*********Seriously. You insinuate a trend that we can't qualify given commentary and examples. And I do not intend on going anywhere else with this. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
*********Seriously. You insinuate a trend that we can't qualify given commentary and examples. And I do not intend on going anywhere else with this. [[User:E Pluribus Anthony|E Pluribus Anthony]] | [[User talk:E Pluribus Anthony|''talk'']] | 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
********** Are you reading the same page as me? If you want '''more''' examples, take your pick at pages such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:European_countries this]. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
********** Are you reading the same page as me? If you want '''more''' examples, take your pick at pages such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:European_countries this]. - '''[[User:Calgacus|Calgacus]] (''[[User talk:Calgacus|ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ]]'')''' 14:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
*********** Do you really see no difference? France is at [[France]] and not at French Republic because there is no wider region called France spanning several countries. The same goes for Denmark and Poland etc... etc... It seems to me that [[Mongolia]] is the only exception to this practice of using the full name in order to disambiguate. [[User:Edwy|''Edwy'']] <sup>([[User talk:Edwy/Active|talk]])</sup> 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this will probably have a number of users up in arms, but I agree with the proposal, because the principle is right. [[User:Gryffindor|<font color="red">Gryffindor</font>]] 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this will probably have a number of users up in arms, but I agree with the proposal, because the principle is right. [[User:Gryffindor|<font color="red">Gryffindor</font>]] 13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per [[Republic of Ireland]], [[Republic of China]], [[Republic of Moldova]], [[Republic of the Congo]] and [[People's Republic of China]] (they are the only ones I can think of at the moment). When a name has many meanings, it's misleading to attribute them all to one. [[User:Edwy|''Edwy'']] <sup>([[User talk:Edwy/Active|talk]])</sup> 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per [[Republic of Ireland]], [[Republic of China]], [[Republic of Moldova]], [[Republic of the Congo]] and [[People's Republic of China]] (they are the only ones I can think of at the moment). When a name has many meanings, it's misleading to attribute them all to one. [[User:Edwy|''Edwy'']] <sup>([[User talk:Edwy/Active|talk]])</sup> 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Revisionasof14:48,26April2006
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
North Macedonia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the North Macedonia ARTICLE. Please place discussions on the underlying political issues on the Related disputes page. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.
Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also
Archive1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9
Two subpages for the naming conflict have also been created:
On April 11, Archive 9 was created. This was an attempt to reduce the amount of reading necessary for people coming to the page new. However, it is suggested that anyone with time to spend, or anyone who wants to become deeply invloved in the article, read archive 9, if not some of the other archives too. It is also suggested that the comments are read first, in order to understand the poll's context. Robdurbar16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article
Given ongoing discussions above and recent edit warring, the following poll is to decide the current rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Namely, there is contention regarding the appellation "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" and the degree to which it should be emphasised in this overview article.
Two renditions are primarily in contention. The first, in place for some two months before recent events, contains a note regarding the above appellation; while the second explicitly indicates the appellation in the first paragraph with details. With both versions, the topic is expatiated with an article section specifically dealing with the topic and further in the country's foreign relations subarticle.
Through approval voting in this poll, Wikipedians can assert support for one or more options and should indicate their choice by simply signing with four tildes (~~~~), followed by an optional one sentence explanation. Wikipedians may also propose variants. Opposing votes will be disallowed, as will be votes from users who have registered on or after 1 March 2006 or those posted by anonymous IPs. This is not a poll/vote about retitling/moving the article nor about mitigating the current article's content; if necessary, those can stem from decisions resulting from this poll. Any Wikipedian who votes below accepts the conditions herein and votes not recorded are effectively abstentions.
Voting will continue to 30 April 2006 23:59 UTC, but may be extended beyond that if any option does not garner a clear consensusorplurality of support.
--Dado18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC) This is perhaps the most ridiculous dispute of all that resulted from the break-up of former Yugoslavia and I can't wait until the issue dies. I would however suggest adding FYROM to this option and linking it to a segment that talks about the dispute.[reply]
Most other options are completely wrong or just mostly wrong. The dispute over the name is best covered in a paragraph which gets the sources right and covers the various uses in context. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was never adopted as a formal title; it isn't even a correct rendition of what the U.N. used to avoid the name. Jonathunder20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bomac21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC) - The unconstitutional name should not be in the introduction, that is a name dispute which is good to be described in a proper section.[reply]
Support. A country chooses its own name. If there is another place, you mention that in disambiguation. (Metb8204:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
#There is only one name of the country. Mentoning the controversial temporary reference in the intro is missleading in the way that the reference is another or alternative name of the country. Furthermore greek users haven't yet expressed their opinion how many times should the reference be mentioned in the article. --Realek06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every country has a name that its citizens chose, and that is how it should be presented. The temporary reference should not be stated in the first paragraph, but, if at all, later in the text. It is wrong to say that the coutry addopted any other name as a formal title. It is just a temporary reference that was imposed on it. --Filip M18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this NPOV. It is not good an ethiquette which isn't adequate for a country's name to be in the introduction. High Elf18:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name was not imposed, it was reached in a civilised manner betwen two negotiating parties. And no, it was not adopted but accepted as a temporary solution. Politis18:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In those circumstances it was pretty much imposed and forced onto Republic of Macedonia. Nevertheless the temporary agreement already expired (in 2003 I think) --Realek19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Greek "Macedonia" was a territory confiscated from Macedonia Proper by the Greek dictator and ethnically cleansed (as much as it could be), tthe Greeks have no right to claim the name Macedonia as something Greek, therefore the Macedonians have every right to call their country Macedonia as it has been called for thousands of years. --Bjankuloski06en22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The naming dispute is a political issue and should not even get mentioned in the first paragraf. Most on-line enciclopedias call the country Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia, and don't even mention the refference. User bitola gave an example list of such enciclopedias. --Dipazi00:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FlavrSavr14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC) - It is really a matter of nuances. Is the naming dispute relevant? Yes. Is it relevant enough to enter the opening paragraph? Maybe. If Britannica doesn't mention it in the opening paragraph, [2] I don't see how a similar Wikipedia approach could be regarded as POVish.[reply]
The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title.
Agree in principle, although "it has adopted" seems suboptimal - isn't it rather the case that others have adopted that name for it? Lukas(T.|@)08:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Agree with everyone else - looks good for now Mallaccaos, 7 April 2006
Аgree, but to be mentioned exactly where the formal title of FYROM is used - the UN, bilateral relations with Greece etc., etc.--Komitata14:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this is one of the silliest and most egregious international disputes of the last century -- what, would Honduras have to go internationally by the name of "The Grand Duchy of Pigshit" if Mexico demanded it? -- if Macedonia does continue to use FYROM has a formal title, then it must be reflected in the article, whether we like it or not. RGTraynor19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same thing as in Republic of China: Although this is the name they like themselves, the introduction includes the most common name others use for it: Taiwan. And this is just a common name. FYROM is the name that the country uses to participate in international organisations. --geraki20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearest, most NPOV. It's (unfortunately, IMHO) a common name in some contexts, so it should be mentioned in the introduction. Junes10:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good version as well, with some corrections. "Accepted" seems more neutral than "adopted", since the country in question does not use this title as a self-identifying term. In the above mentioned institutions, representatives of this country refer to it as "Republic of Macedonia", while they have accepted that others might formally refer to with the temprorary designation. The following is more important than it seems - it's former (lower case) not Former Republic of Macedonia. [3] The lower case indicates that is it is a only a temporary designation, not a name. --FlavrSavr15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for this option, although, as another user has pointed out and I absolutely agree with him,"it has adopted" seems suboptimal - isn't it rather the case that others have adopted that name for it?". I also agree that "the country in question does not use this title as a self-identifying term". Hence, me might have to use a term like "uses" or "accepted" instead of adopted. Yannismarou15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FS, Y., et al.: As below, the phrase – and that word ("adopted") – is lifted from the Encyclopædia Britannica; ditto for the upper case F (though I'm cognizant of lower case f in the UN resolution). I make no claim about the accuracy of both per se, but perhaps the following rephrase avoids whether f/FYROM has been accepted or adopted:
"As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, the term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is a formal title [in common use/commonly used in international relations]."
Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC) God I feel sorry for those Macedonians, having neighbours push them into a position of having such a lumbering title. Still, since it is the formal name it may as well be in the opening sentence. Lets just hope it's all sorted soon. Agree with flavrsavr over using accepted rather than adopted.Sabine's Sunbirdtalk17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you feel just a little bit sorry for Greek Macedonians having been robbed of their identity by their neighbours?--Avg17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better than 2, but "might" doesn't seem to be grammatically appropriate English here - there's nothing hypothetical about it. Propose instead: "it is also formally referred to ... in some contexts". --Lukas(T.|@)08:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shenme08:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC) -- When will the controversy stop and the embarassment kick in? (From the convict colony south of the civilised state of Canada)[reply]
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија (ПЈРМ) ), or simply Macedonia(*), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.
International treaties do refer on what you call Republika Makedonija as FYROM. Believe it or not any other reference is historically and scientifically wrong and biased. Exactly because wikipedia should be NPOV (because is not in many editions depending on states' policies upon this matter) the name should be FYROM in accordance to international treaties. If national treaties do change I have not -and I believe many Greeks do not have- any kind of problem to change it. In the meanwhile you should cite why you believe that this country should be named accordingly with the POV term Republika Makedonija. Self determination is not enough as reason. For example, if i want to change the title United States to something else as a member of some indigenous movement you will invoke international legal documents in order prevent any kind of alteration. Why don't you do the same in the present situation?--Kalogeropoulos12:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per my position, which has analytically been posted here above. I would also endorse renaming the article. In any case, the paragraph needs expansion to accomodate the FYROM POV as well. NikoSilver(T)@(C)12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Kalogeropoulos. This version shows what is accepted internationally and not in biliteral relations. I also agree with NikoSilver that there must be an expansion of this version, so that to include the FYROM POV (the only way for this version to be accepted as NPOV) --Hectorian12:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe it's the whole article that has to be renamed as explained here, but for the purposes of this poll, this is the option I subscribe to. I still believe that it does reflect the FYROM POV, because it uses the name Macedonia on its own. Would it be better if it used Republic of Macedonia instead of Macedonia, hence utilising only the two formal names? --Avg13:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this reflects international UN conventions. But we have to take out 'or simply Macedonia' since it confuses the issue with Greek Macedonia; it should be replaced with an entry that 'the constitutional name of the country is Republic of Macedonia even though it is not recoginised by many countries, including most European states'. Politis13:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Aside from option#2, this option seems acceptable also - Mallaccaos, 7 April 2006
--Odysses(☜)18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC) The official name (FYROM) by which this state applied for membership to all international organizations [4], but NOT simply Macedonia to avoid any confusion.[reply]
--Dada11:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Would also prefer the mention of the name Republic of Macedonia instead of the simply Macedonia reference.[reply]
- Why is it so hard to to say the legal name: FYROM (at the start) and THEIR STATE prefers the name Republic of Macedonia but not the UN, EU, UEFA, FIFA, NATO, Greece international law ect ect ect? Reaper719:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I 'd say their official name used by the UN, EU and Nato should be used and not "Macedonia" because this is causing trouble because of many Macedonians (Greeks!) will feel insulted. FYROM was accepted by both sides. : 14:05, 9 April 2006
This option is in direct opposition of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy (see "Dealing with self-identifying terms"), and since the implementation of policies is the NPOV in effect, I must conclude it is also in breach of the NPOV. My opinion is that it is advisable for the admins to remove this option. --FlavrSavr14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy at "Dealing with self-identifying terms" states: this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name. This is the name FYROM uses in all international organisations, whereas RoM is used internally and in (some) bilateral relations. On a more technical note, this is not a policy, it is not even a guideline. it is a ChrisO's POV on how naming disputes should be handled. It is a legitimate option and if consensus is formed, it shall be used. Not to mention that some encyclopedias such as Encarta and Groiler's World Book refer to your country exclusively as the fYROM, so it cannot be POV and can be used in encyclopedias. --Avg15:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite (excerpts from the policy): "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name."
"Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is."
And nope, it is a official Wikipedia guideline - there's a giant tag on the page indicating this. The difference between policies and guidelines is quite blurry and they are treated equally at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The fact that ChrisO, one of the most respected administrators on Wikipedia for his continous efforts to implement the NPOV policy in sensitive disputes, contributed to this guideline, does not make it less of a guideline. The bottom line is - if you think there is something biased in it, feel free to discuss on that guideline's talk page. I'm under impression that the vast majority of Wikipedians are quite satisfied with its NPOV level.--FlavrSavr15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, we must not forget that FYROM is a compromise name accepted by both sides. No one was really happy with it, but is was accepted and according the the famous Hutchinson Encyclopedia (which sadly does make explosive claims about Northern Greece), the official internal name of this country is Republic of Macedonia - the official international name is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That surely rattles the "official" section and raises questions about what the "self identifying" name is, don't you agree?
It is a guideline, which has been disputed especially for the specific issue (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict). My comment about a specific user was not personal in nature, I want to clarify that and dismiss any nuances of offense immediately, after all I have not interacted with him at all and I've already apologised in his talk page. It's a simple observation that this is based on his POV and not universally accepted. Moreover, I especially noted that according to the guideline this version is not problematic at all.--Avg15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This country has 2 self-identifying and official names, one used in certain contexts, another used in other contexts. Not to mention that a google search, if done properly (considering that the results for Republic of Macedonia include the results for Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) as above, can find that FYROM is more common in English. Therefore, the guideline is satisfied either way.
But the point is that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a self-identifying name, while "Republic of Macedonia" is. --FlavrSavr12:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV - last time I saw the General Assembly of the United Nations there was an ambassador representing a former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Also, an entity describing itself as the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia recently applied to join the EU. This country's self identifying name obviously varies according to the circumstances. It has two official names out of which one (FYROM) ranks higher in a google search (see above). This is a legitimate term and is not a breach of NPOV (it's not possible - NPOV is not based on names, but on presentation of the facts; using either name, the article is capable of being neutral as long as what is actually going on is told in an unbiased way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.114.20 (talk • contribs)
My POV? While fYROM is a identifying name, it's not a self-identifying name, it's how (most) international organisations refer to this country. That's why we use Republic of China instead of Chinese Taipei, or for that matter, Taiwan. The official self-identifying name of this entity is "Republic of Macedonia", the unnoficial is "Macedonia". I don't see how this is a difficulty for anyone to comprehend. --FlavrSavr18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- I agree with this one. FYROM is the internationally recognized name in most orginizations.
FYROM is the exact name for "Republic of Macedonia". This is what it should be: Former Yugoslavian Republic Of Macedonia! - Christos7
- I support this because I find this country name at UN, at EU and other places; people must not go against international decisions because then we have chaos. We must to respect convention. Trompeta15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Although I don't agree with FYROM as the official permanent name of the country, I believe that wikipedia should follow this official temporary name until the dispute is resolved. It is accepted as temporary by both Greek and FYROM's governemnents so its the most universally accepted. Stevepeterson18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title in international relations; however, a majority of United Nations member states formally recognize it under its constitutional name, including all of its other neighbours.
-- Why is it so hard to to say the legal name: FYROM (at the start) and THEIR STATE prefers the name Republic of Macedonia but not the UN, EU, UEFA, FIFA, NATO, Greece international law ect ect ect? Reaper719:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија) is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. As the result of a naming dispute with Greece, it has also adopted the term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title. Sometimes it is referred to as Macedonia.
For reasons i have already explained in this (and other) talk pages. The small 'f' in the word 'former' of this variation maybe makes it more accurate than Oprion 2. --Hectorian12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this version, but we do not need the passage that reads, 'sometimes it is referred to as Macedonia' because Greek Macedonia was and is sometimes referred to a 'Macedonia'. Also, since the name dispute is not yet settled, we may consider that even the name 'Republic of Macedonia' is temporary (there is talk of 'Nova Makedonija' and 'Republica Makedonija-Skopje'. - Politis13:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like very much that the entire world recognizes the Republic of Macedonia as it's people wants. But, here, what I like doesn't matter. What is internationally accepted and what the UN matters, I am afraid. --HolyRomanEmperor16:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Option #7 – Extended version: another variation of #2
The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), or simply Macedonia, is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east. Due to the naming dispute with Greece, it is also formally referred to as former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in some contexts.
Vote below:
A variation of #2, it consists in removing the parenthesis (FYROM) and a rewording of the last sentence. Aldux14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--DaveOinSF19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)I still think the poll as currently construed is pretty useless and only serves to dilute the votes. People don't really focus on each individual issue. It should be divided up into several polls, one after the other: e.g. 1-What should the title be? REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 2-Should "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" be in the first paragraph? YES 3-Should it be in the first sentence? NO 4-Should it be "The Former" or "the Former" or "the former"? the former, but in bold 5-Should it say that the name has been "adopted" or that the country is "referred" to by this name? REFERRED 6-Should there be a separate section in the article on the naming controvery? YES As such, this proposal comes the closest to my preferred requirements.[reply]
The Republic of Macedonia (Macedonian: Република Македонија), also former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)(*), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.
Vote below:
I consider this a compromise. Not much prominence is given to the naming dispute, just a link to it, but also the formal name FYROM is mentioned.--Avg14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM, Macedonian: Поранешна Југословенска Република Македонија (ПЈРМ) ), or Republic of Macedonia(*), is an independent state on the Balkan peninsula in southeastern Europe. The country borders Serbia and Montenegro to the north, Albania to the west, Greece to the south, and Bulgaria to the east.
----Kamikazi219:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC) The official name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) by which this state applied for membership to all international organizations [5], the lokal name Republic of Macedonia, but NOT simply Macedonia to avoid any confusion.[reply]
That's also a good one. Similarly with option #8 it sticks only to formal names but additionally it gives precedence to the UN, EU, NATO recognised appelation. --Avg19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please indicate and categorise below; copy and render in a fashion similar to options 1/2:
Option #n: [[proposed version]]
description; add details
Vote below:
Comments
I'm ok with option 1 or option 2. However, it seems that the main difference between options 2 and 3 hinges on whether the following statement is truthful:
it has also adopted the term Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as a formal title.
So has the nation, in fact, adopted that as a formal title? If so, I'd probably vote for option 2. But it doesn't make sense to put options 2 and 3 up for voting when the difference is clearly of a factual nature. Also, option 3's phrasing of "might be formally referred [to] as" is awkwardly passive, and would be better stated as "many nations refer to it as". --Yath03:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yath. just to clear up one thing: that title has been formally adopted by that nation, since that's the name under which it's an UN member, an EU candidate and this is how it participates in international fora. --Hectorian03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per H.: the above line (from option #2) is almost verbatim from Encyclopædia Britannica (Ready Reference), and is supported in other literature/usage, so it's a matter of whether or not said source is to be believed. I can't comment per se on your other determinations regarding the appropriateness of the other variants ... which can hopefully be gleaned by perusing relevant article content E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it kind of absurd that there are 5 or 6 options for including FYROM in the title, while all brief version supporting side votes concentrate on the first option? I don't want to think that this was intentional, in order to split the extended version supporting side votes in multiple similar options (divide and conquer), but I think it is unfair. Can you please analyse the vote counting process in advance? Can we first vote on principle, and then debate/vote on details? NikoSilver(T)@(C)15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facts prove you so right. While Greeks are prepared to accept the mention of the name "Republic of Macedonia" even though they don't recognise it, but only for NPOV sake, noone of our FYROMian friends has subscribed to a single option other than #1, which is strictly FYROM POV. Speaks volumes about who's willing to compromise and who's not. --Avg21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to refrain from voting here because I think there are better options. Few comments though:
It is actually not fair to impose such a name on the country. What about calling all European countries "Former Roman Empire Province of ..."?
The problem originates from a fact that there is both Macedonia region and Macedonia country. I personally think that situation is similar with "America". There is a small and often forgotten country called "United States of America". There is also even a lesser known region called "America", specifically its north part which includes USA but most of it is not USA (it is Canada). So, both residents of Canada and USA are "North Americans" (and also, just "Americans"). Similar applies to Macedonia. I think that Macedina (region) and "Republic of Macedonia" are quite defining by themselves.
I have no intention of going against either "Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" residents/citizens or Greeks as I consider them both good friends. I just think that this needs to be solved better. The current poll polarizes them into camps while a satisfactory solution can be found. Maybe something like starting with "Republic of Macedonia"... is a country situated in the north-west part of Macedonia region spanning Greece, ... Have fun figuring it out.
The name FYROM is the result of a UN approved interim agreement between two friendly neighbours and accepted by the international community. Like good friends who know they have much in common, they both compromised at the UN: the RoM accepted that its constitutional name would change, and Greece accepted that its neighbour will use the term 'Makedonija' in its eventual composit name. If only more nations had been a fraction as civilised as that of the two countries... Thank you, efharisto and blagodaram. - Politis16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the options above, and a great many comments, are just factually wrong. We keep hearing the U.N. adopted a a name for this country, or even that this country agreed in its admission to the U.N. to be named such and so. Please read carefully the actual U.N. resolution. Here it is:
Admission of the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Having received the recommendation of the Security Council of 7 April 1993 that the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 should be admitted to membership in the United Nations,
Having considered the application for membership contained in document A/47/876-S/25147,
Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, this State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.
