Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/Archive 1

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

A special subpage has been created for discussing the resolution of the arbitration, that is, the actual name to be used for Macedonia. Please take all discussion concerning the rightness or wrongness of "Macedonia" versus "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" there. }}

Stuff

What is this page supposed to be used for? The "final decision" or whatever? J.delanoygabsadds 04:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Was just what I was thinking.... Fritzpoll (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I am eager to know the results. Please, do take as much time as necessary to go through all 5 pages, review and count, etc. Just, pls, let us know where to expect the results (on this page?), and when (2-3 days is absolutely fine, IMHO). Dc76\talk 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I just found the answer myself on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia in the lead. Posting here because others might not notice just like me:

As mandated by the Arbitration Committee, after 00:00 12 July, 2009 (UTC) at the latest, one month after this discussion was opened, no more endorsements will be considered. The referees will then determine consensus on the various facets of this discussion. The results will be posted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/consensus before 00:00 19 July 2009 (UTC).

I am just currious who are the referees. Pure curiousity. Dc76\talk 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc76, this wasn't a vote so there's no "counting" involved. (Taivo (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I understand that. I did not chose the correct word. People did not vote, but they did endorse, which means that they have read the arguments of all proposals carefully, and subscribe to those arguments. Sometomes I found something to add personally, sometimes I found the arguments already clear enough. When 10 editors endorse the same version, that is not reason enough to say this is how it will be, but it is reason enough to give an additional thought about that version to understand precisely what is it specifically in that version that 10 editors sought. Perhaps I am wrong somehow, but this is how I understand the process. Dc76\talk 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The results will be here before July 19 at the absolute latest. Realistically, I'd expect that a few days at the most will be sufficient; depending on when we can get online, and whether we disagree in our assessments, we may have the results up within 36 hours. J.delanoygabsadds 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much (see also above, i post it nevertheless b/c i already wrote it and got edit conflict with you :) ) Dc76\talk 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Referee statements

Fritzpoll

Based on the discussions, and Arbcom's requirement that we consider the naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines, my interpretation of the various discussions is as follows.

  • Main articles: Proposal B has the most support and the better arguments and has been shown to plausibly satisfy the naming conventions and disambiguation guidelines, specifically at WP:NAME#Be_precise_when_necessary and WP:NCDAB. Proposla A was close-run, but obviously had less support and tellingly has support from editors who also specify a preference for B.
  • Greece articles: Proposal A is the only one that is obviously policy-compliant, and no arguments for the other proposals offered a reason for why it was substantially better, compared to the arguments in favour of proposal A.
  • International organisations: Proposal A, for similar reasons to the Greek articles. Arguments in favour of A acknowledge policy rather than requesting the more arbitrary and complex exemptions of the other proposals.
  • Other articles: Proposal A passes.
  • Other page titles: Proposal C passes.

The final two consensuses here are acceptable because they command the most support, and do not contradict the results of the other areas of discussions. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

J.delanoy

  • Main articles: Proposal B. This one was very close, and either A or B could have gone forward. However, I think that based on the comments people made when endorsing the proposals, B has the most support; most notably, many of those who supported the other proposals at least partially supported B in principle. Also, in my own view, the arguments given in support of Proposal B are marginally more compelling policy-wise than those in favor of Proposal A.
  • Greece-related articles: Consensus is clearly in favor of Proposal A, and in my own opinion, this proposal complies best with applicable policy.
  • International orgs: Proposal A.
  • Other articles: Proposal A.
  • Other page titles: Consensus favors Proposal C. While this proposal is slightly complicated, the benefit of prima facie resolving future disputes is significant.

J.delanoygabsadds 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell Kinney

  • Main Articles: Proposal B. As mentioned, this is a much closer call than any of the other discussions. I think John Carter's arguments in particular were compelling and considered the proposals based on a range of existing consensus policy. Proposal B also seemed to be an acceptable compromise for most editors who would have picked another as their first choice - sometimes acceptable is the best we can hope for out of consensus.
  • Greece-related articles: Proposal A. The few endorsements of other proposals did not address reasons of policy that would make them preferential.
  • International organisations:Proposal A. Again, other proposals did not present sound reasoning based in Wikipedia policy.
  • Other articles:Proposal A for both policy and being the only one with significant support.
  • Other page titles:Proposal C. Sound in policy and while more complex than the others, lends to future concerns as well.

