Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Macedonia-related articles/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

My edits

I've been bold and adjusted a few things.

  • We should allow the use of Macedonia in second references to the Republic, when no sane reader could interpret it as meaning any other Macedonia. We should not impose clutter on ourselves.
  • WP:NCGN says that when Wikipedia has established a name for something, we should use it in other articles. I really don't care for having modern Greece be an island in its own reality; when we represent the views of the Greek government, or Greeks who agree with it, we should use their term. But Wikipedia's voice shouldn't change between Greece and Vardar River.
    • I recognize that in fact it probably will; but we shouldn't give a guideline that supports PoV pushing.
  • My only authority for the offensiveness in both directions is Macedonia (terminology); but considering what it's been through, it's probably right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first point about second references. To be absolutely honest, the reason I made Greece "an island in its own reality" was purely pragmatic. Articles about modern Greece are most likely to be edited by Greek nationalists and enforcing the use of "Republic of Macedonia" across all such articles is likely to ignite a prolonged edit war with Greek editors. Using "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" would be a reasonable compromise, as it's a legitimate name (not purely a POV one), it's what Greeks themselves use officially, and its meaning is clear enough. We should, however, oppose the use of POV metonyms like "Republic of Skopje" and we should also not permit the usage of the unexpanded acronym "FYROM" as a POV means of avoiding the use of the term "Macedonia".
BTW, note that I specifically confined this to modern Greece (a distinction which needs to be made in the guideline). The naming dispute is completely irrelevant to articles which touch on ancient Greece. In such instances, we should use the default term, i.e. "Republic of Macedonia", just as we would in any other article not covered by the exceptions listed in the proposed guidelines. -- ChrisO 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Re Greece, the Gdansk/Danzig precedent also comes to mind. Re ancient Greece, I'm not sure where we could find an applicable example. NikoSilver 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, the FYROM spelout is neither the Greek POV. It is supposed to be a compromise. Regardless, I admit that it has become almost obsolete in the USA (to the point of being misinterpreted as the Greek POV), but we should not disregard the other English speaking countries. UK, Canada and Australia all use "FYROM" officially. I cannot say what goes on unofficially, though... NikoSilver 14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The BBC uses Macedonia routinely. The only stories using FYROM since 2001 are a handful, specifically discussing the naming issue. Someone else can search the Sydney Morning Herald. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
See for yourself: [1] NikoSilver 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
As opposed to one hit (from their blog) for FYROM. Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually they are following the same convention that is proposed here.[2] NikoSilver 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes; reports for the Athens Olympics reflect the usage (and POV) of the organizers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please Sept, try to see this the way it is, and not as if we're after hot-headed nationalists at the expense of portraying reality correctly. BBC uses the fyrom spellout very frequently (even on the recent article on Beckam for his car). Actually it uses it on every article on top, and then it goes on to say simply "Macedonia" (for brevity and because it has established non-ambiguity). Check my search below. NikoSilver 19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In all of these pages I have checked, the BBC uses Macedonia first and f/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia later; furthermore they are only a quarter of the pages on which the BBC uses Macedonia. Please be more careful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! NikoSilver 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice Gotcha; but I meant, and shoud have said, "article". Discussed further below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Basic question

The basic question here is what to do about issues where nationalist editors can be expected to be obnoxious. My approach is to fight where it seems likely to be productive, and concede as little as possible; see Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud), for example. Writing a guideline which authorizes misbehavior, instead of one that can be quoted by editors who want to fix it, strikes me as counterproductive. (repost; this seems to have been mislaid, but I would like comments.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you proposing we rename the country article to Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)? NikoSilver 23:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly not; I am proposing that we say that we should use "republic of Macedonia" everywhere - except when quoting someone who isn't, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Which part exactly would you argue that "authorizes misbehavior"? Do the int'l org article series fall in that category in your opinion? NikoSilver 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This is still the "in articles about Modern Greece"; if no-one disagrees with the tweak I gave that, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree for sentimental reasons, for practical reasons, due to precedent, and because the use at least in Greek-related articles is not POV.
    • FYROM is not its spell-out, and the Beeb uses the spell-out only sometimes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No, by "fyrom spellout" I meant "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", but I refrained from typing the whole thing for brevity. I corrected it above. The Beeb calls the country "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in its country information page. That is very significant. NikoSilver 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • And their stated reason for doing so is that "It is still referred to formally as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)". Formal usage may govern the BBC's country information page; but we are discussing informal usage, which governs our articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So, Sept, first we disagree on the criteria for judgment, second we disagree in the assessment for that criteria, and finally we disagree on the implementation in this convention. I will remove the "Gr gov views" part (which is POV btw, because Greece is far from alone in this) and replace it with "Greek related". NikoSilver 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I will see what other language I can think of; but I will strongly oppose this proposal if it contains the "Greek related" language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses below. NikoSilver 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I now see that there may be a misunderstanding due to the wording, while we are actually saying the same thing. I took your quote "in representing the views of the Greek government" literally, and thought that you mean to say that we will use the "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" only in articles regarding Greek foreign relations etc. From your wording in the first bullet, I see that you are not actually endorsing using plain M or RoM in e.g. the Greek province article (or Greece by extension?). If that is the case, please tell me where you draw the line of use of RoM vs fYRoM (not acronyms) and then we see how we tweak the wording to reflect that. NikoSilver 10:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I would draw the distinction between mentions in Wikipedia's voice, which should follow general usage, and mentions which represent someone else's voice and PoV. For example, the Province does border the Republic; this is a statement of fact, not an assertion of territorial claims in either direction. I see no harm, and some use, in adding the equally true assertion that the Province calls the Republic FYROM. In the infobox (infoboxes tend to be more formal than the rest of WP) it may be reasonable to include "former Yugoslav", although citizens of the Republic may object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no bordering entities in infoboxes, but please elaborate. In which article and under which context what and where exactly? What about -say- Pella Prefecture? What would you do there? Would you add something like:

  1. "the prefecture is in Macedonia and borders Macedonia to the north"
  2. "the prefecture is in Macedonia and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the north"
  3. "the prefecture is in Macedonia and borders the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the north"
  4. "the prefecture is in Macedonia and borders what the Greek government calls the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the north"
  5. "the prefecture is in Macedonia and borders what the United Nations, the EU, the Greek government, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Australia, Canada, the UK, FIFA, FIBA, BBC... calls the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the north"

Which would be the one you would use there? NikoSilver 20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably move it out into a separate sentence, since it is a national boundary: "On the north, it is bounded by the national border between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia"; which is unambiguous. I note that the province is not now mentioned in text. It should say, equally unambiguously, "in the Greek periphery of Central Macedonia." I am in no hurry to perform these edits; if they become the thing most worth doing on WP, the Peaceable Kingdom will have come. But we should provide guidance here, if anyone inquires, that they ought to be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So you would say for example:
First you use a sub-periphery (peripheria), and you exclude the province (diamerisma) so as to disambiguate the Greek Macedonia (which is a region, with a ministry, a capital etc). Second, even if you do that, you are confusing everybody in the following sentence. How far can this go? What more is there to be done to accommodate a name that doesn't belong in that context and that is ambiguous? NikoSilver 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I would use different paragraphs; the boundary and the nest higher administrative division are different subjects. As for periphery, I am only following our articles, which say the Regions of Greece are out-of-date since 1987; if that's wrong, go correct that article. Far more important than this guideline anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pella (Greek: Πέλλα) is one of the prefectures of Greece. Its capital town is Edessa. The prefecture was named after the ancient city Pella. The prefecture is in the Greek periphery periphery (an administrative area), Central Macedonia, in the region of Macedonia.
...
Pella is bounded by the prefectures of Kilkis to the northeast, Thessaloniki to the east, Imathia to the south, Kozani to the southwest, by Lake Vegoritida to the southwest, and by Florina Prefecture to the west. On the north, it is bounded by the national border between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia."

The present text implies, I see, that Brod and Gevgelija are Greek districts, which would seem to be in factual error. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I might put Greek region as the link text; not for disambiguation, but to suggest a technical meaning on which readers should link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
May I ask what is he rationale behind using a modifier for the Greek Macedonia/n/s in their own turf and not using one (which is quite frequent and official within their borders anyway) for their otherwise irrelevant neighbors? Can you imagine another longer article full of "Greek Macedonia/n/s" so that we make one reference to the country by a disputed name? NikoSilver 22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
"Republic of" is a modifier. I used "Greek periphery" because most English speakers know "periphery" as the length around a circle; I don't insist on it. I would not use "Greek Macedonians" unless the Macedonia intended was unclear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is (technically) a modifier, but in the context of prefectures, it almost sounds as a subnational entity within Greece. It is also not a modifier practically (in the real world -but that is irrelevant). Although I admire your effort in this attempt, I still think it is confusing (and fucking cruel -but I'll drown that fact in Cardhu). Also, tell me, is it worth the effort? Both in compiling the text and in keeping the version on air? NikoSilver 00:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and it also reflects indeed the case in English scholarship, except of course when serious disambiguation considerations exist. I've got a compromise proposal. But before that, I would like you to elaborate on your comment for Gdansk/Danzig above. Apart from the time periods, the link I gave you also clearly states: "In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdańsk) and later Danzig exclusively ... In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdańsk (Danzig) and later Gdańsk exclusively." This looks like a direct parallel -i.e. each call it as they themselves do. I also made some valid points in response to your comment on my talkpage. NikoSilver 09:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I had not seen the part of the Gdanzig compromise about clearly German people. I don't think that made into the naming conventions; and I'm sure it shouldn't - i.e.: that's good for the Gdanzig disaster only. How about having Greeks use Macedonia for the province and Republic of M. for the Republic, and the converse for Slavs, unless some special reason can be shown? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there's always a reason with you! On Gdansk/Danzig it was only dates. Then it is not a naming convention (which didn't exist then LOL). NikoSilver 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also you don't answer to my other point from my talkpage: The same way EU or the UN cannot be quoted to include a Rep.of.M. in their member states (IMO), the same must be extended within that little island of its own reality called Greece. NikoSilver 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, your last version is tempting (and promising about "those that agree with Greece"), but it is not an actual guideline since it relies on what the English references are on the subject. It will only lead to endless debates for all articles within Greek territory (et al) mentioning it, and I find this more counter-productive than actually helpful. I exchange "those that agree with Greece" for Greece/Greek proper, and also accept keeping your comment about saying it the first time and from then on RoM (yes, I know there are only very few instances where it may be mentioned twice and thank you). What do you say? NikoSilver 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Lastly, I am removing all POV tags, and expect none entered again for a proposal. This doesn't need any tags until we agree and it becomes promoted to more than a mere proposal. (I also think combative-editing tactics should not be needed between us, since it is evident from my part -at least- that this case is not closed until we agree, and since I am evidently not planning to enforce it by edit warring). Please remember that "Greece-related" was initially included not by a Greek editor. NikoSilver 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Forgot: your proposal above is not contested by me, and I wouldn't care if it happened unilaterally for RoM-related articles. However, I find it may lead to more confusion in the articles, and I propose we strike it for both. NikoSilver 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted your partial response up there. I am not saying (of course) to denounce WP:UE. I am saying that it is difficult to assess the English usage consensus for either name. (Take a pill if necessary and) try to read my early tendentious subpage. It definitely needs updating and tweaking, but it is a serious search on the usage of the terms. NikoSilver 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

This talk page has got rather long and difficult to follow: for the sake of clarity, could people please list below what issues are still outstanding? -- ChrisO 06:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to archive what I consider closed. In any case please visit the archive. NikoSilver 10:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A case in point

An issue of exactly the kind that this MoS needs to resolve has cropped up in Template:European Union Labelled Map. Sysin, a user with a long history of Greek ultranationalist POV-pushing, is repeatedly deleting the spelled-out name "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" from the map, leaving only the unexplained acronym FYROM. This MoS already mandates that the FYROM acronym shouldn't be used by itself on images and the general MoS likewise requires acronyms to be spelled out the first time they're used. Unfortunately Sysin, as I know from experience, is not the kind of editor who's easily persuadable. Perhaps Niko could have a word with him? -- ChrisO 06:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the ANI incident you filed (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Macedonia-related_disruption). He seems to have a non-ultranationalist related case there (acronyms/abbreviations exist for many countries in that map due to size limitations). I'm sure this can be sorted out without resort to a trail of ad hominem characterizations (to which I emphatically disagree in general) which can be seen in Talk:Macedonia/Archive_2#A_new_approach, in the ANI thread, and now here. Anyway, what exactly do you want me to say? NikoSilver 10:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I also notice that this is a proposal, and that there are bound to be many disagreements from all sides, especially given how contentious this issue is. Those disagreements should be taken into account and molded into a consensus if we want to succeed. NikoSilver 10:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost irrelevant: In my experience, very few editors have ever been persuaded and changed their mind from their original position in any dispute I've been involved (and I almost chase these). In my opinion those editors deserve our greatest respect for their self-defiance in doing that. I was thinking of making an essay titled WP:ADMIT the other day (and I probably will). NikoSilver 10:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Languages

The issue was discussed partly in /Archive 1#Expand and must be elaborated. I archived anyway. NikoSilver 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My edits

This MoS will help towards peace and understanding between the two groups. I have no objection to the republic's internal name being used in the proper context - but it is reasonable to object when certain people inject it inappropriately as a means of making irredentist claims on articles about Greece, or when people try to use the anything-goes rules of wikipedia to white-out the nomenclature chosen by the United Nations, the European Union and other international organizations. Most of my edits are common sense (do not edit original texts, acronyms are sometimes nuavoidable, etc.).

My proposed term for the language prior to 1941 may be a bit more controversial - I am open to any reasonable suggestion that is not anachronistic. Regards, sys < in 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me reply in detail.

  • where the distinction with the Greek territory of Macedonia must be made clear to the reader who is unfamiliar with the area,
    • Either this is another "distinguish as necessary", to which I shall rephrase it; or it is "we must make clear the distinction between the Republic and the Province at all times and places", which is nationalist POV-pushing. Since it will be read as the latter no matter how intended, unacceptable.
    • On second thought, no. "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is never required for disambiguation; the Republic is clearly distinct from the Province. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the word Republic has also been used for sub-national entities (Yugoslavia is a handy example!). A casual reader, reading an article about Greek and Greek Macedonia can reasonably misinterpret "Republic of Macedonia" as the name of the Greek region, or as an entity that includes Greek Macedonia. To avoid repeating constructs like "Republic of Macedonia (which is not the region of Greek Macedonia but a separate country)", a reasonable alternative employed by most major supernational institutions is the term "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Again, I am only proposing this for articles that focus on subjects where a context switch is needed (and I am not proposing this on articles that simply mention such subjects) sys < in
  • Where source documents <:ref>e.g. treaties, books, tourist guides, statistical tables<:/ref> use one or the other form of the name, the text of the source document must be left as it is, and references to the document should use the form in the document itself.
    • Uncontroversial. But why put it here? Quotations should be exact is a general principle; and I so placed it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, this issue pops up from time to time, one would hope that it would not. For example, the EU document named The Commission Opinion on the application from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for membership of the European Union has had its title 'adjusted' a number of times in the European Union entry. I hope you agree that this is an unacceptable alteration of source material. sys < in
        • Diff, please. That's a line and a half; I'd shorten it in text myself; not in a footnote, or in italics, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • For example, check footnote 28 at [3]. (the link has since been broken, but it was exactly the same document ("COM (2005) 562 final") as footnote 18 in [4]). In your comment above, you agree that you would not alter a document title like this but some people are not as ethical. Spelling this restriction out in the MoS is needed.sys < in
    I have the feeling that Sysin's proposal referred to both quotations and normal text (Wikipedia's voice). - Ev 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • and in articles on facets of the above organizations such as European Union regulations and the Euro currency
    • Rather sweeping. We can all agree, I trust, that we don't want every article that quotes prices in euros to be treated as an aspect of the EU; on the other hand, the EU clause applies to more than the article European Union. Both these are implicit in the original wording. I think it better to keep our thumbs off both sides of this scale. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, and you can clarify it by adding something to that effect. But 'articles about facets' (as opposed to articles mentioning facets) should be included. Eurovision voting results is a good example - the annual edit war on the topic was last week. If the official Eurovision result lists "FYR Macedonia", so should the articles about the results. If you want to clarify that articles that simply mention the Euro or Eurovision should be excluded, go ahead and I will not disagree.sys < in
  • Macedonian Slavs or Slav Macedonians in articles where there is need for disambiguation (mainly those also addressing the Greek Macedonians and/or Ancient Macedonians).
    • Should be, as elsewhere, contexts (i.e., we don't have to repeat Slav Macedonian unless the qualifier is necessary in that sentence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. but we should not have sentences like "Macedonians vs Greek Macedonians". Its like saying "Christians vs Catholics". And an article is the proper scope to avoid confusion.sys < in
        • I agree (nor "Macedonians vs Slav Macedonians", by the same reasoning). But the present text says so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It looks like we agree on the principle, but I believe that the text as it is at present is very vague and with open to interpretation.sys < in
  • The term citizens of the Republic of Macedonia or citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (as per country conventions, above) should be used for those citizens of the country who are not Slav Macedonians.
    • Implies that "citizen of the Republic" should not be used of citizens who are not Slavic. I suspect this can be saved by recasting.
      • I don't see how one could possibly read it this way, but feel free to recast it as you wish.sys < in
  • The forms used in official source documents should be preserved when quoting or referencing such documents
  • The language used by Slavs in the Macedonian region prior to August 1944<:ref>See History_of_the_Macedonian_language</ref> should be described as Bulgarian, Bulgarian Macedonian dialect, or the Macedonian dialect of the Bulgarian language as appropriate. For written texts, the distinction should be made based on whether or not the Bulgarian alphabet was used in the original text.
    • Guidelines should not attempt to decide questions of fact. In dealing with changes of usage, Wikipedia follows present English usage in writing about the period in question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, I do agree this was a half-baked idea on my part, and I already mentioned in my previous comments that it needs a fine tuning. An non-anachronistic term is often needed. Your proposal is essentially OK, although hard to arbitrate. sys < in


  • for example, a map of the countries of the European Union should display "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", whereas a general map of Europe should display "Republic of Macedonia"
    • The same map can be both. This is silly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Evey map is a map of something. Europe != European Union (its not even a subset, as there are regions in the EU outside Europe). In 99.99% of all cases, one can tell if a map is of the European Union by looking at its content and its label. It would be counter-intuitive to use the 6WN in an article, and the 3WN in an accompanying map, and a constant source of bickering. The purpose of this MoS is to agree on basic principles so that edit wars are not needed. Treating images differently from articles just creates a gaping holes in any agreement, and agreements full of holes are usually unsuccessful.sys < in
        • I fully agree that images and articles should work the same way. What's wrong with doing this by not saying anything different about images? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, we agree. Then let's please put this down explicitly, because people have a tendency to make up rules out of thin air around here (like the "no acronyms allowed in maps, ever" position someone presented a couple of days ago).sys < in
      • As for the abbreviation/acronym issue, I am still amazed that anyone can make politics out of that (and, quite frankly, I am very suspicious of the intentions of people who do). There is no way the words "Republic of Macedonia" can be made to fit in the Template:World Labelled Map, for example. Not in any legible font that I know of. Even the 6-letter word "Greece" is abbreviated on the map, and rightly so. The MoS, as written right now, would be practically impossible to comply with, and what is not practical is rarely successful. My proposal was totally balanced: The acronym should be used only when the full name cannot fit in the map, and Greek Macedonia should also be abbreviated when needed. What's the political argument against that? sys < in 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You insisted on using the abbreviation FYROM. What citizen of the Republic would object to Mac. ? who objects to ROM ? (I see it's a little odd so near Romania, however.) Yet both are shorter, and the first is parallel to Neth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I think we are in agreement: I proposed that "Republic of Macedonia" should be acronymized as RoM and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" should be acronymized as FYROM, which is common sense. If you feel that "RoM" looks like "Rom", then perhaps RM would be a reasonable alternative. Someone around here objects to any and all acronyms & abbreviations on any map, period, and that is an unreasonable and impractical rule. The MoS should spell out the proper acronyms/abbreviations to use in maps, for completeness' sake. Regards, sys < in 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision FYROM

Over 40 countries voted in the Eurovision song context. Only one, Montenegro, used the term 'Macedonia'. All the others used 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. As for the FY/ROM, it was one of the few countries to refer to its name 'Macedonia' as opposed to its capital, and the only one to do so 3 times. It seemed obvious that the young lady had been coached to do so. Otherwise, well done Fyrom, nice song but Ukraine or Bulgaria should have won. Politis 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image text

I've made a few changes. I hope the only one to be controversial is the first, removing the footnote from the paragraph on images. I simply feel, that if we're going to use the same convention, we shouldn't try to repeat it shorter. If it can be shortened, shorten it above. I've boldened the meat, to replace any loss of force. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that all?

Title says all. Shall we wrap? NikoSilver 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I made some cosmetic changes, and promoted the "quotes" issue to a subtopic, as I consider it a major one. Let's go!sys < in 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There have been no changes of note during the past week: I propose that an announcement is made in the relevant topics ("Macedonia", "Macedonia (Greece)", "Republic of Macedonia"," Greece", etc.) for votes (At least that's how I understand the procedure). sys < in 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made two tweaks; rephrasing one former/latter sentence because I had to go into the history to see what Niko meant, and toning down to suggest that, if it's clear that the Republic is intended, we can say "The Albanian-speaking population of western Macedonia", without confusion with the periphery Western Macedonia. If these are acceptable, I'm fine with this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
OKsys < in 19:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How about changing "The acronyms RoM and FYROM" to "The abbreviations RoM, Mac., or FYROM"? I know some people will object to Mac. (and it had better be clearly inside the Republican border), but other people do object to FYROM.

