Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

MFA clarifies: "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" is indivisible term.

NOT DONE
Option 1. of the survey pretty much won out here. Nothing concrete came out of this, but anyone is welcomed to try things again. Thank you all, (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs circulated today an official newsletter to all the local administrations, public services, diplomatic missions and governmental bodies in Greece, clarifying that the nationality "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" is undividable term and cannot be shortened down to just "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian".

Source (in Greek language): http://www.kathimerini.gr/1010996/article/epikairothta/politikh/egkyklios-toy-ype3-gia-th-xrhsh-toy-onomatos-voreia-makedonia

Quoting the relevant paragraph here: Σχετικά με την ιθαγένεια, τον νομικό δεσμό του πολίτη με το κράτος, είναι αποδεκτό σε εθνικά και διεθνή έγγραφα της Δημοκρατίας της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας να αναφέρεται ως αδιαίρετο σύνολο που θα αποτυπώνεται και στα ταξιδιωτικά έγγραφα της γείτονας χώρας ως «Μακεδονική/πολίτης της Δημοκρατίας της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας».

Translation to English: With regard to citizenship, the citizen's legal connection with the state is acceptable in national and international documents of the Republic of North Macedonia being referred to as an indivisible ensemble which will be reflected in the travel documents of the neighboring country as «Macedonian / citizen of the Republic of the North Macedonia». --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Since there is confusion about the indivisible nature of the term "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" in the RfC, I went ahead and added the much-needed clarification, directly to the RfC's description, hoping that it will help everyone be informed and aware that the term is indivisible: [1] So far, there have been editors who casted votes on the grounds that the official term "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" was divisible while it isnt... If my added clarification does break RfC rules and doesn't help avoid this misunderstanding, then, please revert me. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This is what's in the Prespa Agreement, of course, and is to be used in travel documents. However the usage in travel documents or in local administrations, public services, diplomatic missions and governmental bodies in Greece is not the only official use of the term(s). This doesn't mean that international organizations will not use both terms or choose one over the other, depending on context. It is however, 100% sure they will not use North Macedonian. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess then that we should be very precise and explain that the term is acceptable to be used indivisible in national and international documents, because that's what the newsletter says. And since you are suggesting further clarifications according to this newsletter, we should also add to the question on state-related entities that the adjectival reference for the state and its' organs according to Greek MFA should be "of the Republic of North Macedonia" or "of North Macedonia", because users might have been voting thinking that "North Macedonian" can be used interchangeably:
Με σαφήνεια το υπουργείο Εξωτερικών στην εγκύκλιο του ενημερώνει για τη χρήση των επιθετικών προσδιορισμών ως προς το κράτος, τα επίσημα όργανά του και τις άλλες δημόσιες οντότητες: «Κυβέρνηση της Δημοκρατίας της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας» ή το σύντομο όνομα «Κυβέρνηση της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας». Το ίδιο ισχύει και για τους υπουργούς της γειτονικής χώρας: «Υπουργός Εξωτερικών της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας».
English translation:
The newsletter of the MFA clearly informs about the use of adjectival references regarding the state, its official organs and other public entities: "Government of the Republic of North Macedonia", or the short name "Government of North Macedonia". The same applies for the ministers of the neighboring country: "Foreign Minister of North Macedonia".
"Let's be consistent if we want to apply changes. --Argean (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Argean.
FlavrSavr I don't understand why you reverted the addition of a much needed clarification on the grounds that international organizations may use it or not. this RfC isn't about international organization's usage of the official term or divided/shortened forms... If RfCs ever cared about positions of international organizations on citizenship/nationality terms, then Wikipedia shoud have called the Macedonians as "Citizens of Former Yugoslave Republic of Macedonia", not as "Macedonians" and/or "Citizens of Macedonia". Just your argument has no logic, because Wikipedia's rationale wasn't based on that of international organizations before, nor will do so in the future. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually SilentResident I suggest that if added it should be added in a way that matches exactly the reference. I don't agree either with your clarification in the way it was formulated. --Argean (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually your proposal to have it exactly as in the reference is even better idea than my version. You don't have to agree with my edition, since yours is a better proposal. Still I don't understand what Flavr means about international organizations. Isn't a RfC's role to let the Wikipedians be informed about the technical nature of the term, regardless of what third-party organizations do think about it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: But you are still missing the point that the clarification has to do only about official documents and as I've said many times before, official documents are far beyond the definition of nationality that we are looking for in wikipedia (I will remind WP:UKNATIONALS once more). I don't get FlavrSavr's mention of international organizations either, because this is also beyond our scope. --Argean (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, I already forgot how I voted. I just know that no one agreed with me. In all seriousness (and relevancy), though, this just mucks things up a bit. I may disagree with FlavrSavr's exact reasoning for reverting your change SilentResident to the RfC, but I do agree with the outcome. We probably should seek consensus here before making these types of changes to the RfC. Also, I support the inclusion of Argean's proposal on the condition that FlavrSavr agrees to it. Otherwise, no change probably. Idk. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 00:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, I am saddened that you are saying I am missing the point. Sure official documents do not dictate what Wikipedia shall use. Isnt that OBVIOUS? I mean, if the opposite was the case, the RfC would have been rendered invalid and as violating Wikipedia's rules. Of course this is NOT the case here, so I don't understand why are you arguing about WP:UKNATIONALS to me. I find the idea to include the original reference, to be something useful so that people can be aware of the nature of the issue. If you think that I oppose this on the ground that official documents are the definition of nationality then I will have to ask you to re-read my previous statements, because I have never stated or implied such a thing. Letting the voters be aware about nationality in the RfC, did not (and shouldn't in the future) work inversely to WP:UKNATIONALS. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Input by more editors is welcomed. In meantime, a good idea is to inform in the "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC#Discussion (nationality)" section the people about the official newsletter so that, whatever they do vote, to not confuse something that isn't coming from the Prespa Agreement as actually coming from it. We worked so hard to get the RfC set-up the best possible way, it will be saddening to see people more confused than ever, which may detrimental to the RfC. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Do we know if the Macedonian side agreed to what this newsletter is saying? Basically, if it's not in the agreement, what's to stop VMRO-DPMNE, if they return to power, from pointing out that the agreement itself doesn't specify the indivisibility of the term? --Local hero talk 04:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident, MJL, and Argean: To clarify my revert a) I don't think that big changes to the questions should be made without asking the Talk page first; b) I don't think that the terms have "indivisible nature" outside of the travel document itself or outside Greece and c) the way it's formulated misleads the contributors that somehow official = what's in the travel document, but not in national and international organizations reports etc. For example, we might see a UN report mentioning 'Macedonian' citizens, an American goverment agency doing the same, etc. We are not legally bound by their usage, but we are to follow reliable sources. And yes, the questions are formulated in a way that asks how we should refer to the people, because the real implications in Wikipedia would be using certain term to describe the people, not what's in their travel documents. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for my long absence, but life got in the way. I want to start by saying that I find the term "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" a stupid compromise that both parties had to do. I will not go into details on why this compromise was reached, since the regulars on this Talk page know fully well the intricacies. What I want to point out though is that in the UN directive[2] the term for the Inhabitant is undivided, unlike the the terms for the Adjective. Small grammatical detail, but "devil is in the details". What this newsletter/circular tries to avoid, is a repeat of the interim accord, where the second party was not following in some cases. From the Greek perspective, they fear that people will see this term as divisible and start using only the "Macedonian" part. As I said before, nationality is a legal relationship and as such it is used on legal documents (identification/travel/judicial etc.). In my eyes, it has nothing to do with the demonym. I know that there is no consensus in the Wikipedia community about the meaning of 'nationality', and articles like this one (or WP:UKNATIONALS for this matter) bring the "problem" to the surface. In most cases nationality and demonym are the same and interchangeable. Is this such a case? In my eyes, no. I see the term "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" as a legal term, without a defined "short form". Legal terms shouldn't be paraphrased in an encyclopedia. This makes that specific term unusable except in infoboxes. For all other cases, we should really argue about what the demonym should be. Thank you for your time. --Despotak (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You got some very valid points here, Despotak. By reading again and again this discussion, I am becoming even more confident now, that this has to be made clear to the voters: when they are voting for "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian", they do not vote for the legal term's shorter form and it cannot be paraphrased. However there were Voters in the RfC who are having the false impression about the opposite, and this is what concerns me. So, guys, what shall we do??? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Despotak: It's nice to read a calm and well thought approach for a change in this RfC. You indeed have some very good points there, but I have a fundamental disagreement in my understanding of the word nationality. First things first, you pointed very well that the main source of the confusion seems to be the use of the word nationality itself. And one of the problems is the fact that very often nationality is used interchangeably with the word citizenship, especially in international law (as wikipedia entry for citizenship describes). So basically only this meaning of the word actually represents the legal relationship between an individual and a state, in a sense that the term nationality is being used in international official documents such as passports, so the individual can be identified by formal authorities, such as border control, as being a national of a specific country. But I don't think that this is the way that wikipedia uses the term, because it doesn't work as a legal service. I interpret the use being more like national identity and how this can be described in a unambiguous and accurate way, taking into account WP:RS and self-identification (per MOS:IDENTITY). That's why wikipedia in many cases does NOT use the official term for nationality as depicted in people's passports, and uses Burmese instead of Myanma, East Timorese instead of Timorense, Bosnian instead of Citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina,etc, and for Greeks does not use the word Hellenic (or rather Hellene) as written in Greek passports. So actually we are not even talking about the legal term here, because this is far outside our scope. We are talking about a term to describe the national identity of people as required by the needs of wikipedia MoS. This use is rather closer to the demonym, but the term demonym itself is also too vague and easily misinterpreted, so that's why we avoided it. Thanks for your time too. --Argean (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean:Good evening my friend. We can talk for days and days about the meaning of "nationality", "citizenship", "ethnicity", ιθαγένεια, υπηκοότητα, εθνικότητα, εθνότητα, националност, државјанство, and how those terms translate or not to one another. I firmly believe that anyone here is in agreement that the term "Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia" as is, cannot be used in any meaningful way. I believe that this whole discussion started with the idea that the argument some editors made, that «the term is divisible, thus the official term is "Macedonia" and Wikipedia must follow that», is not correct. The tittle of the section might read "Nationality of people", but I was very cautious when I rephrased the text (while we were still drafting this) and avoid the term nationality, or any other such term. The text reads "What should people from North Macedonia be called?". Not their nationality, nor their ethnicity. What we decide to call those people is not their "official" citizenship in any case. If I read the constitution and the official gazette correctly, From the date of entry into force of the Amendment XXXIII, citizenship will be Macedonian / citizen of the Republic of Northern Macedonia, which determines neither predetermines the ethnicity of citizens. Given that the constitution of North Macedonia is not rewritten but amended (like the US one), this is how it is going to be written down to the ages. Article 4 cannot and will not be rewritten, it will be amended. So both proposed term are "unofficial" and we can even call them "The great people of the eternal country" (no offence intended, this is an hyperbole). It holds the same water in part of unofficiality. Arguments should be made in favor of one or the other proposal according to their merits. Not because one is official and the other is not. As always, I'm open to correction if I have made a mistake. Lastly, self-identification plays no role here. I identify myself as a half Eteocretan half Sarakatsani but if someone writes an article about me, he'll most probably say that I am Greek. If my parent have gone to Italy before the got me, and I was born and raised in Italy, my demonym would have been Italian, my nationality Greek, and my ethnicity Eteocretan/Sarakatsani. Or homo universalis for short. Have a great weekend everyone. --Despotak (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Despotak:Good evening to you too! I'm so glad to read an opinion that I can easily coincide with its principles, although our minds might differ on the details. I raised my concerns on using the title "nationality" for this question very early, on the ground that we cannot really argue on a legal term, or how we could freely paraphrase it to make it for us easier to use. It never made sense to me to ask a question about official terms in the first place, because official terms are just what they are - we cannot have various views on them. It's very clear to me that the term (well the whole agreement actually) was crafted in a way that would be open in more than one interpretation so both sides can be satisfied and allow officials to give reassuring answers to their people - using a slash in the middle of a term is already an evasion. I have no idea if they agreed that the term should or is allowed or is advised to be used divisible or indivisible or whatever and I don't think that they will answer to that question for all the aforementioned reasons. The important issue for me is if there is a substantial reason to change the name used to describe the people. And the agreement has very carefully avoided to give arguments to either side. The real nature of the question on naming the people, in my eyes, will always be an eternal dispute on identities (national/ethnic/historic/or anything else), that may be competing each other or not. I'm afraid that this question will not be easily answered, but I acknowledge that Prespa has made a huge step to slowly eradicate historic misconceptions, and I believe that we should use that opportunity in a synergistic, not in a competitive way. Finally, I personally show huge respect to self-identification, regardless if we are talking about individuals or groups of people, and the terms used to refer to people should respect their identities and follow their values. So if for you being ethnically an Eteocretan/Sarakatsani is a value more important than how are you defined in terms of nationality or citizenship, then yes it should be written on an article about you next to your nationality/citizenship, which in that case is used as an external differentiating attribute. But all this is a discussion that is barely off-topic, so let's leave it there. Best, --Argean (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the World Factbook was updated. The nationality is: Macedonian(s). It appears to be divided. I agree that we shouldn't stick to legality for legality's sake but we should provide insight to documents, official or otherwise and a body of reliable sources. My concern is that editors are ignoring the actual use of the terms, as evidenced by the majority reliable sources and stick to speculations of future use or supposed 'ambiguity'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the link FlavrSavr. I will dare to argue that they only changed the title, since there is no other reference in North Macedonia in the document. Not even under the "Government->Country name" field. This can bee seen either as a half-arsed job or a very strong and specific statement. --Despotak (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The CIA has been called by many adjectives, but 'half-arsed' is not one of them. We'll see. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think foreign agencies would bother too much about updating existing content to be in line with Prespa Agreement. Looks like a chore for them and I can see why. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we ought not speculate on why or why not they may have done things and just look at sources as we're supposed to. --Local hero talk 14:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Can one of you try to explain to me the difference between државјанство and националност? Also, did article 4 of the constitution of North Macedonia change in any form? Thank you. --Despotak (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Option 1. Do nothing concerning the wording of section 2, Nationality of people.