Shell babelfish 17:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

First of all, thank you to the referees. You've done a great job in seeing this process through to a decent conclusion. I think this is a fair decision and I hope we can now settle down on this new solution peacefully.

A few things about implementation:

  • I volunteer to do the necessary disambiguation edits to the existing plain Macedonia links, which need to be piped to a disambiguated title.
    (update: done. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
  • I hope one of you guys will do us the honour and make the necessary moves to the main pages. Please remember that there are a lot of protected redirects that will have to be adapted manually too.
  • Where will this document find its final home as a citeable guideline? Should we leave it here, or move it to somewhere near the old WP:MOSMAC? For now, I am redirecting WP:MOSMAC2 to this page.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We're doing some updates here, then we'll notify Arbcom, then we'll get to it! Fritzpoll (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom have now asked us to hold off until tomorrow evening with implementing the consensus to allow other arb/community input at the noticeboard. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A big thank you to the Arbs for their volunteer work in this process and for their patience. Also thanks to Future for his voluntary work. It's summertime so I won't be too helpful to him and will be doing edits of a more casual nature or Macedonia-unrelated but rather summer-related ares like ...solar activity :)
Please note that several policy texts with references to Macedonia-related naming like e.g. WP:NAME, WP:NCGN, WP:NCON should be cleaned up and link to this page so that interested users can find it.
There is still the open Miscellaneous page, there are some issues there too; but we can afford to take our time with that because right now fatigue from all interested parties is evident. Regards and take care. Shadowmorph ^"^ 07:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I really do not understand Fut.Perf. hurry to implement the move to Macedonian accession to the European Union, when them country's main article is not yet moved to Republic of Macedonia. Isn't there a proper order here in proceeding to these moves?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem, is the move against the resolution? man with one red shoe 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Yannis, but I looked at the decision and didn't find any mention whatsoever of a "proper order". (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
We (the referees) were going to wait to start implementing the results until sometime later this evening (UTC). When Fritzpoll notified ArbCom that we had completed the discussion, Rlevse asked us to wait 48 hours before we started. I assume this is a "Speak now, or forever hold your peace" sort of thing. J.delanoygabsadds 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
My problem Taivo is that all the procedures should be properly done, and I see no reason for hurry or anxiety. if the referees are advised to wait for 48 hours, I don't see why involved parties should act in such a hurry. I believe that ArbCom and the referees should give the signal for starting the implementation of what is decided. Either we have an organized procedure here; either we are a σκορποχώρι (I am sure Fut.Perf. understands the word). Can I go on my own now and make the move of the Macedonia article, implementing the resolution?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that this is a rather foolish argument to be having. The 48 hours is up in 4 hours, so what's the point of arguing? Just leave FutPerf's move alone, and then if four hours, let the fun begin... J.delanoygabsadds 15:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think it would be best for one of the referees to be the one moving Macedonia. J.delanoygabsadds 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yannis, as far as I'm concerned, I'd have no problem with you doing the honours and moving that page – but only if you then also do the grunt work of changing all the protected redirects ;-) (just like I did the grunt work of emptying whatlinkshere-Macedonia.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(e.c.) I don't question you hard work Fut. (I never did it, whatever our differences maybe; and I've repeatedly done hard work in the Wikipedia just like you), and this is not my problem here. I neither want to have fun; and I do not care if it is one minure or four hours. Agree or disagree with me, J.delanoy. but I do believe that things should be done in a proper order. A resolution is made; then the ArbCom and the referees should indicate when its implementation starts; and, after that, they should implement it (or give the ok to others to implement it as well). It is your right to regard my argument as foolish, but it is also my right to deem your indefference in proper coordination and proper fulfilment of the resolution as more foolish (although I do respect your work as referee). This is my final comment on the issue: regard it as a minor complaint on the procedures followed--Yannismarou (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, what exactly do you want me to do? FutPerf moved the page eight hours ago. Four hours from now, it would be moved anyways. Do you want me to move it back and then move it again in four hours? Do you want me to block FutPerf? (I won't, by the way)
I am not indifferent to proper process. If I were, I would have moved all the pages the first night after we closed the discussion. I simply fail to see why you are pressing the issue of FutPerf's move so hard. I do not think that what FutPerf did is actionable in any way, other than possibly "You were naughty.", and probably not even that. If you do think it is actionable, you should take it up with Rlevse, since he is the one who asked us to wait. J.delanoygabsadds 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Read the last sentence of my previous comment, and then calm down. Best.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for yelling. J.delanoygabsadds 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Implementing the moves

