Talk:Greece

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)

FYROM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Background: There is a dispute as to whether the use of "Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia" (or its abbreviated form "FYROM") versus "Republic of Macedonia" in the article text of Greece is or is not consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style or other guidelines. The dispute is related to the overall naming ambiguity between Greece and the aforementioned country, see also: Macedonia naming dispute.
Result: A straw poll was started to help gauge consensus on the issue.
--slakr^\ talk / 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full text (~50kb) archived early. Please see the archive page it's on for the full discussion --slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 5 April 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)

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

Unresolved

 – Split long thread (117kb) to Talk:Greece/Naming poll per WP:SIZE. slakr^\ talk /

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: [1]. 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

Unresolved

 – Split long (45kb) thread to Talk:Greece/The Map per WP:SIZE. --slakr^\ talk /

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 ディグレン 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: [2]. 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." [3]

[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:

• [4]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2001

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

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

• [5]

  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

• [6]

  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

• [7]

  deals with NATO topic, 2008

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

• [8]

  deals with R.o.M. topic, 2005

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

• [9]

  R.o.M.-internal topic, 2002

  uses "Macedonia" throughout

• [10]

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

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

• [11]

  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 [12]. 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)

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)

I abide to the rules Kekrops, and I do not apply adm powers, in a case I am personally involved, but I am really thinking my options now. Believe me.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:47, 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)

And what if you lose? Is defeating the Greeks really that important to you? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Defending a principle is important I doubt Fut.Perf. has anything against Greeks, but continue the veiled personal attacks if you like... man with one red shoe 14:56, 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)

• "... fight it out ... until one side is banned", answering to Kekrops as well. I have repeatedly said that Fut is man of his word (no irony), and I mean it (this is indeed one of his credentials, Politis). Therefore, this is indeed his real intention: firstly, ban all the Greek users. Then, what?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• He now reverted for the third time! On the verge of violating WP:3R, and already violating the most vague interpretation of edit-warring he had recently supported (meaning, he should be already blocked). And he is an administrator! Έλεος! Since, they love lists so much, let's prepare one with User: Future Perfect at Sunrise recent edit-warring. The latter will be posted where appropriate.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If this becomes a test case, then it moves into the real world? I doubt FPS wants to ban Greek users, as I said, FPS could be Greek or half Greek or have pretented to be Greek or half Greek (and I French...). So the ethnic tag can see wikipedia move into the real world. What fun this could be... Politis (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the light of his recent tendentious edit warring, personal attacks and outright threats, it would probably be a good idea for Fut.Perf. to distance himself from Macedonia related articles for a certain period. He certainly has a lot to offer to Wikipedia in other areas. Otherwise he seems to be forcing the community to make the decision for him. --Avg (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to have a broader discussion on the issue, with a more clear mind, I opened a thread here.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so it is clear, the article as it now stands I think is an acceptable version. There are two locations in the article where the name "Macedonia" is relevant (other than the references to the Greek provinces).

• The lead paragraph. I have never objected to the wording "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in this case. I have added a footnote (that should remain) that references Macedonian naming dispute. The wikilink should not be to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because that is a non-existent article. The blue of the wikilink emphasizes the constitutional self-identifier of Macedonia while the black of "former Yugoslav" satisfies the needs of the Greek POV. I stated this point several days ago (it seems that long ago although it might have been yesterday morning).
• The map. The map should stay as it currently is: "Rep. Mace." as that is the self-identifier. "Macedonia" would be ambiguous on the map, so the self-identifier is appropriate. As "FYROM" has not been identified as an acronym elsewhere in the article (and should not be), its use on the map would be doubly inappropriate--a) as an unknown acronym, and b) as an externally-imposed non-self-identification.

The article stayed stable with that configuration for several days through the hottest portion of this discussion. We will argue ad nauseum over this issue with neither the FYROM POV nor the non-FYROM POV ever budging. In the end, the situation will be resolved in Athens (so don't try to insult our intelligence by claiming that this is not a Greek POV) when the international community finally tires of Greek stubbornness and accepts the Republic of Macedonia as it is or when some superpower gives Greece enough money to shut it up. In the end it's not about a name, but about power over its neighbor. As long as Athens holds Macedonia hostage in the international community, Greece has power in negotiations. When Athens gives up that power, it will once again becomes another poor Eastern European country at the doorstep of its richer northern European neighbors and can wring no more concessions from Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Poor? Eastern European? Last I heard, Obamanation wasn't doing that great itself. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, compared to Nepal or Malawi, "poor" would not describe Greece, but would Greece exchange its GDP with Germany, France, or the UK? In a heartbeat. (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Living in Belgium for more than a month, dude, I am not jealous of their GDP. I prefer the Greek one! See a CIA Factbook or something else to realize how close the Greek GDP is to the ones you mention, and then provide us with a better financial analysis.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

:)What a pitty that UN hasn't appointed a genius like you, Taivo, to solve the problem in no time! With your clownish remarks you managed at last to express your frustration and personal bias and to drive away this conversation again in uncivil, childish and aimless exchange of personal attacks... pathetic attitude for sure... PS By the way, could you, as a richer northern European give me some money in order to start supporting you? Me, as a poor Eastern European nationalist can easy be manipulated with money... Kapnisma (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the point of my comments about the ultimate resolution of this naming issue was lost in the noise and defensiveness. Do either of you actually think that anything in the real world will change concerning the acceptance of Macedonia's name until Athens decides it will? And that the ultimate resolution will involve more than just a "name"? (Taivo (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Why don't you try buying off Skopje instead? They'd be much cheaper, believe me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm... On second thought, Kekrops, you are right, why trying to buy 11 million poor Eastern Europeans when you can do your job with the one sixth of the sum? Kapnisma (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(PS: Human Development Index for Greece 0.947 , HDI for UK 0.942, Taivo, can we please also buy these poor Northwestern Europeans?

Indeed. Seeing as he calls himself an expert on mass comparison, perhaps he can compare Greece's GDP per capita to that of the countries he mentions and see whether it's closer to Anglo-Franco-German or Malawo-Nepalese levels. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the thread that Yannismarou opened I honestly thought that it was at a place where a reasonable facsimile of an intelligent discussion could take place. Instead it was to an accusation of malfeasance directed at Future Perfect. That is not the place where a discussion will take place on the real issue. It is a place to try to silence one of the participants in the debate. Sorry, Yannismarou, opening a complaint against another involved editor is not the action of "a more clear mind" or a "broader discussion on the issue". Open a thread at a place for arbitration of the issue and I'll believe that you are acting with a "more clear mind" for "a broader discussion on the issue". (Taivo (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

(The wording in that previous post may be a bit harsh, but when I clicked on Yannismarou's link I was honestly expecting to go to a place to discuss the issue with the assistance of some moderator. I was very disappointed to see that it was just an accusation against another editor.) (Taivo (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, your comments are appreciated, but I cannot agree with them. Check my language in the ANI thread, and then judge what my purposes are.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Full Protection

I have fully protected this page until all of the editors involved stop the edit warring. FWIW, while I have a personal opinion of which version is correct, the page as it stands right now may or may not agree with my views. I am protecting it in the version which it existed when I arrived here (prompted by the AN/I thread initiated over the actions of one of the participants in the thread.) Horologium (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy&paste from guidelines for unbiased admins and editors to figure this out

"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."

Instructions: please replace "Maputa" with "Greece/Greeks" and "Cabindan" with "Republic of Macedonia" and you'll see what's the situation in this article. Please be forewarned that some people will try to fool you that "FYROM" is the common English form, that's only a diversion (their last resort really) the truth is that the clear common English term is "Macedonia". If we can't use the "common English" term the guideline is pretty clear that we should use the self-identification term, which is "Republic of Macedonia" and is also used in English (is not a Turkish or Macedonian or Chinese term, it's English). There's no reason not to use "Republic of Macedonia" on this page: it's English term, it's the self-identification term, doesn't need disambiguation. So please ask the honest editors who are so adamant against it, why. WHY do they oppose this term and let's hope we'll get the honest answer. My understanding is that's exactly the situation described in the guideline. man with one red shoe 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazing spin! This is exactly the opposite of what is happening right now! The name "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is alive and kicking. It is used in virtually any international forum and it is the only solution that has been universally accepted, including by the Republic itself. However some people here argue that even this is the reality, Wikipedia "shouldn't subject to the pressure of Greece as UN/EU etc did". This is very very clearly a violation of "Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe."--Avg (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Spin? Anyway, I refer to it as Macedonia, even if it isn't Macedonia "proper". ?I assume the other person can get the meaning by the context. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And that could be the name of our article, if this, this and this didn't exist. But they do exist so we have to find a way to disambiguate between them. So which is the most common form except "Macedonia" that you have heard people refer to this state?--Avg (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

man with one red shoe: I dont know how you suddenly pop up like (I said, like!) a sockpuppet. Try explaining your theory (I said, theory) to the EU, the UN, the media that uses those terms (including Janes Sentinel). Of course people also use 'Macedonia' for Fyrom/Rom. Have you come any editor who disagrees with that? No. So it is about context and I would argue that the context here suggest the UN name. I have provided clear examples. And as for 'common English term', have you written the book on what constitutes a common English term :-)? I suggest not. Politis (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly?! I have my account from March 2, 2008, your accusations or insinuations will not divert the attention from the issue at hand. Please be warned though that your baseless accusations/insinuation, if they continue, will be taken into account by admins. As for EU and UN it has been explained over and over that Wikipedia doesn't follow UN/EU policies, nor those organizations establish the "common use in English" so that's pretty much irrelevant. What's relevant here is that you and your friends don't have any serious argument against using "Republic of Macedonia" in this page. man with one red shoe 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple. Because according to Wikipedia policy, we only resort to self-identifying names in the absence of established English terms. It's the same reason why Greece is not located at Hellenic Republic. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But Republic of Macedonia is located at Republic of Macedonia not at FYROM or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. man with one red shoe 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know. And it shouldn't be. The only reason it is is because a bunch of "obsessed" non-Greeks decided that defeating the "Greek POV" was more important than enforcing Wikipedia policy. Still, that is no reason not to do the right thing here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My friends? I would like to think of you as one of my friends dear 'man with one red shoe'. But please can you stop bunching users into a 'group' with the intention of bashing them? I hope so my friend. As for wiki and UN, etc, your argument holds no water, unless you are the chief rule maker, dear chap :-). Politis (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I used "you and your friends" as a shortcut for "you and people who support your position" don't make a big deal out of it. And why my UN argument doesn't hold water? Wikipedia doesn't follow UN/EU naming conventions, this is pretty much clear for everybody, do you have another understanding? man with one red shoe 16:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right; it doesn't follow the UN per se. It follows common English usage, whether it is the product of UN terminology or not. And fYRoM is far more common than "RoM", whichever way you look at it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that claim, but I haven't seen the proof, till there's a clear proof I think we should use the self-identifying term per the guideline. Even in case you found let's say 2000 references for fYRoM and 1500 for RoM that's not conclusive and RoM should be used per guideline. man with one red shoe 16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly doubt you'd change your tune even if you did see whatever it is you define as "clear proof". You know that it is intuitively true, but you're loath to admit it; people who don't give a shit about Greece's opinion use plain "Macedonia", not "Republic of Macedonia". Only Wikipedia and the government in Skopje use the latter, and even then only some of the time. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem that I didn't see any clear proof. And no, Wikipedia doesn't work based on "intuition". And no, if there not an order of magnitude difference, I would still think that self-identification should be used, no good reasons against. man with one red shoe 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You've been given Google searches, you've been given User:ChrisO's "survey of mainstream encyclopedias", you've been given globally televised international events like the Olympic Games, World Cup, Euro Championship and Eurovision Song Contest. Why do you deliberately choose to ignore 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)? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The name "Macedonia" is the common usage in English, not fYRoM, fYRoM is used mostly in official documents which carry not much weight when is to decide what is the "common usage", in this page we need to add "Republic of" in front of "Macedonia" to disambiguate from the Greek province with the same name. "Republic of Macedonia" is the self-identifying term which should have priority in case the common usage doesn't exist or, as in this case, needs disambiguation. man with one red shoe 17:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're incorrigible. "Macedonia" is not the only common term, nor does "common English usage" mean that there can only be one possible candidate. I shan't repeat myself. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ri)As an outsider to the discussion, I can only say that this type of silliness is precisely what led to two world wars and countless other wars. What Red Show notes at the beginning of this section is true and happens to be wikily correct. One cannot expunge facts, one can merely explain -- well, unless we're setting up Oceania here. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote, it might be better to leave the two name forms as they presently are in this and other related articles, as a temporary arrangement to be replaced in due course by a permanent one reflecting the solution that is to happen outside Wikipedia. Such fights to impose one of the names could only trigger if not world wars, local Wiki ones that are totally unnecessary as the eventual compromise solution to happen in the real world would be neither ‘Republic of etc.’ nor ‘Former Yugoslav etc.’ Apcbg (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't "wikily" correct at all in fact. Wikipedia policy is clear: established English terms take precedence over endonyms. "Red Show" has conveniently bypassed this rule and painted the situation as one where there is no common English term (other than "Macedonia") and a self-identifying name must be used instead. That is simply not the case here. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Once again, Kekrops only sees the world through Greek-colored glasses ("Greek" as in the political viewpoint of Greece, not an ethnic designation). 1) "FYROM" is not, and never will be, the "common English name" for Macedonia. It is "Macedonia", full stop. 2) The second Wikipedia criterion for naming is self-identification. It is "Republic of Macedonia", full stop. 3) "FYROM" is not at all a "common English name" for Macedonia except in documents that specifically relate to the naming controversy or are dependent on Greek political considerations, such as international organizations. 4) And even if it is more common than "Republic of Macedonia" it is still not a self-identification and is therefore of a lesser status than "Republic of Macedonia". 5) "FYROM" is not even a "name" in its strict sense, but a description. 6) Wikipedia specifically prohibits political considerations or legal rights to a name from consideration, thus excluding "FYROM". 7) Finally, as we have demonstrated before, Google searches are completely unreliable as any kind of "evidence" in a serious discussion. They are not accurate counts of anything at all and are subject to no critical evaluation. They are numbers based on pretty much nothing. And I will stand by what I said earlier, Athens will persist in this naming dispute as long as it gives it power or a sense of power over its northern neighbor. In the overall picture of things, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a word or phrase. I don't have a problem with the current way the text reads in this article, but I have a serious problem with attempts to impose unwarranted bolding in Republic of Macedonia. (Taivo (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

And there is a very suspicious POV comma in that article :-) Frankly, geopolitical analyses like the above "... Athens will persist in this naming dispute as long as it gives it power or a sense of power etc." won't fool a baby, sorry. Apcbg (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Athens will persist in this as long as it controls Macedonia's access to the sea--that and Athen's preexisting membership in all the international organizations that Macedonia wants to join is Athen's power over Macedonia. If gold were discovered in Macedonia tomorrow and Macedonia said, "We will split the profits with whoever gives us the best deal on transport," Athens would be first in line with a proposal labelled "To the Republic of Macedonia, our good neighbors to the north". You're naive if you think that money and power are not the cornerstones of international diplomacy--whether it be a silly dispute over a name or the spread of nuclear weapons. (Taivo (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Must be a vast amount of money and power involved there, for the Republic of Macedonia has also problems with Bulgaria, and that’s not the end of the list either. As a Skopje newspaper (Utrinski Vesnik, December 31, 2007) put it:

... it is difficult to explain to the world why we have problems

    with almost all [of the neighbouring states]

    while they do not have so many with each other.

Now the explanation is easy; it must be gold as you say, and plenty of it there ... Apcbg (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thing Greece doesn't border the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Serbia. (he said sarcastically). Hell, Greece wasn't even originally Greek: it was occupied at the time the Greeks came. At what point does the silliness stop? Fuck all of the nationalist bullshit, all of the political correctnes, and the rest of it. The people in the Republic of Macedonia refer to the country as Macedonia: that the Greeks get their togai in a twist over this is irrelevant to the naming issue. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the debate, I suggest you take your bullshit elsewhere. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It was constructive, even if you don't see it that way. There is a reality here that is being dismissed and a non-reality that is receiving preferential treatment. Sorry if this fact pisses you off -- well, no, I'm not as you seem not to be able to shed your biases. While Macedonia the country and Macedonia the region of Greece are currently different, that difference makes no difference in reality, or even philosophically. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I fundamentally disagree with your myopic contention that fYRoM is not a common English term. It may not be the most common, but it is common nonetheless. Your belief that its use is entirely due to "Greek political considerations" is irrelevant. It is used, whether you or I like it or not. That "Wikipedia specifically prohibits political considerations or legal rights to a name from consideration" is precisely what you need to come to terms with. We cannot rule out fYRoM simply because you find it "politically unacceptable". I am arguing for its use not on the basis of any political, legal, moral, aesthetic or other considerations, but on its status as a widely used and established term in the English language.