Option 2. Add a short statement about the indivisibility of the official term in various use cases to the section.

Option 3. Prepare a longer (but still NEUTRAL) statement in a subheading of Section 2 titled "Indivisibility of official term."

with Notification For votes cast for Option 2 or 3, please indicate your support or disapproval of notifying all editors who previously participated in this section.

Please cast your votes below by selection on of these three options with or without notification. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 13:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @SilentResident, FlavrSavr, Despotak, and Argean: ―MJL -Talk-☖ 13:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 1. I don't want to appear not constructive but: as far as we know, the term is indivisible only according to the Greek MFA and it relates only to the travel documents and internal usage by Greek authorities. Adding this supposed "indivisibility" just further dims the issue of what is 'official', especially when what is to be decided in this section is how we refer to the people in question (literally: The people from North Macedonia should be called "North Macedonian(s)" is on the table). I'm surpised at this sudden surge of explaining the indivisibility of the term, but not mentioning, at all, that North Macedonian is completely unofficial. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 / Support Notification - A long statement can easily be a whole essay. Let's stick to the spirit of the agreement and the letter of official directives on the matter. I'll see if I can find the actual newsletter from the Greek ministry of foreign affairs, instead of the reports. @FlavrSavr:As is the term "Macedonian". They are both "wrong"/unofficial as far nationality, not ethnicity, is concerned. Our politicians play with the semantics, let us not do the same. If you ask me, best solution would have been to ask "What should the demonym for the people should be". But the river cannot turn back now. --Despotak (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I have yet to see any proof outside the Greek MFA that the term is indivisible. Let's say it is, then as FlavrSavr points out, we must also express that North Macedonian is equally unofficial. --Local hero talk 14:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The slashed term is won't be used in Wikipedia anyway, whether official or not, so what the Greek MFA thinks about its use in official documents is of very little concern to us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 / support notification, but I am fine with Option 3 as well. The current wording in the RfC's question on nationality has caused misconception and misinformation among the voters who assumed that it is about Officialty and Divisibility: one voted "per Prespa Agreement", and someone else voted because "nationality is either Macedonian(s) or a citizen of Republic of North Macedonia". The lack of clarification in the RfC's question is why these problems are emerging now. I don't know for you, guys, but I am not so happy with the idea that we, as the RfC's organizers, might be responsible for the ambiguous wording of the RfC's question which may have actually misled unaware editors towards the one option or the other. Normally, (at least, theoretically) a RfC is supposed to be clean and concise and let the voters know about what they are voting.
@Local hero: "I have yet to see any proof outside the Greek MFA" don't forget, the Greek MFA is a signatory party of the Prespa agreement. "as FlavrSavr points out, we must also express that North Macedonian is equally unofficial" so is "Macedonian". You didn't knew that both options are unofficial? I am starting to get really worried now. The problem of misinformation in this RfC is really much bigger than I thought. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Moved to #RefactoredHERE
(edit conflict) ―MJL -Talk-☖ 01:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1. As I explained many times before I find legal definitions irrelevant to the question and the scope of wikipedia. We don't need to add further confusion, because the Greek MFA circulated a newsletter, as it should, on the legal use of the term as an indivisible ensemble on official documents (which is also rather explained as acceptable, not mandatory use, by the way) --Argean (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Option 1 for the same reasons as FlavrSavr; AFAIK we have only one party claiming indivisisiblity after the fact, while the agreement itself seems to (deliberately?) not say whether the string is indivisible. (There are also other issues with conflating "citizen" and "national", as pointed out elsewhere on this page, even leaving aside issues surrounding the unofficialness of "North Macedonian".) -sche (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Yes, it may not describe the difference between the two interpretations of the 'official term' very well, but that is honestly not the issue asked by the question. The issue here is that the use of official terms like this can be cumbersome and difficult to use in an article's body text. So, for the sake of accurately describing the nationality of a citizen of 'North Macedonia', editors are given a simple binary choice to answer. Are we to settle on the use of "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian". That aspect of the question is well described, along with a comment excluding this applying for ethnicity. Everything else is up to individual's interpretation, as the only thing that matters in the voting is answering the binary choice between these two afore-mentioned options. Whether it is officially "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" or "Macedonian" and "Citizen of North Macedonia" does not hold as much relevancy as answering the binary question at hand. The interpretations of the official term have already been discussed at length in the comments now, and in the survey as well. It does not need to exist in the phasing of the question as well. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

