Misplaced Pages

Talk:Macedonia naming dispute: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:25, 29 October 2008 view sourceΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk | contribs)9,765 edits →DR CONGO still refers to Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia"← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:25, 1 May 2024 view source Jlwoodwa (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers77,602 edits +pp 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{pp|small=y}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
|action1=GAN
{{WPMKD|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
|action1date=00:25, 14 April 2009
{{WPGR|class=B|peer-review=|old-peer-review=|importance=Top|attention=
|action1link=Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/GA1
|B-Class-1=yes
|action1result=not listed
|B-Class-2=yes
|action1oldid=283550725
|B-Class-3=yes
|currentstatus=FGAN
|B-Class-4=yes
|itn1date=9 December 2011
|B-Class-5=yes
|nested=yes
}} }}
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject Europe|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject North Macedonia |importance=Top }}
{{WikiProject Greece |importance=Top |peer-review= |old-peer-review= |attention= }}
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
}} }}

{{archivebox|
{{User:MiszaBot/config
*]
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
*]
|maxarchivesize = 100K
* ]
|counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Macedonia naming dispute/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
* ] <small>(Dec 2006–Jan 2008)</small>
* ] <small>(January–June 2008)</small>
* ] <small>(July–Sept 2008)</small>
* ] <small>(Oct 2008–Nov 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(July 2009 – July 2011)</small>
* ] <small>(Aug 2009 – 2013)</small>
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}


== Semiological confusion, and the first use of a past name ==


If the country has to be referred in a modern context by informing the readers about its past disputes with Greece, then the term North Macedonia suffices without further clarification in the first sentence of the article's lead paragraph. But if the editors want to change that sentence to refer to the country in a historical context, the first time this historical name is used, should be in its official form, Republic of Macedonia, instead of the short Macedonia. This is still per WP:NCMAC's historical context criteria while at same time eliminating any possible initial semiological confusion. The rest of the article does not require changes as the clarification is given already from the start. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 20:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


: No. Our current guideline for historic contexts still continues the same principle as the old ], which stated that "'Republic of Macedonia' will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names", but that "'Macedonia', by itself, will be used to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous". It's quite simple really:
== Kosovo ==
:* We use the old name of the country in pre-2019 contexts. This is one such context, without any doubt.

:* The old name of the country was "Macedonia", pure and simple. That was its name in exactly the same way as the names of its surrounding countries are "Greece", "Bulgaria", "Serbia" and so on.
Macedonia recognised Kosovo yesterday, so did Kosovo the same with the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia
:* Each of these other countries also has a formal long name involving some form of "Republic" ("Hellenic Republic", "Republic of Bulgaria", and so on). But we use those only in special, rare situations. Since we're not saying "Hellenic Republic" in this sentence, why would we want to use the long form for the second of the two countries we're mentioning?
http://www.ks-gov.net/MPJ/Njohjet/tabid/93/Default.aspx <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:* The only other reason we habitually used to employ the "R. of" prefix somewhat more often was disambiguation. But disambiguation is already provided by the context of the sentence. Nothing could be more unambiguous than "the Southeast European countries of Greece and Macedonia" and "until 2019". No other of the many "Macedonias" was a country in Southeast Europe in 2019. How could any reader ''possibly'' be confused about which "Macedonia" this sentence is referring to? ] ] 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

::Shouldn't Kosovo be under "Former Yugoslav Republics" in the ROM/FYROM columns?] (]) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

== Singapore ==

http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/idx_consularvisa.asp?web_id=229

http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/idx_ConsularVisa.asp?web_id=121

http://notesapp2.internet.gov.sg/mfa/dipCon/dipCon.nsf/FMDetailsAgent?OpenAgent&id=194

The last two links mention "Macedonia', The first one is the pre-selection page of the second, i added it for the disclaimer.

The third is just a copy of the source i added with the difference that it hasn't been updated since 2004.

Do i have to draw my conclusion ? If anyone finds something else post it here first to save time. Cukiger, try not to call me a "parrot" even by mistake, it leaves a bad impression. --] (]) 09:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I did what!?!? ] (]) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

: Do you have anything to add on the matter ?

(In the edit summary you said "sorry, zako", strange mistake :p) --] (]) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just shortened your username. Does it mean "parrot" in Greek language? If so, I did not know. ] (]) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means "parrot" in some Slavic dialects in Greece, with a fat "z" it is used in Russian for pheasant also. Anyway, do you have any other source or arguement for moving Singapore again ? Cause i think it should be.--] (]) 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

::Moving Singapore to which list? Obviously, the country uses both, the constitutional name and the refernce, doesn't it?. ] (]) 19:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

::: There is a difference in weight, the visa information page is for Singaporeans, it's more of a practical matter stating "Embassy of the Republic of Macedonia " in China which uses the constitutional name. I don't think most of the citizens of Singapore have any knowledge of the dispute, the most important thing to the purpose of this page is to inform for visa reguirements not to state the official name used, not that it's completely unrelated though. Moreover from the third link one can conclude that there was a change in the official position. If you disagree with me i won't move it, but remember your arguement. A third opinion would be helpfull also.--] (]) 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

::I think it belongs to the list of countries to be sorted, because of the first link (with 'macedonia', but without any reference to the embassy in China). ] (]) 03:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:::You mean the one you added, the 1999 statement (press relase or something) ?--] (]) 05:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's the difference between this situation and Brazil? Are we disregarding visa info? ''']]''' 06:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

:I think we can all agree a source like this is ideal: . It's in English, and it ''clearly'' states Turkey's position. Can't beat that. ''']]''' 06:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
::Specifically for Brazil it's the only mention in the MFA site i found, the embassy site (which i consider less credible) was added to show that the country does have diplomatic relations, not so much for the name (something that's not clarified in Costa Rica for example), "Fyrom (Macedonia)" was enough for me not to add it elsewhere. Now in general, using the UN name in a visa reguirement info page would not raise as much doubt as the opposite, because as i said before it's not unrelated but the purpose is mixed, one can think for a reason to use RoM when FYROM is official but what would be the reason to use FYROM in a page like that other than to be clear of the official country position or because they ignore the issue and the existence of a different constitutional name (which might mean that either they don't recognise/have bilateral relations with the state but have a visa policy or that they do not care to know better and follow UN standards) ? One last remark, since the list is used for countries that either have a specific stance which we are not able to specify at the time being and for those that don't really have a concrete position, when we analyze two contradicting sources we have to bear in mind the possibility of changing positions, my source for Singapore mentions the last update so we can exclude the possibility that FYROM has changed, that also raises the odds. Another example is Argentina, i found a press release from 2001 that uses the reference, not to mention 2-3 similar press statements in relation to the UN, but we have to speculate that the embassy page is more up to date and reflects a recent change. This Turkey page is indeed ideal, not many similar sources to work with. I will say it again, given the loosely defined criteria i'm struggling to assume good faith on the way this section is dealt.--] (]) 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Tomorrow Cukiger will be able to edit again. BF, i suppose you don't have a problem, so i will wait one more day and then put it back.--] (]) 14:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

==Armenia==

Please, find more evidence before adding Armenia. For example here , here , here , etc this state is reffered to as ''FYROM''
] ] 08:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, if it is to be added it should go to the list of countries to be sorted, definetely.--] (]) 09:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

==Austria==

I dont know if someone asked this before, but why is Austria not in the "List of countries/entities to be sorted", too? ] (]) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Since you know German, could you look thoroughly around the site and see? ''']]''' 11:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Bah, Austria is such an insignificant country, I'm sure they were omitted on purpose. Austria only has ] and ], why would we care how they call the country of ] and ]?
::But actually, they do seem to be using just "Macedonia" (, ). ] ] 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::: On this page with a disclaimer distinguishing their own usage from that of the EU: . Plus a list of bilateral treaties, using "RoM" since 2002: . ] ] 12:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


:::(ec) LOL, I'm sure you're not biased ;) <small>That's in reference to your first comment</small> ''']]''' 12:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Add similar homonymous states and regions in the world refference==

examples:

*]region and ] state
*] the region part of the states ] and the homonymous state ]
*] and the Republic ]
] (]) 10:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:There's not really anywhere to add them, since it's basically ]. Unless someone has made such parallels, there's no reason for them to be included. ''']]''' 10:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedic information refference on identical issues, namely homonymous states and regions. They could be added as a "See Also" refference. Than im pretty sure there was an EU politician that made the paralell between Luxembourg and Macedonia. I'll get the quote.] (]) 11:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Fair enough. See also sounds good. ''']]''' 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I am not opposed to the addition provided examples of any nations that were forced to change their name are also added to show there are precedents for that too. (e.g. the most famous 20th century example being ])--] (]) 17:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gah! That "see also" list would have to be expanded to include New Caledonia vs Caledonia, New Mexico vs Mexico, North vs South Korea, New Zealand vs Zealand, New York vs York, Baja California vs California... (the list is huge). I say we scrap it all together and let people think on their own (but if you prefer...) ]] 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

the list is not that long Niko its just the link ]. Crossthets if you want to add a link to a page of nations that were "forced" to change their name feel free to do so.] (]) 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
:To what exactly are you answering with your first sentence ? The list you've created needs expansion to be considered an encyclopedic reference to "identical" cases. Right now it contains a limited selection, the fact that it's just a see also link does not solve the issue of intoducing a POV with no sources linking only these cherry-picked cases with the one that's handled here. --] (]) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not that Misplaced Pages can be shaped at personal will, just cuz by your POV the links "should not be there" it doesn't mean that you can actually go and revert something approved by the community and by admins. let me just quote some of the community opinion on the matter: "Fair enough. See also sounds good. BalkanFever", "I am not opposed to the addition provided examples, Crossthets", "I don't see any harm in adding it to the see also BF", if you find that the article ] is uncompleate do edit it, still it has nothing to do with your POV reverts. Dont be silly with this lame reverts, there is not a "conspiracy" behind the adding ] under see also and this doesn't contribute to any of the sides in the naming dispute. Republic of Macedonia shares the name with the region, so it ''defacto'' is on the ], things are crystal clear there is nothing to debate over. ] (]) 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:The link already exists at ] and ], why does it need to be here too other than to push a particular agenda?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't "push a particular agenda" thats unresonable, it doesn't contribute to any of the sides in the naming dispute. The article '''is''' about a naming dispute over a '''homonymous state and region''' and thereby is important to submit a link to similar homonymous states and regions cases in the word, its an information on related matters and its important for the wikipedia readers. ] (]) 12:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:Oh, but it ''does''. The reason you're so keen to have it in the article is to be able to say ''See? If Belgium, Iran and Roumania can accept an independent Luxembourg, Azerbaijan and Moldova on their borders, then Greece should accept an independent "Macedonia" too.''&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
In the bottom line the link to ] states nothing more and nothing less than a basic encyclopedic information on related subjects, mainly homonymous states and regions. There is no ''"see if X homonymous state and region exists than the Macedonia '''name disputes''' are senseless"'' since there is no information that the X state did not have any '''name disputes''' (which most probably occurred) so Macedonia is the only exception in this kind of debates. And when talking about "pushing personal agendas" can you explain why you insist on '''hiding''' this encyclopedic information? ] (]) 14:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:The appropriate thing to do then would be to link to other ''naming disputes'', not other regions.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As i have sad before if you want to add a link feel free to do so, we will discuss if its appropriate or not afterwards. The ] is related to the Macedonia naming dispute since the homonymous state and region is the core of the naming dispute, so the link should be present. It is not just mine opinion but of many editors and admins. Quit with the lame useless obstruction. ] (]) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

:"It is not just mine opinion but of many editors and admins." Name ''one''.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

==Serbia==
revokes recognition as ROM and will use FYROM

''''''Meanwhile Serbia, as expected, has taken revenge on Macedonia and from today will refer to their neighbor under the UN acronym.'''

'''Serbian Minister of Interior, Ivica Dacic, stated that Belgrade will use the UN reference from Monday, October 13th."''' according to MINA news agency

If the link doesn't open look under the tile "Macedonia betters realtions with Kosovo worsens with Serbia

--] (]) 22:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yet it is the 14th and there is no such use. ''']]''' 10:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not sure, according to today's ''Eleftherotipia'' there was no such decision taken; they are still presenting it as something that was only considered by some government ministers. . The sourcing of that "macedoniaonline.eu" article seems sketchy. Unlike other factbites given in the piece, the one about the alleged change of name from Monday is not attributed to any particular channel. ] ] 11:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

==''Republic of North Macedonia'' or ''Republic of Northern Macedonia''?==

As I have red, Macedonian media used ''Republic of North Macedonia'', but Greek media translated it ''Republic of Northern Macedonia''.. what is the correct name used in Mr. Nimetz' proposal? ] (]) 01:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

==For Mexico Macedonia ''is'' Macedonia==
Despite the disinformation by the Greek media about Mexico, same as the Panama case from July 2008, attributed to use the FYROM reference, an information denied both by official Macedonian and Panama sources, Maxico continues to use the Macedonian constitutional name.
On the official Mexican site http://www.sre.gob.mx/delviajero/europa/mcd.htm it is stated: ''Nombre Oficial: Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia'' (Official Name: former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) still the page and all the content is simply named Macedonia. So the place of Mexico is not in the "List of countries/entities using "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" for all official purposes".] (]) 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

:I have no clue what you allege happened with Panama but I fail to see what it has to do with this case. The page you list clearly lists Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia. It uses the short form for all nations... not only FYROM. However, to satisfy your worries of inaccurate reporting I will wait a little longer to confirm from FYROM sources (since they've asked for official confirmation of Mexico's position I believe).

