Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/Greece-related

Rephrasing needed: Rationale of proposal A

I find the phrasing in "Rationale 2": "POV of that national group" most problematic and would like someone to strike out the "national". What group is being talked about is already clear from the first part of the sentence. Right now, the rationale phrasing might be mistaken in a way that the POV of a fairly large, but distinct group of Greeks is considered to be the POV of all Greeks.

Similar problems occur in the phrasing of "Rationale 1": "consensus of the large majority of Wikipedia editors except for Greek editors". The opposing editors are not defined by their POV, but by their nationality, and since the nationality is used as the only qualification, that might be mistaken again as a generalization (all Greeks have that POV). I propose changing that to "except for a large group of Greek editors", if the opponents are indeed exclusively self-identifying Greeks. Alternatively, or if the opponents are not exclusively Greek, strike out the "except for Greek editors" - "consensus of a large majority" already implies that there has been some opposition.

The rationale behind the proposed changes is that nationality must not be used as a label for a POV. This is disregarding and maybe even offending all respective nationals who have another POV. Regardless of what public support a certain POV might have in a nation, it is never and most certainly well below 100%, and it must be taken into account that groups of editors pushing a "national POV" (either by their own claim or by impression of other editors) are most often overrepresented in distinct areas of wikipedia - in proportion as well as in activity. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given up trying to explain all the points you mentioned above since I was routinely regarded as part of the sample in those faulty generalizations and thus ignored. Thanks for pointing that out too but good luck trying to make anyone hear you. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the poll was hardly a consensus, it was closer to a 50-50 split. While some of the people on the opposing side where self-identified Greeks, that was also the case for some people on the supporting side. Many of the people on the opposing side were designated as Greeks, even though they never self-identified as such, based on speculation on things such as their usernames. See arbitrator comments on why this constitutes rude and incivil behaviour. Despite all that, however, I'd be very careful when pointing these things in the talk page, lest you be classified as a nationalist yourself. That is what happened to me a while back, even though I have chosen never to self-identify. I guess the way this is currently done is: if you disagree, then you are obviously Greek, which makes you a nationalist. --Radjenef (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention some probable Romanian, Swedish and Scottish editors that were on the Greek side (which was actually the UN practice; the current Greek practice is to call the country Skopje or FYROM abbreviated). They were not painted in the poll analysis that was never renewed with up to date data from the conclusion of that poll. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I would suggest Skäpperöd to not engage in conversation with any of the two of us. Other users that never self-identified as Greek and voted for "reason, sanity and dignity" have taken that course of action and have made preparative measures in their user talk pages in order to avoid implications of "national liason :-)" (not really :-) , and "sixth pillar" refers to this) :-) Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]