Talk:North Macedonia/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Current status of naming agreement

I'm sorry but I still disagree with these [1] edits by User:Taivo, which to my mind are unduly overemphasizing the "preliminariness" of the agreement signed today. What happened today was the signing of an international treaty by the two governments. This is simply standard stuff in international relations: Foreign ministers signing treaties do so on behalf of their governments, and indeed, as such, on behalf of their countries, so it is absolutely valid to say that "the Greek and Macedonian governments signed an agreement", or indeed, "Greece and Macedonia signed an agreement" (which is exactly how reliable sources are reporting it today). The fact that a treaty, once signed, is still in need of ratification in order to enter into force is bog-common standard procedure for all international treaties and doesn't make this treaty any less authoritative than every other international treaty is on the day of its signing.

As for the list of measures still to be taken for this to go "official" ("the approval of both parliaments, the signature of both presidents, a victory in a voter referendum in Macedonia, and a change to the Macedonian constitution"), I think this overstates the obstacles considerably. True, the approval of both parliaments is necessary; that's standard procedure in ratifying foreign treaties in pretty much every modern democracy. As far as I have read, the approval by the Macedonian parliament is pretty much a given, because Zaev, unlike Tsipras, commands a stable parliamentary majority in this matter. The Greek parliamento's approval, on the other hand, is less certain – but it has been scheduled for a time later this year, when most actual steps in realizing the agreement will already have been taken in practice, so even if a majority of deputies is still against it now, it will no longer make any practical sense to oppose it then. Until then, Tsipras can fulfill Greece's part of the deal by simple governmental fiat (all he has to do is write a letter to the EU and to NATO, and he can do that without parliamentary backing.) As for the signatures of the two Presidents, that's also standard procedure and pretty much a formality. Yes, the Macedonian president has announced he'll refuse to sign it in the first round, but from what I've read he hasn't actually got the constitutional power to effectively veto it; if Zaev takes it through a second parliamentary vote, the president will be legally obliged to sign. The referendum, in turn, will not actually be binding but merely advisory, from what I've read. This leaves, finally, the change in the constitution. However, it is not correct to say that the constitutional change will be necessary for the agreement to come into force: From the perspective of international law, the only thing that's needed for a treaty to come into force is the ratification by both parties. Rather, once ratification is done and the agreement is legally in force, Macedonia will be under an international obligation to make the constitutional changes follow (no matter by what internal legal route). It is, however, correct to say that only the change of the constitution will finally make the actual renaming "go live". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

For so long as these changes are in fact preliminary, it's too early to start bolding the not-yet-adopted name the same way we bold the official name Republic of Macedonia and bold the official UN name FYROM. I don't see the point in what you're saying, and it kind of feels like a WP:NOTFORUM concern. Who knows what the Macedonian parliament will do. We can speculate that it'll get the needed amount of votes in the Macedonian parliament, and then the president vetoes it as he said he is going to do, and then it'll go back to the Macedonian parliament, and maybe they'll approve it again, but to start bolding the name Northern Macedonia, putting it in the lead of the article as one of the most immediately important facts rather than keeping it in the naming dispute subsection, or replacing every instance of Macedonia with North Macedonia, what we should do right now is wait. This information is still contained in the article, but it's way too soon to act as if it was already adopted, and it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say that it's probably going to be adopted. 21:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Macedonia's name change hasn't been finalised yet, it has to be ratified by the Macedonian and Greek parliaments first, and approved in a referendum in Macedonia, and since there's major opposition to the agreement in both countries I would rate the chance of the name change really happening as at best 50:50... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fut.Perf. on this. It was the two governments that signed the deal, not "some representatives" of them. The governments and nothing less, nothing more. This should be corrected because it gives the salty impression that what is signed by the Prime Minister of a country, does not represent the government as whole. This is quite DANGEROUS implication we are getting into by using such logics. May some people inside a government disagree with something, but when a Prime Minister signs something, it is the whole government that signs it, no matter how someone may argue. If this rationale is to be used, then a good chunk of articles about international treaties in Wikipedia should be re-written as if the signatures didn't count for the governments. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? It was signed by the Foreign Ministers, but it has not made it through Parliament and it has to go through the President. The latest headlines are that the Prime Minsiters watched as the foreign ministers signed the deal. The foreign ministers were the first in a multi-stage process. I'm really not sure what you're talking about in that post, but it led me to believe that you should read more about the process for adopting the new name. The governments as a whole have not yet even had a chance to review the name change, only the foreign ministry. The current text in the naming dispute subsection is satisfactory: "On 17 June 2018, representatives of the Macedonian and Greek governments signed an agreement to end their dispute, which would result in Macedonia being renamed the Republic of North Macedonia (Република Северна Македонија), but the President of Macedonia announced that he does not intend to approve this change. The agreement will require the approval of both parliaments, the signature of both presidents, a victory in a voter referendum in Macedonia, and a change to the Macedonian constitution before it comes into effect." We can put it in the lead of the article and bold the name if and when something materializes. If we do modify that text, we can update it to mention that the foreign ministers approved of it, but it would be factually inaccurate to give the impression that the governments as a whole approved of the change or adopted it. The Prime Minister signing it is significant, but it actually is more accurate to say that representatives of the government signed it even when that representative is the head of government. Being the primary representative of the government is the function of the head of government, but they alone are not the government. This is a minor issue of semantics. It's misleading to suggest that the Government of Macedonia approved of it when there's many different checks and balances involved. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not confuse things. What you are referring to now is the executive branch as whole, not the Government which is only a part of it. The Parliament which too is one of the bodies of the executive branch, is not part of the Government and the head of state (President) which is a body of the executive branch, is not a part of the Government or of the Parliament. The Government alone is the Government I am afraid. The deal was signed by the Government, and not by mere "representatives of the Government". And the Government signing a deal still counts as is: signed by the Government, regardless of what the rest of the executive branch (President or Parliament) do. Likewise, if the Parliament ratifies the deal, and/or the President too signs it, we will have to write it correctly: "The President signed it" or "The Parliament ratified it". Period. If we go with this absurd logic like how it was done about the Government, then we will have too to say: "the representatives of the Parliament ratified it" or "a representative of the Presidency signed it" which, sorry to say, is as errorneous. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 00:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just an American thing, but a great number of your readers are Americans and do not live under a parliamentary system where a single person constitutes the "Government". When Americans read "the government signed" they immediately think that the treaty is a done deal, which is far from the truth. Just because you Europeans have a clear definition doesn't mean that our readers will share that clear definition, especially on the west side of the Atlantic. If this were a non-controversial agreement, then it might not matter. But this is not one of those. We need to be specific, and specific in a way that all our readers can understand, whether they live in a parliamentary system where the PM is somehow the entire Executive Branch that includes the parliament or not. --Taivo (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually even in America the Government does not constitute the whole executive branch. The US Congress is a separate body from the US Presidency. So this isn't the case here. EDIT: I am wrong here: the Congress is LEGISLATIVE branch. So Taivo is correct on this. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 01:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In simple, non-legal terms, who signed the deal? The PMs. Why can't we just say that. It's 100% accurate and readers can draw their own conclusions (or not) as to who the PM is vis a vis the "Government" based on their own understanding. --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In simple, the Governments signed it. Or the PMs. It is absolutely the same. Because Government = Head of Government. But to say "The PMs AND Foreign Ministers signed it" or "representatives of government" is a very very bad idea. and can mean very different things which is not our intention here. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 01:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with listing that the PMs signed it, because that wouldn't be ambiguous to anyone, whereas many readers would look at "the governments signed it" and assume that it has been finalized by the Government of Macedonia when it has not. As for the "PMs AND Foreign Ministers" I feel that you're confused; when I mentioned that, I was reverting my own revert of your edit because I had previously only read that the Foreign Ministers had signed it, which would mean that your edit based on the prime ministers signing it would have been inaccurate. I undid my undo because I realized that not only did the foreign ministers sign it, the prime ministers signed it as well. However, I don't see anything wrong with listing in the article that this agreement has, so far, been signed by the foreign ministers and the prime ministers, because that's simply what happened so far. I'd argue that the phrasing of "the governments" can mean more very different things than "the representatives of the governments" but we should keep the current version: simply say that the prime ministers signed it, because that's what happened and every reader will know exactly what that means without question. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In my mind, the discussion is moot. Per decree of the Arbitration committee (as seen at WP:MOSMAC) the title of this article is "Republic of Macedonia", and the article should refer to the country as the "Republic of Macedonia". If/when that changes, we will conduct a formal RFC on the topic at WP:MOSMAC. All other rename suggestions can be safely ignored, regardless of the status of the renaming discussions; of course the discussions themselves may be notable and worth discussing the section on the name of the country. Apart from a one-sentence mention of the proposal to rename to the Republic of North Macedonia, I oppose discussion in the lead section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, power~enwiki. I dropped a similar warning on this talk page too: [2] --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 01:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Power, I wasn't talking about renaming the article. I was talking about the specific wording we are using now to describe the current status of the agreement. The current wording, in saying that the agreement will require all sorts of additional steps to become "official", is simply factually wrong. It is "official" right now (having been signed by the governments, yes, that's exactly what happened, no matter if American readers understand that or not); it will be in force if and when both parliaments ratify it; it will be practically realized if and when Macedonia goes ahead with its constitutional change (which will probably happen even before the Greek side ratifies it). Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

