Talk:Torbeši

Improvements in wording

I rewrote a lot of the wording in this article because the English used in the original article was clearly not written by a native speaker of English. Hope nobody takes offence at the neccesary changes. --Harald84.153.32.234 00:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

This page should be redirected to Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia. freestylefrappe 01:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC) - Maybe you should the article before criticizing it, the article is not about ethnic Albanians in Macedonia, not all of whom are Muslims from my understanding but instead about the group of Slav Macedonians who practice Islam. --84.153.21.215 10:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that's absolutely wrong. They are a Slav Muslim minority comparable to the Bosniaks, not Albanians (who are an entirely different ethnic group). I've made this clear in the article. -- ChrisO 07:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging with Torbesh

I support merging the Torbesh article to this one because the most common name of this ethic group is Macedonian Muslims. Also, not to forget that the name Torbesh is sometimes considered pejorative. MatriX 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As suggested in Merging and moving pages, I will wait for several days (a period to generate a consensus or period of silence) before merging of the articles. MatriX 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

There are more Torbesh in Kosovo than in Macedonia. They identify themself as Bosnians. Most of them are concentrated in city Prizren and near Prizren.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.67.197 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A separate ethnic group?

Calling Muslim Macedonians a separate ethnic group from Christian Macedonians is like declaring that Christian Albanians and Muslim Albanians are two separate ethnic groups too. This makes no sense. A population infobox is only for ethnic groups - not religious groups. 72.153.53.35 22:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian and Muslim Albanians don't say they are different ethnic groups (quite the reverse). On the other hand, the Macedonian speaking Muslim population of Golo Brdo in Albania prefers to call itself Albanian rather than Macedonian. --Tēlex 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

They are in fact called Torbesh, and they are clearly established ethnic group (notice the difference between terms "ethnic group" and "nation"). If I say that they are ethnic group, I do not say that they are "separate" from Christian Macedonians. Ethnic group could be a sub-group of larger ethnos as well. So, try to understand this before your next removal of tables from various articles. There is absolutelly no reason why ethnic groups which are sub-groups of larger ethnos should not have tables in their articles. PANONIAN (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Pomaks and Gorani (Kosovo). --Tēlex 22:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Torbesh are not Macedonians

The Torbesh minority are Islamic, their origin is not Macedonian. Their origin is from Albanian tribes. Because they have lived in Macedonian territory since long back they have lost their original language and have been slavinized by language. Note also that the Macedonians themselves got slavinized by language since the Orthodox church had Slavic books since 800 AD for the people of Balkan, besides Greece that kept their Hellene.

Bosniaks

Are they not Bosniaks? Dr. Thug 22:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic affiliation

Do they really consider themselves a separate ethnicity, or consider themselves rather simply Macedonians? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't they consider themselves Albanians (to an extent)? They write "Albanian" on the census, and it is considered more "appropriate" for them to marry into Albanian (or Romani) families. This could be explained by the religion, but it could be for some other reason. BalkanFever 10:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the article needs further clarification... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DNA of the Torbes!

hi everyone, i am an Original Torbes from Oktisi Mazedonia. And i know that we have nothing with the other ethnik Groups in Balkan or something other there!Sorry for my bad english, but i try to speak it good. I have Make an sirious DNA-genealogical TEST and in the first i was shockt of the Results!! i am not the only, who have make the Test!!<<<<<<The RESULTS ARE: mt-DNA= (Thats from the mothers Side is):Scythian!!(onknown Origin!) And Y-CHROMOSOM= (Thats from the Fathers side): VIKING!!!!!(from North England!!) Peaple belive it im not lien!!!And im not MIxet, i am an Original Torbes from the oldest Place in the MOuntans in West- Macedonia!Called Oktisi. I think its interesant!! MFG Herakles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.189.161 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkish identification

Does anyone wish to talk about their identification as turks? the municipality of centar zupa is primarily populated with torbesi but the overwhelming statistical majority are turks! PMK1 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was there in 2011, Torbesh people declared as turks for the political reasons but not every Torbeš/Muslim Slavic Macedonian. There are missionary guys preaching the ottoman times. Anton.aldemir (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

There are at least 40,000 (unreferenced)Macedonian Muslims in Macedonia, at least 80,000 in Albania, but the total pop. is only 40,000??? Am I missing something here?? --Bruka (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fikret Adanir - Bulgarian Muslims

It is good idea to add as reference the book of the Turkish (Turkish-German) researcher Fikret Adanir "Die Makedonische Frage" (The Macedonian question). In his book he really used the term Bulgarian Muslims (Pomaks). Unfortunately, at this time I do not have the German issue, but I would like to specify that this concrete text in the Bulgarian issue of the same book is in p. 20, not in p. 22, as user Подпоручикъ wrote. Adanir used the term when he comment the past of the people, part of whom are the object of recent article. Therefore I'll fix the right page number in the Bulgarian issue and I'll revert the source and the text. At the same time I'll expect here some considerations, objections or suggestions to improve this text.--Males (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the addition "in historical context" after alternative names Bulgarian Pomaks and Bulgarian Muslims. They are a fact in the historiography - from the past until present day (the book by Russian author D. Labauri is from 2008).--Males (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You are thinking of the wrong article, see: Bulgarian Muslims. Since when do these people call themselves Bulgarian Muslims? Males. Ethnic Macedonians ≠ Ethnic Bulgarians. Macedonian Muslims ≠ Bulgarian Muslims. You should know that by now. It is a reality. PMK1 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PMK, your opinion about ethnical belonging of Macedonian Muslims is well covered essentially in the article. However, in the beginning of the article are discussed alternative names - Pomaks, Torbesh, Bulgarian Muslims... Concerning some names also is indicated the context of use. There's no reason to mention some names and to hide others. From the sources is clear that in the term Bulgarian Muslims (Bulgarian Pomaks) are included people for whom it is intended this article. The main part of these sources is not applied to the Bulgarian Muslims as a whole, but to those Muslims who live in Macedonia. Please note, that the "alternative name" does not necessarily means that these people call themselves in this way. Otherwise we can ask for evidences for some the other names.--Males (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about Muslims who live in the Republic of Macdonia, if it were, it would most definitely include information about the ethnic Albanian population in the country. This article is about ethnic Macedonians who do not belong to the predominently Macedonian Orthodox Christian population. Köbra | Könverse 00:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The big question is: Do you agree that these alternative names exists and they concern this Muslim community who lives in Republic of Macedonia and who speaks the language of the majority?--Males (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that unknown user deleted even the alternative name Pomaks. His argument is "the pomaks are Bulgarian-speaking Muslims". I would like to ask again: Do somebody denies that this altrenative name concerns the people who is the object of the article?--Males (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the same logic these people can be called Bošnjaci as they have been called in the past. These people are known as either Makedonski Muslimani or Torbeši. Pomaci and Bugarski Muslimani are not appropriate terms for these people. PMK1 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion and that is why I am asking you to justify why we should ignore the sources for alternative names of those people. You are right that these people are known as "Makedonski Muslimani" (more accurately - Makedonci Muslimani) or Torbeši, but there are evidences that there are more alternative names and they aren't outdated. There is external link in the article which isn't added by me. Please, look the text in it - "Muslims in Macedonia belong to five ethnic groups. These are Albanians, Turks, Roma, Muslim Macedonians ( also known as Torbeshi, Pomaks or Poturs) and Bosnians"...Is this text about the same people or it isn't?

