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)

Agreed. Done (cf. Eleftherios Venizelos not Eleuftherios Venizelos) man with one red shoe 18:57, 29 March 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)

i don't want to call an othercrapexists but this is a rather well-sourced motto, at least for the national part. Other mottos are either royal or personal of important people of the country etc. Best solution is name it national motto just like there is a national language in the USA article.. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:38, 30 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)

In general, the country's constitutional name is honoured by other countries. However, sometimes the constitutional name is confusing, and can cause conflicts such as this. Another classical example is the issue of Republic of Ireland vs. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We all know how many decades that took to sort out. Confusion can be tolerated in contexts where all participants understand the issue well -- such as international relations -- but confusions are the bane of encyclopædias. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:27, 1 April 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)
• Support Yes, as always, keep it simple and in accordance with standard English. Wikipedia has no place for the POV-wishy-washing over names that's standard in international diplomacy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I would support to change the current name into FYROM, but as the Republic of Macedonia is used in all wiki and is the current consensus, I can not see why one page should use FYROM. FYROM should be used either in all pages, or in none (except when talking about the terminology itself).Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Colchicum (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support because this entire conflict looks ridiculous from the outside and most uninvolved people just can't be bothered to use a silly name like "FYROM". This seems to be just part of the general pattern of Greeks (like Turks and presumably others in the region) faking history for nationalist reasons. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we learned from the masters. You can guess who I mean. Dr.K. logos 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Initially I could not, but after reading the absurd discussion below about myself I am guessing that you wanted to lose this discussion through the first corollary to Godwin's law. Is that it? No, I wasn't trying to support a pro-German version of the second world war in the region. I know that the Germans were the bad guys, and I am not proud of that. Most Germans do, whereas the official history in Greece still says that the atrocities suffered from the Turks were one-sided and unprovoked. (There are of course good reasons for the difference, including the fact that the Germans were far worse than the Greeks and lost more spectacularly.) Similarly, the existence of a "Macedonian" state populated by Slavic speakers threatens the Greek illusion of a homogeneous Greek ethnicity dating back to the ancient Greeks, with only negligible Turkish, Vlachic, Albanian and Slavic influences. That seems to be the root of the conflict, and as much as I like Greece and the Greeks, I see no reason to humour them in this delusion. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How very Fallmerayeresque of you. Wasn't that the Germans' excuse for their occupation of Greece? I suppose the continuously documented history of the Greek language is a "delusion" too. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: No. I don't think Godwin's law applies here, for the simple reason that I was not referring to WWII Germany specifically, but rather to the behaviour of Germany since Kaiser's time. I was not expecting however a reply that included a psychogeopolitical theory of the Balcans based on racial ethnicity parameters to explain the Greek positions. Of course I don't agree, but let's just agree to disagree. Dr.K. logos 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Following Hans Adler's reply below I corrected racial to ethnicity to reflect his comments better Dr.K. logos 23:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fallmerayer? "Race"??? It obviously makes no sense to continue this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Fallmerayer claimed that the modern Greeks have no connection to the ancients other than geography. Isn't that what you wrote above? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You called the idea of Hellenic continuity an "illusion" and "delusion". What's the difference? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I? Is "not everything" the same as "nothing"? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Granted. Hans did not mention "nothing" but rather claimed some unspecified degree of influence from other ethnicities. So he was not nearly as absolute as Fallmerayer. Also he did not talk about "races" but about "ethnicities", so my comment above should have mentioned "ethnicitities" not "races". Having said that I don't believe that the Greeks are under the delusions or illusions he claims, and that the root of the Macedonian problem lies distinctly somewhere else, but we just agreed to disagree, so Hans, no need to reply to my comment. Danke und auf wiedersehen. Dr.K. logos 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we wouldn't have to make such assumptions if after hurling his insults he took the time to explain his position rather than speak in riddles. So he thinks the "Turkish, Vlachic, Albanian and Slavic influences" (he forgot Latin, Venetian/Italian, French, Catalan, "Frankish", Bavarian and Anglo-Saxon, among others) were somewhat less negligible than Paparrigopoulos might have us believe. Good for him, but I still don't see how that's relevant to Macedonia. Unless "not everything" really is the same as "nothing". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 01:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree. Like every nation, Greece has had multiple influences from many sources. But these influences have no relation to the Macedonian problem. That's what I mentioned above. But since this discussion is going nowhere and in addition I agreed to disagree with Hans, let's leave it at that. If someone thinks that Greeks are delusional about their past and that's at the root of the Macedonian problem, at the end of the day there is nothing you can do. Being delusional is a psychiatric condition and I have no psychiatrist credentials to analyse such claims. Dr.K. logos 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mind me but it would be a lot cheaper if Mr.Adler checked himself up first before making blind attacks, defining a whole ethnic group as having a corrupt view of history due to nationalist tendencies.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Δρακόλακκε, psychoanalysis can be very messy when mixed with politics. Especially when those who try to apply it or use its terminology are not properly accredited experts. So it is easy for a non-expert to diagnose a whole nation with some psychiatric condition such as delusion or even obsession. However since this fact is uncited, because no real psychiatrist would ever perform a mass diagnosis on a population, it is also pure POV. Since we are an encyclopedia our first reaction should be adding a tag every time we encounter such statements. But since this is a talkpage such statements can be added without fear of being tagged. However these statements are pure WP:OR and normally they should not be depended upon to reach any rational conclusion, including how to vote. WP:OR is WP:OR. You cannot depend on it in article mainspace and for sure you cannot depend on it to advance any serious points on an article talkpage. Dr.K. logos 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support The name of a country is determined by the government of that country, not by a neighbouring country. On Wikipedia, we should apply naming conventions uniformly rather than allow those names to be changed locally by whatever subgroup of editors takes an interest in doing so, whether or not that group is associated with any particular racial, ethnic, religous, or political division. Imagine if a group of editors at Talk:National Front were to decide that that article should use the term "Pakis" instead of "UK immigrants from the Indian subcontinent". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This analogy is simply unfair. There is no "Paki naming dispute", unlike the "Macedonian Naming Dispute" which has been discussed in many fora, including Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That we disagree with one another is irrelevant. This isn't the place for a discussion. It's a straw poll, and my position has been made clear. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was a talkpage. Dr.K. logos 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support If that's the name, that's the name. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not really sure why this has become such a contentious issue, really, but I'm geographically and emotionally distant from the former Yugoslavia. (I'm geographically distant from Greece as well, but have treasured memories of visits there.) I can see why it might be desirable to refer to FYROM, but the reasons for doing so have no basis in Wikipedia's naming policies. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 2 April 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)

Further explanation of vote: I believe that the invoked policy of consistent use of ‘Republic of Macedonia’ throughout English Wikipedia is ill-founded, fueling confrontation among editors that is totally unnecessary.

I would have left the principle of consistency involving the two relevant name forms to be enforced on an article-by-article basis, as a temporary arrangement to be replaced in due course by a permanent one reflecting the solution that is to happen outside Wikipedia.

I don’t believe Wikipedia should take sides in this contentious and sensitive issue of name usage, more so that a solution of the issue itself is pending – unavoidably, as even the closest partners of the Republic of Macedonia now unequivocally insist that Skopje accepts a compromise the basics of which have already come up, with neither ‘Republic of etc.’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav etc.’ being that compromise.

P.S. Should anyone here happen to have in mind, besides the belief in following some established Wikipedia policy of giving preference to one of the names, also the motivation that this way he/she is ‘supporting Macedonia and the Macedonians’, I am afraid that such ‘support’ is actually not in the best interests of that country and its people, but rather gives courage to the policies of the present government in Skopje that are increasingly questioned both at home and abroad, policies that have been leading the country into isolation, economic and social underdevelopment (the achievement of being outpaced by Albania ... for starters) and ethnic divergence with far reaching implications.

Needless to say, such ‘good wishers’ come and go, and it’s never them who pay the price.Apcbg (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
      • I guess WP:AGF is DOA on this page. Dr.K. logos 14:54, 30 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)
• Strongly oppose Agree with Yannis.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Pending resolution of the name issue between Greece and FYROM, and adoption of it by the UN, use of the acronym FYROM, instead of Republic of Macedonia, is not a Greek POV.Rizos01 (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This user barely made any edits after 2007, has never edited this article or its talk page in the past. How did they learn of this poll? Húsönd 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a "naive" question... is it o.k to promote this poll by you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Straw_poll when the reason is clearly to bring more people to vote "support" this way? And also, is it "illegal" for a user, that even though he is not active in editing, to find something insulting and to act by voting? The article is about Greece and it's normal to have a lot of readers, it's not an article about the reproduction of a kiwi. --xvvx (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Come on! The answer is simple! It is ok for them to advertise the poll in various discussion pages, and then come here and wonder "in italics": "Oh! My God! How did they learn about it?! Why haven't they missed all these advertisements?!"--Yannismarou (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "long" name was made for a reason. The largest international-relations organisation uses it for a reason.And that is not to please the inhabitants of the Greek province that was officially named Macedonia 150+ years before the Yugoslavian province. (but to avoid nationalism effusion, irredentism and general friction between neighbours until a reliable agreement is reached) People who want the de facto name, either: 1. don't know much about the subject and its history. 2. don't care about giving facts, but for making Wikipedia a place for simpletons to read. 3. Have a sense of pseudo-justice, where they like to think they are defending the interests of the weak in an unusual subject directly related to an objectively recent ethnogenesis and name/heritage/history appropriation. FutPerf for example said it must stay only Macedonia because he assumes English-speaking people recognise the country by that name. Even if that was true, still, we don't name Sildenafil: Viagra, even though Viagra is by far the most popular name of that same pill, we use Sildenafil because it's more accurate, closer to the truth. Wikipedia naming policy is not made by the vote or knowledge of the average English speaker, even more so in an article that disambiguation is needed.--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per the arguments of Nikos and Yannis. Applying "uniformity" here is just a cover for forcing through the POV of one side of a dispute... Pending the resolution of this whole mess in the real world, no name can be regarded as NPOV. Constantine ✍ 10:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (for this specific article, based on published standards)

We have international standards as precedents for adapting country names according to context. The world-wide, Jane's Information Group (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 Unit and from what I gather, people are asking for the same guide-lines here. Politis (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Given the name dispute, a reader of the article "Greece" would benefit from seeing FYROM as bordering country name as they would have a chance to learn about the problem. Given that the name Macedonia is not a UN officially recognised country name, third countries, when refered to in a country's article, would be better off mentioned with their official UN name, an organisation most countries participate in. aexon (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above oppose comments. _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm obsessed. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose per reasons stated above. The name is disputed and, until the dispute is settled, use the official UN name. Pel thal (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Mostly focusing on Kekrop's impregnable rationale, next most common term is "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" by all indicators presented, hence our first choice since plain "Macedonia" is ambiguous, a clean-cut application of policy. The naming conflict guideline posed as an authoritative reference to bypass this is wide open to interpretations, it was also brought to my attention that the part of the guideline relating to this issue is a product of some photographic changes made by a heavily involved administrator, but it "didn't matter" cause it had become a "standard practice" following "community consensus". I don't see any clear consensus in this widely advertised poll and discussion to change the practice here. The current long name is, to say the least, perfectly usable in this project, and this is one of the last articles where it shouldn't be used, per Yannismarou's perspective.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not convinced that there's a difference between using FYROM in all international organizations articles (as is already agreed), versus articles such as Greece which is the country that has initiated this. I don't know why people think this debate is productive; myself, I find it unnecessary and insensitive. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a nasty issue, so let the principle of least surprise reign. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have always heard the country referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Oh, and I hope this goes a small way to dismissing the idea that the Opposers are all Greek nationalists. Jack forbes (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And the least surprising name of any country is the name that it chooses for itself. No one is surprised when the US calls itself "the United States of America" or when the UK calls itself "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or when Macedonia calls itself "the Republic of Macedonia". We are surprised when some other country or organization calls a country something other than what it calls itself. (Taivo (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