How many ifs and whens before we are in crystal ball territory? Jonathunder (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not more ifs and whens than when other international treaties get signed. That's just the way international treaties work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If this suggests that we change the article as soon as the parliament ratifies it, we're already in crystal ball territory. The following steps need to happen: 1) Parliamentary approval 2) Presidential approval 3) A referendum is held and the people vote for it 4) The modification to the constitution is ratified. Even then, a country officially changing their name doesn't mean we change the article without having an RfC and reaching a consensus on Wikipedia, just look at Eswatini. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh for f..s sake, will you listen to what I'm actually saying, at last? I am not talking about any renaming, how often do I have to repeat that? I'm talking about that one sentence I quoted at the beginning of this thread. Seriously, people, what is wrong with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I started with "if" for a reason. I'd like to politely remind you to comment on the content, not the contributors, but I digress - if so many have confused what you're arguing is to be changed, could you explicitly say in a change-x-to-y format what you want? If you believe the current version of the article overstates the amount of obstacles remaining, 1) I disagree as it simply lists what has been done and what must be done, to downplay that or suggest that it's guaranteed to materialize is a CRYSTAL violation 2) it's not specific enough to suggest what exactly should be changed. If your argument is that we should replace instances of "the prime ministers" with "the governments" that's simply making it more ambiguous to the readers. The current version is fine; it simply says that so far the prime ministers have approved of it, and now the name has to get through those other steps listed. It doesn't overstate or understate anything, nor should it. It doesn't tell the user what to think of the situation or whether it's going to happen or not. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is my understanding of what Future is saying. First, I almost always agree with Future, we are almost always on the same side of issues. Second, he's saying that the text of the paragraph at the end of the "Naming dispute" section should say "the governments signed" and remove the sentence at the end which points out the process remaining. This time, his European legalism about what constitutes the "government" and "official" is leaving American readers with a complete misconception about whether or not Macedonia is to be called "North Macedonia" starting today and I disagree with him thoroughly. He's not stupid and I trust that he will not think I am either. I completely understand his legal point, but completely disagree with his refusal to care about what American readers will understand when reading his threadbare text. He has two points: 1) the PMs constitute the "government" and 2) the treaty is "official" now. With 2) he's not arguing against the current text of the article because it was changed from "official" to "in effect" at least half a day ago. The treaty is definitely not in effect at this time. That's important to say because it will help to forestall at least some of the pressure to move the article now and bold the potential new name in the lead. With 1) I have pointed out already that American readers have a different notion of "government" than European readers do. This treaty is not a foregone conclusion because of the extreme level of controversy and nationalism that have already been entrenched in the issue. It requires more care in how it's presented than most issues and warrants much more than just the presumptive and legally abbreviated cursory statement that Future proposes. Future was part of ARBMAC, as was I. That experience alone should demonstrate to him that this comment needs more than just the brevity and presumption of success that he is advocating. This isn't a trade agreement for how much soybean flour the two countries will buy from each other over the next five years. It shouldn't be treated as such. --Taivo (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, what I want to see is what we always do: report things the same way our reliable sources report them. Reliable sources are saying "Greece and Macedonia signed an agreement", so that's what we should be doing. BTW, this includes all sorts of US American reliable sources, so the suggestion that US readers would be unable to understand such a sentence falls flat on its face. What I also want to see is not overstating the obstacles. Of course there should be a sentence pointing out that both governments will have to overcome considerable internal opposition to complete the process, but for example, as I pointed out earlier, the presidents' signatures aren't in fact such an obstacle, because they will ultimately be a mere formality. Ivanov simply doesn't have the constitutional power of a veto. (And, again, of course the reliable sources are all also pointing this out.) For the same reason, I'm going to remove the clause just before the sentence in question: "...but the President of Macedonia announced that he does not intend to approve this change". This is basic "Wikipedia Writing for POV Pushers 101 (Lesson 1: How to abuse the word 'but')" stuff. The word "but" implies that the second statement fundamentally calls into question the validity of the statement before it, and in this case, that is simply not true. I will also change the wording about the referendum, because as I pointed out above, it is simply factually misleading to say that the referendum is necessary to make the treaty come into effect. It isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(Incidentally, this [3] recent edit is also factually wrong: it wasn't the prime ministers but the foreign ministers (in the presence of the prime ministers) who signed the agreement. Legally it boils down to the same thing, of course: no matter who did it, it was still done on behalf of the respective countries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have less problem using the exact wording that the reliable sources use in the US, "Greece and Macedonia signed an agreement" rather than the unnecessarily wordy "the governments of..." (using "government" as a metonym for 'prime minister'). But lessening the obstacles to zero at the end of the paragraph is not factually accurate. A trimming of the obstacles to the principle ones is fine, but reducing them to zero is as much a POV push as maximizing them to insurmountable. This is not just another uncontroversial deal between two countries and both countries will need a considerable amount of political will and capital expense to bring the agreement into effect. While the agreement itself may not stipulate the Macedonian referendum as necessary, it may be required to change the Macedonian Constitution, which is a stated element of the agreement before it goes into effect. --Taivo (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed your edit after I wrote the above. It's fine except for the last sentence which is just editorializing without making the "expectation" based on some reliable source. It is better without the editorializing. --Taivo (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh, you removed the sentence that expresses exactly what you just said should be expressed? That sentence was a correct summary of what is covered by every source you could possibly cite about this issue, including the sources we are already citing. Just take your pick and move the footnote behind it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I said should be expressed. I removed the sentence that said, "All objections are expected to be overcome". Stating the obstacles (parliament approval, referendum, constitutional amendment) is different than predicting success. And we don't even state them as "obstacles", but as significant steps in the process before the agreement takes effect. While you are correct that there are many reliable sources that predict success, there are others that leave the issue in doubt. I simply think that erring on the side of caution is superior to taking a side in either direction. --Taivo (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the current wording is okay. Best, Apcbg (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh? The sentence I wrote said no such thing; read again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your exact wording was "As of June 2018, both governments are expected to have to overcome stiff political opposition in their respective countries in order to conclude this process." In other words, "All objections are expected to be overcome" in a nutshell. But that is still wishful thinking that is nothing more than guesswork on the part of a percentage of reliable sources. Yes, you have qualified the wishful thinking by date, but will you change the date monthly to reflect current thinking? We still don't know how much money and effort Russia will pour into keeping Europe unstable by pushing the anti-agreement feeling in Macedonia. There are simply too many uncertainties for Wikipedia to be making any such statements even when based on reliable sources. Are you going to count reliable sources to determine which view is in the majority? Or worse yet, weight the value of reliable sources? Much better to simply leave the prognostication out of the article and list (as we have) the steps in the process to putting the agreement into effect. --Taivo (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Do I really have to enter into a semantic debate about the meaning of "have to" with you here? Linguistic curiosity aside, but this is getting tedious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Damn. I shouldn't be editing at 4 a.m. I misread your sentence. My apologies. --Taivo (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2018

Change country name from Republic of Macedonia to Republic of North Macedonia. 130.204.249.34 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTALBALL Waaay too early. Macedonia didn't change its name. The Foreign Ministers signed it, but now it has to go to the parliaments, and after it goes through the parliaments it has to go to the president, and if the president rejects it then it goes back to the parliament, and if they approve it a second time then the president is forced to sign it, and then they have to put it in the constitution. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Before any similar requests are made again, everyone is asked to read previous discussions above, here on this talk page to avoid repetition. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 20:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2018

Not Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia must be writen in slavic language Severna Makedonija 37.6.125.184 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Read sections above. The current naming is an outcome of community consensus. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

update on the name

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/18/eu-envoy-macedonia-can-settle-name-dispute-by-late-june.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.41.216 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This changes nothing and isn't relevant to the article, as the news story is nothing more than a politician talking maybes. Elassint ^Hi 21:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Getting closer to an actual name change: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44511649 Kajmal (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The name is Republic Of Northern Macedonia , and not Republic Of Macedonia. Correct it. Don’t take advantage of it. That kind of site (Wikipedia) is not allowed to have these types of mistakes, when it comes about two countries, ethnicity etc. Batacoc (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. It is a proposed new name, not the official one (yet). It must be approved by the Parliament, win a nationwide referendum, and be changed in the Constitution before it's official. --Taivo (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

PROPAGANDA.......