The question about the other two names is the same and there are sources from nowadays which proved it. The book by Russian author Dmitriy Labauri is from 2008. The term there is Bulgarian Pomaks. Through the good finding, made by user Подпоручикъ we have a reference to Fihret Adanir. The term used by him is Bulgarian Muslims. Between other references there is a book Поп Антов, Христо. Спомени, Скопje 2006 (Pop Antov, Hristo. Memoires, Skopje 2006). The author used consistently the term Pomaks, describing these people, but the editor (Professor Zoran Tododrovski from Republic of Macedonia) have not considered it necessary anywhere in the book to explain what that means (if the term is ineligible) or that this is outdated term.

Concerning your claims that these people have been called "Bošnjaci" in the past, can you provide some references? It is interesting for me.--Males (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot be bothered to find information right now. Try googling it. In the past these people were known as Muslumani, Muslimani, Bošnjaci, Goranci etc. It is like saying that the Ethnic Macedonians are also called Bulgarians or Serbians (because they were called that in the past). We all know Pomak is a Bulgarian speaking Muslims. And these people are also called "Poturs"? WTF? not excactly a very good translation/source there. Come on terms with "Bulgarian" in them are innapropriate here. PMK1 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Evens wrote: "Let me begin by correcting an almost universal fallacy. There are no 'Macedonians'. There are Bulgars. There are Roumans - the relics of the Latin speaking provincials of Rome's Illyrian provinces, who still hold their own in the Pindus range and in the neighbouring towns. There are Greeks, including more or less superficially Hellenized Roumans. There are 'Turks', including Mohammedan Bulgarians, and some true Turkish villages in the Vardar valley representing a settlement earlier than the Ottoman conquest. There is an infusion of Skipetars or Albanians on the western and northern fringe. Finally, there is the large Spanish Jew population in Salonika. But there are no 'Macedonians'." from London Times, on September 30, 1903. Подпоручикъ (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Something that some guy said in 1903 is meant to be your argument? First, learn some more English (en-1 doesn't cut it) so that you can actually understand what other people are saying, and then post a reply that has a hint of relevance. Thank you and good night. BalkanFever 10:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear macedonist, using en-1 babel doesn`t mean i can`t speak english. That "some guy" is one of famous european scientists from late 19 cent. His word means much more then your spam messages. Also no matter what the article is about (in our case "Modern" Macedonian muslims) it should be mentioned from where they came, how they looked like in the past. And as it seems as most of people from region of Macedonia they had bulgarian self-consciousness, bulgarian culture and customs of the people and so on, and so on.. So have a good night, and hope yours dreams will end after you wake up. Подпоручикъ (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And I hope your silly misguided rants and personal attacks will end right now. BalkanFever 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BalkanFever, would you mind to comment the sources for the alternative names from the end of 20th century and the beginning of this century. I pointed them above, but I didn't receive a concrete answer. If you have a desire we can comment them one by one. Regards,--Males (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have any qualms about mentioning the term "Pomaks". They are referred to as Torbeš more often, but okay, discuss it with PMK1. As for "Bulgarian Muslims" and "Bulgarian Pomaks", the Lipka Tatars are also noted as being called "Belarusian Tatars" but not "Russian Tatars", "Ukrainian Tatars" or "Polish Tatars" for a reason. They are also called "Lithuanian Tatars" but not "Latvian Tatars". BalkanFever 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for "Pomaks". I hope that PMK1 will agree that this alternative name is a fact. As for your example with Lipka Tatars, it's interesting and let see how it is applicable in our case:

As I see, the only argue was about the title of the article - Lithuanian Tatars or Lipka Tatars. In fact, in the artice is clearly explained that "The name Lipka is derived from the old Crimean Tatar name of Lithuania." It was chosen the name by Tatar origin ("Lipka") as a title, but the alternative name is mentioned in the text. I didn't noticed some argues or evidences that there are alternative names as "Russian Tatars", "Ukrainian Tatars", "Latvian Tatars". Concerning "Polish Tatars", it is mentioned in the text "Polish Tatars" (and "Polish-Lithuanian Tatars"). It would be interesting to look about some sources about hypothetical existing of such alternative names ("Russian Tatars", "Ukrainian Tatars", "Latvian Tatars") in the past or in the present. I am sure that if they exist, we can add this useful information in the article. It would be very good test for our case, too. However, until then the good example with this group is hypothetical.--Males (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Males, Bulgarians have also been labelled as Tatars. I guess by using the same logic we should add this alternative Bulgarian name. The term "Bulgarian Pomaks" etc, has been labelled upon them. Calling an Ethnic Macedonian a Pomak (Bulgarian speaking Muslims) or a Bulgarian (ethnic Bulgarian) is very offensive and has no place here.

These are the appropriate names to be labelled to the Macedonian Muslims, Македонци-муслимани, Горанци - to the Macedonians in Gora, Аповци to the Maceodnian muslims in the Kicevo region, Потури an old term for them. PMK1 (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

PMK, first something personal - I think that I am familiar with a part of the problem. I have been in Gora (and I don't agree that they are Macedonians, Gora even is outside of the region of Macedonia), I have been in Reka, in Plasnica and Lisichani in Kichevo region (where the Turkish influence is very high) etc.

I can not accept your POV, that Pomak or other names are offensive. You should provide sources about this claim. However, let us imagine that these names are offensive - look the text in the article after Torbeš: (the latter name is slightly pejorative). What exactly is the problem to make such formulation for the other alternative names?