Your fourth point is dead wrong. The status of fYRoM is not "lesser" than that of "RoM", but rather the reverse. Common English usage overrides self-identification, according to every single relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline. Regarding your dismissal of Google searches, I suggest you take a lot at the other methods prescribed by the guideline, namely "other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations". On every count, fYRoM trumps "RoM" by a wide margin. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Common perhaps, but not as common. So, are you saying tht the less common politically correct term is the better term? Are you saying that self-identification is meaningless? Are you saying that WP is the arbiter of English usage?. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From The World Factbook: "Macedonia gained its independence peacefully from Yugoslavia in 1991, but Greece's objection to the new state's use of what it considered a Hellenic name and symbols delayed international recognition, which occurred under the provisional designation of "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." In 1995, Greece lifted a 20-month trade embargo and the two countries agreed to normalize relations. The United States began referring to Macedonia by its constitutional name, Republic of Macedonia, in 2004 and negotiations continue between Greece and Macedonia to resolve the name issue. Some ethnic Albanians, angered by perceived political and economic inequities, launched an insurgency in 2001 that eventually won the support of the majority of Macedonia's Albanian population and led to the internationally-brokered Framework Agreement, which ended the fighting by establishing a set of new laws enhancing the rights of minorities. Fully implementating the Framework Agreement and stimulating economic growth and development continue to be challenges for Macedonia, although progress has been made on both fronts over the past several years." •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, should I just state the obvious, that the CIA World Factbook is a US government publication that reflects verbatim the US government position? (NB: The previous US government position - next one will be the first one of this administration and I am predicting several changes to many countries articles).--Avg (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Try beginning by not claiming what is not the case: the Factbook normally is not a statement of position; it is a collection of data intended, in large part, to help the State Department formulate positions based on facts (per the title). (Whether State chooses to do this is another question.) One sign of this is the extent to which they remain in print unchanged despite changes of American policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Another uber-relevant guideline quote:

• "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." man with one red shoe 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal

How about Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia? This contains the same content, and distinguishes the Republic from the Province as well as, "FYROM". Is it the form of words that are important? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will cut it, is like using in Bulgaria article: neighbor with Greece, once part of Ottoman Empire, and so on. I don't think we need to explain in intro anything about the countries, people can click on the link and find more info about the specific country if they wish so, I'm sure it's mentioned in Republic of Macedonia that was once part of Yugoslavia. man with one red shoe 22:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the "important" issue is that the name "Macedonia" should not be used for anything other than a part of Greece. That's why articles which mention Macedonia routinely get vandalised with any number of made-up alternative names, like "Skopia", Bananadonia", "Slavomacedonia" and so on. This sort of thing goes on daily across the wiki, frequently coming from anonymous IP addresses in Greece. The dispute may have all kinds of diplomatic complications in the foreign ministries but down here in the Wikipedia trenches, it's a simple and rather vindictive ethnic feud. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've had just about enough of your slanderous conflation of the legitimate Greek editors with the vandals. No one here is responsible for those gems, so I see no point in mentioning them other than to try to sully our reputation. I know it's a very British pastime, but smear tactics are not going to win you the argument. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things: as a purely geographical / historical piece of information, it's probably unnecessary in the lead (or else why does nobody care about having Austria talk about how it borders on "Slovenia, once part of Yugoslavia"?). And as for what our Greek friends tell us their main concern is with the "disambiguation", namely to avoid "monopolization" (reminding the reader that it's not the only Macedonia): this phrase doesn't do that. To be sure, "former Yugoslav" doesn't either; one more reason why I find their insistence so nonsensical. No matter how you word it, there is nothing in this piece of information that would even suggest to the uninformed reader that there is also some other Macedonia elsewhere. – As for whether the precise wording is important, well, according at least to Kekrops' professed argumentation, yeah, it would seem it must be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well how about this. Their "insistence" seems to you "nonsensical" because their primary objective is not to push their POV but to impose Wikipedia policy, which might be even against their own POV. --Avg (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So? Does Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia, fulfill our policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it is not an established name used in the English speaking world, but a novel construct (created with the best of intentions of course), I would have to say no.--Avg (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect myself to agree with you Sep. any time soon, but here we are. First thanks for at least trying to be sensitive to the opposing arguments. I have to admit your proposal is both intelligent and intriguing. Dr.K. logos 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that our Greek editors should volunteer first to add the wording "Republic of Greece, once part of the Ottoman Empire" to this article. It's only fair, after all. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris you're a riot. Why not change the name to Yunanistan instead? Dr.K. logos 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it already was in the article. Greece's Ottoman past features fairly prominently in the history section, as far as I know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson was trying to be constructive, why did you have to add some more WP:DRAMA to it?--Avg (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no use Avg. This is an intractable problem. No matter how creative or intelligent the proposal may be someone from somewhere is going to snipe at it. At least Chris did it with a sense of humour. Dr.K. logos 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to change it to Yunanistan, since nobody uses that name any more (apart from the Turks, but we'll agree to ignore them). However, I feel that it's important to add a reference to the Ottoman Empire in case hypothetical readers hypothetically get confused by the linguistic similarities between Greece, lubricant and John Travolta films. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you drivelling on about again? My browser counted 8 instances of "Ottoman" in the text. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, using Republic of Macedonia, once part of Yugoslavia is of no real use to our readership. The idea of this whole discussion is simply to treat mentions of the Rep. of Macedonia in Greece-related articles in the same manner we treat mentions of any other country in those same articles, thus putting an end to the currect de facto "Greek exception" to Wikipedia's approach to naming countries. Of course, the naming dispute would be mentioned in the article's "Foreign relations" section, but with different wording.

It currently reads:

as well as the dispute over the name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ("FYROM").

It should read something alone the lines of:

as well as the dispute over the name of the Republic of Macedonia, which due to Greek objections had to enter the UN under the provisional reference of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ("FYROM").

Best, Ev (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reverse the question to Pmanderson: Why does the current form of words have to go? Why must we rid ourselves of the particular wording at all costs? Is it because it hits some nationalist nerves? ... ;-) NikoSilver 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. "FYROM" may be the product of the "Greek POV", but it is used in the real world. Those who oppose it are committing precisely the sin of which they accuse us, namely letting political biases interfere with editorial policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Niko:

• Our first interest is the common reader. FYROM is not, despite some desperate claims here, the common English name of the Republic; it is a polemical term, and does not even make its claims clearly; former is becoming dated, if not obsolete.

  Now, now. All this is value judgment and we're not allowed to do that. Plus there's the other side, which you know, and which I better not repeat. (BTW fYRoM is evidently much more common than RoM - you could have a case against plain "M" alone, but not RoM) NikoSilver 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • No, it's a judgment of clarity and English usage, in order to communicate with our readers; nothing could be more our business.
  • I see no evidence of the "evident" claim that fYROM is much more common than RoM; nor do I find it plausible. I have no doubt that fYROM is more common in the statements of the present Greek Government, the international organizations in which it is able to prevail, and the polemics of the hellenophones; but that is not a collection of reliable sources, nor the whole of English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Macedonia is ambiguous - I hope we can agree on that. In general, the simplest disambiguator is best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• It is, because of the conflict, an obnoxious term. We should avoid being obnoxious, where clarity and English usage permit.

  Unlike the other term which isn't? Value judgment again, eh? NikoSilver 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would have preferred to see who rejected it themselves, rather than claiming the other side must be intractable.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Me too (for the other side). NikoSilver 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Sep. Please. I didn't say the other side must be intractable. I said the problem was intractable. I also did not specify the direction of the sniping. So it could be either side. Dr.K. logos 23:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see I picked up your word, unfortunately. Yes, ChrisO and FP imply that the other side will never accept this compromise at least as strongly as you do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate. The discussion climate is completely poisoned. But I could support your proposal if it would bring a way out of this mess. Dr.K. logos 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the policy-based arguments against FYROM, the term is of course offensive for similar reasons (I am not saying to the same extent) as ChrisO's suggestion above, or Former Military Dictatorship of Greece. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec2)There is no onomatological twin of the military dictatorship of Greece which tries to usurp its cultural heritage. So no need for "Former Military Dictatorship of Greece" Dr.K. logos 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no other Republic of Macedonia, either, unless there's been a separationist movement in Thessalonica which I haven't heard about ;) Enough with the straw men. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why? Is there any other fYRoM? Why do you use an argument that applies to both names? NikoSilver 23:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So, logos, you actually admit that you push this name for POV reasons? See the previous heading, read the example from the guideline of "what reason not to use" 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man with one red shoe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the red shoe obstructing your vision? Dr.K. logos 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say it's intended to be a complete analogy? It was in response to the idea of FYROM merely "hitting nationalist nerves". --Hans Adler (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You lose any sense of analogy when (1)you realize the huge frequency by which fYRoM is used, (2)when you see that unlike your example it happens to be a name for bilateral relations among all international organizations and half the world countries, and (3)when you realize that the other name is offensive to other people, who happen to be the subject in this article here! So to have an analogy, give me a name for Greece where any of the three above apply... Then add the nationalism and irredentism associated with the name.12 NikoSilver 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sense of "offence" is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia's goal is not to keep Greeks happy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So weren't your examples above about Ottoman province and co. an illustration of how offended the ethnic Macedonians would be with characterisations including "former"? This was my understanding. --Avg (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Remember that one of the (IMO bogus) premises used to promote the "former Yugoslav" moniker has been the entirely hypothetical concern that a reader would confuse the Republic of Macedonia - the only state of that name anywhere in the world - with a Greek province of a similar name. There's no evidence whatsoever for any such confusion, and it's certainly not something that seems to worry any of the other encyclopedias, news outlets etc that routinely use "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" rather than the rarely-used "FYROM". You might as well argue - as I did, sarcastically - that we need to disambiguate Greece to avoid confusion with grease and Grease. Ideological offence is a different issue altogether. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

also Hans you forget that the word "Dictatorship" is not a word that describes the Greek ethnicity. While "Yugoslav" is a native Makedonski word that means South Slav, which is a group of people that most people of The Republic belong to, as Wikipedia accepts too, although unknown for how long since there are people who are insulted by it as they are mostly connected to their ancient roots. - what's with the bullets? --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

CuteHappyBrute's comments about the bullets referred to the previous state of this section (link), before my refactoring it for clarity (diff.) - Ev (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian style warfare ;)Dr.K. logos 23:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• pew pew Did i kill anyone?? :D --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was a lot of bullets. I had to duck :) Dr.K. logos 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can we get the article unprotected? That "Western civilization" line is begging me to remove it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The existing protection will expire on the 6th. If you can't wait until then, though, if you wished to have an uninvolved admin make a noncontroversial change to the article, or one that most parties agree by consensus to, I don't think that would be a problem. Just place {{Editprotected}} down, indicate what you want done, and we can see what happens anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Expires on the 9th.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Greece is the cradle of Western civilisation. Where have you been 3rdAlcove? Haven't you heard the news? Dr.K. logos 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He's far too cool for such antiquated notions. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You're begging for a Neo-Orthodox reply of sorts, methinks. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think someone dropped the baby at some point... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Greeks are clumsy nannies hence the rest of the Western Civilization has been hit on the head? NikoSilver 13:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms

I'm surprised I hadn't noticed this earlier (thanks, Avg). According to our favourite guideline, "multiple synonyms can be used for a term", and "within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article." I guess that renders the entire excruciating conversation we've had up to now rather redundant. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're misreading the guideline. Read it again. That section is specifically about the technical constraints of wikilinking (you even cite the line that speaks of technical constraints). In the example given, you can use the link "ICTY" as a synonym for the link "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" because the MediaWiki software allows you to set up a redirect from one to the other. (Notice how that section is hyperlinked so that the reader can try it out?) It says nothing about how you should use synonyms, merely that you can use synonymous links within and to articles. I wrote the lines you're quoting, so I know very well what that section means. It does not endorse any particular usage of synonymous terms. It effectively says, "here's how the functionality works", not "here's how you should use this functionality". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty clear what it says. If you wanted to say something else, you should have written something else. So now what, are you going to change the wording in order to make it 100% conformant with your current POV? --Avg (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, since the wording is perfectly clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me quote again: "Names in articles - Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article." That pretty much says it all for me. --Avg (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It only "says it all" for you if you ignore the initial context-setting qualifier that it is about technical, not policy or stylistic, constraints. I find it ironic that you're ignoring that qualifier considering that you're quoting it. Please go and look at quote mining to see why you're engaging in a logical fallacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this is your novel interpretation. I've quoted the whole paragraph, so I'm sorry, no logical fallacy there.--Avg (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of debating a closed issue with someone who's engaging in shameless wikilawyering and quote mining, but I will say that you're providing some excellent arbitration evidence. Keep it up. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed pretty obvious you are lately fishing for arbitration diffs, hence your provocative "Ottoman" stuff that was begging for an overreaction. However, as everything else, it goes both ways.--Avg (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Of course a guideline cannot tell you how to use synonyms; that's up to the editors themselves. But if we can use synonyms, why shouldn't we? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That part of the guideline tells you how to use the functionality of redirects to link to synonyms. It doesn't tell you whether you should or shouldn't use synonyms in particular circumstances. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my idiocy, but why do we even have a guideline on how to do something which we aren't supposed to in the first place? Where can this apply, but not here? And why? NikoSilver 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia guidelines are descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Synonyms are word associations that can be subjective in application, and therefore be inappropriate in certain circumstances. Because of this, an all-encompassing guideline cannot possibly predict all situations, and it cannot formulate a universal algorithm for determining the acceptability of a certain association. As a result, while we do have guidelines that describe how things can or are usually done, guidelines do not always apply universally, and therefore cannot be used to prescribe what must always happen. --slakr^\ talk / 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I quite like your comment about not formulating a universal algorithm.--Avg (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. My question was for a clear example on where it applies, and how this is supposed to be different. And having no definite answer for a couple of days now, I assume that it makes the supporting side uncomfortable, because it should obviously apply here too. NikoSilver 21:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

moved to poll --slakr\ talk / 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia. It's the consensus name on Republic of Macedonia, it's the shortest name, and it's consistent. As a parallel, in the US, Georgia is a state, but in the real world, Georgia is also a country. As a result, we have a disambiguation until either Georgia or Georgia decides to rename itself, both of which aren't going to happen. The good thing in the Republic of Macedonia's case is that it has a clear "Republic of" preceding the "Macedonia," which is sufficient to distinguish it from the not-Republic-of Macedonia (the State). Note, I truly do not care. For all I care, they could both rename to random letters, like "zzzzfjfjkfdjkfgggf" and "blarggg," but at some point Wikipedia has to deal with its business, and the country & state deal with theirs. Edit warring is retarded. --slakr\ talk / 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Would you mind adding this to the straw poll section above? Just to keep stuff in place, because this will otherwise just trigger the next round of endless repetitive debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Wasn't the poll closed? man with one red shoe 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC) No, the poll is open until the 9th as far as I recall. (Taivo (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)) My understanding is the poll is closing, but not closed yet. People are discussing how to close it, and there was the idea that there should ideally be a consensus of several "closers". Until that happens, I'd say if anybody else wants to register their opinion, it will be most efficient, for the sake of keeping it readable, if they continue to do it there. (Since this is "not a vote", formalities of closing don't really matter much.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC) For clarity: please, enter your comments here to support the proposal or here to oppose it. The proposal reads: 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)"? Best, Ev (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal (not being sure about it)

Unresolved

 – Split long (62kb) section to Talk:Greece/Proposal (not being sure about it) per WP:SIZE --slakr^\ talk / 22:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the edit warring already

I have already had to re-lock this article, after the revert war started all over again. Come to agreement, or take it to arbitration. Horologium (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate arbitration. The question is just: what question are we going to ask the Arbs? How will we define this case to make it not a "please decide the content for us" thing? (Because we know they wouldn't accept that.) Advice? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to the Gdansk arbcom ruling, I guess. In any case, the nationalistic nonsense needs to stop. As I think I stated before, I don't give a rat's ass about either country, I'm just trying to use logic. If Greece decide that Ὲλλας had to be called Hellas rather than the Latin-derived Greece, I'd definitely support changing the article title. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim62sch's suggestions sound reasonable to me. And I tend to agree with the rest of his reasoning as well. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not start that endless talk again. Because if Cuba decided to call itself "Florida" you would understand if some Americans would object. NikoSilver 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So what? If most of the people will call it Florida, then that would be the name we should use here, not the American POV (even if Americans are right to complain) man with one red shoe 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To FP: Ask them to interpret/close the poll. Ask them if ethnic profiling is legitimate. If legitimate, ask them if ethnic profiling should be used to discount votes. Ask them if the opinions of the voters of either side are against policy. Ask them to interpret policy (NCON and the others that were mentioned here and there). Ask them if there are any disciplinary actions necessary against "outing" and/or "faction" behavior. Did I forget something? NikoSilver 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also ask them if it would be correct to allow a poll to be decided based on the principle that one side, which had more people supporting it, whether they were right or not, turned out in greater numbers. There is a question whether polls which reflect ongoing real-world debates in which one side clearly outnumbers the other should be allowed to be "won" by the side which has more partisans in the real world discussion. And, of course, there are the various naming policies as well at WP:NAME. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask them if having a POV imposed in a national page by people who follow that page is legitimate when the rest of the Wikipedia uses another term, ask them if walled gardens are consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Ask them if we should have democracy and thus let Indian and Chinese POV for example (because they are presumable more people) triumph in their respective pages. Just so we know... man with one red shoe 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So, are we agreed we need Arbcom? I'll be away with less than regular internet access over Easter (western), and I guess you guys will want to be grilling lambs rather than opponents the weekend after, so shall we say let's have a truce until after the holidays and then present the case? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If arbitration is needed, it would be much better to start it after Easter. I won't be editing after today either. - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I think we do. Oh, Niko, I hate Florida.  ;) Seriously though, Cuba wouldn't make such a change so the hypothetical doesn't have much meaning. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't care about the hypothetical Cuba renaming either. No objections to ArbCom. Worst case scenario, and the edit wars continue, we can extend the article's protection until after the end of the Easter season. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the issue is a group of (Greek) editors insisting that Greece-related articles should be exempted from our standard editorial practices, and instead use wording that in effect reflects the Greek government's foreign policy stance.

As I see it, allowing for such an exception would infringe our general naming conventions policy and the spirit behind the Manual of Style's general principle of internal consistency, and even our core neutral point of view policy.

Furthermore, in order to keep Greece-related articles as an exception, this group of editors has resorted to blatant disruptive behaviour, including politicizing the discussion, constant exaggerations & even baseless allegations of "ethnic profiling" and "anti-Greek" attitudes, that poison the editing atmosphere.