:Now that we are on the matter though... why is the US listed in the recognized category when it continues to use both? --] (]) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
::Because it has clearly stated that it recognises the country by its constitutional name. ''']]''' 04:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Only by the executive (i.e. Bush). The legisilative branch (congress) still intermittently uses FYROM. Don't worry. I won't try to change it for now because it does make note of the issue in the current article. However if Obama wins the election and follows through with Res. 356 and 300... it will likely come up as a topic for debate again. --] (]) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not limiting myself to Mexico here. You clearly fail to understand that "Macedonia" is not the constitutional name. The constitutional name is "Republic of Macedonia". So the only acceptable proof that a country uses the constitutional over the international name are documents referring to the country as "Republic of" instead of "former Yugoslav Republic of". Plain Macedonia is a short form and does not qualify.--] (]) 00:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:Even though Greece's problem is with the short form. ''']]''' 01:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

::Greece's problem is with all forms that mention "Macedonia" without a qualifier, so both. This is completely irrelevant to the fact that many countries using the short form "Macedonia" for convenience does ''not'' imply that they have any sort of preference for ROM instead of FYROM.--] (]) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

take a look at this article: Greece caught lying, again ] (]) 09:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:I see nothing in your link that suggest that. All it says is "Macedonia" was used not "Republic of Macedonia". If anything the lack of specifics make it seem the Mina news service is the one jumping the gun. (What a surprise from such a balanced news service whose focus is anti-Greek rants and whose comment section has become more racist than a Klan meeting) Official confirmation is supposed to come on Friday. I reserve judgment on the issue until then (and would note willing removed Mexico from the list until that confirmation) --] (]) 03:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Mexico to the list of inconsistent countries. The notion that it belongs to the "Republic of Macedonia" amen corner, when it has the words ''Nombre Oficial'' right before ''Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia'' on the official website of its foreign ministry, is patently pathetic.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.mia.com.mk/default.aspx?vId=57958501&lId=2 ] (]) 13:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:No, no more news sites, please. ''Official'' and verifiable sources only.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sre.gob.mx/acerca/directorio/embajadas/serbia.htm "Concurrencias: República de Bosnia y Herzegovina, '''Republica de Macedonia''', y Montenegro"] (]) 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:The fact that it is misspelled (it should be ''Rep'''ú'''blica'') indicates that it was probably strung together rather hastily, and in any case should not be treated on a par with the dedicated ''specifically'' to Skopje, which clearly cites ''Antígua República Yugoslava de Macedonia'' as the ''official'' name.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 06:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

== Scandal coming up ==

It was yesterday revealed by the "Ethnos" newspaper in Greece, that Nimetz proposal was not Nimetz's after all. The US government had secret discussions with FYROM government via the US embassy in Skopje informing of possible proposals and ways to pass FYROM positions through "in a discrete way". Sources for this will be coming up the next few days and I think it should be included here. We already have (in Greek): ,,.--] (]) 09:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And we all know the Greek media to report verified and most of all objective information right? ] (]) 09:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:Pretty soon they'll report that Macedonia changed it's name to "Northern Republic of Northern Macedonia of the Northern North" and we'll have Dora herself filing a requested move. ''']]''' 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And you use that nationalistic pit of junk for a RS... to justify things you can't accept! Anyway, you are justified for a number of reasons. Here, one of them is that I haven't yet provided this in English.But you'll soon have that as well.--] (]) 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

124 countries in the world and 4 out of the 5 permanent UN security council members have recognized Republic of Macedonia as such, not paying attention on the idiotic disputes Greece is making, try to accept that.] (]) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:So why do you keep bringing this issue up then? ;-) ]] 19:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not =) ] (]) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nationalist pit of junk" quite adequately describes the entire Greek media. ''']]''' 05:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yeah, as opposed to such bastions of free and rigorous journalism as ''Nova Makedonija'', A1 and MINA. Why not just say the entire Greek people? You know you want to.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 05:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::Nah, it's not their fault they're being brainwashed. ''']]''' 06:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Μην κρίνεις εξ ιδίων τα αλλότρια.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Гѹмарлу ту гѹмараггаѳи шгреклѹ ту грѵдинъ ѯѣнъ. ''']]''' 06:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::What's that supposed to be? Ancient Macedonian?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 07:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, let's go with that. ''']]''' 07:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Obviously a direct quote from the Rosetta Stone. ] ] 08:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, it says "nationalist pit of junk". ''']]''' 08:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Demotic Egyptian, {{Unicode|дѹпка моꙗ}}.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 08:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Alal da ti e be čoek. ''']]''' 08:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise. ] quite share BF's bitchy characterization of the "entire" Greek media as a "nationalist pit of junk". In fact, they even describe the situation regarding freedom of the press as "good". Greece also happens to be the ''only'' white patch on the map in the entire region. That's if you ''really'' want to compare endowments.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 15:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
:But, following up in the same spirit, the RSF is only talking about freedom, not quality. Greek media could very well be an entirely free nationalist pile of junk. (Just like Misplaced Pages, the free nationalist pile of junk that anybody can pile on on?) ] ] 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::As long as it's free, then what does it matter? As for quality, that's entirely subjective, ''nein''? BF's beef could simply be that the Greek media are a perennial thorn in his team's side, exposing their surreptitious summer love-ins with ] Condoleezza, for example. The "quality" of the Greek media might skyrocket for Condi's gimps if they came out in unison tomorrow and demanded that Greece "pity" its "poor" northern neighbour and hand over Macedonia to its "rightful owners".&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Uh-oh. Whenever Kekrops starts flavouring his postings with expressions in German, it's a sign it might be about time to end a discussion ... ;) ] ] 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That's fine, you weren't the intended audience of my initial RSF ''post'' anyway. Τι φταίω εγώ αν σου αρέσει να πετάγεσαι σαν την πορδή;&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing for use of "FYROM", specifically in bilateral relations ==

Sorry, but Greek press releases do not count as reliable sources for Macedonian-whoever relations. If a country starts using "FYROM" in bilateral relations, it will obviously tell that to the Macedonian MFA. What it tells Greece (or to reflect reality, what Greek media interprets) is irrelevant as Greece has no business in the bilateral relations of two other countries. ''']]''' 09:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:I added two official press releases for Mexico and Congo that decided to use the term "FYROM" instead of "Macedonia" as they were using until now. What evidence more you need?-- ] (]) 09:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::How about confirmation from Mexico and Congo? How about confirmation from the Republic of Macedonia? ''']]''' 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The term "Macedonia" is part of the reference "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".. even if a lot of people wished that the "M" would be another term.. ] (]) 13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::To be fair, I don't think we ought to expect confirmation from the Macedonian side in such cases. If a Mexican government official has a a statement of intent published through such a joint press release on a Greek government site, that's a reliable source for just that, an official statement of intent. I think I've said it before, recognising or not recognising a name isn't something there's any particular formal protocol for. The Mexican government is under no obligation to publish its decision or communicate it to the Macedonian side in any particular way (and if they did, the Macedonians would hardly re-publish it, would they?) They'll just start using this or that term the next time they have to address them in some context. Or they won't.
:::Of course, we need to read the fine print carefully - like the other day with the Panama case, where they made what sounded like a promise to the Greek side but then turned out to have been quite vacuous. ] ] 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:Naturally, if Greek ''government'' press releases aren't good enough for BF, I trust that statements such as aren't either.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Sorry but I think you missed BF's point. The question was whether government press releases are good sources about countries ''other than their own''. I would certainly consider a RoM government press release a reliable source about their own bilateral affairs with country X. ] ] 14:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::The name under which Mexico chooses to recognize Skopje falls within the realm of Greek-Mexican bilateral affairs, I dare say.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Who says that Greek government press releases aren't good enough? Sourcing will continue as it was until now. If there are sources for a country using "Republic of Macedonia" and "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" it will be put under list of countries to be sorted. if there are sources for this and that, too. if there is only one source confirming the use of one name (as it is the case with chile) it's going to the ROM or FYROM-list respectively. Panama and Chile are sourced and will go to ROM. Mexico is probably disputed, so it shall be listed under 'countries to be sorted'. ] (]) 20:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of Macedonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Congo case, another fabrication by our southern neighbor. "Taking into account previous experiences with Panama and Mexico, the Ministry expects this case to be another fabrication by our southern neighbor and an attempt to manipulate the Greek public, especially after Macedonia's recognition by Chile." ] (]) 21:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:It's a Greek misinformation conspiracy... says Alexander of Macedon. Uhmmm, if either Mexico or Panama intended to recognize FYRoM as RoM rather than FYRoM... it's something completely out of Greece's hands. There is absolutely no motive for Greece to intentionally claim otherwise about something so easily evident a short time later.

:The far more interesting question is where do these documents come from? Leaked documents don't really mean anything without more details. Perhaps they are from the US and intentionally leaked by Bush. He does seem to be on the side of FYROM nationals at the expense of a longtime Nato ally and I believe FYROM is one of few nations in the world that supports McCain. On the other hand perhaps they are from other sources trying to create a wedge between allies by breeding anti-American sentiment in Greece (prior to the US elections where a philhellene politician may win - Obama). Personally I reserve judgment on the issue until more is known about the source of the leak. Does anyone have anything with substance to contribute on the issue? --] (]) 03:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The Macedonian MFA followed up these Greek claims, and they got answers from Mexico and Panama. They will soon get an answer from the Congo. FP, you are probably right about confirmation, but what we have is confirmation from Macedonia about the exact opposite of what Greece says. Kekrops, I don't care about your thoughts on how retarded the Greek MFA is (they need to learn what "bilateral" means) but that nationalist pit of junk is not going to be used in light of much better sourcing. We trust Armenia over Azerbaijan in regards to Armenian-Mexican relations, and Azerbaijan over Armenia for Azeri-Panamanian relations. ''']]''' 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:When Antonijo gets round to translating his bitchy rant into a language we can ''all'' understand, perhaps we can consider moving them to the "to be sorted" list. Until then, pull up. And, as far as I'm concerned, there can be no greater "nationalist pit of junk" than a ministry serving a government headed by your beloved Nikola.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|1=Please... be more civil... most editors are not interested on what nationalists from X think about nationalists from Y... --] (]) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)}}
::As far as you're concerned. Good thing nobody gives a shit about what you think, then. ''']]''' 10:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why should someone give ] to you?
] ] 10:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Whereas the stench surrounding you is palpable.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Not me, common sense. They don't have that in Athens do they? ''']]''' 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
:::::Look, BF, your anti-Greek obsession may be typical of the descendants of de-Hellenized Vlachs, I know, but this really isn't the place to vent all that pent up self-loathing frustration. We have two announcements from the respective foreign ministries, and the one in ''English'' takes precedence ''here''. Perhaps you should stop sulking and start calling Skopje to tell them they need to improve their linguistic skills if they want whatever they say to bear any weight whatsoever in the world around them.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Uhm, no, other quality issues aside, but it being in English or not plays no role whatsoever. If there's a source you can't read, just ask somebody what it says. ] ] 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::So what does it say, then, and why should we take Skopje's word over that of Athens regarding precisely the ''same'' matter?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|1=same as above --] (]) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)}}
::::::Still pissy about your "impure" origins I see. ''']]''' 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::"Impure"? In my experience, it's your lot who are obsessed with touting themselves as the "pure" descendants of Alexander the Great, airport and all, and denouncing us as the inferior sub-Saharan/Christian Turk/gypsy savages. I'm a bastard and I love it.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Well that makes one of you. ''']]''' 11:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
:Learn English, Kapnisma. ''']]''' 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you got the message, I am sure...
] ] 10:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:Learn to indent too. ''']]''' 10:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here, I know it's difficult for you to understand Greek, so....
] ] 11:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:No need, Kapnisma. Our lot actually know English.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::LOL. There's a nice piece of misinformation. Touting the following Panamaian declaration: ''"the Government of the Republic of Panama will abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions on this country’s name"'', as if it proved anything. The fun bit is, there is no UN resolution asking countries to use FYROM bilaterally. Panama can easily "abide by" the UN and still continue to use RoM. Which is what they seem to be doing. The other two, however, seem to contain an actual promise to use FYROM. So in the case of Mexico, we have one reliable source saying they ''promised'' to do X, and another equally reliable source that they ''are'' actually doing ¬X. Correct? ] ] 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::No need to be disingenuous, FP. The sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted reads as follows: "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Panama is honoured to announce to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic that, following a series of discussions regarding the '''Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'''..." (emphasis mine).&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: So what? They are of course perfectly free to use FYROM when talking to the Greeks. The question is what they do in bilateral contact with the RoM. ] ] 12:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Please. "...we would like to assure you that the Government of the Republic of Panama will abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions on this country’s name, '''for international and bilateral purposes'''". Not "bilateral purposes vis-à-vis Greece"; "bilateral purposes" '''period'''. Why would they feel the need to make such an announcement at all, if not to say "we'll be using FYROM from now on"?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: As I just pointed out, "abide by the relevant United Nations resolutions" doesn't entail using ''FYROM''. There is no resolution demanding that. Why they would make such a statement when it's vacuous? Because they are craftier diplomats than the Mexicans, perhaps? ] ] 12:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Don't try to spin this into something it's not. Perhaps your German precision is having difficulty with the flexibility of the word "abide", which doesn't necessarily mean "obey"; according to my word processor, it can also mean "follow", "keep to", "conform to", "stick to" or "accept". There doesn't ''need'' to be a UN resolution ''demanding'' anything; they're simply saying that they will follow the nomenclature of the relevant UN resolutions, and they ''explicitly'' state that as meaning '''the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'''.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::: It's not thinking like a German, it's thinking like a diplomat. When diplomats say "abide by", they mean "abide by" (unless of course it suits their interests to mean something else, which in this case it doesn't). "Abide by" means: do what the text demands, and not a iota more. ] ] 13:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Sorry mate, but that smacks of pure OR. The Panamanians have unambiguously said that they'll use FYROM for "international and bilateral purposes", and there's nothing further that can be read into it, no matter how hard you twist. Skopje's denial doesn't change the Panamanian statement one iota, if we ''really'' want to talk about who has the right to talk about whom.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::: My reading/interpretation is no more OR than yours. Plus it has the added advantage of being closer to the literal meaning of the text (it is you who is having to twist the words around, not me), ''and'' of not being in need of calling the other side a liar with no evidence. ] ] 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yeah alright, mine's bigger than yours too.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) but, speaking of OR: has it ever occurred to anyone that this whole exercise of ours is pretty OR-ish? Perhaps we ought to scrap the whole table and just report the total numbers (hedged by "... according to X government....", of course), and quote only a few of the better-documented cases? ] ] 13:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:That would certainly save us the endless agony of having to interpret ambiguous Latin American pronouncements. Que vaya toda al diablo, ποσώς με ενδιαφέρει. Go on, do something that'll make everyone despise you again.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:::We have another reliable source saying that Mexico refuted the Greek MFA in a note to the Macedonian delegation, using the constitutional name throughout the note, and saying that nothing has changed since 2001 (when diplomatic relations were established between the two countries, under the constitutional name). ''']]''' 11:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Really? Can we see the original Mexican document, please?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::::BTW, another detail: somebody cited the Mexican government website the other day where it lists "FYROM" as the "official name". The trouble is only, that page was last updated in 2004. So it can impossibly be a document of a recent change in policies. But everybody seems to agree that Mexico in fact ''did'' previously recognise RoM, otherwise the alleged change wouldn't be news. So, at best, we have Mexico continue to be among the inconsistent ones. ] ] 11:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::So it is either under "to be sorted" or "RoM". ''']]''' 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm not so sure everybody ''does'' agree that Mexico used "RoM" until now. That's not what the joint press statement says; it could simply be the reiteration of an existing policy. Before last week, we had an ''Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia'' and a misspelled ''Rep'''u'''blica de Macedonia''. And ''my'' Spanish teacher always placed great emphasis on correct accentuation.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And finally the official Mexico note unveils the Greek Goverment desperate lies: ''- The Permanent Mission of Mexico has the honor to convey the deep appreciation of the Government of Mexico to the Government of the '''Republic of Macedonia''' for the valuable support it will render to the above mentioned candidature. This support constitutes a very important testimony that confirms the excellent relations existing between our two countries, '''reads the Note No. 61/21 dated Oct. 15 sent by Mexico's UN Permanent Mission to the Macedonian Permanent Mission to the Organisation.''''' from the Macedonian News Agency and from other international news sources ] (]) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:Nice. Can we have it from a non-Greek-hating source now?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