All the other topics are just about right, you are using a name that is being used from the one side of the dispute between the two countries. There are ongoing negotiations about a suggested new name (that being the "Northern Macedonia") but nothing has been decided yet not even voted in the parliaments of the two countries. What you are doing with this section in wikipedia is clearly misleading, one sided and a full on old school propaganda targeting ignorants (as far as history is concerned). Clearly there are being some interests involved and clearly all this " dance of lies" is beneficial for many (see George Soros, NATO, United States), but at least clear all the wrongs and fill in all the gaps that the page has, of course if you don't do that the administrators of wiki should. Last but not least try not to be disrespectful to the history of the region and to the history of the Greeks, sure Vardarska (the real name of the region in dispute) was a part of ancient Macedonia but so was (from a point and on) most of Asia, are they friggin Macedonians too? Clearly there are a lot of emotions from the two sides but let's be clear this site si for information, and information should be objective if not real and not misleading, mind guiding or one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanikPelops (talk • contribs) 13:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should spend a few minutes reading WP:MOSMAC and WP:ARBMAC. PepperBeast (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bolding of “Republic of North Macedonia”

As North Macedonia is not yet recognised (at all) as the name of the country (as it is yet to be approved), per MOS:BOLDSYN, while “former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is correct to be bold, “Republic of North Macedonia” is not. Macedonia (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I'm particularly worried about that detail, so I won't argue about it. I do think, however, that it's now appropriate to at least mention the renaming in the lead section, as the agreement has now been ratified at least by the one side and the planned renaming has already had profound effects on the country's international relations (invitation to NATO) and is bound to remain in the headlines for a good while, whether or not it finally goes through. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bolding or not bolding is not the relevant issue, but if some see it as a problem, then let it be unbolded for the time being. The issue is the development in the ratification process and the implementation process of the Prespa agreement - will it go all the way through, or will it be blocked somehow in the process? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

And the world holds its breath on that process. --Taivo (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Who vs. That

When referring to people use “who or whom,” when referring to animals or objects use “that.” “The Slavic peoples [that] s.b. WHO settled in the region of Macedonia converted to Christianity around the 9th century during the reign of Tsar Boris I of Bulgaria.” Kwhoopes (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Despite some prescriptive grammar myths to the contrary, that is totally appropriate and grammatical in natural English in contexts like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. People that ask for special treatment just because they are people always rattle my cage. --Taivo (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A tribe, nation, or state is not a person. --Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2018

At the end of the "Prespa Agreement, NATO and EU path" section are three one-line, one sentence "paragraphs." Could you delete the line breaks and make them a single paragraph? 208.95.51.53 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia is Greek

Alexander the great was greek because he was born in Pella of Macedonia in July of 356 BC. His parents were King Philip II of Macedonia and the Princess Olympiada of Epirus. As king of Macedonia, he continued the work of his father, Philip II, and his grandfather, Amyntha III, capable generals, politicians and diplomats, who successively reformed the Macedonian kingdom and developed it into a major force in the Greek world; in turn, Alexander made it into a global superpower. As a Macedonian he was conscious of his Greek origin. was educated by the aristotelian Greek philosopher and the well-known expressions he made "ουστιν ουν ελλας και η μακεδονια" which means there is no greek without macedonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris232 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bore off mate.59.97.118.214 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yada, yada, yada. To the editor see wp:MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

NATO & Greece against the Orthodox Russia... We should write more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:5802:A600:C1E0:C849:F712:47C (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

IMiGraal (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

| official_languages = Macedonian
Albanian

Albanian just became the second official language of the country

 Already done programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 20:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

References

The Actual Name of FYR(OM)

The currently/temporarily called FYROM has the word Macedonia and that country claims that its origin is from the Ancient Greek Macedonia which is mindblowing. Since this issue is not solved yet, you must NOT call it Macedonia and we all know there are many reasons that prove that this claim is latent. In this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece somewhere the FYR/Skopje is called the Republic of Macedonia and I object to that strongly and I request you edit it as soon as possible. When a country wrongfully claims that its name must contain the word "Macedonia" while this is supposed to be forbidden since the Ancient Greek Macedonians were Philip II or the Great Alexander, known to speak Anc. Greek also proves wrong this latent claim by FYR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeKonovaliotis (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As this has been discussed ad nauseam on Wikipedia, have a read of WP:MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

FYROM is now official "The Republic of Northern Macedonia", following a vote by lawmakers. 2601:982:4200:A6C:E13B:BCE0:6040:F1E6 (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Official name as of today is Republic of North Macedonia, short name is North Macedonia, citizenship is Macedonian / citizen of North Macedonia. --Macedonicus (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Republic of North Macedonia

As indicated by Macedonicus above, the name has changed officially. Do we change the titles now, or do we wait for the Greek parliament to also ratify the Prespa Agreement?

This is the link to the Vlada na Republika Makedonija confirming in the Macedonian language the modification of the name. [[4]] Politis

Absolutely NOT. Greece must pass the agreement in its parliament before any changes are made here. The Macedonian state placed a reciprocity clause [5] within its amendment that the change on its side becomes official only when Greece fulfills its side of the agreement. Until that time no unilateral actions should be taken on Wikipedia. Also most likely if and after those changes happen a new WP:MOSMAC by the wider wikipedia community will be needed to hash out the finer details.Resnjari (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the process is 50% done, however the act of voting on these amendments in the Macedonian Parliament does enable the new name as the official international name of the country effective immediately. So maybe the international name for now can be changed into North Macedonia and the internal one would have to wait until Greece ratifies the agreement. What do you think Resnjari? --Macedonicus (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

No, please see below. Once Greece has ratified the treaty and secondary sources have started using it (should happen very fast after ratification), we can also change it. In the meantime there's no reason to change the name. (WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS). Jeppiz (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with most of that sentiment, however any changes thereafter should not be unilateral and only done via a new WP:MOSMAC. There are clauses in the agreement about ethnicity and language and its important that those are discussed as well about changes or current conventions on the policy being reaffirmed on Wikipedia. My biggest concerns are on language and ethnicity of Macedonians and how the agreement treats them as some editors, especially those who deny their existence may misuse them to push a certain POV. A MOSMAC will need to hash out those things as well so no denialist POV is pushed about the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity and distinct language. Resnjari (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of site policy, the article's name can only be changed by a month-long RFC discussion, probably on WT:MOSMAC. I don't think the name change is official (sources have differed as to whether it takes effect before Greece approves a treaty) and COMMONNAME usage certainly hasn't shifted yet, so a move now would be premature in any event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The notion of id denial will be irrelevant - just as it is now in wikipedia, after Athens signs. The Agreement is quite clear. I think there will be two stages in the process of changing the 'Republic of Macedonia' articles in accordance with what Skopje and the international communities and institutions have agreed. The first and easiest change will be the constitutional name of the country. User:Politis

Changes will only follow via a new MOSMAC on Wikipedia to prevent silliness on the part of some editors who wish to push a certain POV through disruptive editing.Resnjari (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, as soon as Athens ratifies the Agreement and the name is officially adopted by the United Nations, the title of this article and mentions of the country anywhere else can be updated. Well, that simple enough. User:Politis

Athens has ratified North Macedonia Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that the Greek Parliament has ratified the agreement, can we achieve consensus here or is the RfC process still necessary? Hentheden (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

News is filtering in of events. Even so a change from Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia has ramifications for other wiki articles. A wider new RFC or new WP:MOSMAC might be needed to clarify things. Thoughts everyone? Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

All the news outlets started using the term North Macedonia the past couple of hours that the deal has been ratified by Greece. So it looks official. I think we need to go ahead and change the name of the article to Republic of North Macedonia Weatherextremes (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the last few paragraphs of this BBC story, the name change only becomes official once the Nato accession protocol is ratified. Number 57 16:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Which I why asked, but I think that's just a bad formulation: it says that "it will only be used" when Greece signs the NATO accession protocol, which doesn't answer the question of when it comes into legal force. Hentheden (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion be continued in the new move request thread, or at a new thread at the bottom of the page. People are not going to see this in the middle of the page, and we will likely see further additions at the bottom. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/macedonia-is-officially-renamed-north-macedonia/2019/02/12/dfc82652-2ef7-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.92c9b085a297

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019

change Macedonia to North Macedonia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/11/macedonias-parliament-votes-to-accept-new-name Mightylizard (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As the article in Guardian clearly states, the name change will take place once Greece ratifies the agreement. So not yet in force, and no change for us to do. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

New name of the article: North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia?