As I see it, this situation could be easily dealt with by some non-involved administrators imposing ARBMAC topic-bans on this group of (Greek) editors. However, seeing that none has step up to the plate, we can ask the Arbitration Committee to impose these topic bans (alone or accompanied by other sanctions) themselves. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite accurate, although now the tar and feathers of accusations of ethnic profiling shall be upon you. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

At least two editors have noted that they will not be editing until after Easter (western) -- and in fairness to Arbcom, I suspect they'll be busy with real life too. We can wait until Monday. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the postponement until after the 19th (while I am an American Protestant, my wife is Ukrainian Orthodox, so we get Easter two weeks in a row). (Taivo (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

The Easter Bunny comes twice? You must weigh 30 stone.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What a nonsentic, and boring discussion mainly by the non-Greek users, who are so eloquent when they decide to criticize the (Greek) [parentheses are a substitute for just whispering, I suppose] editors. In particular, Ev's proposal above which attempts to arbitrarily limit the scope of ARBCOM's competence is IMO completely wrong, unfair, one-sided, and against the principles of equity and impartiality. Guys, why are you wondering what ARBCOM is going to be asked to do? As I see things, it is clear that if you decide to go to ARBCOM (which IMO is the only way to overrun the current deadlock), the latter will examine the following issues:

1. Is there a policy-related issue, and a case having to do with the interpretation or/and application of the X or Z wiki-policy, or is it strictly a content dispute? If the ARBCOM judges that there is indeed a policy-related issue here, then it will subsequently examine the following issues:
2. According to policy, how should the country in question be mentioned in this article? Inescapably, if ARBCOM judges that, in this way, it interprets or applies policy, it will not only judge about this article, but about all the articles, where the country in question is mentioned. It will decide about this article, the Greece-related articles, the RoM-related articles, the international organizations' articles; about everything! It will also judge: if we can vary the terminology according to the topic, about the status of WP:MOSMAC, about the application of Wikipedia:MOS#Internal_consistency, WP:naming conventions, WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. Let me also point out that both sides here evoke concrete policy provisions. See here Husond's rationale, Ev's remarks above, and here Nikos' "opposers' proposal" (an excellent summary of the opposers' policy-related argumentation. Νίκο, many jurists I know would envy you!).
3. As it has done in previous cases, ARBCOM will also judge the stance of the users involved in this case (the "involved parties"), and whether by their actions they adhered to policy. It will subsequently judge whether it should impose sanctions for the violation of these policies–principles–rules. Instances of edit-warring, or allegations of PA, non-civility, OUTING, POINT etc. will all be examined. Everybody will be examined and judged. Not only "this group of (Greek) editors".

Concluding, my point is that if ARBCOM accepts the case and examines it, then everything and everybody will be under scrutiny.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've got nothing to hide. And examining and determining the breadth and depth of Wikipedia policy is exactly what we want them to do in this case. As long as all editors are willing to abide by the decision, whatever it is and whoever's toes get stepped on. (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

What's going on here then? I see my name is mentioned amongst those who have been sanctioned in other nationalist related (Scottish) debates. I am a Scottish nationalist, not a Greek one or any other one. I could just as easily have voted support. Would I then be accused as a Scottish nationalist of backing up the nationalists in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Macedonia? Delete as appropriate. The only reason I got involved in this is because I didn't believe it right that a list of peoples nationalities should have been made. What happens? I end up on a little list of my own! It's a funny old world! Jack forbes (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC) PS; I think I shall leave this debate (not that I was overly involved) to others and go back to my Scottish nationalism POV. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But it seems pretty clear that no matter what the end decision is, and no matter how the final result is worded, this article will have to be permanently locked down to prevent edit warring, especially if the decision is to apply Wikipedia policy on "Republic of Macedonia" uniformly through Wikipedia including here. It will also probably require Republic of Macedonia to be permanently locked as well. Already there are editors with an anti-Macedonian bias vandalizing such innocuous articles as Staffordshire University because of the ill-advised listing of Future Perfect's edits at the admin reporting page. We can only assume that if ARBCOM's decision goes against the Greek POV (a shortcut for "national foreign policy") there will be further vandalism on any page related to Macedonia. I know that none of the named principals to this discussion will be involved, but anonymous IPs can do a lot of damage. If the decision goes the other direction, the same might very well be true at Greece-related articles as well. (Taivo (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

The community needs better tools for dealing with groups of users trying to impose a nationalist POV on articles. I don't know if there's any chance that ArbCom will be able to think up some without crossing the line into content decisions or creating policy, though. I haven't seen a lot of instances of them having done this in the past. It still might be worth a shot. Ideally, I'd love to see some sort of huge community meeting about how to solve national POV-related disputes, but I can't see how that would lead to any form of consensus, or even how we would start such a discussion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Heimstern. The community needs better tools. And we need them desperately. Because the tools used so far are basically based on the principle of shock and awe. Hardly a Wikipedian principle. Imagine someone inviting you to a party (poll). You go in to participate in good faith and when the party is over the police come in and separate the participants according to ethnicity. For good measure they apply stick-on labels on them illustrated with what they think is the national flag of the participant. The anonymous people who cannot be identified are considered neutral as long as they did not vote with the targeted ethnicity, no matter how silly their rationale may be. You say it cannot happen here? It just did. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But I don't think it is a banana republic either. So yes Heimstern. We need better, much better tools than that. Tools that reflect the goodness, fair-mindedness, decency and collegiality of this community. The tools used so far belong in a B-movie version of the INS meets the Keystone Cops. Dr.K. logos 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I really should get myself something from Banana Republic when I get back to the States. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I would follow your example but I still have the glue on me from the flag stickers and I'm afraid this would spoil the new clothes :) Dr.K. logos 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think that the nationalist label is very easy to apply when another user openly states that his main purpose in engaging in the discussion here is to defend the national honor of Greece and he then proceeds to label an American veteran as a baby-killer. I trust that he doesn't represent the views of the entire pro-Greek group, but I'm sure he wasn't alone in his feelings of utter nationalism either. (Taivo (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I don't know whom you are referring to but it is obvious such statements are extreme and don't belong in an encyclopedia. However the presence of a few extremists, which by the way exist in all nationalities, should not be used as an excuse to tag good faith editors, of any nationality. Dr.K. logos 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

But, in this case, good faith editors and extremists alike were aligned nearly perfectly along nationalistic lines. Whether we want to admit it or not, it is the elephant in the room--we either talk about it openly or we try to hide it, but even if we try to hide it, it's still in the room. Greece is not the only place and this is not the only time when nationalist blocs have formed and built walls around a position. We can deal with the specifics of this case at hand and hammer out some sort of agreement or interpretation of Wikipedia policy, but, in the end, Wikipedia policy needs to find some way to deal fairly and effectively with nationalistic blocs in their walled gardens. If we do not find a way to deal with this problem, Wikipedia will not be a bastion of NPOV, but will just be a patchwork quilt of POVs where a reader can find one thing in Greece and the exact opposite in Republic of Macedonia or Turkey. (Taivo (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, please, no more slogans. Extremism has nothing to do with the naming dispute. Did you see anything extremist in my rationale? Or Niko Silver's or Yannis'? Or anyone else's ? Instead of going on a McCarthyist blame and tag path why don't you try to address arguments? Dr.K. logos 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Good faith editors and extremists alike"??? I don't like the sound of that. Careful with the labeling. What is this, a Hollywood movie with "good guys" and "bad guys"? What's next, a "War on Extremism"? What a mentality, my God. --Athenean (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite Athenean. It is not exactly good guys versus bad guys. But if it had to be a movie it would most probably be a cross between Pink Panther and the The Border. Dr.K. logos 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. I'm thinking arbitration is the only place we go. Let's hope they'll accept it and be able to do something about it. Not putting long odds on it, but we can hope. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we can. I don't want to sound like Obama but here we are. Dr.K. logos 07:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The key issue here is ethnic/national/state POV

I wonder if the ethnic-"agnostic" Greeks on this page who complain about "ethnic profiling" would agree that Greek history be written, only by, lets say... Turks, or only by... Macedonians (from Republic of Macedonia). The problem here is exactly the ethnic (or national, or state) POV, if people who control a national page can or should impose their national POV. This is evident by the fact that all the rest of the Wikipedia uses the other term that is strongly opposed in this page... and the only problems on those pages are edits that come mostly or only from Greek nationals. Sorry for the "ethnic profiling", but nobody else is hung up against the "Republic of Macedonia" name and nobody else feels strongly against it. As you've witnessed in this page Greek editors even assume that you are not Greek or that you are even anti-Greek if you support the name of "Republic of Macedonia", for them is unimaginable that a Greek would support that name, that's how far their national POV goes -- if it's right or wrong, warranted or not, is entire another story, we don't discuss that here, but it's more than obvious that this is a Greek POV -- the question here is, should Wikipedia defend and protect a Greek POV? I think it would make sense to make a poll where Macedonians and Greek are not allowed to vote and involve as many editors as possible in the discussion thus eliminating or limiting national POV pushing... actually eliminating people is probably wrong, we should be able to invite people so that we drop the percentage of Greeks and Macedonians to a normal percentage. The problem on national pages is over-representation of those nationals, this is like having a poll in Harlem about historic restitutions for blacks, having a poll in Turkey about Greek islands, having a poll in Turkey about Armenian genocide, having a poll in Serbia pr Albania about Kosovo, having a poll in Russia about South Ossetia and Abkhazia, having a poll in Palestine about Israel right of existence and so on. Closing the eyes to who actually participates in these polls is ludicrous, it's not fair, it's not right, it's not representative, is irrelevant -- why should it be relevant in Wikipedia? man with one red shoe 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points. The Harlem question, the Israel-Palestinian issues etc. The problem is this: Even as a neutral nationality to these problems I still have my POV. So I may be a neutral nationality but I can still be a supporter of one side or the other. So being from a neutral nationality doesn't make you neutral. Logic makes you neutral. So instead of worrying about my nationality you should try to refute my arguments. That's the logical way. Dr.K. logos 05:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And who judges if I refuted them or not? See that for example an editor even claims that "FYROM" is a self-identifying term.. who judges if that's true or not or if it's even important when this argument twists the very reason of the guideline. I have my opinions and my arguments, he has his. It matters who the jury is, if it's Greeks they will probably say it is a self-identifying term, if it's an international jury the answer might be different. And if there's no jury we'll discuss this issue till we tire, if we do tire... Again, it's not bad faith (in most of the cases) it's a POV issue, and I wouldn't let wolves decide the fate of sheep and the other way round, it should be a better way. Care if you can to propose one? man with one red shoe 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally one should be able to support their arguments using reliable sources. Anyone can claim anything. You should demand WP:RS. If they are not forthcoming it's most probably POV. But I see your point. Sometimes, as in this debate, things arrive at an impasse regardless. In these circumstances, IMO, the only way out is the arbcom. Dr.K. logos 06:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Dr. K., that the issue should come down to sound arguments and reliable sources. In the majority of cases in Wikipedia, that is sufficient for a resolution to the discussion. Sources are stated, arguments are made, the parties develop some compromise and then consensus wording, the issue is resolved, and everyone moves on to other articles. I've participated in this process too many times to count here on Wikipedia and it works most of the time. The difference here is that there was virtually no movement on the issue. Both sides stated their positions, both sides have reliable sources and (at least in their view) good arguments on their side. Both sides cited Wikipedia policy that they thought was applicable. But there was virtually no movement. The only movements I ever saw were 1) your move on the map to add a disambiguating form on the map, but one that was not Greek POV, and 2) my acceptance of some form of "former" in the initial paragraph. But then you continually distanced yourself from that welcome compromise. I was trying to commend your example to others, but you didn't want to even acknowledge that movement towards the center. But now you still don't want to talk about the elephant in the room--the fact that one party to this discussion is self-identified virtually entirely as consisting of one nationality (not necessarily citizenship) and that the rock-solid position of that nationality fits neatly within the political position of their country of origin. This isn't even "outing". This is simply noticing the obvious user names spelled with Greek letters or of obvious Greek derivation. This is noticing on user pages that a person's native language or their second language is Greek. That's not "outing". About halfway through the discussion, you dropped your original username "Tasoskessaris" and replaced it with "Dr. K." to distance yourself from the "Greek" tag, but your POV didn't change and you even distanced yourself from the one welcome compromise you offered. No, the trenches were dug deep and they were dug very obviously with almost all Greeks in one trench and none in the other. Just because you don't like the national label on one POV, doesn't make it go away. The position of one side of this dispute is the national foreign policy of Greece and the self-identified sons and daughters of Greece loyally filled that trench. Whether some of the persons in that trench were, like you, wanting not to be called "Greek" or were trying to couch your arguments in logic and the interpretation of policy matters little--it was a "strongly opposed" Greek trench nonetheless. There were no self-identified Greeks as far as anyone could tell in the other trench. If the Greeks had divided themselves between both trenches then you would absolutely have a valid point. If the trench identified with Greece's POV included a minority of Greeks or even a strong majority of non-Greeks, you would absolutely have a point. But that's not the case here and casual observers readily noted that fact. Ethnic profiling is one thing, but when one side of a poll is "support" and the other side is "strongly oppose" then it invites a deeper look at what drives the "strong" position, especially when the "support" side feels they have strong arguments for their position. Coming to a compromise requires understanding the POV of the other "strong" position, not just understanding the logic and arguments. But when one is faced with nationalistic pride as the motivating factor for a "strong" POV, it's generally a losing proposition to try to come to a compromise. Here is a common argument made on this page: "This is the Greek page, why do you want to impose your anti-Greek POV on our page?" That's the elephant sitting in the room and if it isn't addressed then Wikipedia is weaker for it. (Taivo (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, first let me correct you on your comments about my screen name (Dr.K.). This has been my nickname since I joined Wikipedia in 2006. So I would say that I did not change this in the middle of this debate and to avoid tagging. No. Far from that. I have been signing all these years as Dr.K. exclusively. But I commend you regardless. This shows that you did not perform any checks on my contributions and that means, IMO, that you don't perform background checks on people, which nowadays is commendable. I wish you could go one step further and stop supporting flag-based analysis. You are right on my edit. I made it so that everyone would test-drive Rep. Mace. and see how it would look in practice and so others would, maybe, get used to it and keep it. But I saw no movement toward this position so I did hedge my bets. But given all this maelstorm of insinuations and nationality-driven assertions, (which by the way if you read my edits on the poll page I think are harmful to Wikipedia), for what it's worth, I would support your position of including "former" in the intro and Rep. Mace. on the map. Now the talk about trenches, for lack of better description, is, pure Taivo. Please, no more battlefield analogies. The ethnic tagging was enough of shock and awe. Let's lower the temperature of this discourse. The oppose side put forward some really good aguments. They were persuasive enough, for even you, to move you to the proposal which I mentioned above. That means they were worth something. Maligning them as nationalist does not do justice to these fine arguments and your compromise proposal which I find creative and fair, given the circumstances. As to the support side you make it sound as if all these supporting people were blameless and neutral, free from POV. I have refuted this logical fallacy on the poll subpage so I will not repeat myself here. If you need any links to my comments I will happily provide them to you. Conclusion: Nationality has no real relation to and is no substitute for a logical debate. As a fellow academic you should know that. It's nice for everyone to play cowboys and Indians or the border patrol against the illegals but at the end of the day we should all stop playing games and give Lady Logic and her husband Academic Debate their due. Dr.K. logos 16:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally have no real issue with compromising, unless the compromise would be offensive to Lady Logic (or Athena in her role as goddess of wisdom). In this case, FY is not a self-identifier, it is not what Macedonia is clled in other articles, it is not the title the gov't of Macedonia uses. I fully understand the issue regarding the region of Macedonia, and that Greece's only true major military accomplishments in a territorial sense were due to the brilliant generalship of a few Macedonians. I know how important the tradition of looking up to Alexander in particularis to Greeks. But, no one has a monopoly on place names, and we must accept that there is more than one Athens, or Vienna, or Berlin, etc. (Are the Greeks pissed at the US state of Georgia for having a city named Athens? Are the Georgians (the country) mad about Georgia (the state) itself?). In any case "former" does not really belong -- especially when it's blue-linked. The blue link takes you to an article entitled Republic of Macedonia, thus showing the fallacy of the adjective. Additionally, so far as I can see the Macedonians have already compromised by agreeing to the "republic of" appellation.•Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The key issue here is indeed POV - (the other version)...

Let's not fool ourselves: The issue here is the POV of some people that there is an unfair real world situation, where evil Greece is "bullying" the poor little Republic of Macedonia. It is not a coincidence that every each one of the supporters shares a very strong real-world POV against Greece's objections to the name. There is not even one supporter who is in favor of (fY)RoM finally agreeing to tweak its name according to UN or Greece's concerns. The supporters try to extend their real-world beliefs into the articles of Wikipedia while ignoring policy.

On the other hand when the arguments of the opposers appear to be based on policy, the supporters go as far as to suggest changes of that policy according to their wishes so that their POV is finally reflected in the new policy. They go as far as to call all opposers (including third parties) "nationalists", a "faction", etc. They go as far as to do this while the poll is running, so as to influence incoming voters to disregard the policy-based arguments of the opposers, to dismiss them under the veil of a "nationalist-POV" of an "ethnic faction" and therefore to (mis)lead them towards reflecting their own real-world POV in Wikipedia, while at the same time ignoring Wikipedias policies. This is also evident in the vote rationales of many supporters. NikoSilver 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is not even one supporter who is in favor of (fY)RoM finally agreeing to tweak its name according to UN or Greece's concerns." -- I'm sorry but Wikipedia shouldn't be tweaked to favor concerns, that's the very principle that you'll find in WP:NPOV. You are also straw-mening here, who said anything about "evil" Greece? I've always said that Greece and Greeks have the right to their POV and there's nothing evil in having a point of view, strong or not, right or wrong, we simply are not concerned with Greek POV in Wikipedia, we don't follow Greek, UN, or EU name policies. man with one red shoe 12:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant "...in real life", obviously. Your confusing of the two separate cases (real life pov vs Wikipedia policy) proves exactly my point. Your opinion here is an exact reflection of your real life pov. NikoSilver 15:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you know about my "real-life" POV? man with one red shoe 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I too am very curious about that statement. Niko seems to me to be indicating that he can read minds here. If that's true, I'd like some more solid evidence, please, as we could make lots of money off that. Otherwise, I have to see this as being an explicit failure to assume good faith and very likely personal insults/attacks. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind these personal attacks, I still don't see how that "...in real life" addition can salvage the "There is not even one supporter who is in favor of (fY)RoM finally agreeing to tweak its name according to UN or Greece's concerns." Tweak its name in Wikipedia to appease Greece's concerns? Tweak it in real life... I still don't get it! The point is that Greece's concerns should not be Wikipedia's business and we shouldn't even discuss them here. man with one red shoe 18:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have two equally important replies for John's comment:

1. It could be that I am unfair to red shoe especially, and I'll check for diffs, but I was addressing many of the other voters whose opinion I happen to know. And how I know is evident from many talkpage comments I've seen above, and some of the vote rationales. They address the real world issue, as if we're debating to/against Greece in the real world. They speak about e.g. self-identification, and that if some people use a name for themselves then that's what must be used by everyone. This is only an extension of that philosophy to the WP reality, and I maintain that IMO it is in contrast with the present verbatim text of the relevant policy (which wants the first non-ambiguous most common name). I know e.g. Fut.Perf.'s real-life opinion on this from private and WP conversations we've had, and I simply don't share it. But that's the real world argument and we shouldn't bring it in WP. That's why, if you noticed, I've hidden the section describing how the Greeks feel in real life from my opposition rationale, and I've put a warning on top that says that it should not affect our judgment here in WP. Now my influence from my real-life POV is in no way inferior to that of the other side (provided the latter exists). And when I see from talkpage comments that it indeed does, I cannot help not pointing it out. NikoSilver 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2. See how it feels when people give real-life motives (e.g. "nationalism") to your editorial preferences? How many times have the Greeks been accused for sharing their government's POV? Isn't that an assumption of bad faith? NikoSilver 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Niko, everybody has a Point of veiw, this is one thing which i hope ALL users can agree upon. What Wikipedia is trying to do, is to represent the Point of Veiw of the English speaking community. If the prevailing opinion on Wikipedia is accepted, then through the use of large polls it can be assumed that to some extent this is true back in the Real world, the thing which Wikipedia writes about.