::By the way, nowhere in the alleged thank-you note do the Mexicans say "that nothing has changed since 2001 (when diplomatic relations were established between the two countries, under the constitutional name)", as BF claims. Also, the note is dated 15 October, while the Greek-Mexican followed a whole two days later, i.e. after Valinakis's lobbying.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 12:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:::(ec) At least this note, from 15 October, is two days earlier than the joint declaration with Greece. I grant you there is at least a theoretical possibility they actually changed their mind during those two days. Although I find it entirely more likely they simply wiggle around to try to make everybody happy and will continue to do so. ] ] 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

lol "greek-hating sources", this is a new one, it does seems relevant information for wikipedia: the distinction between Greek-hating and Greek-non hating sources, you should write a new article on ] and provide a full list, so the rest of us knows what sources are the "bad" ones. This desperate cheap lies by the Greek Goverment in attempt to manipulate the Greek public (dont even think it will be able to manipulate any ''other'' public), is getting more comic by the minute. ] (]) 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:How about citing a source that ''doesn't'' involve the words "Makedonija", "MIA", "MINA", "A1" or "Turkish", for starters? The supposed Mexican ''gracias'' doesn't even say what you ''claim'' it does, and, given that it came ''before'' the Greek-Mexican statement on the issue, I don't know why you're even bothering. ], mate.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Having mentioned the general criteria problem myself in the Thailand section i agree with FP that we should discuss limiting the section. I was really troubled from the start how can we be conclusive with most sources. Say, how can the source i used to add Micronesia be a clear proof of the name this country uses in bilateral relations ? It can't, but i followed the established practice from other users. The constitutional name often has an intuitive "priority" when intepreting a questionable source, i can understand it. But do we really have to engage in something like that every now and then ? As the section is getting bigger it's not only an issue of OR but of undue weight as well.--] (]) 19:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

== Mexico Sucks?? ==

Why saying such an awful thing as that, especially an administrator? Administrators are not here to judge a nation's position, but simply record it here.--] (]) 13:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
:LOL, you are taking things way too seriously. If any Mexican comes here to protest I will whole-heartedly confirm that they don't suck at all. ] ] 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we finally have Mexican government dated 17 October 2008, so maybe we're the ones who suck for not looking hard enough all this time.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 06:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect will probably have you explaining the meaning of the statement word by word and then the meaning in the context and then the meaning whithin the syntax and then the meaning in the diplomatic language and then the............................................... but in a mysterious way, only for the right list of the countries.--] (]) 07:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:No, I don't think so. He's already accepted the validity of the Greek press release, but until now it was our word against Skopje's. Now we have it straight from the horse's mouth, ''ergo'' game over.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 07:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Yeah, Mexico is hereby officially de-sucked. It seems the Greek diplomats have wisened up and are now insisting on less ambiguous wording, after being pwned so badly by the Panamaians. ] ] 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Does anybody know if that press release has been sitting there since the 17<sup>th</sup>? Strangely, I only started looking for it after someone posted earlier today.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== Chile, Mexico, Panama ==

Hi everyone, I am not a member of WP, but I read the discussion of the Mexico issue, and some portions of the Mexico government do say "Republic of Macedonia" while others say "FYR. Macedonia" so I don't think Mexico should be under the "FYROM" portion of the name recognitions. If a nation calls the RoM under its consitutional name, it will use it on its governmental website.

The same case is true for Chile, the Chile government website stats RoM therefore they have recognized it. In the case of Panama, their government website should also be used, instead of simply a Greek source. ] (]) 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Chile is under "recognition' and "to be sorted" ] (]) 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Panama: I looked on google for a few minutes for its ministry of foreign affairs and I found this, it says "macedonia" but ill keep looking ] (]) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is panamas ministry... ] (]) 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks for the post. I think that would be a good idea. I looked at the website you showed, but I don't read Spanish, so I couldn't get to the appropriate sight. I'll keep trying. ] (]) 01:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think governmental websites should be used. Mexico's uses both RoM and FYROM, while both Panama and Chile only use RoM as far as I can tell. ] (]) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

==Panamá, ''de nuevo''==
Would be enough to sort Panama accordingly?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 08:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:Arguably, that illustrates "usage within the UN", which, unlike usage in bilateral contexts, could be construed as actually mandated by the UN resolutions. ] ] 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::Do we know for certain that that's what actually goes on? I find it hard to imagine the representative of the US, for example, with its rabidly anti-Greek stance on this issue, referring to the country as anything but "Macedonia".&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 08:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::: It was certainly before whatever it was that happened in July and which Greek media touted as a significant "change of stance" by Panama, noting that Panama had "been using the neighbouring country's constitutional name since 2002". ] ] 08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::::That still isn't an official source, I'm afraid. In fact, as far as reliable sources go, we have only the conflicting statements of Athens and Skopje. It will all remain a bit murky until we find a Panamanian statement analogous to the Mexican one. And that UN transcript was I could find on their MFA's website.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 09:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: Uhm, what? But we have Panama's official statement, quoted verbatim by the Greek government. It's exactly the text we were discussing yesterday. Plus, we have the statement of Panama's foreign minister, quoted in Macedonian government statements, explaining that the text didn't mean what the Greek side thought it meant. No contradiction there, no sourcing problem. ] ] 09:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::What are you saying? That Panama should be in the "RoM" list?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 09:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::: Yeah, I would probably put it there, if anywhere. I've lost sight of it, where is it currently? ] ] 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Why? We have a Panamanian declaration interpreted by Athens as supporting its side of the argument, and Skopje's interpretation of what it claims was a Panamanian denial. We have no direct quote of said denial. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 14:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:Ι believe this was before Serbia's actions towards the EU. Fut. Perf. will probably say the fYROM name was used within the UN context. Nonetheless, some countries should be exemplefied by their neighbours' developement and wishing for well being. Croatia, Romania, Boulgaria and Serbia march towards being the next European superpowers, whereas Greece's northern neighbour is stuck into their stubborness and lose the essence and I'm talking about political poorness that will be stigmatized by the state's people after witnessing the surrounding developement, even Albania's I dare to say. Not to mention the USA derision during the last presidential incumbency. It's rather sad....--] (]) 08:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::Do you have any further information on the official Panamanian stance to offer?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Not really, but I believe this document is not good enough. The USA's partiality is known, but using the fYROM and Macedonia names incosistently does not say anything about Panama's position, especially within the UN context. It's up to the greek officials and Panama itself.--] (]) 08:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

==Map==

I propose a map to be included in the article in which the countries using ''RoM'' and the countries using ''FYROM'' in bilateral relations shall be depicted (similar to the map of the 'countries recognizing Kosovo') . ] (]) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:Not a bad idea, you know. FP?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

::Not sure it's worth it – see my OR concerns expressed above. Also, given the small size of the countries in this corner of the world, the interesting parts of such a map would be hardly readable. I mean, if you want to try your hand, I'm sure you know where to find the templates, right? ] ] 05:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I honestly wouldn't know where to start. In all my time here, I haven't even figured out how to upload an image, let alone create one.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:::: ]. Download the SVG file, open it in a plain text editor , and follow the commented instructions at the beginning of the file on how to edit the internal stylesheet to change colors for each country. Or edit it in ] if you have it installed. ] ] 06:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: Here is a png and the svg version based on the list from the main article as of 2008-10-23. I'll add it to the main article with a legend. --] (]) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:Ι don't think it's worth it. Countries change their stance all the time on such an ongoing matter. There will probably will be fighting on changing the map all the time!--] (]) 09:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is a bad idea. And I don't think there will be so much edit-warring on the map, certainly less than it is now (with the list). Neutralista, are you or anybody else here familiar with construct such an image? ] (]) 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's new, talking to oneself. I oughta try it sometime.--] (]) 18:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:yes, you should.--] (]) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
very good idea ] (]) 23:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand recognizes the country as FYROM, to the Hellenic MFA. Note that Ireland, Thailand and Vietnam were confirmed as belonging to the "RoM" list using the same source.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 08:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

== DR CONGO still refers to Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia" ==

According to and and the Macedonian foreign affairs, DR Congo rebuffed Greece's claims that it changed its stance to "FYROM" and still refers to Macedonia as "ROM" ] (]) 03:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please update the world map to reflect this. ] (]) 03:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Other nations on the world map also need to be updated, such as Ireland. ] (]) 04:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To recent reverters, especially Dimorsitanos and 98.*: It would be far easier to follow the issue in cases such as Congo if you would please not erase the other side's sources. Please, in whatever category you place the state, leave in a footnote referencing both conflicting reports. ] ] 07:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

:But cheap macedonian news agencies such as that MIA or whatever, which do not even translate the news in english cannot stand in wikipedia as references, is it such a surprise to you? --] (]) 10:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:+ 2 comments. I've read the article in balkan insight, but to my surprise the document it depicts is too small for my eyes to read. And I also noticed that although you urge editors to mention both (official) references, you forgot to add the greek ministry of affairs notice. --] (]) 10:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
:I told you there whould be fighting over the map. It was a stupid idea in the first place.--] (]) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

::"Cheap macedonian news agencies such as that MIA"? I believe it is the country's ''official'' news agency, akin to Greece's ]. That's my reading of "Established on February 14 1992 by The Macedonian Parliament", anyway. In any case, I would much prefer to see the actual Congolese document itself. Does anyone have a copy?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 10:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes, such a well established news agency that though established over a decade ago, the webside is still on a trial version. Not to mention the flag accompanying the article instead of the congolese document. Nice... --] (]) 11:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Each according to his means, I suppose.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry for pasting in the wrong source link. Fixed now. Of course I meant to use the Greek MFA one. ] ] 11:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The copy of the Congolese permanent UN mission Document dating 23/10/2008 referring to Republic of Macedonia by its constitutional name there isn't any doubt as we have both Congolese and Republic of Macedonia official sources that DR Congo doesn’t change position on using Macedonia’s constitutional name. ] (]) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