What will the new name of the article be after the Prespa agreement is ratified by the Greek parliament? North Macedonia or Republic of North Macedonia? I think it should be the former. The reason the current article is named Republic of Macedonia instead of just Macedonia is to avoid confusion with the Greek region of Macedonia, as well as the greater region of Macedonia. When the name of the country changes, there won't be able to have any confusion, as the name North Macedonia is not used in any other case. It also makes more sense as the articles for all countries are titled according to the short form of their name, ex. Greece not Hellenic Republic, Serbia, not Republic of Serbia etc. Mickwellington (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia, IMO. When time comes, the editors will discuss this and the WP:MOSMAC rule will be updated accordingly. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 07:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, if/when the page is moved, would the country be sorted (e.g. in List of sovereign states) under M for Macedonia or N for North Macedonia (or R for Republic of...)? Both Koreas are sorted under K on that list, and both Congos are sorted under C on that list, so I'm not sure. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This should be based on a discussion. The closest case like North Macedonia is South Africa - there's no South Macedonia, just like there's no North Africa and they are both named after a geographical entity, so it should be sorted under N. --StanProg (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am Greek. Since the agreement also introduces the NMK as international shortcut it should be named with the agreed constitutional name: Republic of North Macedonia.--Pedia4ALL (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses common shorthand name for article titles so it should be North Macedonia. Same reason we use Australia and not Commonwealth of Australia for that article title. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool. So maybe Wikipedia can be consistent with such a policy by dropping its idiotic use of the term "Republic of Ireland" (a name that has no official recognition anywhere bar in sporting events) for the nation-state of Ireland. Otherwise those arguing for the use of "Republic of North Macedonia" are entirely valid. DojoIrl (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OSE. But hey, don't get me wrong, I am absolutely and completely in favor of dropping the "Republic of" from the Ireland article title. But, I don't make the policy here and Wikipedia operates on editors' consensus, for better or worse. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Under the UN the country will be listed under N. Until now it was listed under T, for "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", right after Thailand. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2019

The Republic of North Macedonia Now Aldan-2 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Danny, you should listen to the news from time to time. Since June 2018, the Republic has signed an agreement with Greece, which would require the country to change its formal name to "Republic of North Macedonia". Months of internal negotiations, referendums, and political debate followed. Then came this announcement:

• "On 11 January 2019, the Macedonian Parliament completed the legal implementation of the Prespa Agreement by approving the constitutional changes for renaming the country to North Macedonia with a two-thirds parliamentary majority (81 MPs). The international community, NATO and European Union leaders, including Greek PM Alexis Tsipras and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, as well as heads of neighboring states, congratulated the Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev. The British Prime Minister Theresa May described the vote as a "historic moment", while the Kosovar President Hashim Thaçi expressed his hope that the Prespa Agreement, which resolved the Macedonia Naming Dispute, can be used as a "model" for resolving Kosovo's dispute with Serbia as well."

References

We have further coverage in the article Macedonia naming dispute.Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and the amendment of the change of the Constitutional name "North Macedonia" will enter into force following the ratification of the Prespa agreement and the yet-to-be-signed Protocol on the Accession of Macedonia to NATO by the Greek Parliament. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

remarks on today vote in the Macedonian parliament

Name of the country "Republic of Macedonia" should remain unchanged because "Agreement from Prespa" on name matter yet has to be ratified in the Greek Parliament, and according to the Macedonian Law for Implementation of Constitutional Changes, before approval and ratification of the Agreement of Prespa in Greece, changes of the Macedonian of Constitution will not enter into force. So, before final decision in Greece Parliament including the end of the process of ratification of the mentioned Agreement, the name of the country id still "Republic of Macedonia", not new one "Republic of North Macedonia".93.86.1.126 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

To the IP i agree. Admins wont allow a change anyway until the the whole process is done and also it will most likely be through a new WP:MOSMAC on Wikipedia as there other smaller but important details in that agreement that refer to citizenship, ethnicity etc.Resnjari (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:NAMECHANGES rule states that the article title shouldn't change right away. Instead, we have to wait until reliable sources (like major news media) start reporting on the country for reasons other than the name change, and then we should use whatever their consensus is. More generally, the WP:COMMONNAME rule says we shouldn't simply use whatever the official name is, but rather we should use the name that's most commonly used by reliable sources. Pdxuser (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all the previous speakers, the name remains the same for now. Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Official language

The official language information on the page is actually inaccurate. There is no such language recognized by any other of the countries that have any claims and/or historical connection to the lands that are currently within the artificially created country Macedonia (Republic of Macedonia). The replacement of some Cyrillic characters in the Bulgarian alphabet with western Latin characters to enforce differences with the original script makes neither a new language, nor a new alphabet. The so called "Macedonian" language is still officially a Bulgarian dialect, and we (Bulgarians) have not recognized it as a separate language.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.250.73 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC) 

Spare us the time and read WP:FYROM. Coltsfan (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2019

Need to change the official Language, its bilingual now, Macedonian & Albanian are the 2 Official Languages. To be clear, since in 24 hours there has been lot of editing on the official language (s) of this country. This Country is Bilingual (Albanian/Macedonian), & it has also been announced on Reliable medias that its official & that they're starting to make all street signs bilingual. You can easily find reliable sources stating that. There is no such a thing as gossip or mass media saying lies. Just by a research i found out the voting of the Parliament [got voted & Passed 81/120 MP's], And the Speaker of the Parliament posted a picture of himself ans stated that its a law. Its Official! 69.14.238.177 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, not in this way. Its more complicated then that and there already is a thread open above on how the deal with these things in a neutral way.Resnjari (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Closing out this edit request for now a consensus is needed before this can be implemented via edit requests. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

New Name

I am not of the clearance to edit the articles name but recently Macedonia was officially changed to North Macedonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldan-2 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Greece has to vote on the agreement for it be official as Macedonia placed a reciprocity clause after it accepted changes in its parliament.Resnjari (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2019

• add {{R from alternative name}}
  • Reason - Macedonia naming dispute uses the term. Widefox; talk 20:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Name change completed on 25-01-2019

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

---

Hi, according to Athens-Macedonian News Agency (amna.gr) and many other international media, the Greek Parliament has ratified the Prespa treaty (153 YES, 146 NO, 1 ABSTAIN), hence, Constitutional Changes in FYROM take immediate effect. Constitutional name is now "Republic of North Macedonia".

https://www.amna.gr/en/article/328428/Prespes-Agreement-ratified-by-the-Greek-parliament https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/world/europe/greece-macedonia-name-change-protests.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/greek-parliament-approves-macedonia-190124060302464.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightylizard (talk • contribs) 2019-01-25T13:45:20 (UTC)

---

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

Republic of North Macedonia

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

---

Republic of North Macedonia is the new name after today vote in greek Parliament 195.130.87.150 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the last few paragraphs of this BBC story, the name change only becomes official once the Nato accession protocol is ratified. Number 57 16:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

---

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

New native country name

Kindly request to add/move-up "Republic of North Macedonia" in the Macedonian language "(Macedonian: Република Северна Македонија, romanized: Republika Severna Makedonija)" to the Names and etymology section or possibly to the introductory section for reader's reference. Currently it is difficult to find as it is only found under the Naming dispute section much further down in the article. Thank you for your consideration! --Shibo77 (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2019

2A02:2149:8608:7D00:904E:5325:132F:49A (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Language|al: Republika e Maqedonisë.

As far as albanian is an co-oficial language.

Not done You did not provide any reliable source , unlike the section above (#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2019) Matthew hk (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia is the name

North Macedonia is the name Narethium (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Narethium: Nope. North Macedonia will be the name soon. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

Albanian is not an official language of the Republic of Macedonia. Please change that. Thank you. 79.126.249.156 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done can you provide sources backing your request? The sources we got, say otherwise, that it is an official language. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

NATO--OTAN

MACEDONIA IS A MEMBER OF NATO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.197.108 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean North Macedonia Engelleip96 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Name change

The name is now officially the "Republic of North Macedonia". Greece has ratified the NATO accession protocol. Antondimak (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Initiated the Article Move procedures. Please see below. --✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

The country referred to as "Macedonia (FYROM)" or "Republic of Macedonia"should now be renamed and referred to as "Republic of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia" as Greece has now ratified the country's succession to NATO and will be ratifying its entry to the EU ad agreed to in the terms of the Prespa Agreement. 2607:FEA8:3B80:912:DDDF:9C48:A1FD:1976 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done There is already a Move Request ongoing, above. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing Greek-related History and Heritage from North Macedonia's Country Page (Prespa Agreement)