The term "Pomak" is exonim for more of these communities. Pomak was accepted only from some Slavspeaking Muslims in Tikvesh and in Aegean Macedonoia, but now the biggest part these communities are displaced from the region of Macedonia. This was one of the reasons for my proposal for a compromise, when I added "in historical context". However, I'll repeat that for all of three alternative names as exonim we have a serious scholar reference.

I think that it is good idea to add "Apovci" as a regional name of one of this community.

If you have a relevant reference, that the term "Tatars" has such status for Bulgarians (as Pomaks, Bulgarian Pomaks and Bulgarian Muslims for the object of this article), we can discuss it. We both know that the term "Tatars" for Bulgarians is only propaganda, but if you'll find reliable sources for other uses of this term, we can examine them. Until then, the alternative name of the Macedonian Muslims and your analogy will remain incomparable.--Males (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Males if you wish you can add Pomaks but only in a historical context, Bulgarian Pomaks/Muslims is not appropriate here. Yes in reka the turkish influence is strong, but you cannot be a turk without speaking turkish, can you? Some Gorani have a Gorani national identity while many have a Macedonian Muslims one. PMK1 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for "Pomaks (in historical context)". However I think that the arguments for this alternative name is very similar to the arguments for the other alternative names. I don't see some big problem to include them in the introduction, but I am thinking about some compromise. What do you think about the idea to mentioned them in the text with relevant explanation?

As for Turkish influence, I am agree that this people aren't Turks. My observations show that Turkish influence influence is even bigger in the region of Kichevo and in Debar Zhupa, than in Reka. The census from 2002 confirms that: there is only one Turkish village in Zhupa, but "Turks" inhabite more settlements in Westerm RoM, in which they learn Turkish language etc.

Very important is that some Gorani have Bosnian identity. The Bulgarian identity is a factor only in Albanian Gora and in Prizren Zhupa.--Males (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree the idea that the term "Pomak" can be used for Macedonian Muslims in historical context. I didn't encounter so far any relevant evidence about it, Greek Helsinki article doesn't provide any useful info about how they come to an idea that Macedonian Muslims are "also known" as Pomaks. I agree with PMK1 that the term "Pomaks" is mostly tied to Bulgarian Muslims. Please provide some relevant source that "Pomaks" is used to name Macedonian Muslims in historical context and we can consider including it in the article. MatriX (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Males the proportion of Macedonian Muslims learning Turkish is similar to the Macedonian Christian one. However over half of Macedonias "Turks" are in fact ethnic Macedonians. Places like Plasnica and Labunista and Rostusa are ethnic Macedonian muslim villages despite statistically being "Turkish". Many Gorani identify as either Macedonian Muslims, Goranci with some as Bosniaks. The Gorani who look toward Bulgaria usually have a relative or friend there not are actually with Bulgarian ethnic identity, and how can they be the Gora dialect and Bulgarian language are very very loosely related. It is like saying that all Torlaks in "Old Bulgaria" can understand Bulgarian, they cant. PMK1 (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

MatriX, I agree that the term "Pomaks" is mostly tied to the Slavspeaking Muslims in Bulgaria and Greek part of Thrace. However "mostly" does not mean "only". Here you can see how the prominent researcer of Moglena Theodor Capidan from Prilep (present day RoM) defined the Slavspeaking Muslims in this region of Macedonia. Concerning to Slavspeaking Muslims in present day Republic of Macedonia, how many references do you want? And what according you means "relevant source"? Published by authoritative publisher in Skopie? Did you pay attention to the pointed above book by Поп Антов, Христо. Спомени, Скопje 2006 (Pop Antov, Hristo. Memoires, Skopje 2006) and related arguments. It isn't concerns Muslims outside present Republic of Macedonia. Please, comment it. We can start with it and continue with the other sources.

PMK1, I agree with your thoughts on Turkish influence in Western Macedonia. The Salvic language in Gora is a question on which we have some differences--Males (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Males, unfortunately I don't understand Romanian and therefore I cannot make any conclusion. Do you know about some English translation of that article? Also, I don't see the other source you provided available too. Do you know about some online version? About reliable source, you can check the following Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. MatriX (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In Romanian language Pomac=Pomak. This term is used many times describing the population in Moglena and if you interested from some concrete text and use I can translate it. However, this reference concerns the use of the term outside of present RoM and therefore I didn't include it in the article.

I'll quote some sentences from book by Hristo Pop Antov, published in 2006 in Skopje (p. 28) - "There wasn't Turks in our village. All of them were Pomaks. They spoke our language" (Немаше Турци во нашето село. Сите беа помаци. Го сборуваа нашиот jазик"). The concrete village is Vatasha, RoM. An other example: "Great caution was needed in order to don't understand the neighbors Pomaks" (Беше потребна голема претпазливост, за да не разберат соседите помаци) (p. 23).

The big part of the references are on scholarly material Such examples are the books by Russian author D. Labauri (2008) and Turkish author Ficret Adanir and therefore they are quite reliable sources.

There is no requirement to sources to be available online. It is good when they are available in this way, but what we can do, when they aren't? However I quoted a book by Serbian author Jefto Dedier because it proves the use of the term "Pomak" by Serbian authors (he mentioned Pomaks in Kichevo region) in the past, because it is available online and it shows that the nationality of authors who used this alternative name is not only Bulgarian. This particular source has a reliability in the specific context to prove the use of the term.

So, the endorsements for the use of this term are varied - from a different nature and origin. I'll repeat - most of them meet the requirements set out in Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--Males (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Males, the language is a dialect between Macedonian and Serbian. There is a linguistic continuum between Nashinski and Macedonia, this does not exist between Nashinski and Serbia (the Many serbs in Kosovo are now long gone). Bulgarian is a relative similar to Montenegrin and Bosnian. If Pomaks is appropriately added it cant possibly be that debateable can it? PMK1 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Males, according to the sources you provided (although I cannot verify because of the reasons I explained before, but I believe you referenced them correctly), I'd agree that there are some authors here and there that use the term Pomak when talking about Macedonian Muslims. However, the most articles I have read about this topic relate Pomak to the Bulgarian speaking Muslims and not to the Macedonian Muslims and therefore I think it is not appropriate to use this term when talking about the whole ethnic group living in Macedonia today. I tried to find more sources written in English (in order to follow this WP policy: [Verifiability – Non English sources]). One interesting article I found is the following: [Joshua Project – Pomak of Macedonia Ethnic People Profile] – the researchers of this project have made an ethnic map of concentration of Pomaks in the region of Macedonia and Balkans – it can be seen that the area of greatest concentration is around the Rhodopi mountains in Bulgaria, Greece and scattered distributions can be found in Bulgaria, part of Romania and Turkey, but not in the Republic of Macedonia.