I will make the remaining moves at 2100 UTC (around 1hr 23 minutes time) and I'll need to know of any other changes that need to be enacted to achieve minimum disruption. I am happy to leave this latter part to more knowledgable editors though. I will naturally edit the dab and main article page to reflect the new titles. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, the suspense is growing every minute. So, we'll do it all really ceremoniously, right? ;-)
What needs to be done is:
  • Adjust the (many) redirects – has to be done manually by an admin because most are protected.
  • Adjust the hat notes in various articles that are now pointing to Macedonia (disambiguation) (I could do that)
I don't think anything else is immediately necessary, technically speaking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I imagine a sudden burst effect followed by a gradual settling down as editors find themsleves landing at the wrong page, then hopefully editing the error away. I will suppress the redirect when moving the disambig page (non-controversial, hopefully), so I'll fix the links to that page immediately to prevent redlinks over Wikipedia. I'll actually go check those first! I wonder if there's a way to batch job the redirects... Fritzpoll (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Should we turn off our computers like we did at midnight on 31 Dec 1999? Just to be sure there's no irremediable chaos? :p (Taivo (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC))
Well, I do have to admit to a certain sense of foreboding about clicking through the moves, but I'm sure all will be well...(cowers in fear) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should seek shelter somewhere underground, Taivo, but don't forget your bottle of Cardhu. – Fritzpoll, why do you want to omit the redirect from Macedonia (disambiguation)? I'm not sure it's such a good idea – it has quite a few talkpage links, because there was a lot of discussion over it during those days. Keeping the redirect won't hurt. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool, but I'll update the existing hats to point directly to the new page. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The moves are complete and we think we've sorted most of the incoming links. Some embedded in article text are bound to still be wrong, but we're hopeful that these will be cleaned up over time by other editors. Barring any other problems, I consider mine and the other referees roles in this essentially complete. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

former Yugoslav

There are other ways to make the same identification, when necessary, like "once part of Yugoslavia"; they should be mentioned as alternatives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A partial success and a partial failure

I'd like to express my thanks to our referees for their hard work, their successful efforts to bring this to a conclusion and their final decision, which is mostly - but not entirely - a good one. Unfortunately it's the "not entirely" which is the major problem here. It's quite obvious that the decision on the main article name is essentially an attempt at a political compromise between different factions of editors. That much is clear from the comments of the referees, Shell's especially, and from the fact that the mountain of evidence gathered on this issue wasn't even mentioned in their comments; nor was the inconsistency created with other country articles; nor was the blatant contradiction with the explicitly stated requirements of WP:NPOV, a foundational policy that is supposed to be non-negotiable. It shows that developing policy and guidelines, or gathering evidence, is a waste of time, as the results will be ignored if the results are politically inconvenient to a sufficiently large group of editors and the implementation of policy in a particular case is considered "too difficult" by uninvolved editors. The choice was essentially between an evidence-based, precedent-based, policy-based solution that would enrage a nationalist faction, or a "split the baby" approach that would appease the nationalists but would ignore the evidence, break with precedent and violate clearly-stated, long-standing policy criteria. It's disappointing but not surprising that the latter approach has been chosen as the politically easiest option.