:What can I say, if this document is true, then some countries want to have the entire pie available and the dog full, as a greek saying states. If a state assures to use the name FYROM for all international purposes and remain within the UN principles, then it may not use the name Republic of Macedonia for bilateral reasons. Let's wait and see what happens.--] (]) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DR Congo can be waited on until the official government website has "Macedonia" or "FYROM" on it, but I donno if they will even discuss the issue on their website. The map also needs to be updated. nations that recognize Macedonia like UK and Ireland are not shown. There are many more... ] (]) 20:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

With this and this the DR Congo case is closed and its place is clearly on the '''List of countries/entities using "Republic of Macedonia" in bilateral diplomatic relations'''. ] (]) 08:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:I still disagree. We have two declarations from Congo, both equally reliably sourced, both within the span of a few days, both unambiguous, both worded as if meant to be binding. They are in downright contradiction to each other. One of them is licking up to the Greeks and the other to the Macedonians. There's no evidence the Congolese have any real interest in sticking to either, or that they care either way. ] ] 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

::And why the fuck should they, with the ] still raging? Let's just put the Congolese in the "too hard" basket and leave them be, shall we?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

==US Congress resolutions==
My apologies if this has been raised before, but shouldn't and be treated in this article somehow?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

:Discussed in August. Last archive page, heading "US Senate". Last article edit related to it that I remember was . ] ] 11:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

::I see. I guess the most tantalizing aspect of it all is Obama's co-sponsoring of the Senate resolution, which could explain why Skopje is one of only a of countries ''not'' rooting for him. Shall we wait until he wins the presidential election in the coming days to deem it sufficiently noteworthy? He ''is'' still only a junior senator from Illinois, after all.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 11:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This might be relevant on the matter , let me quote something: . After all USA is a serious state and cannot be "bought" with lets say , sounds familiar? ] (]) 02:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:'' USA is a serious state''? No, it isn't; especially in October of years divisible by four. ] <small>]</small> 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:I wouldn't be so chirpy if I were you. Who is Congressman Pomeroy? Never heard of him. Certainly not the man who will be president in under three months' time. Yes, it is the US position, but for how much longer? Have you even read the of Senate Res. 300, co-sponsored by and submitted on behalf of Sen. Barack Obama? It reads almost like a ] press release.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 04:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::Hopefully in three months' time the man who is president will be ]. And if Barack Obama does become president (God forbid) he's got more important things to worry about than this dispute. --'''] ]''' 04:21, 26 October (UTC)

:::Fit to be president? The man can barely walk. You don't ''really'' want ] running the planet, do you? If only the election were held in McCain might even be in with a chance. As for having more important things to worry about, ''clearly''. But that hasn't stopped Dominatrix Condoleezza has it? There's no reason to believe the next administration will take any less interest in the matter.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 05:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::::You are quite right. I don't really like John McCain, I just dislike Barack Obama (not just because of the dispute, if you were wondering). This is the way I see it: If I had to get a life-saving surgery, I would rather have it done by the guy who's been around the block a few times than the guy who just graduated. Either way, I don't think we will have to worry about America shifting its postition any time at least within the next year. --'''] ]''' 05:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I, thankfully, live in a country where ] is taken for granted.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 06:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Touché. --'''] ]''' 6:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'd like to note when I added into the article... it was slowly erased with "neutral" Futper delivering the final blow of erasure. Apparently 120 US congressmen and the probable future President of the United States condemning FYRoM government for propaganda and hostility towards Greeks... wasn't deemed newsworthy enough for Furper. As as I was a newb just trying to simply survive the constant threats/blocks by FP I didn't pursue the matter... but I still firmly believe it should be included in the article. --] (]) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

== Ottoman Census shows no references to "Macedonians==

Here is . Anyone notice anything missing? I believe there is another Ottoman census of Thessaloníki region (under the turkish name) from 1903 and another one from the 1890s, Does anyone have any links to sources so the references can be added? --] (]) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

: Old news, mate ] (]) 21:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean you acknowledge the point or deny it? If you deny it.. please lay out your reasons here. If you acknowledge the point then I don't see why Cukiger (seemingly a FYRoM national) is removing my comment by justifying it as...

:''the roots of Macedonism ie. date back to the time of Ottoman rule. such claims shall only be listed in the article with a source''

His reasoning for doing the revert is a ]. The onus is on FYRoM nationals (or someone else) to produce official verifiable Ottoman census data demonstrating the existence of an Macedonian ethnic group (and one that distinguishes them as FYRoM nationals as opposed to regional Greek Macedonians)... not to disprove the non-existence of something that doesn't seem to exist. (and I would note the FYRoM government has been working closely with the Turkish government to uncover such records for quite awhile....to seemingly no avail). I also believe the ] has official census data of the region that makes no mention of "ethnic Macedonians". Please feel free to add any official references pro-con census information here so that we can document the first verifiable examples of "Macedonians" (that relate to FYRoM)... thus pinpoint the date of their creation. (both from within the communist block and from outside of it)

One other pertinent related item I'd like to see added to the article in a visible location is the US government denied the existence of a Macedonian ethnicity as late as 1944 and viewed it as communist demagoguery against Greece.

:''The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.''
:(U.S. State Department, E.Stettinius Secretary of State :Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, 868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I'd like to note, FP reverted another . His claim for doing so...

::''no, this is not a central part of the Greek argument.''

FP has now gone against two Greek contributers who most certainly do consider it part of the Greek position (seeing as Greece argues communist propaganda is mostly responsible for the FYRoM identity... which the article does already mentions referencing ]). I therefore recommend Greek contributers input to be added here and it be compared against FP who now claims to be representing the Greek POV. --] (]) 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Who says that Ottomans or the USA are a good source? Turks recorded the population under religioous aspects (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian Orthodox,.. so because there was no Macedonian Orthodox Church their ethnicity was considered to be the same as the church they were part of) Greece and Bulgaria even today, in 2008 (!), claim there are no Macedonians living in therir countries.. so, you can't even use today's sources for such claims..

I'd like to document that both a FYRoM national and then are dictating what the "Greek POV" on Ottoman census data and US denials of existence of Macedonian nationality.....in a section called "Greek position" specifically dedicated to describing the Greek POV... reverting two Greek contributers views on it... with references provided. The points are extremely relevant to the Greek position and have been mentioned many times by Greek politicians and media.
This time FP stated...''rv, obsessive POV edits'' rather than his prior ''not a central part of the Greek argument''' (Well which story is it FP?)

I wholehearted protest the removal of the edit and see it as anti-Greek POV pushing by FYRoM nationals and an admin in a COI (who only quite recently has made any effort to make balance edits... after I had made a complaint to another admin). --] (]) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:The Ottoman census is not divided by ethnicity; it's divided by religious faith (see ]) - hence the inclusion of Catholic. The Republic of Macedonia is not a confessional community. Therefore this proves nothing on the questions now at issue, for either side. ] <small>]</small> 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::The first question arises... so why did they recognize themselves as Bulgarians instead of the Macedonian church (assuming such a thing existed)? The second question arises... why didn't the league of nations not recognize them either? The third question arises why did the US government claim they didn't exist and that it was a commnist attempt to attack Greece? (Not to mention there are a zillion other points to add about the lack of any signficant "Macedonian" literature from that period). The points are still relevant evidence... and they do represent the Greek POV... in a section called "Greek Postion"... not FYROM national position. --] (]) 02:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
::*There was no Macedonian ''church''. (The present ] split from the Serbian Orthodox Church under Tito.) The ancestors of those who now consider themselves the Macedonian people were divided among the Bulgarian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox churches - and these are what the Ottoman census-takers counted.
::*The ] only recognized states.
::*Why did ] say anything? Because it was politically and diplomatically convenient. He was a diplomat, "an honest man sent to lie abroad for his country." ] <small>]</small> 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I meant that the reference you refer to is already known. The censi only referred to greeks, Turks, Bulgarians, no "Macedonians". Crossthets, your attitude and tone is not in the spirit of wikipedia. You are obviously an angry individual. you are a new editor and have just intruded and ignited nationalistic debates all over again. i really think your we can do without your 'contributions' here. There are other sites for hot-headed, semi-educated nationalists out there ] (]) 04:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


:::No, don't say that. Everyone is welcome to contribute in wikipedia and the contribution history does not ablate from someone the right to express his/her opinion in a talk page. Without communication and disagreement, how else whould these articles get neutral and better ?--] (]) 12:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Andthe opinion of the US secreatary of state of 1944 is hardly worthwhile as an acaedminc reference. Americans don;t even know where Mexico is, let alone the complex history and ethnogenetic processes in a melting pot like Macedonia ! ! ] (]) 04:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"the greek position" is the position of the greek government or of notable greek scholars. The position of greek editors on wikipedia is only the personal opinion of those editors.... The point is: "has the greek government/scholars ever used the ottoman census or the US 1944 declarations as a relevant part of its arguments?". If they haven't, then they don't belong there. --] (]) 04:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:I will dig up some comments to try and deal with your concerns Enric. I'd like to point out to the FYRoM nationals trying to hide this evidence from WP readers (to give them a chance to make their own choices based on relevant evidence sources by third parties)... communist ] is constantly blamed by the Greek government for the creation of a distinct Macedonian ethnic group. Census data and comments by third party (non-communist) nations on the issue of their existence prior to that date... is implicitly extremely relevant to the article. A handful of works and small groups like ]... that acknowledged their Bulgarian connection.. makes not an ancient ethnic group. Census data and official positions by reputable third party countries during that period is extremely important.

:When one throws in that the US government denied the existence of a distinct "Macedonian ethnicity" as late as 1944 (calling such talk communist demagoguery against Greece) ... that the League of Nations also did not note their existence... that their ] didn't seem to attempt to get Autocephaly "coincidentally" until 1944... the point that the "Macedonian ethnic identity" simply DID not exist prior to this point becomes more evident (at least as a distinct ethnic group in any notable numbers) However, reading WP articles on Macedonia at the moment... one would think they date back centuries??? (with constant use of unverified images supplied from FYRoM government showing "ethnic Macedonians" from the period)


:::You got some very valid points, but my points are as very valid too and I am sure you understand that. However, do you realize you are making changes without seeking ]? The name North Macedonia stayed like that for years and became Consensus. But if you want the old name for historical purposes, then we have to stick to the historic Consensus made for it, which, prior to 2019 it read: "The use of the name "Macedonia" is disputed between the southeastern European countries of Greece and the Republic of Macedonia". That's a compromise that will keep everyone satisfied and any concerns on disambiguation, soothed. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:Most of the dates of "Macedonian ethnicity" appear to revolve around communist Tito's renaming of Vardar Baninova region of Yugoslavia into the "Socialist Republic of Macedonia". This fact is constantly obfuscated by FYRoM nationals (and tenaciousness FP edits) Even Kiro Gligorov (FYRoM's first President) admitted they aren't related to ancient Macedonians by stating ''We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians'' (who was shortly thereafter a target of an assassination attempt).
:::Changing the article into a historical tone, brings us more questions: What about the infobox? The map? As you probably noticed, prior to 2019, it was "Republic of Macedonia" not only on the lead sentence, but also on the Infobox and the Map as well. Now with your changes, the infobox and map refer to the country using a present tone, but the lead no longer uses present tone but past tone... --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: That old wording is of course no longer an option because it's out of date. And there are no concerns of disambiguation, because there simply isn't any ambiguity. Full stop. And no, you don't have any valid point at all, as usual. We'll simply apply the rules of ] (both the old and the new), which for some reason this article has so far failed to do. ] ] 21:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::I firmly disagree with your changes, you ought to seek consensus if you want your edits to stay. Go ], not edit warring. This isnt helpful! NCMAC states that Republic of Macedonia can be used in a historical context. This was the term used there as well before we changed it to North Macedonia. Mind you, Republic of Macedonia was used for a very long time and none had objected to it, not even you. What changed now and you are disputing it? --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Stamping your feet on the ground and crying "but I don't agree" won't help your case. You have no case. Read the guideline, then read it again to try and actually understand it. You haven't. ] ] 21:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::: First of all, I was a participant to the creation of the updated NCMAC. Something which you forgot. Second, I am not stamping my feet there, I am merely explaining that your uncompromising attitude is leading no where. I have already tried to explain to you that there are 3 options: North Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia and plain Macedonia, and I am fine with the 2 first ones, which had already been used in that sentence for a very long time and are stable for obvious reasons explained above and for which you failed to acknowledge. The third option, the plain Macedonia, was never used in the first sentence and I do not understand why this sudden insistence of yours to ram it there despite my concerns. I am fine with the first 2 options like everyone here was, I would say, before you come and make disputed changes to it. The topic of Macedonia is very sensitive and its articles have long been controversial, for which you, as an Admin, are fully aware of. The safest course here is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes to such a sensitive article like that. Is it much to ask from you to try and be more grateful towards me (and any editors who may not agree with your views), for offering you a compromise, which is Republic of Macedonia? You know that the plain Macedonia will never be accepted into the top of the article without much-needed clarifications such as North (which was stable for 1+ year), or Republic of (which was stable for many more years before it was replaced by North). If you don't want a compromise, then we return the sentence to its present tone, that is "North Macedonia" and be done with it. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::As usual, Future Perfect is right about MOSMAC and Silent Resident is misinterpreting other Misplaced Pages guidelines to suit a particular narrative. --] (]) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::As usual, this comes by Taivo, the disruptive edit warrior who started not one, not two, but FOUR edit wars across Misplaced Pages over the use of the plain "Macedonia" on various articles. Coincidence???--- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 08:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Sorry for being too busy in real life and not reporting sooner: The attention of an uninvolved admin has been requested at: . Also the article has been reverted back to the last stable version before all this disruption started. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 18:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: And, for the record, here's what that uninvolved admin answered: "] should answer most of the questions." Yes, indeed, it does. SilentResident might take this as a hint to finally start dealing with the question how her preferred wording matches that guideline (which it quite obviously doesn't). A question she so far hasn't addressed with even a single word in all those hundreds of words of rambling aboe. If that explanation isn't given in her very next posting on this page, I'll revert it back to the guideline-conforming wording soon. In the absence of such an argument, there really isn't anything to discuss further here. ] ] 19:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::: The Administrator said you should seek ] first: "{{tq|] should answer most of the questions. If no agreement can be reached, you should consider using an ]}}" I suggest you heel to his advice and try to come into agreement with those who disagree with your viewpoints, or else open a RFC and have a third opinion on this. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::: But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count. You don't count as long as you don't ''finally'' start doing what you ought to have done a dozen or so postings further up: address the issue how to properly apply the guideline. There will be an actionable disagreement if and when there is actually some ''argument'' on the table. Not just ranting on and on about how we must stick with some prior version, but an argument about ''the only thing that counts'': how to apply ]. I don't know if you really don't realize this, but ''you haven't said a single word about that yet''. Right now, there is nothing to agree or disagree about, other than the obvious fact that my version conforms with ] while yours doesn't. ] ] 19:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
{{tq|But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count.}} First, you must really feel comfortable to speak like that against fellow editors, as admin that you are, heh? It will be useful in future reports against you. Second. lets see what we have here:


{{tq|"''the only thing that counts'': how to apply ]"}} So, in your perception, the article's first sentence isn't in line with ]? I disagree. It meets NCMAC ctireria, just not the "historical context" criteria. Otherwise you wouldn't try change the wording in the first place and give it a historical context. But I do not mind any changes to it that can bring the sentence both under ] and under historical context criterias. However I do mind -in fact I am vehemently opposed- to the use of the ambiguous Macedonia as the first word in the lead paragraph for the country. The "Republic of" is necessary especially from the moment the lead is mentioning more than one Macedonias (Greek region of Macedonia, Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, Socialist Republic of Macedonia, etc).
:And is Obama, probably the next US President, cosponsoring a bill condemning FYRoM government for (plus another 120 Congressman) everyone's imagination too? Meanwhile... FYRoM nationals on WP constantly accuse Greeks of trying to wipe out the "Macedonian" identity... as if that identity ].--] (]) 17:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


You haven't explain why, while ] permits both "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia", you are insisting on using only the ambiguous "Macedonia" for the opening sentence of the article which is finding me vehemently opposed for the reasons underlined above and in previous discussions to which you were participant. Why not use "Republic of Macedonia" which is less ambiguous and still in line with WP:NCMAC? After all, this was the one we used in the very opening sentence for 10+ years already. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::No, please, I mean that you need to find a declaration from the Greek Government saying "There are not macedonians on Greece/ There is no Macedonia country because the Otoman census didn't list them". Just find a source, then we can evaluate its quality to see if we can add it. For example, a scale of quality would be, a declaration signed by the senate > an official governamental declaration reproduced on a newspaper > a declaration of the prime minister / the foreign matters minister on an interview > a declaration by any other minister on an interview > off-hand remark on a discussion. Seriously, look at past Greek declarations about Macedonia and see if you can find something mentioning Otomans. --] (]) 15:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


: How did any of the recent changes "give it" an historical context? It was an historical statement all along. Do you know the meaning of the little word "was"? It means ''in the past''. The naming dispute ''no longer exists''. It existed before 2019 and ceased to exist the moment the renaming happened. So, ''every'' statement describing the dispute is by necessity, always, a "pre-2019" historical statement in the sense of the guideline. It wasn't post-2019 "North Macedonia" that was engaged in the dispute, it was pre-2019 "Macedonia".
My friend. THis is an acedmic page, not a conspiracy theory sight. GO AND GET LAID. ] (]) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
: About ambiguity, what matters is not how many "Macedonia"s are mentioned somewhere in the lead or elsewhere in the article, but whether there is a danger of ambiguity in the particular sentence we're talking about. That's the only legitimate function of disambiguation: making sure readers won't misunderstand the particular passage in question. That sentence is perfectly disambiguated by the term "countries". There is no other "Macedonia" that is a country (or was one in 2019) or could possibly be engaged in a dispute with Greece, so no reader could possibly be confused about what this sentence means.
: And I "haven't explained" why it should be the shorter term? Yes, I have, in my very first posting above. ] doesn't just blindly permit both the longer and the shorter form to be chosen at will; it mandates that the shorter form should be used where there is no danger of ambiguity. That was very explicitly spelled out in the old NCMAC, and the new NCMAC has inherited this principle for the historical contexts, even though it no longer spells it out in as much detail – it does explain the same principle for the modern "N.M." vs. "R. of N.M."; the historical "M." vs. "R. of M." go by the same criteria.
: And stop going on and on about how much you are "vehemently opposed" to this or that or how this or that version was stable for so and so long – you should know that neither of these are of any relevance whatsoever. ] ] 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::I disagree. This article is about the Naming Dispute and the lead paragraph shouldn't welcome the readers with anything less than the official name of the country whose the name was disputed in the first place. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::] has still failed to address the question of ] in any manner whatsoever, let alone a convincing manner. She is alone in her insistence that "North" should always precede "Macedonia" in each and every instance in which it occurs, a POV that she consistently pushes in every content dispute that she initiates and exacerbates (and then blames others for edit warring). The neutral admin was crystal clear--NCMAC answers all the questions. But SilentResident plays the game of ] consistently and unconvincingly. "North Macedonia" was the '''''result''''' of Prespa, not a party to the dispute. That was "Macedonia". --] (]) 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::"Republic of Macedonia". The official name everybody (including you) consented to, for 10+ years to be used at the opening sentence of the article. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Initial comment''' I've been pinged to this by Ed as an uninvolved admin with a background in Balkans disputes. ] says that "all contentious edits touching upon North Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction.", unless you are reinstating the version conforming to NCMAC. Three editors have breached 1RR, although no doubt they will all claim they are reinstating the version conforming to NCMAC. In addition to the 1RR restriction under NCMAC, this is also an article subject to discretionary sanctions under ]. Nevertheless, Silent Resident has breached 3RR in any case, and is lucky they have not been blocked on that basis. Given the interpretation of NCMAC in this case is disputed, I have restored the pre-dispute version (despite the fact that it may be the "wrong version"), to allow the resolution of the issue here on the talk page without further edit-warring. I will talk more about the interpretation of NCMAC in my next comment. Bear with me while I drill down into the consensus positions determined by the 2019 RFC. Thanks, ] (]) 02:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::Have now had a good look at the 2019 RFC, and it is very clear about issues such as this. What it says (in the collapsed detailed consensus box at the top) is:
{{quote|5. Historical names: What should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in other articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019?
Option B: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note similar to "now North Macedonia".
The closing panel agrees that there is a clear consensus for Option B. The terms "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" retain their meanings within the context of articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019 and thus, should not be changed, although an optional note such as "now North Macedonia" may be added where appropriate.}}
::What this means is that when referring to the country between 1991 and 2019, Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia should be used to refer to the country, with the option of adding "now North Macedonia" where appropriate. Now, given this naming dispute is historical (as it says in the current first sentence, it "was" disputed, and therefore this is in the past) and occurred between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia between 1991 and 2019, not between Greece and North Macedonia after 2019 (as the dispute was resolved by the Prespa agreement and the subsequent change of country name to North Macedonia), we are clearly dealing with the quoted consensus on historical names here, so part 5 of the RFC applies to this article. In the circumstances, the optional use of "now North Macedonia" is appropriate, as that is now the name of the country, and is should be mentioned in the first sentence as it forms the resolution of the dispute that the article is about. There is the issue of consistent use of common names here, which Tomica quite rightly raised in an edit summary. If we use "Greece" as the common name for the Hellenic Republic, then it is only reasonable to use "Macedonia" as the common name for the Republic of Macedonia in the same sentence, especially as it is linked to the North Macedonia article. If it is followed by "now North Macedonia" it is indisputably clear what we are talking about. It is therefore clear that the first sentence should be worded "The use of the country name "]" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of ] and ] (now North Macedonia) between 1991 and 2019." and the first sentence of the second para should read "The dispute arose from the ambiguity in ] between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent ] and the ancient ]." Therefore, is not IAW the 2019 RFC. I have implemented the above. ] (]) 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::], that's a very good compromise IMO. The (Now North Macedonia) placed ''next'' to Macedonia, suffices for me, as it eliminates the risks for semiological confusions and it is much better than the version Taivo and FPAS had put, which was only an ambiguous Macedonia without any qualifiers next to it. Thank you! And again, sorry for the 1RR rule, wish I had realized this sooner rather than have FPAS bring it to my attention. Speaking of FPAS, I urge him and Taivo to leave the opening sentence untouched from now and on and refrain from such kinds of edits in the future. Peacemaker67, I would appreciate if can you leave the article locked for a while? I am worried someone may try revert your changes and this is the last thing the article needs. Thank you. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 09:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::: I'm fine with Peacemaker's version, of course. I still think my previous version was slightly more elegant, with the "North Macedonia" bit a few words further away but integrated in such a way that it actually added something substantial to the explanation of the issue. The interesting fact is not just that it happens to have this new name now, but that its name change was the very thing that resolved this dispute, so why not let the reader know this while we're at it? But that's a minor quibble and not worth fighting over. That SR now acts as if this tiny difference ("N. M." one word away versus nine words away from "M.") makes all the difference to them, as if readers could overcome the alleged "semiological confusion" she's been fantasizing about across a textual distance of no more than two words, only goes to demonstrate how utterly irrational her whole approach has been the whole time. ] ] 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::If it is several words apart, then it is not a qualifier. If it is next to it, then it is. Something they haven't taught to you at the school's grammar lessons, I assume?
::::There might be cases where qualifiers can be words or sentences apart but this is not enough given this is a name dispute over an ambiguous name shared by multiple regions/entities in its background.
::::You are just trying just to make others's concerns appear ''illogical'' while yours as ''logical''. To me, this is a classic characteristic of a defensive profile that has serious difficulties in communicating with other people of different views. These profiles usually are the ones that have difficult time trying to find a common ground in disputes. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


== Mexico == == Time for protection? ==


I'll fully protect the article if three of the recent editors request it. But we know how tedious that can be. Surely there is some other way.. ] (]) 20:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Please remove Mexico from the list of contries that use fYROM! You Greeks look ridicilus with that propaganda. Dig a little
: Well, I don't suppose any of us would want you to protect it unless it happens to be on the ], right? – But seriously, the only way ahead I see is that the editor who has so far stubbornly dodged any invitation to engage with the content and guideline issue and has instead engaged in purely procedural stonewalling should be clearly told to either start bringing forward pertinent arguments or go away. That's what we have admins for. ] ] 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
and you'll find out that nothing has changed between Macedonia and Mexico. ] (]) 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Apparently you haven't wondered why I was not responding to you for a while. You got to my nerves with your insults.
::*"{{tq| I'll revert it back to the guideline-conforming wording soon. In the absence of such an argument, there really isn't anything to discuss further here.}}"
::*"{{tq|But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count.}}"
:: I say, EdJohnston, yes lets lock the article, because I do not trust the editor is suitable enough for editing it! After all, I have no changes to make to it, it is him who caused all this disruption.
:: Edit: So it seems one more editor is disagreeing with Future Perfect and Taivo's version: Future Perfect you said you are not counting me, but looks like you will have to make a re-count. Sorry to say, but that makes it not "zero" but TWO editors against your plain "Macedonia"... I believe it is better if the article is locked to the last stable version and open a RFC on the matter. There isn't anything else to say in this discussion, I have become too stressed and anxious after this climate encountered and the insults against me. If a RFC is opened, I will participate. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::: SilentResident, you are now beyond 3RR . Please self-revert. ] ] 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: As you are. Difference is I wasnt the one who instigated all this disruption, it was you. I was simply defending it from what seems to be: 1) Going without consensus, 2) dismissing your opponent's concerns, 3) insulting them in talk pages... need to say more? For this reason I asked for Admin attention. This is too much for me to handle by myself, I have OVERDONE myself and yet to no avail: all I see is more and more drawn to the edit war you started: Are you feeling proud for it? I will repeat myself one more time to Ed: the article needs to be locked! As for you, FPAS, I am disappointed. Next time learn to make consensuses instead of wars. @Alexikoua & Tomica, it is not worth going into edit wars just because of FPAS's contested edits. Please lets open a RfC like how Ed has suggested and let a new consensus to be formed. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::: I'm not beyond 3RR. I (admittedly) made two reverts yesterday, and a third one more than 24 hours later today; this last one having been unfortunately unavoidable because your (and Alexikoua's) careless editing in the meantime had led to a version that was not just contrary to the guidelines but plain nonsensical ("North Macedonia changing its name to North Macedonia"). ] ] 21:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::And Alexikoua does '''''not''''' agree with SilentResident, his edit was to "clean up" the stable version that I had reverted to. He did nothing to change the wording of Macedonia, his edit concerned a different topic. SilentResident is stretching the facts to agree with her own unique agenda. --] (]) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::: @FPAS and Taivo: You still have the chance to do things right this time: either call a RfC like Ed said and make a new ], or return the article to the old consensus. Anything else, be it edit wars, arguments, accusations or insults against your opponents, isn't helpful. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::@SilentResident. What "isn't helpful" is your POV pushing that ignores NCMAC and Ed's actual advice: "NCMAC says it all". You don't seem to be able to read or remember any comments that don't support your unique POV. Ed said to refer to NCMAC. You don't seem to have heeded his comment at all and seem to be completely ignoring NCMAC. --] (]) 23:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I am speechless. You just claimed that the 2 options of the 3, which are "North Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" (which was used for years, and YOU CONSENTED to it), are "{{tq|completely ignoring NCMAC}}". Wow! What can I say?