Another interesting book that covers this topic is: [E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 By Martijn Theodoor Houtsma] where Pomaks are described as follows:POMAK, the name given to a Bulgarian speaking Muslim in Bulgaria and Trace. This name which is usually given them by their Christian fellow-countrymen, used also to be given occasionally by Bulgarians to Muslims speaking Serbian in western Macedonia. There however the Serbian Muslims are usually called Torbeshi by their Christian fellow-citizens, sometimes also Poturi, more rarely Kurki etc. How far these Serbian Muslims are still called Pomaks by some people depends mainly on the influence of the Bulgarian school and literature and would only be correctly applied when used of Muslims who had actually migrated from Bulgarie, e.g. in 1977-1878… MatriX (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a side note: the Joshua Project isn't exactly reliable as a source. Interesting, yes, and probably correct (to an extent) in this case, but not very correct in general. BalkanFever 08:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

MartiX, I think that our discussion concerns the question about the use of concrete alternative names and therefore more important are the sources in which there are confirmation for these names. I do not want to change the title of the article, but only to include information about the existence of some alternative names with the relevant sources. You are completely right, it is usually considered that Pomaks live in Thrace. But not always.--Males (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

May I accept that there is no problem to add the alternative name Pomaci in the introduction with the refinement "in historical context"? And what about my proposal for a compromise with two other alternative names - to mention them in the text with relevant explanation?--Males (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What were the other two? BalkanFever 07:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They were - Bulgarian Muslims, Bulgarian Pomaks (in historical context). A part of references are here.--Males (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Title

If we are to name an article "Macedonian Muslims" it should refer to the Muslims of the entire region, including the more populous Vallahades and Pomaks. This article should be named "Muslims in the Republic of Macedonia" or "Torbeši". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antondimak (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

It dont have only Torbesh people in Macedonia, also it have in Kosovo but the Torbesh there are Ethnic Bosniaks all Torbesh are Ethnic Bosniaks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.154.12.27 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2023

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: Moved to Torbeši. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Macedonian Muslims → Torbeši – The Torbesh are a Slavic-speaking Muslim community in the Republic of North Macedonia. The Torbesh are a distinct group which speaks one of the Slavic dialects of Macedonia. The title Macedonian Muslims is based on the assumption that the Torbesh identify themselves as Macedonians in terms of ethnicity and/or national identity, but most don't do so and quite tellingly only half of ethnic Macedonians would consider them to be Macedonians (Damjanovski 2021). In the 2021 census, most Torbesh didn't declare themselves as ethnic Macedonians who follow Islam but either registered themselves in the category "Other" or depending on the municipality as Turks or Albanians. The article should have the title Torbesh which is the most accepted name used in bibliography to refer to them as it reflects their endonym without any reference to particular competing national identities which a majority of them have chosen to not adopt.

• Damjanovski, Ivan (2021) Old Communities and New Controversies: the community of Macedonian-speaking Muslims between ethnicity and religion, Political Thought 62: The Macedonian speaking Muslims (usually referred to as Torbesh) are a specific ethno-confessional group that predominantly lives in North Macedonia, as well as in some geographical regions in Albania and Kosovo. Also there is a big number of ethnonyms ascribed to the Macedonian speaking Muslims. Amongst others, most notable ethnonyms that are used in different regional contexts in Macedonia are: Nashintsi, Pomaks, Apovci, Poturi and Turks. However the most widespread ethnonym (which is also accepted in the academic and political circles) is Torbesh, although the term has polarizing effects on some parts of the Macedonian speaking Muslim community. Maleschreiber (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport. What you've stated about the 2021 census is false. Among the many peculiarities with this questionable census is that Torbeš was an option for ethnic identity. However, in detailed statistics, only numbers of the recognized minorities are shown (Albanians, Turks, Roma, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Aromanians). Thus, in settlements where you would expect there to be Macedonian Muslims, you'll see a larger-than-usual "other" amount for the latest census. This is where you may have gotten confused. The inclusion of this term in the census was also surprising given that the term is sometimes considered pejorative. --Local hero ^talk 03:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how what you wrote differs from my argument. The key point is this community doesn't consider itself to be Macedonian Muslim, hence the article shouldn't be titled as something which they don't consider themselves to be.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Macedonian Muslims, by definition, consider themselves to be ethnic Macedonians. It's really as simple as that. Torbeš is a term sometimes used to refer to these people as the article already states. That's it. --Local hero ^talk 00:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This community doesn't consider or register itself as Macedonian Muslim. If the article was about Macedonian Muslims as a distinct community, then most of its content would have been removed because the people which it describes as "Macedonian Muslims" don't consider themselves to be Macedonians e.g. the statement There are also major concentrations of Macedonian Muslims in the central region of North Macedonia, surrounding the Plasnica municipality and the Dolneni municipality is false. In Plasnica Municipality, where almost everyone is Slavic-speaking and Muslim, almost all registered themselves as ethnic Turks. Hence the article needs another title - one which describes reality as it is.--Maleschreiber (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

So the scope of this article is Macedonian-speaking Muslims, whose ethnic identity varies, and you think that the current title incorrectly suggests their ethnic identity is Macedonian only. That's valid and I see most of the articles in other languages use Torbeš as the title. I would suggest "Torbeš" not "Torbesh" since it aligns with the usual Macedonian transliteration on Wikipedia. "Macedonian-speaking Muslims" is another option since Torbeš is considered pejorative. --Local hero ^talk 16:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the scope is the community based on its internal identity independently of other identities which have been used by its members. A similar article are the Gorani, who call themselves Gorani but have also identified as Turks, Muslims, Serbs, Albanians and lately as Bosniaks in the public sphere. I chose the transliteration Torbesh because this is what Macedonian authors seems to be using in recent bibliography, but if there's evidence for the opposite I don't mind changing the RM. In this case, wouldn't Torbeši (plural) be more accurate?--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I would agree the plural -i is needed. As for transliteration of Torbesh vs. Torbeš, I find the latter in many recent sources in a quick search (ex1, ex2, ex3), though there are also many for -sh. Again, I prefer -š for consistency with how Macedonian transliteration is done on WP. --Local hero ^talk 04:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Local hero: I have changed the RM accordingly.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Support move. I would be ok with either Torbesh or Torbeš.Alltan (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Torbeš are usually interchangeable with Muslim Macedonians in the majority of sources. Edge cases should be treated in separate articles such as Turks in North Macedonia.Kromid (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kromid: But they're not edge cases because most Torbeshi don't identify themselves as Macedonian Muslims or Albanians or any neighbouring national identity for that matter. For multiple reasons, they either choose their own ethnonym or identify as Turks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, better Torbeši but I would be OK with either Torbeshi or Torbeši, similar to Pomaks which is not titled 'Bulgarian Muslims'. --Nagsb (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per the arguments presented above.Lezhjani1444 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support as per previous arguments. The comparison with the Pomaks article is very valid. Botushali (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2023 (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.