• Strongly oppose per the arguments of Nikos and Yannis. --Kamikazi2 (talk) 05:00, 2 April 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 Apcbg 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)

Not that conclusive... but you forgot to mention that "Macedonia" is clearly more popular, maybe we should simply use "Macedonia" and disambiguate the Greek region. "Greek Macedonia" or "Greek Province of Macedonia", OK with this? man with one red shoe 16:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

But of course, it would only be conclusive if it favoured your side of the argument. As for your silly proposal, no chance. It would violate Wikipedia policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What policy would that violate? As for conclusiveness you can't be serious that survey of encyclopedias should determine anything and that 5 vs. 1 out of dozen of encyclopedias is in any way statistically significant. man with one red shoe 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again? WP:NC. Read it. As for the survey, it was first brought up as an argument by your side of the debate. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which part of WP:NC? So, I bring serious arguments against a survey and your only reply is that it was used as an argument by "your side of the debate" for what is worth I argue for myself and my ideas, not for any side. The fact that a bad survey was brought up by somebody who by chance supports one of the things that I support doesn't invalidate what I support, nor does it validate the survey. man with one red shoe 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The part that says that ambiguous article names should be avoided. As for whether or not we should be talking about "sides", I wasn't the one who painted an entire group of editors with the same racist brush. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Racist? Hold your horses, now you add racism to your accuses? I still wait for appologies for claiming that I have adopted "anti-Greek" positions (multiple times on this page). If you can't bring any shread of proof you should simply appologize. As for ambiguous names there's nothing ambiguous about Republic of Macedonia, or about Macedonia (region). man with one red shoe 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a racist, I was simply noting that the racist division between the "obsessed Greeks" and the "rest of the world" was not my invention. But why should I apologize for my comments regarding your anti-Greek positions? You yourself have explicitly defined what you regard as the "Greek POV" and expressed your opposition to it on multiple occasions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, but I also haven't noticed racist behavior here so maybe we should tone down the comments. As for Greek POV as I explained I'm concerned about having majority of Greeks that watch this page that they will impose their specific point of view, as it happens in this matter it looks like the Greeks are pretty united, do you disagree on this point, can you present some proof that there is a significant number of Greeks that support "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" name? It does look like the Greeks vs. the rest of the world (not talking about UN, I'm talking about editors) This is a typical situation when people push a specific national POV (point of view)... and I've seen this on other national pages so it's not only Greeks who do it. Again is not an accusation of bad faith, it's just what I notice, if I'm wrong please correct me by showing me a significant number of Greeks who agree to use "Republic of Macedonia" name. man with one red shoe 21:04, 30 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)

People can have different POVs without being of bad faith. Nobody (or at least not myself) is accusing Greek people who have a specific POV of bad faith, the problem here is not bad faith (so don't pretend you get offended), the problem is pushing a specific POV (AKA Greek POV). I think the discussion is still open if a specific group that has a specific POV can influence Wikipedia, it's not about invalidating votes, besides "Wikipedia is not a democracy" exactly because of this issue, many people pushing their specific POV (for example I would imagine Chinese or Indians would be very successful to push they national POV then) But I agree, let's discuss this issue when the poll is over, at least to satisfy my curiosity and I would still like to know who other than Greeks voted against. man with one red shoe 16:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"This seems to be just part of the general pattern of Greeks (like Turks and presumably others in the region) faking history for nationalist reasons." Is this statement going to be tolerated ? Fascist groupings and vague accusations of "faking history", we managed to see that too.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascist? I've seen somebody talking about racism on this page, can you please tone down the debate? You can disagree with something without throwing loaded words around. man with one red shoe 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling people "Fascist groupings" is a good way to get blocked for personal attacks. Please keep this discussion cool, do not resort to ad-hominem attacks. Discuss the content of the argument and not the people you are arguing with. If I see the tone here getting out of hand then I will attempt to protect this discussion from that by removing the worst offenders. Neutrality requires that discussions like this be based on reason and not a big nasty fight. Chillum 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I never called anyone a "fascist grouping", i said he groups Greeks in this way. What do you make of his generalisation ? Extreme to say the least.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, I misread your comment to be that fascists groupings were making vague accusations. Okay, sorry about that. Regardless, the general tone of this debate is becoming unnecessarily personal. Chillum 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I misread the same way, and that's because nobody used the word "fascist" before, I think that's at best a poorly constructed strawman and I agree that people should not use loaded terms: fascist, racism, etc. man with one red shoe 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't see Red using the term fascist anywhere. If anything I see only accusations of bias. Chillum 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the "Support" comment of Hans Adler above, i quoted his second sentence, all subsequent comments made there were usually transferred in the discussion section for some reason, so i posted here.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And no, man with one red shoe, i won't tone down, since i'm not getting any answer i'm repeating: do i have the right to say "Germans are still nazis deep inside" ? wouldn't this be a grouped treatment resembling the good old fascist way of thinking ? Does it have any place in here ? I see no reaction on these collective accusations of nationalism and falsification of history by Mr.Adler.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why construct such offensive strawmen? Nobody mentioned fascism here but you. man with one red shoe 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well find me the equivelant of accusing Greeks as a group of nationalists that falsified history according to your own set of values then. I was very specific, my problem is with Adler's comment, not with anything previous. I don't know what's the problem with the term "fascist", those blind sixteen year olds in Athens back in December, throwing stones at police officers and considering them all murderers, that was a fascist behaviour, not enough to define them as fascist individuals of course. You'll probably have a more reserved usage for the term in English. Anyway, i thought it was pretty much obvious that his statement went over the line, i have no reason to insist on passing my point if we can't share even that.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole escalation in rhetoric is very disturbing. The only one talking about "fascism" or "racism" is Δρακόλακκος. There have been numerous comments about the Greek faction, but that is because one side of the discussion is nearly entirely populated with Greeks and there are no known Greeks on the other side of the issue. This exactly correlates with the origin of the issue in the first place--Greece objected to the name Macedonia and forced a few international bodies to accept FYROM as a substitute. That is not a racist comment. "Greek" is not a race, but a nationality. There is nothing perjorative about being called "Greek". I would think that it would be a compliment to someone who was actually Greek. And to point out here that the proponents and opponents of the issue being discussed here exactly correlates with Greek nationality doesn't seem to me to be either a "racist" or a "fascist" comment. It seems to me to be a normal part of understanding the motivations behind each of the sides in a dispute so that a compromise and, maybe, a consensus can be reached. Tone down the rhetoric, no one is a "fascist" or a "racist" here. Those of us who oppose the Greek position on "FY" do so not because we hate Greeks or are "racist" or "fascist", but because we think that Greece was being silly to oppose another country's name for itself when it did no harm to Greece. It was just political posturing. (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree, I have one amendment though: Greece silliness/wiseness is not the object of the debate, we should concentrate on Wikipedia's policies and the common use in English, we are not here to decided what's good or bad. man with one red shoe 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. In general, we can think about whether or not Greece was silly in its political posturing, but here our only concern is Wikipedia and following Wikipedia policy and practice. (Taivo (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I would say the line of thinking that by naming itself Macedonia meant no harm to Greece is at least questionable and does not exhibit great historical depth. So I'll try to help by asking why would a country name itself after one of Greece's regions, adopt an ancient Greek symbol as its flag and claim the ancient history of Macedonia if they did not have any other ambitions? Dr.K. logos 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not at all uncommon for an incoming group of people to adopt the history of the land beneath their feet. The ancient kingdom of Macedon included much of the territory of Macedonia. Look at what happened in America--Americans have claimed much of the heritage of the Native Americans even though 90% of the U.S. population is not of Native American descent. I live in one of many states with a Native American name. Should we give that up just because we are mostly not Native Americans? When the Magyars moved into the central plain of the Danube, they adopted much of the history and heritage of the Avars and Huns who preceded them. Should we ask all Hungarians named Attila to change their name? This pattern is repeated over and over in history and is not at all unusual. Why deny the Macedonians the right to claim the heritage of the soil they occupy? Even the Greeks moved into the land which they now occupy and adopted the heritage of that place. Denying the Macedonians the right to the heritage of their soil is akin to denying the Greeks their rights to parts of their heritage that predate the Hellenic invasion. Indeed, there is so little of the ancient Macedonian language preserved that scholars are not totally certain that ancient Macedonian was even related to Greek, let alone closely related. Alexander, by blood, may have been something quite other than Greek on his father's side as well as his mother's. (Taivo (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

As far as the American Indian analogy I think given the troubled history of the Indians and their uprooting form their heritage by the settlers, this can hardly be a model of cultural adoption or even assimilation. Plus last time I looked the American flag did not look like the Apache or Comanche flags. This analogy also breaks down because the settlers did not adopt the culture of the Indians so that they can expand in Indian territory. The modern day inhabitants of FYROM adopted artificially, and not by gradual evolution over thousands of years, the ancient Macedonian identity in a very short span of time precisely so as to have territorial claims to the rest of Macedonia. I am not an expert or a scholar on this subject but the boundary conditions are rather transparent. Dr.K. logos 20:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may is not our place to judge intentions and decide which behaviors are good or bad, that's "original research" and also nobody here is qualified to impart justice. I could contribute with my opinion about the issue but I feel that's irrelevant, here we care about English usage not about the political implications of using one name or another (or at least that's how things are supposed to work) -- man with one red shoe 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Taivo I appreciate the effort you make to learn about history in this remote (to you) part of the world. I truly do. However, I wonder if I may correct some inaccuracies regarding "heritage to soil". The territory of Ancient Macedon was located in what today is Greece. The Vergina Sun was discovered in Greece. Alexander the Great was born in Greece. So isn't a bit offensive for an ethnic group to claim history and symbols of something that was never physically located in their land, but in their neighbors land? --Avg (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Avg, if you look at the maps of "Ancient Macedonia" you will see that it extends northward beyond the current border of Greece. And the issue of Macedonia wanting to control Greek Macedonia was solved by the (1994?) accord wherein Macedonia gave up the Vergina (sp?) flag and removed territorial claims of "Greater Macedon" from its constitution. In return, Greece lifted its embargo and agreed that it would not oppose Macedon's NATO and EU entry. The territorial argument is now past tense and is not relevant anymore. (Taivo (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Not on this map, it doesn't. Paionia and Dardania, the ancient lands which covered almost all of is now the fYRoM, were later annexed to the Macedonian kingdom, of course, but then so was Afghanistan. As for the territorial argument being no longer relevant, you obviously haven't had the privilege of opening a school textbook from Skopje. It is naïve, at the very least, to think that the irredentist fantasies cultivated over decades under Yugoslav rule were swept away by the stroke of a pen in 1995. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kekrops, as usual, was faster and better :-) I had this map in mind. Anyhow, you can simply visit our article about United Macedonia and have a look at the links in the end.--Avg (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, in the 5th century BCE, Macedonia was small, but by Roman times Macedonia had expanded much further north. And, of course, the Byzantine Greeks got Macedonia and Thrace mixed up. (Taivo (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