information Note: As all pinged users have now responded, I will most likely close the survey section (or this whole thread... not sure yet) within 24 hours (give or take). Thank you all for your participation so far! ―MJL -Talk-☖ 05:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: In the section bellow, Macedonicus shed some light on the issue of nationality. The North Macedonia's foreign ministry, in the PRESPA AGREEMENT – MEDIA GUIDELINES, [3] it states that nationality is Nationality (citizenship) is Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, while in the Q & A on PRESPA AGREEMENT, [4] it states that nationality is Macedonian citizens and citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: For the record, I was the first to propose a detailed explanation before every section that would incorporate a) what the Prespa Agreement says b) how both governments interpret it (indivisible vs. divisible or whatever) c) how international organizations & media actually behave post-renaming (reliable sources). For some reason, rather than focusing on the format, people focused on the actual wording of the proposal. I still think that this a badly structured RfC with the users mostly focusing on crystal ball scenarios or supposed 'ambiguities'. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

FlavrSavr, I agree. I am very happy that the RfC problems are being acknowledged. (and I am ashamed for not realizing this problem sooner, otherwise we would have fixed them before the RfC opened). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
SilentResident The consensus seems to be that this is messy RfC. If there's support - I'm willing to propose the same format with actual wording agreed here, on the talk page. A lot of the oppose votes were actually weak opposes related to the actual wording, not the format. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident's Original Comment

*Option 2 / support notification, but I am fine with Option 3 as well. The current wording in the RfC's question on nationality has caused misconception and misinformation among the voters who assumed that it is about Officialty and Divisibility: one voted "per Prespa Agreement", and someone else voted because "nationality is either Macedonian(s) or a citizen of Republic of North Macedonia". The lack of clarification in the RfC's question is why these problems are emerging now. I don't know for you, guys, but I am not so happy with the idea that we, as the RfC's organizers, might be responsible for the ambiguous wording of the RfC's question which may have actually misled unaware editors towards the one option or the other. Normally, (at least, theoretically) a RfC is supposed to be clean and concise and let the voters know about what they are voting.

@Local hero: "I have yet to see any proof outside the Greek MFA" don't forget, the Greek MFA is a signatory party of the Prespa agreement. "as FlavrSavr points out, we must also express that North Macedonian is equally unofficial" so is "Macedonian". You didn't knew that both options are unofficial? I am starting to get really worried now. The problem of misinformation in this RfC is really much bigger than I thought. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
That's one signatory but has the other signatory agreed with this after-the-fact clarification? And I'm not sure what's confusing about my statement to you... if we do determine the term is indivisible for the stated official purposes, that doesn't solve any problem for us here. We're still left with an "official" term that doesn't work well in many instances of natural English and thus we still have to determine via this RfC which term(s) works best for WP purposes. --Local hero talk 18:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Local hero: "That's one signatory but has the other signatory agreed with this after-the-fact clarification?" Sorry, Local Hero, you are editor, if you believe the Greek Foreign Ministry to be dubious and that the WP:RS I provided above to be unreliable, then please take the mater to the RS Noticeboard, not cast doubts here and there about the Prespa Agreement's signature parties. The reliability and credibility of either the Greek or the North Macedonian foreign ministries were not doubted in the past and I trusted them before, and I intend to keep trusting them in the future. I have no reason for otherwise, especially since their RS haven't been disputed before, except by nationalists of the opposite sides. "if we do determine the term is indivisible for the stated official purposes, that doesn't solve any problem for us here." our role here is not to determine if the term is indivisible on behalf of other editors, but to inform them and let them make their own conclusions when casting their votes. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Local hero and SilentResident: I'm really sorry to intervene, but it might be helpful to point out that the Greek MFA says that is acceptable to use the term as an undivided ensemble on official documents. I don't read the word acceptable (αποδεκτό) as mandatory or obligatory (υποχρεωτικό). --Argean (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean: It only tells us that it is acceptable to use it in individible form. It doesn't tell us that it is also acceptable in divided form as well. Note how the Greek MFA avoids in its newsleter to mention the "Macedonian" and "Citizen of North Macedonia" as separate acceptable forms. The only information it provided to us is what it considers acceptable. In that case, it is the "---/---------" form, indivisible. Thats all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: So yes the MFA newsletter is a carefully formulated text using political phraseology to answer only the question that is happy to do so without creating controversies. So we know that the undivided use of the term is acceptable on official documents. It gives no clue of what is unacceptable, or what should be avoided or what is advised against. Practically this newsletter provides no useful information in my opinion. --Argean (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean:Exactly. It falls on WP:OR territory to assume that the newsletter may allow something else not explicitly mentioned in it as acceptable. Which means the only thing we know thus far, for certain, is that the acceptable term is the undividable term. Still, voters are not aware of this and still believe that the term is dividable. That's the problem. The RfC is worded badly, as others finally started acknowledging. Now the question is: what we do about this? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I'm sorry but you're wrong! You keep making the assumption that everything that is not mentioned in the newsletter is not acceptable, but this is not the case. Pay attention to the syntax! It says that it is acceptable to use it as an undivided ensemble meaning that it may also be acceptable to use it in other ways, not "the undivided use of the term is the acceptable one" meaning that other ways are not acceptable. You said it before, the devil is in the details and the Greek MFA provided a cleverly worded newsletter that avoids to answer most questions, but rather give only convenient information, so it doesn't rule out the divided use of the term but actually may very well imply it. Of course we do nothing, because it changes nothing. The only mistake in this question imho is the title "nationality" and the problem of the RfC is not the wording overall. It's the lack of background information, as FlavSavr proposed and everyone but me and couple others, rejected. --Argean (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean: "so it doesn't rule out the divided use of the term but actually may very well imply it Nope. Sorry. Thats just your conclusion, my friend. I do not want to jump into WP:OR territory as I am not a big fan of theories and personal assumptions that the papers imply this or that. I prefer to stay safe than sorry, and simply stick to what the Agreement and the documents explicitly mention on this matter than jumping to my own conclusions. Lets leave this discussion at it.
Of course we do nothing, because it changes nothing. The only mistake in this question imho is the title "nationality" and the problem of the RfC is not the wording overall. It's the lack of background information, as FlavSavr proposed and everyone but me and couple others, rejected. I will agree with this, however, but I do believe that the wording has to encompass the background information, if we want the RfC to be as informative and comprehesive as possible.
Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 14:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: You already jumped into WP:OR territory my friend when you suggested that the newsletter indicates that the term cannot be used divided. Assumptions are always assumptions, no matter if they fit our personal opinions. We should have allowed all background information to be available for every user, and not just arrange the wording to follow the conclusions drawn by the available information. The RfC suffers from bad structure that allows assumptions to be made. Have a good day too. --Argean (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean: You already jumped into WP:OR territory my friend when you suggested that the newsletter indicates that the term cannot be used divided. You intercept the newsletter as possibly allowing terms not explicitly mentioned in it. I intercept the newsletter as allowing the terms it explicitly mentions as allowed. You may call my position an WP:OR, but I am afraid it is not. Limiting usage only to terms explicitly listed in official documents, is the basic rule of international diplomacy and affairs. I am sorry, Argean, but terms not listed in official documents as being acceptable, shouldn't be perceived as being acceptable unless stated explicitly in the sources. I feel obliged to remind you that our role as editors, no matter our opinions, is to verify which form is the acceptable one, and the WP:RS already explicitly stated which one is the acceptable term: the individable one. Like it or not. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: I’m really disappointed to see that you still fail to see what constitutes assumption when you try to draw conclusions from a text. Please try to read your comments again and see if you can recognize it. If we name "undivided form"=A, and "divided form"=B, you made the logical leap that if A is acceptable then B may not be acceptable. When I made the logical leap that B may also be acceptable you immediately concluded that this is WP:OR. Please note that the text chooses to use the word acceptable (not obligatory, neither required), does not mention that A is the only acceptable form, neither mentions that B is unacceptable. I’m sorry to disappoint you but both conclusions are equally WP:OR, because none of them is explicitly mentioned in the text. Please keep in mind that our role as editors is not to interpret sources and draw conclusions according to personal criteria, but to try to be neutral when referring to WP:RS and avoid showing signs of double standards. Like it or not. --Argean (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Argean: you made the logical leap that if A is acceptable then B may not be acceptable nope, you misunderstood me. If you can't understand this: no term is acceptable except the one explicitly mentioned by the official documents as the acceptable ones. then I can't help you. Sorry. No matter how hard you argue, "Macedonian" isn't listed as acceptable in the documents, and I am NOT going to accept it unless you provide me sources which show it as being acceptable. For me the only acceptable term is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia". The rest are not WP:VERIFIED and not listed as acceptable. Also, don't forget: a document doesn't have to use obligatory, neither required to make the point of which term is the acceptable one. Sorry! Expect no more replies from me on this on this matter, as I feel this discussion is dragging and there is no progress coming from it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 19:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SilentResident: For me the only acceptable term is "Macedonian/Citizen of North Macedonia" I read that as a step backwards from already explicitly stated which one is the acceptable term and as an indirect recognition that the text is so vaguely stated, that makes it easy to fall into unwarranted assumptions. No matter how hard you argue, "Macedonian" isn't listed as acceptable in the documents I’m not even trying to argue that “Macedonian” is listed as an officially acceptable term. I already rejected that conclusion drawn on the above text as WP:OR, as much as I rejected your conclusion that the acceptable term is the undividable term. Still, voters are not aware of this and still believe that the term is dividable. I’m not going to follow this unjustified dichotomy, unless it is explicitly stated and indeed WP:VERIFIED what is allowed and what is rejected, and for what exact uses and purposes. To just make the point, is not good enough for an official guideline. Have a good evening. --Argean (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Argean. There is clearly a difference between what is "acceptable" and what is required. --Local hero talk 22:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Local hero:, incorrect. We don't know the "difference between what is "acceptable" and what is "required".. The newsletter only provides info of what is "acceptable". Doesn't provide any info about "Required" at all, so we cant know. Anything else that isn't mentioned as "acceptable", may very well be "unacceptable". We can't know for certain. Any claims of knowing the difference between what is "acceptable" and what is "required", falls into WP:OR territory. We only know that the acceptable term is the individable term. Only that. Nothing else. May very well the rest (dividable, etc) be unacceptable. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 00:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: I believe it was deliberately left unclear. Zaev and Tsipras, both left-leaning prime-ministers, were desperately working to come up with *some* kind of agreement to end the absurd name issue - time-pressed by the imminent defeat of Tsipras in the next EU and national elections by the nationalist Nea Demokratia. So they left us with this complicated, intricate agreement that ostensibly satisfies both sides. Zaev had to pay a huge political price - not only he was faced by a unpopular low-turnout referendum, but he also, in order to secure the 2/3 majority to change the constitution he had to pardon politicians from the previous regime who not only wire-tapped him but also almost got him literally killed in the 2017 storming of Macedonian Parliament. Tsipras saw his minor coalition partner depart and almost lost a no-confidence vote. Both had razor-thin majorities in their parliaments to make this huge step forward. The essence of the compromise, IMHO, was that the Macedonian side would agree on erga omnes usage of the new name, even for internal usage and to give up any historical aspirations to ancient Macedon; and that the Greek side would agree to lift the ban for NATO/EU integration and not to dispute that their northern neighbor also has a 'Macedonian' identity. --FlavrSavr (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Adjective section: improvements?