Note: this is a suggestion, not a condition of my approval. Announce at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and the other places, and I think we can upgrade this next week.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Not too important, I guess, but RoM saves the ambiguity and is also [quite vehemently] objected to (by those south of the republican border). I'd equate opposition to plain Mac. to that for RoS; not that for FYROM. In that sense, RoM is the golden section for expressing the northern POV. NikoSilver 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done VP, btw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine; I've tweaked to suggest that these are not the only acceptable abbreviations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I preferred the previous order, but I wouldn't veto about it. I think Radiant meant something else though; maybe he could explain? NikoSilver 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The reversed order is more successful than I expected; it at least gets all the general guidelines, like quote exactly, ahead of the specifics. But then I'm biased. I'll ask Radiant what he meant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we're talking about different revisions. I'd say the present one is fine. >Radiant< 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Final call

Proposal that we move this out of 'proposed' this weekend. Any objections? sys < in 10:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to state that I don't see anything objectionable to the point of not striking "proposed" anymore. All further improvements/possible modifications can be discussed even when it is not "proposed" anymore. NikoSilver 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work IMO. Well done team. Andrewa 06:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Skopje

I have been advised that my recent edits were somewhat unwelcome, as they tilted the "balance" struck here in discussions to which I was not a party. In fact, it's only in the past couple of days that I've known of the existence of this MoS, so please excuse my erstwhile absence. I thought I'd be bold and edit it anyway, as I strongly maintain that "Skopje" and "Skopjans" in particular are not confined to a small minority of crackpot nationalists as the current wording suggests. While "FYROM" and "Slavomacedonians" are the terms used by Greek officialdom and in more diplomatic language, the most common forms for the country and its people in everyday Greek usage are "Skopje" and "Skopjans". The text should be amended to reflect this reality, without unnecessary value judgments and loaded terms like "nationalist". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The pro-Greek 'tilting' was not in the removal of the word 'nationalist', but in the removal of Republic of Skopje and Republic of Vardar from the explicit list of names that should never be used to describe the republic. This list should remain as it is, as it these are names not generally used internationally.
I do however agree that the paragraph that begins "In addition, several alternative names..." should be removed, as it simply repeats two of the names listed a few lines above, and is thus redundant. I prepose the following which adds value and maintains the essence of the paragraph:
Other alternative names (metonyms) such as "Skopje", "Paeonia", "Vardar" and "Pugudú" (ΠΓΔ), in use by Greeks who reject any use of the word "Macedonia" by the Republic, should never be used to designate the Republic.
Any objection to making this change? sys < in 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that "Skopje" and "Skopjans" should be moved from the list of "deprecated" names for the purposes of Wikipedia, but they shouldn't be wrongly attributed to a small nationalist minority either. They are in a class of their own, as they are by far the most common terms in Greek usage. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I misjudged your intentions. In any case, now that the policy is no longer in proposed status, there should be discussion here before any edits that are not cosmetic. Regards, 17:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought my edits were pretty clear. The substance of the manual's prescriptions regarding "acceptable" names on Wikipedia was not changed one iota. But the reasoning behind the rejection of the other names should be factually correct, for the record. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
In the same context of e.g. "Athens does not raise issue" (meaning the Greek govt situated there) etc, I think that we cannot regard Skopje/ans as deliberate nationalistic insults. It is indeed the most frequent term used in Greece, and "nationalistic" qualifiers are not welcome. Most people using it may have no idea it may be a "nationalist" term, so we can't (and needn't) list it under those. I agree with Kekrops, and we can work on the changes to reflect that. NikoSilver 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it a rather obvious nationalist statement to reject not only the name which the country calls itself, but the name which the Greek government uses? -- ChrisO
The Greek government uses the provisional reference as per the international agreements that allowed Skopje to join the UN and other international organisations. It was always meant as a temporary compromise to be used until a mutually acceptable solution could be found. Of course, that doesn't mean Greek officials don't also routinely use "Skopje" and its derivatives, which have become the established short-form terms in Greek, and are likely to persist even if a permanent compromise name is achieved. I don't think that labelling the Greeks "nationalists" is constructive in the slightest; you may disagree with the point of view of the overwhelming majority of the Greek people, but we are here merely to report it, not judge it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that we shouldn't be judging it, but we shouldn't blind ourselves to the obvious, either. It strikes me as being rather similar to many Arabs' refusal to use the name "Israel" and insistence on the term "Zionist entity" instead. We can report such a usage, but we can't use it ourselves in the ordinary course of articles. -- ChrisO 08:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Your comparison is almost defamatory. Greece never disputed the country's right to exist. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
No, just the country's right to call itself what it wants to call itself - which is an important element of the right to self-determination, of course. The bottom line is that the use of a metonym used solely in rejection of another country's self-identification isn't compatible with NPOV. -- ChrisO 08:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So you agree then that the "nationalist" label can be removed, given that no one is suggesting the "metonym" be prescribed for Wikipedia articles? By the way, I can't help but note that "Macedonia" is also a metonym; only a very small part of today's FYROM lies within the boundaries of the original Macedonian state. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> See Macedonia (terminology). The point is debateable; whether Paeonia was "part of the original Macedonian state" depended on the relative strengths of the Kings of Macedon and Paeonia. Much of the present Greek periphery wasn't part of Macedon at all before Phillip's time. But it doesn't really matter; the Republic is named for the 19th century territory, which (usually) included all of it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the present edit, which says that Skopians is relatively neutral in Greek, will win acceptance. I can see taking the sentence out altogether; this is not the Greek WP, and our business is the implications of words in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Cecrops objects, removing the statement he has fought so hard for. It is characteristic of nationalists that they should prefer to spite their enemies than support their friends; but let someone else restore this; it's the reason for our decision here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Your insults don't alter the validity of my arguments one iota; they are but a sign of frustration. Personally, I have no interest in attempting to justify the use of Skopjans, as I will continue to use the term on talk pages as I see fit. I merely wanted to correct the claim that it is only used by a small group of crackpots, which is factually incorrect, and balance the claim that it is offensive to those to whom it is applied. But if you're going to start omitting statements of fact, you might as well be consistent. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Kékrōps is quite right to say that it's not used by a small group of crackpots. It is, of course, used by a large group of crackpots... -- ChrisO 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Also known as the Greeks. And your petty insults only make us stronger. Keep going. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Western Republic of Macedonia

Under WP:MOSMAC#Naming conventions (province), we are told to use a construct such as "Western Republic of Macedonia" when referring to parts of the republic. But if these are temporary constructs, as opposed to proper names such as West Macedonia (which incidentally is the article location, not "Western Macedonia"), why should they be capitalized? Shouldn't it rather be "western Republic of Macedonia"? Or, as this sounds like it's implying there are several republics of Macedonia, even better: "western part of the Republic of Macedonia"? -- Jao 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading WP:CAPITAL#Directions_and_regions, the wording in MOSMAC sounds about right, if we consider the term "Western former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" analogous to "Southern United States" as an informally defined subregion of a country. At least that's my interpretation (which could be wrong). In any case this MOS should follow the rules set in WP:CAPITAL, perhaps that's the right place to discuss and clarify the matter. Regards, sys < in 20:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
That section of WP:CAPITAL only applies to "regions that are proper nouns, including widely known expressions" such as Southern California or Southern United States, though. Is "Western Republic of Macedonia" such a widely known expression? -- Jao 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably not, but you've incidentally touched on the crux of the naming dispute. "Western Macedonia" has been used with some frequency to refer to the region of the FYROM affected by Albanian separatism in recent conflicts, but it also happens to be the name of a specific administrative unit of Greece, a notable entity in its own right. That's why Greece has been arguing all along that having two political entities called Macedonia inevitably leads to confusion. I agree with your point about capitalisation, though. I don't see it as particularly necessary. As for your distinction between West/Western Macedonia, I note that it would only be applicable to English, which is rather unique in having such alternate adjectives. In any case, they are interchangeable and wouldn't serve any meaningful disambiguation purpose. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, my objection was only against the capitalization and against the possible misconception that there are several Republics of Macedonia. I think "Western Republic of Macedonia" should be changed to "the western part of the Republic of Macedonia" in this guideline, that's the only thing I'm seeking to change. I am in perfect agreement with the guideline (and with you) in the main point that the western part of the ROM should not be called simply "Western Macedonia" (capitalized or not), and I apologize if I hadn't been as clear on that point as I thought I had. The parenthesis about "West Macedonia" was just a suggestion that maybe the wording in the guideline should be changed to correspond with the article title, but if your point is that keeping it as "Western Macedonia" here will show more clearly why it makes the use of "Western Macedonia" to refer to the western part of the ROM impossible, then I guess that's all right. -- Jao 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "the Western part of..." construct might be a bit clearer. sys < in 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
But Jao is right when he says it shouldn't be capitalised in English; it is an informal designation and using capitals could have the effect of implying a separate political status. Hence why the former West Germany has now been reduced to western Germany. And perhaps the wording should be changed per his observations to reserve both West and Western for West Macedonia, i.e. Western Macedonia, Central Macedonia and Eastern Macedonia [and Thrace] are the official names of 3 Greek peripheries... should be changed to West/Western Macedonia, Central Macedonia and East/Eastern Macedonia... There is no such adjectival distinction in Greek, after all. Any objections? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
i don't disagree, but here's the thing: WP:CAPITAL#Directions_and_regions talks about the Southern United States which is also an informal designation, analogous to "Western FYROM". So, counterintuitive as it may sound, it appears to me that the MOS specifies capitalization. sys < in 10:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the Southern United States is very much in use as a proper noun, although it's more often rendered as "The South" or "The American South". It's not an official designation and its borders are not unambiguously defined, but the difference is obvious from this: New Mexico is a state in the southern United States, but not in the Southern United States, while Virginia is in the Southern United States, but hardly in the southern United States. So clearly it's a proper noun. -- Jao 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The recent, now settled, discussion at Talk:Arvanites reveals a weakness. The clause permitting "former Yugoslav" in articles about organizations, etc., was never intended to include all incidental mentions in articles about subjects in Greece, like Arvanites, but articles whose subject is Greece, the Eurovision Song Contest, and so forth. I have tweaked accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're really clutching at straws here. Ask any member of the subject of the aforementioned article what he thinks the neighbouring country should be called, and see if his answer differs. Perhaps we should add "population groups" to the list, as they too have their own POV on the matter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
An unproven conjecture. The position of the Greek Government or the EU can be clearly documented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The passage in question was:

Some of them [i.e. Arvanites] live in Epirus (Thesprotia and Preveza); in Florina/Konitsa (near the border of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia); and in some locations further east in Thrace.
  • The article is about Arvanites; the passage about the region in which they live. To claim that either is about Greece is already stretching language to its elastic limit; to say either is about the Greek State snaps it. But the clarification is clearly necessary to prevent single-purpose accounts from inserting unnecessary infelicities on this pretense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I was away on vacation and did not see this thread. My interpretation and understanding of those comments is that the Greeks, as a nation, are a subject that clearly has a prevalent position (which is obvious and easily documentable). I agree that Arbanites, whether they live on Greece or not, do not clearly have a prevalent opinion on the matter, and, unless sources can be presented to the contrary, the "R of M" designation is more appropriate. Regards sys < in 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That won't be necessary, as the single reference to the country in the article was wholly redundant and has since been deleted by myself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To Kekrops: I totally agree with your removal of the mentionings in the two instances where you did that. But let's nevertheless get this clarified in principle here.
To sysin: In fact, whether some group of people has a "prevalent opinion" on whatever issue is totally irrelevant here. NPOV means we don't let our content be dictated by the opinions of people we write about. We generally use "Republic of...", no matter what the people we write about think about this. The only justifiable exception that the guideline provides, for using "former Yugoslav..." instead, is in reflecting official linguistic status decisions of official bodies and organisations, and then only "if the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization". That's the guideline as it currently stands. If we can agree on that, I will also consent to marking it as "consensus" again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear sunrise, the point of the MOS is to avoid endless edit disputes. If we revert to a policy of chaos and unclear guidelines we all lose. The guiding principle is simple: We follow the convention used in the topic being discussed. This way you don't have Greeks making changes to articles about your Republic, you don't go making changes to articles about the Greeks, and we can all go on productively improving wikipedia while the politicians try to sort out the mess. The same method is employed elsewhere (for example check out [WP:NC-CHINA] for guidelines that are similar and even more restrictive against the self-chosen name of the "Republic of China". sys < in 15:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful comparison with WP:NC-CHINA. In fact, that guideline plainly contradicts your "guiding principle". Analogous to what you want to do here would be if it mandated that in all articles dealing predominantly with mainland China (PRC) all references to Taiwan were to be replaced with Chinese Taipei, to match the mainland Chinese official POV. No such thing is envisaged there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Read it again, more carefully this time, keeping in mind that the internal name of the country does not include the (Taiwan) modifier, nor is the internal name of the country "Chinese Taipei". In fact the China policy is even more strict, in that the FYR has consented to the FY modifier being used by the United Nations, the EU, Greece, etc., therefore the FYROM designation is officially recognised by the FYR itself, whereas no such status exists for the "(Taiwan)" modifier. sys < in 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, of course there are both similarities and differences between these two cases. The point you note is correct, that the relation between Wikipedia's chosen general name and the parties' own chosen names is different (in the Mac case, Wikipedia chose a name that happens to coincide with the preferred name of one of the parties, in the China case not). But the point I made is still valid: There is nothing in the China solution that is analogous to what you are demanding here, namely that naming conventions should vary by subject area, in order to match the POV preferences of the domain being written about. In the China case, they use a single name no matter if the focus of the article is the RoC or the PRC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, a single, mutually acceptable name should be used here as well. The current status quo, which "happens to coincide with the preferred name of one the parties", i.e. favours one POV over another, is patently unacceptable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you proposing to throw away this guideline in its entirety and start from square one? That "Republic of Macedonia" is the standard name to be used throughout, wich only minor exceptions, is the constitutive principle of this whole page and of all the prior practice in Wikipedia. This much is non-negotiable. We were only talking about how to define the scope of the exceptions.
And in fact, it is amply justified by common naming policy, on the well-known criteria of self-identification (see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with self-identifying terms and elsewhere; if Nikos were here he could quote these by heart.) In the Chinese case, the minor deviation from that principle (by using the self-identifying term plus a disambig in brackets) is dictated not by requirements of neutrality, but purely by requirements of disambiguation. Which, as has been pointed out numerous time, do not apply here, because "Republic of..." alone provides all the disambiguation we need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't buy it. If "Republic of" constitutes sufficient disambiguation, so does People's. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Then go and change WP:NC-CHINA. Good luck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. Wouldn't it be much easier to change this instead? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it. There are more αρβανίτικα κεφάλια in the Balkans than in China, you should know that. ;) Besides, you'd need to change WP:NAME and its various subpages first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But what I have argued is that the guideline's current wording suggests that former Yugoslav can and should be used in articles where "the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to... organisations, states, events and international relationships". Greece is precisely such a state, so the former Yugoslav wording can legitimately be used in articles relating specifically to Greece where Skopje is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to Greece. Arvanites fit the bill in my opinion, but I'd rather delete an unnecessary reference than argue over it incessantly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Your republic"??!? -- Well, anyway, no, that is not the guiding principle. The guiding principle is what the guideline actually says: use a standard name throughout, and only make exceptions in a narrowly defined set of circumstances. Now, the current text actually defines that set of exceptions more precisely than I first thought, and that definitely does not include just any and all "articles about the Greeks" in such an exception. So, we now have two choices: either we agree that this is what the text says, then it's consensus again and can be marked as a guideline (which doesn't mean that I'll be running through all articles to enforce it immediately). Or we do what I proposed as an interim solution: mark in the text that we agree to disagree on this point, with a plea to do in practice essentially what you just suggested, namely to leave things alone as they happen to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see why former Yugoslav can be used in Greece but not, say, in Serres Prefecture. As if the latter is not part of the former, or has a different POV on the matter from the government in Athens. This is really getting absurd. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not about opinions or POVs at all. It was supposed to be about factual precision. The only valid argument for the exception was that different naming conventions (such as "former Yugoslav...") were, in certain cases, a constituent part of how the official relations between the RoM and some other entity were defined in the real world. That's why Nikos insisted on this point so much: You can't say, e.g. that the "Republic of Macedonia" maintains such-and-such a relationship with the European Union, because it's a factual part of that relationship that it is maintained qua "Former Yugoslav...". Now, the Serres Prefecture, as a separate legal entity, doesn't maintain official relations with the RoM, under whatever name, so there is no such special linguistic convention to follow. Nor do the Arvanites. Nor do the "Greeks", in toto. Mere opinions or feelings of these subjects or their representatives do not enter the picture at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case I disagree with your interpretation. It is entirely possible that the Serres Prefecture has official relations with local counterparts across the border. And you can be certain it doesn't use "RoM". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But even then, the text of the guideline would only apply if those RoM entities were being mentioned "specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization".

Thus, for instance: "Representatives of neighbouring municipalities in Bulgaria and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia came to Serres to take part in the opening ceremony of a new program of cross-border cultural cooperation" (=official organisational relationships involved). But: "Serres is situated near the international border between Greece, Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia" (=simple geographical fact, no organisational relationships involved). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For a casual mention of Serres in another article, perhaps. But not in Serres or Serres Prefecture themselves. Otherwise the presence of the word "states" in the guideline is meaningless. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is pretty meaningless, if you ask me. It's not as if all these exceptions really make much sense in the first place. If at all, it's only in the sense that Pmanderson described, where official policies and constitutive definitions of offical relations are at stake. But let's not fool ourselves into mistaking these seemingly objective considerations for our mutual motivations in this negotiation. It is plainly obvious that some people here are just using whatever argument is available as a pretext for banishing an unwanted term from as many of the articles they care about as possible. And other people are trying to prevent them from doing so. You must understand that nobody outside the Greek faction here will accept the idea that "former Yugoslav" should be enforced in certain domains just in order to match the POV of some people, as in the remotest way objectively justified. Let's be honest, we are just tolerating that tendency, within limits, for pragmatic reasons, because we know the power of disruption that a determined revert-warring national faction could muster otherwise. But there's a line drawn somewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's summarize

All these indentation levels are giving me a headache. Here's my summary (by the way, all this has been discussed in the past, including in this very talk page).

  • 1) "Republic of" is not sufficient disambiguation - the UN and the EU clearly agree on this point, and this is explained elsewhere on this page.
  • 2) FYROM is a self-identifying name in that the FYROM has signed bilateral agreements using this name, and agreeing to use this name in international relations, therefore WP:NAME is not an issue.
  • 3) "Former Yugoslav" is not POV as the UN (which clearly is not an instrument of Greek policy) uses it, and (I'll mention it again) the FYR also formally agrees to this modifier.
  • 4) This MOS is consistent with precedent, in fact it is much milder than NC-CHINA. NC-CHINA dictates the use of a name that the "ROC(Taiwan)" has not formally agreed to in any context. MOSMAC dictates the use of a name that the FYROM has formally agreed to use in international relations.

Regards, sys < in 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Response:

  • about (1):
    • (a) The UN and the EU do not use the "former Yugoslav" for purposes of disambiguation, but for purposes of marking the name as provisional. It has nothing to do with disambiguation.
    • (b) Even if it had, we don't ask the EU or the UN about what disambiguation measures our readers need. That's an editorial decision we make ourselves, on the basis of practical considerations.
    • (c) Yes, I've seen you make the argument that "A casual reader, reading an article about Greek and Greek Macedonia can reasonably misinterpret "Republic of Macedonia" as the name of the Greek region". I find this clutching at straws. What reader do you have in mind, who would know that Greece has a region called M., but not know that there is an independent state called M., and who might think Greece was made up of constituent "Republics" (a vanishingly rare constitutional model across the states of the earth)? How often in real life is the phrase "in the Republic of ..." used with reference to some state's federal constituents rather than a nation state? This is ridiculously unrealistic. And besides, in all cases I can realistically imagine, the context and the wikilinking would make the relationships clear anyway.
  • about (2-3): "Republic of..." is very clearly the preferred term of self-identification by far. We've established that it's going to be the regular name used in Wikipedia except for some very limited set of exceptions. As I said, this is non-negotiable.
  • about (4):
    • (a) Yes, this MOS is consistent with precedent, the way it is worded, if understood correctly. But it says something else than what you apparently think it says.
    • (b) As I said, the relevant tertium comparationis between this guideline and the Chinese one is not whether Wikipedia's chosen name coincides with that of either of the parties, but whether or not we should have varying naming conventions according to the supposed POV of the subjects we are writing about. We shouldn't. This whole idea that naming conventions are there to satisfy people's domain-specific POVs is entirely alien to the basic principles of naming in Wikipedia.

I mean, I can understand that it's a valid motivation on your side to keep the "RoM" name out of as many Greek-related articles as you can, to make certain groups of readers happy. People have even been willing to humour that tendency to some degree, against their own better judgment. But you must understand that while it's an understandable motivation, it's not a legitimate rationale under the perspective of Wikipedia's naming policies. Names aren't chosen by subjects' POVs. Those are entirely irrelevant. They are chosen for "common use in English", first and foremost, then comes the self-identification principle, practical needs of disambiguation, and considerations of factual accuracy, and not much more. On none of these criteria can I see any good reason why "fY" should be mandated in any but a very small group of exceptional cases. In this, I uphold the position held previously by Pmanderson, and I'm telling you that this guideline isn't going to be "consensus" unless its interpretation is clarified in this respect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Response:

  • 1) The UN would not have adopted a provisional name if they had not found the Greek claim of ambiguity and misappropriation valid or, at a minimum, worth considering.
  • 2) The fact remains that the Republic itself uses "The former Yugoslav ..." when it suits it, so there it is a self-describing name.
  • 3) You have chosen not to address this at all.
  • 4a) Yes, this MOS is consistent with precedent (which also negates your point 2, as it displays that WP:NAME can be clarified when needed. The MOS is consistent with the "Chinese Taipei" precedent. To follow the Chinese example, all references to the FYR should be replaced with a disambiguating name).
  • 4b) Again, since the Republic itself uses the "former Yugoslav" term, and a number of non-Greek organizations (such as the UN and the EU) use it, the name is clearly non POV, which invalidates your argument. How can it be POV when both parties agree to its use? How can it be "point of view" when an impartial third party also agrees?

Regards, sys < in 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to response to response

  • The UN may have chosen to use "fY" for any number of reasons. But certainly not because they feared a practical breakdown of communication because people, on seeing "Republic of Macedonia" written in an UN document, would fail to understand what it meant. That's what disambiguation is about. Practical communicative needs. "fY" never had anything to do with that.
  • "RoM" is the constitutional and strongly preferred self-identifying name. We all know that they only use the other out of necessity, and they hate it.
  • I didn't address the "POV or non-POV" argument, because it's a non-issue. I will repeat this until people finally understand it: This whole exercise isn't about POV. It's not about placating this or that party's POV, it's not about striking a balance between this and that POV, it's not about finding a solution that is least POV. People's POVs don't enter the equation at all. The only POV that matters is the POV of the entity being named, according to the principle of self-identification. Other parties' POVs are completely, absolutely, utterly irrelevant. This whole exercise is solely about practical needs of communication with our readers. It's about striking a sensible balance between (a) simplicity, (b) what English-speaking readers in normal written discourse will most readily recognise, (c) what the entity in question calls itself, (d) what is practically necessary for disambiguation.
  • The only relevant point of comparison between this case and the Chinese case is this: in the Chinese case, Wikipedia editors felt that the difference between "People's Republic of..." and "Republic of..." was not salient and obvious enough to distinguish the two entities for the casual reader, so they opted to add "(Taiwan)" for clarification. In the Macedonian case, all neutral outside observers have told you that the difference between "Republic of..." and "Greek province of..." is easy enough to understand for any reader of normal intelligence. There is never any practical communicative need for "fY". Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to comment on FP's first point above, this is what the President of the UN Security Council said about UNSC's reason for adopting the reference back in 1993: "[it] carried no implication whatsoever that the State concerned had any connection with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and that it merely reflected the historic fact that it had been in the past a republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." [5] In other words, it's a purely descriptive reference, not an attempt to disambiguate with the FRY or Greek Macedonia. It's not accurate to say that the UN "found the Greek claim of ambiguity and misappropriation valid or, at a minimum, worth considering" - this has never been the position of the UN. The UN is neutral on the dispute and has always said it's an issue for the two countries themselves to resolve. It's involved as a mediator under the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 between Greece and the RoM. -- ChrisO 23:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

R2R2R2R

  • It is ingenious to state that the UN added the FY disambiguator (for this is what those words are, by definition) just because the FYR was once a FYR. Why do we not have a FYRo Croatia or a FYRo Slovenia? The UN was acknowledging that one or more of the Greek arguments (disambiguation, historic right) were either fully valid, or at least meriting special treatment. Please - such sophistry does not show good faith.
  • In any case, if disambiguation was not a reason, what were the "any number of reasons"? And why do they not apply in the real world?
  • Disambiguation is not needed for people already familiar with the subject, but is essential for people not familiar with the subject, as many or most people seeking info in WP presumably are.
  • You are contradicting yourself on the significance of POV in this matter. You went on and on about POV before, and now that the FY name is clearly demonstrated not to be POV, you are acting as if POV never mattered.
  • Again you are avoiding the point, that FYROM is a a name used by the FYROM government itself. I have a friend whose name is Didi but her drivers' license reads "Delphine". She doesn't care much about Delphine, but this doesn't make it any less her real name. Both names are valid.
  • You are not addressing the point that the RoC(T) govm't rejects the use of (Taiwan) which is a more extreme stance than that taken by this MoS.
  • No, not ALL observers have told me that, unless you consider the UN and the EU and Eurovision, etc, etc, to be non-existent.

