Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Misleading use of a source

While surveying recent edits in articles I find interesting, as is my wont, I noticed this edit, made a bit earlier to the article on ethnic/Slav Macedonians by Jingiby. Jingiby described his edit as "Clarification and source". What this edit clarified was not immediately apparent to me, so I proceeded to check again the text of the source that Jingiby referred. The source was used to verify the following text:

"Ottoman Macedonia was often depicted as absolutely lacking any proper idea of ethnicity, or as a terrible mixture sarcastically called Macedonian salad. More specifically, it is believed that the Macedonian Slavs had “no clearly developed sense of national identity” and that their modes of self identification were shaped by neighboring countries. For more see: [citation]"

The text that Jingiby paraphrased is found in paragraph # 4 of the source, per the numbering of this open access version that he has linked to.

However, as it becomes clear to any reader who will proceed to read the following paragraphs of Marinov's text, this is the exact position that the article sets out to *refute*. The author states that "this approach nevertheless implies a double essentialism", which he rejects, that "the talk of particularly “a-national” Macedonian populations and, in particular, Macedonian Slavs is seriously misleading" and renders adamantly clear that his article goes against what he terms as "simplifications of modern national narratives" arguing that "both the fearsome essentialism of the always “floating” and “a-national” Macedonian Slavic identity and the implicit orientalism of the explosive salade macédoine should be left aside", reaching a conclusion "[c]ontrary to the Bulgarian historiographic point of view". Per the enclyclopedia's policy on verifiability reliable sources cited by users should "directly support" the material added. It seems to me that it would require a highly idiosyncratic and rather peculiar interpretation of this policy, to refer the encyclopedia's readers to a scientific text in order to verify a claim that the text sets out to dismantle and to justify the inclusion in this article of the claim that the whole source is written against. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What Marinov concludes is:... it would be quite unconvincing to assume that ethnic or national motives were never present in the agency of illiterate populations when illiterate or half-literate Macedonian Christians fought between themselves as “Greeks,” “Bulgarians,” “Serbs” and “Romanians”: surely, it was not just a struggle between social or professional categories. Indeed, in many parts of Macedonia, the Christian villages switched a number of times between diverse national allegiances, but this was the result of a cruel clash between several nationalisms (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian) that were also fervently implanted (if not predominantly) by local people.. and ... Last but not least, local people developed patterns of a distinct Macedonian loyalty, which are discussed below. All this does not necessarily mean any particular pre-eminence of “ethnic” motives in the Macedonian revolutionary movement. The following analysis tries to show that the question of ethnicity was not necessarily of primal concern for the political activism developed within the local revolutionary movement by the turn of the 20th century. But Macedonian revolutionaries were by no means “a-national” either: based on certain nationalisms of the region, mostly on the Bulgarian one, their ideology was in many cases supra-national. At least in theory, it intended to bring together—under the common denominator of “Macedonian people”— members of different ethnic, confessional and national groups... The only ethnicity which is clearly lacking in this study is the ethnic Macedonian one. Jingiby (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It is quite interesting to be citing a paragraph that presents a claim, only to be contested by the author in the following paragraphs. Indeed, the source does not "directly support" the claim added by Jingiby. --Local hero ^talk 21:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby, your reply does not respond to the point I raised in my comment above, which I hereby restate: what I said is that with this edit you added to the article some sentences ("Ottoman Macedonia was often ... by neighboring countries.") that manifestly paraphrase paragraph 4 of Marinov's article ("Ottoman Macedonia is often ... as a result of a mere “propaganda.”") to which you referred the readers "for more". However, I pointed out that this paragraph contains the opinion that Marinov explicitly seeks to refute in his article and that this obviously violates the encyclopedia's policy -- and common sense, if I may add. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to unnecessarily crowd to talk page so I will be quick. Ashmedai, I applaud you for your diligence and your attention to detail. Misleading uses of sources are a common occurrence on pages related to the Macedonians, and nationalist editors happen to frequently include quotations that are, as you say, something the source article sets out to *refute*. Keep up the good work! And thanks for making Wikipedia better. NaRistoi (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethnographic map & weird cropping