Note how careful the resolution is to avoid naming the country at all. It is certainly not imposing some new name on the country but introducing a phrase so diplomats can refer to the country without naming it. The article section on the naming dispute was crafted carefully to reflect this. The wording that has been repeatedly pushed into the lead, and the wording in the protected version now, is just factually wrong. Jonathunder17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the CIA World Factbook it was internationally recognised under the provisional designation of the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (including capital letters). Also, see Encarta. The protected version does not mention a name change, it should say that it is refered to as FYROM due to the naming dispute. It is a provisional way of refering to the country and is notable enough to be mentioned. Furthermore, please see all recognitions of international organizations at my complete statement above in point Fourth. Factuality incorrect option claims are therefore inappropriate. NikoSilver(T)@(C)18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never rely on secondary sources when the primary source is available. You have the primary source directly above, and it says exactly what it says, lower case included. Jonathunder18:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be the first time I've seen the CIA factbook get a detail wrong, and certainly not the first for Encarta. Neither are primary sources. Jonathunder20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want to stick to the CIA world factbook, the article title should be simply Macedonia - not Republic of Macedonia (and certainly not FYROM as suggested in some options by the same users advocating the supermacy of the CIA world factbook). It is clear that some users have double standards - wanting to "use" this source only for the things they like and are avioding mentioning the things (from the same source) that they dont like. --Dipazi22:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look. It's quite the opposite. The point is, that even while US has rushed to recognize the country as RoM (or plain M), their CIA factbook states BOTH names in the first paragraph, AND uses the capital F (for which I don't care actually). Not to mention that US has declared that they will adopt ANY name that will arise from the bilateral talks between Greece and FYROM. So, in view of this, even the name RoM is provisional. I'll be glad to answer any other question you may have, but please read the extended version position first. NikoSilver(T)@(C)23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple - you want to use something from a source claiming that it is important and reliable source. Then you dismiss other info from the same source (and your brilliant explanation is because in your POV, US has rushed to recognize the country as Republic of Macedonia). What has that to do with anything. It is very simple - you can't just pick the things you like from the CIA factbook and dismiss the ones that you don't like. I must say your last comment is very obviously inconsistant and transparent in its double-standards. --Dipazi00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your comment that "US has declared that they will adopt ANY name that will arise from the bilateral talks". It came attached to the recognition of the constitutional name of Macedonia. Don't you find it a bit ironic? It's obviously a painkiller pill for greek nationalists. But if you want to belive it it's OK with me. However you made a misteke because they recognized the constitutional name and couldn't have used FYROM but Republic of Macedonia ;) --Dipazi00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why was it repeated by Condolezza Rice in the last visit of the Greek Foreign Minister in US, 10 days ago? Fmore, why don't you try to respond to Avg below regarding the RoM name not being a "name" legally as well (instead of making intimidating comments about his arguements)? NikoSilver(T)@(C)11:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard something else about the meeting. Please provide some source about this alleged statement. Otherwise I must conclude that you are making things up. And concerning your POV that Republic of Macedonia is not legally a name also - you are wrong. The legal name of any country is defined in the constitution of that particular country, not by nationalist hot-head bullies in an neighbouring county. --Realek11:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here's a source for you, which says: "and is ready to accept any outcome that will result from the negotiations". It was all over the news here. As for your second comment, I guess you are right in that too: You are free to call your country Macedonia, and while you are at it, call it also Balkania, why not even Europe, or World. I mean, if you're free to choose whatever you like, and that's legal, then aim for the biggest!!! NikoSilver(T)@(C)12:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should report the fact "Republic of Macedonia" is given as the legal name in the state's constitution. It should not report "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was adopted as a name because that just isn't true. Jonathunder18:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be legally precise tell me if you would prefer the intro to not have a name at all. Because, internationally this country does not have a name and for convenience purposes it is referred to as FYROM. RoM is not recognised internationally, it is a name used internally and only in (some) bilateral relations. The closest thing to a name after a consensus is FYROM and definitely the only NPOV choice here. --Avg00:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done mate! Guess what, I'm neither nationalist nor vegetarian. If I may suggest something, you should refrain from accusing people for things they are not and also educate yourself about the issues you stick your nose into. --Avg21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sophomoric reasoning: Sophomoric reasoning is rationalizing about what one understands poorly. It's often apologetics (starting with a conclusion). Though not highly regarded, it's superior to parroting aphorisms. If one's understanding is below freshman level, sophomoric reasoning may seem a desirable achievement. Nonetheless it shouldn't be regarded as an educational achievement. --Avg21:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This line of debate has become entirely focused on the opponent and not on illuminating the issue. I suggest it end here. Jonathunder21:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Does the country formally use the term FYROM itself? If not, I propose changing the term "adopted" to "accepted" - since it has accepted others to use it, but doesn't actively use it itself. AucamanTalk18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a formal name and yes it does use it in all international organisations. I agree that it didn't want to use it at first, but this provisional name is the result of lengthy talks. People who continuously refer to FYROM as Greek POV forget that Greece did not want FYROM to have the word Macedonia AT ALL in its name, but it finally agreed to the UN solution, just as FYROM did. --Avg18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, It is not a name at all - it is a reference. Avg, legally the difference is huge. Furthermore it is a temporary reference and its date of expiry legally has passed (In 2003 i think). So even the reference has lost its validity (and this is reflected by the trend in the number of countries that recognize the constitutional name). By august 2005 (sorry I don't have a more recent information), 112 countries have recognized Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name. That's out of 143 countries with wich Republic of Macedonia has established diplomatic relations. --Dipazi23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want to be legally precise, let's be precise. Let's see what is the legal status of FYROM: From 1992 until now, your country does not have a name! In order to bypass the naming dispute and enter the UN (and subsequently all other international organisations), it was decided that UN should refer to your country as FYROM but will not recognize any name at all until the dispute is resolved. This was a provisional solution that could not last for long. Let me admit once again that FYROM is a parody of a name. UN hoped that in the years to come we would have found a solution. Unfortunately this didn't happen. And yes time is with your side, because other countries having to decide between 1) no name at all 2) the parody of FYROM and 3) your self-proclaimed name, find easier to choose the latter. But they also stress that the name they recognise you is only for the bilateral relations and it does not apply to how they refer to you in all international fora. So, to conclude, from an international viewpoint, you don't have a name at all, but for all purposes you are referred to as FYROM. You call yourselves Republic of Macedonia and countries establish bilateral relations with you as such. These are the facts. You seem to ignore completely international organisations and base your decision solely on bilateral relations and you incorporate that to option #1. If we were to impose a solution to you there would be no mention of "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonia". We would say (and let me tell you that this is what I believe and I think a lot of others too), that bilateral relations mean nothing in front of international recognition. There is an hierarchy that goes international > bilateral. But still, have we forced this opinion to you? Have we even proposed it? Show me one option from the other 8 that does not present BOTH international and bilateral appelations.--Avg00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you made any valid points in your last comment, so I won't bother discussing about it. I just want to clear something about your "international > bilateral" hierarcy teory. There is no such thing as "international recognitiona" in international law. Also there is no such thing as an "International organisation for recognizing countries and countries names". Recognition of countries is purely bilateral matter. There is no international entity responsible for recognition of countries. The way you put it, all those countries that recognized Republic of Macedonia under that name have severely broken international law. --Dipazi01:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a very simple question. Does the Republic of Macedonia use the term FYROM itself? If yes, provide some evidence. If no, then it's incorrect to say the country has "adopted" the name. You can say the name is used by the UN, EU, and NATO, but that's not the same as saying the country has adopted the name. AucamanTalk19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Republic of Macedonia never uses the refference itself. All the official documents contain the constitutional name only. The usage of the refference is only one-way from parties that haven't recognized the constitutional name. --Realek22:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and my answer was a little bit irrelevant, I must admit, but I was on my way out, and I didn't read your q. v.well. So, the answer is, it has been adopted by the country, but only officially and for a specific reason: in order to enter the UN (because they had to, immediately). I wouldn't mind skipping the "adopted" verb, but you certainly cannot replace it with "forced", because that would imply that Greece wanted the name FYROM, which is not true because of the "M" in the end (Greek official position is: no Macedonia in the title at all). So Greece's position, now, could be the same: No FYROM in the title. Maybe the verb "accepted" (along with Greece) is more accurate. NikoSilver(T)@(C)21:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improved poll needed
As Nikosilver stated above, this poll doesn't present the options very well. We are trying to find the most acceptable combination of several binary questions, and it would be better to vote on each of those options, and then combine the results into the opening paragraph. For example, each of the following options could be followed by support/oppose votes:
Shall the opening paragraph begin with "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"?
Shall the opening paragraph refer to the term FYROM?
Shall the opening paragraph state that this country has adopted the term FYROM as a formal title, or alternatively, state that many nations and international organizations refer to it as FYROM?
It may be, as stated above, that the current plethora of options are slanted to one or the other of the camps here (divided over whether the most prominent name is FYROM). But the poll is bad enough without that. I am going to abstain. This poll should be discarded and a new one started. --Yath18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea. Currently, there are two issues of uneven importance addressed in the poll. One is whether the name FYROM should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and the other is the exact phrasing of the paragraph. Let's have a consensus on the former (no pun intended) and then we can proceed to the latter.--Avg19:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the way I see it is not a matter of nationalism, although it may be for some people. There are clearly two regions called Macedonia, which is the subject of the dispuate, so it might be better if the dablink at the top was accomodated for this. Something like:
This article is about the country of Europe. For the region in Greece, see Macedonia (region). For other uses, see Macedonia
This might be undue weight (I don't know how important this issue really is) but it does clear up the confusion very simply. It avoids stating anything outright, merely arouses the curiousity of the reader to learn more about the issue.
This dablink is meant to replace the sentence "Formally known as FYROM", which may be too much of an emphasis in the intro. -- infinity019:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the dablink should be added, but I don't think any reference to "FYROM" should be removed. It looks like some international organizations use the term and this deserves to be mentioned. AucamanTalk19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how important that name is. Is it the official name, such as "People's Republic of China"? If only some organisations use it, then it probably shouldn't go in the intro. The article says the name is losing usage. -- infinity019:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The FYROM name has not lost usage. That is definitely POV of the author. It is still how the country is referred to each and every international organisation. However, in bilateral relations, there are more countries than some years ago that have recognised FYROM with the name Republic of Macedonia. There is a debate whether these countries are now the majority of the total number of countries, but no definitive source has been presented on that. --Avg19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not, unless it is refered negatively. They even sent some 200.000 protesting postcards to EU, saying "Don't FYROM me!". In the other Macedonia, though we have some 3 million people calling them "Skopians" (from their capital city), along with the rest of the Greeks. The most complicated part of this deal, is that neither do Greeks want the name FYROM for the country (cause of the M in the end -official Greek position is: No Macedonia in the title). So, we've passed now to the next stage, which is Greeks in WP asking for the insulting compromise name, rather than their country's official position... NikoSilver(T)@(C)23:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In intro #2 (and most of the other intros) the FYROM sentence takes up 1/3 of the whole intro. That would seem to be undue weight. It's probably better removed. Either that, or pad the intro out with other stuff. -- infinity020:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to change your opinion, but if it is based solely on that, how about intro #8 then? The weight of both names is equal and about half a line.--Avg21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a half-half thing, though. From what I've read the name is only actually used very occasionally and it seems - eg. from articles such as [6] - that nobody takes it seriously. If it is put into the intro at all, I would say maybe 1/10 or less of the intro should be used to deal with this issue. -- infinity021:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, every site that ends with .mk comes from FYROM. It's biased. Also same thing with every site that ends with .gr. It comes from Greece, it's also biased. Unfortunately, most sites about this issue serve propaganda for either sides. Concerning what you said, FYROM is as official as it can get. Ask directly the FYROMians here: Is it the name that this country uses in EVERY international organisation or not? It's a simple yes or no answer. --Avg21:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avg. let me clear some things:
First of all there is no such thing as FYROMians. It is very rude and insulting by you to try to impose a name of an ethnic group based on a 1.silly 2.temporary(already expired) 3.coined refference to their county
Furthermore this abbreviation (FYROM) was never legaly existant (show me any UN document where this abbrevation was used)
Finally, you are disinformed. The country never uses any other name than the constitutional name -Republic of Macedonia
Would you prefer nonameians? (which is indeed rude but in a strange sense, more legally accurate). Well, you are not Macedonians! You stole the name from Greek history and you expect Greeks to refer to you as Macedonians? Never such a thing will happen. Macedonians for us are the inhabitants of the Northern region of Greece. This is who we call Macedonians in every day speech. But let's say that we expand the characterisation Macedonians to all the inhabitants of the ancient reason of Macedonia, even if they came to the area hundreds of years later, and decide to include you as well and call you with the same name. How can we accept that you consider that Greeks cannot be Macedonians(!) and only you are the rightful bearers of this name! You even fabricate DNA tests to prove that Greeks are irrelevant to Macedonians! So what you are asking is that Greeks start calling you Macedonians instead of their own people? That's one of the most absurd things I can imagine of.
