Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)/Archive 16

Macedonians with Bulgarian citizenship table + sources by the official Bulgarian institutions.

Year	Period	Acquired citizenships	Position
2002-2012	22.01.2002-15.01.2012	44211	1
2012	23.01.2012-22.01.2013	8185	1
2013	23.01.2013-22.01.2014	4388	1
2014	01.01.2014-31.12.2014	1874	1
2015	01.01.2015-31.12.2015	4315	1
2016	01.01.2016-31.12.2016	6196	1
2017	22.01.2017-31.12.2017	1150	1
2018	01.01.2018-31.12.2018	3619	1
2019	01.01.2019-31.12.2019	5628	1
Total	01.01.2001-31.12.2019	80000	1

Jingiby (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This bulgarian citizenship stuff seems to be relevant to the citizens of North Macedonia rather than the Macedonian ethnicity. For example, this has absolutely nothing to do with the ethnic Macedonians in the diaspora and to some degree Macedonian minority groups that are native to neighboring regions. I can't help but think that this stuff is WP:COATRACK, along with many other aspects of the article - especially the 21st-century uncertainty section. I think we will need to open up a discussion on these matters. Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That is discussed, but is simply indisputable fact. Around 10% of the ethnic Macedonians native to NM have applied for Bulgarian citizenship in the last two decades. By the way there is even a book about the case: Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation by Princeton University Press. Jingiby (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

So what if there's a book? That's the reason why we should present a whole paragraph about it in the ethnic group article? It can definitely be mentioned in a sentence and then further elaborated in the Citizens of North Macedonia article. Again, this article needs clean up as well. It's pure of Bulgarian POV same as Macedonian language and most of the others. — Tom^(T2ME) 11:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Academic publications and official data are not POV, but facts. Jingiby (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

True. However, there is a place where those facts should be placed. Not here. This article is not about statistics, this is about genesis, culture, and tradition of an ethnic group. Citizens of North Macedonia deals with its statistics. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole section is about the development of the Macedonian identity during the 21th century. That specific subsection concerns the recent phenomenon that during this period about 10% of the Slavic population of the country applied for and/or obtained Bulgarian citizenship. This on the grounds of personally declared Bulgarian origin. Such information is well supported by reliable sources. I do not see any problem against that info, on the background that ca. one hundred years earlier the identity of most of the local Slavs if any, was Bulgarian and this fact has been confirmed by a number of independent academic sources.Jingiby (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, you don't see anything against it. You are a Bulgarian nationalist. You are fine with adding this info to every and each article concerning Macedonia and Macedonians. Also, your last sentence claim is very much disputed. And honestly, let me tell you something. 90% of those people who apply for Bulgarian passport do it because they want to work in an EU country, they honestly give 0 f---- about Bulgarians who were claiming their granddads, uncles or whatever back in the day. And again, you are ignoring, my and Beat of the tapan claim. Typical... — Tom^(T2ME) 12:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course. You are a really nice POV-pushing editor. — Tom^(T2ME) 13:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jingiby (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, as an ethnic Englishman who has never been to the Balkans (nor England for that matter lol), I can't see any valid reason to delete Jingiby's edits. No one has brought up any issue with their sourcing/factuality. It's relevant to the article about a macedonian ethnicity because in order to claim Bulgarian citizenship you must claim Bulgarian ethnicity. Of course, as Tom suggests, not everyone applying for Bulgarian citizenship may genuinely believe themselves to be a Bulgarian and this comment is already included in the article "Bulgarian citizenship is usually attributed by the locals to gaining work access to member states of the European Union." I think due weight has been given to all reasonably held opinions here. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is also covered in Demographics of North Macedonia, therefore making it redundant across articles. Given the Jingiby's statistics are more in relation to the citizens of North Macedonia rather than ethnic Macedonians in general (again, nothing to do with the diaspora which mind you is basically 50+% of all ethnic Macedonians) in-depth information is better suitable for Demographics of North Macedonia as this issue is related to citizens. Presenting this amount of detail in information is going into WP:COATRACK territory and something will need to be done about it. And please, your POV is just as much in question as Jingiby's with edits here such as [1]. Refrain from presenting yourself as neutral on the topic when you have used racist remarks to justify your removal of the term native in the lead. Beat of the tapan (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow that was incredibly hostile. I edited an unsourced word and replaced it with a word that is entirely factual. My edit was entirely backed up by a myriad of reliable sources, but there's no point in engaging in an entirely irrelevant discussion here. You can't say "you don't agree with me = you have POV." Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue is very simple. Per Mirjana Maleska:...In Macedonia, post-WWII generations grew up "overdosed" with strong anti-Bulgarian sentiment, leading to the creation of mainly negative stereotypes for Bulgaria and its nation. The anti-Bulgariansim (or Bulgarophobia) increased almost to the level of state ideology, and still continues to do so today, although with less ferocity... However, it is more important to say openly that a great deal of these anti-Bulgarian sentiments result from the need to distinguish between the Bulgarian and the Macedonian nations... This is the real situation. To some people, this paragraph is like a thorn in their eyes. They cannot accept that they have anything to do with the Bulgarians. And the people with Bulgarian citizenship are precisely ethnic Macedonians, not some imaginary citizens of N. Macedonia. Over 10% of the ethnic Macedonians in the Republic have signed declarations they are Bulgarian by origin. The subsection about Macedonian national uncertainty during the 21th century is the exact place for that. The fact that the former Prime Minister and Vice President of that country has Bulgarian passport is also indicative. By the way there are also ethnic Macedonians from the diaspora with Bulgarian passports. Check here about Canadian Macedonians who are proud with their Bulgarian passports. Jingiby (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your "amazing" history lesson Jingiby. We greatly appreciate it. I am really happy about those proud Macedonians with Bulgarian passports. However, as your sources suggest, they are only 80,000 of the total population. And honestly, I don't give a damn whether those trash politicians have Bulgarian passports, again great for them. (they are lucky they have better access around the EU and the world) No one ever, communists, socialists, or whatever can, or told me what am I. I know who I am and also you can't change that opinion with these pro-Bulgarian sources that you present me here. I think the issue is with the Bulgarians, they are so sad they failed to Bulgarize Macedonia. Well, I am sorry, it didn't happen you lost it. Anyways, the point here is not that. The point is we don't need statistics in an article that discusses identity. Nationality =/= ethnic identity. As I said, we can mention something shortly, but we don't need whole sections and paragraphs. But again, this article (along with bunch others) is disgustingly Bulgarized from editors like Jingiby and his other 3-4 friends who do that to every article related to Macedonia! — Tom^(T2ME) 10:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Pro-Bulgarian sources? The source is Macedonian. There are lot of such, confirming the same facts. By the way you have forgotten 53,000 who have declared as Bulgarians by origins and are still waiting for passports. The total number is over 143,000. These are 11% from the Slavic Macedonians in NM. Jingiby (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, as Tomica's is stating, this is on a national level rather than a ethnic level. What proportion of thoes applications are ethnic Macedonians is just additional detail which does not justify a fat paragraph of information, especially if there are redundancies with the content in Demographics of North Macedonia. And please don't use OR/'fringe cases' such as some Canadian Macedonians being proud of obtaining citizenship in a post-communist country as justification that 50%+ of ethnic Macedonians have nothing to do with the Bulgarian citizenship shenanigans. Imagine if Serbia got in the EU instead of Bulgaria and started offering citizenship based on Serbian ancestry, I am sure it will be a very different scenario here. Beat of the tapan (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The whole sunsection is backed by reliable sources. Every sentence. Stop POV-pushing. That all is Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And we will need to discuss how your edits, despite how well sourced they are, fall inline with WP:COATRACK. Beat of the tapan (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Lеss POV, more NPOV. Jingiby (talk)

