Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)

mis-interpretation of the Prespa Agreement

@MJL: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: @QEDK:

An action is required here. The following sentence should be deleted or rewritten in a way that reports facts and does not express personal mis-interpretations.

According to the official prescriptions of the Prespa agreement, the adjectival form "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. Instead, it suggests the plain "Macedonian" is to be used in some contexts; while in other contexts, both adjectives are to be avoided altogether in favor of the alternative of possessive constructions like "of North Macedonia".

This paragraph is misleading in the best case and wrong in the worst case. This is a personal (mis-)interpretation of the Prespa agreement and not a report of what the Prespa agreement says.

- "North Macedonian" is NOT generally to be avoided

- "Macedonian" is NOT suggested

- and in other contexts the Prespa Agreement is NOT in favor of the possessive form "of North Macedonia" either.

The truth is very different.

The adjective "North Macedonian" is not mentioned in the Prespa Agreement, but this does not imply that "North Macedonian" is generally to be avoided. This is just a personal interpretation that is not important for Wikipedia that reports facts and not personal opinions. Another interpretation is that North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for North Macedonia, so there is no reason to explicitly put it in the agreement. And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective for a country or region or village or area called North Macedonia, the Prespa Agreement needs to clarify that for stated related entities the correct form is "of North Macedonia". And since North Macedonian is the obvious adjective, the Prespa Agreement also needs to clarify that for everything not related to the state, the adjective "Macedonian" may be used in line with the Article 7.

The Prespa Agreement says that everything reported in the 19 pages is about official level. So the possessive form "of North Macedonia" is about official level and only about state related entities. This is also explained with Paragraph 5 of Article 7 that says: Nothing in this Agreement is intended to denigrate in any way, or to alter or affect, the usage by the citizens of either Party.

So the Prespa Agrement is not binding for the people of Greece and North Macedonia either. So how can it be binding for other people or other countries or make any suggestions?

The Prespa Agreement is a bilateral agreement between two countries, and it is signed only by two countries. So the Prespa Agreement cannot enforce every other country to accept it. Does Germany have its own agreement that stipulates what adjective has to be used and what not? Of course, not! Does this mean that we are not allowed to use the adjective German for everything related to Germany (people, culture, food, etc) until we get a document with a stamp and a signature from all the other countries including Germany?

The Prespa Agreement does not say that "Macedonian" is suggested in other cases. The Prespa Agreement simply says that, in official level, for example, North Macedonia has the right to issue documents that use the adjective "Macedonian" for whatever is not related to the state. This is a right that North Macedonia has and is accepted by Greece. So North Macedonia can talk about Macedonian food in a governmental website, and Greece cannot complain about this. But this doesn't mean that Greece has to call the food of North Macedonia, as Macedonian food. Greece and all other countries can still call it North Macedonian.

The right of North Macedonia to use the adjective "Macedonian" in official level is not an obligation for other countries. This is what people fail to understand here.