OPTION 2C
The discussion was 'closed for this option per unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

With two weeks left of this RfC, I think it's become evident that 'other adjectival usage' is a bit unclear. I think that the example given 'Macedonian/North Macedonian countryside' fails to grasp the scope of the changes discussed. It seems that it's almost an unanimous consensus that culture-related topics should remain "Macedonian", or as Kahastok put it "I take this section to mean the adjective for things of or pertaining to North Macedonia, as opposed to things of or pertaining to the Macedonian people or culture. However, this is not explicitly specified in the headline. A lot of folks who voted for Option B, actually have voted for Option C - Macedonian or North Macedonian, depending on context, the context being "North Macedonian if it is not related to culture etc". Then again, a lot of people who voted for Option C or A might switch to B. What should we do? (it goes without saying that if we decide to make modifications we would ping the contributors who voted). --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Option 1. Do not modify. It's fine as it is.

Option 2a. Modify. Clarify the head section to exclude culture.

Option 2b. Modify. Provide more examples: (North) Macedonian countryside, (North) Macedonian economy, (North) Macedonian football team

Option 2c. Modify. Clarify the head section to exclude culture and provide more examples.

Please cast your votes below by selection on of these options.

Pinging @SilentResident, MJL, Despotak, and Argean:

---

  • Option 2c: Comment: I am of two minds about this, since it is so late in the process now, with less than 14 days to go before the RfC ends. I am thus reluctant to change anything about this question as it is, despite its clear flaws as identified in the discussion on the main page. We can't really expect most people now to come back and change their votes. However, if we do move forward with altering the question with a clarification, we might as well do it properly and use the listed examples as well as stating that it does not apply to culture/ethnicity related articles & statements. I would hope that changing it is not necessary, and that the closer reads all the comments properly before closing it to really see what the consensus is. If we do alter it, then we need to leave the original question's text in place, with a strike-through to indicate it was the original question, perhaps dating the replacement/clarification as well. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I see your concerns, and I'm also having them, Wiz9999. This would place a great deal of responsibility to the Three Wise (Wo)Men, that are about to interpret the subtleties of the consensus itself in light of current Wikipedia policies. I have no previous experience in this particular type of RfCs, maybe someone more experienced could share previous experiences - @Future Perfect at Sunrise:? What should we expect, some in-depth analysis of the survey or largely counting votes? --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, I relent. Lets make the update, but I still say strike-through the original statement. - Wiz9999 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I left the original question intact, just added a small note. --FlavrSavr (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2c/Comment: Sorry, I just saw this. (@FlavrSavr: I'm afraid ping didn't work). As I said on the discussion page the addition was necessary but I think is not good enough and we should have provided more examples. And as a side note: I'm very disappointed by the fact that we are all realizing that there are major flaws on the RfC and yet we are failing to discuss seriously what we should do to improve it, apart from minor changes in the wording, which I'm afraid are also subject to everyone's POV. I have major concerns that the RfC will not solve most problems and the discussion will keep dragging for a long time after the RfC is closed. --Argean (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Argean: Well, you know my two cents on this, we should've come up with a better draft. :) However, a lot of the issues would have been present even with a perfect draft - the confusion stems from real, outside-of-Wikipedia dilemmas. Despite of the parallels (North/South Korea and others), this seems to be a unique case, and it's not like a routine thing to see a country change its name. The upside is that we will at least have some idea how reliable sources react to the name change. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr: Well you know the Wikipedia community much better than me, so I guess you knew what to expect. Yes, there was an unexplained rush to finish the drafting of the RfC very quickly and I admit that I was also carried away anticipating frivolously that every involved editor would have the same understanding of the situation and the unique character of this name change (I agree 100% on that). Alas, that's definitely not the case and indeed the real questions seem to be the identity issues that the editors outside the region completely ignore, while the editors from the region will always allow, subconsciously or not, to influence their opinion. I'm not surprised by how the RS react to the name change tbh: actually this is exactly what I expected, a slow but effective change in adopting new terms for the officially renamed entities, and a hesitant or no change for the ones that haven't actually changed name, especially in relation to the people. I just hope that the closers of the RfC will take everything into account before making their minds up. --Argean (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Argean:, yeah although I expected more interest, tbh, it's seems that contributors numbers have really decimated. On the RS: I actually expected more "North Macedonian" references - major news agencies seem to have taken note of the media guidelines provided by the MFA of North Macedonia and seem to avoid the adjectival use altogether. It is really hard to predict how things will unfold in the long run - I expect a spike of "North Macedonian" references the following months, as most of the news is actually about the name change itself. Depending on how major style guides (BBC, Telegraph, Reuters, The Economist) weigh in on the issue, we will either see "North Macedonian" or "Macedonian" becoming the norm. However, I've noticed this tendency to shorten the names into "N. Macedonian" and, curiously "NMacedonian". There's really no telling. Nothing is "natural" about this issue. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr: The interest has strangely diminished in the actual population - I'm not sure if that means that people have so much familiarized with the status quo that basically don't care about the effects of Prespa. On RS, I think that the evasive nature of term selection in Prespa itself has created some confusion in many media, and that was very obvious during the first 2 weeks and before the official guidelines of the MFA of North Macedonia were published. Btw, these are the only actual guidelines published so far by any involved party, since the Greek MFA has been carefully avoiding to issue official statements, although circulating guidelines for internal usage and non papers to media, and the UN has unsurprisingly adopted a neutral position just repeating Prespa. I'm also curious to see what will be the choice of major style guides and how this will affect media references in the long term. For now it's clear that the switch to "North Macedonian" is only limited to specific uses and is not yet overwhelming, but I will not be surprised if it becomes in the future, while references to people don't seem to have changed and I'm not sure if they ever will - 30 years later we still call people from Myanmar, Burmese, don't we? Anyway as many of us have repeated many times before, we are not here to predict, but to record the reality and that should be reflected on the result of the RfC, although the discussion will always be complicated by all other issues that I briefly mentioned previously and Prespa has so carefully trying to avoid. And of course if changes happen in the future, I hope that wikipedia will still be around to incorporate them. --Argean (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acceptance of the new name in the country