Regards, sys < in 07:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this as simply as I can: you are wrong about the UN's reason for adopting the name. I've just cited the UN's official position on it! Write to them and ask, if you don't believe me. It's a purely descriptive term. Let me quote further: "By resolution 817 (1993) adopted at the 3196th meeting of the Security Council held on 7th April 1993 to consider agenda item “Report of the Committee on the Admission of New Members concerning the application for admission to membership in the United Nations contained in document S/25147 (S/25544),” the Security Council recommended to the General Assembly that “the State whose application is contained in document S/25147 be admitted to membership in the United Nations,” that State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over the name of the State." [6] Note that it's not the "former Socialist Republic of Macedonia" - it dropped the "Socialist" part just before it seceded from Yugoslavia, so "Republic of Macedonia" was the last name it was known by before independence. That's what made the FYROM formula acceptable to Greece - it's a descriptive historical reference, not a prescriptive name. Disambiguation was not the reason why the name was adopted - as the passage above states, it's a provisional reference to be used by the UN "pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over the name of the State." The UN does not and has not endorsed either the Greek or the Macedonian position. It wouldn't be a very good mediator if it had, would it? And it should be completely obvious that there is no FYRo Croatia or Slovenia because there is no "difference that had arisen over the name" of those states. -- ChrisO 07:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, twice you quoted: "pending settlement of the difference that had arisen over the name of the State". Can you please parse this sentence and tell me what that aforementioned difference is? Do you not agree that "pending resolution of the difference" implies a strong connection between this difference and the choice of designation? sys < in 07:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the difference is obviously that the RoM wants to use its chosen name for itself and Greece disagrees with this position. The UN obviously recognises the fact of the dispute but it doesn't take sides. As the passage I just quoted states, the provisional reference was adopted as a compromise form of wording that both sides could accept temporarily pending resolution of the dispute. It wasn't a deference to either side. As I recall, there was some controversy in Greece at the time about even accepting the FYROM name, given that it includes the dreaded "Republic of Macedonia" formulation. And as you know, there's a lot of unhappiness in the RoM about the name as well. In other words, it was a typical compromise - both sides had to settle for something less than what they wanted. -- ChrisO 08:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you agree that the UN designation is in deference to the Greek position. I never stated that it is an endorsement of the Greek position, only a consideration for a position, which demonstrates that the position is worthy of consideration. In many other cases of international disputes the UN has taken sides (China is a handy example). In any case, regardless of UN's reasons, the fact remains that UNs adoption of this designation, and its adoption by FYROM for international relations, eliminate any taint of POV in its use.sys < in 13:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

R2R2R2R2R

  • Learn the difference between a "disambiguator" and a "qualifier". A disambiguator is a qualifier used because an appellation would otherwise be ambiguous. "RoM" is not ambiguous, ever. There is only one entity in the world that is called "RoM". In fact, in the very UN document Chris quoted, the very first reference to the RoM uses just that, "Republic of Macedonia", without a qualifier. Apparently, the UN diplomats were perfectly able to work out what entity was meant by that. Whatever their reason was for adopting the qualifier, it wasn't a disambiguation need.
  • But anyway, I don't care why the EU or the UN do what they do. This is Sparta Wikipedia.
  • Where did I "go on and on about POV before"? Read.
  • I wasn't avoiding the point. I clearly answered it. Read.
  • I did address the point about why "(Taiwan)" was chosen despite its rejection by the RoC government. Read. What exactly about the notion of a compromise between the self-id principle and practical disambiguation needs do you find difficult to understand?
  • By "all observers", I obviously meant Wikipedia editors. Speaking about practical needs of Wikipedia readers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

States

I don't think that spasmodically altering the wording in order to crack down on the use of a particular terminology in articles relating to Greece is the way to go about things. In any case, if that was the original intent of the author, it is clearly unacceptable to me and to other Greek editors I'm sure. Pray tell, what is the purpose of mentioning "states" in the first place if you don't think FYROM should be used in articles concerning those states? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But that article is not about the Hellenic Republic; it is only indirectly about the country of Greece. If the clause said "country", Kekrops would have a case, but a weak one; but it does not, and that wording would have been unacceptable, precisely to avoid this sort of argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you begrudgingly agree to FYROM being used in Greece and nowhere else. I have reason to doubt that was the consensus of the discussion here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. When an article has as subject the Greek Government, the European Union, the Eurovision Song contest, or any such subject; or discusses such a subject and the Republic, our guidance is to use former Yugoslav Republic, as they do. When we paraphrase the views of any of them, we should use the language they are committed to. Such passages will be unoffensive to all but the most committed Republican patriots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're being far too legalistic. The position of the Greek government (and by extension the EU, UN, NATO etc.) is a direct reflection of Greek public opinion, after all. To claim that the Greek stance is the POV of the government exclusively, unrelated to Greece as a country or society, is rather disingenuous. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • More news from Cloudcuckooland. The distinction wanted is clearly represented by our footnote (which I did not write): "Example: "In other news, FYR Macedonia ranked 18th in Eurovision"; "Karolina, who last year competed in Eurovision, returned to the Republic of Macedonia". The first sentence is about Eurovision, the second sentence is not. If a subject does not have a formal/prevalent position on the matter, "Republic of Macedonia" can be assumed."
The sentence at issue clearly ranks with Karolina, not with the "Other news". We should consider moving the footnote up into our text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that Arvanites is a subject without a position on the matter. As a subset of the Greek people, they share the Greek position. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a postulate, then? It remains without evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree with PMAnderson on this point - unless we have strong evidence that the majority of Arvanites (or an organization that can legitimately claim to represent them as a group) have taken a position on the matter, the RoM designation applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sysin (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 September 2007

Seeing this edit [7], I've changed the status of this page from "guideline" to "proposed" again. There is obviously a lack of consensus in interpreting the current text. For the record, I'm squarely with Pmanderson here. This is not going to be a consensus guideline as long as there's anything in it that can be construed as mandating that all articles relating to Greece or Greeks in any form should use "former Yugoslav...". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about moving the footnote into the text, and rephrasing as do not use FYROM unless the article or passage has as subject an organization which...? Add For example, the Greek government, the Eurovision Song Contest, but not any article dealing with Greece or touching on the song contest; add footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. We ought to have a concrete example of "RoM" in a Greece-related article in the footnote. Along the lines of what you once used as an example in your discussions with Nikos. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be a one-sided edit - The Greek people, whose national state is Greece and who (for better or worse) elect the Greek government to represent them, clearly fall within the scope of this MOS. In any case such an edit would invalidate the entire MOS as far as the Greek side is concerned and we'd go back to the old situation of unproductive endless edit wars without guidelines.
It is clear from the existing footnote that the FY qualifier is not needed in text that merely touches a subject.
The MOS reached consensus with both sides present. I have personally reverted edits that would have favored the Greek side - changes at this point should be mutatis mutandis.
Regards,sys < in 07:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The MOS reached apparent consensus with a very clearly upheld opinion stressed by PMA that it would never be acceptable to have the "fY" exception clause be applied to all articles loosely related to Greece. If people nevertheless sneaked in an expression that is now being interpreted to mean the contrary, then there never was a consensus to begin with. We can now clarify this consensus by either spelling out more clearly what the (restricted) set of "fY" exceptions is going to be, or we abolish the "fY" exceptions altogether. They were, from the very start, only a tactical concession to the Greek side. They are not going to be extended beyond what was always a very clerly drawn red line. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Epithets

Regarding this latest outburst,[8] I should probably inform its author that it was I who wrote the sentence in the first place.[9] Personal attacks and loaded labels aren't particularly helpful. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing...

I propose to remove the language about "deprecated names" including things like "Pseudomacedonia", "Bulgaroskopians" and so on. These are so obviously beyond the pale that their exclusion should be self-evident. Calling them "deprecated" implies that they would otherwise have been serious candidates. That alone can be read as a slight against the country. Only things like "Skopje" or "Aegean Macedonia", where the political implications aren't as obvious to the outside reader, need to be treated there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Nobody uses them anyway; I don't know why they were put there in the first place, except perhaps to portray the Greeks as hot-headed lunatics. The only names commonly used by Greeks are Σκόπια (Skopje) for the country (and to a lesser degree FYROM) and Σκοπιανοί (Skopjans) for the people. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If we are agreed that WP should never use them, then why not record the agreement? If someone wants to ban the abuse produced by Republican lunatics, that's fine too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Because no one's using them to begin with. Greek "vandalism" on Wikipedia doesn't get any worse than changing "Republic of Macedonia" to "FYROM"; I've never even seen anyone change it to "Skopje", which one might reasonably expect given its predominance amongst Greeks. Mentioning anything else is just a straw too many. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen "Pseudomacedonia", "Bulgaroskopians" and "Skopje" (especially the latter) used by hit-and-run vandals here on Wikipedia, which is why I included them in the deprecated names section in the first place. -- ChrisO 07:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tags

Re the addition and removal of "disputed" tags this morning: I would certainly not want to dispute the validity of this guideline in its entirety. However, there clearly is currently a dispute over its interpretation, with respect to this one area of how to delimit the scope of the exceptions provided for "fY" in Greece-related articles. I'd be in favour of some temporary tagging that markes this as a yet-to-be-solved detail. Everywhere else, the guideline can hopefully be treated as applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too. The MOS works only because it is balanced for both sides.
If you read it careflly, there is a reciprocity in points, one-for-one. We worked hard to reach this balance. Selectively invalidating half the MOS, and not the corresponding other half, negates this process, negates all the effort made by both sides to reach concensus, and takes us back to the days of free-for-all edit wars.
As I mentioned before, I have personally rejected pro-Greek edits that invalidate this balance. I have not made any balance-altering since a non-partisan admin (User:Radiant!) took the MOS out of proposed state. I expect the same courtesy from the other side.
Of course you don't like parts of the MOS, I don't like parts of it either, this is what balance is all about.
Let's work together in the talk page to find balanced, mutually acceptable solutions. In the meantime there is no need for partisan changes on a page that was taken out of proposed status months ago.
Regards, sys < in 09:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not that there are things in the guideline that I don't like or you don't like. The issue is that there is doubt about what is in the guideline in the first place. In order to limit the damage we should strive to identify that area of contention as clearly as possible and work on stabilising that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine, we are getting somewhere. Let's isolate what these perceived uncertainties are, and work to improve them, while maintaining the spirit and, more significantly, the balance of the MOS intact. A wholesale rehashing of the entire Greece-FYROM dispute will not lead us anywhere.sys < in 13:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is this text from Greeks

Many modern scientists and scholars (e.g. anthropologists like C. Coon and geneticists like Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza) have supported the notion that there is a dominant racial connection to the ancient Greeks. Other scholars, especially in Nazi Germany and modern-day FYROM, have supported the refuted theories of the 19th century historian Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, who claimed that the ancient Greeks genetically disappeared at some point, and as modern Greeks have no genetic or cultural connection to them, Europe owes them nothing.

I dispute the text at issue on other grounds, having nothing to do with Macedonia, and it may be better to do away with it altogether; but the question of whether this guideline authorizes FYROM just because the article in question is Greeks is clearly worth discussing here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

from Sysin's talk page

I do not agree that this is the same thing as the Eurovision Song Contest exception discussed above; and I dispute that Wikipedia should permit it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Okay, to Sysin. Here's the question.
As we said, let's try to identify and isolate the area of contention. Apparently we agree on the general principle that "Republic of Macedonia" is going to be the rule and "former Yugoslav..." the exception. Exceptions need rationales, objective justifications. So, taking the hypothetical example PMA once constructed for a Pella Prefecture article, slightly shortened:
"Pella (Greek: Πέλλα) is one of the prefectures of Greece. It is situated in the periphery of Central Macedonia, in the region of Macedonia.
...
Pella is bounded by the prefectures of Kilkis to the northeast, Thessaloniki to the east, Imathia to the south, Kozani to the southwest, by Lake Vegoritida to the southwest, and by Florina Prefecture to the west. On the north, it is bounded by the national border between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia."
This is the example that Nikos found "fucking cruel", but against which he didn't finally put up much resistence for all I can see.
  • Tell me what is wrong with this. Tell me why, in your view, the use of "RoM" in this article must be replaced with "fY...".
  • Don't tell me why you want it to be replaced. I know that.
  • Don't tell me why you think it could legitimately be replaced. I know that.
  • Tell me why it must be replaced. Why is "RoM" bad for our Wikipedia readers in this article? What is there that makes an exception from our normal practice necessary?
  • Hint: the fact that Greek Wikipedia editors, Greek Wikipedia readers and Greek inhabitants of Pella don't like this usage is not a valid argument. Don't use it.
  • Another hint: the fact that this decision could be traded in a tactical páre-dhóse of balanced concessions between two competing parties of Wikipedia editors is not a valid argument. Don't use it. Tell me what's good for our Wikipedia readers.
Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How about it being bad for the readers to read and try to actually use it in Pella? How healthy would that be? Should the name be marked with a "hazardous if used locally" tag? :-) NikoSilver 18:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kalós ton. Did you bring your Cardhu? It might allay those hazards. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Α lot cheaper and easier to educate the readers than to try make drunk 2,455 angry "nationalist" locals. Isn't it? {especially to my level of drunkenness) NikoSilver 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Response:

The FYR itself has agreed on paper that FYROM is the self-descriptive name to be used in its relationship with Greece and, consequently, its agents including the local authorities in Pella. Pella, as far as it is concerned, borders the FYROM, not the ROM. The FYR itself has agreed that its border with Pella is the Greek-FYROM border, not the Greece-ROM border. The UN as an impartial super-entity that is the closest thing this planet has to an arbiter in such issues agrees that this is the Greek-FYROM border.

This is the exact same standard established by the use of "Chinese Taipei" in all articles concerning the Olympic Games. As the FYR has agreed to the use of this name in this context, the name is a) self-descriptive, b) non POV, c) most appropriate and thus a+b+c) the best choice in the matter.

By the way, I was in Macedonia this year, and signs on the newly constructed Egnatia highway exits point north to "(Yu)".

sys < in 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Sys < in, you're wrong. The closest thing this planet has to an arbiter in such issues is the Linguistic Society of America. NikoSilver 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The UN is not an arbiter, it's a neutral mediator. It doesn't prescribe names for countries. As the Macedonia naming dispute article points out, the UN has emphasized that its adoption of "FYROM" was only for internal UN purposes. It hasn't instructed anyone else to use the name FYROM. Everyone who uses it does so voluntarily and independently, and it's not mandated by anyone. When the USA and other countries abandoned the use of FYROM, they didn't need to ask anyone's permission to do so. -- ChrisO 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice straw man job (I never wrote it was an arbiter, I wrote it was as close as we currently have, please read carefully). Can please answer the actual point being made? Why is this not analogous to the Chinese Taipei precedent? Why is the name that the FYR has agreed to use in this context inappropriate? sys < in 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at this image, taken from my user page:

It shows a cat and a dog sitting next to each other. I can express the fact that these two are sitting next to each other, without asking the cat what he thinks the dog is called, or asking the dog what she thinks the cat is called. I will just call them "the cat" and "the dog", because that's what I like to call them.

If I were talking about the idea that the cat asked the dog to marry him, that might conceivably be different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Convincing argument, if you are an 8 year old. Not even - make that 6. Now, do you have anything remotely relevant to actually offer? sys < in 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for fun, I'll play along: What you are doing is calling the animal on the right "Dog", and insisting that I do the same, because that's its name. OK, its name is "Dog", and the whole world might know it as "Dog", and it might be OK to call it "Dog" when no dogs are around, but when it is standing next to an actual, biological, dog, some clarification is needed. Qualifying the name "Dog" with a prefix such as "The cat that is called a ..." is perfectly appropriate in this case. sys < in 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC).
Okay. The point I was trying to make can of course be made in a less childish way, if you prefer. It is this: The fact that the RoM takes part in the Olympic Games, or that it conducts some business with the EU, is something that exists only insofar and to the degree that the RoM is entering into a mutually voluntary, intentional relation with those partners, and the special (for us: exceptional) linguistic convention may be seen as a constitutive defining part of that relation. (Mind you, I'm by no means convinced that even this necessitates we should follow that exceptional convention, I'll gladly get rid of this exception too, but I can accept it.) But the fact that the RoM and some part of Greece border on each other in space is something that is true independently of any intentions, definitions, agreements or opinions of either side. There is therefore no practical need why Wikipedia should make an extra effort to follow anybody else's naming conventions, rather than its own, when speaking about these facts in its own, Wikipedia's, voice.
I'm not going to enter into your point about the cat and whether it's really a dog or pretending to be a dog or whatever. That point ignores my "hint" given above. The fact that some people believe the RoM isn't really a "M" and shouldn't be calling itself "M" is something that won't be discussed here, won't be taken into account here, and won't influence our decisions one tiny little bit. Sorry.
By the way, I'm also not convinced that the arrangements in the context of the EU or UN or Olympic Games etcetera make the "fY" description the "self-descriptive" one. For all I can see, the RoM, even in those contexts, still uses just RoM when talking about itself. It only tolerates others calling it "fY..." (and that necessarily includes the rare occasions, such as the texts of treaties, when others and itself need to talk together in literally a common voice.) When the ambassador of the RoM speaks in front of the UN, he still uses "RoM" ([10], [11] and many others). The national Olympic Committee or Football Association of the RoM still call itself just "M", even when talking about their participation in the international events ([12], [13], etc.). Even the RoM's diplomatic representation in Greece is called the "Liaison Office of the Republic of Macedonia in Athens". (I don't know if that's also what's written on the door there, but that's what they are calling it when talking to the world.) Do you have documents where the RoM itself, when talking about itself in its own voice, through its own organs, uses "fY..."? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a tape of the 2004 Olympic opening ceremony handy? Or the 2000? Or the 1996? Can you tell me what the banner proudly held by the leading member of the FYROM national team was? If I walk around with a sticker that reads "Hi my name is Joe" and then accuse people of POV when they call me "Joe", that would be funny, bordering on schizophrenic, no?
You are claiming that WP should follow its own standards, not those used internationally. And who makes these standards? We had a standard, it was clear, it was consistent with WP:NAME and the Chinese precedent, it had been agreed upon (ChrisO and PMAnderson were here during the consensus building and we announced this in a number of Macedonia-related talk pages and in the village pump). Are you claiming the right to unilaterally change it without following the same process? And on what basis?
If you wish this discussion to be constructive, it would help if you acknowledged that there is a process in place that was followed in constructing this MOS, that the MOS in principle balanced, that this balance must be maintained, and that any alteration must be made by consensus.sys < in 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so you have some occasions where RoM representatives have used "fY". Point taken. But it's a minor point anyway. As I said, I'm not strongly opposed against using "fY" in the Olympic context or similar ones. I'm not trying to overturn an agreement. I'm trying to bring the interpretation of this guideline back to what I think PMA thought the agreement was when the agreement was made. He stressed that exceptions providing for "fY" were okay, but that they must never extend to all Greece-related articles. He never backed away from this position, and I agree with him. And he evidently felt that the present text was intended to make this clear. Either this was part of the consensus, or there never was a consensus to begin with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify the Chinese precedent. The USA recognise the RoC only as "Chinese Taipei" in their (not officially diplomatic) relations. What you are demanding now would mean that in every article about US cities, US citizens, US history etc. every reference to the RoC should be replaced by "Chinese Taipei". This is not what we do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

At least, I think we now agree that POV and "self-descriptive" are no longer at issue. Let's try to focus on what is at issue. I start from the left margin again, for readability.

Let's try to understand what the MOS describes:

Articles which have as their subject (mere mention is not enough) subtopics, facets and agencies of these topics (like the Euro or the European Railway Agency), should follow the usage of the parent's entry, unless the subject uses a different formal name..

If the EU Railway Agency, as an agency of the EU that follows its parent's conventions, uses the name FYROM, why should the prefecture of Xanthi, an agency of the Greek government that follows its parent's conventions not be included?

As for the Euro, it is a piece of metal, it does not have an opinion, but the little coins are just facets of a system administered by the ECB, which does have clear position on the matter. The same standard is, again, used in 2000 Summer Olympics medal count; the metals themselves did not have an opinion, but this doesn't change the fact that they were awarded within a context where the appropriate name for the ROC(Taiwan), as per MOS, is "Chinese Taipei".

Anything unclear so far? sys < in 08:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the current text can be read this way (i.e. "Xanthi" as an "agency" of Greece etc.). But that wasn't the intention of the participants, as expressed clearly in the accompanying debate. It was sneaked in and must now be clarified. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Now you are insulting the intelligence and the reading skills of all those who participated in the original effort, from both sides. Give me one reason why anyone wuold assume that the EU->"EU Railway Agency" relationship is any different from the "Greece"->"Xanthi Prefecture" relationship? In fact this paragraph was discussed at length, edited from both sides and then agreed upon. Its meaning is very clear. sys < in 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The language "...and in articles on facets of the above organizations..." was added to the passage some time on 17 May, and discussed on this talk page, at a time when the preceding phrase did not yet contain "states". All relevant discussion I can see about it dealt with sub-facets of international organisation topics such as the EU. The language that brought "...facets of..." within the grammatical scope also of "...states..." was made on 18 May by you ([14]). After that date, I can see no entry on the talk page and no edit to that paragraph showing that any of the non-Greek participants was actively aware of the implications of that wording. Chances are, they simply overlooked it. There was a lot of vivid discussion on other issues at the same time. Given the vociferous opposition he had previously raised against anything to that effect, I don't accept this as evidence of "consensus" having been established. Of course, we can just ask PMA. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Again you are insulting the people who took part of in the process - the word "states" was clear as day for many weeks before finalization. For example PMA made this edit, was he not reading the very sentence he was editing? Again, you have the right to dispute the outcome, but please do not dispute the process because its outcome was not to your liking. The people who worked here before you arrived deserve this courtesy.