Greece accepts the right of North Macedonia to call its food "Macedonian", because there is no legal way to stop it. Many countries in this world produce and sell "Greek yoghurt" or "Greek cheese", because Greece cannot stop them, unless the name "Greek yoghurt" is protected like in the EU. If there is no legal way for Greece to stop people in other countries to sell products with the adjective "Greek", how can you believe that Greece can stop North Macedonia using the adjective "Macedonian". Even if Greece could stop North Macedonia to use the adjective Macedonian for its own products, other countries could still call their products Macedonian. For example, do you think that Germany is not allowed to sell "Macedonian food" unless this is protected? So North Macedonia can call its own products "German", "French", "Italian", "Greek", "Macedonian", and "North Macedonian", unless these names are protected for a specific product according to the legislation. If calling them "Macedonian" is a good or bad idea, this is another story. Products of North Macedonia can also be called "Smart", but the right of North Macedonia to sell "Smart yoghurt" does not imply that "North Macedonia is Smart". Smart is just another adjective. :-) Peace in balkans (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No comment w.r.t the rest of the content, I don't see why subjective references to Prespa have to be kept in MOSMAC. @Neutrality and BD2412: can also weigh in here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for any of us to discuss this with a tendentious single-purpose account who has literally never done a single thing on Wikipedia other than obsessing over this single petty point in endless vexatious rants. Just ignore the troll. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: A year ago, you wrote on my talk page that if there is any issue, I should write a message on the talk page. This is what I did here, and you complain. As you can see, I was the one who pings you, as I am trying to improve Wikipedia. What is your problem? Do you have any arguments to debate my well-structured arguments? If you have arguments, you can report them here, and other users will figure out who is right. Please criticize me for my arguments/opinions, and not for how often I contribute to Wikipedia. What matters is the quality of my contributions, and not the quantity. I don't understand, what is the problem if a page is wrong and I give arguments about my suggestions? Are you afraid of arguments? Please tell me what exactly is wrong in the text that I wrote. You should try to improve Wikipedia and not block other users from improving it. I see here a motivation to support an agenda that sacrifices the quality of Wikipedia pages about North Macedonia. In any case, it was my fault to ping you, because I thought that you really care about Wikipedia. I didn't know that only people with may edits in Wikipedia have an opinion, I thought that everybody can make suggestions and after discussion we can improve Wikipedia together. Peace in balkans (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peace in balkans: [Thank you for the ping] I believe the logic behind using the Prespa agreement for the basis of policy was roughly two-fold: (1) it was the catalyst for having us revisit the policy in the first place and (2) the consensus was that what was good for the government institutions in the bilateral agreement was good enough for Wikipedia.
You are right that we probably oversimplified the conventions of said agreement to the point of being somewhat misleading on its contents, but I don't agree that it is as you have described either. However, that's another matter.
Regardless, I still standby the result of our consensus, but I would not mind seeing less references be made to the IRL Prespa agreement itself per qedk. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

MJL: We didn't use the Prespa agreement "for the basis of policy", and there was no consensus to follow it as "good enough for Wikipedia". We didn't oversimplify it either; what we summarize about it in the "adjectival forms" section is perfectly correct. The only reason we are mentioning it at that point is that it is necessary for the reader to understand why adjectival forms were a matter of contention that required separate consideration in the first place. The actual rule we (or rather: the RfC closers) came up with is quite explicitly against Prespa. Not that it matters much, but let's be clear about the facts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Point 1 is pretty accurate but point 2 is well, not so much (per FPAS). I am not aware of the editor in question (at all, in fact) and my suggestion for changes is exclusive of what kind of contributor they are — I had raised this before but did not think it was very important but there's a possibility that including it in guidelines sends a wrong message by implication (if not directly). Quoting MJL, ...seeing less references be made to the IRL Prespa agreement itself is the right way to go, as I said before. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're referring to as "Point 1" and "Point 2", could you clarify? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I was referring to MJL's points 1 and 2. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstandings, I din't say that we should change WP:MOSMAC. I accept that these are result of consensus. I say that the references to Prespa Agreement do not report facts, they express biased personal opinions. So some sentences have to been rewritten by those who wrote the text.The problem is that there is a clique of users who constantly remove the adjective North Macedonian from all pages, because they claim that this is better according to the Prespa Agreement. Changes have to be made based on WP:MOSMAC. So we need to ensure that WP:MOSMAC is absolutely correct and precise to stop this excuse and try to improve Wikipedia by using adjectives based on WP:MOSMAC. Please take a look at pages of North Macedonia. You will see maximum 5 examples of the adjective North Macedonian in all Wikipedia pages, because the same and the same users constantly delete it. Thank you. Peace in balkans (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: @QEDK: @Neutrality: @BD2412: Please take a look here: President_of_North_Macedonia. Before renaming the country, the adjective Macedonian was used twice in the first paragraph as you can see here, and based on WP:MOSMAC, some users try to update it to North Macedonian. Since then there is a clique of users like @Jingiby:, @TU-nor: @Local hero:, and @FlavrSavr:, who constantly find excuses to avoid the adjective North Macedonian against consensus. You can see the history of revisions to have a clear picture of the problem. If these users really removed the adjective North Macedonian to improve the quality of the page, I would accept it. But they do it in every Wikipedia page of North Macedonia. The result is that WP:MOSMAC is ignored and all pages of North Macedonia is a mess. You cannot find the adjective North Macedonian anywhere, although WP:MOSMAC says that it can be used. This clique of users ignores WP:MOSMAC, and they enforce their rules. How can we handle this issue? Can we allow a clique of people to block us from improving wikipedia? Peace in balkans (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to effect a change, obtain a consensus from the community for it. Our resolution to the discussion has stood for long enough to require that. BD2412 T 10:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this doesn't help here... a clique of people block us to make changes in line with WP:MOSMAC. The problem is a group of nationalists that attack all together to every single user that tries to make changes. Not every user does this, of course, but the users who are in line with WP:MOSMAC don't feel motivated to spend time to fight with the nationalists. So the result is a poor quality of Wikipedia pages full of inconsistencies and ambiguity. Peace in balkans (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sport