• Said the Bulgarian nationalist ha-ha. Joke of the century! — Tom^(T2ME) 09:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with @Jingiby: that the topic is relevant to the subject of the article. Bulgaria offers Bulgarian citizenship for those Slavic citizens of North Macedonia that claim a Bulgarian origin. We know, and there are reliable sources for, that the Bulgarian law is aimed at Macedonians rather than Albanians or Turks. Yeah, I know it is a complex issue, one of the most complex of complex issues the region has. But it does not mean that the article should not touch a topic just because it is controversial. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Of course you agree with him, we saw your comments on Macedonian language and we saw how are you addressing Macedonians as well through "those Slavic citizens of North Macedonia". No one says we should not touch on the issue. We are saying, this article is not the appropriate place. There is another article, where we can add that data! And I am not going to repeat myself for a 100th million times. And trust me it's not complex at all, it's just Balkan nationalism that makes it. All the best. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Tom, please stop teaching us and screaming to us (as you write in bold). Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked capital letters indicated screaming, bold is for highlighting a point. There. And no, I am not even trying to teach you, just stating my opinion. Even if God Almighty comes from the heaven can't change your opinion. We saw that here in a million instances. — Tom^(T2ME) 10:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tomica: What "comments on Macedonian language" are you referring to? If they are my posts on the talk page of the Macedonian language article, it is strange as all I said there is that I was not interested in the content dispute but consensus should be reached before any change is made to the article. So why do you bring that here in a off-topic fashion? To return to this content dispute, I think that the topic should be mentioned on the article. Of course it should not be given undue weight but some elaboration is indeed needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the paragraph on Slavic Macedonians acquiring Bulgarian citizenship by declaring their Bulgarian origins is relevant to the article, NPOV presented and duly sourced. Further details of the phenomenon could be dealt with elsewhere. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Jingiby here. This is valuable info. Some people don't like it, because it can be interpreted as questioning whether Macedonians are separate from Bulgarians but this alone does not change the fact that it is authentic and relevant to this topic. Indeed 75 years of conscious distancing from everything Bulgarian implemented (whether bottom up or top down originally) by the local government has had a noticeable impact on other aspects of the culture (statues of Alexander here and there, et cetera, et cetera). This is not to say Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians, just that the desire to not be and the involved historical and present phenomena related to it matter.--Calthinus (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

[EC] No one questions whether this information is valuable or not. As a matter of fact, whether it is, or it is not, it doesn't really matter. It's a reality and it happens. And yes, they can be mentioned, but not in this article. There's a separate article for nationality of NMK and everyone seems to be missing the point that we try to present here. This article is about the ethnicity and culture of the group. And to be fair, there's a bunch of information in the development of the nation about the ties with Bulgaria. Also, Alexander doesn't have to do anything with Macedonians distancing from Bulgarians. That's another issue that a lunatic Prime Minister tried to revive with a crazy "Antiqusaiton" project. — Tom^(T2ME) 10:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it does matter, because it is important to this page. Would we really have the Macedonian flag with the Vergina Sun, statues everywhere, statements claiming Albanian figures such as Mother Teresa as ethnic Macedonians (not to mention a good number of ancient Greeks plus some kings of kingdoms called Bulgaria)... if there were not a constant threat that, if a strong Macedonian identity people can be very proud of is not built, young Macedonians might decide that being Bulgarian with an EU passport is a good idea? Which, in the long run, could be an existential threat. This does not take a genius to figure out and it is not my idea either.--Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, no offense, but do you actually understand what Skopje 2014 was about? Mother Theresa being an ethnic Macedonian? Even the crazy Gruevski didn't promote her like that. We had and are saying that she is an ethnic Albanian from Skopje, Macedonia and there are people who are proud of her (not personally because I don't agree with most of her views) as such! This has nothing to do with Skopje 2014 (which btw I strongly condemn personally). 90% of ethnic Macedonians get Bulgarian passports for better chances to find a job in the EU. Everyone is missing our point here, but whatever. I am not going to repeat myself anymore. Done wasting time with nationalism. — Tom^(T2ME) 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think this is starting to look more NPOV now.Beat of the tapan (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Admixture autosomal DNA analyses

Admixture plot of modern Balkan region in a global context based on 7 autosomal components. By the Macedonians are 3 dominant: NE European, SW European and a Caucasian. Legend:      Southwest European      Northeast European      Caucasus      Middle Eastern      South Asian      East Asian      Sub-Saharan African

Admixture plot of modern Balto-Slavic populations in a global context based on 6 autosomal components. Macedonians have two dominate ancestral components k3 (dark blue) and the k2 (light blue). Component k3 is common throughout all European populations, while k2 is abundant around the Mediterranean and in the Caucasus region. Legend:'      Southern Europe and Near East      Northern, Central and Eastern Europe      East Asia      South Asia      Siberia      Sub-Saharan Africa

Beat of the tapan, Standing at the gateway to Europe-the genetic structure of Western Balkan populations based on autosomal and haploid markers is a study by Kovacevic L, et al. Publisher is PLoS One. 2014 Aug 22;9(8):e105090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105090. Its autosomal ADMIXTURE plot has 7 ancestral components and its focus are the Western Balkans. The other study Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data" by Alena Kushniarevich et al. is publised also by PLOS ONE. 10: e0135820. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135820. PMC 4558026. However it includes only 6 ancestral components and its focus is much larger: the whole Balto-Slavic community. The first plot is more detailed and accurate in relation to the Balkans especially. A far as can I see the beige component      Caucasus is missing by the second study, which encompassed ca. 30% from the ancestral components of the modern Macedonians. In contrast from the first study with 3 main components by the second are only 2:      Southwest European and      Northeast European. Jingiby (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning as to why the plot from The other study Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data" by Alena Kushniarevich et al. is preferable:

• My source is cited 68 times, while yours is cited 27 times.
• My source chose 6 components based on a statistical criteria (CV-index) which involved more samples from different ethnic groups, therefore it can easily be said that we have more trust in 6 components rather than 7. It seems your source just assumed 7 components a priori (more components is not necessarily better as this can introduce noise components)
• The ADMIXTURE algorithm is used in a global scale in both studies, although mine again has more samples/ethnicities.
• Whether the study is centred around the western Balkans or Balto-Slavic population is an open ended question.