In the real world only 15% of countries recognise the ROM as FYROM. This is cannot seriously be considered as the most common or even most "non-biased" representation of the name. I am sure that the accusations of "nationalism" etc. will stop and people will calm down. If a decision which is predominant in the Wikipedia community is reached then this conclusion should be used where appropriate. I would not object to another poll, whereby only 3rd parties are allowed to vote, however 1st (Macedonian) and 2nd (Greek) parties are allowed to comment and to express their concerns/opinions. PMK1 (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the Greek Wikipedia, Niko. It is the English Wikipedia, so Greek POV is not relevant here. Massaging Greek sensibilities is not relevant here. The English Wikipedia reflects English norms and usage. You might even say that the English Wikipedia offers the English-speaking world's POV as neutrally as possible. The Greek Wikipedia will, of course, offer the Greek-speaking world's POV as neutrally as possible. What the non-Greeks here have been trying to do is make a Greek article conform to the English-speaking world's most neutral POV. UN and EU decisions don't matter here. Greek foreign policy doesn't matter here. All that matters here is English Wikipedia's "most neutral" POV. (Taivo (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Niko, while I believe we are all English Wikipedia editors here, one cannot help noticing some people behave on this occasion as sort of English Wikipedia spokespersons, and claim to be ‘more English-Wikipedian’ than others; it might be a coincidence it's the same people that are also seen resorting to a variety of ad hominem fallacies (guess who is usually in wont of such arguments) — a feature of English Wikipedia that I for one have seldom encountered in such volume and intensity before. Apcbg (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo my argument is that your pov is not the English one or the neutral one, and mine is. Mine is based on policy (according to my "opposition rationale"). My argument here is that yours is based on your real life beliefs, and is in contradiction with WP's policies. NikoSilver 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Niko. That is exactly my argument, that your English position is not the neutral one, that my position is based on Wikipedia policy, and that you have confused your real life beliefs with what you are advocating here. Indeed, that is exactly why we are going to arbitration with this issue. Both sides are quoting Wikipedia policy, both sides are claiming logical arguments, both sides are claiming to speak for the English Wikipedia world, and both sides are claiming NPOV and accusing the other side of bias. We aren't getting anywhere arguing here. The Greek trench is just as entrenched, the "international" trench is just as entrenched. After Easter, ARBCOM will come and try to sort things out. And, Apcbg, there is no ad hominem in these comments. I have never called you anything other than a proponent of the viewpoint of the Republic of Greece. Is that an ad hominem? I don't think so. And you are right in one sense--I have never encountered nationalistic fervor in such volume and intensity before as I have here in dealing with the Greek POV. (Taivo (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

It is completely obvious to me you need to research the topic in far greater depth than you have already attempted Taivo. If you would like a better neutral picture of what is going on in the former yugoslav republic concerning propaganda and an accelerated acquisition of history through shall we say colourful means, contact me via my talk page and I will attempt to increase your learning on the matter. Then hopefully you will see why this is a massive issue in Greece and why organisations such as the UN refuse to recognise the name wikipeadea has so willingly. Reaper7 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

viewpoint of the Republic of Greece? Why can't you just say Foreign policy? We've been through this before. Dr.K. logos 16:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My dear Dr. K., I have said many times before that "Greek POV", "Greek viewpoint", etc. is just shorthand for your correct, legal phraseology. And Reaper, we have said many times before you decided to join this discussion that the foreign policies of Greece and Macedonia are irrelevant to the issue of what to call Macedonia in Wikipedia--as are the UN, EU, etc. The only relevant issues are what the English-speaking world calls it and whether Wikipedia policy prefers a self-identification over a foreign imposition to disambiguate it from the Greek provinces of "Macedonia". (Taivo (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks Taivo. The reason I insist on this is because I think "Foreign policy" lowers the temperature of the debate ever so slightly. Don't forget my background is Engineering. Temperature must be controlled :) Dr.K. logos 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a good reason to use "foreign policy". I'll try to spell it out more often (but I won't guarantee perfection). (Taivo (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

You have a nice sense of the value of Engineering and the applicability of its principles to seemingly unrelated topics. No perfection is required. Take care :) Dr.K. logos 17:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to know which policy Niko thinks those who favor the use of the ROM name are violating. It is a very serious accusation, and one that should not be made lightly or without clear substantiation. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"what is going on in the former yugoslav republic concerning propaganda " is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(to John) I am not saying they are violating any policy. I am saying that their opinion is personal and it is not based on WP policy. I maintain my right to interpret the WP policies myself and according to my own logic.

For example my logic says that there is a hierarchy of choices in the policy: (a) we choose the most frequent name --> (b) unless when it's ambiguous, so we choose the second most frequent name --> (c) unless there's no clear candidate so we use the self-identifying name. Now in (a) we clearly have "Macedonia" which is clearly ambiguous. So we go to (b) which brings us clearly to "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" which isn't ambiguous. We don't have a reason to go to (c), and even if we did fYRoM, is arguably also a self-id (although less preferred, but policy doesn't talk about preference -only users here). NikoSilver 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What drugs are you using, Niko? FYROM is no more a self-identification than if I started calling you "Jocko" because I didn't like "Niko". You are simply blowing smoke in an effort to sound "reasonable" and "authoritative". And your logic is seriously flawed. We don't use "common names" that are not also self-identifications (or common English translations of self-identifications, thus, "Greece" instead of "Hellas"). When disambiguating the two Congos, we start with the most common name "Congo", but that doesn't work to disambiguate them. Then the next most common name for the country whose capital is Kinshasa is "Zaire". But this is no longer a self-identification. Therefore we reject "Zaire" and move on to the next self-identification in the list--Democratic Republic of Congo. The same goes for the two Chinas--"China" is ambiguous, so the next most common name for the China whose capital is Taipei is "Taiwan", but since that is not a self-identification, we move on to "Republic of China" and reject "Taiwan" as the unambiguous name for that country. That's the process, not the artificial one which you have constructed based on the foreign policy of Greece and not on Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Retract your insulting comment and read the China policy to see that we are using different names for Taiwan according to context. It's here, and I've already linked it to you three times, which means that you are not reading my posts, and you reply blindly. NikoSilver 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So you've never actually read the People's Republic of China article. There "Taiwan" is only used to refer to the physical island, but "Republic of China" or "ROC" is used to refer to the government on the island, in other words, the country. Of all places to see the "non-PRC" point of view! Right in the article on PRC! So when you actually look at Wikipedia (in all its articles), you see consistency in the use of ROC for the government installed on Taiwan! That's all that is being asked here--consistency in Wikipedia usage--"Republic of Macedonia". Mentioning the name dispute is quite appropriate in the section on Greece's foreign relations. No one is saying to hide it under the rug. But when simply referring to Greece's northern neighbor in a list of neighbors it should be referred to by its Wikipedia name: "Republic of Macedonia" and not by some name that is not a self-identification (read WP:NCON for instructions--1) common English name, then 2) self-identification.) And it's hard to read your posts when you make wildly ridiculous claims such as "fYRoM is arguably also a self-id". When you must say silly things like that, you are reaching for arguments in order to bolster your increasingly untenable position vis a vis Wikipedia consistency and policy. (Taivo (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Finally, John, I would appreciate if you extended your civility concerns to the apparent verbatim "nationalism" accusations above, so that we treat both sides with equal standards. An explicit "nationalism" accusation is in no way inferior to a supposition that the real world reasoning can affect the WP judgment of some users. NikoSilver 19:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Macedonia region of Greece a Republic? No. So, RoM is enough of a disambiguation. The rest is grasping at straws. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Macedonia region of Greece a former Yugoslav Republic? Neither. So why definitely go for RoM when both are disambiguating enough? NikoSilver 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it's utterly unnecessary. "I have the flu" means "I am ill and sick because I have the flu", the last being an utterly unnecessary amplification as well. Remember that Macedon was not originally a part of Greece proper -- in fact there was no Greece proper. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, newsflash, there was and is a Greece proper, and Macedon(ia) was and is a part of it, because the ancient Macedonians were most likely a Greek tribe. Only United Macedonian extremists argue "there was no such as Greece" or Greek people. --Athenean (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The flu example is irrelevant because you are not always former Yugoslav when you are a Republic (unlike you being always ill when having the flu). "Unnecessary amplification" is therefore not an apt term, but even if it was there's nothing against it in WP:NCON. Your other comment about Macedon being part of Greece is also wrong, but it is also irrelevant to the naming policy. Also, nobody commented why we can use different names for Taiwan according to context (Wikipedia:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof) but not for "Macedonia"... NikoSilver 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Niko: "I am saying that their opinion is personal and it is not based on WP policy". That's utter trash talk. You know good and well that your opponents in this issue are quoting valid Wikipedia policy just as actively, if not more so, than you are. Indeed, we can very well call your opinion personal since we believe that it is based on your loyalty to the foreign policy of Greece. Your analysis of Wikipedia policy is also wrong. Self-identification is always more important than foreign-imposition in Wikipedia policy, which specifically says that political and emotional reasoning in choosing a name is invalid. Nowhere does Wikipedia policy say you go to the second most common name if that name is motivated by political or emotional considerations (which "FYROM" most definitely is). It says that self-identification is the most important criteria after most common English name. Since the loyal supporters of Greece's foreign policy are unwilling to accept Wikipedia's policy and want to set this article up as a walled garden, we will be going to ARBCOM. That is a good thing so that the arbitrators can, once and for all (hopefully), show the importance of consistency within Wikipedia and the unambiguous supremacy of self-identification over political imposition and bullying from another country's diplomats. (Taivo (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

I am quoting again your last sentence (emphasis mine): That is a good thing so that the arbitrators can, once and for all (hopefully), show the importance of consistency within Wikipedia and the unambiguous supremacy of self-identification over political imposition and bullying from another country's diplomats. It is so funny how you disagree that your real life opinion is not reflected in your position here, and then you back your position with real-life arguments! We don't care if there's "bullying" going on! WP policy does not specify "no bullying"! You are not qualified to dictate what "bullying" is! We only follow policy. And my interpretation is correct. Re-read the policy. NikoSilver 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It amazes me that "I don't give a flying fuck about Macedonia and Greece" is apparently seen ambiguous or hard to comprehend. Perhaps Niko is intimating that I'm lying -- would surprise me given the number of ad homs he tosses about in his nationalistic fervor.

Two other points, dude: 1. Taivo was referring to diplomats -- are you a diplomat? (seems unlikely); 2. read WP:HARASS -- it covers bullying quite well. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Another btw: Greece Proper refers to an integrated Greece: in the 4th century BCE, Greece was an area dominated by various city-states and kingdoms -- it was neither integrated nor unified. Do learn some history, Niko. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There certainly was a "Greece proper" in the cultural sense, and Macedon was part of it. But anyway Greece was unified and integrated in the 4th century BC, by this guy. It seems you're the one who needs to brush up on history, so spare us the patronizing attitude, will you? As for "bullying", I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. That's just another cheap rhetorical "United Macedonian" talking point, the second one in a row you mention (after the "there was no such a thing as Greece" bit). --Athenean (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he conquered the rest of Greece, midway through the 4th century. Obviously, I should have used until, but in my haste used the wrong peposition. As for the rest of the piffle, you missed the boat. "United Macedonia"? What are you on about? But, nonetheless, before Phillip, there was no unified Greece, just as Italy was not united until the Romans rose to prominence, and then disunified after the fall of Rome until the 19th century. As for being patonising -- no, I'm just following the example of a number of the fYRoM supporters. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has deteriorated to the point that my comments are not understood and are completely misinterpreted, while I am receiving insults. I am really sorry. I stop now. NikoSilver 17:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sad to hear that, Niko. But, if you feel your statements are being misunderstood, it might mean that the statements aren't clear. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a shot. First of all to remind you that "the Greek users" were accused of bringing their POV in WP. (I said it politely, in essence the accusations were much more insulting). All I'm saying is that also for some supporters, some opinions here are a reflection of the real-life opinion of the bearer. Someone who in real life is against all this fuss that Greece has created about the name, is also against calling the country with the "wrong" name anywhere in WP. This shouldn't be the case IMO, and those who do it should give WP-policy based arguments, rather than real-life arguments. E.g. "WP:NCON says so and so" vs "Greece is bullying RoM in the international organizations". Now why do I deserve what you wrote for me above for this? And where's my "ad hom"? NikoSilver 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek POV

• In Greece the country is known as Skopje. That is Greek POV.
• Neutrally, UN, FIFA - 99% of organisations, France, Italy Spain, Germany, Australia (part of the English speaking world Taivo..) New Zealand, South Africa etc all call it FYROM.
• In Fyrom, - Republic of Macedonia.

Reaper7 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. It's all been said before, Reaper. You are new to this discussion. I suggest you read the entire page of discussion before you start throwing in totally irrelevant comments about either Greek or Macedonian politics. You're wasting your time doing so. Wikipedia relies solely on common English usage. All editors, whether Greek or not, agree that common English usage calls the Republic of Macedonia, "Macedonia". But to disambiguate between the Greek provinces called "Macedonia" and the Republic of Macedonia, the question is whether Wikipedia policy prefers the self-identification Republic of Macedonia or the term imposed by outsiders former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That's really the only question. Politics, whether Greek, Macedonian, or international, don't matter at all here. (Taivo (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I wonder is it really that difficult to at least try to be unbiased? Common use supersedes self-identification in Wikipedia policy. This is crystal clear and this is why this very page is not in Hellas but in Greece. And FYROM is simply more common than ROM. But you simply do not like that and start inserting your POV interpretations like "imposed by outsiders". --Avg (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Avg, FYROM was imposed by outsiders on Macedonia. The Macedonians didn't invent it themselves. There's no POV there, just historical fact. (Taivo (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

And, Avg, Wikipedia policy specifically says that political considerations are irrelevant in determining what name to use. That's why the article is Republic of Macedonia and not FYROM. (Taivo (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

"And FYROM is simply more common than ROM." ^{[citation needed]} Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Common English term is "Macedonia" not "FYROM", we should use the self-identifier when the common English term is not existent or as in this case cannot be used because of disambiguation need. man with one red shoe 06:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Consolidated reply below.

To Taivo: It is a bit surreal that you repeat my own arguments to state your position. The fact that FYROM is not an invention of the Republic has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy states that what is more common prevails. The fact that you use the POV wording "imposed by outsiders" on the other hand is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it directly contradicts that "policital considerations are irrelevant in determining what name to use".

To Heimstern: Well, instead of opining "bullshit", perhaps you could bother checking the Google search results presented many times earlier plus the "survey of mainstream encyclopedias" by ChrisO himself. No, I will not do you the courtesy of typing the links here because of your incivility.

To Man with one red shoe: Since the most common term is ambiguous, we proceed to the next more common term, we do not change the criterion.--Avg (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Avg, you are, as usual, not reading Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy clearly lists 1) Most common English name, and then 2) Self-identifying name when there is a conflict with the most common English name. The next paragraph of policy then says that political rights, moral rights, etc. have nothing to do with the use of the English names. The fact that FYROM is not a self-identifier and that it is imposed for political and legal reasons specifically has everything to do with Wikipedia policy--you just need to read Wikipedia policy to see that. "FYROM" is not appropriate as a name for the Republic of Macedonia per Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo sorry to break the news to you, but you're arguing against yourself. It is not me who keeps bringing the political and moral rights argument in the conversation. It is you and it has always been you. I haven't even implied such a thing. So good job proving who's actually supporting Wikipolicy here.--Avg (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear; and yet we still need to go to Arbcomm because we're "interpreting" policy incorrectly. If an airplane crashes, do we really need someone to tell us that it was ultimately due to loss of lift? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviving Taivo's proposal

Given all this endless bickering and debate and the labyrinth of semantic arguments we have been through, I for one, have had enough. Therefore I go on record supporting Taivo's proposal for a mention of "former" in the intro and leaving Rep. Mace. on the map. Taivo also proposed, correct me if I am wrong, that further mention of RoM in the article can be avoided. So here we are:

Support^* Taivo's proposal. * Support will be withdrawn if flag/nationality-based analysis is undertaken at the end of this activity Dr.K. logos 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Reasons clearly stressed out already.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my above comments. Appeasement is never an answer, and flies in the face of Wiki's NPOV policies. The sensitivities of a certain group do not outweigh policy. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Using WWII terminology applied to Hitler is no way to frame an argument. Also calling Taivo's proposal appeasement is a hardline stance. But thank you for your contribution regardless. Rest assured I will not analyse your vote at the end of this discussion based on flags or any other grounds. Dr.K. logos 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeasement refers to way more than Hitler, so don't even try that argument. Dicdef: "1. an appeasing or being appeased". Flags, what are you on about? As for how you analyse the vote, I don't give a fig. "Thanks for your input, just the same. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Flags as in Husond's flags attached to the names of users to show their nationality. As far as appeasement I still think it is a loaded word but I respect your opinion. As far as analysing the vote comment that I made, it was sarcasm. I was referring to nationality based analysis of the poll results undertaken by Husond et al. Maybe I should have flagged my original comment as sarcasm. Dr.K. logos 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry -- I get it now. I don't display any flags as I prefer to think of myself as a citizen of the earth/world/whatever. (Yes, I do pay taxes, so I don't do it for that reason  ;) Anyway, I do wish that people could get over nationalism, or allegience to the country of their ancestry. We all have to live on this planet, and it would be nice if we could all get along. (OK, now I sound like a Miss America contestant or Rodney King, LOL). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks :) Dr.K. logos 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose there's no need for any "former" in the lead, we should use the name that's used in the article itself: Republic of Macedonia. man with one red shoe 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Appeasement is not the answer, and flies in the face of NPOV principle. If the abuse of WP policies and administrative power is to prevail for some time, so be it. Apcbg (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop using the "appeasement" word? Thanks. Comment withdrawn as unwarranted. Sorry Dr.K. logos 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Appeasement" is a very nice word when used in the proper situation, let's not ban words now... man with one red shoe 19:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree "when used in the proper situation". But do you think when trying to reach a compromise this word helps? I am not trying to ban words. Just trying to frame a dialogue conducive to compromise. Dr.K. logos 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it really seems that there won't be much room for a constructive contribution here for some time to come, so I'd rather withdraw from this topic for now. Good luck to everybody. Apcbg (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Apcbg. Hopefully one way or the other we'll get to the bottom of this. Hopefully sooner than later. Dr.K. logos 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - a direct link to the proposal in question would be really useful here, guys. :) John Carter (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the proposal:

::Just so it is clear, the article as it now stands I think is an acceptable version. There are two locations in the article where the name "Macedonia" is relevant (other than the references to the Greek provinces).