And it had expanded all the way to the Indus before Roman times. Why don't the Punjabis call themselves "Macedonians"? Unlike the Slavs, they actually did come into contact with the ancients. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the old argumentum ab absurdum. It was cute the first time you used it yesterday or the day before, but it's old now and not cute anymore. It's also an argument that is beneath your intelligence level. Roman Macedonia covered most of both modern Greek and Slavic Macedonia so the Macedonian use of the name is not at all inappropriate. Indeed, even Philip and Alexander had moved the northern boundary of their homeland well into the territory of the Republic before Alexander embarked across the Hellespont and left Macedonia, never to return. But, in the end, it doesn't matter whether ancient Macedonia extended more than a mile beyond the gates of Pella. A city, a province, a country can name themselves whatever they want and should expect to be free from outside pressure to change that name. Thus, Athens is in Georgia, the Parthenon is in Nashville, there are no less than 13 Spartas (two in Wisconsin alone), and six Macedonias scattered from Georgia to Iowa. Ancient heritage is not required for a place to adopt a name. For much of its history, the Holy Roman Empire did not include Rome and the bulk of its territory was outside the borders of the ancient Roman Empire. Names are just names, they are not realities. Here at Wikipedia it is not our place to judge the rightness or wrongness of a given name, only to apply the simple rules of a) common English usage and b) self-identification to a place. We are enjoined to ignore political and emotional issues in applying these two principles. Thus, the northern neighbor of Athens is not "Skopje" as that is neither the common English name nor the self-identification. Nor is the northern neighbor of the former Turkish province of Greece "FYROM" as that is also neither the common English name nor the self-identification. Its common English name is "Macedonia" and its self-identification is "Republic of Macedonia". Those are the names to be applied in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

In other words, a spade has the right to be known as a TBM, because "TBM" is an arbitrary string of letters that doesn't "really" mean anything anyway. Whatever. I prefer to call a spade a spade. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, you can call it however you want, but if the majority of English speakers would call it TBM then that's what we should use in Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 12:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Avg, relax, don't you know the saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"? man with one red shoe 21:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you call that flattery, sure...--Avg (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You can always "unite" Macedonia within Greece ;) Is more likely anyway, Greece is a bigger and richer country. man with one red shoe 21:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And of course this concern doensn't make Greeks to have a specific POV... man with one red shoe 21:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(reply to the long post of Taivo above): Taivo, I am one of the Greeks who has absolutely no objection on the Macedonicity of his northern neighbors! It is the exclusivity of that Macedonicity that I object to. They are Macedonians, just not the only ones. What I wish is them to accept it. If they had accepted it, nobody would be pushing for them to also include it as a "qualifier" in their name. (I for once wouldn't care.) NikoSilver 09:20, 1 April 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 in the case of simply "Macedonia", which according to ChrisO is a favour by not being proposed, bordering with itself? (the "other" Macedonia), newly minted by Encyclopedia Britannica? Thanks, but no thanks. 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)

We certainly have our own ideological obsessions elsewhere, but fortunately none that prevent us from understanding that "M." can refer to two different things. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're off the hook, then. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Future, if you have to associate the term "Greek people" with the term "obsession" as part of your arguments you know these arguments have not reached any intellectual heights. Dr.K. logos 16:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there's on other way of putting it. "Obsession" is what this whole years-long story witnesses, there's no denying that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you describe your "years-long" and thoroughly devoted opposition to "it"? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @Future: Yes, I understand your predicament, being embroiled yourself in countless debates in the past. You must mean the regulars of the Macedonia debates, including the opposition. I sympathise to an extent, because I too hate these endless debates. But you cannot generalise to all Greek people or even to the local Greek editors because "obsession" is too subjective and anyway cuts both ways. There is always "the opposition" which is equally "obsessed". Dr.K. logos

An outside observer's view is here: [12]. But you hopefully do recognise that here in Wikipedia the situation is asymmetrical: it's not two national teams against each other, it's one national team against the rest of the world. – Anyway, you have succeeded in sidelining the debate away from the actual argument again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good link, Future Perfect. That writer is spot on. (Taivo (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Again? Sidelining the debate? These were your comments I was replying to. That was completely uncalled for. Dr.K. logos 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the worls is actually you (and that is a good indication of megalomania if anything). You have put yourself in front of everything anti-Greek in Wikipedia, perhaps having formed in your mind a kind of illusion that you're fighting a noble cause by supporting the weaker side. Now since you refer to this specific article, this is one of a series of articles that were written just before the Bucharest summit with a very clear agenda - to pressure Greece to accept Skopje in NATO with the name Macedonia. Guess what. They failed and, since they didn't serve any purpose anymore - they have since stopped.--Avg (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How could they accept a city in NATO... hilarious Greek POV on display... and the world should listen to you? man with one red shoe 17:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For you it may be just the name of a city. For the Greeks this is how this country is called in everyday speech. What will you attempt to do next? Force the Greeks through various ways to refear to it the way you want? Sorry, man, not possible... Hectorian (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The "world" has no choice, I'm afraid. As for Skopje, it is simply a metonym, much like Luxembourg, Mexico or Panama. Like it or not, it is also the most common term Greeks use for the country. But you already knew that, didn't you? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

At least you accept you're one of "partisans from the Wikipedia talk page dealing with the name wrangle". Still, he does call us a world-class team, and we should be rather chuffed that our talents are earning the recognition they deserve. Anywho, here's another outside observer's view. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Greeks can call it however they want in Greek, however, this is English Wikipedia, we should talk in English, in English is not called Skopje so please, keep it in English. And by the way you just admitted by this type of argumentation that this is Greek POV... man with one red shoe 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It took some time but we got there. Bingo. The Greek POV is Skopje. Hope it is clear now that FYROM is not Greek POV.--Avg (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is called Skopje in English by the millions of Anglophone Greeks of the diaspora. And you can't censor talk pages. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't plan to censor anything, I merely pointed that in English Skopje is a name of a town, I don't care what mistakes Greeks in disapora make, maybe they should learn English better. Also, this is only a fabrication, you have no proof (not that it would matter how Greeks speak English). Both Skopje and FYROM used for Macedonia are Greek POV, FYROM is only the "lesser evil" in the view of Greeks. As for that article that you linked in your support it actually uses "Macedonia" to refer to the country... so I guess a "ha Ha!" is in order. man with one red shoe 17:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And maybe you should learn history better. We don't care much for your mistakes or fabrications either, believe me. As for your churlish flourish at the end, I haven't the faintest idea what you're on about. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why we discuss history here? We discuss about a name and name convention, history has nothing to do in this discussion. What names "should be" is not a concern for Wikipedia, Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive. man with one red shoe 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem with Greeks adopting a descriptive approach towards their own established usage, strictly on talk pages of course. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, problem, just an additional chance for me to show that's a Greek POV, continue to call the country "Skopje" and it's going to be much easier for me to make a point that's only Greek POV pushing. In English the country is called "Macedonia" if you (or other) continue to call it "Skopje" it will only make my point that you want to impose your POV. man with one red shoe 18:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course Skopje is the Greek POV. Who suggested otherwise? You yourself have reiterated your anti-Greek POV on multiple occasions on this very page. Why shouldn't Greeks express theirs? No one ever said it should be used in the article. Relax. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this "reiterated your anti-Greek POV on multiple occasions". I feel offended by this. So if I don't agree with you in the matter of name for Macedonia I am "anti-Greek"? In what other instance I've been "anti-Greek"? I suggest you keep personal attacks in check and stop labeling people. If you have any shread of proof for my "anti-Greekness" by all means bring it forth, but otherwise, appologize and shut up in regard to my anti-Greekness, OK? man with one red shoe 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you feigning such offence? Your POV is the polar antithesis of the Greek POV. Therefore, "anti-Greek POV" is rather accurate, I'd say. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

FYROM is Greek POV? So the UN and EU are Greek-POV-pushers? Interesting.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Who else pushed for FYROM if not Greece? The country itself took a different name. While we can discuss if this is good, bad, wise or not, it's pretty clear who pushed FYROM and why UN/EU had to accept the country with that name. Take EU for example, Greece has veto in EU, and Republic of Macedonia would not have been recognized under this name. However, repeating this for the thousand time, Wikipedia doesn't follow UN or EU policies so it's pretty irrelevant what name they use, but let's not pretend like this is a name pushed by UN/EU, it's not, it's a name that UN/EU had to use because of Greeks protests/veto. Also, in this very page, as you can see just a bit above, people who have different opinons about name usage are labeled "anti-Greeks" and agreeing that "Republic of Macedonia" would do in this page, is considered "anti-Greek POV". man with one red shoe 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're way deep in WP:OR area. Again, here we simply describe. FYROM is an official and universally accepted name. RoM might be official but it is not universally accepted, and certainly not by Greece, whose article we're now discussing. Even FYROM has agreed that Greece is a special case and its official stance is that even if it wants to maintain RoM for all uses, it will change its name in bilateral relations with Greece.--Avg (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I just responded to a question, that's not "Original Research" since is not intended to be used in the article. It's also common sense, I fail to understand how people can deny that's Greek POV and then they come around and accuse people who simply don't agree of being "Anti-Greek". As for what Macedonia calls itself, even that is irrelevant, what's relevant for Wikipedia is the normal usage in English, and that's not FYROM. man with one red shoe 18:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If the compromise solution between two states is labelled Greek POV than how can one seriously not think that you haven't got bias? Let me repeat for the last time, the Greek POV at the time when the appelation FYROM was agreed was a name without the word Macedonia. FYROM contains Macedonia. It is obvious that Athens was pressured to accept it. This name did not come from Greece nor Greece was ever happy about it.--Avg (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it's accepted now as the "lesser evil", right? And how is this not "Greek POV" when all (or almost all) that oppose the proposal are Greeks? (not that's anything wrong with that, it only shows who's POV is). Wikipedia is not a democracy exactly because of this, for example Chinese (if they can access Wikipedia) or Indians would have no problems to dictate content on their pages and present their nationalistic POV, here what we see is that more Greeks watch this page than non-Greeks and this specific POV seems to tryumph, that's all. It's actually a problem that I noticed in many national pages, the people who watch them are more likely to be the people of those specific countries and they try and most of the time impose their specific POV. man with one red shoe 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For what the Chinese do in their country's pages, please read WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof... But, indeed, you must understand that if the Greeks were trying to impose their POV, all you'd hear in this talkpage would be shrieks for "Skopje". Please read the #Opposition rationale to see that it is based on policy. We also speak about clarity and about verifiability, but you constantly choose to refer to WP:NCON (which is also addressed inside and from which you can see that the article name selection is at best a "close call"). NikoSilver 12:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Map and The Map Only, Please

Please leave the crap above. If you want to just call someone names (in either direction), please use the space above. The label on the map needs to change to ROM from the current FYROM. This section is not about using "Macedonia" or any textual references. It is only about editing the map from FYROM to ROM.

• The disambiguation of Macedonia (Greece) and Republic of Macedonia has already been very well accomplished by the notice in the very first paragraph of the article of "the former Republic of Macedonia" and by numerous references in succeeding paragraphs to the Greek provinces.
• Introducing "FYROM" into a map where that phrase ("Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as a proper name) has not been used anywhere else in the article is a violation of the principles of basic technical and scientific writing. "Republic of Macedonia", however, has been used before exactly in the context that it would be used in the map--in a list of Greece's neighbors.
• The argument that "Republic of Macedonia" would confuse readers is not a good argument since we have the Belgian province of Luxembourg neighboring Luxembourg, two Congos neighboring one another, and two Chinas neighboring one another. These are not confusing on the maps. Sure, some fifth graders are confused, but we don't write or edit Wikipedia to a fifth-grade level. We must assume that our readers are intelligent enough to distinguish between a Greek province and an independent country. This will also not be confusing because a previous map in the article carefully labels the provinces as West Macedonia, Central Macedonia, and East Macedonia. These are clearly Greek provinces. Indeed, someone just glancing at the map might not even realize that the "M" of "ROM" means "Macedonia", so the readers who might in the least be confused won't even see the word "Macedonia" to cause any confusion.
• There are literally hundreds of examples across the world where the potential "confusion" that the Greek editors are so concerned about occurs. In none of these other cases do we go to such great lengths to disambiguate. On maps of the U.S. we do not write "Washington (the state)" on a map of the Pacific Northwest. On maps of Pennsylvania we do not write "Wyoming (the county)". Etc. This is a map we're talking about. The clarification and disambiguation comes from looking at the map. Seeing that "ROM" is an entity outside the borders of Greece is the very act of disambiguation that it is not a part of Greece.