Beat of the tapan (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The second study is cited more times while it concerns more populations, thus it encompasses more samples. However the DNA plot shows all European populations from Portugal to Russia as based over 90% only on 2 ancestral components which is more then dubious. Jingiby (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The context here is clustering populations which in itself is a dubious topic. Have a look at supplementary figure 2 in my source, they repeated the experiment for 2 to 20 components and found 6 has best log-likelihood. Generally probability/statistical theory dictates estimators have better convergence with larger and low-correlated samples. Beat of the tapan (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems k2 is roughly equivalent to "Southwest European", k3 is roughly equivalent to "Northeast European". The conflict with regards to the major third component indicates the "Caucasus" component maybe dubious. Beat of the tapan (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The missing component by the second study is Anatolia/Caucasus or Eastern Black Sea/Caspian. Look here for example Dodecad Project's K=12b admixtures. This is the Caucasian component. Macedonians are missing but Bulgarians for example have ca. 31% that confirms the results from the plot shown by the first study, were Bulgarians and Macedonians have nearly the same result: ca. 30% Caucasian admixture. Jingiby (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving unpublished material aside such as the Dodecad project, the variation of the third component across the two studies makes me question the robustness of these techniques. In both studies we had samples from across the world included i.e Japanese, African to estimate these "ancestral components", yet inference is different between the study with more samples and ethnicities and the one with less, even with 6 components (Sup. Figure 2). The results do indeed seem more boring and trivial in the Balto-Slavic study, yet this could be more reminiscent of reality. I have nothing against your figure, yet I think the equivalent from the study I proposed is more accurate - that is on a global scale, only two components dominate for European populations.Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

With respect to more solid numbers, it seems that your figure is based on 695 global samples, while mine is 1,297 (global). Correct me if I am wrong.Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The number is higher, while in the first study were observed 43 populations and in the second 73. This is irrelevant to the quality of the studies as for example the number of the researched components of presumable genetic ancestry, that are 7:6. Jingiby (talk)

Both of these studies are notable and deserve mention. However, I'm not sure Dodecad is RS. --Calthinus (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, don't overthink these, guys. Most readers looking at it will not be looking at it through the lens of whether Macedonians are Bulgarians or not. Considering the two together yes they look overall fairly like each other... and also like their other neighbors, and also similar in admixture "rates" to Spaniards in one, and North Italians in the other. These are low-resolution analyses-- other studies often do not reduce most European genetics to the interaction between only 2-3 original populations, though it seems the matter is still up for debate. Still of interest, but not to the Macedonian/Bulgarian issue. --Calthinus (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We can try to provide a summary of both in the article - though this may lead to OR because editors need to interpret the figures, but it beats having two complex/eyesore images. Digressing, I think the interpretability of these images for common users will also need to be taken into consideration. Beat of the tapan (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian cuisine and Bulgarian propaganda

Oh, lemme quote something: "Shopska salad, a food from Bulgaria, is an appetizer..."

I mean, really? Shopska is 'a food from Bulgaria'? You mean, Bulgarians invented it? Are there any historical attested facts that state that Bulgarians invented Shopska salad? Oh, and then it miraculously transferred itself in Macedonia, Serbia and other Balkan countries.

You are boring as hell, Bulgarian propagandists. It's no use, though--the majority of Macedonians will never consider themselves Bulgarians, Greeks, or Serbians. You can cry yourself a river, but that's the bitter truth you have to swallow. So knock it off. I'm sick and tired of reading your bullc--p everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.124.29 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Are there any historical attested facts that state that Bulgarians invented Shopska Salad?"...you could have just read the Shopska salad wikipedia article. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Apples&Manzanas, do not feed the troll. Jingiby (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kiss my a--, Bulgarian troll. That 'article' cites Bulgarian 'sources' in order to support the dubious claim that Shopska salad was invented in Bulgaria. These kinds of salads existed centuries before Bulgarians even had a cuisine. A "shop" is a person living in or coming from "Shopluk" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopi), which is a region that includes territory of today's Macedonia, Pirin part of Macedonia in Bulgaria, Bulgaria, and Serbia. So any one of these could have named the salad "Shopska", or made that name popular. But of course, everything starts with Bulgaria and Bulgarians. It was first the Bulgarians, then the Amoebas, bacteria, and after that everyone else. 89.205.124.29 (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Bulgarian, I'm just someone who answered your question for you. If you can cite reliable sources to prove any of your claims, then you are welcome to contribute to the Shopska salad article. If me pointing you to an article about a salad makes you feel this angry, then you may need to reconsider your priorities in life. In any case, you probably should have this conversation at Talk:Shopska salad rather than here. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of centuries, one wonders if Shopska salad was not invented in the Americas instead. They had the peppers and the tomatoes, while the Europeans would have to wait until after 1492 ... Apcbg (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Although tomatoes were brought from America to Europe at the beginning of the 16th century, it was not until the end of the 18th century that the tomato made its entrance into Ottoman cuisine. However, it gained a popularity there in the mid of the 19th century. Nevertheless the first modern cold salads appeared in the early 20th century in Europe. Shopska salad was invented ca. 1950. But obviously in North Macedonia chefs know for Shopska salad since thousands of years. Jingiby (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Apples & Manzanas, I wasn't point out you as the Bulgarian troll, but Jingiby. And don't kid yourself that you can 'anger' me with stupid Wiki mod apparatchik shenanigans. In all seriousness, though, this is Bulgarian POV pushing because that salad is not only Bulgarian (it's obvious from the Shopluk region; and it's obvious, given the limited contacts between Macedonians and Bulgarians, that it's part of the authentic Macedonian cuisine), and it being Bulgarian (as well), or Serbian, is of no relevance here for THIS article, because here MACEDONIAN CUISINE is under discussion--not the Bulgarian. Hence, that irrelevant and dubious claim should be removed from the article. Now, you can do it, or I can. Have a pick.89.205.124.29 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I never said I was trying to anger you. Look, if you wish to prove that Shopska Salad was not from Bulgaria, you need to be discussing this at Talk:Shopska salad. If you are successful in changing that article (Shopska salad), then yes, this one should also be changed. But right now you are talking in the wrong location, and your claims do not seem to be backed up by any evidence either. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Genetics section

Currently we have:

Anthropologically, Macedonians possess genetic lineages postulated to represent Balkan prehistoric and historic demographic processes.[77] Such lineages are also typically found in other South Slavs, especially Bulgarians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, but also to the Greeks and Romanians.[b] A study was organized that compared all Slavic nations and combined all lines of evidence, autosomal, mtDNA and Y-DNA, including more than 6000 people. The overall data situates the southeastern group (Bulgarians and Macedonians) in a cluster together with Romanians, and they are at similar proximity to Gagauzes, Montenegrins and Serbs. This study itself calculated genetic distance by SNP data of the multiple autosomes and the most proximal to Macedonians were again, the Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Romanians, Gagauzes, and Macedonian Greeks.[84]

Other Y-DNA studies suggest that Macedonians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Bosnians are genetically distinct from other Slavic-speaking populations in Europe and a majority of their Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups are likely to be inherited from inhabitants of the Balkans that predated sixth-century Slavic migrations.[85] Y-DNA haplogroup R1a which has a frequent occurrence in modern Slavic populations and has subclades that are used to determine historic Slavic gene flow, generally occurs at 15%, which is among the lowest frequency in Macedonian populations compared to other Slavic-speaking ethnic groups.[86] Though some authors count other Y-DNA haplogroups such as the pre-Indo-European I2 to the Slavic heritage[87] and it is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among Macedonians.[88] But it is not as prevalent compared to Western South Slavs with an approximate occurrence of 28% in Macedonians compared to 64% in Herzegovinans.[89] On the other hand different Y-DNA haplogroups as E1b1b and J2 occur at high frequencies in Macedonians along with Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks and Italians.[90][91]

In regard to population genetics, not all regions of Southeastern Europe had the same ratio of native Byzantine and invading Slavic population, with the territory of the Eastern Balkans (Macedonia, Thrace and Moesia Inferior) having a higher percentages of locals compared to Slavs. Considering the majority of the Balkan Slavs came via the Eastern Carpathian route, lower percentage on east does not imply that the number of the Slavs there was lesser than among the Western South Slavs. Most probably on the territory of Western South Slavs was a state of desolation which produced there a founder effect.[92][93] While political considerations, religious affiliation and matters of identity have caused this to be a flash-point of conflict in the region along identity groupings, this is a reflection of non-objective constructs of identity and not objective markers of genetic differentiation, since the groupings reflect very related populations even among those who have harboured historical disagreements, such as Macedonians and Greeks, or Serbs and Albanians.[85] Genetic similarity, irrespective of language and ethnicity, has a strong correspondence to geographic proximity in European populations.[84][94][95]