This affair, from the start, has been a test of whether Wikipedia is capable of dealing with the intrusion of outside disputes into the task of producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia that ignores political dictates. Clearly it isn't. The lesson is obvious: if a sufficiently large number of sufficiently noisy SPAs, sockpuppets and cranks gets together and tries to force their POV onto Wikipedia, the outcome will be an attempt to split the baby, regardless of what policy, evidence and precedent indicates. One thing is for sure - nobody can pretend any more that Wikipedia is a serious effort to create something with real academic integrity. It's a great source for Pokemon articles but you're better off with Britannica for any controversial topics. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a consensus of editors who gave grounding in policy and the naming conventions. I most certainly did not base my evaluation on any political bias, but your choice did not have the reasoned support of the community in this case. I understand your personal frustration, but suggesting that this was a "political compromise" is unfair and unjustified. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
By "political compromise", Fritzpoll, I don't mean that you were taking sides on the external political question of what the country's name should be - there's no question of political bias here. There is, however, pretty clearly a question of taking the easy way out, which is what this looks like. A very unfortunate precedent has been set here which will undoubtedly be used to justify NPOV being set aside in other cases. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If the community would work disputes out on their own, especially these ethnic disputes, we would not need dispute resolution, arbcom, and referees. The community's failure to do what it should on its own makes these procedures necessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, that is the ultimate cause of failure. Unfortunately it's a fundamental flaw in Wikipedia's approach - the fact that it's "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has made it hugely popular, but the same fact means that we allow people to edit who probably shouldn't, and we have a constant battle - which we're losing - against vandalism and politically motivated distortions which academic encyclopedias don't have to face (or at least not in quite the same way). There's a lot more that could be said on that topic, but this isn't the place for it; I'm jotting down some thoughts on what this affair signifies, which I'll post in due course somewhere as an essay. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Or is there a question of not being happy that your personal preference was not selected, which is what this looks like? We evaluated against consensus and policy as we were meant to - I specifically rejected comments that said things were politically simpler, and yet the consensus still stood in favour of this result. I'm sorry that you're not happy, but that's the bugger of consensus-building for you - I'll disengage now, as my participation in this conversation will probably not assist its resolution. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can't say I'm happy that the mass of evidence which was gathered wasn't even mentioned in the comments, and I think you can appreciate that I'm especially not happy that the policies I wrote - namely the relevant section of NPOV and the naming conflict guidelines - have been set aside. Please understand, though, that I'm not particularly blaming you and the other referees. You did what the social pressures of Wikipedia were pushing you to do; the failure isn't yours, as I've said to Rlevse above, it's the community's. I don't propose to continue the conversation further, as I don't think there's much else to say at this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
With all respect, Chris, but I must disagree with you here. Although I, too, would have personally preferred the "A" solution, I must say I would have decided the same way as the referees did, had I been in their situation – if perhaps with a slightly different emphasis in expressing the rationale. The situation we had here was one where both camps had made a reasonable case that their respective solutions were legitimate in light of policy, but neither had made a watertight case that the other was not. Also, the two blocks of RfC !votes were no longer numerically dominated by the national factions. So, we had a genuine case of "no consensus" between reasonable people in a matter of making a legitimate judgment call. In my view, the referees did what they ought to do, go for the more "conservative", less contentious "status quo ante", with the slightly more numerous votes. The positive precedent we have here is that we actually have seen a process where the national noise was ultimately not the decisive or dominating factor. – (To Rlevse: Your tone of blaming "the community" for "not doing what it ought to do" is uncalled-for. This ocnflict was previously not solved because the structural conditions made a solution under the existing framework objectively impossible.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree too, I think this was a great thing that for the first time the matter was decided by somebody not involved, my only question is why honest Wikipedia editors were left to the mercy of POV pushers for years without anybody doing something like this. Yes, the solution is not great for everybody, but I can only respect the process that was used to reach it. man with one red shoe 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well Chris, I hope this rant helps you get out your frustration that your choice wasn't the final consensus because surely the wiki isn't going to implode and the referees weren't all Macedonian's in disguise :D Shell babelfish 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for a chuckle. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If I can say one serious thing though, I spent a *lot* of time looking through the evidence and I really do appreciate all the hard work that had to have gone into it. In reference to the primary name/solomon's test/who gets the article, what stood out to me, and I thought John Carter put it better, was that in places where a source had to regularly deal with the various incarnations of the word "Macendonia" they often tacked on extra words to make themselves clear; periodicals that frequently used "Macedonia" only to refer to the current republic didn't have that worry. Maybe it is splitting the baby or maybe it was a vain hope that Wikipedia can really be a serious encyclopedia sometimes or maybe years from now we'll decide this was a really dumb idea but none of that belittles all the work that a number of editors put in to present evidence, strong arguments and generally worked their butts off to make this discussion successful. Shell babelfish 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I do appreciate the effort that you put into it, and I'm glad you were able to make use of the evidence that was presented. While I disagree with the outcome (as I might have mentioned...) I have no complaints at all about the process, and you and the other referees did a good job within the existing social and structural constraints. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I suspect "Proposal B" in main articles was selected because how it was framed, if it would have been framed as "Macedonia is the disambiguation page" solution instead of "Republic of Macedonia solution" it would have probably lost because it would have been more evident to people and judges that is not such a great idea to direct most of the people to a dab page, but, oh well... I can live with it. man with one red shoe 22:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To FP: This conflict was previously not solved, like most ethnic disputes, not because of the framework, but because one or more sides refused to work to a solution because they were only willing to accept their version of what they perceive as the truth. It is people's behavior that gets most all cases to arbcom, not shortcomings of the wiki framework. I am not saying the wiki framework is perfect by any means, as that is also a factor, but all too often people blame wiki for their own failings. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki model requires that people be willing to accept that they could be wrong. Nationalists will not do this under any circumstances. They are completely incapable of seeing the other person's side, and they NEVER compromise. Ever. (not that I really need to tell you this...) It is here that the wiki model breaks down. Either a very small group of trusted users, or one user by themselves, will have to decide what to do, because nationalists are willing to argue until the heat death of the universe. Unless someone has real, tangible authority to issue a binding decision based on policy, and even against all comers (so to speak) if necessary, no administrator will ever be willing to cut through the nonsense and tell it like it is, because they would end up at RFAR, and would almost certainly be desysopped for abusing their admin tools. J.delanoygabsadds 23:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
...or at leas thave to walk so close to the line that they'll end up almost feeling obliged to cross it. Not that it makes the action correct, but it dissuades control of such situations by usual means Fritzpoll (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
J.delanoy has a very precise and accurate appraisal of how the Wiki model breaks down. The Wiki model is designed for the best of all possible worlds--a utopian dream of people who just get along. It's not based on actual reality. Print encyclopedias are based on one or two subject matter experts (who are theoretically neutral) writing each article without interference from "the man on the street". Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, it will always be subject to the whims of any joe who has access to an internet connection, a basic knowledge of English, and an axe to grind. There will always be a need for "real, tangible authority" in J.delanoy's words to keep the ill-informed masses at bay. (Taivo (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC))
Re jdelanoy, Precisely my point, it's the behavior of people that is the root, the model doesn't break until there are one or more factions unwilling to compromise. If the various factions that are unwilling to work together would come together and cooperate like rational mature adults we wouldn't have to worry about these things. All too often there is at least one side, often more than one, that will fight to the bitter end because hundreds, if not thousands of years of bitter ethnic strife have convinced them that what they perceive as the truth is being perverted. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There will always be people who have different interests, a reasonable framework should allow for this and enable people to bypass such obstacles. The framework of Wikipedia should allow for calling people who are not involved into discussion in cases where it's clear the process is blocked because of such interests. Continuing to blame people for their interests and for pushing their POV and for their lack of interest in compromise is a failure to understand the real problem that Wikipedia face when it comes to nationalism. To give an example from society is like bitching that there are some people who don't have any principles and they steal when called to enact some rules or to police and enforce the rule of law. Complaining about "some people" will never solve the problem, that's not the real problem, that's a given, the problem is solved only if you have a framework that deals with the nature of the people (unpleasant, but true) man with one red shoe 00:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There are other venues, some were tried here in this case, people not involved did try to help. It is indeed sad it had to go all the way to arbcom and took so long. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Chris, I've reviewed your arguments, and, while I would like to change to satisfy you, I am not persuaded that this title is any more POV than Democratic Republic of the Congo or People's Republic of China. It might have been better to have a full approval poll, so we could see what everybody could tolerate.

