Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)

The renaming poll of June 2005 (now closed) is archived at Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll. (See also Archive 2 for many comments arising from this poll.)

Macedonians in Bulgaria

Ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria in 1989 and an explanation for the number...

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa260/Piperkata/418-1.png

Can someone add this?

Source: “Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: History, Data, Analysis” By Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski, 2003, page 418

Slavo-macedonian is not a racial slur

• Slavo-macedonian is a scientific term for a specific ethnic group currently living in the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as well as in neighbour countries. Belonging to the slavic family of peoples is certainly not a shame.--Deguef (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Of course it's not, but why did you mention that? --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is just a comment to a nonsense by Mr. Alex Makedon.--Deguef (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can say that they're called whatever you wish. But from an international point of view, when (egin places like Australia, Canada, Britain), when one says Macedonians, everyone knows who this refers to. No need to supplement this with Slav. This just might be hard to accept for some, with due to respect to the historical consideration and all Hxseek (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the word "Slav" should supplement the word Macedonians. It clears up the cultural and ethnical background of these people. Macedonia is a geographic term, not an ethnical. There are Slav macedonians, greek macedonians, bulgar macedonians etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpap (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would add that the term Macedonians could be applied both to inhabitants of the geographical region Macedonia (splitted among Macedonia FYROM, Greece, Bulgaria) and citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, but is not at all a term acceptable for an ethnic group living in a number of coutries. This should be clear enough! In fact we dont use the terms Belgians, Swiss, Istrians for ethnic groups.--Deguef (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

a doubtful origin of used photo

Dear friends. If you use a photograph, showing symbols of other nation, not Macedonian, than the photograph should be proven that it is not stolen. Therefore I have deled the Kolona Makedonki Partizani.JPG in your article. I hope, the original file will soon be finally equipped with necessary data, about the author and depicted persons, shown on it. Or the original source file should be deleted too, as propably a stolen photo. --Dimkoa (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in the RoM

There is a huge consensus in the Republic of Macedonia, including MANU supporting the concept of a Slavic ethnic group. Politis (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that a lot of editors don't like the S word. Sticking with modern would avoid another edit-war that would start with a huge invasion from the MKpedia.--Laveol ^T 00:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think 'Slavic' is better than 'modern' because the latter implies, to me at least, 'new'. I don't mind if either stays, though I don't think any word is really necessary between 'the' and 'ethnic'. Or maybe we could just delete the entire first sentence of the dablink? --Local hero ^talk 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about that today and I've got to ask - were he Ancient Macedonians an actual ethnic group? I have the feeling the scientific world wouldn't have got to a single opinion on this, but what do most think?

Modern corresponds to Modernity or Modern history which is not as new as most people think ;) If most readers do actually associate it with something relatively new, they wouldn't be far from the truth. As a concept it's quite new. It's new even in regard to most other Balkan nations and especially in comparison with the Ancient Macedonians. --Laveol ^T 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Goce Delchev