Macedonians

Torbeshis variously declare as Turks, Bulgarians, Pomaks, Albanians, and have historically been called Poturi, Apovci, Muslimani, Turci etc. To prioritise a supposed Macedonian identity of them is not WP:NPOV. Alltan (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Per Damjanovski: The Macedonian speaking Muslims (usually referred to as Torbesh) are a specific ethno-confessional group that predominantly lives in North Macedonia, as well as in some geographical regions in Albania and Kosovo. Also there is a big number of ethnonyms ascribed to the Macedonian speaking Muslims. Amongst others, most notable ethnonyms that are used in different regional contexts in Macedona are: Nashintsi, Pomaks, Apovci, Poturi and Turks. However the most widespread ethnonym (which is also accepted in the academic and political circles) is Torbesh, although the term has polarizing effects on some parts of the Macedonian speaking Muslim community. I don't think that we need other ethnonyms in the lead section, otherwise we have to set criteria for inclusion which will lead to the quite bizzare situation where the lead will mention that the second ethnonym used by this community after the name Torbeši is Turk - since this is how they identify themselves.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The first thing I'll point out is that you both continue to remove Kosovo from the lead sentence despite the cited source and this source you quote right here both including Kosovo explicitly. So, I assume the reverting on that point will stop now.

Now, "Muslim Macedonians" is indeed a common identification for Macedonian-speaking Muslims, as shown in the census (about 10% of the combined total of it and "Torbeš"). I will also note that we do not know how many individuals who selected Macedonian as ethnicity in the census also selected Islam as their religion.

More importantly, however, Macedonian Muslims is also used interchangeably with, or instead of, Torbeš in sources: ex1, ex2, ex3, ex4, etc.

Sources do not describe this group as Macedonian Turks, Macedonian Albanians, etc. so of course those names won't go in the lead. It's really as simple as that. --Local hero ^talk 04:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree on the Kosovo thing since it seems some Gorani have claimed to be Macedonians. However, I think its' best to let the name section serve its purpose and not favour a specific POV regarding the identity of the Torbesh. Alltan (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In the 2011 Kosovo census, there were 277 individuals who identified themselves as non-Gorani or non-Bosniaks (post-1999 trend) in Dragash and 255 in Prizren. Hence the upper limit of people who might consider themselves to be Torbesh is exceptionally low. If some Gorani consider themselves to be Macedonians, then we can add them in the article about Macedonians. If they identify themselves as Torbesh, we can add them here. Nothing stops us from being as inclusive as possible and more importantly: as respectful as possible to the identities people choose for themselves. Τhe problem is that the people who are considered to be Torbeshi by Bechev (2019) are in fact Gorani and the specific villages - which I assume he refers to - are Gorani who now call themselves Bosniaks (majority). The same Gorani, who in Kosovo declare themselves as Bosniaks, when they migrate to Serbia call themselves "Muslim Serbs". This is not contradictory, but one of the many aspects which reveal that identities are inherently political and can change depending on material interests and goals. This "confusion" can be seen in a short doc by Koha titled "The Torbesh of Kosova". The host presents the village she visited as "one of the villages of the Bosniaks of Kosova" where she meets individuals of the same community (Gorani) who present themselves in different ways - including Torbesh. This is the reason why I removed Kosovo from the lead. For the Slavic-speaking Muslims of southern Kosovo, their endonym is Gorani. The article may mention that a few Gorani now (after 2011) call themselves Torbesh, but I don't consider it to have enough WP:WEIGHT to be included in the lead section. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That does make more sense thinking about it. If specific sources about Gorani's declaring to be Torbesh can be found, the part about Kosovo can be included. Otherwise, it has to stay out. Alltan (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're just picking and choosing which pieces of RS you like? We have two solid sources stating this group resides in Kosovo. I can't figure out how a Wikipedia editor's analysis trumps sources. --Local hero ^talk 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

POV? What on Earth are you talking about? This is simply following terminology used in reliable sources. That's what we do here. --Local hero ^talk 17:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Local hero: The Torbeshi are not also referred to as Muslim Macedonians. They don't identify themselves as Muslim Macedonians. If they ever identify themselves as such, we can add this on the lead, but currently they certainly don't do so, hence we should be respectful of what this community identifies as. It's WP:POV to identify a community which doesn't identify as a specific ethnic group with that ethnic group. In the 2011 census of Kosovo, almost all Slavic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as Gorani or Bosniaks. These are the collective and individual choices of these communities and they'll be reflected as such in relevant articles. No article will attribute to anyone an identity which they don't use for themselves. We can mention that in some sources - older ones for the most part - they are also mentioned as such, but that's not the same as saying that they also referred to as Macedonians on the lead because this isn't the case neither in bibliography, nor in reality.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You are reverting heavily sourced content that states that this group is referred to as Macedonian Muslims. Please revert yourself. You're comparing Maleschreiber's personal viewpoints to reliable sources. --Local hero ^talk 23:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Which content was reverted? A statement which is related to an out-group reference in some sources was moved to the relevant section. I didn't remove it from the article, I placed it in the section which makes sense for it to be used. The term Macedonian Muslims is not a synonym for Torbeshi and it can't be used in the lead because the Torbeshi themselves don't use it, nor do newer sources use it as a synonym. This is a fundamental baseline for approaching every such subject: the lead doesn't refer to identities which communities themselves don't use in any preferential manner. These are the ethnonyms used for the community per Damjanovski (2021): The Macedonian speaking Muslims (usually referred to as Torbesh) are a specific ethno-confessional group that predominantly lives in North Macedonia, as well as in some geographical regions in Albania and Kosovo. Also there is a big number of ethnonyms ascribed to the Macedonian speaking Muslims. Amongst others, most notable ethnonyms that are used in different regional contexts in Macedonia are: Nashintsi, Pomaks, Apovci, Poturi and Turks. However the most widespread ethnonym (which is also accepted in the academic and political circles) is Torbesh, although the term has polarizing effects on some parts of the Macedonian speaking Muslim community. Side comment: I added Plasnica in the list, but I noticed that the Torbeshi locals of Plasnica who definitely speak just Slavic amongst each other, identified their mother tongue as Turkish in the 2021 census.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll deal with the Kosovo and Plasnica stuff after this. Regarding what you reverted, you reverted about five solid sources that label this group as Macedonian Muslims.