I think you are trying to step on a technicality here (which we also discussed elsewhere in this talk page). Although it is not a name per se, UN refers to you solely as FYROM. It also says that you do not have a name at all. Would you prefer the latter?
Oh really? What does your seat in the UN say? What was your country's tag at the Olympic Games? Under what name you join NATO exercises? What name do you use in EU-FYROM relations? These are usages of FYROM. You do use it. You don't like it, that's another story. We don't like it either, but we do try to be reasonable. --Avg00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avg, I will not be dragged into further pointless exchanges with you. I think enough has been said for any reasonable and neutral person to make his mind on the speccific subject. I leave your comments to be the best testimony for greek views on the matter. --Dipazi00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that it's enough. On a lighter note, whoever neutral person reads the whole page is a hero :-)--Avg01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearing up some things
After reading the whole discussion and seen the users' comments i found some things worth commenting:
First of all, i wanna say that it seems that there are far too many variations of the extended version. this leads to a sort of dividing the votes between them, something not good for the poll as a whole. I am not asking to have a poll like the Olympic Committe (voting again and again, by ommiting the version with the least votes), but somethings must be done about it.
A reply to Aucaman: this country has adopted the name (maybe passively adopted it), since they are using this (lets say) title in all that have to do with their EU candidancy, the UN etc. i do not find any actual difference between 'adopted' and 'accepted' in this case... if someone uses the name 'FYROM' for them and ithey accept been calling themselves like that and use it themselves (in many cases), then they have adopted it.
A comment for those who see the naming dispute as 'ridiculous': (greek perspective->)it is not only the name, but also what this name implies: history, territory, et cetera. and i am 100% sure that these users would act the same way (if not more loudly) if that happened to their country. --Hectorian21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and i am 100% sure that these users would act the same way (if not more loudly) if that happened to their country. — no, because I'm not a nationalist. By the way, don't get me wrong, I don't see this as a greek perspective, I see it as a greek nationalist perspective. There is a difference, I know several anti-nationalist greeks who think the whole thing is absurd too. - FrancisTyers22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what u think FrancisTyers? u are calling me nationalist?! Do me a favour and visit the pages of the users from FYROM...u will see templates writing 'this user comes from Macedonia' with a link to ancient Macedon, and also maps which show the Greek Macedonia as theirs. then come back and lecture me about been a nationalist... --Hectorian22:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorian! The Macedonian users are mostly nationalists too! You know what cracks me up — makes me laugh out loud — that they don't have bg-3 or bg-4 in their Babel boxes, if they weren't nationalists they would have. Its completely absurd. I think their crazy nationalist claims are ridiculous too, not just yours! - FrancisTyers22:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm not calling you anything. I'm certainly not attacking you, I'm sure you're a cool person. I find I tend to get along quite well with greeks actually... - FrancisTyers22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point and sorry for my aggressive editting before. but allow me to say that if i were as nationalist as them, i would have userboxes saying 'this user supports the rivival of the Byzantine Empire', or 'this user comes from the Hellenistic World (region)' (:p) and then give a brief history lecture according to my POV... --Hectorian22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this is not the point. This poll is wrong. It should be restarted and the question should be what we are arguing over: should the designation former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia be mentioned in the first paragraph? I have said why it should above, Bitola has said it shouldn't because it violates some alleged past compromise and has also given other reasons here. The poll should be restarted and the users can vote yesorno. Note that I am saying this, while it is currently evident that the brief version is behind in votes.
Is this a legitimate poll? We cannot work with plurality and we cannot vote on content in Wikipedia in such a way. --dcabrilo16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
This poll is wholly legitimate, no more or less so than other options noted, and is precisely what Wikipedians make of it. Approval voting is a common voting method in Wp that entails selective – even strategic – voting by (hopefully) informed Wikipedians to identify one or few options that are workable. With fewer options, a consensus may result; with more options, the one that garners a clear plurality ("first-past-the-post") prevails. Moreover, to provide focus and limit extraneous assumptions/digressions (e.g., picking the article apart, which is a function of normal editing), the poll is limited to the issue of the incipient debate: the rendition of 'FYROM' (or not) in this article's introduction. Specific examples – the ones of primary contention – are provided for clear decision-making. During the poll, Wikipedians propose options at their own advantage or peril and others vote on them (or not); throughout, discussion occurs and, arguably, ad nauseum.
Conditions of the poll are clearly indicated upfront. This poll was reviewed by at least four Wikipedians beforehand, involved and not in this debate. Since its inception, more than a dozen Wikipedians have provided worthwhile input and – even now (without making premature judgements) – Option #2 seems to be garnering a clear plurality. And once the poll is concluded, I will have a neutral Wp bureaucrat review the results (note I've had prior experience in conducting similar votes in Wp; details available upon request). Perhaps Wikipedians should be more judicious in commenting or in proposing/choosing options that fundamentally differ little from ones presented (i.e., those who propose said options split the vote and are making their own bed); given this, Wikipedians should reconsider or even recant their support of a plethora of options in favour of few. In any event, I see little reason to forego progress to date just because some have chosen to let discussions run amok and the poll is now not fully to their liking. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to question the legitimacy of the poll, I agree with Nikosilver that the poll does not present the options very well (and I can easily see quite a few reasonable alternatives beyond those already given). I also agree in principle with Hectorian's first objection above. More precisely, suppose that Option #1 gets 49% of the votes, and the rest 51%. Then #1 has the plurality. But it is the only one not mentioning the dreaded designation "F... Y... Republic" etc. All the others have it. So each side has a "legitimate" claim of having won this highly contentious issue.
Now suppose, somewhat theoretically, that somehow the consensus emerges that Option #1 has lost. But the voters for Option #1, almost half, have lost the opportunity to give any further guidance which of #1 #2 through #99 they prefer.
I'm too lazy to select the alternative that best corresponds to what I think is best if any such is present, or else to formulate it as an option, but in case someone wants to listen here are my two drachmes.
(1) Omit "or simply Macedonia," in the intro. It is mentioned prominently later under "Naming dispute", and that is good enough. But that section should also briefly explain why the name "Macedonia" is (even more) problematic to Greece. (2) Include a mention of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but qualify with: "for use in international relations". The choice between "accepted" and "adopted" is in my humble opinion irrelevant. Details about how, why, when and inasmuch as what can again be presented in a neutral way under "Naming dispute". That's it. LambiamTalk01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback is noted, but there are too many 'theoretical' if, ands, and buts involved in these lines of reasoning. I can just as easily contemplate variants of Option #1, for example, that differ from it in meaning. Each of the voting options are specific and discrete: legitimate consensus or plurality is gauged on that basis, not on vague and variably defined pro/con options in toto. Wikipedians have to judge for themselves which of these options to vote for and propose, which ones not to, and do so at their own advantage and peril – that's the nature of approval voting. Essentially, the poll is fine: it's voter behaviour that needs to be scrutinised or modified. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have pointed out the problems with the poll, and suggested better one. It does little good to reply that the current one doesn't break any rules. Due to its poor construction, it won't do much to achieve consensus, and after the winner is placed in the article, the edit wars and locking will continue. And forgive me for nit-picking, but calling Lambian's statement "feedback" sounds a bit like he's petitioning someone in a place of higher authority, which [s]he isn't. --Yath07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And even more people, including some of those who contest the current poll, have chosen one or more options in it or proposed more. Take it up with them. Moreover, said proposals – in lieu of the current poll – would do little to solve the issue and "better" is just a particular point-of-view: for example, we are dealing with at least four possible terms in the intro (Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, FYROM, and spellout, not including Skopje and other constructs) – if my math is correct, this will yield at least 24 possible combinations (not including variations) and would cause even more problems. Otherwise, I defer to my prior reply. And as for your other opinions/feedback, no comment. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 24 combinations, it's just THREE separate, consecutive votes. Read my comment below (earlier posted). Fmore, I see some 4-5 people claiming the same thing, so I guess we have one of these... "consensa"!!! I am saying this while option #1, which is the only one you voted for, is still much behind in votes. Do you think we could add as option #10, to cancel this poll and proceed on the three separate consecutive ones? NikoSilver(T)@(C)14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the above and disagree with it. I'm actually stupefied as to what the problem is herein: options are available, people vote, propose more (or not) ... as per the poll, one option – the one with a consensus (possible with fewer options) or plurality of support – will prevail. I'm unconcerned with whether the option I've selected will prevail, particularly if a renewed consensus or plurality supports another – that's the point. The above three options are wholly vague ... not only do they not provide for shades of grey but are not the only three: what should the ordering be, should we use name/title/appellation (all of which differ), legal/official, UN/other/not? Simple: obviate that and present clear, discrete options. And if your position is solidified through this poll – and it might be, time will tell – then propose a renaming after that. Some would like to cancel the vote, 4-5 dissenters want to change it ... most do not have a problem with it – these are not reasons to forego eveything to this point. And beyond this I can't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I won't elaborate. We've both made our points, just keep in mind that the solidification would be much more consensual if the vote difference were much greater. I wouldn't want the new much more solid and NPOV consensus to be disputed by anyone else in future, and I would expect your support in maintaining it, much more energetically than you did with the previous one. NikoSilver(T)@(C)15:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Remember that I did not initiate the recent maelstrom, having fully commented judiciously throughout it and previously, and helped to barter the prior agreeable arrangement ... so I'd proceed with caution before making any accusations regarding one's positioning with this or that. To use an adage: discretion is the better part of valour. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody accused you of anything. I remember you also reverting the article in favor of my supported version. You have absolutely no reason to be itchy about it, apart maybe from my stressed tone, which I hope you will excuse. :-) NikoSilver(T)@(C)15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should first vote on name of the article. Then, taking that into account, vote on intro paragraph. And finally, taking both of these into account on the existence of Naming dispute section summary. Otherwise the votes are split between similar solutions, and the result may be much different than the intentions of the voters themselves.NikoSilver(T)@(C)10:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing factually wrong with any of the multiple proposals above, except the ones that claim or imply that the people and institutions of Macedonia herself use the FYROM acronym in formal or informal discourse. I think it should be stated more unequivocally that FYROM is used in external (diplomatic) contexts and perhaps also worth a mention is the fact that the UN lists the state under the letter T because, in UN terminology, the entity is invariably referred to as The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia[7]. Similarly, Moldova and South Korea are listed under the letter R for Republic of Moldova and Republic of Korea, respectively, and the two non-sovereign Palestinian territorial units are lister together under the letter O for Occupied Palestinian Territory. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS|14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought UN was multilingual. In e.g. French that would be under the letter La Republique Ex-Yugoslave de Macedoine? Just kidding, but I wanted to stress that the reader will not benefit from such technicalities as articles, small-case/capitals e.t.c., to which I am sure Adamsky agrees! NikoSilver(T)@(C)15:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This Poll is ridiculous. Nine choices? You've got to be kidding me. One option can win with 12% of the vote. That's concensus? In any case, here's my 2-cents: the only reason half the world has even heard about Macedonia or ROM or FYROM or fYROM or TheartistformerlyknownasPrince is because of this naming controversy. Not including its UN name "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the first paragraph would be ignoring the single most interesting thing about the country.--DaveOinSF20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your 2 cents is perhaps the best insight I have read on this page. Somebody get this man a drink. Yes, the naming dispute has brought this Balkan nation to the attention of people who otherwise would not have noticed the country; so I also agree it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. It is the big deal going on here. Alexander 00720:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although perhaps not the most politic way to phrase it, your point is well taken. It can easily be argued that the naming dispute is the most widely known fact about the nation and thus deserves prominent mention in the introduction. I haven't been involved in this discussion, but I have been following it and I think that any choice that takes the importance of the naming dispute into account, is factually correct, and doesn't unnecessarily offend anyone (it seems some people find the whole question offensive enough) will be a good one. <nowiki></nowiki> — [[User:Akohler|Akohler]] | [[User talk:Akohler|Talk]] 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimacy of poll and comments here
I would like to also express some concern about this "polling as solution" approach. It seems to me to be setting the cart before the horse. Ideally, we should write a brilliant encyclopedic article about our subject, and the WP:LEAD should be a concise summary of that article. I am especially concerned about the idea that a vote could be understood as some sort of indefinite editorially-binding prohibition against mentioning the common alternate names for the subject of an article in the lead. Feel free to interpret my response as support for option number two, and, further, it can be assumed that I support any edit of User:ChrisO's in the future if this situation comes up again.