Not going to happen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Prespa Agreement, already ratified by both countries, clearly states the historic, cultural and linguistic differences between North Macedonia and the Greek (Hellenic) Macedonia, disassociating (greek) Macedonian history (from antiquity to modern times, passing by the byzantine and ottoman epochs) from North Macedonian history, culture, etc. More precisely: ARTICLE 7 (of Prespa Agreement) 1. The Parties acknowledge that their respective understanding of the terms “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” refers to a different historical context and cultural heritage. 2. When reference is made to the First Party (Hellenic Republic), these terms denote not only the area and people of the northern region of the First Party ((Hellenic Republic),but also their attributes, as well as the Hellenic civilization, history, culture, and heritage of that region from antiquity to present day. 3. When reference is made to the Second Party (Republic of North Macedonia),these terms denote its territory, language, people and their attributes, with their own history, culture, and heritage, distinctly different from those referred to under Article 7(2). 4. The Second Party (Republic of North Macedonia) notes that its official language, the Macedonian language, is within the group of South Slavic languages. The Parties note that the official language and other attributes of the Second Party ((Republic of North Macedonia) are not related to the ancient Hellenic civilization, history, culture and heritage of the northern region (Macedonia)of the First Party (Hellenic Republic). 5. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to denigrate in any way, or to alter or affect, the usage by the citizens of either Party. Therefore, any historical, linguistic, or cultural references included in North Macedonia's page and that are directly linked to Macedonia, its Hellenic History, culture, language, etc., (from Paeonians, and the ancient Macedon Kingdom - Philip and Alexander - to the Byzantine and Ottoman times), according to the Article 7 of the Agreement (above) between the two Parties, should: a) be removed from North Macedonia country profile b) be linked to and contained exclusively under the profile of Macedonia (Hellenic) All historical, linguistic, cultural ambiguities that might have existed until recently between the two civilizations in question having been clarified, Macedonian history should not be treated on a "regional" level, but on a country level. Namely: - Whatever is of Hellenic relation/origin to Macedonia (from antiquity to Modern times), should be included in the country profile of Greece and linked to Macedonia (Hellenic Province) - Whatever is of Slavic/Albanian relation/origin to the territory of North Macedonia, should be linked exclusively to the latter The above recommendation should also make provisions for: - A mentioning and disambiguation under North Macedonia's country page as to the "disassociation from the Macedonia province and history/heritage of Greece” - A mentioning and disambiguation between Macedonia (Hellenic Province) and the former use of the term as a geographical descriptive of a wider "common area". This becomes imperative given that going forward, and as per Article 7 of the Prespa Agreement there is either North Macedonia as a country (Slavic/Albanian and unrelated to Ancient Macedonia and the Greek civilization), and Macedonia, the northern greek province, heir to the ancient and medieval history of what has been historically known as "Macedonia" and its greek character (prior to the independence of North Macedonia from former Yugoslavia) - Symbols and myths related to Ancient Macedonia (part of Hellenic heritage, as per the Agreement) such as the Vergina Sun, Kings, rulers - Philip, Alexander, etc. - should be removed from North Macedonia's country page - Nationality vs. ethnicity: the Prespa Agreement talks of a nationality "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia". Nationality is the citizenship of an individual, i.e. the legal relationship one has with a State, and is different from ethnicity. This means that "Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia" is only a nationality whereas ethnicity here is to be determined by the ethnic background of the citizen in question: e.g. Slav, Albanian, Turk, etc. This extremely important part of the Agreement between the two countries should also be highlighted in North Macedonia's country profile. - In the same spirit as above, ethnic or etymological relations of North Macedonia nationals and term “Macedonian” derived from Greek “Makednoi”, should be clarified and removed from North Macedonia’s country page, as they are related only to (Greek) Macedonia. I.e., given that “Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia” is not an ethnic descriptive but only a citizenship one, ethnic relations with the “Makednoi” are only relevant to Greece and its citizens (this being part of the ancient Hellenic heritage of Macedonia, as contained in the Agreement) - Finally, there should be a disambiguation included referring to the language of North Macedonia. Namely that the indication of "Macedonian" is not related to (Greek) Macedonia, but exclusively to North Macedonia, being part of the South Slavic languages, unrelated to Greek language or heritage, as registered in 1977 in the U.N. In order to accurately inform our readers and researchers about North Macedonia, its people, country, history and heritage, the above changes should be ideally made to coincide with the official name change on the respective country page of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. Finally, and to avoid any misinterpretations of the above recommendations, please find a link (below) to the official text of the Prespa Agreement, which should ideally also be included in the country page of North Macedonia. All the best. A.dU. Prespa Agreement (English PDF) Prespa Agreement on-line — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroDeUlises (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is the second time such a blatant request happens. The previous one, wasn't just a week ago? To use the Prespa Agreement as pretext for changes in the history section of the article is unacceptable. Everyone is urged to refrain from similar requests in the future. -- ✿ SilentResident ✿ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Name

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

---

The name Northern Macedonia is already accepted by N. Macedonian parliament and Greek parliament, so the official name of state is now NORTHERN MACEDONIA. Change the name!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrejsrbrus17 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Name in Lithuanian

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

---

In Lithuanian language "North Macedonia" is "Šiaurės Makedonija" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.135.242.241 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Albanian language is the 2nd official state-wide language since 14.01.2019

@MacedonianBoy: According to the "Law for use of languages, Article 1, Paragraph 2" the Albanian language is official on the whole territory of the Republic of Macedonia. The law was promulgated in the "Public Enterprise Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia", Issue 7, 14.01.2019, which makes it effective since that date. Note that the "official_languages" parameter of template "Infobox country" is for "Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.", not only according to the constitution.

Here's what the Law for use of languages says (non official translation):

Article 1

(1) The entire territory of the Republic of Macedonia and in its international relations is the official language of the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic alphabet.

(2) Another language spoken by at least 20% of the citizens (Albanian language) is also an official language and its alphabet, in accordance with this law.

(3) In all of bodies of state power in the Republic of Macedonia, central institutions, public enterprises, agencies, directorates, institutions and organizations, commissions, legal entities that perform public authorizations in accordance with law and other institutions, an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and its alphabet is the language spoken by 20% of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia and its alphabet, as defined in this Law.

(4) In the bodies of local self-government, the language and alphabet used by at least 20% of the citizens is an official language, in addition to the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic alphabet. About the use of languages ​​and alphabets spoken by less than 20% of the citizens in the units of local self-government, the bodies of the local self-government units decide.

Official text:

Член 1

(1) На целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо.

(2) Друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните (албански јазик), исто така, е службен јазик и неговото писмо, согласно овој закон.

(3) Во сите органи на државната власт во Република Македонија, централни институции, јавни претпријатија, агенции, дирекции, установи и организации, комисии, правни лица кои вршат јавни овластувања согласно закон и други институции, службен јазик покрај македонскиот јазик и неговото писмо е и јазикот што го зборуваат 20% од граѓаните на Република Македонија и неговото писмо, на начин определен со овој закон.

(4) Во единиците на локалната самоуправа јазикот и писмото што го користат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик, покрај македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. За употребата на јазиците и писмата на кои зборуваат помалку од 20% од граѓаните во единиците на локалната самоуправа, одлучуваат органите на единиците на локалната самоуправа.

As you can see, only Paragraph 4 is related to the local use of the language. Paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 is for the country wide use. This Law makes the Albanian language an official language recognized as such in the Republic of Macedonia legislation. Let me know if you have any objections toward moving the Albanian language in the Official languages part of the infobox.--StanProg (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The Constitution still recognizes Macedonian as the primary official language state-wide and only official language internationally speaking, Albanian has extended official usage, but not on the same level with Macedonian, hence in international relations the only official language remains the Macedonian and the formulation - "another language spoken by more than 20%" and "...is official in accordance with this law" makes the law complementary to the Constitution which was the case even before it. The key difference is that Albanian now is official in more government-based institutions & Parliament. I think that there needs to be additional category in the infobox which will be in accordance with the Macedonian legislation for example: "Second State-wide official language: Albanian". If Albanian was de jure second official then I would not write this now. Some smaller Albanian parties did request an amendment to the Constitution that would stipulate Albanian as a second official language, if that ever happens Albanian will be on par with Macedonian, right now it isn't.Macedonicus (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Albanian designated Macedonia's 2nd Official Language per Associated Press confirmed by the New York Times on Jan. 15, 2019. Jingiby (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Albanian media have been going around with this since 2008, it doesn't mean it's true though. I prefer reading information from legal documents instead of media. Macedonicus (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If it was official, it would be in the constitution. Since you refer to the media, why dont you mention the fact that they (Albanian political parties) still think its not official and on the same level as Macedonian? One of the conditions (which was rejected by Zaev) was making Albanian same as Macedonian. This law is more or less the same to the existing from 2008, the difference is the plaques and the websites (big deal). RegardsMacedonianBoy (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Macedonicus: The parameter "official_languages" is not only for the official language according to the constitution, but according to the legislation as well, which is the case here. Also the "official languages" is not just for "international relations", but the official languages of the country - country-wide (there is separate parameter for the local ones i.e. used in specific Municipalities). Since yesterday the Albanian language is official in all government institutions, not in "more government-based institutions & Parliament". It was already official in the Parliament before that Law. No need for "additional category in the infobox which will be in accordance with the Macedonian legislation", since "official_languages" definition already includes that: "Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.". Of course the Albanian language should be 2nd in the list of the official languages, and we could add notes regarding the fact, that the Albanian language is official according to the legislation, and may be a note for the Macedonian language that is official according to the constitution and the legislation. You can read the law article above. Also you can check the Decree itself: [6] from the official facebook page of the President of the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, who signed it. --StanProg (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy: The "Official languages" parameter of the "Infobox country" template is not just for the official languages according to the constitution, but also for the ones according to the legislation as well. So this is the exact place for the Albanian language, according to the Law promulgated yesterday. What "Albanian political parties" think is irrelevant. It's not just "plaques and the websites" as you can see in Article 1 "In all of bodies of state power in the Republic of Macedonia, central institutions, public enterprises, agencies, directorates, institutions and organizations, commissions, legal entities that perform public authorizations in accordance with law and other institutions". --StanProg (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you skip the part with 'in regions where the the population is more than 20%, but different from the Macedonian'? Read better.MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't. This is related to the other languages, which has more than 20% speakers only in specific regions, like Turkish, Romani, Serbian, etc. In Article 1, Paragrah 2 it is explicitly specified that it's about Albanian language, since this is the 2nd language which has more than 20% speakers as a whole in Republic of Macedonia. Other languages except Macedonian and Albanian have less than 20% speakers countrywide. According the the Law there are 2 official languages, and more official ones only in local context i.e. in the specific municipalities. --StanProg (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

To summarize:

• Paragraph 1 is for the official Macedonian language
• Paragraph 2 is for the official Albanian language
• Paragraph 3 is for the countrywide (global) organizations (related to Macedonian and Albanian - the language spoken by 20% of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia)
• Paragraph 4 is for the local administration (related to all the languages)

--StanProg (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Do we have reliable secondary sources that state clearly that the status of Albanian will be effective across the whole country? I may be missing something, but so far I haven't seen any actual source that says so; the only citable source brought forward above was the nytimes article at [7], but that one explicitly says "Albanian will now be used by state institutions in areas where ethnic Albanians comprise over 20 percent of the population". It may well be mistaken about that, but do we have anything more precise? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia's Albanian-Language Bill Becomes Law, Radio Free Europe/Radio LibertyJanuary 15, 2019. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: The last sentence from NY Times "Albanian will now be used by state institutions in areas where ethnic Albanians comprise over 20 percent of the population." is actually something that was added to the Constitution according to the Ohrid Agreement in 2001 (Amendment V), so this is not something new. --StanProg (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Under the new legislation, Macedonian continues to be the primary official language, while Albanian, which has until now been an official language only in areas where the minority makes up at least 20 percent of the population, will be used now as a second official one, including at a national level: in administrative, health, judicial, police, and other official matters. Jingiby (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, that is why I propose a change in the infobox, the current depiction is misleading/misguiding as if Albanian is on the same level as Macedonian. If you are an ethnic Macedonian your passport will have Macedonian, English and French but if you are ethnic Albanian in North Macedonia your passport will contain Macedonian, Albanian, English and French. I hope I am clear enough as to explain the difference. North Macedonia will have one constitutive official language for every purpose just like before and two official state-wide languages, and even in the state-wide affairs it won't be 100% equal to Macedonian, hence the need for additional clarification. Macedonicus (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The infobox as it is now does not imply that Albanian is 100% equal to Macedonian - it implies that Albanian is used officially under certain circumstances, which it is according to the new law. The fact that certain passports will use Albanian in them shows precisely this. An official language is a language used by the apparatus of the state; a regional language is a language used within a certain region of said state. To not include Albanian as an official language (even though it is not the only official language) would effectively wrongly downgrade it to a regional language as opposed to what the intention of the law seems to be. --Michail (blah) 21:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the Official languages section, Macedonian and Albanian are listed, which is okay, but it would be better/correct if there is a new categorization above this lets say titled as 'Official language for state-wide and international relations' (or some more adequate formulation) which would enlist the Macedonian only and below it another category titled 'Official languages country-wide or state-wide' which would enlist Macedonian and Albanian.Macedonicus (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Not good, since Albanian is not nation-wide. Not used on currency, nor the official markings/ uniforms/ signs where there are not 20% Albanians. The law states that, that Albanian is co-official in procedures/ uniforms/ street signs where there are at least 20% population different than the Macedonian. More accurate will be Official language (Macedonian listed), Regional working language (Albanian) and Regional minor languages (Serbian all others).MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, that could work too.Macedonicus (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy: This is very far from the facts. As stated in Article 2, Paragraph 2 the Albanian language is the 2nd official language in the state. All country-wide institutions are obligated to use it as official. The Albanian language is country-wide language in "In all organs of state power in the Republic of Macedonia" (Article 1, Paragrah 3) and this is far from the definition that you give as "Regional working language". It is official language in the Parliament (Article 4) and in the Government (Article 5). In the court yards the Albanian language is also country-wide official (Article 9). At the notary documents the Albanian language is also country-wide official, alongside the Macedonian - "notary procedures, notarial documents and certificates can be only in Macedonian and Albanian" (Article 10, Paragraph 1) and enforcement agent procedure documents must be in Albanian, if the person speaks that language (Article 10, Paragraph 2). The Personal documents and passports are also in Albanian (20% of the citizens) which is also country-wide use (Article 12, Paragraph 3). The identity cards the names will also be written in Albanian (20% of the citizens rule) - country-wide obviously (Article 13, Paragraph 2). The only exception for country-wide use is regarding the money & postmark stamps - they may not be in Albanian, but they will contain symbols that represent the Albanian (20% of the citizens) cultural heritage (Article 8). For me there's no doubt that according to the new Law, the Albanian language became 2nd official and country-wide language, which puts it exactly in the category "Official languages (according to the legislation)". Of course it's not equal to the Macedonian language, but still country-wide official, not just "regional working". --StanProg (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@StanProg: One tiny fact is being kept forgotten, the article that says Macedonian is the only official one for international relations. Wikipedia is an international relation and as such it falls under that category. Where can I propose the infobox changes though? I strongly feel they are the solution for our situation.Macedonicus (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Albanian has equal status as does Macedonian, in the Republic of Macedonia so it should be part of "Official languages" Dark pikachuu (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Dark_pikachuu

@Macedonicus: The description of the parameter "official_languages" does not explicitly specify that it's only used for "official languages for international relations". It says: "Languages recognised in legislation, constitution, etc.". Also, I'm not convinced based on the text and the explanation of the Law that Albanian language can't be used for international relations. This is not written explicitly. For that we may need some reliable source. You can propose a change on the talk page of the template. Make sure you ping some of the most active editors of the template - this will attract more attention. For me a good solution is to add the Albanian language after the Macedonian in "Official languages" and with a small note to specify the big differences. In the "Languages" section of the article we can add some more detailed information, based on that Law. --StanProg (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Again you skip fact Stan just to push your point. The law says that the other language (Albanian) is official as 'this law defines' and just under that it says in municipalities and regions where Albanians make 20%. Since you do not understand, let me explain. In Struga on the border cross will say Република Македонија and Republika e Maqedonise (same for the uniforms/ street signs/ plaques/ etc), but in Strumica, Gevgelija, Kriva Palanka, Bitola it will say only Република Македонија (same for uniforms/ street signs/etc). The only new thing now, is that they can send a letter or refer to the courts/ government in Albanian. Everything else was as it was. Still dont get it? (If it was equal the Denars would be in Albanian, Macedonians would have Albanian in schools, etc). Regards. Since its not official as Macedonian, the level of usage of the Albanian should be mentioned in the language section, but not in infobox or intro. MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand it pretty well. You are talking about the exceptions from the country-wide use, which are minor. Up until this Law, there was just "AMENDMENT V" from the Constitution introduced in 2001:

AMENDMENT V

1. The Macedonian language, written using its Cyrillic alphabet, is the official language throughout the Republic of Macedonia and in the international relations of the Republic of Macedonia. Any other language spoken by at least 20 percent of the population is also an official language, written using its alphabet, as specified below. Any official personal documents of citizens speaking an official language other than Macedonian shall also be issued in that language, in addition to the Macedonian language, in accordance with the law. Any person living in a unit of local self-government in which at least 20 percent of the population speaks an official language other than Macedonian may use that official language to communicate with the regional office of the central government with responsibility for that municipality; such an office shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian. Any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall reply in that language in addition to Macedonian.

In the organs of the Republic of Macedonia, any official language other than Macedonian may be used in accordance with the law. In the units of local self-government where at least 20 percent of the population speaks a particular language, that language and its alphabet shall be used as an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and the Cyrillic alphabet. With respect to languages spoken by less than 20 percent of the population of a unit of local self-government, the local authorities shall decide on their use in public bodies.

2. This amendment replaces Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia.

This amendment was replaced by the "Law for use of languages" which has 24 times more text, so your theory of "Everything else was as it was" is very far from the truth.

Here's the official explanation of the Article 1, Paragrahs 1, 2 & 3 which are related to county-wide use of the Albanian language:

Со член 1 е пропишано дека на целата територија во Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи службен јазик е македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо. Исто така, друг јазик што го зборуваат најмалку 20% од граѓаните е службен јазик и неговото писмо (албански), согласно овој закон. Во сите органи на државната власт во Република Македонија, централни институции, јавни претпријатија, агенции, дирекции, установи и организации, комисии, правни лица кои вршат јавни овластувања согласно закон и други институции, службен јазик покрај македонскиот јазик и неговото писмо е и јазикот што го зборуваат 20% од граѓаните на Република Македонија и неговото писмо, на начин определен со овој закон.

which roughly can be translated as:

Article 1 stipulates that the official language of the Republic of Macedonia and in its international relations is the Macedonian language and its Cyrillic alphabet. Also, another language spoken by at least 20% of the citizens is an official language and its alphabet (Albanian), in accordance with this law. In all organs of state power in the Republic of Macedonia, central institutions, public enterprises, agencies, directorates, institutions and organizations, commissions, legal entities that perform public authorizations according to law and other institutions, an official language in addition to the Macedonian language and its alphabet is also the language is spoken by 20% of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia and its letter, in a manner defined by this law.