:::::::::You know something? I am curious, if these 2 options indeed ignore NCMAC, why did you let them stay in the opening sentence for YEARS (10+ years)?
:See above, section "Mexico sucks??". ] ] 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::Why in all of sudden you instigated all this disruption and edit wars to have it removed in an unsuspecting time like this?
::Yes us Greeks look r-i-d-i-c-i-l-u-s writing that. Thanks for the informative post. Any other hateful comments to add? We have our box of crayons out and are taking notes today.{{unsigned|209.161.236.109|20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)}}


:::::::::Why didn't you support my repeated calls for the respect of ]?
:::Oh yes Crossthets, because your comments are the epitome of constructiveness and civility. ''']]''' 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::If the old CONSENSUS was problematic, then why didn't you even seek a new WP:CONSENSUS building?
::::Whatever dude. You constantly make demeaning comments to Greek contributors. I've tried to not bring the issue up... but since you continue to harass me with personal comments rather than deal with issues... I seem to recall a comment to describe Greeks (for which you were blocked and never apologized for) was "assfuckers"? Surely a sign of someone civil and constructive. --] (]) 14:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::Why did you not even ask for a third opinion or RfC on the matter?
:::::You call my people a communist invention. You call them all nationalists who spread propaganda. The first thing you did when joining Misplaced Pages was harass me. Then you harassed FP, which you continue to do today, in addition to harassing every other ethnic Macedonian user. How could you possibly "recall" a comment that I made around half a year before you even came here, a time when I could be described as a "noob"? You get to use that excuse so I guess I can too. I don't need to justify myself to you of all people; I already told you that it was a retaliation to a slur. Move on, re. ''']]''' 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::Why have you and FPAS been quiet to Ed's calls for a RfC???
::::::Not wanting to get too involved in this lovely exchange of ideas, what was the original "slur" to which you thought "assfuckers" a commensurate form of retaliation? My first guess is ''Skopjan'', though I could be wrong.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 05:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::Trying to put the blame on others for your wrong doings isn't going to help. Seems you love accusing other for having hidden "agendas" and such, but none of us started the mess, it was you. Your edit log shows you have participated in 4 disputes related to Macedonia already. And now this time you who broke ARBMAC, broke long-established 10-year CONSENSUS and broke 1-year SILENT CONSENSUS, broke WP:CYCLE, and your disruption got 4+ different editors and +3 Admins drawn to them, and more. You want to criticize me? Do it. I am not pretending to be a perfect person, and unlike you, I fully acknowledge with shame my fault for breaching 1RR while trying to defend the article from you. Wish I realized I was breaking the 1RR sooner so that I prevent myself from falling for it and having FPAS bring it to my attention when it was too late. The admins and the community have my apology. I accept my responsibility and that's why I called Tomica and Alexikoua to constraint themselves so that there aren't any further 1RR breaches. But if you want to criticize me, first you will have to be honest with yourself and acknowledge your wrongdoings which caused these disruptions in the first place, both here and on the other articles. If it wasn't for your edit wars and breaks of CONSENSUS, then the locking of the article and the Admin intervention wouldn't have happened now. Criticize me as much as you like, but first I expect you to acknowledge your wrongdoings, support our call for CONSENSUS and RfC and stop your edit wars across Macedonia-related topics once and for all. I do not EVEN want to see the name "Taivo" in future edit wars about Macedonia again! It is getting tiring already.
:::::::Yes, and we're not going over the lame discussion again. You made your points, I made mine. You seem to be able to move on though, unlike the trolls. ''']]''' 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::Edit: nevermind about RfCs and such, Peacemaker67 intervened and offered an excellent compromise that can satisfy both parties: "Macedonia" stays, but a much needed qualifier "North Macedonia" is added next to it and IMO this soothes all of my concerns for possible semiological confusions. I am positive that the dispute is resolved. However I do insist that the article stays locked for a while at least. The article's protection is necessary, IMO, if we really want to prevent similar incidents in the future. Also a reminder to everyone and to myself as I failed: ''the article is subject to 1RR''. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, I just went through the edit history and found After edit-warring over my removal of your inflammatory post, you said you'd "proved Skopjan is pejorative". However, on that page only ] had cited "sources and proof" that it is pejorative. And that user has been Was that you all along?&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 05:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::There is no need for the article to remain locked because it is now in compliance with NCMAC (it was not in compliance previously). --] (]) 09:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: There is. The article will have to remain locked unless the editors who 1) stirred the edit wars, 2) ignored the consensus, and 3) went with changes without taking in account the other party's concerns, acknowledge their attidude was inappropriate and promise to not repeat this in the future. There is also my fear that because the new sentence is still fresh, someone who didn't participate in the Talk Page might not like Peacemaker's resolution and try restoring back any disputed edits. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 12:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::How funny. You are the one who started the edit warring, no one else. You are the one who rejected Future Perfect's perfectly acceptable wording that was in compliance (as he explained) with NCMAC. You are the one that the article needs to be protected from, just like every other article where you take your flaming "North" sword into useless battle. What did you achieve with your edit warring and whining? Nothing. The word "North" moved forward a couple of words, but changed nothing to native speakers of English who are perfectly capable of understanding context. You're not a native speaker and although your English is very good, it's not at the level of being able to lecture native speakers as to what they can and can not understand based on normal context. Future's edit was in line with NCMAC, which, as you have been told, is the final authority on this matter. --] (]) 16:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Speak only for yourself. What may be perfect for you isn't necessarily for everyone else. You should have asked us if we find it perfect, something you DIDNT. Instead, you and FPAS came here with the "''We will have it worded THIS way, because we say so and think so! We don't care about consensus, We don't care about SilentResident's concerns, she has agendas, and she doesn't count anyways''" attitude. You are welcome to consider FPAS's wording as being better for you, but for me it is Peacemaker's. Period.
::::::::::::::IMO, there is nothing more to say here. This discussion has come to a natural end, and there are better things to do than arguing indefinitely with you. Good day. :-) --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Just to be clear I have no objections to PeaceMaker's wording whatsoever, it is perfectly acceptable to me and to Misplaced Pages's actual, enforceable ] embodied as policy in ]. You keep weeping over the "lack of consensus", but you seem ignorant of the simple fact that ] itself '''is, indeed, a consensus''' of the broadest kind. It is you, dear SilentResident, who wanted to ignore consensus, not Future and I who were seeking to enforce the broadest of consensuses in this matter. Your crocodile tears are noted. --] (]) 20:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::No one has ever stated that ] isn't a WP:CONSENSUS in the broader form. Has anyone ever stated that? No.


::::::::::::::::The real question here is why did 2 experienced editors, you and FPAS, attempted to force your wording of preference into the article, when it has become clear it was opposed? Why force it instead of building a consensus and figuring out better alternatives such as Peacemaker67's "Macedonia (now North Macedonia)" when it has become clear that your plain "Macedonia" wasn't accepted into the opening sentence?
:::::::::Who, Xstatic? Nope. I can't even remember what my point was exactly (it ''was'' a year ago after all), but I think the "proof" was meant to be in the offence. Either way. ''']]''' 05:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


::::::::::::::::Why wouldn't we work on finding a compromise together? I made a step: offered you a compromise, didn't I? It is the "Republic of Macedonia" (but apparently there were ''better'' ones, like Peacemaker has shown to us). Only if you had made one step forward, just like I did, then, IMO, we would have had good changes to reach Peacemaker67's solution by ourselves, but ''without'' Peacemaker67's help! (not that I am dismissing Peacemaker67's help, I am saying that as editors we can do better than this).
::::::::::Fair enough. As for my being able to move on—unlike the trolls—I'm sure you've called ''me'' a troll at least once or twice. It seems I ''do'' grow on people after all.&nbsp;<small>·<font color="black">]</font>·</small> 06:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


::::::::::::::::You don't need me to tell you the obvious, that you are a smart and intelligent person, with alot of experience on Macedonia-related topics. Just I wish you handled things in an way that I wouldn't feel I was left without options but resort to desperate means such as to call for admin intervention. I can't shake from my mind the question "Why did we reach a point where Peacemaker67's intervention was necessary for something that Taivo, an experienced editor, would manage by simply reaching out to me?"
Lets keep things civilized. Crossthets, you need to keep a cool head, because you are unfortunately letting emotions take over rather than intellectual debating. I'm afraid I fail to see what conclusion your rantings are aiming to achieve.


] (]) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


::::::::::::::::IMO, we can't just keep calling the admins and RfCs ''every'' time we are in disagreement! Its getting ridiculous. A good start is to learn to trust each other. You will need understand that I have no personal agendas just because I disagree with you. It happens that I see everything from a different viewpoint than you do. Quite obvious, isn't it??? You may agree or disagre with me for many things but this isn't a reason to accuse me for having... agendas. I may have editorial POV, yes, but agendas? Or crocodile tears? Really? OK, you have made your choices.
== Poor editing ==
::::::::::::::::Excuse me but I will not reply any further, Im done here and this is not ]. You want to continue this discussion? Sure, use User Talk Pages. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::@everyone, Peacemaker67's resolution can be read here in case the above discussions get archived. --- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup></span> 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::At last, sanity prevails. ] (]) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


== The language "As a significant contingent of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians and view themselves as unrelated to Macedonians" does not follow logical semantics.. ==
I have to notice, that multi-editing in such cases and contents such as this:


The identifier "North" should be used in this context to differentiate Between the ethnic Greek subgroup of Macedonians and North Macedonians. As it wouldn't make sense for Greeks who consider themselves ethnically Macedonian to believe they are unrelated to ethnic Madeconians. Ed 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
"It must be noted <small>(by whom?)</small> that the alleged territorial concerns held by the Greek government are unrealistic <small>(says who?)</small> . By using allusions to the Greek civial war and the "Communist threat", it is intentionally conjuring strongly emotive and nationalistic responces from its citizens. Realistically, the the Republic of Macedonia relies on Greece for infratsracture investment and and defensive cooperation. That Macedonia will invade Greece is simply an act of political scare-mongering. The idea of a "united Macedonia" is, for the large majority of Macedonians, an idealistic thought. <small>(says who?)</small> "
:Nope. See: ]. ] (]) 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


: You left out and misplaced the one crucial word in the quoted phrase that makes all the difference: "unrelated to ''ethnic'' Macedonians". That word ''ethnic'' is the disambiguator here. Macedonian Greeks do not consider themselves "ethnically Macedonian"; they are ethnic Greeks. The Slavic Macedonians in North Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians. "North" can't be used as a disambiguator here because it's not part of the ethnic name; it's only part of the name of the country. There is no such thing as "North Macedonians". ] ] 18:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
...are the cornerstone of POV.
::They do in fact consider themselves "ethnic Macedonians" the way Cretans consider themselves "ethnic Cretans", and Maniotes consider themselves "ethnic Maniotes". These are known as ethnic subgroups. Referring to one side that perceives themselves as Macedonian but not ethnically Macedonian makes absolutely no sense and does not follow logic since for a Greek, being Macedonian is being part of an ethnic subgroup. Ed 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
:It shouldn't have taken you more than three reverts to start this discussion. But anyway, there's no issue here. The name of the ethnic group was not subject to the Prespa agreement. Countries don't dictate what people refer to themselves as. "Ethnic" is already a satisfactory distinction, since it refers to an ethnic group, not a regional group. "North Macedonians" is sometimes used by reliable sources to refer to citizens of North Macedonia. Most reliable sources still continue to refer to ethnic Macedonians as "Macedonians". Please sign your post too. ] (]) 18:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
::Regardless of the Prespa agreement, following simple logic and not defying the law of identity or noncontradiction should dictate the use of "North" as an identifier to follow good semantical reasoning. Ed 18:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I was trying to correct the Tag, and for some odd reason lag lept leaving out the double brackets I was adding. Ed 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Sorry, but we follow reliable sources, not editorial opinions. Reliable sources do not use the term "ethnic Macedonians" to refer to ethnic Greeks. Use four tildes to sign your comments. ] (]) 18:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