Once again, let's not get this section muddied by garbage talk. Stick to the issues, please. (Taivo (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

So now I feel a little stupid because I notice that someone edited the map since the last time I saw it. It says (right now, at least) "Rep. Maced.", which is perfectly acceptable to me. Of course, it might be reverted to FYROM, which is not acceptable to me. "Rep. Maced." is not ambiguous at all, since the label "Macedonia" is clearly reserved for and used of the Greek provinces. (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

There is no problem with using FYROM if we have introduced the acronym in the lead, per WP:MOSABBR: The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable, as long as the acronym is given as an explicit alternative early (usually in parentheses). It should be noted that the acronym is at least as well-established as the full reference; it isn't a "Greek" epithet. As for "ROM", I wonder if the other side wouldn't object to the inevitable Romani connotations. Isn't that why the Roumanians changed their 3-letter country code from ROM to ROU? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your reading of the policy for acronyms is a good one, but it is not applicable in this case. "FYROM" is not established in the article as an acronym. The phrase "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is used, but "FYROM" is not labelled as an acronym derived from it. I would oppose such an acronym since the Wikipedia article that it refers to is simply Republic of Macedonia. One of the following comments actually is quite appropriate--the map should be a standalone image without inherent reliance on the article through acronyms, etc. (Taivo (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I also agree with you concerning the problem with "ROM" and Romania. I hadn't thought about that. But the suggestion of "Rep. Maced." eliminates both of these problems. It clearly differentiates between "Macedonia", which is a region of Greece and the independent Republic of Macedonia. There isn't any ambiguity or confusion. (Taivo (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

See WP:MOSMAC#Images which clearly say that RoM or FYROM should not be used unless there's not space, if there's no space the convention used in the article should be used, so it depends on the results of the discussion above. man with one red shoe 18:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fully spelled-out "Republic of Macedonia" is a bit too large for the map; my suggestion therefore was an ad-hoc abbreviation like "Rep. Maced." or something like that. Map inscriptions can be freely abbreviated in whatever way we like, there's no naming convention for them; "Rep. Maced." has the the advantage that it's transparent, unlike "FYROM" (or "RoM", of course), which to the non-expert reader is utterly opaque. Deliberately introducing an opaque reader-unfriendly abbreviation there, and then using that as a pretext for pushing in the same abbreviation also elsewhere in the text as Kekrops now suggests, is doubly reader-unfriendly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I like that solution as well. Rep. and Maced. are clearly recognizable to most English speakers. FYROM and ROM are, as you say, opaque and not well suited for a standalone article such as a map. (Taivo (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Now this is getting interesting. Opaque? Really? What is the most common abbreviation for the country in English? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "most common" abbreviation in English because this is a fairly new country. We've not had to make a habit of abbreviating Macedonia before. But "Rep." as an abbreviation for "Republic" is quite common. "Maced." has the advantage of containing enough of the word that a reasonable person will recognize it, but eliminates a bit less than half of the length. (Taivo (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

So why is it so ubiquitous among those who use the UN reference, including the UN itself, the EU, the OSCE, the EBU, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO and NATO? In fact, the acronym is so notable that it rates a mention in the lead of the country article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"FYROM" is not an abbreviation and it is not in standard use in English. You mistake official UN documents, etc. for standard usage in English, which would be on maps in a child's textbook, on a list of countries of the world in an atlas, etc. Once again, we reiterate that Wikipedia is not an arm of the UN. (Taivo (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Who says the acronym is not in standard use in English? Even among those who call it "Macedonia", there is quite a long tradition of associating the name with the acronym for disambiguation purposes. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's standard practice (and common sense) to make names intelligible on maps. Bear in mind that the map is a stand-alone entity; it's not part of the article text, so it has to work on its own. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(removed personal attacks with no constructive content) I asked you to keep the crap comments out of this section. There are plenty of other places on this page where you can make personal attacks, etc. (Taivo (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I guess I'm just not keeping up with the changes that are actually occurring on the map itself. Right now it says "Rep. Macedonia". That's OK with me. I don't really mind one way or the other with "Maced." or "Macedonia", but I would oppose the removal of "Rep.", however. The "Rep." is an important disambiguating reference so that there is no confusion between this independent entity and the region of Greece called "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I just want to reiterate that the English Wikipedia is not based on U.N. norms or practices, but upon its own norms and practices that are fundamentally English. If we were based on the U.N. then there would be no articles on Abkhazia, Palestine, the Republic of China, etc. and no mention of them either because, according to the U.N., they don't exist. The "confusion" argument on the map also is not legitimate since readers are quite content to have two Congos and two Chinas on one map. They are not confused. Those seem to be the only two arguments that the pro-FYROM editors are making--UN norms and potential confusion with two "Macedonias". Am I missing another pro-FYROM argument? (Taivo (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

FYROM is not a "name". It's a description, or as the diplomats put it, "a provisional reference", meaning literally "the Republic of Macedonia that was formerly part of Yugoslavia". That's why "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is never capitalised unless at the beginning of a sentence. See the second bullet point of Macedonia naming dispute#Compromise solutions for an explanation. Wikipedia is not an agency of the UN or the EU and is not subject to the decisions of such organisations, as Taivo rightly points out.As far as we are concerned, the country describes itself as the "Republic of Macedonia", and Wikipedia's policy and standards mandate that we call political entities by the names they call themselves (unless there is a more common English equivalent). That's why we use "Republic of Macedonia". -- ChrisO (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You manage to even distort what FYROM means, it means literally "a Republic of Yugoslavia that was named Macedonia".--Avg (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the normal meaning in English is either "The Republic of Macedonia that was formerly part of Yugoslavia" or "Macedonia that was formerly a Yugoslav republic". There is no implication that it was "formerly named Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC))

Let me make it clearer: It is former (Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Anything after former is simply that, former. The word former is a qualifier to the whole sentence, not to "Yugoslav" only.--Avg (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That point strikes me as being something of a side issue, to be honest. "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" isn't a name; it's a description or reference. WP:NC directs us to use the most common unambiguous name. That immediately rules out "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", as that isn't used by anyone - Greece, the RoM, the UN and the EU included - as the name of the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ChrisO, it is a side issue and not really relevant to the issues at hand--that Wikipedia is not subject to the whims of either the U.N. or the E.U. and that "Republic of Macedonia" next to "Macedonia (Greece)" is no more confusing that two Congos next to each other, two Chinas next to each other, two Irelands next to each other, or even to the United States of America being only a part of two entire continents named "America". (Taivo (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

"Rep. Macedonia" is a very acceptable solution, and it won't be confused with the Macedonia province. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:I believe that the invoked policy of consistent use of ‘Republic of Macedonia’ throughout English Wikipedia is ill-founded, fueling confrontation among editors that is totally unnecessary.

I would have left the principle of consistency involving the two relevant name forms to be enforced on an article-by-article basis, as a temporary arrangement to be replaced in due course by a permanent one reflecting the solution that is to happen outside Wikipedia.

I don’t believe Wikipedia should take sides in this contentious and sensitive issue of name usage, more so that a solution of the issue itself is pending – unavoidably, as even the closest partners of the Republic of Macedonia now unequivocally insist that Skopje accepts a compromise the basics of which have already come up, with neither ‘Republic of etc.’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav etc.’ being that compromise.

P.S. Should anyone here happen to have in mind, besides the belief in following some established Wikipedia policy of giving preference to one of the names, also the motivation that this way he/she is ‘supporting Macedonia and the Macedonians’, I am afraid that such ‘support’ is actually not in the best interests of that country and its people, but rather gives courage to the policies of the present government in Skopje that are increasingly questioned both at home and abroad, policies that have been leading the country into isolation, economic and social underdevelopment (the achievement of being outpaced by Albania ... for starters) and ethnic divergence with far reaching implications.

Needless to say, such ‘good wishers’ come and go, and it’s never them who pay the price. Apcbg (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "promoting Macedonia". It's about consistency within Wikipedia outside of politics. Indeed, Wikipedia's standards for naming a place specifically prohibit political considerations. Indeed, even the phrase "Republic of" is a compromise for Greek sensibilities and disambiguation with the Greek province since we just say "France" and not "Republic of France", etc. (Taivo (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

I wrote "Should anyone here happen to have in mind" so let everyone decide what's on one's mind, and one can hardly speak for the others. Apcbg (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The solution is, I think, simple. Since the map has the purpose to show Greece's regions and major islands, cities, etc, just remove the names of neighbouring states. Kapnisma (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed indisputable that the map is a "stand alone entity", as the supporters say. It is also, however, indisputable that if this other stand-alone entity had a title, that title would be "Greece" and nothing else. If we were talking about the Balkans, or about Southeastern Europe, things change. But when we're talking about a map of Greece, I do not understand why the above #Opposition rationale (for the country's article) does not apply here too (in the country's map). Moreover, if there were names in the respective EU articles' maps, (such as e.g. in this one), I'm sure they would be in accordance to this article. NikoSilver 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I reiterate that Wikipedia is not an arm of the EU and need not follow EU policies. (Taivo (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

This section is not a straw poll. It is a place for discussion by interested parties and discussion only. I'm not counting any "votes". If you have a constructive comment, then please post it. I've deleted all the "votes" that contain no discussion. So far the pro-FYROM issues are entirely based on 1) following UN and EU usage slavishly and 2) disambiguating the name from the Greek provinces. However, the disambiguation issue seems to have been resolved by citing the numerous examples in Wikipedia where disambiguation is accomplished through other means (Congos, Chinas, Irelands, USA, etc.). It seems that the most recent comments here still hinge on official UN and EU usage, although there is a nascent issue that occasionally surfaces concerning Greek sensibility. I won't comment on the relevance of personal feelings to Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

I would appreciate it if my postings were not edited without my consent — and never mind possible justification or explanation. Apcbg (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "slavish" about following proper terminology used in large international bodies. Using the term "slavishly" to refer to recognised terminology used by premier international bodies is in itself POV. Dr.K. logos 15:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be "POV", but that is the official Wikipedia POV. Wikipedia is specifically not bound by the terminology of international bodies. If Wikipedia were bound by UN or EU policies, then we would have to eliminate all references to Abkhazia, Transnistria, and even Republic of China since these do not exist as far as the UN is concerned. International bodies are not neutral parties themselves, but represent the aggregate POV of their members. The use of the word "slavishly" is my personal interpretation of that policy, of course, but I do believe that it accurately reflects the Wikipedia POV that Wikipedia is independent of the control of the international bodies. It expressly uses the constitutional name of a country in preference to some usage required for compatability with international organizations. However, even more important than constitutional usage, common English usage prevails in all naming conventions in Wikipedia above and beyond international compromises or treaty. The common English usage for "Republic of Macedonia" is just "Macedonia" (and definitely not "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). Because of the ambiguity of using "Macedonia", however, we revert to the constitutional preference and use "Republic of Macedonia" to distinguish it from the Greek provinces, just as we use "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo" to distinguish the two Congos and "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" to distinguish the two Chinas. Using "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia (Greece)" is effective enough to distinguish the two Macedonias. (Taivo (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Atlases are a very reliable source for common English usage for placenames.