Will someone kindly elaborate on what the policy on sport is regarding North Macedonia? Everyone knows the country plays as North Macedonia per its sovereign name but apparently its governing body "Football Federation of Macedonia" has been a bit slow on the uptake in getting its name modified properly. Today I am learning things I never knew before but I get the impression I'm being taken for a ride. Any comments? Sportspop (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Adjective form in the first sentence of an article

There has been some disagreement at the Gun law in North Macedonia article on how to interpret MOSMAC when the adjective form is used in the first sentence of an article. Previously some edit warring occured over whether is should start Macedonian law allows... or North Macedonian law allows..., which has been changed to Gun laws in North Macedonia allow... to avoid the contentious adjective form. However the disagreement still stands, specifically should the first sentence of an article about North Macedonia that uses the adjective use Macedonian or North Macedonian.
The 4th point of the close of the 2019 RFC was no consensus on which form should be used, and WP:MOSMAC says In the absence of a clearer consensus on which of the two to prefer, it is recommended to use the longer form where ambiguity might be an issue (especially on first introducing the topic). The shorter form can be used where the topic of the country is already established in context..
I've tried to describe the situation as fairly as possible. If anyone believe this should be changed just say so. Kluche, Local hero, Carpaniola, FrederalBacon, Nil Einne, Ivanavram, Cullen328 (that should be everyone who has commented on the issue at the article talk page or ANI). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In my personal opinion the core of the disagreement is around whether the context of the sentence is set by the article title or not, and if it is then the longer form doesn't need to be used. I believe, separately from this specific issue, that articles should start with the naming convention of the article title. So if we have an article titled William Smith it should start William Smith, also known as Billy Big Shoulders..., not Billy Big Shoulders, also known as William Smith.... With this specific issue I'm of the opinion that the adjective form should be avoided, and thereby avoid the heated disagreement that surrounds it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that avoiding the adjectival form in the lead sentences of articles about topics related to North Macedonia also avoids unnecessary conflict in a contentious area. Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, at a start of an article, either 'Macedonian' or 'of North Macedonia'/'North Macedonia's'/etc. should be used. When there is a lack of a clear consensus (i.e the section of MOSMAC you refferenced), the adjectival form should be avoided entierly (i.e 'North Macedonian' should not be preffered when there is no consensus). That way it lowers the chance of conflict regarding the adjective. I also think that 'North Macedonian' should only be used when there are issues of ambiguity. Kluche (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is just in regard to how the adjective should be used in the first sentence of the article, not the wider issue of the using the adjective. MOSMAC already gives guidance of which form to use in other situations (e.g. the longer form should only be used when first introduced or to avoid ambiguity [as I pressed post I realised I should say this is outside of areas of nationality/etc that are covered in MOSMAC separately]). Also I don't see how blankly stating that only Macedonian should be used lowers the chance of conflict, as that is the conflict. Certainly not using the adjective form would avoid conflict, as the none adjective form is a settled matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I meant to say that when there is no clear consensus on whether or not 'Macedonian' or 'North Macedonian' should be used, instead of recommending the longer form, in my opinion the adjectival form should be completely disregarded, as to minimize conflict.