And Slovenski Volk wants (in addition to dropping the image):

At a genome-wide dimension, Macedonians lie on a cline from the Baltic to southern Greece, projecting close to neighbouring Serbians, Bulgarians, Montenegrins, Albanians and mainland Greeks. A diverse set of Y-haplogroups are found in Macedonians at prominent levels, including I2a1b, E-V13, R1a1, J2a, R1b, G2a, encoding a complex pattern of prehistoric threads.[77] Such lineages are also typically found in their Slavic and non-Slavic neighbours, whilst only R1a1 and I2a1b encompass all Slavic populations [b][84][85][86][87][88][89][90]

Not all populations in Southeastern Europe possess the same ratio of native Byzantine and invading Slavic ancestries (simplistically termed), with the territory of the Eastern Balkans (Macedonia, Thrace and Moesia Inferior) having a higher percentages of locals compared to Slavs. This is an apparent paradox considering that the Slavs are generally presumed to have arrived via the Eastern Carpathian route. This could be due to a greater degree of depopulation in the Western Balkans, and /or due to ongoing admixture in south/eastern regions which were part of the Byzantine oucumene [91][92] Whilst there have been recent political, ethnic and religious conflicts in the region, it has not been predicated on genetic markers, nor inherently a result of the Past. Indeed, events such as the 30 Years Wars and the religious inquisitions had never occurred amongst native Balkan population in the pre-Ottoman Era.[85] Overall, the Genetic studies demonstrate that the diverse ethnolinguistic groups of Southeastern Europe share ancestry over last 1,500 years, and earlier.[84][93][94]

Whilst there have been recent political, ethnic and religious conflicts in the region, it has not been predicated on genetic markers, nor inherently a result of the Past. Indeed, events such as the 30 Years Wars and the religious inquisitions had never occurred amongst native Balkan population in the pre-Ottoman Era.[85] Overall, the Genetic studies demonstrate that the diverse ethnolinguistic groups of Southeastern Europe share ancestry over last 1,500 years, and earlier.[84][95][96]

My Opinion:

for one, I agree to drop the PCA plot, it is confusing to common readers.

I support your first paragraph replacing the stable version's first paragraph. But the rest we will need to discuss. Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My quick and rough proposal is something like:

Anthropologically, Macedonians possess genetic lineages postulated to represent Balkan prehistoric and historic demographic processes.[77] Such lineages are also typically found in other South Slavs, especially Bulgarians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, but also to the Greeks and Romanians.[b]

Y-DNA studies suggest that Macedonians along with neighboring South Slavs are distinct from other Slavic-speaking populations in Europe and a majority of their Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups are likely to be inherited from inhabitants of the Balkans that predated sixth-century Slavic migrations.[85] A diverse set of Y-haplogroups are found in Macedonians at prominent levels, including I2a1b, E-V13, R1a1, J2a, R1b, G2a, encoding a complex pattern of demographic processes. Such lineages are also typically found in Macedonians' Slavic and non-Slavic neighbors. Y-DNA haplogroups R1a1 and I2a1b are typically found in Slavic-speaking populations while haplogroups such as E-V13 and J2 occur at high frequencies in neighboring non-Slavic populations.[90][91]

In regard to population genetics, not all regions of Southeastern Europe had the same ratio of native Byzantine and invading Slavic population, with the territory of the Eastern Balkans (Macedonia, Thrace and Moesia Inferior) having a higher percentages of locals compared to Slavs. Considering the majority of the Balkan Slavs came via the Eastern Carpathian route, lower percentage on east does not imply that the number of the Slavs there was lesser than among the Western South Slavs. Most probably on the territory of Western South Slavs was a state of desolation which produced there a founder effect.

Genetic similarity, irrespective of language and ethnicity, has a strong correspondence to geographic proximity in European populations.[84][94][95]

Of course taking good care of references. Beat of the tapan (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Must distinguish Greek Macedonia from North Macedonia today. Macedonian people today are Slavic people who settled on Greek Macedonian territories. Slavic people come in North Macedonia about year 400. 209.195.86.197 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2020 (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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole page is a mistake. Macedonians are Greeks, and always were. These are slavs, they have neither greek origin nor greek civilisation. Wikipaidia is a scientific and historical site, not a political party, so no politics must be considered before locking the edit button. So, someone must change "Macedonians" to "Vardaskans", in order to be correct Σπύρος Σιήκκης (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

The Slavs of North Macedonia have identical DNA as Bulgarians. Mdanias (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2021 (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. Gaioa (T C L) 10:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole page

macedonia is macedonia Σπύρος Σιήκκης (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a spelling error "5.2.10 Otherf countries". Someone needs to fix this. MickDimi (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Symbols

The whole section "Symbols" is undue. About half the Macedonians live outside North Macedonia, so the national symbols of the state can not be seen as representing the whole ethnic group. Actually, the ethnic group is not even mentioned in the section. It is all about the state. --T*U (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that state symbols should not be listed, but the Vergina Sun is indeed used by ethnic Macedonians globally. For example, Pustec Municipality, Albania, OMO Ilinden Pirin, Bulgaria, the World Macedonian Congress, and Rockdale_Ilinden FC in Australia all feature the Vergina Sun in their emblems/logos. This widespread use by ethnic Macedonian groups should be noted on the article. --Local hero ^talk 04:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Vergina Sun is a symbol proposed as a flag by the nationalist Todor Petrov and was used as a flag between 1992 and 1995. It's not an official symbol anymore, now used mainly by some nationalists of North Macedonia and its diaspora. North Macedonia is in the process of removing the symbol from all public areas, institutions, and monuments in the country, per the Prespa Agreement. It does not have a place in this article, the main article is enough. Macedonian (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Local hero that mention of the Vergina Star may be due. The fact that it is not official is really not an argument against, as long as it is widely used, especially in the diaspora. The presentation would have to be carefully worded in order to explain its maverick nature and not give an impression of officiality or even semi-officiality, as was the case with the section I removed. --T*U (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how legally sound the above proposal is. In February 1993 the Greek parliament passed a bill designating the Vergina Sun as an official Greek national symbol. In July 1995, Greece lodged a claim for trademark protection of the Vergina Sun as an official state emblem under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property with the World Intellectual Property Organization. The Prespa agreement from 2018 stipulates the removal of the Vergina Sun from public use in North Macedonia. In a session held on early July 2019, the government of North Macedonia announced the complete removal of the Vergina Sun from all public areas, institutions and monuments in the country, with the deadline for its removal being set to 12 August 2019. Historical myths fanned by some nationalist circles cannot justify the legalization of certain unsubstantiated allegations. See: Antiquization. Jingiby (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? I fail to see how Greek or Macedonian legislation in any way could prevent Wikipedia from mentioning the use of the symbol by nationalists (or football clubs, for that matter). And legalization? C'mon, Wikipedia is not that powerful. --T*U (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We should steer clear from reflecting nationalist propaganda and far-right ideologies across Wikipedia's articles. The use of the Vergina Sun by far-right nationalist Macedonians is already well-documented and reflected on the appropriate articles on the matter, such as: Antiquization and Macedonian nationalism. IMO, that's more than enough and provides the readers the necessary info about the nationalist ideology behind the flag's use. The last thing we need now is to have this nationalist propaganda's symbols being reflected outside of context, even on articles about the people (whose majority, mind you, does not agree/adopt this far-right ideology). In Wikipedia we have been careful so far as to not list nationalist propaganda symbols in any way out of the context for what they are about, no matter how popular it may be among a segment of people and in the diaspora (percentage of population, etc). Because this would falsely imply that this is a national symbol and not a political ideology, which isn't true.