• The lead paragraph. I have never objected to the wording "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in this case. I have added a footnote (that should remain) that references Macedonian naming dispute. The wikilink should not be to Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because that is a non-existent article. The blue of the wikilink emphasizes the constitutional self-identifier of Macedonia while the black of "former Yugoslav" satisfies the needs of the Greek POV. I stated this point several days ago (it seems that long ago although it might have been yesterday morning).
• The map. The map should stay as it currently is: "Rep. Mace." as that is the self-identifier. "Macedonia" would be ambiguous on the map, so the self-identifier is appropriate. As "FYROM" has not been identified as an acronym elsewhere in the article (and should not be), its use on the map would be doubly inappropriate--a) as an unknown acronym, and b) as an externally-imposed non-self-identification.

The article stayed stable with that configuration for several days through the hottest portion of this discussion. We will argue ad nauseum over this issue with neither the FYROM POV nor the non-FYROM POV ever budging. In the end, the situation will be resolved in Athens [...] (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Dr.K. logos 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- ah, so he didn't call fo the linking to include FY (I hadn't thought it did). I'll think on it a bit, although the concept still bothers me intellectually. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Unwillingly oppose. Sorry Τάσο. You know how much I respect you, but I personally accept no half-meters. My opinion is that there should be fYROM throughout the article. We don't agree on that? Then, ok, the only solution is ARBCOM. Full stop!--Yannismarou (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all Yannis. I completely understand and respect your opinion. I simply have had enough of this back and forth and it seemed to me to be a reasonable proposal so I thought I would give it a try. But in no way this means that I would, in any way, be bothered if anyone, let alone my friends, disagreed with my proposal. That would be undemocratic and anyway respect and friendship transcend such academic questions. In addition I know that the arbcom can cover much more ground on other contentious issues like ethnic issues etc. So it may well be inevitable and it could even be the better way. Take care for now and and it was a pleasure seeing you, as always. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

• Comment - as the above editor has indicated, there does not seem to be any interest from certain parties of even accepting the country's own name for itself. And, for what it's worth, I used to work in patents and copyrights for the North American pet food division of a major international firm. Had I presented the arguments presented here against the use of the ROM name in court, I would have been thrown out with summary judgement. There clearly seems to be no interest from at least one side in any sort of compromise. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Had I presented the arguments presented here against the use of the ROM name in court, I would have been thrown out with summary judgement." No you wouldn't. If you would, your should fire your lawyer.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• "There clearly seems to be no interest from at least one side in any sort of compromise." If the use of RoM throughout the article is the way you perceive compromise, then this is no compromise.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• "As the above editor has indicated, there does not seem to be any interest from certain parties of even accepting the country's own name for itself". 1) The "above editor" has a username you could use. 2) This is not what I said.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Then you have no interest, seemingly, in compromising your position with wikipedia's policy, which explicitly says the name of the article should be used wherever possible in other articles to prevent confusion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• The way you interpret policy. Is it your interpretation authoritative? You're welcomed.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why am I reminded of Medusa? Or maybe Scylla and Charybdis is apt. BTW, Yanni, as you will find out if Arbcomm decides to accept and then issue a ruling, John happens to be spot-on with policy. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm tired of drama and this seems like a way to end it. However I really want this to go to ArbCom and I certainly want ArbCom to take care of the abomination that happened a while ago and its main perpetrator, because this will give a clear message on what Wikipedia stands for. If Taivo/Dr.K.'s proposal is accepted I will not oppose but my real wish is ArbCom. --Avg (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Avg for your comments. I echo your feelings completely. That's why I proposed it. Even if it comes to nothing at least I wouldn't say I didn't try to end this sooner rather than later. I also understand fully your reasons for wanting to go to arbcom. I'll be there if it comes to that. There are some issues I am really interested in that I would like to present. Hopefully this proposal can end the edit warring at least until arbcom decides. Who knows. Anyway take care for now and it was a pleasure talking to you again. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 02:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

• Support I think it is a very logical proposal. --Athenean (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no objective need to have "f.Y." in the lead, where the focus of discussion is the simple geographical facts of what countries are neighboring on each other. For the same reason that we don't need to talk about the "former Yugoslav Slovenia" when talking about the geographical situation of Austria. Pushing in this bit would have no other function than symbolically bowing down before the Greek POV concerns, and the whole reason we are having this discussion is that we shouldn't do so. We are already mentioning "f.Y." in the passage further down where the political dispute are mentioned. That's where it belongs, as pertinent historical background info explaining the timing of the dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe that FYROM should be used throughout the entire article. Kyriakos (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

*Suppoprt. Taivo's knowledge on this subject may not even be near complete but it is interesting to say the least. Reaper7 (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why are people assuming a lack of knowledge? And, even if it were true, what would be the relevance? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fut. Perf. puts it well. The proposal is well-meaning but it doesn't resolve the underlying problem here, i.e. the incessant POV-pushing by certain editors. We're not likely to fix that problem without someone - ArbCom presumably - banning the worst offenders. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note to the protecting sysop

Horologium has done a great job until now. I don't know if anybody else has done it, but I have to laud him: 1) for his courage to act instantaneously in such a contentious area, 2) for executing his sysop duties twice in a careful way, not allowing his impartiality to be questioned. Nevertheless, I am afraid that by acting in the way he acted he undertook the responsibility to execute his duties till the end. Therefore, if his protection ends and no solution is found, then inevitably he'll have the burden to bring the case to the next phase. A third protection is definitely no solution.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am keeping a close eye on this, and I will protect it indefinitely if the editors here cannot come to a consensus; I will extend it before it expires, so as not to repeat what happened the last time protection expired. I really want a solution here, and if it means getting the Arbitrators involved, I am all for it. There are other steps in dispute resolution, however, and I'd like to see if both sides can resolve this before going to the arbs. Horologium (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, i hate to be a pessimist. But if the two countries havent solved their disputes in 18 years of diplomacy a group of wikipedia editors are not going to solve this issue. It would be a good idea to go to Arbitration, with the possibility of revising WP:MOSMAC. This could also be extended to other related issues such as Aegean Macedonia/ns etc. Just a suggestion? PMK1 (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with PMK1. (Taivo (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

The extent of ARBCOM's competence (at least, in the way I perceive it) is exposed in my comment above (section " Enough with the edit warring already"). Within this framework, of course, MOSMAC's policy-status, possible revising, importance etc. etc. is going to be one of the major issues. As we have been taught in the law school, the special law overrules the general one. But is it MOSMAC a special {wiki}law (=policy)? Is it like a soft law? Is it something else? I would prefer to find a solution here and not to have to go to ARBCOM, but I see that Fut has no willingness to compromise and I am also against half-meters. We need concrete rules about how to refer to RoM throughout WP. Even if we agree here, what happens with the other articles? I proposed and I still believe that the best place to discuss all that, and articulate concrete, consensual, and final rules is MOSMAC. You don't agree with that? Then, ARBCOM is waiting for us (and if not, it should!).--Yannismarou (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Yannismarou, but you accuse Future Perfect of not being willing to compromise? You have no moral high ground from which to make that accusation as if you are innocent. I see your words right above this that it should be FYROM all the way in this article. That's not compromise. That's staking out a position and not being willing to move. I have seen not one half-step from you away from your original hard-line position during this entire discussion. Yannismarou: "My opinion is that there should be fYROM throughout the article...Full stop!" Where's your willingness to compromise? (Taivo (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Agree with PMK1. Note however that in the previous Macedonia arbitration, this issue has been explicitly proposed to the Arbs and they declined. They seemed to favour the continuation of the community discussion at MOSMAC, which now certain parties consider "dead". This sabotage of the consensus process that was actually agreed at the previous arbitration is one of the main reasons I want to go back to ArbCom. --Avg (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Avg, you need to actually read MOSMAC where in Greek-related articles no consensus was reached. MOSMAC does not apply here therefore since no agreement was reached. (Taivo (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, you seem to have completely missed what has happened here. An editor started mass reverting article names, insulted a host of editors, threatened of imposing bans to every single one of his opposers, launched a full-fledged smear campaign, engaged in edit warring in almost every article he was reverted, outrightly admitted he was on a WP:POINT crusade and all that by falsely claiming that the community has decided to change the status quo of using FYROM in article Greece and replace it by ROM. There was never such a decision. MOSMAC is the written proof that there was no consensus and no consensus means exactly that. So if you show disregard for the community process and unilaterally declare your own war, the community should respond decisively and drastically.--Avg (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the community did respond--by nearly unanimously supporting Future Perfect and his actions. I think that only one admin opposed his actions--Yannismarou, as I recall. And the community pretty solidly rejected the position of the followers of Greek national policy and declared that nationalistic walled gardens were against Wikipedia policy. The whole discussion has been archived now, but I'm sure you read most of it before that. I'm surprised you even bring it up since your side of the argument took a pretty heavy beating from both admins and generally uninvolved editors. (Taivo (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

This is your own POV assessment of the situation. My assessment is that third party admins clearly distanced themselves from Future Perfect's actions but were reluctant to impose sanctions (this closed as "no consensus"), so no "heavy beating" or whatever else you want to call it. Probably you need to revisit what "no consensus" means, it is the second time you make the same mistake.--Avg (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL. So you just choose to ignore all the admins and others heaping praise on Future Perfect for finally taking on the issue of walled gardens head on. Selective reading, I guess--you only see what you wanted to see. (Taivo (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

ARBCOM is not like case-law in real life! It can evaluate a situation or a policy differently now. For me it is not a content dispute, it is a policy-related issue. But, of course, I am not a member of the ARBCOM (unless Jimbo appoints me in the meantime; improbable, heee?!).--Yannismarou (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course I agree it is a policy related issue and God knows how much I want ArbCom to opine of this, since what we have been experiencing is a continuous changing of the goalposts from a couple of editors, as soon as they thought the previous consensus did not satisfy them. I'm more than certain that your legal background will enable you to express the issue in much better terms than me. --Avg (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot move goalposts that don't exist. No consensus was ever reached at MOSMAC on the use of "Republic of Macedonia" in Greek-related articles. That means that MOSMAC doesn't apply here and Greece was never set up as a walled garden immune from Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, in every legal setting, if there is no consensus, you cannot change the status quo. The status quo, especially if it has been established many years ago and has not caused any controversy at all, acquires a de facto prevalence over any controversial change. And the lawmaker has a very good reason behind this.--Avg (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a legal setting, Avg. (Taivo (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

"Agree with PMK1", I never thought it would happen. PMK1 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Dogs and cats, living together... See, Greeks and Macedonians can agree on something. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Great -- now the sun will turn black as sackcloth and moon as blood, and we'll see Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! .  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wasting time

What a colossal waste of time and effort on this silly Republic of Macedonia / FYROM thing! Surely there are many more important things to improve about the Greece article than whether FY should be written before ROM. --macrakis (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You could say it's a matter of principles, for both sides. Personally, i would easily agree with you if we hadn't seen the amount of mud being thrown, already from the beginning.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to nerds, this must be Nerd Heaven, for what other subset of society would devote this titanic, monumental, utterly unjustifiable effort for a few occurrences of FY before ROM? Maybe Hollywood can step in and make this epic waste of effort into a movie: For a Few "FYs" More along the lines of For a Few Dollars More. Dr.K. logos 07:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But to truly capture the futility--"An FY Too Far". (Taivo (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

So true. I tried to bridge the gap of both sides using your proposal. But it was A Bridge Too Far. I guess in Wikipedia you get the good with the bad. Or should I say The Good the Bad and the Ugly :) Dr.K. logos 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Three good movies there. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

War, peace and Wikipedia

• Of course myself I agrre with the official greek view about the issue: The greek Macedonians (the only true ones) have only then the ethical right to use the term "Macedonia" for thereselves and their territory.
• A war is over only if all in both sides stop to fight. The war just started and will continue until the last true greek and all true friends of truth and justice stop to live. Having survive for so many thousands of years we rightful think that we can win in the end.
• Although the previous, I think that when there are such issues, with two or more serious supported, should be all appear to a project like Wikipedia.
• In this case I propose that both views must be appear in each related article. Anyone who use a Wikipedia article must have all serious information and all serious views about it to choose. Only Mathematics are realy absolute. All others topics are relative.

--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought that those who supported "FYROM" were not Greek patriots, but were simply interpreting Wikipedia policy differently. How silly of me! </sarcasm off> (Taivo (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

You work so hard, Dr. K., to try convincing us that this isn't a Greek national issue, but then we get a juicy new participant like Vchorozopoulos or Reaper7 before him who states his or her true feelings in beautiful living color without any sugar coating--"The war ... will continue until the last true greek ... [is dead]." I hope he's just referring to edit wars. (Taivo (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, stick to Wiki policy, political correctness and arguing policy and don't comment on what other greeks think or feel please. Your knowledge on the whole issue is a detailed as a comic drawn by a 4 year-old in play school before nap time. </sarcasm off> Reaper7 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reaper7, My knowledge of this issue is quite extensive, but not colored by loyal adherence to the foreign policy position of Greece. Just because I don't think your position is either valid or relevant doesn't mean I don't know the situation. (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Fortunately for us Wikipedia has a clear policy about this which says that's irrelevant what people think about the historic or ethical right to use a name and these arguments should not be used in determining Wikipedia content. man with one red shoe 12:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, the feeling of a few people aren't an indication of the rest of the people involved. Some people have a harder staqnce than others. Kyriakos (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that, Kyriakos, but I still find it ironic that no matter how hard "the moderates" try to keep the discussion away from Greek nationalism, the moderate policy-based arguments are often drowned out by the flag-waving. As much as you tell us that the FYROM position is not based on Greek nationalism, the extremists tell us it is. It's sometimes hard to hear the quiet voices when the people around us are shouting slogans. (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes, Taivo, very good points. I tire of the accusations of lack of knowledge, and the type of tripe spewed by Vchorozopoulos and others. This has nothing to do with political correctness, and the sensitivities of a certain group are utterly irrelevant. There are 19 cities/towns/villages named Athens in the US -- should the Greek government demand that the all change their names? There are also 19 places named Berlin -- should the Germans demand changes? And what of the 16 places named Paris, and the 15 places named Vienna? And guess what -- there are 5 places named Macedonia in the US, as well as one in Romania and one in Brazil. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I used to live in Ontario, California, and got no grief from the Canadians, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And none of them has claims to nationhood, as far as I'm aware. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Taivo, I never said this is not a Greek national issue. Of course it is. And as such it attracts nationalists. The thing is not to reject the arguments of the nationalists based on their nationalism but on logic. Vchorozopoulos' statements about true Greeks and dead etc. are obviously political in nature and are rejected as unfit for an encyclopedia. Meanwhile Reaper7 voted support for your proposal above. That proves my point that even people you call nationalists can act in ways similar to yours and therefore you do not need to judge them by their alleged nationalism in a discourse but by their logic. Dr.K. logos 15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't judging Reaper7 for what he is contributing now, but when he first came onto the scene, his comments weren't so neatly filtered and, while quite so "Republic of Macedonia over my cold, dead body" as Vchorozopoulos' comments, they were nonetheless based less on Wikipedia policy and more on an exposé of Macedonian foreign policy. I hope that Vchorozopoulos can learn the same lesson that Reaper7 did. But I still find it ironic. (Taivo (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Yep, there is much irony. I've always admired ancient Greece and the classical Greek language, and this entire debacle, and the illogic I see on the fy side is really pissing me off. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The arguments of the fy side are perfectly logical, actually: use the most common term that isn't ambiguous. It's the other side that is loath to apply Wikipedia policy without regard to the kind of blatantly political considerations that colour so much of the anti-fy rhetoric. Yes, we know it's "ugly", we know it's "ridiculous", we know it's "offensive", we know it's "nationalist", but none of that should matter one iota. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Kekrops, Wikipedia policy is use the most common English term that is also a self-identification or a direct English translation of a self-identification. That's the issue, self-identification. No one would care if Macedonia called itself FYROM, but it doesn't--it's not a self-identification or the direct English translation of a self-identification. That's Wikipedia policy and that's why we no longer call the Democratic Republic of Congo "Zaire", because it is no longer a self-identification even though it is the second most common term found in English after the ambiguous "Congo". (Taivo (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Tell me about North Korea. They do they not call themselves that. But the US and UK have spread the name nonetheless. If we are to follow wiki policy, surely we should call them by the name or translation of the name they assume. Remember Tavio, there is no common English name for FYROM. All the English speaking organisations of the world call her FYROM, as do many English speaking nations like Australia and South Africa and New Zealand. The English and US Media call her Macedonia. The German, French and Spanish and the EU itself: Fyrom. So there is no common English speaking name, there is no common name in any language due to many organisations and media outlets being loyal to the UN and not Fyrom history revisionist nationalists. There is no English speaking consensus on calling her 'Republic of Macedonia' despite what the Fyromian nationalists say. The UN name was in place not to annoy the politically correct who have bought the stories of Fyrom as the small helpless bullied neighbour, but as a neutral name until a non-offensive name is chosen that does not conflict with the ancient Greek region to the south. By calling her Macedonia, you are backing a version that is not even the common in the English speaking world, in organisations or countries themselves. The world is divided on the issue as far as individual nations are concerned, as far as organisations, most are loyal to the UN despite the pushing to the contrary by the US and UK.Finally Taivo, if being a nationalist is not accepting the name Macedonia for Greece's northern neighbour, than over 95% of Greeks are nationalist. I am sure you are aware of the statistics of Greeks not accepting that name under any circumstances. So you therefore are accusing all greeks of being nationalist. Strange. What about Fyrom and them claiming to be direct descendants of Alexander the Great and the politicians this election feeding the faux historical frenzy and again most Fyromians not accepting any name but their newly acquired 'Macedonia' even if it means no EU and no NATO. They are all not nationalists because ........ Fill in blank Taivo while pretending to remain neutral on the issue.(Good luck).Reaper7 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And which policy would that be? WP:NCON does not prescribe the use of autonyms over common English terms, nor does it restrict the number of the latter. In fact, it explicitly lists "a number of methods [that] can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English". As for the former Zaire, its most common name in English is its current article location, as the English-language media take care to use the full and unambiguous form. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

North Korea should be Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Period. That is the self-identifier and is what the articvle should be called with a redirect from NK. ROM is the self-identifier for Macedonia (the country). That 70% of ancient Macedon is in Greece is irrelevant.