Do you understand that this makes the language country-wide official or you still insist on the minor currency/postmarks/street/square/bridge names & road signs exceptions? As I said the Albanian language is not equal regarding the use to the Macedonian, but it's the 2nd official on the whole territory of the Republic of Macedonia. It's not official just in regional context. --StanProg (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Minister of Economy of Republic of Macedonia Kreshnik Bekteshi, clearly says: "Од денеска официјален јазик во Република Македонија е македонскиот и албанскиот јазик." (From today, official languages of the Republic of Macedonia are the Macedonian and the Albanian languages). Бектеши: Од денеска официјален јазик е и албанскиот јазик (ВИДЕО). Any comments @MacedonianBoy and Macedonicus: or the Minister also "do not understand" the Law? --StanProg (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy: @StanProg:The minister is an ethnic Albanian AND politician, of course he is going to say that. I will once again say, I don't bother with what people and media say, I only care what laws and legal matter say, they speak louder than any politician or journalist. If two languages are not on a same level, then they should not be in a same category. Again, the solution could be custom made template for North Macedonia, I mentioned the details above. The Constitution is very clear about which official language is more official and which one is less official and Wikipedia needs to portray that as well, but I will not allow a random curious person who googles North Macedonia to get a misleading information that Albanian is on the same level as Macedonian. When they change the constitution in some near or distant future and they do in fact say 'The official languages of the Republic of North Macedonia are Macedonian and Albanian for every usage, both international and internal', then I would be the first one to make the changes here.Macedonicus (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Macedonicus and well said. Below is a thread about how to address an Albanian name in the article possible within a name section so it deals with the legislation without it being POV.Resnjari (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Macedonicus and Resnjari: Why does the Minister of Economy lies that the Albanian language is a official language of the Republic of Macedonia? Because he is a Minister or because he is an Ethnic Albanian? If he was Ethnic Macedonian will you believe him? Now seriously. If the politicians (including Ministers) and journalists are wrong, why do you think that your interpretation of the Law is right? It's pretty clear what the Law says. I agree that the two languages are not identical as principles of applying as official languages, just like in other multi-lingual countries, like Belgium, Switzerland, etc - there are always exceptions. In the "Official languages" section of the Infobox, after Macedonian and Albanian languages we can add a note, explaining that the Macedonian is official according to the Constitution and both are official according to the legislation (Law for use of languages). The specifics can be added in the Language section. You don't need to create a separate infobox template for the Republic of Macedonia. It will not even be a template in that case. --StanProg (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Macedonicus, Resnjari, and StanProg: I agree with StanProg. Just because he is a different ethnicity that does not discredit him. He is the Minister of Economy. We should avoid that type of stereotyping this discussion. @StanProg: I also agree that we should include a note in the official languages section. Vepton (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a note or something like that as you propose @StanProg for the infobox explaining the status of Albanian (propose some kind of wording for this), but not the Alb language name for the state in the infobox and lede, due to reasons as explained above and below in another thread. The Alb name of the state can go into the Name/Etymology section to avoid POV.Resnjari (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Here's what I came with: Macedonian (Official on the whole territory of the state and in its international relations), Albanian (Official on a state level (excluding defense, central police and monetary policy) and in the units of the local self-government, where at least 20% of the population speaks the Albanian language). --StanProg (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Where would you like to place this, in footnotes to the lead and to the box? For my taste that's far too detailed there; this should go somewhere further down in the body. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@MacedonianBoy, Resnjari, and StanProg: Here's an official statement for the most relevant institution - the Government (https://vlada.mk/node/16423):

Законот за јазици ги унапредува правата на сите немнозински заедници и не предвидува нови вработувања, а македонскиот јазик со кирилското писмо останува единствен службен јазик и на цела територија на Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи

...работата на Агенцијата ќе се однесува на сите јазици...

..Агенцијата ќе ги опслужува општините и другите институции во оние населени места каде што мнозинството граѓани се Македонци. Во тие градови, во случај кога некој граѓанин од албанска, ромска, бошњачка, српска, турска, ромска или друга етничка заедница ќе има потреба од каков бил документ на друг јазик, покрај македонскиот јазик, тогаш Централната агенција ќе им излезе во пресрет на тие граѓани, да им обезбеди услуга на нивниот мајчин јазик којшто најдобро го разбираат...

..Употребата на македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо е регулирана со ставот 1 од наведениот амандман на Уставот и со Законот за употреба на македонскиот јазик од 1998 година и при тоа македонскиот јазик и неговото кирилско писмо е службен јазик на целата територија на Република Македонија и во нејзините меѓународни односи...

..Законот не воведува целосна двојазичност ниту на целата територија на Република Македонија, ниту во сите области на правниот поредок. Во меѓународните односи, одбраната, централната полиција и монетарната политика, македонскиот јазик е единствен официјален јазик во Република Македонија, што е утврдено со Законот за употреба на македонскиот јазик од 1998 година...

Unofficial translation made by me:

The law on languages promotes the rights for every minority language and does not require new employments, and Macedonian language with its cyrillic script remains the only official language through the entire territory of the Republic of Macedonia and its international relations.

...the work of the Agency will enhance every minority language...

..The agency will service the municipalities and other institutions where the majority ethnic group is Macedonian. In those places, in case Albanian, Romani, Bosniak, Serbian, Turkish or some other ethnic minority has a need of a document in their own native language apart from the Macedonian, the Central agency will provide them service in their native language...

..Macedonian language and its cyrillic script is official language on the entire territory of RoM and in its international relations...

..The law does not bring full bilinguality neither on the entire territory of Macedonia, nor in every aspect of the jurisdiction. In the international relations, defense, central police and monetary policy, Macedonian language is the only official language in the Republic of Macedonia...

Macedonicus (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

StanProg, your wording is good. Future Perfect at Sunrise has a point about detail, so we can place it in the language section. Thoughts? Looking at the section it has sentences that needs some upgrading and clarification. The first sentence is this The official and most widely spoken language are Macedonian, followed by Albanian. and the second is this Although it is the only language explicitly designated as an official national language in the constitution, in municipalities where at least 20% of the population is part of another ethnic minority, those individual languages are used for official purposes in local government, alongside Macedonian and Albanian. The other languages are official but not in the same sense as Albanian is now due to the upgrade. Best guys.Resnjari (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari: Agreed. StanProg provides indisputable evidence. I also recommend we modify the info box as well as the first sentence with Albanian as the second official language. Not sure why there is so much objection to this when it is clearly outlined in the official gazette. Vepton (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: This can be added as ref note in the Official languages section of the Infobox, like: Macedonian, Albanian. That way it will not be intrusive and if someone needs more detail, can take a look at the note. After all this "official languages" is for constitutional, legislative, etc. ones, so I think it's good to be clarified there as a note. I'm not convinced if we should or should not include the Albanian as an "Official regional language" in the Infobox, because in a regional context the Albanian is treated the same as all the other languages, except Macedonian. @Resnjari: In the language section we can be more detailed. If we add the Albanian as "official regional", we can skip the "and in the units of the local self-government, where at least 20% of the population speaks the Albanian language" part from the "Official languages" reference note. Locally (per Municipality) the Albanian language is on the same level as all the other minority languages, so we don't need to mentions "alongside Macedonian and Albanian". Regarding the local use, it's more like "alongside Macedonian". --StanProg (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

StanProg that's sounds fine. I'm on board with that. Best. :)Resnjari (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Lead sentence bloat

The worst bad habit of Wikipedians is not POV-pushing, but pedantry. And among the worst forms of pedantry on Wikipedia is lead sentence bloat. As of today, this article has 11(!) name variants, glosses and transcriptions in its lead sentence, up from nine before people added Albanian translations today. This, plus several times the strings "Macedonian" and "Albanian" as language tags. On my screen this makes more than two entire lines of text consisting only of variants of the term "Macedonia", which the reader has to parse before they even get to the defining predicate "... is a country ...". This is not even counting all the coverage of "Former Yugoslav" or "North Macedonia" variants in the rest of the lead paragraph.

This is unacceptable. It's nothing to do with whether or not we want to acknowledge the new co-official status of Albanian. But it can't be stressed often enough: We should not use the mentioning or non-mentioning of a name translation in a lead sentence as a symbolic mark of the significance of this or that language for the topic of the article. The only real criterion for what name variants should be in the lead sentence is what is important and interesting to our (English-speaking) readers. This list needs to be cut down, to (I'd say) maximally half its present length. Other details (including phonetic info, transliterations, translations in the co-official language etc.) need to be moved to a "Name" section further down. I'll probably do that some time tomorrow if and when I find the time; until then I'm open for suggestions about which entries should be prioritized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, i agree. The two mini paragraphs that can be removed from the lede are the ones starting with "The country became a member" and "The Prespa agreement" (although maybe the bit about being in the UN might be needed?). Overall too much and wp:undue (especially the second paragraph).Resnjari (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the subsequent paragraphs of the lead section. Those are fine as far as I'm concerned. I was talking exclusively about the overlong list of name glosses right at the beginning of the first sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