• Hammond Centennial World Atlas (1999): "World Flags and Reference Guide", pg 19: "Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.)"; (Macedonia is not labelled on the World Political Map); "Europe", pg 27: "Macedonia"; "Southern Italy, Albania, Greece", pg 47, and "Hungary, Northern Balkan States", pg 49: "Macedonia" (with a footnote to The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.))
• Rand McNally Portrait World Atlas (1998)-No references anywhere to "former Yugoslav Republic": "World, Political", pg 3: "Mace"; "Europe, Political", pg. 7: "Macedonia"; "Southern Italy", pg 25, "Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Bulgaria", pg 27, and "Greece and Western Italy", pg 28: "Macedonia"
• Atlas of the World's Languages (1994): "The Slavic-Speaking Balkans", Map 64: "Macedonia"
• Europe and Macedonia: "Macedonia"
• Encarta: "F.Y.R.O.M."
• Europe and Macedonia: "Macedonia" on map. The Macedonia map lists the "long form" of the name as "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
• Europe and Macedonia: "Macedonia"
• Central Mediterranean: "Macedonia"

I could keep going on with on-line atlases, but that should be sufficient to demonstrate that overwhelmingly the common English usage for Macedonia is "Macedonia". Common English usage for naming in Wikipedia is the ne plus ultra. (Taivo (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

But we're not discussing "Macedonia". We're discussing FYROM versus "RoM". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion has moved on from that initial version to FYROM versus what is on the map now (or a variant thereof): "Rep. Maced.", "Rep. Mace.", or "Rep. Macedonia" (Taivo (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

That's even less frequent. I do not understand why we have to improvise names for the sole purpose of wiping out the evil acronym FYROM from the face of the earth at all costs! If it is because it hits certain nationalist nerves from the other side, then this is not a decent excuse. NikoSilver 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about frequency, it's about understandability. "FYROM" alone gives an unitiated reader no chance of guessing what it means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why for years we introduced the acronym in the lead, per WP:MOSABBR. Until someone came along and fucked it all up. Besides, mousing over the link makes it sufficiently clear, one would imagine. Unless of course your readers have finally become as thick as Niko's, which you're always complaining about. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No benefit in introducing an obscure abbreviation if you are then only going to use it once, three miles further down in the text, and if you can just as well avoid it altogether. Unless, of course, you want to stick it in for your cheap ideological gratificaiton. And no, we should not rely on linking to explain things for us, for reasons of simple reader-friendliness and accessibility. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not obscure, it's simply non-kosher for some. Big difference. It is abundantly clear which is the most established abbreviation in English. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I never come across that acronym in real life, outside Wikipedia (and outside Greece, of course). I still maintain it is likely to be completely unknown to the majority of our readers. To measure its familiarity in the real world, I suggest counting how often it comes up on its own, without an explanation, in natural text (not officialese Websites, but places where people just write naturally, such as journalistic use, books or quality blogs, as a writer's first and natural choice for referring to the country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's do that, shall we? Because I seriously doubt it would be "Republic of Macedonia" or any ugly abbreviation thereof. In my experience as a reader, FYROM (the acronym, not the full reference) is by far the most common "first and natural choice" after "Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason this is going in circles is evidently because you don't want to get the point, so I'll stop here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you object to "original" use of Republic of Macedonia to distinguish it from Greece, then we can go with what is common and nearly universal English usage, which is "Macedonia". "FYROM" as a label for this country is almost never used on English maps. Just as we disambiguate the two Congos with "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo" we disambiguate the two Macedonias by "Republic of Macedonia" and "Macedonia (Greece)". "FYROM" is almost never used on English maps to disambiguate. And in Wikipedia, English usage rules. (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Never used? I see at least 3 instances of F.Y.R.O.M. in your examples above. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You were talking about the most common English name, which is quite a separate matter from the map. Other publications do not abbreviate because they are not edited to our high standards of precision. Atlases ... may well use "Macedonia", but we don't. Interesting though that the only abbreviation or acronym used in the examples you have cited is F.Y.R.O.M. Are you convinced now? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't read the examples carefully or else you would have seen "Mace." And there is only one example of F.Y.R.O.M. as a "abbreviation". In the other cases where it is found, it is a parenthetical comment or footnote, not an abbreviation to replace "Macedonia". Actually, "common English name" in this section is entirely related to the map as I specifically stated in the opening sentence. And the most common English name for your northern neighbor on English maps is "Macedonia". If "FYROM" occurs at all it is a footnote and not on the map itself, except in only one instance. And our maps do follow atlas usage quite often if not a majority of the time. Atlases are the most reliable source of information on English placenames. (I deleted your off-topic insult.) (Taivo (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

How many times must I reiterate that we're not debating "Macedonia" versus FYROM? Your point regarding the ubiquity of "Macedonia" has been made countless times before, but is irrelevant to the discussion. We don't use it on Wikipedia because it's ambiguous, full stop. In the case of the map, having two instances of "Macedonia", one immediately above the other, would be even more confusing. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why we disambiguate with "Rep. Mace(d(onia))" rather than simply "Macedonia", just we as disambiguate the two Congos on one map by "Republic of Congo" and "Democratic Republic of Congo"; the two Chinas on one map by "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China"; etc. (Taivo (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Great, my preference would be FYR Mace(d.(onia)). Anything wrong with that?--Avg (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Better than "FYROM", but what is the uninitiated reader going to do with the "FY"? It's still opaque, unless you are either a Greek or a Balkan expert. What advantage does it have, to the uninvolved reader (other than gratifying your POV-flagging urge, that is?) How can two random letters help in disambiguating things, if the normal reader has no way of guesing what they stand for? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems there are too many millions of uninitiated readers who do get "FYR" [13], [14], [15].--Avg (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure web page authors sometimes copy "FYR" from somewhere. But do their readers know what it stands for? Test a few. You're lucky that none of those pages actually involves the task you pretend to be so concerned about: disambiguating between that Macedonia and the other. Because if they had to do that, they'd soon see that "FYR" does absolutely nothing to help with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL... You're busted. The middle link clearly mentions "The Former Yugoslav Republic of "Macedonia" is only one of three areas of the historical region of "Macedonia", which includes Pirin Macedonia (Bulgaria) and Aegean Macedonia (Greece)."--Avg (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Another red herring. The question is not what those websites say. The question is whether an average reader would understand "FYR" on first seeing it, without further explanation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought "Macedonia" had such an overwhelming non-Greek connotation in English that it required no further explanation. This is becoming farcical now. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it doesn't. I'm not saying "Macedonia", with or without extra letters, wouldn't be understood. But "FY" does nothing to help with that. It could just as well stand for "Free Yunanistan", for all our readers know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting)Who cares? Our only concern is to disambiguate your "Macedonia" from the Macedonia a few millimetres down the screen, not whether it's a republic or "still" a monarchy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And then, what's your problem with choosing a disambiguator that has some chance of actually making sense to people? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Who says it doesn't? "FYR Macedonia" is beamed into billions more homes than "Rep. Maced." is. Wikipedia is the only place your average bloke would ever stumble across the awkward "Republic". Why not give them something they're already familiar with? "Oh yeah, that's the country that did so well at the Olympics/World Cup/Euro/Eurovision". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Billions? Get real. "Republic of Macedonia" is a far more common name for the country than FYROM. The vast majority of Americans have no idea what "FY" means. They do know what "Macedonia" means. News reports here always say simply "Macedonia", not "Former......." (Taivo (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

[I]f news reports [in the US] always use "Macedonia" as you say, what part of "FYR Macedonia" would people not understand? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed an irrelevant insult from the preceding post. (Taivo (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

The "FYR" bit, surely, since that's a deeply obscure acronym for anyone not versed in the diplomatic niceties of the Macedonia situation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That it is obscure is simply your opinion, not fact. But it doesn't matter; people will still know it means the country, not the Greek region to the south, and that's all that matters for our purposes. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Rep." for "Republic" disambiguates perfectly well and continues the Wikipedia policy of using constitutional names if common names need to be disambiguated. (Taivo (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Since the current version--"Rep. Maced." was put there as a compromise form by one of the supporters of the "Greek" position, and since none of the opponents of the "Greek" position seems to object to it, this discussion can probably be considered closed. (Taivo (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Can it? Avg and I have yet to receive a serious answer as to why we shouldn't use "FYR Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, because "Rep." is easier to understand for the uninitiated, at least as effective for disambiguation for those who need it, and compatible with the self-identification criterion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you have received serious answers many times. I will summarize:

• Wikipedia policy for naming things has a simple hierarchy--a) What is the common English name? b) If there is no common English name, what is the constitutional name?

• The common English name for Greece's northern neighbor is "Macedonia". I have demonstrated that through the vast majority of atlas references, all but one of which use "Macedonia" as the common English name.
• The constitutional name for Greece's northern neighbor is "Republic of Macedonia".

• Since there is potential ambiguity between using "Macedonia" for the republic and "Macedonia" for the Greek region, the common English name can be replaced by the constitutional name and then abbreviated for space considerations.

• Tasoskessaris used the abbreviation "Rep. Maced." which is an acceptable English abbreviation.
• I have shown that "Mace." is also used to abbreviate the full name on at least one atlas, so that is another potential option--"Rep. Mace."
• There is Wikipedia precedent for using "Rep. Mace(d(onia))" as a disambiguating option on the map since it is the option chosen to disambiguate the two Chinas and the two Congos--using the constitutional name rather than the common name.

• Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits political considerations from coming into play on determining English names for things. "FY" in any form only exists for political reasons originating in Greece and not in Macedonia. It is therefore not an option for Wikipedia since it a) is not the common English name, b) is not the constitutional name, and c) only exists for external political reasons.
• Only one English atlas surveyed uses FYROM to label the Republic of Macedonia on an actual map. The vast majority of atlases label it "Macedonia" or "Mace." on the maps. Only two of the atlases surveyed even mention "the former Yugoslav..." in a footnote (not on the map and not in the acronym "FY").

Thus, there is ample evidence from Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia practice, and common English usage that "Rep. Mace(d(onia))" is the best alternative for disambiguating the two Macedonias on the map. (Taivo (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

And yet, none of the above seems to be an issue in the numerous Wikipedia articles that abbreviate to "FYR Macedonia". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, probably they shouldn't either. But I am not interested in football articles. And I wouldn't touch song contest articles with a ten-foot pole. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be consistency throughout Wikipedia, but this is not a perfect world. But we see a place right here before us where we can apply Wikipedia policy properly. Just because another article doesn't right now doesn't mean that we shouldn't apply it here right now. (Taivo (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

• Clarification: Although I appreciate the attribution, a quick glance at my edit summary reveals that I made the edit pending discussion outcome. So in no way I wanted to prejudice any eventual agreement. I did this mostly to prevent edit warring. So my edit was not to condone this particular form as the final product of this discussion. However given all the peripheral drama that has occured one wonders what purpose this discussion serves when the flak flying all over the place makes this forum look like a war zone not like the forum of academic discussion it ought to be. Dr.K. logos 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I voted in the straw poll in favour of Husdons proposal, because I think that there should be only one guide on wiki. But, seeing whats happening here, I wander why those users, who favour RoM instead of FYROM had speedy-closed as POINT this discussion: Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia/name#Page_move_proposal. Somebody could argue that the straw poll in here could also be POINTy, as its exactly after the renaming proposal. I would propose a general discussion on FYROM-RoM, not only in this page, but in Republic of Macedonia, as it seems that the main argument why RoM is still the wiki-used name is "just per a consensus reached some wiki-millenea ago". After such a discussion is closed, than we may say that Mac, RoM or FYROM should be used in all pages.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Dear Balkanian’s word, I see the point of your proposal to have a general discussion on FYROM-RoM, and would be willing to participate ... although the debate here has demonstrated quite a bit of poor understanding of the issue so far. Perhaps we could do with some external topical analysis too; I would suggest say (1) and (2), hopefully other participants could provide further relevant sources. Best, Apcbg (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "issue" to understand. It is very simple Wikipedia policy and principle: a) Give a place its common English name or, if that leads to ambiguity (as it does with "Congo", "China", and "Macedonia"), b) give a place its self-designation without regard to politics or emotions. (Taivo (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Maybe so, yet apparently the participants in the present straw poll and discussion have deemed it relevant to debate that no-"issue" extensively (maybe even predominantly), including your own comments of 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC), 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC), 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC), 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC), 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC), 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC), 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC) to mention but a few. Apcbg (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So? I get excited by a good debate just like many others here (including yourself). But, in the end, as much fun as the debating is, it still comes down to Wikipedia policy as I stated above and has been stated many times here. (Taivo (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

