Talk:Greece

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4

GDP per capita in infobox needs to be updated

The GDP per capita figure needs to be updated to reflect 2008 estimates and match this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita. The figure must be $ 30,661. 77.83.166.161 (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update those info? FDAU (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthem

Regarding the anthem in the Info Box, shouldn't it read "Ýmnos eis tīn Eleftherían", as opposed to "Ýmnos eis tīn Eleutherían"? The modern Greek transliteration of the letter upsilon is an "f" sound when preceeding an epsilon (which is pronounced like an "e"). 82.34.206.224 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Δοκιμαστικός Τίτλος

Αυτό ειναι το περιεχόμενο της συγκεκριμένης ενότητας. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skammas (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

FYROM

I'm sorry to open an old can of worms, but why does this article refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" as "FYROM"? The fact that Greece recognizes this country by the latter doesn't mean that we have to go against WP:MOSMAC and Wikipedia tradition for this particular article. The few exceptions when we do refer to that country as "FYROM" on Wikipedia are not present here. This is not an article e.g. about an institution where the Republic of Macedonia is a member under the name of FYROM. The sentence [Greece] has borders with (...) the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to the north is thus inadequate. Húsönd 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WikiProject Republic of Macedonia/Editing Notes for Macedonian articles which may be relevant. dougweller (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, not really. Húsönd 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever name is displayed it should not be a redirect.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects aren't a problem here. But I agree that the use of "former Yugoslav" in this and similar articles should be phased out. There never was either a well-based consensus or a rational justification for it. It was all a matter of the insistence of some Greek editors of having Greece-related articles stand apart from all the rest, as an "island in its own reality", using a naming practice more sympathetic to the Greek POV concerns. A practice that is fundamentally at odds with the demands of NPOV. We don't follow X's naming preference about Y, just because we are in an article about X. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, we don't even follow X's naming preference about X itself... why should we follow the POV about Y? man with one red shoe 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. It is no news that Greek editors who are naturally involved with this article would dread to see the Republic of Macedonia being referred to by any name but "FYROM". But this article is simply not within the range of exceptions when we do use "FYROM". Greek users can stick to FYROM on the Greek Wikipedia where they are obviously the majority, but not here. Húsönd 19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC mentions for articles referring to Greek internal affairs "If in doubt, leave as is". Well, leave as is. End of story.--Avg (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSMAC is dead. It failed to reach consensus over precisely this point. Yes, there was a time when it made sense to leave this one area just open and not touch it. But that doesn't mean we are forever doomed to keep it that way. We finally got some outside opinion from people other than the usual suspects. Not surprisingly, that opinion is in favour of policy. So, I think the time to simply enforce policy and stop the political bargains has come. People who choose to edit-war against policy will just have to be brushed aside. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut. you're vandalising the page against consensus. You will be reported if you continue.--Avg (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Have fun. My edits aren't "vandalism", and a determined small national faction of POV-pushers against policy isn't "consensus". Wikipedia policy on standard naming practices is actually quite clear, and actually enforceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have fun all right, especially with the diifs where YOU support what you now deny. Let's see, will you find an oversight fast enough?--Avg (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As promised, here is a brilliant example of Future Perfect's "consistency": He updated the MOSMAC himself stating "However, no exact guidelines for all cases have been agreed upon; when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is." [1].--Avg (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was one and a half years ago. At a time when we still thought MOSMAC could actually become a real guideline, and an understanding of "don't change the status quo" could be a reasonable temporary compromise on the way there. But, as I just said, that never meant policy should be kept suspended in favour of the POV egotism of national factions forever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect Sunrise please stop. UN (that is United Nations) accepts this country under the name FYROM. And you come here, with your funny theories and try to vandalise the page as you have done with other pages. Relax and let it go. Until UN accepts a different name, you got to live with the fact that this country is called FYROM, whether you like it or not.FDAU (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The decisive criterion for Wikipedia's naming policy is not what the UN or some other political body calls it, but (1) what the majority of the English language community calls it, and (2) what the country calls itself. Those two, in that order. That's the rule of this place; if you don't like it, go edit some other website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect is doing nothing disruptive or inadequate but to provide his opinion. Without some serious and practical arguments for the usage of FYROM on this article, we should change it to Republic of Macedonia as elsewhere on Wikipedia (except articles where this country refers to itself as FYROM as within the subject). By the way, the United Nations have no power of decision whatsoever on Wikipedia's content, we're independent to make our own decisions as long as these conform to the laws of the US state where our servers are hosted. Húsönd 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"if you don't like it, go edit some other website"... what an admin-like behavior! F.P., you are still an admin, right? No wonder why so many editors have chosen to quit or reduce their edit rates: manners like this, and formerly hidden (now open) agendas of the kind. Btw, Husond, you are right: all that matters is the USA law of Florida! Again, no wonder why things in Wikipedia tend to be in such an unprecedented mess... Hectorian (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond you have to understand that Future Perfect and consistency live in two different universes. I have proposed many times that the country should be referred to as Republic of Macedonia everywhere in Wikipedia. Ask Future if he agrees or not. Because we have spent countless posts with me on the side of "RoM" and him on the side of "Macedonia" plain. I agree right now that RoM replaces FYROM in Greece article as soon as "Macedonia" is removed altogether as a reference to this country from all articles. Because whoever supports exceptions has no right to talk about consistency.--Avg (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't remember you making such a proposal. But whatever: thanks for agreeing that RoM is adequate for this article. Since you have agreed to that, there can be no conditions making it dependent on what we do or don't do in other articles. This is not your bazaar. No political páre-dhóse. Either R.o.M is okay here, or it is not. You just confirmed it is. In that casea, for you to insist on something else in order to press for changes in other articles would be a disruptive WP:POINT violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not a trade off. It is a simple issue. Since you clearly do not respect this is a special case then there should be no special case altogether. As simple as that. Your prime argument is Wikipedia policy. I want it enforced everywhere. Do you?--Avg (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The policy is: Use whatever the majority of native English speakers would most readily recognise, and what is compatible with the state's self-designation. That would actually be Macedonia, in most contexts. Add disambiguation needs (real disambiguation, not the POV-flagging demanded by some of your friends), and we end up with Republic of, in many cases. The remaining choice between R.o.M. and simple M. is not a matter of special exceptions, it's simply a matter of good writing and proper attention to context, just like the choice between Ireland and Republic of Ireland, or China and PRC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy are you really a spin doctor. Well it's simple, we either are consistent or not. No matter how you spin it there is this simple underlying fact. I'm really bored debating ad nauseam obvious things. --Avg (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(indent) Hmm, can we agree not to focus on particular editors and just debate the application of WP:MOSMAC on this particular article? I think that there is no need to over-dramatize the issue. Húsönd 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor correction: it's not about "application of MOSMAC". MOSMAC failed to reach consensus exactly because of this article, and is currently no longer tagged even as a proposed guideline. What we need to do here is work out how to apply WP:USEENGLISH and WP:NC; those policies are quite sufficient. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, first I agree with Husond that the whole discussion should be done at MOSMAC until there is consensus there, otherwise no article should be touched. You can't appeal to guideline enforcement when there's no agreed guideline, and the interpretations of WP:NC and WP:UE don't hold so much water. And I agree with Avg that there has to be some sort of give and take for all the relevant situations because this whole thing is one issue, and not several ones that need to be repeated in each individual article ad nauseum -this is highly counterproductive. Moreover, the whole discussion can very well be diverted to the respective WP guidelines (not "policies" as erroneously mentioned above). One view for UE, for example, could be that (especially) the names used in the English language WP, since it is in the planet's lingua franca at the moment, cannot be monopolized by the English speaking nations and the English speaking usages, but they have to reflect a global viewpoint, irrespective of restriction to the English language sources. Or that we can't be bothered to check frequencies of appellations every time we deal with a controversial name, and we'll go by a globally accepted list, such as that of the UN (why should it be "self-identification"? who says that this is NPOV?). Another view for NC, could be that in articles such as "Greece" which are directed to inform readers about "Greece", it is irrational not to inform the reader of how anybody in "Greece" refers to their neighbor, at the risk of being punched in the face by an inhabitant of "Greece" because you used the name WP showed you. And another view for NC could be that it is simply unsourced to refer to the country by any other name, because the primary sources that refer to Greece's borders will always mention "FYROM", the spellout, or its translation. Same do all labels from within Greece that lead to the country's border. And of course there are numerous arguments from the other side, and that is why it is imperative that nothing is touched until there is an agreement. Finally I do not think that it is productive to accuse the other side about "POV egotism of national factions", and if the other side picks up the glove and starts accusing about "linguistic obsession" or "ill-perceived liberalism" etc etc, then there will be no end in this. NikoSilver 10:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all this is just so much waffle. Not worth responding to. "Use English" actually is policy, and no amount of ranting can change that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What's not English about the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. It's not predominant in normal, careful English prose and not what native English speakers will most readily recognise. Which is what "useenglish" stands for, as a shortcut. As you perfectly well know, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And "Republic of Macedonia" is? Says who? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Macedonia" is. "Republic of" is just our chosen disambiguator, which happens to be also the formal long name of the country. Says who? Predominant use in reputable English-language print and news publications. As you know perfectly well, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was hinting at. If you were really so concerned about using the most predominant term, you would have advocated the use of plain "Macedonia". As you know perfectly well, "Republic of Macedonia" is not the most common long form of the country's name in English. And, seeing as "Macedonia" is ambiguous, the most common long name should be used instead. The country's preferred long name is irrelevant; common English usage takes precedence. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you'd have to advocate going for "f.Y." all over Wikipedia. (Which, as you perfectly well know, has not a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.) Remember, what we are discussing here is not how to generally name the country. What we are discussing is exclusively whether and why this particular article should get a treatment different from the rest. Which, of course, it shouldn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is in fact what I have always advocated, but if we are talking specifically about this article, the fact that the "other" Macedonia is mentioned throughout is enough to answer your question. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is very simple to me, there's a commonly English name used by most of the reputable English-language print and news publications as Future said, and that's not FYROM, or any variant of it. Per Wiki policies we need to use the common English name. The only reason for pushing FYROM in this article is to make a (cheap) nationalistic point (sometimes masked as "correct UN name" which has absolutely no importance in Wikipedia), there's no other reason for pushing this name -- this blatant POV pushing should stop. Now. man with one red shoe 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "Republic of Macedonia", either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the solution is to go without disambiguators altogether. The need for those has always been overstated in this debate anyway, for transparent reasons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a solution so much as evidence of the inconsistency of your line of argumentation. Make up your mind as to what it is you're advocating. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Macedonia" on routine first mention, and plain "Macedonia" where context makes it unambiguous. And no exceptions for Greece-related POV islands. "f.Y." provides no extra benefit, in any context. It adds no disambiguation value over and above what "R.o." does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds rather confused to me. You're either in favour of the predominant English usage, or you're not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, if you insist: "Macedonia" on routine first mention, and whatever disambiguator is short, simple, easy to understand and compatible with self-designation wherever contextually necessary. Which will still be "R.o.", in most cases. And I still insist, above all, no POV islands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You really are funny sometimes. At least you admit that your stance has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with politics. (Oh, and you perfectly well know it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding). ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Looking around in google news and books sources a bit, it occurs to me that common English usage gives little guidance as to what disambiguator to choose, qua disambiguator. Writers don't disambiguate the country. If they have to contrast the country against the region, they disambiguate the region, and only that. The country carries the simple name by default. Those writers who use either "R.o." or "f.Y." seem for the most part to do so for other reasons, not for those of disambiguation. So, if we decide we want to do a bit more disambiguation than the average (which is okay with me), we are left to make our own choices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But which disambiguator is the more common in English? In my experience, it's by far the former Yugoslav Republic of or some variation thereof. The biggest promulgator of "Republic of" in the English language is Wikipedia itself. Why perpetuate the discrepancy? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"f.Y." is not used by writers out there for purposes of disambiguation. Those who use it have other reasons for doing so. In any case, talking about disambiguation is moot here: In the case you've been edit-warring about, the context ("borders on...") a priori excludes any confusion with Greek provinces anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I note that you've been edit-warring a fair bit yourself. Secondly, who says that the former Yugoslav Republic of is not used for disambiguation? Thirdly, there is a long-standing consensus that it should be used in articles in which the Greek region is mentioned. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a "consensus", there has been a stalemate: policy on the one side, against determined obstinacy of a POV faction on the other. And now the time has come to break that stalemate. There is no objective reason to have "f.Y.", the only motive to have it is because you guys like it that way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-righteous rhetoric aside, policy says that the most common English term should be used, unless of course it is ambiguous, in which case we use the next most common. And I quote: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". It also says that "editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain". In other words, the only reason you oppose the former Yugoslav Republic of is because you don't like it, and that isn't a valid excuse. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a good reason to change it: to bring this article in line with all other articles in this project. The very fact that a national faction of editors is treating this article as their ideological home turf, where they can demand preferential treatment for their POV concerns, is enough reason to insist on a change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should insist on moving "Republic of Macedonia" to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, then? Because that's what policy says we should do. That we haven't done so already is entirely due of the whims of those who oppose it for no reason other than that it is preferred by the Greeks. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Have fun. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let's see if policy really counts for shit around here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if WP:MOSMAC hasn't been made effective yet, then Wikipedia:Mos#Internal_consistency applies. It effectively determines that we use the same term throughout Wikipedia, and the determinant is always the article on the term itself. In this case, the current location of the article Republic of Macedonia determines that we must refer to this country as "Republic of Macedonia" throughout Wikipedia. Rather simple. Húsönd 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close Controversial proposal, not listed on WP:M. This has been discussed a million times. Keeping this open is just a unnecessary drama magnet and pool for personal attacks. --Avg (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not something that can be closed, are you copy-pasting my comment on the phony move proposal at Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia to try to make a WP:POINT? Try better. Húsönd 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not phony at all, as a matter of fact. I'd been biting my tongue for far too long. The more you resort to personal attacks, the less seriously you're taken. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's quite the other way around, but there's no point in trying to convince when one's in delusion and denial. Húsönd 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go again. Please, just stop. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Gonzales Oh, wait this is about something else. Yes, what Husond said makes perfect sense to me. man with one red shoe 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Husond's argumentation on how exactly he supports that "this is not something that can be closed" (unlike the other). Please start by explaining why the discussion in Talk:FYROM is "a matter of common interest" where "mediation should help interested parties achieve an agreement" and this talk here isn't. I'm particularly curious, Man with one red shoe, perhaps you could help Husond explain since you rushed to agree? NikoSilver 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The other was a move proposal, that can be closed. This is a discussion, that requires no closing whatsoever. "Matter of common interest"? What are you talking about? Húsönd 22:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is for a controversial change. "Matter of common interest" (among the disputing parties) is a direct quote from WP:M that you linked. Did you mean to say WP:RM then? Anyway, I think a lot of users will agree with me in despising argumentation which is based solely on mere technicalities. NikoSilver 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't even understand how you want to close a discussion in the talk page, that makes no sense, I don't think I need to explain anything till you explain your intentions and on which policy are based on, since this is a form of censorship that I've haven't heard before... it would be interesting to detail it more... man with one red shoe 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We're witnessing once more blatant double standards. Kekrops starts a discussion about renaming the RoM article and it gets immediately closed and archived. The same discussion here is kept open. I agree with all your arguments, care to file an AN/I against ChrisO for censorship?--Avg (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Both discussions are for controversial changes, so censorship (your word) should not apply to either of them. See comment above. NikoSilver 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion aimed at making changes to the article. No admin intervention is required as there is nothing to be closed. A controversial move proposal, on the other hand, such as the other proposed for the RoM article, does require an admin to close it. No comparison whatsoever and no double standards whatsoever. And definitely no censorship, that proposal was pointy and utter nonsense, it had to be closed straightforwardly. Now Niko, I don't recall referring to WP:M, just WP:RM. Although it could've happened that I may have typed WP:M by mistake, dunno I didn't check. Húsönd 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with everything. Both discussions aimed at making changes to the respective articles. "Closing" (by an admin or not -actually) is customary in either move proposals or whatever-other-proposals. Censorship of the discussion is evident, but I can understand the cowardliness in lack of policy based argumentation. You mention that the proposal was pointy again and again but you have not explained why; a discussion is never pointy when based squarely on policy, irrespectively of what sparked it. Your "utter nonsense" characterization I will not comment. Yes, you did type M, but that's beyond any point. And yes, I understand why you are bored to locate the trash talkpage where the closed proposal has been moved: it's so well hidden. NikoSilver 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it's really strange that the man with the one red shoe understood your argument and rushed to support ity even though you had linked to WP:M rather than WP:RM. Telepathy? NikoSilver 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You may disagree but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. Discussions aimed at making changes to the articles require no admin intervention, there is nothing to be closed and everything is decided on consensus. Controversial move proposals are something completely different and do require admin closure. It's the second or third time I say the same thing and I shall not repeat myself (if you still believe that these are not the procedures then you should go find some more information on them instead of just nagging). There is no censorship whatsoever, and from what I can see there is just a group of disgruntled Greek editors that are simply impossible to please because they demand what cannot be agreed consensually. The only Wikipedia where the article on the RoM stays at FYROM is the Greek one, simply because that's the only Wikipedia where Greeks are the majority. Here, you seem to try to impose a majority that you do not have, either by victimization, finding loopholes in policies or lack of policies, lengthening any discussions on the matter, and complicating them to the limits of sanity and patience. Not gonna work. Furthermore, a discussion is always pointy when it's disruptive and just to try to prove a point. The move proposal at Talk:Republic of Macedonia was merely a way to counter a normal discussion occurring here, that Greek users found to be a menace. Overreacting and distracting maneuvers are also not going to work. Finally, the move proposal is not hidden, it's very well archived with easily accessible links to it. I didn't check if I had written WP:M instead of WP:RM not because the discussion was hidden, it was simply because the discussion was so long and nauseating and I would have to scavenge even to find my own comments. Húsönd 23:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SHOUTing by means of repetition does not make you right. What you had originally posted was WP:Mediation and not WP:RM. But even so, if you reeeeealy wanted to help, you'd obviously list it to WP:RM, now wouldn't you? If you are soooo convinced that this is just because of "a group of disgruntled Greek editors", then why didn't you let this exposed? All the other bad faith assumptions in your post I'll choose to disregard. NikoSilver 00:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Niko, I think that you should not bother too much with personal discussion, that's irrelevant to the article. I can agree with somebody without agreeing with everything, stop twisting words. Basically you want to push a POV, you don't like that other people point to the obvious thing that this article is an island of POV and decide to censor them by trying to stop the discussion because is... controversial? I've never heard of such reason for censorship before... people are inventive... what's next "shut up because you don't say what I say"? man with one red shoe 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood the first time, but I cannot understand why you repeat (and expand) the same thing even though it has been explained to you. I said that both discussions should not be censored. Husond said that the other discussion should be, and I disagree. I hope this is the part where you disagree with him also. NikoSilver 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't care about the other discussion, nor I'm willing to discuss it in this page, it should be discussed in the page of that article, as for censorship I was not talking specifically about you I was mostly talking about the guy who posted Speedy close, I addressed you only to the length you support that request, if you don't, very well, it's not about you. man with one red shoe 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we cleared out that part. Now I am addressing the same thing to you for not opposing, and not "caring" on the speedy close in the other talk. If you do care/oppose, then very well, it's not about you either. NikoSilver 10:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was said above by those who support the change that FYROM shall by used only in articles about organizations in which the country is accepted as that. Well in the bilateral relations of this country with Greece (whose article we are arguing about) Greece recognized ROM as FYROM. That's the official position and is a position to which FYROM has agreed upon. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But this article is not about the bilateral relations between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it's just about Greece. Húsönd 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSMAC used to say that fYRoM should be used in articles in which "the country is mentioned specifically and exclusively in relationship to such an organization". There is no reason why the same rationale shouldn't be applied here. The country's appearance in a list of Greece's neighbours meets the criterion of being mentioned "specifically and exclusively" in relation to Greece. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop quoting wiki pages as if they were law and you were a lawyer. That "rule" can't and won't be applied here, because it simply makes no sense and is not compatible with our actual policies. Never did. Give actual reasons, not quotes ripped out of context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see why the convention applying to articles on international organizations cannot be used here as well. In the context of the EU, the country is fYRoM. In the context of Greece, the country is fYRoM as well. In the context of the fYRoM itself, the country is "RoM", obviously. In the context of the countries that have recognized it as fYRoM, it is fYRoM. In the context of the countries that have recognized it as "RoM", it is "RoM". Like it or not, that is the state of the real world. And we are here to write articles about the real world. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Refactored this bit here, where logically it belongs. Please let's keep the content discussion in one place and the process/meta-discussion in another.