Goce Delchev is part of the article Bulgarians, in the section Bulgarians through history, in Macedonia he is a national hero, why we couldn't put in our gallery with a reference that he is considered Bulgarian in BUlgaria!?! Or we put him in ethnic Macedonian's gallery or the Bulgarian editors delete him from theirs!Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's like asking was St. Paul a Christian or a Jew. At the time when he lived the two groups were not sufficiently differentiated for one man not to be able to belong to both.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, Christians and Jews in the context of St Paul were not ethnicities but religions. In this respect, St Paul was a Christian. As for Delchev, his body was handed by the Greeks to the Bulgarian because they both agreed he was a Bulgarian national hero. Then the Bulgarians, under Dimitrov, gave it to the Yugoslavs. When the region settles, we might well see the (Slav) Macedonians giving him back to his birthplace in Greek Macedonia. There is an argument that he was above all a humanist fighting against the oppresion of the Ottoman Turks and the freedom of his region. He was not flying an ethnic banner. Politis (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look at his WP page it says both. He was obviously a Christian but it also labels him as a Jew. The reason being that most Christians in his time were in fact Jews who, and this is the important part, saw themselves a such since Christianity was simply another branch of Judaism at the time. So the two weren't incompatible. Similarly Macedonism in Delchev's time was still a tendency within Bulgarian nationalism. That is why he and others seem to vaccilate between the two. To them they weren't incompatible, as they have become today.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mother Teresa also "was above all a humanist" and "was not flying an ethnic banner", which does not mean she didn't have her own ethnicity. Same for Gotse Delchev whose ethnicity is well documented. Apcbg (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but by the context u say, both of us can use him as national hero !!! But some Bulgarian editors don't let up that happen. I know that he is controversial, but we are gonna put him in the both sections, or he will be deleted from the Bulgarian one! 1111tomica (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to our Bulgarian friends, Goce D is a central figure in the historical identity of the Republic of Macedonia. In theory, even if we all agreed that he is Bulgarian, never-the-less, in practice he has a place in RoM's gallery of heroes. Just to point out that Greece has national figure heads who are Vlach, but they have a place in the Greek pantheon. Saint George, a Greek-speaking Syrian is central to English identity and Charlemagne is central to French and German identities. But I am not taking active editing sides. Politis (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right! Totally agree with you! :D ... I am putting a picture of him! Greetings! 1111tomica (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet he never exposed ethnic Macedonian feelings. He does not belong to the section "Macedonians through history" (if by "Macedonians" you mean the ethnic ones, i.g. the topic of the article). Any formula of the sort He's regarded a Bulgarian in Bulgaria is simply incorrect cause he himself self-identified as exclusively Bulgarian. Foreign sources regard him as one as well. You could put a picture of think somewhere else in the article and mention he's a national hero in both countries, but do not put him under an ethnic Macedonian label, cause he simply was not one. Or if you do not intend to mention in the caption (not in a note) that he was Bulgarian. --Laveol ^T 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not 100% sure that he was BUlgarian! In Macedonia he is considered as Macedonian, but not just in Macedonia - Serbia, Croatia, BIH, Slovenia, Montenegro and others! His picture should stay there and there is note that in Bulgaria he is considered Bulgarian and Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia! 1111tomica (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat. He self-identified as Bulgarian and is regarded as such by most scholars. It's not a question of Bulgaria versus the Republic of Macedonia, but the Republic against science, scholars and Gotse Delchev, himself.You cannot have him in this section. It's like having Samuel of Bulgaria in there despite the fact that he definitely regarded Macedonia only as a region around nowadays Edirne. A simple note is not sufficient. Put a picture and state he was a national hero in Bg and RoM, but not in this section, cause it would be a hoax. --Laveol ^T 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OMG! I can't understand you!!! Man listen, in our country he is regarded, as Macedonian (not just in our, in many countries), in some like Bulgarian... The history is different is some regions and is different understood, it can't be understand just like you want. You have it in your section like a Bulgarian, you even don't have a note that he is considered a Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia, it's ok to have him here with a note of course just for you our east neighbors. I would like to hear the thoughts of other editors (non Macedonian, neither non Bulgarians) and together to decide about this issue! 1111tomica (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you're gonna read it if I write it for the third time. He, himself, Gotse Delchev, Gotse (you must know who I'm referring to by now) has never self-identified as anything else besides an ethnic Bulgarian. Full-stop. You cannot put his picture in the section "Macedonians through history" with a simple note that he's regarded as a Bulgarian in Bulgaria. Either mention his thoughts (and that of the world) in the caption or don't put it there. --Laveol ^T 20:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And I should write too that i (Macedonians too and other nations) believe that he considered him for Macedonian and the IMRO Organization wanted to create autonomous MACEDONIA!!! So I see I can't talk with u! 1111tomica (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no adequate reasons for the revert and yet you continue warring. It's not nice, you know. --Laveol ^T 20:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just mind the Three revert rule and read carefully what is regarded as a revert and how many times you can perform such an action per 24 hours. Avoiding structured discussion is no excuse for pushing your version.--Laveol ^T 20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can say now is ok, not perfect, but ok! 1111tomica (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support Tomica. Also, all 'bulgarized' pages about Macedonia should be rechecked since the propaganda is too obvious to avoid. However, we the Macedonians are not trying to push the propaganda as somebody here does, so we will wait for that since we have many more useful things to do. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the cavalry has finally arrived. I expected it would happen a little earlier. Team POV-pushing effort again :) --Laveol ^T 23:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@Laveol. ... the cavalry has arrived, LOL. And on such a beautiful mazga/moule :-)Politis (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if he was a Bulgarian, by virtue of advocating an independent (as opposed to a within Bulgaria) Macedonia, then he essentially created an independent Macedonian identity, both, for himself and compatriots. Hxseek (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Rumelia ringing a bell? --Laveol ^T 09:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your point ? Hxseek (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Autonomy, followed by unification. Why change a working model? Haven't you read anything on that? The autonomist wing of the organisation eventually fueled the creation of an independent state, but this happened much after Gotse's death - certainly after Yugoslavia seized those lands. --Laveol ^T 07:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the (Bulgarian -driven propagandorous) article here on Wiki, maybe you're right. However, a large body of scholarly works would support my original statement. And what Yugoslavia are you talking about in 1900 ? Have you not read the idiots guide to Balkan history 101 ? Hxseek (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha. How about this one. Post-WW1? When the last of Vardar Macedonia became a part of Yugoslavia? --Laveol ^T 08:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