== Why is Misplaced Pages allowing such obviously biased language in this article? ==
--] (]) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Using the word "ethnic" before designators like "Macedonian Politician" etc, is verging on ridiculous use of language. Ed 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That's from the passage recently proposed by Hxseek, right? Yes, that is certainly not acceptable. ] ] 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:25, 1 May 2024

Former good article nomineeMacedonia naming dispute was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on December 9, 2011.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macedonia naming dispute article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconNorth Macedonia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGreece Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEurope Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Semiological confusion, and the first use of a past name

If the country has to be referred in a modern context by informing the readers about its past disputes with Greece, then the term North Macedonia suffices without further clarification in the first sentence of the article's lead paragraph. But if the editors want to change that sentence to refer to the country in a historical context, the first time this historical name is used, should be in its official form, Republic of Macedonia, instead of the short Macedonia. This is still per WP:NCMAC's historical context criteria while at same time eliminating any possible initial semiological confusion. The rest of the article does not require changes as the clarification is given already from the start. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 20:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Our current guideline for historic contexts still continues the same principle as the old WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2009, which stated that "'Republic of Macedonia' will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names", but that "'Macedonia', by itself, will be used to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous". It's quite simple really:
  • We use the old name of the country in pre-2019 contexts. This is one such context, without any doubt.
  • The old name of the country was "Macedonia", pure and simple. That was its name in exactly the same way as the names of its surrounding countries are "Greece", "Bulgaria", "Serbia" and so on.
  • Each of these other countries also has a formal long name involving some form of "Republic" ("Hellenic Republic", "Republic of Bulgaria", and so on). But we use those only in special, rare situations. Since we're not saying "Hellenic Republic" in this sentence, why would we want to use the long form for the second of the two countries we're mentioning?
  • The only other reason we habitually used to employ the "R. of" prefix somewhat more often was disambiguation. But disambiguation is already provided by the context of the sentence. Nothing could be more unambiguous than "the Southeast European countries of Greece and Macedonia" and "until 2019". No other of the many "Macedonias" was a country in Southeast Europe in 2019. How could any reader possibly be confused about which "Macedonia" this sentence is referring to? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You got some very valid points, but my points are as very valid too and I am sure you understand that. However, do you realize you are making changes without seeking WP:CONSENSUS? The name North Macedonia stayed like that for years and became Consensus. But if you want the old name for historical purposes, then we have to stick to the historic Consensus made for it, which, prior to 2019 it read: "The use of the name "Macedonia" is disputed between the southeastern European countries of Greece and the Republic of Macedonia". That's a compromise that will keep everyone satisfied and any concerns on disambiguation, soothed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Changing the article into a historical tone, brings us more questions: What about the infobox? The map? As you probably noticed, prior to 2019, it was "Republic of Macedonia" not only on the lead sentence, but also on the Infobox and the Map as well. Now with your changes, the infobox and map refer to the country using a present tone, but the lead no longer uses present tone but past tone... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
That old wording is of course no longer an option because it's out of date. And there are no concerns of disambiguation, because there simply isn't any ambiguity. Full stop. And no, you don't have any valid point at all, as usual. We'll simply apply the rules of WP:NCMAC (both the old and the new), which for some reason this article has so far failed to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I firmly disagree with your changes, you ought to seek consensus if you want your edits to stay. Go WP:BOLD, not edit warring. This isnt helpful! NCMAC states that Republic of Macedonia can be used in a historical context. This was the term used there as well before we changed it to North Macedonia. Mind you, Republic of Macedonia was used for a very long time and none had objected to it, not even you. What changed now and you are disputing it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Stamping your feet on the ground and crying "but I don't agree" won't help your case. You have no case. Read the guideline, then read it again to try and actually understand it. You haven't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I was a participant to the creation of the updated NCMAC. Something which you forgot. Second, I am not stamping my feet there, I am merely explaining that your uncompromising attitude is leading no where. I have already tried to explain to you that there are 3 options: North Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia and plain Macedonia, and I am fine with the 2 first ones, which had already been used in that sentence for a very long time and are stable for obvious reasons explained above and for which you failed to acknowledge. The third option, the plain Macedonia, was never used in the first sentence and I do not understand why this sudden insistence of yours to ram it there despite my concerns. I am fine with the first 2 options like everyone here was, I would say, before you come and make disputed changes to it. The topic of Macedonia is very sensitive and its articles have long been controversial, for which you, as an Admin, are fully aware of. The safest course here is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes to such a sensitive article like that. Is it much to ask from you to try and be more grateful towards me (and any editors who may not agree with your views), for offering you a compromise, which is Republic of Macedonia? You know that the plain Macedonia will never be accepted into the top of the article without much-needed clarifications such as North (which was stable for 1+ year), or Republic of (which was stable for many more years before it was replaced by North). If you don't want a compromise, then we return the sentence to its present tone, that is "North Macedonia" and be done with it. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
As usual, Future Perfect is right about MOSMAC and Silent Resident is misinterpreting other Misplaced Pages guidelines to suit a particular narrative. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
As usual, this comes by Taivo, the disruptive edit warrior who started not one, not two, but FOUR edit wars across Misplaced Pages over the use of the plain "Macedonia" on various articles. Coincidence???--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 08:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for being too busy in real life and not reporting sooner: The attention of an uninvolved admin has been requested at: . Also the article has been reverted back to the last stable version before all this disruption started. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 18:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
And, for the record, here's what that uninvolved admin answered: "] should answer most of the questions." Yes, indeed, it does. SilentResident might take this as a hint to finally start dealing with the question how her preferred wording matches that guideline (which it quite obviously doesn't). A question she so far hasn't addressed with even a single word in all those hundreds of words of rambling aboe. If that explanation isn't given in her very next posting on this page, I'll revert it back to the guideline-conforming wording soon. In the absence of such an argument, there really isn't anything to discuss further here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The Administrator said you should seek WP:CONSENSUS first: "WP:NCMAC should answer most of the questions. If no agreement can be reached, you should consider using an WP:RFC" I suggest you heel to his advice and try to come into agreement with those who disagree with your viewpoints, or else open a RFC and have a third opinion on this. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count. You don't count as long as you don't finally start doing what you ought to have done a dozen or so postings further up: address the issue how to properly apply the guideline. There will be an actionable disagreement if and when there is actually some argument on the table. Not just ranting on and on about how we must stick with some prior version, but an argument about the only thing that counts: how to apply WP:NCMAC. I don't know if you really don't realize this, but you haven't said a single word about that yet. Right now, there is nothing to agree or disagree about, other than the obvious fact that my version conforms with WP:NCMAC while yours doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count. First, you must really feel comfortable to speak like that against fellow editors, as admin that you are, heh? It will be useful in future reports against you. Second. lets see what we have here:

"the only thing that counts: how to apply WP:NCMAC" So, in your perception, the article's first sentence isn't in line with WP:NCMAC? I disagree. It meets NCMAC ctireria, just not the "historical context" criteria. Otherwise you wouldn't try change the wording in the first place and give it a historical context. But I do not mind any changes to it that can bring the sentence both under WP:NCMAC and under historical context criterias. However I do mind -in fact I am vehemently opposed- to the use of the ambiguous Macedonia as the first word in the lead paragraph for the country. The "Republic of" is necessary especially from the moment the lead is mentioning more than one Macedonias (Greek region of Macedonia, Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, Socialist Republic of Macedonia, etc).

You haven't explain why, while WP:NCMAC permits both "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia", you are insisting on using only the ambiguous "Macedonia" for the opening sentence of the article which is finding me vehemently opposed for the reasons underlined above and in previous discussions to which you were participant. Why not use "Republic of Macedonia" which is less ambiguous and still in line with WP:NCMAC? After all, this was the one we used in the very opening sentence for 10+ years already. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

How did any of the recent changes "give it" an historical context? It was an historical statement all along. Do you know the meaning of the little word "was"? It means in the past. The naming dispute no longer exists. It existed before 2019 and ceased to exist the moment the renaming happened. So, every statement describing the dispute is by necessity, always, a "pre-2019" historical statement in the sense of the guideline. It wasn't post-2019 "North Macedonia" that was engaged in the dispute, it was pre-2019 "Macedonia".
About ambiguity, what matters is not how many "Macedonia"s are mentioned somewhere in the lead or elsewhere in the article, but whether there is a danger of ambiguity in the particular sentence we're talking about. That's the only legitimate function of disambiguation: making sure readers won't misunderstand the particular passage in question. That sentence is perfectly disambiguated by the term "countries". There is no other "Macedonia" that is a country (or was one in 2019) or could possibly be engaged in a dispute with Greece, so no reader could possibly be confused about what this sentence means.
And I "haven't explained" why it should be the shorter term? Yes, I have, in my very first posting above. WP:NCMAC doesn't just blindly permit both the longer and the shorter form to be chosen at will; it mandates that the shorter form should be used where there is no danger of ambiguity. That was very explicitly spelled out in the old NCMAC, and the new NCMAC has inherited this principle for the historical contexts, even though it no longer spells it out in as much detail – it does explain the same principle for the modern "N.M." vs. "R. of N.M."; the historical "M." vs. "R. of M." go by the same criteria.
And stop going on and on about how much you are "vehemently opposed" to this or that or how this or that version was stable for so and so long – you should know that neither of these are of any relevance whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. This article is about the Naming Dispute and the lead paragraph shouldn't welcome the readers with anything less than the official name of the country whose the name was disputed in the first place. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
User:SilentResident has still failed to address the question of WP:NCMAC in any manner whatsoever, let alone a convincing manner. She is alone in her insistence that "North" should always precede "Macedonia" in each and every instance in which it occurs, a POV that she consistently pushes in every content dispute that she initiates and exacerbates (and then blames others for edit warring). The neutral admin was crystal clear--NCMAC answers all the questions. But SilentResident plays the game of I don't like it consistently and unconvincingly. "North Macedonia" was the result of Prespa, not a party to the dispute. That was "Macedonia". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
"Republic of Macedonia". The official name everybody (including you) consented to, for 10+ years to be used at the opening sentence of the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Initial comment I've been pinged to this by Ed as an uninvolved admin with a background in Balkans disputes. WP:NCMAC says that "all contentious edits touching upon North Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction.", unless you are reinstating the version conforming to NCMAC. Three editors have breached 1RR, although no doubt they will all claim they are reinstating the version conforming to NCMAC. In addition to the 1RR restriction under NCMAC, this is also an article subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Nevertheless, Silent Resident has breached 3RR in any case, and is lucky they have not been blocked on that basis. Given the interpretation of NCMAC in this case is disputed, I have restored the pre-dispute version (despite the fact that it may be the "wrong version"), to allow the resolution of the issue here on the talk page without further edit-warring. I will talk more about the interpretation of NCMAC in my next comment. Bear with me while I drill down into the consensus positions determined by the 2019 RFC. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Have now had a good look at the 2019 RFC, and it is very clear about issues such as this. What it says (in the collapsed detailed consensus box at the top) is:

5. Historical names: What should be used in place of Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia in other articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019?

Option B: Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia should still be used in historical articles, with an optional note similar to "now North Macedonia".

The closing panel agrees that there is a clear consensus for Option B. The terms "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" retain their meanings within the context of articles about the periods and events between 1991 and 2019 and thus, should not be changed, although an optional note such as "now North Macedonia" may be added where appropriate.

What this means is that when referring to the country between 1991 and 2019, Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia should be used to refer to the country, with the option of adding "now North Macedonia" where appropriate. Now, given this naming dispute is historical (as it says in the current first sentence, it "was" disputed, and therefore this is in the past) and occurred between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia between 1991 and 2019, not between Greece and North Macedonia after 2019 (as the dispute was resolved by the Prespa agreement and the subsequent change of country name to North Macedonia), we are clearly dealing with the quoted consensus on historical names here, so part 5 of the RFC applies to this article. In the circumstances, the optional use of "now North Macedonia" is appropriate, as that is now the name of the country, and is should be mentioned in the first sentence as it forms the resolution of the dispute that the article is about. There is the issue of consistent use of common names here, which Tomica quite rightly raised in an edit summary. If we use "Greece" as the common name for the Hellenic Republic, then it is only reasonable to use "Macedonia" as the common name for the Republic of Macedonia in the same sentence, especially as it is linked to the North Macedonia article. If it is followed by "now North Macedonia" it is indisputably clear what we are talking about. It is therefore clear that the first sentence should be worded "The use of the country name "Macedonia" was disputed between the Southeast European countries of Greece and Macedonia (now North Macedonia) between 1991 and 2019." and the first sentence of the second para should read "The dispute arose from the ambiguity in nomenclature between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon." Therefore, this edit is not IAW the 2019 RFC. I have implemented the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, that's a very good compromise IMO. The (Now North Macedonia) placed next to Macedonia, suffices for me, as it eliminates the risks for semiological confusions and it is much better than the version Taivo and FPAS had put, which was only an ambiguous Macedonia without any qualifiers next to it. Thank you! And again, sorry for the 1RR rule, wish I had realized this sooner rather than have FPAS bring it to my attention. Speaking of FPAS, I urge him and Taivo to leave the opening sentence untouched from now and on and refrain from such kinds of edits in the future. Peacemaker67, I would appreciate if can you leave the article locked for a while? I am worried someone may try revert your changes and this is the last thing the article needs. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 09:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with Peacemaker's version, of course. I still think my previous version was slightly more elegant, with the "North Macedonia" bit a few words further away but integrated in such a way that it actually added something substantial to the explanation of the issue. The interesting fact is not just that it happens to have this new name now, but that its name change was the very thing that resolved this dispute, so why not let the reader know this while we're at it? But that's a minor quibble and not worth fighting over. That SR now acts as if this tiny difference ("N. M." one word away versus nine words away from "M.") makes all the difference to them, as if readers could overcome the alleged "semiological confusion" she's been fantasizing about across a textual distance of no more than two words, only goes to demonstrate how utterly irrational her whole approach has been the whole time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If it is several words apart, then it is not a qualifier. If it is next to it, then it is. Something they haven't taught to you at the school's grammar lessons, I assume?
There might be cases where qualifiers can be words or sentences apart but this is not enough given this is a name dispute over an ambiguous name shared by multiple regions/entities in its background.
You are just trying just to make others's concerns appear illogical while yours as logical. To me, this is a classic characteristic of a defensive profile that has serious difficulties in communicating with other people of different views. These profiles usually are the ones that have difficult time trying to find a common ground in disputes. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 16:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Time for protection?