You have also ignored that "Muslim Macedonians" is used by about 10% of the combined total of individuals using it and "Torbeš" in the 2021 census. You also ignore the fact that we do not know the total number of individuals who selected "Macedonian" as ethnicity and "Islam" as religion in the 2021 census.

You also have not pointed out a single Wiki policy which states that your view is at all valid. --Local hero ^talk 23:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

All sources are in the article, they were not removed. If some of them identify themselves as Macedonian Muslims, you can expand this section in the article, but you should also keep in mind that of the three other available identities to them (Macedonians, Albanians, Turks), an ethnic Macedonian identity is the one least used by them. There's even a good chance that in some municipalities some of them declared themselves more as Bosniaks, than Macedonians. If we were to mention other identities in the lead, it would be in a form which mentioned all of them in order of significance for the Torbeshi themselves. Based on all available statistical data, which policy should I point out? These people just don't identify themselves as ethnic Macedonians, hence the head section of the article can't claim that they are also referred to Macedonian Muslims just because some older sources do so in disagreement with their self-perception and recent bibliography. How else should I approach the subject? The only level of inclusion for this statement is related to the name section but no more than that because this is reality itself. When the mayor of Plasnica addresses his audience, he speaks to them in Macedonian Slavic, but in Plasnica 97% declared themselves to be Turks, 97% Muslims, and 98% declared Turkish to be their mother tongue, 0.31% declared themselves as Albanians and 0.23% as Macedonians. This is reality on the ground.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Your fundamental misunderstanding is between terminology used in sources and self-identification of the individuals of this group. Please understand the difference. No one is disputing that Macedonian-speaking Muslims most commonly identify as Turks, and then as Torbes/Macedonian Muslims, Albanians, and Macedonians.

Sources that you demoted from the lead demonstrate that "Macedonian Muslims" is a common term for this group of people. This has rightly been in the lead for many years. --Local hero ^talk 03:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest refraining from making major changes to the article especially the lead without thorough discussion and consensus rather than 2 editors agreeing with each other and carrying on with major changes. As local hero has mentioned, "Macedonian Muslims" has been used in the lead for years and has a fair few sources to back it up. I recommend bumping it up back to the lead or in the Name section. Kromid (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It has not been removed from the article, it has been moved to a relevant section. The article can't mention in the lead something which doesn't apply to reality. The term "Macedonian Muslims" is not a synonym to Torbeshi, this is the consensus in contemporary bibliography and what can be seen in reality itself.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reality" = your own take on things. You did not address my points and Kromid has correctly pointed out that you have achieved no consensus for these changes. --Local hero ^talk 17:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It has already been agreed that this article is about the Torbeshi population, not Muslim Macedonians. Muslim Macedonian can be its own article if someone wishes to create one, but we will not conflate the 2 terms as synonymous here. See for example Muslim Bulgarians and Pomaks. Alltan (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That hasn't been agreed upon. This article is about Macedonian-speaking Muslims, who happen to hold a variety of ethnic identifications. In the recent RM, it was decided that Torbeši was the best title for this group. --Local hero ^talk 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Macedonian-speaking Muslims is fine as a term. The issue is that you are favouring the term Muslim Macedonians, which is by far among their least used endonyms. They are not Macedonians, they don't originate from Macedonians, and they do not even intermarry with Macedonians. The lead will reflect this. Alltan (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The lead will reflect RS, not Alltan's opinion. There is no consensus to banish "Macedonian Muslims" from the lead. --Local hero ^talk 18:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What RS? If you want an article about Muslims who are ethnic Macedonians, make one. "Banish"... what? Alltan (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

These ones, remember: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Local hero ^talk 18:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please provide the quotes for these as I am unable to access any of them for some reason. Alltan (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Surely you're not serious that this is the first time in this dispute that you're trying to access the sources that have been presented multiple times now? The very sources that you continue to revert?

Just goes to show you've made up your mind on how things must happen and will not contribute meaningfully to discussion. --Local hero ^talk 18:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I am asking you to provide the quotes for the sources you are using. If you do not wish to do so, thats' not a "me" problem. I will now kindly ask you again, please provide the quotes from these sources. Alltan (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Next, why are we going against RS that state Torbeš reside in Kosovo (reminder1, reminder2), along with Albania and N Macedonia? What I see above is some analytical gymnastics by Wikipedia editors. Certainly the number in Kosovo is far less, so perhaps we could go with "...group in North Macedonia and Albania, with smaller numbers in Kosovo"? --Local hero ^talk 17:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There are no Torbesh in Kosovo. Those people are Gorani. If such a community truly exists, please provide a study for them. Places where they live would also be good to know. Alltan (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Per you: "Agree on the Kosovo thing since it seems some Gorani have claimed to be Macedonians." Also, two sources used on this article also include Kosovo in the places where Torbeš reside. --Local hero ^talk 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, then upon further inspection I realised I was mistaken. >That does make more sense thinking about it. If specific sources about Gorani's declaring to be Torbesh can be found, the part about Kosovo can be included. Otherwise, it has to stay out."