That is simply not true. Nobody out in the real world makes such a terminological distinction by topic area. The R.o.M. certainly refers to itself as R.o.M. independent of domain, even in its dealings with the EU and UN, and third party observers also each follow their individual naming preferences, no matter if they mention the country in relation to Greece or in relation to the US. (The example Politis quoted below would have been an interesting counterexample, if it did what he claims it does. But I doubt it does; judging from the public parts on its website, it just has random unsystematic variation between the different terms, probably according to the individual whims of different authors within that material, but not systematically according to topic area.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So, how do we move on?

The posititions of the pro-FYROM crowd are evidently in a hopeless state at this point. Avg acknowledged he was in favour of using "Republic of Macedonia" in all articles, but was only edit-warring against it in this article in order to press for other changes elsewhere. Kekrops' article renaming proposal predictably fell flat; since the article continues to be called Republic of Macedonia, there is one reason less for using anything else in other articles. NikoSilver has resorted to inarticulate ranting about how using "Republic of Macedonia" puts "millions of lives at risk" and how we must use "FYROM" because otherwise Greeks will punch you in the face in real life.

Against this predictable argumentative smokescreen, there is a very clear consensus of all other editors, except the Greeks.

Wikipedia can't tolerate a situation where an editorial decision is kept hostage by the ideological egotism of a single national faction. The fact that this position is upheld exclusively by editors of a single nationality proves that these people aren't here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; they are here to make it an encyclopedia more favourable to their national viewpoint. (Many people have evidently come to accept that as a normal thing to do for a wikipedia editor. It isn't, and shouldn't be.)