To stick to the topic at hand, we should not let our personal dreams or feelings interefere, although it does not seem feasable. For all you know, I could personally beleive that we are all practically the same and would be better off as one country, however, sticking to the sources, eg Conflict and chaos in Eastern Europe By Dennis Hupchick, what you have written above about Delcev is entirely incorrect Hxseek (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahha and what do you say now Laveol. We have a non-Macedonian source that says that Goce was Macedonian? =) Tomica1111 (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

And? Does it say he did not actually express such feelings (Bulgarian)? I've read some of Hupchick's works on Bulgarians (including this one) and I know what the book says. Do I need to provide you with 10 google book sources, claiming the opposite right now? I think you should be able to find them yourself. I think another book'd be useful - it'd tell you a ton about the revolutionary movement in Macedonia (albeit being a fictional work, it does follow real events and real people). Try Dimitar Talev really.

Oh, and HSeek, stay on the right side and comment on comments not on editors, please. --Laveol ^T 21:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

James Sperling, Sean Kay, S. Victor Papacosma, Limiting institutions?: the challenge of Eurasian security governance, Manchester University Press, 2003, 0719066050, 9780719066054, p.57

• Macedonian nationalism Is a new phenomenon. In the early twentieth century, there was no separate Slavic Macedonian identity: Macedonian villagers defined their identity as either ‘Bulgarian’. ‘Serbian’ or even ‘Greek’ depending on the affiliation of the village priest.29 The separate Macedonian nationalist mythology and national identity are essentially a post-World War II phenomenon, a product of Tito’s post-war nationality policy. According to the Macedonian mythology, modern Macedonians are the descendants of the subjects of Alexander the Great. Macedonian cultural identity stems from the ninth-century Saints Cyril and Methodius. who converted the Slays to Christianity and invented the first alphabet for a Slavic language. Macedonians trace [he roots of their nationalist movement to the turn-of-the-century Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO) — actually a pro-Bulgarian group — and celebrate the anniversary of the Ilinden uprising against the Ottoman Turks in 1903 as a national holiday. Unlike the Serbs, however, the Macedonians do not typically associate Albanians with the Ottoman Turks of history.

--Anothroskon (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Frances B. Titchener, Richard F. Moorton (ed.) The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, University of California Press, 1999, 0520210298, 9780520210295, p.259 Chapter: Macedonia Redux by Eugene N. Borza

On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians. One need understand only a single geopolitical fact: As one measures conflicting Serb and Bulgarian claims over the past nine centuries, they intersect in Macedonia. Macedonia is where the historical Serb thrust to the south and the historical Bulgarian thrust to the west meet. This is not to say that present Serb and Bulgarian ambitions will follow their historical antecedents. But this is the Balkans, where the past has precedence over the present and the future.

The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one.

--Anothroskon (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Stuart J. Kaufman, Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war, Cornell University Press, 2001, 0801487366, 9780801487361, p.193

The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either “Bulgarian,” “Serbian,” or “Greek” depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was the most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during World War cured most Macedonians of their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them open to embracing the distinct Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war.’ According to the new Macedonian mythology, modern Macedonians are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great’s subjects. They trace their cultural identity to the ninth-century Saints Cyril and Methodius, who converted the Slavs to Christianity and invented the first Slavic alphabet, and whose disciples maintained a centre of Christian learning in western Macedonia. A more modern national hero is Gotse Delchev, leader of the turn-of-the-century Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), which was actually a largely pro-Bulgarian organization but is claimed as the founding Macedonian national movement.

--Anothroskon (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Heather Rae, State identities and the homogenisation of peoples, Cambridge University Press, 2002, 052179708X, 9780521797085, p. 278

Despite the recent development of Macedonian identity, as Loring Danforth notes, it is no more or less artificial than any other identity. It merely has a more recent ethnogenesis - one that can therefore more easily be traced through the recent historical record.

--Anothroskon (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jan Zielonka, Alex Pravda, Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe: International and transnational factors, Oxford University Press, 2001, 019924409X, 9780199244096, p.422

Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighbouring nations (Greece being the most intransigent).

