegates and members. Most of them born in Bulgaria and moved latter in their life in Macedonia.

In this case, Wikipedia is only a tool in the Bulgarian and Greek propaganda of denying and stealing the Macedonian history, culture and existance. Just search the internet and you will see that this kind of 'history' can ONLY be found on pro-Bulgarian and pro-Greek web sites.

I am a living prove of the existance of the Macedonian nation. And that is not because I was told so by Tito. Macedonians were Macedonians far far before Tito. That is a fact that NOONE can change.

How dare you deny everything what I am? How dare you to deny 1000s of killed people, who gave their lives for FREE and INDEPENDENT Macedonia?

Senceirly, Igor Šterbinski - Skopje, Macedonia

JUST SEARCH THE WEB, YOU CAN SEE HOW WRONG WIKIPEDIA IS!!! ONLY THE PRO-BULGARIAN AND PRO-GREEK SITES HAVE THE SAME CLAIMS AS WIKIPEDIA. MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY CLAIMS THAT ARE CONFIRMED BY FALSIFICATED LETTERS. The TURKISH WERE SUPERIOR AT THAT TIME AND ARE A NEUTRAL SIDE. AND FAR BIGGER PART OF THEM IDENTIFY THE MACEDONIANS AS SEPARATE NATION, MACEDONIANS.

WIKIPEDIA IS NEUTRAL??? I DO NOT THINK SO!!!

I sterbinski 13:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thracian theatre
Claiming that the Turks were incapable of reinforcing their army in Eastern Thrace because the Greek fleet controlled the Aegean Sea borders idiocy. What about the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, the Bosphoros etc.? The Greek fleet was important for the campaign in Macedonia no doubt but claiming that it was the decisive factor in the war as a whole is nonsense.--Avidius (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it's not mine idiocy. It's Erickson's. You have the book read the page. --Factuarius (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So it would seems Erickson has never seen a map of Turkey if he dears to make such a bold statement,fortunately geography disproves him.--Avidius (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AVIDIUS WE HAVE DISCUSSED ALL THESE FOR MONTHS IN THE PAST IN THE 1st BW ARTICLE BEFORE WE REACH A CONSENSUS THERE. ERICKSON DID NOT SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T FOUND AT THE END THEIR WAY TO THE THRACIAN FRONT, HE SAYS THAT BY TAKING THE LAND ROUTE FROM MIDDLE EAST TO EUROPE THEY REACHED THERE MONTHS LATER THUS HIS EXPRESSION "in the all-important opening round of the war". YOU HAVE THE BOOK YOU HAVE THE PAGE SPARE ME AND READ IT. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM HE IS STILL ALIVE CONTACT HIM. THANKS, --Factuarius (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"symbolic force?"
@Avidius: Lets put it clear: First you insist in the word "symbolic" giving a 1,500 casualties or captured according to Greeks without mentioning what the official Greek Army study says just below that Bulgarian soldiers managed to avoid capture succeeding to left out the city and were captured or killed later. Secondly by any logic, no 48,000 division can have less of 2,000 men per battalion and you claim that 2,000 men were a symbolic force. 2,000 men as a symbolic force? And if they were "symbolic" why did they fortified? For symbolic reasons? Also the agreement said nothing about "symbolic forces" either in Salonika or in Serres. It was a clear Bulgarian violation of the agreement by any means and everybody knew that. Both in Athens as in Sofia. To my opinion you are trying to disguise that from the readers and mislead them by using a clear vague, OR, and POV wording like "symbolic force" and "only". That's just unacceptable. Who is to decide what a "symbolic force" is? You? Me? Come now be reasonable. --Factuarius (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it is a little hard to believe that a great part of them were able to escape, after all they were deep in "enemy" territory. However even if they were 2000 thousand(which is very hard to prove)they were a symbolic force in size compared to the 7th division and the Greek forces that opposed them and that is fact you can't change.Why don't you mention by the way that the battalion was not concentrated in one place but was scattered in different parts of the town or that it didn't have any artillery(unlike the greek forces that opposed them), that the men had only 200 bullets per riffle? Your POV is unacceptable.--Avidius (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And do not count on pushing you POV on a basis of unsourced agreement which nobody has heard of especially since the article clearly states that the Bulgarian command initially removed the 7th division because it needed it in Eastern Thrace and not because of some "agreement".--Avidius (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also how many Greek battalions were in the town and in the vicinity? We are speaking about one battalion opposed to tens of Greek battalions, many of them well over 1000 men. So yes it is quite a symbolic force.--Avidius (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you dispute that was an agreement in removing both troops from Salonica and Serres? The text says that the Bulgarians agreed on that because  they needed their troops in Thrace anyway. I don't say "great" or "small" part, nobody says what part. I suspect you must know because I am sure you are in position to know that were far more than the 1,500 Greeks managed to capture or kill. If 7th Division had its battalions numbering 1,500 men, its size would had been 12,000 not 48,000, and you also know that. But in any case 1,500 or 2,000 men are not by any logic a "symbolic force". 50, 100, 200, or 300 men can be accepted as a symbolic force not thousands men. Any thousands. But the most essential in that issue is that what is, or isn't symbolic, is not up to you to decide, not either up to me. If it was up to us, we would have discussed until the hell will freeze. The issue is that what you are trying to input is WP:OR! Understand that. --Factuarius (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh really? So you can say what is massive according to your own made up criteria but other editors should not? Why is that is the article yours or something? You are not convincing at all!--Avidius (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Words like "massive" and "symbolic" are really unnecessary here. For a force of 48,000, the number speaks by itself, no need to say "massive.  Similarly "symbolic" is subjective and OR unless it is sourced, which it isn't.  In my opinion both should go. Athenean (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Territorial gains and losses?
The 'Outcome' section doesn't say anything about territorial gains and losses. For example, I found this map on the Greece article: Which Treaties led to these outcomes? Do we have articles about them? Were there other gains and losses? Where are they shown? (Am I correct in guessing that the Macedonia shown is the Greek province of that name?)  --Red King (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article Macedonia (region) seems to have information that should be here. For example

In the First Balkan War, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro occupied almost all Ottoman-held territories in Europe. Bulgaria bore the brunt of the war fighting on the Thracian front against the main Ottoman forces. Both her war expenditures and casualties in the First Balkan War were higher than those of Serbia, Greece and Montenegro combined. Macedonia itself was occupied by Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian forces. The Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of London in May 1913 assigned the whole of Macedonia to the Balkan League, without, specifying the division of the region, in order to promote problems between the allies. Dissatisfied with the creation of an autonomous Albanian state, which denied her access to the Adriatic, Serbia asked for the suspension of the pre-war division treaty and demanded from Bulgaria greater territorial concessions in Macedonia. Later in May the same year, Greece and Serbia signed a secret treaty in Thessaloniki stipulating the division of Macedonia according to the existing lines of control. Both Serbia and Greece, as well as Bulgaria, started to prepare for a final war of partition.
 * So this article should definitely include the Treaty of London (1913) at least. --Red King (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)