In any case, by the definition of the word organization, every state is an organization. sys < in 10:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I think it's now time to make my proposal for a rewording. This is not an intended substantial change in the guideline, this is a clarification of what I think the intention of the guideline, according to at least one side among its authors, always was:

The names former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should be used in articles or passages that deal with the republic's participation in international organisations and events, in those cases where it does so officially under that name;1 and in articles and passages that deal with the republic's official bilateral political and diplomatic relations with other states, in those cases where the diplomatic relations are conducted under that name.2, 3
1 For instance when dealing with the membership of the RoM in the UN or its accession to the EU, or with its performance in the Olympic Games or the European Song Contest.
2 For instance when dealing with the bilateral political relations with Greece.
3 Where this rule leads to the use of "former Yugoslav..." in a passage within a larger context in which otherwise the standard name Republic of Macedonia has been used, for instance in a subsection about Greek-RoM relations within an article focussing on the RoM alone, any mid-text shift of terminology should be suitably contextualised.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: Are international borders a matter of international relations? sys < in 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Mere geographical facts about them are not. The borders exist independently of how the diplomatic relations are conceptualised by either side. Negotiations about them would be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You are truly grasping at straws here.
In any case, I'll keep your argument in mind in case decide to geographically re-place myself across the US-Mexican border - its existense is independent of the diplomatic relations (and therefore, the bilaterlal regulations) that govern it, and I should not bother myself with such trivialties. sys < in 09:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I will never agree to misquote the borders of -say- Florina Prefecture, to anything different than what the Florina Prefecture itself calls them. NikoSilver 10:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll never agree. Kríma ton kópo mas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You missed a few episodes here. I'm not disputing they say that. I'm disputing it's relevant for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Third party English source (Britannica) dealing with the same naming issue: Greece vs e.g. Serbia
Beat that too. NikoSilver 10:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I got it: It's the nationalist Greek editors that have managed to push their standards on Britannica too (as they already did on WP), huh? NikoSilver 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Britannica has its own naming policy, we have ours. Want to follow them here too? But I like their double reference in the Greek article, with plain and simple "Macedonia" first... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should probably try something along those lines if it really aspires to neutrality. If we can have Imia/Kardak, why not RoM/fYRoM? Don't bother answering; it's a rhetorical question. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
On that comment, Kekrops, I think the real parallel would be Macedonia/Skopje. Greece's acceptance of its part of the deal externally shouldn't weigh more than FYROM's rejection of its part of the deal internally and externally. But, hey, things are "Grey" only in selective subjects... NikoSilver 14:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Fut., it wouldn't make any difference IMO to rename the RoM article to Macedonia (country) (since Macedonia (without dab) is taken). Why, do you think that "Republic of" makes any more difference than that? (We could of course use the standards of BBC News or Encarta instead)... NikoSilver 12:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


I thought we were trying to clarify the MOS

The bottom line is, this proposal just confuses things more. It is generally easy to look at an article heading and decide that the proper name within the context of the article is. This is the way the MOS currently operates.

In your current proposal we would have to split hairs on every article. For example, in the current MOS, an article about black bears that roam the Belles mountains should clearly use the "RoM" designation to specify the country in which those bears summer, assuming that the bears do not have an organization that has an opinion on the matter. After the proposed change, we will have to endlessly argue whether the border that the bears cross every spring is a geographical one or a political one. Hilarious but pointless.

In fact, if your language is taken literally, the "Carolina" example should also use the FYROM designation, as the sentence in question does deal with her participation in EV, even though EV is not the subject of the sentence.

Sunrise, please read the existing MOS again. It is clear, it is fair, is is balanced, it is clear, it is consistent with WP:Name and other precedents, and more significantly it is clear. Your version is frought with the level of ambiguity and nuance that keeps millions of lawyers hapilly employed worldwide.

Trying in every sentence to tell the difference between lands and the states that administer them, between bilateral relationships and the agreements that govern them, between geographical borders and political borders, between the Eurovision song contest and Carolina (or Sarbel, if you prefer) looking ridiculous in the Eurovision contest - that kind of hairsplitting will lead us nowhere. sys < in 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regards, sys < in 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, splitting hairs will be necessary as long as people continue to want to squeeze a wording into as many articles as they can get away with, not to make our texts more readable but to satisfy their own ideological sensitivities. My proposal is not better or worse in that respect than the current one ("if the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization" is just as much opportunity for hair-splitting, if you see it that way. But you seem to be determined to forget that clause anyway.)
Obviously, the current wording is at least as much subject to misunderstanding and hair-splitting, because we've seen how it already has resulted in that. Even its authors don't agree on what it means, now, how clear can it be then?
I'll retract everything I said if PMA comes here and confirms that he knew and agreed, at the time, that the wording was meant to include all articles about sub-topics of Greece. My impression is he very clearly said he didn't.
Of course, the difference between "geographical boundaries" and "political boundaries" is a strawman, I didn't say that. What I meant is that a mere geographical description of how things are situated with respect to each other (like "X borders on Y", or "X is situated near the border between Y and Z") doesn't, on its own, constitute a context where Y's and Z's political opinions about each other are of interest. Hence, no reason for deviation from our normal naming scheme.
Of course, I'm open to rewordings and clarifications. This was just a suggestion. It just needs to make clear it won't include all articles dealing with sub-topics of Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is baffling - now your are stating that there are contexts where Y's and Z's political opinions are of interest and implying that this is the criterion to be used. If that is the case, you are completely missing the point. The point is to not use political opinions as a differentiator, but actual, factual, formal, verifyiable forms of address between the parties involved. sys < in 12:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
... where these forms of address are a significant aspect of the topic that is being described. Then yes. They are significant for a description of how X and Y conduct their political business with each other. They are not significant for a description of the fact that X lies to the north or to the south of Y. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. As long as you're on the Greek side of the border, there is no neighbouring country called the "Republic of Macedonia", either in official discourse or anywhere else in the public domain (and hence verifiably). It only becomes a reality once you're safely on the other side. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
But we aren't on the Greek side of the border. We are in Wikipedia. We look at both entities from outside, from the same distance (even in an article that focusses on one of them.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that the preferred forms of address are relevant to every mention of the two countries in relation to each other, just because that's what happens in the real world. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No. I can mention both countries in the same breath here and now, and I don't care what their preferred forms of address are. They are 3000 miles away. I am taking an outside perspective. So should Wikipedia. People can talk about "Israel and Palestine" if they so wish. People used to talk about "East Germany and West Germany", if they so wished. People don't ask countries what they like to call their neighbours, before feeling entitled to talk about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And yet the "outside perspective" by no means invariably translates to your preferred term. As important as you are, Herr, you cannot speak for the entire outside world. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm speaking for the established practice within Wikipedia, which has determined that for general purposes "RoM" is the preferred term. I'm still waiting for an objective, rational reason why readers should expect an exception, just because an article deals with Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Simple. Because Greece in this case ≠ general purposes. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't heard a good reason why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't heard a good reason why not. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you however that there is no consensus. And never was, apparently. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I responded in Fut's "why". I said that it is (a) confusing for the uninformed reader, (b) unsourced/unverifiable and (c) unprecedented (see China and Gdansk/Danzig). I'd be happy to have one argument in "why not". NikoSilver 14:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we all know why not. Because they just don't like it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. They just don't like it. The Fyromians. They grudgingly accept it in some places, but they don't like it. And, unlike yours, their opinion actually counts. (Self-identification principle.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please cite "don't like it" and "grudgingly". Please tell me why you shift from "more frequent in English" to "self-id principle" according to your convenience. Please write an essay why me being called "Republic of Fut.Perf. at Sunrise -or simply Fut.Perf. at Sunrise" cannot offend your "self-id principle". Please explain why it is not confusing. Please explain why their opinion counts and in who's book. NikoSilver 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"Don't like it" and "grudgingly" are common knowledge. You know it, I know it, let's not fool ourselves. (And what was that about those "call me by my name!" publicity campaigns etc.?) -- I am not shifting between "more frequent" to "self-id". I am considering both. Because Wikipedia policy is to do just that, consider these two as the main criteria and find a reasonably balanced compromise between them where necessary. -- If you actually were called Fut.Perf., I'd probably be a bit irked but I'd have to accept it. But you aren't. You could of course now adopt it just to have some fun and annoy me. That would be a POINT violation, in other words, wanton provocation. But the Fyromians didn't start calling themselves Macedonia just in order to have some fun and annoy the Greeks. They actually are called like that. You might even say: they can't help it. They have nothing else to call themselves at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. They didn't start calling themselves "Macedonians" just to annoy the Greeks; it was decreed that they must call themselves that in order to advance very specific Yugoslav claims over "Aegean (outlet) Macedonia". Now that Yugoslavia is gone, they are of course incapable of ever realising such a goal, but the founding principles remain nonetheless. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? What is bad in saying e.g. "the former Soviet Republic of Estonia" if it helps inform the reader where that -say- relatively new Estonia came from? NikoSilver 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, except for the fact that Soviet sovereignty over Estonia was always disputed by the Estonians and the West. Yugoslav rule over what is now the fYRoM wasn't. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

An objective, rational reason

I objectively and rationally claim that fYRoM is the preferred term as per WP:NCON. I quote:

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.
Where there are two self-identifying names in use and both are descriptive, then the uncontroversial name should be used. See Controversial names.

FYROM being a non-controversial (both sides formally agree to it, independent third super-national organizations agree to it, the UN ) self-identifying ("Hi my name is FYROM" at the Olympics), and the only of the two names to be descriptive, not prescriptive, it is clear to me that WP:NAME licenses the use of FYROM globally0. It is an indisputable fact that FYROM is the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (descriptive). It is a point of dispute that it is "The Republic of Macedonia" (prescriptive)

Clearly, the other side takes the same words and interprets them quite differently. The standard that WP:China and this MOS follow is to use CT/fYRoM1 where the name can be used in a descriptive way (i.e. where the use of this name does not taint the subject matter with misleading, prescriptive or subjective connotations2). In articles where the very use of the name becomes prescriptive (i.e. where it creates connotations that should not be there), a descriptive name must be used. As an objective method for making this determination, both MOS declare that if there is agreement by both parties that the descriptive name must be used in this context internationally, then this name can be used in this context in WP.

0 You can argue that RoM is also descriptive; even if you do, and even if you are right, it doesn't matter as the NCON covers this case already

1 WP:China goes much further, by enforcing a descriptive-prescriptive hybrid name, RoC(Taiwan), practically everywhere. Let's not go there.

2 By that I mean: In any article about Greece, the use of the RoM designation is prescriptive because, by definition, it can carry the intended or unintented implication that the RoM is the national state of Macedonia and the Macedonian people, i.e. a considerable percentage of Greek territory and population. In any article about the Greek people and Greek geography, the implications of the existence of a state that claims to represent "Macedonia(ns)" are significant, and load the article with unneeded baggage.

Regards, sys < in 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Before I comment, could you please re-read what you just wrote? I suspect there are a few confusing slips. Your first sentence... do you really mean "RoM" there? And then, do you really see "CT" (Chinese Taipei) and "RoM" (Republic of Macedonia) as the two terms that match in status when comparing the two cases? That would be just bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure he meant fYRoM in the former instance and RoC in the latter. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I just pulled an all-nighter coding, and editing WP on the side between compiles. My brain is scattered - I think I corrected what I mistyped. Apologies. sys < in 14:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought you meant that RoC/RoM may be considered descriptive only if they are free of undesirable connotations. In any case, I fully agree with the crux of your argument that the use of RoM in Greek-related articles can be considered prescriptive, given the very specific connotations of Macedonia(ns) in the context of Greece and/or the Greeks. In fact, I also happen to think its use is prescriptive anywhere, as it clearly favours one POV over another, but some have decreed that it is "non-negotiable". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but among other things I find wrong here, you are both mis-using the terms descriptive and prescriptive. You seem to believe that descriptive means as much as 'neutral' and prescriptive 'non-neutral'. This way, you are bringing back the concept of finding out what the "right" name is, through the back door. The whole point about introducing the terms descriptive and prescriptive in WP:NCON is that we should not be doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I note that guideline was largely written by a contributor to this talk page, so forgive me if I'm sensing more than just a whiff of a conflict of interest. "We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." Nema problema, except the argument could go either way in this case. You have declared that RoM should be the country's name, and fYRoM is its name by its and your own admission at least some of the time. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The assertion that FYROM is a self-identifying name is actually not accurate. "FYROM" is not even a name - it's a provisional reference (note that the UN never calls it a name). The RoM government's position is that it consents to the use of the reference in certain fora, not that it self-identifies by that reference, which it hates. The RoM presidency website spells this out. To quote the President of the RoM, "You know that within the UN, we are referred to by our provisional name, FYROM. The fact that we do not object is a concession on our part" [15] and "Believe me when I say that we want more than anybody in the world to find a solution and obliterate the anachronistic and humiliating coinage FYROM." [16] The RoM's position has always been that its definitive name is "Republic of Macedonia", which is the only one officially defined for the state in its constitution. -- ChrisO 19:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"Our provisional name", words spoken by the President of the Republic himself, is pretty straightforward evidence that it is a self-identifying name; its lack of popularity in the Republic is irrelevant, frankly. Just like the Brits, who may despise the EU but have to abide by its rules until they muster the testicular volume to sever ties and bugger off. But if you prefer to call it a self-identifying reference, provisional or otherwise, that's fine too. By the way, there are no such things as "love" and "hate" in international relations, only national interests, international agreements and violations thereof. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That's just not so. Go back to the reference I quoted earlier for Sysin, the statement by the UN Security Council at which the FYROM reference was officially adopted. The statement speaks of the "State being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations" as FYROM. The intent of this wording is described by Frowein and Wolfrum in the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1997: "it did not purport to determine the name of the state, even for United Nations purposes, even as a provisional name, but rather describes how the state will be provisionally referred to." Crvenkovski may have misspoken (or been mistranslated) in this instance, but the position has always been that FYROM is a provisional reference, not a name. It's used merely as a construct to enable the RoM to do business in international fora, not as a way for the state to identify itself. You're arguing against the clearly understood, well-documented facts here. -- ChrisO 19:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Tell that to Mr. Crvenkovski. The word "name" was his, not mine. It makes no difference to me, as I have yet to encounter a convincing argument that a mutually accepted "provisional reference" is any less valid than a controversial "name" that is a matter of international dispute. Au contraire... ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCON is clear: the self-identifying name is the standard. The only self-identifying name of the RoM is that set out in article 1 of its constitution. The fact that it's controversial - and that you personally dislike the name of the RoM - is completely irrelevant to our task as encyclopedists. NCON determines what we do here, not your personal opinion or that of the Greek state. The whole point of NCON is that it removes such decisions from the sphere of personal opinions and confines the issue to the entirely objective question of how an entity formally identifies itself. That's a simple question of looking at its constitution or founding document, and doesn't require any "convincing arguments" to be presented - only the facts. When I wrote NCON, it was with the clear intention (as the page states) that we are not in the business of determining what the name of a self-identifying entity should be, but what it actually is - period. -- ChrisO 20:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And your guideline is the be-all and end-all why? Because you happened to write it? Yes, sir! ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's the be-all and end-all because it's the relevant guideline, it's been agreed by the community, and it's been stable, effective and successfully used for the last two and a half years. As you can see from the hundreds of links to it, it's been used frequently to resolve disputes of this sort. I'm simply giving you my expert advice as its author about what the guideline requires. The position that you and Sysin are taking is precisely why fiascos such as the Gdanzig case occurred; NCON was written with the express intention of providing an objective means to resolve such disputes. -- ChrisO 20:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not disputing the guideline as such. I'm disputing your interpretation of it as it relates to this case. FYROM is a self-identifying name/reference - full stop. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You can insist all you like, but tell me when you find it in the RoM's constitution. Evidence-free assertions aren't worth much. -- ChrisO 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And you can argue that a reference isn't a name until you're blue in the face, but I fail to see any provision in your guideline that an entity may have only one self-identifying name or reference or that a nation's constitution is the only legitimate source thereof. If that were the case, the article would be at Република Македонија. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to argue anything: I simply have to state the documented facts, which is something that you've rather obviously neglected to do so far. -- ChrisO 21:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. That FYROM is a self-identifying name is a fact that you are rather obviously neglecting. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That you disagree with the facts is obvious; I don't know what you expect the rest of us to do about it. We certainly can't proceed on the basis of fact-free assertions. -- ChrisO 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand what Descriptive and Prescriptive mean. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a long-winded but exact method of describing the state in question - it is a matter of fact that the state in question is a former Yugoslav (Socialist) Republic named Macedonia. It is by no means a neutral term (it does contain "Macedonia" and therefore goes against Greek opinion) but no-one can deny that it is factually accurate. It also describes the state in terms of its borders (those of former Yugoslavia) and its people (those who were formerly Yugoslavs) in a way that is clearly factual and not controversial.

You can argue on and on whether RoM is descriptive or not. You can claim that it is just a name with no further connotations. I argue that the term "Republic of Macedonia" implies the existence of a national Macedonian state, a fact that 2,5 million Macedonians vehemently deny. Its use implies that WP has an opinion on the matter, i.e. that the people living within the FYR are in fact Macedonian (which is clearly disputed, even inside the FYR), and/or that their state lies within Macedonia (in great part disputed). Terms like "Republic of X" are generally understood as "the state that represents the Xian people", which is the very reason why PROC gets its panties in a bind whenever someone mentions "RoC". It doesn't matter, the NCON cover both cases.

Even if we agree that I am paranoid and the prescriptions that I believe to be implied do not exist, the NCON clearly states:

Where there are two self-identifying names in use and both are descriptive, then the uncontroversial name should be used. See Controversial names.

We have established that of the two names, only FYROM meets the criteria (self-identifying, descriptive, non-controversial). The MOS, as it stands, is a major givaway from this position, in the interest of getting along and doing something more productive than edit wars.

Let me ask directly: Do you interpret NCON in a different way, and how?

sys < in 18:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But the more I look into it, the more I see the NCON text is itself poorly worded here. There is a conceptual confusion, partly in the NCON and even more strongly in what you write, between a name itself, as such, being prescriptive or descriptive, and somebody's approach towards a name being prescriptive or descriptive. What the guideline is really trying to say, in my understanding, is about the latter. We, as editors, should be descriptive, not prescriptive, in how we choose and evaluate names. We should not heed arguments about what names are correct, justified, historically right, good or bad or whatever in the real world. Those arguments would be prescriptive. We should only heed descriptive arguments about what names are actually used by whom. Prescriptive, in that sense, is exactly what you have just been doing, with your speculations about what ideological implications those names might carry (those things are called "implications", by the way, not "prescriptions") and why their use is thus good or bad. This is precisely what the guideline wants to tell us not to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not so much a conceptual confusion as a legislative gap. The guideline does not in fact provide for a case like this, where there is more than one self-identifying name (or reference as ChrisO would prefer) and neither is (uncontroversially) uncontroversial. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You can insist this until you're blue in the face, but the indisputable fact is that the country's self-asserted legal identity is as the "Republic of Macedonia". Insistence otherwise is just a species of denialism, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"We are referred to by our provisional name, FYROM." ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
An interview with the President of the Republic of Macedonia isn't a legal document. The country's constitution is. -- ChrisO 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We also have the UN, the EU, NATO, the Olympics, Eurovision, ad infinitum. And where, pray tell, does your guideline say anything about legal documents? Even if it did, there are even more legal documents that the country has signed as tfYRoM. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, let's cut to the chase, shall we? You have a POV-based objection to the use of the RoM name. Fine, I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your beliefs. But you miss the fact that your beliefs are irrelevant to the way that we deal with issues like this. The definitive name of a self-identifying entity is generally given in its foundational document, whether that's a company charter, city charter or constitution. That's not always the case, so you can't set out a one size fits all rule that will apply to every example. In this case, however, there's a very clear self-identification in the RoM's most basic legal text. You literally can't get a more definitive self-identifying statement than a national constitution. -- ChrisO 21:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, let's cut to the chase, shall we? You have a POV-based objection to the use of the FYROM name. Fine, I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your beliefs. But you miss the fact that your beliefs are irrelevant to the way that we deal with issues like this. The definitive name of a self-identifying entity is generally given in many documents, whether those are president interviews, EU applications, NATO applications, IOC participations etc. That's not always the case, so you can't set out a one size fits all rule that will apply to every example. In this case, however, there's a very clear self-identification in the RoM's most frequent international self-appellations. You literally can't get a more definitive self-identifying statements than those spoken by the subjects themselves. NikoSilver 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't. I honestly don't care which name the country uses. I do care about how the NCON guideline is applied, and the way that you lot are trying to go about it is actually to ignore NCON altogether. I'm not going to poke holes in an agreed, well-established guideline to satisfy a parochial political dispute. If you don't agree with the principles of NCON, then that's too bad - we're not going to change it so that you can drag Wikipedia back into a partisan free-for-all over naming. If you want to get anywhere with this discussion you're going to have to do so on the basis of Wikipedia standards, not your own personal POVs, otherwise we might as well stop wasting our time on this. -- ChrisO 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you do. You will do anything in your power to interpret or even create and modify the NCON guideline the way it suits the purpose of advancing paranoia, regardless if it has correctly been interpreted the other way numerous unrelated times for other hot issues (WP:CHINA, Talk:Gdansk/Vote, Imia/Kardak). Wikipedia is the victim, and it violates all its core policies to adapt to your occasional "interpretations" for endorsing known cited partisans at will or for sheer fun. There is nothing wasting our time more than this ridiculously subjective approach. NikoSilver 22:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're approaching this from two different angles. I wrote NCON to find a universal solution to a general problem, so naturally I'm approaching this in a way that seeks to preserve the universal principles. You're trying to find a particular solution to a particular problem, so you're approaching it in a way that isn't necessarily compatible with the universal principles I'm trying to uphold. But as I said earlier, we're not going to get anywhere if you try to carve out an exception to fit your little local difficulty. -- ChrisO 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And yet, back in the real world, the country uses an alternative name both de facto and de jure. In other words, it has two self-identifying names. One is unpopular in Greece, the other in the country itself (irrelevant, you're absolutely right). And neither is uncontroversial, apparently. Anyway, we've been going in circles for hours. Let's call it a night, shall we? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PD-RoM

Just one question, have you read the "Copyright Law and Related Rights of the Republic of Macedonia"? I doubt you have. FrightnerResurrection 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that? Google comes up with this, but those idiots at the World Intellectual Property Organization keep using the "former Yugoslav ..." term in all their documentation, its so confusing, I can't figure out what they are talking about, didn't anyone tell them that no-one uses this name? sys < in 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Time to seek fresh outside opinion? We're stuck here. Let's do an RfC.

For newcomers: The above debate has become huge, so here's the executive summary:

Real-world situation in a nutshell
  • The Republic of Macedonia (henceforth: "RoM") uses Republic of Macedonia as its constitutional name (official self-appellation).
  • The neighbouring country Greece strongly objects against this name.
  • More detailed background: see Macedonia naming dispute.
  • As a compromise, the RoM has agreed to use the qualified name former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (henceforth: "FYROM") in its bilateral dealings with Greece, in the UN, in its dealings with the EU and in some other contexts (e.g. its participation in international sporting organistions etc.)
Wikipedia situation in a nutshell
  • The articles dealing with the RoM are at Republic of Macedonia. (not currently disputed)
  • Topic of this guideline is how it should be referred to in other articles.
  • Previous consensus has been to use RoM in most environments, but FYROM in articles dealing with those domains where FYROM is used bilaterally as the official name. This includes, uncontroversially, articles about the EU, the UN, the Olympic Games, etc.
  • Renewed debate: How large is the class of Greece-related articles to which this rule, of using FYROM, should apply?
    • Only articles dealing explicitly with bilateral, official political relations between the two countries?
    • Or all articles whose subject is part of Greece, such as articles about Greek cities, regions, groups of Greek people, etc.?
  • Current wording has been the following, but has proven to be controversial as to its interpretation:
The names former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYR Macedonia should be used in articles or passages which have as subject organisations, states, events and international relationships where the subject in question uses either of these names[1], if the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization.

