Talk:North Macedonia

Previous discussion have been archived. Editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to see also Archive1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (polls on move and intro par), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Two subpages for the naming conflict have also been created: Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position and Talk:Republic of Macedonia/Comments to FYROM name support position

Article move

I have moved this article to Macedonia to meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy and to achieve consistency with other Wikipedia articles and external sources. The issue of the article's name has been discussed and disputed for seven years. Unfortunately, it is clear that Wikipedia's normal processes of consensus have broken down in this instance; a lengthy discussion to find a compromise failed some time ago, a number of Greek editors has consistently sought to promote a nationalist POV on the issue, and pro-Greek nationalist vandalism on this topic is endemic across Wikipedia. Patterns of usage in English-language sources have shifted markedly during the last seven years but the breakdown of consensus-seeking on this issue has prevented us from keeping up with the state of play off-wiki. I've therefore decided, very exceptionally, to intervene to resolve this issue once and for all.

Here's a summary of the rationale behind this change:

• Naming policy. Names are governed by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy, which requires that we "use common names of persons and things".
• Common names prioritised. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) prioritises "the most commonly used name" because "using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more."
• Self-identifying names prioritised. Where names are disputed, as in this instance, Wikipedia:Naming conflict requires us to prioritise the "self-identifying name" of an entity without reference to the political or moral merits of that name.
• How Macedonia self-identifies. Macedonia self-identifies formally as the "Republic of Macedonia" in its constitution and its government affairs [1], and uses "Macedonia" as the common short form of this formal name. Approximately two-thirds of UN member states, including all but two of the English-speaking countries, use this name.
• Daily usage by English media. In daily use by the English-language media, "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly the preferred term ([2] vs [3]).
• Usage by other reference works. Almost all of the reference works (encyclopedias, dictionaries, gazetteers etc) available via Credo Reference and Oxford Reference Online use the term "Macedonia" as the conventional short form of the country; most also use "Macedonia" by itself as the name of their articles on the country.

Macedonia

Britannica

Philip's World Factbook 2008-2009

Chambers Dictionary of World History

The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

Penguin Encyclopedia of Places

The Encyclopedia of World History

The Harvard Dictionary of Music

The Hutchinson Chronology of World History

A Guide to Countries of the World

Collins English Dictionary

Macedonia, Republic of or Macedonia (republic)

Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary

The Crystal Reference Encyclopedia

Macedonia, [The] Former Yugoslav Republic of

(article title, however articles all use "Macedonia" almost exclusively within the body text)

Philip's Encyclopedia 2008

The Macmillan Encyclopedia

A Dictionary of World History

World Encyclopedia

A Dictionary of Contemporary World History

• Primary topic. Wikipedia:Disambiguation states that "When a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title". It recommends that when determining which article constitutes a primary topic for a particular term, we should take into account the number of incoming wikilinks and article traffic statistics. Figures from http://stats.grok.se show what our readers are actually reading. All figures from March 2009:

article	hits
"Macedonia" entries
Republic of Macedonia	119,905
Macedon	22,845
Macedonia (region)	12,827
Macedonia (Greece)	11,660
Socialist Republic of Macedonia	1,972
Macedonia (Roman province)	1,873
Blagoevgrad Province	1,707
Diocese of Macedonia	296
Macedonia (theme)	603
Macedonia, Alabama	365
Macedonia, Georgia	317

With regard to the four top entries, the approximate number of incoming wikilinks is as follows:

article	wikilinks
Republic of Macedonia	~8,000
Macedonia (region)	~1,000
Macedonia (Greece)	~800
Macedon	~100

• To conclude, the key points are:
  • "Macedonia" is the common form of the formal self-identifying name "Republic of Macedonia".
  • "Macedonia" is overwhelmingly the predominant term for the country in English-language encyclopedias, dictionaries and everyday usage by the media.
  • The primary topic for the term "Macedonia", as determined by the number of web hits and incoming links, is the article on the country of that name.

I am aware that this will be a controversial move for some of our editors. However, Wikipedia's policies take precedence above national sentiments. Wikipedia is not subordinate to the views of external agencies and organisations, so the fact that certain international organisations and states may choose to use alternative terminology does not determine how we approach this issue. I suggest that if editors disagree with my actions, they should save their comments for the arbitration case due to start next week. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely endorse your move. Good work!--Patton^t/c 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is a good move as well, in the two languages I know and can speak Macedonia is always the primary usage.I s there suppose to be changes for lets say Republic of Macedonia national football team, Flag of Republic of Macedonia and templates like Country data etc, and what about links? chandler ··· 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there will need to be a general renaming of "Republic of Macedonia" articles. But I suggest waiting a day or two to see how this pans out first. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job of marshalling the evidence and making the arguments clear, concise, and well-documented. (Taivo (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Good move, I fully endorse it. I find your reasoning persuasive. While I'm sure some people will object, this is a global encyclopedia and opposition to the obvious naming mostly originates from a limited region. henrik•talk 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above, this was an excellent decision, and I commend you for being willing to finally put an end to this nonsense. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was too obvious ChrisO. See you at ArbCom where I will personally propose you will be desysopped for abusing the admin tools.--Avg (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was too obvious that following what ChrisO has posted Macedonia was the clear primary topic, and therefore should be treated as the primary topic chandler ··· 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to post your opinion at the ArbCom. The diffs are here for everyone to see what happened. --Avg (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do object to the move?--Patton^t/c 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The United Nations List of Member Countries, the European Union, and Germany refer to the country as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. (Germany sometimes abbreviates the name to "Macedonia", after the full name has been used.) The United States apparently use "Macedonia". --Cs32en (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And as ChrisO has so clearly stated, Wikipedia is bound by no international organization's compromises. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

Discussion copied from WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Intervention

I just noticed that Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia and the previous content of the page, which was basically a longer dab, seems to have disappeared. The person who did the move, User:ChrisO, cites policy as being the basis for the move, as per the Talk:Macedonia page. I don't know that anyone was given any prior notice of his intention to move the page, however. Just letting you all know. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I recall that there was quite a bit of discussion on the Boards regarding the proper name, mostly about Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia (or similar?) being preferred by no-one except Greek Nationalists. I don't know the outcome of the discussion, but the move may have been the result of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous content of the page is now at Macedonia (disambiguation). The naming now follows the standard pattern used for every other country, and is specifically based on Luxembourg (with Luxembourg (disambiguation) and Azerbaijan (with Azerbaijan (disambiguation). In answer to the (I suppose implicit) question here, this is a unilateral administrative action but one that is based firmly on policy. As the rationale on the talk page explains, all attempts at consensus-forming over the past seven years have failed due to a strongly nationalist Greek block of editors - policy and standard practice has simply been ignored. This is an unashamedly bold attempt to break a seven-year deadlock and enforce a form of naming that is standard for every other country article. Some of our Greek editors will doubtless object but cutting Gordian Knots is, after all, a Macedonian tradition. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I very definitely agree with the "Bold" part. I was in fact a regular part of the discussion on the Talk:Greece page for some time now, but the discussion there was about whether "Republic of Macedonia" or "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" was the preferable name to use in that article. I do not remember there having ever been any discussion of even using in that article, let alone rename the central article itself, to the simpler name "Macedonia". In fact, I seem to remember that in the discussion there was virtually unanimous agreement that the article on the country would stay at Republic of Macedonia. I wonder whether such a destabilization of what was an at least reluctantly acceptable situation by both sides of the discussion, particularly without any sort of prior approval or agreement that I can see, is really the wisest move here. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the likes of Republic of Ireland who self identify as Ireland.? It may have a slightly different argument but if as you say it's standard practice to use the self identifying name then it's not standard practice across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think The Republic of Ireland is a very common name in English (especially in Britain), and I dont know about the hit counts, but from what's been shown on the talk page, ROM for Macedonia was a clear, clear primary topic, but some, what was it 10x hits than Macedonia (Greece) and 5 times the hits of the second choice chandler ··· 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There's been *seven years* of discussion. The article was the subject of edit wars and disputes within days of its creation way back in 2002. There is in fact no stability on this issue; nationalist vandalism relating to the naming issue is continuous and endemic across Wikipedia, as this abuse filter demonstrates. When President of the Republic of Macedonia was on the "In the news" section of the Main Page last week, it was twice vandalised by someone editing from the Greek Parliament. Leave aside the procedural niceties: I've set out the policy rationale on Talk:Macedonia. The issue at hand is whether this move is validated by policy. I'd say it's clear-cut. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was time for a third option. If there was a stalemate between the advocates of the different "Republic" titles then the new one should suffice until there is an agreement - this may be a stimulus, given that if neither side like the most recent rename then there is at least one thing they agree on, toward arriving at a consensus. In that light, I suggest that there is no undoing of the move until such a consensus is arrived at? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what specific part of the policy was used to make the change. Jack forbes (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all outlined on Talk:Macedonia chandler ··· 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the same logic, People's Republic of China should take the China (3fold hits, incoming links, common usages etc). I smell more dramas coming from the too bold move.--Caspian blue 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PRC vs Taiwan is a territorial dispute - two states disputing ownership of the same territory. So is Ireland, to an historical extent, vis-a-vis Northern Ireland. Neither side disputes the other's right over the name of its part of the territory - the dispute is over who governs that territory. Neither Greece nor Macedonia disputes any territorial matters; it's purely an issue of one side (Greece) claiming exclusive rights to the name, which isn't a situation replicated in either China or Ireland. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @ChrisO, no, not just territorial dispute, but the ownership of the name "China" and its long "history" too. We already had a move suggestion/discussion last year (heated one). If the move was carried by a Macedonian, I wonder how good the user would get? Not too sweet one.--Caspian blue 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For UN member states, the United Nations List of Member States does probably indicate the prevailing consensus. --Cs32en (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in this case: the UN uses a different terminology from two thirds of its member states, which use "Macedonia" instead. The situation is that the state self-identifies as Macedonia but participates in certain international organisations under a provisional reference (not a name!) due to Greek objections. But as I've noted on Talk:Macedonia, that's really a side issue, since Wikipedia's approach isn't determined by state policies towards an issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Korea versus Republic of Korea may also be a relevant comparison here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Korea is another dissimilar example, more akin to China or Ireland - it's one territory disputed by two states, whereas Macedonia is not a territorial dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Ireland (rep) no longer dispute any territory. It is purely a wikipedia debate on the naming of the country, which is why I say the policy is not used across the board. Jack forbes (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why it was given the sole name "Macedonia". Isn't the usual convention for that to only happen when the target is what most people are looking for? I would suggest the page be at "Macedonia (country)" as we have done with articles such as "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds logical.--Caspian blue 20:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe both Georgias were found to have roughly the same level of prominence (hits, incoming links etc). That clearly isn't the case in this instance. Macedonia the country has five times the usage and eight times the number of incoming links to the next most prominent item on the list (which isn't Greek Macedonia). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Georgia the country got 150k views last month, the state 100k (from stats.grok.se). According to the same view numbers above, Macedonia the country gets 5 times more hits than the next article that could conceivably use the Macedonia name. henrik•talk 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Would Georgia (country) be such a clear primary topic? I would guess not, just because Georgia (US state) is the common usage in the USA chandler ··· 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget that most English speakers live outside the USA and Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think because there are many US users it is what heights the US state up to "block" the country as primary usage. Plus from what I can see about the country it doesnt seem to be called "Republic of Georgia" or something like that, so (country) is the only possible disambig for it i guess chandler ··· 20:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but as Henrik indicates there isn't a huge gap between the prominence of each name. The situation with Macedonia is very different, as the stats show. As a matter of fact, it generally isn't necessary to include the form of government in an article's title; we don't, for instance, refer to Libya as the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (thank goodness). The only situation I can think of where you absolutely need to have a disambiguation-by-prefix is if two states use very similar names and govern a common, potentially disputed, territory. We get around the problem of Republic of Korea versus Democratic People's Republic of Korea because the two states are commonly referred to by geographical disambiguators - North Korea and South Korea. The only examples I can think of where we do need to disambiguate-by-prefix are People's Republic of China versus Republic of China and Republic of the Congo versus Democratic Republic of the Congo (the latter is particularly problematic, as there don't seem to be common terms for those states). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The timing on this was very bad indeed, as an arbitration request over the name of the country in the Greece article was going to be initiated next week, after the conclusion of the Orthodox Easter holiday. This really borders on reckless, Chris; you are aware of the planned arbitration request, and this move smacks of trying to gain the upper hand in the dispute, which reflects badly on you and (by extension) those who have supported you over a series of attacks on the content guideline you authored which covers this debate. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the other view on the timing is, doing this now when we are going to have an Arbcom case anyway gives us the opportunity of having his action checked (and, if necessary, confirmed or reversed) in a controlled atmosphere and under the auspices of that body. Which may actually save us some drama, which would otherwise have been unavoidable. As for the issue itself, I'd say the case for applying the "primary use" rule to this article is indeed extremely strong. At the same time, experience with the other related disputes has shown that a regular consensus-seeking process would never have led to any policy-conformant outcome in this field. This is clearly the right result, and it is just as clear that it would never have been reached without this slighly irregular bold coup. I'm looking for a "gordian knot barnstar", but there doesn't seem to be one yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. There's actually no better time to put the policy issues on the table, as it gives Arbcom a clear target to aim at. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ChrisO, you're a liar who used deceipt to make this move. And this is no personal attack, it is the simple fact, no matter how bluntly I put it. And you lied when you made the move from Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation) yesterday when you labelled it "minor". It was paving the ground for this move today. When I flagged it to you and specifically asked you to comment, you failed to.--Avg (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves are automatically marked minor by the software. Secondly, calling people liars is not how we conduct discussions here. Saying it is no personal attack doesn't make it so either. Please discuss this matter civilly. henrik•talk 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I will not retract, per WP:SPADE. This is exactly what happened. I'm not talking about software, I'm talking about ChrisO's own words. Check Talk:Macedonia (disambiguation) yourself.--Avg (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I said I'd made a minor change to the page naming, and if you look at the diff this is exactly what I did. Adding "(disambiguation)" to the name of a disambiguation page is not an earth-shattering event. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole episode exactly as it happened will be put in front of ArbCom and I would let them opine.--Avg (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I now see which use of 'minor' you referred to. I will however still suggest you spend more time arguing your case and less time calling people liars. ChrisO has made a very compelling case above why this title is the proper naming for the country according to Wikipedia guidelines; if you wish to change that I suggest you put together an equally compelling case that some other article should use the 'Macedonia' title. henrik•talk 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no such compelling case as is referred to by Henrik. As I understand it, the highest policy we have is WP:CONSENSUS, and this unilateral move seems to be to fly in the face of that policy. I very much hope that ChrisO has an answer ready by the time Arbitration opens, and after this it may not wait until next week. Speaking strictly for myself, I have to say that my confidence in his ability to reasonably use the tools of adminship has been very shaken by this action. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point about the Arbcom case is that the history of the past years has shown us that the normal consensus-seeking mechanisms just don't work when dealing with strong and extremely determined national groups like here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away here. One article has been renamed. The many related articles which use "Republic of Macedonia" in their titles are still at the same locations. As Fut. Perf. has said, the Arbcom will have an opportunity to review the policy issues in a controlled fashion. If it decides that the policy rationale is insufficient, then this article can be moved back to its old name. As for WP:CONSENSUS, there are sometimes situations in which consensus cannot be reached because of certain factors - in this case a number of Greek editors who have consistently filibustered and wikilawyered every discussion on the subject.Ultimately it's a question of whether or not we follow basic policies; you can't have a consensus to violate policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you telling people not to get carried away is somewhat amusing, as the one rash action which took place was your own. And I agree there was no agreement or consensus for the move, despite the page regarding such matters which you developed. There is a very real question here as to whether you followed basic policies in your deceit and unilateral actions. And I do not personally think that any attempt to try to blame the existing situation for your own individual actions is likely to succeed. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work with faits accomplis, but with consensus. It is clear for me ChrisO abused the admin tools to win a content dispute and as far as I'm concerned, there is a very concrete case against him.--Avg (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The move function is locked, so Avg can not do the same thing that ChrisO did. However, any admin who disagrees with ChrisO can move it first anyway and then explain his motivation here. Then, he/she may get same responses from the supporters like: "Good move! Wikipedia is based on consensus and talk" etc.--Caspian blue 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's wheel warring, and very much frowned upon (as in a desysopping offence) by Arbcom. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let's be fair, Chris. You can't very well claim wheel-warring protection for your move here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to reverting admins, I think people need to step carefully, that's all. Something that someone considers not wheel-warring could be interpreted differently by someone else, or by Arbcom. Better not to risk it, I'd say. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth change it just before an Arbcom case is put forward on the naming dispute? Doesn't this stir things up further? Jack forbes (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it allows the Arbcom to review a clear policy issue in a controlled fashion and issue a binding recommendation. A move after an Arbcom case would just be a mess. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting you abused the admin tools to present to the ArbCom the facts the way it suits your POV.--Avg (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The policy rationale is at the top of this page. The rationale stays the same whatever the timing may be. In this case we have a perfect opportunity to discuss the policy issues in a controlled fashion and go forward - renaming all the other "Republic of Macedonia" articles in the same fashion - or go back to the old name, depending on the Arbcom's recommendations. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In which way having moved the article to Macedonia helps to discuss the issue in a "controlled fashion" if not by creating a new status quo and then asking the Arbs to uphold it? The discussion would be exactly the same amount of "controlled" if you simply laid out your arguments in the talk page without having made the move.--Avg (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD aside, the timing for this move doesn't appear to have been the most adequate. We should rather wait for the arbitration. Everybody will feast on drama then, no need for appetizers. I would recommend Chris to move the article back and wait for the arbitration. Húsönd 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

For so many years, and despite any disputes and political discussions, there was a balance in Wikipedia regarding this issue. Now, defying any logic, this man has singlehandedly and without any discussion or warning managed to turn everything upside down. He managed to provoke unnecessary tension which will undoubtedly explode all over Wikipedia. He managed to again pour fanaticism into both sides, since one will furiously oppose and the other frantically defend this move. I also clearly oppose this action and will support any action against ChrisO for, in a totally unadministrative manner, bringing on blind fanaticism where a self-imposed peace was achieved. GK1973 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Things should be moved back

First, a disclaimer: my only connection to the whole Macedonia naming dispute is that my grandmother once visited the region as part of a tour of Europe.

Things should be moved back, and Macedonia should be a disambiguation page. As ChrisO's numbers show, while the article on the country gets the majority of the traffic and links, it's not an overwhelming majority: almost a third of users are looking for something else, and the proportion of links is similar. --Carnildo (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That would mean MORE than two thirds look for the country? isn't that what's called a supermajority in same places? I do think two thirds is a clear sign of primary topic chandler ··· 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the figures, Macedonia the country gets more than twice the traffic of all the other listed articles combined, and around four times as many links as the other articles combined. That's an overwhelming majority by any description. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I said above, this proves that you want to use these arguments to ask from ArbCom to uphold the name Macedonia. This would not be the easy if you asked them to move the article to Macedonia though, would it? So it is obvious you're gaming the system to win a content dispute.--Avg (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I notice you made a slight change to your opening sentence here. Does this mean you did not change the name in your capacity as an admin but rather as a run of the mill user? Jack forbes (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, yes. There was no clear and present administrative need for the page to be moved. As such, he was acting on his own perception of policies and guidelines, like any other user would. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's principally an editorial action to implement standard naming policies and guidelines. If you look at the changes I made to the page at the same time, I made numerous editorial changes to eliminate the dozens of unneeded repetitions of "Republic of Macedonia", fix awkward wording, remove peacock terms and deleted images, and so on. Think of it as essentially an overhaul (much needed, IMO) to a fairly stagnant article. Having said that, there was a minor use of the sysop bit to expedite the move (since move permissions are locked due to previous move warring and vandalism), which is why I expressed caution earlier about the suggestion that another admin could undo the action unilaterally. It's possible that some could interpret that as wheel-warring, which wouldn't be helpful for anyone. I advise against doing that for obvious reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And edit warring is going on..

The edit warring on the page and dab seems like provoked by the move, obviously. --Caspian blue 22:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)