Feel free to make the proposal again in a reasonable time, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The obvious reply is that with the DRC and PRC, there are other countries using the same geographical name - the Republic of the Congo and the Republic of China respectively. Nobody disputes the need for disambiguation in those cases. But Macedonia is a case like Luxembourg or Azerbaijan where it is the only country in the world using that geographical name. One of our Greek editors gave the game away, earlier in the discussion, when he rejected the Luxembourg and Azerbaijan parallels because they were not the subject of political disputes. That is ultimately what this is about. We would not even have had this discussion, or this dispute, if it were not for the national psychosis that afflicts too many Greeks on this issue. You don't see Belgians or, as far as I know, Iranians insisting that the rest of the world should not call a neighbouring state by its chosen name because that name overlaps with one of their own regions. We are only taking a different approach to this particular naming issue because of the trouble that one faction has created for everyone else. It's a sacrifice of encyclopedic integrity to appease a noisy and troublesome faction. Though to paraphrase Churchill, appeasement is merely the hope that by feeding the crocodile it will eat you last. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, without the political cause (I would not quite say psychosis; every political party is liable to exactly such behavior), we would have settled this long ago.
  • But someone else is using Macedonia, and not just or chiefly the Macedonian Greeks; we are not bound only to consider existing states. If you can achieve consensus to move Macedonia (ancient kingdom) to Macedon, the case for moving this to Macedonia will be simpler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As has been said by both of the other referees, we did not make the choice to "appease" anyone. We made the choice because we felt that the arguments in favor of Proposal B were more compelling than those in favor of Proposal A. The evidence was largely to help people to decide which proposal to support. We (the referees) were asked to determine consensus, not to unilaterally come to a decision. If I cannot convince of that, I'm sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
And that is what you were supposed to do. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I should point out that Chris forgets something. If the community is to follow the "most common name" approach, then Ireland should not point to the island. Are the "nationalists" in Britain ready to accept such a move? Just be mature and accept the outcome of the community's procedures. What was caused largely by you, was not accepted. Move on. - Patrick, an Irish expat in Crete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.63.248 (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Ireland is the most common name of the island and of the (Irish) Republic. That's the problem there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Just as a point of clarification: It seems we didn't talk explicitly about category names. Now, we could have gone for treating Macedonia like Azerbaijan, Mongolia and Luxembourg, using the short name in category titles, but there's still Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#How to name the country, which wants "Republic of". It also generally places the emphasis on consistent names throughout, so it wouldn't be good to have mixed usage in category names in the same way as will be allowed in article titles. So, shall we just stick with "Republic of" in categories? (there are a few "FYR"s out there at present, and a fair number of plain "M."s.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: two CFD cases have now concluded with a result of applying our MOSMAC2 pattern to category titles (i.e. allowing plain "Macedonia" where it's not in conflict with another category), rather than the older WP:NCCAT rules. There's still a discussion thread at WT:NCCAT about how to align the two guidelines. Input is welcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Implementation log