So, what's the way out? Discussion evidently won't lead anywhere. These people will never, ever, let go of their obsessions. We all know that. A poll won't lead anywhere, because their faction is large enough to numerically shoot down any vote, unless a closing admin has the guts to simply discount national block votes (as they should). That leaves us with continued edit-warring until one half of us is banned.

I, for one, will remove the "f.Y." again, since there have been no new arguments, the article move proposal has failed, and I consider this a decision based on solid consensus, with only the raw obstinacy of edit-warring standing against it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and if the changes prompt a revert war I suggest a straw poll to legitimate those actions once and for all. Húsönd 07:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll only makes sense if we get prior assurance that national faction block votes get discounted; otherwise we know the result in advance. Voting makes no sense in national conflicts like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And I fail to see why a very policy-abiding position with numerous arguments in support of this (such as the one that was done in WT:MOSMAC by me -see archive #2) has to be reduced down to the funny part of it in order to discredit this argumentation. I also fail to see why we can't have a centralized discussion there and then apply the changes in the respective articles. Everything else is terribly counterproductive. NikoSilver 08:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Because your arguments simply are not serious. Sorry, that's the way it is. You won't find a sensible person seriously arguing on that basis. As for centralised discussion, that would only make sense if there were some perspective of a actually having a sensible discussion with a realistic chance of an outcome. There isn't. We know that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I always thought it was your replies to my arguments which were not serious... Your idea off a sensible discussion starts from the notion that the discussion has to end in your desired outcome. NikoSilver 10:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the link for my argumentation of that time is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles)/Archive 2#Statement by NikoSilver. NikoSilver 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh right. That was the bit where you were arguing that mentioning "R.o.M." in a Greece-related context was a violation of WP:V because otherwise we would be "misquoting Greece". Right. – – – (long pause). – So, will you accept having a straw poll with Macedonian and Greek editors excluded? Because I honestly see no other way out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Among other five reasons yes. And for the reason you are citing, we have already chosen not to misquote the UN, EU, and NATO on the same grounds. And no, I do not agree with any straw poll, either with or without the presence of implicated parties (and when you address a Greek and you say "Macedonians" he understands this and only this, so please disambiguate when speaking to me because otherwise you don't make sense). I can only agree to sound argumentation, but you choose to always discredit and dismiss that in the most insulting and degrading way. If only I had reversed what you have told me regarding the merit of your argumentation, I'd be simply looking through arbmac bars now... Well, so be it, you say my argumentation is bullocks, I say your replies are bullocks. (I can almost hear the "rant" argument coming up again...) NikoSilver 11:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Excluding the two national camps isn't a solution either. We have seen too many examples of anti-Greek and/or generic anti-Balkan bias from holier-than-thou outsiders to know better. I would exclude all Europeans, North Americans, Australians and the nationals of any country that has ever established diplomatic relations with Skopje under any name whatsoever. That's if you really want to eliminate inherent political bias from the process. Let's get the Uruguayans to decide, as their flag looks a lot like a compromise between the Greek and old Vergina flags. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And what was the reason you caused this havoc out of the blue Fut.? Perhaps you didn't know you'd offend almost every Greek Wikipedia editor? Was it so difficult to leave this article in peace? Your obsession has started to seriously harm the project.--Avg (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should care about Greek obsession and cater to different points of view? Do Greek people own this page? Should it present their point of view? I thought Wikipedia is supposed to follow WP:NPOV policy not to cater to specific POV in each page. man with one red shoe 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not worth restarting same discussion that'll go around in circles. A straw poll would be a very straightforward way to legitimate changes to the application of FYROM to this article, as editors simply need to voice their positions cut and clear. And obviously the straw poll would have to be advertised in appropriate places, such as the talk page of WP:MOSMAC, to attract a wider scope of participants interested in providing their position, and maybe even the Village Pump. That should provide representation of the whole Wikipedia community in the poll, thus the Greek block would no longer be a problem. Húsönd 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And what would the straw poll question be again? How should the country be referred in the Greece article? Why not have a straw poll about keeping consistency? That would be fun.--Avg (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that consistency would work in your favor, remember that we use "Macedonia" in all the rest of Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said that would be fun. Let's have fun then.--Avg (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll has started below. Húsönd 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

There is too much reverting on this article. Sooner or later someone is going to protect it (not me, I hate doing that). I've just shot one of you to encourage the others; don't be the next William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also watching this article. Though I am more likely to block people for edit warring than I am to protect the page. Chillum 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And you have noted I suppose who is the user who edit wars in two fronts right now: "FYROM or RoM" and "motto".--Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Motto", again

Happy 25 March everyone, but the "motto" seems still unsourced. Of the five footnotes that were readded [2], I can read only one (number 2). It describes the expression as a "slogan" and vaguely claims something in the flag "symbolises" something about the slogan. First, "symbolises", for whom? Where is that understanding documented? Did the creator of the flag describe their intentions that way? Is this commonly described and taught this way? A passing allegation of that source is not a suitable reference. And even if it was true, that still wouldn't make the expression a "state motto". A state motto is something that is officially enshrined in legislation. Can anybody please show me:

1. Does the Greek constitution define the motto as part of the country's state symbols, along with the flag, anthem and so on?
2. Do official state symbols such as emblems contain the expression?
3. Is it widely used on state-issued items such as coins or banknotes?

As for the other four "sources", they are just google book search pages with no readable full text. So, what do they say? And, none of them is of the kind that would easily qualify as a reliable source on such an issue.

If it's a state motto, it must be sourceable to official state publications. Not just as being a popular slogan connected with the Greek revolution, but as being specifically an official motto of the modern Greek Republic.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Χμμμμ...., Well, by definition, the motto Ελευθερια ή Θανατος is not an officially declared motto as you can see here [3], but it's widely used as such (even in some drachma banknotes, I suppose) from state institutions. I don't see any reason why to remove it, but if you insist, then ok, go on. Kapnisma (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the motto of the Greek revolution which led to the creation of Greek state and this is sth well sourced already. There is really no point in this discussion but i guess it's part of the vendetta that is trolling wikipedia around for quite a time. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it was a motto used during the revolution. But that's not the same thing as a state motto. A state motto is something that is used at least on an official seal of the state or something similar. And spare yourself the personal attacks please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above it is not officially declared, but rather semi-officially, for example the flag's horizontal lines are supposed to come from it and in general terms it is considered as such in Greece. Anyway, vendetta or not, if you think it's so important, it's fine by me to remove it, since I can not find any goverment source to declare it as state symbol, but only sources in history or other books.Kapnisma (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So is this a bloody vendetta or a genuine interest on Greek state symbols? :) Kapnisma (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Using it on the money qualifies it as a state motto? I'm thinking "In God We Trust", that's pretty similar. man with one red shoe 14:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, read In God We Trust as well as List of state mottos, that will give you a fairly good idea what it means for something to be a state motto. (In fact, I guess the fact that the US have these is more or less the sole reason people put that field in the infobox, as if all other countries should be expected to have one too. It seems essentially a concept quite alien to most other states.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing doesn't appear to be an issue here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are the same sources I talked about above, aren't they? What do they actually say? I don't have access to the texts in those Google search pages. Of course, an article about the expression and its historical significance may well be legitimate; it just doesn't make it a state motto. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Spain's motto, Plus ultra, figures quite the same characteristics to the one used by Greece, but I don't see any debate there. Kapnisma (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish one is contained in the official national coat of arms, and as such also contained in the official national flag. That's the crucial difference. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Difference indeed, but do you see any official declaration by the Spanish constitution or any other public law that defines exactly this motto as belonging to the state's national symbols [4], as for example in US [5]? Because I do not. Kapnisma (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia articles, it certainly has legislation defining its coat of arms. I suppose they'll have a visual representation of the CoA somewhere, which will obviously contain the motto. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to repeat my self, but I honestly find this discussion about the motto aimless... Anyway, following your argument if I provide a graphical representation of the motto being edited by a govermental institute, it will be fine by you?Kapnisma (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if it's being used as part of the official national flag, seal or coat of arms. That seems to be the operational definition of a "motto", actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that this discussion about the motto started again just after I reminded in a WP:AN case a discussion about FYROM's motto I had initiated some months ago. My rationale about why the mentioning of the motto is justified here but not in the FYROM article is exposed there.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, of course it was your posting that reminded me of this issue. But I honestly can't see any serious argument in favour of having it, either in what was said then or now. Have you got better sources than the ones we were discussing right now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Greece has officially declared the motto as its official motto in the European Parliament tells anything to you or not?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's some source, at last. I'd just question your description of that page as an "official declaration" by Greece; it seems to be a rather informal popularised fact sheet compiled by somebody (not clear who) for the parliament's public relations website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And at the end of the day, the motto is a part of the Greek culture for centuries now. This is no way the case for FYROM. So, stop running to the Greece article, whenever somebody dares to say anything about the alleged FYROM's motto you do not like. Maybe read a book with all the Greek wood-engravings of the motto instead.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit had nothing whatsoever with the Macedonian case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I take your word, as I usually do.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That and the significance of the day, no doubt. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A state motto isn't just an an arbitrary set of words - it's part of a heraldric emblem such as a coat of arms, a seal, or, more rarely, a flag. If it's official it will be defined somewhere in law. Kapnisma and Fut. Perf. mention the Spanish motto "Plus Ultra". This is in fact defined in law as part of the Spanish coat of arms. Insignia such as this are defined not via a visual depiction but through a heraldric description, which is provided in the Spanish law: "Acompañado de dos columnas, de plata, con base y capitel, de oro, sobre ondas de azur o azul y plata, superada de corona imperial, la diestra y de una corona real, la siniestra, ambas de oro, rodeando las columnas, una cinta de gules rojo, cargada de letras de oro, en la diestra "Plus" y en la siniestra "Ultra"." [6] If the Greek motto has any official status it will be similarly defined in some sort of official legally-binding text, most likely a law or decree. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Europarl.europa.eu is coontrolled by the employees of the Parliament, so the Parliament itself, so it is difficult to just say "we do not know who wrote that". It's the EU.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It could just as well have been written by the parliament's public relation intern who was tasked to cobble together some interesting facts about each state, and copied it all from Wikipedia. Is there anything on that page that tells us that's not what happened? – I would still like to see that "motto" in actual use. Where does the present-day Greek state use it in any official capacity? In all these months, nobody has ever pointed to an instance. I just checked a few government websites, at random. They sure have flags, they sure have coats of arms, emblems, everything. The "motto" is nowhere to be seen. Google for the phrase on site:primeminister.gr or site:parliament.gr: not a single hit. If that's a state motto, they are doing their best at hiding it from the world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, using it on money would probably qualify. I understand that you mean by saying that "In God We Trust" was not official till it was declared so, but using a saying like that on money or stamps (which are kind of official instruments), would probably qualify. man with one red shoe 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Those crackpot Greek nationalist editors are know trying to establish a motto as their own without any sources!!!!!!! Thank God and what a coincidence that exactly the same anti-chauvist, good faith editors of the above discussion are involved! I am eagerly anticipating Husond's opinion on this matter...Kapnisma (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm a Greek and I've grown up with this motto. I find it really strange that what is considered here 3d grade general knowledge has to be verified. I had once found a page of the Greek Army which explains that the stripes of the Greek flag are nine because the syllables of the national motto (in Greek) are also nine. But this is the most I found. For my Greek friends here: I really don't consider the motto as so important, I mean there are numerous countries in the world with same or similar ones, it's not like we invented it or something. Furthermore it is indeed related to the 1821 revolution, as much as Ohi is related to the 1940 victory over the Italians. Should we add Ohi in its place? Finally, I consider that Greece, world's 20th-or-so wealthier nation, an EU and NATO member, and an undisputed financial leader in the Balkan peninsula, doesn't need such "bloody" (in the literal sense) mottos anymore. Maybe that's why it doesn't appear so much lately? Don't know, but I really think we shouldn't bother too much. Probably it is for good. BTW we can mention it in the history section, as a compromise, and we need not restrict its application to the war of independence exclusively! NikoSilver 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just call it an unofficial, semi-official or popular motto and be done with it? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a popular national motto, nobody doubts that, but it doesn't seem to be a motto of the state in any meaningful sense, and certainly not in the sense of the state mottos listed in these infoboxes, which is basically defined by their use in heraldry. I still propose removing it from the infobox, absent even a single source where the Greek state claims this motto for itself. (I don't consider the European parliament page an adequate source in this context. A "state motto" should be sourceable to the state itself, or it isn't one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, as I already have written.Kapnisma (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Greece is a nation-state. Consequently, this article is necessarily about the nation and the state, not merely the latter. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Context. In the infobox, where it would be listed in direct neighborhood with the flag, seal, anthem, and official name of the modern republic, it would certainly imply an official status for the Greek state. That's what that field in the box is for, if it's to make any sense at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just place it within the history section's text as I proposed above? If it's so important to some, we can even include pictures of early flags depicting it, or we can put it in big quotes, or whatever to attract attention (although I'm not so eager to advertise it so much). I agree with Fut.Perf. that it should only be in the inforbox if we find some sort of official source of heraldry nature. NikoSilver 09:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Some international norms for RoM and FYROM