I'd also like to ask contributors here, once again, to reduce the amount of speculation about other editor's motives and the labelling of other editor's suspected political views. It isn't helpful. Jkelly22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I almost missed that comment here. You are absolutely right. In fact, your arguements are common to my First and Second points and more specifically to WP:CON#Consensus vs. other policies, when I was desperately trying to dispute the previous "consensus" of ...5 editors. Thankfully, the poll result so far seems to agree with your position (and mine). We know that WP "is not a majoritarian democracy", but it seems that its users indeed are good judges and voters. Personally, I invited in this poll, mostly users at random, from previous talks/edits I'd been, and (not to my surprise) most of them favored my position. My point is, that sometimesend justifies the means. The end in this case, was an NPOV intro; and the means (quite unorthodoxically) is this poll. I've been through hell to pass this NPOV view, I'd even messaged ChrisO for that when I saw his attempts too, BUT, without all you guys here voting, I wouldn't have a chance. Thank you, and let this be an example of how Democracy and Objectivity may not neccessarily be opposed. I just hope I am not jumping into conclusions... NikoSilver(T)@(C)23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Jkelly: idealism must be balanced with pragmatism. To extend your metaphor: the horse was on its last legs and being kicked to death. ;) Lengthy, ongoing discussions were (IMO) going nowhere previously and (obviating any semblence of constructivism) concomitant edit warring resulted in an article edit block which remains to this day. In the hopes of ending – or at least mitigating – the current stalemate, I was bold and initiated a poll (reviewed by a number of editors beforehand) where additional discourse has occurred and which will likely be decisive any which way, allowing us to again edit and enhance the article. And other polling options, IMO, would have been more problematic since they do not allow for nuances which, arguably, are at the root of this debate. Given all this, I'm unsure another course of action was available and believe the current course of action to have been correct. If wishes were horses, however ... :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
bored beyond belief
Some months ago we were told that the terms Slavomacedonians or Macedonian Slavs are offensive terms (yet they are used in .mk in "not offensive" contexts). Now we are told by Jonathunder that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not a name, but "Republic of Macedonia" is a name. And we have a poll on whether the long name and the fYRoM will be mentioned. What will be next? AfD the redirects like FYROM and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? Why some things that are basic WP procedure in other articles (like using a redirect and then having a bot disambiguating it to the "correct" article) should be so difficult in Balkanian articles? talk to+MATIA06:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why some things that are basic diplomatic procedure in other cases (recognizing a country's name without interference from a neighbour) should be so difficult in Balkanian articles??? --Realek07:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Wikipedia we now use the globally accepted definition of the country, Republic of Macedonia, and not by the out-of-date name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Whatever you say won't change the fact and absolutely not the articles name! Albanau10:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody wants to change the article's name, read what the dispute is about before adapting your anti-greek stance. Miskin10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They take it one step at they time. At first, they try to persuade everybody that the neutral POV is offensive to them and the "actual" neutral POV is their POV. When they succeed that, they attack the (now) neutral POV (x-FYROM POV) and consider this offensive and they try to change it with the new, more hardline, FYROM POV. That's the kind of Goebbelist propaganda we have been experiencing from our northern neighbours during the last decades. Through heavy propaganda and lies, lies, lies they think at some point people will start to believe it and consider it as a given (and some uninformed people actually do). At first we were told Macedonia is just a geographical term, then they created a nation from nowhere, then they speak about enslaved Macedonia, then they deny that anything Greek is Macedonian, then they forget the agreements they themselves signed, then they present themselves as the poor and opressed people by the "bully" Greece! This is truly mind-blowing propaganda that can result in a stroke. We hoped truth will prevail, but it doesn't. They simply won't let it. So we have to do something about it. --Avg10:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement drive template off article
If I understand correctly, the Improvement Drive template should only be in the talk page, and not be on the article page. Could somebody fix that? --GunnarRene11:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the following is a good depiction of what actually is going on:
FYROM POV--------------------NPOV--------------------Greek POV
Name 1: "Republic of Macedonia"----------------------------------------|
Name 2: |-----------------------"FYROM"----------------------|
Name 3: |--------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"
Current debate: |------area of debate------|-------------------------|
So you can see above, while fyromians are unshaken in their position, Greeks have already shifted from their position for the sake of compromise, and they are only supporting the NPOV! So the whole debate is whether this article will have a pinch of objectivity or will be 100% fyromian POV! This is where we are.--Avg15:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|-NM POV-------M POV------NPOV------G POV-----NG POV-------UNG POV---------|
Name 1: |------"Republic of Macedonia"---------------------------------------------|
Name 2: |---------------------------------------------"FYROM"----------------------|
Name 3: |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"|
Current debate: |----------------------------area of debate------|-------------------------|
NM: Nationalist Macedonian (incl. Ultra-nationalist Macedonians)
M: Macedonian
G: Greek
NG: Nationalist Greek
UNG: Ultra-nationalist Greek
You so almost had it right!!! I hope this clears it up. Non-nationalist Greeks don't care either way. Nationalist Macedonians are fearsomely pro-"Republic of Macedonia", as are Ultra-nationalist Macedonians. Nationalist Greeks want to interfere with what another group of people calls their country, and Ultra-nationalist Greeks want to do it in a more offensive manner! The NPOV is to call them what they call themselves. Sorry chaps, I couldn't resist, your fruity little diagram made me laugh! - FrancisTyers17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a segue, I'd actually reckon that this entire debate spans the entire spectrum and the poll allows for that through the addition of options. Though geared towards the FYROM issue (since that was the incipient debate leading to the current lock), the fact that no options have been proposed noting "Republic of/Skopje" (or similar) as part of the introduction – or, conversely, no extra terms at all – is not a symptom of the poll or debate (it actually validates the current approach as being appropriate) but would be more revealing about the prevalence of various points of view. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My wiki-stalker is back with a vengeance and even more ignorance:-) Well, this is just to inform you that "Republic of Skopje" is how all (except guess who, the REAL nationalists, not those that your mind labels) Greeks refer to FYROM, and that is including the government, the press, the media, etc etc. Just for you to finally acquire a perspective, the Greek nationalist name of FYROM is "kratidio ton Skopion"=("the statelet of Skopje"), because the nationalists do not even recognise its existence as a fully-fledged state, and ultra-nationalists refer to fyromians as "bulgar-skopjans" or "gypsy-skopjans" (both terms derogatory and I do NOT adopt them). And is it that difficult for you to understand that FYROM POV and NPOV cannot be the same as you put in your diagram? --Avg17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because you are so moderate you only use names like fyromians, nonameans and vardarians (all starting with a small letter to further expose your intentions), adding to an alredy big Greek arsenal of insulting terms for Macedonians eg Skopians, Slavomacedonians, Bulgaromacedonians etc. --Realek17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only use the term Fyromians (and the lower case is not derogatory, just fast typing). I have NEVER used Vardarians and I have only once used nonameans (a term that I do not condone, which I specifically mentioned beside the term) exactly to depict what is your actual legal status. Now, let me stress as emphatically as I can that the term Macedonians used by your people is an insult to Greeks. It is not the place to elaborate on that, but I guess everybody knows that Greeks believe that you stole this name from us. So of course no greek will ever call you macedonians, so they try to be POLITE with you by calling you slavomacedonians and you consider that an insult?--Avg18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close again, but "bulgar-skopjans" or "gypsy-spopjans" is used by hyper-nationalists (I've fortunately yet to meet any — but I guess they're probably the kind of guys who do the anti-semitic grafitti and call Albanians sub-human). Sadly, like many Balkan countries, a large proportion of the population of Greece can be described as ultra-nationalist :( By the way, I've created a nationalist test you might like to take it :) Comments on the talk page! :) - FrancisTyers17:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't FYROM POV be the same as NPOV? We call the Jews "Jewish people" just like they do, and not "Kikes" or "Subhuman scum" like the anti-semites do. Same goes for most nations and ethnicities... - FrancisTyers17:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis please this is getting tiring, you clearly do not understand this issue. These guys invented their name 60 years ago! Yes it IS that absurd! Look where we've arrived, to be characterised as nationalists simply because we object to the theft of our identity. I've already told you, I'm not a nationalist, I'm offended if you brand me a nationalist ok? I HATE nationalism and all similar -isms. --Avg18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing that there are people who belive that a nation was invetned and then imposed overnight onto the Bulgarians in then Socialist Republic of Macedonia. And ofcourse theese "Bulgarians" lost any recollection of what happened. But isn't it strange that Greece didn't object to this at all until 1991??? --Realek18:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not again... we've been through that countless times. Either check the talk archives or a Greek POV site, all your questions have been answered thoroughly.--Avg18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, I couldn't help myself adding ontop of your diagram, the ones that use those names:
|--------The Republic--------|---UN-EU-NATO-IMF-EBRD---|----Greek Govt-----|
|---Some (many) countries----|-----------Other(fewer)countries-------------|
|-NM POV-------M POV------NPOV------G POV-----NG POV-------UNG POV---------|
Name 1: |------"Republic of Macedonia"---------------------------------------------|
Name 2: |---------------------------------------------"FYROM"----------------------|
Name 3: |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"|
Current debate: |----------------------------area of debate------|-------------------------|
NM: Nationalist Macedonian (incl. Ultra-nationalist Macedonians)
M: Macedonian
G: Greek
NG: Nationalist Greek
UNG: Ultra-nationalist Greek
Now please compare the first three lines of the sketch. That would mean, according to your sketch, the following:
The Greek Government is Ultra Nationalist (ok that may not be impossible)
All international organizations have adopted the Greek nationalistic POV, hence they are Greek nationalists, or ruled by Greek nationalists, or take Greek nationalists seriously. Gee! It looks like we're ruling the whole world! I must be proud!