On Feb 21st 2019 the annual popularity contest happened in Skopje, R. Macedonia [Ladybug of Popularity]. This is the largest popularity contest in the country, a major cultural event, a local version of the Oscars. The name of the country was mentioned by most participants and they all used "Macedonia" as the name of the country. The new name was used only once in a joke: "When we now want to say: it will be windy in the northern part of the country, will we say: it will be windy in north North Macedonia?" Many bitter and satirical comments were made regarding the name change. Many satirical arrows were directed toward the signatories of the Agreement. GStojanov (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The President of Republic of Macedonia Gjorge Ivanov refused to sign 11 laws because they use the new name. GStojanov (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The presidential election in Macedonia is scheduled for April 21st. The name change will be an issue, if not the issue in the election. The current contenders are: Gordana Siljanovska Davkova (to re-evaluate the legality of the name change), Stevo Pendarovski (accepts the new name as a necessary evil) and Blerim Reka (moto:Macedonia will either be a state of laws, or an empty state: a word pun in Macedonian: ќе биде или правна, или празна). GStojanov (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The people I talked to in North Macedonia just before the change were not impressed. However like ROK/South Korea they will adjust. In South Korea people just say Korea not South Korea or ROK. North and South Carolina and the two Dakotas seem to manage. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Coming from North Macedonia and reliving the traumatic past few years with the country almost sliding towards authocracy/civil war and culminating in a reluctant referendum... I still don't think that the sentiment in North Macedonia should play a big role in deciding what the English-language Wikipedia should use. I also don't think that North/South Korea parallel is adequate. I don't recall any of the Koreas denying the other its Korean nationality/ethnicity. I also don't think there will be a South Macedonian nationality, South Macedonian Army or a South Macedonian Prime Minister anytime soon. What matters more are the reliable sources and how they refer to the people, the state and other entities. So far, side advocating for change to "North Macedonian" (even forbidding the use of "Macedonian" for non-state entities) has done a poor job in proving that indeed this new terminology has become WP:COMMONNAME. It surely isn't WP:OFFICIALNAMES. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Macedonian Wikipedia - guidance for the use of the new name

Macedonian Wikipedia published a guide for the use of the new official name. The gist of it is: The official name will be used only where absolutely necessary. The adjective remains Macedonian for all purposes. The names of the state institutions that changed will be cited in the info boxes, but in the text they will be referred to as prior to the change. This reflects the actual acceptance and use in the society. GStojanov (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for informing all here of this instruction, but policies made in another language (even that of the subject matter) will not have authority over policies made on EN.Wikipedia. What is logical use in one language is not necessarily logical use in another. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Influx of Macedonian editors with little to no involvement on the English Wikipedia