It is not unusual to adapt terminology according to context. For instance: The world-wide and respected, 'Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment' has this arrangement regarding the usage of the terms, 'Republic of Macedonia' and 'Fyrom', they resemble very much the guidelines agreed a while ago in Wikipedia by editors.

Its volume, "Balkans 2003, Jane’s Information Group, London" contains country analysis of all Balkan states.

In the chapter GREECE - we have a standard section called Foreign Relations, and there we find a sub-section titled, "Relations with FYROM". Because the chapter deals with Greece, RoM is always referred to as FYROM.

In the Chapter, BULGARIA... we have the "Relatioins with Macedonia" because Sofia recognised the name RoM, but the same Chapter uses FYROM when bringing Greece and ROM together.

In the Chapter ALBANIA we have, "Relation with FYROM".

In the Chapter Republic of Macedonia, of course we have RoM all they way exept when it concerns relations with Greece; there the name becomes FYROM.

I think the same applies to Economist Intelligence.

From what I gather, people are asking for the same guide-lines here.Politis (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on the application of the name "Republic of Macedonia" on the article Greece

Need for a straw poll

• This matter has been demonstrated to be extremely contentious. Discussions, as easily observed above, quickly escalate to uncivil remarks, personal attacks, and accusations of racism, censorship, and bias. It is also an easily verifiable fact that Greek users take this matter very personally and vehemently object to any proposals meant to discuss this issue. Discussions are always disrupted endlessly; thus a straw poll, where each user shall provide their position in a simple and straightforward way, should be the only mechanism left to verify if the community, as a whole, would agree with the proposed changes.

Background for the proposal

• Greece recognizes this country as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (FYROM). That country recognizes itself as the Republic of Macedonia. International recognition of the name of this country varies, with some countries and organizations recognizing it as "FYROM", and others as "Republic of Macedonia". On Wikipedia, the article on that country is under the title "Republic of Macedonia", as are all other Wikipedias (except the Greek one). Throughout Wikipedia, articles refer to that country as the "Republic of Macedonia", except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union. Elsewhere we have "Republic of Macedonia". The article Greece though, still uses "FYROM" in circumstances where we normally do not use it, such as in the first paragraph when the country is listed with the ones bordering Greece. Since this is not an exception, we should apply Wikipedia:MOS#Internal_consistency, and change all FYROM mentions to "Republic of Macedonia".

Opposition rationale

Note, most of the following text comes directly from where this discussion *ought* to be, a Macedonia naming guideline that came very close to become active but was eventually scrapped (WP:MOSMAC). It has been moved here as a rationale for opposing the proposal.

Hello, I am NikoSilver, a major contributor in many Macedonia-related articles, the best of which being the featured Macedonia (terminology). I am too familiar with the Macedonia naming dispute from both sides (another article I practically wrote), and an active Wikipedian with more than 10,000 contributions in various -mainly controversial- issues, which happen to interest me a lot (out of sheer masochism?) Anyway, I'm obviously qualified in terms of accumulated knowledge on the issue, but I have a serious defect, so this is an official warning to all sides: I am Greek!

I will start with a very important note: The actual dispute here is over the breadth of breaching the consistence in the use of the article name in other articles. Not of whether this consistence should be breached at all, because this has already been agreed upon for articles related to UN, EU, NATO and all international organizations.

Simply put, this dispute tries to solve a long-standing dispute that can't be solved in the real world... The MOSMAC guideline had incorporated parts of the wisdom used in other similar ones, and the standard practice in WP until now. It was mostly agreed upon, apart from the sensitive part of how the Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would be called in some Greek-related articles.

Specifically, for years now, the practice is to use the long appellation for the country (as officially used by Greece and half of the world countries and all international organizations) in all Greek-related articles. The recent dispute originated from the view of some editors that those Greek-related articles should not be an exception any more.

My view is that it is the wrong thing to do. Not only for practical reasons (hordes of Greeks randomly changing the articles they naturally write), not only for sentimental reasons (we're not here to condole), but for sound reasons based on WP policy and common sense, which I am about to set forth below:

1. Article name

The article is now in Republic of Macedonia. The article name issue is irrelevant to the MoS guideline in question, however, it is important to note that the article name is indeed maybe the closest call among two appellations ("Republic of Macedonia" vs "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). This is mainly due to the interpretation of the WP:NCON guideline. For details, expand the following section:

WP:NCON and interpretations

WP:NCON#Proper nouns text:

---

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

---

| class="col-break " |

Interpretations

• Most common: There is a clear dispute over which is the "most common name". Google-tests etc fail to provide a clear result due to the multitude of uses of the term "Macedonia" for various irrelevant places, notably that of Macedonia (Greece). Furthermore the longer term incorporates the shorter one with the mere addition of "Former Yugoslav". Finally, there are various slight modifications of the long name (such as "FYR Macedonia", "FYR of Macedonia", "FY Republic of Macedonia", "FYROM", "FYRO Macedonia" etc etc). An attempted test for establishing which is the most common name was run when the article name was discussed years ago, and it turned out unsuccessful in providing an undisputed result. For details see the archived Talk:Republic of Macedonia/FYROM name support position.
• Official: There are disputes over what constitutes "official", or even what constitutes a "name".
  • It is argued that both names are "official". One is used by the constitution of the country, about half the world countries, and the country itself. The other is used by the United Nations and all other international organizations, by the other half of the world countries, and -again- by the country itself. You will have to be the judge of which is "official" and why the other is not.
  • It is argued that the UN term is not a "name" to begin with, but only a "temporary reference". The distinction between the two terms has been made in an interpretation of the UN agreements, yet the country itself is quoted using the terms "name" and "we are called" to describe it. So does the UN in various other documents.
• Self-id: Clearly, the short term is used as a self-identifying name. The dispute is over if the the long term is used as a self-id too. It is argued that the country is forced to use the long name by the UN agreements (and by extension by Greece), and that this should constitute a least "preferred" self-identification. Nevertheless, the country does use it for all international organizations. Notably for the UN, NATO, EU, IOC, FIFA, FIBA etc and for bilateral relations with half the world countries which don't recognize its constitutional name.

In my view it is also indisputable that in Greece-related subjects worldwide the "most common name" (per WP:NCON's first criterion) is "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

2.WP:V

Again, to remind that it has already been agreed that the long name is used in all international organizations! The main rationale behind the choice of using the long name in the already agreed part of the policy (International Organizations etc) was that we cannot misquote those entities, and that anything else would not be verifiable. For example, as far as EU is concerned, there is only a "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in accession talks, and we can't misquote the European Union, nor the country itself under this process, since anything else would not be verifiable by reliable sources.

In my view this rationale encompasses Greece. We cannot misquote Greece for the name of its side of the border, especially when the other country itself is addressed for all purposes to Greece as "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". We can neither misquote Greece's administrative subdivisions when they say "we border the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia",^[1] nor an ethnic Greek when he says "I was born in what is now FYROM". This practice is largely followed by other online media (such as the Britannica),^[2] while others have chosen to use the long name uniformly (such as Encarta and the BBC).^[3]

3.Clarity

In the context of Greece-related articles, the use of the short name may largely be confused with the Greek Macedonia. See the following example:

Florina Prefecture lies in the historic region of Macedonia and borders the Republic of Macedonia to the north.

In my view the uninformed reader is immediately puzzled as to what the hell is a Macedonian republic doing outside of a Macedonian region. If I were that reader, I'd either demand an explanation, or a link to an explanation. The chosen disambiguating term among the two Macedonias ("Republic of") is not sufficient to illustrate the distinction. On the other hand, the long term speaks for itself: "Former Yugoslav": It states that this republic was previously part of Yugoslavia.

In my view, within Greek articles, it is unfair and unorthodox to devise disambiguating terms or texts for the Greek region (which is indisputably plainly called "Macedonia"), so as not to use a perfectly legitimate, close-call, and -most importantly- sourced term to describe the (otherwise irrelevant) country. It violates the very principle of WP:NCON (self-identification) for the other Macedonia, which is plainly called that.

4.Practice in WP

In various instances where there is a conflict in terminology, Wikipedia has chosen to provide similar solutions for using different article names depending on the article's context. For example:

• WP:NC-CHINA: See the section WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof.

• Talk:Gdansk/Vote: See that (the now Polish) Gdansk is called Danzig "for biographies of German persons"

• The situation now: An informal consensus right now uses always the long name in all Greece-related articles.

5.Why are Greeks so irked

This section is irrelevant to the policies of WP and the dispute in question. It is here merely for satisfying the curiosity of those wondering, in a brief manner. Expand it only if interested:

Greek position

This is the view of most "moderate" Greeks. The vast majority of the Greek population is annoyed not because of the name itself, but of how this name has been used. A name alone cannot harm anyone, however, the name "Macedonia" is constantly used by official sources and schoolbooks of the country as a means to advance historic and territorial claims:

Historic: Most Makedonskis (in the real world and in WP) believe to their bone that they descend from Alexander the Great and his kingdom/empire. This is the result of continuous governmental propaganda of years (cited in Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism). The problem of the Greeks is not necessarily to take their place in this genealogy tree (to which they arguably fit since the ancient Macedonians and their language/dialect were absorbed by the rest of the ancient Greeks). It is simply that the Slavs that came 1000 years later just don't have anything to do with them, yet they use that name to appropriate that part of history. I, as a Greek, don't see it as "stealing something which is mine". I see it as "monopolizing something which is everybody's, and definitely not only theirs".