--Anothroskon (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should mention the universally accepted fact that the ethnic macedonian ethnogenesis took place in the twentieth century as per above sources. I will not revert for now as per WP:BRD but will eventually do so unless WP:RS are brought forward that place the slav macedonian ethnogenesis before the 19th century. Also note that the two sources supplied above are from university presses and one of them (Borza) is widely considered an authority on the Macedonians.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care when the ethnogenesis of the Macedonians was. It doesn't need to be in the lead. Take a look at Romanians. It doesn't say "Romanians are a nation and ethnic group who emerged in the [insert century of ethnogenesis here]". That's because it's something you read about further down the article in a section like 'History' or 'Identities'. The idea that Macedonians emerged in the 20th century and other related topics are discussed in the 'Identites' section on this article. --Local hero ^talk 17:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead should ba a summary of the article's content. As the identity is treated extensively it needs to be mentioned there.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:lead

The lead section (also known as the introduction or the lead) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

--Anothroskon (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. "Brief introduction, reiterating title of article and given a basic one-paragraph introduction to the group." The time of ethnogenesis is not basic introductory information. What should be included is already there (where they live, how many there are, what they speak). --Local hero ^talk 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it but still don't see how adding two words violates the brief suggestion.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus there is no time of ethnogenesis except the words "newly emergent". And these do constitute basic information.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Newly emergent" could mean lots of different things. "New" to one reader may be last year. "New" to another may be since WWII. Both of which are incorrect. The wording isn't clear and does not belong in the lead. --Local hero ^talk 19:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is the subject of the entire identities section and present in the origins and history sections as well. It should be included as per WP:Lead to ensure an accurate summary of the article. If you think "newly emergent" alone is not enough then it could be amended to "newly emergent (19-20th c.)", that is similarly to how I had originally phrased it.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

For the time being until someone else wants to join the discussion, how about adding at the very end of the intro: "It is generally believed that ethnic Macedonians emerged in the late 19th century." As for the stuff you're trying to add into the body, you're pretty much restating what is said all over the article. --Local hero ^talk 19:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The qualification is fine by me as far as the intro is concerned.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss, I and all Macedonians don't accept the sentence in the main part. It's idiotic, unclear and of course isn't true. Tomica1111 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

That is neither true nor a helpfull attitude. You don't represent ethnic Macedonians to begin with and even if you did it still wouldn't alter the truth value of the sentence. I have brought several sources that support this sentence as is that is to say they prove that it is indeed generally believed that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged only in the late 19th century.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Take some time to read the academic sources cited in full in the section above.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - lack of consensus Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Requested move

Macedonians (ethnic group) → Macedonian Slavs — Or, alternatively, Macedonians (South Slavs). The South Slavic Macedonians inhabiting the Republic of Macedonia, which covers only the northern part of the greater Macedonia region, are by no means the only ethnic group, current of otherwise, to claim a Macedonian identity. The Ancient Macedonians, the Bulgarian Macedonians, the Arman-Macedonians and the modern Greek Macedonians have equal claim to being recognised as Macedonians. City of Destruction 22:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider Macedonians (modern ethnic group) as a possible destination? — kwami (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has already been discussed. If you just look at the top of the page, you'll notice the link to Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll and Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 2. --Local hero ^talk 01:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I did see that poll, but that was from five years ago. If "Macedonian Slavs" is percieved as offensive, then I would happily consider the alternative Macedonians (South Slavs). This ethnic group is just one of many claiming a Macedonian identity. City of Destruction 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it's actually the only ethnic group claiming a Macedonian identity. The Greek/Bulgarian Macedonians claim a Greek/Bulgarian identity. So that leaves us with Ancient Macedonians and Macedonians (ethnic group). With those two titles, I don't think there's any ambiguity between which one is a living ethnic group and which one existed in ancient times. Let's not forget that we also have a disambiguation page that clarifies things pretty well. --Local hero ^talk 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "Macedonians" is most widely and commonly used for this ethnic group and not the others listed in the nomination. The hatnote to other pages takes care of any confusion. And, as User:Local hero notes, please review Talk:Macedonian Slavs/Poll where this issue has already been discussed at length. Not much seems to have changed since then. — AjaxSmack 02:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose since the common English usage of the term "ethnic Macedonian" is to denote the newly emergent Slavic ethnic group described in the article. This is a good example of the reasons behind the Naming Dispute but it is so nonetheless.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a pertinent argument if the article were titled ethnic Macedonian. But as it is, it is ambiguous, as there are at least two ethnic groups called "Macedonian". — kwami (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By two groups you mean modern and ancient Macedonians? If that is so I guess I can see your point. But what would be an NPOV alternative?--Anothroskon (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I don't see why "Macedonian Slavs" would fail NPOV. The only meritorious opposing argument I've seen is Ajax's, per CommonName, but that could be resolved by moving to Macedonians (modern ethnic group). That does seem a slightly better choice to me. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name of the article is good and distinguishes well the ethnic Macedonians from Greeks and others. There is no other Macedonian identity nor ethnic group; other Macedonians are Greeks and so on. --Bomac (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You do of course understand that your statement "There is no other Macedonian identity" represents only your point of view... A Macedonian (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of other identities; no other modern ethnic groups. 'Modern' is the key word missing from the dab. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, there are other identities, but Ancient Macedonians were not a nation, rather a conglomerate of tribes, so there is no need of disambiguating a conglomerate of ancient tribes from an ethnic group. --Bomac (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know about the other groups (are Macedonian Aromanians a distinct ethnic group? Are Macedonian Greeks a distinct ethnic group? I suspect not.), but there are two ethnic groups which go by the name "Macedonian" in WP:English: The Ancient Macedonians and the Macedonian Slavs. A previous argument against this move was based on the silly claim that there were no ethnic groups in the ancient world!