Please provide where in Kosovo theses supposed Torbeshis reside. Alltan (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Local hero and Alltan should immediately stop making more reverts. The edit warring policy is clear when saying that discussion on the talk page or an RfC are the way to solve content disputes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  I have 2 reverts in the past 24 hours. LH has four and I reminded him of this. Alltan (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, an RFC would be needed to remove "Macedonian Muslims" from the lead, since the years-long stable version includes it. --Local hero ^talk 18:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  That was at the time the article itself was misnomered as "Musim Macedonians", which are in fact a tiny sliver of the Torbesh. Alltan (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  I do not wish to rv here again. If some users prefer edit warring over discussion, then that will have to be resolved through other means. Alltan (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  • In many sources in the article, the Torbesh are not even once regarded as Macedonian Muslims e.g. Bechev (2019), Damjanovski (2021). How can the article use as a synonym a term which the community itself doesn't use and which is just mentioned in some sources. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:OR because there is no support in bibliography that the Torbesh are also referred to as Macedonian Muslims in a preferential manner which justifies the inclusion of this statement at the head of the article. @Alltan: The major difference with Bulgarian Muslims is that there are tens of thousands of people who identify as ethnic Bulgarians who follow Islam. This isn't the case in North Macedonia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should this article continue to state that this ethnoreligious group is also known as “Macedonian Muslims” in the lead? --Local hero ^talk 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This page was recently moved from "Macedonian Muslims" in an RM (above). Originally opposed, I supported the move as the group in question is a Macedonian-speaking group of the Islamic faith which declare a variety of identities in official censuses (i.e. Turk, Torbeš, Albanian, Muslim Macedonian, Muslim by ethnicity, ethnic Macedonian, Bosniak, etc.) and I agreed it would be a more inclusive title.

The issue at hand is that two editors, @Alltan: and @Maleschreiber:, have decided that the previous title, must be removed from the lead entirely. Despite there being no consensus for the removal, they have removed it and subsequently tagteam-reverted my attempts to restore the content to the lead.

I added several sources further backing retaining "Macedonian Muslims" in the lead. However, Alltan has admitted to not even opening the sources and just reverting anyway. These two users have been known to engage in tagteam behavior in the past.

To reiterate, there is no consensus to remove this longstanding content from the lead, as @Kromid: has also pointed out. Thus, the burden to initiate this discussion should be on those attempting to remove it. However, the tagteam is strong and so I am doing it.

Not simply relying on proper Wikipedia editing practices to keep this content in the lead, these are the reliable sources I added to further back it up. These sources describe the Macedonian-speaking Muslim population as "Macedonian Muslim", whether alongside "Torbeš" or not:

• Politics, Power and the Struggle for Democracy in South-East Europe (Cambridge University Press): "Macedonian Muslims, as they are official designated, or Torbeši..." followed by multiple mentions of "Macedonian Muslims"
• Who Are the Macedonians? (Indiana University Press): uses "Macedonian Muslims" to describe the group
• The Anthropological Field on the Margins of Europe, 1945-1991 (Lit Verlag): uses "Macedonian Muslims" and "Torbeš"
• The New Macedonian Question (Palgrave Macmillan): uses "Torbeši" and "Macedonian Muslim Slav"

More sources:

• The World Almanac of Islamism 2017 (Rowman & Littlefield): "two ethnically Macedonian Muslim municipalities..", "Macedonian Muslim populations", etc.
• Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation (McFarland)
• Religion in the Post-Yugoslav Context (Lexington): "Macedonian Muslims declared themselves as Macedonians, some as Albanians, then Turks..."
• The Different Aspects of Islamic Culture (UNESCO): uses Torbesh and Macedonian Muslims interchangeably
• Ethnic Politics in Eastern Europe (Taylor & Francis): "The Association of Macedonian Muslims... aspired to work for the cultural and national renaissance of Slavic Muslims in Macedonia"
• There are even more I can add if needed.

What is clear is that Macedonian-speaking Muslims are very commonly referred to as "Macedonian Muslims" in sources. If you read the arguments of the tagteam, you'll notice a disappointing lack of sources brought forward and an excess of personal analysis, declarations, and repetitions. I am looking forward to input from editors who do not frequent the wonderful world of Macedonia-related articles. --Local hero ^talk 19:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The Torbeshi's overwhelmingly disassociate themselves from Macedonians. The Torbeshi's are not of Macedonian origin, they do not intermarry with Macedonians, and they are culturally distinct from Macedonians.

Local hero is selectively using some sources over others. For example, he makes reference to the "Association of Macedonian Muslims". This is how another source describes this association: In 1970, the Association of the Macedonian Muslims was established with the agreement and support of the authorities, probably as a means of keeping Macedonian Muslim aspirations in control.68 They held their first meeting in 1970 at the monastery of Saint John Bigorski in Western Macedonia. The motto of the Center is reminiscent of the Greek policy concerning the Pomaks: “Torbesh are local people, i.e., Macedonians; but the Ottomans converted them forcefully”. However, the Association initially had only 50 members and did not represent all Torbeshes. Its chairman, Nijazi Limanovski, worked hard to persuade the Torbeshes to accept that they are Macedonian Muslims and have nothing to do with the Turks. He also tried to minimize the importance of religious differences between Islam and Christian orthodoxy, and to find common community affiliation between the Torbeshes and Macedonians. Limanovski voiced the position of the Macedonian government that the Muslim Macedonians should take part in the construction of the Macedonian nation. However, Limanovski was not supported by the majority of Torbeshes and he could not go out without police protection since once the Torbeshes had even beaten him for being a traitor [[5]]

Furthermore:

• The source Who Are the Macedonians? (Indiana University Press) does not mention Torbeshis.
• The source Politics, Power and the Struggle for Democracy in South-East Europe (Cambridge University Press)]: claims Torbesh are "officially designated as Muslim Macedonians" when no such official documentation of them exists.
• The source The New Macedonian Question (Palgrave Macmillan): uses "Torbeši" and "Macedonian Muslim Slav", which is different from Muslim Macedonian since the term Macedonian here is used in a geographical, not an ethnic sense (see Macedonian Turks).

The issue is evidently very contested and it's clear that Macedonian Muslim is a label which coincides with official Macedonian policy towards the Torbesh, but many sources and all censuses show that the Torbesh have actively and consistently rejected it. Alltan (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain what the "official Macedonian policy towards the Torbesh" is (with sources)? How could a census possibly show Torbeš if the government was trying to suppress that identity?