Territorial: The persistence in the use of a name without the proposed qualifiers (such as Slav- or North) has been extended to territorial claims. It is the belief of most Makedonskis that Macedonia (Greece) (among others) is an "occupied region" of their country, merely because it carries the same name. This, again, is the result of governmental propaganda and is still endorsed by official printed material. For details, see the sourced article "United Macedonia".

It is worth to note that no Makedonski user of WP has ever criticized the above two fallacies, as it would be considered a "national crime"!^[4] On the other hand, there are many Greeks (in WP and in the real world) who have disputed the initial Greek position of "no Macedonia at all in the title". Hence, the Greek position has changed to demand just some sort of disambiguation. A disambiguation which would, of course, be totally unnecessary if the neighboring country didn't let those preposterous claims slip through official sources and if it didn't in fact endorse them.

Apart from those "material" claims, there is also the immaterial claim of the right to un-disambiguated self-identification. Most Greek Macedonians cannot understand why they suddenly have to use a qualifier for their regional name not to be confused with the ethnic group, while the ethnic group itself doesn't have to do the same in turn. The qualifier, in this case, may sound as signifying that the Greek Macedonians are a subset of the ethnic Macedonians, while in essence both groups are subsets of the Macedonian regioners (which is the only group which should be left without qualifiers, since it is the supergroup of both and others). In this sense, simple logic tends to erroneously equate the ethnic Macedonians to the Macedonian regioners, which further helps in the advancement of the above historic and territorial claims (quite successfully obviously -for the mindset of their own population at least). Just try to read this paragraph here by removing the qualifiers I used ("Greek", "ethnic", and "regioner"). See also Macedonism and The Ten Lies of Macedonism.

Given the above, the worldwide opinion has gradually started shifting towards favoring the (previously called "nationalist") Greek position. Check for a few examples below:

• France, Spain, and other important NATO allies supported Greece's veto towards the admission of the republic in the 2008 NATO summit. Sarkozy in particular said that they are "100% behind the Greek position".
• Australia (an English speaking nation) still officially calls the country with the long form name.
• The media are starting to heavily criticize these obsessive unhistoric and irredentist actions. (example)
• The US senate, passed a resolution for "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) [please note the name used in the title] should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM." Here's the senate's link: [7], and just to note that this resolution has been signed by more than 72 senators, including (then) Senator Obama.

---

For those reasons above, I believe that the most correct solution is to use the long name in all Greece-related articles. It is a matter of verifiability, of clarity, of common sense, and of common practice in WP and elsewhere (such as most other online encyclopedias). NikoSilver 08:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes

[1] See for example the official site of the Prefecture of Florina, Greece.

[2] See in Britannica Greece's borders vs e.g. those of Serbia.

[3] BBC News, Encarta

[4] I'd like to thank the Wikipedia community that effectively helps every time such agendas drop by within the scope of all relevant articles.

---

Straw poll question

• Do you support a proposal to have the article Greece refer to the "Republic of Macedonia" under that very name, and not under the name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"?

This is a straw poll, not a regular discussion. Please present your position in a simple way, without further comments. If you wish to discuss this straw poll, please use the sub-section "Discussion" below. This straw poll is open for 7 days starting at 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Support

• Support (as proposer). Húsönd 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support (Taivo (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
• Support no need for POV island is this article, the "Republic of Macedonia" is clearly something else than "Macedonia" the only reason to use "FYROM" or variants would be to promote a Greek POV which is unacceptable. man with one red shoe 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, obviously the only version compatible with NPOV, and the version that has had steadfast consensus among all outside neutral observers for ages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. FYROM is POV, despite what our colleagues might claim about international bodies and diplomatic recognition. Aramgar (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support this is just applying NPOV as in other articles. Also, what Aramgar said. Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The relevant policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, mandates that we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." This rules out "Macedonia", which is widespread but ambiguous, and "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", which is far less frequently used than the short form (see [8] vs [9]). By a process of elimination, we are left with "Republic of Macedonia" as the name that best fits the requirements of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Call it what it is, a republic within the region of Macedonia. kwami (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because all of the cool kids are doing it and I want to fit in. But also because I don't see why this article shouldn't be consistent with the others. Local hero (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In my opinion, this is the most natural name to use, and my own spot-check of the interwiki links showed other wikis (except for the Greek) favoring the equivalent of 'Macedonia' or 'Republic of Macedonia' rather than FYROM, as the title of their article on Macedonia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Every country has the right to its constitutional name, this includes the Republic of Macedonia. There is no reason to impose censorship in this article just to appeal to Greek users. Greece does not have a veto over the article Greece on Wikipedia.JdeJ (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support MatriX (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Tolerance for the "content must be written from a neutral point of view and following common English usage, unless related to Greece" status quo has lasted more than enough. The grievances of our Greek colleagues do not trump our polices. - Ev (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support as written. After reading the discussion (and recalling the soc.culture.* votes on Usenet, which were spammed by Greek University student accounts; in at least one vote, the spam was automated in alphabetical order by From: address), it's important to have Wikipedia articles refer to it as the neutral and policy-compliant Republic of Macedonia except in articles where the source uses FYROM. The list of neighboring countries does not have a Greek source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strongly oppose, because: 1) a name all the international organizations and bodies use, as well as the participating country itself, can't be POV, 2) it is in perfect accord with MOSMAC, which may not be an official policy, but it is still an essay with a long history and an intrinsic coherence and consistency; by the way, I've repeatedly seen important essays to be evoked in our project (something like "soft law"), 3) it is the name RoM itself has accepted to be used in its bilateral relations with Greece, and a name it proposes as an acceptable bilateral arrangement in any future arrangement, 4) when no internationally acceptable arrangement has been reached in the naming dispute, using RoM in this particular article, the article of Greece, namely the country which leads the opposition to the RoM name, would constitute the most blatant promotion of RoM's POV.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, because of dubious arguments offered in support of this proposal. Apcbg (talk)
• Strongly oppose. I am surprised that some here want to restart these edit wars. sys < in (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per rationale above. NikoSilver 08:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The self-identification right and the homogeneity in wikipedia articles might sound "nice", but things aren't that simple. Especially when we have such a serious matter, between two countries and a UN resolution, we must use a term that is accepted by the two parties. By using the term RoM, we automatically be with one side, which is not neutral! --xvvx (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The reasons have been stated clearly above. (Comment will follow soon enough in the Discussion section further down) Hectorian (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Yannismarou's rationale.ギリシャ人 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, because the logic of this straw poll is based on a deliberately misapprehension of the Greek position on this matter. FYROM, is NOT the name that Greece proposes for this state, it is a name imposed to both countries by UN until a solution is reached. If those who proposed this poll feel that by using this acronym we are enforcing a Greek POV, is not fair for those who believe differently to assume that by the term Republic of Macedonia a Slavomacedonian POV is thrusted? Kapnisma (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per yannismarou and kapnisma. 'nuff said. --Athenean (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Yannismarrou --Cédric Boissière (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Look what has happened, an appalling manipulative backgrounder by Husond has persuaded people that fYRoM is Greek POV. If you accept that, then obviously you will vote "Support". However. People, this-is-not-the-case. It is an official name and more widely used than RoM. Moreover, so many support votes advocate consistency throughout Wikipedia. I'm wondering, aren't I justified then to go and change all "Macedonia" references to RoM on the basis of this reasoning? Why am I so sure that I will be accused as a WP:POINT POV warrior? Now think, if both names are equally official, why this vote is not a WP:POINT?--Avg (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• strongly oppose as per yannismarrou Reaper7 (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with User:Yannismarou's points. Yannisk (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This user has only 17 mainspace edits, the latest in 2007. How did they learn of this poll? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Aren't you aware of the articles' talk pages and projects where this straw poll of yours has been already "advertised"? But, of course, witch-hunting is not forbidden.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I strongly oppose both the straw poll and the associated proposal. First the idea of the straw poll was a very unfortunate one. The principle of WP:VOTINGISEVIL is very well established and for a very good reason. The reason is of course the massive disruption it causes to the wiki by dividing and spreading disappointment and ill-will among the editors. Taking a poll is bad enough. Taking a poll on such a contentious issue is even worse. Predictably we are now divided in two camps with diametrically opposed views. Is this outcome desirable? Was this outcome predictable? This proposal, in the name of encyclopedic uniformity, tries to impose a naming convention which is steeped in falsifications of History, propaganda and political manipulation. Carrying these disputed names in the very article where these terms exist in their original form, (which originated from ancient times), thus mixing the retrograde falsification of History with the original terms, is a disservice to the reader at best and I am not going to describe the worst. Of course there are other reasons, eloquently put forward by, among others, Yannismarou, but I will not comment any further. This mess does not inspire me to continue. It's a sad day for Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 04:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

"... except in situations where that country has agreed to call itself "FYROM" (for the sake of not facing a Greek veto), such as Accession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the European Union" — patently untrue; the UN nomenclature name "Former Yugoslav etc." is used (and increasingly so, too) at various international fora where there is no voting whatsoever let alone Greek veto. Sorry, poor try. Apcbg (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we have sources for that? You already said in the closed move request that usage of FYROM at international fora has increased since the 2008 Bucharest Summit[10] and you didn't give any sources or examples either.

Actually, forget about sources, just explain why the heck this is relevant here. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposer of this straw poll provided a certain 'Background for the proposal' that, presumably, was relevant to the proposal. Then so would be the factual validity of statements made in that 'Background', I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct reply by Avg and this should cover it, as also it was correct by Enric to strike his question. But, of course, we all need to have a sense of fairness in our subconscious for our decision to choose supporting the one or the other. So, for the curious ones, some indications are in the end of the last (hidden) section of my position above (under "#5.Why are Greeks so irked). NikoSilver 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an extremely biased representation of facts by Husond, with a lot of plain false statements inside, - an example of how not to give background information. Thankfully, our own articles Macedonia naming dispute and Macedonia (terminology) explain the issue in a somewhat less biased manner. A Manual of Style for Macedonia related matters has been created in WP:MOSMAC and Greece-related articles are specifically catered for. There is no reason to treat this page outside the scope of the MoS and have a separate poll, unless someone wants deliberately to bypass the MoS.--Avg (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it just says that for Greece-related articles there's no consensus. However keeping then in line with Greek POV is not an acceptable solution. Sorry this article is not here to soothe Greeks sensibilities. man with one red shoe 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really getting tiring repeating again and again that fYRoM is not the Greek POV. This is the primary reason I consider you have a certain bias. No reasonable person can consider the official UN/EU name as "Greek POV". We clearly have two official names here. There is a choice depending on context, which one should be used. The far worse case that happens in Wikipedia is that the official name (RoM or fYRoM) is substituted by an unofficial and ambiguous name (Macedonia) by the same people who advocate policy and consistency. --Avg (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But FYROM is absolutely Greek POV because the only reason it even exists is because of the Greek position in these international organizations. Rather than annoy the Greeks, the international organizations caved in to Greek demands. Republic of Macedonia is the chosen name by the people of that country. The Greeks are 100% responsible for FYROM because of their POV. (Taivo (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