By all means, have fun. I'll stick to my support for Balkanian’s word’s proposal. Apcbg (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And until the "Grand Wikipedia Macedonian Conference" is finished, we have existing Wikipedia policy which is a) common English usage followed by b) self-identifier ("Macedonia" followed by "Republic of Macedonia"). (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

No need to follow this Policy Taivo instead of just following the far more important policy of WP:NPOV - Remain Neutral. There is an international dispute over this country's name and FYROM is used by many organizations worldwide, why should wikipedia abandon it's usage since it is extensively used to describe the State of Skopje? Especially in articles directly related to countries that use the FYROM name to refer to it.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia policies are debated in other discussion threads here, this particular thread is about Balkanian’s word’s proposal. Apcbg (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A visual conclusion from the straw poll above

I couldn't help but notice that on the straw poll above, users from a specific ethnic group seem to be voting en masse. I think that the following record could prove in an interesting and colorful way how the outcome of a proposal on Wikipedia can be ethnic-induced, instead of community-wide, as it should always be:

removed, for the sake of peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a counterexample, let me point out that while I spell my signature in all Greek these days, I'm not Greek by ethnicity. You really shouldn't rush to judge people by the colour of their letters, or the alphabet of their signatures. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not only names and letters. By the way, you should probably spell your name like this: Ντιγουρεν to be closer phonetically... or so I think... man with one red shoe 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but an important feature of my name is that in most transliterations, it inevitably changes slightly. Russian Дигвурен is inevitably prounounced differently from Japanese ディグレん or Latvian Dīgvurens. I like it that way. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be updating this list, as conclusions can be much better drawn when the obvious is painted in just two colors. Húsönd 19:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Appaling WP:OUTING. You will be reported at AN/I.--Avg (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Are you still bitter over Euro 2004? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't WP:OUTING since all this information is either posted on User pages or else claimed in the postings here. "Outing" is when someone posts personal information that has been gathered outside the confines of Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Using personal information as a tool to evaluate someone's edits is harassment. It is clearly unneeded and WP:OR. I thought this page was dedicated to improving the article not to dissect someone's contributions and motives based on ethnicity and thereby cast aspersions on their character. As an eponymous user I strongly object to these methods. This is useless and pretty disturbing. Dr.K. logos 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Get off it. The fact that you guys voting oppose are all Greeks is self-evident; everybody knows that this is what's going on, and yes, it is a very interesting and very pertinent fact that will be taken into account when evaluating the results. It's a single faction against the rest of the wiki community. Why close our eyes to this obvious reality? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Future you have not bothered to read my comments carefully. So I repeat: As an eponymous user I object to someone using my ethnicity to cast aspersions on my character. This has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia or improving the article. This is harassment. Dr.K. logos 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you get it, Taso? You deserve it. You're an obsessed Greek. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't remind me ΚΕΚΡΩΨ. Another unfortunate moment in the annals of Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Will be taken into account" by whom and on what basis? --Avg (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's as self-evident as you say, why parade it in our faces like this, flags and all? Even you must admit it's in rather poor taste. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Will be taken into account" by the arbitration case that's looking increasingly inevitable, since WP:ARBMAC doesn't seem to have resolved all the POV-pushing that's openly going on here. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This has now been referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:OUTING_by_User:Husond_at_Talk:Greece--Avg (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of peace, like Future Perfect says, the list has been removed and that's okay with me. But I'm keeping a record of it here, might prove useful. Húsönd 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the most effective way of dealing with this would be to ban all Greek editors from editing Greece, but I suspect that might not be a popular option. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bring it on. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO. As long as we ban all English people from editing English related articles, ditto the French, Italians, Portuguese etc. Dr.K. logos 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's just ban everyone from everything, then we can put an end to all the edit wars. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew you were a person of reason ;) Dr.K. logos 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do some people pretend that's not a push for a specific national POV? Can anybody find a significant number of Greeks on Wikipedia who do support "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia". Simple question... man with one red shoe 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because "Macedonia" and "Republic of Macedonia" are the specific national POV of the other side. And all those voting in favour have effectively sided with one national POV over another. In your rush to oppose the "Greek POV" at all costs, you seem to have forgotten that basic fact. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since most of the countries of the world recognize "Republic of Macedonia" and since it was the Greeks who forced "FYROM" on the international organizations that use it, the "other side" is the rest of the world besides Greece. FYROM would not exist without Greece pressure. (Taivo (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Not quite. Dozens of countries and international organizations have maintained their neutrality and stuck to the FYROM reference. Those that haven't have simply sided with Skopje against Greece. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Other side"? You have to notice that there are people of different nationalities supporting this, I think there's only one from Macedonia that signed for support, while you'd probably have problems to show us a non-Greek supporting your cause. I will repeat the question can you find a significant number of Greek editors that support "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" names? No? Then don't claim this is not a Greek POV. So, let's start by admiting a truth and continue from there... man with one red shoe 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the other side on Wikipedia is that which supports the POV of Skopje over that of Greece, regardless of the nationality of individual editors. Why are you so quick to condemn those countries and international bodies that use FYROM as being guilty of "caving in" to Greek pressure, but so reluctant to accept the fact that your POV is in perfect alignment with that of Skopje? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To make this clear I didn't say that countries and international organization are "guilty" of caving in to Greek pressure, it's just a fact that this was done at Greece's request, but they are not "guilty" of anything, it's just the normal political process and probably a correct decision, however as we discussed before Wikipedia is not prescriptive and doesn't care about the "correct" or "official" names. As for being in alignment with Skopje, I don't see how is that relevant, if people would call in English R. of Macedonia "Skopje" or "FYROM" then I would millitate for that term in this page and others, but that's not the case. man with one red shoe 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that something may "align" with a particular party's POV isn't indicative of that POV being supported. To take some examples from other naming disputes - we use Sea of Japan, Persian Gulf and Shatt al-Arab for three disputed places. Does that mean that we are pro-Japanese, pro-Iranian or pro-Arab? No; it's simply that the terms in question are the most commonly used in English. Thus with "Macedonia". -- ChrisO (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor detail being that there is no other Sea of Japan, no other Persian Gulf and no other Shatt al-Arab.--Avg (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But there are two names for these things--one promoted by one party and another promoted by a second party. Wikipedia uses common English usage as a guide and not "taking one side or the other". The Republic of Macedonia has two possible names--the Greek one and the Macedonian one. Common English usage uses the Macedonian one. This is not uncommon around the world. We call the Republic of Ireland "Ireland" even though there is another "Ireland" just to its north. Indeed, there are political parties in Northern Ireland that advocate the reunification of the island. This is not too disimilar from the Macedonian position, where Greeks are afraid of parties in the provinces of Macedonia wanting to rebel and unite with the Republic of Macedonia. Unlike the Greeks, the British did not insist that the Republic of Ireland adopt a different name and Wikipedia is not accused of an "Irish POV" when it calls the Republic simply "Ireland" and not "the former British dominion of Ireland". (Taivo (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I suppose Britain would be in no position to ask for such a thing after bringing the island's population to the brink of extinction from starvation. Britain was a colonial power that imposed itself on the natives, while Greeks have inhabited Macedonia since antiquity. There is really no meaningful comparison that can be drawn between the two. Furthermore, Ireland has been a clearly defined geographic entity since the island's formation, unlike Macedonia, the boundaries of which have shifted countless times over the centuries. You may not know for example that the original Macedonia lay entirely within the modern borders of Greece. À propos, Greece is not "afraid" of any secessionist movement in Macedonia; there is none. It is purely an international dispute concerning Skopje's use of the name to promote itself as the "rightful" owner of Macedonia and heir to its heritage. As for "the former British dominion of Ireland", I am unaware of its use by any country or international organization. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that FYROM is not the Greek name, but the UN name. The Greek name is not and has never been FYROM, but Skopje. UN's role is precisely to be NPOV and impose NPOV, so the name was chosen by the UN and imposed to both parties as the least controversial choice. And they both accepted.--Avg (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And "I don't know how many times I have to repeat" that the UN doesn't matter in Wikipedia--only Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to use common English names and, in cases of ambiguity, constitutional names. Wikipedia does not use "Kinshasa" and "Brazzaville" to distinguish the two Congos (even though that usage has occurred in various sources in the past), nor does it label the Democratic Republic of Congo as "formerly Zaire" or "former Belgian Congo" (even though both of those usages have occurred in various sources in the past). "FY" is not common English usage and it is not Macedonian constitutional usage. Therefore, "Republic of Macedonia" is the Wikipedia-preferred disambiguation option. (And if Greece objected to "Macedonia" so strongly, why didn't they object when it was originally called that in 1944 and prevent Yugoslavia's entry into the U.N. on the basis of that?) (Taivo (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

This has also been addressed countless times. Greece did not and does not object to Macedonia being a geographical qualifier. At that time, Macedonia was a province of Yugoslavia, as much as Macedonia is a province of Greece. Its inhabitants were Yugoslav Macedonians living in the province of Macedonia, as Greek Macedonians now live in the province of Macedonia, so why object? The issue arises when a state emerged which appropriated for itself the name Macedonia without a qualifier and the previously nonexistent ethnicity "Macedonians". As an aside, nowhere in WP:NCON is mentioned that the constitutional name takes precedence over the UN name.--Avg (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have used "constitutional name" rather than "self-identifier" since the two are generally synonymous. Here is the relevant Wikipedia policy: [16]. Notice that it specifically excludes political reasons for choosing a name. (Taivo (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

There is no "UN name". The UN itself was very careful to stress that "FYROM" is not a name (see the second bullet point in Macedonia naming dispute#Compromise solutions). "FYROM" is a description, not a name. WP:NCON does address the point that you raise; it mandates: "use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself." The Republic of Macedonia has only one self-identifying name. FYROM, remember, is not a name. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds too much like OR. I can do OR too, technically FYROM doesn't have a name at all, it only refers to itself as RoM and international organizations refer to it as fYRoM.--Avg (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think that is OR, Avg, then you don't have a good grasp of what OR really is. We're trying to reach an acceptable Wikipedia accomodation, here, but if you want to call our discussion of accomodation and compromise OR, then we'll just use the most common English name--"Macedonia" without qualifiers--and be done with it. (Taivo (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

If I may say, both RoM and fYRoM are acceptable Wikipedia accomodation (common, official, etc), and in NCON spirit, they can be used interchangeably as synonyms. However, it is pretty clear that in the last days a certain group of editors has declared war against fYRoM.--Avg (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FYROM is not a synonym of Republic of Macedonia (ROM) since it is not a self-identifier, which is the second criteria for naming after common English usage. It is not even a "name" in the proper sense, but is only a descriptive phrase. If you find RoM acceptable, then we are in agreement on "Republic of Macedonia" or, as it is now abbreviated on the map, "Rep. Maced." (Taivo (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