In recent days there has been an influx of Macedonian editors with basically no involvement on the English Wikipedia (or an average of a few edits a year, all on a handful of Macedonian nationalism-related pages), all voting (unsurprinsingly) to keep using the terms Macedonian for everything (without any discussion) and forcing the Macedonian POV through these votes. I'd like to protest this, and it is a direct result of an active call that was placed on the Macedonian Wikipedia's notice board to get Macedonian editors on the English Wikipedia in order to the vote "for the name of our country". This really puts a stain on the validity and neutrality of the RfC. How will those votes be dealt with to ensure the RfC remains neutral? --Michail (blah) 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you link to where this 'active call' was placed in the Macedonian Wikipedia? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It was placed on the notice board when the RfC was being finalised (the link now redirects to the current RfC), and even though some people have removed their messages since I brought it up as a neutrality and POV-pushing concern previously, the call for Macedonian editors is still there. Macedonian editors should be able to do whatever they want on the Macedonian Wikipedia, and indeed they have kept the country on "Macedonia", but not on the English Wikipedia. We opened this RfC in good faith, and this flies on the face of it. It's one thing to ask people on the English Wikipedia to come vote if they are interested, but this is really pushing it. --Michail (blah) 14:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Many of these users have been (appropriately) labeled with the single use accounts tag. While some, such as User:Виолетова, have had slightly more edits on other macedonian related articles here than just on edits to this RfC, meaning that they narrowly do not qualify for the tag. I would hope that when the RfC gets closed in 5 days these single use account tags are taken into account by the closer when tallying up the final votes. If there is a situation where the vote is very narrowly one way or the other because of these single use accounts, particularly for the "Nationality" and "Adjective" aspects, which seem to be the closest of all the sections, then these votes would be considered with this huge asterisk attached. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Having in mind how sensitive this issue is, I think Macedonian editors have demonstrated restraint. One does not have to be an anthropologist to realize that imposing a name is an injurious act. Smaller nations are especially vulnerable and sensitive. GStojanov (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
GStojanov Shall we then also post an open call for Greek editors on the Greek Wikipedia, in a country with a population 5 times larger than North Macedonia? Then let's see how quick the vote is filled with Greeks voting "North" on everything. The purpose of this RfC is not to impose a Macedonian POV on the English Wikipedia, it is intended for people who contribute to it the English Wikipedia regularly. Given that your account was created specifically so you could post on this RfC, I would suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. Arguing in favour of flooding the vote with Macedonians (or Greeks or anything else) who are not regular contributors to the English Wikipedia should be ground for disqualification from the RfC or some other equivalent countermeasure. --Michail (blah) 23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
What did the people who put up this RFC expect. This should have been handled quietly by interested editors (which was what was happening just fine preRFC) instead of a massive complex vote that encourages canvessed participation. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to stress that I think this is not a way to solve disputes and I discourage it. I somewhat agree with Legacypac... in the context that this RfC was conceived in somewhat of a haste in an impulse to "decide" or "make a judgement call". I think that most editors cast their "votes" (actually it should be a survey, not an ultimate decision) before any reliable sources appeared on the topic and in total disregard important Wikipedia policies, such as WP:CRYSTAL. I sure hope that the panel of three uninvolved administrators will acknowledge this. At best, at this moment we're looking at no consensus, low consensus or local consensus at best on most issues. --FlavrSavr (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of ending this RfC I would like to stress that the good people of ARBCOM decided that the RfC should last at least one month. So March 17 is the minimum, but we have put that the RfC ends exactly then. Why is that? I actually think it's better to close those sections that have strong consensus and postpone/ restart the RfC / draft a better RfC for those with local/weak/no consensus. --FlavrSavr (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(actually it should be a survey, not an ultimate decision) Actually that is exactly what it is. It's a WP:RfC, the votes should just be considered a survey, not a definitive result. What ultimately matters to the RfC is the discussed points, and the closer should consider the merit of such arguments in addition to the weighting of the overall viewpoint in the form of votes. We all discuss the votes, because they are easy to tally, but the truth is they are simply one aspect to RfCs. However, I will point out that as per WP:RfC it would generally be expected to close an RfC after 30 days. Of course this could continue longer, but I do not think anyone here wants to see this drag on endlessly. Most competent users interested in this dispute have already expressed their view. There is no reason why another RfC could not be raised afterwards if need be. Say, if the closing conclusion left some area open for doubt or interpretation. Such a secondary RfC should not really be a complete duplication of the current one though, as that would generally be seen just as a reason to waste everyone's time. - Wiz9999 (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that FlavrSavr has a valid point there. My opinion is that per WP:ARBMAC2 we should exhaust all possibilities to reach the highest possible level of consensus. It's pretty clear to me that there has not been a satisfactory effort to do so, especially in some of the sections, where the majority of the involved editors have clearly ignored the instructions set by June 2018 Amendment that obviously rules the current RfC. Additionally the fact that many of the involved editors have recognized the fact that there are major flaws in the wording AND the structure of the various sections of this RfC, but no efforts to make necessary corrections have been eventually undertaken, may eventually lead to the possibility of directly challenging the results of the RfC if the closure happens hastily and prematurely. No one obviously wants the issue to drag on forever, but it seems to me that closing some questions now might actually create more problems instead of solving the current ones. Is it possible to request a neutral and well informed opinion on whether some of the questions should remain open, or even have them postponed/rephrased and included in a new RfC? --Argean (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
If some sort of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS emerges in this RfC by simple tallying of votes on some sections, I don't think it should be binding, unless somehow the entire Wikipedia community is convinced that WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:CRYSTAL and other relevant policies do not apply for Macedonia articles. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Simply tallying the votes is obviously not enough and actually is contrary to the logic of the June 2018 Amendment, which allows this RfC to happen in the first place. I can see that many editors have used arguments citing completely irrelevant policies (i.e. WP:Commonsense) and based on the amendment itself the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. Failing to do so, means that we either carelessly ignore previous ARBCOM rulings, or we completely eliminate the need to have WP:MOSMAC. I trust that every involved editor, no matter their opinion, still acknowledges that Prespa does NOT eliminate all sides of the name dispute, especially considering the fact that the agreement is quite unpopular in both countries. To give an example, does anyone expect that the majority of Greeks will suddenly accept the use of the word "Macedonia(n)" in any form by their neighbours, when 60% of the individuals in a recent survey claimed that they will still call the country "Skopia"? --Argean (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
In addition, I'd like to to think that most of the editors are aware that the Prespa agreement was a huge step forward in resolving a 27-year old dispute that had serious political implications for both countries - especially for North Macedonia. This earned Tsipras and Zaev a Nobel Peace prize nomination. While it is true that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, it seems to me that treating this issue in a haste, without respect and the seriousness it deserves, ignoring the agreement as some piece of legalese and reliable sources as mere decorum, we're making Wikipedia a place to wrong great rights. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Prespa is a huge step forward in the overall dispute outside of wikipedia, and I agree that Prespa also does not mean that the elimination of WP:MOSMAC in its entirety is viable (I have indeed seen editors argue for this previously). WP:MOSMAC has an impactful purpose here on EN.Wikipdeia in that it addresses nomenclature grey areas not dealt with directly by legal agreements such as Prespa. However, I do not think that this RfC was done in such great haste as to invalidate it, or without considering the seriousness of the subject matter and subsequent conclusions reached. Yes, we moved quickly on this action, but this was done intentionally, as a large number of disputes could have potentially arisen across en.wikipedia while these peripheral terms/uses were no longer appropriately addressed by the policy, but thankfully these fears did not manifest into anything great. Does the RfC have flaws? Yes it does. Are the flaws so significant as to render the whole discussion invalid. No they are not. This has not been a wrong great rights debate (even if some small minority of editors have taken that stance). It has been a healthy and genuine debate over the new nomenclature issues created post-prespa. It would be wise not to throw the proverbial 'baby out with the bathwater' with this RfC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the discussion has been very productive and has managed to showcase a wide range of arguments, although some of them are completely irrelevant or outside the scope of this RfC, or wikipedia in general. I absolutely agree that Prespa is a huge step forward and should be treated as such, and for me the most important achievement