I'd suggest we regulars leave this section alone now and let outsiders comment here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As we've seen from the discussion above, there's plainly a confusion about exactly what "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is. It's not a name; it's a provisional reference, and the RoM doesn't self-identify by it, it consents to the term being used by others to identify it (though it doesn't like it). Before we ask for an RfC, I believe the statement above needs to be clarified and the MoS itself revised to make clear the difference between the RoM name and the FYROM reference. I've taken the liberty of removing the RfC tag above so that we can sort this out before going for an RfC. -- ChrisO 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, nice job "leaving this section alone", Chris. Even though I have some issues with Sunset's summary, I cooperated in his request (not any more, there is no point now). In any case, your argument is long dead and buried. "FYROM" is a self-identifying name of the FYROM. Please re-read the RFC summary, and try to productively participate. Thanks, sys < in 05:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
An inaccuracy doesn't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. FP's RfC summary needs to be amended, because it contains some inaccuracies (referring to FYROM as a name, for instance, when the UN itself says that it isn't one) and doesn't fully take into account the issues that arise from the nature and use of the FYROM reference. I'll have a think about what changes need to be made and then propose them here, so that we can agree on the wording of a summary for the RfC. There's nothing wrong with FP's idea of having an RfC, it's just that we need to make sure that what we're discussing accurately reflects the situation. -- ChrisO 07:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'll temporarily withdraw from this discussion. I've made my position clear; it's now going in circles and has degenerated so much we won't get anywhere unless we actually get some fresh input from uninvolved people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A "circle" is when the same arguments are repeated with the same replies. A "dead-end" is when new arguments are not/cannot be replied to. You are in the latter, both here and in my talkpage. NikoSilver 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
When the subject itself adopts the position that "reference"="name" through its highest ranking official, then the intentions of the United Nations as further explained by certain UN officials cannot qualify whichever perceived differences between the two terms, which in any case they are identical in meaning in this context. Self-identification is king, remember? If the subject says so, then who the hell is that nobody from the UN? Ah, I forgot, we selectively practice that rule too! NikoSilver 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The use of the reference was established by the UN General Assembly and Security Council in two resolutions in 1993, not by some "nobody". As the author of the reference, the UN is obviously best placed to tell us what it means, as the President of the UNSC did when he stated that it was "the reference in the resolution ... merely reflected the historic fact that it had been in the past a republic of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." [17] Given that it was a compromise term devised by the UN, it's patently not a self-identifying term of the RoM. In fact, you're misrepresenting the position of all three parties in the naming dispute - the RoM and Greeks only agreed to the term on the basis that it was a provisional reference, not a name, as both sides had their own reasons for not wanting to establish it permanently (the RoM obviously wanted its constitutional name to be used, the Greeks didn't want any name that included "Macedonia" to become permanently established). None of this history is controversial. It's all well-documented and spelled out explicitly by the original sources. So it really doesn't help your case that you're persistently denying it, misrepresenting it and attempting to substitute your own undocumented original research for it. -- ChrisO 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet the president of the republic itself calls it their name, by which they are called. The whatever intended reference/name differentiation in terminology of the mediating godfather is therefore abandoned by the subject itself. I would appreciate if you could spare the denying/misinterpreting/etc stuff or direct it to the source itself (i.e. the president of the republic who said it). OR is trying to explain what that country means by listening to others rather than their own actual words. NikoSilver 23:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's somewhat unbelievable that you're equating an off-the-cuff remark in one interview by the Macedonian president with two UN resolutions and a statement by the Security Council - the precise wording of which was the result of months of negotiations. Frankly it's indicative of the straws at which you're grasping. -- ChrisO 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, do you people understand that "the former/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" denomination(s) are also referred to as a "provisional name" within this UN document, and there is no distinctive provision between "a reference", "a name" (or "a denomination" for that matter, since it is a term used once) in this and the other two documents [18] [19]? 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.164.34 (talk)
P.S. I was referring to the documents presented here by user:ChrisO. A quick search within the 'un.org' domain yielded other instances too (i.e. cases where the provisional reference “t/The f/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” is ... referred to as a name) : Country profile> Name of country. On that note, maybe it’s worth mentioning that the abbreviated form "FYR of Macedonia" has and still is being used within the “un.org” domain ; maybe not extremely often used, but if memory serves correctly I think, I’ve seen it used by a major international sporting association too. I had spotted that for some time now but it seemed a bit too trivial to mention. 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(Semi-Outside comment) Actually, I'm with the Epsilon Team here (yes, I have been offered a bribe, hope they will deliver), but I must say I'm appalled with the lameness of this. We all know very well that Wikipedia is inconsistent, and that the consistency (while desirable) can seldom be imposed. The name/reference/whatever of "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is not incorrect and not insulting per se if used in proper context. Since the articles of Greek administrative units and toponyms certainly look like the proper context to me, and by the very nature they will be edited mostly by Greek editors, why should we try to impose a different style for the sake of it? Shall we police those pages in an attempt to "NPOV-ize" what can be seen as "POV" only by fairly skewed arguments: Greeks call it fYRoM, Greek editors will naturally use fYRoM, and I don't think that readers can be confused with either title. Of course, I don't mean that it should be used anywhere out of that scope. (I reserve the right to express an entirely different opinion on similar topics, provided sufficient bribe is offered by the other side.) Duja► 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A section reserved for the usual unproductive in-group bickering

Lawyering of the worst form. "Name" vs "reference" (go figure), unsourced claims ("ROM doesn't self-identify by it" - "though it doesn't like it"), changing the guideline when the guideline does not help (lol), selective "no-politics-in-WP" practice, rejection of all applicable precedents, utter reader confusion ("Florina Prefecture is in Macedonia and borders the Republic of Macedonia") combined with blatant violation of WP:V, and the end-all be-all sick linguistic notion that self-identification is uber alles (and that selectively too), as opposed to serial officially endorsed regional destabilization, history falsification, irredentism, misinformation, misappropriation, violation of the right to un-disambiguated regional self-identification of various other neighboring peoples etc etc... Anything that may serve the purpose of advancing anti-Hellenism or ill-informed pseudo-liberalism will be employed. NikoSilver 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not anti-Hellenism. It's called playing with others' feelings for fun, just because you can. The actual outcome of the dispute in the real world will have no effect on these boys' lives, after all. They can afford to be smug. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is that florina.gr page and what does it relate to? I've never seen it before. But really, the rest of the above is just the most absurd kind of wallowing in ideological self-pity and nationalist antipathy. NCON is no more about "anti-Hellenism" than it's about anti-Sinoism, anti-Cypriotism, anti-Koreanism, or anti- anything else. Both NCON and NPOV, the wider principle of which it's a part, do occasionally produce results which don't benefit a particular POV. We often get people complaining that NPOV doesn't allow them to promote partisan agendas of the sort which Niko so clearly states above, but that's just too bad - Wikipedia's own foundational principles are non-negotiable and universally applicable to this as well as to all other similar cases. -- ChrisO 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't justify your sarcastic and offensive labelling of Greeks as a "large group of crackpots". I wonder what the reaction would've been if the same gibe were hurled at a less thick-skinned group. As an administrator, you should know better than to engage in such petty personal attacks. No excuses. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't follow the discussion above but are compelled to throw in their [obviously uninformed] wisdom combined with collective ethnic insults every now and then, florina.org is the official site of the Florina Prefecture which places the administrative entity south of a Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in Greek), thereby justifying that whatever else violates WP:V. All bordering prefectures follow suit, and it was given as an example. The borders have two sides, and the one in the south is pretty clearly identified by those who run things there. The choice in responding to the "unproductive" part of my comment without addressing that and various productive points made there is an indication of weakness in argumentation. Those points remain unanswered. NikoSilver 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
To the selective reallocator of particular comments to sections with "unproductive" headings: First you must practice what you preach. Second you must reallocate all relevant comments, starting of course from the one that created this havoc, which by the way is a "racial slur" as defined by WP:NPA. Finally, nobody is endorsed to reallocate my or anyone else's comment on the grounds that they merely don't agree or can't answer, because there was much-much more than the "unproductive" part, and an adequate response has not been given yet. I really haven't seen who did this, and frankly don't care. NikoSilver 20:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see any substantial arguments in your latest postings, as far as they were directed at me, either here nor there, that I haven't already answered to. This is going in circles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think so, that's OK, and I share the same view for what I see as your unsubstantial replies. That does not justify you to label them "unproductive" without advancing that same courtesy to our fellow admin with the racial slur who started this, and who's views you largely share. One can't simply infuriate people, never apologize when given the opportunity, and expect not to be treated the same way (well, a lot more leniently, actually). Selecting to isolate the comment of the one originally attacked is unacceptable. NikoSilver 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't around here when Chris made that remark. It was somewhere a few kilometers upwards of where we now are on this talkpage. It wasn't a racial slur either. But anyway. K.'s insult was still blatantly out of place. By the way, it was offending me too. Am I also one of "those boys" (plural)? This is, in fact, one of the most vile attempts at character assassination I've had directed at me here. And as for your own posting just above it, well, ... I supposed it was written in anger, and I can sort of understand that, but now, looking back on it with a day's distance, if you still don't see how it actually was unconstructive bickering, I can't help you. In the end, it wasn't really so much what you all were saying that made me intervene; it was the fact that you were saying it in the section where I, at the time, was still hoping we'd get constructive outside neutral comments. A prospect that now seems to be growing ever more faint, unfortunately. In that context, your posting, Kekrops' jibe as well as his wantonly dragging out that other jibe by Chris, all seemed to serve no other purpose but to derail any chances of a constructive discussion there was still left. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Chris's comment was directed purposely and unambiguously to the whole ethnic group of the Greeks that Kekrops right above had just said those that use FYROM aren't just "a small group of crackpots", since most of the Greeks happen to use it in everyday speech. [20] I know you too well to assume you just can't get it, so try to read the whole thread. As for the rest, I guess one brings the other, and I have already assumed the part of the responsibility that I deserve by judging part of my own comment as unproductive, so your comment is out of place. For the productive part of my comment that you still fail to see, kindly refer to the following section (shortly): NikoSilver 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It was an unfriendly jibe, but it was not a racial slur. He was criticising people as crackpots, not because of their race or their ethnicity or whatever, but because of their political opinions. If those opinions happen to be shared by a majority of the members of that ethnic group, that still doesn't make it an attack on the ethnic group as such. But again, this is completely irrelevant to my attempt at salvaging the RfC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the time has come to sideline the unproductive contributors and move on without them. They've had every chance to contribute in good faith but have retreated into denialism, personal attacks and nationalist rants; plainly they don't have any intention of contributing productively. You might be interested in looking at Dbachmann's essay on the subject. I'll have a go at bringing in some third parties with experience of dealing with other nationalist conflicts on Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Code for "let's get rid of those pesky crackpots". I don't think so, matey. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please respect the process

Chris, the matter is still in discussion. This is a MOS, not an article on the dispute, your background information already exists, as you point out, in the relevant article, to which this MOS links to. Your legalistic distinction between "name" and "reference" is disputed to say the least. Your act of taking edits straight to the project page without any consultation in talk is not to your credit. Regards, sys < in 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC).

There is no specific process to be followed in order to update a guideline page, other than to make an effort to reflect consensus. If you think Chris can only edit the text after he's gone through some formal process to get your personal approval, you are mistaken.
I'm not going to re-instate Chris' passage in the background section, where the explicit distinction between "name" and "reference" is emphasised, because I can understand that may indeed not be consensus. But there is consensus about the "disputed" tag (i.e. we agree that we don't agree), so I'll reinstate that, and I'll also reinstate the replacement of "name" with the more neutral "reference" or "term" in the main text. There may not currently be a consensus here that that distinction is relevant, but if you think the distinction isn't relevant then there can also be no objections on your side that the more general rather than the more specific word can be used.
On second thought, I think I'll use "appellation" instead, it's better linguistic terminology. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the distinction between name and reference isn't relevant at all, and I certainly reject ChrisO's assertion that RoM(=name)=good, fYRoM(=reference)=bad. Go right ahead. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem with the word appellation. As for the disputed tag, you are correct, its removal was an artifact of trying to rewind the edit war. Regards, sys < in 09:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Another note about "self-identifying"

Just for the record, as so much importance has been placed on the question of whether "fY..." is part of the "self-identifying" name/appellation/whatever. People might be interested in this and similar documents (warning: large download). It's the RoM's official answer to an official EU "Questionnaire" regarding the Accession process, from 2005, as published by the RoM's government website. Thus, probably the most official form of communication the RoM has with the EU. It uses "Republic of Macedonia" throughout. The same, as pointed out earlier, goes for official communications of the RoM towards the UN. Thus, to say that the RoM has "agreed to use fYROM in its dealings" with these organisations seems to be wrong. For all I can see, the only places ever where they use fYROM is texts that are by necessity worded in common, such as treaties. Treaties are, by their very nature, not texts in which one side talks about itself in its own voice.

As a specific example, somebody above claimed that "The FYR itself has agreed that its border with Pella is the Greek-FYROM border, not the Greece-ROM border." If you want to see what they really think their border is called, look at p.444 of the document linked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. But we're not discussing Skopje's southern border here. Nikos provided a source for how the Florina Prefecture describes its border with Skopje, i.e. Greece's northern border. I don't understand why the POV of one side should override that of the other in an article about the latter. "It's not about POV," you'll cry, contradicting your last sentence above. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
No. It's still about Wikipedia's own, outside voice, rather than either side's voice. But if we are going to take anybody's voice into account (which the naming policies say we should to some limited extent), then it's still the voice only of the entity being named that counts, not some other's. The question of whether the geographic relation between Florina and the RoM is the "RoM-Florina" border or the "fYRoM-Florina" border, involves a decision on what the RoM is called, not on what Florina is called. Thus, it's the RoM's self-identification, not Florina's self-identification, that's at stake. What article this happens in is entirely irrelevant. But thanks for agreeing that "RoM" is the self-identifying name even in contexts of relations with Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. It is a, not the, self-identifying name. And who said anything about what Florina is called? Nikos has simply pointed out the obvious absurdity of your position that fYRoM can be used in Greece but not in Florina Prefecture. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If you find that absurd, then let's not use fYRoM in Greece either. No problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think starting another edit war is the way to go, no problem at all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If, by this, you mean that your last resort in defending your position against policy will be edit-warring, I thank you for your frankness. By the way, I never said I have a big desire to go around articles and changing things. But I won't accept that this guideline should mandate or attempt to justify a status quo that is clearly contrary to policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's cut the crap, shall we? Nikos and Sysin would never have agreed to the guideline in the first place if "Macedonia" were shoved in their faces like that. The use of fYRoM had already been established in that article for a long time and accepted by the other side. No use trying to backpedal now. As for the "self-identifying name even in contexts of relations with Greece", I again refer you to the President of the Republic, who has accepted that RoM will never be used in bilateral relations, effectively giving Athens the green light to call Skopje whatever it likes. Furthermore, he "is willing to join NATO under the reference that is used now in the UN". It is fortunate that some here feel the need to be plus royalistes que le roi. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
But we aren't doing bilateral relations here. We are simply talking about Greece, and talking about the RoM. We will name Greece the way Greece likes, and the RoM the way the RoM likes. That's the principle, and nothing else. Everything else is not policy but simply a tactical concession to the brute force of your edit-warring, which you have so tactfully reminded us of. I'm willing to make such concessions, pragmatically, but I'm not willing to seeing them endorsed as policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong again. "Greece" isn't Greece's self-identifying name, as you well know. Strange that the right to self-identification is sacrosanct only selectively. And the point I was making in my previous post is that Skopje has accepted in principle the use of an alternative self-identifying name in its relations with Greece, rendering it and only it the uncontroversial choice per WP:NCON. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This is getting boring. I'm not even going to point out the flaws in the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by NikoSilver

Hello, I am NikoSilver, a major contributor in many Macedonia-related articles, the best of which being the featured Macedonia (terminology). I am too familiar with the Macedonia naming dispute from both sides (another article I practically wrote), and an active Wikipedian with more than 10,000 contributions in various -mainly controversial- issues, which happen to interest me a lot (out of sheer masochism?) Anyway, I'm obviously qualified in terms of accumulated knowledge on the issue, but I have a serious defect, so this is an official warning to all sides: I am Greek!

Simply put, this dispute over the MoS guideline tries to solve a long-standing dispute that can't be solved in the real world. The guideline here has incorporated parts of the wisdom used in other similar ones, and the standard practice in WP until now. It is mostly agreed upon, apart from the sensitive part of how the Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be called in some Greek-related articles.

Specifically, for years now, the practice is to use the long appellation for the country (as officially used by Greece and half of the world countries and all international organizations) in all Greek-related articles. The recent dispute originated from the view of some editors that those Greek-related articles should be limited to strictly politically-oriented ones. For example, this would include the Foreign relations of Greece but would exclude the Florina Prefecture which borders the country in question.

My view is that it is the wrong thing to do. Not only for practical reasons (hordes of Greeks randomly changing the articles they naturally write), not only for sentimental reasons (we're not here to condole), but for sound reasons based on WP policy and common sense, which I am about to set forth below:

1. Article name

The article is now in Republic of Macedonia. The article name issue is irrelevant to the MoS guideline in question. The actual dispute here is over the breadth of breaching the consistence in the use of the article name in other articles. Not of whether this consistence should be breached at all, because this has already been agreed upon for articles related to EU, NATO, Greek politics, etc. However, it is important to note that the article name is indeed maybe the closest call among two appellations ("Republic of Macedonia" vs "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). This is mainly due to the interpretation of the WP:NCON guideline. For details, expand the following section:

WP:NCON and interpretations


In my view it is also indisputable that in Greece-related subjects worldwide the "most common name" (per WP:NCON's first criterion) is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

This is not the intended interpretation of WP:NCON, which would use the "most common name", once determined, in all contexts. The disputed sections of this guideline are explicit exceptions to this, tolerable only because they represent the implicit PoV of the UN, the EU and so forth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You should continue your list by "Greece, its subnational entities etc" before you abruptly interrupt it. NikoSilver 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

2.WP:V

The main rationale behind the choice of using the long name in the already agreed part of the policy (International Organizations etc) is that we cannot misquote those entities, and that anything else would not be verifiable. For example, as far as EU is concerned, there is only a "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in accession talks, and we can't misquote the European Union, nor the country itself under this process, since anything else would not be verifiable by reliable sources.

In my view this rationale encompasses Greece. We cannot misquote Greece for the name of its side of the border, especially when the other country itself is addressed for all purposes to Greece as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". We can neither misquote Greece's administrative subdivisions when they say "we border the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia",[1] nor an ethnic Greek when he says "I was born in what is now FYROM". This practice is largely followed by other online media (such as the Britannica),[2] while others have chosen to use the long name uniformly (such as Encarta and the BBC).[3]

No one is proposing "misquoting Greece". The text that gave rise to the present discussion said that scholars in FYROM held a certain view, quoting (and indeed citing) nobody. This was in Wikipedia's voice, not anybody else's, either by attribution or implication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why did the present discussion evolve in disputing Prefectures or Greek cities? I am not aware of the specific issue that gave rise to this dispute, and I am willing to discuss the exception of the exception. However, this policy is trying to set a universal standard rather than address a specific edit. NikoSilver 09:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

3.Clarity

In the context of Greece-related articles, the use of the short name may largely be confused with the Greek Macedonia. See the following example:

Florina Prefecture lies in the historic region of Macedonia and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the north.

In my view the uninformed reader is immediately puzzled as to what the hell is a Macedonian republic doing outside of a Macedonian region. If I were that reader, I'd either demand an explanation, or a link to an explanation. The chosen disambiguating term among the two Macedonias ("Republic of") is not sufficient to illustrate the distinction. On the other hand, the long term speaks for itself: "Former Yugoslav": It states that this republic was previously part of Yugoslavia.

In my view, within Greek articles, it is unfair and unorthodox to devise disambiguating terms or texts for the Greek region (which is indisputably plainly called "Macedonia"), so as not to use a perfectly legitimate, close-call, and -most importantly- sourced term to describe the (otherwise irrelevant) country. It violates the very principle of WP:NCON (self-identification) for the other Macedonia, which is plainly called that.

The text about Florina should be reworded to include Province of Macedonia as this guideline does. We should state the facts, which are that Florina does border the Republic; the confused reader can follow the links. As an anglophone, I doubt that "former Yugoslav" is going to help anyone who doesn't already grasp that there are two entities here; for those who do, it is tendentious.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as highly speculative. You state the confusion of the "uninformed reader" as a fact, but I don't see any evidence for this. Your proposition also seems to ignore one of the basic functions of a wiki - if you don't understand a hyperlinked term, click on it and all will be revealed. -- ChrisO 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hence the word "may" in "may largely be confused". I'm sure you spot the confusion, are we just debating to its extent? I'd say those readers are many. Now to the remedy through "Former Yugoslav", I think I've stated the rationale of why I think it gives further explanation. NikoSilver 09:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

4.Practice in WP

In various instances where there is a conflict in terminology, Wikipedia has chosen to provide similar solutions for the article names used in the other entity's "turf". For example:

  • Talk:Gdansk/Vote: See that (the now Polish) Gdansk is called Danzig "for biographies of German persons"
  • The situation now: An informal consensus right now uses always the long name in all Greece-related articles.
This is the citation of two utter disasters to justify a third. Insofar as the Gdanzig mess is being straightened out, it is by following the advice of WP:NCGN: do what English does: call the city Gdansk in articles about the present day; for articles about Danzig before 1939, use "Danzig, (now Gdansk)" [diacritic omitted; as is the question about when to begin using Danzig]. So here; English uses "Macedonia" (ambiguous) or "Republic of Macedonia". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Note also that the Gdanzig vote happened well before WP:NCON was established - indeed, it was established specifically in reaction to that fiasco. We absolutely should not be citing the Gdanzig vote as guidance for anything we're doing now. I'm not sure about the status of WP:NC-CHINA but at a first glance, I don't see any mention of NCON (which was established as a superordinate guidelines to country-specific guidelines). I couldn't say whether NC-CHINA is in fact compliant with either NCON or NPOV, so I'll have to reserve my judgment on that. But to be honest, both citations are irrelevant to this situation. The challenge we face is to ensure that articles relating to Macedonia comply with NCON and NPOV, the superordinate guideline and policy statements, whether or not other country-specific guidelines are compliant with those requirements. -- ChrisO 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Gdansk and Taiwan are examples of what is being done here in WP when we face such disputes. Are there any examples to the contrary? Also, I think you have already agreed in breaching the consistence of the NCON name (in EU, NATO, UN etc related articles). What concerns me is that there is no rational distinction between those and Greece-related articles. Care to explain that please? NikoSilver 09:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As has been pointed out approximately 7,435 times, what you are demanding is not what either the Gdansk or the China precedent does. The China precedent is not that "Chinese Taipei" be used in all articles about US states, German cities, or French people. The Gdansk precedent is not that Danzig be used in all articles about German villages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Who said anything about US states, German cities or French people? Check how it's called in articles regarding China. Also, for Gdanszig, I doubt the result would be the same if it were actually mentioned as a border in any German province. NikoSilver 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"US states, German cities or French people" would be the parallel to "Greek prefectures, Greek towns or Greek people". The US, Germany or France all belong to the group of states that recognise the RoC only as "Chinese Taipei" in whatever official business they conduct with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the Gdansk case is not really parallel anyway. There's no issue of recognition. The German state has no problem with Poland's right to name the city as it prefers. The issue in the case of Gdansk was purely an ideological matter between Wikipedia editors, not a dispute in the real world. Gdansk/Danzig may be comparable to Izmir/Smyrna, but not to RoM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and something else, in the case of China any avoidance of "RoC" also does not trickle down to all articles relating even to the PRoC. Thus, e.g. in Beijing, one reads:
The Communist Party of China reverted the name to Beijing (Peking) [...] The government of the Republic of China on Taiwan has never formally recognized the name change.
Just as it should. It's spoken in Wikipedia's voice, neutrally; no reason to abandon Wikipedia's naming preferences just because it's an article about a city whose administration prefers "Chinese Taipei". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, having just re-read the China page, I'll make this stronger. You are blatantly misrepresenting the China guideline. Except for the exception for international organisations (UN, Olympics etc.), there is no provision whatsoever there about domain-specific special naming conventions. As you suggested, I checked how it's called in articles about China. It is called there exactly the same as it is called everywhere else. No special clause for PRoC-related articles in that guideline. Where the heck is the parallel you want to draw here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
And if you have a look at a direct equivalent of our Pella example, namely the article on Fujian province (which adjoins Taiwan), you'll see that it refers to Taiwan unambiguously as the Republic of China - even though Beijing's term for the RoC is the "Taiwan Authority". -- ChrisO 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

5.Why are Greeks so irked

This section is irrelevant to the policies of WP and the dispute in question. It is here merely for satisfying the curiosity of those wondering, in a brief manner. Expand it only if interested:

Greek position

This is the view of most "moderate" Greeks. The vast majority of the Greek population is annoyed not because of the name itself, but of how this name has been used. A name alone cannot harm anyone, however, the name "Macedonia" is constantly used by official sources and schoolbooks of the country as a means to advance historic and territorial claims:

Historic: Most Makedonskis (in the real world and in WP) believe to their bone that they descend from Alexander the Great and his kingdom/empire. This is the result of governmental propaganda of years (cited in Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism (Extreme and moderate)). The problem of the Greeks is not necessarily to take their place in this genealogy tree (to which they arguably fit since the ancient Macedonians and their language/dialect were absorbed by the rest of the ancient Greeks). It is simply that the Slavs that came 1000 years later just don't have anything to do with them, yet they use that name to appropriate that part of history. I, as a Greek, don't see it as "stealing something which is mine". I see it as "monopolizing something which is everybody's, and definitely not only theirs".