Additionally, in the US, the largest English-speaking country, the most common term is ROM. "Republic of" is already a disambiguation. I fail to see how, other than for nationalistic/political reasons, this is unclear. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, most folks still refer to Democratic Republic of Congo as "Zaire". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And it should be noted that above even one of the opponents of the name ROC noted that both the US and UK refer to it by that name. So, in effect, that individual has helped establish that the name ROC is in fact the appropriate one to be used in the English wikipedia as per WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name. The name that the UN unilaterally imposed on the country for its own purposes, whatever they might be, also seems to have differed even from the name the country had already taken for itself. The argument seems to be "Because the Greeks and UN say it, it's right for wikipedia. We don't care what the English-speaking countries of the world themselves say, or, for that matter, the country itself. They're not just as important." Rrrrright. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The UN has as much value as mammary glands on a bull. Unless they are doing one's bidding, in which case they are great. </sarcasm> &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, please stop with the lies. It is because the UN, NATO, FIFA, the EU - 99% of organisations and many many countries do not recognise it there is a problem. If you do not understand why, as you seem extremely confused as to why the UN blocked Fyrom, please use all your energies to click on this link. It was built for people who have below par knowledge on the issue and is extremely neutral to help those politically correct not get scared away/, it was not built as an insult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute

Right. It's all a pack af lies. Or maybe we all bathed in the River Lethe. Not agreeing with you (and your unproven, un-cited stats) does not indicate lack of knowledge. Maybe it represents a lack of politically correct sympathy. Maybe, what is far more likely, is that it represents logic. "Joe calls himself Joe because that's what he wants to be called. I call him Bob because I don't think he's really a Joe." Unh-hunh. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally Barak Obama is against the name you are so trying to push and may infact reverse the descision by Bush to recognise the nation. When this takes effect, ask yourself why. Here is Barak signing the resolution to stop FYROM falsifying history! Taivo, Carter, please do not read. However comment after America reverses position - especially you Carter, who doesn't understand why the UN blocked FYROM:

MENENDEZ, OBAMA AND SNOWE TAKE TO U.S. SENATE EFFORT TO END FYROM HOSTILE AND IRREDENTIST PROPAGANDA AGAINST GREECE 03 August, 2007

Legislation to stop state-sponsored propaganda by FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), which is potentially dangerous for Greece, was introduced in the U.S. Senate today by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), along with Presidential candidate and Chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).

More than 72 Members of Congress and climbing are sponsoring similar legislation (HR 356) in the House of Representatives.

The Resolution (S.Res. 300) points to a television report showing students in a FYROM state-run school being taught that parts of Greece, including Greek Macedonia, are rightfully parts of FYROM. The legislation also points to various recently-published textbooks which contain maps of ‘Greater Macedonia’ extending many miles into Greece and Bulgaria. The Resolution points out that FYROM propaganda, contrary to the U. N. Interim Accord, instills hostility and a rationale of irredentism in portions of the population of FYROM toward Greece and the history of Greece.

The legislation urges FYROM to adhere to the U.N. brokered Interim Agreement, which directs the parties to “promptly take effective measures to prohibit hostile activities or propaganda by state-controlled agencies and to discourage acts by private entities likely to incite violence, hatred or hostility” and review the content of textbooks, maps, and teaching aids to ensure that such tools are stating accurate information. The bill also urges FYROM to work with Greece within the U.N. framework process to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by reaching a mutually acceptable official name for FYROM. Reaper7 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please try to at least to understand AGF, even if you cannot apply it. My point, and I believe that of several others, is that those bodies are not relevant to which name is most recognized in the English speaking world. So far, I have yet to see that point responded to directly. So a body of international organizations, which do not speak or communicate primarily in English, call it something. So what? What is of primary importance here is WP:NAME, the policy I cited. I have yet to see how any of the organizations you named are anywhere near as important to the recognizability factor as the name the governments of the English speaking world choose to recognize the country by. I think I haven't seen it because, basically, no evidence has been presented to indicate why they are more important, and why the name they choose to use should take priority over the name that is used by the English speaking governments, and, by extension, the news organizations that deal with them more frequently than any of the bodies you name, and, again by extention, the people who get their news from those organizations. Please cease the name-calling and address the issue head-on, as opposed to trying to raise what seem to me to be at best tangential points. Thank you.

And, regarding the point that I was caught in edit-conflict with, frankly, I don't see how much that matters yet either. The current president of the US is a Democrat, and that party has traditionally been much closer to the UN. Also, please note that the above mentioned bill, not yet a law, seeks to change the existing naming, indicating that the name FYROM is not the most recognized name. It seems to me that citing that piece is basically WP:CRYSTALBALLing. We have to deal with the realities of the day, not what might happen if a bill is passed. And, even if that bill is passed, there's still the matter of the UK and other English speaking countries of the world, and whether that bill itself will be in effect once another person takes the US Presidency. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What Obama did as a Senator is largely irrelevant. People change in the Oval Office. Additionall, did the Sec of State support the bill while she was a Senator? Did the VEEP? Where's the link? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, see Diplomacy -- the Senate passes many resolutions, but they aren't binding per se, they usually are done for diplomatic or political reasons. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To Carter, you seem to pretend all the English Speaking nations call FYROM Macedonia? lol. Please refrain from that statement as it is a lie. Again, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa only know the nation as Fyrom. This means one half of the English speaking earth, the half below the equator call it FYROM. If America takes back its recognition, it really is curtains for the name Macedonia and Wiki will be no different. As I stated before, when this happens, then I will look you up and we can have a nice chat on why you could not understand the UN blocking Fyrom. Reaper7 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to answer a direct question regarding establishing the legitimacy of the other organizations you cited as support for your claim. While I appreciate your actually pointing toward some evidence that other countries do not use that name, I would welcome direct evidence supporting that. Also, I would appreciate actually getting an answer to the question I clearly and directly asked for a direct answer to. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I thought he said RoM, not Macedonia. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

All the evidence you need for organisations and countries recognition of the name is in the link I asked you to read which clearly you haven't. I am afraid there is little hope. To anyone else who can actually be bothered to read, remember, The south English speaking hemisphere of planet Earth knows the nation only as FYROM as well as 99% of english speaking global organisations. Don't let those politically correct editors who have a vacuum of knowledge on the matter tell you different. Reaper7 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be very little hope of getting a direct answer from you to the matter I raised regarding how the name those organizations choose to use is directly relevant to the applicable policies, as you have now apparently tried to ignore it twice. Please do me the honor of actually reading what I wrote so that your following comments directly relate to what was asked. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there might be some hope for Reaper -- as a propagandist if for no other reason. He's also quite quick with insults -- perhaps he can be the Greek Don Rickles. As for answers that address your questions without hyperbole -- ouk. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably Reaper takes it for granted that anybody participating in this talk will have at least glanced the most relevant article (Macedonia naming dispute) and especially its relative section with the world map and the countries and flags right in the middle. NikoSilver 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one I would suggest is Macedonia (terminology), an article I had the honor of bringing to feature article status. Very illuminating. NikoSilver 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean like how I might have taken it for granted that anyone seeking to respond to my request for clarification regarding why the name chosen by the various international organizations should be relevant in determining how WP:NAME applies would actually address the question, as opposed to indulging in repetition and possible insult? I assume you knew that was what I was asking for, as the content of the thread seemed to indicate. But, as some of you apparently even find it too much trouble to try to read even this single thread, the points were raised here. I guess anyone who wanted to respond to these points would at least bother to try to find the salient posts on this thread, but I guess maybe I was assuming too much? ;) John Carter (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you obviously were. I'm sorry I didn't understand you for the second time (also elsewhere above)). Maybe it is my level of English, or maybe the way your comments were written. Or both. Anyway, I'll get back to you with why I think policy actually says otherwise. NikoSilver 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"vacuum of knowledge" -- please stop the personal attacks, now. Admins who watch this page, please enforce WP:CIVIL if this behavior continue. man with one red shoe 21:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of terms

(ec) Ok, here goes: the policy says we choose the most common English name first. That would be plain "Macedonia", and I don't dispute that, although I don't like it (as you would point out). So we would go to "self-identification", but that could also be "Macedonia", or "Republic of Macedonia", or even "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". The country happens to identify with all three. It may not prefer the latter, but policy does not state "preferred self-identification". It only says "self-identification" and on top, it also says we're not supposed to evaluate the motives/reasons/"bullying" etc behind the facts (as we are not supposed to evaluate the "irredentist" reasons Greece claims the country has wanting the other self-ids). We're only supposed to see that this self-id does happen. And it does, and it's sourced. NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You know I have never seen any evidence that the country is most often referred to as "Macedonia", as you seem to be indicating. And I am referring to the present day, not a few months back. Also, there is the matter of ambiguity of that name. Republic of Macedonia is a very unambiguous name, and meets WP:NAME better than Macedonia, so, in fact, I think the name ROM actually complies with the naming conventions better. Please produce evidence regarding the greater popularity of the name "Macedonia", as I'm afraid I haven't checked that myself anytime recently (OK, ever). John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said (now it is third post from the end in this section below), apart from Google, we also checked atlases and other encyclopedias. Anyway, there's no dispute about plain "M" being most frequent from either side of the discussion, but so you have an indication, just see the numbers below:

• "Macedonia": 76.4M hits. (Just to note that this search obviously includes all "Macedonias" as well, including the present Greek province, the ancient kingdom, the present Bulgarian subdivision, and the whole region of Macedonia). But the sheer order of magnitude of the hits vs the others below is sufficient even if the country is referred to as such for a fraction of the other "M"s.
• "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia": 1.3M hits.
• "FYROM": 2.2M hits.
• "Republic of Macedonia" -"former Yugoslav": 0.8M hits

For the online encyclopedias, ChrisO (a supporter) posted this "survey of mainstream encyclopedias". I only remember Encarta's link which says "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia".

For the Atlases, we check by popularity, first Google Earth (says "Macedonia (FYROM)" -can't link it, you need to download the app), then Microsoft Live Search Maps (says "F.Y.R.O.MACEDONIA), and for the rest of the atlases, Taivo made a nice research here. NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now if we choose the most frequent of the two remaining names (the RoM vs fYRoM spellouts) that would definitely be the latter. We checked Google, we checked the online encyclopedias, we checked atlases, we checked many sources, and this is where we ended up. (again, after plain "Macedonia") NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are only one indication of notability, although they are a good one. So, in effect, useful information, but in and of itself not necessarily even close to decisive. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to my long post right above which covers this point as well. NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We already had a discussion why Google searches are not much reliable, see [13]. About the mainstream online encyclopedias, I was looking for a list of the most popular online encyclopedias, here is one Internet article that lists the most popular ones: [14]. The research showed that all mainstream online encyclopedias (except Encarta online) use the term Macedonia when referring to the country: Britannica: [15], Columbia: [16], Encyclopedia: [17], Information please: [18], The Canadian encyclopedia: [19],[20]. The research made by Taivo shows that the same naming policy (of simple usage of the term Macedonia when referring to the country) is in place in atlases as well.[21]. I think it is pretty much obvious that overwhelmingly the common English usage for Macedonia is "Macedonia". MatriX (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Niko, I have pointed out on many occasions how inadequate Google hits are as a research tool. They are totally inaccurate. First, if a page is labelled "Republic of Macedonia" and down in a footnote it says "Greece calls this [FYROM]", then it would be counted as "FYROM" in your search. Second, if a page is about "Republic of Macedonia" and the website designer is smart, he will include "FYROM" in the keywords even if the phrase isn't used in the text itself. So Google hits do not measure popularity or anything other than how often website designers use a given phrase at least once in the text or in the keywords. That's not research. That's not accuracy. So hanging your hat on Google hits is like buying a used car based solely on the advertisement in the classified ads and not on actually looking at the car to see what "gently used" really means--it could be anything from a ding in the paint on the driver's door to a fender that is hanging by a coathanger to something more. Google hits should be totally ignored unless you actually inspect the sites (as I did with my examination of atlas names for Macedonia). But in the end it doesn't matter because FYROM is not a self-identification. That's the whole point--Wikipedia policy clearly and unambiguously prefers self-identifications. (Taivo (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

As I said earlier, it is "self-identification", it's just not the "preferred self-identification". But our policy does not mention "preferred". On the contrary, it instructs us to see the facts (name being used as self-id) and to not evaluate or judge the motives behind them (if it would be otherwise if Greece did not "bully" them etc). Doing the latter is similar to using subjective criteria in general. And Greece has a lot of subjective criteria that you'd have to take into account in that case. (eg. "irredentism behind the monopolization of the name" etc) NikoSilver 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But: Your thesis would be much more pertinent if we were discussing here for how the article of the country will be called. This is not what we discuss. We discuss if the article of Greece will fall in the fYRoM category (like all intl orgs etc) or in the other category (like all other articles). My view is we have to see the naming conventions according to context. And IMO there's no article more appropriate than Greece for making the exception to the RoM rule! NikoSilver 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Like you said, we are to evaluate and judge the motives behind them. And if one is a true self-identification, freely arrived at, and the other is a forced self-identification for the purposes of joining the UN and receiving international aid, I think the clear difference between the two may well be enough to make the true self-identification more weighty and useful than that imposed on the country by one single outside group, the UN. Variant spellings of commonly held names of people tend to be judged by the same guidelines so far as I am aware.

Your own POV is, of course, your own. Like I said earlier, I have no objections to using a variant name if that name makes sense in context. So, for instance, when referring directly to a document from an international organization in the body of an article, I would prefer seeing the name used in the document used in the article, because that helps reduce confusion. Yes, I know, comments can be added in footnotes saying "'FYROM' in this context refers to ROM", but I hate reading footnotes.

Why doesn't policy simply and clearly state "preferred self-identification", or "not-forced self-identification"? Why, on the contrary, does it say that we are not supposed to judge on subjective criteria about moral right to use a name etc? NikoSilver 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't know directly, because I doubt it has been discussed. Although I would caution some others (not you) to note that the subjective criteria about moral right are not allowed. My guess is that the policy was written to cover the situations they foresaw arising, and this particular one, which deals with, for lack of better phrasing, degrees of self-identification and external identification is a difficult one. They might not have foreseen it, or, maybe, they did foresee it and realized that a policy or guideline to deal with all the various degrees of various factors involved would be soo long that it would be preferable to just not talk about it and hope the situation never arises? John Carter (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I cannot see how your "context" argument makes much sense. To the best of my knowledge, all wikipedia articles are intended to be made as easy to read by outsiders as possible. In this case, that would mean individuals who are not familiar with Greece or its politics. In this of all cases changing the name of an outside entity to something that is used rarely outside of the article does nothing but potentially confuse readers who come to the article for information. I cannot see how we can say "We have the right to confuse people in this article because it's about the country we as individuals are most interested in" makes much sense. If you can clarify your statement, that might be helpful. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not share your confusion concerns, since it is proved from the various searches that the FYROM acronym and its spell-out are very widely used. Apart from the various political articles, fans of soccer commented here they hadn't even heard the country by any other name. The same can apply to Eurovision fans (a famous European song contest). The same to sports fans who watch the Olympics... NikoSilver 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My statement has to do with the logic behind the exceptions, and certainly not with where individual interest lies. Since Greece is the one state in the world that has objected to this name, and this is Greece's article, I think that the most logical thing would be to use the name the country uses towards Greece. And, again, I have not understood why Greece should be treated differently from all other intl orgs articles she influenced (as you say) in the first place? What's the fuss about this specific article versus all others I linked to you just now? NikoSilver 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