As for at the start of an article, I'm fine with what I stated previously, either 'Macedonian' or 'of North Macedonia'/similar forms. While I do agree that conflict may arise if 'Macedonian' is used. Kluche (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I misread you original post. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding the adjective form would certainly eliminate conflict, as Cullen328 stated. I suppose we go with that unless there is a specific consensus emerges on a given article that adjectival use is necessary. The scope of this would be limited to the first sentence of articles covering topics about state institutions/laws/entities. --Local hero ^talk 03:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Local hero Would you agree that if a local consensus emerges to use the adjective form it should follow the article title? So Macedonia (region) should use Macedonian, and Assembly of North Macedonia should use North Macedonian? (note neither of these articles currently use the adjective form, they are suggest for illustration). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the only users challenging this were actually the same person. So, I don't foresee this becoming an issue again now that the socks are banned. However, if it does come up, I hope that we could easily find a formulation like was done on the Gun law article. The Macedonia (region) article isn't really tied into this issue, as it basically only relates to things tied to the entity of North Macedonia. The Assembly of North Macedonia lead sentence is fine without either North Macedonian or Macedonian. I think most lead sentences will align with the article title, as we see in the Assembly article but also in North Macedonian passport. --Local hero ^talk 03:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope you right, and agree the best formulation to resolve any disagreement is the same as achieved at the gun law article. It sure does detail the conversation when half of it turns out to be one sockmaster. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 05:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Socking only hurts you argument
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry for speaking instead of Local hero, but I can guarantee that Local hero will never agree with the usage of North Macedonian anywhere, and I added a new update of what happened the last hours that shows the obsession of Local hero with North Macedonian. FYI you can look at this sockpuppet investigation to understand what Local hero and Kluche try to achieve. None of them will accept MOSMAC. Nikokiris (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC) As per comment below, this isn't the correct place to discuss this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This comment doesn't deal with the specific question at hand, and risks derailing the discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: In 2022 North Macedonia protests I made some edits that add "North Macedonian" in front of "Prime Minister" and "Foreign Minister" including additional amendments. Local hero reverted only those edits that add North Macedonian although the reason for my edits [was explained] Bulgarian and Albanian prime ministers are reported explicitly, the North Macedonian is not, causing confusion to the reader, I improve the text per MOSMAC: "in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural.", North Macedonian as natural and not cumbersome as Albanian and Bulgarian. This change improved ambiguity as explained in the comment, it is according to WP:MOSMAC that suggests "North Macedonian" by giving "North Macedonian Prime Minister" as a concrete example. MOSMAC states: However, in line with the reliable sources, adjectives may still be used when referring to such institutions in generic terms (e.g. the Greek and North Macedonian prime ministers), especially where the possessive form would be grammatically cumbersome or unnatural.. The reason I used the adjective "North Macedonian" instead of "of North Macedonia" is because the same was used for the Albanian and Bulgarian Prime and Foreign Ministers. No reason to handle North Macedonian differently. I left a message on Local hero's page and he reverted my edits again. I am really disappointed from the tolerance shown to Local hero and other users who violate MOSMAC every day. A few days ago, we had the same problem in Gun law in North Macedonia where Local hero and Kluche coordinate edits and form consensus, like they did in North Macedonian denar too. I have already asked help in WP:ANI on how to report Local hero and Kluche for sockpuppetry. Nikokiris (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC) The hope of this discussion was to come an agreement that all sides could agree with. I haven't editted this topic area, and have noticed that there has been problematic editting from all sides. As I said at the Gun Law article, if anyone believes that any editor has behaved in an inappropriate way then that should be reported to the appropriate notice board (e.g. WP:ANI, WP:SPI, WP:ANI/3RR). But you should make sure to back up anything you say with diffs. This discussion is specifically in regard to how the first sentence of an article should be handled. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Extremely problematic instruction