Territorial: The persistence in the use of a name without the proposed qualifiers (such as Slav- or North) has been extended to territorial claims. It is the belief of most Makedonskis that Macedonia (Greece) (among others) is an "occupied region" of their country, merely because it carries the same name. This, again, is the result of governmental propaganda and is still endorsed by official printed material. For details, see also "United Macedonia".

It is worth to note that no Makedonski user of WP has ever criticized the above two fallacies, as it would be considered a "national crime"![4] On the other hand, there are many Greeks (in WP and in the real world) who have disputed the initial Greek position of "no Macedonia at all in the title". Hence, the Greek position has changed to demand just some sort of disambiguation. A disambiguation which would, of course, be totally unnecessary if the neighboring country didn't let those preposterous claims slip through official sources and if it didn't in fact endorse them.

Apart from those "material" claims, there is also the immaterial claim of the right to un-disambiguated self-identification. Most Greek Macedonians cannot understand why they suddenly have to use a qualifier for their regional name not to be confused with the ethnic group, while the ethnic group itself doesn't have to do the same in turn. The qualifier, in this case, may sound as signifying that the Greek Macedonians are a subset of the ethnic Macedonians, while in essence both groups are subsets of the Macedonian regioners (which is the only group which should be left without qualifiers, since it is the supergroup of both and others). In this sense, simple logic tends to erroneously equate the ethnic Macedonians to the Macedonian regioners, which further helps in the advancement of the above historic and territorial claims (quite successfully obviously -for the mindset of their own population at least). Just try to read this paragraph here by removing the qualifiers I used ("Greek", "ethnic", and "regioner"). See also Macedonism and The Ten Lies of Macedonism.

For those reasons above, I believe that the most correct solution is to use the long name in all Greece-related articles. It is a matter of verifiability, of clarity, of common sense, and of common practice in WP and elsewhere. NikoSilver 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes

[1] See for example the official site of the Prefecture of Florina, Greece.
[2] See in Britannica Greece's borders vs e.g. those of Serbia.
[3] BBC News, Encarta
[4] I'd like to thank the Wikipedia community that effectively helps every time such agendas drop by within the scope of all relevant articles.

Comments to Statement

I have responded to four of Niko's points. If he continues to hold this position, I can only conclude that he did not mean to support the text of this policy as it stands, and that, accordingly, it is not a guideline, not being supported by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of lengthy debates on the issue. Florina is in Greece and suffice it to say that it's offensive and humiliating for Greeks to see the name used on their own soil (articles with Greek categories). Twisting the meaning of the guideline like Pmanderson is doing is not helpful.--NetProfit 19:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


It isn't "their own soil", that is the whole point of this enterprise. Wikipedia articles aren't WP:OWNed, not by individual editors and not by national communities. I find the suggestion that we are under a special obligation to take Greek readers' or editors' feelings into account just because an article is about a Greek town deeply disturbing and offensive against the spirit of Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point. If in EU government articles, the long name is used, why not in Greece government articles?--NetProfit 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This will soon be going into the next cycle because we've been through this. I've once tried to explain what the difference is; if people don't want to follow me there, the only consequence can be to get rid of the exception for the EU etc too, not extending it. It's not a terribly useful exception to begin with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What is a "Greek government article"? -- ChrisO 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I guess the only realistic solution is to avoid mentioning Skopje in Greek-related articles as much as possible. In the Arvanites article, for example, it was somehow the only neighbouring country mentioned (even though Florina borders Albania too) and simply didn't need to be there. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite seriously, that would probably help; the fewer points of contention the better. This guideline is not intended to approve a separate usage in all articles about Greece; and if that point is seriously disputed, again, there never was consensus for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Separate usages are clearly incompatible with the fundamental requirements of WP:NPOV, which requires "a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." The fundamental rationale behind WP:NCON is that it's neutral to say what a self-identifying entity calls itself, but it's not neutral to use an alternative name because someone has a POV objection to that self-identifying name (in other words, a position that is "in opposition to its subject". The identification of the RoM effectively cleaves into two parts. First, in multilateral settings the RoM consents to be referred to (as opposed to calling itself) "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "FYRO Macedonia" or the various other permutations thereof, depending on the institution in question. Second, in relation to Greece the interesting thing is that formally the RoM doesn't even use its UN provisional name - in bilateral agreements it's described only as "the Party of the Second Part to the Interim Accord September 13, 1995" without ever using the dreaded M-word. (See http://old.mfa.gr/english/foreign_policy/hiperb/bilateral/fyrom.html for an example.) I think we would rightly be ridiculed if we adhered to the Greek government's formal, legally applicable terminology and started talking about how "Pella is bounded ... by the national border between Greece and the Party of the Second Part to the Interim Accord September 13, 1995." -- ChrisO 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
After those agreements, the republic addresses Greece as FYROM for all purposes. NikoSilver 09:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Got a quote for that? In the RoM's own official voice, like a letter from the one government to the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Organizations

I added the following language, which seems to me a direct corollary of Sysin's arguments for using FYROM in organizations that do: It should be clear to the reader that this is the organization's usage, not Wikipedia's. This is not intended to mean, of course, that we need a footnote to say so; the fact that we are reporting the official results of the European Song Contest should make clear to an intelligent reader that we are adopting their language. (Adding this explanatory sentence may be worth it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not their language, it's the language the state itself used for the occasion. If the state itself uses it then one can assume that for the purposes of the occasion and the article, that's the state's name, not some exonym.--NetProfit 22:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
More accurately, it's the language that the state was required to use for the occasion. If the RoM had its way, it would use its constutional name for everything. The RoM is in the rather unusual situation of not being permitted to use its own name for itself in many international venues, so if it wants to compete in Eurovision it has to use its provisional title. Taiwan is in a somewhat similar situation - it competes under the alias of "Chinese Taipei". It's plainly not a matter of self-identification, since the aliases differ from the official self-identifying names. I do agree with the general principle that in reporting the results of Eurovision, Olympics and suchlike, we should use their terminology for consistency with the sponsoring organisations. -- ChrisO 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's good enough for the Republic, it's good enough for Wikipedia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether it's good or bad for the Republic is irrelevant. What matters is that it's consistent with the description applied by the sponsoring organisation. This is, of course, a rather different issue to the use of a term in relation to academic topics such as history, geography, demography etc. -- ChrisO 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I meant it in reference to your overdone sympathy for the poor old Republic's plight and your assertion that "it's plainly not a matter of self-identification". Its willingness to participate in international organisations as FYROM suggests it doesn't have as big a problem with it as you think. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Does it have a problem with the appellation? I don't think they like it much, given their public statements on the subject, but they evidently regard it as a price they have to pay for the privilege (?) of competing for the glory of getting nul points in Eurovision. In any case, whether they like it or not isn't really relevant to our purposes here. It's not a matter of sympathising with them or, for that matter, opposing them - we just have to describe the situation as it is. -- ChrisO 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how seriously they take Eurovision. It's the only guaranteed three minutes of fame they get all year. With the wars over and precious few sporting or other achievements to make the global headlines, the country needs all the exposure it can get. They may not like it much, but then Greeks don't particularly care for "Greece" either. It's an apt parallel; many Greeks despise it but it's hardly worth the risk of missing out on the Olympics or Eurovision, is it? The "Don't you FYROM me" campaign was simply a stunt aimed at scoring cheap political points in a tediously sluggish diplomatic dispute. It should be taken about as seriously as the corresponding Greek calls over the years to "call us Hellas, not Greece". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

Looking at this talk page, we are now fairly evenly divided between those who think former Yugoslav can and should be used in Greek-related articles and those who disagree. The notion that there was ever a consensus favouring the latter opinion, especially given the views of NikoSilver and Sysin who participated in the original discussion, is baffling to say the least. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The negotiations for this (former Wikipedian) guideline involved this question at several points; perhaps most extensively in the section called #my edits at the top of this page. It would never have been supported by anyone other a handful of Greek editors if they had said then what Niko now says and Sysin now acts on. It is therefore moot, not being, and never having been, consensus. If someone wants to form a new consensus on the subject, fine; it would seem simpler to require our editors to support our policies. WP:NCGN, which provides that the name of an article should be used in references to its subject, in a given period, will be adequate as an implementation of policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

..."agreed to use FYROM in bilateral relations"...

Just a summary to clarify (again) this whole business of whether and how the RoM has "agreed" to the use of "fY..." in its relations to other parties, and whether that imposes some obligation on us to follow that usage in some context or other.

For the name "X" to be used in the relations between "A" and "B", can mean different things:

  • What does A use when talking to B?
  • What does B use when talking to A?
  • What does A use when talking about its relations with B?
  • What does B use when talking about its relations with A?
  • What do A and B use when authoring texts in common?

Okay, so we have the following. (For all of these, examples have been cited somewhere above; I'm just too lazy right now collecting the links just now):

  • Relations between the UN and the RoM:
    • UN talking about/to RoM: "the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia"
    • RoM talking about/to UN: "Republic of Macedonia"
  • Relations between the EU and the RoM:
    • Texts authored in common (treaties, agreements, etc.): "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
    • EU talking about RoM: "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
    • RoM quoting EU talking about RoM: "Republic of Macedonia"
    • RoM talking to/about EU: "Republic of Macedonia"
  • Relations between RoM and Greece:
    • Texts authored in common (treaties, agreements, etc.): "the party to the Interim Accord [...]" etc.
    • Greece talking to/about RoM: "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
    • RoM talking about Greece: "Republic of Macedonia"
    • RoM talking to Greece: ?
  • Relations between RoM and sports organisations etc.:
    • Texts/events under the authorship of the hosting organisation (e.g. RoM's banner carried during official ceremonies): "FYR Macedonia"
    • RoM talking to/about these organisations: "Republic of Macedonia/Macedonia"
    • RoM talking about itself during these events (e.g. RoM representative at song contest): "Macedonia"

I would say this thoroughly destroys the whole argument, even with respect to the EU, song contest etc., that we'd be obliged for the sake of correctness to use "fY..." in our Wikipedia articles. There is evidently no logical necessity to follow the naming convention used in some bilateral treaty, when even the parties to those treaties themselves feel free later to impose their own naming preferences over it. If the RoM can use its own preferred name in talking about its accession to the EU, and the EU does nothing to stop them, why shouldn't we be free to use our preferred name? (which, on independent grounds, happens to be also "RoM".)

The claim that RoM itself consistently uses "fY..." in its relations with these other parties is simply, demonstrably, false.

The only contexts where I can accept, as a matter of linguistic responsibiltiy, to follow one party's divergent naming preference regarding some other party is in "intensional contexts", when our statements contain an implicit reference to their opinion. (e.g. "Greece plans to enter into negotiations with FYROM"). I can accept - but that's already stretching it - to extend that to contexts like the reporting of official FIFA football results etc. But there's the line.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

New Proposals

I'm dropping here for discussion a few proposals that could greatly help clarity. Check the links by mouse-overing:

These could be also used in the articles in question with parentheses, as follows:

Or even with italics, to highlight that they may serve as a "quote":

Thoughts? NikoSilver 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd generally be in favour of exploring alternatives, in those cases where article authors really care about disambiguation needs. Too many links are not good though. For disambiguation and clarification, it's entirely sufficient to have, e.g. in History of Greece: "In the early 1990s, Greece faced the issue of how to deal with its former Communist northern neighbors, Albania, Bulgaria and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Works for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
To clarify this further. It seems to me we are talking of two different things when talking about "disambiguation" (hell, we've come so far we need to disambig disambig too!) What you want, Niko, is not disambiguation; you want to flag the term "RoM", in as many contexts as possible, as something problematic, something where we need to remind the reader of a complex background story. What I understand by "disambiguation" is something much simpler: picking out the right referent. As soon as a reader can mentally connect our reference to the RoM with the right colored speck on their world map, I'm done. Giving them an extra reminder link to the background may be legitimate in some contexts where those political implications are of immediate relevance to the article (so, yes, actually in the made-up example I gave above that might be such a case after all), but it's something extraneous to our normal needs of routine linking and naming. We should not be waving this warning flag every time we mention the RoM, just for the sake of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for the one below then. And I remind that we only disagree on the extent of the cases where we really need that disambiguation. And I also repeat verifiablility and "misquoting" (apart from "clarity"). NikoSilver 10:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In most contexts I can imagine, I'd personally prefer the one linking to the "Breakup..." article, if anything. If we feel we need to tell the reader we're talking about the former Yugoslavian thingie, then the first thing they need to know is why it's no longer Yugoslavian now, not why some people hate their name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine that in the specific context proposed (i.e. Gr-related articles), it would be equally (if not more) informative to explain why the very subject of the article "hates that name" than where it came from. Can you imagine an outside visitor to Florina not knowing and calling it M? After all, the subject of these articles is Greece and Greeks. NikoSilver 14:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NikoSilver, what are you proposing? Using FYROM in EU (et al) related articles and (FY)ROM in Greece related articles, or (FY)ROM in EU (et al) related articles and ROM everywhere else?--NetProfit 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not proposing where to be used. I'm just dropping those names for discussion. Where would you use them (if you used them at all)? NikoSilver 11:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I would support my first guess (FYROM in EU... related articles and (FY)ROM in Greece related articles).--NetProfit 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"Greece related articles" is not going to be a domain of any special status in this guideline. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason for that?--NetProfit 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. All the above. WP:OWN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:OWN is irrelevant, just as irrelevant as it is in the Gdansk/Danzig case also discussed above.--NetProfit 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Can't rehash all the argument with you again. Wikipedia doesn't do "islands in their own reality" in country-specific naming conventions. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Gdanzig...--NetProfit 08:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Not an applicable parallel, as discussed earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. A very applicable parallel.--NetProfit 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Is not. For at least three different reasons which you will find out if you read the previous discussions. Or else, you will not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Fut.Perf. ☼, if the aim was to flag the term "ROM" as something problematic (which it is), that would be possible with wide use of footnotes, e.g. the Republic of Macedonia[footnote: see Mac name dispute] applied to join the EU, Greece borders the Republic of Macedonia[footnote: see Mac name dispute] etc.--NetProfit 10:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just in case this wasn't clear, I certainly don't want to flag the term RoM as problematic. Greece has a problem with the name, Wikipedia hasn't. We will talk about that problem as an object of encyclopedic discourse where it's relevant, i.e. in the articles dedicated to it, but not just everywhere where we mention the RoM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Presumably, it is irrelevant whether 'Wikipedia has or not a problem with the name'; it is not a state or an international institution but, ideally, an objective mirror. When the mirror is placed in front of the EU, UN, Fifa, Olympic Movement and so many other international organisations, it reflects 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. Also, I would argue that Greece does not have a problem with the name per se, but with some pervasive irredentist aspects that accompany it. Politis 12:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to "mirror" facts about the EU, UN etc. Not their opinions. Certainly not Greece's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
'Opinion' can also refer to the legal document that explains the reasons for a judicial decision, as opposed to the decision itself - be it Greece's or the UN's. In this respect, it carries some weight. Politis 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Nobody was talking about "opinions" in that sense, so what's the point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this debate has lost its rudder and is flapping about. Politis 15:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ineligible considerations

There is of course an elephant in the room in this discussion, namely that several of the participants have an overt political objection to the name and policies of the Republic of Macedonia. Niko has already made this clear in his wide-ranging denunciation of the RoM here, and NetProfit has made similar political assertions here.

We aren't getting anywhere in this discussion because the two sides are coming at it from different directions. Fut.Perf, Septentrionalis and I are focusing on the requirements of Wikipedia policy, but some of the other editors are explicitly requiring a test of political acceptability - as Niko puts it, whether the outcome is seen as "anti-Hellenic" or as NetProfit puts it, whether "it's offensive and humiliating for Greeks".

Political criteria like that are completely irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Wikipedia is not censored and WP:NPOV requires us to be politically neutral. The project has no position on the rights and wrongs of disputes between the Greeks and (Slav) Macedonians, or for that matter any other two parties in a dispute. We can describe a dispute, but we're not allowed to take sides. As WP:NPOV says, "The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

It can be difficult to meet that requirement when it comes to disputed names. Because we have to call an object something, whatever we chose is bound to upset someone. We have to take particular care when it comes to self-identifying entities (SIEs). If we refuse to use the name of an SIE, we're actively denying the verifiable fact that that's what it calls itself. On the other hand, if we use the name of an SIE we're merely reporting the fact that it calls itself by that name; we're not taking any position on whether the name is "right" or "wrong". That's the basis for the fundamental principle of WP:NCON: that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. So it doesn't matter that Greeks consider the name of the RoM "offensive and humiliating" - we're not in the business of editing Wikipedia to meet any country's standards of politically correctness. Perhaps in the end this exercise is a waste of time; NPOV is non-negotiable policy and doesn't require any sort of consensus. If editors want to dismiss it as a "sick linguistic notion", they're entitled to that opinion, but they're not entitled to their own policies. Articles about Greece don't have an exemption from NPOV, and Greek editors can't expect their political views to be given any special treatment. -- ChrisO 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that using the name FYROM is constantly claimed to be a breach of NPOV even though it is far from clear that this is the case. It's not clear that only ROM is the self-identifying name, it's not clear that there is only one self-identifying name, it's not clear that in this particular case the self-identifying name is the NPOV approach. These are just opinions (which certain people are trying to use as facts for deductive reasoning).--NetProfit 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to find common ground

Leaving everything behind, I'd like to make a fresh start with a proposal that I think covers the concerns of both sides. Please refer to the table below:

Reference to entity in... Name used for
Macedonia (region)		 Name used for
Macedonia (Greece)		 Name used for
Republic of Macedonia		 Rationale
...irrelevant articles "the [wider]/[geographic] region of Macedonia" "the Greek region of Macedonia" "the Republic of Macedonia" All Macedonias disambiguated, by adding what they are (a geo-region, a Greek region, and a republic).
...articles about RoM "the [wider]/[geographic] region of Macedonia" "the Greek region of Macedonia" "the Republic of Macedonia"
...articles about International Organizations "the [wider]/[geographic] region of Macedonia" "the Greek region of Macedonia" "(the former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia" By using the parentheses we illustrate that the name used within the international organization and within Greece is different than the name used by the entity itself, and we link to why it is so (links to article about naming dispute). Note that the parentheses are not blue and that the article "the" is included in the link, so as to highlight that the first part of the name is a separate link.
...articles about Greece "the [wider]/[geographic] region of Macedonia" "the Greek region of Macedonia" "(the former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia"

You will notice that I have taken two steps back from my original position:

  • I have offered the use of parentheses to the additional qualifier for international organizations (while it had already been agreed that the long name would be used without them).
  • I have extended the use of these parentheses to articles concerning Greece, while the original [disputed] position was to use the long name regardless.

I believe that this is a viable compromise solution that can help in reaching an agreement, for the reason that it highlights that the additional qualifier is not necessarily "Wikipedia's voice" (by means of the parentheses and of the inclusion of the article "the" within the link), but is only used for informing purposes (since it is used by the entities who call RoM as such and therefore is a "notable" reference within these contexts). I look forward to your comments, and sincerely hope we finally end this. NikoSilver 10:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up, agreed! (Up to a point.) I think your proposal will encounter some disapproval from the Macedonian users here, about "...articles about International Organizations". Personally, I don't see why we should put an accent on "the difference between RoM and the Greek region" (by adding the reference FY-) in articles about international organizations, since it's clear that Republic of Macedonia is a republic and the reader will not confuse it with Ancient Macedon or the Greek region (in articles about international organizations!!). If we could work that out, it would be a perfect solution, as far as I'm concerned, and the others (Macedonians) should be just fine too. Either way, it's a giant step forward! iNkubusse? 12:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure. Thanks for getting this moving again, but a few nitpickity points:

  • The bracket solution doesn't work syntactically in most contexts in this form. The article "the" needs to be outside the parentheses, because it's still an obligatory syntactic part of the context when you leave the parenthesised qualifier out.
  • The solution doesn't really match the rationales proffered during the preceding discussions.
    • In the case of the international organisations: The one and only halfway reasonable rationale for having special conventions here was the one that we should be following the exact naming conventions of those organistions. But they don't use the brackets, so that argument falls flat.
    • In the case of Greece: the one and only halfway acceptable rationale for having special conventions was the need for disambiguation. But disambiguation can be effected in a lot of different ways in different contexts ("the independent...", "the neighbouring...", "the newly independent...", "the former Yugoslav..." etc.) Most crucially, as I pointed out earlier, disambiguation is not the same thing as pointing the reader to the dispute. Disambiguation really means purely this: making sure that the reader understands which entity is meant. That's where it should stop. It does not mean that we need to point out, at every juncture, that Greeks find this naming problematic and why. I'm not going to accept a solution as mandatory that basically means flagging every mentioning of the RoM with a disclaimer amounting to little more than "... (and by the way, Greeks hate it)".