I think it might be useful if we kept a log of some implementation actions, especially those that involve admin action requests (e.g. requested moves, CFD's, "editprotected" requests etc.) Here's the first batch:

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Republic_of_Macedonia for a discussion of the general issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (Republic)

Macedonia (Republic) seems more suitable than Macedonia (country), it refers unambiguously to the Republic of Macedonia. Politis (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning template

Is there a warning template avalable with all the relevant links to explain the 1RR rule on changing entries to FYROM etc? If not, one would be very helpful. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

try {{uw-1rrMac}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Subpage for FYROM discussions

This page should be reserved for discussions of how to implement MOSMAC, not for the fundamental policy itself. Therefore I have created a subpage for those who wish to discuss the use of the name "Macedonia" to refer to the Republic of Macedonia rather than "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". This division has worked well at Talk:Kiev, where the main page is used for discussions to improve the article while the subpage Talk:Kiev/Naming is the place for editors who wish to change the name of the article to "Kyiv". It has kept the clutter on the main talk page to a minimum. I am not an expert on the creation or use of templates in Wikipedia, so I just copied the template from Talk:Kiev, pasted it here, and changed the internal text. However, I can see that it's not exactly the right template to use since the header says "move request". If someone could fix that it would be helpful. I have moved the two name discussions to that subpage and restored Clicklander's original points to that page. (Taivo (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Macedonia term and modern usage - Compose of a neutral map

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

I moved the above paragraph from the project page to this talk page. I am notifying the author: User talk:ГоранМирчевски. Jd2718 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

COMPOSE OF A NEUTRAL MAP

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

I moved the above paragraph from the project page to this talk page. I am notifying the author: ГоранМирчевски. Jd2718 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling Macedonia "Skopje"

I just reverted and chided someone who had changed the Eastern Orthodox Church article to refer to the Republic of Macedonia as "Skopje" (see here for my revert). I realize some people may think it's sufficient to say that we should call the country "Macedonia" (or, if formality is required, the "Republic of Macedonia") — but I'm wondering if we should add a specific comment to this naming conventions guideline page advising people not to use "Skopje" as a substitute name for the country, but to say "Skopje" only when talking specifically about the city itself. And if we do add such an advisory, should we also add something telling people not to use expressions like "the government in Skopje" as a way of refusing to call the Republic of Macedonia by its correct name? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be an unnecessary step. The convention is clear about how the country should be called. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Renaming

It's high time, I think, to move past a four-year-old case and assess the evidence; the primary topic in our language for the word "Macedonia" is the present-day sovereign republic. I would like to put in a requested move where such evidence could be presented and analyzed in depth, but I've been told that that is not allowed as per the ArbCom case. How would you suggest that we get the ball rolling on a requested move? Red Slash 22:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about referring to Macedonian immigrants in the period after the Balkan wars

I've read over the project page, and I'm wondering if someone can assist me with an interpretation. I've been editing Cincinnati chili, which was a dish developed by Macedonian immigrants ~1920ish. There were a couple of edits by a couple of different IPs who kept changing 'Greek' to 'Macedonian, which I tried to address with a compromise. A comment on the talk page indicated this project might affect how they should be referred to. I read over the project page and didn't see anything that seemed to explain how these folks should be referred to, and I was wondering if someone who understood the project better could give the article a quick review to let me know if there's anything that needs to be changed. Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what your sources are saying, but people emigrating from Macedonia (region) during that time might have been anything in terms of ethnic identity: Bulgarians, Greeks, Slavic-speakers who espoused a separate "Macedonian" national identity, or Slavic-speakers who considered themselves Greeks – and sometimes they or their descendants today might disagree about what exactly they were even between members of the same family. Loring Danforth (The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton University Press, 1995) is an informative read on the sociology of those emigrant communities. However, their cuisines would have been pretty much identical, so whether a dish is "Macedonian [Slavic]"-inspired or "Macedonian [Greek]"-inspired or simply "Greek-inspired" is probably quite irrelevant. Personally, I'd probably just say the dish is "inspired by Balkanian cuisine" and was developed by immigrants "from Macedonia" (linking to "Macedonia (region)"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguating placename article titles

A stub created at Cer (Republic of Macedonia) was recently moved to Cer, Macedonia. Looking at Category:Republic of Macedonia geography stubs there is a wide range of disambiguations: "(Prilep)", ", Krivogaštani" and ((Resen Municipality) (ie by municipalities), and then "(Macedonia)", ", Macedonia", "(Republic of Macedonia)" and ", Republic of Macedonia".