Original file

Khirurg's cropped version Updated by SilentResident

I do not understand why only the article about the Macedonians should have an incomplete ethnographic map, this doesn't make any sense to me. @Khirurg: you updated a map which crops the original file in a really weird way. For some reason you removed immediately all the populations to the west of the Macedonian Slavs under the pretext that: the uncropped version shows a much larger area that does not include any ethnic macedonians and thus not relevant for the article. cropped version is more useful to readers. However, you didn't follow your logic for the populations to the south of the Macedonian Slavs. You also didn't leave any space between the Macedonian Slavs and the left frame of the image but you did for the area between the shades depicting the Bulgarians and the right frame of the image. I really do not understand these cropping choices you made. You also for some reason removed the title of the map? Why? Please explain why we should use a cropped image only on the article about the Macedonians and your cropping parameters. Btw, I warned you on your talk page for your edits; you have reverted and changed three times the original image in less than 24h, this is considered as edit-warring. You have not so long ago been blocked, it would be stupid if that happens again just because you didn't take the time to explain your reasoning on the talk page. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I also fail to see why we would arbitrarily alter the image. It is relevant to see the Macedonian Slavs in the context of the neighboring groups depicted. --Local hero ^talk 17:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Tales are thrown here without any real coverage. Macedonian Slavs in 1900 did not mean ethnic Macedonians at all, but people without iclear ethnic identity, and the reliable source I added confirms it unequivocally. Then only a handful of intellectuals outsid the area had Macedonian identity. Such old maps have no scientific value and are politically motivated, which is also confirmed by a reliable source added by me. Now it remains for me to add a dozen of maps with different content and the mess becomes full. --Jingiby (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you missed the subject of this discussion? Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts Local hero, by Khirurg's logic we should isolate the Macedonian Slavs in a rectangle that would only contain the blue shades and nothing more. I'll let you image what it would look like. This is just absurd. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The cropped version is simply better and more relevant to the article because it is more legible and thus more useful to readers. But it's interesting that you are concerned about the cropping on the left side of the image. Could it be that's the real reason you are so concerned about cropping? Khirurg (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This...is your answer? You asking me why I question your weird cropped version that you made? Don't you realize how ridiculous this sounds. Please, stop avoiding the issues and respond clearly. If you fail again I am afraid I will have to ask for admin intervention. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I already told you, the cropped version is visually better, less WP:COATRACKy, and more useful to readers. And btw I used a cropped map at Greeks, so there's that too. But you didn't answer my question: Why are you so concerned about the cropping on the left side of the image? Answer, please. Btw, feel free to ask for all the "admin intervention" you want. I'll be sure to highlight your use of words like stupid and ridiculous. You may want to try avoiding such language in every single one of your talkpage posts. Not a good idea. Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The cropped version is not better, it is worse. You can repeat it how much you want but it will not make it true. It becomes clear that there is something that bothers you with the population to the west of the map, which happens to be the Albanian population. I asked you why you didn't follow your own logic for the other populations on this map, to which you responded above that: Why are you so concerned about the cropping on the left side of the image? You are trying to avoid the issues of your own actions by asking other questions, do you really think that someone will fall for that? I find it extremely inappropriate that you went out of your way to exclude only one population to a degree that you didn't even do for other populations. But I guess that this is just one more disruptive edit of your very, very long list. Anyways, I have forwarded to an admin this issue who will look a little more closely to your controversial editing behavior. Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I have already explained numerous times my reasoning for cropping the image. On the other hand, you are still avoiding my question: Why are you so bothered by the cropping on the left side of the image? Let's hear it. Without insults, if possible. It's also not true that I went out of my way to exclude only one population: My cropping removed the entirety of the Greek population of Epirus. You really shouldn't make such accusations of bad faith and attempting to second-guess users. Remember, WP:AGF always applies. By the way I proposed some more maps further down, have a look and see which one you like. And feel free to forward whatever you like to whomever you like. Be aware that that goes both ways though. Khirurg (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot speak on behalf of other persons, but as far as I am concerned the obvious answer to the question why people "are so bothered by the cropping on the left side of the image" is that this is so because the left side of the image is patently where your cropping of the map was mostly focused and this had the most disturbing effect for those inspecting the image. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethnographic Map of Macedonia: Point of View of the Serbs. Author: Professor J.Cvijic, 1918

Ethnographic map of the Balkans from the Serbian author Jovan Cvijic

Ethnographic map of the Balkans, 1922.