Some countries ("Other") are also Greek nationalists. Those countries are colonies of Greece?
The Republic is NPOV for utilising (monopolizing) a name that is clearly highly connected (the verb is very moderate) to the Greek historical background. (Not to mention claims about Alexander the Great etc). Very NPOV!
Maybe you should think it over and redraw it. Please check my userpage to see a userbox that describes what most Greeks would call a very moderate approach, that borders with treason. NikoSilver(T)@(C)18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I admire people for supporting their views. The ultimate admiration I express to those who have the capacity to change them and apologise. NikoSilver(T)@(C)21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why can there not simply be a poll on whether the first word you read on the page is FYROM or Republic of Macedonia. Is that not logical? Then we can go into specifics later when we have agreed the basics. The Poll is convoluted with slightly different options, some meaningless. The Poll is over analytical, cryptic and confused - almost as if the confusion was created so no serious change can take place. Reaper721:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. R: because it's not that simple: as above, then we get into any number of permutations: one, any, or all of FYROM, spellout, Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, even Skopje, Republic of Skopje ... then what order? And how should they be rendered: name and title? And then after that? There is currently no consistent rendition for country article introductions prescribed in the country wikiproject (though one is being proposed.) This poll initiated with two options that were at the root of recent edit warring. Each of the various options blend all of these notions and have varying measures of some support; being specific also delimits us from having to consider every possible option and opine excessively. Even amidst these discussions, numerous options (and one in particular) seem to be more agreeable than others. Any trends, until the poll's conclusion, and the preferred option will be self-evident. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read so much nonsense and so many nationalistic stupidities in my life! Do you people really think you have the knowledge and intellectual capacity to write encyclopedia articles, when you state that your preferred source is the CIA World Factbook??? Are you all schoolchildren here? The UN situation with the name is quite clear, and the Greek POV is pretending that there is some international agreement about the name of Macedonia. THIS IS A GREEK LIE AND IS QUITE OUTRAGEOUS. 87.202.17.21 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this dispute is quite outrageous. The state calls itself the Republic of Macedonia and that is its own right. Wikipedia should follow that name, and that name only. Of course, prominent mentions of the situation and other names should be made in the first paragraph, like now. But I don't see why Greeks are so upset over this. The Republic of Moldova represents less than half of the population of the historical region of Moldavia ("Moldova" in Romanian) and yet Romanians have never sought to get it to change its name to『Republic of Chişinău』or the like. I think it's time to live with it. And where did this ludicrous name of Fyromians come from? I believe the correct name is Macedonian Slavs. Ronline✉11:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't know that. After the breakup of Yugoslavia and the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, thery just couldn't ignore Greek Macedonia (51% of the Macedonian region). They used symbols from Greek Macedonia, such as the White Tower of Thessaloniki and the Vergina Sun, they published maps showing the Republic of Macedonia annexing large chunks of land from Greece and Bulgaria extending rights down to the Aegean Sea and in their first constitution, they had written something about a "union" of Macedonians abroad. Greece, out of precaution for territorial integrity, imposed an economic blockade and in 1995 it was agreed that the flag and symbols would be changed and the offending (what Greece saw as land claims) were removed and the temporary name FYROM was devised until the whole thing could be solved. What Greece wants is security for its northern provinces and to maintain its territorial integrity. While FYROM has renounced all claims to Greece and Bulgaria, annexing the whole region still remains part of their nationalist mythology and they believe that they have some right to it. The fact that these regions are predominantly populated by Greeks and Bulgarians does not seem to be an obstacle. To answer your other question, no, Romania has not sought to change the name of the Republic of Moldova. They have gone much further than that; they have sought to annex it!
Romania has not sought to annex Moldova outside of a few nationalist union movements. In any case, unlike the Macedonian-Greek case, the Moldovans are very similar, if not identical, to ethnic Romanians. What I was pointing out, however, is that Romania is OK with having the Republic of Moldova as a sovereign state under a name that is as much Romanian as it is Moldovan. In my opinion, the Republic of Macedonia is a progressive state that has a very good record of nationality rights (minority rights are probably the best in the region). The fact that some nationalist Macedonians still see Greek Macedonia as part of the Republic can't be used as an excuse for Greek not recognising the self-identification of this state. In the context of the European Union - and Greek veto power over accession - I find it hard to believe that the Republic of Macedonia would re-claim Greek land, etc. Ronline✉12:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest difference is that there is no common ancestry, no common history and no ethnological similarity at all, unlike Romania and Moldavia. I mean, if the Fyromians were of Greek descent, the whole issue would be less controversial because they would have at least some relationship with the term and a certain right to use it. These guys simply came from nowhere and invented their history!--Avg12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC. It is written into their constitution. "Taking into account the Balkan circumstances, the Republic of Macedonia wrote into its contitution that it has no territorial claims toward any of its neighbours.", thats from Topolinjska 1998 that I cited above, but I'll have a look for a corroborating reference. - FrancisTyers12:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
Amendment I
1. The Republic of Macedonia has no territorial pretensions towards any neighbouring state.
2. The borders of the Republic of Macedonia can only be changed in accordance with the
Constitution and on the principle of free will, as well in accordance with generally accepted
international norms.
3. Clause 1. of this Amendment is an Addendum to Article 3 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Macedonia. Clause 2. replaces Paragraph 3 of the same Article.
I've attempted to archive some of this to keep the content down. I know much of the archived content might be seen as important by some but this talk page was srupidly long and unreadable. There was far too much for a newbie to the discussion to be expected to read. Robdurbar16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the information (and maps) on the 1st and 2nd level of administrative division for Macedonia. Would it be possible to add this? Thank you Rarelibra18:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there are no replies to this? I have information that could be added to this article... ? Who is the one that would be able to lift the lock for editing? Rarelibra13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most simple diagram
|----(internally)----The Republic----(externally)*---|
|----(externally)---Greek Govt--(internally)--|
|--UN-EU-NATO-IMF-EBRD--|
|---Some (many) countries----|-----------Other(fewer)countries-------------|
Name 1: |----"Republic of Macedonia"-----------------------------------------------|
Name 2: |----------------------------------------"FYROM"---------------------------|
Name 3: |------------------------------------------------------"Republic of Skopje"|
Current debate: |----------------------------area of debate----------|---------------------|
*Except strictly bilateral relations of the country with those (many) countries
that have recognised its constitutional name.
Reaper7, I've redrawn the above sketch to exclude previously revoked characterizations. With your permission, I think this one reflects exactly the situation regarding the name and the positions of all parties involved. In any case, if anyone disagrees, please feel free to draw your version below. NikoSilver(T)@(C)10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, this debate has spanned – or can – the entire continuum through the addition or not of specific options. Moreover, while this closely depicts the current debate, it is mildly inaccurate: namely, I do believe that the area of debate is actually delimited to the left by those who wouldn't even note the naming dispute therein, referring to just Republic of Macedonia or simply Macedonia without any elaboration or added notation of alternate names. Purists and patriots exist on both sides. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This debate originated from the refusal of certain editors to insert the widely (enough) used "FYROM" name in the intro paragraph, to my honest opinion on the grounds of camouflaged nationalism under the pretence of "purism" (or however you want to call "brief-ism"). This can be verified by the last round of reverts that appears to exist beween ONLY TWO versions.
The fact that certain brief versions exist that do not include the constitutional name, but only the international name, is an example of divide and conquer practices against NPOV users who want to include them BOTH. Hence, the existence of only ONE version (option 1) that excludes the FYROM name, which has miraculously gathered all opposing votes. What a coincidence! I advise all users who want to maintain NPOV to vote for ALL similar versions and note on their comment the minor modifications that would make these versions more agreeable.NikoSilver(T)@(C)11:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the schematics mentioning NPOV
I believe these schematics severely distort the whole concept of the NPOV. NPOV is not midway between two opposing POV's, in fact is has nothing to do with whether any sort of bias exists or not. The NPOV exists seperately of any biased views whether there are none, two opposing views, or five different opinions. The nuetral point view is looking at a situation neutrally, without feeling, and decribing what exists, what different people think about the situation and why they do so. I realize it is hard to achieve, but we need to rememeber what this standard really means. NPOV is not a median view. It is not a compromise. It does not need to take into consideration if anyone will be offended by it. It is not an international designation. It is not agreed upon by the diplomats of various countries. It is simply an explanation of the state of things as they are. This may be hard to do in somes cases such the existance of God, but surely we can give a neutral explanation of the country directly north of Greece.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the sketch above does not:
Intend to show where the "middle" solution should be.
Show which case is right or wrong
Cannot predict the future :-)
Does not intend to show if people on either side are biased or not.
What the sketch does:
A. It only illustrates who calls FYROM what and under which circumstances. ie (from left to right):
A.1. The Republic calls itself internally "Republic of Macedonia" or simply "Macedonia"
A.2. The Republic calls itself externally "FYROM" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" under:
A.2.1. All international organizations (namely UN, EU, NATO, IMF, EBRD etc)
A.2.2. To and from the "other (fewer) countries that have not recognised its constitutional name.
A.3. All international organizations refer to the country as FYROM
A.4. Greece calls the republic externally "FYROM"
A.5. Greece calls the republic internally "Republic of Skopje"
B. It shows the area of debate (main object of poll) regarding the intro paragraph.
Let me first apologize. I put my comment in the wrong section. I read all the schematics and the comments following them, and wrote my piece externally. Then I came back here skimmed dowm the last of the charts and put my opinion in. However I did not actually read the graph above my comment. This graph is totally different from the one above which had POV on either end and NPOV in the middle. My comments are completely irrelavent to the graph directly above which does not mention NPOV anywhere. Sorry about that, I have now made this a new section to divest it from the graph you are refering to. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk22:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Birgitte. Your comment before was indeed well intended, with all this clutter in the page. To my view NPOV is mentioning the whole sketch, not just someone's opinion on it. I also feel that the Greek position ("Republic of Skopje") does not deserve inclusion in the intro paragraph, since it is just ONE case in the whole world (ofcourse it should be mentioned in the Naming Dispute section). Thank you also for your vote, which demonstrates aggreement with this. You might also want to read my "divide and conquer" comment above and judge for yourself if you should act accordingly. NikoSilver(T)@(C)10:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a related disputes page, because discussion on this page should relate directly to the article and it has been drifting. I have been part of the problem in this, so now I'm trying to be part of the solution. Hopefully this will make the page less susceptible to filling up like a <insert euphemism here> - FrancisTyers08:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An exact copy of the rationale in the first sub-page has been copied into the second, so that we can edit our comments right below each point. Please feel free to post your comments on the second page (/Comments to FYROM name support position), without altering the content of the first sub-page.