Is important that Wikipedia doesn't give the far-right political ideologies more spotlight than needed, nor portray them as being national ideologies when there isn't the case. This is true not only for the Macedonians but other nations too. For example, the article of the Turkish people avoids using Grey Wolf symbols, even though 11% of the Turks (2019 poll) endorse the far-right ideology and even have adopted the Grey wolf symbol (finger gestures, tattoos, banners and more). Same for the article of the Germans which avoids listing the swastika as their symbol today even though far-right nationalist Germans (which constitute roughly 5% to 8% of the total population, depending on what sources you look at) are still using it (flags, tattoos, etc). Like wise, the symbol of Greater Albania from the article Albanians, which is pretty popular among Albanian nationalists, and so on. We should be careful and acknowledge that Wikipedia has already covered the issue of the Macedonian nationalism adequately and its symbols such as the Vergina flag, and if there is new information to add about it, this can be done, not here about the people themselves, but on the relevant articles: Antiquization and Macedonian nationalism. TL;DR: Ideologies should not be mixed with people. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that swastika and grey wolf are really relevant examples. I do not remember having seen any of them used in emblems of diaspora football clubs or in official emblems of municipalities in neighbouring countries. --T*U (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The diaspora and Macedonian minority groups in neighboring countries have no obligations to the things you mentioned. Kromid (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Macedonian, Jingiby, and SilentResident. Furthermore, i believe that MOS:Icons#Political_issues also relates. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This is silly. Official legislation of any country has nothing to do with the fact that so many ethnic Macedonians use the symbol. Anecdotally, I own such a flag and can't recall attending a Macedonian wedding that didn't have one displayed. If the Vergina Sun is only used by nationalists, then most every ethnic Macedonian association in the world is nationalist. For God's sake, a trucking company in the US uses it in its logo. This article needs to describe reality which is that the Vergina Sun is widely used among this ethnic group. If there is a single symbol of ethnic Macedonians worldwide, this is it. --Local hero ^talk 14:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not true. I'm sure you are well aware, as a member of the Macedonian diaspora, that the Vergina Sun is used by members of the Macedonian diaspora almost solely in a nationalist context. True, the diaspora does not have to obey the Prespa Agreement, but it's also true that the Macedonian ultra-nationalist organizations such as the World Macedonian Congress (which is behind the use of the symbol by the Republic of Macedonia in the first place) promote - if not push - the use of the symbol by the various Macedonian diaspora associations, and I'm sure you are well aware of what I'm talking about. I do not see why should Wikipedia fall into that trap. Macedonian (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, TU-nor, they do. The Turkish people who adopt the far-right Grey Wolves ideology have presence in several European countries, including France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, prompting the parliaments in these countries to take legislative action against them. In Germany alone, their associations are numbering at least 18.000 members and that is making them the biggest far-right group that is organized in the country nowadays and is promoting ethnic hatred and violence against Syrians, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Cypriots and Assyrians, and the German lawmakers are already debating on how to deal with them; with proposals to outlaw and ban them in Germany, citing France's similar steps in dealing with them. [2] I am glad Wikipedia avoided mentioning the Grey Wolves on the articles of the Turkish people because I strongly believe people and ideologies are not to be mixed together, even if a part of them are still espousing these ideologies. Likewise, about Macedonians and Vergina Sun: many of those who are espousing the far-right ideology of Macedonism, are from the diaspora's far-right spectrum which not only is organized into groups but is actively promoting these irredendist ideologies, adopted the Vergina Sun as their symbol and are pressing the VMRO-DPMNE for the rescinding of the Prespa Agreement once it returns into power someday. Fewer of the Macedonists are actively encouraging ethnic hatred against Bulgarians, Albanians and Greeks and even promoting irredendist claims to history and territories of neighboring countries. However not every Macedonian agrees with this ideology/has adopted its symbols. I strongly insist that we dont mix ideologies and people in Wikipedia, even if segments of the Macedonian diaspora appear to do so. That would be a bad idea and certainly not an actual improvement for the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. Macedonian (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Vergina Sun is used in extremely mainstream contexts by ethnic Macedonians globally, as stated above, from soccer teams to trucking companies. The Greek users here are trying and failing to paint a picture that it is somehow dangerous to state the reality that the Vergina Sun is the foremost symbol of ethnic Macedonians by tying in some Turkish group and the Prespa agreement. Why would we censor the fact that this symbol has such widespread use by these people? --Local hero ^talk 16:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"The foremost symbol of ethnic Macedonians" is blatant nationalist nonsense, since the Vergina Sun was introduced to the then Republic of Macedonia by the ultra-nationalists in 1991. You are expressing your wishful thinking, if not a claim to an alleged continuity of the modern ethnic Macedonians with the (unrelated) ancient Macedonians, which is so much favored by the ethnic Macedonian ultra-nationalists. Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Macedonian Wikipedia where the notorious "Wikipedia Warriors" may be free to do whatever they want. Macedonian (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I'm alleging is that ethnic Macedonians use the Vergina Sun as a symbol. Bottom line. I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings but Macedonians continue to widely use the symbol despite its removal from government use in North Macedonia. And please don't revert edits when no consensus for removal of content has been achieved here.

The only question we need to answer here is this: do ethnic Macedonians use the Vergina Sun as a symbol? The answer is clearly yes. Do you claim that they do not? I can provide endless examples... --Local hero ^talk 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, various organizations use the Vergina Sun, but as Silent Resident pointed out, it's in an extremist, irredentist context. Such behavior is not representative of ethnic Macedonians as a whole. Khirurg (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, this must be a "far-right", "extremist", "irredentist" church festival in Ohio with such extreme activities as folk dancing, food, and kids activities. This is pathetic. --Local hero ^talk 19:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, not all ethnic Macedonians, some ethnic Macedonians use the Vergina Sun as a symbol, including you, as you said. There is nothing wrong with that, anyone can do whatever they want with their life, even owning a nationalist symbol. But trying to present it here as if that is the norm, well, that's far from the truth. We have the National symbols of North Macedonia and the Flags of North Macedonia where your beloved Vergina Sun is mentioned. The whole "Symbols" section is undue here, as TU-nor said, and you agreed. So please do not revert again. Macedonian (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a certain threshold of ethnic Macedonians that have to declare their use of the Vergina Sun as a symbol or something? How could we possibly measure this?