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your constructive approach. My rationale is that the country is called within these contexts (Greece and int'l orgs) by the long name. This is an undisputed fact. Hence the long name is notable, since it informs us about that exact situation. Now, in order to separate WP's position from this [petty] dispute, I have devised these parentheses and the link to why it is so. To highlight this further, I can even settle for italics, such as "(the former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia", but I don't think it is fair not to include the article subject's opinion at all (int'l org's opinion or Greece's opinion in this case). I think that in this particular case we are helped by the fact that the long term is a superset of the short one. NikoSilver 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Replying to Fut.Perf's specific concerns: (1) "The": I can settle for the "the" being outside in the cases where it can't be used syntactically (nit-picking, I agree). (2.1) Int'l org's: But they do use the brackets sometimes (and all sorts of variants). My aim was to address (I think Sept's) concern that this should be made clear not to be Wikipedia's voice. (2.2) Greece: I still have not understood why the international organizations' "only half-way acceptable rationale" [that it is called like that by them], is not also Greece's (of all!) "only half-way acceptable rationale" [when it is called like that by her also]. (On your last paragraph:) I think that the word "every" in "every mentioning" is an exaggeration. The contexts of the International Organizations and of Greece are too limited compared to all other "mentionings", to deserve "every". NikoSilver 13:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I still object to "the article subject's opinion" being the crucial criterion here, that's the point. In the case of the int'l org's, the criterion is not this or that side's opinion, but the fact that the naming convention is a constitutive part of what the article describes. Anything we talk about in the article on RoM's membership in the EU only happens qua its having this mutally defined diplomatic relationship under that naming convention. But where we mention the RoM in Greece-related articles, especially in purely descriptive, factual statements of geography (like "Greek National Road 1 ends at the border of the RoM") we are free to describe these facts in whatever terminology we choose, there simply is no reason to adopt the terminology of this or that group of people just because they are associated with the subject of the article. -- BTW, "every mentioning" obviously meant: every mentioning in the context of that set of articles; and I maintain that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I still have not understood why you could accept following "the exact naming conventions of these organizations" in their articles, and you could not accept "the exact naming conventions of Greece" in her articles. NikoSilver 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference is in the concept of "constitutive". That was a good-faith attempt at salvaging the exception in those cases where I can see them as at least half-way legitimate, not more than that. If that distinction is too subtle, then sorry, the only way out is to get rid of the exception altogether, not to extend it elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
But please, do explain, on what grounds is the "constitutive" concept ruling our decision? And why doesn't the "constitutive" concept apply to Greece? Doesn't Greece "constitute" of a geographic area with its own side (and therefore its own name) to the border? Especially now that we are helping the reader understand that this is not necessarily WP's voice by using the parentheses! (Don't tell me that the int'l orgs would also have to get rid of it because you know that this is not the consensus). NikoSilver 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, you may disagree with Greece's disagreement. However, the first is a personal opinion, and the latter is a fact of the outside world which must be described here IMO. NikoSilver 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, I'll try once more. I brought this criterion because it was the only one in this whole wide world that seemed to make a modicum of sense to me, that's why. In contrast, "opinion" of the article subject certainly does not make sense as a criterion at all, forget about it. The criterion is: membership in an int'l org is a social construct, which is, in a way, "in the eye of the beholder" only; it becomes real only through the parties entering into a relationship, of which the naming is an integral part. This is still a weak argument, but it's at least an argument that gives a semblance of justification for applying the exception. Best I could come up with. For objective facts about geography, it simply doesn't hold. If tomorrow all Greeks and all Macedonians were to loose all their memories and their languages and forgot everything about how they used to call things, the geographical facts would still be there. Unlike a political concept such as "EU membership", these facts simply exist independently of how we name them.
About your last point, of course it must be described, but it would be POV-pushing to stress it in contexts where it isn't relevant, such as simple geographical facts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Among the geographic facts that would still be there, also lie the labels on this "National Road 1" that point north to a fyrom. And the parties Gr/(fy)rom in this case, have entered into "relationships" (because they didn't have such relationships before) through an interim accord that still applies. NikoSilver 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
About the relevance of the issue with simple geographical facts, the foreign driver who will ask a Greek Macedonian farmer for directions on going north might disagree on your perception of notability. He'll argue that if "this dumb site had included this very relevant fact, I'd have found my way on my own, and my windshield wouldn't have been crushed by this farmer's garden fork!" NikoSilver 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's still true that the fact that signs in Greece point north to "FYROM" isn't what makes FYROM be situated north of Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[left] It's still true that the fact that those signs are not mentioned in our "Greek National Road 1" makes the garden fork situated through the reader's windshield. That fact is notable and informative to deserve inclusion in the articles one way or the other. Do you disagree to the latter issue of notability, or to the way I proposed for it to be done? BTW, we could add language in this guideline of the following sort:

The Macedonia naming dispute is considered a fact of due weight in most Greek-related articles (such as bordering Greek provinces, national roads, Greek Macedonians etc), therefore a small reference to the additional UN qualifier used in Greece in italics and within parentheses, right before the original country article name, linking to the naming dispute article is suggested. (such as "(former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia".) Rare exceptions may apply, where it is advisable not to change the existing content.

Actually I think this comes much closer to reality than whatever there is now in the guideline. Shall we wrap? NikoSilver 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope what? Due/Undue or way of inclusion? You'll note that the country self-reference is left untouched! :-) NikoSilver 21:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll come up with another proposal shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼

My version:

There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece. In principle, naming conventions in that domain should not be different from those used elsewhere. However, in the interest of disambiguation, it may be useful, especially in articles that also mention the Greek province of Macedonia, to use disambiguating qualifiers that make the contrast more salient than just "Republic of...". While the name used for the republic should still be Republic of Macedonia, additional qualification in the form of "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" can be helpful in such instances. This, in general, needs to be done only once in an article. In articles where the political backgrounds are important, such as topics of bilateral political relations or 1990s history, a wikilink from "Yugoslav" or "former Yugoslav" to a relevant background article (e.g. Macedonia naming dispute, or Breakup of Yugoslavia) may also be useful. However, no exact guidelines for all cases have been agreed upon; when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... It definitely is better than what we have now (a huge "disputed" tag) and adequately describes the present situation. I'm with you, go for it. NikoSilver 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's wait a little bit and see tomorrow how it fits into the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Careful about fonts; if we bold the phrase here we may find "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so emphasized, all over Greek articles. But let's see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, no. Don't see how cheese comes into it. Probably we all agree that this is a nightmare, but perceptions of how and why it is a nightmare differ. Let's be polite and not talk too much about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how we can agree that naming conventions in any given domain "should not be different from those used elsewhere". They already are, de facto. The core of the dispute here lies elsewhere: whether Greece's naming conventions should be treated on the same level as those of other domains (international organisations). ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sept and Fut.Perf. It is my sincere belief that an inclusion of a mere link to how Greeks/Greece/Florina/Gr-National-road-1/etc call the country/people/language up north is a relative fact for all these articles that deserves being mentioned per WP:DUE. I'd argue that a reference and a summary of the background of why it is so, would also be WP:DUE in some cases, but given your serious opposition I will not insist. But I cannot accept that a mere link to the dispute or just the mentioning of the name is undue. I'll agree to Fut.Perf's text, if my rationale can also be included as an opinion (along with the "extra disambiguation"). We don't have to adopt it, we can just mention it, as we can also mention whatever other principle you think better illustrates why it shouldn't be included. Regardless of how we put it, as an end result, I think the compromise proposal above would greatly help the project. NikoSilver 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I strongly object. The fact that Greeks don't like the name of the Republic of Macedonia is as relevant to the Florina article as the fact that Arabs don't like the statehood of Israel is in the Bint Jbeil article, namely, not at all. Allowing editors to flood such articles with references to their pet political disputes, and be it only in the form of links, is just an invitation for POV-pushing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
We will respectfully agree that we disagree, and I will not insist on any additional rationales included. Your text does the job in my view. NikoSilver 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked. Part of the problem here is that the words "former Yugoslav" have themselves become an irritant, and I don't see why "which was once part of Yugoslavia" or some such should not be equally acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Int'l Org's, redux

Another little thing we haven't thought about yet. What happens in the case of international organisations whose internal naming conventions differ from ours, but in the opposite direction? What if such an organisation has the policy of consistently referring to the RoM as simply "Macedonia"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I suppose we'll have to mention (and link) the dispute again? :D iNkubusse? 00:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We won't have to mention (or link) the dispute, because in these cases these organizations are clearly not interested in the dispute. "Macedonia" will be the name, and to avoid being directed to the dab page we can always use "Republic of Macedonia". I'm sure no organization rejects the "Republic of" qualifier either way. BTW, I only know of one such [minor] organization as of yet. Why is this an issue? NikoSilver 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it's an issue we're going to have to address sooner or later, given the international community's steady abandonment of the FYROM solution. It'd be better to work out a position before that happens. -- ChrisO 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Solving this potential problem will sure save precious time and nerves. Niko, do you suggest a link of this type: [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]], or just [[Republic of Macedonia]]? The latter case is clearer, but even the first case should never lead the reader to the dab page, since it's a link to the RoM article. iNkubusse? 18:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]] would better be avoided for the obvious reason that there are indeed other Macedonias. I have accepted "region of Greece" or whatever other qualifier even in the Thessaloniki article, so I would suppose that equal terms should apply for both. Re Chris's comment, see WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. We will exclude possible Int'l Org's recognizing the country by its constitutional name as they happen. For now there's only one (lame) that does so. However, this scenario also works both ways: It is evident that if the international community and the country itself accepts a third term, we'll use that everywhere. NikoSilver 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I too am only aware of a single case that I happened to come across the other day. I was really seeing it more as a thought experiment. The interesting thing is, it goes to demonstrate the shakiness of this whole construct we now have. If you say: no, we must still use "Republic of Macedonia" in such a case, then you are losing the last shred of a semblance of objective justification for the current exception for the international organisations, because it proves that there really is no objective reason why we'd have to follow an organisation's naming preferences just so as to be able to talk about it. If, on the other hand, you say: okay, let's then use just "Macedonia", you lose the argument about the objective need for disambiguation, because those articles will then constitute living proof that readers can understand an article perfectly well even with much less disambiguation than consistent "Republic of...". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

People like us with diatribes on the issue can understand most of those (even we get confused sometimes). But the rest are simply puzzled, especially if you don't link/state the name as it is at least once (like we already urge). Also, for the organizations the point wasn't only disambiguation. It was also misquoting, and wishful thinking in some cases. You can't copy a list with a non-existent member in the member states, nor call it by a name it hasn't even applied with in accession talks (and won't probably accede because of -hence there's no "accession" to begin with). Those two are not WP:ATTributable to any official source, therefore you would violate WP:OR (and confuse everybody else in the process too). NikoSilver 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we respect the organisation's decision to call a country as it wants or we believe that our judgement is superior? If they call it Macedonia we call it Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia. If they call it FYROM, we call it Republic of Macedonia|FYROM. --   Avg    22:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We might do that, but I insist there is no logical reason forcing us to do so. Don't pretend it's rational when it's just a matter of political compromising between us wikipedia editors. I don't want to hear that argument about "misquoting" or "attribution" again, it's utter crap. "Quoting" comes into play only where actual, literal quoting is at issue, not when we are summarising facts in our own voice. I must insist you go and learn what intensional and non-intensional contexts are. Fact is, the truth value of a statement such as "X conducts membership talks with Y" is not dependent on which of several alternative terms I use to refer to X, and whether or not that term happens to be the same as used by Y. Language doesn't work that way. You are not free to redefine the laws of logic and human language just as it suits your political interests. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You're trying to outsmart hundreds of lawyers and political scientists involved who, after months of deliberation, chose to arrive at a compromising solution where every comma counts. I'm afraid offering simplistic solutions to complex matters is not the way to go forward. I, for one, choose to respect those who are much more qualified than me (and you may I add) in international relations, namely the seasoned diplomats. Prudence should be the norm. --   Avg    22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We are writing an encyclopedia, not an international treaty. They make their naming conventions, we make ours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I think this is extremely arrogant. I suppose you accept the authority of a scientific group to define their own naming, but you don't consider there are people with greater authority on international relations than you?--   Avg    23:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't always accept the authority of a scientific group either; we shouldn't, when it gets in the way of communication: Wikipedia should normally say "X died of a heart attack", not "from a myocardial infarction". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Avg, this is a bizarre red herring, and I will not even go on trying to explain this further. Your notions about what we are doing here are confused beyond repair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, what I think is that you're so obsessed with micromanaging every sub-case of this that you've lost the big picture. What is our goal? To establish a manual of style. Is there any source we can count on? Sure there is, right in front of us, but no, we know better. Just follow the international convention and stop doing original research. As simple as that.--   Avg    16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Editorial decisions about naming are not subject to WP:NOR, so stop waving that red herring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
And they are subject to WP:UE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, my goal has never been to establish a manual of style; my goal has been to establish a set of conventions that are compatible with the basic policies of Wikipedia and which as many people as possible can live with, however grumblingly. Of these, the first is the more important. It was a mistake to have WP:MOS in the first place, and my only concern with it now is to prevent it becoming a total farce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this footnote:
Articles which have as their subject (mere mention is not enough) subtopics, facets and agencies of these topics (like the Euro or the European Railway Agency), should follow the usage of the parent's entry, unless the subject uses a different formal name.
is part of the same dissension. I would be willing to accept the same guidance for the European Railway Agency as for the EU as a whole, although I'm sure whatever term the ERA actually uses for the Republic is in fact available on the web. But I predict, and would oppose, an effort to define all articles on Greek subjects as facets of Greece; and have therefore removed the footnote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian/Bulgarian ethnicity dispute - a new controversy for us to enjoy

Apparently, the Macedonia/Greece dispute is not enough controversy over Macedonia-related articles!

I'd like to add another dimension, although this will hopefully reduce the scope for conflict on Wikipedia with respect to Macedonia-related articles, by providing an easy guideline and practice-guide which editors can refer to or refer others to, in the event of a dispute. I really can't see the value in arguing and re-arguing the Macedonian/Bulgarian ethnicity dispute in every single article relating to people born in Vardar Macedonia/Greek Macedonia prior to 1944, and this could be a way to avoid it.

As many editors would be aware, there is a great deal of controversy over some people from the pre-1944 period who were born in what is now the Republic of Macedonia or Greek Macedonia, with Macedonians claiming them as ethnic Macedonians, and Bulgarians claiming them as ethnic Bulgarians. Examples include Gotse Delchev, Krste Misirkov and Venko Markovski. Many of these figures were involved in the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising, which both Macedonians and Bulgarians claim as defining national events in the history of their nations.

The ethnicity of many of these figures is disputed, and many do not have a public self-identification as either Macedonian or Bulgarian. Often, even where they did self-identify as "Bulgarian", Macedonians claim that this self-identification was a generic Slavic identity (in the absence of a Macedonian political body), and that the person in question was in fact an ethnic Macedonian.

User Laveol has suggested a standard format for referencing these individuals as follows:

  • state the person's name;
  • state where the person was born and died (where appropriate, comment on whether the town is now in the Republic of Macedonia, Greece or Bulgaria, and what country it was part of when they were born (usually, this will be the Ottoman Empire)); and
  • state that the person was a Macedonian or Bulgarian if, and only if there is a reliable, verifiable source for the person self-identifying exclusively as a Macedonian or Bulgarian;
or

I think this guideline should be added to the People naming issues section of the Style Manual, under a heading like "Macedonian/Bulgarian ethnicity dispute", or something similar. As far as I can tell, the order of whether Macedonian or Bulgarian is mentioned first is immaterial.

What do others think?

Cheers, AWN AWN2 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable approach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
All good. Alex 202.10.89.28 09:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree--   Avg    03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to make a small addition - I meant it as a dispute solution in cases of people who were active in the XX century when such disputes appeared. Prior to this there was no such things (Ottoman censuses and so on). As for the rule I'm using it so far and it should come with the inclusion of both Bulgarians and Macedonians (ethnic group) as a category to avoid even further edit-wars on such a lame scale. --Laveol T 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, especially after the latter clarification by Laveol. NikoSilver 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Excelent! I'd like to add the suggestion not to make reference to such person's ethnicity in articles that don't have that person as a subject. This would prevent edit waring such as the ones about the Miladinov brothers in Struga and Samuil ('s Fortress) in Ohrid Preslav 08:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a little problem with the whole suggestion (or at least with how the Macedonian editors understand it) - I'm pretty sure that it's common sense that people born in Bulgaria in towns distant from the region of Macedonia such as Stara Zagora and Oryahovo do not fall into such a category. I'm getting the impression that Ireland101 is cut n' pasting one and the same info to the article about every revolutionary without even reading it first. --Laveol T 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. Perhaps out of ignorance, I would have thought that this would only apply to people for whom a Macedonian ethnicity would be relevant -- people born in Vardar, Pirin and Greek Macedonia (that is, the region of Macedonia). If this guideline is applied to people for whom it is not relevant, it should be reversed in the article, with sources! Cheers, AWN AWN2 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Finalizing guideline

Hi all, as there seem to be no more comments, I propose adding the following to the guidelines:

North MacedoniaBulgaria Macedonian/Bulgarian ethnicity

There is a great deal of controversy over some people from the pre-1944 period who were born in what is now the Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia or Blagoevgrad Province (Bulgaria), with Macedonians claiming them as ethnic Macedonians, and Bulgarians claiming them as ethnic Bulgarians. Many of these figures were involved in the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising, which both Macedonians and Bulgarians claim as defining national events in the history of their nations.

The ethnicity of many of these figures is disputed, and many did not publicly self-identify as either Macedonian or Bulgarian. Often, even where they did self-identify as "Bulgarian", Macedonians claim that this self-identification was a generic Slavic identity (in the absence of a Macedonian political body), and that the person in question was in fact an ethnic Macedonian.

For these persons, the following guidelines should be used:

  • state the person's name;
  • state where the person was born and died (where appropriate, comment on whether the town is now in the Republic of Macedonia, Greece or Bulgaria, and what country it was part of at the time (usually, the country of birth will be the Ottoman Empire)); and
  • state that the person was a Macedonian or Bulgarian if, and only if, there is a reliable, verifiable source for the person self-identifying exclusively as a Macedonian or Bulgarian;
or

These guidelines should only apply to persons born before 1944 (recognition of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia), and who were born in the region of Macedonia (i.e. Vardar Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia/Blagoevgrad Province (Bulgaria), Greek Macedonia and the areas of Albania usually considered part of the region of Macedonia). In other articles referring to these persons, their ethnicity should not be mentioned unless it is relevant to the subject of that article.

Any last minute thoughts/comments?

Cheers,

AWN AWN2 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just one - active in the XX century - the controversial period is within the frame 1900-1944. By active I mean - actively contributing to the revolutionary movement. Prior to that evidence are clearly overwhelming both in census and scholar research (I've mentioned it above as well). --Laveol T 21:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Laveol. I think this guideline should cover all the "controversial figures", not just those related to IMRO and the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising. This therefore includes writers, academics, linguists, etc who lived and died prior to 1944, and some who may have died prior to 1900. By not limiting it to people "active" in the 20th century, we keep the guideline relevant to all "controversial figures", and yet still have it applicable to the IMRO participants. What do you think? Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AWN. We should not be selective as all time periods in the Balkans seem to "Controversial". The guidelines should defiantly cover all of the "controversial figures". Ireland101 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Me too: it should cover Samuil of Bulgaria, for instance. There may be an overwhelming majority that supports one ethnicity, but if it is disputed by a small minority, that should be mentioned.