They may be widely used. "Widely" however doesn't indicate percentage, or the locations from which they originate, or any number of other factors which could be relevant. I full well understand that others wouldn't share my concerns, as there are clearly two sides here. I am also sure that many others do not share mine. However, what will I believe ultimately be decisive is not whose concerns are being favored or disfavored but what policy and guidelines indicate is required. At this point, that is still an open question. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree it is open, and I look forward to it closing the soonest at the most neutral solution. I too see the other side's position as an interpretation of policy which can be considered valid by some, but to which I happen to disagree. Thank you for your valuable input, and for the civilized discussion. NikoSilver 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Then there were those who spoke about "consistency" and they would link Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Internal consistency for it. But this is for style, and not for names. On the contrary, Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How naming works and how sometimes disputes occur in the process, states that we can use synonym acronyms (why not like "FYROM"?). Furthermore, there's practice in WP for names according to context. Check for example how ROC/Taiwan is called here: WP:NC-CHINA#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. Check also Talk:Gdansk/Vote. NikoSilver 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be indicating that this possibility might be covered by that policy, and you might be right. But ROM is already a synonym acronym, why not use it first? It would probably be incumbent on you to indicate why FYROM would be the preferable of the two acronyms. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ROM is improvised. There's no such acronym, unless if we're talking about computer memories. When people use ROM in this talkpage, they usually refer to its spell-out (i.e. "Republic of Macedonia"), unless I've missed any comment which actually speaks about the improvised acronym. To your question "why not to use it first", I will reply "why not use the other first", plus that if we definitely needed for reasons: the latter is sourced, the latter is used in many sources according to context, and the latter is how the subject of this article would call its side of the border. NikoSilver 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Further we also saw that the long fYRoM is used in WP, in all international organizations articles (even in article names!). Notably in Accession of FYROM to EU. So Greece is not an "inconsistent" exception! It is just one more exception. NikoSilver 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And, as I indicated earlier, I have no objections whatsoever to using the name used on a specific document when the group using that document is being referenced. And, frankly, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a decent argument, but again far short of decisive. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you're right about not decisive. But the same criterion that applies to these intl orgs (which btw is not othercrap, since the other side has fully agreed to it) also applies to Greece: The country self-identifies to all intl orgs and to Greece as FYROM. So why should Greece be treated differently? Especially when it is Greece that is responsible for all this havoc? I don't get it. NikoSilver 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does, After it was forced to accept that name, against its own wishes, by the UN. That is an essential factor. The ROM wanted to be a member of the UN, and it wants aid from international organizations. The UN said the only way you get either is by accepting our terms, which include primarily this name that their president at the time said was completely unacceptable. Therefore, it is in effect a total mis-statement to say that it "self-identifies", because that phrase implicitly indicates that it is a matter of choice, which is a key to true self-identification. You are, in effect, saying that the bride who married with a gun to her head has "chosen" to be married and accept the husband's name. That is not self-identification, that is acceptance of coercion. I realize you have not yet seen the difference between the two yet. Perhaps you can see it now. John Carter (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes John, I have seen what you say from the start, and I am replying all the time. Your argument is "subjective" and should explicitly not be taken into account according to WP:NCON. Otherwise you also have to take into account e.g. Greece's concerns for "irredentism through the monopolization of the name of a wider region". We are not judges here to evaluate facts. We do not prescribe. If fY/RoM is forced or not, the fact that it uses the name as self-identification remains. Where does the policy say that self-identification has to be a matter of choice or a matter of preference? NikoSilver 17:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here: "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." (my bolding) man with one red shoe 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of thread

Now if you do not agree with this interpretation of policies, that's another story. But at least you have to recognize that there is a policy-based reasoning. And in the end, the article was stable for years like this, and the (counter-productive IMO) change was initiated by those who support RoM. There are explicit concerns for that in WP:NCON (and elsewhere). NikoSilver 22:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(What follows is the comment I intended to put in before being caught in an edit conflict with Niko. Please bear that in mind.) I think Niko was referring to my apparent lack of familiarity with the Australian, New Zealander, South African etc., governments refer to the ROM. However, as he is one of those individuals who apparently decided that the US has already changed its own stance on the name, as per the thread which has since been deleted for being completely off-topic here, I thought it might be reasonable to ask whether there is any reason for the other countries might change their own views as well. However, on a purely numerical basis, I guess the countries break down as follows:

• Australia - FYROM, 21.7 million
• United States - ROM, 306.2 million
• United Kingdom - ROM, 60.9 million
• New Zealand - FYROM, 4.2 million
• South Africa - FYROM, 47.9 million
• Canada - ROM, 33.6 million
• Saint Kitts and Nevis - ROM, .04 million
• Saint Lucia - ROM, .01 million

So, by the list, 5 countries for ROM, 3 for FYROM (62% ROM). By populations, 75.8 million for FYROM, 490.7 million for FYROM (~82% ROM). Even by those standards, ROM seems to be quite a bit ahead under the criteria "most people would most easily recognize". However, I still would like to see why the international organizations namings should be counted as even significant to this discussion on this page. I acknowledged above that it makes some sense when discussing their own actions, as per their pages. But even there it is probably less than a really good reason. And, of course, the fact that the name hasn't been challenged and removed there doesn't mean that it might not be in the future. In fact, if this goes to ArbCom, as everyone expects it will, I personally think they will almost certainly address the issue throughout wikipedia, one way or another. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I go to Easter dinner and come back to find pages of comments. John, I believe you actually meant "75.8 million for FYROM, 490.7 million for ROM" above. But the data I have used for claiming the supremacy of "Macedonia" is its usage on maps and atlases. I did a Google (or Yahoo) search for "on-line atlas", navigated to the map(s) covering the area on the first ten links that actually pointed to atlases and all but one of the ten I looked at labelled the country "Macedonia". One labelled it "F.Y.R.O.M.". I also looked at the three atlases I have in my home and all three of them labelled it as "Macedonia". Since maps and atlases are the best places to see usage for places, that is fairly definitive. Reaper7's ad hominems are becoming rather tiresome. He has also failed to realize that political issues are irrelevant here. The only relevant issue is the application of Wikipedia policy vis a vis English usage. Macedonian tanks could be lined up at the border ready to drive to Thessaloniki, but that's still irrelevant to the issue of what we call the Republic of Macedonia in Wikipedia. The difference between "North Korea" and "FYROM" is that "North Korea" is long-established usage in English based on the division of the country following the Second World War when the post-Japanese administration of the country was divided between the USSR zone and the US zone. The northern part of the peninsula has been called "North Korea" commonly in English for 60 years just as the southern part of the peninsula has been called "South Korea". These quickly became the most common English terms. The most common English term for the Republic of Macedonia is "Macedonia". Outside formal diplomatic documents from some English-speaking organizations and other political uses, "FRYOM" is virtually unknown. So comparing "North Korea" with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" has no relevance since they are two completely different situations. And perhaps Wikipedia should change "North Korea" to "People's Democratic Republic of Korea". Wikipedia isn't perfectly consistent--that's why we're working to make this article consistent with Wikipedia policy which states that it's "Republic of Macedonia" except in direct quotes of lists from international organizations that use FYROM. We can work on "North Korea" later. One step at a time. (Taivo (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

You're right about my typo above. I'll strike through the mistaken FY. And, based on the evidence you just presented, it seems that the maps at best do not directly relate to the ROM/FYROM question, as the majority of them do not use either name. So, that would seem to continue to give the ROM name an advantage. It should also be noted that many countries do have "Republic of" or something similar in their formal names, and that these are routinely kept off the map for space purposes. On that basis, it could be argued, very weakly, but argued, that the countries are, by not including the FYROM name, where FY is not a standard part of any country's name, seem to be possibly favoring ROM, as dropping the "Republic of" words is in line with their apparent policies regarding other countries. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't change "North Korea" to "People's Democratic Republic of Korea". The policy is clear, North Korea is the common English term and that's what should be used, but that's not what we discuss here, these are just diversions launched by the losing side along with personal attacks and irrelevant political opinions. man with one red shoe 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on "North Korea", I was only saying "perhaps" to make a point. But I completely agree with you that this is a red herring. (Taivo (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Updating figures for English speakers around the world as per English language#Countries in order of total speakers and the various "Demographics of" pages in wikipedia:

• Anguilla - British Overseas Territory (implicitly ROM), .01 million
• Australia - FYROM, 18.1 million
• Bahrain - FYROM, no data
• Belize - FYROM, roughly .22 million
• Botswana - ROM, about .03 million
• British Indian Ocean Territory - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• British Virgin Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .02 million
• Brunei - ROM, no hard data, but English is official language, giving around 75% .3 million
• Canada - ROM, 25.2 million
• Cayman Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .07 million
• Falkland Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Federated States of Micronesia - FYROM, .13 million
• Gibraltar - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .02 million
• Guam - US Territory, implicitly ROM, .17 million
• Guernsey - British Bailiwick under UK control even if independent of it, implicitly ROM, .06 million
• India - ROM, 90.0 million
• Ireland - ROM, 4.0 million
• Isle of Man - British Bailiwick, implicitly ROM, .08 million
• Malaysia - ROM, roughly 25.0 million
• Marshall Islands - republic in Free Association with US, implicitly ROM, .06 million
• Montserrat - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Nauru - ROM, .01 million
• New Zealand - FYROM, 4.0 million
• Nigeria - ROM, 79.0 million
• Pitcairn Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Puerto Rico - US Commonwealth, implicitly ROM, 3.9 million
• Saint Helena, British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Saint Kitts and Nevis - ROM, .04 million
• Saint Lucia - ROM, .16 million
• Singapore - ROM, 4.4 million
• South Africa - FYROM, hard to tell, guessing 35.0 million
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .00 million
• Sri Lanka - ROM, 1.9 million
• Turks and Caicos Islands - British Overseas Territory, implicitly ROM, .03 million
• United Kingdom - ROM, 59.6 million
• United States, ROM, 251.3 million
• United States Virgin Islands - US Territory, implicitly ROM, .1 million

This basically produces 6 countries with significant English speaking populations favoring FYROM, and 15 countries favoring ROM, about 70% ROM. By population, not counting the populations of territories/subnational entities separately, about 57.4 million people from countries favoring FYROM (without any info on Bahrain, with a total population of 1.2 million), and about 531.8 million in countries favoring ROM, or just over 90% in countries favoring ROM. John Carter (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following the logic behind this, but where is the connection between how a state refers to a country and how its inhabitants refer to a country? Are you implying that if tha US govt decides to switch from ROM to FYROM it would automatically mean that Wikipedia has to switch as well? --Avg (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that you use this logic, maybe you'll see, applying the same logic, how irrelevant is how UN/EU calls the state since their citizens don't follow the UN/EU rules. man with one red shoe 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevancy, if any, of the data I pointed out is to the application of WP:NAME. That policy states that the name used should be the one that is most easily recognized and least ambiguous. Roughly 90% of the English speaking world resides in countries which recognize the ROM by the name Republic of Macedonia. I think it probable that, in most if not all of those countries, the local media will use the name that the government itself recognizes the country by. If true, that would mean that 90% of the English speaking world would probably recognize ROM over FYROM, making it the clearly easier to recognize name.

There is also a slight logical advantage to the name ROM over FYROM. A person is much more likely to recognize a shorter version of a recognized name as referring to the same entity than a name longer than the one they are used to dealing with. So, someone used to the name FYROM is more likely to be able to see that ROM refers to the country he knows as FYROM than a person who is used to ROM is to seeing FYROM referring to the same country. Personally, in similar situations in the past, I tended to think that the name with the additional prefixes referred to some other entity, and that the additional names were added to help differentiate this new entity from the older, better recognized, one. I seem to remember having been taught something similar in marketing class as well. On that basis, FYROM as opposed to ROM could actually lead to more confusion, not reduce it.

Anyway, back to my point in coming here in the first place. According to wikipedia article traffic statistics at grok.se, Republic of Macedonia got 119905 hits in March here, Macedonia only 34752 hits in March as per here, about 1/3 as much, Macedonia (Greece) even fewer, 11660 hits in March as per here. I point these out to indicate that there does seem to be a much higher number of people who go to the Republic of Macedonia page than appear to be coming there by way of the Macedonia page. However, someone did mention earlier that they were concerned about editors who might search for the term "Macedonia (state)". Personally, I can see no objections to actually making such a page and turning it into a redirect to Macedonia. My thinking is that a lot of citizens of the US might use "state" either for an independent country or a major subnational entity, based on personal tendencies. Therefore, it seems to me that at least some of them might be looking for someething other than the ROM, like maybe the region of Greece. If I'm right in that, taking them to a page which makes the situation clearer to them would probably be a good idea. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree redirecting the Macedonia (state) article to Macedonia because state can mean both country and subnational unit, and it will be my next edit. NikoSilver 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

About the rest of your post, I congratulate you for your research. My counter argument is that IMO English does not belong to the native English speakers alone. English is the lingua franca of our time, as Greek or Latin were before, and therefore it belongs to all its speakers. If you want to have a global tongue, then there's a price for it. Indeed, most countries in the world use RoM. But there are also all those international bodies that are supposed to represent them who don't. And, again, here we're not talking about how to call Republic of Macedonia. We are talking about if we will call it within Greece as we call it within EU or the UN or all other bodies to which it self identifies as "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". NikoSilver 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said it belonged to the English speakers alone, did I? I only stated that, possibly, depending on local media, the name ROM might be more easily recognized by the English speaking world, which is the readership of this encyclopedia. Also, as I remember it, the name FYROM was basically chosen by others outside the country and accepted by the country itself on a "take it or leave it" option. To say that a name someone uses to identify themselves to themselves, which is I think more or less the psychological meaning of "self-identification", is effectively equivalent to a name that they reluctantly agrees to when it is imposed on them by outsiders is to my eyes a mistake. On that basis, I think the phrase "self-identifies" is perhaps not completely accurate to describe the externally-imposed name FYROM. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The readership of the English encyclopedia is everybody because it happens to be the fullest and most understandable one. I cannot agree or disagree with your interpretation of "self-identification", so I'll simply say I don't know. However, I must repeat the explicit suggestion of WP:NCON to exclude subjective criteria, which adds to my point. In any case, when this is over, I will be very glad if we two can cooperate in clarifying the policy accordingly so that there are no further misunderstandings for other cases (e.g. by adding "preferred", or the opposite by explicitly stating that preferred or not, a self-identification is as good as any). NikoSilver 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the awkward long name was imposed to both countries. At that time the country was ready to agree to any composite name ("Slavomacedonia" was a popular alternative), but the Greeks played the hard-nationalist card of "No Macedonia in the Title"^TM, which brought them to the sad position of asking for the obvious today ("composite name", the one they had rejected), and receive intrasigence from the other side which is used to be called by many simply "Macedonia" for 15 years or so already... This background info I mention so that you don't think that it ever was a "take it or leave it" offer. It was debated and almost agreed not to end in this mess we are today. NikoSilver 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not ROM?

Every one knows by now that the Republic of Macedonia is the term which is used by the citizens of that country. They self identify with the term "Republika Makedonija" which is the name used int he constitution of that country. The term Republic of Macedonia has been used since 1945, from 1945-1991 with the appelation "Peoples" and later "Socialist". From 1991 is has been just Republic of Macedonia.

However FYROM, is a term which arouse from UN sponsor name talks in the mid 1990's. The citizens of that country do NOT self identify with that name.

Now how are we to decide which of the names is more commmon in the English speaking world. Well John Carter just showed us a list of English speaking populations/countries, where ROM was by far the most prominent usage. Many people in the English speaking world refer to ROM simply as Macedonia, the same way in which they do not call Albania, the Republic of Albania or Greece, the Hellenic Republic. This is only for simplicity. Thus, it can be assumed that in their direct reference to Macedonia, they are refering to the country not as FYROM but ROM. Apart from some International organizations, whereby ROM had to enter as FYROM in order to be accepted, is their any evidence suggesting that FYROM is more common then ROM? Please give some evidence so that this whole chapter WILL END. If some users from a radical POV seriously continue to object to ROM, even after extensive proofs, then we should take this to ARBCOM. I hope that this can be resolved ASAP. PMK1 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the name FYROM seems to have been forced on the country against its will by the UN. There is an open question whether that any terms you had to accept because you, basically, had no choice in the matter should really be given much weight. And it does seem, at least to me, that the UN's having forced this name on the country seems to be almost the only reason the name is used, as the international orgs all, basically, are really closely tied to the UN. If I am correct in the above, that even further weakens the argument for the FYROM. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

John, the FYROM name was not forced against the country's will by the UN. The UN does not have to power to do that. Rather, the country's government negotiated and agreed to it. They might hate it, but they did sign off on it, and it is a mutually agreed upon. Don't buy the "victim" card so often played by the other side. --Athenean (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How quaint, Athenean, but inaccurate. When the UN says, "You cannot join unless you accept FYROM", that is power. You better believe that the UN has power and that is exactly what the UN did to Macedonia--"If you want to join the UN or any other international organization that listens to us, you will accept FYROM as your designation because Greece will veto your membership otherwise." Yes, Macedonia has been the victim of Greece's intimidation in the international organizations. Greece continues to block Macedonia's membership in NATO as well for the same reasons--a name. But this whole issue is still a sidetrack--"Republic of Macedonia" is the self-identifier and that is what Wikipedia cares about. (Taivo (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I know this is totally off-topic, but I feel I cannot leave your above post unanswered. The UN did not say "You cannot join unless you accept FYROM". The UN itself said no such thing, and it cannot force anything on anyone. What actually happened was that Greece said "You cannot join as "Republic of Macedonia because we object to it". Remember, the FYROM name was anathema to Greece back then because it contains the word "Macedonia". The FYROM name was the results of negotiation between the two parties, and they both accepted, both equally unwillingly. I remember at the time it was actually considered a diplomatic defeat in Greece at the time. But regardless of the reasons behind it, it still is a mutually agreed upon compromise, and in the end that's the only thing that matters. The Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Lausanne were against the liking of Germany and Greece, respectively, and you could say they were forced down those countries' throats, but the countries still signed off on them, and they were legally binding at the time, irrespective of whether the concerned countries felt about the treaties. --Athenean (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the UN actually said, "You cannot join unless you accept the compromise provisional reference of FYROM. You don't accept the compromise, you cannot join." Sorry for simplifying it. And it doesn't matter what the Greeks thought of the compromise. They were already in the UN and lost nothing. But, this is off topic, since the only question is consistency in Wikipedia and no longer allowing Greece to be a walled garden against Wikipedia policy. (Taivo (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Careful with the misinformation again Taivo, this is becoming a strange fetish of yours - explaining what Greece won and lost, felt - didn't feel.. - in this case, 'Greece lost nothing because it was already a member of the UN.' Greece lost, most Greeks will openly admit this, in allowing even the name Macedonia within the composite FYROM, Greece was robbed of its history and open was a pandora's boxof problems that are getting worse by the day due to extreme FYROMIAN nationalism. Luckily Greece defeated FYROMIANS' flag of the time, an ancient Macedonian star - they were forced to replace that, however the name was a definite defeat for Greece. Reaper7 (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that that name was accepted as a temporary solution, but regardless of the reason it was accepted, Macedonia does have a preferred self-identifying name and that's what we are after. Victim or not victim the country has a preferred name, Wikipedia guideline make it very clear that a preferred name is not to be ignored because somebody thinks they don't have the rights to use it. man with one red shoe 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not ignored, as most wikipedia articles refer to the country by that name. The debate here concerns how to refer it in this article. --Athenean (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and since this article is part of Wikipedia, it should consistently follow Wikipedia policy and usage. Since Wikipedia uses "Republic of Macedonia" throughout, that should be the usage here as well. (Taivo (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not use "Republic of Macedonia" throughout. Just so I'm clear regarding your position, do you support that for internal consistency and Wikipolicy reasons, any reference to the country throughout the project should be changed to "Republic of Macedonia"? --Avg (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And why should this article be special? man with one red shoe 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is going to ARBCOM after next Sunday. Both sides are quoting policy. We can effectively ignore all the arguments based on Macedonia's foreign policy. It comes down to two issues--1) Can a group of editors create a walled garden where Wikipedia policy does not apply and 2) is a self-identification more important than an externally-imposed name. Nothing more need be said on the issue for now. (Taivo (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

It is not about victim or perpotrator, BUT it has become clear that FYROM is clearly not the accepted name that people like Athenean and Avg want you to believe. Had FYROM been "accepted" then the country would have ended this dispute in 1995 and the consitution would have been changed to reflect this "acceptance".