Moreover, I suggest addressing this title issue (if at all) through a usual move request or the like after the poll is resolved, since the currently preferred option (#2, noting RoM) is garnering a plurality of support. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not belabour this, but what is there to disagree with? Online searches reveal counts that are wholly dissimilar from the ones you've indicated. Arguably, that basis of the argument and rationale stemming from it should be accorded due consideration and treated with skepticism. In any event, moving forward, Wikipedians should weigh all factors and interpret information on their own and not merely based on information provided herein which might represent a particular – even overzealous – viewpoint. And, yes: regarding this, I can't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers to your commets above have been posted to the specific sections. Namely:
The key problem with the above disscusion is that it is pretending that formal names are actually common names. Just as the article Greece is not titled Hellenic Republic, the actual common name in my locality (Midwestern US) is Macedonia. I can't say that I have used it alot but when a new neighbor said her family immigrated from Macedonia I knew without question she was talking of the country north of Greece. That was 5 years ago and I got to know her well enough before she moved away to be sure that it was what she meant. Mainly because it was around the time My Big Fat Greek Wedding came out and she said her family was very much like that even though they were not Greek. I never even knew there was all this controversy about the name. I realize that is way too controversial to move the article to Macedonia, and I am not suggesting that at all. However it is silly to pretend that FYROM is the common English name. In fact if someone had said that to me before I discoved Wikipedia I would have no idea what they were talking about.
I realize from reading the disscusion here that some people will react to my expierence by saying it proof of the corruption caused by propaganda or something similar. I want to answer that by saying that it does not matter why people in the Midwest of the US recognize Macedonia as refering to the country north of Greece. It does not matter what people should think Macedonia refers, what matters is the reality of the situation right now. Wikipedia is not a place to change peoples' minds or to counter others' claims. The only goal should be to inform people of the full situation.
I realize this discussion is particurly about the title of the article.
Please look at the Macedonia disambig page. I truly believe if I came across that page before I heard about this whole dispute, I would not understand that FYROM was meant to be the modern nation. I probably would have thought it was some region embroiled in a civil war without a working goverment with enough control to pickout a real name. Think of how Somalia is now where no group controls any large portion of the country. That is the impression I think most uninformed English speakers would get. The "Republic of" designation is a common enough form that people who have only heard of the country as simply "Macedonia" can figure it out. The same is not true for FYROM. We need to be aware of how people will be looking this article up and strive to focus on ease of use rather than what anyone may believe is "more correct." This is especially true in a case like this where "correctness" is disputed.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk15:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point Birgitte. The name Macedonia is indeed more common, only it doesn't refer to the country north of Greece! It refers to the northern province of Greece, its history and its culture. The reasoning in the subpages:
proves so. Do you have any solid evidence to contradict that apart from your otherwise welcome personal experience? Your arguement that FYROM sounds peculiar for the name of a modern nation can be worked around by using the following names (I am not inventing, I am describing):
Obviously Macedonia refers to many things. (I cannot believe you really think it is used to only refer to the Greek province) That is why it is a disambiguation page. However we are not talking about what Macedonia refers to. We are talking about what to title the article about the country north of Greece. While I believe FYROM is an important title used by this country it is not the name of common English usage, just as Hellenic Republic is not the common name of Greece. Please bear with me here. There many people who know nothing of all this dispute they think the country north of Greece is Macedonia. This is not uncommon. Those people will look for this article (about the country north of Greece) on Wikipedia. They will type in "Macedonia" and hit the GO button and then they must pick out this article from that large list. I believe that they a more likely to chose correctly if this is titled ROM rather than FYOM. Because the people I am thinking of simply call this nation Macedonia and don't know all the gory details. That is just my opinion, coming from someone who has not always known about this dispute. Just some perspective to consider, but not the main thing the decision should be based on.
However, I feel that it is incorrect to put ROM and FYROM side by side and try and judge which is the name of common English usage. Because neither of them is a common name. We are not titling this article by common name because it too ambiguous or too contriversial or maybe it is different names in different parts of the world. I don't know what the exact reason was. But we can't take two formal names and run some tests and say we are following common English usage guidelins. That doesn't hold water. We need to pick a different standard to judge on.
About your proof. Many of the hits have nothing to do with either modern country. I realize this is at the heart of your interest in this. However I feel the decision should be based solely on the modern situation. The Macedonia refered to historically was no more a province of Greece than an Eastern European Republic. So I don't think it should count in favor of either country, because people looking for that information are looking for Macedon. See here is where you and I at an impasse. I am looking at the article attached to this talk page (BTW take aminute and read the article one more time). I read this article and think how to best direct the average English speaker who is looking for this information to this article. While I believe you are thinking more about what people who have already found the article will think about the concept of Macedonia. There is a place to deal with the concept of Macdonia, but it is not here; it is on the disambiguation page. I realize you are upset to think someone might confuse Macedon with this country, but I cannot share that corcern. You see I live in Missouri where the actual land was taken from people that used that name, and they don't even get a disambiguation page. So while I do see how you are concerned about the confusion of historical references, I cannot take claims that your cultute is being stolen seriously. Culture being stolen looks more like this http://www.omtribe.org/history.htm --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk03:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.
Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.
Where a name includes geographical directions such as North, East, South or West (in a local language), the full name should be translated into English: hence East Timor, not Timor-Leste; South Ossetia, not Yuzhnaya Osetiya; West Java, not Jawa Barat.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.
Example
Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed.
Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.
In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.
In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.
This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised.
Wherever they correspond to, the policy above clearly states to include the names within the article. NOT necessarily to name the article after them... NikoSilver(T)@(C)23:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that your link above was not refering to the World Taekwondo Federation! :-) Anyway, could you please explain then, WTF is this guideline doing in WP, sice we've already solved the thing with your above mentioned policy? I insist that the policy mentions clearly that we must use the self-identifying term (also, which of the two would that be) within the article! NikoSilver(T)@(C)09:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are noted. No, not wrestling: I was merely pointing out the similarities of the cited examples to actual locales ... only to prompt a non sequitur riposte about policy. Consequently, I am ending this discussion thread. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy is quite clear. In fact, it can't get any clearer than it is. Proposals to rename this article into Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are in direct opposition to this policy - fYROM is not a self-identifying name for this entity, while Republic of Macedonia is. --FlavrSavr18:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha! Indeed, if we rename the article to FYROM you can still include Republic of Macedonia and Macedoniawithin the article, as the policy clearly states! I am sure that the JapanesevsNihon-jin example shows you that we are obliged to use the most common name in English! In the sub-pages:
FlavrSavr we had the exact same discussion before right below option #4 of this poll. Although I didn't want to include ChrisO without him being present, and this is why I erased my comments about him, I have to remind you that he took the initiative and rewrote the guideline without consulting no one. And still, your logic is still flawed. Let's completely forget all the subjective criteria that the policy mentions. It is no "prescription" to refer to this country as fYRoM. This name is currently used by them OFFICIALLY. They use RoM ONLY internally and in bilateral relations. This fact is uncontested. They agreed to the usage of fYRoM, specifically for all references within an international context, because NO international organisation recognises any other name. Wikipedia represents such an international context. And (I suggest you read this very carefully) fYRoM has explicitly agreed that their final name should be reached after deliberations with Greece"Henceforth the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has formally accepted that the name of its State is an issue for negotiation as provided for in UN Security Council Resolution 817 (1993).
". Moreover, by the three criteria balance table, fYRoM is a clear choice.--Avg22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...which can be very easily seen in the sub-pages:
Can't quite understand your point. The country wants to be called RoM, that's obvious. But it is not officially called RoM. It is officially referred to by each and every international organisation as fYRoM. The name RoM is not recognised. It has no validity whatsoever in international relations. And most importantly, they themselves have agreed not to use any name other than fYRoM in any international forum before the dispute is resolved. So it's not that between two official names, they prefer the first, it's that they don't have an official name and until the dispute is solved, they are referred to as fYRoM. Leaving the "official" part aside and concentrating on self-identification only, they currently use both RoM and fYRoM, although they do prefer the first. But fYRoM is a self-identifying name, because they have agreed that it is. --Avg00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite understand yours. The country's legal name is the Republic of Macedonia; officially, however, it is known by various appellations, including FYROM (both in brief and extended) which is a government sanctioned title that is increasingly deprecated by the international community. Pragmatically and within context, as various publications and compendiums will indicate, it is known simply as Macedonia. The republic's statehood is not contingent on recognition of the title FYROM and it is more than what politicians agree to refer to it as. Many entities are referred to using names/titles of varying authority: for example, Canada: known almost universally as just Canada (its legal name), the term Dominion of Canada is an official disused title that is still sanctioned by the government and a favourite of patriots. Other examples abound: there is little utility to move Libya to Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (its UN appellation and part of its long-form name), etc., when simpler renditions suffice.
If the option which has so far garnered a plurality in the poll prevails, I maintain this is sufficient and conforms to Wp policies: the proposal to move this article – and prematurely, I might add – to just one official title over a legal, simpler one that is not at all inaccurate (the dispute of which is already detailed elsewhere) caters to and promulgates an external political debate and POV (which the above provided link to the Greek ministry reiterates) which I'm sure most Wikipedians would not share. And, given excessive text above and throughout, I won't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A long, long reply (neutrals, please read!)
The difference between an identifying and a self-identifying name.Republic of Macedonia is the official self-identifying name of this entity, as defined by its constitution. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia isn't. If you're looking for similar parallels try Republic of China - Taiwan - Chinese Taipei. Avg, I'm not intending to explain you the difference between an identifying name and a self-identifying name, again. Also, I'm not interested in your link, I'm well acquainted with the positions of the Greek Ministry of External Affairs - I'll provide you with the original UN resolution, instead:
Having considered the application for membership contained in document
A/47/876-S/25147,
Decides to admit the State whose application is contained in document
A/47/876-S/25147 to membership in the United Nations, this State being
provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as『the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia』pending settlement of the difference
that has arisen over the name of the State. --FlavrSavr02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: provisionally referred to. Others refer to it as fYROM. The failure to comprehend that is a failure to understand the concept of self-identifying. As for the UN practice - check Modi's explanation here. --FlavrSavr02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Naming conflict, part one - Self-identifying terms. Niko, your argumentation is peculiar. In your opinion, article titles lay somewhere outside the article? Or in other words, Wikipedia can beprescriptive in article titles. So, let's rename it to FYROM and use RoM everywhere within articles? That makes zero sense, no? I hope that the (de facto) author of this policy, ChrisO will find the time to explain this guideline's implications. --FlavrSavr02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Naming conflict, part two - Most common names. It's quite obvious how this guideline deals with this type of conflicts - see "Dealing with self-identifying terms". Therefore, there is basically no need for searching the most common names. We are not obliged to use the most common name (although it's quite important) - see Republic of China and Taiwan. However, as some native English speakers here noted - FYROM is not the most common name for this state, and Niko, I doubt that your Google tests will prove the contrary. It's quite obvious that news outlets, encyclopedias, geographical name servers prove that "Macedonia" is the most common term. And then again, your Google test is simply wrong. You've excluded so much terms that even a basic country fact such as "Macedonia borders Bulgaria" cannot be considered a valid indicator that Macedonia is, in fact, the most common name for this country. You even say that Unfortunately, Google does not allow for more than 32 words in its search, so there may be even more necessary exclusions. Damn Google! --FlavrSavr02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I've conducted an another search - including:
Cyprus (why exclude Cyprus?!?)