This is not the case. Greece never actively supported FYROM (which is admittedly ugly) before its imposition by the UN. It was imposed to Greece as much as it was imposed to the Republic. Greece's POV has been at the time that the word Macedonia should not be included in any appelation of this state (although for reasons of compromise it has later shifted to accepting the word Macedonia along with a geographical qualifier). FYROM is and has ever been the only bilaterally accepted name, anything else is a deviation from international agreements.--Avg (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

People here seem to not understand the simple fact that Wikipedia doesn't actually care about, of follow, UN or EU names and they bring that about ad nauseum. man with one red shoe 22:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And anybody who exercises common sense would recognize that FYROM name is only because of Greek POV (right or wrong, you can be for or against, but that's the clear situation) man with one red shoe 22:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but here in Wikipedia we do not prescribe, we describe. FYROM currently is an official name and the ONLY name that both states have agreed to. You might have your objections, but this is the reality. I'm not saying that RoM is not an official name, but FYROM is as much official and the only one sanctioned by international organisations. So it has every validity to be here.--Avg (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't prescribe anything, I just use the name prescribed by Wikipedia's naming conventions: WP:NAME, again the "official name" has minimum importance, why do you keep bringing it about? Wikipedia doesn't care about official names. If you don't like the policy try to change it but don't bring arguments that don't have weight because you become tiresome. man with one red shoe 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to read what you quote? Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. An incomplete list of controversial names includes: Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church; BC/AD vs. BCE/CE; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Republic of Macedonia vs. Macedonia; Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians vs. Palestinian People. There are many others.--Avg (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So? man with one red shoe 22:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So this whole discussion is counter-productive, both names are equally controversial, each one for its own reasons, and the very fact that someone requests a rename simply shows they simply want their own POV to prevail. Wikipedia policy suggests to leave this issue at rest.--Avg (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't read that as a interdiction to discuss the issue, I also don't think should be used as a club to preserve specific POV in this page. You say the discussion is counter-productive, however you are part of it, what you actually want is that your POV to triumph by using the excuse that the "discussion is counter-productive". Actually I think it's pretty productive, I've seen already a number of people who support "Republic of Macedonia" form and on the other side I heard only arguments that don't have weight "official name", "discussion is counter-productive", are these the only arguments you have? man with one red shoe 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already listed a series of arguments and I have a lot more, however, since I know your style, if I continue you will accuse me of flooding the talk page and diverting from the real subject, which is that the bad Greeks have hijacked the page etc etc. --Avg (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not FYROM is "Greek POV" is irrelevant because it occurs outside of wikipedia, it's not like there are a certain few with an agenda, it is an internationally recognized term. I haven't taken a look at the article yet, but why are we using either term? Shouldn't the link say just show Macedonia? We don't refer to other countries in articles as the Hellenic Republic or Republic of Bulgaria, etc., other than stating their official names in the lead. If you are referring to the area in Greece say the Macedonian region of Greece or something, but what is proposed seems to never actually be used anywhere. I can't think of where you would ever say FYROM or Republic of Macedonia in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

People should stop citing MOSMAC here because on this issue MOSMAC clearly and unequivocally states that "there is no consensus". That means that there is no policy because no one could agree on one. So stop citing MOSMAC because that is like saying "We have never agreed on this". That's exactly what is being said here--no agreement has ever been reached. (Taivo (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Presumably the point of this discussion is to see if a majority view can be reached? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. man with one red shoe 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, "Republic of Macedonia" has only a few more hits than "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", so the example isn't quite strong. I would argue that the are both equal in use depending on where you are. [11]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Link with correct parameters and thanks for the fresh and constructive input.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is quite interesting what some users are claiming, that the article of Greece is a "POV island" in Wikipedia. If I remember correctly, though it has been a long time (id est: prior to Bush's recognition of FYROM as "Macedonia"), there had been a concensus reached that this country would be refeared in Wikipedia as the "Republic of Macedonia". Perhaps, someone should start by clearing and fixing any sentence in this that uses te term Macedonia, without refering to the region. Then, we should proceed in the other articles as well. If the current usage of the reference to this country in the article of Greece is nothing but unacceptable Greek POV (as a user said above), then change in this is unacceptable FYROMian POV, or, at least, a clear offer of support to the American foreign policy. The pretext that "Macedonia" is the most widespread, common and natural term to use (as also claimed above by users), does not sound appaling, since the same attitude is not followed in a great rage of article were an opinion or thesis that favours Greece/Greeks is continually and blatantly blocked by well-known users, in favour of minority opinions (and as we all know, examples are many). Not to mention that the same attitude is not followed in a great number of articles for other countries/nations/so on elsewhere in Wikipedia. Apropos, maybe the RTL uses the term "Macedonia" to refear to FYROM, thus in the minds of some making it widespread, but, if it was that widespread, Germany would have formally recognised it as such. And if some believe that pure diplomacy and politics are the reason for Germany not doing this, they should be start by wondering is pure diplomacy and politics are the reasons that the USA did... Hectorian (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hectorian, you need to read more carefully, I think. No one above is saying to use Macedonia. Everyone above is saying to use Republic of Macedonia. We are all quite aware of the problem with using Macedonia to refer to the country called Republic of Macedonia. So your argument is moot since no one is taking the position you claim. (Taivo (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

That isn't quite the case. See for example this controversial edit to a protected template by one of the involved administrators, which effectively imposed the use of plain "Macedonia" in countless articles. This was done without any explanation on the relevant talk page. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hectorian, I just went through Republic of Macedonia and made references to Republic of Macedonia consistent, so your argument about that is now also moot. Wikipedia is not bound by UN resolutions or Greek politics. It is bound by the consensus of its editors and internal consistency. Right now, there is a consensus among non-Greek editors that Republic of Macedonia is the best reference for this political entity. It is only a handful of Greek editors who are blocking this usage with no more reasoning than "the UN says no". (Taivo (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Ahem. You're picking at straws, Hectorian. That's a simple flag template and the shorter name makes the flag graphic fit better into the templates. Improving the technical performance of Wikipedia is a noble effort. That's not much of an argument and if it's your only piece of "evidence" then your argument is awfully weak. I'm sure you'll find other places where some article on the distribution of Cretaceous granites in the Balkans "incorrectly" refers to Macedonia rather than the Republic of Macedonia as well. That's just life in Wikipedia--there are an infinite number of places where we can nit and pick ourselves to death over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But overall, in the big picture, the Greeks are blocking the usage of the normal "Republic of Macedonia" without any more reasoning than the fact that they don't like it. (Actually, "normal" would be to refer to this country as Macedonia, but using Republic of Macedonia is already a compromise to clarify that we are not including the Greek provinces.) (Taivo (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

No, my argument is not moot! Imagine what: admission of three Balkan countries (Croatia, Albania and Macedonia), Torlakian and Shop dialects spoken mostly in southern Serbia and western Bulgaria (and by speakers in the north and east of Macedonia), Macedonia is amongst one of the countries with the most beautiful preserved Byzantine fresco paintings, etc etc. You made some changes (but did not correct all of it), but why didn't you go through that article before? Didn't you know what was going on there? Or maybe you have no idea of what is going on in other articles as well? I have every right to believe that, had I not drawn attention to that, no changes would have been made. And those that were made, I believe are made "temporarily"... soon, they will be altered to simply "Macedonia" again.

Excuses of the kind "looks better", "improving the technical performance of Wikipedia", etc, are not convincing enough. We are not supposed to alledgedly chose what looks better over what is more correct. In the recent months many changes have been made in a great variety of articles, where the "Republic of Macedonia" was changed to simply "Macedonia", with many of these changes made by admins involved here as well, eternally accusing the Greek editors of POV-pushing on the issue. Shall I proceed in all the articles changing "Macedonia" into "RoM"? Will any of the parties who voted "support" in the sraw poll above, help me in it? Of course not! Al least some of them, will try to block me on the grounds of a wiki policy they will suddenly remember is valid... Apart from yourself, no one bothered to replace "Macedonia" with "RoM", despite their claims of neutrality, concensus and encyclopedic behavour. With your act, you explosed many other users' (admins, of course included) double standards and hidden open agendas. Thank you. Hectorian (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What a scandalously deliberate misinterpretation of a basic English sentence. The policy is clear: use the most common term that isn't ambiguous. That means the next most common term after "Macedonia", regardless of its relative popularity. And that isn't "Republic of Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you fail to see that Republic of Macedonia is a needed disambiguation in this case -- yes, following the naming convenitions we should use "Macedonia" because of possible confusion we need to disambiguate and use "Republic of Macedonia". Also, I thought the discussions will be limited in "discusion" section, I can go on and reply to any point for "oppose" but I respect people and don't do this, why are you special in this respect? man with one red shoe 13:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. It prescribes the use of the most common unambiguous term, not the arbitrary disambiguation of the most common ambiguous one. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And you mean to say that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is more common than "Republic of Macedonia"? That's not clear to me, at most they are close in usage with "RoM" leading (it's also not clear to me that the articles that mention "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" are not actually using "RoM" form most of the times and only mention the "FYROM" once saying something like "Greeks like this form" -- only a mention of that would put the paper in the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" category, which is of course not accurate) But nevertheless, "RoM" seems to be more common even if not by much, so how can you support a form that's less common? Talking about consistency.... man with one red shoe 21:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Check the google scores for instance: ~2M vs ~1M hits. And BTW, it's a little crazy to think that the long form (which is obligatorily used in all UN/EU/NATO/OSCE/FIFA/FIBA etc documents and in all other international organizations and wherever else Greece is a participant) isn't used more than the RoM form... NikoSilver 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In the second link you remove all the results that contain "former Yugoslav", that's absurd, I would imagine that in many articles about Macedonia is mentioned that's a Former Yogoslav republic, or at least they mention the name controversy, so you actually remove from search any article that talks about the controversy. As for your guess, is just that, a guess. man with one red shoe 01:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide any evidence to support your claim that "RoM" is more common than fYRoM? We know that "Macedonia" is, but "RoM"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have, but don't pretend that you have the proof that fYRoM is more popular. As I explained those searches are ambiguous. man with one red shoe 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How about User:ChrisO's "survey of mainstream encyclopedias", which produced 5 hits for fYRoM and only 1 for "RoM"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Appalling

A "background" section that ought to be the support position is shameful. The text obviously tries to portray Greeks as a "fiercely opposing" and "unnecessarily politicizing" faction. How deceitful, manipulative and devious. Those should be Husond's own opinions, and he has every right in the world to have them, but to portray them as "background" information for the uninvolved users is appalling. Shame. NikoSilver 08:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet almost all of the editors to oppose this proposal - and conversely to support Kekrops' move proposal over on Talk:Republic of Macedonia - are a small number of exclusively Greek editors. What are we to make of this? Why is this, in effect, a few Greek people versus everyone else? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You admit it is a successful manipulation then. And you continue it, to make sure that it stays that way, instead of just waiting to see what happens. Bravo. NikoSilver 09:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What I find particularly appalling is how the 'support' side tries to invalidate the views of the 'oppose' side by claiming it is just "a few Greek people" (above), or a "handful of Greek users" (below). A user's nationality has no bearing on the validity of their views or vote. A vote is a vote is a vote, whether the editor is Greek, Albanian, or Martian. To try to undermine one side of the debate on the basis of ethnicity borders on racism, and is frankly quite disgusting. It also reveals the intellectual paucity of the 'support' side's arguments, and that some people in that camp are driven more by animosity towards the Greek side (no need to mention names) than reason. --Athenean (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "invalidate" votes. A Greek vote is - of course - of equal weight to one from an editor of any other nationality. But there are some things here which it's impossible to explain away in terms of simple policy differences. Let's consider the facts:

• Support votes have come from a wide range of nationalities - American, British, German, Swedish and others. Not a single Greek editor has voted in favour of this proposal.
• Oppose votes have come almost exclusively from Greek editors. Almost every editor who has voted against this proposal self-identifies as Greek. Every Greek editor who has participated in this discussion has voted the same way.

So how do we explain this?

• Greek editors have a different understanding of Wikipedia policies to everyone else?
• Only Greek editors understand Wikipedia's policies, but nobody else does?
• Greek editors are voting as a block for reasons other than Wikipedia's policies?

It's pretty obvious what the answer is... -- ChrisO (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Greeks are smarter (they don't get fooled by wrong arguments) and less biased than other people. :) And of course it doesn't have to do with pushing a POV at all... man with one red shoe 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:So what? What is your point? Where are you trying to go with this? For the second time, the ethnic background of the partcipants to this poll should be no more relevant than what their favorite food is. I find your insistent focus on the ethnic background of those who happen to vote 'oppose' disturbing to say the least. --Athenean (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that's a specific POV pushed here, not an interpretation of a policy (it would be strage that people who are from a specific country to interpret a policy in a different way than all the people from other countries). But I agree, we don't need to examine the background of the people involved which can be offensive and doens't prove anything. Beside I'm sure there are non-Greek who oppose and Greeks who support, so let's drop it here. man with one red shoe 01:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To sum up: I'm claiming that nobody is trying to invalidate Greek votes but I'm writing an essay just below to invalidate Greek votes. --Avg (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO your argument would be valid after the poll, when all the votes were in. Now it's not valid, because those thinking to oppose are reading your post and are reluctant to be accused of helping a "faction", so they are extorted/intimidated/scared away. Way to go ChrisO. Keep sending them away, and then claim that this carnival of a poll was fair! How brave and gallant of you! NikoSilver 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, this and other relevant discussions at some points read like a lecture on the power of denial, "isolation" by ethnicity is constantly abused as an argument to divert from some valid points that have to do with basic wikipedia principles, but it's abused as a plain term as well along with "Greek POV", "Greeks versus everyone else" or "national faction" and others creating an atmosphere for good faith outside readers. The broader context to me is that very few editors in this community give a shit on which reference should be used (reflecting the world at large), and that makes "everyone else" as isolated in their own stubbornness as the other side is supposed to be in ChrisO's comment above. The community expects something stable that abides with wikipedia policies. Best case for "RoM" supporters is that it's as legit a "fYRoM" following Kekrop's reasoning and counterarguments posed, adding (for example) the more case-specific arguments by Yannismarou to that, things become clearer. And i think most people which aren't carried away by their inner (noble or in some occasions not so noble) motives/inspiration-to-participate that favour the constitutional name can see that right now.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink to Republic of Macedonia

Just so no one gets their panties in a wad, all I did with that minor edit was to change the name of the link (not the text on the map) so that it links directly to Republic of Macedonia (as it does in the first paragraph of text) and not to FYROM which then redirects to Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

A reminder

“

Refusal to 'get the point'

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is an accepted rule when it is not.

” — from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

What is the purpose of this reminder, and to whom is it directed? --Athenean (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A reply to the "reminder"

I like your idea of objectivity. First you do not object to the labeling all Greek users in the very "background" of the poll as an "unnecessary politicizing" and "fiercely opposing" faction! And then you slap a "reminder" for everybody to see and be guided (or, better, extorted under the threat of a ban!) into agreeing with your interpretation of policy! Where is your dignity? Where is your chivalry? Where is your sense of fair play? You wanted a poll to justify your claim? Well, what you have managed to do is to irreparably stain the one that has been initiated. I object to the fairness of how this poll was carried out, because it is evident that there are numerous attempts to manipulate the voters. Shame. NikoSilver 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this repeats what you said before, why post again? Second, what don't you like about "fiercely opposing"? I think it's a pretty honest description, if you see most of the editors who oppose the change found it useful to say "strongly oppose". As for politicizing, is always unnecessary... while it's debatable if this issue is politicized or not... I doubt it's "shameful" to portrait it this way, what's sameful is your reaction and your accusations, instead of sticking to the discussion at hand and keep an even tone you started to shriek (repetedly even) man with one red shoe 13:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am shrieking, I'm only shrieking to shrieks. If all these were obvious, if "strongly" was equivalent to "fiercely", if "politicizing" was evident, then it would be obvious for the ones who came here. No reason to put a billboard on top of it. But your problem is that it is not so, so you try your best to paint it this way. The #Opposition rationale is not a "shriek", it is a well documented, well sourced, and 100% WP policy based rationale. That's why you cannot refute it with dignity, but only with slur and extortion. NikoSilver 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who cried "shame". As I see you could have said "I don't like how the oposition was described, while we strongly oppose I don't think "fiercely" is an appropriate term and the accusation of politizing is not necessary" -- that's concise, to the object, and non-shrieking. Personally I don't make a big difference between "strongly opposing" and "fiercely opposing" especially that the behavior on this page is closer to the later... but if you feel offended or wrongly described you can ask in different manner than to cry "shame!" in the talk page. As for politicizing... I'll let readers decide for themselves. I personally didn't mention politics nor have I accuse people of anything related, although I fail to see any other reason for existance, use, and promotion of the FYROM term itself. man with one red shoe 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't you. You are the one who replies. The other one (who is the one who it was) didn't cry "shame". He cried "unnecessary politicizing" and "fiercely opposing" in the poll's background section (!!!). The other other one (who is the second one who it also was) didn't cry "shame" either. What he did was he posted a threating boilerplate that we should get the point otherwise he would use the guns we gave him against us. The other other other one (who is the third one who it also was), is the one who keeps repeating what an organized faction we are so that he makes sure it never goes unnoticed by anybody who visits the page! We notice the effect of their actions in the rationales of the last support votes (which is totally *not* based on policy, but 100% based on these ethnic attacks!)... How gallant, how fair, how brave! Keep it on! NikoSilver 00:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

3 of the last 4, to be precise. --Athenean (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments to opposition rationale

I've read your Opposition rationale and most of your points are not really sound. Your point about using FYROM in quotes where it is found is sound and should be maintained since we don't want to be falsifying quotes (but the reverse is also absolutely true--"Macedonia" in a quote should not be changed to FYROM). Your point about using the terms found in official lists is also sound since those are really just a different form of quote. But your argument about "ambiguity" in a statement such as "in the region of Macedonia bordering the Republic of Macedonia" is not sound. Such a phraseology is not unusual at all since we regularly distinguish between Congo, the Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo without resorting to such constructions as "the Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire" (or "Belgian Congo" or "Congo-Leopoldville", etc.). And Wikipedia is not, as we keep reiterating, bound by the constraints of either the UN or the European Union or NATO or anyone else. We can refer to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. even though these de facto independent states have no international status. "The region of Macedonia bordering on the Republic of Macedonia" is perfectly unambiguous since there is only one known entity called "Republic of Macedonia" and if the context of the article is Greece, then the region of Macedonia is perfectly unambiguous in context. You've constructed a paper tiger that is not destroyed at all by the reference to FYROM since there is no Greek Republic of Macedonia with which to get the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia confused with. (Taivo (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, thank you for your productive input. Thank you for acknowledging that within the rationale there are sound arguments. You may, of course, weigh the arguments you agree with vs those you disagree with, and in the end decide differently, as you already did. But this is a matter of interpretation, of taste, of personal preference for one criterion's importance over that of the other. On the other hand, you must admit, that what I'm facing here is fear to even speak my opinion and my mind! I'm treated as a "nationalist" who "shrieks" and posts "rants". I'm threatened with bans! And it's not just me, it's all Greeks! Thank you for pointing out that we do not deserve this! To the essence of your argumentation I will respond briefly in a following post. NikoSilver 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For ambiguity, I must say that I face it constantly in my everyday life (not just my wiki-life), as I travel a lot (maybe twice a week) throughout the Balkans due to my work. My reply is that we must not judge with the eyes of a person who has been educated on the subject. Hell, if all were educated on the subject, there wouldn't even be a reason for the real-life dispute! If simple people could understand that Macedonians are NOT the superset encompassing Greek Macedonians (aka "Macedonians" also, and without any qualifier) and Piriners (aka Macedonians regionally, but Bulgarians ethnically and consciously), but all of them above are Macedonian regioners then there wouldn't be any problem to begin with! If simple people could understand that a superset can have a name with qualifiers, and its subsets to be without qualifiers, then we'd all be happy! But in real life, people have been used to think the opposite. Now "republic of", is indeed a qualifier, but you must believe me, it's a qualifier that mixes up things even further. First because it goes unnoticed, as if you haven't read it. Second because even if you read it, instead of solving questions, it creates questions. Like what on earth is a region called Macedonia doing outside the republic called Macedonia? My solution adds two (black) words *outside* of the (blue) link, which could by all means exist in normal text! The country was *indeed* part of Yugoslavia, which immediately clears out that the republic and the Greek region are mutually exclusive! Would it be a problem to use the same clarification in other contexts? Like "The former Portuguese colony of Brazil has a different official language from most of its neighbors who speak Spanish." Now what's wrong with that? That it happens to hit some sensitive nationalist nerves? Hell I thought it was me accused of that! NikoSilver 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with disambiguating qualifiers is that there is no limit to them once you have opened the door. We must assume a minimum level of intellectual curiosity and intelligence for users of Wikipedia or else the whole affair topples like a house of cards. There are two Chinas, two Congos, "two" Macedonias. Your use of Brazil is not reasonable since there is only one Brazil. You should confine yourself to entities where there is a possibility of confusion. How does Wikipedia distinguish the two Chinas? One is the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the other is the Republic of China (ROC). How does Wikipedia distinguish the two Congos? One is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRCongo) and the other is the Republic of the Congo (ROCongo). We assume that our readers use the appropriate one. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to disambiguate the two Macedonias by Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece). It is perfectly parallel. We don't call DRCongo "the former Zaire" and we don't call ROC "Taiwan" and PRC "Mainland". We mention both designations within their articles, of course, and within direct quotes, but we don't use these terms on maps or in lists of neighboring countries. You are asking that we treat the Republic of Macedonia specially. The PRC is just as adamant about what ROC is called as Greece is about the Republic of Macedonia, perhaps even more so since PRC claims ROC as a province and Greece has no such territorial claims about the Republic of Macedonia. Wikipedia therefore has two very strong and relevant precedents for not using FYROM and setting its policy instead on Republic of Macedonia throughout. You cannot be insisting that we treat the Republic of Macedonia differently than we treat these other four independent countries. (Taivo (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Please read WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. NikoSilver 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming per country