I'll fully protect the article if three of the recent editors request it. But we know how tedious that can be. Surely there is some other way.. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose any of us would want you to protect it unless it happens to be on the correct version, right? – But seriously, the only way ahead I see is that the editor who has so far stubbornly dodged any invitation to engage with the content and guideline issue and has instead engaged in purely procedural stonewalling should be clearly told to either start bringing forward pertinent arguments or go away. That's what we have admins for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't wondered why I was not responding to you for a while. You got to my nerves with your insults.
  • " I'll revert it back to the guideline-conforming wording soon. In the absence of such an argument, there really isn't anything to discuss further here."
  • "But there isn't anybody who disagrees with me here. You don't count."
I say, EdJohnston, yes lets lock the article, because I do not trust the editor is suitable enough for editing it! After all, I have no changes to make to it, it is him who caused all this disruption.
Edit: So it seems one more editor is disagreeing with Future Perfect and Taivo's version: Future Perfect you said you are not counting me, but looks like you will have to make a re-count. Sorry to say, but that makes it not "zero" but TWO editors against your plain "Macedonia"... I believe it is better if the article is locked to the last stable version and open a RFC on the matter. There isn't anything else to say in this discussion, I have become too stressed and anxious after this climate encountered and the insults against me. If a RFC is opened, I will participate. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 20:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
SilentResident, you are now beyond 3RR . Please self-revert. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
As you are. Difference is I wasnt the one who instigated all this disruption, it was you. I was simply defending it from what seems to be: 1) Going without consensus, 2) dismissing your opponent's concerns, 3) insulting them in talk pages... need to say more? For this reason I asked for Admin attention. This is too much for me to handle by myself, I have OVERDONE myself and yet to no avail: all I see is more and more drawn to the edit war you started: Are you feeling proud for it? I will repeat myself one more time to Ed: the article needs to be locked! As for you, FPAS, I am disappointed. Next time learn to make consensuses instead of wars. @Alexikoua & Tomica, it is not worth going into edit wars just because of FPAS's contested edits. Please lets open a RfC like how Ed has suggested and let a new consensus to be formed. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not beyond 3RR. I (admittedly) made two reverts yesterday, and a third one more than 24 hours later today; this last one having been unfortunately unavoidable because your (and Alexikoua's) careless editing in the meantime had led to a version that was not just contrary to the guidelines but plain nonsensical ("North Macedonia changing its name to North Macedonia"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
And Alexikoua does not agree with SilentResident, his edit was to "clean up" the stable version that I had reverted to. He did nothing to change the wording of Macedonia, his edit concerned a different topic. SilentResident is stretching the facts to agree with her own unique agenda. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@FPAS and Taivo: You still have the chance to do things right this time: either call a RfC like Ed said and make a new WP:CONSENSUS, or return the article to the old consensus. Anything else, be it edit wars, arguments, accusations or insults against your opponents, isn't helpful. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@SilentResident. What "isn't helpful" is your POV pushing that ignores NCMAC and Ed's actual advice: "NCMAC says it all". You don't seem to be able to read or remember any comments that don't support your unique POV. Ed said to refer to NCMAC. You don't seem to have heeded his comment at all and seem to be completely ignoring NCMAC. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I am speechless. You just claimed that the 2 options of the 3, which are "North Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" (which was used for years, and YOU CONSENTED to it), are "completely ignoring NCMAC". Wow! What can I say?
You know something? I am curious, if these 2 options indeed ignore NCMAC, why did you let them stay in the opening sentence for YEARS (10+ years)?
Why in all of sudden you instigated all this disruption and edit wars to have it removed in an unsuspecting time like this?
Why didn't you support my repeated calls for the respect of WP:CONSENSUS?
If the old CONSENSUS was problematic, then why didn't you even seek a new WP:CONSENSUS building?
Why did you not even ask for a third opinion or RfC on the matter?
Why have you and FPAS been quiet to Ed's calls for a RfC???
Trying to put the blame on others for your wrong doings isn't going to help. Seems you love accusing other for having hidden "agendas" and such, but none of us started the mess, it was you. Your edit log shows you have participated in 4 disputes related to Macedonia already. And now this time you who broke ARBMAC, broke long-established 10-year CONSENSUS and broke 1-year SILENT CONSENSUS, broke WP:CYCLE, and your disruption got 4+ different editors and +3 Admins drawn to them, and more. You want to criticize me? Do it. I am not pretending to be a perfect person, and unlike you, I fully acknowledge with shame my fault for breaching 1RR while trying to defend the article from you. Wish I realized I was breaking the 1RR sooner so that I prevent myself from falling for it and having FPAS bring it to my attention when it was too late. The admins and the community have my apology. I accept my responsibility and that's why I called Tomica and Alexikoua to constraint themselves so that there aren't any further 1RR breaches. But if you want to criticize me, first you will have to be honest with yourself and acknowledge your wrongdoings which caused these disruptions in the first place, both here and on the other articles. If it wasn't for your edit wars and breaks of CONSENSUS, then the locking of the article and the Admin intervention wouldn't have happened now. Criticize me as much as you like, but first I expect you to acknowledge your wrongdoings, support our call for CONSENSUS and RfC and stop your edit wars across Macedonia-related topics once and for all. I do not EVEN want to see the name "Taivo" in future edit wars about Macedonia again! It is getting tiring already.
Edit: nevermind about RfCs and such, Peacemaker67 intervened and offered an excellent compromise that can satisfy both parties: "Macedonia" stays, but a much needed qualifier "North Macedonia" is added next to it and IMO this soothes all of my concerns for possible semiological confusions. I am positive that the dispute is resolved. However I do insist that the article stays locked for a while at least. The article's protection is necessary, IMO, if we really want to prevent similar incidents in the future. Also a reminder to everyone and to myself as I failed: the article is subject to 1RR. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no need for the article to remain locked because it is now in compliance with NCMAC (it was not in compliance previously). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is. The article will have to remain locked unless the editors who 1) stirred the edit wars, 2) ignored the consensus, and 3) went with changes without taking in account the other party's concerns, acknowledge their attidude was inappropriate and promise to not repeat this in the future. There is also my fear that because the new sentence is still fresh, someone who didn't participate in the Talk Page might not like Peacemaker's resolution and try restoring back any disputed edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 12:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
How funny. You are the one who started the edit warring, no one else. You are the one who rejected Future Perfect's perfectly acceptable wording that was in compliance (as he explained) with NCMAC. You are the one that the article needs to be protected from, just like every other article where you take your flaming "North" sword into useless battle. What did you achieve with your edit warring and whining? Nothing. The word "North" moved forward a couple of words, but changed nothing to native speakers of English who are perfectly capable of understanding context. You're not a native speaker and although your English is very good, it's not at the level of being able to lecture native speakers as to what they can and can not understand based on normal context. Future's edit was in line with NCMAC, which, as you have been told, is the final authority on this matter. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Speak only for yourself. What may be perfect for you isn't necessarily for everyone else. You should have asked us if we find it perfect, something you DIDNT. Instead, you and FPAS came here with the "We will have it worded THIS way, because we say so and think so! We don't care about consensus, We don't care about SilentResident's concerns, she has agendas, and she doesn't count anyways" attitude. You are welcome to consider FPAS's wording as being better for you, but for me it is Peacemaker's. Period.
IMO, there is nothing more to say here. This discussion has come to a natural end, and there are better things to do than arguing indefinitely with you. Good day. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear I have no objections to PeaceMaker's wording whatsoever, it is perfectly acceptable to me and to Misplaced Pages's actual, enforceable WP:CONSENSUS embodied as policy in WP:NCMAC. You keep weeping over the "lack of consensus", but you seem ignorant of the simple fact that WP:NCMAC itself is, indeed, a consensus of the broadest kind. It is you, dear SilentResident, who wanted to ignore consensus, not Future and I who were seeking to enforce the broadest of consensuses in this matter. Your crocodile tears are noted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No one has ever stated that WP:NCMAC isn't a WP:CONSENSUS in the broader form. Has anyone ever stated that? No.
The real question here is why did 2 experienced editors, you and FPAS, attempted to force your wording of preference into the article, when it has become clear it was opposed? Why force it instead of building a consensus and figuring out better alternatives such as Peacemaker67's "Macedonia (now North Macedonia)" when it has become clear that your plain "Macedonia" wasn't accepted into the opening sentence?
Why wouldn't we work on finding a compromise together? I made a step: offered you a compromise, didn't I? It is the "Republic of Macedonia" (but apparently there were better ones, like Peacemaker has shown to us). Only if you had made one step forward, just like I did, then, IMO, we would have had good changes to reach Peacemaker67's solution by ourselves, but without Peacemaker67's help! (not that I am dismissing Peacemaker67's help, I am saying that as editors we can do better than this).
You don't need me to tell you the obvious, that you are a smart and intelligent person, with alot of experience on Macedonia-related topics. Just I wish you handled things in an way that I wouldn't feel I was left without options but resort to desperate means such as to call for admin intervention. I can't shake from my mind the question "Why did we reach a point where Peacemaker67's intervention was necessary for something that Taivo, an experienced editor, would manage by simply reaching out to me?"


IMO, we can't just keep calling the admins and RfCs every time we are in disagreement! Its getting ridiculous. A good start is to learn to trust each other. You will need understand that I have no personal agendas just because I disagree with you. It happens that I see everything from a different viewpoint than you do. Quite obvious, isn't it??? You may agree or disagre with me for many things but this isn't a reason to accuse me for having... agendas. I may have editorial POV, yes, but agendas? Or crocodile tears? Really? OK, you have made your choices.
Excuse me but I will not reply any further, Im done here and this is not WP:FORUM. You want to continue this discussion? Sure, use User Talk Pages. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@everyone, Peacemaker67's resolution can be read here in case the above discussions get archived. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 09:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
At last, sanity prevails. Khirurg (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The language "As a significant contingent of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians and view themselves as unrelated to Macedonians" does not follow logical semantics..

The identifier "North" should be used in this context to differentiate Between the ethnic Greek subgroup of Macedonians and North Macedonians. As it wouldn't make sense for Greeks who consider themselves ethnically Macedonian to believe they are unrelated to ethnic Madeconians. Ed 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

Nope. See: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Jingiby (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
You left out and misplaced the one crucial word in the quoted phrase that makes all the difference: "unrelated to ethnic Macedonians". That word ethnic is the disambiguator here. Macedonian Greeks do not consider themselves "ethnically Macedonian"; they are ethnic Greeks. The Slavic Macedonians in North Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians. "North" can't be used as a disambiguator here because it's not part of the ethnic name; it's only part of the name of the country. There is no such thing as "North Macedonians". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
They do in fact consider themselves "ethnic Macedonians" the way Cretans consider themselves "ethnic Cretans", and Maniotes consider themselves "ethnic Maniotes". These are known as ethnic subgroups. Referring to one side that perceives themselves as Macedonian but not ethnically Macedonian makes absolutely no sense and does not follow logic since for a Greek, being Macedonian is being part of an ethnic subgroup. Ed 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
It shouldn't have taken you more than three reverts to start this discussion. But anyway, there's no issue here. The name of the ethnic group was not subject to the Prespa agreement. Countries don't dictate what people refer to themselves as. "Ethnic" is already a satisfactory distinction, since it refers to an ethnic group, not a regional group. "North Macedonians" is sometimes used by reliable sources to refer to citizens of North Macedonia. Most reliable sources still continue to refer to ethnic Macedonians as "Macedonians". Please sign your post too. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of the Prespa agreement, following simple logic and not defying the law of identity or noncontradiction should dictate the use of "North" as an identifier to follow good semantical reasoning. Ed 18:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)
I was trying to correct the Tag, and for some odd reason lag lept leaving out the double brackets I was adding. Ed 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but we follow reliable sources, not editorial opinions. Reliable sources do not use the term "ethnic Macedonians" to refer to ethnic Greeks. Use four tildes to sign your comments. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is Misplaced Pages allowing such obviously biased language in this article?

Using the word "ethnic" before designators like "Macedonian Politician" etc, is verging on ridiculous use of language. Ed 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

Categories: