Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia

Moved on to the main dish. Fruity taste, low calories, and packed with vitamins!

Request for comment

I have opened a Request for comment on this dispute. Please see the main page and subpages for more information. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't suppose you need us regulars to register our own endorsements again at this stage, right? BTW, as you may have seen, I've sent a number of notifications to editors and article talk pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone other than the referees may endorse proposals. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I am not familiar with how the "RfC" process normally works, may I ask please if we can endorse multiple proposals? (as in first choice, second choice, etc.). I have first choices but would like to endorse one or two proposals as second and third choices on the pages. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Different RfCs work in different ways, but in this particular one the message at the top of the page asks that we only endorse one proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that text (always rapidly scrolling down :-) ).Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I do however disagree since many users might be looking for a compromise rather than sticking to a single proposal as is apparent by swaying endorsements and many endorsements that indicate a second choice in their comments.

May I suggest to change that into a maximum of two endorsements.

Please realize that we have to have an indication of a second preference of endorsements so that consensus can be reached. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Advertising this discussion

I saw Future placed a notice at talk:Greece and talk:Macedonia I remember something the referees said about advertising to Village Pump (looked it up:WP:VILLAGE), the WP:CENT and elsewhere. We need to gather outside opinions here as suggested by ARBCOM. I remember some other places mentioned in ARBMAC2. I would suggest to advertise at more places where more outside users that might be interested and third parties can see (talk:Greece and talk:Macedonia is more for the immediately interested).Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've done WP:WPPWP:VPP and the centralised discussion box now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what place you meant, but that link is WikiProject Philosophy :) BalkanFever 08:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I notified Talk:Bulgaria, Talk:Albania, Talk:Serbia (regions with parts in the Macedonia region) using Future's notification note. Also Talk:Balkans (locus).

I also notified the Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) (second place in page hits from the main Macedonia articles). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Odin5000 Blocked and topic banned

(copied from my post to Odin5000's talk page, if there's enough evidence for a CU, please let me know) Blocked 72 hours, see this which was posted after the final warning by Sarek. You are also banned from anything related to the Macedonia dispute, including talk pages, central discussions, ANI threads, anything at all, indefinitely. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Swaying endorsements

Is this form of commenting about individual votes[1][2] acceptable during the process?. I want a definite answer about this and where the referees stand on that part. If the answer is that minor campaigning is appropriate and not gaming this consensus-finding process, then I might want to know to adjust my course of action accordingly. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We've been asked by the ArbCom and referees to justify our recommendations with reference to policies and guidelines. If the basis for their recommendation is unclear from what they've posted, or there's an issue with an assertion that's been made in a recommendation, there's no harm in asking for a clarification or mentioning a point that may have been overlooked. It's to everyone's advantage if there's absolute clarity about what is being recommended and why the particular recommendation is being made. It would be improper to ask people on their talk pages to change their !votes and I'd strongly advise against anyone thinking of doing that. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If the individual has already participated in the discussion, and has made their view known, then this violates neither the spirit nor the substance of the canvassing guidelines. Contacting editors who have not participated would be more problematic. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's clarify this. NPOV is a key (arguably the key) issue in this matter. If you check the main articles discussion page, you'll see that (for instance) John Carter has just posted a description of why he thinks NPOV's criteria aren't sufficient in this case. He's addressed the issue of NPOV directly. In a handful of cases in the present main articles discussion, where contributors have not addressed the NPOV issue in recommending proposals, I've asked them to consider clarifying their recommendations. It's certainly not indiscriminate and I've not asked anyone to change their !vote. I've likewise not contacted anyone who hasn't participated, addressing the concern Fritzpoll raises. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the diffs, I'm happy with what ChrisO has done. I was clarifying the situation in general to address Shadowmorph's comment that he might adjust (his) course of action accordingly, and not impugning the specific instance raised here. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I also want to clarify to Shadowmorph that these are not "votes". This is a Request for Comment action with commenters organizing their comments in sections labelled "endorsements". This is not, not, not a poll and there are no "votes" here. The referees have made it abundantly clear that even if a "majority" of endorsers favor one or another proposal, they will be guided primarily by policy adherence and not by counting noses. (Taivo (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Thank you, for the clarification. Don't worry I won't be campaigning to users unless one "has already participated in the discussion". In that case I will feel free to comment on the talk page of that one about his endorsement. However I couldn't find any other place where Hiberniantears has participated in this discussion (or stating a preference on the Macedonia naming) before he signed his endorsement for proposal B.

Taivo I know these are not votes but I also know that consensus should be assessed with reviewing each endorsement on the basis of the arguments provided. Exactly because this is not a vote is because a user who is so marginally close between two proposals that he easily sways his "vote" should be regarded as a less strong indication he being a part of this consensus. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also SheffieldSteel said in Caspian blue's talk page that ChrisO has contacted many of the editors who signed Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/main_articles#Users_who_endorse_Proposal_B asking them to change or justify their position[3]. So this has not been a single case. I guess I can proceed in the same fashion then. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he's wrong. I have already resolved this with him on his talk page and he has clarified his recommendation. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but it is true that at least 3 users other than Hiberniantears were notified in the same way. Diffs: 1st :[4], 2nd: [5], 3rd: [6]. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also noticeable is that man with one red show shifted his endorsement from this[7],[8] into this[9] after your helpful comments[10]. No problem. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But the fact that this isn't a vote is reason not to worry about "swaying" of one or two persons. Nothing's being counted here, so 5-4 or 4-5 doesn't matter. The referees are looking more for any concerns or points that haven't already been made by the half dozen of us participants. They're getting input, so an endoresement is simply a data point, not a determining factor. (Taivo (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't see how signing an endorsement does not constitute participation on these pages. The votes don't matter, the numbers are not important - all we principally care about is the argument Fritzpoll (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. It is now clear that informing users that signed endorsements about the arguments of the other proposals is appropriate. Thank you. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't automatically appropriate - it depends on how you do it. Please don't be tempted to spam people with appeals to change their votes. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, let me say that I am not an automaton and I have reason. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am rather concerned about who is contacting whom about what. My understanding is that ChrisO's article move from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia led (directly or indirectly) to a large amount of drama, an Arbcom case, ChrisO's desysopping, and ultimately to this discussion. Now ChrisO seems to be contacting only those editors who've endorsed Republic of Macedonia over Macedonia, i.e. those who effectively disagree with his original article move. Are there no other editors whose position might need to be clarified? Is there no other editor who could tell them? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why he isn't entitled to discuss an editor's position with them on their talkpage, provided they have already expressed an opinion here (i.e. he is not trying to bring fresh eyes to support proposal A) - can't the editors in question tell him to sod off if they don't like it? Is Fritzpoll being unusually dense? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm naturally rather interested in the NPOV issue, since I wrote the naming conflict guidelines and the relevant section of NPOV. Hence my concern that it's addressed adequately in the arguments. My sole concern here has been, where editors have not addressed NPOV, to ask whether they could clarify their recommendations to address this point. If they have addressed it, as John Carter for instance has, I have not asked them for clarifications (and I have in fact complimented John on being so clear about his recommendation [11]). I might add that I think it is rather inappropriate for you to post followups like this one which are obvious assumptions of bad faith, particularly as Fritzpoll has stated that he is happy with my actions. I have already asked you to remove those followups in good faith, and I would appreciate it if you could do so. Finally, please do not assume (as you appear to be doing) that I am somehow persona non grata on the Macedonia issue. My involvement in this discussion was fully endorsed (and indeed encouraged) by the ArbCom. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Re Shadowmorph's continuing worries about "swaying votes": This is not a poll! If Proposal X gets 25 endorsements but barely follows policy and Proposal Y gets 1 endorsement but follows policy precisely, then Proposal Y is the one the referees will accept. They're looking for input and new perspectives, not a majority of users siding with X or Y. Who cares if one or two people "change" their endorsements. Maybe it's because ChrisO's interpretation of policy is more solid and not based on Greek politics. But don't get your hackles up about it. It's not a vote! (Taivo (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

I think the case is that the referees are looking to assess what the consensus of the community is in conjunction to the policy. Not just "looking for input". Otherwise there would be no point in all this, right? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No assumptions of bad faith here, ChrisO. There is no doubt in my mind that you are convinced you are doing the right thing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Could you please address my request about your user talk page followups? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but consensus isn't about the number of people stating a particular opinion - it is about the quality of those opinions. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing proposals

Just to make this clear. I thought it was before, but apparently not.

Do not change any part of any of the proposals' wordings. At all. (obvious typographical errors are of course exempt)

If you simply must make a change, post to the appropriate talk page first, but please note that it is extremely unlikely that any significant changes will be made, under any circumstances. You had two weeks to make changes, so if you didn't do it then, don't do it now. People who endorse a proposal want what they are endorsing to remain consistent. Thanks, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for us. I understand now that the only parts to be edited are the endorsements, with everything else remaining the same. In light of the fact that we've recently invited many people to comment on these proposals, I would like to ask how they are supposed to voice their disagreement with the policy rationale of specific proposals. I apologise if my edits were seen by some as disruptive. I look forward to a fruitful cooperation with everyone in this case. --Radjenef (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

IP editors

Also, I haven't talked to the other referees, but I think that we should disallow IPs from endorsing proposals. This is contentious enough without IPs making it even worse. If you are really serious about helping to solve this, I think you can create an account. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, this is an absolute no-brainer. If we're going to forbid SPAs, how can we possibly allow IPs, which have even less status than SPAs? Such IPs are furthermore just as single-purpose as SPAs. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

but that's catch 22. If you care enough to create an account, you can't contribute because you're an SPA. I didn't set up an account because I saw how you treated a guy you called an SPA - deleted his words and blocked him. So what is the casual reader, who sees something they know is wrong to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.132.16 (talk • contribs) 05:31, June 27, 2009

why is Wikipedia suddenly only the domain of old boys anyway? What happened to "anyone can edit"? Heimstern, until such time as IPs are banned from discussing, please reinstate my opinions on the page you protected. I'd also like an apology from the guy who deleted my words without referee consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.132.16 (talk • contribs) 05:33, June 27, 2009

People who are brand new to Wikipedia don't know what an SPA is or that things operate by consensus. If you'd like to participate in the discussion, you are welcome to use your account. If you've already had your say under that name, please remember that we are not counting votes here - saying the same thing twice will not make your support count any more. Shell ^babelfish 05:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shell, I appreciate your sentiment. Unfortunately that is NOT the case. I posted one opinion supporting proposal C for what Skopje should be referred to in articles about Greece, and inexplicably had my comments deleted. Another user Orion500? had their support of proposal C also deleted. He's now been blocked and topic banned. There is no statement on the page that new users and IPs cannot contribute to the discussion, so what are we supposed to do? It is quite obvious those that support proposal A are prepared to delete arguments to make sure their POV is pushed through. I also had my comments deleted by J.delanoy of another users talk page. The level of hostility and threat to new users who may be very concerned about what the encyclopedia says is quite extreme and bizzarre. So again, I appreciate you sentiments but invite you to see the history pages of the proposal to discover the reality.

To the anonymous IP. It doesn't matter which side of the issue you are on. It was decided early on in this process that anonymous IPs, single-purpose accounts, and new accounts would be excluded from the process. This isn't a vote, so numbers of endorsements will not decide the issue. (Taivo(talk) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Taivo if that is the case then why was the page not semi protected for just established users? Why were there no instructions saying this? How is a new user to know they are not welcome to edit, if the edit button works and they CAN post a comment. How are we to know?? It seems to me that you create your own mess by saying one thing and doing the other. Did you not read Shells comment above? He/she welcomed new user comments but you are saying no. Furthermore J.deloney raised the issue suggesting that IP users be not allowed to contribute INDICATING that at this moment THEY ARE. You do not suggest a change that is already policy.

Therefore, the deletion of my comments on the page should be reverted if there is to be any consistency, consensus and no hypocrisy.

Look, you obviously are familiar with Wikipedia, so lets drop the disruption. If you'd like to participate, you know how to do so. If you don't want to use your existing account, there's nothing any of us can do for you. If you are Orion500, I would suggest that this is a poor direction to take and will only lead to trouble. Shell ^babelfish 15:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

All right then. Until the other two referees get on to say what their opinions are, you may consider all IPs banned from endorsing proposals. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, IPs and most likely any brand new accounts will be unable to participate. Otherwise its just too open to gaming. Shell ^babelfish 15:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your call to ban IP editors. May I suggest, however, a way of appeasing the IP editors themselves? If one of them has an exceptionally brilliant policy-based idea in support of one of the proposals, they can contact one of the regular editors (probably one who endorses the same proposal) and ask them to add it to their rationale. Alternatively, we could create a sandbox area for IP editors, from which we could draw ideas, even though they wouldn't be participating in any of the regular discussion. --Radjenef (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the ban of IP editors on the endorsement side - why don't we let IPs comment on the talkpage if they have a good idea? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable compromise. Though judging from the performance of the IP editors so far, I suspect we're not likely to see anything particularly constructive. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Did we forget something?

Kwamikagami, with his endorsement post at the Greece-related page [12], draws our attention to one topic domain that we seem to have forgotten in this RfC setup: the naming of languages and ethnicities. While in most domains this is relatively straightforward, and I trust we can decide many things involving article naming issues in analogy with whatever gets decided for the geographical terms, there are a few notorious problems in certain corners – the one Kwami mentions, about how to call the Macedonian language in contexts of giving place name variants of Greek places, has indeed been a long-standing bone of contention.

I had some ideas for guidelines covering these things, in one of my earlier drafts (see User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/MOSMAC3#Proposal 4: Adjectival use, ethnicity and language). What do people think, should we or can we still introduce these topics in the process here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with introducing these topics. I don't know about what the others think... --Radjenef (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No objection to raising the topic. I think the guidelines to which Fut. Perf. links above probably represent the best solution. Andrew Dalby 14:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Future's verbage looks good to me. But it needs a tweak to distinguish Macedonian Slavic from Macedonian Greek. The Greek dialect should never be left as just "Macedonian" to avoid confusion. Either "Macedonian Greek" or "Macedonian dialect of Greek". From what I understand there is no linguistic distinction between the Greek dialects (or, rather, subdialects) of Greek Macedonia and Macedonia, so there should be no need to distinguish between "Greek Macedonia Greek" and "Macedonian Greek". The latter term should be sufficient to discuss all issues related to this northern dialect of Greek. (Taivo (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps, if the refs agree, we can just put a draft along the above lines to another subpage and invite tweaks and informal comments on it in parallel to the current process. Since the draft mostly describes existing, relatively stable practice, and nobody has so far demanded any radical changes of status quo such as major page moves, this might work without the formal trouble of competing "proposals" and polling. But it would still be useful to have it documented and sealed as being a widely agreed-upon consensus so it could then be attached to the final set of guidelines. As far as I'm aware, the only real issue with those conventions has been the use of "Macedonian Slavic" in context related to the linguistic minority in Greece (and the dispute in the past has been less over the wording in the text itself, than over where that link should redirect to.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant links would include Varieties of Modern Greek and Slavic dialects of Greece. As for wording, I prefer "Greek Slavic" or "local Slavic", because my first reading of "Macedonian Slavic" would be the language of ROM, which is not necessarily what is meant: It would not clear that Костур is the local Slavic name of Kastoria rather than what we'd find on a map published by the govt. of the ROM, which given current politics is not helpful. However, if the wording is Fut.Perf's "Macedonian and Bulgarian", although it's still not clear to me that it's the traditional local name, at least the reader wouldn't worry about it being part of a current political battle between Skopje and Athens.

Neither the Greek nor the Slavic should be left to just "Macedonian". IMO, the Slavic should not be called just "Slavic" either (which we had at one point), since that implies that it's also the Polish & Russian name/pronunciation. kwami (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this discussion to a more specialised place? As a brief response, I find "local Slavic" only justified where we deal with a distinctively local dialect form. But Kostur is, for all I know, the standard form in both literary Macedonian and Bulgarian, and it may or may not be identical in the local dialect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Point taken for "local". But since "Greek Slavic" includes both Macedonian and Bulgarian, I think it would make the situation fairly clear, and not raise concerns about a possible political fight. kwami (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that "Greek Slavic" would be a highly idiosyncratic usage of ours. I don't think it's used much anywhere else. "Macedonian Slavic" works better and is also more precise – there are also other forms of Slavic in Greece, most notably the Bulgarian of the Pomaks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian and FYROMacedonian Slavic are the same thing... why so much hassle? Call it Bulgarian and end of the matter. 87.219.85.254 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In my view, “Macedonian Slavic” is better than “Greek Slavic” in the same way that London French would be better than English French, should the situation arise. To call the Slavic language or ethnicity simply “Macedonian” in a context such as the Greek administrative district of Macedonia is to deny the majority of the Greek population of Hellenic Macedonia to identify with their region, ethnic background and indeed with their own history (http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html). Of the two varieties of Slavic idioms (languages), that of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that of Hellenic Macedonia, I think there should be a distinction made where it matters, when relevant by qualifying it as the “local Macedonian Slavic”. More difficult is the issue of ethnicities, as it is inconceivable that the Macedonian ethnicity can jump from one people (ancient and modern Macedonians of Greece) to another people (modern Slavs of the Republic of Macedonia) but presumably some formula has to be found to describe the ethnicity of the Republic of Macedonia’s Slavs that remains an unresolved issue not just for Wikipedia.Skamnelis (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Could we have a view from the referees perhaps, on whether and how to integrate this issue in the further process? Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My question here is to what extent this is a significant dispute? Can someone summarise the various positions if there's a row about it, or can this be fixed in a relatively calm manner? Fritzpoll (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. As you are probably aware, Macedonian ethnogenesis is a rather recent spin-off from what was earlier – until the early-to-mid 20th century – predominantly identified as Bulgarian. The tricky thing is how to deal with the people and the language in geographical contexts that were never politically under the control of the official Yugoslav Macedonian state, the main driving force behind this ethnogenesis. This goes particularly for the minority in Greece. All except the most intransigent nationalists on the Macedonian side agree that we must be careful about labelling the people there ethnic Macedonians, because only a minority within the minority politically identifies as such; others today self-identify as Slavic-speaking Greeks. By consequence, not all of the speakers in Greece would identify their language as "Macedonian". Nevertheless, their dialects are treated as part of Macedonian by the overwhelming majority of present-day international scholarship. The POV issue here comes both from Greek editors, who will of course again oppose the use of "Macedonian" either as an ethnonym or as a language name in these contexts, and from Bulgarian editors, who demand that the older identification of those dialects as Bulgarian be given equal status with any other. In my personal view, that means giving undue weight to what is today internationally a fringe position, but Bulgarian editors never tire of quoting 19th-century and early-20th-century sources describing local people as Bulgarians and making a big fuss over it. We once determine "Macedonian Slavic" as a viable solution, but then the dispute went on about where to link that. Currently it's a section redirect to a part of the Macedonian language article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary. To what extent do editors here think the results of a discussion on this topic would be influenced by the proposals currently under discussion? I'm asking to try to see how we might organise another discussion, whether to run it in parallel, or if it will be dependent on the current issues, and can that discussion finish after these polls are closed in approximately 10 days. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the players change for this discussion--rather than Greek vs Macedonian, we have Macedonian vs Bulgarian. I may be simplifying the issue too much. It also doesn't seem like the proposals on the table will affect the language name issue. A new discussion might be in order. (Taivo (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

I'd say it's largely independent. The first set of proposals only covers the disambiguation technicalities for page titles. If someone had wanted to rename the Macedonians (ethnic group) article, that ought to have been done within the same framework as the present poll, but I don't think that's on the agenda. The new proposal mostly codifies uncontentious material about wording conventions in article text – most of it is quite obvious and we need it only so we will have something solid to point the unavoidable edit-warriors to. The only potentially contentious bit is the one about the Slavic-speakers in Greece. My suggestion is we start a discussion in parallel and just see where the next few days lead us. I am hoping we can settle that part just by discussing and tweaking a common guideline draft together, rather than having to go through a formal choice between competing proposals. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. My suggestion is to begin a discussion on a new set of pages - mark these pages with the {{underconstruction}} tag, link them from the discussion sidebar and do not include endorsement sections. Let the discussion run its course over there - if it finishes later than this current batch, we'll decide what to do then. I suspect that we can close the current batch, and let the new discussion run over a bit if it is needed, since the issues are not conflated. We'll check this with Arbcom nearer the time if this becomes a likely scenario. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Draft now at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/miscellaneous, for lack of a better title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Future of the internet

I suggest you read the book "the future of the Internet" if you think banning new members and nonaccoubt holders from contributing to a sensitive discussion, important to many outside the Wiki community, is in any way consistent with the values Wikipefia and the Internet itself were built on. For the record I am NOT Odin5000 but after reading how he was treated there is no way I'll set up an account. The inconsistency and double standards are mind-boggling. I do not understand why this statement:

Absolutely must be this option:

a)maintains NPOV

b)is consistent with the official UN name

c)reflecting what Greeks call a place should be a no-brainer for Greek relate articles. Would we refer to Canada as being "western" as per Greenland perception, instead of "northern" in articles about USA?

is so dangerous it must be deleted with such fervor and energy. Are people so afraid of debate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.133.13 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that your a) is mutually exclusive with your b) and your c). That's been fairly well demonstrated time and time again. (Taivo (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Anon IP is also only looking at small slice of why Odin got into trouble. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest if you are a new user to start with articles that need improvement, there are many things that need change that are not controversial at all, don't jump in debates that involve Wikipedia policies if you don't even know what those policies are -- that's what's called "common sense". man with one red shoe 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Odin5000 was banned because he was a disruptive single-purpose account whose only purpose was to attempt to artificially shift the appearance of consensus. At first, I was going to let him voice his opinion, but his combative response when I told him to shorten his 1300-byte rants (which, I noticed at that point, he copy/pasted to each page, showing that he was not interested in discussion, but rather only in pushing his version of The Truth™). That is why he was banned from the discussion. He was blocked from editing period when he blatantly refused to abide by the ban, or at least to go through the proper channels to appeal it. He certainly did know what WP:ANI was, in any case.

At this point, I have no plans to apply a universal ban to all new accounts, but I can assure you that if a new account refuses to listen to me when I tell them they need to do something such as shorten their comment, they will end up banned, and their endorsements will be reverted. Also note that this discussion is emphatically not a vote, and sheer force of numbers will not influence the final decision. It is far better to make a clear, concise, and relevant endorsement for each issue than it is to recruit hundreds of people from some forum to come and copy/paste the same boilerplate text to every page one hundred times.

I (and I assume the other referees as well) am not interested in why a particular choice is "right" or "wrong", because everyone has different opinions on what is right and wrong. I am interested in why a particular choice meets or does not meet the relevant policies and guidelines, specifically WP:DAB and WP:NAME. Any endorsement that does not include references to these two policies, or at least a reference to one of the points listed in the "rationale" for each proposal, will almost certainly be ignored. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding possible different usage of names used in other sources

This might be difficult to find an answer to, and that might be one reason why I'm not sure it has been addressed before. In general, any news piece in particular, and sometimes books and journal articles, will use the full "identifying" name of the subject only once or so in the very beginning of the piece, and then use an abbreviated name in the bulk of the content. Thus, for instance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), is generally only given that or a similar identification once in the beginning of the piece, and becomes Senator Reid or something equivalent in almost all later references. In cases like that, I would have to say that the usage which would be most relevant to us would be the name used the first time in the relevant source, Granted, the specific example may not be the best, but President Cleveland and other historical individuals will often have the same conventions apply to them. Has anyone checked to examine if there is a significant differnce between the first "identifying" name or description of the country in other sources and the more frequent "regular" usage thereafter?
I know this is a kind of strange request, but I hope it's clear enough. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean: is your question how this effect would have affected the statistics we used as evidence for the question of the page title? I can only answer about those parts I did, of course. Where I used Google searches, I generally counted the first occurrence of the string "Macedonia" that was displayed in the google list for each document – that means it would generally be the first in each document, thus the one most likely to have the longer formal phrase, if such was used. In the corpus searches, I used an exhaustive list of all occurrences in each text, but made no systematic distinction between first and subsequent occurrences within one text. – Or is your question whether we should do something similar ourselves? Well, yes, obviously: if and where we decide to use a longer formal phrase either in a page title or on the first occasion within one article, we should of course be free to use the shorter version subsequently. That's what Proposal A in the "other articles" page provides for. As you quite rightly observe, it's just what natural good writing usually does as a matter of common sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I guess I'm saying that, at least in my eyes, we should probably count the first mention of a name or "identifier" in each of these other sources as the one relevant to the "count" for determining the "most common usage". So, if a source were to call the country "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" by that name in the first refernce to the country, regardless of whatever name they use thereafter in subsequent mentions, it seems to me that the name that should be "counted" as being the one that source used should in determining the "most common usage" should be the FYROM, in this instance. Similarly if they used for the first reference to the country the name "Macedonia (Skopje)", "Republic of Macedonia", or some other name, that name should be counted as being the name used when determining what is the "most common usage" elsewhere. We don't call the article on the United States US or USA, even though both of those abbreviations are used more commonly, and I think it would probably be best to try to observe the same principles here as well. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, and your example with United States can be used against your argument, we don't use "United States of America" either. Actually, I bet many example of FYROM use are only mentions that this is the UN name, if in the rest of the article is called Macedonia than that's the name that is relevant. man with one red shoe 20:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point regarding the reference to the UN use and the name FYROM, and, personally, I would think counting all UN or related publications as a single "usage", and count any documents from any other specific governmental entities, NGOs, or similar organizations as only one "usage" per entity as well. But it seems to me that whatever name (or short description, like "the country of Macedonia") other sources use to identify the country for their readers in the beginning of the material specifically regarding the country should be relevant to our determining most common usage, because that is, really, the "name" they are giving it to their readers. From that point on, once the identity of the subject is established, sources often use any number of terms for several entities. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the UN name has a special status, remember that is not even considered a formal name of the republic but rather a temporary reference.man with one red shoe 20:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In the best of all possible worlds, someone would be paid to carry on the research that John Carter suggests in order to come up with an up-to-the-minute accurate appraisal of what English usage actually is based on all possible sources. But we're all volunteers here. We just have to make do with sampling of reliable sources and interpretation of the results. (Taivo (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

I gather from the above that the answer is "No, this has not been done." Without such information, however, the samplings are at least somewhat suspect and makes their reliability and usefulness suspect as well. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Two things: first, as I said, for the Google searches, it in fact was done implicitly, because the counting was based on the first occurrence in each document, so if the document used "f.Y." in that position, the count would have likely picked it up. And in the American corpus, the total count of "f.Y." tokens, no matter in what text position, was so small it would not have made a significant effect anyway. Second, we are no longer focussing on the question whether "M.", "R.o.M." or "f.Y.R..." is the most common appellation of the country anyway – nobody has ever seriously claimed that anything is more common than plain "M.". The only matter that is relevant for the choice between A and B/C is the other way round: which referent is the most commonly meant when the name "M." is used? For that question the occurrence or non-occurrence of "f.Y.R." is of hardly any relevance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The input on the Google searches is very appreciated. And I wasn't using FYROM as anything other than an example anyway, so don't lay too much emphasis on that. One other question which does come to mind, which might be a minor one, is that I think maps might not be particularly useful in determining whether Macedonia or Macedonia (country) would be the preferred choice. Most of the maps I've ever seen make it fairly clear that differently "colored" sections are different countries, as are the areas within the heavier outlines, and I think just about everyone with even an elementary school education would implicitly recognize that the separated area called "Macedonia" on the map is the "country of Macedonia". So simply verbally referring to the country as "Macedonia" when the basically universally understood setup of the map makes it clear that it is a country, making the use of the word "country" or its equivalent redunndant, would be implicitly understood by pretty much everyone. On that basis, without any more or less independent print content in the same source I would think that maybe maps should be counted as being at best "neutral" regarding which is the preferred name. Even if there is additional text, it might be subject to internal style guidelines of consistency of naming, so the text, if it existed, might not be particularly useful in that regard either. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: Maps don't tell us anything about whether some addition should be used for the purpose of disambiguation (because they don't have disambiguation needs like ours). They do tell us something about whether this or that version must be used or avoided for the sake of correctness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

New page to examine

See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/miscellaneous, for a proposal relating to adjectival issues surrounding reference to individuals in the country whose name is under dispute Fritzpoll (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia term and modern usage - Compose of a neutral map

Macedonia first of all is an ancient kingdom and then everything else. To what you refer as macedonia boundaries in this page, you refer only the last 100 years. I guess we miss some thousands years of definition. This page lack of information, facts, and education. What you call boundaries of Macedonia todays, you refering to the Turkish Vilayet of Thessaloniki, Monastir and Kosovo. However due the Ottoman Empire period, nowhere is reffering to the area as macedonia. However Turks make their vilayets not according to geographic term or ethnic groups areas, but they make vilayets according to the mix of population, because this cause less revolts and plus the local nations fight each other. Also in all Ottoman censuses, nowhere is mentioned any "macedonian" nation. So where was located Macedonia the previous centuries? Macedonia due the Byzantine period referred to the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia (which located in todays East Macedonia and Thrace. Evidence of that we can find into the Bulgarian Nationalism in the first and second wars and in the some previous years. VMRO, an originally Bulgarian organization which claims Macedonia to unite it with rest Bulgaria, was set mainly by Bulgarians, which Greeks and Albanians join in common goals of sending Turks away. Bulgarians refer to Macedonia as it was the Themas of Thessaloniki, Strymon and Macedonia, plus the Shopluk area. In Byzantine period Macedonia Thema was in the area of Adrianople, which VMRO claims also as Macedonia (See Bulgarian Nationalism and maps related to VMRO). VMRO exist as organization till today with claims over Vardar region due the high Bulgarian population in Shopluk area. Also there is another new VMRO of Skopje origin created the last decade and is the current political party and government in Skopje (FYROM). For the record, Bulgarians and Slavs came in the region of Balkans in the 6th century AD according of what they say and their history. Macedonia thema was relocated in late Byzantine period for strategic reasons and mainly due of the came of Bulgarians and Slavs in the area of Balkans after the 6th century and the wars between Byzantines and Bulgarians. In Roman period Macedonia was a cross road and located mainly from Durres in Albania all across the "Egnatia Odos". Is impotant to mention that Skopje city is all that period, never was part of Macedonia. However the City of Skopje original name was Scupi (Roman), Shkupi(Illyrian) and proof of that is the even latest period of Ottoman Empire which the City of Skopje known as Uskup, the name Skopje is recently invented and name it. Before even the Roman period, was the Hellenistic Era, even in that time Skopje city was not into the Macedonia's borders. There are questions such, why Alexander the Great spread Hellenism and not Macedonian stuffs if he spoke another language? Why he order Athenean Greek ships to explore red sea and find a route to India? What for was the Oath of Alexander in Opis? Why left no evidence of "Macedonism" instead all left are Greek if Macedonia and Greece was two different things? Probably because Macedonia is nothing more than Greece. What about the Kingdoms after Alexander's the Great era? Why Alexander had Greek teacher and not macedonian if it's different language? How they communicate? And for those who believe that Philippos does not like rest Greeks, why he teach Greek to his son and why he had Greek name as he and his son? Let's go to some definition. In ancient Greece there was no single thing called Greece, but there was region cities/states which fought each other and make alliances for glory and power. Notable is the Peloponnesian war which keeps for 50 years between Sparta (Lakaidemonians) and Athena. Each side had other Greek region cities/states as their alliances. For example Macedonia was with Sparta and Thebes with Athena etc. However when the so called Barbarians came in the area, Greeks stop fight each other, they form all together an army and send away the Barbarians, after that they continue their internal wars. Alexander the Great wanted to lead a campaign to Asia against Persians, however the rest states doubt if he can lead that due his very young age. For this reason he had to proof his self against the opposite alliance and did it. Note that areas such Epirus or Sparta was not set foot because they came from same alliance. After he prove his self to the opposite alliance he recruit army, which not include Spartans as respect of their legend in their epis battles of Thermopulai against Persians. The main reason of Alexander the Great of his campaign to Asia, was to take revenge for all Greeks about the wars of the previous centuries and of course as dreamed a free world. Greeks are all those which came from same nation and share same language, gods, tradition and civilization. A state or kingdom does not make the nation. Nation is people of same origin, and doesn't matter if they have one or more states. Example is the Albanians, are spread in Albania, Kosovo and FYROM, they have two states, they mainly are spread to another one, but they are from one nation. About the Vergina Sun, the sun of Vergina has been found to various Greek locations and is a symbol that represents the Olympian Gods mainly, the four elements etc. Actually is a Greek symbol and have found centuries prior Alexander's era in various locations within the Ancient Greece regions cities/states. About the language, Makedonia, Alexandros and Filippos has a meaning in Greek language. What it means in Skopski language? In Skopski language all those words has no meaning and is some plain words. And if all is different with Macedonia and Greece, how can those words has meaning in Greek language but not in Skopski language? What about the Skopski names and traditions, language? How can be related with Macedonia? And if you tell me that all change from time to time. Still how can be everything completly change? And if we speak about the Slav-Macedonian. Slavs came after 6th AD in the region of Balkans, they came 1000 years after Alexander's the Great death. Bible reffers also to the Macedonia. There are more problem to consider about the new State of Macedonija, the 35% of the total population are Ethnic Albanians which Skopski republic want to name them "macedonians" by force. Is important to know that all those Albanians who makes the 35% of the total population of FYROM, they didn't migrate there recently, but this place was their natural home before even the slavs came to the region. We mention about the city of Skopje for it's original name etc. earlier. Also there are more minorities groups in FYROM who are not refer to their selfs as "macedonians" Another issue is the Shopluk area and the Bulgarian population. More notes, into the FYROM parliament there are two official languages, Albanian and Skopski, anyone can speak whatever want, also Bulgaria issue passports to Skopski people because it decides that Skopski people are Bulgarians, passport issued to them just by fill up one form in the Bulgarian embassy. Is very known that FYROM people can understand better the Bulgarian subtitles than the Serbian one. Other remarks, the VMRO never claimed the Greek name of Macedonia or Alexander the Great, but they claim territory as due the centuries they lived and spread to that territories as outcome of the wars between Greeks and Bulgarians and they call the region Macedonia, as they learned from Greeks when they appear in Balkans in the 6th century. Today Bulgarians has no intentions to the historic Macedonia, but they have to Vardarska region (FYROM) which Shopluk located and many Bulgarians live. After VMRO failed to accomplish it claims, Yugoslavia turn that propaganda into it's own favour by renain the regions to sosialistic internal republics with extension views against Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians. This change happened due the communist changes, as same happened to Communist Russia at that time. After the second world war, a civil war comes in Greece between the communists and democratics. Communist take their supplies from Yugoslavia which aims to expend to Macedonia by using the communism as an excuse. Yugoslavians of the Vardarska commited genocide against Greeks and they mess into internal matters. Prior that it had followed the plan of Yugoslavias extension to Bulgaria, Greece and Albania, and for this reason happened the renames of the regions to socialistic republics, to fullfill that plans and to create claims from nowhere. However and this propaganda failed. After the break up of the Yugoslavia, the Republic of Macedonija (FYROM) born. The only way to survive while is landlocked, is to take from others and to invent history if wants to survive. The first part, of adopt Bulgarian language and tradition it was already there as also the name, as given to the communist era. Now that communism in Yugoslavia collapse and the break, the area was landlocked and with no major population. However the first President of Republic of Macedonija (FYROM), make it clear that they are Slavs and they have no connection with Alexander the Great and his Macedonia (check videos). We can continue very much more further. Mention also that in the Ottoman Empire, even in 18th century was newpapers in Greek language, with names "Pharos" and "Makedonia" ... based in Thessaloniki.

COMPOSE OF A NEUTRAL MAP

Now let's back to wiki, a neutral map must not lay only to one side, but to show all sides. A neutral map must write in english or local language the name of the area according to what each state call the area. Then the map must write the names of the countries as it's nation wall it self and as others call the other nations. This will represent all sides and names in one and is very enough fair. Also the boundaries of Macedonia must be dotted, and within the dots and rest area to mention the name of the country, inside dots must be written all countries related to Macedonia region. Colors must be the main national colors, blue, red and green. Map must present also the ancient Macedonian kingdom and it's capital cities. Also additional can be a light line of the expand of Macedonia during Alexander's the Great time but remember that was a time of few years only according to the whole Macedonia's Kingdom period. This will be a very neutral map which will respect everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ГоранМирчевски (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

North Macedonia and naming convention

Giving the current Prespa agreement, the premisses that underlined this discussion are about to change. It's important that a new standard is set and well visible to the community in order to stop infighting. That includes, in my opinion, getting a new page with the updated standard and replace every Macedonia-related current Name Convention warnings with the new one in order to avoid confusion. Do you pretend to update this page as well as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) or create new ones? - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)