Ajax says the current title is justified by Primary Topic. However, it's difficult to justify that: Yes, it is the primary topic when discussing current events, but not when discussing history. It seems that both are highly frequent and highly topical. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As an ethnic group Macedonians are just Macedonians whether they are Slavic or Ancient. The name of the article is just fine. Tomica1111 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

By that logic, this article should cover both of them, which it does not.

At the very least, we should move it to "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)". — kwami (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@Tomica1111: Do you claim that Slav Macedonians and Ancient Macedonians are the same people?? A Macedonian (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can move you Macedonians (Greeks) to Macedonian (modern Greeks) if you like so. We don't feel like a modern nation. And what I think I said in my upper text. Tomica1111 (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

I can't tell what you said above. Remember, this isn't a vote, but a chance to present a rational argument. — kwami (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move, if perhaps not to the proposed name. The "ethnic group" part of the title is a disambiguator, which ought to distinguish the meaning of "Macedonians" covered in this article from other meanings of "Macedonians". But it can't do that, because every meaning of the word "Macedonians" is for an "ethnic group"—or at least, a group of people, and at least for the Ancient Macedonians I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that we have an ethnic group. Therefore, the current disambiguator is inadequate, and should be replaced with a better one. The argument that this is the "primary topic" is baseless; we don't do primary topics for disambiguated forms, and if this is a primary topic, it should go to Macedonians. Ucucha 00:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to "Macedonian Slavs" or even better "Slav Macedonians". Ethnically, historically and politically correct, and also prevents confusion between the Macedonians of the RΟM and the Greek Macedonians who constitute the majority of Macedonians. Eugene Borza, an expert on Macedon, said:

"Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émigrés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity [...] The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called Macedonia for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation Macedonia and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival." (Eugene N. Borza, "Macedonia Redux", in "The Eye Expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity", ed. Frances B Tichener & Richard F. Moorton, University of California Press, 1999)

Additionally, Denko Maleski, former Minister of foreign affairs of the ROM said:

"The creation of the Macedonian nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the Macedonian historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the Macedonian identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made. In a case which that was not possible, the persons from history were proclaimed for Bulgarian agents who crossed into some imaginary pure Macedonian space. But when we had to encourage the moderate Greek political variant and move into a direction of reconciliation among peoples, our nationalism was modelled according to the Greek one. The direct descendants of Alexander the Great raised the fallen flag on which the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia was written and led the people in the final confrontation with the Greeks, the direct descendants of Greek gods. This warlike attitude of the "winners" which was a consequence of the fear of politician from heavy and unpopular compromises had its price. In those years, we lost our capability for strategic dialogue. With Greeks? No, with ourselves. Since then, namely, we reach towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seek in the depths of the history and we are angry at those which dare to call us Slavs and our language and culture Slavic!? We are angry when they name us what we -if we have to define ourselves in such categories- are, showing that we are people full with complexes which are ashamed for ourselves." (Utrinski Vesnik newspaper, October 16, 2006) A Macedonian (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• There is no confusion between the Greek Macedonians and the ethnic Macedonians. With the current titles [Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (ethnic group)], it's obvious which one is about the Greek Macedonians and which is about the ethnic Macedonians. And what are you trying to prove with those quotes you've posted? --Local hero ^talk 14:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps not confusion to us, however an ignorant reader would easy be confused. The quotes above are there exactly to prove that it is nothing wrong for the Macedonians of the ROM to be called what they really are, and that is Slavs. A Macedonian (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• For the ignorant reader, there are disambiguation pages, hatnotes, intro paragraphs, etc. to clarify things. And I don't think anyone here disputes that they're Slavs. --Local hero ^talk 21:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no confusion if you see both titles. But this one on its own is ambiguous. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Many people arrive at this page (or Greek Macedonians, or Bulgarian Macedonians, or Ancient Macedonians, etc.) after typing in 'Macedonians' and ending up at Macedonian, a disambiguation page that explains what each article discusses. But let's say someone typed in 'ethnic Macedonians' intending to end up at an article about the ancient ethnic group. It would take them here. But on this page we have a hatnote that explicitly communicates that this article is about the modern ethnic group and offers a link to 'Ancient Macedonians' and 'Macedonian'. So, would it be incorrect to have this article titled 'Macedonians (modern ethnic group)'? No, but I don't think it's necessary. --Local hero ^talk 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You make a valid point about people being able to figure it out. But any name could be excused by that argument. For example, suppose the title space "Greece" were occupied by the article now at Greece (town), New York, with the dubious reasoning that an American topic is more appropriate for WP-en. When you argue for a move, saying that when people enter "Greece", they're looking for the country, a defender of the status quo could reply, "But we have a hat note that will redirect such people, so a move, while not incorrect, is not necessary."

The problem here, IMO, is not that people can't find the article they are looking for, but that the title is incorrect. Macedonians are not "the" ethnic group except in the modern context. In a different context, Macedon Macedonians would be "the" ethnic group. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The current name is quite good.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- [[Корисник:Тиверополник|<font color="blue">'''TIVEROPOLNIK'''</font>]] [[Разговор со корисник:Тиверополник|<font color="blue">'''(разговор)'''</font>]] (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The current name is quite good --Dalco26 (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose with reservations. The terms 'Macedonian Slavs' or 'Slav Macedonians' is often used by some historians in the Republic of Macedonia, it is often used in texts from the late 19th century, and it is used by western media [1]. But so is 'ethnic Macedonians'. The reason for this debate here is that, many 'ethnic Macedonians' are offended by the term 'Slav', and many Greeks, especially Greek Macedonians, are offended by the terms 'ethnic Macedonians'. However, we have this article title and a debate to change it will not be useful. As long as we, as editors, understand that no one intends offending anyone if, in our communications to each other, we use 'Slav' or 'ethnic'. Politis (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "ethnic Macedonians" is fine as long as the context is the modern era, which it is in cases where this phrase is used. However, a WP article by itself does not have that context. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some ultranationalist groups among modern ethnic Macedonians reject the Slavic appellation does not imply that WP should not use it, per WP:CENSOR. Ditto for the Greek side and use of the term Macedonians. Wikipedia cannot be censored. Kwamikagami makes a valid point, if I understand it correctly, that the title itself does not, as is, provide context enough to differentiate between the two ethnic Macedonian groups, ancient and modern.

Yup, that's my point. As for nationalism, we even have WP:ARBMAC, a policy decision for all of the Balkans and recently applied to Croatian, that was decided by the fight over Macedonia. All you have to do is look up "Macedonian Slavs" in Google Books from the last 20 years to see how the phrase is used. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support per nom and Kwami. Also, "Macedonian Slavs" is commonly used in the literature, while "Macedonians (ethnic group)" is not. Athenean (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The parenthetical is a disambiguation tag, not part of the name, so the only question is whether it's an accurate and sufficient tag. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I have asked for input from WP:ARBMAC. I don't know if anyone there will chime in. The reason I did was that we appear to have nationalist nonsense on both sides of the debate: "support" because Greek Macedonians are a distinct ethnic group (they are not), and "opposed" because Macedonian Slavs and ancient Macedonians are the same ethnic group (they are not). Such nonsense will make it more difficult for whoever decides on this request to work out if there is consensus among the reasonable voices, or if one side is more rational than the other, and the people at ARBMAC have had a lot of experience with this kind of thing. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to some input from uninvolved third parties like yourself lest this degenerate into another Slav Macedonian vs. Greek affair.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what the Mac & Greek opinions would be. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Macedonians without any qualifiers or the current qualifier at most for the first group and Slavomacedonians or Slav Macedonians at most for the second. Personally I would be happy with Macedonians (modern ethnic group) since the Slavic part is dealt with in the lead. Slav Macedonian nationalism wants to de-emphasize the Slavic heritage of ethnic Macedonians as it makes problematic a direct link with the ancient Macedonians (Slavs settled the area several centuries after Alexander's time). Greek nationalism wants to stress it for the same reasons.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. If we had Mac nationalists chronically vandalizing the article to deny that they're Slavs, then I could see moving this to Macedonian Slavs and freezing it there to stop such nonsense. But we don't seem to be having much problem, and it any case moving it for that reason would be pointy. Also, Macedonians (modern ethnic group) makes the same point, if more subtly. I'd think that, like the current title, it would also please the Macedonians, as it calls them just "Macedonians" per common name. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Always the same opponents, always the same conversations. The people have a name and don't need godfathers--R ašo 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "godfathers"? It is not on the face of it an intelligible argument. — kwami (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In Orthodoxy a godfather is someone who sponsors a child's baptism and hence naming. But you are right, it is not an argument, rather a statement.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. If I were evaluating this move request on the merits of the arguments, I would ignore Raso's opinion as unintelligible. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't understand what would be wrong about calling this "Macedonians (modern ethnic group)". That would change nothing but to clarify that we don't mean "Ancient Macedonians", which were also an ethnic group called "Macedonians". — kwami (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(One argument against the title Macedonian Slavs, though a minor one: There are ethnic Bulgarians from Macedonia. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

• Support: I support the move to Macedonians (Slavs or South Slavs), because this is how they are mainly called in modern historiography to be distiguished from Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (Bulgarians). The fact that they consist a separate ethnic group under this name as opposed to the other Macedonian groups which are part of the Greek and Bulgarian nations, doesn't mean that they are not part of the South Slavs and that they don't need any other "ethnic" designation. I can't find any reason to call them Macedonians, while the other are called Greek Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the United Nations to form their own policies. - Sthenel (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The term Macedonians is the most common term used about that nation. The proposed title isn't the most common term, but in fact most times I have encountered that term it was used by Greek authors as a translation of the term Σλαβομακεδόνες used in Greece.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"about the nation" which one? The modern or the ancient? Usually it is a matter of context which is absent in an article title.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting, but Ancient Macedonians were not a nation, but a conglomerate of tribes, so there is no need of disambiguating. --Bomac (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic group not nation. As per their WP article it is not clear that ancient Maceodnians before the 4th century BCE were Greeks.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So? It's the same... Even the article on Ancient Macedonians says that ...they comprised numerous tribes... A conglomerate of tribes is not the same as nation nor ethnic group. Please read this. --Bomac (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction. Lots of ethnic groups consist of tribes, such as the Pashtun or Somali today. Before the advent of the modern nation state, most did. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. We list what is, not what should be. Regardless of whether or not this name is being "rightfully" used (whatever 'rightfully' means here), it is being used. DS (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree but the point is about supplying context. Usually, in the uses you have in mind, that is available but in a titile, by itself, it is not apparent that this is about the ancient or modern group.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The article should be at Macedonians (Slavs). We already have Macedonians (Greeks). Macedonians of Slavic origin are only a quarter of the region's population. P34ch (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reject. Contrary to Atheneans unfounded statement, general literature and common usage in English speaking countries without confusion and/or need for further clarification use "Macedonians" as those natives of the Republic of Macedonia. Greeks are "Greek", whether from the north or not, Albanians are Albanians, and Vlahcs- well, no one's heard of Vlachs in Australia. THe only need for ethnic clarifiers (which I can think of) is for Cyprus, ie Greek Cypriot vs Turk Cypriot. Hxseek (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as far as that goes. However, that is only true for books dealing with current affairs. In the classics and history, "Macedonians" does not mean the topic of this article. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Last seven days of when this discussion was open. I think it should be close and of course the result as I can see is Oppose. The article name should stay the same. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

The closing admin may consider things differently, as they should look not only at the numbers but also at strength of argument; several oppose arguments give preciously little arguments for their opinion. Ucucha 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. We are not here to decide what English should call this ethnic group, but what English does call them. We are not here - at least according to policy - to make polemical points about ancient history in article titles. The nation inhabiting the Republic of Macedonia are called Macedonians in English - whatever the politicians speaking Demotic may call them; they have been since Gladstone spoke of "Macedonia for the Macedonians." When someone gets around to writing an article on the ethnic group which inhabited Macedon (and where are the sources?), we can then consider disambiguating the two of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What Britannica says about the early populations of the area

Macedonia (present region): History – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Macedonia owes its name to the ancient kingdom of Macedonia (or Macedon). Centred in the southern part of the region, (i.e. present-day Northern Greece) this kingdom seems to have been largely Greek-speaking, with Thracian and Illyrian admixtures. By the 4th century bc, it had extended its rule northward into the Balkan Peninsula and throughout the Mediterranean. In the 2nd century bc, Macedonia was made into a Roman province. When the Roman Empire was divided in the 4th century ad into eastern and western halves, Macedonia became part of the eastern half, which became the Byzantine Empire. By this time the population of Macedonia had been largely Christianized. Macedonia’s Greek ethnic composition was overturned by the invasion of Slavic peoples into the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries AD.

Paionia (historical region) – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Paeonia, the land of the Paeonians, originally including the whole Axius (Vardar) River valley and the surrounding areas, in what is now northern Greece, (Republic of) Macedonia, and western Bulgaria. The Paeonians, who were probably of mixed Thraco-Illyrian origin, were weakened by the Persian invasion (490 bc), and those tribes living along the Strymon River (in western Bulgaria) fell under Thracian control. The growth of Macedonia forced the remaining Paeonians northward, and in 358 bc they were defeated by Philip II of Macedonia. The native dynasty, however, continued to be highly respected: about 289 bc, King Audoleon received Athenian citizenship, and his daughter married Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. Under the Romans, Paeonia was included in the second and third districts of the province of Macedonia. By ad 400, however, the Paeonians had lost their identity, and Paeonia was merely a geographic term

• Note: It is incorrect citing Britannica in this article biased, i.e. only the article about the history of the area, what is today Northern Greece, ignoring the other article, which points to the history of today R. of Macedonia (Paionia). It is obviously, that this part from the article have to be changed. Jingby (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia (The Ancient world) – Encyclopaedia Britannica

During the 1st millennium bc the Macedonian region was populated by a mixture of peoples — Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians, Celts, and Greeks. Although Macedonia is most closely identified historically with the kingdom of Philip II of Macedon in the middle of the 4th century bc and the subsequent expansion of that empire by his son Alexander III (the Great), none of the states established in that era was very durable; until the arrival of the Romans, the pattern of politics was a shifting succession of contending city-states and chiefdoms that occasionally integrated into ephemeral empires. Nevertheless, this period is important in understanding the present-day region, as both Greeks and Albanians base their claims to be indigenous inhabitants of it on the achievements of the Macedonian and Illyrian states.

At the end of the 3rd century bc, the Romans began to expand into the Balkan Peninsula in search of metal ores, slaves, and agricultural produce. The Illyrians were finally subdued in ad 9 (their lands becoming the province of Illyricum), and the north and east of Macedonia were incorporated into the province of Moesia in ad 29. A substantial number of sites bear witness today to the power of Rome, especially Heraclea Lyncestis (modern Bitola) and Stobi (south of Veles on the Vardar River). The name Skopje is Roman in origin (Scupi). Many roads still follow courses laid down by the Romans. Beginning in the 3rd century, the defenses of the Roman Empire in the Balkans were probed by Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Avars, and other seminomadic peoples. Although the region was nominally a part of the Eastern Empire, control from Constantinople became more and more intermittent. By the mid-6th century, Slavic tribes had begun to settle in Macedonia, and, from the 7th to the 13th century, the entire region was little more than a system of military marches governed uneasily by the Byzantine state through alliances with local princes.

• Note: Now I propose to change the paragraph in accordance with all three articles from Britannica. Does anyone have a good reason not to support my proposal? Jingby (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a small change according to Britannica's passage on the region. Keep in mind that the second paragraph in this artcicle's Origins section is about the arrival of the Slavs in the region of Macedonia, not just Greek Macedonia or RoM. A Macedonian (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.227.89.95, 12 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

• Please change "[[HLA]]" to "[[human leukocyte antigen]]" because it is not useful to have an undefined acronym or to link to a disambiguation page.

96.227.89.95 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Local hero ^talk 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This Aricle is disgusting, Racist, and hightly offensive. There will be another war soon if the Macedonians are not given the due respect they deserve, we are an ancient culture, and yet are not allowed to use our proper flag, we are bullied concerning our name by other nations, and will not stand for it much longer. If Wikipedia can leave this article in such an offensive state, I am very disapointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What Macedonians are you taking about? Greek Macedonians? Albanian Macedonians? or Bulgarian Macedonians? Or, are you referring to the Ancient Macedonians? 174.117.97.72 (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

More Language

sv:Makedonier I've added it. --Laveol ^T 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)