Taivo i hope that you take this to ARBCOM when you have the time to do so. I would look forward to commenting on the process. PMK1 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There was an agreement above (somewhere) that it would be taken to ARBCOM once the two Easters were over (on the 19th). So I suspect that on the 20th or so there will be a formal submission made--if not by me then by someone else. (Taivo (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

If there is not a submission by the 20th, I will submit a request myself. I have been working something up offline; my biggest decision is determining which editors should be listed as involved parties. I will probably be conservative, and only include a few editors, with the proviso that more may be added if there is consensus to do so. I really don't want a train wreck with 20 or more editors listed in the involved parties section, but the crux of the issue on this article tends to spill over into others as well, and I really think that most of the contentious articles can be covered by a single arbitration case. The previous arbitration explicitly avoided issuing any corrective actions on the naming issue, sending it back to the community for action. That didn't work, and the content issue is now a behavioral issue, causing instability and disruption on a wide range of articles. Hopefully the current Arb Com will recognize that, and issue a definitive answer on the issue. We have experienced users (and admins) on both sides of the issue, which indicates a fairly basic breakdown in the community's ability to forge a solution. Horologium (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok Taivo, i did not read that section, it is hard to keep up with all of the comments going on! I guess that it is considerate of both Catholic/Protestant and Orthodox faiths. Horologium would you seek intervention as a sort of enxtension of WP:ARBMAC, which was needed in order to prevent another crisis nearly two years ago, or as a completely seperate request? PMK1 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be a separate request, because the original arbitration case specifically and explicitly punted on the name issue. Addtionally, there have been a rather substantial turnover in the committee since the original case was closed, which makes reopening the case potentially very messy. I think a new case is the best way to go; adding links to the original case will accomplish any referencing that needs to occur. Horologium (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Does wiki have a policy specifically for disputed names?

Reaper7 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see here what are the principles that need (or don't need) to be followed (copy and pasted from guidelines):

"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." man with one red shoe 11:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny as it is that this illustrative example was written by no other than ChrisO, who actually has made some other pretty sneaky edits in this guideline like this at some other point, the fact remains that Wikipedia should describe and not prescribe. Meaning that if a country uses the name FYR of Cabinda as its official name in its interactions with the international community, we shouldn't examine why it uses it but simply acknowledge that this is the name it uses.--Avg (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If a country calls itself "Cabinda" but cannot use this name in an international forum because another country opposes it and they decide to use "FYR of Cabinda" as a provisory name, the name of "Cabinda" is still the self-identifying and constitutional name of the country and it's still the preferred term (which we are after, not the name used for political necessity), sophistry won't help your cause here. man with one red shoe 16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom filing

I guess it is now a certainty that this issue will go to ArbCom. I have two propositions and I'm interested in getting input from our little community here:

• 1) The request has to be filed by an independent party. We want the request itself to be worded in the least biased way possible. My tentative proposal would be Horologium.
• 2) The request has to be filed when every party included will be available. Most of the people living in a country that celebrates the Orthodox Easter (including ethnic Macedonians and Greeks) will be on holiday on the 20th since it is Easter Monday. My tentative proposal is on Wednesday the 22nd at the earliest.--Avg (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with both of these. (Taivo (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

I also agree with both, although I think User:SheffieldSteel would be a decent alternative if Horologium decides not to do the filing. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the possibility of having the request filed by an independent party, with all due apologies, are the following excerpts from the present debate pertaining to such ‘independence’?

(Quote)

It is impossible not to note that the people who are objecting to the use of Republic of Macedonia are all Greek. It is not ethnic labeling to identify editors who identify themselves as Greek on their userpages (or, even more obviously, have usernames which use Greek characters, rather than the Roman alphabet which should be used on the English wikipedia). There is no Republic of Macedonia in Greece, and therefore there is no way to confuse the country with the region. (This pointedly excludes the use of Macedonia, which is a more contentious issue.) Greek editors continually point to the UN (which notes that it is a provisional designation), NATO (which is simply because of the Greek government's insistence) and other international organizations (which generally follow the lead of the UN), but fail to note that over 60% of the members of the UN use the name Republic of Macedonia, not FYROM or Skopje (or any of the bizarre portmanteaus in use in Greece) in their own governmental documents.

(End of quote)

(Quote)

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".

(End of quote). Apcbg (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First, your comment would make a lot more sense than it does, which isn't much right now, if you indicated who it was you were quoting, which you have not. Second, a party can weigh in for a short period of time with an opinion and some examples, and also cite other relevant information, and still be independent of the larger discussion. So, basically, right now, you have not made a statement which is coherent enough to directly respond to, but the comment you quoted, which cited policy and its application, is not enough in and of itself to say that the person is not independent of the discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Two nominees — two quotes; but at least I can see now what your 'independent' stands for. Apcbg (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And by your failure to say anything constructive or clarify your own statements, but simply impugn others, I think you made an even better case that you yourself may be far from fit from judging the matter yourself. John Carter (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The matter here is the intended filing of an ARBCOM request; I'm offering neither judgement nor statements at this stage, as I've had no experience in such procedures so far; what I did was asking a question instead. Apcbg (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what Apcbg tries to communicate here is that based on the above two quotes neither Sheffield Steel nor Horologium can be considered neutral enough to present the case to the Arbcom. To which I agree. Dr.K. logos 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote mine was a question because I didn't know if neutrality was a requirement in the first place, and it appears that there might be no common view on that either. Apcbg (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would add is that, of all the individuals involved, I think SheffieldSteel is probably the best person to file it. He has a long history with the Mediation Board, and is probably one of the few editors in wikipedia I myself would most be willing to judge to treat all parties involved as clearly and nonprejudicially as possible. SheffieldSteel's involvement to date has been, so far as I remember, to point out applicable policies, and once, in the thread that was deleted, to express displeasure at seeing such a thread, which was clearly off-topic as per talk page guidelines, to get as much attention as it did. The fact that any editor expresses an opinion regarding a relevant policy does not mean he is disqualified to present the basic introduction before the ArbCom. And, like I said, SheffieldSteel as a Mediation Board member and an easily appointed administrator is probably at least among the calmest, least prejudiced people I've seen on this page, or, for that matter, anywhere in wikipedia. I am virtually certain he will not use the opening statements for prejudicial purposes. Partially, because he knows that he could face consequences if he did, partially because he so far as I know isn't the kind who would do that anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt your appraisal of Sheffield Steel's qualifications to bring the case to arbitration. I also agree that among the two admins proposed he seems to be the best choice. However the fact remains that by voting he became involved and as such he is neither neutral nor uninvolved. What is the problem with approaching an admin for whom Macedonia is just a name on a map and nothing else? Dr.K. logos 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the notion of an admin "for whom Macedonia is just a name on a map". This is a delicate case and requires someone with a fundamental knowledge of the issues, not someone who is ignorant of them. Horologium has shown a great amount of restraint. Yes, he has stated his POV, but the issue is not whether he has a POV, but can he fairly present the two sides to ARBCOM. And, as ChrisO has pointed out, the initial presentation is really just a formality. The most interested parties will be allowed to present their cases to ARBCOM--they do not have to rely on the initial presentation for all their facts. They will examine this discussion on their own and come to their own opinions without prejudice to whoever presents it for arbitration. No, Dr. K., Horologium is quite well qualified to do this. I don't really recall Sheffield Steel's contribution, but I'm sure that he would also do a good job of fairly presenting the case. But the worst person to present the case would be someone who doesn't have a clue as to what is going on and what the issues are. Do we want to rehash this discussion for another week before we brought our "neutral party" up to speed on what we need him/her to present? No, we need someone who already knows what is going on and who will present it fairly despite any POV they might already have formed. Horologium would do just such a competent and fair job. (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

To answer Tasoskessaris, as an admin myself, I know that I personally am extremely unlikely to involve myself in making a filing for ArbCom for anything I am unfamiliar with, particularly if it is something that I am not interested in (read, "don't care about"), because I know there is a very real chance that, probably by mistake, I will misrepresent something from one side or another and potentially create problems in doing so. Sheffield is at this point at least moderately acquainted with the subject, and what few comments he's made, generally without follow-up responses, pretty much make any involvement he might have so minimal that he would still be able to be unbiased. Having said all that, I also note that I only ever proposed him as an alternative if Horologium didn't want to do the filing himself. I have no reason to think Horologium would in any way be a bad choice, and apologize to anyone who interpreted my remarks as indicating as much. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, is there any rule or established practice stipulating that filings be prepared by a single user? Would it not be possible to have this particular submission prepared jointly by two participants instead — Horologium (or Sheffield Steel; I know a little bit more about Future Perfect's work and believe he could do that well too), and say Tasoskessaris? Apcbg (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't. However, I do wonder whether it would be required. The only purpose for filing any such a statement is to have the ArbCom decide whether there is sufficient cause for a case to be opened. Personally, given that so many people on this talk page have already agreed that there is a need for one, I doubt the ArbCom will be at all likely to turn it down. Once a case is "opened", then everybody involved is free to make whatever statements they want, and those statements, more than the initial request for arbitration, are what the arbitrators pay the bulk of their attention to. It has often happened that someone who wasn't even named in the original filing winds up becoming involved in the case. Basically, for lack of a better comparison, the request for arbitration is basically a request for the cops to start looking into a case. Once that happens, whatever information comes up regarding anybody involved from any source is examined. There have been several cases when the individual most severely reprimanded is the one who filed the case in the first place. The only thing the request for arbitration really has to do is present to the Arbitrators a reasonable argument that they need to get involved. That's it. Somehow, I don't think that's likely to be a problem here. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the timing (Wednesday 22nd) to allow everyone concerned to participate, but I disagree that the request should be filed by a neutral party. Bear in mind that the request is only used to get things off the ground. This is a case that needs to be prosecuted, in the fullest sense of the term, including dealing with the bogus accusations of racism alluded to above and the bigger picture of the endemic POV-pushing and vandalism that is happening across Wikipedia relating to this issue. The problems we've had with this article are just the tip of a much bigger iceberg that I've been tracking for some time; I suspect that a non-involved editor like Horologium will probably not be aware of the full scale and scope of the problem. I'm perfectly happy to file a request myself, though I certainly won't be shy about identifying the root cause(s) of these problems. An arbitration request is not the place to hold back on reasons why the ArbCom should take on the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Horologium watches very closely what happens here, and he is already aware of various aspects of the case. In any case, if you think that his filing is incomplete or lacking any important information, you can bring your proofs, and make your case. I do not think that ArbCom "will hold back" from anything. There are numerous cases, where ArbCom widened the scope of its competence during the discussion of a case, because of what the involved parties brought in from of it. Personally, I concur with Taivo, Avg, and John Carter, and I strongly disagree on your, or FutPer (or even me!) filing the case. I definitely don't want the person who opens to case to be a biased and involved user, who has repeatedly labelled the Greeks (or at least the vast majority of them) as nationalists.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I remember, ArbCom's is not a criminal court: its role is to resolve differences (and of course impose sanctions if necessary and if wrong-doing are pointed out and proved); not to deal with "prosecutions".--Yannismarou (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is, but in practice, once in a while, it tends to function as a body which like a court rules on the behavior of some individuals. I've been peripherally involved in a few where the "differences" people had were as much with policy as anything else. In cases like those, the difference between ArbCom and a court can be less than clear. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are nationalists, or at least behaving like them. It's futile to ignore this. There is very clear evidence here that a significant number of people have been behaving in a way that does not meet the expected standards of conduct and policy compliance. I envisage this case addressing two things: the basic policy standards relating to the content dispute, and the behaviour of the editors who are violating those standards. ArbCom can act as a clarifying agent for the former and as a "court" for the latter. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok! I agree with the last part of your last thread ("ArbCom can act as a clarifying agent for the former and as a "court" for the latter"). Why doesn't the filing of the case by an editor less involved than you can't serve these purposes? Can't he or she expose the behavioral issue as well? And are you more competent, while being involved in these case for centuries, and having received complaints on behavioral issues more than once? Come on!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And it is "futile to ignore" ChrisO that, if you are the one who files the case (excuse me "the one who prosecutes the nationalists"), then I am sure that you will take care to "enlighten" all the aspects of the case so that all the "nationalists" are properly treated. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that recently Fut.Perf. invited Taso to take him to ArbCom, and thus to introduce the case himself before our "dispute resolution body". It seems that he has no problem even "a Greek POV nationalist" to be the one who files the case. Therefore, I think that we have another candidate here. And if I am to choose between Chris and Taso, then I'll definitely choose Taso! At least, it is going to be fun!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

So is it going to take all week to argue over who is going to present this to ARBCOM? Geez. ARBCOM is going to make up their own minds no matter who brings this before them. (Taivo (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of filing a request for arbitration. The arbitration committee will not make a ruling on content; their purpose is to arbitrate matters of policy and of user conduct. As such, when seeking a party to file a request, you should consider only whether or not they have become involved with other editors in the dispute. Simply voicing an opinion in a request for comment ought not to disqualify anyone from writing up and filing the request. Remember, this is not about content. Personally I would endorse Horologium as eminently capable of creating a neutral summary of events. I'm more than happy not to get the job myself, essentially for reasons of laziness. I just don't want anyone to think that those who've responded to the RfC are necessarily disqualified from what are, or ought to be, clerking duties. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I go to school for a few hours, and my name gets dragged through the mud. A few points need to be made:
  • 1. I only plan to file for arbitration if nobody else does. If someone else files, I may make a brief statement; I haven't decided yet. If you don't want me to be the filing party, file it yourselves.
  • 2. While I have expressed an opinion (independent of the straw poll), I have not edited this or any related article, and I don't plan to in the future. While I am aware of the controversy (and have an opinion), I don't have anywhere near the emotional investment of many of the other editors on this page.
  • 3. A properly filed arbitration doesn't consist of soapboxing, simply a presentation of the problem that exists, and identifying the steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted. I can easily do that without discussing motivations or intentions. Some of the involved parties are unable to say the same thing.
  • 4. In any arbitration with a scope of this magnitude, the actions of all involved editors are reviewed, regardless of which party files the request. In my case, the only edit history is locking the article twice, and my comments on the talk page. Just about everyone else who has commented on this page since my first protection (whether in support or opposition to my statements) has a far more extensive history.
  • 5. I have not even decided if I am going to present evidence, although if I am the one who files the case, I will pretty much be expected to provide something.
  • 6. I have no problem with Sheffield Steel (or some other uninvolved editor) filing the case, for all of the reasons provided above. I will be following the case, but my involvement is likely to be far less than that of the editor who specifically attacked me. Horologium (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Fortunately, this dispute is entirely over policy. No one disputes the fact that there are two possible names for Macedonia besides "Macedonia". It's all policy (and behavior), so ARBCOM should have a good time. I will renew my support of Horologium for presenting this fairly to the ARBCOM. (Taivo (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

It would be a fine thing if this dispute was only about policy. To be honest, the only reason I had my small part in the debate was the accusations of nationalism being thrown around. Is nationalism such a dirty word nowadays? For anyone interested I am a Civic Nationalist. Has anyone been accused of being anti-nationalist on wikipedia? In my experience nationalists are no different from anyone else, they can agree with the anti-nationalist if references back them up. I hope ARBCOM look at the refs put forward by both parties and nothing else. Jack forbes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

National POV is the very issue in this debate, see my post here: Talk:Greece#The_key_issue_here_is_ethnic.2Fnational.2Fstate_POV I think this issue needs to be examined and a conclusion should be drawn since it will affect how Wikipedia works in general not only on this page, not sure if ARBCOM can do that, I just thought it should be mentioned. (again this is not a personal attack issue, POV != "bad faith", but we have to admit that in general Greeks have a POV regarding the issue just like Palestinians in general have a specific POV regarding Israel for example and no one can be accused of bad faith -- but we need to admit that national POV is a real issue that Wikipedia faces in this type of edit wars. Moreover one could wonder that such strong opposition from a specific demographic can't be determined by policy considerations only, very rarely a specific group of people read a policy so uniformly while the rest of the world read it in a more various way -- that's almost like a book definition of POV to me... man with one red shoe 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure there are no Bulgarians there also, they think FYROM politics on identity are a joke just as the Greeks do. The Serbs and Albanians also will not back FYROM on there historical adventure of Greek documented history. Best editors for FYROM nationalists will be English and American Users who are not plugged into what is going on in the region and don't read even the wiki pages on the dispute. Reaper7 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, everyone with a strong POV should auto-exclude themselves from such a discussion about policy/guideline issues, but few people have that common sense to do it, on the contrary they flock to this discussion and they feel like they should be the first to be listen to and call other people ignorant if they don't agree with them. man with one red shoe 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The members of ArbCom make a point of recusing themselves from any cases in which they either have an opinion which would color their judgment or a history of working on articles which relate to the subject in question. I don't think that will be a problem there. As for those who choose to offer evidence, well, anyone can offer whatever evidence they want. And anyone who disagrees with that evidence can offer evidence that their disagreement is valid. And so on. And on. And on. And, ultimately, the Arbs determine what does and doesn't matter to them anyway in their decisions, so I think that we probably won't have much of a bias problem there. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I was not referring to ArbCom which I have no doubt is trying to be impartial, I was just explaining that this is a POV issue, namely a national POV issue (not just a random content issue) and we can't sidestep that away, it would be nice if we could have a decision that could serve as example for other such cases. man with one red shoe 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The first thing Arbcorm should look at are the references put forward and not the nationalities of those putting them forward. If, after examining them they find the references and arguments for the use of former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on this article to be so weak as to be obviously a nationalist POV then fair enough. Doesn't it make sense to look at the arguments and cites before looking at the nationalities of those involved? Jack forbes (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)