I may have to refer you to the definition of the word synonym then: "one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses" M-W. That's what RoM and fYRoM are. They are both "acceptable", however I consider fYRoM "preferable" for many reasons including Wikipedia policy rearding the most common name, but not least because it is less controversial and has been the status quo for ages in this article. And remember, this is not the place to discuss the country article title. but simply a reference within the Greece article, so the synonyms can be used freely per NCON. --Avg (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Although it started out as a "provisional reference", fYRoM has been used systematically enough over the course of more than 15 years to qualify as a proper name in practice. In any case, Wikipedia does not proscribe descriptive titles, as far as I know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not proscribe descriptive terms, but only when a common English name is lacking (which it isn't in this case) and a self-identifier is lacking (which it isn't in this case). (Taivo (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Comment: Merely noting that the list is definitely not racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - Ev (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I could reply that you are using wiki-lawyering and WP:BAIT and you don't WP:AGF but I won't bite. I will repeat one more time: Parading names of editors with flags attached is similar to attaching marks of ethnicity on peoples' clothes. And you should know about this piece of history. Dr.K. logos 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Godwin in 1, congratulations ! - Ev (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was not in one. This discussion has been going on for a long time. Branding of peoples' identities should be avoided Godwin or no Godwin. Dr.K. logos 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you people gave two options in the poll and most of us chose the one of them , it does not mean that that one is Greek POV. Make the poll again with "Skopje" as an option and you'll see.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I have no doubt that Greeks will want to call it Skopje, but that doesn't mean that if they have to choose between "R. of Macedonia" and "FYROM" (or derived) they won't choose the later, right? Or it's only by chance that most of the Greeks prefer that option and the rest of international editors prefer the other? man with one red shoe 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Michael was trying to point out that there are extreme ("Skopje") and moderate ("fYRoM") positions among the Greeks, while it is erroneously prescribed here that the "fYRoM" position is also extreme. NikoSilver 09:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. What about having to choose between "Skopje" and "FYROM"?? Would "FYROM" be extreme POV of those choosing it in that case?--Michael X the White (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia policy is that it doesn't matter one whit what the Greeks think about the name of their northern neighbor--it is what English speakers think (common English usage) and what Macedonians think (self-identification). Those are the only two criteria that are important in determining the name of a place in Wikipedia. Perhaps we should start calling Greece "the former Turkish province of Greece" or "Athens". No. That would be just as much a violation of Wikipedia policy as the Greeks trying to insist on "FYROM" or "Skopje" for Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Even if the "moderate" Greeks support "FYROM" on this page that doesn't make it any less POVish. POV means "point of view" not "extreme point of view", being in denial that "FYROM" is pushed here because of Greek POV is insulting the intelligence of the rest of the people. man with one red shoe 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Former Yug.Rep.of M..." works fine, Quote from Slav/ethnic Macedonian leader in Greece

This is what what Pavlos/Pavle Voskopoulos wrote in an article on his party's website:

"Είναι γνωστό ότι εδώ και χρόνια λειτουργεί σχετικά «ομαλά» η συνεργασία των δύο χωρών τόσο σε διμερές όσο και στο διεθνές περιβάλλον με το «περιγραφικό» όνομα «πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας» σύμφωνα με τις αποφάσεις του ΟΗΕ αρχές του 1991 όταν έθεσε ζήτημα η Ελλάδα μετά την ανεξαρτητοποίηση της γειτονικής χώρας." [17]

[Translation by Politis] "It is well known that for many years relations between the two countries [Greece and fY/ROM] is quite “smooth” both in their bilateral and international environment under the ‘descriptive’ name ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, as agreed by the UN when Greece forwarded the issue in 1991 after the independence of the neighbouring country." [END of QUOTE]

We have a internationally recognised modus vivendi that respects all sides. I fear those against it are antagonising by dismissing precedents and principles of good (editorial) neighbourliness. Politis (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You misconstrue the issue. This is not about neighborly relations. This article isn't Greek territory, and our editorial decisions aren't about regulating the neighborly relations between Greek and Macedonian readers or editors. This is an international English-speaking website, and the only "sides" we have to find a balance between are (1) the habits of the English speech community and (2) the preferences of the named entity itself. Opinions from its neighbouring country, be it from the Greek government or from Greek minority organisations, play no role in it whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This Article is about Greece the only recognised name of the neibhouring country is FYROM. Trying to enforce a different name is a violation of WP:NPOV. Since there is an international dispute of this country's name it is irrational to be asked by Wikipedia editors to take one position or another on this matter.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

'Misconstrue' is a hasty judgement. This article is wikipedia and there have been many interpretations in this page - including by FPS - regarding appelation, including unfounded suggestions of 'frequency of usage in the English language'. The above quote was make in that spirit. But my Jane's Information example further up, stands because this publication, like other professional publications, offers a carefully thought out matrix and is a respected refelction of the situation. Beyond that, in the wider media, we have usages of both FYROM and ROM. I think we all agree that wikipedia is not (should not be) a policy making body for editors. (by the way, lookiing at other wikipedia examples, those who support using 'fyrom' in specific situations seem to have a mostly clear record regarding 'ethnic' editing. Politis (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Highly irrelevant -- even if Rep. of Macedonia itself would beg to be called "FYROM" we'd still have to use the term that's more common in English. man with one red shoe 14:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained above somewhere, unless you and I are looking at different publications from that Jane's Sentinel, it doesn't do what you say it's doing. It seems to be a lot more random variation rather than systematic domain-specific usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A second reading will show that the Jane's examples are quite consistent. For some reason, examples from the professional world in the English language do not count with some... There is no study on the 'more common' terms in English. We stick to the professional criteria, that is all. No one can be offended or accused of POVing or researching. Politis (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You must be looking at a different publication then. I'm looking at the publicly available parts of http:www2.janes.com. Representative examples of what I find there are:

• [18]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2001

  first mention: "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"

  later: random mix of "Macedonia" simple, and "FYROM" abbr.

• [19]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2001

  first mention (in heading): "Macedonia" simple

  first mention in text: "Republic of Macedonia"

  further down: random mix of "Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia" and a few "FYROM"s

• [20]

  deals with NATO topic, 2008

  first mention in text: "Macedonia" simple

  mentions "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)" and "Republic of Macedonia" as well as "the Greek province of Macedonia" as part of the description of the naming dispute

• [21]

  deals with NATO topic, 2008

  first and only mention in text (within the scope of "NATO said..."): "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"

• [22]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2005

  first and only mention in text: "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)"

• [23]

  R.o.M.-internal topic, 2002

  uses "Macedonia" throughout

• [24]

  Greece-internal topic, no date (pre-2002)

  first and only mention in text: "Macedonia" simple (referring unambiguously to R.o.M.)

• [25]

  NATO topic, 1999

  first and only mention, in list: "Macedonia" simple

I don't see any systematicity here. There's an overall preponderance of simple "Macedonia", and the exceptions to that are random, and not specific to topic area. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

When talking about placenames, Janes is not the authoritative source. Atlases and maps are the authoritative sources for placename usage, not a weapons publication that is trying to sell tanks and AK-47s. Up in the map discussion section, I showed that the vast majority of atlases and maps in English use simply "Macedonia" without any note of FYROM whatsoever. If I want to know the bore size of the main armament on a Vijayanta, I'll look in Janes. If I want to know the common English placename of a region I'll look in an atlas. (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Compromise?

Maybe we could make up a couple of names that won't get confused by the ones battled over in the real world. For first iteration, how about

• Greek Macedonia
• Greater Macedonia area
• Skopje-governed Republic of Macedonia

I'm sure the last one can also be expressed in other ways that are neutral, descriptive, and don't mention the contentious aspect about history in Yugoslavia.

This proposed solution is similar to the Debian policy mandating that when a naming conflict can not be resolved, both packages must be renamed for inclusion in Debian. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the UN, my friend, to try to invent names! It is either "Republic of Macedonia" or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in the lead. I see no middle way.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia is perfectly fine by me, the rest is too much OR, and Skopje-governed Republic of Macedonia is yucky, can't even qualify it how bad inspired this proposal is. man with one red shoe 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my poor wording. We would not be inventing names as such. We would be inventing ways to refer to these regions in such a way as to avoid both confusion and the appearance of bias.

The third one, with a reference to Skopje, is certainly not suggested as a description we would have to use -- merely as a starting point. I picked it because Skopje, the name of the Republic's capital, is reasonably unique -- and mentioning it will avoid the confusion easily. We could agree on another description, perhaps Balkan Republic of Macedonia (it may be seem like a bit of cheating, but it's based on the fact that the Republic of Macedonia is "inside Balkan" while the Greek Macedonia is "inside Greece"), perhaps Republic of Macedonia (North of Lake Prespa), perhaps Republic of Macedonia (declared 1991). I'm not pretending to know the solution, I'm merely trying to suggest where it might be found. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Our current naming conventions policy ask us to restrict ourselves to reflect common English usage, not to create new names & modify English language itself.

For the specific purposes of naming countries in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia, "Republic of Macedonia" is a neutral & unambiguous name that English speakers would easily recognize, and that makes linking to it easy and second nature. In any case, no compromise with a biased group of editors is necessary (or desirable). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)While your heart is in the right place, Digwuren, Wikipedia already distinguishes between Republic of Macedonia and Macedonia (Greece) and Macedonia (region) quite adequately. And there is only one Republic of Macedonia, so the "Skopje-governed" part is just not appropriate. It is no compromise since it is just a repackaging of the "extreme" Athenian (Greek) POV (expressed in those terms by several others)--that Macedonia should be called Skopje. Once again, Wikipedia policy is very clear on this matter--first priority of name is common English usage ("Macedonia" on nearly all English maps and atlases), second priority is self-identification ("Republic of Macedonia"). (Taivo (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually, "Republic of Macedonia - Skopje" was a name proposed by Matthew Nimetz, the UN mediator himself, and deemed "worthy of consideration" by all the political spectrum of fYRoM [26]. So I wouldn't rush into conclusions.--Avg (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It may very well be "worthy of consideraion", but it is neither common English usage nor the self-identification and that is all that Wikipedia is bound by. Wikipedia naming conventions specifically prohibit the use of political or emotional arguments. If Macedonia accepts the compromise and incorporates it into their constitution as their self-identification, then Wikipedia can use it as a proper name. But until Macedonia accepts it as a self-identification it is just a curiosity and not usable here. There are only two names usable in Wikipedia for Macedonia--"Macedonia" as the common English usage, and "Republic of Macedonia" as the self-identification when necessary for disambiguation. (Taivo (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

This was not a proposal to change the title, simply a comment to illustrate that people shouldn't rush into conclusions on what is and isn't "extreme" POV. I stand by my position which is that the most common official name is and has ever been "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".--Avg (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was having a look at the World Cup qualifying group 9 table after Scotlands win over Iceland. As you can see here the BBC use the term FYR Macedonia. Jack forbes (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The most common "official" name is not an official name at all since the only "official" name that counts is the country's own self-identification, the country's own official name. That is "Republic of Macedonia". But "international" official name isn't relevant to Wikipedia anyway since Wikipedia's second criteria for naming is not "official international name", but self-identification. "International name" is specifically irrelevant to Wikipedia usage since naming policy prohibits the use of "political criteria" in assigning names to places. The only time that "most common official name" intersects with Wikipedia usage is when that is also the "most common English name" or the country's own "self-identification". And sports announcers are not the authorities on most common English names for places--atlases and maps are. (Taivo (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

here is the first page of the result of a very quick google search on maps of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. You can't say the name is not used on maps. Jack forbes (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And just to repeat yet again, there is no "international name". There is a constitutional name, "Republic of Macedonia", and a provisional reference, not a name! - "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Describing "FYROM" as a name is simply wrong. The "FYROM" reference was only agreed to by Greece on the basis that it wasn't to be used as a name, which is why, when the RoM was seated at the UN, it was seated under "T" - for "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", not "M" for "Macedonia" or "F" for "FYROM". When Greece and the RoM have had direct dealings with each other (as in the 1994 interim accord), Greece has not even used the FYROM name; it has referred to the RoM as "the Party of the Second Part", defined as being the state with its capital in Skopje. So when you speak of an "official name", there is in fact only one official name - "Republic of Macedonia". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Raw Google searches are not reliable references for a variety of reasons. You actually have to look at each and every map to see exactly what the label on the map is. A map could be labelled "Macedonia" without any reference to FYROM and yet have "FYROM" as a keyword. Thus, while the map clearly illustrates the most common English name--"Macedonia"--it falsely shows up on a Google search under "FYROM" because the author of the web page put it in the keywords. You cannot just use a Google search as a criterion. Above you will see the result of my own Google search where I actually clicked on the first ten maps and examined the map itself. Only one of the maps had FYROM. The other nine had simply "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