After reading most of the comments and positions that have been presented here, I came up with a proposal. Maybe this is not the right place to be presented, but it can always be moved to the talk page of a more relevant article, this for example. It was obvious for me to notice that for some users, the position of Greece, Greeks, International Organisations and many states in the world, is considered biased and POVish... So, why not using "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" according to this map? In e.g. Greece- or Australia-related articles, "FYROM" shall be used, whereas in American- or British-related ones, "RoM" shall be. This proposal may fix things, cause it really makes me sick watching attempts to install the name "Republic of Macedonia" all over Wikipedia, only in order to serve the FYROMian POV and certain departments of foreign affairs... Do not try to force a "solution" through the window... Hectorian (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the position that already exists in Wikipedia. Compare this with the "naming controversy" concerning Province of Taiwan/People's Republic of China (Mainland view) and Republic of China under Communist control/free Republic of China (Island view). No, we give each entity its own name that it chose itself: Republic of China and People's Republic of China. Thus it is perfectly parallel to let the Republic of Macedonia have the name which its people chose for itself. Wikipedia does not rely on international authority to give entities names. Thus, the Republic of the Congo-Kinshasa became Zaire and then the Democratic Republic of the Congo because its people wanted to. The unrecognized, but de facto independent Abkhazia is recognized as such here even though none of the international organizations that are named in support of FYROM even note its existence. Most international organizations call the Republic of China "Taiwan". No. That's no compromise, Hectorian. Wikipedia already has well-established precedents for using Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Please read WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. NikoSilver 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

One word. Burma. Why it is not Myanmar again if "we give each entity its own name that it chose itself"? Sorry, but Wikipedia is far less straightforward as you might think.--Avg (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, the people of FYROM also agreed (though their elected government) to the usage of the term FYROM, in all international matters (and certainly they did not have Wikipedia in mind, yet Wikipedia is not a domestic matter in any case). In addition, the Greeks do not use the name "Greece" for their country, but if you know, Hellas. Furthermore, the inhabitants of the Greek Macedonia use the term Macedonians for themselves, but the respective article that was created, was deleted by the admins who voted "support" here... Thus, I doubt that Wikipedia already has well-established precedents... It seems that it has precedents when it fits the POV of certain editors and policies. Hectorian (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Re: Burma. Wikipedia does not react instantaneously. My question would be how many people who are fluent enough in English to edit Wikipedia really spend time cruising the Burmese realm? Not nearly so many as cruise the Greek and Macedonian articles. I read the chart on Taiwan/Republic of China and it is actually not far from what should be the case with the Republic of Macedonia. Notice carefully that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is an initial disambiguating reference and then the remainder of the references should be to "Republic of China" without "(Taiwan)". But I do note that that naming guideline is not "official" since consensus has not been reached, must as here. The only real question for the Greece article is the map. The first use of Republic of Macedonia in text has the disambiguating "FY", but the map should not include it. The map should be a straightforward representation of the names of the countries that surround Greece. It needs no disambiguation because it is a map and the disambiguation is in looking at the map. (Taivo (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Do you mean we should use former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the beginning of the article and Republic of Macedonia thereafter (eg. in the map)? NikoSilver 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that Macedonians have used FYROM (reluctantly) is because of Greek pressure and coercion on the international bodies--it was certainly not their choice. And by using the names chosen by the people, you know that I meant the English translation of those names and not the literal transliterated words in the native language. (Taivo (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Why do you find that the Greek pressure invalidates the actual use that takes place? (and I didn't understand the transliteration bit) NikoSilver 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Greek pressure invalidates the use of FYROM because that means that the people cannot use the name for their country that they, themselves, prefer. They prefer Republic of Macedonia, but since Greece has threatened every international organization with withdrawal if Macedonians are allowed to use the name they prefer, then they have forced a name that the Macedonian people themselves don't want in order to participate in international organizations. Are you seriously trying to say that FYROM is the preferred name by Macedonians? Get real. It's a compromise name because the Greeks would not allow them into international organizations with Republic of Macedonia. And the transliteration bit was because another editor asked why Hellas was not the name used for Greece. We don't use a transliteration (as in Hellas), but a translation (as in Greece). (Taivo (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps, FYROM is the prefered name for the people of FYROM, not for the "Macedonians". But since you have fixed your mind in exclusively naming "Macedonians" the people of that republic in the Balkans, I personally see little room for further discussion on the matter... Get real of what you support, and don't pretent to be someone that tries to reach concensus. Let the masks aside to see the real faces! You have seen the real faces of the Greeks, that you, so much accuse of nationalism... Remove the veil from your own faces for once! Hectorian (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The people of the Republic of Macedonia self-identify primarily as Macedonians. The people of the Greek region of Macedonia self-identify primarily as Greeks, I would imagine, and Macedonian secondly. If you ask a Macedonian Greek what nationality or ethnicity he is, I don't think many would say "Macedonian". People from across the border, on the other hand, would, simply because that's their national rather than regional identity. So when (non-Greek) editors on Wikipedia speak of Macedonians, they generally mean people of the Macedonian nationality and ethnicity, not Greeks with a sub-national, non-ethnic regional identity. But I suspect you already know this... -- ChrisO (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The people of the Greek region of Macedonia self-identify simply as Macedonians. Just like the people of Crete as Cretans and those of Thessaly as Thessalians. For the Greeks, primarily every Cretan, Thessalian or Macedonian is simply a subset of the Greeks. Simple as that! When non-Greek editors on Wikipedia speak of Macedonians, I would rather believe they are talking about the ancient Greek subgroup, rather than the modern self-imposed wannabe ethnos. Perhaps, if you try harder, people around the globe will begin to associate everything Macedonian with FYROM. Keep up this unencyclopedic work, and you may succeed, unless... Hectorian (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that people already predominately associate the term "Macedonia" with the republic of that name: "Macedonia" (without any qualifiers) is overwhelmingly the predominate term in English-language news sources. Husond is almost doing you a favour by not proposing to use "Macedonia" as the term instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall I (or any other Greek) thank you or Husond for that? Keep this favour for yourselves. And if the "battle" is lost already, what can I say? Congrats! You have just put another nail on Wikipedia's coffin... You have almost succeeded in turning it into an office of the United States Department of State. Condoleezza Rice will be pleased for that... Hectorian (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hectorian, you need to stop living in the 4th century BCE. "Macedonian" in the modern, English-speaking world refers to the Slavic language of that name, not to anything at all Greek. In other words, the normal modern English meaning of "Macedonian" is a Slav living within the borders of the Republic of Macedonia. "Macedonian" in the historical sense refers to Alexander and his short-lived empire. Usage of "Macedonian" in a modern sense in English is in relation to things Slavic, not Greek. You accuse the people advocating Republic of Macedonia of bringing a bias to this discussion, yet even before the discussion began the Greeks were voting strongly oppose. "Strongly" implies a very firm, fixed position and not one subject to any compromise or reasonable discussion whatsoever. No one who "strongly" opposes a position will ever rationally come to a compromise or build a consensus. (Taivo (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I doubt of what you say "Macedonian" means in modern English. And be sure that I am living the 21st century in its maximum extend! Yet, try to tell the people of FYROM and their supporters in here (see the admins above) that they are simply slavic, having to do nothing with the ancient Macedonians... I challenge you! Then, come back to ask me why the Greek users voted "strongly oppose"... Hectorian (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And indeed if you look at Britannica, the premier English-language encyclopedia (sorry Jimbo!), its entry for the RoM is now simply at "Macedonia". Greek Macedonia is treated separately as "Macedonia (region, Greece)". The fact is that common usage in English has evolved to the point that "Macedonia" is the standard term for the country, without disambiguation, just as "Luxembourg" is the standard term for that country which is likewise part of a wider region of the same name. The question we need to resolve is how we recognise that evolution in common usage. I fully recognise that common usage in Greek is different, but this isn't the Greek Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not use the case of "Luxembourg" as an example. You are perfectly aware that the case is irrelevant. Hectorian (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why we don't call the Luxembourg article "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg", when the same name is also applied to a city and a Belgian province? If we applied the same model to Macedonia, we would have the Republic of Macedonia article at Macedonia, the Greek Macedonia article at Macedonia (Greece), and the disambiguation at Macedonia (disambiguation), parallel to Luxembourg (disambiguation). It works for Luxembourg. Could you explain why you think it won't work for Macedonia? -- ChrisO (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg's name isn't an issue in the real world, perhaps because the border with Belgium is more of an imaginary line than a cultural divide. Same with Moldova and Moldavia; they are both Roumanian, at the end of the day. In any case, I fail to see the relevance of your WP:OTHERCRAP argument. We are not discussing the renaming of the article to "Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)No, there is no renaming of the article proposed. The only thing at issue here in the Greece article is to make the map accurately reflect the name of Greece's northern neighbor. The name on the map should be "ROM" rather than FYROM. The name of the country is properly addressed in the first paragraph of the text and in no other place that I can see. The map should say "ROM" since that is the name of the article where the link goes and is the normal name of that country. (Taivo (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps then you should consider withdrawing your vote of support? Because the proposal pertains specifically to the removal of the words "former Yugoslav" from the lead. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there are two places where FYROM is mentioned. One is on the map and is blatant--FYROM instead of ROM. That one definitely needs to be changed. The second is not FYROM, but "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". That one is more acceptable to me since the wikilink is clearly to ROM and not to FYROM and "former" is not capitalized. I'm not opposed to an initial disambiguation in an article. I am opposed to a blanket use of FYROM throughout an article after the very first paragraph. In the acronym on the map, it is just too blatant and prejudicial to Macedonia. It is an insistence that the Republic of Macedonia doesn't deserve the same respect with regards to its name as do other countries of the world. It implies that the Republic of Macedonia is somehow a lesser entity than its neighbors. After the initial disambiguation in the lead paragraph, then the map needs to be simply ROM. My support stands. (Taivo (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Suit yourself. I was merely pointing out the obvious disparity between your stated position and User:Husond's proposal, which would ban the use of "former Yugoslav" in the article altogether. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I daresay that no two Wikipedia editors will ever be in 100% agreement on any subject. I oppose "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "FYROM", not "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" once in the lead. The map has got to change. (Taivo (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Like I said above. The argument that the straw poll is "doing the Greeks a favour" by not proposing the use of the term "Macedonia", and proposing the term "RoM" instead, reveals the absurdity of the arguments in favour of the proposal. This has nothing to do with the acceptance or not of these terms by the wider public. As it pertains to the article of Greece, which includes the term "Macedonia", which from ancient times has been part of Greece, using the newly minted "Macedonia" term to refer to RoM is a sure recipe for confusion. You cannot have two "Macedonias" meaning completely different things in this specific article. Confusion may not arise in other articles but in this specific article this is unhistorical and confusing. So by not using the term "Macedonia" for FYROM noone is doing any favours to anyone. It's simply good practice. Same goes for RoM, again, as it pertains to this particular article. And that, of course, includes the map. Can you imagine Greek Macedonia bordering with the Republic of its namesake? Or, according to ChrisO, bordering with itself? (the "other" Macedonia), newly minted by Encyclopedia Britannica? Please, everyone, give logic a break. Dr.K. logos 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old "disambiguation" spectre again. Greek editors never tire of bringing that up, as if our readers were idiots. In my experience, the confusion persists only in the imagination of Greek editors, who would wish that readers were unable to think of more than a single referent when encountering the word. I have yet to see a plausibly documented example of a reader who actually was confused by seeing "M" used in its two meanings. For real people out there, it is actually quite an easy task to process the information that "M" can refer to two different entities. It's trivial. It becomes a conundrum only the moment you load it up with the kind of ideological baggage that Greek people are unfortunately so obsessed with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike, say, the Germans? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)