I agreed with TU nor that state-associated symbols should not be included. Symbols that are widely used by ethnic Macedonians and their organizations should be included. The Greek Macedonians article states that the Vergina Sun is commonly used among that population. Why can't we say the same here? --Local hero ^talk 19:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• The Verginia Sun is a symbol that is widely used by ethnic Macedonians. The Prespa Agreement recognized ethnic Macedonians as ethnic Macedonians, and bans the usage of the symbol by public institutions, i.e. bans its usage in public institutions and monuments. But it does not ban the usage of it by Macedonian people. In any case, what an ethnic group uses as a symbol is relevant here, not what the Prespa Agreement allows or not. Any comparision with the Grey Wolves, swastika or a "Greater Albania symbol" (there is no such a symbol) is very problematic. The Vergiania Sun is widely used outside of a nationalist context. Also, the same symbol is also mentioned on Macedonians (Greeks). Why its mention there is not a problem but here it is? Both communities use the symbol, and both articles rightly mention that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The symbol is not used by all ethnic Macedonians. Heck, it has even been banned from North Macedonia! Macedonian (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No symbol in this world is used by all members of an ethnic group. Usage by a part of the ethnic group is enough to justify inclusion here. It is well-explained on the article that it has been banned from usage by public institutions. I think that NPOV rules are respected. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was quick [3]. I suppose another two lightning quick reverts are in store? These things are decided by consensus, and there is no consensus to include this stuff in the article. Khirurg (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove it. It has been there for a long time, and user Macedonian even expanded it for NPOV two months ago. Anyways, the content is NPOV and that is what really matters. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is required for inclusion of material. Ethnic groups don't have "Symbols" anyway, only countries do. So your edit is completely nonsensical. Khirurg (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Btw, it's "Vergina Sun" not Verginia Sun or Vergiania Sun [4]. Khirurg (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The same symbol is on the Macedonians (Greeks) article too, so your claim seems to be completely nonsensical. For the last time, you know very well that "consensus for inclusion" is not needed for content that has been there for a long time. Open a RfC if you think that it should be removed. The content says that the symbol is used by members of the ethnic group, it was used by ancient Greek kings, Greece complained and the government of North Macedonia banned it from official use. Nobody would support removing such NPOV content. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

From WP:Consensus, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." This section has existed for years and thus we assume it had consensus to be here. "Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." TU nor's whole removal of the section was disputed and thus no new consensus was achieved there.

Now that the procedural stuff has been explained for you again, I think Ktrimi1991's version is ideal. Symbols indeed can represent ethnic groups as we see in the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Greek Macedonians articles. --Local hero ^talk 20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, Local hero, the article Greeks is avoiding displaying any political or ideological symbols that represent only certain groups and not people as whole, such as the Northern Epirot Flag, or the Cretan Flag, or even the Golden Dawn flag, or many other flags/symbols which, mind you, do exist in Greece and are used privately or as part of ideologies, but Wikipedia has refrained from using them into the article about the Greek people as whole. I expect from you to understand that flags used by *some* people either privately or as supporters of certain ideologies or movements, do not have place here. Ideologies and people should be kept separated. If you are unhappy with that, then convince the others or go open a RfC then. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The article about Greeks contain 1) the Greek flag (which is the flag of Greece, not of Greeks) prominently in the infobox; 2) a section about "Symbols", which almost entirely talks about state symbols, not about people; 3) text about and illustration of the church flag, which hardly is an ethnic symbol; 4) illustration of a flag from the 1820s revolution. So yes, the "Greeks" article also connects symbols to ethnicity. Too much, imho (and that goes for both that article an the present one). --T*U (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In your argument, you have cited, state/official symbols in article Greeks, just to counter about my argument which is about this debate's symbols used not by the state but by individuals, groups or certain communities and is mostly associated with ideological backgrounds and political movements? That isn't a strong argument I am afraid. Let alone from the moment the symbols you pointed at being used in the article Greeks, are symbols which I believe, are unecyclopedic to remain here and need removal too. Particularly the Church's flag which does not represents all the Greeks nor the Greeks are using it to represent themselves in their diasporas. So using that is even less of an argument, to put it mildly. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Will everyone stop with silly edit warrings or do I have to throwing WP:ARBEE warnings and calls for admin intervention? Note that the ARBEE has seen stricter implementation lately, so don't say I didn't warn you! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@SilentResident: you and other editors want to remove content - about 1/5 of the article. It's disputed. You can file a discussion at RfC, but if you continue to edit war to remove key parts of the article without consensus, admin oversight will become necessary.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually I just did that dummy edit explaining the mistake. [5]. Sorry about that, I swear I had the impression the pre-8 May page versions had the symbols absent. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@SilentResident: you did the right thing. As you would - rightfully from your perspective - object to the removal of key parts of a core article about Greeks without consensus, so does Local hero have the same right about Macedonians. We contribute towards a better editing environment when we accept that all editors have the same rights and obligations.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Symbols of ethnic groups aren't state sanctioned and pre-approved by state committees. How the Macedonian people came to use the Vergina sun and how the use of the Vergina sun is perceived in Greece is not related to the fact that Macedonians extensively use the Vergina sun as one of their symbols. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the real issue here is state approval/status, since Wikipedia is not bound by any agreements anyways. Like I explained in my earlier posts, a symbol not representing the people, but only individuals who are using it either privately or are associated with far-right nationalist ideologies/movements, either at home or in the diasporas, shouldn't make their WP:UNDUE way into the article which is about the people. This article is about the people, not political ideologies. How hard is that to understand? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't ask if the use of the Vergina sun as a symbol is right or wrong. No ethnic identity is right or wrong. If the Macedonian people use specific symbols and feel joy, pain and a sense of community when they do so, then it's one of their symbols. It's a self-evident fact of life. They're not far right nationalists because they use these symbols. Ordinary people from all walks of life use them. It's their identity, they don't do so because they are right-wing or nationalists.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Pustec Municipality and Rockdale Ilinden Football Club are not "far-right nationalist ideologies/movements" and they do not use the symbol "privately". Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