For example, Jack, the second map in your Google search is Wikipedia's Republic of Macedonia article. The third link on your Google search links to a dozen maps, only two of which are actually labelled "Former Republic of Macedonia" on the map itself. The rest of the maps are labelled "Macedonia" or are unlabelled. You actually have to look at your sources and not just call a Google search "definitive". (Taivo (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Indeed, you would get a nearly identical Google result, I'm sure, if you also searched for "maps-Macedonia". My own Google search was for "on-line atlas" (or something very similar like "atlas"), thus I didn't prejudice the search either way. I simply got to the atlas and navigated to the map of the southern Balkans or Macedonia. Thus my own search was not biased in any way either pro-FYROM or anti-FYROM. It was a neutral search and the first ten atlases I found were 90% "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

No one's claiming that "Macedonia" isn't the most common name in English. But its ambiguity makes its use inappropriate, which is why the dilemma can only be between the two long forms. As Jack correctly points out, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (in all its variations) is far more common than "Republic of Macedonia". That it may be the product of "Greek blackmail" is irrelevant to the debate; we describe, we do not prescribe. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that "Republic of Macedonia" is interchangeable with "Macedonia", rather than a distinct term in its own right. A cursory glance at the relevant disambiguation page amply demonstrates that the opposite is in fact the case. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"is far more common than" -- on what you base your assessment? To me that's not clear at all, if it's not clear than the normal action would be to use the title of the article which is not POV (hey, it's the title of the article) and it cannot be confused with anything else. So, why not? man with one red shoe 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the answer obvious? Those like you who are brave enough to stand up to "Greek nationalist blackmail" use "Macedonia", plain and simple. Not "Republic of Macedonia", an awkward cop-out which in the English-language media is effectively confined to Wikipedia. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

First, there are two distinct things that you are confusing, Kekrops. You are confusing "common English term" (which we agree is "Macedonia") with the preferred alternate name if the common name is ambiguous. You think that "FYROM" is a "common name", but it isn't. FYROM is, as you say a "long form". But there are two long forms for Macedonia--one is the self-identifier "Republic of Macedonia" and the other is the Greek-identifier "FYROM". Wikipedia policy is crystal clear--when the common form ("Macedonia") is ambiguous or otherwise unavailable for whatever reason, then the next form to be used is the self-identifier. That self-identifier is not "FYROM", but "Republic of Macedonia". The policy is absolutely clear--first use the common name ("Macedonia"), then use the self-identifier ("Republic of Macedonia"). Political concerns are irrelevant and are not to be used as a means of determining an alternate form if the common name is unavailable or ambiguous. "FYROM" is not the self-identifier and is entirely based on political and emotional considerations, so it is not available as an alternate for "Macedonia". Only "Republic of Macedonia" meets the Wikipedia criterion for alternate name--it is the self-identifier. And Jack is absolutely wrong in his assessment of the occurrence of "FYROM" on maps because he did absolutely no research on the maps. He did a simple Google search, which, as I clearly spelled out, is not an adequate means of conducting a survey or research. Until he actually looks at the maps and actually does a count based on physical observation of the maps he Googles, his "research" is non-existent and irrelevant. I actually looked at the maps on my unbiased Google search and found that only 10% of the maps had "FYROM" (1 out of 10). I also conducted a very simple poll on Yahoo! Answers just to see what turned up. I asked the question "What countries border Bulgaria?" Five people responded--one said "Republic of Macedonia" (in addition to Serbia, Greece, Turkey, and Romania, of course), three said "Macedonia", and one (a person with the username Hephaestus) said "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (literally). So in this admittedly very simple survey, "Republic of Macedonia" was just as common as "FYROM". (Taivo (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

So why does the relevant Wikipedia policy prescribe the use of the "most common name of a person or thing that does not cause ambiguity with other people or things"? In other words, the most common unambiguous term. It does not say "use the self-identifying term if the most common English name is ambiguous". By the way, if "FYROM" is "entirely based on political and emotional considerations", what is "Republic of Macedonia" based on? More importantly, who cares? We're not here to pass value judgments. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong policy, Kekrops. You're looking at the general policy for naming persons and things, not places and proper nouns. If you do a bit more careful research you will find the relevant policy for placenames, especially when dealing with ambiguities and conflicts. (Taivo (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Even that doesn't give precedence to self-identification over common English usage: "If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself." That clearly does not apply here. We have a number of established English terms, the most common of which happens to be ambiguous. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, somehow you missed these objective criteria that are recommended to be used: "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)" Yep, it's in the constitution. "Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)", Yep, it's self-identifying term. And let me quote something else from that policy:

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:
Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

This pretty much invalidates most of arguments used by the Greek side. What remains that FYROM is more popular than Republic of Macedonia? That has not been concludently proved and might not be even important since. 1. it's not established that FYROM is used widely in English, 2. we have a self-identifying term that doesn't need disambiguation, so where is the problem to use "Republic of Macedonia"? man with one red shoe 06:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another gem from the policy page man with one red shoe 07:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely 
notes the fact that they do use that name.

None of that invalidates my argument above. We only use self-identifying terms if there is no English equivalent. I find it rather interesting that you have deliberately omitted the primary objective criterion: "Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)"... In fact, it is your side that needs to understand that your "moral" reservations against "FYROM" are irrelevant. "FYROM" is used internationally, not as widely as "Macedonia" perhaps, but certainly not only by the Greeks either. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You grasp on the last straws "Republic of Macedonia" is used in English too. And no, I don't have any moral reservation against "FYROM" only that's not widely used in English and it's not the self-identifying term. I'm sorry but the policy is pretty clear. The quotes that I provide match perfectly the Greek POV for not using the term here. They are not valid arguments, and since I've been accused by you that I promote the "opposite POV" let me paste the clear example from the policy what is POV and what is not:

"Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe."

That's exactly what I support, "Republic of Macedonia" is self-indentifying name, it's not POV, POV is to say that they don't have the right to use this name and to censure it on this page or any other page which you and your side desperately try to do. man with one red shoe 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Kekrops, "Republic of Macedonia" is the self-identifier, which, according to policy, takes precedence over moral, legal, and political considerations. "FYROM" has no such pedigree, so it is absolutely irrelevant what anyone's feelings about it are. It is an irrelevant term since it is neither the most common English term ("Macedonia") nor the self-identifier ("Republic of Macedonia"). It is one of Greece's names for the place, which is completely and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. It doesn't even matter that a minority of countries and a few international organizations use "FYROM" because of Greek pressure--since it is not a self-identifier and is totally based on political considerations, it is invalid as a name according to Wikipedia policy. It's just as simple as that. I don't like the name Kekrops. I think I'll start calling you "George" and force everyone else to call you "George". Does that make your name "George" just because everyone else is using it? No, of course not. You're Kekrops because that is your self-identifier and therefore that is what we call you here. (Taivo (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

"RoM" is used too, but nowhere near as widely as "FYROM". And yes, self-identifiers certainly take precedence over moral, legal and political considerations, but not over common English usage. The fact that "FYROM" is "not a self-identifier and is totally based on political considerations" does not invalidate it as a name according to Wikipedia policy. That would only be the case if it were not an established English term. Your opposition to "FYROM" is based solely on the subjective criterion that it is "politically unacceptable", as your condemnation of it as a product of "Greek pressure" reveals. And that is unacceptable. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for sockpuppets?

Suddenly we have a rush of 'experts' in wikipedia... like User:Taivo or User: Man with One red shoe, and a few others, they emerge with tocken activities on wikipedia, as if established by other users, as if waiting, as if recruited to push a point in the face of establishes users. Is there sockpuppetry going on? Surely not! Politis (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You should take it up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations if you think you have a case against them, not here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Kekrops.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I find tools such as this one very useful whenever I have such a suspicion. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful yes; offering anything close to safe conclusions no.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was that one should do a little bit of research before accusing others of sockpuppetry. It appears to me that Politis didn't even follow the link to User:Taivo's user page. This is a very unusual user who also has his real name, job description and place of work on his user page. It will be very hard to find a potential sockpuppet master. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to what you say about Taivo.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for the link. Politis (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions – MOSMAC

After all this long and tiring debate, I draw two mail conclusions, which explain why the "supporters'" argumentation (and I mean, particularly, the ones who initiated the straw poll) has been clearly weakened:

1. The supporters did not manage to prove why the use of an internationally recognized name is POV.
2. The supporters did not manage to prove why an editor who supports the use of an internationally recognized name is a nationalist.

Here, we face a real problem, where general rules cannot apply: a state whose constitutional and internationally recognized names are not the same. Therefore, I think we should do what Nikos had proposed: Go to MOSMAC and have a centralized discussion. I think it is better than having edit-wars here and there. After all, not even ARBMAC can offer us any viable solutions (something I believed from the first moment).

MOSMAC is the only field where a viable solution can be found. It is a valuable and important almost-policy essaye, which, unfortunately, lost its orientation. Let's go there, and revive it. After all, it is Fut, one of the main "supporters", who had argued that MOSMAC sets "a fragile consensus respected by most of the long-standing contributors".--Yannismarou (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean, having discussed it ad nauseam here, we should go to MOSMAC, where we all already discussed it ad nauseam two years ago, and discuss it ad nauseam a third time? What good would that do? Well, it would probably have one advantage for you, that of filibustering: since normal editors will eventually stay away bored and disgusted, the decision will ultimately be left to those people who have the strongest motivation to persevere: i.e. those who have the biggest POV stake in it. And that is those who in an ideal wiki world should have the least say in the whole process.

The situation is clear: there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"... fight it out ... until one side is banned" — you surely didn't mean it Fut., I hope not. Apcbg (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy Fut that you finally reveal to which side you belong. Finally, masks have fallen. Good!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there ever any doubt? He's gone back to edit-warring again despite a complete lack of consensus for such a departure from the version which had stood for years. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there anybody to apply ARBMAC on hime?--Yannismarou (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the admin, you tell us. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Try it. I'm perfectly willing to make this a test case. Either the Wikipedia community surrenders to the power of local national factions, or it fights them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal posts have been repeatedly moved by users like FPS that have drowned their sound argument and better judgement. Every sourced proof has been dismissed!!!! There has been racists abuse against the presumed ethnicity of some user: "a determined small national faction of POV-pushers". How do we know that FPS is not a Greek anti-Greek user? Or, je vous le demande, that Politis is not a French Communist (Politis is the journal of the FCP)? There have been accusations that those who disagree with his tactics are invovlved in "edit-war against policy will just have to be brushed aside". Shall I continue? FPS has the credentials for being constructive, hope he finds them again.

The only thing some users are saying is that the context is everything. They have not abused anyone or anything. Their correct attitude is a credit to wikipedia. Context and current usage indicated a respectfull usage of Fyrom and Rom. Politis (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)