I've also added a sentence to the proposed text. Preslav (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the minority version fails in the reliable sources department. The current version is unanimously supported by all scholars outside former Yugoslavia + some Yugoslavian ones (refer to the article). Oh, and + all the primary sources. It was discussed and so on. As for the whole issue, I'd really love to see some willingness from the other side for a compromise. User Ireland101 has being exploiting the rule I proposed all this time and now he comes and makes even more demands. Is this all I can expect from him? Yeah, surely, we can add the rule for every single person, but if I find an extreme source that claims Alexander the Great as Bulgarian and as he is borne in the region, should we add this as well? And how relevant is the official census of the Ottoman empire? Providing Ireland quits the nonsense about all Christian Slavs being counted as Bulgarians as Serbs are both Orthodox christians and Slavs, but they were still counted as Serbs. --Laveol T 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Laveol I am not "exploiting" any rule. I am using the "rule" you created and applying it where it is needed and that is on revolutionaries that Macedonians claim are Macedonian. I have a feeling that the reason you created this rule was so that you could selectively apply it to articles with overwhelming Macedonian evidence and no Bulgarian evidence. I am not making more demands I just want this rule to be equal and not selectively used to serve a shadow purpose. And please stick to the topic and do not invent words claiming that I have said "nonsense about all Christian Slavs being counted as Bulgarians as Serbs" as I have never. Ireland101 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The above guideline seems straightforward and simple enough to adhere to, however I am foreseeing hundreds of abuses very soon. One thing I would add is that the name of the revolutionary should be stated in the spellings of both modern Macedonian and Bulgarian language. However, which one should be the title of the article then becomes a thorny question. I also agree with AWN that it should not be limited to the 20th century alone; I am not big on research as there are plenty examples from teh 19th century like Gjorgija Pulevski who considered themselves ethnic Macedonians, different from the Bulgarians, and I seem to remember some letters from the 17th century or so in which various groups from Macedonia asked for autonomy. Hence, no artificial time limits should be imposed, the birth of a nation is a long and convoluted process ;) Capricornis (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the above guideline is not entirely free of bias. First, formally, everywhere Macedonian is put first and Bulgarian second, like Macedonian/Bulgarian dispute, Macedonian flag before Bulgarian flag, etc. If the guideline strives to be neutral, it must order them in alphabet order, and this means first Bulgarian (letter B) and second Macedonian (letter M). Second, it supports the Macedonist thesis that everything that refers to Bulgaria or Bulgarian throughout history should be translated as Macedonia or Macedonian, this pertaining to persons, language, nationality etc. The reason given for this is no less quaint: There was no Macedonian state, or another national entity at this time, so that the Bulgarian state, Bulgarian nationality and Bulgarian language should be considered Macedonian. The Bulgarian/Macedonian dispute is tricky especially because of the insistance to exclude primary sources and include only secondary sources. Secondary sources on this issue are all biased as they interpret the primary sources according to the view of the author that in the majority of cases is heavily biased. A case in point is Krste Misirkov, who all his life couldn't decide whether he is Bulgarian or Macedonian, alternating those two nationalities according to his POVs influenced by the ideas and rhetoric that he was exposed to at different periods of his life. Lantonov (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be very interested to see the letters of 17th century Capricornis claims to have seen, in which "various groups from Macedonia asked for authonomy". If such documents exist, we (I and Capricornus) could share the prize of $10,000 offered by Bozhidar Dimitrov to everyone who can provide original documents speaking of Macedonian nationality before the middle of 19th century. Lantonov (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, about the alphabetical listing I already tried to explain it to our Macedonian colleagues, but they insisted on putting Macedonian in front and I thought it was too childish to continue this. About the XVII century prove - see your talkpage. --Laveol T 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Lantonov please rethink your comments before you post them as it is offensive to refer to Macedonian editors as Macedonists, a pejorative term that implies that ethnic Macedonians do not exist. And that Macedonian editors believe that anything that "refers to Bulgaria or Bulgarian throughout history should be translated as Macedonia or Macedonian". As for the Alphabetic issue, the articles all refer to IMRO Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. Therefore the Macedonian part should be included first. These revolutionaries worked for an independent state and therefore the state name that they worked for should go first. It would be irredentist to do otherwise. Ireland101 (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sick of this whole discussion, that's why I don't get involved. And I know it leads nowhere; at least nowhere good. I just wanted to reply to one of Lantonov's statements. Personally, I'm not a bullheaded Macedonist (as you refer to it) and I realise that people do change their views on life, especially on ethnicity and nationalism. You, however, do not. E.g. I consider Misirkov the greatest Macedonian because what he has written in that study reveals everything about what we are. The most part of the book is about how the Macedonians are a distinct nation, different from Serbs and the Bulgarians, I believe you've read it. The fact that in the days of his early life he wasn't aware of those things, doesn't mean anything to me, at all. It just relieves me, proving that there is hope for everyone. Probably all of those persons from the 19th century went through the same phases in life and changed their mind about the Macedonian question. But you can't label them "Bulgarians" just because at some point they thought that they were Bulgarians! As for the alphabetical order, we know that B comes before M, but the newcomers usually think that it's some kind of a POV pushing. I guess we can't do anything about that, B comes first. iNkubusse? 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said "bullheaded" Macedonist, so I don't know the reason for your personal attacks, and I do not care for it because it does not have a place here. As for Misirkov, read the last 3 articles that he wrote in 1925 just before his death: "Bulgarian school", "School and Socialism", and "Church and School" in which he considers himself a Bulgarian. So this is not in his early and naive days. Personally, I greatly respect Misirkov, and consider him one of the greatest heros in our common history because of the fact that he openly confronted the issue of nationality and tried to solve it inside himself with the cost of a great personal conflict and sacrifices. One must be very brave and honest to do this. Also, I consider the article about Misirkov as a model to which we must strive in order to reach objectivity. About the order Macedonian/Bulgarian, yes, it is important, however you may think, and this is exemplified by the fact that a Macedonian nationalist (if you like this term better) jumped at once and produced arguments for placing "Macedonian" first (Supposedly, all articles refer to IMRO, which is evidently not true - not all articles refer to IMRO). For replacing "Bulgarian" with "Macedonian", it is not me who says it. To quote: "The ethnicity of many of these figures is disputed, and many did not publicly self-identify as either Macedonian or Bulgarian. Often, even where they did self-identify as "Bulgarian", Macedonians claim that this self-identification was a generic Slavic identity (in the absence of a Macedonian political body), and that the person in question was in fact an ethnic Macedonian." The document which is produced for our consideration, implicitly endorses this practice of substitution, and it effectively asks from editors to consider such case of replacing "Bulgarian" with "Macedonian" as a disputed case.
Despite those 2 points that are obviously not fair, I think that the above rules, if abided to, will help to avoid many nationality and ethnicity disputes in articles on persons in the common Bulgarian/Macedonian history. It is only reasonable not to put a nationality of our choice to a person who has not chosen or simply has not opted to proclaim publicly which nation he belongs to. Lantonov (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we're just re-arguing the old Macedonian/Bulgarian ethnic disputes and whether or not Krste Misirkov was left- or right-handed, etc, rather than the guideline. The guideline is about resolving these disputes, not recreating them!
In response to Lantonov's original comments, just a few points: Firstly, I think the order of Macedonian/Bulgarian is trivial. I decided to put Macedonian first in the Macedonian/Bulgarian dispute because the focus of the dispute is on Macedonia. Also, the guideline is going to be posted on the Macedonian Naming Guidelines page, so putting Macedonia first – although trivial -- makes sense. To be honest though, I thought about it for less than a second. Secondly, I don't think there is anything in this guideline which "support(s) the Macedonist thesis that everything that refers to Bulgaria or Bulgarian throughout history should be translated as Macedonia or Macedonian". The guideline clearly states that it should apply only to those people born in Macedonia (region), and whose ethnicity is disputed (based on conflicting, yet authoritative sources). Thirdly, I agree that all these cases are tricky because they rely on biased sources. Was Krste Misirkov a Macedonian, or a Bulgarian? Or both? Not even he seems to have known, which is why I think we need a guideline to prevent lame edit wars.
With regard to the substitution argument, the guideline does not implicitly endorse the practice of substituting one ethnicity for another. Rightly or wrongly, Macedonians consider some people who publicly self-identified as "Bulgarians" to be ethnic Macedonians. The guideline attempts to take into account this fact. The question is therefore not whether X was Macedonian or Bulgarian, but: does this guideline allow the article to reflect the position that "X self-identified as Bulgarian, but is considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia on the basis of Y".
This guideline is for instances where there is never likely to be a resolution, and the only alternative is perpetual edit wars. The discussion should focus on the guideline -- does it adequately deal with attempts to resolve a Macedonian/Bulgarian ethnicity dispute, and if not, how can it be improved?
Any comments about the guideline? ;-) Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As I already said before, I feel sick. Only one thing, this is a personal attack towards Lantonov: how the hell was that offensive to you?! You can't just say that I've attacked you, I have to do it first. By the way, this is a place for resolving this everlasting dispute, not for proving if they were X or Y. (Sorry for not commenting, AWN :D) iNkubusse? 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I think that the guideline is a step in the right direction and will help (if it is abided by) in mitigating, or regulating some disputes, connected with persons. It will not resolve those disputes, and also will not resolve disputes connected with historical events. I do not think that the ordering of Bulgarian or Macedonian is a trivial question because it speaks from the start whose position should be taken in consideration first (Example: the claim that Macedonia should be first because articles are connected to IMRO, IMRO is connected to Macedonia, and therefore the matter is entirely Macedonian). With the statement "X self-identified as Bulgarian, but is considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia on the basis of Y" you only confirm the suspicion of taking sides because one can say with equal footing "X self-identified as Macedonian, but is considered an ethnic Bulgarian in the Republic of Bulgaria on the basis of Y" or "Z self-identified as Englishman, but is considered an ethnic Irish in the Republic of Ireland on the basis of W and so on. When a person says he is some nationality, he feels that nationality and this should be respected. So now we have such ridiculous claims (from the article Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language): "Throughout the period of Ottoman rule, the Slav-speaking people of the regions of Bulgaria (Moesia), Thrace and Macedonia generally referred to their language as Bulgarian and called themselves Bulgarian without that necessarily signifying any sort of national awareness.", meaning that although those people identified themselves and their language as Bulgarian, it is to be understood that they are, respectively, Moesian, Thracian, and Macedonian, just because it is politically incorrect for some people in RoM to speak about Bulgarian nation. This goes in the direction of Macedonians too. When a citizen of RoM says that he is Macedonian, he IS Macedonian, and no one can tell him that he is something else. This goes with each national self-awareness. Lantonov (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The personal attack are these words: "Personally, I'm not a bullheaded Macedonist (as you refer to it) and I realise that people do change their views on life, especially on ethnicity and nationalism. You, however, do not." How do you know whether I change or not? And what has to do my ability to change or not with the discussion? Lantonov (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You see, those claims are ridiculous to you, but they are not necessarily ridiculous. They make a lot of sense, in fact. Now you're saying that me and the others who support them are ridiculous. Today, a Bulgarian is someone coming from modern Bulgaria, but it doesn't mean it was the same in the past. That's like saying that Alexander was the same as modern Macedonians. And the "personal attack" is not really a personal attack. I just told you that I'm not an idiot and that you should reconsider understanding people's ability to change their mind. It has a lot to do with the discussion, because the people we argue about did that a lot: they changed their mind pretty often. That's why we have these disputes. iNkubusse? —Preceding comment was added at 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said that you are an idiot but you seem to think that I am. Now a person who comes from Bulgaria can be considered Bulgarian but in the past a person who says that he is Bulgarian and speaks Bulgarian language cannot be considered Bulgarian but should be considered something else. How so? What kind of logic is that? Or I am an idiot not to understand such genial ideas? Lantonov (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Strictly for the guideline: The guideline is helpful and objective if it does not contain the following sentences (that do not contribute to the rules, anyway):
  • "Often, even where they did self-identify as "Bulgarian", Macedonians claim that this self-identification was a generic Slavic identity (in the absence of a Macedonian political body), and that the person in question was in fact an ethnic Macedonian."
  • "Many of these figures were involved in the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization and the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising, which both Macedonians and Bulgarians claim as defining national events in the history of their nations."

The second sentence unnecessarily limits the scope of the guideline. Lantonov (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm, typical. I didn't say that there were no Bulgarians in the past, but that there were people who were not Bulgarians like today's Bulgarians, but were referred to as Bulgarians, because the Greeks used the term to describe something else. Why not the first sentence though? iNkubusse? 16:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, now the Greeks are the ignorant party. Byzantine historians were ignorant, too, because they wrote that Basil II is Macedonian, and that he was Bulgarian-killer because he killed Samuil's soldiers. It should be the other way around: he should not be called Macedonian, because Samuil's soldiers were Macedonian, he should be called Greek. Those Byzantines mixed the whole Balkan history, thanks God that now there is someone to correct them. You are right, however, that none comes out of that argument the wiser. For the first sentence, already explained above: It is irrelevant what someone else claims about your nationality. The relevant thing is what you claim about your nationality.talk) 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, go to the talkpage, guys. --Laveol T 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, sarcasm... If I say "Jews speak Hebrew", I'm an anti-Semite, right? BTW, you're right Laveol. iNkubusse? 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Another personal attack with calling me WP:DICK above. I guess this is the strongest argument you could find. Lantonov (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope that's enough of this - oh, and back there I meant you went to your respective talkpages, not on this one as this is in fact a talkpage. So here's my latest proposal which is a result of a few days spent reading material on the subject. What I found out by reading reliable secondary sources from Western authors is that they anonymously consider the population of these lands Bulgarian in the years prior to the 1890s actually. This corresponds to the start of the ethnic differentiation of ethnic Macedonians from Bulgarians. It is when the first mention of a probable distinct ethnic group. Most of them still date the real emergence as late as 1930-1945, even 1955. But I repeat this is the earliest possible mention according to the real western academicians (Russians consider a much latter period (as late as the 40s-50s - even in works from between the end of WWI and the Tito-Stalin split).
All earlier mentions of travelers, historians and even the ottoman census have the population as Bulgarian (or as in some cases as a population with strong Bulgarian affiliation - for the people of the whole region and excluding Greeks off course). In this case it is really Republic of Macedonia against the world, and this is not only my personal view. I've done really quite some research and I can say with an honest heart that this is the consensus among Western (and Eastern (even Serbian) for the matter) historians.
So what I propose is that for people active after the already stated year 1890 the mention should be: Bulgarian, considered ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia. This would be really representing the facts. This was my first intention for this proposal (although I had 1900 in mind, but further research moved the year back with a decade) and you can clearly see it both on this talkpage and at the noticeboard. Bear in mind that this is the solution I support and have supported from the start and most of all - I now support with real arguments in hand. It is a compromise from our (Bulgarian) position and may not seem right to all Bulgarian contributors - that's why I'd like to have as some sort of a rule, as a restriction for further edit wars. It is also a compromise from the current state of most articles (or what their state was before the first mention of the proposal). This is the most optimal position - any step in the direction before the year 1890 is actually more or less original research (as the whole all Christian Slavs were considered Bulgarians thing) and most of all not corresponding to academic consensus.
Sorry for the long statement - I really intended to be much shorter though I've definitely missed something :) --Laveol T 18:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally off-topic: here's another personal attack for you Lantonov: don't be lame. Calling someone a dick is not a personal attack, maybe you should read the essay instead. Don't try to set me up, it won't settle this discussion. Again, sorry Laveol and the others. iNkubusse? 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Disregarding the above statement (INkubusse, don't read the whole essay, it is beyond your capacity, read only the last sentence), I would say that I agree with everything Laveol said. It is a big compromise from the Bulgarian side because many of the persons about whom this guideline pertains have died with and for the idea of liberating their fatherland from the foreign occupator, and in the vast majority of cases that foreign occupator was not Bulgaria. As for the fatherland, it was called Bulgaria for thousands of years all over the world and throughout most of its history it was comprised of the regions Moesia, Thrace, and (the larger part of) Macedonia. The position of Laveol and myself differs from the official government position and is sure to draw irate comments from Bulgarians (and not only Bulgarians). However, with the lack of regulation come worse things: patent lies, name changing, and name calling (as evidenced by the above personal attacks). Lantonov (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Lantonov, you're becoming utterly lame. I haven't attacked you in any way, and you're still trying to make me look bad in the eyes of the neutral people here. There's no such rule that forbids you to lie, but it's below low. You really need to stop it, I don't think it will help your persuasion. iNkubusse? 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Now that the dust seems to have settled, I am going to throw in my 2¢ worth... about the guideline! ;)
Firstly, I am not commenting on the validity of the Macedonian claim that some self-identifying Bulgarians are considered ethnic Macedonians in RoM. However, the fact is that some self-identifying Bulgarians are officially considered ethnic Macedonians in RoM -- for example, Gotse Delchev and Gjorche Petrov. This guideline does not seek to settle the dispute -- just to provide a method for the Macedonian claim to be properly handled within Wikipedia. To this end, if removing the sentences about ""Often, even where they did self-identify as..." and the references to IMRO and the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising helps with the guideline, then I am happy to remove them. Secondly, based on my limited knowledge and readings, it appears that there is some time before which there was no distinct Macedonian nationalist movement or ethnic identification, but I don't know when that time ended. My impression is that the rise of the Macedonian nationalist movement coincided with, and perhaps began as a consequence of, two concurrent events: the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the extension of the Bulgarian Exarchate into the region of Macedonia in 1870-74 (see Bulgarian Exarchate). Perhaps the "cut-off date" for disputed ethnicities can be 1870, although I think it is problematic to give any date because of the lack of sources. Capricornis may be able to provide sources which push this date back to the 17th century...
Any 'final' comments... about the guideline? ;-) Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The start of Macedonian nationalism is relatively well established in historic literature. The first written documents date from 1891-1892, some 10 years before the Ilinden-Peobrazhenie Uprising. In the 1880s, there were few individuals, probably less than 500 in the whole Macedonia, who were taught in Serbian schools opened mostly around Skopje in connection with the Garashanin doctrine for Serbian expansion through assimilation (Nachertanje), or educated in Serbia itself. Those people had Serbian or Macedonian (non-Bulgarian or anti-Bulgarian) national self-awareness, which they declared orally. The thesis that the Bulgarian exarchate (re-opened in 1870) formed Bulgarian national self-awareness was formulated for the first time by the Serbian historian Jovan Cvijic, and supported only by Serbian historians (Corovic, Ostrogradsky). It is rejected by the other historians because of the fact that all eminent people in Macedonia before 1870 considered themselves Bulgarians (Miladinov brothers, Rayko Jinzifov, Konstantin Peychinovic, etc, etc) and support this Bulgarian national self-awareness with their written works. Lantonov (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The year 1890 corresponds pretty well to what I researced. So once again - the proposal is for people active after that year. The guideline for people active before it should be - ...is a Bulgarian .... . Considered an ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia. We'll omit the reference to Macedonism although it pretty much explains why this is so. Agree? --Laveol T 10:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What we're actually discussing here is how to apply WP:NPOV to Macedonia-related articles, and the discussion about the year before which every Slavic person born in the region of Macedonia can be considered to be only ethnic Bulgarian is a discussion on how to apply WP:DUE. Concerning the latter, I think that the opinion that such a person is ethnic Macedonian is usually a significant-minority opinion, because it is believed so by a majority of present-day Macedonians (ethnic). If we include a year in the late 1800s, I'm afraid it will be used as an excuse to remove the minority POV on Samuil of Bulgarias ethnicity (the "other theories" section). Do we want that? My proposal is not to include any "year before". Preslav (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No, no, no, look my statement from above again. The minority theory remains, just with a rephrase. It is no longer considered this in this country and that in that country, but The person is this, and he is considered that in that country. And let's make it clear again - this guideline is not intended as being an excuse for even more POV pushing, but as something to avoid it and to have a rule which everyone should follow. The other theories should stay even as ridiculous as they are - that was my first intention - to let the reader judge this issue for himself (where there is real dispute). Actually the Other theories section in Samuil of Bulgaria is something I personally adore - it shows how politics during some regimes try to change history or to twist it in their favor and how they sometimes do not succeed. --Laveol T 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. As long as the guideline can't be used to surpress a significant minority view, it's OK with me. Preslav (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, do we have anyone disagreeing? --Laveol T 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Further to Laveol's statements above, should we perhaps clarify in the guideline that if the person did not self-identify, the phrasing should be "Person-Z is considered X in this country and Y in that country", whereas if the person did self-identify, the phrasing should be "Person-Z is X, and is considered a Y in that country"?
Also, I tend to agree that while the late 1800s seem to be the earliest manifestations of Macedonian nationalism (1886 was the earliest I could find), it is problematic to include a year.
Once we have clarified the phrasing issue above, I'll put a revised guideline up here for final comments :) Cheers, AWN AWN2 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the self-identifying proposal, but bear in mind that some of the disputed ones identified as both in different parts of their life. --Laveol T 10:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
As for the year - it would not be correct to fill the guideline without it. The other way round stirs too much controversy. --Laveol T 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear! Good point Laveol! Shall we further clarify that where a person self-identified as both nationalities at various points in their life, the last self-identification should be the operative one, with mention of the others also included?
With regard to the date, the earliest reference to Macedonian nationalism that I can source is for the 1886 meeting of the Secret Macedonian Committee ("The Modern Macedonian Standard Language and its Relation to Modern Macedonian Identity", Victor A Friedman, in "The Macedonian Question: Culture, Historiography Politics" edited by Victor Roudometof, Columbia University Press (2000), p185). So, should we say "late 19th century" as the cut-off, or 1886 specifically?
Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, good point about the multi-ethnicity - the last known one (when available for distinction) is to be the one mentioned in the leading sentence. About the year - let it be 1886 then. Late XIX century is too broad and therefore might be another cause of dispute. It only regards the leading sentence again, but we both know what could happen if someone wants to argue about it. I won't question Friedman's credibility and take this date (or year more precisely) and let's be done with this issue :) Cheers --Laveol T 17:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Laveol, no problems -- I will incorporate the multiple-ethnicity into the guideline.
Regarding the "cut-off date", after reading some Macedonian websites, I note that they consider the birth of Macedonian linguistic awareness (perhaps as distinct from Macedonian nationalism) as being the 1860s, although this is unsourced. For this reason, and because 1886 is simply the earliest reference that I could find (and I am not an expert at all) , I still think it may be safest to make the cut-off the "late 19th century" (i.e. 1851-1900!!), as this allows for some room in case there are earlier events which could be construed as "the birth of Macedonian nationalism". What do you think? Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a few days thought, looked the things from both angles and here's what I came up with: The cut off date seems pretty fair as it is what Western specialists think of the case. If we take only this extreme view then we might as well take the other extreme view - that ethnic Macedonians are even now Bulgarians, which is ridiculous, but it still is what a big part of Bulgarians think (and write for the matter). The view in Republic of Macedonia will be noted in the leading paragraph (considered ethnic Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia) and this would be a truthful representation of scholarship on the subject (that only people in that country think so and the overwhelming majority of all the others supports the other view: The person is Bulgarian, considered ...). Cheers once again :)--Laveol T 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure I understand, you're saying that we should stick with 1886 (unless, of course, someone can come up with a verifiable, authoritative source for some form of organized Macedonian nationalism prior to 1886)? As it happens, the guideline as I have it drafted currently doesn't reference an earliest date, only a latest date (1944 -- Macedonian autonomy). Anyway, I will submit the guideline for review again below, and if everyone's cool then we can run with it :) Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Another naming proposal for the guideline (I did not see it in the draft): the name "Pirin Macedonia" should not be used, and replaced with "Blagoevgrad Province" instead. Lantonov (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea. There are cases where Pirin Macedonia is the appropriate name for the area, for instance when it is refered to in connection with Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, or when dealing with a time before the province was named. I am not aware of any unappropriate use of the name or any edit warring about it. There have been attempts to replace the Pirin Macedonia redirect with a POV article, but I think a non-POV article about it should be possible. Preslav (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Above argument is good. Then how about: Pirin Macedonia should not be used in an ethnic context, only when necessary in geographic context connected with the whole region of Macedonia. Lantonov (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think you're proposing a rule to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Preslav (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Finalizing Guideline (Dec 14, 2007)

North MacedoniaBulgaria Macedonian/Bulgarian ethnicity

There is a great deal of controversy over some people from the pre-1944 period who were born in what is now the Republic of Macedonia, Greek Macedonia or Blagoevgrad Province (Bulgaria), with Macedonians claiming them as ethnic Macedonians, and Bulgarians claiming them as ethnic Bulgarians.

The ethnicity of many of these figures is disputed, and many either did not publicly self-identify as Macedonian or Bulgarian, identified as both Macedonian and Bulgarian at various stages of their lives, or their self-identification is disputed.

It is unlikely that the dispute over the ethnicity over these people will ever be resolved, and therefore for these persons, the following guidelines should be used:

  • state the person's name;
    • the person's name can be included in both Macedonian and Bulgarian, with the language order following their ethnicity (see below). That is, if the person was an ethnic X, but also considered an ethnic Y, the language order should be XY;
  • state where the person was born and died (where appropriate, comment on whether the town is now in the Republic of Macedonia, Greece or Bulgaria, and what country it was part of at the time (usually, the country of birth will be the Ottoman Empire)); and
  • state the person's ethnicity/ethnicities.

The guidelines for addressing the person's ethnicity are as follows:

  • where the person verifiably self-identified as either Macedonian or Bulgarian, but this self-identification is disputed:
  • where the person verifiably self-identified as Macedonian and Bulgarian at different times in their life:
    • the last verifiable self-identification should be the operative one;
      • for example, if Person Z self-identified as Macedonian in 1901 and as a Bulgarian in 1902, the wording should be: "Person Z was a Bulgarian, although he/she had also previously identified as a Macedonian.";
      • if Person Z self-identified as a Bulgarian in 1901, and as a Macedonian in 1902, the wording should be: "Person Z was a Macedonian, although he/she had also previously identified as a Bulgarian."

These guidelines should only apply to persons born before 1944 (recognition of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia), and who were born in the region of Macedonia (that is, Vardar Macedonia, Pirin Macedonia/Blagoevgrad Province (Bulgaria), Greek Macedonia and the areas of Albania usually considered part of the region of Macedonia). In other articles referring to these persons, their ethnicity should not be mentioned unless it is relevant to the subject of that article (see WP:DUE).

The wording is a suggested format only, and need not be copied exactly, however, the wording should adhere to the general principles of the guideline.

I'd say go for it, and we'll see if it works. Preslav (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, go, let's hope for the best. I'll personally stick to the time-stamp for my edits though. --Laveol T 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like no further comments, so I will do the formatting and upload the guideline... I guess we'll see how it goes! Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Macedonia-related_articles/Archive_2&oldid=1144578387"