Ahmet Q. the edit warring over the map shows that there is a lack of the necessary WP:CONSENSUS for inclusion. In such cases, it is recommended that you WP:BRD instead of editwarring to reinstate the same edits. And that is to discuss it here and work towards a mutual compromise. Also, Khirurg, it is recommended that you seek a compromise in the talk page instead of reinstating the map, cropped or not, into the article. Its just much better to revert and discuss ways of making it more acceptable instead of making edits without consensus that may risk getting reverted too? Shouldn't be more preferable if editors do that instead of editwarring in an ARBMAC article? Now, Amet Q., if I understood well, the other editors wouldnt object to the map staying provided that it is cropped and more focused on Macedonians than other ethnic groups? In your edit summary here [1] you have stated that "In all similar articles, cropped images are never used" but this is not true, I am afraid. For example the article Greeks uses a cropped map, and even articles about extinct groups such as Ancient Macedonians are reduced recreations of other maps. Considering that this wasnt a problem elsewhere, I fail to see how irrelevant info about foreign populations living in other regions make them relevant to the present article whose subject is the Macedonians. Am I missing something here? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is consensus against adding the map. The discussion here is about the cropping. As I stated above, I find cropping to be, generally and in this case, arbitrary so it is best avoided. If it is commonplace to crop maps on other articles, as you point out, I don't find the cropping here to be taking away from the subject at hand, Macedonian Slavs. --Local hero ^talk 20:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I for one am against inclusion of the map, and I don't see a consensus for inclusion, either. The map is of very low resolution (names of most cities are illegible, legend is barely legible). It contains a large number of errors (e.g. Turks in Chalkidiki, no Greeks anywhere in southern Albania, etc.), as do all of these maps. There is also the question of why this map in particular, as there are dozens of others we can also use. So as a compromise, I thought I would crop it to make it more zoomed in on the subject of the map, and which also has the benefit of eliminating some of the errors I've mentioned above. I am open to suggestions on improving the cropping, although again I think the article is better off without the map in the first place. The objections I have heard so far from another user are unconvincing, and make me think there is something else going on that is left unsaid. Khirurg (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is to be cropping, I'm not sure I have any further suggestions to change your version as it covers all of the Macedonian region and adjacent areas. I support the addition of the map because, like other ethnic group articles, it shows where the group lived at that given point in time and it is also an example of historical maps that listed Slavic Macedonians as a separate group. --Local hero ^talk 21:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Local hero, as far as I can see, the differences between the uncropped version and the cropped one, do not affect any areas inhabited by Macedonians. The editorial dispute, from what I understood, is irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is the Macedonian people. For this reason I can't see why it would be so hard to reach a compromise here: Ahmet Q wants to add a map relevant to Macedonians, Khirurg wants the irrelevant info (about other ethnic groups living in the broader region) cropped out of that map. A practice which already has a precedence in Wikipedia and no editor had a problem with that so far. I am positive that the editors can agree on that mutually beneficial compromise, or else, none of the maps make their way into the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I support either the cropped or non-cropped version, but regardless I definitely think it should be included in the article. Just note on the Bulgarians article, multiple uncropped versions of ethnographic maps are used and they are included at the end of the article. We could do something similar here and include other ethnographic maps that portray Macedonians at the end of the article. Kromid (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear. Of course, if an uncropped version exists in other articles (such as Bulgarians), doesn't necessarily mean they had the same problems. Each map is different, and so are their problems. The point here is that a map's status as un/cropped wasn't and shouldn't detrimental to its inclusion criteria. (Provided that the cropped data in question aren't wp:relevant to the article's subject.) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with you both, SilentResident and Kromid. The cropping isn't a deal breaker for me by any means and a gallery of maps at the end of the article could be a good idea. --Local hero ^talk 23:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethnographic maps were an important aspect of the Macedonian Question and the depiction of the (Slav) Macedonians as a separate entity from the fin de siecle onwards is a key element in the process of Macedonian ethnogenesis and the eventual recognition of the existence of a Macedonian people (see e.g. Wilkinson's Maps and Politics or here). I thus consider the inclusion of one of these ethnographic maps of the said period as a sine qua non and Ahmet Q.'s addition was one of the munch-needed correction that this article required. I do not think, however, that the map should be added in the "Population" section, as it does not reflect the contemporary situation, but should accompany a relevant textual passage of the historical narrative of Macedonian ethnogenesis (which is puzzlingly provided not in the section "History", but in the section "Identities") concernign the appearance of the (Slav) Macedonians in ethnographic maps of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In any case, Khirurg's cropping is visually unsettling: by cropping only the western part of the map, it displaces the area covered by Macedonians from the centre of the image. A rough calculation of mine suggests that only cropping the part of the image depicting the Adriatic sea, not the landmass of Albania and Epirus, would avoid this disturbing effect. Were someone to crop the eastern, northern and souther part as well, would make the map seem really absurd, as Amhet Q. already pointed out. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, this is something I noticed too but you see, even the original uncropped map wasnt exactly centrered on Macedonians, while the cropped version is centered on geographical Macedonia, where the Macedonians are native people. This is the reason I hesitated proposing to Khirurg that they crop parts of it (especially the whole area east of Kavala (including Kavala itself) and the area around Mount Olympus near Thessalia), because I had the impression that geographical Macedonia is wp:relevant to the article about the Macedonians since it is their home. However, I may be wrong and this is not the case here; I wouldn't mind if these areas of geographical Macedonia that lack Macedonian presence are cropped as well (especially Kavala and the region east of it), This will definitely help center the image even more on Macedonians (assuming that the asymmetrical position of the map's Macedonian population is that detrimental). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

SilentResident, your whole comment is premised on accepting of the necessary or at least beneficial character of Khirurg's original cropping, which is something I fail to perceive -- and has not been proved in the hitherto conducted discussion. Khirurg has asserted that his cropped version is "visually better, less WP:COATRACKy, and more useful to readers".

However, it is not visually better -- quite the opposite, as it restricts the area assigned to the "Makedo-Slaven" to the upper-left corner of the map and and leaves readers inspecting the image with the (justified) feeling that something is off and lacking (i.e. the cropped part of the land westwards). Neither is any part of the map that does not depict the Macedo-Slavs "coatracky". This logic would compell us to crop the map from all sides to exclude areas not covered in blue -and adopt a similar logic in all similar articles so that they are not "COATRACKy"- , which is, once again, absurd. WP:COATRACK is not a policy that suggests cropping ethnographic maps. Lastly, cropping the map does not make it more useful for the article's readers: it omits the title of the map, it deprives readers from inspecting the work in its original form as it was published and used by historical agents of the time, that is as a map of the European parts of the Ottoman Empire that seemed destined to be divided by neighbouring nation-states. In other words, there was no reason to crop the map in the first place. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, your comment is the comment of an editor I really like to see more often around because from an outside respective, thats how the Balkans topic area should have been in the first place. However, at the same time, your comment doesn't exactly instill me faith that you are familiar with the Balkans topic area enough as to know why all these edit wars are happening on this and other articles and the reason it was necessary to step in and inform the admins to keep a look on the article; many editors around here had a long history of being involved or dealing with map POV disputes (some of them are still fresh in our memory) and if I as editor know something, that's one thing for certain: instead of dismissing other's concerns, to accept them and encourage them into compromises for as long as the wp:relevant information isn't affected/cropped out; if the distribution of Macedonians isnt disputed but there are POV concers for other areas unrelated to Macedonians, it is ok to crop the map to leave that part out. To work for compromises around here, isn't a choice made lightly; is the result of editors editwarring because they weren't careful with their edits to take in consideration other's POV concerns, something which is very much needed especially around here in the Balkans topic area. While I understand your purely encyclopedic points and I applaud you for that, still it would be much better if we also don't ignore other's concerns. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Ashmedai 119, the cropping in this case is just absurd and weird. Completely unneeded. Also, SilentResident I would appreciate it if you didn't patronize other users. You don't need to have a lot of editing on Balkan related discussions to share your opinion. I agree that concerns about POV editors should be taken into account. Unfortunately, Balkan related articles have for a very long time been plagued by editors who have had a clear agenda, some of those users have even been editing for over more than a decade. Ahmet Q. (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think I can accept the idea of adding cropped maps in articles. However, there should be consistency in doing that. Contrary to Kirurgh's cropping where this user excluded one population in a very meticulous way, while not doing the same for other populations. As for the cropping of the Greek map, the situation there was completely different. The original map of that image was an ethnographic map of all of Europe. Here the ethnographic map is already a zoomed-in view of the region. There is simply no cropping needed, yet it was done with really weak argumentation. Ahmet Q. (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not of much use here if you guys cant do something to agreed upon among yourselves. At least I took the bold move to crop and center the Macedonians on map while showing alittle bit more territory to the West, but a little less territory to the South and East while taking care of the Macedonian presence on Mount Athos in the Chalkidice Peninsula not being too close to the map's borders. [2] If that doesnt suffice, then I am sorry, it is then clear that I simply wasted everyone's time. Perhaps you can do better than I do and agree upon something that can work for you all. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

May I express my thanks to SilentResident for his extremely kind reply to my message. I also think that allowing for a bit more space on the left side of the cropped map alleviates the problems that Khirurg's cropping creates, esp. with regards to the placement of the Macedo-Slavs in the image. However, even though I do agree on the necessity to compromise and find a middle way between two pathways, this is only so when both options appear equally appealing; otherwise, editors are incentivized to keep making arbitrary demands for whatever purely subjective reason they may have in mind contrary to encyclopedia policy. I am sowewhat perplexed by you speaking of "POV concerns": I am all for Wikipedia adopting an impartial point of view when appropriate, per WP:NPOV, but how does this issue arise here? Even the editor who has been opposed to the use of the map and suggested using a cropped version of it (=Khirurg), has not raised such an issue. He might want to make such a case and I would not like to dismiss ex ante any concerns that the encyclopedia agrees with one side of a dispute among secondary sources, but what we deal with in the case at hand is not any secondary sources, but a historical document from more than a hundred years ago that should be presented within the context of the article as such. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised you object to the cropping, Ashmedai, because as I recall, you did exactly the same thing here: [3] [4] [5]. Your reasoning, which I fully agree with by the way, was that the uncropped versions were "wildly inaccurate" and contained material not relevant to the article. Well, it's exactly the case here as well. So I'm really surprised by your stance here. We are (or should be, rather), in agreement here. On another note, some people mentioned a gallery of maps, so I looked around and found a few. What do you do you all think? Khirurg (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Lejean's map

It is, of course, not true that I "did exactly the same thing" as you did, as you falsely claim, and I am surprised that you wrongly equate two difference cases. For, first of all, the discussion here deals with whether a map should be presented in its original or cropped form; well, contrary to what you did, in the edits of mine that you link (and as anyone can verify by checking them) I cropped no map, as you did, especially not in a heavy-handed manner.

My edit consisted in substituting one map with another on the reasons that the map I removed, that of Lejean , "concerns the Balkans, not just the region of Macedonia, hence not as detailed" and is "wildly inaccurate in parts (e.g. the spread of Albanian)". Indeed, Lejean's map (which I reproduce here on the right side for any interested reader's ease) was depicting almost the whole of the Balkan peninsula, including Crete, Bosnia-Herzegovina, going all the way north to the northernmost point of Roumania, and the NW part of Asia Minor. This is obviously not the case with the Austrian map that Ahmet Q. has added in the article, nor does it lack in detail. Moreover, the inaccuracy of Lejeans's map consisted in presenting areas like the entirety of Epirus and Western Thessaly, which did not at the time have a significant solid Albanian population, as inhabited by Albanians. Such a problem of "wild inaccuracy" does not characterize the Austrian map.

So, please avoid "mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable" in the future and, as far as the present discussion is concerned, you might want to engage with the substance of my criticism of your cropping. If, with the problem of my supposed inconsistency no longer bothering you, there are no points of substantial disagreement, there should be no problem with reinstating the Austrian map -- perhaps acoompanied by other maps, such as Cvijić's, that also depicted the Macedo-Slavs in a gallery illustrating a relevant section of the historical narrative. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ashmedai's proposal of adding a gallery of ethnographic maps. In that section we could add multiple maps with different viewpoints for the sake of neutrality, meaning that the Austrian map can be reinstated without the cropping. However, the proposed maps should all have a level of accuracy similar to the Austrian map, which I have to say is probably the most accurate and detailed map I have found concerning the topic (no wonder this map has coverage in academic works [6]). An example of an oversimplified and inaccurate map which should be avoided, is the one in the Greek article:[7]. I would also appreciate if users would not make false accusations, this is just disruptive and it isn't helping the discussion go forward. Ahmet Q. (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I could not oppose Ashmedai's proposal of adding a gallery of ethnographic maps to counter problems with POVs concerning third ethnic groups, but I am not enthusiast with it either, because, -IMO- the issue of inaccurate population distributions of third ethnic groups aren't the present article's concern in any way, since third party groups are not wp:relevant to the present article's subject which is the Macedonians. If a map's POV is not relevant to the article's subject in any way and does not concern the Macedonians, then we shouldn't bother dealing with it by countering it with more... maps. Just cropping the problematic parts of the map, or replace it with a different map that doesn't change the Macedonian distribution in the region, suffices, in my opinion. Using a gallery, just to balance a certain map's POV issues affecting only third, irrelevant ethnic groups, is just an unnecessary extra effort with too few gains for the article, and far from the practicality of cropping that map in the first place and deal with these off-topic POV issues it may contain. I'm surprised this discussion is taking longer than this. If we wouldn't reach a consensus already for an off-topic issue by now, and if you really want to have this specific map added at any cost to the article, uncropped, then go ahead with your gallery proposal. But in my view, it is a tad unnecessary unless these other maps have a factual usefulness for the readers who visit this article to be informed just about the Macedonians. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am still not sure what to make of the talk about POV-related issues in the above comments. It seems to me that the encyclopedia's editors are speaking as if maps are to be taken at face value, as mirroring reality as it truly existed. However, this is not the case with ethnographic maps concerning Macedonia. Almost universally they were produced to promote a particular politican/national viewpoint and were usually considered as such. The point of incuding the maps in this section is to visually showcase to the article's readers the cartographic POVs that eventually cemented the view that a distinct Macedonian nation exists. Regardless, please do note that I have now added a rudimentary section on the process by which the Macedonian Slavs became an object of cartographic interest and ended up a feature of ethnographic maps of the Balkans. It seems to me that the logic of the text suggests to accompany this section with three maps: the Austrian map, as an example of the early depictions of the Macedo-Slavs, Cvijic's seminal map of 1918 in its French rendering, cited above (the one with the legend referring to 1918 seems to be actually from 1914) and, last, a map produced after World War I, that demonstrates the influence of Cvijic's views and the establishment of the Maceodnian Slavs as a distinct group in ethnographic maps of the Balkans. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair points. There are no more objections from my side. Thank you, Ashmedai 119 and everyone else for our discussion! Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the additions to the article and re-organizing the mess of sections. I read through it and I agree that these three would be good to present in the cartography section. --Local hero ^talk 19:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also in favor of adding these three maps. Ahmet Q. (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Gallery map

Jingiby, you added to the gallery one more map (the Greek map of Sotiriadis, which does not portray the Macedonian Slavs, as it leaves territory occupied by Serbia at the time outside the areas whose populations are therein presented), contrary to the conclusion of the above discussion, of which you were aware, having yourself written a message. You provided no explanation fot this addition. May you do so now? You have also changed the French map of Cvijic with an American one stating in your edit that this is "the original map". How can this be, when Cvijic's map of 1918 was first published in a French book, as written in the article? Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Ashmedai 119, I'm not sure on the map in French if it's by Cvijic. Nowhere was his name noted. There was a missing source with a link verifying where the map was transferred from, as well as the year it was printed. As for the Sotiriadis map, it is described in the article itself, and I figured it wouldn't be a problem to have an image of it. Jingiby (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

What do we think about the addition of the following maps into the ethnographic map gallery?

More maps for the gallery

• 
  Ethnographic map of the Balkans (1897), in Hungarian, as seen in the Pallas Great Lexicon
• 
  Peoples and languages map of the Balkan Peninsula before the wars 1912–18, in German (Historical Old Map Collection from 1924)
• 
  Ethnographical Map of Central and Southeastern Europe - War Office, 1916, London.
• 
  Races of Eastern Europe by Alexander Gross, published by "Geographia" Ltd. in The Daily Telegraph, 1918.

All are from the Demographic history of Macedonia article. Cheers. Kromid (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If my vision does not betray me, the first map (the Hungarian one, on the left) depicts the Slavs of Macedonia as Serbs, while the colours on the one on the right from 1918 are rather difficult to distinguish. In my view, these two maps should not be added to the section's map gallery. As far as the other two are concerned, I am wondering about the value they add to the article's reader's, though, as with Jingiby's additional map, I do not have a definite position. Perhaps other editors who previously participated in the discussion above should be notified and express their view. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the current maps illustrate the section well, though I'm also not opposed to adding a couple more. The first one is older than the current maps on the page, though it does present Macedonians alongside Serbs. --Local hero ^talk 20:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ashmedai and don't think more maps are necessary. The proposed maps either do not add anything to the article or are hard to distinguish. Khirurg (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Noted. However I feel that we can diversify the gallery by adding one of the UK published maps (either the War Office or The Daily Telegraph one). The War Office one is the clearest, however it notes Macedonians as non-Slavic. Kromid (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Macedonism or Macedonianism?

The term originated at the end of the 19th century and is the result of Petko Slaveykov's writings in the Makedoniya newspaper. There he called the adherents of this idea Македонисти, i.e. Macedonists, not Macedonianists. Hence the term is Macedonism. It is also known as such in the scientific literature in English. The neologism Macedonianism is quite rarely used. The standard Wikipedia article's name is also Macedonism. See also: Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia; Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume One: The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World etc About the historical myth on the so-called National liberation war and the real lack of strong resistance during WWII in Yugoslav Macedonia see: Voss, C. (2006). The Macedonian Standard Language: Tito—Yugoslav Experiment or Symbol of ‘Great Macedonian’ Ethnic Inclusion?. In: Mar-Molinero, C., Stevenson, P. (eds) Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Language and Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523883_9 Jingiby (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion. I understand that in Slavic languages, in which it was first formed and attested, the term is "Makedonizam", which means that "Macedonism" is sounding more familiar for Slav-speakers, be they Macedonian, Serb or Bulgarian. The question, however, to be answered here concers the English language. I am no English linguist, nor a native speaker of English, but, as I wrote in the description of this edit, it seems to me that the suffix -ism is usually preceded by an adjectival part in words that signify a national ideology, such as American-ism or Palestinian-ism. I also see in a unversity coursebook used in Italian universities (p. 48) that among "most common rules governing word formation by affixation" is the combination of an adjective with the suffix -ism. It might be that someone with a deeper understanding of derivation in English could provide a more rounded view of the matter. Having said that, I checked the books you mentioned and I see that in the Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia Bechev mentions both forms of the term ("Macedonism or Macedonianism"), while the references to "Macedonism" in Engangled Histories as well as the if I am not mistaken single mention of the term in Danforth's book are in inverted commas, alluding to the original form of the term in Slavic languages. However, a cursory search on Google Books shows that the term "Macedonianism" is more widely used than "Macedonism". My search for "Macedonianism" excluding "Arianism", "Macedonius" and "heresy" (so as not exclude results concerning the 4th century Christian group) yields "approximately 2,100 results", while a search for "Macedonism" yields only 626 results. For me, it follows that the form "Macedonianism" should be preferred as being both more natural to the rules of the English language and more usual. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi again. It is good to do a targeted search with special search engines to compare as follows:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

What I now have remember is that the name of Macedonianism was earlier attached to a heresy whose followers denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, it was a remnant of Arianism. Jingiby (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

As with my search in Google Books (whose results I cited above) so with the search on Google scholar, which I take to be the two most pertinent tools as far as the present inquiry is concerned, that is it yields more results for "Macedonianism", even when excluding results that contain the terms "Macedonius", "Arianism" and "heresy", so as to "exclude results concerning the 4th century Christian group)", as I wrote in my previous message, than for "Macedonism". Google Scholar: Macedonism -> 222, Macedonianism -Arianism -Macedonius -heresy -> 257. This means that the one-word term most usually employed in English to denote Macedonian nationalism is not "Macedonism", but "Macedonianism", and should be preferred in this and other encyclopedia articles, especially when taking into account the structural/grammatical observation about the suffix -ism being usually preceded by an adjectival part. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, one of the terms denotes two different concepts and the other one is unique and cannot be mistaken. This makes it much more acceptable and accurate.Jingiby (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

To say that someone reading this article would mistake references to "Macedonianism" as referring to a 4th century heresy and not Macedonian nationalism is entirely absurd. This is certified by the preponderance of results for "Macedonianism", when excluding terms related to the 4th century heresy, when compared to "Macedonism". In other words, secondary sources in English do not agree with your personal view that "Macedonianism" is less "acceptable and accurate" compared to "Macedonism" and, on the contrary, tend to employ it more often. The encyclopedia should not follow the arbitrary opinions of each and every user, but what seems to be more widely accepted in scholarly works, that is "Macedonianism". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Tchavdar Marinov's article Famous Macedonia, the Land of Alexander: Macedonian Identity at the Crossroads of Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian Nationalism, published In: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume One, Pages: 273–330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004250765_007 on page 317 is clearly written: In 1888, in a letter to the minister of education in Belgrade, Stojan Novaković suggested promoting, among the Slavs of Ottoman Macedonia, an ideology he called “Macedonism” (makedonizam). The term is identical to the one used as early as 1871 by Petko Slaveykov. I.e. the original name of this term is clearly and simply: Macedonism. Jingiby (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Dispute

There is no Macedonian ethnicity or nationality. The people living in North Macedonia are Slavs, in the south part of Macedonia , which is the biggest and belongs to Greece , are Greeks , and there is a small part of Macedonia that belongs to Bulgaria , so Bulgarians live there. Zlinos3 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish. We already have an article on Macedonia (region), including its geographic extend to 6 different countries. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Macedonians (ethnic group) → North Macedonians – Per WP:CRITERIA, 'North Macedonians' is more recognizable, more natural, unambiguous, concise and consistent. Privybst (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'd suggest you to check WP:MOSMAC,because your proposal is not consistent with it. You should make your case there. But anyway per the Prespa agreement, citizens of North Macedonia are to be referred to as "Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia". This article is about the ethnic group 'Macedonians', not the citizens of North Macedonia in general. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• NO. The Prespa Agreement from which Wikipedia conventions about this region are based on stated that the appropriate designation for the ethnic group is Macedonians. Super Ψ Dro 21:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose North Macedonian is every citizen of North Macedonia, regardless of ethnicity. So the term is not clearer or more neutral than Macedonians. AFAIK, the majority of sources uses "Macedonian" when referring to the ethnic group. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. This is not a serious RM and can be closed immediately. --Local hero ^talk 00:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose North Macedonia denominator extends to the name of the country only, not to the people.--Laveol ^T 11:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose First of all, the people have the right to their self-determination and the Macedonians self-define as such. Wikimedia Foundation and its projects such as the English Wikipedia, are not bound by any third party treaties. WP:MOSMAC acknowledges the Prespa Agreement however it is based on the project's naming guidelines and on WP:CONSENSUS which reflects the reality, that the ethnic group is called "Macedonian" and only. Also there is a unanimous academic and scholarly consensus over the ethnic group's name, and since Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, editors ought to reflect on that consensus as well. The RfC goes against both academic and editorial consensuses as well as Wikipedia's conventions and particularly this MOSMAC provision: [8] and should be closed asap per WP:SNOWBALL. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: A closure request of the RM due to violating Wikipedia's conventions, particularly this: [9] has been submitted at the Closure Requests board. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nation vs ethnic group, i.e. demonym and ethnonym

I saw pairs of articles for demonyms and ethnonyms, for example: Serbians vs Serbs, Bosnians vs Bosniaks. This article is clearly focused on ethnonymic use. Should another article be created for the demonymic usage, say North Macedonians or with a different title? Srapa (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. It depends. If there are sources for such an article, especially for "North Macedonians", it could be created. Otherwise there's already an article about the people associated with the region of Macedonia like Macedonia (terminology). StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The title "North Macedonians" goes against the Prespa Agreement so an article titled "North Macedonians" would go against MOS:MAC. Ivanavram (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2023

27.33.173.172 (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is so much bias allowed in this article?

"Moreover, some historians point out that all modern nations are recent, politically motivated constructs based on creation "myths", that the creation of Macedonian identity is "no more or less artificial than any other identity", and that, contrary to the claims of Romantic nationalists, modern, territorially bound and mutually exclusive nation-states have little in common with their preceding large territorial or dynastic medieval empires, and any connection between them is tenuous at best."

This excerpt is ridiculous and completely biased. There are ethnicities with languages that have existed for thousands of years, and these people collectively form a nation, regardless of politically driven territorial boundaries. To compare a small population of Bulgarian Slavs whose language is 90% intelligible to Bulgarians (and even then only 90% because of state mandated changes), which have existed less than 100 years in public consciousness, to other ethnic nations that have existed since the BC era and claim this is no more or less artificial or that connections are tenuous at best, but then claim the complete opposite on this very platform in reference to Jewish, Armenian, Han, Ryukyuan, etc populations is absurd all because two sources are listed? One being out of context? What about the thousands of historians and linguists who claim the opposite, study ancient ethnicities and languages and revere the consanguinity of these peoples? Ed 21:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

DNA image has been tampered with

This file has been modified

In the Genetics-section of the article, there is the same file embedded as here on the right.

It appears that the top right quadrant of this file has been changed from the original but those changes aren't supported by any sources. Also in the current version Slovenians have been removed from the legend in the bottom right? I think those changes should be reverted to the version of 11th May 2016. 2A00:6020:41F0:3600:1C27:B726:823F:4A6A (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think the version in the original study is of even higher resolution and should be used. 2A00:6020:41F0:3600:1C27:B726:823F:4A6A (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

change image in the Genetics-section to original high res version 2A00:6020:41F0:3600:1C27:B726:823F:4A6A (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've uploaded the higher-resolution image from the study at File:PLOS 3.PNG. I'm still seeing the previous version in the article, though; I suspect there's some cache that needs to be cleared. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)