Again, I point out yours and Maleschreiber's inability to differentiate ethnic identity from what sources label this group of people. Your comment does not refute that "Macedonian Muslims" is a common term for these Macedonian-speaking Muslims. --Local hero ^talk 02:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There is an equal - and in fact larger - number of sources who do not refer to the Torbesh as "Macedonian Muslims", hence by default the argument that there are sources which call the Torbesh "Macedonian Muslims" cannot be equated with the statement that they are "commonly referred to as" Macedonian Muslims. They are not equal statements Such a statement is contradicted in the bibliography of the article itself: Damjanovski (2021) The Macedonian speaking Muslims (usually referred to as Torbesh) are a specific ethno-confessional group that predominantly lives in North Macedonia, as well as in some geographical regions in Albania and Kosovo. Also there is a big number of ethnonyms ascribed to the Macedonian speaking Muslims. Amongst others, most notable ethnonyms that are used in different regional contexts in Macedonia are: Nashintsi, Pomaks, Apovci, Poturi and Turks. However the most widespread ethnonym (which is also accepted in the academic and political circles) is Torbesh, although the term has polarizing effects on some parts of the Macedonian speaking Muslim community. More importantly, the term "Macedonian Muslims" refers to ethnic Macedonians who are Muslims but the overwhelming majority of the Torbesh do not identify themselves as ethnic Macedonians according to all recent statistical data - including the latest census. Hence what is being asked doesn't correspond to bibliography ("commonly referred to as...") or the self-perception of the vast majority of the Torbesh themselves. The information that some sources use the term "Macedonian Muslims" has been included in the article, but to place such a statement at the head section is WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:POV and doesn't correspond to the identities which this community has chosen for itself. Side comment: It is not productive at all in such discussions when an editor resorts to WP:ASPERSION ("tagteam"). The reality is that there can't be any article which claims that a community is "commonly referred to" as any other ethnic community when the vast majority of members of that community in all possible ways have shown that they don't consider themselves to be part of it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maleschreiber continues to conflate ethnic identification with what reliable sources use to label Macedonian-speaking Muslims. --Local hero ^talk 19:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  And many other sources don't do so and I listed one of them but I can compile a list of many others. The Macedonian-speaking Muslims are usually referred to as Torbesh, they're not usually referred to as Macedonian Muslims. No identity exists ontologically. It exists because a group of people claim that they hold X identity. Nobody is Torbesh or Macedonian or Turkish or Albanian or Greek based on some essentialist ontology - they consider themselves to be so hence we write articles based on this emic description of their identity. The vast majority of Torbesh don't consider themselves to be Macedonians. The reality is that there can't be any article which claims that a community is "commonly referred to" as any other ethnic community when the vast majority of members of that community in all possible ways have shown that they don't consider themselves to be part of it. If you want to have a discussion with a wider group of people, it's best to not start another cycle of debating between us.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Local hero: what is your brief and neutral statement? Whilst short enough for Legobot to handle (it's showing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics), it isn't exactly brief (it comes across as a wall of text that takes some time to get to the point), and is certainly not neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Added a brief and neutral statement, thanks. --Local hero ^talk 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As we await outside input, the issue continues to be using "ethnic identity" to negate how RS labels this Macedonian-speaking ethnoreligious group. If we are to do so, then the title of this page is not at all optimal and the recent WP:RM was misguided. The most common ethnic identity of this group is Turk, not Torbeš. Thus, following the logic of Maleschreiber and Alltan, the title should be "Macedonian-speaking Turks" because it honors this group's most common ethnic identity, which is the supposed main concern of these two users. Once one realizes that that would be rather silly, it becomes clear that the best title for this page is actually "Macedonian-speaking Muslims" with Torbeš and Macedonian Muslims both mentioned in the lead. --Local hero ^talk 03:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally, from my understanding of how they’re referred to in bibliography, the Torbesh community forms a distinct community, like the Pomaks. It is practically the same case, although slightly different perhaps due to some Torbeshis being of non-Slavic origin. What separates them from Bulgarian Muslims apart from the Slavic dialect in which they speak? The region they live in? Sure, but then wouldn’t that mean all Muslims in North Macedonia are therefore “Macedonian Muslims”? I don’t think it’s a wise move to refer to Torbeshis as Macedonian Muslims, especially because of the issues they have in identifying themselves. Quite frankly, most of them don’t seem to know what they are. Botushali (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your last point. But the whole basis presented here for removing "Macedonian Muslims", despite its prevalence in RS, is that Macedonian-speaking Muslims do not mostly identify ethnically as Macedonian. The obvious problem with that argument is that they also do not mostly identify as Torbeši. Yet, both terms are used in RS and thus belong in the lead, regardless of our own analyses. --Local hero ^talk 01:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Then wouldn’t “The Torbeši are a Macedonian-speaking Muslim community in North Macedonia. ” be the best way to refer to them? I feel Macedonian Muslims is far too generalised and it does not exactly ascertain what the community is. An article on “Macedonian Muslims” should discuss all Muslims of North Macedonia, including the ethnic minorities (Turks, Albanians, gypsies etc). Also, the small Muslim Slavic-speaking populations of southern Kosovo are Gorani (also variously self-identify as Bosniaks too but they are closer to Bulgarian populations than Serb populations genetically), not Torbeshi. Botushali (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Islam in North Macedonia deals with all Muslims in Macedonia. This article is about Macedonian-speaking Muslims who profess a range of ethnic identities. --Local hero ^talk 04:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There are two separate articles about a similar case: Pomaks and Bulgarian Muslims. Jingiby (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jingiby: The difference is that in Bulgaria there are many people who identify themselves as ethnic Bulgarians who are Muslims and many others who differentiate themselves from a Bulgarian identity, but this is not the case in N. Macedonia. There are very few people who identify as ethnic Macedonians who are Muslims (455). The majority of the people who call themselves Torbesh in the census identified themselves as Turks and most of the rest (4,000) simply as Torbesh.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, if we were naming this article based on ethnic identification, then Torbeši is not the appropriate title. However, we are naming based on RS, which also supports keeping "Macedonian Muslims" in the lead. Though I do agree with you that this page should be the only one covering Macedonian-speaking Muslims and detailing their varying ethnic identifications. --Local hero ^talk 04:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per nom. However, the lead is currently a mess, reflecting the conflict over definition. A well-written lead has 3-4 paragraphs establishing context and notability, and if it is summarising a well referenced article, the lead needs very few references. The five refs after the second sentence is WP:OVERCITE. You already have two sections on Name and Origins, you should clean up the lead and expand those sections. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per nom. The arguments against seem SYNTHy. If the term is in widespread use in sources, as it appears to be, then it needs to be included in the lead, regardless of how prevalent the term is currently among the people themselves (difficuly to assess anyhow) and regardless of its precise - or absolute - 'validity'. the term clearly IS used by sources. Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support as nominated and as WP:DUE. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)