Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia

This page is for centralised discussion about Macedonia-related naming issues, in particular:

• What should be the page title of the country article (currently Macedonia) and of the associated disambiguation page?

• What should be the conventions for page titles of sub-articles dealing with the country or the other Macedonias?

• What should be the conventions for referring to the country from other articles?

Phase one of the discussion concerned deciding which proposals should be put forward to the community. The merits and drawbacks of each proposal were discussed and listed. At the conclusion of this phase, interested editors listed their preferences for which proposals should be submitted to the community. A table of the results may be found here.

Phase two consists of opening a Request for comment, inviting members of the community at large to voice their opinions on the proposals made during phase one. For any page that had more than four choices, the four with the most total "points" were chosen for consideration. For those with four or less, all were submitted.

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

The referees were instructed by the Arbitration Committee to "Disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline."^[1]

If, in their discussion, the referees consider a proposal to be contrary to the policies and guidelines listed above, they will not list that proposal in their conclusions, even if the proposal has more endorsements than others.

Links to
 • Subpages for discussion of each issue
 • Various policies, guidelines, and relevant Arbitration cases
 • Evidence and other resources relating to the dispute
may be found in the navbox to the right.

Structure

This process has been initiated by the Arbitration Committee and is overseen by a team of three admin-referees appointed by the committee, Fritzpoll (talk · contribs), J.delanoy (talk · contribs), and Shell Kinney (talk · contribs).

The process has been divided up into a number of sub-pages for better structuring

This central page provides a general overview of the issue and the process. The central talk page is for discussing procedural questions.

The main topic discussions will be held at several sub-pages dealing with separate issues. In the current phase, participants are invited to work together to establish an outline of the issues to be decided, by assembling a set of alternative proposals, each with a concise summary presentation of the arguments for and against. Some rules of conduct are outlined here.

• main articles (talk): dealing with the page title of the main country article and concomitant issues
• other page titles (talk): dealing with the page titles of various sub-articles
• other articles (talk): dealing with conventions of how to refer to the country in normal article text in other articles
  • international organizations (talk): dealing with special conventions for articles such as Council of Europe or 2008 Summer Olympics
  • Greece-related (talk): dealing with naming practices to be used in the Greece article and other Greece-related articles.

Other pages:

• evidence is for presenting factual evidence in support of proposals.
• Nationalities and affiliations: a page where some participants have voluntarily provided statements disclosing their national affiliations, for transparency.

Principles

The discussion process is installed in response to an Arbitration Committee decision at WP:ARBMAC2, which says:

“

Seek neutral outside opinion

1) All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.

Scope of remedies

2.1) The remedies in this case shall apply to any disagreement among editors concerning the proper use or designation of the names "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia", "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", or any similar or related reference in any article in Wikipedia.

Establishing consensus on names

29.1.1) Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened. Prior to the discussion ending, the Arbitration Committee will designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators who will assess the consensus developed during the discussion, and report the results of their assessment within one week of the end of the discussion. The results will then be appended onto this case, and the consensus as assessed by the panel shall be enforceable as if it were a naming convention.

In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

Stalemate resolution

6) When the net effect of blocs of editors with a shared agenda disrupts the achievement of consensus over, and/or negates the application of, Wikipedia policy to the point that it is harmful to the encyclopedia, and appropriate steps of the dispute resolution process have been unsuccessful, the community should designate a neutral uninvolved administrator, or group of administrators, agreeable to all sides of the dispute, which should review the situation and resolve it by applying Wikipedia policy. All sides should faithfully adhere to this decision. Any uninvolved administrator, or group of administrators, including those who made the binding decision, may enforce the decision. Since consensus and policy can change, these binding decisions may be reviewed at appropriate times by that same administrator(s), or other uninvolved administrators. If the community is unable to find an administrator, or group of administrators, to address the situation, it may request that the Arbitration Committee appoint one. WP:GAME-ing a situation to head towards stalemate resolution will be highly frowned upon.