And nor do the Australian churches in Epping, Victoria and Mill Park, Victoria. --T*U (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As do Macedonians, be them politicians or not, may use whatever symbols they like. Right? I do not believe that the symbol's use on various occasions, including churches, was ever excepted from the "use by *some*". Right? So, citing the properties of the Macedonian Orthodox Church doesn't make any arguments stronger here I am afraid. The question still stands: is this a symbol representing the Macedonian people as whole to warrant inclusion to the article which is about the people as whole? Yes or no? The answer is still no. So, from the moment we are having a symbol only used by *some* individuals/groups (or communities or buildings since you cited them), into a page which also is meant to represent even those who opposed the symbol and/or the ideologies behind it, then it raises some unavoidable questions about whether this is the right article for that kind of content. You may not like how it sounds but that's exactly what is done here on this article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Some years ago some of the editors involved here tried (and failed) on the Greeks in Albania article to add the flag of the Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus as the symbol of all Greeks in Albania. The effort failed, though I and other editors agreed to allow it to stay on the article with the caption "Flag of the Greek Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus established in 1914 is used by many Northern Epirotes". Thus making it clear that many Greeks do not use the flag. Since the Northern Epirus flag is not the symbol of all Greeks in Albania, should I remove it from the Greeks in Albania article? I do not think it should be removed, as indeed many Greeks use it, but if you want to use the rationale you want to use here, then go and remove it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"but if you want to use the rationale you want to use here, then go and remove it. Sorry Ktrimi991, but I prefer to apply this rationale anywhere, not just to the articles you prefer, while omitting it from articles you do not prefer it. Anywhere, including here, and even on the article of Greeks (as I pointed out to, in my reply to TU-nor). But thing is, you opposed the application of the rationale here on Macedonians already, which makes your call rather hypocritical. Wikipedia requires consistency in its articles and the rationales may not be applied a la carte. Just my opinion. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So you want to remove the Northern Epirus flag from the Greeks in Albania article because, as the article itself says, not all Greeks in Albania use that symbol? Yes or no? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. How clearer do I have to be that people and ideologies should not be mixed with each other? May I ask if the reason you are interested only in that particular article more than in others, is because of your involvement in past disputes there or something? If that's the case then you got it totally wrong. I am not going to get meddled into disputes, only seeking to apply the same rationale anywhere unconditionally. Something I can't tell being true about you as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not here due to some past dispute. I am against removing the symbol from this article, just as I am against removing from the Greeks in Albania article the pic and its caption that makes it clear that only a part of the Greeks in Albania are interested in the Northern Epirus flag. I just asked because some years ago you were so keen on adding that flag to that article. Now, make your proposal for changes to this article (or the Greeks in Albania article, if you are so keen on "consistency") through a RfC, and build consensus there. Further discussion here is a waste of time. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that failed was your brute edit-warring attempt to the remove the Northern Epirus flag from Greeks in Albania. Does this jog your memory [6] [7]? Khirurg (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I said that the flag has a place in the History section on March 8 [8], but you insisted on adding that to the infobox until March 14 [9]. Even then, you stopped trying to add it the infobox only after I responded to your "No way" comment with "Good, no flag in the article" [10]. Anyways, these are empty words. The important thing is that that article makes it clear that the Northern Epirus flag is used only by a part of the Greeks in Albania, serving as a way to cool down any Greek nationalist with distorted view of the situation. I think we are both happy with that. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You can try to spin that however you want, the diffs speak for themselves. As do your angry, insult-laden edit summaries. Khirurg (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, anyone interested can check the diffs of the article and its tp. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I just asked because some years ago you were so keen on adding that flag to that article. Now, make your proposal for changes to this article (or the Greeks in Albania article, if you are so keen on "consistency") Ktrimi, wasn't that years ago? I presume this editor is inexperienced or something and they never heard of WP:FLIPFLOP, and particularly the part where it says "editors learn new information and can gain insight to an argument or position that they had not considered"? Perhaps someone needs to remind them that the Wikipedia Project is constantly evolving over the years, and so do are its editors... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Since you have evolved, ping me when you open the RfC. Cheers again Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the heat now seems to have cooled a bit and the sidetracks have come to the end station, please allow me to make a suggestion. Seeing that there is no oppositon to the removal of the official state symbols from this article, I will suggest that the text about the unofficial symbols (lion and star/sun) should be kept, but rewritten to focus less on the description of the symbols and their history and more on the usage of the symbols by larger and/or smaller groups of the ethnic Macedonians, both inside North Macedonia and in the diaspora. Just to avoid another heat rash, I will state that the description definitely should include the necessary reservations about the universality of the symbols' usage. On the other hand, not mentioning those symbols and their real life usage, seems to me to be against the spirit of Wikipedia. --T*U (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If usage of various symbols by segments of the popupation is to be mentioned, maybe we should start mentioning the political ideologies of the people as well? And why not mention party affiliations too? Or which clubs and institutions they were members the most of? No. Just no. With your proposal the article is heading the wrong direction. I strongly insist that people articles in the Balkan topic area are cleansed out of political symbols and ideologies. We can't we have the articles about the people be also about symbols. For that, the National symbols of North Macedonia exist and already covers the unofficial usage of these symbols. I want to see all the people articles of the Balkan topic area to raise a level in quality by following the examples of articles such as American, French and German people. Honestly, is what I am asking, unreasonable? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: There is currently a related discussion at Talk:Macedonians (Greeks). --T*U (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree TU-nor. A majority of the text for the Vergina Sun is about the controversy. It's overkill. --Local hero ^talk 22:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Local hero, Im afraid a political symbol's presence in the article about the people, is an overkill by itself. Let alone when that symbol is an unofficial one that had seen controversial use in the past, has divided countries and even people within the same country, mainly the socialists versus the nationalists, may not be portrayed in Wikipedia as if it is something normal and fine. If we are to improve the people articles, then we can start by focusing on the people, not politics, even if for certain nations (mainly the former Yugoslav ones) the two terms may seem too interconnected. Strangely, none here has ever asked me, but IMO, the Macedonians as a very rich and beautiful nation certainly do not need a symbol in Wikipedia to... help the readers learn and understand them better. This can be done genuinely by providing info and wikilinks to relevant articles instead of listing unofficial political symbols on the page. Edit: And if I may add: Maleschreiber noted how the content about the political symbols constitutes roughly 1/5 of the article's total content. That wasn't a healthy analogy as it shows how the article is still pretty small regarding anything about the people themselves and is in need for further expansion and development. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Maleschreiber's math is way off. When I started to remove the section, it was just above 6%, with the state symbols removed, it shrank to 5%. With my suggestion about rewriting it should shrink even more. Another thing: Please do not misrepresent my suggestion. My proposal is not to present the symbols as if it is something normal and fine. My proposal is to describe and discuss the symbol's use in the real world (like football clubs, churches, nationalists, whatever), including – as I said – "the necessary reservations about the universality of the symbols' usage". --T*U (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

TU-nor, I trusted Maleschreiber's calculations, and I am sorry for their mistake, I am sure it was unintended. About the unofficial symbols: as you know already, the symbols have already been covered in Wikipedia in several occasions, such as in at least 2 or 3 other articles (depending the symbol), with the National symbols of North Macedonia even mentioning their usage worldwide which is what you want, while the other articles are covering their historical and political backgrounds. This is more than enough isn't it? And if you like, you may have them mentioned briefly without pictures here and use wikilinks to direct the readers to the relevant page where everyone can access and read more about them, both in detail and with pictures. On the other hand, the official state flag may be mentioned both here and there, independently of the unofficial symbols, and even have a picture of it here, since it represents officially all the people unanimously and it is the flag of the people's homeland. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes in this page.

I would like to change something in this page. Nikitas06revithisall (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

Nikitas06revithisall (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Change for the better Nikitas06revithisall (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

In the historical overview section, the following sentence should be without the preposition "a" (unless the reference is to a specific plebiscite). "...through voting in its favor on a plebiscites held during the 1870s." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. --Local hero ^talk 22:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Macedonians (nation)

I propose we rename this article into Macedonians (nation) and redirect Macedonians (ethnic group) to it. The term nation better defines this article and it includes the aspects of ethnicity. GStojanov (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

If there is no opposition I will rename the article and I will add a redirection. GStojanov (talk)

Renaming this article is potentially very controversial and should only be attempted through a formal move request. --T*U (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is so. I will create a request for renaming then. GStojanov (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Parteny Zografski

Editor's own original research based on primary sources has been added recently. His claims are not supported by secondary academic sources. The only added secondary source is the Historical dictionary of Dimitar Bechev. Zografski's name is missing from the cited page as well claims on common Macedono-Bulgarian. What it says is:Bulgarian academics emphasize that these regional norms were typically described as ‘‘Bulgarian’’ and that by the 1880s, the local Slavic intelligentsia had accepted the standardized language based on eastern Bulgarian dialects. In response, Blaze Koneski and others have compared this development to the Vienna compromise of 1850 leading to the emergence of a common Serbo-Croatian language. I have added tags. Bulgarians at that time called themselves Болгари, Българи, Бугари, etc. The common Macedono-Bulgarian standard per Bechev is the view of the Yugoslav researchers, during the second half of the 20th century, not of Zografski one hundred years earlier, etc. Such claim is missing in Zografski writings: He phonetically describes the Macedonian language and notices that phonetically Macedonian language is closer to Serbian than it is to Bulgarian. This is typical WP:OR. What Zografski wrote is: In most cases the stress is on the last syllable. Here Macedonian dialect is approaching the Serbian dialect. Jingiby (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I modified the statement into: common literary language, instead of Macedono-Bulgarian. Zografski uses that therm: common. His language is based on the western Macedonian dialect, and so is the standard Macedonian language, that's why they are eerily similar. I will make few more changes and I will provide more secondary academic sources, or direct citations from Zografski. GStojanov (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stop with your original research. This section has long been proposed for drastic reduction, and now it is a complete mess. Otherwise, I will start adding information about the staggers of Zografski, Misirkov and Pulevski towards the Bulgarian national idea and the article will look like a forum. Jingiby (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I will revert this paragraph to a much more succinct and short description of Zografski's role in Macedonian Nationalism and 19th century awakening.GStojanov (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the whole WP:OR. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Jingiby (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried to publish a neutral non-Macedonian and non-Bulgarian secondary source on this issue. But you insist on using Bulgarian, non-neutral and very biased sources. The initial language dispute of the mid 19th century is necessary for this article, because it explains the root cause of the Macedonian nationalism, or at least one of the biggest motivators. So, even with your biased sources, it should stay and it needs to stay. GStojanov (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Pulevski is the first known person, who in 1875 insisted on the existence of a separate Slavic Macedonian language and ethnicity, how between 1840 and 1870 there were already Bulgarians and Macedonians? How Zografski, who is Bulgarian national activist, became Macedonian? Why are the opinions of other researchers deleted? What is the name of the common language Zografski wrote about in the article Thoughts about the Bulgarian language? Why was this name deleted? Jingiby (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Pulevski does not insist, he rather simply concludes what is obvious to him: Macedonians are a nation, and our place is Macedonia. He doesn't even feel the need to justify this claim, since it is so natural and obvious. There are countless records of Macedonians being called Macedonians all through the history, way before 1875. But lets focus on what is here the subject: Zografski was angry that Macedonian dialect is being overlooked. Being a trained linguist, probably the only one in both Macedonia and Bulgaria to have a PhD in linguistics at that time, he very accurately described the Macedonian language, and its main advantage over the Bulgarian: phonetic simplicity. Since Macedonian has only 5 vowels, and Bulgarian has 9, it is much easier for Bulgarians to learn Macedonian, since they already know these 5 vowels, then it is for Macedonians to learn 4 unknown to them vowels, how to pronounce them and how and when to use them. When he writes that Macedonian sounds fuller, smoother and stronger, that is exactly the phonetics of the Macedonian vowels. Vowels are the backbone of every language. They determine how it sounds. Macedonian and Bulgarian are dramatically different over the use of the vowels, as Zografski explains here. GStojanov (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The section is called Identity. There was not a single sign Zografski had different identity from Bulgarian. The issue you have rose is linguistic and the view of Frieddman contradicts to other researchers whose opinions were deleted. Zografski never used the term Macedonian language, but only Bulgarian language and called Macedonian dialect Lower Bulgarian. Presenting a single view and deleting all the rest is not a NPOV. Please stop the edit-war and discuss the issue here until an acceptable compromise is found. There are even factual errors in Friedman's account. You also offer literally copied parts of Friedman's text, which is an inadmissible copyright infringement. I propose that the text you enclose acquire the following wording:

In the middle of the 19th century, secular writings in Macedonian dialects started to emerge. The struggle over the dialectal base of the future Bulgarian literary language arose. Two principal opinions were presented on Macedo-Bulgarian linguistic territory: one insisting the new standard to be based on the northeastern Bulgarian dialects, and another on the southwestern Macedonian. Some Macedonian intellectuals envisioned a Bulgarian literary language based only on Macedonian dialects, while others a Macedo-Bulgarian dialectal compromise. Parteniy Zografski argued then that it was the southwestern Macedonian dialect that should represent the basis for the new common literary language. Jingiby (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2021

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Macedonians (ethnic group) → Macedonians (nation) – I propose we rename this article into Macedonians (nation) and redirect Macedonians (ethnic group) to it. The term nation better defines this article and it includes the aspects of ethnicity. Both pages exist, but now the main page is Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonians (nation) redirects to it. I propose we make the page Macedonians (nation) the actual page about the Macedonians as a nation and ethnic group, and the page Macedonians (ethnic group) redirects to it. Macedonians are not only an ethnic group, but a nation too, and since nation is a wider term that includes ethnicity, I think it is more appropriate that his is the name of the main article. GStojanov (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Nation can also mean sovereign state, and the demonym for North Macedonia is also "Macedonian". O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Macedonians also live outside of Macedonia. Like Old Naval Rooftops noted, nation can mean state. The addition of (ethnic group) disambiguates the term. Other groups with nation-states have similar Wikipedia pages (e.g., Swedes). Although, I do agree that it is weird for it to be in the title (which it seems to be to differentiate it from Macedonians (Greeks)... neither of which strikes me as an ideal title).
• Support per nomination. Ahmet Q. (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose move. An ethnic group is defined more from common traditions. In the case of the maufactured "makedonski" these traditions are identical to Bulgarian

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

2A02:587:B428:B000:A4BC:B027:1EE7:6C68 (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Macedonian language started from Alexander the Great and is officially Greek . If you read Macedonia letters in museums are Greek language . They are not slavic stop doing propaganda to our history

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Genetics: Closest population with respect to Y-DNA haplotype.

Personally, I find the most recent addition meaningless and it leads to misinterpretations. Just highlighting the closest population is flawed and the number 0.0815 means nothing to the reader i.e from the source

- Observed populations are *only* South Slavs and Kosovar Albanians
- "There are *no statistical significant differences* in allele frequencies between the Macedonian and the other observed populations (South Slavs and Kosovar Albanians)"
- "Macedonian ethnic origin has possible highest similarity with the Bulgarian populations, and *not such dissimilarity* with the cluster which consists Bosnian and Herzegovinian-Serbian-Croatian populations"
- "It is clear that the observed populations from central and eastern Balkan do not have a pronounced differentiation of Y STR population structure, except partially Kosovo population which shows some of Y STR specificity."

I will be making some changes to the article to avoid misinterpretations. Kromid (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Macedonians are ethnically Bulgarian

The idea of Slavic Macedonian nationality was created in the 20th century by tito to prevent the ethnic bulgarian group in the region of Macedonia to revolt from Yugoslavia so naturally tito made it so that that they didn’t feel de need to immigrate outside Yugoslavia or revolt with the purpose of uniting the Macedonian part of Yugoslavia with Bulgaria 77.250.77.132 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2022

• Please unlock the page Macedonian Slavs

It is desirable to create a separate article about this issue, which I am planning. Macedonian Slavs is a term common mostly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the whole region which is now divided among 6 countries, was still under Ottoman rule. It covered the entire Slavic-speaking population, regardless of its ethnic and religious affiliation. Jovan Cvijić claimed in his distinct theory in 1906 the "Macedonian Slavs" were an amorphous Slavic mass that was neither Bulgarian, nor Serbian but could turn out either Bulgarian or Serbian if the respective people were to rule the region. There are a lot of reliable sources confirming this view.

• See also
  • Macedonian Slavs (disambiguation) Jingiby (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC) Jingiby (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Not done this is not an edit request. If you want to create a new article, go ahead and do so. Once it is created you could edit this page (or request an edit) to remove sections that are redundant and link to your new article. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• You can request unprotection of this article by posting to WP:RFPP. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)