Bulgaria ("Macedonia borders Bulgaria". "Macedonia trades with Bulgaria".)
Greece ("Macedonia borders Greece". "Macedonia trades with Greece".)
Despite the fact that other unnecessary exclusions are made as well (Niko admits that These exclusions, do not show the results for all those sites that use BOTH names (like the WP article).), those three inclusions, and one exclusion render 63 million hits. Contrary to your claims - the vast majority of the hits refer to the modern Republic of Macedonia. And if you like Google that much - check how Google itself refers to this country at the Google directory. Damn Google! --FlavrSavr02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are sooooo wrong for NOT excluding Greece! I'll prove it to you right now! Check the results themselves one-by-one of the first two pages of the google search for "+macedonia +greece -wikipedia" here some 137 million hits. You'll see immediately that they ONLY refer to the Greek Macedonia! Damn Google, busted FlavSavr's arguement! NikoSilver(T)@(C)09:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soindeeduninformed readers will be confused because they are used to the name Macedonia for addressing the Greek part (137 million vs your 63 million) and the article must be renamed to avoid such confusions! Damn Google! NikoSilver(T)@(C)09:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So nice that you're trying to be objective (NOT). Let me start at the end. The actual comparison is between "Republic of Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which one of these two is more commonly used in English, nothing else. Don't mix plain "Macedonia" there, because there is already a disambiguation page where the country is on top. The Google test (and not Google itself, two very very different things), which is a suggested method for resolution of the conflict within the guideline, easily gives prominence to fYRoM over RoM. "Republic of Macedonia" - "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"vs"Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".
You don't seem to understand at all the meaning of the link I provided. fYRoM has accepted that its name cannot be decided unilaterally. Again, the Republic itself has officially agreed (and it is still bound by this agreement) that it has to deliberate with Greece before finalising its name. It has agreed that Greece has VETO power over its name in both EU and NATO accession procedures. It has agreed that no name is final until the dispute is resolved. This means that the name RoM is PROVISIONAL as well. As simple as that, is it really that difficult to understand? Wikipedia cannot surpass official agreements and international law because of some distorted sense of objectivity that some users possess. Don't decide for someone else what they have signed and what not.
And again, for further comment I suggest the usage of
Give up guys, the name of this article is never going to be "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or any permutation thereof. You're just wasting time, bandwidth and bytes. - FrancisTyers09:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah? Why don't you check what the term Macedonia is used for. Compare:
The Bulgarian capital Sofia was a minor town but it was chosen as the capital of the emerging Bulgarian state because it is at the centre of the territories where Bulgarians are the dominant ethnicity. Sofia is situated between Bulgaria's religious capital in Ochrid and its cultural capital in Veliko Turnovo.
The government in Sofia has recognised that Western Bulgaria is called, Republic of Macedonia and that it is an independent Bulgarian region. The new republic takes its name from its southern area that belongs to the region of Macedonia and streches between Bitola and Lake Doiran. The area north of that line is Vardar Bulgaria. The area west of Skopje and north of Struga are not Bugarian but traditionally have been Albanian. No problem. Makedonija12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your efforts to overcome the political stalemate are well taken. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Please abstain from comments not directly related to the improvement of the article. Andreas14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most citizens of ROM/FYROM do not speak the language of the Macedonians, they speak a fine and 'axioprepi' Slavic language. 'Alexander' said,『'Ανδρες Αθηναίοι [...] αυτός τε γάρ Έλλην γένος ειμί τωρχαίον...』= "Men of Athens [...] had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece, I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself a Greek by descent..." (Herodotus, Histories IX). He never said, 'jas sum Grcki' or 'jas sum Makedonski', just 'Ellin genos eimi'. So relax everybody, one day those new 'ethnic Macedonians' who claim the ancient Macedonians for their ancestors, will probably learn the known language of those 'ancestors'. Then, everyone will continue as one happy family in two independent states. Nothing will change that, even if ROM/FYROM becomes simply ROM. Politis12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Politis. As I explained before, the name was Maz^obran, and his father was Ljubokonj. Also, as long as there are thousands of persistant supporters of this twisted falsification of history, I doubt that there won't be serious objection from the Greek side for the name... NikoSilver(T)@(C)14:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vergina, you obviously inflamate your nationalistic feelings quite fast (or you know Macedonian partly)... It doesn't says that she was a (Slavic) Macedonian, she was ethnic (Ancient) Macedonian. Bomac14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone denies the Greek history. They are making this whole fuss themselves. Pretensions towards Greece? Gimme a break... Some of them are so... xenophobic... Bomac14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in your case there's more to be afraid. Weren't you the one that made these comments:
So, I guess you're just pretending that you don't deny Greek history (or Greek sovereignity for that matter) so that the fresh readers of this page don't find out how biased your propaganda is... NikoSilver(T)@(C)15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just like I said - some of the Greeks are so xenophobic... can't we leave the past and see the future? The Balkan history is a bit of a complex one, which involves all countries and regions in it. And please, don't try to ,,excuse" yourself with these comments, 'caus they are reaction of the other ,,side's" posts and messages. We need the whole picture. Bomac16:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them. According to my personal opinion, Alexander was (Ancient) Macedonian, who, taught by Aristotle, was spreading the Hellenistic culture into the lands he conquerred.
Note: ,,Hellenistic" doesn't mean's that he was actually a Greek. It means that he, influenced by Aristotle (and the Greek language, which, in that time, was something like the English today + the Greek, very develloped culture in those periods), simply, was ,,civilizing" other eastern cultures with the help of the most (already) develloped culture and language in that time.
Note: I don't claim that only Slavs absorbed some features from the Ancient Macedonians, but Greeks and others in this region. Bomac16:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha! What you mean is that it is a genes thing, then. So you use an arguement that you-yourself think it is nationalistic (when you respond to Greeks claiming that their genes are 3000 years old), in order to support your position where it suits you! Despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever if he had non-Greek ancestry! Even so, please read the following sentence and educate yourself:
"Ethnicity is not determinated by blood, but by a common tradition and history."
Who cares about that. The Queen of England is English (most would say), but she's largely German heritage. She is English because of culture. Alexander the Great was Greek because of culture. Fullstop. Anything else is pointless nationalism. - FrancisTyers17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friends, according to UN resolutioin 817 [8]and [9], the UN received the Republic of Macedonia on 7 April 1993 under the name, ‘Former Yugolav Republic of Macedonia’… Question: is it ‘nationalistic' to point this out? No, it is fact. Politis14:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, no one can argue otherwise. But there is nothing exeptional about this; UN resolutions are dominated by the initiatives of single countries. Politis14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends. Some members of the Greek government were against any use of the word 'Macedonia'. Others compromised and argued for, Nova Makedonija (Nea Makedonia, New Macedonia, Nouvelle Macedoine, etc...). I think the political climate up to 1993 was ripe in Skopje and UN for the acceptance of that term; unfortunately, Athens lacked vision. Personally, I like it because it contains the term 'Macedonia' and it includes a disabiguation in 'New' (as in Nouvelle Caledonie, New York, Nea Smyrni...). But... here we are my friend trying to square the circle. Politis14:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the UN counts for nothing on wiki, only nationalism. Also it is noted FYROM denies Greek/world knowledge of ancient history inorder to insert their own nation in the strange void created. The title of the page should be FYROM and there should be a simple two option vote on this. Reaper715:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right Reaper, it doesn't. Actually, as I have commented in:
Your complaints can be forwarded to Kofi Annan! In the meantime, it's not our business (as wikipedians) to discuss if it is a mistake or not. We must just use the standard appellation in all UN, EU, etc lists of members. Otherwise we are really "putting words in UN's mouth", and we wouldn't do that even if we disagreed. Would we? NikoSilver(T)@(C)16:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. Hangon, I think I had this argument before... Western Sahara or perhaps TransnistriaorNagorno-Karabakh. Just because they aren't recognised by the UN doesn't mean we don't give them their names. We don't call "Western Sahara" the "Southern Provinces" and we don't call "Nagorno-Karabakh" part of Azerbaijan — or whatever they call it. The UN is good in some areas, but bad in others. This is one of the times it screwed up. cf. Rwanda, Sudan etc. - FrancisTyers18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: There is little precedent on wikipedia for making the name of a sovereign state subordinate to other uses. Albania for instance means lots of this, but these other things are on a separate dab page, i.e. Albania (disambiguation). There are some precedents such as China, but this is the official name of two sovereign states, and is quite exceptional in other regards. More relevant examples would be, for instance, Germany. The concept has meant lots of things throughout history, but the Federal Republic of Germany is currently a redirect to Germany. Other examples would be Russia and the Russian Federation, France and the French Republic, or Republic of Croatia and Croatia. More to the point, Mongolia is the name of a sovereign state, a greater region, and a number of sub-regions, but the sovereign state takes priority. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
I regard the move proposal as very appropriate. The controversies surrounding Georgia and Ireland are a matter for consideration on those individual talk pages, and do not cancel out the validity of the examples already cited. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing exists in isolation, and the rationale is somewhat questionable when you indicate that there's little precedent for the status quo when prominent and comparable examples have been cited otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All rationals are questionable, my friend. There is indeed little precedent, the trend, as I pointed out, is towards - quite rightly - favoring the sovereign state, and one or two exceptions do not, as I pointed out, cancel the more numerous other examples out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: there is, indeed, little qualification for your assessment of "little precedent", since it is disagreeable and inconsistent with numerous prominent examples to the contrary (above and below) and the over-arching notions stated in Wikipedia:disambiguation. When one looks in the New Oxford Dictionary of English, for instance, they will only find one entry (or the primary one) for Germany, et al ... but two or more for Macedonia, Ireland, and (for that matter) America. And, beyond this, I can't comment further. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry, I do not see that. To quote myself, "the trend, as I pointed out, is towards - quite rightly - favoring the sovereign state, and one or two exceptions do not, as I [also] pointed out, cancel the more numerous other examples out." - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)14:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really see no difference? France is at France and not at French Republic because there is no wider region called France spanning several countries. The same goes for Denmark and Poland etc... etc... It seems to me that Mongolia is the only exception to this practice of using the full name in order to disambiguate. Edwy(talk)14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support this will probably have a number of users up in arms, but I agree with the proposal, because the principle is right. Gryffindor13:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone compares the situation of FYROM naming dispute with other UN names not in use. The truth is there is currently no other situation that comes even close to comparison with the dispute between Greece and FYROM - so comparisons are futile and desperate by those wanting the page called Macedoinia. However I have noticed many here saying, it is what FYROM sees it self as that counts, not what Greece or the UN, EU, NATO ect want. Therefore it is strange whenever I speak to a Palestinian and they all believe their country to be called Palestine, why then when I type the name Palestine into Wiki do I get the UN/ Isreali explanation of their country and not their explanation of their occupied country. It seems that for this page of Macedonia the World Bodies are ignored including Greece as having got it wrong, LOL, but for the Palestine page the world bodies are taken into huge account and the page does not revolve around what the Palestinians see as their occupied state. Reaper714:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronline ✉ 11:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) - A detailed version that presents the situation clearly and fairly.[reply]