is the mutual recognition and respect of the different identities of the two people. At the same time we should not disregard the fact that the roots of the dispute are much older and deeper than the 27-year old dispute on the country's name, and Prespa is unfortunately not able to solve these issues. Although I don't dispute by any means the validity of the discussion, I have 2 major concerns: the first is about the process itself, because I'm not sure if all involved editors are aware of the provisions that rule this RfC and which are explicitly dictated by previous ARBCOM decisions, and none of these is simply counting the votes - we are talking about influx of editors, while we should be discussing about consensus building. The second is about specific sections that have been recognized as flawed and I'm wondering if this could cause post-RfC controversies. What I'm suggesting is to simply gauge if we have taken all efforts to fulfill the goals of this RfC and if we -or any neutral uninvolved editor, such as the ones that will constitute the closing panel- think that we haven't been successful enough, I don't see anything wrong in keeping some sections open or trying to improve them and postpone the closure date. --Argean (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As the RfC seems to be reaching its end with various consensus levels, I was wondering, wouldn't it be useful to keep the media link repository section open for editing somewhere (not sure where tbh)? Without the 'name of the country' which serves no purpose... This section is, to my knowledge, the only collaborative research attempt to gauge how common each of the respective terms is used in reliable sources. --FlavrSavr (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This section is useless anyway. It's just a collection of links done by editors who just want to proove their POV. It's not a research at all. It's also highly biased and unreliable. Just checked one random link [5] from Media reports that use the term "Macedonian", for Polygraph.info therm "society" and guess what - nor "society" nor "Macedonian" are mentioned in that article. A week ago I checked few links and half of them were with false claims or it was unclear if they speak about Macedonians as ethinc group or as citizens of North Macedonia. We don't even know if the authors of the articles used the terms deliberately, or just because by inertia or ignorance. I doubt that they will have a significant influence on the decision. I do not see what kind of work they would do after the decision as they are just biased collection of links. --StanProg (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The section is open for anyone to edit, and people are encouraged to revisit links because they're updated - so please correct if necessary. I'll remove that particular link - however it did say "Macedonian society" and it was updated in the meanwhile. The same happens with "North Macedonian" references that are changed into "Macedonian" or "North Macedonia's". Could you specify which links were "with false claims or it was unclear if they speak about Macedonians as ethinc group or as citizens of North Macedonia". Bear in mind, however, that the question about nationality itself would implicate that all of the people of North Macedonia should be called "North Macedonian", and we are expecting the average Wikipedia reader to know that for example "Goran Pandev is a North Macedonian footballer" impicates nationality, not ethnicity. I've left out those links that are clearly ethnic based, however, I've left out those that are "unclear" as this is the way most of the reliable sources will refer to the people. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"We don't even know if the authors of the articles used the terms deliberately, or just because by inertia or ignorance" - this is also inherent to determining WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps they haven't heard the name is changed from Macedonia to North Macedonia. Perhaps they have heard that the state name changed to North Macedonia, but the nationality did not change to North Macedonian. We don't know, and it is not our job to determine if they are wrong or ignorant - it's only to report, with due weight how they actually use the terms. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia doesn't exclude POVs, it considers them as an inherent part of human nature and it rather makes an infrastructure where conflicting POVs can be fairly represented, and this is precisely the point of the section. The entire renaming thing is fresh and new so we need every possible reliable source there is - you forgot to mention that there are UN, World Factbook and other references with significant weight. Perhaps soon we'll have updated manuals of style by BBC, Telegraph, etc. It is better than making a decision based on NO reliable sources whatsoever. --FlavrSavr (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It's useless for me to collect links, just to prove my POV. Try searching for "North Macedonian" in google and you'll find thousands of links: (first page): "North Macedonian territory", "North Macedonian basketball", "North Macedonian news", "North Macedonian President", "North Macedonian strategy", "North Macedonian trade", "North Macedonian joint intergovernmental commission"). How adding thousands of such links will help solving the issue? It will not. It will be just POV pushing. That's why I did not contributed to this section. It makes no sense. --StanProg (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Try searching for "Macedonian" in google and you'll find millions of links. It is up to the side pushing for change to "North Macedonian" to prove that "North Macedonian" has become indeed more WP:COMMONNAME than "Macedonian" when describing people, state entities, and other entities. See the policy here: Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles. It should be fairly easy to find "North Macedonian" is becoming omnipresent and dominant in reliable sources. Somehow, it isn't. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I strongly support the idea of keeping the media link repository open, even after the RfC has been closed, regardless when this happens and what the outcome will be, but I'm not sure either where the right place is (maybe a link at the end of the updated MOSMAC?). I've been re-reading the WP:ARBMAC2 and it's pretty clear to me that WP:RS are very important to guarantee the NPOV, and determine the recognizable names. Even the current RfC, which is carried according to the June 2018 Amendment should by definition disregard any opinion... which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline. Any arguments to ignore WP:RS on arbitrary criteria, seem to me completely superficial and potentially a deliberate effort to manipulate the whole process. On the contrary I think that the repository should be better organized, as it has been suggested many times before, in order to prioritize sources that have increased weight, which apart from international organizations and reference books and websites, include also the major news agencies. Significant manuals of style (like the ones by BBC, The Guardian, etc) should also be included, when they become available, while minor sources, that are currently represented in large numbers, should be eventually removed, when the contribution of more important sources becomes more significant. We should not forget that discussions such as the current one on updating MOSMAC should eventually respect withstanding wikipedia guidelines and policies, not create new ones. --Argean (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I do see advantages of keeping up the RS list as a part of a larger project involving WP:MOSMAC, but I see this as being out of scope with this RfC, after its closure. Perhaps a separate subpage could be allocated for it post-closure. Say Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Sources, which could have a better, more defined, structure for the listed sources than the limitations and restrictions necessitated by this RfC. This structure could be address more individual aspects to the nomenclature than some of the broad generalizations made by the RfC (e.g. nationality referring to citizenship & nationality, state owned enterprises relating to both direct government institutions & government affiliated organisations, and the different types of adjective subject). - Wiz9999 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Argean I'm well aware of the limitations of the current repository. It seems that at some point I've become the only contributor to it - and it has been difficult to keep it updated and to improve the structure at the same time. I've one-sidedly reduced the number of news agency reproductions to 10 items (seeing that is crazy to include thousands of local media), I believe that in time we will be able to accurately tell which news agencies prefer which term. These trends are already visible: Xinhua prefers "North Macedonian", AFP prefers "Macedonian", AP (after the MFA guidelines) avoids adjectival use altogether. I think it's just a matter of time when there's no need to include reproductions at all - we will make a separate News Agencies section. Minor sources will persist for some time but yeah, eventually we'll get rid of them altogether. Wiz9999 I support your proposal and I think the structure of the media section will naturally become more granular over time. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right, it's very hard for just one person to follow all media sources. That's why I think it will be easier for more people to contribute, if we change slightly the format, maybe eliminate already the "Country name" section and the names of the media that publish reproductions of major news agencies reports - I think you've already suggested both. Obviously we need to re-organize the repository and I'll try to find some time to help with that, regardless of the closure of the RfC. I also support Wiz9999's proposal to create a sub-page and link it with the whole WP:MOSMAC project space - it's clearly a joint effort, not a personal one, and it's evidently substantial for determining the use of terms as required by ARBCOM decisions. --Argean (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Another idea is to also separate big green (and maybe) yellow perennial sources in a subsection from the largely minor or local sources. --FlavrSavr (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with this in principle but I already have given up on updating it due to time constraints, and there needs to be some sort of mechanism to ensure that it's both 'sides' that are being updated and not just one side because one editor or another simply does not have the time to do so. I don't see how this can be done though, how will we police this? --Michail (blah) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You are free to continue it in your userspace, but I don't think that this should continue past the RfC in project space as others have suggested.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Anthropological significance of renaming