”

Policies, guidelines, links

Arbitration cases:

• WP:ARBMAC2 – Arbitration case regarding the Macedonia naming dispute
• WP:ARBMAC - Older arbitration case

---

Policies and guidelines listed as relevant in ARBMAC2 decision:

• WP:NAME – Basic naming policy, containing WP:COMMONNAME
• WP:DAB – Guideline for handling disambiguation, containing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
• WP:NPOV - Neutral point of view policy
• WP:RS - Guideline prescribing the use of reliable sources

Other guidelines:

• WP:NCON – Specialised guideline for naming conflicts
• WP:NCGN – Specialised guideline for geographical names

---

• WP:MOSMAC – An old essay that aimed to be a specialised naming guideline for Macedonia topics, but failed to reach consensus.
• Talk:Greece/Naming poll – March 2009 discussion and poll about reference to the neighbouring country in the Greece article.

---

Principles quoted from ARBMAC2:

“

Naming Conventions

16) Wikipedia:Naming conventions states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name). Articles should report the objective fact that such names are used; if another nation or group disputes the right to use that name, then information about that dispute (if it is notable) should also be given in the appropriate place. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Wikipedia:Naming conventions also deprecates the use of full formal names in article titles.

Disambiguation

18) The purpose of disambiguation, as defined by Wikipedia:Disambiguation (WP:DAB), is to resolve "conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." For primary topics, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase ... then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." The guideline goes on to state: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." Disambiguation is not a means of promoting, endorsing or rejecting the point of view of any party or parties to a naming or other dispute.

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

21) It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world political polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along political lines due to shared national backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared political views that contravene the application of Wikipedia policy or obstruct consensus-building. Mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy. Defending editorial positions that support political preferences typical of a particular national background is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing.

”

Background

Main articles: Macedonia (terminology) and Macedonia naming dispute

Macedonia

• There are four principal meanings of the term "Macedonia" pertinent to this discussion:
  • Macedonia (region): An historical/geographical region, today split between Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and the independent Republic of Macedonia (part of Yugoslavia until 1992).
  • Macedonia (ancient kingdom), also often called Macedon in many sources.
  • Republic of Macedonia: The independent state, commonly called Macedonia in many sources.
  • Macedonia (Greece): Three Greek provinces collectively referred to as Macedonia, though it is not actually a political entity in itself.

    (cf. related Arbcom finding)

• The state formally calls itself the "Republic of Macedonia" (its "constitutional name", i.e. as formally established in its constitution), informally just "Macedonia".
• The Greek government disputes the historical appropriateness of this name and demands the adoption of a composite name with some geographical qualifier. Some parties in Greece reject any use of "Macedonia" in the country's name.
• As a consequence of the naming dispute, the UN in 1993 admitted the state as "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (explicitly noting that this was not supposed to be a "name", but what the UN called a "provisional reference").
• Most other international organisations have followed UN usage or variants of it, as have several dozen UN member states.
• Just under two-thirds of UN member states (125 out of 192) have recognised the country under its constitutional name of "Republic of Macedonia". This includes all of the major English-speaking nations except Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.[5]
• Three quarters of the countries of Europe use Republic of Macedonia for bilateral purposes individually sourced here.
• Proposed diplomatic solutions to the political conflict have envisaged that the country should adopt some qualifying adjective as part of its official name for use in international contexts, e.g. "North Macedonia" or "Nova Makedonija" ("New Macedonia"). It cannot presently be predicted how common English usage worldwide would reflect a new settlement, if one were reached in the near future.
• The following facts about usage are largely agreed upon:
  • The state's most frequent name in common English usage is simply "Macedonia".
  • In common present-day English usage in general-purpose sources, when the name "Macedonia" is used it is most often referring to the country.
  • In academic literature predating 1995 as well as in older common English usage, the name is used in other meanings, especially that of the ancient kingdom. In academic literature after 1995, usage has generally shifted to the country, although other meanings still occur in specific contexts.
  • Wikipedia's article on the country receives much more page hits than all other Macedonia articles (roughly 5 times more than Macedonia (ancient kingdom), 10 times more than Macedonia (Greece), 20 times more than Macedonia (region), and 3 times more than all these together.)