"In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name, i.e. "(Republic of) Macedonia". Where necessary, explanatory notes such as "(now North Macedonia)" may be added to such references (e.g. Kiro Gligorov became the first president of the Republic of Macedonia (now North Macedonia), or: Kiro Gligorov was the first president of the newly independent country (then called Republic of Macedonia)) Adjective references for these topics should follow the same logic. Historical adjectival references to the state entities should remain "Macedonian".
The term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations will not be used."
The official name of the country during this period was, according the country itself, was "Republic of Macedonia". On the contrary, the United Nations, and many countries of the world, recognized the country as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Also, the term "Macedonia" when it's referring to the country of North Macedonia, is consdered irredintist, for the reason that the state is only a part of the wider region of Macedonia, and almost completely outside the ancient land of Macedonia.
Question a): Why "the term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations will not be used"? Who decided this, and by what criteria?
Question b): Why is "Republic of" enclosed in parentheses? It is logical that there should be points in the entries in which reference will be made to the then name of the state based on its constitution, but I would ask that an instruction be added that not only does not have parentheses, but specifies that "the use of an earlier term for the country, should be carried out under its then full constitutional name ("Republic of Macedonia")". Using the term "Macedonia" alone is confusing, as it refers to many things, the last of which is North Macedonia (wider region of Macedonia, ancient Macedonia, Greek region of Macedonia, all of which go by the name "Macedonia") . Finally, based on the reason that the Prespa Agreement was signed, the use of the term "Macedonia" for "North Macedonia" is a sensitive and controversial issue, as for the Greeks such a thing is an act of irredintism against them. Greek Rebel (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia for the huge backstory on the naming of Macedonia on Wikipedia. You need to become familiar with the past consensus if you want to make changes. The current naming convention was agreed through the discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston there are 5 years from then. I want to open new request. And the discussion must be without Macedonian Slav POVs. Macedonia CANNOT refer to North Macedonia. It is irredintist and pseudo-science. Greek Rebel (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What we have now is a hard-won compromise. It's unlikely to be completely re-done just because one editor disagrees with it. As you may be able to tell from the date of WP:ARBMAC, people have been arguing about this for 17 years The question has already gone through all possible steps of dispute resolution. Please note that the word you're using is properly spelled 'irredentist'. If you have some spare tine, consider reading all the past discussions of the Macedonia naming issue. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, I read it,and I really don't understand the reason that "FYROM" cannot be used and why you call the country's previous name as "Macedonia". Even with the country's previous constitution, it's called "Republic of Macedonia". The term Macedonia, cannot refer to the country. Because it is a wider region (modern) and also a region that is almost completely in Greece (ancient). Greek Rebel (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Controversial exception for State-associated and other public entities

Multiple editors have recently raised the need for a new RfC (see this and this) and I see another two (@Greek Rebel: @EdJohnston:) above discussing WP:MOSMAC.

The last sentence of WP:MOSMAC tells us Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether.. This sentence was not part of the 2019-RFC, the closing panel of which found consensus and tells us Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.

This weird sentence was pushed by a single Editor (Flavr Savr) who was involved in the RFC2019 and who refuses "North" and "North Macedonian", and found this way to go against the result of the RFC2019 and community consensus. Later the problems caused by this sentence was raised in Talk:2019 North Macedonian presidential election#Article title move and a significant majority of Editors agreed that the controversial sentence should be deleted from WP:MOSMAC but it remains till today.

In October, I opened two move requests, to move Macedonian denar to "Denar of North Macedonia" and my argument was this specific statement (I was not aware that didn't have community consensus back then) and my proposal was rejected. Then I proposed to move Nationality law of North Macedonia to "North Macedonian nationality law" because apparently this sentence of WP:MOSMAC didn't convince anyone in the first RM but surprisingly the second RM was rejected because a participant of the RM claimed that Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether..

After endless discussion and two move reviews (see this and this), double standards were enforced by a small number of participants in the two RMs, and one Editor (Local hero) pushed the agenda of overlooking WP:MOSMAC by presenting contradicting arguments, once in favour of the controversial statement and once against the controversial statement, but in both cases in favour of avoiding "North Macedonian" which is recommended by WP:MOSMAC.

This controversial statement should be deleted from WP:MOSMAC as has been raised already by multiple experience editors (see the full discussion in Talk:2019 North Macedonian presidential election#Article title move or in the move review .

The decisions of the RMs (local consensus) override community consensus established in WP:MOSMAC which goes against WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

We should see the problem from a scientific point of view. The minimum we have to do is writing the real community consensus in WP:MOSMAC and then use it without long discussion with WP:SPA editors who are here with an agenda in a narrow topic. If we fail to do that, how can we make progress and write an encyclopedia if we always need to discuss already established community consensus? If every time we want to apply what WP:MOSMAC suggests we need to reopen a discussion, what's the point of having WP:MOSMAC?

If WP:MOSMAC is obsolete, then a new RfC is necessary. What is the process to follow and open an RfC?

Open Free Eye (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)