Renaming is a symbolic act of a death to the old name and identity, and re-birth with a new name and identity (think water baptism by immersion). If the subject accepts it, it can be the most joyful and liberating event. If not, it can be akin to a symbolic death, where the subject is deprived of its name and identity, and he/she is unwilling to make the transition (re-birth) to a new identity. It can be the most aggressive act of denial of identity akin to a symbolic murder.

Here at Wikipedia we need to keep NPV. We need to reflect in a most conservative way that the official name of the country changed, but we can't establish (impose) new common names or adjectives. They simply don't exist yet. Macedonian society is still in shock and in denial, unable to process all of this. GStojanov (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Your idea of a neutral point of view seems to be that what Macedonians feel should be respected, and what Greeks feel should not. This is a very problematic approach and I hope the administrators will take your views, and other such views, into account when this is closed. I did not see many Macedonians protesting that Wikipedia was arbitrarily imposing names when it decided to refer to the country as "Macedonia" instead of "fYROM". A little bit hypocritical, don't you think? Not to mention that Wikipedia is not a signatory to the Prespa Agreement and can do whatever it wants. --Michail (blah) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but calling someone hypocrite and indirectly attacking them for defending their right to self-identification is equally problematic and definitely not neutral. It's very different to campaign for the correct use of terms, from deciding what these terms should be. The Greeks have been justifiably complaining for the misuse of historic ideas and concepts by the other side and finally we have an agreement where both sides acknowledge and respect the different identities of the two people. But the truth is that beyond this, the majority of Greeks will never accept the use of the word "Macedonia(n)" in any form by the other side. That lead to the interim agreement and the "FYR Macedonia", which was always supposed to be a temporary solution. Still almost all Greeks used and the majority will still use the name "Skopia" when referring to the country and "Skopianoi" when referring to the people. These terms were rejected by the international community and are still considered offensive in North Macedonia. The term "North Macedonians" has not been able to enter common use, at least yet, and Wikipedia is here to record the international common practice and not predict the future. And if all this feels to people from North Macedonia as imposing terms they have every right to feel so, as much the Greeks felt offended when the government of "Skopia" tried to misapropriate the history of Ancient Macedonia. Did anyone request from the Greeks to stop using the term "Macedonians" themselves, or start using the "South Macedonians" to avoid ambiguity? --Argean (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Argean Is this a reply to me? No one is arguing what Macedonians can call themselves, but Wikipedia is not here to impose what Macedonians call themselves on the basis of self-identification. Wikipedia works by the consensus of its editors, not by the feelings of group X or group Y. Wikipedia rightly did not consider that Greeks find the term "Macedonian" to be offensive as grounds not to use it, so I fail to see why Wikipedia should use the fact that Macedonians find the term "North Macedonian" to be offensive as grounds not to use this term. The hypocrisy lies in defending one group's right to self-identify, and impose the use of the terms that group uses for self-identification on an exclusive basis, and deny another group the same right. "Macedonians find the term offensive!" is not a valid argument in my view. --Michail (blah) 18:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Philly boy92, I missed the reply tag in my previous comment and yes this was a reply to you. I don't like to repeat myself, but I think I didn't make my point clear. The Greeks have been complaining (rightfully or not) about the correct use of terms and I don't think that Wikipedia has disrespected that. What prevailed in the previous decisions was a consensus to give more weight to reliable sources in order to define what are the most recognizable names, but I don't think that there has been any misapropriate use of these terms by Wikipedia in regards to their historical/cultural meaning. In the present case I believe that we should stick to the same principles, but the difference now is that we are not deciding on the use of terms, but on the actual terms. And of course this will not be determined by the feelings of the two peoples, but by assessing what is the use of terms by the reliable sources. If there is no clear picture based on RS, Wikipedia sets priority to self-identification, per MOS:IDENTITY, so regardless if we like it or not, this might eventually play some role in the final decision. Sorry, but I don't see how having a word on how people want to be called is somehow hypocritical. And finally I don't think that anyone has denied to the Greeks, including Macedonians (Greeks) the right to decide how they want to call themselves, but rightfully has rejected the terms that they use to call others if these terms are not adopted by reliable sources and/or are considered offensive by the people being called by these terms. --Argean (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It’s hypocritical to use an appeal to emotion on the basis of self-determination as opposed to actual wikipedia policy. Editors can hold whatever view they want, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Using MOS:IDENTITY if WP:RS are inconclusive is a different case to imposing “Macedonian” purely on the grounds that this is what Macedonians want, which is the core of GStajanov’s comments. By and large comments like that on the RfC do not justify such views with Wikipedia policy, but with repeated appeals to emotion. Michail (blah) 00:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: Well, I can't speak for GStojanov but I didn't recognize any appeal to emotion on the comment above and your response seemed to me as unnecessary overreacting. I just read a call to keep a neutral and conservative stance on the issue, which understandably is emotionally a complicated issue for Macedonians (and Greeks of course). I also don't see any efforts to impose terms based on the feelings of people and still fail to recognise where the hypocrisy is... (maybe I'm too emotionless myself and fail to notice any emotional connotations...) --Argean (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
His comment immediately above this one calls for the adoption of the policy of the Macedonian Wikipedia on here, so if for you this is an appeal for neutrality then obviously we have different views on what it means to be neutral :) reading between the lines and understanding context are sometimes important too. Michail (blah) 01:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It is also beyond me that you don’t think expressions such as “symbolic murder” are a clear appeal to emotion. Michail (blah) 01:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that was a reference to a non neutral source and I completely disregarded it and I don't think that anyone will take it into account seriously. But still this was not an emotional comment, and you decided to respond to the one that had possible emotional connotations - according to you, I still don't see them :) - and not to the one that references a non neutral source. It's good to read between the lines, but it's even better to respond directly to the problematic bits, and not by implying their interpretation, because this creates an unnecessary string of hidden messages that almost no one can follow. --Argean (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh come on, "symbolic murder" was used as a form of poetic analogy - is not really a plead to emotion, is it? --Argean (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
What you just described is literally the basis of an appeal to emotion type argument. —Michail (blah) 02:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess we like different types of poetry then :) Seriously now, it's much better for a public discussion to keep things straightforward and some responses imho actually don't even have place in talk pages. --Argean (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Common names are conservative in nature. They don't change on a dime. It is a process and it is too early for us to know the outcome. I think we should keep a NPV, and refrain from establishing new common names this early in the process. I propose we wait for one more month, and then we add to our criteria the number of searches on Google and Wikipedia to help us determine if a name became common or not. GStojanov (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Tell THAT to all the people that voted to change the name of Swaziland to Eswatini a couple of months ago... You will not win that fight, believe me, I tried. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The comparison is not very accurate Wiz9999. Eswatini was a case of WP:OFFICIALNAME that underwent WP:NAMECHANGE. Similarly Republic of Macedonia already moved to North Macedonia by a simple RM. This is much different, it's about the name of the people and we don't have an article about Macedonians (nationals) to decide a plain renaming or not. We are deciding on changing the nomenclature that affects articles of people's biographies, so de facto there are many more policies that need to be considered. And if the WP:OFFICIALNAME (Macedonian/citizen of North Macedonia) is not applicable, WP:COMMONNAME cannot be (possibly) determined and there is not consensus, what can we do? Waiting is indeed a valid option. --Argean (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Well I suggested creating an article for People of North Macedonia instead of simply linking 'Macedonians' to 'Ethnic Macedonians', but no one few people seemed to like the idea. Linking 'Macedonians' (regardless of if they are ethnic Macedonians, Albanians, or whatever else) to an article solely about Ethnic Macedonians is like linking the word 'British' to the article about the English people. A lot of people have made that case in the RfC. I only changed my vote because no one few people seemed to to back this idea, and the descriptive name 'North Macedonian(s)' is more appropriate than simply labelling Albanians of North Macedonia as Ethnic Macedonians imho. --Michail (blah) 12:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92: I want to remind you that I did support your proposal! Maybe I was the only one, I don't remember. It's a valid argument, since there are quite a few similarities to the WP:UKNATIONALS case, in my opinion. --Argean (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's true. Corrected! --Michail (blah) 12:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It's disappointing to see though that you have withdrawn your proposal, because it was the best alternative to overcome the binary dilemma that we are facing right now. We need more ways out of this deadlock, not people succumbing to taking sides in this highly polarised dispute. --Argean (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Philly boy92:I actually think it's a good idea, and very Wikipedian too. However, at the time of the proposal (early February) there wasn't much of controversy or reliable sources that dealt specifically with the subject of nationality, apart from New Europe - that would actually be a basis for an article of its own + link it everywhere on Wikipedia. It appeared to be, back then, that if such an article exist it would be largely WP:OR. 0In the meanwhile, I've read that someone in Ekathimerini proposed "North Macedonian" as part of the new Greek policy on Macedonian identity in North Macedonia. There's still not a lot RS info about the issue, however the media section that were discussing below will allow us to make generalized statements such as "most news agencies refer to the people as X". POV statements of government officials would also be useful such as "the government of NM considers that its citizen should be referred to as Macedonians, not North Macedonians", "the government of Greece considers Macedonians/citizens of NM to be an indivisible ensemble". Perhaps this should start as a section of Macedonia naming dispute 'Post-Prespa developements' and develop in an article of its own as more RS cover the issue. BTW, on the issue of Albanians being labeled 'Macedonians' is somewhat of an injustice - I think 'North Macedonians' is something that they will be even less comfortable. --FlavrSavr (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr and Philly boy92: I decided to bring back the proposal of creating an article on People of North Macedonia myself and link it to my vote in the Nationality section. I don't care about the popularity of the proposal, I just want all alternatives on the table. --Argean (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@FlavrSavr: About the position of the Greek MFA on the issue of nationality: I'm not aware of any sources claiming that the official Greek policy is considering to use the term "North Macedonian" when referring to people, so if you have any links please provide them. I'm aware of two instances that the Greek MFA has published their (official or unofficial) position. The first was the newsletter/circular that was distributed to public Greek organizations/services on the correct use of terms (the original newsletter cannot been found on the MFA's website but a partial copy can be found here and it is assigned as unclassified). The second was rather an unofficial newsletter (a non-paper) that seems to have been circulated among many media that published similar reports on the same day (Kathimerini, Avgi, Skai, in.gr, Proto Thema, Athens Voice, and others) citing unnamed sources of the Greek MFA. According to these reports the sources of the Greek MFA were providing some explanations/clarifications on the note verbale that the Government of North Macedonia sent to the UN. Among these clarifications they reported that the nationality term should be indivisible, "Nationality(Citizenship)" does not refer to ethnicity, and non public/state-financed entities may use the adjectival references "Macedonian", "North Macedonian", or "of North Macedonia". There is no reference to suggest the use of the term "North Macedonian" to describe the nationality. And still, there is no official announcement or newsletter to provide media guidelines on the use of terms, like the MFA of North Macedonia did. --Argean (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It is an established practice in Macedonia that the citizenship of all ethnic Macedonians is Macedonian. Non-ethnic Macedonian (Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Vlachs, ... ) usually identify as citizens of Republic of Macedonia. Hence the "or" formulation in the Prespa Agreement: "Macedonian/Citizen of Republic of North Macedonia", meaning ethnic Macedonians identify their citizenship as Macedonian, non ethic Macedonians are Citizens of Republic of Macedonia. GStojanov (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to respond to the conversation during the weekend. The reason why I wrote this subsection about the anthropological significance of renaming is to explain that the new WP:COMMONNAME is not yet established, it is simply too early for that. It will take at least few months, if not few years, before we know if the new common name will be accepted in the English speaking world. The subject being renamed does play a role in this process. This role may or may not be a decisive one. If the subject (a person or a society) is at peace with the new name and identity, they facilitate the process, they even fight the inertia of the general society toward the change. If they are not (as is the case with Macedonians) they will resist the change in any possible way they can. (It is a bit strange for me to say "they". I am an ethic Macedonian and this issue is a very personal one for me. But for the purpose of this discussion I am setting this aside.) Renaming anthropologically is a deeply significant identity issue. The old identity dies and a new one is forged. If the subject being renamed is unable to step into the new identity, it will be perceived by the subject as a symbolic murder. She is stuck at the dying part. The subject remain submerged under the water (think water baptism by immersion) and she doesn't want to re-emerge and accept the new identity. This unavoidably will cause a severe identity crisis. Renaming, if uninvited and unwanted, is a tragic loss, a loss of self. There can hardly be anything more severe than that. The only hope for the subject is to successfully grieve. It has to go through the seven stages of grief: Shock, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Testing and if all goes somehow well the final one: Acceptance. We Macedonians, as a nation and an ethnic group, are still in the Shock and Denial stage. GStojanov (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Numbers are telling us a story

Chart Macedonia vs. North Macedonia|right

I did a brief analysis using wikipedia's Redirect Analysis Tool [6]. I compared week by week, starting from Feb 12 until today. I compared how many redirects come to "North Macedonia" from "Republic of Macedonia" (RM) and how many from "Republic of North Macedonia" (RNM). The first week the ratio was 93.7% for the RM, the second week it fell down to only 77.5%, but the third week it reversed trend and it went up to 85% for RM, the fourth week it went further up to 85.6% for RM and this last week went even further up to 90.2% for Republic of Macedonia. So Republic of Macedonia is still the more commonly searched for compared to the new official name of the country by a ration of nine to one. The trend reversed in the third week of the adoption of the new official name, and the new official name is losing popularity. GStojanov (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You really should not be including any of this in this talk page. If you wish to advocate for your one sided view, please do so in the main discussion and not here where decisions affecting the overall function of RfC are to be discussed.
Also, could I get a gag order placed on this user? For his polluting of this page with his constant POV pushing antics, thanks. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that I am out of place. I apologize. I will refrain from further comments here. GStojanov (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/Archive_6&oldid=1220440329"