This article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) doesn't appear to specify how place-names should be disambiguated: whether the country or the municipality name should be used, and whether comma or bracketed disambiguation is used. As far as I can see it does mandate use of "Macedonia" rather than "Republic of Macedonia" where there is no ambiguity, so that element of the "Cer" move was certainly correct.

It would be helpful if this Naming convention specified clearly how places in Macedonia should be disambiguated. The general rules at WP:PLACEDAB specify several times Any specific national convention takes precedence .... There is a section Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Macedonia consisting of the instruction "see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)", so the conscientious editor wondering how to disambiguate a Macedonian place comes here ... and gets little guidance. I think the favoured version is probably what the "Cer" mover did: to use "Macedonia", separated by a comma. But it would be very helpful if there was a simple section added to the article to say so. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)#Place_names_in_New_Zealand as a helpful example. Even a one-para section would be a help, something on the lines of Article titles on places in Macedonia use the place name alone if this is unambiguous, eg Popovjani. Where there is ambiguity, article titles for populated places are disambiguated using the country name, eg Cer, Macedonia. Where there is ambiguity within Macedonia, the municipality name is used, eg (give example of a pair). More could be said about disambiguation for geographical features, but populated places are the more common issue. PamD 11:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Macedonia, just someone who regularly sorts stubs on Wikipedia and often checks a disambiguated stub title to ensure that there's a link from the non-disambiguated main term (I added it to Cer). In this case I'd spent a bit of time sorting out a chaotic first version into something looking more like a Wikipedia stub, and added it to my watchlist to see what happened next. PamD 11:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@PamD: I don't think this page should duplicate instructions about the fine naming of location articles, that are already explained on more general pages, such as WP:PLACEDAB and WP:PRECISION. It would just be unnecessary instruction creep without many people interested in maintaining it. As you quote "Any specific national convention takes precedence ..." — but given the lack of national conventions, the general conventions are in effect. -- intgr [talk] 11:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@Intgr: In that case there should be no link from the Geographic name convention page to this page, as it doesn't help. When I'm looking for information about naming placename articles in a particular country, I look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and scan the ToC under "region-specific guidance"; if a country is listed there, I go to that section ... and in the case of Macedonia I'm led to a page which doesn't help. I had to read through this page carefully to convince myself that it said nothing relevant. That's a waste of my, and other editors', time. PamD 12:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Pam. The contents of this guideline were determined back in 2009 through a big RfC process, and it seems we didn't foresee this particular issue about disambiguation then. I wouldn't agree the link from WP:NCGN is exactly "useless" – it still provides answers to many questions people would come to WP:NCGN for, just not this particular one, although we could reword the link to clarify that it deals only with the name of the country, not with article titles for locations within it. About the disambiguation question itself, my personal advice would be to go for plain "Macedonia", as that seems to have been done in a larger number of cases before and those appear to have been largely free of controversy so far. As far as I can see, location articles in Greece don't use "Macedonia" as a disambiguator (they either use "Greece" or the name of the prefecture), so there's not much danger of confusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@PamD and Future Perfect at Sunrise: I think the solution to both problems would be to simply introduce links from this country-specific article back to general naming conventions. -- intgr [talk] 11:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Greek agreement

According to the agreement which greece and fyrom made in 1995 its illegal for fyrom to be called with other names such us macedonia or republic of macedonia. You can read the pdf of the agreement here http://www.mfa.gr/en/fyrom-name-issue/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.86.122 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither the native English language community of the world nor Wikipedia is a signatory to that agreement, so it is completely and totally irrelevant to what we call Macedonia. --Khajidha (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:VPP

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_.28Macedonia.29 for a discussion related to this page. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)/Archive_1&oldid=1137425234"