On the bit you refer to, about the lede sentence, other articles have that kind of thing as well. If its removed here, all it would do is encourage some editors who feel aggrieved to edit war over it by adding or removing bits of info. On the paragraphs themselves they are over bloating. There is no need to go on about the Prespa deal in that amount of detail or for that matter the silly name dispute with Greece. The country went through much more in its history and those events are only mentioned in the lede in a limited sense. At the very least the Prespa deal and name issue should be shrunk to a sentence or two and placed in chronological order in the area of the lede talking about its history (not in its current position which is WP:UNDUE).Resnjari (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, I looked around and one article stood out as an example that both deals with the official name and names in other languages that are official in certain parts of the country, but not the whole. See the Spain article they deal with it as a note in the first sentence. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me the Spanish solution is a good one. Jonathunder (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Another solution is the Switzerland/Belgium one i.e. to be only in the Infobox. --StanProg (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are good too, but i am also looking at it from the perspective of which example will cause the least edit wars as well. Editors who have an interest on Macedonian related topics may oppose the Switzerland/Belgium model, while those with a focus on Albanian related topics may prefer that. The Spain page example gets to cover those extra names while not causing widespread issues. Editors have pointed out that Albanian is not the official working language of the whole state, even with Albanian becoming an official 2nd language in places that have speakers at the 20% mark and services extended beyond that geographically for certain things.Resnjari (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

More discussion is needed for which formula best fits here.Resnjari (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Albanian (and in future other) have legal improvement in the usage of the languages, but still geographically limited. Basically its the old law, which was named Usage of languages on municipal level, not a bit extended and put into new legal frame. The names of the country in other languages other then Macedonian should be put into Name section. The Spain example in the intro paragraph is also good, Macedonian name with notes, but I am more for the Name/ Etymology section. MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A name/etymology section can do it too.Resnjari (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Usage of Albanian language is no more geographically limited. The law extends the official use of Albanian over the entire country, easing communication in Albanian with institutions like municipalities, hospitals and courts. The previous law defined Albanian as an official language, but only gave it that status in those areas where Albanians make up over 20 per cent of the local population. Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the new law has extended its use over the whole country in that sense, but still its not the official working language like on coinage and so on. Its tricky this because the ramifications are wider. For example in Wikipedia it would be POV (and provocative) to place an Albanian name for all the settlements of Macedonia that do not have an Albanian population, or for that matter municipalities like say Strumica, Delcevo as Komuna e Strumicës or Komuna e Dellçevës for the same reason. I guess for here a name section would be the best way to avoid edits wars, not come out as POVish while still satisfying those that want the Albanian name in an area of the article where its visible, while satisfying others who do not want it pushed in the infobox or lede sentence.Resnjari (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Official explanation by the Macedonian government regarding the languages:

Законот не воведува целосна двојазичност ниту на целата територија на Република Македонија, ниту во сите области на правниот поредок. Во меѓународните односи, одбраната, централната полиција и монетарната политика, македонскиот јазик е единствен официјален јазик во Република Македонија, што е утврдено со Законот за употреба на македонскиот јазик од 1998 година.

The law does not implement total bilingualism nor on the whole territory of the Republic of Macedonia, nor in the areas of the law regulations. For the international relations, defence, central police and monetary policy, the Macedonian is the sole official language in the Republic of Macedonia, which is regulated by the Law on the Macedonian from 1998

Furthermore, they explain that the law gives the minorities to use their language, and regarding the municipalities where no such minorities exist, but a person may seek a document on a language different than the Macedonian, the Central agency will provide it. This is the new thing in the core. Source: Government of the Republic of Macedonia .MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we please keep this thread on topic? What does that law have to do with anything? We were discussing how to slim down the beginning of the lead sentence, and the precise legal status of Albanian has diddly squat to do with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, actually there is a point to touching upon Albanian within this discussion as its an interconnected issue. For a while that Albanian name was in lede and infobox. There are editors that held the view that law meant in its entirety Albanian was a 2nd official language over the whole country hence implying that is was a working government language. That is not the case, however it status has been upgraded significantly. So ramifications about having it in the lede or infobox do not suffice, but still it ought to be included somewhere visible to reflect that reality. Editors are ok with it going into a name/etymology section with the rest of the content. It better editors discuss respectfully of what the law outlines and how to deal with it in wikipedia, then have to deal with silly edit wars in future. Anyway there is support for your suggestions and whenever time permits transfer the content about multiple names into a separate name/etymology section. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the status of this country's languages, this article is in English. The infobox should be in English, as should be as much of the lede as possible. We can give multiple language versions of the name in the body or perhaps even in footnotes. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a name section in the body.Resnjari (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Language question

Can somebody help me sort this out about the languages? I want to do it the infobox like the infobox in the article for Spain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain, the official and national language to be the Macedonian language, with a clarification note, and the Albanian to be as co-official, also with a footnote for clarification. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Use your Sandbox before making changes to the article. There you can experiment with changes until you find the correct way for the notes, and then you can place it in the article as a single editing Bes-ARTTalk 20:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sashko1999 I've placed a request on the infobox talkpage [8] about extending a category so the other languages come up. Overall i think the rest is fine.Resnjari (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I need to make certain recommendations for improvement of this page. After the recent resolution of name dispute between Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece the name of this page should change immediately, as well as of all links that might direct to this page. Moreover, the government of Northern Macedonia has issued a diplomatic document to Greece where it clarifies that the term Nationality in Prespa agreement refers strictly to citizenship and not to national identity. As a result, any page referring to Macedonia Ethnic Groups should be renamed to "People identifying themselves as Macedonians/Citizens of Northern Macedonia as clearly stated in Prespa agreement.

Best Regards, Docm_kosmo

Note to everyone : WP:ARBMAC applies

Now that both parliaments have passed the compromise agreement, I personally favour a relatively swift name change on Wikipedia. However, seeing that some want to do it immediately, please keep in mind that WP:ARBMAC applies. The correct order is to first request an update of ARBMAC, and then of this and other related articles. Again, this is not a comment on the name as such, just a reminder that unilaterally pressing for a change prior to an update of ARBMAC is to put the horse before the cart. Jeppiz (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My thought is that we should probably do the renaming of this main article via a simple RM, as it is likely to be fairly uncontroversial once the renaming has officially taken effect, but follow-up changes in other articles should be prepared via a more systematic RfC. Both could be started soon, as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The name change here can be done as soon as the name change is finalized. As both parliaments have raitifed Prespa, this probably won't be long, but for now the country is still R.O. Macedonia/FYROM. Whether or not ARBMAC should not hinder this move, and should just be changed alongside. 18:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, some protection mechanism might still be useful. Other-language pages, e.g., de:Mazedonien are a mess right now, with constant back-and-forth piecemeal changes leading to such bizarre constructs such as “Macedonia, also Macedonia.” Is there any proper way to prepare a new page with all references (incl. in Macedonian and Albanian) updated to the newly-agreed name — and then drop that in place in one fell swoop once the name has really, officially changed? —ThorstenNY (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that this article should be fully protected until the ARBMAC is updated. There will be a lot of edits and reverts in the next few days. --StanProg (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes i agree wholeheartedly. Suggestion on my part, can admins place something in the protection template explaining to editors who might want to make edits on the name issue not to do so until such time as the finer details are sorted out and updated in ARBMAC. Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The note at the top of this talk page seems to make it pretty clear that if there is consensus that the name has changed, edits can be made to reflect that name change. I think we would be correctly applying ARBMAC to proceed with that understanding. If that process ends up being used as cover for unproductive POV-pushing or edit-warring behavior, that will be an issue for ARBMAC to address. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Demonym(s) update

Now, that the Prespa agreement is ratified, we need to discuss the updating of the Demonym. We can use dual demonyms (North Macedonian, Macedonian), like in North Korea and South Korea, indicating the Nationality/Citizenship and the major population ethical group, or to use a single demonym (North Macedonian), like South Africa & South Sudan, indicating only the Nationality/Citizenship. Any thoughts? --StanProg (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue that is going to change as Article 1 Section b of the agreement clearly states that the citizenship will be Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia. Since this is too long to be used as a demonym, it's very likely that the demonym "Macedonian" will remain pending adding of a note that clarifies it's in fact "Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia". "North Macedonian" has never been negotiated and can be safely rejected as original research.--Mastersource (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You have a point. Maybe we should wait on that update. --StanProg (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Macedonian/Citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" is the correct one. Xaris333 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

When referring to governmental bodies or other state institutions, the term North Macedonian replaces Macedonian (e.g. North Macedonian Foreign Ministry, North Macedonian Passports, North Macedonian Prime Minister). But when referring to the citizens, they will be called simply Macedonians, or Macedonians plus the necessary clarifications (e.g. Ethnic) if the article/section they are mentioned in, does refer to more than one Macedonian people (e.g. Ethnic Macedonians, Greek Macedonians), to avoid any possible semiological confusion. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 16:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Citizens should be called North Macedonians too, like the RSA's people are called South Africans and not (usually) just Africans. If we're talking about the ethnic group then just use simply "Macedonian". In the infobox at the top, I guess we can use both Macedonian and North Macedonian. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 19:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. North Macedonians are all the citizens of the country. Macedonians are the main ethnic group. In infobox let's keeps both ("Macedonian", "North Macedonian"). And maybe there should be created a page for North Macedonians (which will cover all the citizens of the country). And of course keep the page for ethnic Macedonians. Just like there's a page for Zulu people (one of South Africa's tribes) and for, for example South Africans, as a whole. The only comparison I can make for North Macedonia is with South Africa, and not South/ North Korea. Xylo kai Gyali (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)